1924-03-11

REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission on the operations of the Public-Service Retirement Act, year ended 31st December, 1923-Hon. Mr. Copp.
Licenses, permits and other authorities cancelled under the provisions of Section 3, Chapter 21, of the Statutes of 1922.-Hon. Mr. Copp.
HOME BANK INVESTIGATION On the Orders of the Da3r:
Right Hon. ARTHUR. MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition): May I ask if the Acting Prime Minister can give us any information to-day about the scope of the commission on the Home Bank?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister) :: In reply to my right hon. friend 1 would prefer, on second reflection, as the Prime Minister gave the undertaking for the enlargement of the scope of the investigation, to hold the matter over until he returns, which will be in a few days.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Kelly for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland resumed from Monday, March. 10.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those other speakers who congratulated the mover (Mr. Kelly) and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre)-of the Address. I particularly feel pleased to congratulate the hon. gentleman who comes from the same section of the country as I do, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) on the honour that has been conferred upon him asking him to second the Address. At the same time, I must confess that he is not here through any fault of mine. May I add, that I join in the sympathy that has been expressed to those ministers and
The Address-Mr. Manion

others who are sick and absent from the House at this time.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Address is usually made up of speeches dealing with the subjects brought up in the Speech from the Throne itself. As very many subjects are touched upon, one is not at a loss to deal with any one subject; but after having read the Speech of His Excellency a number of times I have come to the conclusion, that it is made up of four main types of clauses: First, clauses of double meaning and intent; second, pious hopes for the future; third, promises of better conduct; and, fourth misstatements of fact. I do not intend to make this statement without offering some proof of what I say.
In regard to clauses of double meaning and intent, one has only to read the clause regarding the St. Lawrence waterway. I notice in the papers that those who are opposed to that scheme view that clause as an encouragement to them, while those who are supporting the scheme have taken it las of some encouragement to themselves.
As to pious hopes for the future, these appear in the references to stabilization of freight rates and the cost of living. This cost of living question, like King Charles' head in writings of poor Mr. Dick, pops up every now and then.
The government's promises of better conduct deal with estimates and expenditures, and the misstatements of fact deal with past economies and the prosperity of the country. In regard to past economies, I think most members of this House would have to delve pretty deeply to find them. One case I might mention, and that is the appointment of a new Auditor General at a salary of $15,000, a position for which a salary of $6,000 was considered quite sufficient in the past. I have nothing whatever to say regarding the gentleman who was appointed, because I presume he is a most estimable gentleman, but in the past $6,000 was considered ample salary for the position, and I think one would have to reverse the telescope to find how that innovation was helping in the direction of economy.
In regard to prosperity, the Prime Minister has put into the mouth of His Excellency in the Speech, and mentioned again in his own address, as have some other members who have spoken, that marked prosperity exists in Canada to-day. Well, Sir, I am unable to discover it. I have been in many towns and cities in Canada, and I have heard the discussions here in which members from the farming sections in this country have 
participated, and I have yet to discover where there is real prosperity in the Dominion of Canada at the present time. In fact, I think that what we have at the present time is mainly dissatisfaction, discontent, and unrest.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: The "whisper of
death."


Robert James Manion: Yes, that comes from the
dissatisfaction that exists. Sir, I should like to ask, what is the matter with Canada that these conditions should exist? Here we have a magnificent country, a country with all the attributes of a great nation, a country with a population so small that it is practically no population at all compared with the area of the country. When you compare the magnificent area of this country with that of the United States, where they have 110,000,000 people and room for as many more, while we have only 9,000,000, and compare it with Europe where, leaving out Russia, they have some 300,000,000 of people while we have only 9,000,000 in double the area, one wonders rvhy this condition should exist in Canada. Then, when you take into consideration our vast resources-our minerals, our fisheries, our timber and pulp and lumber interests, our millions of acres of fertile land, and all the other resources which we have-one might well ask himself, why should these conditions be as they are at the present time? It is true that the Prime Minister offered an explanation of these conditions. According to my recollection he mentioned that one of the causes was the fact that we had appointed a great many civil servants, and another of the causes had something to do with the Intercolonial railway. May I say here, Sir, that I do not like discussing the Prime Minister's speech in his absence, although I am going to do it. I do not like to do it when he is not here, but it is not my fault that is is strolling up and down the Boardwalk at Atlantic city instead of leading the House. Furthermore, he will have the opportunity finally to reply if he chooses to do so, because he can speak again on the amendment which has been offered.
I wish to indicate what I think are the real causes of the dissatisfaction and discontent in Canada at this time. To my mind there are three main ones: First, high taxes; second, the broken promises of the Prime Minister himself; third, the destructive tariff legislation which is strangling the industrial life of our country, which is indeed strangling our country as a whole. Sir, I shall endeavour to elaborate those three causes and that shall be the total of my speech, al-

The Address-Mr. Manion
though that elaboration may occupy some little time.
The fact of the high taxes requires no elaboration. Everybody in this country knows that we are suffering from a tremendous burden of taxation. The very fact that this government has realized at last that we are suffering from taxation is proof enough that everybody else in the country knows it. Economy, Sir, is imperative in this country. Everybody admits that, and I am very pleased that in the Speech from the Throne there is some promise of economy. That is sufficient for the elaboration of that subject; it needs no further amplification from me.
In regard to the broken promises of the Prime Minister, that is a subject I shall deal with at a little more length. I think in that regard the Prime Minister has made a record. When you compare him with any other public man we have ever had in Canada he certainly has made a record, in breaking promises if he has not in making them. It seems to me, Sir, that in the case of broken promises his appetite grew with its indulgence. And then at times, when he did not find promises were sufficient, he appointed commissions. He has already appointed I do not know how many commissions. I made an attempt to-day to find out how many commissions have been appointed by this government in the two years in which they have been in power. One prominent gentleman in this House guessed there were a dozen or more. I have been endeavouring to ascertain the number myself, and I shall just mention three or four which come to my recollection. There was a commission on questions affecting the returned soldiers; a commission on the rates charged by steamships; a commission on pulpwood; and a commission on grain. Those are four prominent commissions, four -large and expensive commissions. The pulp-wood commission is still sitting, and the grain commission is still sitting; and I am informed by an authority high up in the Department of Trade and Commerce that the grain commission is costing this country to-day-and it has been sitting for a long time-something like $800 per diem. But, not satisfied with appointing so many commissions in the past, I notice that in the Speech from the Throne we are promised two more.
I remember, and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, you who are a student of French history, that just before the French Revolution, when the people were crying for bread, I think it was Marie Antoinette said " Give
them cake." In Canada when the people are crying out from the distressing conditions which prevail the Prime Minister says "Let us give them another commission." It is true that revolutions have not been popular in Canada, but I venture to make this prophecy -that when the opportunity next comes to the electors they will bring about such a political revolution as will put my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his associates in the wilderness from whence they came in 1921.
Now, Sir, just to specify three or four broken promises of the Prime Minister,-because I do not wish to make statements which I cannot prove: In the first place, the Prime Minister promised to the soldiers of this country that they would get better treatment than we were giving them. He travelled from Halifax to Vancouver, and he promised them that they would get very much better treatment. He implied that we were treating the soldiers badly, and he promised that if he was given power he would grant them relief. Instead of that-so far as I can find out, and I say this in all sincerity-since this government has come into power the soldiers have found that the strings have been tightened very much more than when we were in power in every possible way, and to my mind it has been more difficult for the soldiers to get the justice which is coming to them. From end to end of Canada, on that ground, there is a dissatisfied feeling amongst the soldiers of this country.
Then there was the second promise which I mentioned, that in regard to the cost of living. That was a favourite cry with the Prime Minister. He played many a tune upon that instrument. He blamed us for the high cost of living. Instead of the cost of living going down since the Prime Minister came into power it has gone up. In fact, living is so difficult to obtain for the working men of Canada that they are emigrating at the rate of fifteen or twenty thousand a month. I got the following figures from the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the index price figures for a series of years. The index figure for wholesale prices for 1913 they put at par, which was 100. In 1920, when there was a general boom throughout the world, the figure reached its very highest which was 243. In 1921 while our government was still in power the index figure dropped 72 points to 171. This government came into power in December, 1921. In 1922 -too soon for any effect from their actions, if any blame is to be attributable to them for an increase in the cost of living, or if they
The Address-Mr. Manion

are to be given any credit for relief-the figure dropped to 152 from 171, a drop of 19 points. But in the last year, that is in 1923, the first year for which they can really be given credit or discredit if they are to be held responsible for the condition of affairs, the figure again rose to 153. So that the cost of living has not been reduced to the working people as was promised to them.
There was another favourite cry of the Prime Minister, and he was greatly assisted in that by our genial friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), in regard to doing away with combines, trusts and mergers. I can almost hear the Minister of Labour still striking that note, which he struck so often during the campaign, on "combines, trusts and mergers." The people were told that we were linked up with them. Hon. gentlemen opposite said they were going to show the people what they would do with combines trusts and mergers when they got into power. Well, they got into power, and it is true that last year they brought in legislation to deal with the matter, but that legislation is now pigeon-holed, so far as I can understand, and it will be a long time before it will be withdrawn from its hiding place.


Mr. MURDOCK:: You need not think it is pigeon-holed.


Robert James Manion: If it is not pigeon-holed
the minister has done nothing with it so far as I can discover.


James Murdock: It is functioning perfectly.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps it has not been
pigeon-holed, it has been dropped in the waste-paper basket. The Prime Minister in his speech the other day brought up the question of these combines, trusts and mergers, and criticized us foj not having taxed "the profiteers." We were blamed for not having sufficiently taxed the men who had made fortunes during the war although they still had those fortunes when hon. gentlemen themselves came into power.


Mr. MARTELL:: They were all Tories.


Robert James Manion: All the more reason why
the Prime Minister should have gone after them if he was sincere in his proposition. I am quite sure if he were convinced they were all Tories he would have done so.
Finally there was one other favourite promise, and that is all I shall mention of the broken promises of the Prime Minister. That is in regard to responsible government. That was a particular hobby of the right hon. gen-
tleman. I can remember well sitting in this House in 1920 and 1921 and listening to his speeches in which he abused us, like so many thugs, for being usurpers of power, for doing away with responsible government in this country, for violating the fundamental principles of democracy, for practising a colossal crime upon the people of Canada when we did not have a proper mandate from the people. I remember well those speeches.	And yet at that time
we had a majority I think of thirty in the House of Commons over all the existing parties. And to-day the Prime Minister is in a minority of two or three.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four.


Robert James Manion: He is in a minority of four. Under these circumstances, since he is such an apostle of responsible government, I should think it would be his duty to carry on during the session, bring down all necessary legislation, and as soon as possible go to the country and get a proper mandate from the people or let someone else get it. But, instead of doing that, he simply goes on promising new legislation of whatever kind he thinks will bring votes. The other day he leaned across to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), leader of the Progressives and told him if only he would give him his support, he would bring down legislation which would be satisfactory to him. He first attempted apparently to persuade the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Not having succeeded in doing that he approached, as a last resort, the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) at the present time. And a rather amusing thing it was to me, after the Speech from the Throne had been delivered, and almost before the ink was dry upon the paper, the hon. member for Brandon hurried forward, almost with indecent haste, to assure the Prime Minister that he need not fear any. embarrassment from him. I do not know that there was any need of such assurance, there certainly was not in this section of the House.
These are some of the promises which have been broken by the Prime Minister. I might go on for some hours if I wished, mentioning other broken promises, but these were outstanding instances. There was a veritable flood of promises, but a veritable damming back of their fulfilment. It was a case of running away from them and dodging them, ever since the Liberal platform of the Liberal party was framed in 1919. It was a veritable retreat from Moscow, a rout; but the Prime

The Address-Mr. Manion
Minister should remember that after the retreat from Moscow came Waterloo; and he should also ponder over the fact that that other great political general who made promises which he did not carry out, Mr. Drury, is spending his time on his farm.
I think you, Mr. Speaker, who have read British literature, will remember Dicken's famous character, Mr. Micawber. He was a delightful ne'er-do-well, always in debt; and when pressed by a creditor he would give a promissory note which he never intended to pay, and then would sit back complacently in his chair and say, "Well, thank God, that debt is paid". The Prime Minister reminds me very much of Micawber. When he is pressed by the Progressive party he gives them another promise, and as they hasten forward to accept it with an innocence that Bret Harte would describe as childlike and bland, he sits back with Micawber-like complacency, and says, "Thank God that account is settled". I venture to make the assertion that Micawber paid as many of his notes as the Prime Minister will ever fulfil of his promises. Sir, because of this continual changing and veering around the policy of the present government might well be described as an advancing, retreating, sidestepping, wabbling vacillating, vote-hunting policy. There has been a change with every breath of popular feeling so much so that their policy reminds me of a southern politician, a great statesman, who at one time made a speech to his constituency and concluded in this way; " Gentlemen, them is my principles, but if they don't suit you I can change them." Is it any wonder that we have from one end of Canada to the other, discontent, dissatisfaction and unrest? I do not think so.
Now, I intend dealing with the third cause of unrest, which is the destructive tariff policy which is strangling our industrial life, and indeed strangling our country as a whole. In the Liberal platform of 1919 free trade was practically promised to the people of the country. However, as that was put forward for the purpose of getting the farmer vote, and did not succeed, it was one of the broken promises which I did not mention before. After the Liberal party came into power it is true the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), in 1922, did make a few reductions in the tariff, and also promised my hon. friends to my left that this was only a beginning. I remember his words. Then in 1923, a year later, he came forward with a few more reductions. But, Sir, he was struck with the fact that he was performing a dangerous feat,
and he made a speech regarding this question.
I am going to quote his (Mr. Fielding's) words, because they are worth quoting at this time. He said that stability of the tariff was needed if we were ever to get satisfactory results and were to have prosperity in the country. On May 11, 1923, just ten months ago to-day, Mr. Fielding said-
There is a thought which does not receive as much consideration as I think sometimes it should be given in public discussions, and that is the desirability of something like tariff stability. It is desirable that something like an assurance of tariff stability should be given to business men. Exceptions will occur. There will be cases where, in the interest of the consumer, reductions in the tariff ought to be made. But the conditions to which I refer are exceptional. Speaking broadly, it is possible to give the country a reasonable assurance of stability of tariff. Such assurances are very desirable, for no business man would care to enter upon enterprises which may be brought into peril by frequent tariff changes. The tariff as it will be when the changes proposed to-day come into effect will be-a moderate tariff and probably as low as the country can afford to have under present conditions.
Later in his address he said:
Subject to the exceptional conditions such as I have mentioned I think the country should be content to accept the tariff as it will now stand as one as fair and reasonable as can be prepared under all the circumstances, and business men should be able to carry on the various enterprises without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes.
Those are the remarks, Sir, of the Finance Minister of that day, and by the way he is still Finance Minister of Canada, but despite that fact, and despite the fact that he is sick in bed, the present government comes forward with a Speech from the Throne which is a betrayal of the Finance Minister-not only a betrayal of that minister, but a betrayal of the industrial interests of this country, because a sigh of relief went up from the industrial concerns -when they were promised some measure of stability.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Did not my hon. friend
in 1911 support reciprocity, which is going further than the government propose to go?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I supported reciprocity in 1911, but I must confess that as I grow older I get more wisdom. That is twelve years ago. I remember well at one time Lincoln was asked if he had not taken a different stand1 at that time than he took the year previously. He said "Yes, I have taken a different stand to-day from that which I took last year, and any man who is not wiser to-day than he was yesterday is not much of a man."


Lewis Herbert Martell: The fruits of office may change a man's opinion.
The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: My hon. fnend is not receiving much of the fruits of office.


Lewis Herbert Martell: None at all.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. member not allow the Prime Minister-the same privilege?


Robert James Manion: Not on such short notice.


Mr. LOGAN:: Not according to Lincoln?


George Perry Graham: The conversion is almost
instantaneous.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) might agree with me that when a man changes his opinion he should acknowledge it, but when the Prime Minister changes his opinion he stands up and tells us he is in the same position as he was last year.
And, Sir, if I may continue, this betrayal of the industrial interests of the country is being carried on in spite of the depression which exists, in spite of the exodus from this country, of fifteen or twenty thousand per month of our finest young men. To hold the knife of the free trade guillotine above the necks of the industrial leaders of this country cannot lead to anything but dissatisfaction and unrest, and it is leading to that condition.
I shall now name five different industries that have been affected. The woollen industry has been seriously affected. A number of the woollen plants are idle. The Perth woollen mill, which ran along for forty-five years from the introduction of the National Policy in 1878 till this year, is now closed down for the first time. Then the boot and shoe industry is suffering from the same condition. They are suffering from the increase in the British preference, from the depreciated exchange of Britain, and from the fact that the price of labour is about half the price in Britain than it is in Canada. So that they are practically being pushed out of business.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The Prime Minister said the other day that they would not be affected.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: No, he did not.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Very slightly. I am not Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman seems to be a prophet at short distance.


Robert James Manion: The increase in the British preference affected them; at any rate, they are being affected just as the other industries in the country are being affected. Then we have the farm implement industry in such a

position that it is going to be ruined. I hold in my hand a statement from one of the financial papers regarding the Massey-Harris Company, which is one of the largest farm implement manufacturing companies in Canada, and it shows, Sir, that they sustained a net loss last year of $22,448, and now this industry is going to be wiped out altogether. Coming a little nearer home, there are two industries in my own city which are vitally affected-the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) would be easily able to identify them-by the present cuts in the tariff. One of them-I do not intend to name either of them, because I have not their permission to do so-was an industry which in my city was employing some 300 men; and has a plant in eastern Ontario employing about the same number. Both these plants, and perhaps others for all I know, are closed at the present time. I have it from the leaders in that industry that by a very slight change in the tariff, or a very slight change in the sales tax, they could go on as they did for very many years in my city and in that eastern town, and supply the prairie provinces with their product. Then, I was on the train the other evening and I met an old friend of mine from the home city of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. He is the travelling head of one of our big corporations. As he has a plant in Fort William I asked him how business was, and he described how they were running at present on half time. He pointed out that they were being driven out of business not by British or by United States competition, but by French competition, because the French franc is down to about three or four cents; French labour is probably even cheaper than the British; and the duty on the product is so low that it allows the French product to come in and beat them. I have a great respect for the French people, indeed I have a love for them; but I have much greater love for the Canadian people, and I do not believe it is fair that our Canadian industries should be driven out in favour of French industries. That same company wrote me as I communicated with them asking for details. I have under my hand their letter in reply, in which they point out that while in Canada, they cannot compete with the French industries, they are running at a loss of about four dollars a ton on their product, operating on half time, and continuing in business for the sole purpose of holding their organization together in the hope that perhaps this government will come to its senses and give them some relief. This same product is now being

The Address-Mr. Manion
manufactured and sold in the United States at a price on the basis of which this company could sell and make money; and that is because in the United States they have sense enough to protect their own industries. So here are five industries which illustrate my point-many others could be mentioned, but I think I have dealt with enough to serve the purpose.
The fact remains that no industry in Canada to-day is safe. No industrial leader knows when he is going to be slaughtered and thrown to the wolves to keep this government in power.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is a long
way from power, though.


Robert James Manion: Not nearly so long as the hon. gentleman is. Sir, would any sane man invest his money in an industrial plant in Canada under these circumstances? Would any sane man who has control of foreign capital think of bringing it into Canada and investing it? The answer is so obvious that it is not necessary to state it.
Canada alone of all countries is talking of adopting free trade. Do my hon. friends from the prairie provinces believe that all the wisdom of the ages has been extracted and passed out to that part of the country? Do they think that other nations with the exception, we will say, of Great Britain-and I will touch upon that in a moment-have no wisdom; that this little country of nine million people should think of lowering tariffs while all others deem it necessary to have protection? Why, Sir, even England made veiy great progress under protection. England did not have free trade until 1846, and when they adopted free trade as their policy it was after they had built up an immense line of manufacturing plants and an immense capitalistic system which enabled them to compete with and oust practically any manufacturing country in the world. Then, and not till then, did England think of adopting a free trade policy. When she felt that she could hold her own market because she could undersell any other country and because other countries had not achieved the stage of development that she had, then she proposed free trade. Cofoden, himself a manufacturer, prophesied that within ten years every country in the world would adopt free trade. If every country had done that it is altogether likely that England would have profited by her free trade. As it is, she had received such a momentum under protection, she had built up such an organization under protection, that until a few years ago she was profiting very highly by her free trade system,
underselling as she was, many other countries. The very act which she brought into force at that time and under which raw materials and foodstuffs were admitted into England cheaply, so cheaply that she could get them at as low prices as any other country in the world could, was in a sense the very best protection she could give to her manufacturing industries which were then so highly established. That, then, was the attitude of England. Now even England has adopted some of the protectionist system that we have in her key industries act. It is true that in a recent election she defeated protection, but I venture to assert that if Mr. Baldwin had taken three months instead of three weeks to educate the people of England away from the free trade policy which has prevailed in that country for eighty years, he would have succeeded, to England's very great benefit.
As it is-I mention this because the case of England is so often flaunted in our faces- what are the conditions in that free trade country? I do not know any country where the conditions are worse at the moment. There are about two million unemployed, and that means eight million who have nothing with which to buy their food. The people are emigrating from England even faster than they are emigrating from Canada. The case of England appears to be one which it is well worth pointing out to my hon. friends to my left. Some of them take the attitude-I do not attribute it to all of them-that the only wealth produced in Canada is that produced on the prairie farms. Well I submit that the man who takes the raw leather and turns it into boots and shoes is just as much a creator of wealth as the man who raises the animals from which the leather was taken. I submit, further, that the man who takes the wool and turns it into woollen goods, also the one who carries the operation further and turns the woollen goods into clothing, is just as much a creator of wealth as the man who raises the sheep. Furthermore, the manufacturer who takes the wheat and turns it into flour is just as truly a creator of wealth as the man who grew the wheat from which the flour was made. It is a point worth remembering, because after all we do not wish to destroy any source of wealth in our country.
If you look over the commercial history of the world you will find that all great commercial countries have been built up under protection. I have shown how England did it. At any rate, even if we lay England aside for the moment, the United States, Germany, France-all these countries were built up under a protective tariff. Germany and the
The Address-Mr. Manion

United States were rapidly overtaking England and had indeed surpassed her in many branches before the war.


Mr. FORKE:: Does the hon. member not
think that under different circumstances we might be in a happier condition than we are to-day? He appears to be perfectly satisfied with everything, but things do not seem to be so good.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is drawing a conclusion which I do not think he has any right to draw. I am not satisfied with everything; I am trying to offer, as I shall before I have concluded, some ideas the adoption of which would, in my opinion, bring about an improvement of conditions in Canada.. My hon. friend has a right to his opinion just as much as I have to mine, but I say with all due respect that I do not think that his low tariff proposals would improve conditions; I am convinced that they would rather materially hurt conditions in this country.
I was going to say that before the war, German}', which did not really come into the race until about 1870, had under a highly protective system outsold Great Britain and was outselling her in ten of the most important countries in Europe, including Russia. And, by the way, speaking of wealth for a moment again, I should like to refer to one point which I omitted to mention, to show that all wealth is not from agriculture. Various factors besides agriculture go to the production of wealth, and there is no doubt about the fact that England's wealth has not been agricultural; England's wealth has been produced by her manufacturing industries, her trading, and her shipping. England is indeed the least agricultural country of the important nations of the world. Now, Canada resembles the United States in most aspects 

in area, in resources, in climate, and in people-more than she does any other country on the globe. Is it not, then, more sane and logical that we should copy the system of that country in our endeavour to build up the Dominion of Canada than that we should emulate the methods of two little islands on the outskirts of Europe which have an area of about 120,000 square miles, and which together could be placed three times in northern Ontario alone, between' North Bay and the Manitoba boundary?
I agree with the attitude taken last night by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner); in this regard the hon. gentleman's view is only in keeping with that of Mr. George Langley. My hon. friend from East

Edmonton declared that it is not the tariff that is killing the agricultural industry of the western provinces. Let me quote from the words of George Langley uttered a short time ago. He is a representative farmer and public man, and I do not think that he needs any introduction from me to my western friends. George Langley says:
I do not regard protection as an economic damnation. If we are going to protect our manufacturers, we should protect our farmers, and to help the farmer something definite should be done in respect to transportation.
The hon. member for East Edmonton took exactly that attitude, but I was sorry to see that my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) was of an entirely different opinion.


Mr. HOEY:: That is East against West.


Robert James Manion: Well, the fact is that their views on this question are diametrically opposed. The hon. member for West Edmonton states that if the industries of Canada, after the years of protection that they have had-[DOT] and it may have been only a period of ten years, for that matter-were not able to compete with the rest of the world, it was time that they were allowed to shift for themselves. That is in essence the statement he made. Well, suppose the farmers of the West, after suffering as they did in past years from drought, and after exerting their best efforts for years to make good, found themselves in such a condition that they could not buy seed and were forced to come to whatever government might be in office at the time and ask for assistance, as they have had to do in the past! Suppose, under those circumstances, that government should say to them: "You have been farming long enough now and if you cannot make a success of your business you had better cease operations; you will have to go to the wall."-what would any hon. gentleman say to such an attitude on the part of any government in such a case? Why, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be nothing but un-Christian and un-Canadian. By the same token, the attitude of the hon. gentleman from West Edmonton, in regard to the industries of this country, is both unChristian and un-Canadian.
Now I wish to bring to the attention of my hon. friends to my left a point which, I think, is of some interest. What is the promise which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made that has immediately reached to the heart of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party? The gist of that promise was that farm implements would be put upon the free

The Address-Mr. Manion
list; at least, that is what anyone would readily infer.


Robert Forke: I never said so.


Robert James Manion: I know my hon. friend die not, but the Prime Minister did.


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert James Manion: Well, the Prime Minister
did not say so in so many words. He is usually in the habit of putting his thoughts in such words that one may draw any conclusion from them that he likes. But in this instance everyone has inferred, from what the Prime Minister has indicated, just what I have stated. Certainly, the inference has not been denied in any part of the country, namely, that farm implements will either be put upon the free list or have a fair reduction made in the duties upon them. Personally, if I were a farmer from the prairie provinces, after my past experience of the Prime Minister, I should be afraid to base any hopes upon any such promise. Nevertheless, as I say, that is the conclusion which everyone draws; and I submit, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Hocken) last night, that if that is not the intention of the government it is time that they indicated to the people of the country just what they mean to do; because the makers of farm implements in Canada are in a quandary; they are absolutely in a state of depression, and in fact this business is practically closed up and will remain so until the budget comes down in three or four months' time. Now, what would the cut in farm implements amount to? I made it my business to look into this question and I found that the imports of farm implements into Canada during the last fiscal year amounted to $4,500,000. The duty on that was $680,000. The farming population of Canada is 4,000,000. So that the per capita tax on farm implements last year on the whole of the farming community in the country was seventeen cents. That is what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has offered as a sop to get the western vote. I must confess it is a rather cheap price if it is intended to purchase votes. I do not say this offensively, but in the Old Testament we are told that Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage; it would be a poor mess of pottage that anyone would buy for seventeen cents.


Mr. WARNER:: The hon. member for
East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner) is not here, and my hon. friend has made a comparison which in my opinion is not quite fair. Does he
not think that it is a little unfair to compare the conditions brought about by nature with conditions over which men. can exercise some control?


Robert James Manion: I should like to answer my hon. friend's question, but to be candid I do not see his point, and as I am anxious to proceed I shall ask him to pardon me if I do not discuss the question. I was going to point out that the total duties collected last year in the whole of Canada amounted to $133,000,000. That represents $14.50 per head, and if you allotted every farmer of the prairie provinces his share of that, I do not see that it would put the prairies in any more prosperous condition than they are in to-day.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Do all the farmers of
Canada live in the prairie provinces?


Robert James Manion: No, they do not, and I
am glad that, by implication, my hon. friend agrees with me. I shall deal with that aspect in a moment. Let me now come to another point. The prairie farmers have not suffered, by reason of any duties levied1 on farm implements, in the last ten years. For this, I have the word of the leader of the Progressive party who said in his speech that for ten years not a prairie farmer has bought a farm implement at all. Yet, when the Prime Minister offers to take the duties off farm implements, the hon. member immediately jumps into his arms
I am sure that my hon. friends to my left will agree with me, if they will look fairly at the question, that the fact that the conditions in the West are bad has nothing to do, or practically nothing to do, with the tariff. The real reason for present conditions in that part of the country is to be found in world conditions; in the transportation situation; long distances and high rates make it difficult for the farmers to get their products to market. Furthermore, marketing conditions in general would largely affect the situation. These conditions, in my opinion, have very much more to do with the state of affairs in the western provinces to-day than has the tariff.
I remember reading once an opinion of Macaulay's, that if there was one type of taxation which was least productive of benefit to a country, it was robbery I submit that if there is one method by which you can help any industry and which is least productive of benefit to the country, it is the destruction of another industry for the attainment of that purpose. And that is what is proposed in the Speech from the Throne; that is what will, no doubt, be proposed in the budget that
The Address-Mr. Martian

is to be brought down. We are to ruin some sections of the East in order to save the West; and in any case the saving in my opinion is only imaginary.
Now I come to the point raised a moment ago by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail); the farmers of Ontario and Quebec must be considered. There are two million people in the prairie provinces. These are not all farmers, but for the sake of argument we will say that they are. But there are more than two million farmers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and they are all dependent, almost wholly, for the sale of ninety per cent of their products upon the industrial centres of the East. Would it be a fair proposition to ruin these two million farmers of Ontario and Quebec in order to succour the two million of the prairie provinces, even if the sacrifice of the interests of one community would be beneficial to those of the other community?-Which I claim would not be the case.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What about the Maritime provinces?


Robert James Manion: I like the Maritime provinces, although from some of the interjections that are being made I wish they had kept some of their representatives at home.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They never change their opinions.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, everybody realizes that the West is in a bad way; no one realizes it better than I do because I am right on the border. But so is all Canada in a bad way. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Harris) yesterday well described the condition of some manufacturers, friends of his, in Toronto, who had lost in two or three years all that they had made in forty years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Without whining.


Robert James Manion: "Without whining," is
added by some hon. gentleman. But, Sir, all the business men in the towns and cities are suffering from the same depression, and I defy any hon. member to contradict this statement. Therefore while I am ready to do everything I can in a reasonable way-and I am sure all my hon. friends in this section of the House are equally ready-we are not ready to ruin the East to aid the West.


Daniel Webster Warner: May I ask the hon. member another question?-perhaps he will be able to see through this one. If the tariff

was increased would not the difference be passed along to the consumer?


Robert James Manion: That is questionable. I do not admit that all the tariff is passed on to the consumer at the present time. Let me ask my hon. friend a question: Suppose a Canadian farmer had a farm just south of Morden, in Manitoba, one-half of which was in the United States, and he raised a thousand bushels of wheat on the Canadian half and another thousand bushels on the American half of his farm. The price of wheat is a little higher in the United States than in Canada; but there is a duty on Canadian wheat going into the United States. Suppose, further, that he wanted to sell his total production in the United States, who would pay the duty on his Canadian wheat, he himself or the consumer on the other side of the line? I submit it would be the fanner.


Daniel Webster Warner: No. I do not think my question is answered, and I do not think the counter question applies.


Robert James Manion: I did not expect to satisfy my hon. friend. I was not trying to do so, I was trying to show my own side of the question.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the hon. gentleman admit that protection is no advantage to the United States producer in his own country?


Robert James Manion: I do not admit anything of that sort. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that protection may not increase prices at all, but it may prevent another country from dumping its surplus products into the protected country, and that is what happens in Canada to-day. Any manufacturer in the United States manufactures on a large scale for 110,000,000 people, but very frequently at the end of the season he has some surplus goods on his hands, and rather than carry the surplus over into the following year he tries to dump it on the Canadian market, and, if he were permitted, he would put out of business the Canadian manufacturer by underselling him, and thereupon proceed to recoup himself out of the pockets of the Canadian people by raising his prices. But, Sir, we do not need to go outside Canada-


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Is it not true that some of our own manufacturers are doing the same thing with goods that they ship to the British market?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I have heard it stated that they do.

The Address-Mr. Manion


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why should we protest against dumping if we are doing it ourselves?


Robert James Manion: I am not protesting; but I do object to the foreign manufacturer doing it to us if I can help it. I would not object to my hon. friend hitting back at some man who hit him, but I would object to his hitting at me without reason, and that is what every foreign manufacturer who dumps surplus goods on our markets is doing. I do not blame him, but I do not intend to let him do it if I am awake and can prevent him. The attitude of my hon. friends to my left, in view of the action of the United States government just recently in raising the duty against our wheat, is very peculiar to me. I think it is a most humiliating attitude that we should remain quiescent while the United States impose tariff duties of all kinds against us, a little country of nine million people while they have a population of a hun-
4 p.m. dred and ten million. They are imposing various high duties against the farmers of this country, and the group representing the farmers of the prairie provinces stand here and say:	In return for
the United States hitting us on the right cheek let us turn our left cheek to them for another blow.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the hon. gentleman admit that it was the manufacturers of Canada who made it possible for the Canadian farmer to be discriminated against by the United States?


Robert James Manion: I do not think the manufacturers of Canada have had anything to do with it. I think the Canadian manufacturer has been the cause of many of our farmers in the past having been in a very prosperous condition. But I was pointing out when I was interrupted that my hon. friends to my left take a most humiliating attitude in turning the other cheek. Two thousand years ago- and I say this not in any spirit of blasphemy -the greatest Christian of us all advocated turning the other cheek, and He was crucified. I have no doubt that my hon. friends will get the same treatment from the American business men at the first opportunity that presents itself to them.


Robert Forke: Would my hon. friend carry the analogy to its conclusion and say who will be the final victors?


Robert James Manion: Again I am afraid I do not understand the question.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: If any
man to-day advocated remedial measures,
would he not be crucified too, and in less than the thirty-three years that it took the people of His day to crucify the Man of Nazareth?


Robert James Manion: I hope not, because I am offering remedial measures myself. Knowing my hon. friend as I do, I am quite sure he has no intention of trying to crucify me.
But, Mr. Speaker, the free trade policy was not such a panacea for the economic ills of this country when we had it. Let any hon. member look at the speeches of our public men describing conditions in Canada in 1878, before the national policy was brought into force, and he will find in the debates of that year a statement that when the Prime Minister left the door of the House of Commons conditions were so bad that he was met by a hundred and fifty hungry people who begged him for food or work. That was the state of affairs under practically a free trade policy. Yet the hon. leader of the Farmers' party (Mr. Forke) stated the other night, that we have suffered now for fifty years under protection, and it is time to change the policy. I do not know that it has been all suffering; I think we have had a fairly reasonable amount of progress, and I shall try to prove it. I admit that we have not had the progress that the United States has enjoyed, we have not had the progress that most Canadians would like their country to have had, but we have had a fairly reasonable amount. Let me give a few figures, although I do not like to encumber Hansard with too many statistics. In 1881 we had under acreage less than two and a half million acres; in 1921 our acreage was twenty-three million acres-ten times more than in 1881. The value of our field crops in 1901-I could not get any earlier figures- was $194,000,000; in 1921 it was $931,000,000. The value of our mineral production in 1881 was $10,000,000; in 1921 it had risen to $172,000,000. The total domestic exports were $84,000,000 in 1881, as compared with $1,200,000,000 in 1921. Our wood, paper and wood products were $25,000,000 in 1891, as compared with $284,000,000 in 1921. The life insurance in force was $103,000,000 in 1881, as compared with $3,000,000,000 in the latter year, while the deposits in our banks were $94,000,000 as compared with $2,300,000,000. Now, can any hon. member say that that is not progress? If he has the temerity to do so, then I do not understand what he desires. I repeat, I should like to have seen greater progress, and I am sorry that to-day instead of progressing we are retrogressing. For this lamentable condition I blame the government to a great extent. Sir, when a physician is called in to treat a patient who is in an anaemic, run-down condition, it
The Address-Mr. Manion

is his duty to administer building-up remedies in an endeavour to reconstruct him. But the government, which is the physician of this country at the present time, instead of using building-up remedies for the depressed, rundown condition of the nation is using the antiquated remedy of bleeding. In fact, Sir, it is doing worse, it is trying to save one section of the body politic by amputating another-it is trying to amputate the industrial section of the state.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend permit me a question?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend will allow me to finish, please. What is still worse, it is amputating the legs of the body politic by inches.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend, who was a minister in the late administration, is a medical practitioner, and I understand that the medical world has not yet been able to discover a cure for cancer. Is not the attitude of this government to secure a remedy for the cancer left by the late administration on the country?


Robert James Manion: I might reply to my hon. friend that if industries are a cancer, that is correct. But I do not consider that industries are a cancer.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend was speaking medically.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Don't put your foot in it again.


Robert James Manion: The strange thing about the attitude of this government is that they are taking that attitude in spite of the fact that two-thirds of those on the government side- I will not include my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell)-are protectionists. In other words, they are placing power before principle; if principle interferes with power so much the worse for the principle, and if the country interferes with power so much the worse for the country. Their attitude, in other words, is, not to relieve the West but to get their votes; and that to my mind means the ruination of this country.
Now, Sir, I am finishing and I intend to say what I consider to be the proper remedy for the conditions that exist. I know it will not appeal to my friends to my left; I do not expect to make many converts, but I believe just as sincerely in this policy as they believe in theirs. I believe that what we need in this country is a reaffirmation of the old National Policy. We need a constructive, protective, national policy for all classes of

the people, a policy which will develop the resources of Canada, a policy which will retain the home market for the Canadian people, a policy which will build up a broader national life and give greater opportunities to the youth of this country, to the sons of farmers as well as to the sons of other people, and here I might just say that no' class of people have done better in the industrial centres than the sons of the farmers, or their forebears, who to-day argue for free trade. We need a policy which will protect us against cheap labour, not only of the Orient but of Europe at the present time. We need a policy that will protect us against dilapidated exchange, because the exchange situation in Europe is in such a shape to-' day that any country can send in its goods over our tariff barrier. We need a policy which will protect us from foreign industry, and by foreign industry I mean any industry outside of Canada, because I am a Canadian first, last and all the time. Are we to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the American and the British people? Not if I can help it, not if my word will have any effect on my people. I believe in keeping Canadian markets for the Canadian people.
Just one word in closing-and I certainly should not mention this if the Prime Minister had not mentioned it-and that is on the question of national unity. That is a favourite theme with the Prime Minister. I do not criticize him for that, but at the same time I do not think it is necessary for anybody in Canada to be continually assuring the people that he desires national unity, I do not know any decent citizen of Canada who does not desire national unity. I may say to my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that I am sure he would not question my attitude on this question, because I have given him and his confreres a very practical demonstration of the fact that I desire national unity, and as a result my three little boys speak the French language with the same facility that they speak English. Perhaps he would pass that on to the Prime Minister, and may I suggest that the Prime Minister might do a very great service to his country if he would follow my example.


George Perry Graham: I agree with that part of your speech.


Robert James Manion: To my mind the best way to bring about national unity is to bring about national prosperity, and the best way to bring about national prosperity is to bring about a national policy

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
that will build up all sections and develop the resources of the whole country, so that we may build up on the northern half of this continent a great Canadian nation.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN:: (Stan-stead): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use so much of the time of this House that the Upper Chamber, which has been quite lavish in its recommendations, can take any offence. Personally I am not going to follow the see-saw path that has been followed in this House during the last few days, but in my later remarks I shall broaden out and speak more from the national point of view.
I do not think anything has been said in this House that was more popular than when the leader of this government said that he would try to bring the East and the West together, for that is something every true and patriotic Canadian wants. We all want to see the East and West brought together and to have this Canada of ours one great united country.
I would remind the last speaker (Mr. Manion) that he was mistaken in one of his remarks. He made the remark that prior to 1878 there was a free trade party in this country. I wish to tell him that the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was the Liberal leader in 1878, and he had a duty of 174 per cent ad valorem straight on almost everything. Then the hon. member went on to liken us to the antiquated party. I remember the time of confederation very well. I was quite active in the battle of 1878, and when a man says that there was a free trade party, he really knows better. No one in the province of Quebec has proclaimed since confederation that the Liberal party is a free trade party. The hon. member makes no acknowledgement that he has been corrected.
The very vigorous member for East York (Mr. Harris) last night made a great mistake in speaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific as being in the northern part of the province of Quebec. He must be almost oblivious of his geography, if geography he studied in his boyhood days, to make such a statement, for a glance at the map will show that more than nine-tenths of the province of Quebec lies north of that railway.
I believe that every man who has spoken in this House in the last ten days has had something in his speech that was commendable. I am going to handle the leader of the opposition very gently; I am not going to get into any big fight with him at the present time, but I will just mention one little thing. He went up and down this 15
country until about eight months ago condemning this government, and no bigger charge did he make against it than that they had searched the world and then put Sir Henry Thornton over the National Railways. I do not believe I am making any mistake when I say that he was near the city of Toronto, and perhaps near the Albany Club, when he was told to come off his perch and stop talking about the man who was big enough to handle the great National system of railways. At all events,
I have not noticed in the newspapers that he has made any derogatory remarks about Sir Henry Thornton since then. It is a mighty good thing that people do change their minds sometimes. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who preceded me talked about a revolution. I do not see any cause for a revolution in this country. There is a process of evolution, and unquestionably things are evolving. An hon. gentleman opposite representing one of the Toronto constituencies gave us an outline of what we might expect to see happen in this old world in the course of a few decades. Things are evolving all around us continually, and a person who cannot see what is happening, not merely in Canada but in the world at large, is wholly lacking in conception.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been hammering away at the leader of the government on wholly fanciful grounds. After the Halifax by-election they made the wires hot with imaginary stories of the alarm he felt at the result. Do we see any manifestation of alarm on the part of the Prime Minister or the members of his government? No, we see nothing of that character. What we do see tends to reassure us. The Prime Minister called Messrs. Dunning and Crerar from the west to consult with them as to the needs of that part of Canada. That was not an evidence of alarm, but. the Tory press-that press which is keeping 'the country ablaze not only by "whispers of death" but by misrepresentation-claimed he was calling these gentlemen down for the purpose of giving them positions in the cabinet. The truth of the matter is he was seeking needed information from them in the public interest.
Dealing with the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition in the present debate almost every sentence was pungent with sarcasm. I do not propose to answer the right hon. gentlemen, I prefer to deal with the conditions in the country. We have a great and glorious land, such as no other nation on the globe possesses. If we take an inventory of our national resources what do we



The Address-Mr. Baldwin
find? Look at the great province of British Columbia, the second in size in this Dominion. There you find lofty mountains, fertile valleys, and a wealth of timber and minerals. So extensive is that fine province that as my hon. friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) said there was room for empires in some of the valleys in his constituency. We pass eastward and we reach the great province of Alberta with its rich and fertile lands, and the chinook winds which render the climate so mild in winter. We pass on to Saskatchewan and there we find the same rich plains, the same fertile lands, and also enormous deposits of coal and oil. There is no question at all of the wonderful richness of those provinces. Next we reach the province of Manitoba and, like the other prairie provinces, it has been richly endowed by Providence. Next comes the province of Ontario with its enormous wealth. It has gold and silver and nickel mines, and we are told that it even has platinum and radium as well. Its industries are very great and very varied, and the area of its land is immense. Then we come to the greatest of all the provinces, Quebec, with its more than four thousand miles of water line for a border. In that province too there are wonderful natural resources, and like Ontario it possesses mines of great richness and extent. There is no doubt that the mines of Quebec and Ontario, in the course of a decade or two when fully developed, will make our public debt pale into insignificance. I would like to see certain people who get rich, I will not say by what means, and who go to the southern states to squander their money, remain in this country and help to develop the great central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Surely it would be far better for these people to spend their energy, their money and their time in this land1 of ours which is so "worthy of all the attention we can bestow upon it.
Coming to the Maritime provinces, we find great timber limits, vast areas of minerals, almost inexhaustible fisheries, and fertile fields and valleys. I well recall one beautiful summer evening when I crossed the straits of Northumberland to that beautiful little gem of the sea, Prince Edward Island. I said "This is the most beautiful spot I have yet seen in this Dominion". We arrived at Sum-merside-it was a beautiful evening in the month of August-and as we rode through the country we saw well kept buildings and evidences of prosperity on every hand. My companion said to me "I would like to enter the homes of these people and then I should learn the last word in human happiness and 	' jr I n *|
contentment." I said "You need nc f er these homes. Go to the New England states and there you will find out what the people from these Maritime provinces have accomplished. Or you may go to western Canada as. I have done, and see there people from the Maritime provinces occupying positions of responsibility in every city and every town." I should like to make one recommendation to the people of the Maritime provinces. It is that they should yoke up, marry, have one legislative home. I do not make that suggestion because of their insignificance geographically as compared with the rest of the country. If they lack anything in area they more than make up for it by the brawn and brains of their people. But my story is not yet finished. Think of the great Yukon territory, of the wonderful country in the Mackenzie district, the Franklin district, Baffin's land in the archipelago to the north. If the latter were brought down and attached to Hudson bay, it would make of Canada a huge territory extending north and south for two thousand miles and east and west for three thousand five hundred miles. Is not this wonderful country which I have described such as to make every Canadian proud of the land of his birth or of his adoption?
We may look for great developments in the future through the medium of our waterways. If we glance at the extreme southwestern portion of the province of Ontario wre find that this area is more than one-half water. It seems hard to believe that some day we shall have navigation from the head of the lakes down to the Rainy River district, down the Winnipeg river to lake Winnipeg, and through the Saskatchewan river to the foot hills of the Rockies. This may seem a dream to-day but the future will witness its realization. Let me tell the hon. members of this House that instead of spending so much time fighting we should apply ourselves with all our energy to developing this great country of ours. The waterways we are so fortunate as to possess will ultimately prove the agents of great commercial prosperity in Canada.
We have the greatest inland waterways of the world, from the eastern point of Quebec to the head waters of lake Superior. It is very nearly halfway across the continent, and I am strongly in favour of the deep waterways scheme. This proposition may not be acceptable to a great many hon. members here, but I believe in it thoroughly. I believe that Montreal will ever remain the metropolis of Canada because its great social, financial, religious and industrial advantages will keep it in that position. It is quite within the

The Address-Mr. Baldibin
possibilities of reason that within a very short time a boat drawing thirty feet of water will be able to go from the Atlantic to Montreal, and there is a possibility that Montreal will be a twelve months' port. A certain engineer made a statement in the press that he could dam the straits of Belle Isle and thus provide communication between Newfoundland and the mainland. I remember some eleven years ago in the gulf of St. Lawrence there was a collision with a Norwegian coal boat, and some 1,100 Canadians went down. Now what is thirty million dollars compared with 1,100 lives? It is nothing. If the damming of those straits would warm the gulf, it would improve the temperature of the Maritime provinces, and would put the St. Lawrence in such a condition that boats could run to Montreal the year round. I am somewhat older than many hon. gentlemen in this House and I can remember that when the great Canadian Pacific railway was under construction we were told that the revenue from the road would never pay for the grease used on the axles. But that prediction has proved to be false; so that the man who predicts to-day is considered as a man without discrimination. There are many things we become hazy about.
If we had a twenty-foot channel from Montreal to the head of the lakes it would be very beneficial, because undoubtedly they could not use the lakes more than seven months of the year, while Montreal would be a port for twelve months. There has been great opposition to this scheme, but I think there is no justification for the opposition and that the scheme would be of great benefit. From Calais, Maine, to Florida they oppose the St. Lawrence route. It would be of enormous value to twenty or thirty of the middle or western states-the northwestern states especially. There seems to be a fear that if this waterway were constructed the United States would monopolize it, and that we could not control our own country and its destinies. Why, Mr. Speaker, does anyone believe for one moment that if the United States furnished the capital for the great undertaking it would be any different from any other undertaking at the present time? There are many such undertakings, the Carillon dam proposition, for instance. They have spent some twenty million of dollars on one-on the Grand discharge undertaking. Does anyone think Canada is in danger because an American put up half the money for this enterprise? Does anyone fear that such an undertaking as the deepening of the St. Lawrence river would destroy our country and our unity and injure
15i
our future? I consider it would be a grand advertisement for all Canada and especially Montreal.
I come, Mr. Speaker, from a section of country called the Eastern Townships, twelve or fifteen counties, some 100 miles from the island of Montreal. Someone will ask me, " Why are you interested?" Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be impossible to expend on the island of Montreal, or in that district, hundreds of millions of dollars without creating an immense benefit to the city and the Eastern Townships as well. It would mean the employment of thousands of workmen. The expenditure of money means employment and a benefit to the whole country. If a person is so narrow as to believe that you cannot develop one part of the country without injuring the other, it is a great pity; and such a belief savours too much of parish politics. If we are to have a country like the great nation to the south of us, unquestionably we must develop our resources. The attitude of opposition to this scheme is beyond my comprehension.
In regard to the exodus from Canada, I think no one is more responsible than the late government. In the case of the great republic to the south of us, were they afraid of immigration? No. They received all those who came, and people came from the great centres of Europe, because they had no chance in their own country, and they hewed out homes for themselves, and many of those people who went to the States with their belongings in a little tin box many years ago are among the greatest men of that great republic. Let us remember that, for the sake of the development of the country, when a bill is brought before us we should not turn it down simply because the project does not come into our district. We cannot have a great Canada without developing our vast resources, and if these resources are developed, they will pay our public debt.
An hon. gentleman yesterday mentioned a subject very dear to my heart. I have spoken upon that question in this House several times, and a gentleman who was once in this House, but who is now in the Ontario legislature, Mr. Keefer, was very much interested in it. He had been down in the British West Indies, and other islands and had seen the great resources of the country. I may say that within my day the United States have made great accretions to their territory, through small wars, through diplomacy and a few dollars. They have enlarged their outlying districts to nearly double their former size. In the British West Indies the people

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
speak English, French and Spanish about equally. They have got the products that we require, and, instead of buying them from those countries, we have been buying a hundred million dollars worth of produce through concerns in the United States.
I saw an article stating that we had not lived up to an agreement in regard to refrigerator boats to the West Indies. At the period I mention we were buying a hundred million dollars worth of goods from the United States in tropical and semi-tropical products. They were paying the West Indies six cents for an article and selling to us for fifteen cents. Instead of going direct to that country and buying the goods from them, we are buying through the United States. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) brought that point out specifically yesterday. I was very proud of him, because he is conversant with the situation. We need their products and they need ours. We are a manufacturing country. We have the waterways and we have a means of communication with them, You will have observed that it costs practically nothing to transport logs by floating them down a great river. I have a friendly feeling toward that country which, once a little Crown colony, has now attained the status of a dominion-Newfoundland. Newfoundland should be linked up with Canada, and this could be done with the joint approval of the Mother Country, Newfoundland and ourselves. Indeed, the matter had at one time almost come to a head under the regime of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the proposal being that Newfoundland should enter the confederation on condition of the payment to her of eight millions. An hon. member shakes his head, but that is as I understood it. In that country they have wonderful deposits of iron and coal right on the waterway to which I have referred.


Mr. CARROLL:: How would my hon. friend cope with the ice conditions?


Willis Keith Baldwin: It has been suggested that ice-breakers be used on the St. Lawrence river so that it would be kept open. That is where the bridging of the straits of Belle Isle would come in; it would keep the ice floes from coming through the straits into the gulf, and through the influence of the gulf stream in the north the ice conditions would be further minimized. Now, the best sense in the world is common sense. The greatest school is the school of observation. Would it be beneath the dignity of those in charge of the affairs of this country to make overtures in this matter? What is this parliament for?

Is it simply a debating society? Is it a place wherein a fight may be carried on to determine who shall hold the government benches? One of the finest acts of diplomacy that could ever be attributed to a public man in Canada was that of the making of overtures to the West with a view to the building up of this country. An hon. member across the way laughs. Well, there is an hon. gentleman in front of him who said there was a revolution on in this country, but I do not admit it. There is, however, evolution; many things are evolving. Compare the situation in Canada to-day with that in the United States when the slave traffic and slavery led up to a division between the North and the South and a consequent civil war. It has been said that the nineteenth century was the century of the United States and that the twentieth century would be the century of Canada. Well so it was; Canada was getting along splendidly when along came the terrible world war. Canada did her part; the world recognized Canada as a great country in training 600,000 men and sending them to the front. We have an enormous debt, but we are big enough to pay that debt; we are big enough to shoulder the burden. It is said that many of our people are leaving and going to the United States, and in this connection I may point out that the figures submitted by the leader of the opposition showed big, because thousands of those who go across the border and pay their head tax of $S return within six months and are paid back their money. The people I would like to keep at home are the capitalists, they should go into Quebec and Ontario and open up some of our great iron mines. Look at the iron deposits that are found in the states bordering this country; look at their vast wealth. We want those men here; we do not want them down there squandering their time. We have a white population in Canada; in the United States they have 12,000,000 negroes-a question of no small account. They have had a great many lynchings down there, a condition -which is a disgrace in a civilized country, and which, I presume, they are getting away from.
It has been stated in this House that the people in the West find it difficult to make a fair realization upon capital invested in farm properties. As I said last year, it would appear that both the old political parties are'responsible, to the extent of about fifty-fifty, for the expending of $20,000,000 on the Hudson Bay railway. I have said in this House that if the Hudson Bay railway could be put into operation by the expenditure of four or five millions, I was in

The Address-Mr Baldwin
favour of it,. I represent one of the largest manufacturing counties in this Dominion. No less than three of our greatest industries are located in my county-the great Dominion Textiles, the Union Twist Drill Company, the only whip factory in Canada, and scores of other manufacturers. Now, any such expenditure as I have mentioned, in any part of this great Dominion, reflects itself in my own county. I am in favour of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. The right hon. leader of the opposition seems to think that he will have an opportunity pretty soon of going before the people; let him come to my constituency and discuss these matters. I doubt, however, whether his expectation will be realized. I believe that this session will continue to its ordinary conclusion and that we shall have two more sessions before the federal elections come on. I would ask the leader of the opposition whether he believes that if an election took place within two weeks or two months, any larger group would come back to this House than is here now.


Arthur Meighen: Not on that side.


Willis Keith Baldwin: No, and not on his side.
The people of Canada do not forget. Some man goes into the pullman with a box of cigars and treats the men in there; and, as is only natural, there are people in this country, as there are in every other country, who are subject to brainstorms once in a while, and the result is that this man obtains the consensus of opinion of the whole Dominion right in that little smoker. I did not intend to make these remarks, but as the speeches of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) are always more or less tinged with sarcasm, I thought it only proper that I should make some observations this afternoon. I think that, instead of indulging in partisan criticism, the representatives of the people in parliament should come here and direct all their energies and their eloquence to the enunciation of a policy that will promote the interests of their own communities and of the country at large as well.
I see a great and glorious future ahead of this country. The twentieth century is going to be a great one for Canada, although the last ten years of the first quarter have been rendered rather frustrate as a result of war and war conditions. But this country, notwithstanding these conditions, will prosper, and in my opinion Canada will grow to be one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth. This, however, can be possible only if our people will throw ff their coats and roll
up their sleeves and get down to work. What I am most interested in is to see a diminution in the public debt. If we had not the railway octopus to grapple with, we should no doubt have been in a fairly good position today. Some people believe in the principle of nationally owned railways, and no doubt our railways will be a tremendous asset to Canada if the present government remains in power. I' do not think that there could be found a greater business man, from the point of view of ability and experience in his own particular line, than the president of the Canadian National Railways, Sir Henry Thornton. Sir Henry Thornton has said that he will make the roads self-supporting in two or three years. I believe he will. That being the case, what better outlook do we want from the standpoint of our railways? All we need to do is so to manage the affairs of the country that we shall be able to make it possible to build branch lines to serve growing communities who are far from any means of transportation at the present time. What we want in this country is optimism, not pessimism; we do not want everlasting fighting in the House, for that is injurious to the interests of the whole country. It does not matter so much what any prime minister says; what is of importance is what the government does. And in justice to the Liberal party, this being only the third session of the present administration, is it not reasonable, sensible and businesslike that they be given a chance to administer the affairs of the country in the way a great board administers the business of an important organization? No one has ever heard of directors fighting around the board; if they did, they would soon cease to function as a body. We are placed here in trust to assist in the administration of the affairs of this Dominion, and we are neglecting our duties as representath es of the people so long as we fail to help the government, by advice and counsel, as far as we can. And the country will never prosper so long as men with the ability and the eloquence of the leader of the opposition continue to devote that ability and that eloquence to purposes other than those which will promote the interests of the people as a whole. We must give up squabbling merely to see who shall sit on the front benches. I promised when I began, Mr. Speaker, that I would not detain the House at any great length, and although there are many other matters on which I should have liked to touch, I shall bring my remarks to a close for the present.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Victoria, Alta.):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of

The Address-Mr. Lucas
interest to the debate as it has progressed, and I am sure that others will agree with me when I say that one can come to no other conclusion than that conditions are not as they should be in Canada to-day. When we members of the West presumed last year to speak on immigration we were described as apostles of gloom. But if our utterances at that time were open to such criticism, I would ask now, what must be said of the very dismal picture that has been so graphically presented to the House by many hon. members, whom I will not name but who liave taken part in this discussion? If we Slave come to the conclusion that something is wrong, then I think we have reached the point from which we may be able to make some progress.
It seems to me that altogether too much time has been consumed in this House in the past in an attempt on the part of both of the old political parties to shoulder the blame upon each other for the conditions as they have existed in the country. During the last two sessions in which I have been in this House we have listened hour after hour to the representatives of one party trying to fasten upon the other party the responsibility for railway conditions and other unfortunate circumstances in Canada at the present time. Suppose we could definitely settle who was responsible in any of these matters, would it put us any further ahead? We should still have our present problems to solve. In my opinion, therefore, as we have all been more or less responsible for conditions as they are, we should try to forget the past and should resolve henceforth to devote our time to a solution of the problems that confront us. This is what we shall have to do if we hope to move in the right direction.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) on the sentiments he expressed the other evening when he suggested that a political revolution was taking place in this country as elsewhere. I heartily endorse what he said on that occasion.
I want to say that we from Alberta-and I can speak only for that province-are sent to this House not for the aggrandisement or the promotion of the interests of any political party, but for the purpose of co-operating with other members, no matter from what part of Canada they come, who have at heart the best interests of the country as a whole and are anxious to see its affairs properly governed. Our friends to the right are very fond of throwing taunts at us; they tell us that we are selling our birthright to the government. Let me inform hon. gentlemen I Mr. Lucas.]
that if ever they occupy the seats of government in this House-so far as I, at least, am concerned, and I think I can speak for the other members of this group-if they bring down anything that we consider in the best interests of the whole of Canada, they will get our support as readily as the present government. When we look back over the history of the -world we see that conditions have always been changing, and we realize that the Great War, without parallel in its extent and reaction, has brought about conditions very difficult to meet. In connection with these new conditions, I was particularly struck by an article which I read a short time ago in the New Leader from the pen of Ramsay MacDonald, who is very much in the limelight at the present time as Prime Minister of Great Britain. While not in sympathy with proportional representation, he has this to say;
Ail that is necessary is that we should adapt our minds and our methods of parliamentary organization to the new conditions.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the most promising suggestion which any leading statesman has yet presented for the future political development of countries enjoying the British parliamentary system. Discussing what proportional representation might bring about Mr MacDonald writes:
The first effect will be to loosen party bonds. Members,. while holding generally to party principles and conceptions of policy, will more frequently than they do now use their own judgment as to how to vote. Parties themselves may have to change, and whilst increasing their propaganda and educational work in the country, will rule in the House of Commons more by their administrative success than by party force, whilst the legislation that will be carried will have to be more in accordance than it now too often is with publio desires outside and the course of debates inside. This will tend to curb the partisanship of parties and make them, like cabinets, more public servants than public dictators. This can be put in another way. It will weaken organization, but strengthen reason; it will make ministers more the instruments of tile general will than the captains of party horse. On balance, that will be good, but the working of the system will call for more intelligence from the democracy.
Now, world conditions have changed to such an extent since the Great War that new methods are needed to meet them, and yet we as a people are still adhering to old-time methods. A review of the history of the world shows that with the advance of civilization our system of government has had to be changed from time to time to meet changing conditions. To-day I feel sure we have got to make another step forward in order to cope successfully with the difficulties which confront us.

The Address-Mr. Lucas
New times demand new measures and new men.
The world advances, and in time outgrows the law Which in our fathers' time seemed best;
And doubtless after us some better scheme Will be worked out by wiser men than we,
Made wiser by the steady growth of truth.
I congratulate the government upon having at last, after wandering about for two sessions, found the long-sought 5 p.m. chart and compass, and I trust they will now be able to navigate the ship of state to the port of prosperity.
I was much interested last week by the address of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) in which he described the scenic beauty and natural resources of the peninsula of Gaspe, and I would detain the House for a moment while I deal with the area and potentialities of the province of Alberta and the achievements of its people. Our province stretches seven hundred and fifty miles from north to south, and its breadth from east to west varies from a hundred and eighty to four hundred miles, with a total area of 235.280 square miles, or 163,382,400 acres-an empire within an empire. Allowing for areas covered by lakes and rivers and the rough land of the eastern slope of the Rockies and other waste districts, we are still left with 82,810.400 acres that can be easily converted to profitable agriculture. And yet we find today that only ten million acres are under cultivation. During the past year we produced ini that province 167,265,084 bushels of wheat and our total production of all grains was over 305,000,000 bushels. During the past twenty-six years we have had an average yield of 19J bushels of hard and 20J bushels of winter wheat per acre. At the Chicago International Show our farmers, in open competition against the world, carried off th" following awards: In 1920, nineteen prizes and two championships; in 1921, thirty-two prizes and four championships; in 1922. thirty-six prizes and three championships; and in 1923, forty-three prizes and four championships. The results achieved have convinced us not only of the volume of grains and grasses capable of being produced in our province, but we are convinced that these stand head and shoulders above those produced in any other province or state on the North American continent. When I add that those results have been achieved by a population of less than 600,000 people. I think hon. members will agree with me that those people have every reason to be proud of their success. Year by year we realize more and more that there are no bounds to the production of wheat within Alberta. While mixed farming
forms a very important part of our agriculture in that province, yet it is patent that the cultivation of wheat is the principal money-producing crop, and will continue to develop to a greater and greater extent as the years go by.
Apart from agriculture, we have vast coal and other mineral resources. It is estimated that the total coal reserves of the province exceed one hundred billion tons, comprising 87 per cent of the coal areas of the Dominion, 72 per cent of those of the Empire, and 14 per cent of those of the world. I hope a solution of the transportation problem may be found whereby the coal of Alberta will be hauled to Ontario at a rate which will make it possible for the people'in that section to use and thus save over one hundred million dollars now paid annually to the United States, for this money would be distributed from one part of Canada to the other in labour and other costs and to this extent help us to pay our debts, particularly in the West.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have abundantly shown that we have the ability to produce in Alberta. But what are the handicaps we are laboring under? While I may have to present a sectional viewpoint in this connection, my opinion is that what affects one part of the Dominion adversely is bound to react to the prejudice of the whole country. We in Alberta are situated on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. We have a longer freight haul than any other part of the Dominion for our produce going out and for all the commodities that we use coming in. Now nature never intended that to be so. We find that while the Rocky mountains lie between our province and the Pacific ocean, nature has provided a pass through these mountains, and our National railway traverses them on a gradient of less than half of one per cent for the greater part of the distance, with a maximum of only seven-tenths of one per cent for a distance of some twenty-eight miles. Yet we find that we are denied that natural outlet for our products. While a reduction of tariff will have a great effect, and will no doubt help us in many ways yet I am forced to this conclusion, that one of the greatest handicaps the people of the West are labouring under to-day is the transportation difficulty, and I am sure that there is nothing this government and this parliament could do for western Canada that would give that section of the country a greater measure of satisfaction than the equalization of freight rates as between the East and the West.
The Address-Mr. Lucas

To give you an idea of the conditions we are labouring under in regard to freight rates, if you take eastern Canada at a basis of 100, the freight rates over the prairies will be represented by 120, and of British Columbia by 135. If you are going to adopt the principle of apportioning the freight rates according to the cost of construction or operation, then let us adopt that principle for the whole of Canada. When you take into consideration that the earnings on our roads in the West have greatly exceeded the earnings in the East, we are not prepared to admit that the cost of construction and operation in the West are greater than in the East. Let me give you these figures. From 1907 to 1911 the net earnings on the eastern lines amounted to $43,500,000, and on the western lines to $91,500,000, or $48,000,000 more in the West, or 110 per cent greater. From 1912 to 1916 the net earnings in the East amounted to $60,000,000, and in the West to $152,000,000, or $92,500,000 more in the West, or 154 per cent. From 1916 to 1920 the net earnings in the East amounted to $70,000,000 and in the West to $144,500,000, or $74,000,000 more in the West, or 105 per cent. In 1921 the earnings in the East amounted to $11,000,000 and in the West to $30,000,000, or $19,000,000 more in the West, or 157 per cent. Is it any wonder there is dissatisfaction in the West under this treatment?
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in all parts of Canada to-day. We hear rumblings from the Maritime provinces, from central Canada and from the West, and certain members in this House seem to be of the opinion that we from the West are whining for some special favours. I should like to say to this House and to the people of eastern Canada that we from the West are not asking for any special favours. We are simply asking for equal opportunities, and we shall never have unity in this country unless it is founded upon a spirit of justice and equality.
In shipping our goods to our natural outlet we have what is known as the mountain rate, the export rate, and the domestic rate. For instance, we have an export rate at the present time from Calgary or Edmonton to Vancouver of 22+ cents per 100 pounds of wheat. The domestic rate is 42 cents per 100 pounds.
I have tried to get some explanation from our freight experts and others in this country as to the justification for this domestic rate, but up to the present time I have not been able to find anyone who could give me any justification for it. We find that there is no domestic rate on wheat in eastern Canada, and the result is that a farmer in the West shipping 	; i 1
two loads of wheat to Vancouver, if he ships one load to a Chinaman, and the Orient is taking a great deal of our wheat to-day, it pays an export rate of 22+ cents per 100 pounds, whereas the other load, if it is shipped to a fruit grower or a chicken farmer in British Columbia or to one of the mills there, has to pay the domestic rate of 42 cents per 100 pounds. We are evidently favouring the Chinese farmer in our freight rates, and enabling him to raise his eggs cheaper and flood this country with Chinese eggs to the disadvantage of our Canadian producers. Yet we are supposed to have a railway commission to deal with such matters.
W'hen we come to the tariff it is a question that the two old parties have fought over in this House for the last forty years and it is still about where it started. We know that the tariff has been a political football ever since confederation, I want to disabuse the minds of any hon. members of the idea that we farmers are here to put our manufacturers out of business. I do not think there is a farmer in the West who wants to see that happen. We realize that we must have manufactures in this country, but one industry cannot be built up at the expense of another, and it seems to me that the only solution of this question lies in getting together in a spirit of co-operation and endeavouring to settle this question on a strictly business basis. Only by acting in that way shall we improve our conditions.
Another great handicap we labour under in the West is the matter of credit. I do not stand before this House and say that we want more credit in the West, but just as Great Britain came to the United States a couple of years ago to make arrangements for refunding her debt, over a long period of years and at a low rate of interest, so we in western Canada to-day are simply asking you to put us in a position where we can fund our debts into one loan and spread the payments over a number of years, thereby giving us a chance to meet our obligations. We are not asking for more credit, nor is any man trying to get out of the responsibilities he has assumed at the present time, but we want to make it possible for our people to pay their debts. We see what the United States is doing to help the agriculturists of that country in the matter of credit. Within the last year they brought in a rural credit scheme, and to show you the advantage the American farmer has over the Canadian farmer in making a loan, the American can secure a time loan of say $1,000, spread over thirty-four years, at the rate of 5J per cent, which

The Address-Mr. Lucas
amortizes the loan. At the end of that period he will have paid off in principal and interest a sum amounting to $1,870. Now a farmer in Canada borrowing $1,000, and letting it run for thirty-four years, at 8 per cent-I am taking that as the general rate, although a great many of us are paying a higher rate of interest-will have paid back at the end of thirty-four years in principal and interest $3,720. Now, I think that is a handicap impossible for the Canadian farmer to overcome.
We all realize that immigration is one of the crying needs of Canada to-day. We have a country that is not equalled in any part of the world. We have vast natural resources, millions of acres of land that are yet uncultivated, and we have provided facilities for a population many times our actual number; we find a population of nine millions of people trying to carry a load which possibly twenty-five or fifty millions should support. Now, what is the problem before us. We all agree that our people are leaving the Dominion. Is the problem before us to spend money in going out and seeking to bring in others to take their places, or should it be our main object to try and get together, find out what is responsible for that exodus, and other evils and then provide the remedy. I believe there is no comparison between a Canadian born and bred in this country and any foreigner who may be brought in to take his place. And yet we find to-day that our Canadian born sons and daughters are leaving this country, and instead of spending money to find out what is causing this exodus, we are making expenditures on an immigration policy and flooding Europe with advertisements to attract foreign born settlers to Canada.
There is one thing we must recognize. That is that Canada is a hard country to govern. Stretching as it does from o'cean to ocean, with so many divergent conditions in different parts of the country, we must adopt a broad outlook. Having realized the position we are in, we shovdd adopt a different policy from that which has been followed in the past. We should discard the idea of considering, when a question is introduced in the House, whether it will be in the interest of a party, whether it will keep a party in power, or enable a party to get into power. We must forget all ideas of that kind, and try to evolve a policy that will be in the interest of the country as a whole.
There is one other question to which I would like to refer. It has been in my mind for some time, and it was brought out the other day when the hon. member for Centre
Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) -was speaking of the judiciary. I am merely going to throw the suggestion out to the government and hon. members. I believe we all want to see the judiciary occupy a status high above any possibility of reflection. I want to make it quite plain at the present time that I am not casting any reflection upon our judges; but I think they should be in such a position that there would be no possibility of reflecting upon them in any manner whatever. Therefore I should like to see the appointment of judges taken out of the hands of the government and no longer continue to be a matter of political patronage. It seems to me that appointments to the judiciary could very well be left to the bar associations in the various provinces throughout the Dominion. I feel sure that the lawyers in our various provinces have enough pride in their profession to see to it that none but the very best men would be selected to sit on the bench in a judicial capacity. At the present time it is very often felt whether rightly or not, that a man is rewarded to a seat on the bench because of his political activities, I do not think it is in the best interest of the country as a whole that this should continue to be the case.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say there is no argument in regard to the wonderful character of our country. We have a land that will provide bountifully for millions: We have a class of people that, when they go to other countries, can hold their own in competition with anyone. It seems to me therefore that if we would just use a little of the common sense that the Almighty Las endowed us with, and get together here not as men from the East or from the West but as Canadians assembled in parliament, and wipe away much of this party prejudice from our minds, we could solve the problem that confronts us and by so doing make of Canada a prosperous and contented land, and a land to love.
Mr. C. II. DICKIE (Nanaimo):	Mr. Speaker at the outset I wish to associate myself with those who preceded me in tendering congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I also, in common with other hon. members, deplore the absence of one so universally and respectfully esteemed as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).
I regret very much, Mr. Speakfer, to see omitted from the Speech any suggestion of any legislative action whatever with respect
The Address-Mr. Dickie

to the retention within our Dominion of our forest reserves. I think, Sir, this is a question of immense importance to our country. It is quite possible that owing to the fact that a commission, an expensive commission, is at present touring the country and inquiring into the obvious, that the government does not care to make a pronouncement on this question until the findings of the commission are at hand. Otherwise I consider their conduct is inexcusable, in view of the very great blunder that is being perpetrated by the failure to protect our country by preventing the exportation of our raw forest products. The commission in question was sitting in British Columbia prior to my departure; I presume it is sitting there still. Owners of timber lands, American tugboat owners, and others engaged in logging were giving evidence against the imposition of an embargo upon the exportation of raw material. That those who were profiting by exportation should be against the imposition of an embargo was naturally to be expected and was the case. As usual the general public of British Columbia. paid little attention to the commission, and I can safely say, through long residence in that country, and familiarity with the conditions, economic and otherwise, that were the matter subject to a plebiscite, 85 per cent of the people of British Columbia would vote for an embargo to prevent the exportation of saw logs from our country. Those logs are leaving our country at an ever accelerating rate, and we are alarmed at the rapid depletion of our forests. All talk of reforestation with Douglas fir is futile and nonsensical. The difficulties in the way of renewing the forest growth of our country are absolutely insuperable. We see our logs going, day by day, in immense booms across the border, to enrich our neighbours, and our young men are following there, to engage in the manufacture of them. We are harvesting the last crop of Douglas fir from our mountain side, and leaving behind a scene of desolation that is hard to describe. I remember once noticing a picture of Dante's Inferno by Gustave Dore which very fairly represents what the countryside looks like after being logged over. If the harpies were present the resemblance would be complete. In 1920 we exported in round numbers 28,000,000 feet of lumber in the form of saw logs from British Columbia. In 1921 we exported 90,000.000 feet and in 1922, 151,000,000. In 1923 we exported 233,000,000 feet. There are reasons for expecting that the figures will run to approximately 500,000,000 in 1924. It should be apparent to all that in the interests of the present, to  .
say nothing of the coming generation, we must at least see to it that our timber is manufactured within the confines of our country; and even then we are perhaps cutting too freely. Let "festina lente "[DOT]-make haste slowly-be our motto with respect to harvesting our timber and even our generation will profit thereby and will bless us.
Just prior to leaving the West I was credibly informed that eight standard sawmills were being or about to be erected on Puget Sound waters just south of the International boundary line. What is termed a standard mill will cut 250,000 feet of lumber per day. The eight mills in question would cut 500 million feet yearly, and it is obvious to those familiar with forestry conditions in that country that British Columbia is being looked to almost entirely for a log supply. You can easily see what a deplorable situation this is. To bring the enormity of our immense log exportation more clearly before you, let me say that the total lumber cut of New Brunswick in 1923 was 265 million feet, and surely every person, especially those from the Maritime provinces, will realize the great importance of the lumbering industry in that province. We next year will export twice that many logs, I have good reason to expect, to our American cousins.
Dr. Mayo of Boehester, Minnesota, in a recent address given under the auspices of the Canadian Club at Victoria, B.C., strongly impressed on his audience the immense importance of conserving our forests, saying that the^ people of his state were now realizing their folly in allowing the slaughter of their forests in one generation. A very substantial company from the southern states has recently acquired a tract of timber in British Columbia estimated at 3,000 million feet. Before leaving for the south to complete arrangements for operating, Mr. Jasspan, the company's manager, said in part;
The depletion of our southern forests is a calamity for which this and coming generations will suffer.
He also said:
We do not contemplate entering into the sawmill business, we will sell our logs.
The logs in question, Mr. Speaker, will doubtless go across the line. The Financial Post of February 29, has this to say with respect to the momentous question of timber exports:
The Ontario legislature will be asked to approve of legislation placing an embargo on the exportation of hardwood from the province. The measure is designed to force United States plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin to cross into Ontario to manufacture their pro-

The Address-Mr. Dickie
ducts if they desire to use Ontario hardwood. The measure is similar to the pine embargo of some years ago. That measure resulted in many saw mills locating in the north. There are about 1,300 hardwood plants located in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Henry Ford entered the area and purchased practically all the available reserves. The estimate made to-day is that the end of seven years will see but 100 to 110 of these plants remaining because of the exhaustion of their supply of raw material. Realizing this there has been a rush into Algoma, United States concerns have eagerly sought control of the available limits on the Canadian side. It is understood that one American concern made a contract to ship 100 million feet of hardwood across lake Superior. This was to have gone to the Iron Mountain plant of Henry Ford. Ontario's reserves of hardwood , are limited. The estimate is that the small area in which hardwood thrives contains 6,500 million feet. This includes the big forest reserve and runs north to the border of the clay-belt. In discussing the embargo, Hon. James Lyons, Ontario s Minister of Lands and Forests, pointed out that some years ago the numerous saw mills around Saginaw and Bay City, Michigan, were importing Canadian logs heavily An embargo was placed on their exportation with the result that there is $75,000,000 invested in saw mills around the Soo to-day. The Canadian Pacific railway line, Soo to Sudbury, is studded with them. He also points out that in 1900 there was an embargo m regard to pulp with the result that $190,000,000 are invested in the pulp plants of the provmce to-day.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my case against the exportation of saw logs. I have been fair in my arguments and if the House believes my statements, surely the hour is at hand when we will cease temporizing with this deplorable situation.
Now a few words with respect to pulpwood exports, although I confess at the outset that I am not as familiar with this question as with the one I have just dealt with. Pulp-wood exportation is just commencing in British Columbia and I hope to see it strangled at birth. In 1923 there was exported from the Dominion to the United States pulpwood to the value of thirteen million dollars. Had this pulpwood been manufactured into paper it would have had a value of ninety million dollars, seventy million at least of which would have gone to labour, to people who live in our country, people who purchase the
products of our farms and of our factories, people who would help to build up our nation. Instead of that this pulpwood has gone across the line to our neighbours; Surely this is bad policy for Canada.
What wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we are considered by our southern neigbours who are playing with us as a cat plays with a mouse, to be simple, non-progressive, credulous people, when in addition to errors which I have enumerated, we are going to lower our tariff barrier to those who say to us in terms that all who run may read, "We want nothing from you primitive people but your manhood, your money, and your raw forest products".
Have we no economic sense? Have we no sense of national dignity; no national pride?
I have no word of criticism of the business methods of the Americans. I have the utmost respect for their business acumen. Let us profit by their example. Let us pull ourselves together, sit up and take notice, and subscribe to the sentiments as expressed in the old Loyalist toast, "Here's to my country, may she ever be right, but right -or wrong, my country".
Still we are a credulous people and we are buying too freely from those people. We have a balance of trade from Great Britain, our best friends in a business sense. We simply add millions to that balance of trade and pass it over to our neighbours south of the line.
We all know that the mid-western farmer is penalized to a certain extent because of tariff, but in the province from which I come we absolutely could not exist without the tariff. Our manufacturers, hundreds of them, five hundred in Vancouver, would have to go out of business if there was not a substantial tariff. We are side by "side with a strong industrial nation which could afford to give away in Canada one-tenth of their product in order to put our people out of business, whereupon their prices would again go up. Our farmers and our fruit. raisers in British Columbia are in just as serious straits as you are in the West. Fruit comes in from the Wenatchee, Cashmere and Yakima valleys to the south of us a little earlier than our fruit is available. Their berries come in earlier and our market is flooded. In other words these products are dumped in on us and dumped in on the prairies before those who have expended many millions in our country can get their fruit on the market. That is the competition which the people in the Okanagan country have to meet.
Speaking about hardships on the prairies reminds me of the story of two men who were fishing in a lake in British Columbia and who saw a man struggling in the water at the foot of a cliff. They pulled toward him as rapidly as they could and succeeded in rescuing him. After some fishermen's supplies had been administered to him he sat up, looked at his watch, and said; "Will you put me ashore? I am behind with my work. This is the third time this morning that I have fallen off my ranch." These are the things the farmers have to contend with in some parts of British Columbia. On the prairies a man does not have to be an amphibian to farm.
I regret very much to hear any talk about secession coming from hon. gentlemen to my left. I do not think that is the feeling that

The Address-Mr. Dickie
permeates the middle West. I do not like to hear this talk of the sound of a breeze going through the tops of the mulberry trees, or anything that smacks of a feeling that we are not going to be a united people. Let us forget all this racial and religious talk; let us realize that we all have our troubles. The Maritime provinces undoubtedly suffer because of our tariff policy; well, we can make up for that by giving them a quid pro quo. We certainly can give a quid pro quo to my neighbours to the left; there are ways in which we can more than make up to them what they lose through the tariff, as was so ably pointed out by the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) this afternoon. I say with certainty that we in British Columbia could not exist-the farmers could not exist, the manufacturers could not exist, without a suitable tariff. The same can pretty well be said about Ontario and Quebec. With the Maritime provinces it is different, and it is different with you people in the West, but surely there is some way by which we can get on common ground, and avoid taking any step which, while giving comparatively small benefit to the western people, would sacrifice the manufacturing industries of Ontario and Quebec.
We have all read the startling articles in MacLean s Magazine with regard to what may be termed the '"pork barrel" argument. Part of one of those articles contained an attack on my friend from Victoria City (Mr.Tolmie). It is stated that a dry-dock was promised to Victoria as a bribe to elect that hon. gentleman. Sir, that is unqualifiedly false, because that dry-dock was promised years before the member for Victoria City entered political life. The member for Victoria City did not need to offer a dry-dock as a bonus to bring about his election. He is a well known native son of that province and I believe he could be elected in any British Columbia constituency without giving a dry-dock or anything else. Moreover, the dry-dock is not in the constituency of the hon. member for Victoria City, it is in mine. I only hope that when this gentleman writes other articles of that kind he will keep a little nearer to the facts, because he has done an injustice. A branch of the Yarrow shipbuilding firm was located in Esquimalt long before the member for Victoria City ever thought of politics or was thought of by others in that regard. Subsequently the Yarrow firm started there because of assurance that a dry-dock would be built and are now doing an immense business. They have ships there all the time and they will have larger ships when the dry-dock is big enough for them. fMr. Dickie.] .
It was stated also in this "pork barrel'' article that there already was in that district a dry-dock 265 feet long. The dry-dock is 230 feet long, and I know of six or seven war ships which during the troublous days of the war had to go to the American side to be docked because the facilities in British Columbia were not adequate. Our friends in Vancouver, of course, do not feel the same enthusiasm for a dry-dock as I do. I think, however, that with the rapid strides that are being made in that wonderful city of Vancouver, in two or three years there will be room for two or more big dry-docks in British Columbia. There are sixteen large dry docks to the south of us on the American side, and the opportunities of shipping coming into our country or going through our ports on the way to American ports are undoubtedly very great.
I was rather amused by some figures quoted by the very gentlemanly speaker from Montreal by way of proof that, the exodus of people from Canada during the last two years was no greater than it had been during the two preceding years. That shows what can be done with figures. The hon. member must know, or he should know, that such a conclusion is absurd. Everybody knows, even the boy on the street, that during this last year the exodus to the States more than doubled that of the two preceding years. We in British Columbia do not know where to look for young men. They are going down to southern California, and there are very good reasons for that: unexampled prosperity reigns down there owing to the development of immense oil wells and other activities. Now these people are coming back, but only very slowly. I do not think the exodus will continue for any considerable time, but before we can stamp it out, before we can do anything to make this the country that we want it to be, we must have what has been mentioned time after time, namely, stability of tariff regulation. The people must know where they are at. Those who come from the West must realize that, in view of w'hat they have heard. They heard it from the hon. member (Mr. Hams) who spoke last night, and who told how men engaged in industry in Toronto, industry in which hundreds of thousands of dollars had been invested, had during the last two or three years worked with their overalls on, fought with their backs to the wall, to make this a prosperous country. Still you gentlemen would lower the tariff. If you give the question the thought that it deserves I am sure that you will arrive at the conclusion that there is some other way of meeting the situa-

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
tion than by lowering the tariff and sacrificing the interests of Quebec and Ontario.
In conclusion, I would simply plead that we forget sectionalism, that we forget this talk of secession. We are one people, a British people, and Canadians above all. We have our difficulties. We have our racial dividing lines, though they do not prevail in the West. In the constituency that I am trying to represent we have many French Canadians and they are among the best people we have-
I would we had more of them. They still hold to the teachings that they imbibed at their mother's knee, in the matter of religion and everything else, and I give them crediit for it. They are men, too, who take an active part in our public life out there. I may say,. Mr. Speaker, that although I am a Conservative every one of these people voted for me in my constituency. I do not think that there is anything further that I care to say at the present time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the subject which I desire to discuss is to be found in the thirteenth paragraph of the Speech from the Throne. It is the shortest paragraph and deals with the development of Canadian trade through Canadian seaports. The Prime Minister in his speech did not refer to this important subject, but I hope it will receive in inverse proportion the attention which it has received up to the present time. He brushed aside the significance of the recent reverses to his party in the East by saying that they were due to sectional issues. Sectional issues! Our experience is that such issues receive the greatest attention at the hands of the government. To that land of sections and half sections, the prairie provinces, the Crowsnest pass agreement was offered last year; this year a reduction of the tariff on the instruments of production is promised; and next year or in the near future, should the government continue in power, the West will probably have its hopes revived in that Utopian vision, the Hudson Bay railway. The promise of its completion will be brought in on a charger and presented to the Progressive party. The leader of that party has already said, as have his supporters also, that this project must be carried out. Not only is the Progressive party the life and breath of the government, but it has now assumed to act as the administration's mouthpiece. I
can readily understand that when a government has to contend with assaults from without as well as from within its vitality is likely to be very much weakened. Indeed, its vitality is now at a very low ebb, and the further discussion of this question has apparently been handed over by the government, appropriately enough, to the vigorous lepresentatives of the northwestern provinces.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will allow me? He must not get his leader in wrong. Does he not know that the right hon. gentleman has declared himself in favour of the Hudson Bay railway?


Murray MacLaren: I am trying to represent the .views contained within myself.


George Perry Graham: The assaults within the
party.


Murray MacLaren: Fortunately a great
many men on this side of the House have views of their own and are quite capable of expressing them. I am presenting my own view, and I am not alone in entertaining it.
I tried to get an expression of opinion from the Minister of Railways last year with regard to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, but, unlike my leader, he apparently held no opinion on the subject, at least he failed to give expression to any. These reverses of the government were not due to sectional issues but were largely due to questions of transportation which I am now discussing.
I listened yesterday with very careful attention to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and I desire to say that many of the important subjects he dealt with received my complete acquiescence. I would refer first of all to the British preference. For many years we had a statute providing that British imports must be made through Canadian ports before the preference would become effective. This law was to be put into force by order in council, but it was never promulgated. Last year, it will be remembered, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) introduced a motion providing for a 10 per cent preference on a large number of British commodities, subject to one condition, that they be brought in through our ports. This was an acknowledgement of an important principle and was, I think, an advance on the tariff legislation that had been enacted up to that time. But after all, it is really a nibbling at the question. It is ten per cent. To be plain about the matter the figures at the present time are not conclusive because the time has been too short to prepare the statistics bear-

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
ing on the point, but the belief is that even the ten per cent has had considerable influence in increasing Canadian trade through Canadian seaports. I would join with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) in urging that the motion as previously passed by this House should, be readopted and put into force, so that all goods receiving the preference must come through Canadian channels. I see this further advantage in it; it does hot disturb the tariff. You have a tariff, and then it is interfered with by inserting the ten per cent, but if it applies generally to all goods imported through Canadian ports, only the tariff is not disturbed.
Then there is the matter of ttade with the West Indies. That, I think, was well put before the House by the hon. member. There is an opportunity for this country to benefit to a vastly greater extent than it does at the present time by the proper adjustments of duties and tariffs.
Then as to coal production in Canada. The bringing in of a policy that would be so arranged that we would be independent of any other country for our supply of coal is one of the important questions of the day. I cannot but think that the making of much greater use of our own coal than we are doing at the present time is well within our possibilities. I noticed that the hon. member for Cumberland was in favour of a duty upon bituminous coal somewhat higher than the present duty. He was careful to point out that this was not protection for the coal, but simply a tariff for revenue. What he wants is a duty on bituminous coal for revenue, for the purpose of giving protection. Now the difficulty with many members is that certain duties are perfectly all right and advantageous provided you do not put a protectionist label on them. To my mind it makes no difference at all whether you attach the name protection or not if you put the duty on, and if the hon. member for Cumberland is satisfied with that kind of designation I do not think we need worry very much about it. The result and the effect are there.
Now, a word about what was called the old Intercolonial railway. According to my understanding, the Intercolonial railway is not an integral part of the Canadian National Railways. I believe that the accounting is kept separate, and it is kept separate because the government regard it as on a different basis.
I believe that under the British North America Act, technically speaking, it is not and cannot be a portion of the Canadian National Railways. Then there is the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission, cannot deal with

the rates on that portion of the system called the Intercolonial railway. As a matter of fact, it is somewhat of an academic question. The Intercolonial is operated and managed with the Canadian National Railways as a matter of convenience, and because it is a matter of considerable advantage, I believe, from many points of view. That is my interpretation of the Intercolonial question. I am not sure that I have satisfied the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) on that point, but be that as it may, I think my view is put forward with considerable accuracy.
Now I come to the Canadian National Railways, and I am pleased to see the Minister of Railways in his seat. It seems to me that there is a great deal of what may be termed loose thinking and loose speaking about the relationship between the Canadian National Railway board, the government and the country. The government says a good deal along this line: We will give the railway board a free hand. Now that is an inaccurate expression, and in a matter where it is so important to define the exact relationship between the railway board, the country, and the government, I think we should have something more explicit than simply the words "a free hand." Under the act the railway board is appointed for the operation and management of these railways; for the operation and management, that is all. I presume, then, that if you say it has a free hand, it is a free hand under the conditions as expressed, that is, in the operation and management. But the board, if you read the act, is also subject to conditions and restrictions as imposed by the Governor in Council. The government, however, have imposed no conditions and no restrictions through order in council, and none are filed in that office. In other words, the government have not exercised any supervision or given any directions to the railway board. I do not mean that there should be small restrictions; I mean something above and higher than the question of operation and management. There is an opportunity there, and I presume that when the act was drawn it was put there for that purpose, in order that the government could exercise its functions on the higher ground of the best policy having regard to the conditions of the country, and that that idea be expressed and conveyed to the railway board.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is there any
provision in the act which puts that responsibility upon the government?


Murray MacLaren: The act states thri the board has conveyed to it the operation and management of the railways. I say that the government has the power of limiting, of re-

The Address

Mr. MacLaren
stricting, of supervising the action of the railway board. It is laid down so in the act, and here there is an opportunity for the government to express a high policy regarding the greater matters of transportation in this country. I also say there has been, up to the present, no such policy conveyed to the railway board. It is not necessary of course, for the government to do that; they may have no policy. I presume they have not or they would so express it. In reality, one looks on the railway board as an organization which should not be interfered with in any way in matters that come legitimately within their powers unless, of course, something occurs which must be criticized. Politics must not enter into the management, but no one wishes that politics should enter there. I did not know where to place my hon. friend from Cumberland yesterday when he spoke of indirect appointments by the government to the railway system. That is a matter a little too vague in character to try and enlighten the House upon.
Now, as I say, while the government has this authority to condition, it is not free to take any policy it sees fit regarding the railways. The railway board is subject to the government, and the government is subject to the statutes that have been previously passed by parliament, and that I believe is a very important point. The government itself is not free; it is limited by statutes which have previously passed parliament. I should therefore ask what these railway acts are. My hon. friend (Mr. Logan) yesterday referred to them, and said that some of the provisions had come within his knowledge only within the last few weeks. This to us is somewhat surprising as he is looked upon as the defender of the rights of the Maritime provinces. If it be true in his case there are probably many other members of the House who are not familiar with these acts. I therefore ask hon. members to refer to the acts in question and see exactly what is contained therein. I will not attempt to quote them, I did so last year, but I again draw the attention of the House to three acts in particular. One is the National Transcontinental Railway Act of 1903, another is the Act respecting aid toward the construction of the Canadian Northern Railway of 1911, and the third is the Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway System of 1914. These acts were passed during the periods of both the Liberal government and the Conservative government. There is no way by which the present government' or the opposition can decline to accept responsibility for one or more of them.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of reading these statutes they will be surprised, I believe, at all they contain. They may vary in degree, but even the powers conveyed by one or any of the three are very great and would have an enormous influence on the trade of this country. They all lay down that unrouted freight is to be passed over our Canadian railways to Canadian seaports. Large financial assistance, in some cases enormous financial assistance, was granted these railroads and m return the companies undertook to do certain things. You will find the conditions all set forth in the statutes, but for one thing they undertook that unrouted freight should be forwarded over Canadian railways to Canadian ports with a view of building up a great national policy regarding transportation in this country. That being the case, when the government took over the system of railroads it took over the commitments as well as the lines. Therefore I would submit that under all Canadian governments the control and conduct of our railway system must be subject to what is contained in these three acts. I have never heard any member of the government refer to this matter, nor do I know how the government view this question. I ask the Minister of Railways-I would ask the Prime Minister if he were present-to take the opportunity of giving the House and the country a clear statement regarding this matter. Does or does not the government consent to and accept these commitments as authoritative and as governing the actions of the railway board and themselves in the management and operation of these railways? Will the Minister of Railways convey to the public his interpretation? I think it is fair to ask for it. If it be-the view of the government that these matters are authoritative, and therefore capable of being put in action, that is something that will affect the interests of our country to a very great degree. If by any chance, on the other hand, it does not appeal to the minister, I can assure him that the country will demand it. It is a request which is considered right, and the people are looking for the fulfilment of these promises and conditions. It is more than a simple matter of an agreement or contract between the railways and the government, it is also really the assent of parliament to a great policy. When those acts were adopted this House was assenting to the policy being laid down and being accepted, that transportation so far as possible should be over our Canadian rails and through our Canadian ports.

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
I think the attitude of everyone in this country towards the railway board and towards the National Railways should be a friendly one. I myself am a believer in nationally owned railways, and in any case, whether one is or is not a believer in them, I think our attitude should be friendly and one of support to the railway board. That does not mean that one must not, especially in parliament, take the opportunity of criticizing, if he thinks there is a fair opportunity for criticism. I think we should be rather unready to criticize, because technical knowledge is required on that board, and We probably do not know all the details; but still there are occasions I think when anyone will see that it is proper to criticize. I must not forget that it may be also proper to commend. I think one should not have any small spirit in the matter, and when one sees reason for commending the railway board I think he should do so. I do not say there is not an opportunity-I think there have been opportunities-for commending the railway board. The chairman of the railway board, Sir Henry Thornton, makes speeches occasionally throughout the country. He made one in December of last year in Toronto before a body of commercial travellers, and the report of the meeting states that it was unusually largely attended. I think one should be careful at all times, but should be especially careful when addressing a body such as commercial travellers, alert men, who are travelling all over the country; and if a statement is made to these travellers by someone holding the position of chairman of the railway board, that statement will go all over the country. If it is not quite correct, then there is a lot of misinformation disseminated. What did Sir Henry Thornton say to the commercial travellers in Toronto? He referred to many subjects, but came finally to the section where I have the honour to live, the Maritime provinces, and the report states:-
The great complaint he recognized had come from the Maritime provinces. They said that they were being discriminated against. Sir Henry could not see that the Maritime provinces had any complaint.
Mr. MoMASTER: He must know very little about them.


Murray MacLaren: That is a fair inference, but I do not know. He has had an opportunity. Surely he has had the opportunity of conversing with Maritime men and with some of the representatives of the government who come from the Maritime provinces and yet he says, that as far as he can

make out, the Mad times had little to complain about. I think a little .less speaking and a little more listening is a-
Mr. MoMASTER:	A prescription that
might be followed.


Murray MacLaren: No, but an aphorism that many men could apply to themselves with great advantage. We come to one more speech by the chairman of the railway board, and this speech was delivered in Montreal in February last. He was speaking at the St. James Literary Society, and he spoke again on various questions affecting transportation and railway matters of the day, and at the end of his address one of the audience brought a great many points before him, and especially as to how the railway was failing to work out properly in the Maritime provinces, and Sir Henry said:
As for the Maritime provinces, I frankly do not know what to do. I do know that it is time the rest of us got together to find a remedy for the discontent of the people down there.
Now we have heard the two statements, and it may be that he has received further information since he made his Toronto speech, but be that as it may, he says that he does not know -what to do, but that something should be done, and he thinks the matter should be taken up seriously. Now that being the position Sir Henry Thornton finds himself in, I presume he has made a report to the government on this point. It would seem a natural and proper thing to report to the government what he had found and that he did not know what to do. He knows there is cause for complaint and thinks that action should be taken. If he has not represented that matter to the government, I would suggest to the government that they inquire from him what means he would1 suggest to bring about a better condition of affairs.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate one cause of great dissatisfaction not only in the Maritimes, but over large sections of the country, and it is in reference to the grain traffic through Portland, Maine. There they are, the cities of Halifax and St. John, not very far from the city of Portland and what do we find? In November and December of 1923, and January of 1924, through Portland, Maine, and conveyed over the National railways, were 6,831,294 bushels of wheat. At the same time during the corresponding months, November and December of last year and January of this year, through the port of St. John, over the Canadian National railways, were conveyed 458,168 bushels of wheat.

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
We find nearly seven million bushels of wheat going through Portland, Maine, as against less than five hundred thousand through the port of St. John; and yet the chairman of the
(railway board says at one time in Toronto that he does not know what the cause of dis-. content in this matter is. Here, as I am pointing out to you is a very much larger amount of grain passing over Canadian rails through to Portland, Maine, over the National railways, as compared with that which passed through St. John. That, I submit, unless it has been specially routed, should go through Canadian ports. The Canadian government and the Canadian railways Eire bound by statute to encourage as much as possible the passage of grain over Canadian rails through our own ports, and discourage the passage of grain over our rails to foreign ports. Here apparently is shown that at present the provisions contained in the statutes that I have already referred to are not being observed. To show that there is more in this matter than might appear and that the main objection is not found in financial considerations, I would point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway during the same period have sent some millions of bushels of grain through the port of St. John. They are not doing it for amusement; they are doing it as a matter of business.
There is a splendid opportunity for the government to bring about, by vigorous action, a very considerable improvement in our trade. The advantage of the Imperial preference which applies only to Canada, the development of trade with the West Indies, the enforcement of the provisions contained in the acts I have spoken of-these are matters which if taken up in a vigorous way by an active government will remedy many of the conditions of which we have been complaining and will bring population and produce wealth. I cannot but think that the government is showing a masterly inactivity in these matters. I cannot see that any effort is being put forward. Only through the efforts of a strong and aggressive government, determined to carry out the tasks that lie before it, will the country take that position which I believe it should ultimately reach.


Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, during the last session of this parliament various members of the group to which I adhere drew upon themselves and upon the group as a whole the adverse criticism that they were continually crying blue ruin. I have followed this debate very closely and I take it from my observations that the 16
party to my right, the official opposition, have pre-empted to themselves rights of a similar nature for this session. I have no wish to trespass on their premises, and in order that my remarks, which otherwise might be construed to be a criticism of existing conditions, may be such as to give them a bright beginning, I am going to attempt to find some ray of sunshine in that black cloud the pres-sence of which has been made the subject of reference by members on both sides of this House: I refer to the fact that we are losing many of our people, month by month and year by year.
It is pretty difficult, Mr. Speaker, to find any consolation in that fact, particularly when, as I understand, there have been months during the past year when we lost more people from our country than we had come into it. But I would point out for the consolation of the government that in losing these people we are losing many of those who are most discontented, and that, perhaps, is making the government of this country very much easier than it would be if those people remained here. I suggest that if those who were discontented had stayed in Canada there would have been more blue ruin talk and more calamity howling during this session than there has been in sessions in the past.
It is with the conditions that are causing people to leave this country that I am particularly concerned and regarding which I wish to speak for a short time this evening. I wish to analyze those conditions as far as I can-or some of them; I would not attempt to deal with them all-and to offer a few suggestions which in my estimation would tend to the betterment of those adverse conditions.
I have noted four things which I think may be called causes to which may be attributed a good proportion of the undesirable conditions which exist not in my constituency alone, not in western Canada alone, but in all of Canada which can be called agricultural-and I am sure that that is a very large percentage of the country. I will name the four conditions that I wish to deal with: first, the low prices prevailing for farm produce; second, the high costs of the necessities of life and the implements of production; third, transportation costs, and fourth, taxation. I am not sure that I have given them in their order of relative importance, but I do not think that matters very much; I shall discuss them in the order in which I have taken them.
I wish to place on record a few figures which, I must admit, are already on record and available to every member of this House.

242	'	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
I have taken them from the proceedings of the special Agricultural committee which was convened last year under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). They are enlightening, and although not strictly up to date yet I am confident that they will bear out the comparison I desire to make. First of all I will offer comparative figures for prices of grains, farm animals, and farm produce in general. Take wheat, our greatest export crop, and compare the figures of the average prices for 1913 with those of 1922, which are the years given in the table I have before me. I may say that this table was prepared by the Bureau of Statistics and was simply placed on record by the committee I have mentioned. In 1913 the average price of wheat was 67 cents-I am not sure on just what basis that price was given; in 1922 it was 85 cents, an increase of 27 per cent in those ten years. Taking oats and making the same comparison for the same years, we find the price rising from 32 to 38 cents, an increase of 18-!, per cent, and for barley the increase was from 42 to 46 cents, an increase of 9 *- per cent. Then, turning to farm animals and taking as an example western butcher steers on the Winnipeg market, in 1913 the average price per hundredweight was $6.37 and in 1922 it was $5.02, a decrease of 21 per cent. Taking hogs for the same years, but on the Toronto market, the increase between 1913 and 1922 would be shown as 28 per cent, but comparing the average price for 1913 with the price now being paid on that same market, a decrease is shown of 15 per cent. Take beef hides: in 1913 the average price was 14 cents and in 1922 it was 12,1 cents, or a decrease of 11 -3, per cent. And if, Sir, we had taken either the year 1920 or 1921, for comparative purposes, with the year 1913, that decrease would have been very much greater. Taking butter, in the year, 1913, the average price was 23| cents. In 1922, it was 31 cents, an increase of 33 per cent. Eggs show an increase of 34 per cent; and in reference to horses, which are not marketed in the usual way I have taken an extract from The Livestock News, issued by the Department of Agriculture of Saskatchewan for the month of February, 1924, which states, "The horse market is very quiet, there being a reasonable demand for good, sound, young draft horses, of from 1,400 to 1,800 pounds, at prices quoted from $100 up. Unsound, thin or undersized - omes, are practicr'ly unsaleable." The whole table, ae prepared by the Bureau of Statistics, is found to include practically all the produce that comes not only from the western farms, but from all 
the farms in Canada, and the average increase for the ten years I have cited for comparative purposes is 17 per cent. I would ask hon. members to bear that figure in mind because it has a vital relation to other figures which I shall submit. The increase in farm produce has been in the neighbourhood of 17 per cent over pre-war years. I have not quoted the extreme examples for the reason I stated when I began my remarks. But I do want to place on record what I consider an example of a condition that exists and which directly illustrates the undesirable circumstances which prevail at present among our farmers. I want to point out, however, that this is rather an extreme case. I have here a bill from the union stock yards in St. Boniface, Winnipeg, with regard to a cow that was sold there on the 19th November, 1923. Before I proceed further, let me say that I made inquiries concerning the beast in question and satisfied myself that the animal was not an exceptional one. It is true that it was not a choice beef animal, but I was assured by a score of farmers who had seen it that it was of the class of beef that is usually consumed on the farm and which, as many hon. members of this House are aware, makes a really good and substantial meal for anyone who enjoys a good farm dinner. True, this animal was sold on the wrong market; but the results are as I shall state them now. The weight of this cow was 1,140 pounds and I would point out to those who are not intimately acquainted with beef animals that any cow of this weight is not all skin and bones. The price paid in that market for this animal was 75 cents per hundred-weight, and the gross price was $8.55. From this, there had to be deducted expenses, charged up to the shipper, including freight, feed, insurance, commission, and so forth, amounting to 74.22 cents per hundredweight, making a total of $8.46. In addition to that there was another charge against the animal on account of packers' insurance of four cents, making a grand total in charges of $8.50. That meant a net return of 5 cents.


Mr. JONES:: Whom was the cow sold to?


Charles Wallace Stewart: It was sold in the Union stockyards. I have not the statement as to who purchased it, but it was sold in the usual way on that market.


George Burpee Jones: Was it sold by the United Grain Growers?


Charles Wallace Stewart: It was
handled by the United Grain Growers.

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)


Arthur Meighen: They disposed of the
animal?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Yes; it was through the pool. I was going to refer to that, because it holds out some hope for the future. When I was interrupted I was about to say that I had in my hand, attached to the bill, the cheque which was issued on account of this animal. That cheque reads:
Pay to the order of....five cents only.


Mr. McMASTER:: Did they charge the two cent stamp 'to the shipper?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I presume
the two cent stamp on that cheque is included in the 74.22 cents per hundredweight which was charged for the whole shipment. As I said in reply to the hon. member a moment ago, this animal was in a cattle pool and no doubt, for its quality, it will return-


An hon. MEMBER:: Another nickel?


Charles Wallace Stewart: No; I was not going to say another nickel, but something more, to the shipper.
* Mr. WHITE: Does the hon. member quote that as an average transaction?


Charles Wallace Stewart: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: These figures are all per 100 pounds?


Charles Wallace Stewart: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: What would be the
difference in price between selects and the next best grade?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think,
Sir, the standard difference is 10 per cent. I would not make the statement positively, but I think that is what the difference amounts to.
Then I would make a plea for the practice of economy in the utilization of labour. It is a criticism that can be brought against many of our farmers that they have followed the line of least resistance in that respect rather than hewing out a line for themselves under which they could utilize expensive labour and employ it to the very best advantage. On the other hand you may remind me that there are hundreds, indeed thousands of farmers who have followed out every point that I have

enjoined here and have found that it has helped, as I think it will help in all cases, but that it has not wholly solved the problem.
Another thing is the care of expensive implements. We have heard complaint made in that regard with respect to farmers and I think it is a just criticism. Another thing I would suggest in the line of personal endeavour would be to look carefully after the capital investment, to see that new investment is made in something that will be directly productive, particularly at this time when every cent must be earning another cent.
Another thing to which I attach great importance is carefulness in regard to the control of noxious Weeds. I may say, Mr. Speaker, there is no one item coming under the personal control of a farmer which is more important, and which if carefully attended to gives better returns than the control of noxious weeds on the farm. Still there are a great many farmers who have taken every step possible in this respect, who have kept their farms just as clean as it is possible for them' to do, and yet they find it is warfare to the bitter end with them,-that their owr personal endeavours cannot entirely overcome this particular difficulty. Here I want tc diverge long enough to draw the attention of the government to the fact that this is something they can help in. The Minister of Agriculture, I observe, is in his seat and I hope he will pay attention to my statements as they are addressed particularly to him at this time. There are sections in western Canada, as I know it, where noxious weeds are becoming a great menace, and in those same sections there are still areas of Crown lands that are administered by the government, some of it in fact held directly by the government. I have already mentioned that some farmers have made a very great fight against these weeds and have conquered them so far as their own farms are concerned; but they cannot go out on the Crown lands and achieve the same success there. That would be an utter impossibility at the present time so far as labour and the resulting cost is concerned; and I ask you, Sir, if it is not reasonable for them to request this government to take care of the weeds on crown lands which are under federal control. Of course those farmers know perfectly well that if the government carries out such a course they will have to pay their share of the cost of doing it, the expenditure will have to be met by a tax, but even so would it not be advisable for this government to take the necessary steps. To my personal knowledge this matter has been before the government for some considerable

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
time, and I would urge them to take the required steps before the problem becomes such a serious one that it can only be handled through the instrumentality of a severe tax. Therefore I urge the government to tackle this problem now and do their best to eradicate the weeds on crown lands adjacent to cultivated lands.
One other thing that personal endeavour is doing for many farmers, and they are finding it to be of great assistance to them, is specialization in some particular line or branch of their industry, and I want to quote just one incident that came to my attention in that regard. Not very long ago-to be precise less than two months ago-I was talking to two gentlemen and it was perhaps a coincidence that each of these gentlemen, engaged in farming in western Canada, has a brother sitting in this House. We were discussing the matter of the unprofitableness of farming at the present time. One of these men made the statement, and he is a farmer on a large scale, that when he had cleaned up he would have to dig into his capital, as he has had to do for two or three years, to square himself up, and yet he had had good results so far as yields were concerned. The other man farming in the same community with him made the statement-and he gave me some details later on which, I think, would adequately prove his statement-that the past year's crop was going to be the most profitable he had ever harvested in western Canada. The two men are farming within a very few miles of one another but the difference was this: The one man was farming-I was going to say wholly along wheat growing lines but that would not be correct, he does keep the average number of live stock, cattle and hogs on his farm; but the other man is a specialist in the growing of clover. It was just along the line of that specialization that he had received the big returns from his last year's crop, and I believe that farmers by specializing where the opportunity offers will obtain good returns.
Now I must hurry on to the next point and that is co-operative effort to better conditions. This is receiving very considerable attention in Canada at the present time, particularly wheat marketing in western Canada. I do not wish to say very much in regard to that, it is in an experimental stage so far, but the indications are that it will vindicate the test and that the results of wheat marketing by co-operative methods will indeed be proved within a year or two in this Dominion, just as other commodities of the farmer have been marketed successfully through co-operative methods. In the province of Saskatchewan in some instances we market our live stock through the initial stages co-operatively. In my own experience we organized a co-operative stock shipping association some ten or twelve years ago. In so far as hogs are concerned, the prices were not very high at that time, but our returns for hogs through shipping co-operatively increased about 33 1/3 per cent immediately over the price we had previously been receiving. As to cattle the returns were not so obvious but they were very satisfactory, and to this extent, that in the district where that stock shipping was organized, for two years after the system was inaugurated no drover shipped a car of stock from that point; the shipments of cattle and hogs were all made co-operatively.
I also wish to mention the co-operative marketing of dairy products. In the province of Saskatchewan we have found that to be a very great success indeed. Although a moment ago I drpw the attention of the minister to the need for further activity on his part I would, just at this stage, give him due credit for the part he took in encouraging that system of co-operation in the marketing of dairy products, particularly cream and butter. There can be further co-operation. It has already been proved that co-operation is, to some extent, successful in the purchasing of commodities that are used in large quantities such as binder-twine, building materials and fencing. I am not going to enter into that.
I simply mention it as one of the things that has been tried and proved successful as a relief for conditions such as now exist. Then further, co-operation in a community can sometimes be made very valuable and laboursaving can be effected by co-operative efforts, particularly in the matter of the threshing of our grain crop. I think that this is one thing that requires the attention of the farmers themselves, and that efforts should be made along that line.
I come now to the third point, and the one which I wish to stress most in this House, because here we have an opportunity of taking steps along the lines that I indicate; that is, legislative reforms. First of all, I have placed the need of the reduction of federal taxation by the practice of economy in administration. With that simple statement, I think I have lined myself up with the great majority of the members in this House, and I am going to add nothing further at this time. Following that I would suggest an adjustment of the burden of taxation, so that the burden will not fall so heavily on the consumer; and in
8	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
conjunction with that the adoption of direct methods of taxation. I know that we have many of them at the present time. I favour the adoption of direct methods, so that it will be more clearly indicated who pays the taxes. If I may be pardoned again for diverging from the subject in hand, I cannot help reading an editorial comment from a journal-I suppose it is a very reputable journal-published in Montreal, called the Montreal Pharmaceutical Journal. It is the last issue which I received February, 1924. In this journal a very misleading statement is published, and I am going to offer it to members of this House as something that will not get us anywhere, and something that we should discourage. We should face the facts, and these are not facts-at least they are not all facts. Some of the premises are perhaps facts. This article says-
Again we reiterate the statement that we are in Canada improperly taxed; that the taxation and vanous schemes of levy in effect are not alone onerous but depressing and destructive of energy and enterprise.
I think I could agree with that.
All the revenue required can be derived from a properly constructed customs tariff.
I think hon. members to my right can go that far, but I cannot.
Taxation levied through that channel applies to alleach and everyone living in the country would become a contributor whereas to-day there is current to a certain extent a class taxation that is manifestly unfair.
But it does not specify.
The farmers escape altogether.
I draw the attention of hon. members to that statement.
Whereas they would be just as happy if they were contributing moderately under the effect of meeting figures for their daily requirements that would constitute this contribution and practically without their being aware of it.
The editor holds that up as an ideal system of taxation. I, Sir, condemn it as being the worst system of taxation we could possibly have, and the sooner we get away from it the better for all.
The third suggestion that I am making in the way of legislative reforms would be the removal of the tariff from the necessaries of life and from the implements of production, as a means of lowering the cost of living. I have already made certain comments along that line and will not further comment.
I have another thing which is not exactly legislation, but which would require legislation if it could be effected. I appeal to the government to keep before them the need 
for constant endeavour to secure free entry for our goods to our natural market, namely the market of the great republic to the south of us.
Then there should be a thorough investigation of transportation costs, with a view to legislation where necessary to reduce them to a possible minimun. So far as our railways are concerned, I do not suppose that, with our National Railway piling up a deficit year after year, we are likely to get much sympathy m our requests for reductions of rates, but it has already been intimated to the government, not only this session but in past sessions a? well, that a revaluation of the capitalization of our Canadian National Railways might place them in a much better situation. I am inclined to believe that it would be proper to proceed along that line. So far as controlling lake transportation is concerned, I would suggest that the government take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a fiasco such as we witnessed last year occurring in the future, and I cannot see any reason in the world why, with a merchant marine at their command, they cannot offer as much competition to those unruly lake carriers as the situation calls for. Speaking of the merchant marine, I think that they could, if they so desired, use it to some extent at least to help us control the ocean transportation costs on our export live stock at least.
There is another suggestion along this same line. I suggest that the grain trade requires even more careful regulation than it has received up to the present time. I would suggest that attention be given to the grading of our grain-that is our wheat-based on its milling values, rather than on the basis which . now used, and also that a further investi-; gation should be made as to the effect of Imixing in our terminal elevators on our ultimate market for grain. Then I would suggest, along a different line, that we should proceed with our investigation which was begun last year to try and find a system for providing long term and intermediate term credits. I am not going to enlarge upon it.
I would simply point it out. It is one of the things which I consider would render a considerable amount of relief to those suffering under adverse circumstances.
Lastly, I would suggest to the government that new or increased transportation facilities would to a certain extent relieve the difficulties that we suffer under at the present time. There are, Sir, three projects before this House at the present time for consideration; the St. Lawrence deep waterway project, the Pacific route for our grain and the Hudson Bay route.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
At this particular time I do not intend to debate the relative value of those routes. I simply suggest to the government that they should investigate very thoroughly the possibilities of those routes, and, before I make any further statement, may I say that the Hudson Bay route cannot be properly investigated until the road is completed to the bay, and I think it is only a fair and just demand of all the agriculturists who are living in western Canada, and who are interested in that route, that the railway be completed to the bay. Then having placed that route on a fair footing with the other routes I think the government should investigate all of them and should develop those that show they would return an adequate interest on the investment made in them. I have made these suggestions, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that I might draw attention to some of the causes of and some of the remedies for the conditions under which agriculture suffers. I have already apologized to the House for the many figures I have imposed upon it. and I trust I will be forgiven for trespassing at such length upon the time of the House.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
upon, is a policy of protection, not only to the manufacturer but to the agriculturist.
And what do we ask in addition? We ask the government to stop what I would call "the mad dog" policy which it is pursuing at the present time. The newspapers of the country, the bankers and other personages urge upon them retrenchment. "Yes," the government said "we will retrench. We will begin with the Auditor General. We will retrench his salary from S6,000 to $15,000. We will place that official in charge of the rest of the retrenchments. We will place him in charge of putting out the little fish, of throwing out the little fellow, with a salary of $1,000 a year. This is the man who is to be thrown out and the man with an increase of $9,000 a year is to have charge of the work." Not only that but I understand an order has gone out to the deputy ministers to retrench, to cut 25 per cent off their estimates, to cut 25 per cent off here and there. It is, as I said before, a mad dog policy. The government are biting here and biting there; they have no order or system whatever in regard to their retrenchments.
We also ask the government to lessen the income tax. We do not say that the income tax should be abolished in its entirety, but we have gone so far in this method of taxation to-day that people are afraid to go any further in the direction of developing industry. They are afraid to put their money into any work that will give employment to others in this country. If we do nothing else we can surely lessen the income tax of those who are producing work, who are carrying out development in this country to some extent, and give them some relief so that the money now being taken from them will be placed back in industry and help to further develop the industrial life of the country.
We also say to the government:	Spend
less money on undesirable and inexcusable immigration policies. It is a sad state of affairs to-day that people are being brought out to Canada when there is no work for them. I am not speaking now of the harvesters who were induced to come to Canada, but a few weeks ago it was my experience to meet six of the finest Scottish lads I ever saw. They had been brought out to Canada by a notice in the paper saying that there was work to be found in this country. They had put up all the money they had to reach the Dominion only to find that conditions here were just about as bad as they were in the Old Country. It is possible that some of the people brought here have been provided with employment, but how

many of them have only swollen the ranks of the unemployed by coming to Canada.
Now, Sir, I have spoken of this administration as a wobbling government, a vacillating government. Many parts of Canada are awaiting an answer as to what the government intend to do in regard to certain issues. There is, for example, a demand for the deepening of the St. Lawrence, for the completion of the Welland canal, for the selection of a terminal for the Great Lakes development. If the present policy of the government continues there will be no necessity for them to act more speedily than they are now doing. There will be no industries to demand the electrical current which the province of Ontario expects to obtain from the St. Lawrence waterway development. There will be no need for any further increase of electrical power in the Welland canal district. In cities like Brantford industries will perhaps close, the wheels of the mills there will no longer be grinding and turning. Even now the outlook is by no means so rosy as the Speech from the Throne declares. But there is one thing we do expect, unless the government take so long to consider their policy that the people in their anger will rise and cast them out, and that is that some day they will give an answer to the various great questions which are being pressed upon them by the people of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Speakman the debate was adjourned. *



ADJOURNMENT-WEDNESDAY SITTING.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister) moved that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned until three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.30 pjn.
Wednesday, March 12, 1924