1924-03-10

PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. SINCLAIR

Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: 
Mr.   J@: I
would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if there is any truth in the report current in the papers that the government does not intend to take any steps to prevent the full operation of the Crowsnest pass agreement in July next.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) :: The action of the government will
be made known in due course. I am not in a position to state its attitude to-day.



ORDER-REFERENCES TO THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
George Perry Graham: Might I call your attention, Mrj
Speaker, to one thing? I seldom, if ever, call any speaker to order so long as he keeps within reasonable distance of the rules of debate, but I fear that in the debate on the Address now in progress we are getting close to the violation of a rule in referring, as has been done frequently in this House, to what has taken place in the upper chamber. I think that is not according to the well-known practice of the House of Commons. I remember being called to order on one occasion in this House for referring to what was said in the upper chamber in these words: "Somewhere, some person has used this language," I was called to order for quoting from a debate
The Address-Mr. Logan

in the Senate. I think I need only call attention to the rule. In order to maintain good feeling between the two Houses of Parliament and respect one for the other, we should not refer to the debates taking place in the upper house.
UNITED STATES TARIFF ON WHEAT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Might I ask if the government
contemplates taking any action, by way of retaliation or otherwise, in regard to the proposed increase in the United States tariff against Canadian wheat and wheat products?


George Perry Graham: "Retaliation" is a bad word to use in business, if the object of trade is to make a profit. I would not like to say that the government had even been considering retaliation.
HOME BANK INVESTIGATION On the Orders of the Day:


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the acting leader of the House say whether or not anything has been done towards amending the commission in respect of the Home Bank inquiry, pursuant to the promise of the Prime Minister last week?


George Perry Graham: I will look into the matter and give my hon. friend a reply tomorrow or the next day.


Arthur Meighen: Will the leader of the
House lay on the table the amended commission?


George Perry Graham: I have no objection to
doing that when the commission is amended.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[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 Friday, March 7.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, joining with others I desire to congratulate the mover (Mr. Kelly), and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre) of the Address. We have known the member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) for a long time; we know how eloquent he is. I hail in this House a fellow Nova Scotian in the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Kelly), who in

moving the Address gave us one of the most businesslike speeches we have listened to for some sessions. I am going to speak to-day in perhaps a rather candid way. I agree with my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St George (Mr. Marler) who told us on Thursday that speeches in this debate should be rather in the direction of advice to the government of the country, and should reflect the views of the constituencies which the speakers represent.	I propose this afternoon, in a
most humble way, to give some advice to the government of Canada particularly in reference to the Maritime provinces to which I have the honour to belong.
The Speech from the Throne itself, as a whole, is one which commends itself to all well-wishers of Canada. If previously we had a chart we now have a definite programme to deal with at this session. Speaking as a Liberal I regard the Speech from the Throne as one calculated to give us fresh hope for the welfare of this country. Undoubtedly the speech is long, consisting as it does of twenty-one or twenty-two paragraphs, but every paragraph is important in view of the present condition of affairs with which we have to cope. I shall refer particularly, Mr. Speaker, to one or two of these paragraphs in passing. Paragraph 4 is thus worded:
My ministers believe, however, that in virtue of economies already effected they will, when the present financial year closes, be able to announce to the country that for the first time since 1912-1913 the national budget has been balanced. They are further of the opinion that when the budget for the ensuing fiscal year is introduced it will be found that the relation between public revenue and public expenditure is such as to justify some immediate reduction of taxation.
The people of this country will welcome this declaration of an early reduction in taxation with a great deal of pleasure. We know that the war was expensive. We were quite willing during that great struggle to bear our burden. But the taxation of this country at the present time-I refer particularly to the direct taxation-is, in my humble judgment, too high, and is not in the best interests of the country as a whole.
In the next paragraph the government announce that the government propose
-to reduce the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, thereby aiding materially in the development of our natural resources, and, through cheapened production, effecting a diminution also in the cost of living.
That is a good sound Liberal principle, a doctrine which we desire to preach and to carry out. The wealth of Canada can never be built up with exotic industries. The great

The Address-Mr. Logan
wealth of Canada depends upon the soil, upon the sea, upon the forest, upon the mines, and whatever we can do to lessen the cost of production in connection with these great natural resources, the richer our country must become. This doctrine is particularly pleasing to one from Nova Scotia, because there we not only have the important industry of agriculture but we also have the great mining industry, we have the lumbering industry, and we have the great fishing industry. A reduction in the cost of production will be beneficial to these industries as well as to agriculture. One would think sometimes when an industry affecting a few hundred men is getting nervous, that there were not other large industries in Canada which should be considered. I read an address the other day delivered by my hon. friend the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) before an organization in this city in which he made this statement:
One hundred thousand of the inhabitants of Canada are dependent upon the fishing industry.
What in the name of heaven has protection ever done for the fishing industry of this country? We have in Nova Scotia probably nearly one hundred thousand people directly or indirectly dependent upon the coal mining industry. What has protection ever done for the coal mining industry of this Dominion? I will devote some little time later on in my address to a consideration of the question of the duty upon coal. I want to remove from the minds of the people of Canada the idea that we have any protection upon the production of coal. Then, too, what has protection ever done for the lumbering industry of the Maritime provinces, or for that matter what has it ever done for the agricultural interests of these provinces? Forty-five years have gone by since great hopes were held out to us. We were promised in that distant past that the National Policy would build up great industries in the Maritime provinces, that smokestacks would arise in all parts of the country, and that incidentally there would be a great market for the products of the farm. We have waited for forty-five years for this prediction to be fulfilled. I defy anybody in this House, from the leader of the opposition down, to show where high protection has been of benefit to the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Why, Sir, the two industries in my constituency that have really weathered the storm, so to speak- have weathered the hard times that followed the war-are the woollen industry in Oxford and the boot and shoe industry in Amherst. They were prosperous industries away back
in the seventies before we had any National Policy; but some other industries particularly those which have been built up on a false basis were the ones to suffer first when depression came a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, we have had it stated here there is prosperity in Canada. The leader of the opposition denies it, but I prefer to take the language of a man who occupies a very important position, namely R. S. White, editor in chief of the Montreal Gazette, the sanest Conservative newspaper in Canada. In his opening remarks in the book published this year by the Gazette company containing a commercial and financial review of the year 1923 he says:
Surveying the state of trade in Canada in 1923, and all that pertains to the material prosperity of its people, there is much to encourage and little to dispirit.
Taking the whole of the Dominion of Canada "there is much to encourage and little to dispirit," but we must admit there are districts in Canada which have not the prosperity which we would wish. Those districts are the prairie provinces of the West and the Maritime provinces. We on this side desire to endeavour to better conditions in these two parts of Canada, believing as we do that the strength of our confederation chain depends upon the strength of the individual links. It is of no use to try to build up a strong Canada when the Maritime provinces are weak or are not prospering. The Maritime provinces were considered most important to confederation, and they are most important. But if the conditions there are ijot what they should be, it behooves this government, or any other government in this country, to get down, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) often says, to brass tacks, to find out what is the matter, and effect a remedy, if possible.
Referring again to the general prosperity of Canada outside of these two parts thereof, it is a matter of congratulation that there has been and is considerable prosperity. I know it is stated that we are very heavily in debt, that we owe about two billions four hundred millions of money, but does it ever occur to you, Mr. Speaker, that three-quarters of that money is due to Canadians, and that the people of Canada actually receive every year from that loan about ninety million dollars in interest? The government pays in pensions to the soldiers thirty-three million dollars. That money is kept in Canada; it circulates again, and part of it comes back to the treasury of the country. We advanced to railways something like seventy-seven millions last year, but was that money sent out of the country? No, it was paid
The Address-Mr. Logan
[Stage Direction]
out to working men, to manufacturers, and producers throughout the length and breadth of the land. We gave subsidies to the provinces of twelve million dollars which is spent in the provinces and is coming back to us in an indirect way. We gave in grants for secular education, for highways and agriculture, eight million dollars, and in ordinary expenditure about one hundred and twenty-six million dollars, all spent in Canada, and paid to Canadians. Our total expenditure for the year was about four hundred and thirty-four million. I venture to state that out of that sum three hundred and seventy-five million dollars remained in Canada, that being one of the reasons why this country is as prosperous as it is to-day. If hon. members will look at the deposits in the savings banks and in the chartered banks of the country, they will find that in spite of the fact that the Canadians have one billion seven hundred millions invested in government bonds, the deposits in the chartered banks and in the savings banks have materially increased during the last year. Therefore, I think it can be very well said that, so far as the central part of Canada is concerned there is prosperity and considerable of it.
What is the matter, may I ask, with the Maritime provinces? I am not going to speak of the prairie provinces, because there are so many honourable gentlemen from those provinces who know so much more about them than I do that it would be presumptuous on my part to speak about their difficulties. But I .do claim to know something about the difficulties of the Maritime provinces. What are the difficulties? What is the cause of this depression? Why is it that so many of our manufactories are idle? Why is it that the grass grows upon the streets of many of the seaport towns of those provinces? I give you the answer, Mr. Speaker, in two words. Tariff and transportation are the causes of it. We did not feel the effects of the National Policy as long as we had cheap transportation. We did not feel it so severely as we feel it now, so long as we could transport our manufactured goods from the Maritime provinces into the middle of Canada or the West at a low rate of freight. But, a few years ago, when the late government merged the Intercolonial with the commercial railways of Canada, and raised the freight rates to their present position, we found ourselves not only up against a tariff wall, but up against a freight wall, and between the two walls we are being squeezed to death.

Let us stress for a moment what happened in the Maritime provinces. Hon. members will pardon me if I go over this matter, not at as great length as I have on other occasions in the House, but to some extent to follow up my arguments. In the Maritime provinces, let it be understood and known, before confederation we were a comparatively rich people. The trade per capita of New Brunswick, let me tell hon. members, in 1864 was almost double that of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, known as old Canada, and the trade of Nova Scotia was materially greater than the trade of Canada. We owned at that time in Nova Scotia over three thousand ships which sailed out of our ports carrying products of the farms, forests, mines and fisheries. Where did they carry that produce? They earned it especially to the New England states and to the West Indies. We had at that time seventeen thousand of our sons upon the sea, manning ships, sailing through the different waters, particularly those which I have mentioned. We did not desire confederation. Let that also be distinctly understood; and so great an optimist as my very distinguished predecessor in the representation of Cumberland, that great Canadian, Sir Charles Tupper, Baronet, in 1864, three years before confederation, made the statement in the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia that the difficulties of confederation were insuperable. Shortly after that our men met in Charlottetown to form a Maritime union. While there a delegation from Upper and Lower Canada, the greatest galaxy of orators probably that ever sailed the Maritime seas-Sir John Macdonald, Hon. George Brown, D'Arcy McGee, Sir Hector Langevin, and many others of the great political stars of the country-came in upon our little convention, and said, "Walk into our parlor of confederation." The representatives of the Maritime provinces said, "No, there are too great difficulties." They said, "What are they? What are you afraid of." Our representatives said, "We are afraid, first that you will raise a tariff in this country that will by a retaliatory tariff interfere with our trade with that country which nature intended we should trade with, namely the New England states of America. If we are shut out from that market, where are we? Where is our market to come from?" With honeyed words, these orators said, "We will give you a new market to take the place of this market if you should lose it." Our delegates said to them, "How can you give us that market? You are too far away." They replied, "We will build you a means of communication, namely the Intercolonial, in order that if you

The Address-Mr. Logan
lose the United States market you will have a market equally as good in the central parts of Canada." Our people listened to them. They did not however take their word; they insisted it should be in the bond, and if hon. members will read section 145 of the British North America Act they will find set out in that section not only the promised building of the Intercolonial, but the reasons why it would be built, namely to secure the consent of the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to enter confederation. For fifty years the promises given at the time of confederation were fairly well kept. As I say, we did not feel the effect of the National Policy or high protection in this country as long as we were able to send our goods from the Maritime provinces to the West. We used to boast in the young city in which I live that we sent over half of our products to western Canada. We send mighty little of our production to western Canada or to central Canada today, because we are shut out of those markets by the exorbitant rates that have been put into effect upon the railways of our country, the Intercolonial included.
It is difficult for us to make the people of the rest of Canada understand our grievance in this matter, and it is difficult for them to know just how sensitive we are. There are many still living that remember the fight for confederation. It is still an unpopular subject to discuss. They know, and we, their sons, know that those solemn promises were made and we know that when the Intercolonial railway ceased to be a part of the constitution of this country and was placed among commercial railways of Canada and under the same rates of freight, a crime was committed against the people of the Maritime provinces. We are here to-day again to ask and demand that those promises made to us in 1864, 1865 and 1866, promises which I could repeat here for an hour if I cared to weary you, must be kept if we are to be at all prosperous and to become the part of confederation that we should be.
Before leaving this subject, let me say that we in the Maritime provinces feel grateful for some things that have been done by this government. Under the old government, our whole road was controlled in Toronto by [DOT] Canadian Northern officials, men who had no sympathy with us and with whom we did not have much acquaintance. This government has changed that. We have had established at Moncton headquarters for the government railways in the Maritime provinces. They are in charge of a Maritime province man. The general superintendent is
a Maritime province man, and equally pleasant is the fact that the general traffic manager is also a Maritime province man. We have, as I say, many things to be thankful for to this government for ameliorating the conditions that existed there four or five years ago. But I want to say now to the government and to the country that until conditions are made better as regards freight rates in the Maritime provinces, not from an economic standpoint altogether, but from a constitutional standpoint, we never can be satisfied in those provinces, and the government is bound to find that out. They found it out in the constituency of Halifax. They found it out in the constituency of Kent. Nobody in Halifax spoke about protection; even the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) did not talk protection in Halifax. He did not talk protection in Kent. Why? That would be ridiculous; nobody wanted to hear about protection. But what he did talk about was the grievances of the Maritime provinces, and the people feel those grievances and they must be remedied.
Mr. HOCKEN:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that those appointments to executive positions on the railways were made by the government?


Mr. LOGAN:: Indirectly by the government. They were made by Sir Henry Thornton and his board, and Sir Henry Thornton and his board were appointed by the government, so indirectly they were appointed by the government.
Having stated the reason for the depression in the Maritime provinces, let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, some things that may bring back our prosperity. In the first place, we desire export trade. We are, it has been well said, the eastern wharf of Canada. But our export trade has diminished and does not bring to us that prosperity which we formerly enjoyed. Our natural market, besides that of the United States, is to the south of us. We looked, in days gone by, to the United States. That market is closed to us by the Fordney tariff. We then looked to central and western Canada for trade. That market is closed to us by the freight tariff. Where are we to look now? We are to look to the place where we always should have looked, namely, across water transportation to the countries to the south of us. Export trade with the West Indies and with South America should be encouraged in every possible way. Trade with those countries should be built up and looked after. During this winter I
The Address-Mr. Logan

ly as good as the American anthracite. So the old argument against bituminous coal, the old horror that the people had against the smoke, has passed away, and now we have a substitute for anthracite which is equally as good as anthracite.
We imported into this country -last year- and these figures are well within the mark-coal to the value of over $100,000,000. Of that about 14,000,000 tons was bituminous coal and 5,000,000 tons anthracite. In converting bituminous coal into coke, one-and-a-half tons of coal are required to make one ton of coke; so if we had desired last year to replace the five million tons of anthracite brought into this country with coke, it would have meant the mining of an additional
7.500,000	tons of bituminous coal in this country. Therefore if we had a policy by which this country could be made self-contained so far as coal is concerned, we would not only prevent the importation of 14.000,000 tons of bituminous coal each year, but by making coke to take the place of anthracite, we would add 7,500,000 tons more to that
14,000,000 tons, making a total of 21,500.000 tons of extra coal mined in this country to replace the American coal now imported. We are producing about 18,000.000 tons, >but if we had a proper coal policy we would add I repeat no less a quantity than 21,500,000 tons of coal mined in this country, which, at a price of $5 a ton at the mines would mean to the miners and operators and all those connected with the collieries, no less a sum than $107,500,000. In addition to that, we would have transportation costs paid to the Canadian National Railways, at say $4 per ton, amounting to $86,000,000, which would also be left in Canada to help the people of this country. Further, let me point this out. When we buy $100,000,000 of coal in the United States we have to pay in exchange, according to the rate that is being charged to-day, no less a sum than $3,500,000 of good Canadian money. That money goes in exchange, and might just as well be thrown into the sea. If you add the saving in exchange to the extra amount which would be spent in Canada for producing the coal and add to that again the cost of transportation which would be paid to Canadian railways, you get a total amount of good Canadian money which would be left here of nearly $200,000,000.
New, let me just refer again to discount on exchange. We pay it largely because we are buying so much from the United States of America. If we could reduce the amount we
fMr. Logan.]
are paying to the United States by that $100,000,000 which we paid for coal imported last year, in all probability we would have had par money in this country at the present time, because that would have helped to bring the imports and exports as between the two countries almost to the same level. If we did that we would save the exchange upon the whole purchase price of articles other than coal brought into this country from the United States, amounting to about $520,000,000. A rate of three and a half per cent on $520,000,000 would represent over $18,000,000 more saved to the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how is coal independence to be secured? One way of bringing about that most desirable result is to provide transportation for our coal at a reasonable rate. Last year the Mines committee of the House dealt with this matter. We listened to a great amount of very valuable information from different persons in reference to coal and the transportation thereof. We had before us transportation men, we had freight agents, we had traffic managers, we had all kinds of officials to advise us as to how we could handle coal. We also had before us some men who were not connected with any transportation company. For example, there was Mr. M. J. Butler, formerly deputy minister of railways in this country, who afterwards became general manager of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and subsequently was connected with the Armstrong-Whitworth Company, one of the largest concerns in the British Empire, a man of outstanding ability. He put before us arguments which I will not go into but will condense in this way: He said that instead of it costing us $9 or $12, which is the price to-day I believe, for transporting coal, from Edmonton or even west of that city to Toronto, coal could be put in Toronto for $4.57 a ton; that was he contended the actual cost of it. Mr. Butler was not a man picked off the street but a gentleman of knowledge and of standing in the country, and he put this statement in concise form before us. He, of course, made a condition that I submit is the crux of the whole matter, that if we are going to transport coal cheaply it must be done with proper equipment; it is no use trying to transport coal in broken-down equipment. Let me use his own language on that point:
To begin with let us eliminate the "know it can't be done type." Let us also eliminate the traffic officers who are making rates, predicated before using, small coal cars, box cars, old weak locomotives, with small train loads- or mixed train loads, with a few cars of coal to fdl up the tonnage.

The Address-Mr. Logan
It is I think clear, that the problem is one that demands that the equipment, from beginning to end shall be adequate to handle the tonnage at the lowest cost, but not at a price that the railway will suffer.
The argument that Mr. Butler makes is that we must provide the equipment in order to carry coal, and if we do that there will be a very material lessening in the cost. Therefore I submit to the government they should immediately appoint a commission, to consist of not more than three men, to make a report to the House as to the actual facts in reference to the cost of transporting coal. I am not talking about the question of income, of net revenue or gross revenue; I want to know what it actually costs to transport coal in Canada. It is almost impossible to get that knowledge from a railway official. One man may be charging $5 and it is difficult for him, perhaps, to explain the discrepancy if the cost is only $3. T1 en we must remember there is always a certain amount of hesitancy on the part of officials of competing companies to disclose information which might affect either corporation. What we want to do is to get down to the actual cost of carrying coal. Mr. Butler informed us that the Virginia railway is carrying coal at a very low rate, and upon that rate he has founded the rates which could be made by the railways of Canada. I therefore submit that a commission should be appointed to inquire into this matter. I would suggest that Mr. Butler be made chairman of the commission, and that a man from Alberta and a man from the Maritime provinces should be associated with him. This commission should be given power to go down into the territory of the Virginia railway where these rates exist-and, mark you, the grades there are higher than we have; do not forget that, the grades in Virginia add nothing to their advantage that I can seethe commission should also investigate the transportation costs of the Norfolk and Western, and the Chesapeake and Ohio, and the Illinois Central. In this way, I believe, it can be established what is the actual cost of carrying coal. I believe myself that if this inquiry be made it will establish that coal can be carried, from the Maritime provinces for instance to the province of Ontario, for not more-than $2 a ton at the very outside. We used to pay $1.60 six or seven years ago from the Cumberland mines, Nova Scotia, to Montreal. The present rate is $3.60 or $3.80. I want to know what the actual cost of carrying that coal is, I do not want it from any railway official, I want it from a man who is independent of all transportation companies and not concerned in the importation of 12
American coal. I believe we can do that by carrying out my suggestion; I believe we can get down to the very basis of the matter, get down to rock bottom, and find out what the transportation of coal costs. We shall then know what percentage ought to be allowed to our railwaj's in order to enable them to make a profit.
I am now going to refer to another matter which I think is important to the Maritime provinces, and indeed to all Canada. In the Speech from the Throne it is mentioned that it is proposed to make every effort to develop still further the policy of Canadian trade via Canadian ports. Last year the Minister of Finance brought down a measure giving ten per cent reduction on British goods when imported through Canadian ports. I shall not now discuss whether that policy was right or wrong. There is a strong argument being made by the woollen people of this country that owing to the present depreciation of English currency, the unemployment situation in the United Kingdom, and the lower labour rates- as a result in a word of the operation of the law of supply and demand-that we, perhaps, made a mistake at that time in lessening the duty on woollen goods entering Canada. I am not now going to discuss the pros and cons of that question. What I want to argue is that the government should go the whole way and confine the British preference to goods brought in through Canadian ocean or river ports. I may say, however, that even with the ten per cent reduction in duty a marvellous diversion of shipments has been made to Canadian ports since the last budget. I have not the figures relating to this matter at the present time, but I presume they will be presented to us when the budget is brought down. I cannot see myself, any reason why we should not follow the historic policy of the United States and confine this preference entirely to goods brought in through our sea and river ports.
In the Speech from the Throne a reference is made to the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference held in London last year. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speakers'who have so far taken part in this debate. I believe they all think as I do, that this is a serious time in the history of our country. Perhaps it would not be out of place to paraphrase in this connection, the motto which is given to students when striving to acquire a knowledge of typewriting: "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the country." This is a good time for us to consider these matters seriously, because it is a serious time in the history of our land.

The Address-Mr. Logan

But I do resent one statement and that was the attack that was made during this debate on the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King), for not taking part, in the recent general elections in Great Britain on behalf of Mr. Baldwin's preferential tariff. I want to point out that, in my humble opinion, such interference in the British elections would have been resented just as strongly as would interference by the British prime minister in an election campaign in Canada. What are the facts? The Imperial Conference was called by the Baldwin government. The Dominions responded to the call and journeyed to London. After many weeks of conference it was agreed by the government of Great Britain to extend the preference on certain products of the Dominion. This was promised from the Old Land to sister nations in this great British commonwealth, and I insist that these promises are binding upon the homeland. Are we to be told that the British parliament which, a few years ago, although the great majority thereof was hostile to home rule, carried out an undertaking of its predecessors, and thus kept faith with southern Ireland, is going to break faith with Canada and the other sister nations? I refuse to believe it. The Baldwin government entered into a certain agreement with the United States before they went out of power, extending the right of seizure beyond the three-mile limit. Will anyone suggest that the Ramsay MacDonald government is not going to carry out to the letter its agreement with its predecessors in office. Surely we are to be treated as well, at least, as foreign nations. If not, then our faith in future imperial conferences is going to be materially lessened. So far from the Prime Minister of the country being criticized for not taking part in that election, I am sure he should be praised for the silence he maintained.
I want to advocate before I take my seat that the railway department of this country -and I now direct my remarks principally to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), to Sir Henry Thornton and his board-should endeavour to carry more produce and more exports to Canadian ports. I desire to make an argument, Mr. Speaker, upon this line, following the statutes that have been passed in this country. I think we sometimes forget about them. Let us go back to 1903 and refer to page 455 of the statutes of that year, being 3 Edward VTI, Chap. 71, an Act respecting the Construction of a Canadian National Transcontinental Railway. It ratified and confirmed the agreement between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Pacific

Railway Company, which agreement forms the schedule to the act. The agreement recites among other things-and bear these words in mind-that the object is-
To secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between eastern Canada and the provinces west of the great lakes, to open up and develop the northern zone of the Dominion, to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada, and to develop commerce through Canadian ports.
Section 42 reads:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Section 43 reads:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Section 45 provides:
The company shall arrange for and provide, either by purchase, charter or otherwise, shipping connections upon both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans sufficient in tonnage and in number of sailings to take care of and transport all its traffic, both inward and outward, at such ocean ports within Canada, upon the said line of railway, or upon the line of the Intercolonial railway, as may be agreed upon from time to time, and the company shall not divert, or, so far as it can lawfully prevent permit to be diverted, to ports outside of Canada any traffic which it can lawfully influence or control, upon the ground that there is not a sufficient amount of shipping to transport such traffic from or to such Canadian ocean ports.
Now, Mr. Speaker that was the statute confirming the agreement, with the company known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Upon that agreement the people of the country have spent directly and indirectly on the National Transcontinental railway, in assistance to the Grand Trunk Pacific and in other ways, probably three or four hundred million dollars. That is the basis upon which it was spent, and that provides that the trade should not be diverted from Canadian ports. Now, a large part of the country in which wheat originates is in the Grand Trunk Pacific territory and a very large part is in the old Canadian .

The Address-Mr. Logan
Northern Railway system territory. Let me refer to an act relating to the Canadian Northern Railway system. This is known as an Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, statutes of 1914, page 135, being the Act 4-5 George V, Chapter 20. The act provides for aid by the government of Canada to the company by guaranteeing its bonds to the extent of $45,000,000. That is, the old Canadian Northern Railway Company. Many hon. members in this House will remember when the statute was enacted. That statute confirms the agreement annexed which is set out. Section 6, paragraph (a) provides as follows:
That at all times hereafter all freight originating on the lines of the Canadian Northern or on the lines of any of the constituent companies, or on any line or lines of railway now or hereafter owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Northern or by any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, their successors or assigns, shall, when destined to points in Canada, be carried over the lines of the Canadian Northern or of the constituent companies or over some other Canadian railway or railways (which term shall include the line operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Montreal and St. John) and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via Canadian ports than it would be via United States ports; and that all inward and outward ocean traffic shall be carried to Canadian ports, and that the Canadian Northern and the several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any matter within their power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects in good faith use their utmost endeavours to further the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ports.
Mark you, according to the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement they must carry all goods not otherwise routed; but in the statute effecting the Canadian Northern it was not stated in that way, land they were compelled to carry freight on that line whether routed or unrouted, to and through Canadian ports. I did not know until a few weeks ago that the statute existed and I was rather surprised to find it. There are the facts. Does the government, with Sir Henry Thornton and his board, say that what this agreement imposed upon the company is not to be carried out? If the government imposed upon the Canadian Northern, when they were guaranteeing the $45,000,000 of bonds the condition that every pound of export freight should be carried out of Canadian ports, can this government which took over the Canadian Northern railway system do less than the Canadian Northern were compelled by statute to do?


George Perry Graham: This government did
not take it over.


Hance James Logan: but one thing which we in the Maritime provinces object to most strenuously is the placing upon our road of spotters to catch respectable and decent servants of that road, men who have been working there for thirty-five or forty years, and to deprive them of a right which I consider is a vested right under the Provident fund which applies to them. What are the facts? In the last few months spottei's came upon the road, and as a result several of our oldest conductors have been dismissed, without trial, without counsel, without a jury. And this in a British country! I say it is wrong. If these men are guilty, they should be punished as any other man who is a defaulter is punished; but they ought not to be deprived of their pension as well as their position, upon the word of men who are not cross-examined and who are not before a proper court. As one of the repi'esentatives of the Maritime pi'ovinces, I want to protest as strongly as I can against this kind of woi'k in respect to trusted employees. I have in mind at present a conductor who is sixty years of age, with thirty-eight years of service on the road. He was brought up on the evidence of these spottei's. I read the evidence that was given before the superintendent at Moncton, and it showed that the total amount which they claimed this man had taken was about $4, consisting of small amounts, twenty, twenty-five and forty cents which he very reasonably could have forgotten to put down in the hurry of a short trip. And this conductor was entitled at that time to a pension of over $60 a month for the rest of his life. Where is he to-day? He has been ignominiously dismissed from the road. His people can be charged with being related to a man who has been stealing. In spite of the fact that he gave a boy to the war, that he has an invalid wife and a blind father to support, he is thrown on the world to-day without a cent. That is wrong, and no country, I care not where it may be, can defend such action. No democratic government can defend it. This matter should be rectified at the earliest possible moment and these grievances should be adjusted.
I should like very much to speak upon some other matters affecting particularly the Maritime provinces, but I see that the time is passing very rapidly and I must now draw these remarks to a close. I think I may say for the Maritime provinces that what we want is to get back to the old Laurier policy of tariff for revenue. It was a good enough policy to make this country rich, let us get back to it. The principle of protection is wrong, but there will be sufficient protection in any tariff for revenue 	j
in this country at the pi'esent time to give reasonable protection to Canadian industries. We have had a trial of high protection. It has not succeeded. Let any man in this House, I care not how great a protectionist he may be, come down to the Mai'itime provinces and go through the counties of Cumberland, Colchester, Hants, Kings, Digby, Annapolis-the Annapolis valley, the land of Evangeline-down through Yarmouth and around that beautiful south shore, and thence to other parts of our provinces and I am convinced that he must say that whatever high protection may have done for Montreal, Toronto and a few other cities in Canada, it has been a blight upon the provinces down by the sea. What we desire to get back to is a tariff for revenue. I am not a free trader; I realize that there have been built up under this protective tariff industries that we must be careful at the pi'esent time not to injure. But I believe if we get back to the policy of "tariff for revenue", if beyond that we endeavour to remove the duties from implements that are used in the development of the natural resources of this country, we shall give the people an opportunity to grow and the country to develop, we shall bring prosperity where there is no prosperity to-day.
In conclusion, we in the Maritime provinces are not at the door of parliament as mendicants or beggars. We hold our heads high as Canadians. We are not here to ask for the repeal of the union, although I am bound to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes I think if a man of the Maritime provinces were at this time to throw energy and ability into this matter, he might create a great deal of trouble in regard to cpnfed-eration. I do not want to become a secessionist. I am a Canadian all the time; but before I am a Canadian, I am a Maritime province man because, in the language of one of England's best poets, that country to me is a "dearer, sweeter spot than all the rest." We ask that the promises that were made to us be kept, we ask that our conditions be properly understood, that those in authority come down among us and see the possibilities there, if only we had a chance to develop them. We ask for nothing but justice within this confederation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a most informative address from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) in which he has explained all the miseries of Nova Scotia under the pi'esent government.


Mr. MARTELL:: As a result of the administration of the old Tory government.

The Address-Mr. Hocken


Horatio Clarence Hocken: -under the present government. There was one point in the hon. member's speech which I should like to have cleared up if possible. I entirely sympathise with him in his desire to have the coal of Nova Scotia sold in the province of Ontario. But I have been informed that the coal owners of Nova Scotia have an arrangement with those of Pennsylvania that the Ontario, and part of the Quebec, market shall be left to Pennsylvania in return for the privilege of sending Nova Scotia coal into the New England states.


Hance James Logan: I can readily tell the hon. gentleman that he is absolutely misinformed; no such understanding exists.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am glad to hear that statement from a man representing that part of the country, and I accept it. I shall endeavour to show before I get through that, if the hon. member will agree to assist in a certain policy, the coal of Nova Scotia can be made saleable in the province of Ontario even up to Windsor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I trust that those congratulations which I am expected to offer will be "taken as read," as also my condolences to the ministers who are ill. We shall thus save so much time. We have listened during the last two days of this debate to two interesting addresses, one from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) and the other from the hon. member for King's, P. E.I., (Mr. Hughes), one entirely contradictory of the other. With one of these speeches I agree to a great extent, believing it to be reasonable; with the other I do not agree.


George Perry Graham: Which one?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will tell you later. This is not surprising, Mr. Speaker; the same thing has been happening ever since the first session of this parliament. For example, we had an address from the ex-Mmister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) declaring for the Laurier protective tariff, and in the same session we had an address from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) informing us that the government was working in the direction of free trade. Then we had an address on the National Railways from the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) in which he attacked the principle of public ownership of railways vigorously, with a reply from the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) defending the public ownership of railways. And so we come by natural course to the present debate and find two members of the government party singing entirely different songs.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and I approve of a good deal that he said. The hon. member declared himself a moderate protectionist, and he has given us a phrase which I think will stick, and become a permanent part of our political vocabulary: he said he stood for a "cost of living tariff." That was a palpable hit, and I want personally to thank him for the phrase. It exactly indicates my attitude on the tariff, as he said it did his. I think it is quite possible that under a protective tariff some industries might get more protection than they should be given. I have said that elsewhere, and if the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) were in his place he would remind me of it. So that I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member when he suggests that there should be a tariff board with power to go into the cost of production in connection with any particular industry, and ascertain in that way whether the protection afforded in any one case was greater than necessary to maintain the industry concerned, with a reasonable percentage of profit. The last thing in my mind is to make it possible for our manufacturers to earn excessive profits. Wherever anything of the kind can be shown I for one shall be willing to have the tariff reduced. I think Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George made a real contribution to the present debate. I expect before the debate closes to hear from the hon. member for Brantford; I fancy that a speech is about due from him on this question of reducing the tariff on agricultural implements.
Coming now to the hon. member for King's, it strikes me that his speech was very similar to (he utterances he has been making here for twenty years. It was a platitudinous and pointless dissertation upon nothing, a re-hash of old worn out free trade theories. The hon. member has been making that kind of speech so long that it has lost any flavour even among the members of his own party. He charged, quite unfairly of course, but characteristically, that the right hon. the leader of this party (Mr. Meighen) had advocated a lower tariff on agricultural implements; and he represented that as a justification for the present proposed reduction. He did not tell the House, although he had been informed in the course of the debate, that, when the leader of this party proposed that reduction, the tariff on agricultural implements was twice as great as it is to-day; and moreover, that the suggestion made by my right hon. leader has been adopted since he made it, the tariff to-day being a little less than half what it
The Address-Mr. Hocken

was at that time. That, I think, will indicate rather a spirit of unfairness on the part of my hon. friend, which is regrettable. But I should not expect much different from pay hon. friend from King's. The hon. gentleman told us in the course of his remarks that he could not understand plain English. He quoted from an address made by a senator in Toronto to the following effect:
The term "protection'' may properly be applied to a variety of national activities. For example, the British navy is more of a protection to British commerce than the tariff.
The hon. member for King's, having quoted that statement, informed the House, "I do not know what that means". He goes on to say:
Of course, I do not lay claim to any great amount of intelligence-
And with that candid confession I think the House will entirely agree. He went further and blamed the protective tariff of this country for the difficulty in which the people of Prince Edward Island find themselves in selling their potatoes in Boston. Now, it was not the tariff that the Canadian parliament enacted, that had anything to do with the sale of Prince Edward Island potatoes in Boston; it was the Fordney tariff that prevented the people of that province from selling their product. They cannot sell their potatoes, either baked, peeled or hashed-brown in Boston because there is a duty against them of 30 cents a bushel. But like good Canadians, the people in Prince Edward Island met the situation with a resourcefulness that is greatly to their credit, as the hon. member told us. If they could not sell their potatoes for table purposes they grew potatoes for seed purposes, and are now making more money selling seed potatoes in Cuba than they did selling them hashed-brown in Boston. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. gentleman has much to complain of, and the argument is rather a comical one for him to make.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: If the hon. gentleman will permit an interruption, it is the table stock we sell in Cuba. We are compelled to sell our seed potatoes in the American market, with the present duty.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: WTell, I accept the hon. gentleman's explanation. It only confirms my belief in the ignorance of the member for King's, P.E.I., because I am quoting exactly what he said.
When I read in the Speech from the Throne that paragraph which stated that such reduction of taxation as it might be possible to effect should aim primarily at reducing the

cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, I had a great deal of sympathy for the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). That clause in the Speech from the Throne has been interpreted by the newspapers to mean the elimination of duties on agricultural implements. The mayor and the city council of Brantford have interpreted it the same way. There has been no protest from the government benches against that interpretation, so I assume that it is correct and that the duty is to be removed from agricultural implements. That would make any person sympathize with the hon. member for Brantford, because he tvas elected to this House upon a promise to increase the duty upon agricultural implements. And in that he was supported by the Prime Minister, if not in' exact language, at least by inference. As reported in the Globe newspaper of November 25, 1921, the present Prime Minister said at Brantford:
"I am not in favour of free trade, nor is the Liberal party." What Canada needed was not to be led to a barren, rocky shore but to the hearts of contentment and happiness and contented homes. This would be the aim of the Liberal party when returned to power.
I can imagine the people of Brantford today enjoying that feeling of contentment and happiness as they anticipate the shutting down of those industries from which they get their livelihood-because the removal of the duty from agricultural implements will certainly destroy the prosperity of Brantford and probably drive out of that city several thousand people. It is perhaps the most critical point in all Canada with regard to agricultural implements. In Toronto about ten thousand families live upon that industry, but the loss of ten thousand families from Toronto would not be a matter of great moment. It would represent only about one year's annual increment of population. The loss of Hamilton would probably be three or four thousand families, nearly all in one section. It would be disastrous to the prosperity of East Hamilton. But Brantford is a smaller city, and even if two or three thousand people are taken out-and I would think that at least one thousand families would be affected-the result will be a condition that will bring upon this government the condemnation of practically every elector of that city. Brantford has been built up as a flourishing city of twenty-five or thirty thousand people largely through the agricultural implement industry. Now my hon. friends propose to wipe the duty off, and to shut down

The Address- Mr. Hocken
the factories from which so many people get their livelihood-and that in respect of an industry, Mr. Speaker, which at present enjoys the small amount of protection that is afforded by a ten per cent duty.
But there is a more serious side than that. The government have been guilty of an unprecedented injustice to men employed in a great industry. They have put the agricultural implement industry into a state of suspended animation; they have rendered a judgment of suspended sentence against it by the statement made in the Speech from the Throne. The people interested in this industry do not know whether there will be any duty left, neither do the farmers who buy their product. The result is that for three or four months no business will be done in the agricultural implement plants. Nobody will manufacture; nobody will buy, nobody can sell, and until the budget is disposed of it is a matter of speculation as to what is going to happen to these men and to their capital. In Ontario and Quebec the amount invested in that industry is $100,000,000, and at the lowest computation
150,000	people live upon it in those two eastern provinces. The government comes along, and, I think without reasonable consideration, throws that industry into a state of collapse. It looks to me, Mr. Speaker, like the work of legislative amateurs. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is ill. He could not have seen that paragraph in the Speech. The ex-Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) is away from the councils of the government. I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), who is a man of perspicacity, had an opportunity of seeing that paragraph before it was put in the Speech? I would think better of him than to believe that he Would agree to such a thing. His knowledge of politics and his long exeprience as a legislator ought to be in the nature of a balance wheel in control of the amateurs who surround him when it comes to dealing with a delicate question of this kind. I am not going to hold him responsible. I fancy that he must have been ill or taking a rest. But no more serious offence was ever committed by any government of Canada than has been committed against the agricultural implement industry by the insertion of that paragraph in the Speech from the Throne. It is something that cannot lightly be passed over. An immense amount of capital is involved. A large number of people depend upon the operations of that industry for their livelihood. That their interests should be so lightly regarded is a very serious matter, for which the government must accept the responsibility. It has resulted in special mass meetings being held in Brantford;
and if I am not mistaken special delegations have come here to make representations to the government. So that under these circumstances if I were the hon. member for Brantford, and desiring to remain in public life, for which he has many eminent qualifications, I would without unnecessary delay file an application for a place in the Senate, because I do not think there will be any hope of his coming back as a member of this House if the government carry out their expressed determination.
Just a few words on the Home Bank case,- not to swear at anybody or to blame anybody, but to make a suggestion. I want to suggest for the consideration of the government that they should indemnify all those who held savings deposits in that bank. I differentiate the savings account from the open and business account. Savings accounts are held by widows and by poor men who save ten dollars at a time; sometimes they are trust funds. They were put in there in the belief that when parliament chartered that bank it was going to take some precautions to protect those deposits. I know that certain provisions are made in the Bank Act for the inspection of the banks, and I know how hard it is to legislate to prevent dishonesty. At the same time, those who have money in that bank are entitled to some special consideration on the part of this parliament, and I for one would be willing to support any measure that would give to these widows and poor men-mechanics, labourers, and servant girls-the money that they deposited there in good faith, depending on the government for their protection.
I had a case reported to me the day I left my city to come here. A man living in my constituency told me that he had sold his house, his automobile, his furniture, everything he had, as he was moving to the United States. Then something interfered and held him back for a week. So on the 16th of the month he deposited all the proceeds from the sale of his house and chattels in the Home Bank. On the 17th the Home Bank suspended payment, and the savings of fifteen years of labour of that man were swallowed up in the failure. That is enough to make a man an anarchist. And that is not the only case, I could cite others almost, if not quite, as bad; and I say that those who had savings bank accounts in the Home Bank are entitled to special consideration and should be indemnified by this government.
The right hon. the Prime Minister the other day was violently peevish with the leader of this party for what he called the propaganda against the government for its wastefulness and extravagance. I submit, Mr. Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Hacker


Mr. BUREAU:: Does my hon. friend know who asked for the 6 per cent sales tax to be put on at the source?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I know who put it there.


Jacques Bureau: Do you know who asked for it?	.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say I know who put it there.


Jacques Bureau: That is a different proposition. The very men who to-day are speaking through the mouth of my hon. friend are the men who came to the government and asked that the tax be raised and imposed at the. source, and that is what we have done.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken.


Jacques Bureau: I am absolutely right.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My hon. friend does not know of whom I am speaking.


Jacques Bureau: It is very easy to infer who it is unless I am more of a dunce than I think I am.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, you are. Why the very men from my hon. friend's own department do not know how to levy the tax.


Jacques Bureau: What is that?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say that officers of your own department do not know how to levy the tax.


Jacques Bureau: I beg your pardon.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have had an experience which proves it.


Jacques Bureau: You have always had odd experiences because you do not undertsand the sales tax yourself.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I had an auditor of the department visit my own business. When I make that statement the hon. gentleman will probably give me credit for knowing whereof I speak.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think you do, when you talk about the sales tax in the way you do.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This man came into my own office. He went over the sales and picked out one particular product we sold. He said "You have not paid sales tax on that and you are due for a penalty." The general manager of my business went to the files and produced a ruling from the department showing there was no sales tax to be paid on this particular product. An auditor from the department did not know how to levy the tax. That is an actual experience within my own knowledge which occurred in connection with my own business.


Jacques Bureau: Does my hon. friend claim we -are obliged to put brains in every employee of the government. If the employee is mistaken call my attention to it, and I will put him where he belongs.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The average business man is supposed to understand how to pay that tax, and if it is of such a complicated and exasperating character that the ordinary business men cannot tell how to pay it, and the auditors of the department do not know-


Jacques Bureau: They do know.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They sent an auditor to my office and he did not know of the ruling in question.
The Address-Mr. Hocken

fee
Mr. BUREAU. That happened in Toronto, they know it all there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will go a little further and give an experience of mine in reference to the income tax. Last April I went down to the head office of the income tax department in this city and handed a statement of my income to a clerk in the department. He took the statement, told me what I had to pay, and I paid it. In January of this year I was informed by the taxation department in Toronto that I owed the department $20.70 more.


Jacques Bureau: Toronto again.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, Ottawa. I made the statement to the taxation department in Ottawa.


Jacques Bureau: They are the appointees of your party, we have not had much time to reform them yet.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understand the minister is reforming them just as rapidly as he can.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, and I am doing good work too.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What are you going to do about these taxes when the conditions of their application are so bewildering to the average man? That is what I am complaining about and I think it is most exasperating.
Now I want to say a few words to hon. members on my left. The Prime Minister said in his speech he hoped every member of the House would speak first as a Canadian. He wanted us all to be Canadians. I entirely agree with that. I would be sorry to think any member of this House is not a Canadian, whatever his party affiliation may be. I hope his patriotism is not submerged in partisanship. I am not ready to believe any member of this House is not first of all a Canadian. We are divided in our political views, of course, and we have our political alliances. Personally I believe in a moderate protective policy and I align myself with the party advocating that policy. My hon. friends to my left believe in free trade, and they align themselves with the party believing in it. Opposite to me there is another party, but nobody knows what they believe in, or stand for. However, there will always be parties when everybody is really and truly Canadian. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the party to which I belong ought to be called Canadian. For a period approaching fifty years it has advocated the one fiscal policy, and has not wavered in its beliefs or in its support of that policy. It stands to-day where it was in 1878.
	\


Mr. FORKE:: And where it will be fifty years from now.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Jacques Bureau: May I ask a question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Would the hon. member
extend the power of that board to investigate and find out how much money has been paid for the stock on which they want protection in order to get dividends?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would give that board
authority to go into anything that would be necessary to reveal to this parliament the profit that was being earned on the capital that was put into the business. I am quite as anxious to protect the consumer as I am to protect the manufacturer, and my desire to protect the manufacturer is not that he may get a huge profit, but that the men in his employ may get living wages and be able to live in the country where they were born and brought up, and not have to go away.
I hope we are all Canadians, and I think as Canadians we ought to get together. In 1867 we began the greatest experiment in the creation of a nation that has ever been attempted in the world. We are still in the experimental stages, if I am not mistaken. But having a country which stretches nearly four thousand miles across the continent, it is inevitable that the interests of one section are not identical with the interests of another Broadly speaking we have three divisions in this country, the Maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec, the central provinces and the West. I think that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are more nearly identical in their interests than any other two provinces. Perhaps the western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are in the same position. Here are three great divisions. Our business is to harmonize the interests of the three different sections, and I think it can be done. It can be done if the people in each province will have some regard for the welfare of the people of the other provinces but if we confine our views and considerations as to what ought to be done to our own personal needs we cannot get anywhere. We have to consider what is in the interests of the other provinces. Well, what is the fact? The eauv-ern provinces, including the Maritime provinces need protection. The province of British Columbia requires protection. If you take the three prairie provinces, you will find that they contain about two-ninths of the population of the country. The other provinces contain seven-ninths, and the other
provinces want a tariff. I say to the men of the prairie provinces that they should have regard for the fact that the people of six out of the nine provinces believe that their interests demand a tariff. If the people of the prairie provinces will go that far-and I fancy they are willing to do so, because surely the prosperity of seven-ninths of our population is of the utmost importance to the other two-ninths-something might be accomplished. I do not think for a moment that the people of the prairie provinces are possessed of a selfishness that would consider their own interests, without regard for the interests of their fellow Canadians.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the hon. member not reversed the figures? Are there not six provinces desiring freedom of trade and three wishing a tariff?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I think the hon.
gentleman is wrong. If he will go over the records whenever there has been a general election on the trade issue he will discover I am about right. The last election was not a criterion at all on the trade question. The people did not vote on that issue.


Jacques Bureau: Nor the one before.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think perhaps they did
in the West. The Grain Growers Guide has certainly inoculated the farmers of the West with the idea that nothing matters except free trade.


Robert Forke: Then we have the Sentinel.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You do not get much protection or free trade in that.


George Perry Graham: It is not much of a harmonizer.


Jacques Bureau: There is only one harmonizer in the country.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But if we are going to get together we ought to do so in this House frankly and definitely. I have an idea that this clause that I refer to in the Speech from the Throne is the result of some secret diplomacy by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and Premier Dunning of Saskatchewan. They were down here and were in conference with the Prime Minister. They went away, and there is a suggestion that the duty is to be taken off agricultural implements. I did not think that our radical friends approved of secret diplomacy.


Jacques Bureau: It only exists in the hon. gentleman's mind. There is no secret diplomacy.
The Address-Mr. Hocken


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was speaking to the hon. member to my left.


Jacques Bureau: But I am listening to the hon. member.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Perhaps they do not believe in secret diplomacy, but there must be something going on.


Mr. KELLNER:: Has the hon. member any suggestion to make for the get-together movement?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, I have. I say that I think western Canada should be willing to accept a cost of living tariff for this country as a stable part of the policy of Canada.


Mr. EVANS:: .Would the hon. member please define that?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes. A cost of living tariff was defined the other day by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), as a tariff that will enable the manufacturer to live and give employment to the people of this country, but not to give to the manufacturer any excessive profits.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do you consider a farmer a manufacturer in his line, and would you allow him a cost of living tariff?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Sure, I would protect him wherever he needs protection. I think that he should have protection against a good deal of the stuff that comes in from the other side.


Robert Forke: But the hon. member must realize that it cannot be done. You cannot protect the farmer with four hundred million bushels of wheat.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There may be some difficulty in placing a protective tariff on wheat.


Jacques Bureau: You would have to cheapen the cost of living.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have an idea that some farmers grow other things besides wheat. Is a man a farmer who simply grows wheat? I am not sure, but I do not think he is. He may be a wheat grower, but he is not a farmer. Growing wheat is one operation on a farm, and that has been the great trouble in the West. They have grown wheat, wheat, wheat, and they do not grow anything but wheat.


Robert Forke: The hon. member invites a question; do you despise the four hundred million bushels of wheat that comes from the West and goes over to Europe, and helps to keep the wheels of industry in Canada turning? Would you compare that with any other agricultural production in Canada to-day?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. gentleman made a speech when he asked a question. I do not despise anybody, and I do not despise anything that is being produced. But I say it is impossible so far as I can see to put a protective duty on wheat.


Robert Forke: We do not want to.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I say that there are other things besides wheat-cattle, poultry and fruit-and you have a wide range. My hon. friend has lived all his life on a wheat farm, but he knows that he can grow wheat without being a farmer.


Mr. SALES:: I grow cattle as well as wheat, and my cattle are grown on an export basis the same as wheat. How are you going to protect me on the cattle?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have been diverted from my subject and as I want to finish by six o'clock I will hurry on. I say this, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friends in particular. They have more to gain from the cheapening of transportation than from the removal of any tariff. I would exhaust the resources of this country in cheapening transportation from western Canada to the seaboard. I would do it in two or three different ways. I would, as I did last year, vote for any appropriation that is necessary to develop to its ultimate limits the port of Vancouver. If it is possible to take the grain of any of the western provinces out by Vancouver at a lower rate, I am in favour of that. Last session I went so far as to vote for the Hudson Bay railway, although I do not believe for a minute that it is ever going to give lower rates or any relief for the western farmer. Yet, it may open up a country that has some other resources, and it may pay for itself in that way. But I cannot believe the wheat will ever go out by that route. The great thing is the development of the St. Lawrence river so that ocean vessels will go up to the head of the lakes as they did last year, and take cargoes of wheat right over to Liverpool. I do not think that is the inevitable or the natural development of that route; but if the St. Lawrence river were improved to give a twenty-five or thirty-foot draft, big ships that take 500,000 bushels of grain would load at Fort William and would probably break bulk at the city of Quebec. It might be the city of Three Rivers.


Jacques Bureau: It is the better place.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But Montreal and Quebec should, under those conditions, develop into two of the greatest ports on the North American continent.

The Address-Mr. Hocken
An lion. MEMBER: What about Toronto?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Toronto gets nothing out of this. A ship may come in with package freight, but there are no bulk cargoes to receive from or to deliver in Toronto. A vessel holding 500,000 bushels of wheat would leave Fort William, go down to the city of Quebec and discharge into ocean boats which would go across to Liverpool, or to any other port in the world, in that way saving five to eight cents a bushel on wheat. If from five to eight cents a bushel could be saved on the wheat that was grown on the western prairies last year, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) can figure out what that means. That is one of the ways in which transportation can be cheapened. Water transportation, as we all know, can be done at much lower rates than rail transporation.
I have another plan to suggest, and I am now going, to venture into the realm of prophecy. Having had the example a day or so ago of the dean of the House, the hon. member for South York ( Mr. Maclean), who is something of a prophet, I am going to make a suggestion that may seem a little in advance of the time, but which, I will venture to predict, before many years will be a subject of serious discussion as a progressive policy for this country. I think the real reduction in the cost of transportation is to come from the electrification of the railways. I believe there are men sitting in this House to-day, yes, men in middle life or past it, who will live to see our whole western railway system electrified. If that is done, the railways will be run with at least 50 per cent greater efficiency than they have to-day. The efficiency of a railway train lies in the locomotive. An electric locomotive, by actual experience, on the New York, New Haven and Hartford line, showed an increased efficiency over steam of fifty to sixty per cent. Electric locomotives take longer trains; they take heavier grades; they eliminate all the water service and they are more efficient in every particular. Every 100 or 150 miles a steam locomotive operates, it goes into the shops to be repaired. On the New York, New Haven and Hartford railway, they inspect an electric locomotive every 1,800 miles it runs. I have some figures here that are, perhaps, worth while mentioning.
One of these statements is that in the United States to-day they are operating 5,000 miles of regular railroad on which trains are hauled by electric locomotives. On those railroads ordinary passenger and freight trains made up into ordinary trains are hauled by electricity. That is a very considerable mileage. On the Milwaukee line, they have found an increase in efficiency of 50 per cent. On some lines, they have done better. Mr. Ralston, of the New York, New Haven and Hartford line, says that there has been only one failure of a locomotive in every 21,000 miles run by electricity, whereas there is one failure for every 4,000 miles run under steam. Thirty-three electric locomotives have handled the passenger traffic in and out of the Pennsylvania terminals of New York for eleven years. They have made more than 7,000,000 miles with a record of 64 4-37 miles per detention on account of the locomotives. They have made 11,454 miles for every minute of detention. The maintenance of these locomotives over all this long time has been just about one-sixth of equivalent steam locomotives.
My suggestion-and I think it will come to pass-is that there should be constructed in every province in the West a great power plant for the purpose of operating those railways, and at the same time of supplying power to every municipality in the province. There should be. a super-power zone such as they are talking about in the Atlantic states of the union. It is already proposed that the eastern states as far west as Pennsylvania shall be included in one super-power zone; that the power shall be developed largely by steam, and that the municipal power, the railway power, and all the other power used within that zone will be switched on and off as it is required. The same thing, I am convinced, can be established in the western prairies. With a large power plant in British Columbia, one in Alberta, one in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba-and three might be enough -sufficient power could be developed from cheap coal to operate every wheel that runs on the prairies, and at the same time to run all the municipal services in all the cities that are there now or that will be there in the future. It is by co-operation that every great achievement has been effected; and if the people of the West will co-operate, the cities with the railways and with this government, if they will take the cheap coal from the mines at Drumheller and the coal from the mines of Saskatchewan where, according to the Geological congress, there are 2,400,000,000 odd tons of coal, and establish three, if not four, super-power plants between the head of the lakes and the coast, in that way you will get an efficiency for your railways that will certainly reduce the cost of operation ultimately, if not immediately, by at least 50 per cent.
The Address-Mr. Hocken

Twelve per cent, of every ton which a locomotive draws is its own coal and water. Of every eight trains operated throughout the United States one train represents the cost of hauling the coal and water for the other seven. That should all be eliminated. We have the coal in the western provinces; we have the power of electricity, which is more efficient in the winter than in the summer. An electric locomotive never freezes up, instead of freezing it becomes more efficient the colder the weather. This plan could be put into effect one section at a time, first, say, the mountain section from Edmonton to the coast; then the section from Edmonton to Regina; then, moving east. Stop buying steam equipment and use what we have in those parts of the country not electrified, and buy instead new equipment of electric motive power until the whole of the west is put under electric power.
With transportation such as that you will be able to place the wheat of the prairies on the markets of the world at ten or fifteen cents, or perhaps more, per bushel less than at the present time. I say, as one coming from one of the central provinces, as one believing in protection for the industries, as one who knows that the industrial part of the country is bearing the load of taxation, that the resources of the eastern provinces are available to-day, for the electrification of the western railways, or the development of water transportation, to improve conditions for the western farmers and make it possible for them to earn a good livelihood.
There are bitter complaints from the prairies. Has there ever been a time when there were not bitter complaints from pioneering communities? The men on the prairies have done well; at least I have something which I might quote and which perhaps the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) will remember. It is an interview which Mr. C. W. Rowley, the western superintendent of the Bank of Commerce, had with my hon. friend, in which he points out that in less than forty years men who had gone into that country had got rich. But there was never a pioneer in Ontario who got rich in forty years.


Robert Forke: Not rich.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He says so.


Robert Forke: He is exaggerating.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It depends, of course,
upon what you call rich. But the men who have pioneered out there have not had anything like the difficulties, the hardships, and

the poverty which were experienced by our progenitors in this province of Ontario. It has been a comparatively easy country to the pioneer. There are, however, difficulties that are inseparable from pioneering, that is apparent. And I am satisfied that with the im-provem'ent of transportation, and if Canadians will take the thing up in a unity of spirit piece by piece, we can get a policy for the country that will be acceptable to all, a policy that will bring prosperity to all.
We in Canada have the greatest country in the world. Providence has given us a larger endowment of natural resources, and of opportunities generally, than are enjoyed by any other country. We are living in a climate that is calculated to make men strong, physically, mentally and morally. We ought to be, at the end of this century, the greatest nation in the world, able to contribute more to civilization than the Mother Country, and that is saying a great deal. There are no better people in the world than Canadians, and the climate is responsible for that. Surely, then, we ought to have the patriotism and the political capacity to get together and devise a policy which will take care of each province and promote the common interests of all. That means some 'little adjustment, some agreement; but, I am sure that" if we are all Canadians, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggests we should be, we ought to be able to do that.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue this debate I would like to lend my word of appreciation to the mover (Mr. Kelly) and the seconder (Mr. Lapierre) of the Address for their very able speeches. The repetition of these words of praise must be getting rather monotonous to them, but I suggest that they make the most of it; for it is possibly the last time so many kind things will be said about their speeches. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) I would also like to extend congratulations. They contributed very ably indeed to the discussion, and while I believe they both practically admitted that they were guilty of constituency bribery, still, we enjoyed their addresses. I think I might also very consistently extend a word of congratulation to our leader (Mr. Forke) and to the leader of the Labour group

The Address-Mr. Kellner
in the House (Mr. Woodsworth), both of whom delivered very able addresses.
I think the country can get the best outline of what a political party has to offer by watching the discussions of their adherents in their addresses during the parliamentary recess. With this in view I have read carefully the speeches of the Prime Minister during his visit in England as well as of some of the cabinet minsters who came out west this summer. Their appeal to the country on the basis of Liberal policy seemed to be that they would bring in foreign capital and immigration. There are two methods of bringing in foreign capital. One is, in some way or other, to get hold of people who have capital and bring them into the country; that method is a comparatively good one. The other would be that of adding to our national debt and also to our interest charges, and that I consider to be a very doubtful procedure indeed at this time.
At Edmonton we were favoured during the recess with two visits from the right hon. leader of the opposition. On the first occasion I went to hear him speak, and his address was a very able one. It dealt wholly, however, with a criticism of the government of the day; he dwelt at great length and very ably on the deeds of omission and commission for which the present administration was responsible. Then he returned to the East, and later he came back to the West with a man who, I think, was instrumental in again putting the province of Ontario under the domination of Toronto-and I believe it is only fair to say that in that accomplishment he strained the Conservative machine until they could not even elect Tommy Church as mayor of Toronto at the last civic election. When he arrived in Edmonton with this "Baldwin of Canada", as he was designated, another meeting was held. Unfortunately I was not able to attend, but one of those who did attend told me that on that occasion the leader of the opposition delivered a very brilliant address and again gave the government a pretty severe castigation. When he finished up he addressed his audience in words something to this effect: "It possibly would not be very fitting for me to come out here and say all these unkind things about the Liberals without saying what the Conservatives would do if they were elected. I will tell you what they would do. You have seen the farmers leave their farms in western Canada and go down across the border in great numbers. That is nothing to what has happened in Ontario; there they are leaving every city, town and village, and the country is practically deserted. What would we do? We would build a high tariff wall
around Canada and produce a home market for our farmers." There he hesitated, no doubt expecting a little applause; and I am frank to say that he is nearly always able to command it when he desires it. On that occasion, however, in that large audience, which was presumed to be a Conservative audience, there was not a clap or a "hear, hear"; not a note of appreciation could have reached his ears.
After his departure we had a third visit, from the hon. gentleman who is perhaps the heftiest member of the Conservative group in the House; I refer to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), who was Minister of Agriculture in the late government and who is now official organizer for the Conservative party. He came out to Edmonton, and according to the papers that are more or less loyal to that party, he was having a great deal of success in organizing the Conservatives of the district. That paper made quite a number of very favourable comments during his stay and for a day or two after he had gone, but subsequently one of the other papers came out with the rather caustic remark that since the member for Victoria had left the district it seemed that the Conservatives had all gone too; and the writer suggested that in all probability they were travelling companions of the Conservative organizer. That sort of got under the Conservatives' wool a little bit, and the Edmonton Journal came out with an article on February 11th, telling of how they had organized a smoker out there and how a number of prizes had been offered for getting members for the organization. I have the article before me; it is long and I shall not read it all, but I should like to mention some of the prizes which were offered. For the grand prize, otherwise known as the "Meighen prize", a solid gold watch. In the men's contest the first prize was the "Blair prize"-Blair, by the way, is the new provincial leader of the party in Alberta-a club bag, donated by Williaim Short; second prize, a golf bag; third prize a pocket flask; fourth prize, a gold pencil. I submit that it is a little unusual to put a gold pencil in such surroundings. The ladies also were offered some prizes. The first was a half dozen stainless steel knives with ivory handles and a half dozen 1847 Rogers dinner forks. I believe that Rogers dinner forks are manufactured in England. I submit it is rather inconsistent at least for the Conservative party to offer a prize to one of its own adherents especially at a time when the tariff is the outstanding issue, and especially a prize of knives and forks made in England.

The Address-Mr. Kellner
The second prize is a handbag, the third prize ladies' gold shoes, the fourth prize a fountain pen, and two tentative prizes are offered to the man and woman who buy over one hundred tickets. We will watch the bulletins of the member for Victoria and see how the contest goes.
I think it is a fair conclusion to draw from the information we have at the present time, that the people of Canada, those who are supporting the Liberal or the Conservative party, have the option of supporting the Liberals on the promise of foreign capital and immigration being brought in, and also on the more or less indefinite promise contained in the Speech from the Throne of a tariff reduction, or of supporting the Conservatives, who I suppose would promise them protection and an opportunity, if they lived in the province of Alberta, of winning one of these very valuable prizes. So viewing both parties and the condition that our country is in to-day, I think it is only fair to say that it is very easy to see the end of the two-party system of government in Canada. I think that possibly this parliament has a smaller number of groups than the next one will have. I do not believe the day will ever come when we will go back to the two-party system in this country again.
Neither do I attach much importance to the campaign going on in the papers of this country for a Moses to lead us out of the wilderness we are in. I believe the time has come when we shall have to take advice such as was offered us this afternoon by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), of getting together in an effort to solve the economic problem of Canada. When we do get together I hope the hon. member will not forget to send us a copy of the Orange Sentinel, because I would very much like to read its editorials when we are considering getting together in this country. However, I am fully convinced that we would be better advised to try and solve this question ourselves than to go out on a prospecting tour looking for a leader which the press tells us we need at the present time. I think that possibly that view is strengthened by the late war. Invariably after all other wars there has been some great outstanding general in the public eye, but there has been none such after this war. We had one possibly who might be termed a great organizer, but I do not think it can truthfully be said that there is one general who has come through the late war whose strategy and whose skill in battle will live in the history of our country. I

believe that point can be pressed home best perhaps by reference to an event which occurred recently in England. There they engaged a painter of considerable repute to paint three pictures, the first to be a picture of those who negotiated the Peace treaty, the second of those who signed the treaty, and the third of those who won the war. In a short time the artist completed the first picture, showing the statesmen and diplomats of the various countries negotiating the Peace treaty. Then he painted the second picture, in which he portrayed the signatories signing the treaty. But when he came to the third picture he tried one general after another in vain. According to reports he tried nine different generals and refused them all. They pressed him to hurry up and complete the series, and so finally he brought in a picture, not of any great general of the war, but of Britain's Unknown Soldier.
The Speech form the Throne conveys more or less of a promise of a reduction in the tariff. I am frank to say, after listening to the speeches which have come before the government benches, that I am more confused than ever as to what is meant by these tariff proposals. However, I am willing to be fair, and wait and see.
There are two omissions, in my opinion, in the Speech from the Throne to which I wish to call attention. I think that at the present time Canada is suffering more from the low prices which are paid to the farmer for his produce and from the excessive interest rates we have to pay than from any other two things we have to contend with. In the Speech from the Throne there may be more or less of a promise given of an attempt to reduce the cost of commodities which the farmer must buy, but I can see nothing there to give him any hope of an increase in the prices he gets for his commodities, and the interest rate is absolutely untouched.
I wish briefly to review the trade situation that Canada is in at the present time. I think it is one of the first axioms of economics that goods from one countiy must pay for goods purchased from another, and I maintain that what is largely the matter with our foreign trade at the present time is the tariff wall that we have maintained around this country, and which has kept out practically all the goods that are essential to us. About the only goods we have been able to get are the non-essentials or semi-luxuries. On the other hand, we have given to the world probably the finest wheat and the finest foodstuffs that can be grown anywhere in the civilized world to-day. The high quality of those foodstuffs is well known

The Address-Mr. Kellner
to practically every country in ithe world and to practically every individual in those countries. But the goods we are importing into this country are toys, for instance, from the Orient, silks and patent medicines from Europe -goods that might be classed as semi-luxuries. Practically no one knows the value of these goods in marketing. I believe there has grown up in our midst a merchandising combination which is taking an exorbitant toll for the service it is rendering. The United States government recently investigated this condition and found that in some cases this combination was charging as high as 1,000 per cent profit. Of course, it is pretty hard for the farmer growing wheat and Wiltshire sides to compete with profits to that extent.
We also have a few other troubles to contend with. Those of us who live in western Canada find when we come to ship our produce that the Railway Commission fixes the rates to the Great Lakes. From that point, across the Great Lakes, the rates are fixed by a combine of two men, and from there on the rates are supposed to be fixed by the competition between American and Canadian roads, but we are well informed that there is a combine between the American and Canadian roads, and that they refuse to lower the rates. Then at the ocean we have an ocean combine fixing the rates. Summing up, in shipping our goods we are up against a series of hopeless combines, and under such conditions it seems absurd to expect that a protective tariff wall is going to benefit the farmers very greatly.
There is still another policy which I have not mentioned, and that is the economic policy of doing business in Canada in such a way as to make the home market pay for the development of the foreign market. I think it is stating the case fairly to say that if a manufacturer desires to develop a foreign market, he will simply increase the price of the commodities at home, and will make the home market pay for the cost of developing that foreign market. That is the reason we often see goods manufactured in this country sold more cheaply in some foreign country than they are sold in Canada; and as a matter of fact some of our own goods, flour for example, sells more cheaply on the continent of Europe than it does here. I am convinced that in order to improve their status the farmers will have to create an organization which will be competent to handle the selling end of their business in precisely the same way. Before such an organization can be constituted, however, there is little doubt in my mind but that we shall have to get sup-13
port from other industries in Canada. We believe, speaking from the standpoint of western Canada, that the urban population very gladly extend that support at the present time. We may need some support from the government, and I am a little uneasy as to what we can expect from that quarter. Very j recently a delegation from our farmers' pool came down here and asked the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he would kindly pay up a little' bill which he owed. It ! dates back to the days of the old wheat board, j when a sum of money was set aside to meet j the winding up of expenses of the board, i Those expenses were not so heavy as had 1 been expected, and besides some of the participation certificates had been destroyed. The result is that the government have about half a million dollars of our money in their custo- , dy. But when this delegation came down and asked the acting Minister of Finance if he would mind turning it over he said "No, a few years ago some of you fellows came down here and borrowed money with which to buy seed grain. You have not yet paid that money back, so I will keep this money until the other debt is paid." It is rather unfortunate he did not state that some of the people brought in under the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's immigration campaign owed for the seed grain.
I think before I leave that subject I ought to call attention to the fact that the very day the newspapers published an article about this delegation coming down to see the acting Minister of Finance, the United States papers carried a news item to the effect that a committee had been appointed there to finance the farmers of the northwestern states. I saw two reports. One said that the capital subscription was to be ten million, the other that it was to be one hundred million. I have not been able to check the statements up and I do not know which is right. But assuming that ten millions is the correct amount, it is worth while noticing the difference in attitude between the United States and Canada. In one country the government refuse to give back about half a million in their possession which actually belongs to the western farmers, in the other they are subscribing the sum of ten million dollars to assist the farmers. I think possibly such incidents as this account for a good deal of the emigration which is to-day going to the United States from this country.
Now I want to make a ferw remarks with regard to the interest rates we are paying in Canada. I think.it very fitting that I should

The Address-Mr. Kellner

remind the House that at the last session of parliament, when we were renewing the bank charters, the little group which sits in this part of the chamber asked for a number of changes in the Bank Act, changes which we hoped would probably be instrumental in reducing the interest charges and in giving us a better credit system for our country. On that occasion there was no quarrel going on about the bribing of constituencies or anything of that kind; the hand of fellowship was extended across the floor of the House by the government to the opposition at that particular time. They told us then that Canada had the finest banking system that any country ever had, and it was even suggested that we should be satisfied with it because expressions of doubt on our part might ruin our credit abroad. I think events have happened since that time which possibly show our banking system is not just as perfect as its defenders then thought it was. Quite a number of these very fine banks have got into trouble at various times. Of .ourse I am aware it will be said in each particular case "It is only a weak sister, nothing happens to the big banks ". But the big banks are strong only as long as the people have confidence in them, and when the confidence is withdrawn they are no longer able to continue. I doubt, in fact, whether a bank in any such position as that could pay its liabilities. We remember that away back in 1912, I think that was the date, one of the big banks decided to speculate in Mexican lands and the results were very disastrous. If my memory serves me correctly thirty millions were written off the books of that bank as a result of those unfortunate investments. In 1914 another bank became ambitious to enter upon railroading and had to request the assistance of the government to keep it on its feet. In 1920 another bank backed some sugar gamblers, and that bank had a sweet time to remain in business also. So I think that possibly we are entirely within our rights in discussing this financial question.
Now, I want to give the House a little idea of just how satisfactory our banking system is from a farmer's standpoint. If, say twenty years ago, a farmer wanted to buy a new binder, and his credit was good, he would go to his banker and tell him what he wished and that he desired to borrow money for the purpose. The banker would say "All right, give me your note for $150 at 8 per cent." Suppose the same farmer wanted to buy a new binder this year he would go to the banker and tell him that the old binder, having been left out in fence corners for twenty years was worn

out, and he wanted to buy a new machine. The banker would say "All right give me your note for $300 and interest for 8 per cent", or probably 9 per cent. Now the number of dollars involved is not the question at issue. The vital fact is that he wishes to perform a certain function and to get money enough to do it. In the first case he is charged $12 a year for the privilege of buying the binder, in the second case he is charged $24; and when pay day comes he discovers that the principal he has to meet in the second instance is twice the amount it was in the first.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is the most inopportune time the country has ever had for discussing tariff regulations, by reason of the fact that foreign exchanges are so very unstable. Practically every country outside of the United States finds that it is having a good deal of trouble in maintaining its exchange. By the way our own exchange is slipping a little within the last few days, and I doubt very much if Canada can maintain it at anywhere near the figure it is now. I think this is something the government should take under their serious consideration, as to whether they intend to permit the extra demands which were made upon the credit of our country to be met by an issue of bank credit, entailing as it does a continual payment of interest, or whether they will provide for an issue of Dominion notes to take the place of bank credit. I want to leave that subject for a moment, and I will say something further in regard to it in a few minutes.
In discussing the matter of foreign trade, I notice that the government has been particularly gratified this last few months over the fact that last year we had a favourable trade balance of about $118,000,000. Well, as I view it, possibly that is not a matter of very great gratification at all. I think it amounts to about this, that extra money could do one of three different things. It could pay the interest on our foreign debt, if we made arrangements for that in our budget. It could go back to the country as a hidden asset, or in some way that would deceive the people. It chiefly comes by increasing our national debt, and also by increasing our interest obligation. I maintain that if we are going out to try to capture foreign markets by competition, by the cheapness with which we can sell our goods to other countries, regardless of whether or not we are prepared to take their goods in payment, then we are adopting practically the policy that used to be in vogue in the military ages. There was a time in the history of the world when the country which could go

The Address-Mr. Kellner
forth and by force of its arms conquer new territory was the most prosperous and the most-to-be-envied country of all. That condition is changed to-day, and we are endeavouring to accomplish the same thing through the trade of Canada, but I believe that one method is as much as the other, merely wading through slaughter to a throne.
We have heard a great deal in this House since the debate started about the unity of eastern and western Canada, and I submit there is only one way that that can be maintained. There must be an economic advantage to all the various sections of Canada in the union or eventually it is going to dissolve. I am sure there is no one at the present time who is desirous of seeing such a dissolution, but when the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hoclcen) this afternoon pointed out the horrible plight Brantford was getting into, and told us it was our duty to maintain the tariff, so as to hold up Brantford and some of these other cities, I could not help but think that these cities would never have been there if it had not been for the tariff: and having built these towns and brought them to their present state of development, if we find they are too heavy to carry, I am afraid we will have to get out from under the load, regardless of whether it means a dissolution of the union or not.
I would like to make a few remarks about the unsympathetic way in which the demands of the West have been met by eastern Canada and by this parliament in particular, and possibly I could cite nothing that would bring the matter home more truly than the question of the natural resources. We have been demanding the natural resources; and, for that matter, have been promised them by every parliament which we have ever had in Canada, regardless of its political affiliations. I remember when this government was elected they were trying to find a seat for the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in the province of Alberta. I asked one of their agents why they wanted him down in Ottawa so particularly. "Well" he said, "If there is a man in western Canada who can get the natural resources for us, that man is Charlie Stewart." He came down in 1921, this is 1924 and we have not got the natural resources yet.
Then there is the matter of the Branch Lines bill. That bill went through this House last year without any very serious opposition. It was defeated in another section of parliament, the mention of which is taboo at the present time; but I would like to suggest to the government that there might be a 13i
possibility this year of getting that bill through, if they would change their methods of financing a little. We have had two or three instances in the past of the adoption of different methods. Back in 1916 the government came to the aid of the Canadian Northern Railway with a grant of sixteen million dollars, and they came to the aid of ' the Grand Trunk Pacific with a grant of ten million dollars. That money was simply turned over to those railway companies in exchange for securities, and went into circulation, to meet construction costs and operating costs of the road. I can see no reason at this present time, having in mind the situation of our finances to-day why the government should not make an issue of Dominion notes to pay for these branch line railways. It would save the interest bill which is bound to accrue if we finance it in. the ordinary channels, and I think that the only objection that could be raised to the suggestion is that increasing the amount of the circulation without increasing production, *would cause prices to go up. I think that objection would fall flat, because if that money were expended in this way, we would very materially increase production. During last session the members in this part of the House were quite frequently referred to as the calamity howlers of parliament. I think it is only fair to say that this year the calamity howlers have largely changed their positions. The cry has come from the other sections of the House to a really more marked extent than from this side.


An hon. MEMBER:: Montreal.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Montreal and Toronto in particular. That is the natural sequence of events. When depression hits the country if starts always at the outlying districts and works back to the centre of civilization and finance, and I am convinced that before you will head off the depression from which this country is suffering and start it on the way to recovery, you will have to go out to the country districts and start prosperity there first. I know of no way in which that could be more effectively accomplished than by building those branch lines and financing them in the way I have suggested.
Before I came into the House, Mr. Speaker,
I was approached with a request that I set a precedent for reducing the time of speeches-
I intend, at least, to set the example of making a short speech.
Mr. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (translation):	Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to
join at the outset with the members who spoke

The Address-Mr. d'Anjou
before me, in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address for the worthy and eloquent manner in which they accomplished their task. To my friend from Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) with whom I have the great privilege of being united by a long friendship, I offer my most sincere congratulations for the excellent speech he delivered in polished and irreproachable French. He speaks English well. However, for my part, I find him more eloquent when he speaks French. His electors-particularly the French Canadians- have reason to be proud of their representative and I feel certain they will acknowledge their appreciation and gratefulness when the opportunity lends itself. I am delighted to be able to sincerely congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on his appointment to that important post. I know he will be a credit to us in his new functions, as he has always been to his compatriots in all the high offices he has filled. As to my friend, the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), I may tell him that all his fellow-members, and particularly those of the province of Quebec, rejoice in seeing him at the head of the Marine and Fisheries department. No doubt he will distinguish himself in that sphere as he did at the Bar, in parliament and everywhere else. As I feel in a complimentary mood, let me, Mr. Speaker, sincerely congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the worthy and truly Canadian manner in which he represented our country at the last Imperial Conference held, last summer, in London. He was the predominating figure at that conference. His firm stand on Imperial questions and his great eloquence drew upon him the admiration of all the members of this important gathering. Our distinguished Prime Minister maintained in London, as in Canada, his lofty views in regard to parliament's supremacy. He did his duty as a Canadian patriot and the stand he took at that Imperial Conference is highly to his credit and does honour to his country and fellow-citizens. Therefore, when the people of Canada will be called upon to give their appreciation as to the policy followed in London, by the eminent leader of the Liberal party, they will not hesitate in their choice between the Prime Minister and the fierce imperialist who leads the Conservative opposition in this House and through the country.
The Speech from the Throne, this year, is certainly one of the most important and substantial ever communicated to this House by a government thoughtful of the progress and the welfare of the Canadian people, and
I Mr. d' Anjou.]
anxious of strengthening the union which must exist between all the provinces forming part of the Canadian confederation. The announcement of reductions in taxation, the removing of duties on instruments of production and especially on farm implements, the balancing of the budget, finally, all the progressive reforms promised in the Speech from the Throne, will, 1 am fully convinced, be acclaimed with joy by the Canadian people. The removal of duties on the implements necessary to farming will turn to the advantage not only of the western farmers, but also to those of the east. It is a measure of simple justice. And, as a Liberal, I am proud that it is a Liberal government who grants this great blessing to the farmers of this country. I feel doubly proud because I have the honour to represent, in this House, an essentially farming community, a county, I may say it with pride, most progressive and most advanced in regard to agriculture, as in all other respects The farming industry is the first and most important of all our industries. The soil is the great fostermother, and it is worthy of the attachment and zeal of all those who have at heart the welfare and prosperity of this country. It is the foundation of progress of all nations; and all governments conscious of their duty and responsibilities, must be ready to make the greatest sacrifices to promote its development and reap its greatest yield. I am confident that the government will not rest there in its liberality to the farmers. Not only do I hope, they will not discontinue the grants for agricultural purposes to the provinces, but that on the contrary, they will be increased to their utmost. Economy is an excellent thing, but it must not be practised at the expense of the farming community. There are departments where the government can economize without it being detrimental to anyone. The estimates of National Defence should be reduced to their simplest form. If, indeed, there is a quarter where the government can and should realize the greatest savings, it is in the Department of National Defence. Requests for drill sheds or armouries must be thrown ouc fearlessly, not a cent should be spent on drill or training camps. It is in these respects that a wise and intelligent economy may be carried out in the best interest of the country, and this without discriminating against anyone.
Now, I come to the distressing problem of immigration and exodus of our people towards the United States. In my humble opinion, the wisest, the most patriotic, the best Cana-

The Address-Mr. d'Anjou
dian policy, would be to use all possible and imaginable means to keep the toilers of our land, at home. When a Canadian family emigrates to the United States, it is, generally, a loss forever to our country. The father and mother may, perhaps, feel the influence of that powerful craving for one's country, this home-sickness for their dear Canada, but the children will never want to return to farm the land of their forefathers, because, across the 45th parallel, they will have acquired the habit of an easy life, filled with many attractions appealing to them. The repatriation of Canadians must, indeed, be encouraged, but it would be infiinitely preferable to arrange matters in such a way, as to keep our people in this country. The money spent to induce immigrants would be much better employed if it were spent to encourage our compatriots to remain on Canadian soil.
Some spoke of the country's debt, and it is inquired, who shoulders its responsibilites. The leader of the opposition, the late Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) toured the province of Quebec during last summer, and, in every place he visited, he criticized the government in regard to the debt and taxes. What he forgot to tell the people of that province, but what they all know, thank Heaven, is that our foolish war venture is the cause of our country's present financial situation, and that the first one responsible for this state of affairs, is the leader of the opposition himself. And when he has disappeared not only from the political scene, but from this world, we may include in his epitaph, the stigma of the great national bankrupt. Is he not, indeed, the same person who, at the outset of the Great War, stated, at Winnipeg, his willingness to put the country in bankruptcy to save * the British Empire? He has kept his word: the Empire is saved, the country is in bankruptcy. But that was not enough. Even after the war they continued to squander the public funds. The leader of the opposition forgot to tell the people of Quebec that the war was over when his Government lent $25,000,000 to Roumania, $25,000,000 to Greece, under the plea of feeding the people of those countries who suffered from famine. We learned afterwards that this money was lent conditionally to its being spent in Canada ; those enormous sums were used to favour the friends of the government, and, to feed the Greeks and the Roumanians, boxes of nails and barrels of paint were sent to them. Among those who profited by the granting of those contracts were to be found a Conservative member from New Brunswick, and another Conservative holding an important office
in the Meighen cabinet. The whole country is fully aware that our critical financial situation is due to this war folly, and, that the principal author, not to designate him as the sole author of our woes>
is the leader of the opposition.
The leader of the opposition suddenly unfolded a great love for the province of Quebec and the beautiful French language. He one night dreamed that he had to fall in love with the province of Quebec in order to secure certain electoral gains. It was then he organized with all his lieutenants, the Montys, the Belleys, the Fauteux and all the others, a great touring trip through the province of Quebec. A little French speech is prepared for him w'hich he mumbles out from place to place, and behold this gentleman travelling throughout the province trying to make us forget the aspersions that he and his party heaped upon us.
If the leader of the opposition is sincere in his love for the province of Quebec; if he professes any friendship towards the French-Canadians of that province and Canada, why does he not ask the Prime Minister of Ontario to blot out immediately from the statutes of that province the iniquitous regulation XVII; if he is truly sincere and wishes to carry some sway in the province of Quebec and among the French-Canadians, let him force Mr. Ferguson to abrogate the accursed and odious law.
The leader of the opposition does not wish to recall that he has been the foremost in-sulter of our province and race and the partisans that were at his side carried on the same dirty work. Let him not forget one thing: the people of the province of Quebec are always true to their motto, Remember. They will remember that during the Great War, if we have known days of sadness and mourning we owe them to the leader of the opposition and his party; on the other hand they will remember that they can place their confidence in the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Prime Minister, who preserved his good common sense when most of his compatriots lost their heads during the war, and who, faithful to his principles, being first a Canadian, knew how to side with those who wish to protect their country before saving the Empire.
During his rambling through the province of Quebec, the leader of the opposition was, according to his programme, to pay a visit to Rimouski, but he did not put in an appearance. As the leader of the opposition speaks and understands French well. I greatly regret that he is not in his seat to listen to what I
The Address-Mr. d'Anjou

shall read. He must, no doubt, have come across this article published in "Le Progres du Golfe " edited by my friend, Mr. Couture, notary, whose independent mind and integrity are well known. Here follows what is stated in this article dated November 30, 1923, in regard to Mr. Meighen's visit to the province of Quebec, organized by Messrs. Monty and Fauteux:
Bear Showmen
On several occasions, Messrs Rodolphe Monty, A Fauteux and a few others bring over Mr. Meighen into the province of Quebec so as "to show" him. Their action is well-meant but. . . they will be wasting their time and money. The province of Quebec has registered against the past policy of Mr. Meighen so energetic and unanimous a protest that his very few Quebec lieutenants should husband something more than a reminiscence of it.
The wild imperialism of which this ex-Prime Minister gave proof in latter days, has so much disgusted those whose country is Canada first that they have vowed to his person an abhorrence which will probably only die with their generation. To try and slip us over again this sorry personage after having given him a sirupy coating of protection and the velvet of a recent smattering of French, is to show that one has time to waste and that one takes the French Canadian to be a kind of a rustic that can be fooled easily, assuming beforehand that he will lack the courage of remembering past insults.
Messrs Monty and associates are quite at liberty to remain faithful to their political party; it is their unquestionable right and we even admire, to a certain extent, their tenacity, notwithstanding the discredit into which their leaders, of yesterday, have fallen in our eyes. Nevertheless, siding openly with a man who is primarily responsible for the stampede, and who, has behaved in such a way that he succeeded in loading the Conservative party, in the eyes of the masses, at least, with all the sins of Israel, is to go the limit.
Mr. Meighen stated at Victoriaville that he would rather be in the opposition. His philosophy reminds us of the fox who found the grapes too sour. He tells us that Mr. King is marking time, but what would he do in the latter's place, he, the intriguer "per excellens"? We should be glad to know.
The man whose policy has been so clumsy that it roused one against the other all the provinces of the Dominion, is a man unworthy of the confidence of people who wish to find the greatness of their country in the peace and harmony between the races.
We have not met Mr. Meighen personally, but we know his political leanings, his whims for imperialism beyond all measure. This is sufficient to justify both the denial of our confidence and our hope to soon see certain Conservative leaders cease, once for all, of being bear showmen.
Bayard.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the opposition read or heard of this article, for he thought it wise to abstain from visiting Rimouski.
At all the meetings at which he took part in the province of Quebec, he glorified himself of being the author of the compulsory Military Service Act; he stated at all these gatherings, that he would have no hesitation in acting the same way, if occasion offered, and, he further added that if he had imposed

this odious measure on the country, it was because it was absolutely necessary. I contend, Sir, that the leader of the opposition is unable to establish, before an intelligent audience, that conscription was a measure of urgency. No, a country like ours, with limited resources, both in men and money-which during the war accomplished the gigantic task of sending more than 500,000 volunteers oversea, to take part in the bloody European war, was not deserving that this iniquitous conscription act be forced upon it. Should not Australia have given more than us, a country four-fifths English, proof of her love and attachment to the British Empire? Nevertheless that country did not think fit to pass so extraordinary a law as that of conscription, and, twice, in a referendum as well as a general election, it threw out the measure. South Africa acted in the same way.
The leader of the opposition is unable to justify the position he took. If the compulsory Military Service Act was forced upon us, it was not so much with a view to sending more men to the front-for there were thousands and thousands in the training camps, both in England and in France who but awaited the signal to leave for the firing line -but it was purely and simply a scheme to divide the Liberal party, so as to make it easier to carry the elections. That was the principal aim of the leader of the opposition. The result which followed proved conclusively that such was truly the aim of his scheme. I challenge him to come before the electors of my county to prove that he had the conscription act carried through because it was a measure of necessity. I am fully convinced that at the next appeal to the country, the electors of Rimouski and of other parts of the province of Quebec will prove to him that he had no right to impose such an arbitrary measure. Let the leader of the opposition be not deceived, let him not think ' that because he came to our province, the people of that province have changed their views towards him. The province of Kuebec is essentially a French province and is polite and hospitable. It welcomed the leader of the opposition courteoudy but with reserve. In all parts of the province of Quebec, where the leader of the opposition visited, he thought fit to call upon the highest dignitaries of our beloved clergy, hoping by those means to capture their sympathies. But let him not make that mistake. Years ago, Sir John A. Macdonald, then leader of the Conservative party, also undertook to obtain the good offices of the clergy of the province of

The Address-Mr. Harris
Quebec, nevertheless, nursing the thought of crossing them at every turn.
If you will allow me Sir, I will quote to substantiate m3" assertion, the letter which Sir J. A. Macdonald wrote to Mr. A. T. Galt, on the 2nd of June, 1875. Here is this letter which I have had translated in French, to please the leader of the opposition, as I know that he is to-day very partial towards the French language:
Confidential letter of Sir John A. Macdonald to A. T.
Galt, June 2, 1875
X have yours of the 1st and hasten to say that I hope you will use all your influence, and with promptness and energy, to prevent a split in the British wing of the Conservative party. The pretentions of the priests are absurd but they will be fostered and supported by the French of both parties, Rouge as well as Bleu. The true policy is for the Conservatives to use all the priestly influence they can to get a Conservative majority in the local legislature. A Conservative majority in the Dominion Parliament will soon follow and that majority may be trusted to put in full force your Educational clause in the B.N.A. Act, if there is any attempt to trample on the protestants.
The present Dominion Government Mackenzie and Co. have shown the greatest possible amount of obsequiousness to the R.C.'c up here and in New Brunswick and will do so-Must do so-if a religious or educational question arises in Lower Canada. If, therefore, by the action of the British party a Rouge Government is formed, then the British will find themselves thrown over by their Rouge allies, who have learned by experience that it is necessary to be Catholics first, Rouges afterwards. And there will be no use in them appealing to the Central Government, a Government placed in power and kept in power by archbishop Lynch and the Catholic League in Ontario. It would indeed be good policy, or rather good luck, for the protestants in Quebec, if an attempt were made by Bishop Bourget to override the B.N.A. Act in the new legislature. It would bring matters to a head.
Use the priest, therefore for the next election but be ready to fight them' in the Dominion Parliament. For that purpose you should be there. The clauses are yours and it would put you in a very strong position to be the champion and exponent of the rights and claims of the British Party. But you can fight this battle successfully only with your old allies.
Yours always,
(Sgd) John A. Macdonald.
The leader of the opposition seems to be following the same tactics as Sir J. A. Macdonald; he comes to our province to-day to our clergy after having insulted it. He forgot to mention to the electors of Quebec the base outrage perpetrated upon the Jesuit college at Guelph, during the war. He forgot to mention many other things. He has forgotten that he belongs to a clique of fanatics which applies itself to keep down as much as possible the French Canadian element, and which endeavours to crush all those who do not share their views. He is wasting his time at that game, for the clergy of Quebec are too high-minded and self-respecting to be deceived by those honeyed words. When the next general election comes, the leader of the
opposition will perceive that his speeches did not produce the effects expected from them.
I shall not, Sir, add anything further,
I thank the House for the kind attention given me, and, I wish but for one thing: that during the next recess of parliament, the leader of the opposition will pay a visit to my county; I shall be there with my electors to greet him.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: Unfortunately for me, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt for some other hon. members, we were not able to follow as well as we should like the remarks that have just been made in French by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou). The hon. gentleman had a good deal to say in reference to one of the greatest statesmen whom, in my opinion, this country has ever known, the late Sir John A. Macdonald.
I would remind him that there should be coupled with that illustrious name that of another great Canadian statesman, Sir George Etienne Cartier. These two great men have had, in the past, a very considerable part to play in shaping the destinies of this country and placing her in the position she occupies to-day. Had it not been for them our friends in the western provinces would not be here in such large numbers to-day having so much to say in regard to conditions in that part of the Dominion: for was it not these two statesmen who in their day put the Canadian Pacific railway across this continent in order that the sons and daughters of the western country as well as some from eastern Canada might be able to follow their vocation? I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Rimouski, but I want to tell him that the people of Ontario are not wont to exhibit the same degree of passion as he is apt to do. We in Ontario are suffering a great deal as the result of the war, but we are bearing our burdens and our sorrow; and when the hon. gentleman rises in his place and re-hashes what happened in that strenuous time during which the affairs of the country were governed by the party to which I belong, let me urge him with all sincerity to control his passion and let us all with a united front face the future with confidence in order that we may meet the problems that confront the Dominion.
It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but one of our number having missed the train, it has devolved upon me to come forward. It is with some regret that I note the absence from the House of the backbone of this government. I admire, as other young members of the House admire, such men as the Minister of Finance (Mr. The Address-Mr. Harris

Fielding) and the ex-Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin)-the backbone of the government. Under the circumstances I will let any further remarks in that connection be taken as read. I want to congratulate the House, however, on having amongst its members two representative citizens of this Dominion in the persons of, the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) who adorn our benches.
Coming now to the Speech from the Throne, I fancy that most hon. gentlemen on a first reading of it thought that it held some promise; but after we have read it a second time, those of us at least who have gone across this country from one end to the other, and who have an idea of things, feel that the Speech from the Throne is not quite justified in many respects. I represent, -like the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean)-a constituency of some 110,000 people. This is one of the largest constituencies in Canada, and we feel that the first sentence in the Speech from the Throne is not a true expression of what is taking place in Canada at the present time. The second sentence refers to our prosperity, which it ascribes to production, transportation, employment and trade. With regard to production and what may be regarded as its complement, transportation, would not hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches have been a little more honest with themselves and the country if in the Speech from the Throne they had given thanks to Providence for the wheat production we had last year and, incidentally, for the fair return shown in our railway statement?
Coupled with production and transportation we note trade, employment, public finances, and so forth. It is true that the aggregate of our trade is somewhat in excess of what it was in other years. As a young member of this House I admire the style of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) in approaching this subject; I wish that he could impart some of his demeanor to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. In my humble opinion the hon. member for Bonaventure is a statesman. One suggestion that fell from his lips gave me cause for thought; he said, after painting a picture of life in the Gaspe basin, that a large number of the people of that district had found it necessary to emigrate to Boston and the New England states, to become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the people of the south. But in my humble opinion the hewers of wood and drawers of water are left here in Canada. Analyse if you will, the trade returns for 1923, and you will
]Mr. Harris.]
find that our increases in exports are in commodities which require the services in this country of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our lumber exports increased by 37 per cent; sole leather, which should be made into boots and shoes in this country, shows an increase of 191 per cent, imports of twine an increase of 44 per cent, wool socks of 20 per cent. Since I learned that the hon. member for Halton (Mr, Anderson) was not going to speak to-night I looked up our imports and exports from the point of view of groups of commodities. Take class 6, non-ferrous metals; there our imports reached the figure of $37,532,081, but an analysis shows that these imports represent $32,670,302 worth of finished goods and only $4,861,779 of raw material. In other words, 87 per cent of the goods in class 6 which were imported were finished articles and 13 per cent the raw material. Look at the exports for the same group, do we find the same condition prevailing? No: we find that the raw materials exported in the non-ferrous metal group were 77^ per cent, whereas of the total product the exports were 22i per cent. Surely this is a condition which indicates that we are the hewers of wood and drawers of water. The same applies to class 4, exports of wood products. Of finished materials exported in wood and wood products there were $82,271,078 worth, or 36 per cent, against raw material exported, 64 per cent, or $146,585,127. The same thing applies to the figures with respect to imports of these products; unmanufactured, $9,758,613; * manufactured, $26,086,931-27 per cent of the imports in this class were raw materials and 73 per cent the finished product. This must indicate to hon. members that we are still hewers of wood and drawers of water for the people to the south of us.
Having regard to the programme forecast in the Speech from the Throne, I am satisfied that the young people of Canada will, when they study it, begin .to realize that vocations are not being made available to them and that it will be necessary for them to seek another country with that end in view. We have an illustration of this when we come to analyze what is being done with regard to immigration or, more pronouncedly, with regard to emigration. A good deal has been said with regard to immigration, but I am of the humble opinion that not half enough has been said with regard to emigration. The right hon. Prime Minister, in a wild sort of manner, tried to defend this situation, but his attempt was a very weak one. Leading members representing the party opposite have tried to

The Address-Mr. Harris
make excuses for the exodus from this country, and in that respect I am reminded of that sentence in Holy Writ, "And they all with one consent began to make excuse." Excuses will not do for the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The people are your masters, and when you come forward with excuses you will be-I would hesitate to say, condemned, but you will be told where you belong.
There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the looking forward to the investment of large amounts of capital in this country. As my hon. friends opposite are wont to do, and as they have shown they are able to do in a very agile manner with regard to every question and every issue, they have faced both ways on this question, because in a paragraph further down they shake the whole foundation on which the industrial structure of this country rests. No government can face both ways on the public questions of the day; our people demand a straight, definite, clear policy so that they may know where they are, and the sooner they get it the better. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is smiling to himself, but let me tell him that I am absolutely sincere in what I say. I know the feeling of 110,000 people I represent in this House, and there is more truth than fiction in what I am saying at this moment. These matters affect my constituency very seriously.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) said this afternoon that we should be the mere image of the people we represent. I should like to be able to acquire that image of the 110,000 people I represent, because over 60 per cent of them live in homes that they themselves own. Twenty years ago my riding had but 10,000 people; to-day it is peopled by a fine class of young citizenship which is equal to that found in any other part of Canada. One of the hon. members from Quebec has said a good deal about the birth rate in that province. Let me tell the House that within a radius of one mile from where I live, including a population of 10,000 people, the 'birth rate is greater than it is in any other province of Canada. Our friends from the province of Quebec, with all due deference to them, have nothing on us in that respect. These people own their own homes and intend to hang on to them if at all possible. They seek their vocation in the great city of Toronto, and want to remain there as citizens. They took their part in the Great War from 1914 to 1918 to a degree unsurpassed by any other part of the Dominion, and when they express through me a few complaints in regard to the conditions under which they labour they
are deserving of some consideration. I am not one to come here and say a whole lot about what we must have and what we must not have, when this fair Dominion is going through the present crisis, but I am going to ask you to bear with me while I say a few words with regard to some of our questions in the city of Toronto.
First and foremost in my mind at the moment is one matter of national importance.
I am sorry the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is not in his seat, because I would like to say something to him, although I know he would rise in his place and say that railway matters are entirely under the direction of the president of the Canadian National Railways and the board of directors. In the city of Toronto we have the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific coming into our fair city along the water front over level crossings. These level crossings in places have as many as sixteen sets of tracks crossing our main thoroughfares, and I have seen as many as thirty motor trucks, some twenty odd horses and wagons, twenty or thirty motor cars, and around five in the evening as many as four or five hundred working people crossing these sixteen sets of tracks. True, these level crossings are protected by flagmen. These flagmen do their duty as best they can, but they have nearly all reached the age of three score and ten, and some day we are going to have a tragedy at one of these level crossings. Farther down the same tracks, there is another level crossing which our people are wont in the summer time to use when going to the Island to get a little outing. There is hardly a day in the summer when there is not a Sunday school picnic and anywhere from one to two thousand Sunday school children with their teachers going over to the Island for a picnic, and they have to cross from ten to sixteen sets of tracks to get to the boats. That is the condition that prevails in Toronto at the present time, and it should receive some attention from the present Government inasmuch as we are the owners of the Canadian National railways, and inasmuch as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was wont to say last session that the railways are in politics. This question should receive consideration also from the viewpoint of the convenience of the travelling public and the utilization of our union station, which is lying idle, from the viewpoint also of assisting the trade and commerce of the great city of Toronto, and also from the viewpoint of allowing the industries which are located to the south of these tracks to develop as they ought to develop, and our harbour development to
The Address-Mr. Harris

go on untrammelled as it cannot do at the present time,
I am sorry the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) is not in his seat. I would like to say something to him about his attitude with regard to the city of Toronto. The people of Toronto have no bigotry. I see the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), who eats rhubarb, is laughing to himself. Let me tell him that the city of Toronto was built up by the sons and daughters from the farms of Ontario, the finest people in the Dominion. Let me tell him that the city of Toronto is pouring into the national exchequer each year money by the millions-to do what? To try and hold this country together, to help you out under the conditions under which you are striving. Let me tell the hon. gentleman from Saltcoats and other hon. members of this House who are wont to cry about agricultural conditions that there are no parasites of any kind in the city of Toronto. The people of Toronto who are interested in manufacturing and the like have borne the brunt of the hard times' through which we have come, and having built their business on a sure foundation in the first instance, they have, as the hon. member for Hants has said, taken their medicine. They are putting their shoulder to the wheel and are trying to overcome the conditions of to-day.
Now that my attention has been drawn to the city of Toronto by a few smiles which indicate a certain amount of scepticism on the part of some hon. members in this House, let me give you just one instance of what our people are doing. On Saturday morning I went to a certain manufacturing institution in the city of Toronto and asked permission to look at their private records.
I took with me the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff). I opened up the books of this private company, which was established forty years ago by two honourable men, who raised one a family of ten children and the other a family of nine, and who after forty years of hard labour had accumulated a business with a capital of some $452,000; and when I say hard labour I speak advisedly, for these men worked from early morning until late at night, from sunrise to sunset. The heads of this institution, one of these manufacturing institutions some hon. gentlemen are wont to call parasites, sleep in a room at night with a telephone beside their bed and are ready to do business whenever it rings. All their long-distance business is done at night, to save time during the day and, incidentally, because they get a little cheaper rate. They have worked four-
teen hours a day for thirty-eight or forty years and have built up in that time a business worth $452,000. Perhaps they are parasites; perhaps not; in my humble opinion they are not. In 1020 they took a loss, without any depreciation or interest of $92,600; in 1921 tjjey took a loss of $37,800; in 1922 they took a loss of $12,731. Interest and depreciation charges in that time amounted to $100,000, so the work of these two stalwart men, with their nineteen children, over a period of forty years was wiped out of existence. I am not crying hard times in this House, but I uphold the men, who after an experience of that kind were found-where0 They were found in their place of business at eight o'clock on Saturday morning with their sons in overalls and the head of the institution in a smock going around and doing the best they could-for what? For the future of this country and their children.
_ Mr. Speaker, when I hear hon. members in this House rise in their place and say that the people in the large centres are parasites and things of that kind, it makes my blood boil. I heard the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) the other evening say something about the party in this comer of the House. What he said about the egg that was only a nest egg, and only a rock at that, rather amused me. I noticed after he had got through that the bird had not even laid an egg. What we want more than anything else in this country is to get on common ground with one another. We in Ontario love, admire^ and respect, the people in the western provinces. I represent several thousand people in the county of York. I live on the farm myself during the summer months, in a four roomed house and I know something about farming conditions. I have raised as many as eight and nine hundred hogs at one season.
I know what it is to grow five thousand bags of potatoes in a year. In my boyhood I have known what it was to hoe potatoes from early morning till late at night. Mr. Speaker, if you go back twenty years and look up the population in the county of York you will find as many of our sons and daughters have gone to the western provinces as are left to look after the interest of our fair county. Thinking of the remark that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Nelson the other evening that he wanted to see the traditions in the back of the heads of the people who came to that country, I can scarcely understand the views that are being enunciated here by that hon. member. I know that the brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and

The Address-Mr. Harris
relatives of the people who left the county of York to go west have not in their makeup such sentiments as have been expressed from the left hand corner of this House.
When the sarcastic laughter came from my good friends to the left I was talking about the exodus of some of the people from our country, and I was saying how sad and sorrowful we felt to see these young people quitting Canada. If hon. members will devote a thought to the city of Toronto and to the number of homes there they will see how important this question of employment is. It will be seen that there are quite a number of people engaged in the building trades there, while a number find employment in the province at large. There are some 25,500 heads of families engaged in the building trades in the province of Ontario and last year they drew in wages $28,470,174.
These people have another grievance which I want to explain as briefly as possible. That grievance is against the sales tax. Now, you may wonder how it is that working men have a grievance against that tax. My reason for mentioning the matter at this time is to afford the government an opportunity of reviewing the situation and providing relief before the budget is brought down. According to the act,-taking into consideration the work of stonemasons, sheet metal workers, and builders,-all work done at the job on any particular building is exempt from sales tax; but work wrought in stone or any sheet metal moulded into shape within a factory or shop is liable to the sales tax of 6 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a large centre of population like Toronto the municipal, provincial and federal institutions, and the citizens generally, are all urged to do as much work as possible during the winter months. Unfortunately, industries of the kind that I have described find that when they do this work in their plants they have to pay the sales tax of 6 per cent. Consequently, in order to avoid that tax they endeavour to have the work wrought as much as possible on the job. The result is that they will hold back building that necessitates that class of work until the weather permits them to get on the job. Representations have been made to the government for a change in the law such as would meet the conditions of these workers but up to the present time no relief has been afforded. I think I will read to the House, if hon. members will bear with me for a moment a few lines from a letter which one of these large contractors has sent to me on the subject:
I might say that we have at present a large contract on Trinity College, Toronto, and through some
persuasion we induced the architect, with an object in view of keeping our men employed, to have certain woodwork delivered at our factory to be covered with sheet metal. This woodwork could be covered on the building and would come under the heading of erection or installation, but we discovered that by doing this in our factory we were subject to a sales tax of 6 per cent on the labour only, and we made inquiries through the Customs department, and their ruling was that we had the option of doing the work at the building and avoiding the sales tax or doing it at our factory and paying sales tax. In other words, they did not consider the men being out of employment, their business was to collect the sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, conditions in Toronto between contractors and their employees are very amiable. They work together for the good of the citizens to the very best of their ability with the happiest results. I have also a letter from the international representative of the Sheet Metal Workers on the same subject addressed to the Hon. James Murdock, Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ontario. I think the minister is going to follow me, and I hope he will take a note of this matter. Perhaps he will promise us to-night that some relief will be granted. The extract I wish to read is as follows:
It has been the policy of our employers in past years to try to get enough contracts ahead, that would keep their regular employees busy during the winter months, by making this work from detail drawings for construction jobs.
If this sales tax is continued on labour in our trade, the results will be, that our employers will stop making this work in the shops and will avoid paying this extra 6 per cent tax on labour, by waiting till the buildings are well under construction, and have all our work manufactured on the job, the results of this will be detrimental to our members, placing 60 per cent of our membership on the unemployment list, for the winter months, and in our opinion will only slightly increase the revenue to the Department of Finance.
While this will affect our trade greatly, on building construction work, it also affects a number of other building trades unions to a large extent, and I feel assured that in the interest of labour you will take this matter up at your earliest convenience, to the end that this coming session of parliament will amend the act, to apply on material only, so that our members, and many others will not be added to the unemployment list during the winter months of 1924-25.
They received a reply from the Minister of Customs and Excise and also the Minister of Labour. In that reply, according to the document I have in my possession, both ministers evaded the question at issue entirely, and merely quoted for the benefit of the contractors and their employees a part of the act.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Will my hon. friend read the reply from the Customs department?


Joseph Henry Harris: I have already written for that reply, I have not got it here. If the minister would like me to read another letter from the international representatives of some
The Address-Mr. Harris

of these unions denouncing the government in terms a little stronger than I would care to use, I should be pleased to do so.


James Murdock: We know there are some Tories amongst them.


Joseph Henry Harris: I have a letter here and am prepared to read it for the edification of the House. Perhaps I might furnish the minister with a copy. It is from A. J. Crawford, international representative of the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Manufacturers and is dated February 18, 1924. Evidently the Minister of Labour has had enough.
I was -talking about some of the things that are affecting the citizens of Toronto. One of them is the necessity for better custom house accommodation. The exchequer benefited from Toronto last year to the extent of $50,000,000 from customs and excise receipts, and this year the amount will reach $60,000,000. Business men who have to pass their entries are complaining about being kept for three or four hours at a time in order to get their entries through. The facilities are absolutely inadequate for the vast amount of business requiring to be done. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Customs and Excise in the hope that they will give it therir serious attention and grant some relief to the people of Toronto. I am glad the Minister of Public Works is here to-night to hear what I have -to say with respect to the matter. It is an unfortunate thing that we do not get as large an attendance of ministers every day as we should have. Something is always happening to keep ministers away.
The first minister is not present to-night, and no one knows which minister is acting for the Post Office Department. But let me point this out: The city of Toronto yields a greater postal revenue to the Dominion exchequer than the city of Montreal and all the rest of the cities in the province of Quebec combined. Yes, and all the towns in Quebec added to that, all the Quebec centres of papulation of over 10,000 added to it, and you still have to go some to reach the postal revenue received from Toronto. They speak of this government studying economy and retrenchment, something which I very strongly advocated myself last session and again advocate just now. I ask this government to look into the matter of postal service in our large centres, and endeavour to get back to the pre-war rate for drop-letters, not only in Toronto but in the whole of the Dominion.
I am satisfied that the increased volume of business which they would receive would in

part compensate any loss the government might sustain in this direction.
I have told hon. members once or twice to-night that I am supposed to do my best to represent 110,000 of the finest people in the Dominion of Canada. I notice in the Speech from the Throne that a redistribution bill will be brought down. I also remember very well that the first minister of the Crown promised this House that that measure would be equitable. I earnestly trust that he is sincere in that, and I sincerely hope the government will give the home-loving people of the constituency I represent adequate representation in this House. I am satisfied to represent 110,000 people in this House, if everyone else will do the same-anything to cut down the overhead in running this country. We can carry on with one hundred men and women in this House, if we will. I would do anything to cut down the excess county councils, city councils and all sorts of municipal bodies which exist at the present time. We have too much legislation. It is costing us too much. At the same time if we are going to continue with 244 seats in this House, if we are going to carry on the programme the way it is proposed, I do not feel disposed to represent 110,000 people in the House, in all fairness to my constituents, because I feel convinced that they possess a degree of brain power equal to that of the people in North York, for instance.


George Perry Graham: Take West York.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am quite open to anything the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will suggest. I am sure the first minister of the Crown when he makes his appeal to some 30,000 people-I do not say that he will be successful at the next election-will not be addressing an audience which is any more intelligent than an audience in East York, representative of 110,000 people. I trust this government will see to it that we have a just and equitable redistribution, so that all kinds and classes of citizens will have more or less equal representation in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. gentleman says "louder." I was just speaking about the first minister of the Crown. Some years ago I was in a little village called Bolton in North York. The first minister of the Crown -and I am sorry he is not here to-night- was telling the populace about the great principles of the Liberal party. An old gentleman in the back of the hall rose and said

The Address-Mr. Harris
"louder." No attention was paid to him and a few moments later he again called out "louder." In the middle of the hall was another man who was much older than the man in the rear of the hall, and who knew something about politics and other things in the Dominion of Canada; he rose and said to the gentleman who was calling "louder," "It is all right my friend, sit down and rest yourself. He is not saying anything anyway."
I am absolutely sincere in what I have said to this House, and I believe that everything I have said up to this moment is absolutely true, and it is in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada. If my hon. friend does not think so, I will pass the hat around this assembly and gather enough money to buy a box of cigars; I will place him on a railway train, let him sit in the smoking car, travel from Halifax to Vancouver, and listen to what he hears from the public-and what he will hear on the trains in Canada is from the lips of salesmen, business men, people who are wont to travel, people who in the first essential are optimistic, because otherwise they would not hold down the positions they occupy-and if he can come back to this House and say to us, that the conditions under which the Dominion is operating at the present time, due to the policy of this government in part, are what they should be, or if he can say that 40 per cent, or less than half, of the people he meets are satisfied with the government that is functioning here and now from the treasury benches, then I will give him my seat in this House.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the House that in the interests of the people of Canada we should have a free, frank, open discussion, so that the people could get some idea as to the magnitude and the necessity of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway, in order that they could express themselves as to the necessity or non-necessity of the work. I was criticized by the hon. Minister of Finance in his budget speech for making that suggestion. I welcome criticism. I did not like to interrupt the minister because I sympathized with his predicament at that time. I realized the strain he was under due to the many duties he had to perform. But let me answer the minister now. I am sorry to have to do it in his absence. The words and sentiments which I expressed last session are now coming to life. The government have faced both ways on this question and now they are facing our way. The Montreal influence must have slackened or been diverted in some way or another;
and the government came forward with the announcement that they have made representations to Washington and I trust it will not end up with correspondence only, but that they will put before the people of the country the necessity of this project being put through to a conclusion.
Some of us who do not know a great deal, perhaps, about matters political have been wondering why it is necessary for the first minister of the Crown and one-half of his cabinet each year to go abroad and attend all kinds of conferences, Imperial, economic and labour. I suppose the necessity is there; but with only a population of nine million, with this country scattered as it is, with the differences of opinion and the necessity for all getting together upon common ground and trying to get a definite policy which will be more satisfactory than the present one, in my humble opinion it is time the people of Canada demanded of the ministers a little more of their time at home, a little less travelling abroad, a few more conferences within the Dominion itself, not a hurried conference with Premier Dunning and the member for Marquette, (Mr. Crerar) taking place perhaps in a day or two days, not a case of bargaining or something of that nature, but let us have a big, open conference, let us put all our troubles into the pot, and see if we cannot bring forth a policy which will be more satisfactory than the policy we have at the present time. I like to feel that (I can advocate something which not only bears on my own constituency, but something which will work for the general good of the people of the Dominion.
Last year I said something with reference to the province and city of Quebec. I ask you to think of that line of railway which we have lying on our backs, that Grand Trunk Pacific, running across the northern part of that province. I advocated very strongly that our western friends urge the government to do everything possible to have the freight rates from Winnipeg to Quebec city lowered and to have better port facilities provided for Quebec city so that our western friends would have lower carrying charge and better facilities for getting their products to the markets of the world. Some notice was taken of that. I notice that 5,000 cattle were shipped from Quebec to the old country last year. I hope the number will be 15,000 this year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) says: "hear, hear." If the Minister of Labour will stay at home next
The Address-Mr. Harris

summer and apply himself to some of those questions, that will be a good thing for the people of Canada. I cannot see where he has given much application to the problems of Canada. I see his name in print now and again. I hope he will explain why it has been in print to the extent that it has been lately. He follows me, so I must hurry on as I want to give him plenty of time and opportunity to reply.
I rather hesitate to speak of conditions and development east and west, because apparently the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) represents western Canada in this House and nobody else is supposed to know anything about it. The hon. gentleman becomes rather amused when a member representing a manufacturing centre desires to say anything about the West. He was amused because the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had something to say about conditions in the West. Let me tell the leader of the Progressive party that when anyone that I have met in the manufacturing industry hears things which emanate from the lips of western representatives, he is not amused, not very much amused. He sits down as a rule and tries to analyze it. He tries to get some meat from the suggestion and to get on common ground with them and their theories and ideas, and anything that I have ever advocated on any platform in any part of Canada has been along similar lines. We listen to what they have to say. We pay not very much attention to some of the theories that are advanced. We do not like some of the expressions that emanate from that corner of the House. Such things as breezes blowing in the mulberry trees, and the possibility of your pulling away from us make us feel bad. Nevertheless, as regards remarks which have a bearing upon the condition of the whole of Canada and which emanate from the hon. gentlemen who are represented in this group, we try in a sympathetic way to hear your version and we will try to meet you on common ground. We realise that your markets are, perhaps, not all in the Dominion of Canada. There is not enough of a market here to take care of everything that you produce. But we ask you in turn to realise that the industrial centres of population in Canada are consuming a large proportion of your products. An hon. member from the West spoke about parasites. One of our own United Farmers of Ontario said something about "where the carcass lies, there go the eagles," and he was helped out by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) who said: "there go the vul-

tures." Let me tell the Minister of Railways that the vultures in the cities and in other large centres are the sons and daughters of the people who come from the country. We resent those statements. I know the minister was only joking, but such statements have a bad taste in the mouths of the people of the cities.


George Perry Graham: I was correcting a quotation.	.


Joseph Henry Harris: I appreciate that the minister was correcting a quotation, but, incidentally, he was more or less agreeing with the quotation. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mc-Murray) quoted Emerson, and although I rather hesitate to do so, I am going to quote Emerson for the information of the House in the matter of vultures and so on. Emerson says:
Any body politic or otherwise that is wont to follow a policy and follow that policy beyond the realm of the good of the people in any body or any country will find that that policy will turn to carrion, and that carrion will be a stench in the nostrils of the people of that community.
I say to the hon. member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Fansher), who is wont to talk about the eagles and carrion, that in the province of Ontario on June 25 last we had an example of what happened when Drury carried their policy so far in Ontario that it became carrion and a stench in the nostrils of the people of that province, with the result that on June 25 his party were put in then-place and another party was put in charge.
I do not like those expressions. We are all one people in this country. We in the cities are no better than you people in the country. We realize that you are good citizens, but we feel that we are as good citizens as you are. We want to get on common ground with you. We want you to intermingle with us and to help us out in our difficulties, and we in turn will help you out in yours.
In that connection I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I support it whole heartedly because I know there are coming into this country at the present time a large number of commodities which can be grown on the farms of Ontario, the good province of Quebec and the provinces of the West. The grain imports last year amounted to $11,100,000; vegetables, $4,800,000; without any rubber. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will be worrying about the rubber, but there, is no rubber in these imports. Fruits amounted to, $26,000,000; nuts, $3,600,000. This makes a

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
total of $45,500,000. If this government feels disposed to impose a tariff against them to raise revenue and incidentally to keep them out of the country, and if the government feels disposed to make us eat rhubarb by keeping bananas out of the country, I say more power to them and I will support them. In this way they will be raising a revenue by keeping these commodities out of the country and incidentally giving more markets for the products which the people who live on the farms are able to produce.
A policy which will help our large centres of population in this matter must be the policy in vogue in this Dominion, if we are going to keep step with the other nations of the world. It is hinted in the Speech from the Throne that the government is going to do something drastic with an industry that has been established here for some time, the agricultural implement industry. Does this government honestly believe that it is doing the people of Canada any service by intimating to this one industry that it is to be the goat for bargaining for the support of our friends to my left? Do my hon. friends opposite not know enough about the agricultural implement business to know that they are only driving the few scattered businesses that are at present working in Canada together into one great combine probably centred in Chicago? In the final analysis, are you not going to pay just as much for those implements if you drive the industry into the hands of one concern? I know some hon. members will be thinking of watered stock and all that sort of thing. There are about 110,000 people in my riding. Upon an analysis of the businesses in that particular riding I find that there is not one which has any watered stock. This talk about watered stock is all humbug. There may be an isolated case of watered stock, but as a general rule there is very 'little in the business of this country. Furthermore, so far as my own riding is concerned, I do not know of one man who is worth five hundred thousand dollars; nor can I recall more than two or three who are worth more than a hundred thousand dollars. There are more men in this group beside me worth more than a hundred thousand dollars than there are in my riding. Now, these industries are employing a number of very good citizens; they are employing some of our sons and daughters who are a better type of citizens than you could bring into the country by any system of immigration that you may have at the back of your minds. Certainly they are better than the people you could get by the scheme partly enunciated by my hon. friend from
Prince Edward Island (Mr. Sinclair). These people desire to stay in Canada; but if this government persists in the policy which they have enunciated-as a matter of fact they have not enunciated any policy; they have merely hinted that they are apt to do something in this direction-then I sincerely believe that they will do untold damage to the prospects of this Dominion. I am sincere; I am as sincere as is the hon. member for Nelson. I am sorry in a way that he was so sincere, because I could not agree with his views. But I am satisfied that if the government follow the policy which they hint at they will upset the industrial fabric of this country to an incalculable extent.
As I said at the outest, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend taking part in this discussion; I have merely been filling in, so to speak. There are half a dozen things which I should like to touch upon but I shall have to leave them until a later day in the session. However, let me close for the present with one statement which I think is of general interest to the country. We are ready and are very anxious to get on common ground with the difficulties that our people in the western provinces have, and we ask in behalf of the people in the large centres of population that those of the West shall try to get on common ground with us and help to bring this Dominion to the position which she should hold within this Empire.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I desire to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the speeches which they have delivered in this debate. With regard to the Speech from the Throne, there are I think a number of paragraphs which would indicate that the government intend to go at least some distance in the direction in which I myself and some other members in this House would like to see them go. And from the speeches that have come from hon. members to my right it would seem that they expect that the government will travel some way in that direction. Without committing myself to any approval of the Speech in all its details, I will simply say at the moment that we will wait and see what the results will be when the budget comes down. So far as the legislation that will be introduced to the House is concerned, the general tone of the Speech indicates that the government is willing to go a part of the way with us and to give us at least some of the things for which we have been asking for a number of years. I do not know whether this will be considered as bargaining for support or not; I do not know
208	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
whether hon. members to my right will describe it as dishonourable bargaining. But if the government comes down with legislation which I believe to be in the interests of the country, legislation which we have been asking for, then of course it will simply put us in the position that will compel us to support them. If that is bargaining, hon. gentlemen may so describe it; but that is the position that we shall find ourselves in.
We have before us an amendment which is somewhat vague. There is an expression of regret with regard to present conditions in agriculture. There is the statement that the Speech from the Throne-
While embodying a distinct threat to an important section of industry, contains no promise of legislation which will tend to retain and enlarge the home market for our own Canadian producers.
That Suggests that the mover of the amendment would still further protect our manufacturing industries and in that way give us a larger home market. We have been following that policy in this country for a good many years. It was in 1878 that there was introduced in Canada the National Policy which was going to make this country independent of foreign countries and give our farmers a home market that would make them completely independent of the rest of the world. I have taken the trouble during the last few days to compile some figures with regard to what this National Policy has cost Canada. When criticising the budget of 1921, on May 10th, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), speaking about the reductions that had been made in the Liberal tariff, after the Liberals had come into power in 1896, made the following statement, as may be seen by reference to page 3151 of Hansard of the year I have stated:
But it must be remembered-and economists, I think, will agree-that the saving you make in a case like that is not to be measured only by the amount that you did not pay into the Customs; you have to take into account also the check that was put upon the rise of prices at home, and that for every dollar saved to the people in that direct way probably two dollars were saved in the difference between the prices prevailing and those which would otherwise have been charged by the home manufacturer.
Taking that as a basis on which to compute what this National Policy has cost us, I find that the total revenue collected as a result of the tariff from 1879 to 1922 amounted to the large sum of 12,310,417,676. If assistance has been given to the manufacturing industries of Canada to twice the extent of the customs collections, it would seem that they have received assistance to a total of four billions.
I suppose there are some who will object to that on the ground that in some cases farm

produce is protected. However, I will try to show later on that the customs tariff, so far as the farming industry is concerned, is absolutely useless as a means of keeping up prices. In any case, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, and taken in conjunction with the total amount of customs revenue collected in Canada from 1879 to 1922, the National Policy has cost this country four billions of dollars. I cannot help thinking of that fact when I hear hon. members talking about the sales tax and the income tax. Whatever objections there may be to the sales tax and to the income tax, I do not think it means such a tremendous additional cost to the people over and above the actual amount that goes into the treasury as is involved in the tariff. We have heard a good deal of argument with regard to objections raised by people of the West against the continuance of this protective policy. The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Harris) said that hon. members on his side were willing to take the matter up with us and find out if we could not get on common ground. Well it is going to be an exceedingly difficult matter for us to get on common ground if we pay and they collect; if we have to pay this protection while industries centred in Toronto and other industrial communities throughout the Dominion get the advantage. I do not see where there is any equity in that, nor am I convinced that the government can provide for taxation for industrial organizations in any other way. We do not produce any revenue here; we do not create any wealth, and when we follow a policy of this kind we are merely taking money out of the pockets of the people who are unprotected and putting it into the pockets of the people who are protected.
I find that though we have given this tremendous assistance, especially to the manufacturing industries, the total invested capital of those industries in Canada, according to the Canada Year Book of 1921, is just a little over three billion dollars. So it would seem that we have actually, through the operation of the customs tariff, provided them with sufficient to pay the whole invested capital in those industries throughout the Dominion. We have about three billions in manufacturing industries, about two billions in railways and about three billions in the value of farm property. Whatever benefits may have come to any part of Canada from such a policy as this have cost the rest of Canada more than they are worth. You can pay too much for anything, no matter what it is, and I think in this regard we have paid too

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
much for the protected industries of this country. The result has been that manufacturing has got far ahead of what it ought to be. I have before me an article by C. Howard Smith, President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, published in the Canadian Congress Journal for February, 1924. It says:
Our taxes at present are staggering. Why? Chiefly because of the smallness of our population. Our overhead is too great. We have enough machinery now in Dominion, provincial and municipal governments to govern fifty millions of people, instead of nine. We have enough railways to serve two or three times our population. Our present system of manufacturing, banking, retailing and wholesaling could provide for the wants of many additional millions, with very little additional expense. Our taxes are only high in proportion to our population.
If the manufacturing industries of Canada can only exist behind a large protective tariff, what is the use of having them developed far ahead of the needs of the country? In the very nature of things that result is undesirable. The surplus, if there is any so far as manufactured goods are concerned, has got to go out of the country to compete in outside markets, in countries which in many cases have depreciated currencies, countries which, the manufacturers claim, have large advantages when it comes to manufacturing articles that are similar to those produced in Canada. If they can compete outside of Canada, why not inside? If they cannot compete outside, then they have got to restrict their output to the needs of Canada, and there should not exist a tariff which develops industry far in advance of the needs of the country.
When our farmers were flooding into the West, when there was plenty of free land, the situation was different so far as the agricultural implement industry was concerned. I had some relations with one of the large machinery establishments in the West and I remember the time when a man on the frontier at the end of the railway, selling agricultural machinery to a large homestead area, would sell a tremendous amount; it was stated that one agent sold a quarter pf a million dollars' worth in one year. In those boom days, with protective tariffs, and with a large market owing to the settlement of western Canada, the manufacturers went on and made money. Thinking that it was a permanent thing in Canada, I suppose, they developed their industry far in exess of the needs of the country as they stand to-day, and the result is that they are having hard times. We have possibly too many industries; we certainly have too many if they cannot compete outside of Canada. So we are being bombarded to-day with requests for 14
more protection and more help from the Dominion. If with all the assistance which has been given by the Dominion to- these manufacturing industries, and particularly by the people who are unprotected, they are unable to stand on their own feet, then I want to say that the policy has miserably failed and the sooner we get away from it the better.
Owing to the financial strength which these industries have attained due to the generous policy pursued by the Dominion, they have been able to hire brains; they have built up splendid marketing organizations, and in a great many cases there has been established complete monopoly of the sale and distribution of the products, which is another thing that enables -them to take full advantage of the protective tariff. When anybody says that we can protect agriculture as we have protected industries, I say that we cannot do it. It might be possible, if we got wheat pools in western Canada, or one wheat pool that would control the output of the western farmer, to take advantage of a protective tariff, but we cannot do it as long as we are selling individually as we have been doing. There was a time when we had a monopoly organization marketing Canadian wheat-the Wheat Board of 1919; and the government of that day understood this principle very thoroughly. I have before me Order in Council No. 1589, dated at the Government House, Ottawa, Thursday, the 31st day of July, 1919. It says:
The board shall have power from time to time:
(a) To take delivery of wheat in Canada at any point.
(c) To sell wheat so delivered to millers in Canada for milling purposes at such prices and subject to such conditions as the board sees fit, the price of sale to millers being governed as nearly as may be by the price obtainable at the same time in the world's markets for wheat of equal value, regard being had to the cost of transport, handling and storage.
That is a provision, I take it, to prevent the board from taking advantage of the Canadian consumers at that time.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) who moved the amendment to the Address bewailed in his speech the fact that there was imported into this country during the last nine months of the year 1922 $130,000,000 worth of vegetable products, mainly foodstuffs and animal products. I take it that was a hint to the agriculturist, though it is not very dear, that if the party to the right should come into power they would do something to protect the farmer by keeping out those products. Since that speech was delivered I have taken the time to look up the trade returns and find out what these

210	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
agricultural, vegetable and mainly food products comprised and the amount imported. The agricultural and vegetable products are divided into groups (a) and (b);	(a) is
mainly foods and (b) vegetable products other than foods. I will not take the time to read the amount of each article imported during the year ending March 31, 1922, but I have the details here if anyone cares to see them. But the articles that the hon. member for South Oxford apparently would keep out of the country because, as he said, they could nearly all be produced on the farms of Canada, are these:	Bananas, currants,
grapefruit, lemons, limes, oranges, pineapples, strawberries-I have included strawberries because they are imported into this country early in the season when the home-grown strawberries cannot be had. For instance, on the Canadian National diners you can get ripe strawberries now. They of course, were not produced in Canada. To continue with the list: dates, sago, raisins, olives, cocoa-nuts and preparations, walnuts, almonds, sweet potatoes, Indian corn, rice, sago and tapioca flour, cocoanut oil, cottonseed, cottonseed oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut and sago bean oil, sugar, cocoa and chocolate, coffee and chick-ory, spices, ginger, mustard, nutmegs and tea.
The total amount of agricultural and vegetable products, mainly foodstuffs, imported into the country during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, was 1117,346,000 worth, and the total amount imported of the articles that I have mentioned, and which I claim could not be grown in Canada except at a ridiculous increase in cost was $100,770,000, or about ninety per cent. So if the amendment is based on the idea that we are going to keep out by means of a customs tariff these products that are now being imported into the country, it is based on false premises.
Referring to the protection given to Canadian industries I would like to quote a few figures in connection with the distribution of securities issued by joint stock companies engaged in industrial enterprise in Canada, agriculture excepted, as of December IS, 1921. These figures are taken from a pamphlet entitled "Some Economic Needs of the Dominion of Canada," and was submitted to the tenth annnual meeting of the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce at Hamilton on November 15, 1923. I quote these figures because we have heard a great deal of the cry in western Canada of "Canada for the Canadians-patronize home industries," implying that by buying Canadian goods we would be keeping the money in our 
own country and be building up the Dominion as against foreign competitors. Here is the grand summary of fifteen groups engaged in
industrial enterprises:
Stocks
Canada	$2,020,733,783
Held by	residents	of Great	Britain	
226,010,055Held by	residents	of the	United	States.. 956,294,170
Bonds
Canada	 205,809,045
Held	by	residents	of	Great Britain.. ..	71,933,238Held	by	residents	of	the United States..	82,715,495
Other securities
Canada	 80,143,615
Held	by	residents	of	Great Britain.. ..	11,710,221Held	by	residents	of	the United States..	45,869,237Totals:	Canada	$2,366,740,448 or 60.8 per cent
Held by residents of
Great Britain	 310,259,514 or 7.9 per cent
Held by residents of
United States	 1,084,878,908 or 27.9 per cent
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, owing to the cost of this protectionist "policy to the country, owing to the fact that we are not able in spite of that cost to build up something that looks like ever being able to stand on its own feet, I believe that the government will take a wise step if it moves away from this policy of protection, and the further away the wiser. I am sure I shall have much pleasure in supporting it if it takes a decent, substantial step in that direction.
There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the question of branch railways. I myself am interested in a particular branch railway. I have the good fortune or the misfortune, to represent a constituency that comprises almost one-half the area of the province of Alberta. The railway system that serves that constituency centres in Edmonton and there are three railways, one running to the west, one to the northwest and one to the north. Though in a geographical sense we are tributary to the western coast, to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, owing to the railway system we have developed in the Dominion of Canada we are made tributary to Fort William and Montreal.
I am very anxious to get a railway built that will put a base on the triangle connecting up those three railways running in a westerly and northerly direction from Edmonton-that will connect the Canadian National railway running west to Whitecourt, the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia to Grand Prairie, and other points in the Peace River district to the Canadian National railway somewhere east of the mountains. I may say that this has been a dream of the people who are living north and west of the city of Edmonton ever since they settled that country, and unless we get that railway within some time in the near future the result will be disastrous so far as the settlers are con-

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
cemed. I think the cry "If we do not get just what we want when we want it we will leave the country" has been overdone. Nevertheless, I have this to say: Although last year we had one of the best crops in the history of the country there are a large number of people leaving the district. Some expect to leave in the spring. It may be that these people are mistaken in their view, I believe they are, but it is a fact that they are leaving. There are settlers in every country, especially every new country, who will not make good under any conditions; but I wish to inform the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Railways that is not the kind of settlers we are losing. Unfortunately we are losing settlers who would be an asset to any country.
We have heard a great deal about economy in the form of articles and periodicals during the last few months, and the po.int has been stressed in speeches delivered in the present debate. Economy may be all right if it is correctly interpreted. I believe the expenditure I am urging would be in the interest of true economy. No doubt a great many will say the same thing with regard to their particular requests to the government, but if it is not true economy to bring a large section of Canada, one of the richest producing sections of it, to the seaboard eight hundred miles away, and keep it tributory to the seaboard three thousand miles distant-I think that is about the mileage-then I do not know what economy means. We are dealing with a transportation system, in so far as our settlers are concerned, that is very costly and in order to save the settlers there we want to get the very best railway service that is possible in view of the geographical situation of the district and its resources. It may be said that we cannot afford this expenditure at the present time, but I want to point out that we have in that district the very products that have been furnishing a large tonnage for the railways of Canada. From Edmonton westward to the coast, formerly the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern were in competition but they have been consolidated into one system west of Edmonton to Redpath Junction. To a point 150 miles west of Edmonton the territory is revenue producing, but from there to the coast there is not a large revenue producing territory at the present time. The statement has been made from time to time that in order to make the National Railways pay they must obtain tonnage. Very well, in the territory of which I speak there is a splendid opportunity to 14i
obtain tonnage. We have coal, timber and wheat in that area in abundance, and there is the possibility of producing wheat in tremendous quantities. I have here comparisons of the quantities of the total railway freight carried for October, 1923, and October, 1922, on the railways of Canada. I find that the total amounts of products hauled by all the railways, and loaded at Canadian stations, were:-Agricultural 15,751,874 tons; products of the mine 12,353,153 tons; products of the forest 8,695,722 tons; manufactures and miscellaneous, 11,636,183 tons. According to the statement of October, 1923 of the total of 4,205,335 tons of agricultural products, 3,142,953 tons represent wheat; bituminous coal is represented to the' extent of 1,006,442 tons out of a total of 1,969,922 tons loaded. When we come to forest products we find there is also a very large percentage of the total loaded in that division Here is a chance for the Minister of Railways to construct a branch that is at present productive and will be for all time to come, that is not a duplication of another system, and that will go a long way towards helping to solve the problem resulting from the lack of business so far as our National Railways are concerned.
I want to say that I am particularly interested and pleased with the showing the National Railways have made during the last few years, and the steady improvement that we have seen so far as those railways are concerned but I think there is a good deal of unjust criticism with regard to the system We find, for instance, there is a duplication west of Edmonton. There are few hundred miles of track there of very costly construction that are absolutely worthless and yet interest must be paid on the bonds. We find that the Canadian Pacific Railway, with all its branch lines in western Canada, after having been established for a number of years has only one line of railway through the barren country north of lake Superior, whereas the National Railways is under the disadvantage of maintaining and helping to pay interest on two railway systems in that region. So that if we have deficits we may attribute them in part to the fact that we have two systems instead of one to maintain. Yet, in spite of that, very satisfactory progress is being made on our National Railways and the showing has improved greatly during the last few years.
It may seem a strange departure to turn from railway construction to the question of railway freight rates, but the province of Alberta, the Peace river country, and the constituency of West Edmonton are very keenly interested in the question of Pacific
212	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)
scale of rates. It has always been argued that the lack of business going west to the Pacific coast was one of the main causes of the high freight rates. The other of course was the stiff grades and the consequent high cost of construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, but the cost of construction has largely ceased to be an argument because it has been practically all paid for long ago. The province of Alberta has been possibly one of the chief shock absorbers of the Dominion, in so far as high freight rates are concerned. It was considered a problem for British Columbia only until a few years ago, but we now realize it is a problem for Alberta also. AVe had the long haul on what we bought from eastern Canada, and we had the long haul to pay on what we sold, because, of course, we paid the freight both ways. Then if we want to ship west we have the mountain scale of rates on every mile over which we ship. I have here a judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners of September 15th, 1920. The commissioners in the case were Hon. F. B. Carvell, K.C., Chief Commissioner, S. J. McLean, Assistant Chief Commissioner, Hon. W. B. Nantel, K.C., Deputy Chief Commissioner, A. S. Goodeve, Commissioner, J. G. Rutherford, Commissioner, I find the following passage in the judgment:
Allowing for the undoubted fact that a very large proportion of the traffic both east and west is on the commodity basis, I am still forced to the conclusion that the rates in western Canada average considerably greater than in the East, possibly around 15 or 18 per cent.
Now then the rates from Alberta west to the British Columbia coast some years ago were 50 per cent higher, and a few months ago they were 25 per cent higher than the prairie rates; and now they are just a little under 25 per cent, about 22 per cent higher. This is the reason why we are so particularly interested in this question. We believe that the high mountain rates prevent the development of traffic in that direction. We believe that we are being assessed an undue amount on our shipments in that direction. While it has been argued that the Canadian Pacific railway had very steep grades over the mountains, that argument cannot be used in regard to the Canadian National railway. Very fortunately the Canadian National has a grade which is not greater than seven-tenths of one per cent, and most of the grade lower than that-about four-tenths of one per cent. I want to say that one reason why I am so anxious to see this branch line I have mentioned connecting us with the Canadian National is that we can ship our traffic over a road which has favourable grades, and that they will not be able

longer to use the argument that has been used for so many years for keeping up that specific differential. There may be difficulties with regard to this question, but it is a question that has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in Alberta.
We have heard a great deal about the question of secession. I may say there are a great many people in western Canada talking about it to-day, and they are not foreigners. I am not anxious to see the West pull away from the East, but I desire to say that confederation can only be justified when it is in the best interests of all the people of Canada. It is not justified as an end in itself. It is only justified as the best means to serve all people in this Dominion. While the Speech from the Throne expresses the desire for corrective legislation that will lead to unity in the Dominion, I say that we can never have real, satisfactory lasting union until we can convince all our people that they are getting the same kind of treatment in the Maritime provinces and in the prairies as they are getting in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or vice versa.
If we are going to have all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages of the tariff, and if our freight rates are going to be possibly, fifteen, twenty or maybe twenty-five per cent higher than they are in some other parts of Canada, and if, in addition to that, we have a bank interest rate that runs about two per cent higher than in some of the more thickly settled districts of the Dominion, I do not know how to convince any intelligent person that the treatment of all parts is equitable. The people in the West are very vigorous in their demands. I am not referring merely to the members. I am glad we have a people that are not satisfied with those conditions and will never be satisfied until they are rectified. I believe that until they get freight rates that are just about the same from coast to coast we never will have anything like real satisfaction or real unity between the various provinces of the Dominion of Canada. I quote from the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners dated November 23, 1921, the following:
In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, they contended that any reduction in rates would probably endanger their chances of earning dividends for the current year. The decision of this Board in the August case of 1920 was referred to, in which it was contended that on account of the strong financial position which the Canadian Pacific Railway has occupied in the business life of Canada for many vears past, any rate arrangement should be such as to leave them in a position to earn their dividend of 7 per cent. I agreed with that proposition then and reiterate it here, and, therefore, in arriving at a con-

The Address-Mr. Manion
elusion at the present time, I am doing so entirely on an examination of the traffic and financial requirements of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
That is referring to the fact that they were not considering the Canadian National. But there is a principle involved here that I claim is very dangerous. I do not know any reason why capital invested in a railway should be more sacred than capital invested in agriculture. The Canadian Pacific railway is not any more needful to this Dominion than the millions of acres of farm land in the country. I cannot think of any reason, and I would like somebody to suggest any, if there is any, why money invested in a railway should be secured by the guaranteeing of its dividends by a board created by this parliament, and the rest of the people have to accept almost any condition, work for nothing but the barest kind of a living, in order to provide those dividends. That is the principle that we will have to face in this Dominion of Canada, and it is one of the things we will have to set right before we can have the unity that is so much desired by all of us in this parliament. We have been in the last few years as a country, developing the grain routes of the Pacific. We have two ports on the Pacific; you might possibly say three. We have Vancouver and Prince Rupert, and I believe, New Westminster claims to be a port. I was glad to read the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) because I did not have the pleasure of listening to him when he put fonvard his claim for Prince Rupert. That port was selected as a Pacific port by a Liberal government. The Canadian National railways are connected with Prince Rupert. They are not, I believe, at the present time connected with Vancouver, except by an arrangement whereby the Canadian National trains run over the Canadian Pacific railway. I believe the government will do very well to listen to the advice given by the hon. member for Skeena and take steps in the near future to provide money if necessary, to build an elevator there. This may be something that the government may possibly not feel inclined to do at once; but I do not see any reason why they should hesitate, because if we may judge from the Price Waterhouse report, terminal elevators have been paying very well. We do not want government elevators to pay as well as some of the elevators at Fort William according to the Price Waterhouse report, but we believe this is a business that will pay its way and incidentally help our National Railways to be a success.
On motion of Mr. Manion, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Tuesday, March 11, 1924