1924-04-25

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) presented the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, as follows:
Your committee have considered Bill No. 14, an Act to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert, and have agreed to report the same with amendments.
Your committee have amended the preamble of Bill No. 14 for the purpose of more accurately describing the position of the petitioner. In accordance with the usual proceedings your committee beg to recommend that the charges levied under such bill be refunded, less cost of printing and translation.
Your committee also recommend that it be given leave to sit while the House is in session.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. McGIVERIN moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the fee and charges levied on Bill No. 14. an Act to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harold Buchanan McGiverin: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the committee be given leave to sit while the House is in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CLEMENT ROBITAILLE (Maisonneuve):: I desire to present a petition signed by Rev. John J. McCaskill and several members of the Maisonneuve Presbyterian church protesting against the form of legislation asked for in the Church Union bill.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I desire to present the following petitions:
Of Rev. W. T. G. Brown and 376 others of the Dominion Methodist church, Ottawa, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Harbld Hunter and 57 others of the Methodist church Milbrook, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Mrs. John E. Parker and 112 others of Unity church near Caledonia, Ontario, and Methodist church, Caledonia, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Arthur J. Stevenson and 28 others of the Methodist church, Norwich district, Cathcart, Harley and New Durham, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of T. H. Turner and 150 others of the Methodist church of Oakwood, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of J. H. Young and 56 others of the Methodist church, Oban, Epworth and Camlachie, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of A. J. Savage and 138 others of the Methodist church, Richmond Hill and Victoria Square, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of W. J. Fiddes and 65 others of the Methodist church, Binbrook and Elfrida, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Rev. R. D. Hamilton and 36 others of the Methodist church, Burlington, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Lilly Start and 39 others of the Methodist church, Currie's Crossing, Oxford County, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of W. F. Price and 356 others of the Centennial Methodist church, Toronto, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Hector Sutherland and 27 others of the Congregational church, Embro, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of A. Webster and fourteen others of the Grace Methodist church, London, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of C. J. Wilson and fifty-one others of the Methodist church, Winona !and Fruitland, Wentworth County, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Henry Mills and seventy-five others of the Springfield and Bethel Methodist church, Appin, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Gertrude Davis and ninety-three others of the Westmoreland Methodist church, Toronto, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of G. C. Balfour and 171 others of the Beech Avenue Methodist church, Toronto, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Mrs. J. Coburn and 271 others of the Howard Park Methodist church, Toronto, Ontario, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
Of Alex Kennedy and 494 others of the High Park Avenue Methodist church, Toronto, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Fontaine

Of James H. Dyer, 62 Dorval Road, Toronto, Ontario, and 122 others praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford):: I
desire to present the petition of C. F. Carson and twenty-eight others of the United Church, Unity, Saskatchewan, praying for the passage of the Church Union bill.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: I desire to present a petition from members and adherents of the Presbyterian church of St. George, N.B.; also a petition from members and adherents of St. Paul's church, Woodstock, N.B., both against the passage of the Church Union bill.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
desire to present a petition from James G. Thorbum and thirty-nine others, members and adherents of the Presbyterian church, Stanley, N.B., against the proposed Church Union.



AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

[Stage Direction]
DR. H. M. TORY'S REPORT Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) : I desire to move that 1,000 copies in the English language and 400 copies in the French language of the report of Dr. H. M. Tory on Agricultural Credit, laid on the Table of the House on the 15th inst., be printed forthwith and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before putting the question, I am informed that these copies of the report on Agricultural Credit are being printed.


Mr. ROBB:: That is true. I understand
they are being printed to expedite business, but the copies cannot be released until we have an order of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that if
this motion is put to the House and carried, the House will have to pay for the printing. Is it the wish of the House that the printing be paid for by the House, by the committee, or by the Department of Agriculture?


James Alexander Robb: You have sized it up correctly, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I
should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if that portion of one's income lost fMr, Forke-l	.
on deposit in the Home Bank is taxable for income tax purposes?


James Alexander Robb: Speaking offhand, I should say that
the losses through the Home Bank would not be regarded differently from the losses through any other financial or business transaction.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 24th, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: On rising, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the discussion on the budget, I wish to state that I broach the subject entirely devoid of any party feeling; the circumstances are too grave, the conditions of the country are too serious to mix up with politics; I, therefore, think it is the duty of all members of this House to frankly and freely express their opinion.
First, let me congratulate the government on behalf of the electors that I have the honour to represent here for having taken off the duty on a great number of items, among others on farming implements, and, for having found it possible to reduce the taxes. I was under the impression that such an announcement would cause joy throughout the country. I was further under the impression that the Conservatives could hardly criticize this measure, but I had not taken into account their inconsistency. Indeed, Sir, I recall that, during the session of 1922, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) moved an amendment to the budget, seconded by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), reproaching the government for hot keeping their pledges: "The Liberal party"- they state-"at their great convention, in 1919, had promised should they be returned to power, to remove the duty on farming implements and they are not doing so, they are not fulfilling their pledges; therefore, they do not deserve the confidence of the people." To-day, after a lapse of hardly two years, these same gentlemen taunt the government for living up to their promises by removing the duty on farming implements. Is it possible to be so devoid of sincerity? Can one imagine anything more inconsistent? I do not think so. Let the government take no notice of their critics, let them follow up,

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
without fear, this national policy that they have just inaugaurated; it is more than time to have this conflict existing between the East and West cease; the time is ripe to put an end to that class politics which has existed throughout the country for some years past by rendering justice to all classes of society. If we want this country to expand, confederation to continue, we must adopt a policy favouring not only capitalists and large interests, but also encouraging the farmers and labourers.
We are passing through a serious crisis. Now that the Americans have raised their tariff, our farmers can no longer export their products to the United States, the European markets are unimportant and there but remains the local markets. Consequently, the farmers are forced to sell at a sacrifice, their hay, wheat, beef, butter, cheese and all the other products of the farm. Is it not, therefore, reasonable that they should be able to purchase at low prices their farm implements, they who toil so hard and often under very unfavourable conditions, and whose labours have only served, up to now, to enrich manufacturers who benefit from a protection of 35 and even 40 per cent on some farm implements. It is more than time that this state of affairs should cease. Agriculture is, among all industries, the first which should be protected. Our population is made up of 45 per cent of farmers. I well remember that after the Great War when everything was topsy-turvy here as well as in Europe, all our hopes were concentrated on the soil.
"Back to the soil" was our motto. If this be true, the government's policy is quite right in helping the farming class. There is, Sir, another point of view which we must not lose sight of; it is that the lowering of duty will bring down the cost of living. In fact, when the farmer will be in a position to produce cheaper, he will sell his products at a lower price and the labourer will benefit by it.	.	.
I now come to the decrease in taxation. Here, again, our opponents are greatly disappointed. They had dragged the country so much into debt; they had pledged its credit to such an extent, for a number of years to come! No one, I am sure, has forgotten that precious contract which was awarded for the building of ships-for our merchant marine- which have never been of any service and will never be. It was an egregious blunder which cost the country millions of dollars. They had so much encumbered us with the state ownership of railways, that they felt certain that the present government would never find it possible to balance the budget and lower the
taxes. Filled with this hope, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), with the concurrence of the whole Tory press, started, throughout the country, a campaign of falsehoods, misrepresentations and "whisper of death" spreading everywhere that the King government was incompetent, that Canada was on the brink of bankruptcy, that the national debt was on the increase and that the people could no further bear up with the taxes. And now comes the budget speech which completely reduces to nothing the whole of this dishonourable display and campaign by proclaiming that, thanks to a strict economy, the government has succeeded in lowering the taxes and balancing the budget.
The leader of the opposition was not very prone to remind the people, during the campaign, throughout our provinces, that it was himself and his predecessor, Sir Robert Borden, who, .owing to their imperialist policy and their blind participation in the war, had increased the national debt by two billions and a half of dollars and thereby increased the debt per capita from $47 to $269. The leader of the opposition omitted mentioning, during this campaign, that he was disposed to ruin the country if necessary. His words "to sacrifice the last man and the last dollar to save the Empire" still tingle in our ears. If, while he was imposing blood conscription he had demanded conscription of wealth as Sir Wilfred Laurier suggested; if he had allowed to the manufacturers, who were realizing scandalous profits, but 20 per cent of their profits for administration purposes and if he had obliged them to remit the balance to the treasury, we would now not have to feel the effects of war debts and would thereby have less millionaires in this country; however this would not have suited his political friends.
Now, Sir, ever since the outset of the debate on the budget, the Conservatives have not ceased reproaching the government for having lowered the tariff. Is it an actual fact that this policy of high protection, so much extolled by the right hon. leader of the opposition, is the universal remedy for all our ailments? Is it an actual fact that protection makes for the prosperity of the country and the happiness of the working class? Then, how do we explain, notwithstanding the present tariff, that times are so hard, everybody is complaining, our industries are at a standstill and our people are without work? Is it not rather due to an unfair policy which affords the opportunity to a class of manufacturers of enriching themselves at the expense of the consumers? Is it not a fact that, within a few years, most
The Budget-Mr. Fontaine


Mr. WILLIAM BLACK (South Huron):: I join those who have preceded me in this debate in extending my regrets that the right honourable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was unable to deliver the budget speech of this year. I add the sincere wish that a rapid and complete recovery will soon again enable him to grace this chamber by his presence. On the other hand, if it has been our misfortune to be temporarily deprived of such a capable minister as Mr. Fielding, the generalship of our Prime Minister has given us a second in command who has very ably filled the difficult task imposed upon him. The thanks of this House are due to the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for the clear and concise manner in which he has presented to us the annual financial statement of our country and

The Budget-Mr. Black (Huron)
laid before us the changes proposed to our revenue measures.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House with any dissertation on the merits of the respective resolutions to be considered in reference to this year's budget proposals. A better opportunity will be afforded, I believe, to pass judgment upon them when they are being studied in the committee stage, as no doubt the Acting Minister of Finance will' furnish with each resolution, in so far as possible, sufficient statistical information to permit hon. members to appraise the respective measures with due enlightenment. I would suggest to the hon. Acting Minister of Finance that he should be prepared to give this House accurate statistical data or, in cases where this is not available, carefully prepared estimated details as to the number of firms to be affected, their total production, their total capitalization, their total number of employees and their total pay Toll, together with the imports and1 exports by countries of the arteles affected. I believe that this data can easily be prepared. I would even suggest that it would be very advisable to add the expected loss of revenue from measures proposed, giving details as to where the losses and to what amount they will occur. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if such a statement, was printed and distributed to hon. members before these resolutions are taken up in the committee stage it would enable a much more enlightened discussion and could very reasonably be expected to save considerable of the time of this House.
I desire to limit my remarks to three or four matters which I think deserve serious consideration at the present time. First, however, permit me to take a few minutes to remove from one particular remark of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) some of the political propaganda which I firmly believe it was intended to spread.
On page 1329 of Hansard of the 14th April, the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance is reported as saying that the reductions proposed to the tariff on agricultural implements would average at best seven dollars. With this statement that this saving of seven dollars per year for each farmer will be the only benefit, I find myself in complete disaccord. In this case the average quoted seems to have been purposely chosen to misrepresent the real benefits that these tariff reductions will have for our farming industry. I do not know the method employed in calculating this average, but I am willing to accept it as representing the correct average. The 
facts of the case, however, cannot be shown by an average saving, because in doing so you are at the same time admitting that the purchase of machinery is evenly distributed. Such is not the case; if it were, the present tariff reductions would be far from possessing the significance that they do undor the real conditions. It is true that seldom a year passes when a farmer can carry on his work without replacing one or another of his implements, but if we only consider the established farm holder how can we expect to solve the economic problems arising from the sparse population at present on our immense territory? How can we expect to entice our young manhood and incoming immigrants to successfully add to our agricultural production by settling new farms? No, Mr. Speaker, the proposed reductions in the tariff are intended to benefit primarily our new settlers and to enable them to equip themselves at as low a cost as possible. I have not calculated what the saving would be on a complete equipment, but I have no hesitation in saying that it certainly will be well in excess of one hundred dollars. Who will say that such a sum wull not be a considerable contribution to the success of our new settlers?
WTe, in this section of the House at least, are very much interested in seeing the large agricultural districts of the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec and the vast unoccupied territory of the western provinces more thickly settled. We realize that by increasing our agricultural production, we shall benefit our manufacturing centres and sanely provide for their expansion. Who will deny that greater population in the rural districts of the West and of the East of this country, greater agricultural production with its necessarily greater demand for manufactured goods, is the real economic necessity that will solve the majority of the problems with which we are struggling to-day. These, and these only, are the considerations that have guided our policy. Hon. members to my right must credit the farming population with very little intelligence when they endeavour to show in this House and outside of it that we are trying to buy our return to this parliament by a paltry consideration to individual farmers, and this at the expense of the manufacturing industry. I repeat that our policy of providing cheaper implements of production is guided by the knowledge that the development of our rural communities will at the same time develop our manufacturing centres and that this combination will spell the success of our Dominion.

The Budget-Mr. Black {Huron).
I will now deal with our postal system and the revenues which it has derived in recent years through the imposition of stamp taxes. In reply to a question, the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) furnished the following answer which is to be found in Hansard of the 14th April, at page 1322:
Yvar	Net Revenue Total Expenditure
1915	
$13,046,649	57	$15,961,191	471916	
18,858,409	93	16,090,138	771917.-	
20.902,384	46	16,300.578	651918	
21,345,394	48	18,046,557	901919	
21,602,712	65	19,273,583	941920	
24,449,916	97	20,774,385	201921	
26,331,118	97	24,661,262	261922	
26,554,538	24	28,121,533	951923	
29,262,232	78	27,794,501	89
To what sources can the increased revenue to the Post Office Department be attributed? There are two sources. The first is the increased postal rate in effect since 1915, and the second is the large number of stamp taxes imposed. The Acting Postmaster General has stated that there is no manner of dividing the revenue as between mailing revenue and taxation revenue. One need only recall to mind the many methods other than mailing, with which we have been familiar in the use of stamps, to realize that the revenue derived from these sources must, indeed, be large. I am convinced that a very considerable, if not the greater part of the increased net revenue, which has risen from $13,046,649.57 in 1915 to $29,262,232.78 in 1923, is due to the new stamp taxes. But what do we find as regards total expenditure?-that the total expenditures of the Post Office Department have risen at an alarming rate from $15,961,191.47 in 1915 to $2S,121,533.95 in 1922, and have dropped only some $330,000 to $27,794,501.89 in 1923, Three main factors can increase the expenditures of the Post Office Department. The first is increased work by a large number of mailed packages; the second is increased cost of general salaries, and the third is increased cost of transportation charges. I submit that under none of these headings can you attribute costs against the revenue derived from stamp taxes. The only additional cost to the Post Office Department would be the additional cost of the stamps themselves. Surely the sale of stamps would not add any considerable cost, and we all know that even the cancellation of the stamps so used is outside the field of postal activities. What do those figures tel! us? They tell us a very alarming story and this is it. The net revenue has increased by $16,215,583.21, whereas the total expenditure has increased by $11,833,310.42 between the same two years of 1915 and 1922. leaving a net gain of only $4,382,272.79. Who would attempt to maintain that this amount is all 95
that has been paid by Canadians for the numerous stamp taxes under which we are labouring? No, I am sure that the amount is very much greater, and again, where are the results to be found from the organization of this department where we are told that economy is the watchword, and which from its thoroughness of methods and lack of overmanning has been held up to our eyes as a model of efficiency in government administration? Let us analyze the figures from another viewpoint, that of surpluses and deficits which were as follows for the period of 1915 tc
1923:		
Year	Surplus	Deficit
1915			$2,914,541 9(
1916		. $2,768,271 16	
1917		. 4,601.805 81	
1918		. 3.298.836 58	
1919		. 2,329,128 71	
1920		. 3.675,531 77	
1921		. 1.669,856 71	
1922			1,566,995 71
1923		. 1,467,730 89	
Totals		. $19,811,161 63	$4481,537 61
	4,481,537 61	
Total surplus.. .	. $15,329,624 02	
This total of $15,329,624.02 is an average of $1,703,291.56 for this nine year period. The addition of one cent to the postage rate would only need to be paid on 170,329,156 letters each year to produce this average surplus. To realize that the number of mailed letters is far in excess of this amount one need only refer to the number of post offices which was 12,247 in 1922. The total of 170 millions just referred to would average only 13,908 letters per post office per year, or based on a postal year of 310 days only 45 letters per post office per day. Is this not ridiculous? And this calculation, of course, eliminates all mail matter collected on the 3,777 mail routes operated during 1922 with their 202,668 mail boxes. Again, if we only consider the number of three cent stamps issued in 1922-and for what other purpose are three cent stamps used except for the mailing of letters?- we find that the total was 394,869,400. If we eliminate all city letters and all post cards where the two cent rate still applies, and accept the number of three cent stamps as the number of letters handled, we find that, by again applying the one cent rate as surplus revenue, the average per year would amount to $3,948,694.00 or more than double the actual average surplus of $1,703,291.56 given above. If we dig a little deeper we find some amazing explanations:	For
example, the increase in the cost of transportation by railways from $4,069,695.87 in 1921 to $7,786,548.74 in 1922, an increase in

14S6

The Budget-Mr. Black (Huron).
one year of $3,716,852.87. There does not seem any plausible explanation of such an extraordinary increase, which is greater than the total cost of $3,441,744.65 paid in 1915 for railway mail carriage. Or again, we find an increase in the cost of water carriers from $186,186.98 in 1915 to $584,777.44 in 1922, an increase of $398,590.46 in the nine year period or a total of 214 per cent. It is true that there was a slight decrease in 1923, when the total dropped to $558,394.37. However, a decrease of $26,383.07 between 1922 and 1923 is not very encouraging in the face of the increase of $371,667.02 between 1920 and 1923, from $186,727.35 to $558,394.37. Another difficult increase to accept is the one
for city post office salaries from $4,875,294.54 in 1915 to $9,244,099.32 in 1923, or over 90 per cent.
Perhaps the answers of the Acting Postmaster General to questions on the order paper, and appearing on page 1319 of Hansard of April 14, throw just a little light on the very efficient organization of the Postmaster General's department. They do, at least, seem to indicate that the standard of efficiency varies according to locality. In tabular form, with two averages added, the figures appear as follows from the four post offices of Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and Quebec:	All the figures being for the fiscal
year 1922-23.
Post Office	Employees	Salaries	Average salary	Revenue	Average rev. per employeeNo.	$	*	$	$T oronto	950	1,189,917 25	1,252 54	5,798,015 40	6,103 17Montreal	811	1,230,247 89	1,516 95	3,680,396 67	4,538 09Hamilton	112	159,579 40	1,424 81	588,297 10	5,252 65Quebec	171	225,230 09	1,317 13	523,025 91	3,058 63
The foregoing figures show that in Toronto, with a staff of 950, being 139 more than for Montreal, requiring, from every principle of good business administration a larger supervisory and direction staff, the average salary is $1,252.54 or $264.41 less than the average of $1,516.95 for Montreal. If we compare Hamilton and Quebec, we find that in the latter city the 171 employees, greater by 59 than in Hamilton, and necessarily requiring larger administrative staffs, the average salary is $1,317.13 or $107.68 smaller than the average of $1,424.81 for Hamilton. Now let us look at the revenue. We find that in Toronto the average revenue per employee is $6,103.17, higher by $1,565.08 than the $4,538.09 for Montreal. This happens with a total number of 950 employees in Toronto as against 811 in Montreal. Between Hamilton and Quebec, the difference is still more marked, the average being $5,252.65 per employee in the Ontario city as against $3,058.63 in the latter place. The difference in favour of Hamilton is $2,194.02; and in this instance we find that the highest average revenue is for Hamilton where the number of employees is 59 less than for the city of Quebec. Now, Mr. Speaker, is it reasonable to believe that the figures and averages I have just quoted in reference to four important post offices are such as to convince us that the management of our postal service has attained that high plane of efficiency which is claimed for it? On the contrary, if reclassi-

fication .and reorganization have produced results such as these figures indicate. I am of the opinion that the work has fallen far short of meriting praise of any kind and that they should furnish sufficient incentive for a determined effort to rectify the anomalous conditions shown to exist.
All the figures I have quoted have been taken from answers given to this House by the Acting Postmaster General or
4 p.m. from the annual reports of the Auditor General. And I may remark, Mr. Speaker, that the figures shown for net revenue and total expenditures in the Auditor General's reports differ greatly, as to the expenditures, from those furnished by the Acting Postmaster General. I need only quote the expenditures for 1922, which the Auditor General shows as $32,003,188.92, as against $28,121,533.06 given by the Acting Postmaster General, and $31,180,184.40 as against $27,794,501.89 for 1923. I do not know why there should be such a difference. Let us hope that the Auditor General is wrong in this case. Otherwise the total surplus of $15,329,624.02 for the nine year period as shown from the figures of the Acting Postmaster General would be turned to a total deficit of $9,890,954.07. I trust however that the Acting Postmaster General will take note of these figures and furnish us with an explanation as to the reason for the variation. When we consider, Mr. Speaker, that there

The Budget-Mr. Black {Huron).
were in 1922 in Canada 4,451 branches of banks and that at an average of only 50 cheques per branch per day for a banking year of 300 days they would handle 66,765,000 cheques, on each one of which there would need to be at least one two-cent stamp, and that stamps are also required for receipts, for notes and for many other purposes of taxation, we cannot help but conclude that the average surplus of $1,703,291.56 is very far below the actual taxation imposed in stamp taxes on the Canadian public. Notwithstanding the increase of one cent in the ordinary postal rate and the doubling of the registration fee, our postal system has been operated at a great loss during the last nine years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the apparent surplus of $1,467,730.89 shown for 1923 by the figures of the Acting Postmaster General would be turned into a deficit of many millions of dollars were it possible to eliminate all but actual postal revenue. Surely there is urgent need for an immediate rectification of these conditions. Under present day taxation, when a tax of some kind meets us at every corner; when the interest charges on our huge national debt account in themselves for a greater total than all our expenditures at the beginning of this century, we can ill afford to operate at a loss a service which produced surpluses in the days of low taxation.
We have in recent years, Mr. Speaker, heard both criticisms and praise of the civil service of this country-criticism mostly of the conditions existing in the service and, in rare cases, against civil servants themselves. The praise, on the other hand, was for the far greater part given the civil servants and was in a sense a tribute to their individual efficiency, to rare achievements or to undoubted ability in transacting the public business. This session the government came to us with loud heralding of the reductions they were going to carry on in the civil service, in order to eliminate duplication of work, do away with overmanning, increase efficiency and decrease expenditures. The estimates we have been studying do not indicate any very great progress in that direction this year, and I may say I am rather glad of it. Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that we are traversing a period of financial stress in this country and that there was never a greater need for economy. But I also believe that we cannot hope to achieve efficiency and low costs in our civil service by the process of haphazard elimination which has been practised this year. I mean the reduction of staff here and there with the consequent chopping off of this or that particular 95i
piece of work. Furthermore, I do not believe there is a single hon. member in this House, and probably it would be difficult to find a single elector in the country, who, if he knew all the conditions, would want us to economize to the extent of a few dollars in the civil service at the expense of our contracts, written, verbal or implied, with the employees of this Dominion. It is not fair, nay, it is criminal, to engage young men or young girls, keep them for many years, oblige them to train in a line of work which only the government does, and then release them with little or no compensation when it had been more or less definitely understood that the employment would continue as long as the services rendered were efficient and the employee continued his good behaviour, Take the young man who enters the service at a low salary, gives of his best at small remuneration, and by constant application to his work attains a somewhat higher salary rate. He has chosen the service as a career and fitted himself for a particular line of work different from what is required by other employers. I claim that it is not fair to dismiss him after he has passed up chances of being successful in other work in order to accept government employment, often at a much lower salary on the consideration that the work would be permanent.
No, Mr. Speaker, efficiency, removal of overmanning and consequent economy will never be obtained by the method which has been employed in the service this year. Unless a proper system is adopted and worked consistently we can never hope to have better conditions than we have to-day. Can any one honestly claim that civil servants are responsible for the conditions that exist? Is it the fault of the employee when the employer engages him to perform work already being done in another department or for which there is no need? Is it the fault of the employee if the hours of labour are limited to six and one half on week days and four on Saturdays? No, the responsibility for the conditions found to-day lies at the feet of the governments, both present and past. It is the duty of the government to rectify these conditions, and I say that it is also their bounden duty to do so without causing any hardship to the civil servants who have only been the dupes of maladministration, extravagance and political patronage. I dare say that the reductions which are taking place this year will still leave a condition, in permanent departments at least, worse than existed when the government of to-day took office. I mean that I believe the number of appointments in excess of retirements from all causes has been much greater
1488	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Black {Huron).
since 1922 than the reductions which are taking place this year. There is one method and only one, by which better conditions can be made to prevail in the civil service of this country, and I would suggest this method for the serious consideration of the government:
1.	A complete survey of the work to be performed with a view to eliminating all duplication of work and expense.
2.	The gradual installation of all modem labour-saving facilities so that the greatest amount of work can be performed with the least possible staff.
3.	The complete cessation of appointments until overmanning has completely disappeared; With the exception only of technical requirements when investigation has shown that no one within the civil service possesses the necessary qualifications.
4.	The filling of all vacancies through transfers from one department to another.
5.	An arrangement by which the civil servants would contribute sufficient of their annual salaries to permit of a reasonable superannuation system without adding to the cost of civil government.
6.	The gradual increase, according to reduction in total staff, of the hours of labour from six and one half as at present to at least seven and one half or eight hours.
7.	A. thorough, study of salary conditions in order that proper remuneration schedules can be adopted so as to furnish proper incentive for efficient service.
8.	No dismissals, exeept for bad behaviour or inefficient services; as well as in those cases where the appointment has been of a purely temporary nature.
9.	The establishment of a consulting group chosen from civil servants themselves to help the government to bring about the necessary changes.
In connection with the last suggestion, there is not a shade of doubt in my mind that if ministers, deputy ministers and the Civil Service Commission thoroughly co-operated with a well chosen body of civil servants, results of a permanent nature would be more quickly achieved than through the adoption of any other method.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the above plan, if followed, will bring about permanent results, will cause hardship to no one, and should remove for all time from the mind of every one the far too frequent cry of mismanagement which is being heard these days. I repeat that civil servants have not in any way been responsible for the conditions that exist to-day, that the governments, both present and past, must shoulder the responsibil-

ity and that any policy whereby the innocent must suffer is unfair and unjust and betrays that spirit of British justice of which we are all so proud. I trust that the government will take kindly to my suggestions, and give them serious consideration.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the last part of my remarks. We have been accused of representing only one element of this country. It is often stated that we are only interested in the measures that will be of immediate benefit to the farming community of Canada; that we are willing to sacrifice the interests of other sections provided that the farmers' desires are served. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if such were our policies we would not deserve the name of Canadians. No, such are not our policies. We are, on the contrary, interested in the welfare and progress of Canada as a whole, in the progress of our manufacturing industries as well as in the welfare of our farming communities. We desire conditions in this country which will permit suitable living and working conditions to obtain for our farm labourers and farmers, as well as for the artisans of our urban centres and our manufacturers. The movement responsible for our presence in this chamber, however, was based on the unfair conditions that have long existed against the farmers of this Dominion, due, no doubt, to their practical lack of representation in the parliament of our country previous to the last election. Such an important section was entitled to a hearing in this Palace of Laws and surely no one would maintain that in devising our legislation their welfare should not be taken into account. To-day unfair conditions exist,, and our efforts are directed to equalize conditions as between all sections, in so far as possible.
How can farmers be satisfied with conditions such as are disclosed in the March, 1924, issue of the Prices and Price Index Bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, where it is shown, for example, that the index number for grains has risen from 100 in 1913 to 124.9 in 1923, and that the index number for flour and milled products made from these same grains has risen from 100 to 131.1 between the same two years, but that, on the other hand, the tea, coffee, cocoa and spices that the farmers must buy had risen to 201.0 in 1923 as against 100 in 1913; that the vegetables he sold at 100 in 1913 brought him 157.7 in 1923, but that the hosiery for which he disbursed 100 in 1913 cost him 295.2 in 1923? ' Can he be expected to remain inactive in the face of the index price for hides, for instance, which dropped from 100 in 1913 to 80.9 in 1923, whilst the leather made from

The Budget-Mr. Black (Huron).
these hides has risen from 100 to 116.3 between the same two years, a difference against the farmer of 35.4? And going a step further, he finds that boots and shoes, again the product of the hides, have risen to 141.9 in 1923 from the base of 100 in 1913. Has not the farmer just cause for complaint when a ten-year period places him at a disadvantage of 60 points between the hides that he produces and the shoes he must buy? The same i conditions, Mr. Speaker, apply in the same manner to all the farmer has to sell as compared to what he has to buy. In every instance, practically, the increases which have taken place in the prices of the commodities which he requires are very much greater than the increased prices which he receives for his produce. And in some cases there have been actual decreases in the prices which he receives. The bulletin to which I refer uses a base of 100 for the year 1913 and we find figures such as these for 1923: tools and hand implements, 212.6, bricks, 169.0, lime and cement, 159.6, sugar and its products, 226.4, woollen cloth, hosiery and underwear, 233.3 and so on all along the line of the goods the farmer must buy. But if we look at the 1923 index numbers of the goods he has to sell the story is very much different and it is at once apparent that his revenues have far from kept pace with his increased costs of living and of production. Live stock dropped to 97.6, hides and skins to 80.9, whilst grains have only risen to 124.9, eggs to 130.1-those are last year's figures; eggs have dropped this year* 50 per cent- and vegetables, from which in the great majority of cases no revenue is derived by the ordinary farmer, to 157.7.
If we analyse price conditions from another angle we find that the wholesale prices show that wheat was at 88 cents per bushel in 1913 and 81.08 a bushel in 1923, but we also find that a barrel of flour could be purchased for S5.36 in 1913 and that it cost $6.87 in 1923. Now, Mr. Speaker, based on the average of four and one half bushels of wheat to a barrel of flour, we find that between 1913 and 1923 the farmer received 90 cents more for the wheat necessary to produce a barrel of flour, but that when he had to purchase that flour the cost to him increased by SI.51 or an adverse balance of 61 cents against the farmer. Everywhere you look you find the same results. Cattle brought $6.89 a hundredweight in 1913 and only $6.80 in 1923. But sugar cost $9.58 against $4.18 in 1913. There is no need of quoting more, suffice it to say that no matter from what direction you look at these official figures you always arrive at the same conclusion, that is, the
farmer pays more for all he needs, and in many cases receives less for what he has to sell, and in no case is the increase to him proportionate to the increase against him.
Can we reasonably expect contentment when such conditions prevail? Can we be blamed for our endeavours to bring about more normal conditions? Surely not, more equitable conditions are urgently required, and until they obtain there can be no real progress. Hon. members to my right have been painting blue ruin for the manufacturers of this country unless we keep our hands off the tariff. Yes, indeed, they endeavour to maintain that rather than a lowering of the tariff we are in urgent need of higher tariff barriers, if we do not wish our manufacturing industry to go into bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, higher tariffs, and in fact tariffs of any kind, can only bring artificial life to any industry and they never will solve the problems of the manufacturers. Their troubles lie elsewhere. They must pare down their overhead charges, they must lessen their sales costs, they must cheapen the extremely expensive distribution system existing to-day, and they must realize that business expansion can only take place on sound foundations and not on artificial tariff proppings, if they expect to bring a permanent cure to the ills of which they are complaining.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that the dissatisfaction and unrest amongst our farming classes is due to the unfair conditions which I have endeavoured to portray. Farmers have a vital interest in the expansion of our manufacturing industries, and their Canadianism is of a brand that extends far beyond the bounds of class selfishness. They realize that true progress cannot be local in its scope. And our efforts to bring about more equitable conditions, are based on the absolute conviction that an adjustment of the unfair conditions of to-day will prove to be the required impetus for true progress for all classes and in every corner of our wonderful Dominion.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a point of order. I desire to submit to you, in all respect, that the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is not in order and cannot be considered. The amendment as read by the Chair is as follows:
That all the words after "that1' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas the budget proposals would seem to indicate the recognition by the government of the necessity for a fiscal policy designed to encourage industries based upon the development of the natural resources of the country, and to afford some alleviation of the financial burdens bearing upon the people;

Point oj. Order-Mr. Meighen
a minister. Bjr way of illustration I read one of the resolutions which now stands in the name of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), a resolution as to the construction of a railway. He does not move a resolution which, if it passes, of itself means that a road is to be built, which of itself makes any charge on the people or any loss to the treasury. Not at all. He simply moves a resolution which says "it is expedient." What is the difference between the word "desirable" and the word "expedient?" Is one more general than the other? Is one more specific than the other? Is one abstract and the other not? In that regard both are identical. The minister moves a resolution which reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, jointly with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, from Rosedale...
And so on. That it is "expedient" to do so. Now we say that it is "desirable" to tax all unearned incomes more. Is that merely an abstract, pious affirmation? It means this, that if this House approves, the House directs that a bill be introduced to that effect. If this step can be taken on thq motion of an hon. member who is not a member of the government, then I submit very seriously that we are simply playing fast and loose with the rules of this House; that there is no place to stop; that the rule which has come down through generations in the British House and which has proven a safeguard of their parliament, is to be abandoned by us. Because, if we can move that it is desirable to do a certain thing, even for the moment appropriating the language of the amended resolution, on the motion of a private member, and put the House on its judgment, then all this safeguard is gone. We can move that it is expedient to do a certain thing or we can use any other adjective we like. So I submit most earnestly, out of the regard which I have for the rules of this House and for the future conduct of this parliament, that this motion of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is clearly and unqualifiedly out of order.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Win-mpeg). Mr. Speaker, I think it is, perhaps, a little strange that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) gave me no notice whatever that he proposed to take action at this time.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member gave
me no notice of his motion.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would urge that this is a question of giving notice of a matter that is already before the House. I am under absolutely no obligation to give notice of any motion of mine to the leader of one of the other parties of this House. So again I would say that it would seem as if there might have been some notice given that this matter was to come before the House at this time. I might also call attention to the fact that the leader of the opposition in the earlier part of his remarks proceeded to read me a lecture as to my reasons and motives for preparing such a motion as this, and he also rather implied that there had been changes that had been, perhaps, almost underhand in their character. I should like to make a very brief statement as to the character of the alterations that were made. In the very first place, I should like to ask that the scroll of the House should be produced on this occasion as I believe it was a few days ago, in order that we may see just where we stand in the matter. My resolution, as the leader of the opposition has stated, is given in Hansard at page 1460. Immediately after recess, before the motion had been accepted or read to the House, it was suggested to me by the Speaker that possibly the form was not the best and that it might be modified in order that it might more nearly conform with the regularly accepted rules of the House. In consultation with the Speaker and the authorities of this House, I consented to make such changes in the resolution as seemed to be necessary	or advisable in order that
it should conform more nearly with the accepted usages of the House. That is precisely how the matter stands with regard to that point. I thought I was on safe ground in introducing the resolution, since in form I followed a resolution which was introduced a year ago by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) on May 14, 1923, as reported on page 2717 of Hansard. Mr. Forke moved:
That all the words after the word " that " be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor: Whereas the tariff policy of the government, as indicated by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and particularly his pronouncement in favour of tariff stability at existing rates, and the consequent intimation that the government contemplates no further appreciable tariff reduction, constitutes a repudiation of the tariff planks in the Liberal platform of 1919 and is inconsistent with the Finance Minister's statement last session that the changes then made were a step in the right direction;
And, whereas, the fiscal policy of the government as now brought down is based on the principles of protection, and in this respect is indistinguishable from that of their predecessors in office;

Point oj Order-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
And whereas the condition of the primary industries and the position of consumers in general is such as to demand immediate relief;
Therefore, be it resolved:	That while recognizing
that changes in the fiscal policy should be made in such a way as to give industries affected a reasonable opportunity for readjustment, this House is of the opinion that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound, and that every claim for protection should be heard publicly before a special committee of parliament.
And, further, that the best interests of Canada will be served by:-
(a)	An immediate and substantial reduction in the tariff, particularly on the necessaries of life and the implements of production.
(b)	An immediate increase in the British preference to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
(c)	Reciprocity in trade with the United States as outlined in the proposed Reciprocity Agreement of 1911.
And, further, that the loss of revenues, if any, which might result from a reduction in customs duties should be made good by:-
(a)	The readjustment and extension * of the income tax to bear more heavily on unearned incomes.
(b)	The increase and extension of excise and other taxes on luxuries.
If you will compare the resolution as I presented it to the House with that which was presented a year ago by the leader of the Progressives, you will find that the form is exactly similar. Some of the clauses are taken word for word. The leader of the opposition quotes a number of authorities and various precedents to show that it is impossible that a resolution in this form should be accepted by the House. The fact is that a resolution in this form was accepted a year ago, and I ask:	If this could
be accepted a year ago by the House when moved by the leader of the Progressives, why cannot my resolution be accepted this year? Surely, this is a precedent. I am not going into any detail as to the form of the resolution or whether it conforms exactly with the principle suggested by the authorities on procedure. It seems to me that it would be a very serious thing, indeed, for the conduct of the business of this House if private members are not to be permitted to introduce resolutions dealing with the underlying principles of taxation. It would simply reduce to impotence the entire opposition and we should not be able to submit any constructive suggestions whatever. I take it that if this resolution were passed the effect would be virtually the adoption of a certain principle, and it would then be open to the government to bring down such special measures along that line as they might see fit. As I have not had any opportunity of consulting the authorities on this matter I think, Mr. Speaker, that with your consent and with the permission of the House it might be desirable that this debate should be adjourned until I have had such opportunity.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is undoubtedly one of importance and I shall deem it advisable to reserve my decision. In the meantime, if other hon. members desire to speak to the question I shall be glad to hear their views.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: The weak
point in the argument of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), in citing the motion made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) last year, lies in the fact that the hon. member for Brandon did not withdraw his motion after having submitted it to the House, nor did he change it, as is proposed to be done in this instance. Rule 43 is an old established rule of parliament and I beg to quote it:
A member who has made a motion may withdraw the same by leave of the House, such leave being granted without any negative voice.
So that unless permission is given to the hon. member to withdraw his motion it remains the property of the House; it cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous consent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any record that I withdrew my motion?


Charles Marcil: I am going by the report in Hansard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would ask,
for the purposes of the scroll, that my motion be allowed to stand.


Charles Marcil: Under rule
43, I take it that the hon. gentleman may not substitute a second motion for his first unless he obtains the leave of the House to withdraw the previous amendment.


Mr. SHAW:: I think the proposal of the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is a matter of vital importance. Unlike the right hon. gentleman, I do not hold in extreme veneration a great many of the rules which have come down to us from the somewhat dim and distant past. I do feel, however, that the question under consideration is of such vital importance that not only should the matter be adjourned but that an opportunity should be afforded hon. members to discuss it when it does come up again. I think that if the leader of the opposition had followed the suggestion made two years ago, and allowed the leader of a party in this House to propose any amendment or series of amendments to the budget, the difficulty in which he finds himself at the present time would have been obviated. I am of the opinion that his real chagrin in the matter-


Arthur Meighen: Order.
Point oj Order-Mr. Shaw


Joseph Tweed Shaw: [DOT]-is due to the fact that the rules of the House bear to some extent upon him at this time.


Arthur Meighen: I submit that the hon.
gentleman is out of order in seeking to enter into a discussion with me upon a matter that is not relevant to the question under consideration.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am prepared to respect my right hon. friend's objection. I repeat, that this matter is one of very grave importance and I do not think it should be hastily disposed of without ample opportunity for the presentation of arguments. The thought occurs to me, presuming that the contention of my right hon. friend is correct, that the entire amendment is not necessarily vitiated; only that part is vitiated which comes within the ambit of his argument. No doubt the amendment may be bad in some respects, but likewise it may be good in part. I am not prepared to argue that question. But if such is the case, then it seems to me that, presuming for the sake of argument that the part to which my hon. friend has referred is bad, the Speaker would be justified in ruling out of order only that particular portion which deals with the raising of revenues in a special manner.


Mr. CARROLL:: What would become of
the rest of the amendment?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I take it that it would stand. The amendment would then conclude with the words:
Therefore, be it resolved that the best interests of Canada will be served by an immediate and substantial reduction in the tariff on the necessaries of life, including foodstuffs, clothing and building materials.
If I understand my right hon. friend's position, he has no objection to the amendment up to that point; he particularly objects to the suggestion of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) as to the manner of raising revenue. I would earnestly suggest that the matter be adjourned in order that hon. members might have an opportunity of discussing it later.


Hewitt Bostock: If no other hon. member desires to speak to the point of order, I shall reserve my ruling until Monday.
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.): May I at the outset join with the many hon. members who deplore the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) could not be present to deliver the budget this year. As a member from the Maritime provinces, born in Nova Scotia, I regret that by reason of ill-health he has been unable so far to attend the present session of par-

liament. Had he been privileged to deliver the budget I am sure that he would have weighed the consequences seriously before bringing down a budget that has caused consternation throughout the country. He would have borne in mind what occurred in parliament on April 22, 1897, and would no doubt have seen to it that his budget would be so framed as to satisfy as far as possible all sections and classes of the Dominion. All hon. gentlemen who have so far spoken from the government benches have maintained that agriculture stands to benefit largely from the reduction in what is called the protective tariff. I, Sir, representing a constituency whose interests are centered in agriculture, in the fisheries, and in lumber, fail to see how a reduction in the tariff as submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is going to be of such great advantage to the people. The hon. member for Kings, N.S., (Mr. Robinson), speaking yesterday on this question, justified his purpose to support the budget by the fact that, as he said, his constituents would be relieved of present burdens inasmuch as fertilizers were going to be 5 p.m. exempt from duty. My hon.
friend must know, surely, that his constituents who are engaged in the raising of fruit, and the fruit companies in the whole valley of the Annapolis, have been accustomed to bring in fertilizers in the unmixed state to be mixed and compounded at home.
The ingredients necessary in the manufacture of fertilizer, such as nitrate of soda, muriate of potash and sulphate of ammonia, have been coming into this country duty free. It is true that ground acid phosphate was subject to a tax of 20 per cent, while phosphate rock, unground phosphate, could be imported free. But if the farmers or the fruit growers of any section of the Dominion had to import phosphoric acid in its ground state, that would mean a duty of 20 per cent on each ton value of $12, and as the amount of acid phosphate required for the fertilizing of one acre of orchard is 300 pounds, the hon. member for Kings N.S. (Mr. Robinson) feels justified in supporting the present budget because it does save his constituents 36 cents an acre in fertilizer. I do not believe that the reduction of tariff is going to be a panacea for all the ills, the dissatisfaction and the unrest that prevail to-day among the agricultural classes. And when I speak, Sir, of agricultural classes, I do not refer to the wheat miners, to those who for years have been mining the soil of this Dominion; I speak of the class referred to by the Minister of Agriculture as those en-

The Budget-Mr. Doucet
gaged in diversified farming. We in the Maritime provinces call it mixed farming, and we get so much mixed up in trying to make both ends meet that I think we shall continue to call it mixed farming.
Now, some of our friends from the eastern section of the country, and possibly from the Pacific section as well, Will claim that they are justified in voting for the budget because it means a large reduction in the cost of those things which are necessary in the fishing industry. Why, they say, everything needed in the pursuit of that industry will be duty free, but they take good care not to tell their constituents and the public in general that with the exception of tarred marlin everything used in that industry was already free.


Mr. MARTELL:: May I ask my hon.
friend who made them duty free?


Mr. DOUCET:: If the hon. gentleman does not know it, how can he expect me to tell him?


Lewis Herbert Martell: You cannot answer. The Liberal government made them free.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Conditions to-day are such throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion that it is not the time to be meddling with tariffs or to institute any policy which would be detrimental to any one section or to any one industry. In this connection I want to cite a few figures to show that the farming industry, one of the basic industries of this Dominion, is in such a position that it needs more than a little whittling of the protective tariff. The live stock statistics for 1921 and 1923 are, to my mind, conclusive evidence of the fact that all is not well with the agricultural industry. In 1923 there was a decrease of 283,280 horses in the country as compared with the figure for 1921. There was also a decrease of 799,636 in the number of cattle. There was a decrease also of 921,993 in the number of sheep, and an increase of 550,421 in the number of swine. That increase must have been due to the effort of the farmer to bring about, the consumption of their over-production of agricultural produce, an over-production due to the supplanting of their products by those which are coming into this country from across the line. But although there was an increase of over 550,000 in the number of swine, the value of that particular line of live stock decreased by $1,730,000. The total number of heads of live stock was 1,615,730 less in 1923 than it was in 1921, and the total value decreased by $152,704,000. That is sufficient evidence to show that something
is wrong. For this condition the high cost of transportation is largely responsible; we have not the proper market facilities, and there is an importation of American produce which operates to our detriment. At present eggs are coming across the line in direct competition with our own produce. I am told that in the city of St. John storage eggs were offered last week for 7 cents a dozen. Now, I want to be fair; I do not believe storage eggs were offered at St. John at that price, but I believe that quotations were made to St. John wholesale merchants for American storage eggs at 7 cents a dozen. That is not improbable, because the duty on eggs imported into this country is only 3 cents a dozen while the duty on eggs exported from Canada to the United States is 8 cents a dozen.
Agricultural conditions are not as we would like to see them in the province from which I come, as is shown by the statistics furnished by the provincial Department of Agriculture. During the year 1923 the acreage of our four important crops, wheat, oats, turnips and potatoes, was 131,107 acres less than in the year 1922, and we account for that decrease in acreage by the fact that there were 10,735 more farms vacanc in 1923 than in 1922; in other words, only 77 per cent of the cultivated farms of 1922 were cultivated in 1923. and that, Sir. without going into details, explains the large exodus of our population from the province of New Brunswick. I venture to say, Sir, that if I had the statistics before me I would find that the same rule applies to half the provinces of the Dominion, at least from the centre to the Atlantic ocean
But, of course, Mr. Speaker, this great budget and the tariff proposals that have been brought down are going to be a panacea that will cure all evils, and with that policy in force we must expect conditions to become rosy. Sir, I submit that the most important factor in connection with the future of our agricultural interests in this Dominion is to find a home market for our produce. I am not so much concerned about the implement manufacturers in the centre of this Dominion, but I submit that if we wish to create and develop a home market for the purpose of providing consumers for the products of our farms we must have a certain measure of protection, for the industrial centres, and I submit that when you are whittling off the duty on farm implements, and are allowing bar steel, bar iron, and pig , iron and other semi-finished products to come into this country for the purpose of
The Budget-Mr. Doucet

manufacturing farm implements, you are striking a death blow to one of our largest industries in eastern Canada. We have in that section of the country an industry that was fostered by both governments. It was the result of the national policy and continued by those who followed the Liberal-Conservative administration of 1896. It was the result of a system of bonusing the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, the purpose of which was to place them in a position to compete in the markets of this Dominion with their bigger competitors in the United States. That bonus was withdrawn, it is true, but to-day besides withdrawing the bonus, when this government withdraws the protection they have enjoyed when they came into direct competition with the products of the United States, favoured by a shorter haul, it strikes a blow, and a stunning blow at that industry which provides a large market for a great portion of the agricultural products of the Maritime provinces.
I did expect, Sir, after the eloquent, sincere, earnest and honest appeal made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that we would have seen some encouragement given in this budget to the coal industry. Not he alone is interested in placing a protective tariff on bituminous coal entering this county, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Kelly), who moved the Address in reply to the Speech . from the Throne, and the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Messrs. Carroll and Ivyte), together with the hon. member who occupies the position of Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), are all greatly interested in the coal industry.
I do not cite anyone to my left as representing the coal mining industries of Alberta, because I do not know the exact portion of the province in which coal may be mined out there, but I do say that in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we have vast limits of coal mines, and that industry could be developed to the point of supplying our share or fifty per cent of the bituminous coal imported from the United States. Of the 16,000,000 tons of coal imported, we could supply our portion, 8,000,000 tons, and that on the basis of $8 per ton would mean that for the mining of the coal and the labour connected therewith, for its transportation from the pit mouth to the manufacturing centres of the Dominion and to the consumers of Ontario and Quebec, we would have the tidy sum of $64,000,000 spread all over the country from Cape Breton right up [DOT] to Toronto and Brockville. I submit, Sir,

this is a matter of vast importance, and having been first suggested by a member supporting the government, the hon. member for Cumberland, a protective tariff should have been placed on coal. We have to-day a tariff of 13 cents per ton on slack coal. That duty was put on when slack coal could be bought at the pit mouth for 75 cents a ton; to-day slack coal sells at the pit mouth for $2.85. Is that a fair comparison? Again, we have a protective tariff of 53 cents a ton on run-of-mine coal. That specific duty of 53 cents a ton was put on when run-of-mine coal was selling for $1.25 per ton; to-day it sells for something like $3.75.
But apart from any protection that might have been afforded by the tariff, I think we might have had a suggestion from the government side of the House for a special transportation rate for the purpose of transporting our fuel. That would only have been in harmony with the resolution passed by this House in favour of a national system of fuel supply.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine), who spoke this afternoon-before referring to his speech I might suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, that in addition to the suggestion I made here some time ago, the name of the hon. member for Hull might be added to that famous committee to inquire how best to bring about national unity in this Dominion. My hon. friend's utterances this afternoon in connection with the visit of my honoured leader to the province of Quebec will make very good reading. I would suggest to those who framed the Liberal platform of 1919, and who profess to be so anxious to bring about national unity to this country, that the reading of this speech, when it has been translated will be very edifying indeed, and a source of great benefit to the whole Dominion. I need not dwell any longer upon the question. The House and the country know my stand with respect to it. I have nothing whatever to withdraw and I shall never lose an opportunity of pointing out, here or elsewhere, that such arguments as those of my hon. friend are not conducive to the best interests of Canada.
My hon. friend professed himself greatly pleased because the budget was going to relieve the agricultural class. Now, I have shown how those classes are not going to be relieved to any extent in the matter of fertilizers. The question may be asked:	Will
they not be relieved with respect to farming implements? I maintain that the greatest bugbear of the farming population to-day- especially where we have mixed farming, I

The Budget-Mr. Doucet
stick to that expression, Sir, for a reason- is that we have too many farming implements. The state of the market is such that production does not pay, and it is a question of keeping those implements utilized all the time.
I may say this, however, regarding certain sections of the country that I know of:	If
they would only place their agricultural implements under cover in the fall of the year, taking them out when needed in the spring, they would certainly save more than any whittling of the protective tariff is going to accomplish. [DOT]
My hon. friend told the House that the labouring classes in his constituency would benefit greatly by the reduction in the tariff. It would be interesting to know how they will benefit. Even if there was a slight possibility of a reduction in the cost of living would not the labouring classes of the Dominion prefer to have a full week's pay rather than be idle half the time as will be the case by tariff changes, or mooted tariff changes, throwing the industrial centres into consternation.
I have spoken on the question of transportation, and I should like to say a word or two further with respect to it inasmuch as it vitally affects the section of Canada from which I come. In discussing the question I shall endeavour to treat it from a national standpoint. We have been termed "whiners" in the Maritime provinces so often by the press, and I think the epithet has also been used by hon. members here, that I should like to point out that the question is one of national interest. Transportation, owing to geographical reasons, is of the utmost importance to the Maritime provinces. Certain traffic rates must be granted and adhered to if our natural resources are to have any chance at all of reaching the markets of the central provinces. No special privileges are desired by the fishing industry of the Maritime provinces but it does wish to have a fair opportunity of marketing its products in Quebec and Ontario, and other provinces. Such is not the case to-day. In the eyes of the public the Atlantic region is being discriminated against by the National Railways and is not getting its fair share of what it should enjoy. On the 10th instant, as will be found by reference to page 1207 of Hansard, the Minister of Railways stated in reply to questions that the operating expenses of the Atlantic region for the year 1923 exceeded the operating revenue in the same region by $5,222,145; for the western region there was a deficit of $2,020,/09; and' that in the central region there was
a huge surplus of $18,687,610. Hon. gentlemen, and the public in general, may understand that possibly there is a reason for the deficit in the western section in view of the prevailing rates for the carriage of grain. I have no fault to find because special concessions are given for the transportation of grain, if, even at a loss to the railways. It is one of our basic industries and is entitled to certain concessions and rightly so. But the question is asked, why there should be a deficit in the Atlantic region. The answer to that question is very simple. The deficit exists because the railway system is overmanned, bearing in mind the extent of its mileage. To-day you will find at headquarters at Moncton practically the same staff that existed prior to 1921-22 when the Atlantic region consisted of the Intercolonial and all branch lines into Montreal, and the Transcontinental. Not only is a large staff still maintained but in some cases the salaries of the staff, as a result of recommendations made by the new board have doubled and trebled. Now, a question was placed on the order paper on two different occasions with a view to eliciting .certain information. That information was withheld on the ground that to give it was not in the public interest, although it was very necessary if any real comparison was sought to be made of the administrative expenses in 1921-22 compared with the expenses to-day.	I ask why
that information was withheld, especially when it is borne in mind that the Auditor General's report next year will contain all the information that was asked for by the two	returns in question?
But it will then be too late. That information is withheld for some purpose or for some reason. Let me tell the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and this House that this information is demanded and will be sought for, and when the proper time comes those who are responsible for withholding that information will feel the effect of ignoring public opinion. The electors of this Dominion are shareholders of the Canadian National Railways. The members of parliament are the elected board of directors. The government in council or the cabinet is the executive appointed by the board of directors. The fact that they have transferred the administration of their authority to another independent body does not to my mind relieve them from direct responsibility to the country and to the shareholders for the administration of the road. We as the shareholders of this railway have the right to know how much the administration of each and every section of the road has cost the country. May I, Mr. Speaker, tell you
The Budget-Mr. Doucet

why the information is withheld? It is because there has been discrimination in the appointment of officials in the Atlantic region. That discrimination has taken place, and it is very important that the fact should be made known, so that the proper charges against those responsible might be made on the floor of this House, if need be. Some day soon all the information refused will be obtained. The majority of the government supporters who have spoken on the budget have complimented Sir Henry Thornton on the great ability he has displayed in the administration of the Canadian National Railways. I do not wish to detract from the ability of that gentleman, but I am reminded a good deal of a merchant in a small town who, every time he was asked to contribute to any church or any charitable object, would immediately place a half a cent a pound on the price of his sugar or some other very necessary commodity, and before twenty-four hours had elasped he had more than doubled the contribution he had made to the charitable institution. Every time the president of the Canadian National Railways tells us-and he does it openly and publicly-that there has been a saving, and that we are going to have a surplus, it would be advisable to investigate, and we many find before twenty-four hours have elasped that Sir Henry Thornton and his executive staff have curtailed some public service on that road, in order to make certain economies.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Does the hon. member mean to say that the public service on the Canadian National road has been depleted?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Yes. The county I represent is not very far from the home of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). He may have occasion to travel over my constituency, and I wish to remind him that while, for the last 34 years there has been a daily train service on the Moncton and Buc-touche railway for 32 miles, and for the last 28 years a daily mail service on that road, since the 6th January, 1924, no train is run on Wednesdays, and the residents along that road for 32 miles have not the benefit of their daily mail on Wednesday. I say that is depleting or curtailing public service in so far as the Moncton and Buctouche railway is concerned. There are only 32 miles of government railway in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I feel that it is my bounden duty to myself and to my constituents to set the hon. member for Gloucester right, and to tell the public at large that we intend to protest that there should be no curtailment of the public service of the 
Canadian National Railways in order to give Sir Henry Thornton or any other man the privilege of declaring economy in the service. True we have the satisfaction of knowing that the radio has been installed, and I say in all earnestness and sincerity that it must be a great comfort to the farmers and fishermen of Kent county. But these people are being deprived of the daily trips on Wednesday and cannot read the daily paper on Wednesday evening, in order that Sir Henry Thornton and other titled men may talk all night over the benefit of radio to the province, when we in Kent county can not get public service. It may be noticeable that the radio system is for the benefit of two regions only, and that we have no installation of any kind in the Atlantic section. As usual the Atlantic section gets 'he short end of it. Sir Henry Thornton is not alone to be blamed for the administration of this railway. It is true he is president of the board, and not only does he administer the railway in his own way, but he acts also as political interpreter of the Dominion. Hon. members might have noticed in the press that after the reverses on the 6th and 20th December last, Sir Henry Thornton gave his own version as to why the Maritime provinces were dissatisfied. Sir Henry Thornton, when assuming the responsibility of president of the Canadian National Railway board, should not have discriminated against the Atlantic section of that road. We had reason to believe, and we have yet reason to believe, that the Atlantic section has a right to have service on the Intercolonial and all branch lines from Sydney, Halifax and Yarmouth to Montreal, and to connect with the Grand Trunk into Portland. Nothing short of that would satisfy the Maritime provinces. We have one-tenth of the mileage to-day, some 2,283 miles. In that section we have two large grain elevators, one of which has not been used at all for the last two years, and we have the Prince Edward Island ferry which is, I believe, a source of deficit, but we make no complaint as to that. If we gave that province a public service we should be proud of it and satisfied with it. But I say that with two great terminal elevators and the Prince Edward Island ferry, and a number of wharves on the Halifax and South Western Railway, built by Mackenzie and Mann, we have enormous expenditures and we have not the railway system to give us the revenue. Hence it is when the answer is given to us that there is a deficit of over $5,000,000, it is not because we do not have the freight for the roads, but because we do not have the mileage.
I	do not intend to delay this House any longer.

C.NJt.-Branch Lines


An hon. MEMBER:: Thank you.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If I had been guilty of reading a well prepared speech, as I have seen practically one-half the members on the other side and part of them on my left doing since the budget debate has opened, there might have been reason for cutting it short.
I told this House in as clear, concise, and brief a manner as possible that what the agricultural classes of this Dominion to-day want is fiscal stability that will permit our industries to proceed to give work to our labouring classes, that will prevent the great exodus of our population to a foreign country and that will thereby maintain in our midst a population ready to consume the products of our farms. Believing that, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie):
That all the words after the word "that" be left out and the following substituted therefor:
This House is of opinion that the welfare of Canada requires a consistently maintained protective policy.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Owing to the
fact that there is before the House another amendment on which Mr. Speaker will give his decision later, I will take the liberty of leaving this in his hands.


Jean George Robichaud: I beg to move the
adjournment of the debate.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I understand
some arrangement has been made between the whips as to not continuing the debate on the budget this evening.


Mr. BOYS:: That is quite correct. Owing
to circumstances over which we have no control, the House meeting rather late in the week and the indisposition of one or two members, it is not found convenient to continue the debate to-night at any length, and a suggestion was made that it might stand over and be continued on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has no objection to meeting the wish that has just been expressed of postponing the debate until Monday; but as regards this evening, evidently the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who was leading the House last night, is something of a prophet, because he said:
We will proceed with the budget debate to-morrow, and should anything intervene by which it comes to an end or to a suspension, we shall go on with the resolutions on the branch lines.
I think we ought to go on this evening with the resolutions on the branch lines, and if they are concluded, to go into supply
on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 10, (Mr. Chevrier) to confirm an agreement between the Ottawa Electric Railway Company and the city of Ottawa, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On Schedule B.
Arthur Meighen: Why need parliament pass this bill?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am not very conversant with the bill but I am informed that it is subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The company and the city have been endeavouring to make an agreement, which they have arrived at. The matter has been before the Railway committee in all its stages and has been passed without amendment. I understand that the agreement must be ratified by parliament.


Arthur Meighen: It is a mere matter of civil rights, so far as I can see. Of course, the Ottawa Electric Railway Company is a chartered company incorporated by act of parliament; but even the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not need to come to this House to have a mere agreement ratified.


George Perry Graham: Is it not an inter-provincial matter?


Arthur Meighen: I should think so. However, I have no doubt that counsel has looked into the matter and I presume there is some necessity for this bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Humphrey.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate The Life Underwriters' Association of Canada.-Mr. McKay.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, jointly with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, from Rosedale, in a southeasterly direction, to a point on Bullpound creek in township 25, range 14, west of the 4th meridian, in the province of Alberta; estimated mileage including evistimr grading. 39 miles; estimated cost to the Canadian National Railway Company (one half of total). $915,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

George Perry Graham: I might read to the House the note I have concerning this:
In 1919 when a conflict of railway routes between the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway was discussed before the Board of Railway Commissioners, for a line easterly out of the Drum-heller coal fields down the Red Deer river, the board ruled that this should become a joint line with equal rights to each railway, and that the parties should make an agreement covering the same. This resulted in an agreement, May 9th, 1919, being drawn, making the stretch east from Rosedale as far as Bullpound Creek an equal joint section and fixing certain limitations in reference to the balance of the route.
The Canadian Pacific Railway now wish to proceed with this joint section construction.
This line will open a further area of the Drumheller coal fields. From the end of the joint section this line when finally linked up easterly to the Acadia valley line will afford the Canadian National Railways lighter grades eastbound for coal from the Drumheller fields. It will also serve the agricultural district on either side of the Red Deer river over this distance.
No final running rights agreement has been reached with the Canadian Pacific Railway as to the detailed terms for the use of the joint section, but the estimate is based on the understanding that half the money will be provided by each party.
Mr. MEIGHEN':	Is there any one who
can give us some information about the district through which this goes, and the need of the line to the people? I have been surprised to be in receipt of communications from the district claiming that there is an unnecessary duplication of lines.


George Perry Graham: This is a joint section.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know that, but
within a distance of I think about eighty miles or less than that apart, there are six lines, and this district particularly has been virtually given up; I do not mean given up because of lack of lines, but the information given me-I am not saying it is correct- is that the provincial government has moved the people out.


Mr. STEWART (Argcnteui!):: I think my hon. friend has in mind the end of the line coming in from Acadia into the territory just north of the Red river. This line begins at Drumheller in the coal district, and runs down the Red Deer river. The Canadian (Mr. Graham.J
Pacific Railway intend to connect with their line from Empress to Bassano, and the Canadian National Railways will eventually connect up with the Acadia valley. My hon. friend will remember they now have a branch from Hanna southward ending at the river, and they can go out that way for the time being. I think the territory to which my hon. friend has reference is a strip of country along the north side of the Red Deer river south of the Goose lake line, through which this line if constructed wrould run.


Arthur Meighen: I remember distinctly
the district was described as the Bullpound district.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite true. I would not be surprised if there have been a number of people leaving that territory because they were a long way from railway facilities, and the district has suffered from drought for a few years, but I know they had a very good crop there last year. The object of this line, however, is to tap all the coal fields down the Red river. At the present time the Canadian Northern crosses the Red river at Drumheller and serves the area just in the vicinity of Drumheller. but they have a heavy grade out to the north. The Canadian Pacific comes in from the west, taps Drumheller, and goes down the river a short distance till it connects with their line from Bassano to Empress.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I wish to
take a little time to-night to discuss in a general way this branch line programme. There have been a number of statements made from across the floor of the House and also from my right with regard to the value of the western lines in general to the Canadian National Railways, and it has been suggested by some hon. members that this branch line programme was a means of purchasing Progressive support for the government, and that there is really no justification from a financial standpoint for this construction. I do not want to quote the various statements I have here that were made in the House- the statement, for instance, by the hon. member for Joliette, another by the hon. member for South Oxford, and another by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, with regard to the question of duplication. The ex-Minister of Finance the other day after the budget was introduced read from a return that had been. brought down with regard to the railways especially the National Railways, and this is what he said:
There \yas a time when our railways in western territory were good assets, but we have got a return to-day by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. APRIL 25, 1924
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Graham) showing how the earnings of the National system are made up. The hon. acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) talks about the great increase of industrial and agricultural activity that his measure will produce. Why, we have never had a bigger or better year, so far as volume is concerned, than the present year; and yet the whole earnings of all the western territories, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, for the last year amount to $72,000,000 and the operating expenses amount to $74,000,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member
seems to be quoting from another debate which took place this session, and not the debate upon the branch lines bill; I think he said it was from the budget debate. That would seem to be out of order.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the Chairman rules that out of order I am quite willing to accept the ruling, but I am going on with my statement just the same, though not with this quotation: I am trying to justify the construction of these branch lines in a general way.
I asked for a return in this connection and I have the statement here. The Canadian National Railways are divided into three divisions:	The Atlantic region, the central
region and the western region. The operating revenues and expenses in these different regions in 1923 were as follows:
Operating	Operating
revenues	expenses
Atlantic region	
$ 22,000,000	$ 27,000,000Central region	
127,000,000	109,000,000Western region	
72,000,000	74,000,000
As regards the central region, while there is a net operating revenue of $18,000,000, almost $17,000,000 of that is made up of Grand Trunk earnings, and it is hardly fair to compare the newer railways that have been built west and east, in a general way, with the old established Grand Trunk. But if we compare the newer railways in the West with the newer railways in the eastern and central regions, we find that against a net operating loss in the West of $2,000,000 there is a net operating loss in the East-that is, taking the central region and the Atlantic region together-of $4,000,000. So it would seem, from this return, that the western lines are justified in spite of the statements that have been made in this debate to the effect that the East was paying for the western lines.
I would like to point out that included in the western division is a large section of Ontario. The western region comes east as far as Armstrong, Ontario, and we have two main lines running about 300 miles east, making a total of 625 miles from Winnipeg east to the eastern boundary of the western division. Then we have out in British Columbia two railways connecting the prairies with the Pacific
coast, one running to Vancouver and one running to Prince Rupert, and the prairie lines, as I understand it, have to carry the expenses of a tremendous amount of mileage that is not at all necessary for the needs of the prairie provinces so far as getting out to Fort William and Port Arthur and to the Pacific coast is concerned. We have also included in this region the unfinished Hudson Bay railway and a line to Prince Rupert that is practically valueless until more facilities are constructed at the coaisit. And then we have about 600 miles, about 300 miles each of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian National Railways, in the province of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: What line is it going west, out through the mountains, that is unnecessary?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So far as traffic is concerned the one to Prince Rupert is not necessary at the present time. It was built far ahead of the needs of the country and its maintenance is saddled on to the business that develops on the prairies.
In connection with the Superior division, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was at one time Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and in his judgment in connection with the western rates case, speaking of the Lake Superior division, Canadian Railway cases, volume 17, "page 157, he said:
This division running as it does in great part through a wild and practically unsettled country, accompanied with great operating difficulties and with, of course, the lowest production of local tonnage per mile of line of any part of the C.P.R. nevertheless is shown to make good return.
In spite of the fact that we have that costly construction to the west through the mountains and the costly construction east through the Superior division we have the prairie provinces developing a tremendous amount of traffic and contributing to make both of these comparatively profitable.
We have heard a number of times that if there was any possibility at all of the railways in Canada ever making good, the coming into effect of the Crowsnest pass agreement practically made that impossible. I take it that the suggestion behind the statement was that the railways were once an asset but that from that point of view their value was now very doubtful. I have here a statement furnished by the Bureau of Statistics showing the gross revenues and net operating revenues of the Canadian Pacific and of the Canadian National for 1921, 1922, and 1923. For 1921 the gross revenues of the Canadian Pacific, by months, were as follows:-I will not give the odd thousands:

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Millions
January	 14
February	 13
March	 14
April	 13
May	 14
June	 14
July	 16
August	 17
September	 19
October	 22
November	 18
December	 15
Millions
January	 17
February	 15
March	 hj
April	 14
May	 14
June	 14
July	 15
August	 17
September	 is
October	 19
November	 19
December	 17
Now, the business that accounts for the increase in the gross revenues is, of course, the grain business from the prairie provinces. But the operating revenues are comparatively low right up to the month of August. These are the figures for the Canadian Pacific, in 1921:
January.. February.. March.. . April.. .. May.. .. June.. .. July.. .. August.. . September. October.. November.

3.000.	000
3.000.	000
2.000.	000
3.000.	000
4.000.	000
6.000.	000 4,000,000
Not only is the net operating revenue higher in the grain moving months, but it is higher in proportion to the gross revenues of the railway. I do not want to take up too much tfme to-night; I am not going to give the figures for all the years, but I want to take particular notice of 1922, the year in which the Crowsnest pass agreement, affecting the rates on grain and flour, came back into effect. In that year the gross revenues for the Canadian Pacific were as follows:
Millions
January	 11
February'	 11
March	 14
April	 12
May	 13
June	 14
July	 14
August	 16
September	 18
October	 23
November	 21
December	 17
The net operating revenue for 1922 up until the end of August was not higher than $2,900,000. In September it immediately jumped to $4,500,000. In October it jumped to $7,700,000, almost 25 per cent net. In November it was $6,700,000 and in December it went back to $4,000,000. In 1923 we have a bigger crop and a still better showing.
Now let us come to the Canadian National Railways. The gross revenues during 1921 were as follows, by months:

For the months of January, February, March, April, May, June and July there was an operating loss running from $400,000 up to $3,500,000, but the months of August, September, October and November showed a profit running as follows:	August, $1,379,029; September, $595,581; October, $1,954,633; November, $903,410; and then a loss again in December of $274,902.
In the year 1922 there was a bigger wheat crop, and starting in at $13,564,718 of gross revenue in January the returns climbed up gradually to $17,551,719 in August ; $19,344,840 in September; $22,177,145 in October; and $20,725,300 in November; and back to $18,326,765 in the month of December. The months of January, February, March and April showed a loss running to almost an average of a million dollars. The months of May, June and July also showed a loss. There was a net operating revenue in August of $469,526 and, in September of $1,441,919. The gain in October was $2,931,266, and in December $3,472,129.
In the year 1923 there was in January a gross revenue of $15,596,858; in February of $13,220,698. Then in the following months gross revenues of $15,509,243 of $16,793,663, of $17,551,526, of $17,192,989, of $17,791,852, and then in August, September and October we have successively $18,584,990, $18,687,880 and $23,150,671; and $21,241,352 in November, and $19,595,358 in December.
In the months of January, February and March there was a net operating loss, the successive amounts being as follows: January, $805,410; February, $2,885,144; and March, S1,1S8,203. From that on there was an operating surplus, the amounts being as follows: April, $871,584; May, $964,436; June, $314,741; July, $765,742; August, $1,181,451; September, $1,125,167; October, $4,728,008; November, $4,094,048; and December, $2,760,625.
I have a statement here, but I am not going to read it because I do not want to take up too much time. It gives the total originating tonnage in the following commodities: Flour, potatoes, coal-anthracite, bituminous and lignite-coke, logs, pulpwood and lumber. I

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
have another statement with regard to originating tonnage of manufactured goods, but I shall not read that either to-night. I simply suggest that the statement I have given shows that the operating revenues-the gross revenues and the higher percentage of the net operating revenues-exists in proportion as the grain business increases in volume.
I want to say that is my answer to the statement that the western railways are not paying their share of operating costs and are not the asset they ought to be to this Dominion. It is also the answer to those who say that the Crowsnest pass rates on grain are unfair to the rest of Canada.
We have been told by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) that the Canadian Pacific finances the railway on its own credit, and that it is not in the same sense a charge against the Dominion. For my part I cannot see any difference in the Canadian Pacific spending $20,000,000 in constructing a railway and the Canadian National Railways acting likewise. There may be a technical difference but no difference actually as the people of Canada are going to pay for both. I have referred on a previous occasion to the statement of the Board of Railway Commissioners wherein they say that the Canadian Pacific is going to have such rates as will enable it to pay its dividends. Now, whether it is a case of this parliament undertaking to meet the obligations of the Canadian National Railway system or whether it is one of the obligations of the Canadian Pacific being guaranteed by parliament through the Board of Railway Commissioners, the result is the same-it is the people who pay the freight rates and in the last analysis there is practically no difference between them. So long as the order in question stands there is every reason why we in this parliament should demand every particle of information regarding the construction of Canadian Pacific branch lines as well as Canadian National branch lines. I have here a statement of the aid given to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the early days when it was making a struggle in this new country, but I shall not put it on Hansard, it would occupy too much time and too much space.
There is another matter I wish to mention, and it is not new either to the Minister of Railways or the hon. members of this House. I happen to represent a constituency that is one-half of the province of Alberta, and we have just about one-third as much railway mileage in that constituency as there is in the rest of the province of Alberta. I have
96i
been after the Minister of Railways for two sessions in order to get a railway built from somewhere near Grande Prairie, from McLennan or some other point, to the Canadian National Railway system. I am very much disappointed that the minister has not been able to get this line included in his branch line programme. I know there are difficulties as to certain parts of the railway. However, some sections have been definitely located, and I do not believe we are going to build another main line through the mountains for some years to come. I have been anxious to see this railway built so as to connect up the Peace river country and the coal area with the Canadian National system.
I should like to press upon the minister the desirability of doing something in that connection at the earliest possible moment.
I have here a copy of the Farm and Home published in Vancouver, British Columbia. It contains a few pictures, and one relates to a gentleman who went into the Grande Priarie country a number of years ago and invested $40,000 in farm land. Because a statement was issued some months ago that there would be no railway construction this year this gentleman has sold his forty-thousand-dollar, farm,-640 acres-as they call it, and is going to leave the country. Now, there have been those who have been advocating taking settlers out of that country, but to do that would cost more than to provide them with railway accommodation. Those settlers would be in a very favourable position if only the line in question were constructed.


Arthur Meighen: I have no comment to
make on the latter part of the speech of the hon. member. I mean the part in which he referred to the real lack of any very great distinction, in so far as the effect on the taxpayer of Canada is concerned, between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railway.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? When my hon. friend referred to the last part of my statement I thought he was going to allude to the railway the construction of which I was urging. Now, would my right hon. friend give me his support in that enterprise?


Arthur Meighen: I was supporting the
hon. member, and he did not seem to take to it very well.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not
recall that.


Arthur Meighen: I hope my hon. friend
will not expect me to support everything at
C.N.It.-Branch Lines

once. I am considering the propositions one by one.
With the control now exercised by the government, or more directly by the Railway Commission, over rates, the other great railway system becomes a public service and a national corporation, compelling the people to take an almost equal interest in the cost of its operation and everything connected with its management, as in the case of the National Railways. There is a distinction but not a vast one. It is not a distinction that in earlier times prevailed. Nor do I quarrel very much with him in his later remarks. I am not making criticism at the present time either at what is being done. I know something of the difficulties that confront an administration of this kind. I want to make some comment on what the hon. member said in the first part of his speech. He was inclined to complain of the treatment received at the hands of this House of the western branch line legislation. I have been a member of this House for a considerable time, and whether as a Conservative or a Progressive, I certainly see no reason to complain of the treatment by this House of these western measures. I have never seen more generous treatment on the part of the House of any measures whatever.
Hon. members to his right, of some of whose words he complained, have supported virtually every one heartily. None have we opposed, and I do not think the hon. member would suggest that it was for political reasons, because if we can gain any of the seats that are to be served by these branch lines, well there would not be many in the Dominion, we would not possess.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I was not complaining about the support, but with regard to some of the statements made as to the political considerations.


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that phase of it. I do not wish to pose as a great authority on railway traffic, but I think I know enough about it to say that the problem is not quite so simple as it appears to be in the mind of the hon. member. He states that the returns brought down by the government as respects the National Railways in the Maritime provinces, or rather in the Atlantic division, show a loss of some $5,000,000 on operation. In the western provinces-that is the western division from Armstrong and Fort William westward-the returns show a loss of some $2,000,000, and in the central provinces, outside entirely of the more western Grand Trunk route, a profit of some $18,000,000. These figures are correct. In the western Grand Trunk territory I believe a profit of

some $8,000,000 besides was claimed. These are the figures brought down by the government. I must emphatically say that a closer investigation of the returns makes it entirely impossible for me to understand the figures. I do not think they are correct, but I think proportionately they are about correct as between the different divisions. I do not think there have been those returns as respects what ought to be called operation and as respects everything that ought to be included in operation. I do not think those figures can be sustained at all, but that point does not arise at the moment. I have no doubt the proportions are correct. But the hon. gentleman says, "You cannot claim that you are losing money in the West and that it is our fault, because we have unnecessary mileage there in the way of far western outlets. We have three far western outlets to the Pacific, and these are more than are necessary." On being questioned to be specific, he admitted very frankly and perfectly correctly that the unnecessary one for the purpose of western outlet is the Grand Trunk Pacific. That may be true, and I believe it is, but we are dealing now with the relative burden, and it is equally true-far more than true-of the central division. In the central division, if the Transcontinental did not carry freight that would otherwise go by the more direct route into the populated part of central Canada, the loss on it would be simply terrific. The unnecessary mileage in the centre bears down as heavily there as the unnecessary mileage in the West, and the same can be said of the Maritime provinces. On the same principle you could not tax any division with its loss; but the trouble is that we have to tax them and we have got to sustain the road, so that the hon. gentleman's argument falls down. Then he comes to the rescue from another angle, and he says it is the grain crop of the West that pays. He says, "That is the crop that pays, so that we are paying sufficient." I do not say that we are not paying sufficient. There is no one who would be more anxious than I to get the rate lower if we could do so. Certainly every cent we take off is saved to the producer, and there should be nothing in the world left undone that would drive down lower and lower the western carriage freights, and especially the rate on grain. But to say that everything is fair to-day. or that rates have been too high, and to base that assertion cm the argument of the hon. member is fallacious. He says, "Take the returns month by month, and you will find

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
that when the grain crop comes in those foundation at all, and to-day I am sorry to gross returns increase." Yes, the proportion say this prejudice exists in a measure that I of profit increases, but what in the world for one as a Canadian deplore, would you expect? That is when the busi- j^r FORKE: Did the hon. gentleman read ness is done. These are the months in which the gpgggh lately by the vice-president of the the business is carried on. Undoubtedly, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association about more business you do over the same railway tjjg Western farmers?
line, the more dense the traffic, unquestionably the greater the profit. For example, if we could ship grain out of the West, every month as fast as we ship it out in October, we could afford a much lower rate on grain. The grain rate would go away down, but it is just because it is of a seasonal character that we cannot afford to put the rate down. There has to be maintenance the year round in order to take care of this great rush of traffic in the two or three months.	[DOT]


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Lanigan stated last year before the Railway committee that the cars were not idle during the summer. I have the quotation here.


Arthur Meighen: I would require to see the words and the context in order to discuss that. We all know that the great rush of traffic is confined to two or three months. There could not possibly be the same equalization during the rest of the year. I have talked to railway men both on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, and I know that there are times, especially in the cold weather, during which all grain is carried at a loss, and necessarily so. But on the contrary, as against that, there is a profit during the rush season, and the whole thing has to be levelled up on that basis. The return has to be fixed. One could approach the matter from several other angles as well. I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say that the claim as to loss is not confined to the one railway. The other railway still claims that grain had been carried from the province of Alberta throughout the entire year at a loss. We want to get things down to a common basis and to know what we are doing. We want to be fair to every part of Canada, but it seems to me that these returns do indicate that the West at least has no reason to complain and that there is no reason in the world to say to parliament, "You have been unjust to us". I come from western Canada, and I think I am as much a western man as the hon. member, but I say that hon. members have gone through that country, have complained of the treatment of eastern Canada, and have raised prejudices against eastern Canada and against this parliament without the slightest


Arthur Meighen: I have not read it, but I have read speeches of eastern men that are equally to be deplored.


Robert Forke: I do not think you can beat it.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps not, but hon. gentlemen should take care that they do not provoke it, and if there are those who are guilty of that offence-


Robert Forke: Not guilty.


Arthur Meighen: -it is hon. gentlemen to my left. They are not so guilty in this House as they are out in western Canada.


Robert Forke: That is not fair, now.


Arthur Meighen: If it is not fair, I am
the one that knows it.


Mr. KELLNER:: Does the right hon.
member remember the speech which he himself made in the last election campaign about a certain part of Canada being more loyal than some other parts?


Arthur Meighen: I do not remember because it was never made. That exists only in the imagination of my hon. friend, or perhaps it was produced by the imaginative pen of some critical foe.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Did he ever read in the papers a report to that effect?


Arthur Meighen: I have read some very
strange reports, even reports that represent themselves to be statements by hon. members to my left. All I want to say is that nothing to justify in the faintest possible respect the statement which the hon. member has attributed to me from the press was ever uttered by myself. He will find, as he goes on in public life, that perhaps he will suffer from some of this kind of thing himself. All I rose to say was this, that the case is not established that there is too high a rate merely by showing that you make a profit during the heavy traffic on grain. Not at all. It is, the hon. member thinks?


Robert Forke: I do.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid my hon.
friend will have great difficulty in convincing any who have to do with this subject and
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

who have made it the study of their lives. I wonder how hon. members would like to have imposed on them and their constituents rates that are imposed to-day on their competitors to the south for the carriage of grain. I fancy that is about what would result if any of this talk that we sometimes hear about secession eventuates in fact. I do not myself see anything else that could result, and as one who has given some study to this matter, I heard yesterday morning that the rates to the south that are there borne by the producers of grain-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What about grain for export?


Arthur Meighen: In so far as they have to be borne for the carrying of export grain, their proportion is necessarily much smaller. Those rates if applied to western Canada would mean an increase of twenty-two to twenty-five, or possibly thirty million dollars in the carriage of a crop equal to the crop of last year.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are the
grain rates across the line not very largely domestic?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they are.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How do
they compare with British Columbia rates?


Arthur Meighen: I wish they were domestic here. They will never be domestic here if hon. gentlemen to my left have their way. In so far as they are comparable with ours, they are so much higher that, if applied to our railways, they would impose a burden on the West of from twenty-five to thirty million dollars a year.


Mr. McBRIDE:: It was not my intention to take any part in this debate on railway extension nor would I have done so had the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) not made some remarks in connection with the railroad into the Peace river country. When he made that statement in connection with the extension from the Grand Trunk Pacific starting at Brule to Grande Prairie, he failed to tell the committee that Grande Prairie has a railroad and elevators at the present time built by the Alberta government at the request of the people in that district, a railroad that costs the Alberta government in the neighbourhood of a million and a half dollars a year.
My reason for not intending to say anything on this subject just now was that that extension is under consideration by the Railway Board. Another extension is under con-
[Mr. Meighen.I
sideration as well, an extension from Prince George into the Peace river block where this government owns 3,500,000 acres of land. The Alberta side of the Peace river country has a railroad extending from Edmonton to McLennan, another line that runs north and crosses the Peace river, one that runs east to Spirit river and another that runs down to Grande Prairie. There is practically a network of railways, and still they want this government to build another line from Brule into that section to take the freight that justly belongs to the Edmonton railroad for the benefit of the Canadian National road. On the other hand if an extension were built from Prince George into the Peace river country it would traverse a country of good agricultural land where there is no railway, where the people have no transportation not even by a road, and where the country is equally as good as that at Grande Prairie.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is quite true, as the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) says, that there is a railway into Grande Prairie and one to the north into the Peace river. That road was built with the intention at some time of connecting it with the Canadian National, and we 9 p.m. want to complete that connection at what we consider the best point and in the best way. It does not matter where this line is built, feeders will have to be built to the various parts of the Peace river country. Those will have to be developed no matter whether the line goes west through the mountains or south. The district of Pouce Coupe in the Peace river block will have to be served by a railway, but I believe this is the best method of providing railway facilities for the whole country, and I am advocating it for that reason.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61 respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line, being a joint section front Rosedale southeast only, in the province of Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on Railways, Canale, and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

C .N.R.-Branch Lines
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from a point on the Victoria Beach subdivision of the Canadian Northern Railway near East Selkirk, in an easterly and then in a northeasterly direction, to Pine Falls in the province of Manitoba; estimated mileage including existing grading, 44 miles; estimated cost, $1,100,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: The following is the
memorandum I have concerning this line:
Pine Falls-Mile 0-44.	Cost
Proposed in 1924-44 miles grade	$374,000
Proposed in 1925-44 miles track and ballast. 726,000

This branch as proposed will be 44 miles long leaving the Victoria Beach Subdivision near East Selkirk and terminating on the Winnipeg river near the Fort Alexander Indian Reserve. In 1924 it is proposed to do the grading of the 44 miles and in 1925 to lay the track thereon at an estimated cost of $726,000.
The construction of this line is conditional on a paper mill being built at Pine Falls.
One of the purpQses of this branch is to serve a pulp and paper plant to be built on the Winnipeg river at Pine Falls. It will also serve a good agricultural country on the way besides shortening the route into the mining district now developing north of the Winnipeg river. The immediate terminus will be near a good crossing of the river so as to make it possible to readily extend this line when necessary.
When complete the proposed pulp and paper plant would supply immediately about 1,500 cars per year of their product, which will steadily grow with the expansion of this industry, besides considerable inbound freight of merchandise and other supplies. The local farm territory would also furnish considerable outbound business. The freight to and from the pulp and paper plant would not only be handled over this branch but would extend for distribution over the company's line to various points, therefore mean considerable long haul traffic to the railway.
I have been told that the construction of the paper mill referred to in the foregoing memorandum has begun, but I am not sure of that. Originally it was intended to build this line directly through the shortest route to the pulp and paper mill but the board after consideration concluded that the line should be extended, in the way set forth in the memorandum, to serve not only the pulp and paper mill but a good farming country as well.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government,
through the Department of the Interior, cruised or inspected the area carefully enough to see whether there is probability of any great amount of freight for any considerable length of time even if the mill is built? It is just possible that we might find ourselves with the railway in years to come with no pulp mill erected nor any lumber being used. That is the first question. In the second place, what is the actual condition of affairs in regard to the pulpwood? I understand that these are
Mr. J. D. McArthur's interests. Has he managed to finance the business, and if so what concessions were made him?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I know he has not been able yet to finance the undertaking. One of the difficulties is that in the area in which the mill is located there is only a possible supply of 800,000 cords of pulpwood, and that largely on a concession that was granted to him in the first instance. That, as a result of cruises that have been made, is the most recent information that I have from the McArthur interests in connection with the pulp and paper mill.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I do not want to offer any objection to this branch line, but inasmuch as references have been made to the alleged opposition of eastern members to western development, some suggestion having been made as to main lines that were not being used to great advantage, and comparisons having been drawn as between the gross revenue of the western section and that of the Atlantic region, I think I ought to tell the committee that the Transcontinental from Levis into Moncton, part of the line between Monk and Moncton being part and parcel of the Atlantic region, is not securing the traffic which it was intended to carry. For this reason the Atlantic region is unable to meet expenses. I should like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) a question regarding railway development in the county of Kent. The statement has been made that a branch line will be constructed between Buctouche and Richibucto which is a section of the country that needs railway facilities, not only to accommodate the people on the line but also to move agricultural produce and the products of the fisheries and the lumber industry between Richibucto and Buctouche as feeders to the main line of the Canadian National Railways. Inasmuch as members of the government have already expressed themselves in favour of that construction, my constituents have a right to know whether the government has come to any decision in the matter. I understand that the proposed line was very favourably reported upon by the engineers who were in charge of the work in 1919-20. It is true that in 1920 the then president of the Canadian National Railways, in view of the financial crisis that faced the country at that time and also of the fact that the government of the day was not recommending the construction of new branch lines, did not implement the report of the engineers. And in 1923 the present president of the Canadian National Railways, without making
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

any investigation, assumed that that section of the province had sufficient accommodation by water, which is not the case in one sense, since water facilities from Richibucto or St. Louis to St. John are out of the question.


George Newcombe Gordon: I fear the remarks of the hon. member are hardly relevant to the question under consideration. He is making a detailed speech concerning a matter that is far removed from the subject of the resolution.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If I am guilty of any transgression, Mr. Chairman, my offence is only in keeping with that of my hon. friend from West Edmonton, who a short while ago was discussing a branch line that had nothing to do with the resolution then before the Chair.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend is so confiding. If he will look up Hansard in the years he has mentioned he will find that provision was made for twenty lines in 1919-20, which did not include the one he is advocating. However, that is a matter of memory or of research on his part. The transportation question in Rent county is one that has been before all governments, but up to the present the line my hon. friend suggests has not been constructed. There is a Kent Northern line, with a mileage of about 27 miles, owned by a private company, and while the matter has been before one or two governments the fact is that the people of Kent county themselves are not in agreement as to what should be done, whether the Kent Northern line should be taken over and rehabilitated or whether the branch line to which my hon. friend refers should be constructed. There has been a good deal of discussion and correspondence from the point of view of both these proposals. I had an interview with the gentleman who was acting for the Kent Northern, and while I thought the property was not a very valuable one I was considering with him the suggestion of making a proposal to parliament concerning it. However, we did not come to any terms, and these matters will all have to be considered. We can do only so many things at a time, and I can assure my hon. friend that the fact that he is here will not make a bit of difference, will not prejudice the investigation of the railway situation in Kent county.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should not repudiate his colleague in that way. He must have forgotten what the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) said in the county itself.


George Perry Graham: As my right hon. friend
knows, we read many things in newspapers with regard to what people are supposed to have said. However, I am speaking at present for the Minister of Railways and pointing out the difficulties that have been met with in the past in the matter of doing something for the county of Kent.


Mr. COPP:: My right hon. friend referred to something I had said. I do not know just what he refers to-


Arthur Meighen: I have the words here.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Taken from what?


Arthur Meighen: I read it in the debate
on the Address. The hon. member did not object then.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, I take my own time to object to it. What my right hon. friend quoted shortly after the opening of parliament was not what I said in the county of Kent; it was absolutely incorrect. My right hon. friend was, I suppose, misinformed in regard to that just as he has been misinformed in regard to many other matters in connection with his public career. I had the extreme pleasure of being in the county of Kent during the election that was held there, and I referred to transportation matters in a number of addresses I made in the county. I should have thought that the hon. member for Kent would have been quite satisfied with the result of the election without misrepresenting myself or any person else in regard to what had been said. I made no such statement as was reported in the Moncton Times in regard to the building of a railway or the taking over of a railway by the government. I mentioned a railway the construction of which had been talked about', from the town of Buctouche to Richibucto, a matter that had been before the public for a number of years and in connection with which suggestions had been made.
I told the people decidedly and emphatically in the course of a number of addresses I made that I had not come there to promise the building of a railway because it took considerable time to give consideration to the building of any portion of a railway, even of short mileage.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think it is my duty to tell the hon. member that this discussion has continued to be out of order through several courses.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I should be given the same privilege as that extended to the member for Kent in discussing this matter, particularly in view of the fact

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
that a promise on behalf of the government to build a railway in that section has been attributed to me. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, to my hon. friend from the county of Kent and to the right hon. leader of the opposition, that I made no such promise in regard to the building of a railway or any portion of railway mileage in the county of Kent. What results may come from negotiations that have been proceeding between myself, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and the representatives of the owners of the Kent Northern railway, remains to be seen. The matter has been under negotiation for some time. I quite agree with the member for Kent that this transportation question should be given consideration and I sincerely trust that before very long, in spite of the fact that it is he who is here representing that county, it may be considered favourably.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's
memory is very short. Nobody ever alleged in this House that he promised a railway to the county of Kent. That was never alleged by me in my address. I read distinctly what I attributed to him, and it did not promise a railway. It was the hon. member's habit to be conditional in his intimations; everything depended. I hope the committee will bear with me while I quote the words he used, so that no one will go away with a misunderstanding. They were given to me as having been taken down verbatim. I do not think the paper from which I took them was the one to which he. refers, nor do I think that the hon. member, if he will listen to the words exactly, will undertake to deny them. His words were these:
Now, I want to ask you in all fairness, who will be your representative? Who will be more apt to get a more reasonable and fair consideration for you,-
The hon. member must recognize that the language is characteristic.
-Doucet, the Conservative candidate, or Bourgeois? It is to your very great advantage, and I believe it is your bounden duty, if you want better railway facilities for this part of Kent, to elect Mr. Bourgeois, who will co-operate with me and my colleagues to give the people of this county what they deserve and what they want.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I never made such a statement in the county of Kent, irrespective of where my right hon. friend got his information.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, may I
break up this little family affair?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Pine Falls in the province of Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first ahd second times and refered to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved. That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Lockeport station on the Halifax and Southwestern Railway to the town of Lockeport, in the province of Nova Scotia; estimated mileage including existing grading, 4 miles; estimated cost, *161,000.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us
as accurately as he can the estimated profits on running this road?


George Perry Graham: I could not very well do
that, but I will give my hon. friend the amount of business done at Lockeport station. I suppose that if this were a private road they would have the right to build this extension without going to the Board of Railway Commissioners or anybody else, and I suppose the Canadian National Railways could build it as a spur, because the Railway Act allows them to build up to six miles, but the board thought it best to proceed in this way. I have here a statement of the amount of business done at this point:
C.N.R.-Branch Lines



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Statement Showing Earnings at Lockeport Station, Nova Scotia
Year	Freight	Total Freight	Passenger	Total Passenger	Grand Total Passenger and FreightInwards	Outwards	Conductors' Sales	Station Sales	S	s	$	$	$	$	81918	10,785	6,894	17,679	45	4,361	4,406	22,0851919	10,808	7,284	18,092	48	5,584	5,632	23,7241920	15,935	9,966	25,901	760	7,061	7,821	33,722192J	15,551	11,412	26,963	815	5,905	6,720	33,6831922	16,464	14,037	30,501	5,340	5,340	35,841Total	69,543	49,593	119,136	1,668	28,251	29,919	149,055
Note.-1918. Figures include from May to December only. 1919. Figures do not include July and August.
Ottawa, Ontario,
April 8th, 1924.
This small branch is merely for the purpose of connecting this thriving town of Lockeport with the railways.
Arthur Meighen: I have no desire to oppose this if the minister has evidence that it will pay. Will the minister say that in his belief this road will pay the cost of operation, to say nothing of interest on construction?


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position
to say that. In the construction of branch lines throughout the Dominion it is very difficult to outline a profit at the very beginning, but the building of a branch line into a territory where business is expanding develops business ,to a point where it will eventually pay, and this particular line will be a great accommodation to the people of this town as it will enable them to load their fish and freight at their own town instead of having to haul it four miles each way.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Lockeport station and the town of Lockeport, in the province of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and referred to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National (Mr. Graham.]
Railway line, being an extension of the China Clay branch of the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway to the town of St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec; estimated mileage including existing grading, 2 miles; estimated cost, $105,000.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
George Perry Graham: The resolution explains
itself. It is to provide for an extension of a small line of railway two miles into the town of St. Remi d'Amherst. With reference to the traffic, the deputy minister received a letter a day or so ago from the Singer Manufacturing Company, which I think would be of interest:
The Singer Manufacturing Company Factory No. 5 -St. Johns, P.Q., Canada,
76-77 Banque Nationale Building, Rideau Street, Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa, March 19th, 1924. -
Mr. G. A. Bell,
Deputy Minister,
Department of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
In regard to proposed extension of the Canadian National Railway, from China Clay to St. Remi d'Amherst, and which was included with other extensions in one bill introduced in the Dominion parliament at the last session, and finally rejected en bloc by the Senate, we understand that your department this session is again asking parliament to sanction the construction of this extension, which, if judged on its own merits, there is no doubt but that the estimate would be passed.
2.	The service as it now exists at China Clay is very bad, the siding is we understand a private one, subject to an extra charge to shippers, limited to four or five cars and very hard to approach.
3.	The building of this short extension of 2$ miles will greatly facilitate the people in that part of the country doing business with your Company, it would also encourage them to deliver for shipment an increased tonnage.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
4.	Owing to having acquired all the standing timber on government lands lying west of the Rouge watershed, some 500 square miles, we are very much interested that your company provide shipping facilities at St. Remi. This season we have several small mills manufacturing some 2,000,000 feet of lumber, amounting to about 150 carloads, this will be available for shipment over the C.N.R. from St. Remi, providing a suitable service is given. During the twelve months ending July 31st, 1923, there were 343 carioads shipped locally from China Clay, and on which the shippers, we understand, had to pay a private siding charge of $3 per car. Judging from the amount of business obtained in the past, and prospects for the future, the shippers are entitled to relief from the existing conditions, and it is to be hoped that the merits of this extension will get the consideration they deserve from parliament.
In the past this company has received good service from the C.X.R. in connection with freight movements, and we trust that they will maintain their record at St. Remi.
Yours very truly,
TFE/B The Singer Manufacturing Company,
T. F. Elinitt.
I may explain, Mr. Chairman, that in connection with this enterprise some question has arisen with respect to a subsidy. That matter will have to be cleared up, I imagine, before construction begins.


Mr. FORTIER (Translation):: I wish, Sir, to make a few remarks with regard to this resolution authorizing the construction of two miles only of railway. Comparing this resolution with similar ones which we have adopted, we notice that it will be the shortest branch line, and yet, it is one of the most important. It is the last resolution with reference to branch lines, and I must remark that in my opinion, it is the most necessary.
These two miles of railway will cost $105,000 and are an absolute necessity for the people of my county. This was acknowledged within the last years and already the companj'' of the River Rouge had made an attempt to build these two miles so as to connect the line of the Canadian Northern from Quebec to the village 'of St. Remi d'Amherst. The said two miles only extend the present existing line as far as the village of St. Remi d'Amherst. It is actually not a new branch, but rather the completion of one of the most important railways and certainly the most useful for this region. The proof that these two miles are important, as just mentioned, is that there was an attempt during the last years, to connect the branch line of the Monfort Railway to the village of St. Remi d'Amherst. This region andl its surroundings are most important from the standpoint of farming, industry and mining. There exists in these parts numerous parishes settled since a great number of years, parishes that are thickly populated and that are at
some distance from railways. It is true that the Canadian Northern line, at present the Canadian National, extends towards this region; however, there has never been up to the present a passenger service anywhere near the region of St. Remi d'Amherst and the surrounding country. The terminus of the Canadian Northern, at present the Canadian National Railways, has always been at Huber-deau, and passenger trains only run on this line, to the village of Huberdeau.
However, about ten years ago, eight miles of railway were constructed, extending towards the county of Labelle. The latter line was only used for freight and especially for the operation of the Canadian China Clay mine, a well developed and prosperous porcelain industry, which was being worked at that time. However, although the eight miles of line are built, there is practically no freight service from St. Remi d'Amherst and surroundings, and further there is no passenger service from China Clay to Huberdeau or on -the remainder of the branch line of the Canadian National Railways. Now, by the construction of these two miles of line to the village of St. Remi d'Amherst, you will practically put into operation ten miles of railway, in a district which is not at present served by any railway. In that territory, where are to be seen quite a number of parishes, having a prosperous farming population, there are no railways to be found along a considerable portion of it. The nearest railway is the Canadian Pacific, which follows the course of the Ottawa river; it is located at a distance of from 25 to 30 miles from St. Remi d'Amherst. To the north, the distance is 20 to 25 miles in order to reach the branch line of the Canadian Pacific, which starts at Montreal and extends to the regions of Mont Laurier. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that this district be provided with a railway.
I have already, on many occasions, expounded the excellent reasons which militate in favour of these two miles extension. I do not wish this evening, to go over the ground again; I shall just draw the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to a few facts. In case there should be a sale of this branch line to the Canadian Pacific Railway-a sale which I do not desire, on the contrary, for I have already had occasion to protest-for reasons which I am far from admitting are well founded, although the government might consider that they are in the public interest, if the government decided to sell this branch line to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I would request that said sale take
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

place only on the well understood condition that the construction of these two miles of railway be carried! out, so as to complete the branch line and make it profitable for the company operating it, and especially to afford to the central part of the county of Labelle, the advantage of possessing a railway which would be of service to it.
Mr. FAFARD (Translation) Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question? Are the electors of the county of Labelle in favour of this branch line?


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Certainly,
Sir, the electors of the county of Labelle are favourable to such a project, and I think that the aim of the hon. member's question, is to press me to further state with more emphasis that this branch line is necessary to the county of Labelle and that my constituents would gladly endorse its construction. A last advice which I shall give to the Minister of Railways regarding this extension of two miles, is this: There is, along these two miles, works which have already been carried out by the company of River Rouge. The latter, incorporated by authority of a prominent statute and having as its object the construction of a railway line along a distance of about 80 miles, from Grenville towards the northern part of the county of Labelle, this company had attempted to construct two miles of railway along the line to be built and had consequently started work at a place known as the Canadian China Clay, extending as far as the village of St. Remi d'Amherst. I am aware that the Department of Railways could take no account of the work done previously by the River Rouge Railway Company, however, if it is possible for the Department of Railways to purchase on fair terms the improvements already carried out by said company, I would certainly approve of the department making the necessary advances so as to acquire such assets. These consist primarily in the location of the line, also, I think, in certain rights of way secured on part of those two miles and the grading of the roadbed. Consequently, the work done would be useful to the Department of Railways when constructing the said extension of two miles and would help to complete the work in the shortest time possible. Naturally, on acquiring these works the department could also stipulate that the money be not paid to the representatives of the River Rouge unless the farmers and labourers of St. Remi d'Amherst and the country around1 Labelle are paid for their claims in connection with the construction work done on said two miles of railway. A few years ago when this

work was undertaken by the River Rouge company, a number of people from St. Remi d'Amiherst and surrounding villages were employed by the company. They have certain claims against this company for wages and material supplied. The River Rouge company stopped the work and it seems did not settle all the legitimate claims of these people. It would therefore, be only fair that in the purchase which the department may make of the road, it should hold back a sufficient amount to settle all these people's claims.
One last remark, Sir, I entirely approve of this resolution as it provides for the construction of two miles of railway which are most important in a region that certainly deserves the government's consideration because these parts are completely deprived of means of communication. It is a vast farming district, very rich in natural resources, and these two miles of railway will be of great advantage, not only to this region but also to the National Railways for it will be one of the most paying branch lines of this road.
Resolution reported, read1 the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham: thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end1 of the China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Cold storage warehouses, $30,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The reduction in this item is
accounted for by the fact that there has been much less demand during the last two or three years for cold storage, and that we are desirous of keeping our estimates down. The sum of $30,000 will, I think, take care of all the contracts we have entered into with the various plants throughout Canada. There is a plant at Sydney, Cape Breton, that has been under construction for several years. I had the opportunity of visiting this very excellent plant last summer. I think it is almost ready for business now. It is a well finished and well insulated building. We have another one in Quebec and another one in Prince Edward Island. These are the three we have under contract, and this sum we think will take

Supply-Agriculture
care of them. In the meantime we are not taking any more under contract for the present. These are established under the terms of the old Cold Storage Act.


Mr. SPENCER:: Do these cold storage
plants put up at the cost of the government pay their way? If some of them do not pay their way, would the minister tell the House which ones pay and which do not?


William Richard Motherwell: I think possibly the hon. member who asks the question was not in the House last year when we went over this question very thoroughly. The government does not put up these plants. Under the terms of the Cold Storage Act, the government subsidizes them to the extent of 30 per cent of the cost of construction. This $30,000 is spread over four or five payments at different times, based upon progress estimates. After the subsidy is all paid we have the supervision of these plants. Whether they pay or not is up to the people operating them. This subsidy was originally designed with the idea of assisting them to become established. While cold storage is required in Canada, the public itself, until quite recently has not been educated, shall we say, or developed to the importance of cold storage. The result was that up to the time of the war the demand was comparatively limited. During the war there was a tremendous demand for cold storage on account of the necessity for keeping a large quantity of produce on hand for shipment. Since the war the demand has fallen off, with the result that a great many of these plants throughout Canada find it difficult sledding to make ends meet. I would not like to say that none of them pay, but they have a hard time. People are not demanding space. They feel like economizing and not using the space.


William Alves Boys: Is the department under any
obligation to repair, or is this vote for original construction?


William Richard Motherwell: Original construction.


William Alves Boys: No obligation to repair?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


William Alves Boys: The department has three
original plants now.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Did the minister state where
they were?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not quite
understand the question. The three I have mentioned are under contract but there are
some thirty altogether. One is located at Prince Rupert, and others scattered through Canada right down to Halifax.


William Alves Boys: I am not familiar with the
terms of the act. Are the proceedings leading to this subsidy initiated by private enterprise, or how?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. We are just proceeding under the provisions of the act. The bill went through last year and my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) will remember that he was not very uproarious about supporting it. The bill did not get past the other Chamber, and the result is that we are operating under the old act that does not make any reservations or restrictions about the kind of cold storage, whether they are municipal or private or co-operative or what they are. The plant at Sydney is a' private one; the one on Prince Edward Island is private and the one at Quebec city is cooperative.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister told us a few moments ago that these are not under the control of the government. Under whose control is the cold storage at Montreal at the harbour? I was under the impression that that was under government control.


William Richard Motherwell: The cold storage at Montreal is under the harbour board just the same as the elevators.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It is government owned?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. It is under
the administration of the Haibour Board of Montreal. They own and administer it just the same as they do the elevators there. I know that within nine months of its opening, 75 per cent of the space was taken. I have not the figures here, but if it is patronised now as well as it was the first year, it is doing pretty well.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: Has the minister received any representations from the Okanagan and Salmon river country regarding cold storage, pre-cooling plants for fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we had representations by a deputation. Mr. Mutrie and Mr. Bulman were here after the New Year, and while we cannot anticipate the supplementary estimates too much, there is nothing in this item for that and possibly there may be something in the supplementaries with regard to it. Last year we gave two grants for pre-cooling institutions, one lat Grimsby and one at New Westminster. The one at Grimsby is doing excellent work for the fruit producers of that district. As regards
Supply-Agriculture

the one at New Westminster the parties to whom we expected to make .the subsidy did not comply with the conditions and the subsidy was not paid out. At Okanagan, Salmon Arm and at one or two other places, I am pretty well convinced that if we can raise the money it would be a good investment to assist the fruit growers in some measure, on about the same basis as this, namely 30 per cent, and put pre-cooling plants in their fruit packing establishments. They have the buildings, and all that has to be done is to insulate the necessary space properly. With the tremendous rush of fruit on the market, every medium should be taken advantage of to dispose of the fruit at that season, whether it be by pre-cooling, refrigerating, drying or selling the fruit fresh, so that every method of taking care of the glut at that time should receive our consideration.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I am glad to hear
the minister intimate that there is some hope in the supplementary estimates of doing something for that district.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not making
a definite promise.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I suppose the minister understands that it makes all the difference in the world as regards the shipment of apples to a foreign market if they are precooled first. I should like to ask a question about dehydrating plants, although I understand that comes under another item. One was started at Penticton last year and it was burned down. I noticed in the store windows a few weeks ago some new wonderful exhibits of apples put up in cartons by the department here, and I believe a great industry could be worked up in our country if something is done to encourage it.


William Richard Motherwell: We have an item
further down for dehydration:
For experiments in the dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $15,000.
The amount last year was $10,500. I do not know whether we have quite decided to rebuild in the same place or not, but it is our intention to rebuild so as to serve that territory. In view of the' large quantity of dried fruit that we import into this country and the large quantity of fresh fruit that becomes a glut on our market at harvest time, there is no reason in the world why a great deal of the fresh fruit that we find it impossible to sell should not be converted into the dried fruit of which we are importing so much.
I Mr. Motherwell.]


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Has the minister
placed on the market any of the product that has been put out by the department at Ottawa?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it is on the
market now.


Mr. SPENCE:: It is a well known fact
that the cold storage at Montreal has lost a great deal of money in the last number of years. Is it possible that the government does not lose some of that when it is subsidizing cold storages? The minister stated that it is paying well. I understand that it is not paying at all, and we want to get the facts.


William Richard Motherwell: I told the committee that that did not come under this item. That comes under the Minister of Marine and Pisheries (Mr. Cardin). The estimate is submitted: by the harbour board. I was merely saying that if we may judge from the space that is occupied, it ought to be doing fairly well. I have not been there for a year.


David Spence: It does not come under this
item ?


William Richard Motherwell: No. It does not
come under my administration.


David Spence: A few minutes ago an hon. member asked a question about the cold storage plant, and the minister said that he was not particularly interested; that it was a private concern. Are we not particularly interested to the extent of 30 per cent? We should want to see these plants pay rather than make a failure of their business.
Mr, MOTHERWELL:	My hon. friend is
straining a little bit.


David Spence: No, I am pretty well
posted on this job.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not doubt
that, but the subsidies, as a rule, are paid before you can tell whether they are going to be paying concerns or not. WTe take every precaution to begin with to see that they are placed in an area where they are likely to pay, to see that all the conditions of the contract are complied with. When the regulations and the law are complied with, we pay over the subsidy at some four or five different periods according to the terms laid down in the regulations. After that we are concerned with everything, but we have no responsibility.

Supply-A griculture


David Spence: But you have, you have
given them so much money.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we have that
money there, and it was given as a subsidy without many strings to it. I should not say that such a plant is under our control; it is under our inspection, and the rates are only in a measure under our control. In last year's bill we had provision for subsequent control; the question was discussed for a long time in the Agricultural committee, and it was felt that after the last subsidy was paid there was very little control. The bill of last year provided for specific control even after the subsidies were paid; but that bill did not go through, and the result is that we are under the old act. There is some control but not the amount that some people think we should have.


David Spence: I am not knocking precooling plants; I think they are an absolute necessity at points like those that have been mentioned; but I do not think
10 p.m. the minister should encourage private individuals to go into the cold storage business if he does not think they are going to make it pay, because people have lost thousands, yes, millions of dollars in building cold storage plants on account of having been encouraged by the government to go into that business. If the minister has not a real demand from somebody who knows something about the cold storage business, he should discourage or, perhaps, to put the matter more mildly, not encourage private individuals to go into the cold storage business.


William Richard Motherwell: We have nearly
cut the vote in two, keeping just enough to carry out the contracts already entered into, and we are not entering upon any new ones. The plant at Sydney will take the greater part of the money. It is about five years now since the preliminaries were begun in connection with the work at Sydney, the matter having had its inception before this government came in at all. We had nothing to do with it in the early stages, our duty now being simply to pay the subsidy. As regards the other two, the one in Quebec city is operated in conjunction with the Farmers' Co-operative Association of that province, while the one in Prince Edward Island involves only a small expenditure of $6,000. We are disposed to take my hon. friend's advice and I can assure him that we shall not enter into any new contracts under present circumstances.


William Alves Boys: So long as the act is ip force, any private enterprise or any municipality can erect a cold storage building and call upon' the department to provide the subsidy mentioned in the act. While that legislation stands I do not see that the department can help paying the 30 per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: We have of course the option of refusing it if we think there is ample cold storage facility already available. We do not want to repeal the act because we may find it desirable at some time to take advantage of its provisions when money is more plentiful. There has not been sufficiently satisfactory control over these institutions after the subsidy has been paid, and although we made provision last year to meet this difficulty the act did not pass the Senate, so that we are in the same position that we held before. The whole business is petering out now to such an extent that we do not think it advisable to amend the act.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Does the department control the cold storage plants by regulation from the standpoint of sanitation, efficiency and so forth?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: To what extent?


William Richard Motherwell: We have power by statute to make regulations but it is questionable whether that power can be legally exercised. For example, we can apply regulations, say, in Prince Rupert to control rates and to govern the period of time that goods shall remain in cold storage, and so on. But it is very questionable whether federal control in that direction can be exercised. At least that is the advice we have received. The regulations apply, for instance, to such questions as the authorized capital, the subscribed capital, and the rates for storage, which, as originally approved by the Governor in Council, shall not be increased without further approval by the same authority. There is also a regulation in regard to owners entering into special contracts with customers for the maintenance of temperatures other than those specifically provided for.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If unsanitary conditions
prevail, or if foodstuffs are destroyed, does the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Health, exercise jurisdiction?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the municipal law would apply in that case. We have had instances of the kind in Winnipeg and Regina and if I remember rightly the muni-
Supply-Agriculture

cipal health authorities ordered the destruction of the foodstuffs.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand that the department has carried out a number of experiments with regard to the various temperatures maintained in the shipment of fruit in refrigerator cars. What progress has been made in that respect?


William Richard Motherwell: In the shipment of fruit from Grimsby west large quantities of ice are used in the chilling of cars, and I believe that it has been decided to recommend the construction of some special cars for the purposes of refrigeration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, $182,000.
William Alves Boys: What are the details of this
item?


William Richard Motherwell: This vote is largely consumed in inspection work and marketing.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Was it all expended
last year?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so. It is
well to have a little leeway, but we do not exceed the vote.


William Alves Boys: What proportion of the vote
is used in salaries of inspectors and other officers?


William Richard Motherwell: Between 80 and 90 per cent. Apart from the vote for compensation under "Health of Animals", the fair grants and cold storage, practically the whole body of the agricultural vote is used in salaries for inspection, education, or other work of that nature. The salaries amount to about 85 per cent.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Have there been any
complaints in regard to the inspection of fruit in British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not had
any reports of complaints. We shall be very glad to hear any.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I am glad to hear
that. I quite believe that the reason you have not heard any complaints is that the work is carried out in a very excellent manner. I have no doubt that the chief inspector there, Mr. Clarke, is about as competent a man as the department could find if they searched Canada from coast to coast. As one who is very thoroughly conversant with the situation out there, I am very glad to bear that testimony.


William Richard Motherwell: That is gratifying. We do not get very much of that and I suppose I should express my appreciation of it. My hon. friend will be interested in the investigational work conducted by the experimental farm out there in connection with the Jonathan apple, which in the last few years has developed a disease which has the effect of darkening the apple and breaking it down. The experimental farm carried out experiments in co-operation with the growers with a view to finding out something about this disease; they had the idea that it had something to do with the time that the apple was harvested. After experiments over some eight or nine different periods, starting with the earlier periods and following along later into the season, it was found that up to about the sixth period the apples kept well but when left on the tree after that they broke down. The experts have been unable to define exactly what the disease is, but it has been found to be associated with the time of harvesting, and the solution is to harvest the apple early.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Would there not be
some trouble in regard to grading if the apple was taken so early as to preclude danger from this disease?


William Richard Motherwell: No, you can have it sufficiently mature to grade and to keep, but it must not remain too long on the tree. That is a matter of judgment.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Has the department
any reports concerning a similar rot in McIntosh Red apples?


William Richard Motherwell: No, It has been
confined almost entirely to the Jonathan apple.


David Spence: Is there any marked improvement this year in the keeping qualities of the Jonathan apple.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes. A year
ago we were entirely in the dark.


David Spence: You claim now to have
discovered the cause for the rot?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and, by the
way, that discovery can be attributed to the experimental farms.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About what amount of early
soft fruits and vegetables are imported from the United States?


William Richard Motherwell: Is my hon. friend suggesting that a good many of them come in? Yes, a lot of fruit and vegetables come in from the south before ours are ripe. Has my hon. friend any suggestion as to how we

Supply-Agriculture
151?
can ripen ours sooner or how we can satisfy the appetite of our people in some other way until our own product gets ready for the market?


Mr. MANION:: Put up a good tariff.


William Richard Motherwell: I was just wondering if that was-it. If I were a fruit grower I suppose that would appeal to me a little more than it does now. As a matter of fact there is a substantial tariff on these articles.
I see my hon. friends from over the way pricking up their ears at the suggestion of increasing the duty on fruit; they are the great buyers-the home market, if you like- for the fruit of British Columbia. I frankly admit that I would like to see something done to keep our market for our own fruit, provided that the price to the consumer was not increased.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend would
look a little more in this direction instead of always looking in the direction of my hon. friends to my left, he would probably agree with more of our suggestions.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, I am not getting squint-eyed at all; I am keeping track of both. If my hon. friend has any method to suggest whereby we can keep out other fruits or vegetables without raising the price to the Canadian consumer, I shall be pleased to consider it and perhaps to make a recommendation in regard to it to the Acting Minister of Finance the next time he come3 down with his budget.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The growers of early fruits and vegetables in Canada have suffered a good deal of loss on account of the people to the south of us being able to produce these articles earlier in the year, so that by the time the Canadian fruits and vegetables, strawberries, early potatoes and so on, are ready for the market the palate of the people has been largely satisfied by the imported articles and the farmer does not benefit by the higher prices. These goods that are brought in from the south, grown in Carolina, Florida, California and other places, are sold at very high prices. They are luxuries, because they are out of season, and as it is agreed that it is a good thing to tax luxuries under certain conditions my hon. friend might find in that a means of getting revenue. It is a well known fact that during the tree-planting boom in the western States, particularly in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, a great many areas were over planted, and in their large home market, found in centres of considerable size such as Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, New York and other places, they are able to dis-97
pose of their best grades of fruit, nicely put up, at high prices, and they are able then to slump off their poorer grades in this country, much to the disadvantage of the Canadian grower. It would seem that until such time as the fruit growing industry of this country is able to get on its feet it requires a little protection. I understand that there is no duty on the citrous fruits, which are also a competitor with locally grown fruits,. May I ask how far the dumping clause has been applied with regard to the importation of these fruits from the American side?


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) is not here and I would not like to give any information offhand without being sure of it. I understand, however, that the dumping clause has been applied in such cases; it may even be applied to articles that come in free. As to the other question that my hon. friend has raised, it is worthy of perhaps fuller consideration than it has ever been given. I have had an opportunity during the last few years of visiting the orchards of Canada, an opportunity that I had not had before. I had often heard of the Annapolis valley, and it was a real treat to go through that country in harvest time, or in blossom time. I was in Niagara in blossom time, and in British Columbia the year before at harvest time. In endeavouring to find a solution we must remember that a straight duty always puts the price up to the consumer. I may say that in view of the dumping and other conditions in connection with inportation it has been a little more difficult for foreign fruit to get in this last two years, particularly this last year, and we have heard no criticism from the prairies about it. I would not like to see it get to the point where there would be criticism because you are establishing friendly business relations with British Columbia, trading back and forth, and therefore I would look in some other direction for a solution than simply a straight jacking up of the duty, which would only mean a higher price to the consumer.
This suggestion has been made. Let us take 100, for convenience, as representing the tariff. It has been suggested that during the three months when the early fruit and vegetables are coming in, and before ours is on the market, the tariff might be put up to, say, 125, and during the other ten months of the year be put down to 75, making an average of 100. I do not know whether it is workable or not, but it might help to solve the situation. Then the man who felt that he could afford to buy the early fruit and vegetables would

Supply-Agriculture

pay a duty of 125, we will say, and the man who felt that he had to wait for a lower price would get his fruit in on a 75 duty. There is one objection to that, and it is that you are discriminating against the poorer man. Why should he not be able to buy early fruit and vegetables just the same as the wealthy man? That merely shows that there is no perfect solution, and all you can do is to accept a solution that presents the minimum disadvantages and the maximum advantages. I think that solution suggested is worthy of consideration. I do not know whether it is workable or not, because it would involve changing the tariff twice a year. The tariff would be kept up at 125, 'let us say, while the early fruits and vegetables are coming in until perhaps the 1st of July, till ours come on the market, and then drop to 75, when the great mass of the public would buy their fruit and vegetables at the lower rate, and at the same time it would not prohibit those who felt they could afford to buy the early fruit and vegetables at the higher price from doing so. That is only one suggested solution. I do not know whether this discussion is in order, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Agriculture may have views on this subject, but they are not considered authoritative or necessarily expert.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I help out the
minister? I would throw out the suggestion to him and to the ex-Minister of Agriculture to tell the fruit growers of Canada just what they told the farmers of the prairie provinces, to go into mixed farming. I think that would help them out.


William Richard Motherwell: I have been suggesting that, and I think they are going into poultry raising, because you see poultry running in the orchards.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: It is a good deal easier to offer advice of that kind than to show the fruit farmer in British Columbia how he is going to adopt it. He has a ten or twenty acre orchard perhaps, bought at high prices, from $250 an acre upwards, and he has to get a high priced crop to begin to pay the interest on his investment. He has to pay high irrigation charges, from $10 an acre upwards, and he has to pay continuous costs, for pruning, spraying and so forth, and on a ten-acre farm there is very little chance of his doing much of a mixed farming business. He does keep a few poultry, as has been said, but I think his situation is certainly deserving of far more serious consideration, and I think a little more sympathy from certain elements

in this Dominion and in this House than it has received. We have in British Columbia something over $40,000,000 invested in the fruit-growing business, and in the last three or four years these men have had a very discouraging path to tread. I do not suppose that last year they got more than half what it cost them to produce their apples. The average price for the crop of last year would be 50 cents a box, and it would cost on the average throughout the fruit-growing sections of British Columbia anywhere from 75 cents to $1 a box to produce that fruit, and it is small encouragement to the man who has his all invested in that business to tell him that he must pull up his trees which he has planted, and which have taken six or seven years to come into fruition and go into mixed farming. Any encouragement that can be given by the Department of Agriculture and by the Minister of Finance towards fostering and keeping alive a business which is engaging the attention of a large portion of the population of British Columbia, and of the very best class of our population, is certainly deserving of the serious consideration of this House.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I anticipated the suggestion from my friend to my left, that we should advise these men to go into mixed farming. I remember going down the Okanagan valley at a time when it was being changed from a cattle-ranging country into a fruit-growing country. Along with me was a very glib talker from Spokane, Washington. We were doing missionary work in connection with farmers' institutes. My business was to speak first at all these meetings. He was more experienced than I was, and I fell for it, and acted as a sort of house warmer for him at all our meetings. I preached chickens, eggs, hogs;, and maxed farming in all its branches to these people, but they would not listen to me. They were all anxious to hear this other man who told them about the ten-acre farm and the big red apple, and the tremendous market for that apple. They could never grow too many. If they could not sell them on the Canadian side, they could sell them on the American side, and even across the water in the Old Country. I remember fifteen years later meeting the same man again at an irrigation convention at Penticton at the lower end of the Okanagan lake, and this time he was preaching to them: "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket; keep a few hogs, keep a cow, keep some chickens, and grow your stuff on the side." "Why," I said, "what is

Supply-A griculture
the matter? You have changed your tune entirely." "Oh," he said, "conditions have changed."
I quite agree with what my bon. friend has said, that if they had gone in for mixed farming and grown fruit on the side they would have been in a safer position than they are in to-day. However, I think that now they are located there, and I feel the minister is anxious to assist them in every possible way, we should try and meet their problems, just as we should try and meet the problems of our friends on the prairies, and the problems of our friends in the Maritime provinces, for we are not going to have a real good Canada until tve have done everything we can to meet the problems of all these people, in an endeavour to unite them and make this one great country.
With regard to fruit growing, there is no question at all that we can produce the very best in the world, and I think perhaps one of the best means of helping out these men is to assist in every way possible with cold storage facilities, and also in the development of our export market. I would ask the minister to give us a little description of the exhibit of fruit which he proposes to have at the big exhibition in London this year.


William Richard Motherwell: As a preliminary,
and without making it too long, I might say that an investigation made by members of my staff when they were over there last year goes to show that our fruit stands the highest of any on the British market, our fruit and our storage eggs. Those are the only two things in which we take the top-notch place. Last year again we took the sweepstakes for our fruit at the Manchester Fruit Exhibition. Now, having these victories to our credit we feel more encouraged to put up a good exhibit at the British Empire Exhibition which, of course, will consist of this year's fruit. We are going to put on the very best we can. We have one of the finest collections of grass seeds that has ever been brought together on this continent, and we have the best exhibit of tobacco leaf that the Canadian counties engaged in tobacco growing will produce. We are going to do the same thing for fruit. I cannot give any details until the arrangements are completed, but we shall exhibit apples, and peaches and pears. Of course, great care will have to be taken in the selection of the varieties. I understand the exhibition will last for six months. At any rate it will be open sufficiently long to enable us to get fruit from Canada to London in time.
97i


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may say that I attended the Royal Show held in Derby in 1921, and South Africa displayed there a magnificent exhibit of all kinds of agricultural products, and in addition a very fine showing of fruit. I think on this occasion when our fruit will be exhibited in competition with fruit from all other parts of the British Empire, we should spare no effort to make the show one of the best we have ever put up.


William Richard Motherwell: Either do that or keep away altogether.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Who will be in charge of the fruit exhibit?


William Richard Motherwell: We have a repre-senative over there, he is really an appointee of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. Forsythe Smith will be one of the gentlemen, and Messrs. Rhodes and Nunnick the other two. We will have these three, and I do not know that we shall require the services of any more. Mr. Smith is over there permanently as fruit expert.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I am aware of that but I understood that a gentleman from British Columbia, Mr. F. R. E. DeHart of Kelowna, was to take charge of the exhibit.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: A number of hon. gentlemen, including members from British Columbia, have asked the minister to help out the fruit growers in that province. I should like to know from the minister how he is going to do that. We from the prairie provinces have had the experience of paying considerably more than is necessary for British Columbia apples, and more than we pay for apples shipped from the United States. The British Columbia growers also have the privilege of supplying our market without paying any duty. I think the tariff on imported apples is about thirty cents a box. In addition the British Columbia growers have the advantage of better freight rates and still they cannot compete with the American apple. If the minister can devise any other way of helping the British Columbia growers out when they enjoy such an advantageous situation as that I should like to see it outlined.


William Richard Motherwell: I have already
mentioned a number of ways in which we are helping them out. We are doing that by means of dehydrating plants, and then we are establishing pre-cooling plants. That is one way of helping rather than boosting the duties. I may say this: Unless one has been very
Supply-Agriculture

closely in touch with the fruit industry he knows very little of what it means to enter a market just hungry for early vegetables and fruits, and then arrive on that market two months later when it is saturated with these products. It is the latter position that we are in. I am not going to bite at the suggestion that we run up the duty, not at all, but I do say that we should do pretty nearly everything else we can think of, because our growers labour under a tremendous disadvantage in regard to early vegetables. I made a suggestion as to an adjustment that might, unless it disturbs the trade or is utterly impracticable, meet the situation without raising the general tariff. It is that the duty should be greater at one time where the wealthy are concerned and lower at another time in the interests of the average man. I may say that there are exhibits outside of Canada which are administered by the Department of Immigration. These are intended to promote immigration and I believe are in charge of Mr. Tolmie, with whom is associated Mr. DeHart. We have a big enterprise under way, but I understand from my deputy that it is not quite ready for announcement yet. It provides for very expensive practical advertising of our dairy products by keeping them before the public. However, I had better not reveal any more with respect to it, otherwise I shall disclose all the details.


William Alves Boys: What is the estimate for that
advertising scheme?


William Richard Motherwell: We hope it will
largely carry itself.


William Alves Boys: Yes, ten years hence.


William Richard Motherwell: We hope the enterprise will largely pay for itself. The scheme is not completed yet. Of course no plan that I know of that the government enters into entirely carries itself. If you are out for education you must expect it to cost you something. There will be little losses here and little losses there, but if the scheme reaches fruition I do not think there will be any cause for complaint. The details are almost complete. At least I thought they were or I would not have mentioned it. I am trying to find a place to get out now in view of my premature announcement. Seriously, I do not think the plan is going to cost the government very much.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I received a letterwhich unfortunately I do not have in my hand at present-from Mr. Bums, secretary of the Western Canada Fruit Shippers' Association. He told me in the letter, and I have his per-

mission to mention it, that one of the reasons why the apple growers of British Columbia find themselves in the position they are in to-day is because they are very poor business men. He claims that they have the advantage of a duty of thirty cents a box. He mentioned Edmonton as the point at which they have an advantage of thirty cents a box duty on American apples, and an advantage of 164 cents a box in freight. He told me the reason the apple growers in British Columbia are in such a position is because they hold their apples for a higher price and do not sell them at the right time. He tells me in his letter that they are the poorest business men with whom he ever came in contact.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I desire to tell the hon. member and the members of the House generally that if there is one class of agriculturist or horticulturist, engaged in the cultivation of the soil in Canada-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I interrupt to say that the statement I made did not originate with me, the words I cited are those of Mr Burns.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I quite understand
But if there is one class in Canada that possesses more than ordinary ability it is the fruit growing class, and especially that in British Columbia. The United Farmers and the wheat growers of the western prairies attribute what little degree of success they may have had to co-operative work among themselves. And I will tell them, and will inform the House, that in the fruit-growing sections of British Columbia there is the finest organization of a co-operative nature for handling fruit that possibly exists in Canada. Last year, which was the first year of their operations, they succeeded in building up without a dollar of capital a four million dollar organization. They have contracts from growers covering about 80 per cent of the fruit growers of the Okanagan, the Salmon river and the Kootenay district. I think this should appeal to hon. members from the prairie, as here is an opportunity for them to assist in the co-operative business for which they stand so firmly. I do not believe the gentleman quoted by the hon. member who last spoke was well informed. I know that some of his statements will certainly not bear investigation. These men are not holding their apples to get a price. From the time the apples are ready to be plucked they are anxious, and they are pushing ahead, to get them into the market. Hon. members will understand that when we went into the fruit

Supply-Agriculture
growing business in British Columbia on a commercial scale the prairie provinces were absorbing two or three hundred thousand immigrants a year, and it looked as though the market would keep ahead of the production, but such has not turned out to be the case. We have had to push forward for markets all over the world. We sent apples to England last year, and for the first shipment we got good prices, but the next shipment was a drug on the market. The fruit from Washington and Oregon arrived at the time ours got into the market, and we got poor prices for most of the fruit sent to Great Britain. We send shipments to New Zealand, South Africa and to Scandinavian countries, and we are continually reaching out all over the world to find markets to absorb the production which is increasing. A great many of the orchards are still far from mature bearing age, and it is becoming an increasingly hard problem every year to know what to do with the production which has increased so rapidly during the past few years. I am sorry that any statement stigmatizing the fruit growers of the Okanagan valley as the poorest business men of the country should be uttered in this House. I think it is a slander upon them, and I am absolutely certain they will compare favourably as to their business ability and agricultural qualifications with any class in Canada.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I quite agree with the
hon. gentleman who has just spoken that from one angle they possibly excel any business organization in Canada. I do not know of any other organization that has made the extreme use they have of the dumping clause. I think in that regard at least they probably excel any organization in Canada. No doubt they are also very adept at making use of our customs tariff and several other things, but I think that their undertakings are wholly on a different line from those of the grain growers. For instance, they go out, without asking any help of that nature, into the markets of the world and try to establish their business.
I would ask the hon. minister to allow this item to stand. I have considerable matter to deal with, and I did not expect it was coming up tonight; therefore I am not prepared to offer my suggestions for the consideration of the committee. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would allow this item to stand till a future sitting of the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: We have only
passed one item. I would like very much to get one more through, and I think the committee will give my hon. friend all the latitude he desires on any item, because perhaps he may not be in the House the next time this item is called. Occasionally such a thing-has happened. If he will be good natured and let the item go through, I will be equally good natured and let him present his information on any other item, and I am sure the committee will consent to that. We have had a very interesting and, I hope, useful discussion, but I would like to make some progress.


Mr. COOTE:: I think the minister is a
little bit over-anxious. He has done extremely well to get one item through so soon, because we have sometimes spent a day on one item, and in case I might not be here on a future occasion, as the minister has suggested with regard to the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner), I would like to put on Hansard part of a letter which came to me from the Western Canada Fruit Jobbers' Association. The matter has been referred to so often here tonight, that I think this is the proper time to place the matter before the committee. This is in reference to	the luxury tax on fruit. A
resolution was passed at the annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council asking for a luxury tax on fruit. I will read part of the letter, as follows:
If you will investigate the present duty on fruits you will find that apples carry 30 cents per box; sweet potatoes 30 per cent; all vegetables 30 per cent; melons 3 cents each; cantaloupe 3 cents each; peaches 1 cent per pound, weight of package included; plums, apricots and pears i cent per pound; grapefruit $1 per hundred; grapes and all berries 2 cents per pound.
Any luxury tax asked for on fruit shows a lack of intelligence and an impertinence on the part of those making the application. It also demonstrates just how far they might go in asking for protection.
For instance, cantaloupes grown in Ontario are seldom seen in the West, Winnipeg being as far west as they come due to poor carrying quality and lateness of season. This duty was put on to satisfy a few growers in the Niagara peninsula, and the rest of Canada must pay. It is very questionable if there should be any duty on most fruits to-day, especially in western Canada, where none are grown and where the importations are not in competition with the Canadian grown products, either in British Columbia or Ontario.
To demonstrate the absurdity of a luxury tax on all fruits and vegetables, we know that British Columbia could consume all peaches and apricots produced in British Columbia as well as pears. The coast jobbers sold in 1922, 34,222 boxes of pears; 104,501 boxes of peaches and 55,823 crates of apricots, and it was necessary to import some from the United States for their market, so this alone clearly indicates the senselessness of any application for a luxury tax.
We venture to say that nine-tenths of the fruit and vegetables sold in western Canada, outside of apples, must be imported, if we are going to keep the people supplied.
The luxury tax is only increasing the burden on the consumers. Bartlett pears last for two months, while we only have the British Columbia product for 10 days

Supply-Agriculture
and at the most, three weeks. Apricots from British Columbia were not available for more than a week last year. Vancouver ordered 10 cars of peaches last season and could only get delivery of five. British Columbia Granvenstein apple circular No. 4, of August 4th, 1923, from Associated Growers, Vernon, stated they had not sufficient to make straight cars. Their plum circular of August 3rd, 1923, stated "Not enough for mixed cars".
As shown above there is not the slightest justification for a further tax or duty on fruits or vegetables.
We have a letter from the Customs and Excise Department, Ottawa, stating that whenever the selling price of goods from United States, to the purchaser in Canada is more than 5 per cent below the fair market value of the goods for home consumption the import is subject to the dumping duty.
The fair market value, this year, for home consumption in the United States as set by the growers in British Columbia on C. grade apples, was $1.10 and the jobbers were assessed 15 per cent on $1.10 because the apples purchased in the United States were purchased at a price which was more than 15 per cent below $1.10.
If it can be proven that the United States growers are selling for export to Canada at a lower price than for home consumption, then probably our industry should be protected, but in the case of apples we could buy good apples at Washington for 80 cents, which was the price sold anyone in the United States. Why pay dumping duty because the British Columbia growers claim the growers in the United States should be getting $1.10?
In Washington the cost of packing a box of apples is figured out at 42 cents, everything included; while in British Columbia they figure their cost up to nearly 80 cents.
The duty on apples was increased in 1916 from 10 cents to 30 cents per box. The reason given was on account of the war and insufficient help in British Columbia to take care of the crop. Is there any justification for this duty remaining on now? We are of the opinion that this 30 cents per box duty and lower freights to some points, is more than sufficient protection for the Canadian grower.
The farmers on the prairies have been called upon to pay some 65 cents per box more than they should and more than the farmer in the neighbouring States, for his apples.
The imposition of the dumping duty means we are trading in the dark not knowing just exactly what our costs are until after the goods are received and reshipped out, the duty in some cases being applied after we have even made collection.
Surely the present duties are sufficient, in view of conditions under which we are struggling at present. The Canadian producer can develop conditions sufficiently to stand up against outside competition if he wishes to.
We wish, as jobbers, to make application to have the Dumping Act amended or customs collectors notified not to impose dumping duty on fruits and vegetables entering Canada and pray that our request receive immediate and favourable consideration.
I am just afraid, because of the wavering attitude which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) seems to take when he approaches the question of helping out the British Columbia fruit men, that he may be considering the imposition of a luxury tax on fruit, and it seems to me that the wholesale jobbers of fruit have in this letter made out a splendid case against any such tax as that. Further, I think they have made out a good case for the removal of the present 
dumping act as far as it applies to fruit. I think it is an outrageous law that the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) can, of his own volition, set the price which he considers it costs the United States' grower to raise apples. I do not think he knows nearly as much about that question as the United States' growers themselves. Surely when there is a protection of 30 cents a box and an advantage in the freight rate, that should be sufficient protection for the fruit men in British Columbia. I am glad to hear that the growers in British Columbia are getting together; that they have such a splendid co-operative association, and if their industry can be saved, surely through this cooperative selling association, with a protection of 30 cents a box and an advantage in the freight rate, they do not need to come to this parliament and ask for anything more in the shape of a luxury tax or a dumping duty.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: I have been very much interested in this discussion in connection with fruit in Canada and this matter, of protecting the fruit growers on the Pacific coast. It was my privilege last summer to visit the Okanagan valley and to make some observations in the western cities in the Okanagan valley as well as in Seattle and Spokane. I was pleased to see the beautiful fruit, because I was there at the time that the apples were ripe. I was much interested in fruit growing in the Okanagan valley and on the Pacific coast. I think a good deal of credit is due to the British Columbia men for the manner in which they ship their fruit. They deserve a good deal more credit than the Ontario fruit growers for the manner in which they have conducted their business
11 p.m. and the way in which they have presented their goods for sale. They have a very favourable climate. Their land is not more expensive than land in the state of Washington. I visited my brother in Washington who has a fruit farm near Spokane. He had an apple orchard of the most beautiful trees that I have ever cast eyes on, and he was so discouraged with it that he was thinking of cutting it. down, because there was no profit in it. He was growing fruit on that land that was estimated to be worth $250 an acre; it costs $12 an acre to irrigate it, and he had to ship the fruit to Canada at some distance over the railways. If he could do that under those conditions and undersell fruit growers in British Columbia, there is something the matter. I do not

Supply-Agriculture
see why the British Columbia men cannot compete with men in the state of Washington in marketing their fruit on the prairie provinces. When I came to Edmonton, I noticed that they had Ontario plums in that city. That surprised me because an acquaintance of mine in Ontario a couple of years ago could not pick his plums and ship them about one hundred miles west, and they were allowed to rot in the orchard. I made inquiries in a store as to where the plums came from and I was told that they came from Ontario. I was somewhat surprised because I knew that in eastern Ontario fruit growers in many cases were not able to market their plums at all and they did not intend to pick them because they could not get the freight and the price of the baskets.
I am opposed to the principle of protection to fruit farmers just as much as I am opposed to the principle of protection to men engaged in mixed farming or any other kind of farming. If we Canadians cannot follow any branch of farming in a certain district, we had better go somewhere else where we can compete with the world. I claim that we farmers in Canada are able to compete with the world without any protection whatever; but we want to be able to buy in the cheapest market if we are to compete in the cheapest market of the world. Therefore, the prairie farmers ought to be able to buy in the cheapest market, and the British Columbia fruit men ought to be able to sell them their fruit. While our eastern men are not producing as beautiful an apple as the men on the Pacific coast, they are able to sell their apples in Great Britain. I noticed in one of the reports which I picked up that Nova Scotia had shipped in the neighbourhood of a million barrels or over. I know that Ontario fruit growers, if they cannot ship West, can ship to the Old Country, and in sections of Ontario where we do not profess to produce the best apples in Canada, we can ship either east or west without any protection whatever. Surely, the men with that favourable climate on the Pacific coast can compete with fruit growers in the state of Washington without any protection. We have in western Ontario men who are seeking protection also, men who belong to that element of manufacturers who need protection in order that they may exist in that most fertile section of the Dominion of Canada on the Niagara peninsula. I have not much faith in those men who must have protection in order to carry on their business. I think the remark was rather jocular when the suggestion was made that the fruit men should go into mixed farming. By the way let me say that when I was in Spokane, without any joking about the matter, my brother was seriously thinking of starting a herd of Holstein cows in connection with his farm of ten acres. His idea was that fertilizer was getting so hard to obtain for his orchard that he could keep cows profitably-and I believe he could-and make as much money out of his cows as out of his fruit. I believe that is quite possible.
As regards the fruit in Ontario and the home market, I have wondered where the fruit men are going to get that market. We have heard a lot of talk recently about a home market. Where are we going to get it and how ? The manufacturers are not able to make up their end of the market for the fruit growers and the farmers are failing to make a market for the manufacturers. Where are they going to get the home market, with one dependent on the other for a market and nobody having it? That is the situation exactly. I cannot understand the reasoning of some hon. gentlemen. I have been sitting patiently listening for a solution to this home market question. My opinion is that the farmers of Canada, the men of experience in Canada, who have been producing stuff for the market, cannot see that it is anything but a joke when people talk about a home market.
I picked up to-day a report sent me by one of the departments at Washington stating that after one hundred years in the United States-and that country, we are told in this House, is far in advance of us-the manufacturers are not yet able, notwithstanding all the immigration there, to provide a home market for the agricultural products of the farmers. Now, if we have to wait one hundred years in this country before we can get a home market for the produce of our farms, I am afraid our farmers will be pretty badly off. To-day we are exporting fruit and all sorts of farm products to the markets of the world and we are not afraid to compete in those markets with producers anywhere. We are bound to compete with outsiders in butter, cheese, beef, wheat and everything else we produce, and there is no use talking about providing a home market; for as I have just stated, if after a hundred years of manufacturing activity in the United States the farmers there are still unable to find an adequate home market, the prospect is very poor indeed for the Canadian farmer. I claim that we are in a position to compete with the rest of the world, and we are going to do so. It was pointed out in the budget debate last night that we were sending a great deal of money to the United States. Surely if we are selling so many million dollars' worth of our products abroad we can afford
Supply-Agriculture

to buy a few million from other countries.
Talking about fruit, I might observe that the people in the Niagara peninsula have been giving the manufacturers in Toronto the benefit of the most wonderful dumping clause we have ever seen. Gentlemen from the West may laugh at the business ability of the men on the Pacific coast, but I think they are in advance of the people in the Niagara district, and they are dumping their fruit on the Toronto market when they cannot get the cost of their containers or pay their freight. Owing to circumstances that the fruit growers cannot control, this fruit is being dumped on the market in Toronto at less than cost, and that suits the consumer of fruit in Toronto quite well. Now, I happened to be raised in a garden myself-I was brought up in an orchard, so to speak-and I may tell hon. gentlemen that as a practical farmer I refuse to grow anything unless I can depend upon being able to ship my produce to the markets of the world. I find that the men who do that are the successful farmers in Ontario. If you produce cattle, wheat, cheese, butter or bacon, you have a ready market and cash at all times in the world markets; but if you are content to cater to the home market you have nothing stable to depend upon. Some of the city men of Toronto bought a farm in the fruit section not long ago and they thought that they would reap a great profit from it. I was acquainted with them, but they would not listen to any advice I had to offer, because some of the gentlemen of Toronto are like that. At any rate they bought this farm for 140,000 and started growing fruit on it. It is a rather long story to tell, but out of a total of the first crop of peaches, 25,000 baskets, they marketed 15,000, while 10,000 baskets rotted in the orchards, and so far as the apples were concerned they were unable to pick them. So that the profit which they anticipated proved in the long run to be a considerable loss. We are getting away from that kind of business in our part of the country and are producing stuff that we can sell in the markets of the world. Our people are making a fair success of that method and are certainly doing better than they would if they catered to the home market. The fact is that the home market is governed by the little surplus which we are able to sell. Some people contend that 80 per cent of our farm produce is consumed at home; this would leave 20 per cent to ship abroad which fixes the price for all. I have no patience with 
those who would grant protection to the fruit men of Niagara or of the Pacific coast, any more than I have with granting protection to the manufacturers of the city of Toronto.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, April 28, 1924