1924-03-07

DEPUTY RECEIVER GENERAL'S OFFICE, TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. A. ROBB:: (Acting Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the Orders of the Day the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) made the following inquiry:
Will the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) please inform the House and the country when the Deputy Receiver General's office in Toronto ceased to function as a place for public deposits at interest, with right of withdrawal in Dominion notes, and whether it is true that deposits on similar terms are still being received by the Deputy Receiver General's office in British Columbia and in the Maritime provinces.
I now have the answer which is as follows: The Government Savings Bank agency at Toronto was closed 1st November, 1905, and the Savings Bank deposits transferred to the control of the Post Office Savings Bank. The public could make deposits and make withdrawals at this office. The withdrawals were met by issuing a cheque drawn on the Bank of Montreal. The depositors were not at any time paid in Dominion notes. Government Savings Bank offices are still in existence at Victoria, B.C., St. John, N.B., Halifax, N. S., and Charlottetown, P.E.I. All other offices have been closed out and the deposits transferred to the Post Office Savings Banks.



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, resumed from Thursday, March 6.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have
been in parliament for a number of years jyill appreciate the difficulties of new members in addressing the House for the first time. Consequently I feel it a pleasure that we can all congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the manner in which they faced the ordeal.
Before proceeding to discuss matters pertaining to the Address, I should like to refer to the absence of some familiar faces as the result of illness. I refer more particularly to that veteran statesman, right hon. Mr. Fielding, and to Sir Lomer Gouin. Both of these gentlemen have occupied a very prominent place in the public life of this Dominion for many years, and I feel that I am expressing the sentiments of every hon. member when I say that we regret very much the circumstances which prevent their being present with us, and that we hope they may soon recover their usual health and vigour and be able again to participate in our deliberations. Their absence from this House is a distinct loss to the country, particularly under the conditions which now confront us.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to make ourselves believe that things are different from what they actually are. We are faced with a very serious condition of national affairs, as is every other country in the world to-day. This is something that naturally might be expected after the disturbing events of recent years. When we look back and realize the conditions which prevailed ten years ago and contemplate what has happened since, we can come to no other conclusion than that great national and international events have much more to do with our constitutional development than have the actions of individuals. We find all the nations of the world to-day endeavouring to re-establish themselves on a sound footing in order to meet most effectively the difficulties with which they are confronted. But I am Sony to have to feel that we are not acting with that unity which the occasion demands. I believe that we are altogther too provincial in our outlook, that we are viewing things from a narrow selfish standpoint instead of nationally.
There is an old saying, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. We have the old British system of government which, although not yet perfect, has been developed through the centuries and has been adopted by every progressive country in the world- the party system of parliamentary government. To-day the respective parties represented in this parliament come in solid blocs from certain provinces, and not a solitary representative from some provinces is to be found in the ranks of some of these parties. This is a new experience. I regret very much indeed that we have become, at least in my opinion, narrow and more provincial in our outlook than we were a few years ago. I have no doubt, however, that in the course of time circumstances will Compel us to adopt a broader outlook. Every hon. gentleman in this House must have a distinct recollection

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
of the dark days of 1918 when we were face to face with a grave crisis, and the fate of the world was in the balance. At that time things looked Very black indeed. After four years of strenuous struggle on the part of the leading nations of the world it was found necessary, in order to bring to an end the conflict which had continued for so long, that there should be a united effort put forth by the allied nations to defeat the enemy. We all remember those ominous days. Early in the year 1918, when the greatest events were occurring, as we can quite well recall now, there came a sudden change in the condition that had prevailed, and the end of the conflict was hastened as a result of a united effort on the part of the allied countries, under a single command agreed upon for this purpose. I believe that the same spirit is absolutely essential at this time if we are to successfully overcome the difficulties that face us. Some will say, no doubt, that there is no use in reviewing past events because we are more concerned with the present and the future. Well, the experience of the past is a great teacher, and those who are not willing to profit by the experience of others, and the experience of nations in days gone by, are not likely to meet with much success in dealing with the world's affairs.
I shall mention presently a matter that has been featured in the Speech which is now under consideration by the House; and in doing so I would call the attention of hon. members to an event of some years ago which in many respects resembles the situation that now prevails: I refer to the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty which existed between the United States and Canada at that time. Some can recall what followed; I am not able to do so. I have, however, a distinct recollection of hearing these matters discussed, when I was quite young. When we review our history and see what the people of Canada did, when we realize the tremendous obligations which they undertook and how resolutely they set about overcoming their difficulties, I think we should draw an inspiration from the story of those days. As a result of the trade relations that then existed between ourselves and the United States, a country extending along our borders for four thousand miles, we found it necessary to develop new channels of trade; which completely revolutionized the business of our country. What happened? One of the first things that occurred was an unfortunate raid on our country by an organized body from the republic to the south, this was known as the Fenian raid and it was quickly repelled.
I Mr. Sutherland.]
The next great event was the confederation of the scattered provinces of Canada, and in consequence of that union this great Dominion was formed in 1887. In 1870 the Hudson Bay Territory was purchased by the Dominion of Canada, and in the same year Manitoba became a province. A rebellion took place in western Canada at that time and was speedily suppressed. In 1871 the province of British Columbia came into confederation. In 1873 Prince Edward Island entered confederation, and in 1876 the Intercolonial railway was opened. In 1878 the National Policy was adopted; in 1880 the Arctic islands were added to the Dominion; in 1885 another rebellion took place in the Northwest and was quickly suppressed, and in the same year the Canadian Pacific railway was completed in order to link together the provinces which had come into confederation. In 1891 a great statesman, who had figured prominently in connection with all these events, died,-I refer to Sir John Alexander Macdonald. In 1896 the Canadian Northern Railway Company was formed; in 1903 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was chartered; and in 1906 Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces of the Dominion.
I have referred to these events because I want to emphasize the necessity for a broader outlook on the part of our people. We must unite our forces if we wish to overcome our difficulties effectively. Canada entered the war at the oueset and made tremendous sacrifices in order to assist in bringing about the victory which was finally attained. I listened in this House the other day to a remark by an hon. member to the effect that possibly, if Canada could have foreseen or could have realized the obligations which she was going to assume, she would not have put forth so great an effort, nor would she have undertaken such stupendous obligations. Well, we can all be very wise after things have happened. We can see where mistakes were made. But was that the case in so far as this country is concerned? The forces which went from this Dominion met the enemy at some of the most critical points on the battle line, and it is hard to say what the result would have been had not the men from Canada been there and in the struggle. The attitude of Canada was an inspiration not only to the people of its Motherland, but to the other dominions and to all the allies. I am not one who will ever regret that we put forth every ounce of energy that it was possible for us to exert in those days. I think it was one of the finest things that ever happened in the history of this Dominion, and that it will be an inspiration of generations yet unborn to per-

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
form their full duty to this Dominion in the years to come.
After the struggle was over, we found the nations endeavouring to re-establish themselves and to meet their obligations, we again found that our neighbours to the south-and they were well within their rights-do not imagine for a moment that I am attaching any blame to them; it is their duty and their business to look after their .own country and to adopt the measures that are best for their own people-adopted a customs tariff which placed another obstacle in our way in trading with them. We are again faced with a condition very similar to that which prevailed in this country in 1866 when the reciprocity treaty of that year was abrogated by the United States. I am referring to this because I wish to call the attention of the House to the position of those who argue that we made a tremendous mistake in 1911 in not adopting the reciprocity pact which was brought before parliament in that year. I want to emphasize this feature of that arrangement; it was a pact which might be terminated at any time by either party, and the people of the United States, if they felt that they were not reaping any advantage from any arrangements which they might have adopted at any time, could with a change of government or without again upset the conditions which had been in existence it may be for three or four or five or more years, and we would then again find ourselves with our trade channels destroyed, and new ones would have to be developed. What we need to do in this country is to develop a policy that we ' can be assured will have some degree of permanency, and to follow out that policy without regard to what may be done by people of other countries. Just along that line I would like to refer to some statements which werp made by men prominent in the United States before that country saw fit to adopt what is known as the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff. In an address delivered before the New York Chamber of Commerce Mr. Charles M. Schwab said;
Germany has gone back to work as has no other nation in Europe. Her working people are economizing, sacrificing and throwing themselves into real production.
Believing as I do that the strength and prosperity of a nation depend upon the efficiency of its labour, I had something of a shock in contemplating this thought.
Is it possible that after having won the war we of the allied nations, with everything in our hands will allow Germany to win the peace through the efforts of her labour?	'
Germany can to-day put a ton of steel in England at a price $20 per ton cheaper than what it costs England to make it. Germany is to-day selling pneumatic tools
in Detroit where formerly we made machinery and shipped it to Germany to sell there cheaper than she could make it.
The difference is solely a matter of labour costs.
Railroad costs must come down and it is in the interests of national prosperity that our government, acting through the Railroad Labour Board and every other agency, shall reduce railroad wages and bring costs down to a living point.
I might also refer to some remarks that were made some time ago by the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd George:
One of the unfortunate results of the war, which had demonstrated the power of international good will, was that it should have developed into narrow, selfish, blind nationalism that was found in every direction, in customs restrictions and in trade and transportation. Transportation organized to develop international trade was used to prevent international trade. Not merely the amount of tariff was objectionable, but its fluctuations and uncertainties.
The human intellect was exhausted in order to make trade as difficult as possible. This is the condition which we found at Genoa. Although peace has been established in Europe it is quite clear that the war atmosphere has to a certain extent remained. While the conference was sitting troops were marching forward towards the frontier. There is an atmosphere in Europe of international suspicion of impending conflict.	.
Now you have the opinion of two men very prominent in world affairs. Mr. Lloyd George was regretting the action that was being taken by the various nations of the world in order to re-establish themselves and take care of their own people. He realized the serious situation with which the people of the Old Land were confronted. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party in this House, the ether day referred to the fact that there were two million men out of employment in the Old Land at the present time. Now these are things that are worthy of our serious consideration, and I would like to ask those who claim and advocate that those methods which have been adopted by these other countries are all wrong and are based on false premises, what influence can a small number of people, for there are only nine million of us, have against all these other nations, with their enormous populations, that are adopting protective methods of that kind? Are we going to permit ourselves to be absolutely destroyed for a principle or theory when it is a condition we have to face and not a theory? liven if I were the rankest free trader in the Dominion I should have to study the prevailing conditions. Speaking candidly I personally would much prefer-yes, a thousand times-to see a free trade policy adopted among all the nations of the world under which merit or efficiency would be the deciding factor and dominant influence in the world's affairs. Were that the case Canada

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
would have no occasion to quail at the prospect; she would be in a position to compete with other nations. However, we must be guided by the prevailing conditions.
Here we are, in the northern part of this hemisphere, having a great industrial nation to the south of us, a nation possessed of immense wealth, a nation that did not enter the war at the same time that we did but acquired enormous wealth supplying munitions of war to the allies during that period-* indeed, wealth poured in upon them to such an extent that if the people of the United States are in difficulties 'to-day it is probably largely owing to the fact that they have too great an accumulation of the world's gold in that country. We have a country equal in area to that of the United States but our population numbers only about nine millions whilst they have upwards of one hundred and ten millions of people. Argue as you will, we know that our people are passing to the country to the south, are crossing the international boundary line, every month, every week, and every day in increasing numbers. The prediction has been made by our immigration authorites at the port of Detroit that if the present movement continues, 500,000 of our people will cross into the United States before the end of the present year. In face of this I regret that there is no evidence of any real effort on the part of the government to do anything which will retard this movement, which will encourage our people to remain in the Dominion and develop the great resources which she undoubtedly possesses.
Mr. Schwab referred to what he deemed to be one of the most essential factors necessary to establish improved conditions in the United States, and that is transportation. If that is a prime necessity in the United States what must it be in Canada, a country of equal area but only sparsely populated? To my mind transportation is the great problem we have to solve at this time. The costs of transportation in Canada to-day are so great that they are positively strangling and discouraging industry and enterprise everywhere. We must bring about a better condition of affairs in that regard, or else we cannot develop our natural resources as they should be developed. I appreciate the difficulties that our friends in western Canada have to face, and I may say that I have seen evidence of those difficulties on numerous occasions. As I listened to the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) the other night when he described what it cost to transport the products of the farms in the West to Toronto, 
and other eastern points, how it practically absorbed all the profits they might naturally expect to realize on their produce, how absolutely impossible it was for people to carry on under such' conditions, I could not help feeling how serious the situation was.
I am now going to touch upon something that has not been referred to in detail during the debate-the cost of railway transportation in the country. I have had occasion to make purchases in our own province, at points not a great distance away, and the cost of transportation for a distance of a few hundred miles exceeded by far the value of the products. That being the case, what a difficult position our friends in western Canada must be placed in when their products have to be transported over much greater distances than is the case in Ontario. Some time ago this question came before the House for consideration, and in 1920 it was referred to by the then Minister of Railways during the debate on the subject. The minister in question said on that occasion, with regard to the railways under the control of the Dominion government:
The wage bill for the year exceeded seventy-three millions, having, owing largely to the McAdoo series of advances, jumped from fifty-four millions in 1918. In other words, out of every one dollar of revenue earned, seventy-eight cents passed directly, by way of wages, to the employees.
Was the service improved as a result of the changes which took place at that time? And let me emphasize this: When the change took place we were face to face with a crisis. It was absolutely impossible for the government of the day to do otherwise than to consent to the scale of wages adopted in the United States. This was referred to by the chairman of the railway board in 1921. I have here the Canadian Annual Review which gives a synopsis of some of the speeches he delivered at that time. Referring to this subject this publication says:
The railways and the freight rates' question:-The commission and its associated railway problems were much before the public in 1921; the question of freight rates was one of the most conspicuous and difficult of these issues. Mr. Carvell was very frank in his statements and judgments; he expressed himself clearly and did not evade points of controversial character. The railway board visited the western centres in the spring of 1921 and heard various appeals and statements as to freight rates; outside of the commission sittings, Mr. Carvell continued his outspoken utterances. Speaking to the Canadian Club at Brandon on April 22, he described the railway problem as more important than the tariff or any other question before the people: "It cost $40,000,000 more to run the C.N.R. last year than was brought in, and that is not reflection on the people at the head of the railways or on the government. The Canadian National is a conglomeration of a lot of railways that couldn't run themselves and, therefore, had to be taken over by the government, and if anyone thinks the government, or any man, can

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
take over these roads and turn them into a dividend-paying proposition in a year or so he is much mistaken." In reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway, he was equally explicit as being "the finest system on the American continent". Then he turned to the West and its alleged view of railways; "1 have always felt that the true criterion of a public utility that has not the power to increase its own rates is: "What does it cost to run the road"? However, I find here that the criterion is: "What the cattle sell for? What does wheat realize per bushel? Down east it would be the price realized for pulp-wood."
And so on. Further on I find:
As to the future: "No matter what happens, railway labour must be reborn and an honest day's labour for an honest day's pay must be the first principle observed. Canadian labour is not responsible for the McAdoo award, but it is responsible if it is not prepared to give honest service." His view of the labour situation was important because it could not but affect the policy and decisions of the board. "There are engineers and conductors to-day who are making $4,000, $5,000 and even $6,000 a year as the result of the McAdoo Award. I am beginning to be skeptical of the advisability of having Canadian unions controlled in the United States."
Mr. Carvell was unceasing in his expression of opinion along these lines. He told the Kiwanis Club, Vancouver, on April 7th, that, "The people want lower freight rates, but they will not permit us to cut off costly Sunday trains.
Next to the unnecessary train services, the greatest factor in maintaining high rates are the wages which have to be paid as the result of the McAdoo award of 1918 and the Chicago Award of July, 1920. There are station agents on the national railways whose wages are from $120 to $225 a month, but who are making from $75 to $125 a week as the result of overtime." To' the Vancouver Board of Trade (April 12) he was equally explicit in denouncing, as on previous occasions, the government ownership of railways. "People are going to find out that it will cost $70,000,000 more this year to operate this toy than it will earn."
To the local Canadian Club on the 19th Mr. Carvel, declared that: "There must be a rearrangement of working conditions of railway employees, a reduction in wages, a reduction in the price of coal." As to the American wage awards which Canadian railways had to adopt he said: "The payroll for the Canadian National railways prior to the McAdoo and Chicago Awards was $43,265,000; the estimate for the present year is $81,347,000. The Canadian Pacific payroll prior to the Awards was $56,190,000; the estimate for this year is $100,000,000."
So that this matter of transportation costs is to my mind one of the most important with which we are confronted for this reason, that, instead of encouraging efficiency or anything of that nature, ensuring an honest day's labour for a day's pay, there was attached to the conditions a provision which placed a premium upon inefficiency and anything but the giving of value for the money which was being received; by reason of the fact that after a railway employee had put in so many hours, if he could delay a train service he would obtain pay and a half for the overtime. I know as a matter of fact instances where this has been deliberately done by the employees operating trains, particularly freight trains, in the province of Ontario. Hon. members can easily see what an incentive it would be to do something of that nature. Just along that line, I do not want anyone to think that I am opposed to labour unions. On the contrary, I have always approved of laboui unions. I think they have done a great deal for what is commonly called labour in this country, and as a matter of fact in Canada we are all labourers; we have no class in this Dominion who would not come under that category; undoubtedly there have been very substantial results from these organizations. In this regard there has been a slight reduction, in wages, since that time, but they have made it impossible for the deflation to take place in many other occupations, and they have made it impossible to reduce the cost of living in this country. They have maintained a condition which reacts on what is commonly called labour. The cost of transporting coal, for instance, in this Dominion from the east and from the west to the central part of the Dominion is so great that it is prohibitive, and notwithstanding the abundance of this material which we have in our own country, as a result of the attitude of those who are in control of our railways at the present time-and I refer to the regulations which were put into effect in this award,-it has been made impossible for us to bring the cost of living in Canada down to the point where it should be. The deflation has taken place in so far as agriculture is concerned, and it is almost where it was prior to the war, and consequently hon. members can easily appreciate the difficulty with which those who are engaged in that industry are confronted at this time. They have been waiting patiently to see this deflation take place elsewhere. But there are organized bodies here, which are endeavouring to prevent themselves being brought under the same conditions under which one-half of the people of this country are labouring at this time.
Now this is a matter which cannot be allowed to continue, and must be dealt with by parliament so that there may be an end to this condition of affairs. We are not going to tolerate any autocracy of this kind on the part of any organized body in this Dominion. It cannot be permitted. We must have equal rights for all the people of this Dominion, without regard to any organized body which may have considerable influence, to which governments and political parties may at times be listening with a view to securing their support. I know something of what happened during the last Dominion elec-

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
tion in my constituency. I had occasion to interview some parties with whom I was acquainted, and I went down to the railway station just at five o'clock when they would be quitting work, and I was told that the superintendent for the district had just departed on the five o'clock train for London, after issuing instructions to the foremen of the section-men employed on the road that they were all to be taken out of the county on the next morning to test a gravel pit in a county a few miles away; and notwithstanding the fact that there was a train coming in at five o'clock on the day of the election which could have brought these men back, they were not permitted to come on that train but had to wait, for a later train when it was too late for them to vote. These are some of the things of what we had to contend with in the last federal election. I am referring to this because I knew of the circumstances. Not only at this one point, but at another point in the eastern part of the constituency the same thing took place, and these men were all ordered out to Paris to test a gravel pit there on that day in December. I am referring to this matter, because I believe that our transportation system is vital to the prosperity of Canada; that it constitutes the arteries, the veins, the very life blood of this country; that we cannot hope to succeed unless we have efficient transportation. While it may be said and argued that we have built railways much in advance of the requirements of the time, 1 am not going to deal with that matter; but I am going to argue that it is necessary for us to make the best of conditions as we find them and to see that we have efficiency in our transportation system. As Mr. Schwab pointed out to the people of the United States, it is necessary for us to deal with this problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day, in speaking on the Address, made reference to this and the efforts which were being put forth by the Dominion Railway Board to make a success of our system of railways. I do not wish to say anything that would in any way discourage those who are carrying on that work. I realize that they have a very difficult task and require all the encouragement which we can give them. At the same time, I am going to call your attention to something which I know a good many people in Canada are not aware of, and that is a statement made at Halifax on the 17th January, 1922, by the chairman of the railway board:
When Mr. Carvell declared that the commissioners had no control over rates on government-owned railways in general and the Intercolonial in particular; that {Mr. Sutherland.]
"under the Railway Act, section 5, control of government railway's operation is excluded from the commission's powers although I think it should have supervision of such railways" that, however, "if the minister or the Governor-in-Council wishes the opinion of this board as to freight rates (on government lines) I think they would have a right to call upon it." In its general inquiry as to the equalization of eastern and western freight rates, the board sat in Ottawa in the middle of February and heard W. B. Lanigan of the Canadian Pacific Railway quote the commission's judgment in the western rate case of 1914.
The railway board, who have rendered splendid service to this country in years gone by, have apparently no control over this system. We were told by the Prime Minister the other day that this matter was outside government interference or the interference of parliament. We realized that great efforts were being made to put it far beyond the reach of .parliament when a bill was brought in last year in connection with what is known as,the branch line railways, for construction extending over a period of three years. This parliament was asked to vote a very large sum of money under those eondi-4 p.m. tions. That, however, was not a very good time to advance such a policy as that, in view of the fact that the board which had been created by my right hon. friend, when he assumed the reins of office, had a short time before that ventured into an investment or a' purchase in the city of Paris which rather startled the people of this country and which was known as the purchase of the Scribe hotel for about $2,000,000. When the present government came into power, there was in control of the government system of railways a board of old, experienced railway men who had been brought up and were familiar with the conditions ol this country. Mr. D. B. Hanna, who was in control, by the wonderful work which he had accomplished during the short time in which he was at the head of the government system of railways, had done a great deal towards making a success of those old decrepit roads to which Mr. Carvell refers, that were not able to do business and that had to be take?) over and operated by the government in view of the advances which had been made to them. Did the Prime Minister, when he saw fit to make a change, put forth any great effort to see that a board was selected in whom the people of this country would have confidence? Did he select men of experience, men well known for their general knowledge of the affairs of Canada? I think not; I think, on the contrary, he was looking at matters from a political standpoint rather than from the interests of this Dominion. When you consider the experience of the men

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
who constituted that board, I think you can come to no other conclusion. Sir Henry Thornton may be an outstanding man amongst the railway men of the world; I have not a word to say against him. Personally, I knew little or nothing of him. I hope he will prove to be all that it is claimed he is, and that he will make a success of the government railways; but if he does so, I can assure you that that will not be as a result of the assistance which he is going to receive from the board, but his success will be a great tribute to the personality of Sir Henry Thornton himself. Just along that line, in 1922, before the appointment was made, the Prime Minister, in a speech which he made in his own constituency, referred to this matter, tie had criticized some of the men who had been on the board which had control of this in the past, and he said:
We will give the railways a free hand, out of the control of politics. And we will not put on the board of directors any man who is connected in any way with other railways or who is connected with companies dealing with railways.
No one in such a position would be placed upon this board! In that connection I should like to inquire how it happens that James Stewart, president of the Maple Leaf Milling Company and a, director of the Bank of Montreal, was placed upon this board. I do not object to Mr. Stewart, I think he is a very capable man; but his appointment was in absolute contradiction of the statement made by the Prime Minister just before the appointments were put through. I notice there was another member of the board, a man who occupied a seat in this house for about seventeen years, a man well advanced in life, a most estimable gentleman, but a man who, it seems to me, if we may judge from his participation in the debates of this House did not know very much about railway matters. I think if hon. members will consult Hansard they will find that about nine-tenths of his oratorical efforts were put forth in expounding matters connected with the fisheries of the Maritime provinces. He was well within his rights in so doing, and no doubt he felt he was discharging his duties to his constituency. But I do not think the Prime Minister in appointing that gentleman to the directorate was helping to re-establish the confidence of the country, something which was absolutely necessary at that time. I might refer to other appointees to the National Railway Board. Some of those gentlemen did not occupy very prominent positions in our public life, and did not have the complete confidence of the people among
whom they lived. I think this has been brought up in the House before. One of them, Mr. Frederick G. Dawson, was connected with a rather shady transaction in the province of British Columbia. Another director was a director of the Home Bank; he also was placed on the National Railway Board to ensure efficient railway service. It has been reported in the press that the Home Bank was in financial difficulties some time before it collapsed, and that the National Railway Board deposited in the neighbourhood of one million dollars with the bank in order to enable it to make a satisfactory report to the Finance department, the deposit, having served its purpose, being withdrawn shortly afterwards. It is also claimed by some that in view of the knowledge possessed by those who withdrew this large deposit, it will be incumbent on the country to make good the deficiency by an equivalent amount before the liquidation of the bank is closed. I do not know how much evidence there is to substantiate those claims, but I do say that as a result of the exposure, Mr. Gough had to resign his membership on the board, and another appointment has since been made to fill the vacancy.
These are some of the things which have happened in connection with our National Railway system. The Prime Minister the other night referred to what had taken place in the Kent, N.B. by-election, and how his government failed to secure the support of the electors simply by reason of the efforts that he and his colleagues had exerted to keep the National Railway system free from government interference, and he declared that the directorate are to be given a free hand. Would the evidence which I have submitted indicate that the government are not interfering in the management of these railways? If this great system does succeed,
I am satisfied it will be owing entirely to Sir Henry Thornton and regardless of the board.
I notice that special reference is made in the Speech to the tariff. It has already been pointed out by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that it was an unusual, in fact an unheard-of, proceeding for specific reference to the tariff to be made in the Speech from the Throne. I have personally taken the trouble to search the records back for quite a number of years without finding a single instance where this has occurred before What is the effect of the intimation that there will be a decrease in the tariff on instruments of production? The impression to-day is that reductions are to be made in line with the platform of the party which is *


Mr. MEIGHEN:: And in 1921 also.


Donald Sutherland: And again in 1921.
Strange to say, these secret agreements and understandings were all arrived at in the great metropolis of this country, the city of Montreal.
I heard the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) the other night referring to the fact that my hon. friends to my left were going to have a checker-up, a man who was going to check up on the government every night to see they were coming across and making good their promises, that they were not going to have absolute confidence in the government until the government delivered the goods. Is this not a nice condition of affairs-this process of bargain and sale between two political parties in order that the government may retain power? Is it to be the permanent policy of the once great Liberal party that it is prepared to bargain and barter with some other political party, in order that it may retain office? Are the tremendous obstacles with which we are confronted not worthy of consideration by these men above the paltry fruits of office? I do not think that matter need be dealt with further, but in so far as the tariff references are concerned it is absolutely essential that the situation shall be cleared up immediately.
I have here a statement issued by the Department of Customs and Excise for the last nine months of the past year-that is, after the close of the financial year-and I find that there was imported into this country during those nine months $130,452,285 worth of vegetable products, mainly foodstuffs and animal products which might nearly all be produced on the farms of Canada. In addition to that, there was $43,603,449 worth of vegetable products other than foodstuffs imported, or a total of $174,055,734 during the last nine months of the past year. Let me ask my hon. friends to my left and hon. members opposite if this is not a matter that demands the attention of the government and of parliament? How long can we permit such a condition of affairs to prevail? I know it will be said by some that there is a very limited market in this country, and that this is not going to provide the redress which is necessary in order to overcome the difficulties which present themselves to the people of western Canada. I appreciate to the full the difficulties with which these people are confronted, but I want to emphasize again, as I have endeavoured to do on other occasions, the need for us to realize our interdependence one upon the other. We cannot afford to divide our people into classes and groups. We must unite our forces and give a little here and a

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
little there in order that we may bring about the best results. We ought to have, if we do not have, the same objective in view, and that is to build up on this North American continent a great and a prosperous country.


Mr. FORKE:: What is that $43,000,000 worth of vegetable products made up of other than foodstuffs?


Donald Sutherland: It does not specify in this report, but that information could be very easily ascertained from the customs and excise returns which are available. This is a monthly statement issued by the department and does not go into those details.


Mr. BROWN:: Would it not have been a good idea to find out if it included rubber,
for instance?


Donald Sutherland: I might go into
detail as to the imports as specified in the trade returns but I do not have them here.


John Livingstone Brown: If those figures include
rubber they have no force in this discussion.


Donald Sutherland: Rubber is not included in foodstuffs, that is a certainty. But something that comes very near to rubber is hides. Of calf skins we imported of these
4.300.000	lbs., and exported 5,177,000 lbs. in 1923. There is no tariff on hides coming into this country. Beef hides we imported to the amount of 35,011,886 lbs., and exported 46,519,400 lbs. We are great producers of these things, and hon. gentlemen will observe the advantage it would be to have some control over the situation so as not to permit imports of these goods into our country from the United States and elsewhere under present tariff conditions. Of sheepskins we imported
2.129.000	lbs., and exported 5,538,000 lbs. Of the imports a large quantity came from the United States. Another class of imports is mutton and lamb. During the last four years we imported 17,567,067 lbs., and exported 24,054,700 lbs. Of the 17,567,067 lbs. of mutton and lamb imported, 9,052,817 lbs. came from the United States. Our imports of wool during these same four years amounted to 51,891,000 libs., and we exported 26,173,626 lbs.


Mr. LUCAS:: Why are these imported from the United States if we have the raw material in Canada?


Donald Sutherland: Because we have no customs tariff on them.


John Livingstone Brown: It is because somebody wants them.
fMr. Sutherland.]


William Thomas Lucas: Because they can buy them cheaper over there.


Mr. WARNER:: Why do not the manufacturers use our home products if they are so good, and our manufacturers are so patriotic?


Donald Sutherland: I will tell my hon, friend why they do not. Because they can import cheaper and poorer stuff from abroad. Take the importation of meats. During the calendar year, 1922, $9,286,552 worth of meats were imported and of agricultural implements $7,732,215 worth nearly $2,000,000 worth more of meat products than of agricultural implements were imported. Is it a matter of small importance that these food products are being brought into our country as they are at this time? Is it not important and essential that some action should be taken in that regard? Of bacon, ham and fresh pork there were imported 46,000,000 lbs; in 1921, 22,000,000 lbs.-from the United States remember; in 1922, 28,000,000 lbs. and in 1923, 33,098,000 lbs. Hon. members will wonder how it is possible for imports of this kind to be coming into Canada from the United States. Hon. members, perhaps, do not realize that pork can be raised much more cheaply in the United States than in this country. In the southern states much of the pork produced there is raised practically without any care at all; the animals run out doors the year round-in fact in some of the states when hogs were selling at 5 and 5 1-2 cents per pound they were bringing about 8 cents in Canada. You can therefore easily see the effect upon the Canadian market by the importation under a very low tariff of products of that kind, in some states fattened on acorns and nuts. Evidently a great deal of that quality of pork finds its way into Canada. Is this to continue without even a protest from hon. members to my left? Government officials are engaged by the hundreds if not by the thousands in grading our hogs and enforcing all kinds of regulations. The brain of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is so congested with the need for imposing regulations upon the Canadian farmers that it is hard to tell where the thing is going to end. Many of our farmers are so absolutely discouraged with the regulations in force to-day, that rather than submit to the required restrictions they are going out of business. In spite of our efforts to improve the quality of Canadian produce we are permitting inferior stuff to enter the country under a small specific tariff. Why not impose an ad valorem tariff against meat products of that kind so that

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
when the price goes up the duty will also advance? Why is there such a low tariff maintained on butter and eggs, that immense quantities of these products are coming in under a duty of only 3 and 4 cents per pound and per dozen, whereas Canadian products of a like character have to meet an American tariff of 8 cents per pound and 8 cents per dozen? These are some of the inconsistencies in our present tariff. The country itself is not responsible for the disabilities from which we suffer. Canada is a land of great resources.
The Prime Minister declared that this influx from the country to the city is inevitable, and he did not hold out any hope that anything would be done to bring about a different condition of affairs. He led the House to believe that no remedy could be provided and nothing could be done. I do not agree with that position, owing to high transportation charges, and the fixation of labour prices and the hours of labour. Agriculture is at a standstill and people are becoming discouraged. I could not help thinking when referring to the names of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, of a remark that was made by one of them a short time ago in the city of Toronto, in asking the government of the province of Ontario to enforce regulations with regard to the hours of labour on government contracts and other industrial pursuits. He did not regard agriculture as an industry but as a sort of family affair and consequently it should not be interfered with. Produce food cheaply and he would be content.
The Prime Minister told us there is going to be retrenchment in expenditures, that ocean rates are to be controlled-there is no intimation that railway rates are to be controlled -and that a further interchange of correspondence has taken place between the Dominion government and the government of the United States in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. I am not going to enter upon a discussion of the St. Lawren-ce waterway, but I will point out very briefly that this great avenue of commerce has been created by nature. The great North American continent is tributory to it, tremendous cities with millions of population, are located along the inland waters, and the St. Lawrence waterway will be deepened, sooner or later. Ocean traffic is coming up to the head of the lakes, and the great city of Chicago and other American cities, are insisting that this improvement be carried out. What are we doing? The government has been approached time and again, and we are told that a further interchange of correspondence has taken place in regard to the matter. We are informed in
this House that all that is necessary just now is to keep up the correspondence with the United States with regard to the matter.
As far as retrenchment in expenditures is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is something we will all welcome. I hope, however, that the reports which are current in this city at this time, that the employees who are being dismissed from the service are largely men who have served this country at the front during the war are not correct. We hear that a deputation has been organized to await upon the government to ask them to advance money for transportation purposes, to enable these people to go to the United States. I hope, for the sake of our reputation, that this is not correct. There is going to be retrenchment in the expenditures. That was indicated some time ago, although it is not referred to as specifically in the Speech as some other things, for instance the tariff. We were told a short time ago that the government were not going to continue the grant to assist in building highways in this Dominion. The construction of highways in the Dominion has changed very materially during the past few years. By reason of the difficulties which I have already pointed out, transportation for short hauls is being largely carried on by motor truck, rather than by the railways, and a great national highway is being constructed across the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, linking together the different provinces, with a view to easy intercourse between those provinces. They are not provincial highways or local highways in the sense that they were a few years ago, but they comprise one great interprovincial highway which may well come within the provision of being for the general advantage of Canada; and we are told by the government that they are going to cease giving grants for this object. We are also told the government are not going to continue the grant to agriculture under the Agricultural Instruction Act. There has been about $1,-
100,000	a year paid out for this purpose which, we have been informed, is not going to be continued. I would like, to refer to the report in connection with this matter which was placed on the Table of the House during the last session. Some hon. members may recall that we had considerable discussion with regard to the means employed by the government to secure information in connection with this matter during the past two sessions. In this report the benefits of the Agricultural Instruction Act are referred to, and the party to whom was delegated the

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
duty of making the report brings in his findings and concludes as follows:
Therefore I beg leave to recommend that the Agricultural Irstruction Act be renewed for a period of ten
years.
After interviewing the various governments of the Dominion with regard to this matter, the so-called commissioner, Mr. Duncan Marshall, points out the advantages obtained under this aid to agriculture and recommends the renewal of the act. Now we are informed that this is not to be continued any longer and that this is one of the ways in which this retrenchment is to be effected. I would like to say to the government that there is a possibility under present conditions of curtailing expenses in some lines which may not be economy in the end, but which may be the very reverse, although it may be cutting down expenditures.
The Prime Minister, in his speech in the present debate, spoke of lack of control by the government over the appointments being made in the Civil Service, by the Civil Service Commission and attributed to this the government defeats in Halifax and Kent. He said that the people cannot understand how the government are not controlling these appointments and so attach much blame to them. The indignation feigned by the Prime Minister on that occasion, I am sure, must have struck the House as being very, very amusing in view of the fact that we had some experience along these lines during the past session when the estimates were going through. I refer to the efforts put forth by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture in connection with what he termed in 1902 his " fecial messenger," Mr. Duncan Marshall, who was in the pay of the government, and in regard to whose duties we were anxious to obtain some information. We wanted to ascertain how the appointment came to be made. The minister displayed a good deal of ingenuity in evading the provisions of the Civil Service Act in securing appointments in his department, and I am sure the people of Kent, N.B., when they realize that possibly some of their own ministers are not able to bring about the same results as the Minister of Agriculture does when he wants something, will attach more blame to them possibly than they do at the present time. The skill displayed By the hon. minister (Mr. Motherwell) on that occasion would have been amusing, were it not that this is a serious matter. I recall that in 1922 the hon. gentleman distinctly informed the House that it was quite a temporary appointment for a specific pur-

pose, and it would be completed in the course of six months.
He also informed us that Mr. Marshall was a commissioner for a specific purpose and not the Commissioner of Agriculture. It is well known that he has been advertised throughout this Dominion as the Commissioner of Agriculture, but the Auditor General's report, which was tabled the other day, shows that he received during the year ended March 31, last, $6,000 in salary and $4,938.51 for expenses. Strange to say, in the same Auditor General's report there is some correspondence from that department in regard to the matter:
Audit Office, Ottawa, September 20, 1923.
Dear Sir:-I find on examination of the payments made under your letter of credit during the past fiscal year, on the vote for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act-No. 52-that Mr. Duncan Marshall was paid as Commissioner of Agriculture, $6,000, in monthly instalments of $500, to March 31, 1923.
As you are aware Mr. Marshall's appointment as a commissioner was authorised by Order in Council- P.C. 223-dated February 7, 1922.
Will you please let me know if a commission was issued to Mr. Marshall and if such commission limited the period of his services to any specific date.
Yours truly,
Wm. Kearns,
Assistant Auditor General. The Deputy Minister, Agriculture Department,
Ottawa.
Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, September 20, 1923.
Dear Sir:-Replying to your letter of the 20th instant, I have to advise you that no commission was issued to Mr. Marshall.
Yours very truly,
A. L. Jarvis,
Acting Deputy Minister.
It appears that Mr. Marshall was not even appointed a commissioner, although he has drawn practically $10,000 from the treasury of this country for the past fiscal year. The order in council, a copy of which I have in my hand, shows that Mr. Marshall was on the job almost as soon as the government assumed office. Under this order in council, not only was the minister authorized to have him appointed, but his appointment was to date back to January 15, 1922, almost as soon as the government assumed office. I pointed out that Mr. Duncan Marshall, supposed to be the Commissioner of Agriculture, was
5 p.m. carrying on the work as an organiser for the Liberal party; that he had appeared in my constituency by request of Liberal officials in that constituency and had addressed a gathering of the Liberals there; and that it was intimated by the chairman that he was there by request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I will refer to the Globe of June 29, 1922:

The Address-Mr. Sutherland
Commissioner of Agriculture addresses Oxford Grits at picnic. Woodstock, June 28.
And so on. From the local paper, I find:
June 29, 1922. Hon. Duncan Marshall, Dominion Commissioner of Agriculture, speaks at South Oxford Liberal picnic at Otterville.
Further on:
W. C. Brown, of Tillsonburg, South Oxford, representative on the Ontario Liberal executive, occupied the chair in the absence of M. G. Dean, president of the South Oxford Reform Association, he having suffered an automobile breakdown which delayed him. Mr. Brown, in a brief and eulogistic address, introduced the speaker of the day, Hon. Duncan Marshall, who was asked by Premier King to appear at the picnic on his behalf, as he himself was unable to come.
Some of us may recall that during the past session, in endeavouring to secure some information with regard to this matter, I was ruled out of order by the Chairman for referring to it, and I was also informed that the item under which the salary of this supposed commissioner would appear was that of Civil Government. I began to look up under this heading and I was unable to find the item. I went on to discuss the matter later on, and I was again called to order by the Chair. In Hansard of February 23, 1923, I find this discussion :
Mr. Spencer: Is the salary of the Commissioner of Agriculture included in this item?
Mr. Motherwell: No.
And he immediately branched off on to another subject. Again a little further on:
Mr. Spencer: The minister has not answered my question in regard to the salary of the Commissioner of Agriculture. Is that included in this item?
Mr. Motherwell: No.
Mr. Sutherland: Where does the salary paid the Commissioner of Agriculture come in? I cannot find it under the head of Civil Government.
Mr. Motherwell: It was in the previous vote that has just been passed.
Was that not clever! I attempted to discuss the matter again and I was immediately called to order. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who was acting as leader of the opposition that night, stated:
Mr. Chairman, I would rather think that the hon. minister does not want to take a sharp advantage of the members of the committee.
And further on he said:
There is nothing in the estimates to show from which source the salary is paid, and I would suggest to the minister that instead of trying to take a technical advantage here he move-as I know he will- that the proper item be opened up on which this salary can be discussed.
A little further on:
Mr. Motherwell: But I want to assure the committee that I did not try to "put anything over" when they called out "carried''. I am not going to stand in the way of discussing any vote.
Sir Henry Drayton: I was sure the Minister would say that.
Quite natural. The Chairman endeavoured to have the item passed. I also occupied a few minutes in discussing this item. "Item agreed to" was called:
Sir Henry Drayton: I understood that the minister was going to reopen the previous item.


The Chairman:: It cannot be reopened without the unanimous consent of the committee.
Sir Henry Drayton: I understood the minister was going to ask for that consent.
Mr. Motherwell: No, no.
Sir Henry Drayton: Then the appeal has certainly gone unheeded. In fact, it has been refused.
Mr. Motherwell: I responded for myself. I cannot speak for the committee.
Sir Henry Drayton: Perhaps the minister himself will make the motion.
Mr. Motherwell: Oh, no, I will not make it.
And so on.
A little further on, after denying that efforts were being made to smuggle through the committee items that were worthy of some discussion, the minister said:
We may not come to Civil Government again for several days. I only want to reiterate what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has said, namely, that the last thing in our minds, as was suggested by some hon. gentleman, was a desire to smuggle something through. What have we to cover up?
Mr. Sutherland: That is what we would like to know.
And so the matter ended for the time being. Now, Sir, I have produced evidence that Mr. Duncan Marshall was supposed to be in the employ of the government as a commissioner when in fact he was not a commissioner at all. We were told that he was employed to do a certain thing. There is the report submitted to parliament indicating that Mr. Duncan Marshall recommended the continuance of assistance under the Agricultural Act, and that the minister and the government had paid no attention to the recommendation. Consequently we can come to no other conclusion than that the government were not sincere in claiming that Mr. Duncan Marshall was appointed for this purpose. If retrenchment is to take place, I would advise the government to see to it that their official organizer is in the future paid out of their own pockets and not out of the treasury. It is an unheard of condition of affairs and will destroy any confidence the people in this country may have in the government.
I have touched upon a few subjects that I believe are worthy of consideration, the most important being the need for national unity and the necessity for the government to immediately deal with matters of pressing concern. In this connection I would recommend that the government remove the penalty which is now placed upon enterprise and energy, be-



The Address-Mr. Sutherland
cause that is exactly the result of the legislation which was passed last session. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) yesterday referred to two measures that were put through this House last session by the government of which he is a supporter, measures which brought about exactly that condition of affairs. We all know that this is generally acknowledged to be the case throughout the country, and the number of exemptions by orders in council which have been issued by the government sufficiently indicates that the government themselves realize this to be so. This matter should again engage the attention of the administration.
There is also the premium that is being placed upon inefficiency and lack of energy by the regulations and hours of labour in certain occupations, particularly in the Civil Service. I think every hon. member realizes the inconvenience we are subjected to during each session through the government offices opening so late in the mornings,-hours constituting a day's work for any one in the employ of the government. What we require in this country is an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. We must have value for the money that is paid out; and there is no reason why those who are engaged in the Civil Service should work only 6J hours-in fact during a considerable portion of the year it is only about 5i hours-while other people are labouring from eight to twelve hours a day. I have in the past pointed out that I thought it would be to- the advantage of the country generally if the seat of government could be located at some place where our ministers would be free from the influence of those in the service. This is a matter that should be dealt with immediately, to see that the hours of labour are put on a parity with those obtaining in other occupations.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that our undeveloped resources are so great that we must, if need be, offer some better inducements to attract capital. I noticed in a report of an address delivered recently by Mr. Stephen Leacock, Professor of Economics at McGill University, that he pointed out that by reason of our present policy capital was alarmed and in hiding, waiting for something to do and that it had been frightened into that concealment by the uncertainty of the present situation. Is not that a startling statement from the lips of such an economic authority as Mr. Leacock? If this is the view entertained by a man in his position, are we not right in assuming that there is grave danger confronting the Country to-day?	.

Many years ago I read an address by the late Principal Grant of Queen's, delivered to the students of his university, and it made a strong impression upon my mind. After pointing out the duty that students owed to themselves and to the state, he said:
Think what a home we have. Every province is fair to see. Our sons and daughters are proud of their natal soil. Then why should not we, taken together, inspire confidence and loyalty in souls less capable of patriotic emotion? I have sat on blocks of coal in the Pictou mines, I have wandered through the glades of Cape Breton and around Cape North, I have driven for a hundred miles beneath apple blossoms in the Cornwallis and Annapolis valleys, I have seen the splendour of [DOT] our western mountains, I have toiled through the passes beneath the giant cedars and Douglas pine of the Pacific slope, which hid both sun and sky at noonday, and I say that in all the four thousand miles which extend between there is everything that man can desire and a promise of a mighty future. If we cannot make a country with such material, it is because we are not true to ourselves; and if we are not true to ourselves, be sure our sin will find us out.
With a firm conviction that it is necessary in order to establish confidence on the part of our people and to encourage the development of the great resources which we have, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters):
That the following words be added to the Address:
We respectfully submit to your Excellency that this House views with regret the depression existing in agriculture and, as well, the all too serious exodus from the country generally, and expresses its disappointment 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; such legislation being manifestly necessary in view of the increased tariff barriers of other countries.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P. E.I.):: I have listened with what attention I could give to the lengthy speech delivered by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and as I proceed I may perhaps have a few references to make to it. In the meantime I will take up another matter. Some few months ago an organized propaganda was started in the name of economy. Now economy is a very great virtue, whether public or private; but those who advocate it should try to be consistent, should try to have a reasonable amount of common sense in the efforts they put forward to achieve that great end. I find that this organized effort was not very old before our good Conservative friends, and particularly our good Conservative newspapers in the country, took charge of it and endeavoured to make it appear that the present government was reckless and extravagant in the public expenditures, and that therefore they should be removed from office at the earliest possible date and a government much

The Address-Mr. Hughes
more economical and much better qualified to manage the affairs of the country be put in their place. That this view of the matter is correct is shown by a little clipping from the Toronto Mail and Empire of a few days ago which reads:
Newspapers all over the country are giving vent to the people's dissatisfaction with the ruling politicians. In the protest against the riot of extravagance, Liberal newspapers are joining. And what Liberal newspaper of any influence is coming to the help of the government?
Well, Mr. Speaker, this propaganda to blame the present 'government for being extravagant and inefficient, but particularly for being extravagant, and the effort to make it appear that their predecessors were very economical, make it necessary for those of us who know a little about recent political history to endeavour to place the facts upon record so that the people may not be misled, but may be fairly able to judge between the two political parties. And that there may be no mistake about the statements I make I will go to the public records themselves. I had the privilege of sitting in this House from 1900 to 1908, and during those years Sir Robert Borden led the opposition; and I think that at every session of parliament, at all events at almost every one, he brought forward a resolution condemning the then government for extravagance in public expenditures, and stating that the affairs of the country could be carried on with much less. In the year 1911, during the campaign, Sir Robert Borden and Mr., now Judge, Hazen of New Brunswick, came to Prince Edward Island and held several public meetings, some of them in the open air. These meetings were well attended, and Sir Robert Borden was very explicit in the statement of what he would do if the party which he led were entrusted with the administration of public affairs. He stated positively on his word of honour that he would carry on the public affairs with at least $10,000,000 less, and without any impairment or injury to the public service. Well, the Conservative party were returned to power at that election, and we have now the record of their achievements. The Conservatives would not be responsible for the expenditures of the year 1912 because they came into power in the autumn of the year 1911.
I will therefore charge that to the Liberals. The expendiutre on consolidated fund account for the year 1912 was $98,000,000; I shall give only the round figures. For the year 1913, when according to Sir Robert Borden's distinct promise to the people of this country it should have been $10,000,000 less, it was $112,000,000 or $14,-10i
000,000 more. In 1914 it was $127,000,000, another increase of $15,000,000 over the previous year. In the year 1915 it was $135,000,000. Some people might say that the war was on then; but these expenditures had no relation to the war, the war expenditures were all charged to another account. In 1916 it was $130,000,000;	1917, $148,000,000;	1918,
$178,00,000; 1919, $232,000,000; 1920, $303,000,000; 1921, $361,000,000. That was the last year for which the Conservative party was responsible for the expenditure. That was the year that the Conservative party was led by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who now leads the opposition. For the year 1922 the Liberals were wholly responsible and the expenditure that year for the same identical services was $347,000,000 or a reduction of $14,000,000. For the year 1923 the expenditure on the very same services was $332,000,000 or a reduction of $15,000,000. For the two years there was a reduction of $29,000,000, and if reduction is carried on at the same rate this year, there will be in three years under the present administration a saving of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 on consolidated fund account. Yet in the face of that record the newspapers supporting the Conservative party are crying out for a change of government and charging the present administration with reckless and riotous extravagance.
In order to show the misrepresentation that the Conservative newspapers are carrying on throughout the country at the present time regardless altogether of truth I will quote just a sentence or two from a paper published in my own province called the Charlottetown Guardian. In an editorial referring to the extravagance of the present government on March 4 it says:
Relations between the King government and the defunct Home Bank have long been very close. Mr. Gough, a high official of the bank, was appointed to the Board of National Railway Directors at a salary of $10,000.
Every man in this country knows that the salaries of the members of the National Railways board is $2,000 a year. Yet that is the kind of propaganda that is being spread over the country by the Conservative newspapers and particularly by the paper to which I have referred. They make statements which they call facts and which are entirely foundationless and upon these alleged facts they base an argument against the government. They quote figures, multiply them by five as in the present instance, or divide them by five just as it suits their purpose, and on these false and misleading premises base an argument against the present administration.

The Address-Mr. Hughes
That is the kind of propaganda that is being carried on by them throughout the country.
We might think that although the government that came into power in 1911 and went out of office in 1921 showed great extravagance in the civil administration of the country, they are entitled to some credit for carrying on the war and for the efforts they made in that direction. It was in that respect, Mr. Speaker, that the flood gates of extravagance were opened wide. I wish I could call it by some milder term than extravagance. No effort whatever was made to control the public expenditure in the years when the war was on. There is no doubt but that all the countries engaged in the war, Canada not excepted, had to pay extreme prices for anything purchased during those years, but what I complain of is that no effort was made to get anything like value for the money expended. On the contrary, it appears that an organized effort was made to waste all the money that could be wasted, and to make arrangements whereby the friends of the government and of the party in power could misappropriate tens and hundreds of millions. I would be safe in saying that if anything like value had been obtained for the money expended, our war debt, instead of being two billions, as it is at present, would not have been much over one billion dollars. Last year standing in this House I referred to an incident to show the premeditated efforts that were made to waste the public money. I referred to the drugs that were purchased through the wholesale house of Bauer and Black, purchased through a middleman and transferred to the government at several hundred per cent profit. The agent of Bauer and Black came before the Public Accounts committee and under oath stated that he had tried to sell these goods direct to the government, and that he would be quite willing to sell them to the government at the price charged to private individuals.
I am going to put a few other statements on record this afternoon, and I shall give no statement that was not sworn to before the Public Accounts committee. I am going to give the names of the parties who testified, in most cases at all events. I will follow up the drug business. A little later it was stated before the committee under oath that a woman who kept a small drug store in the province of Quebec, who was handling at most in that store only $6,000 or $7,000 worth of drugs a year, got contracts for supplying the army with drugs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was Madame Plamondon. Mr. Watters an experienced XMr. Hughes.]
druggist in the city of Ottawa, and now mayor of this city, came before the Public Accounts committee, examined the accounts of this woman, and stated that the prices charged were from 300 to 1,000 per cent too high. That was carried on for a considerable time. That woman happened to be the sister of the then Speaker of the House, Mr. Sevigny.
Early in the war a member of parliament was given a commission and a large sum of money to go to Nova Scotia to buy horses for the army. The horses purchased were no good whatever. The Public Accounts committee endeavoured to investigate the matter. They could not get the records from the department, could not get the books, could not get the vouchers, could not get the accounts, and the department deliberately stated that the accounts had been sent overseas. Why they would be needed overseas the Lord only knows. The only thing left to the committee w'as to get the names of the people who sold the horses and subpoena them to Ottawa, and that was done. These men came before the committee, and on their oath stated that they sold horses for army purposes, sold horses to the commissioners who went down to Nova Scotia to buy them, that they intended to shoot that fall, because they were no good. Some of these horses were too old and had been turned down at the time of the South African war. One man swore that he got an old horse in trade for two ducks and a drake. These horses were sold to the army officers for $60 or $70. Another man swore that he naturally expected fairly good horses would be required for army purposes, and he took a fairly good horse to the place where the animals were being examined, and when he saw the kind of horses that were being sold and bought there, he put that particular horse in the barn, and telephoned his son to bring up the old mare. Accordingly the old mare was brought up and sold to the representatives of the government. Many of these horses died on the way to Quebec. Some of them were delivered at Valcartier, but lived only a few days and found their way to the glue factory in Quebec. What was done with the gentleman who was responsible for those transactions, a member of this House? Sir Robert Borden, at or about that time leading the government, stated that if he discovered any man deliberately defrauding the treasury the doors of the penitentiary would be opened for him. This particular man was asked to retire from parliament. Was he sent to the penitentiary? He was not. What punishment was meted out to him? He was sent to the immigration office in the city of Chicago at a good salary. There was a man

The Address-Mr. Hughes
named Allison who had very close relations with the then Minister of Militia and Defence. The manager of the New York and Ottawa railway, called the New York Central, with an office still in this city, came before the Public Accounts committee and on his oath stated that he had an order from the Militia department instructing him to place not only a private car but a private train at Mr. Allison's disposal any time he would ask for it and charge the expense to the public accounts. And when Mr. Allison, who then lived at Morrisburg or in that vicinity, wished to spend an evening in Ottawa playing bridge or playing poker, he would order a special train for himself and his friends to return to Morrisburg that night, and according to the sworn statement of the manager of the railway that expense was charged to the government.
There is another thing I wish to mention in this connection. Mr. Drew, the collector of customs at the port of Morrisburg, came before the Public Accounts committee and on his oath stated that he was directed by the department of which he was an official to admit anything and everything that came in Mr. Allison's name from the United States into Canada free without examination, and without paying any customs duty. To his own knowledge boatloads and scow loads of goods came across the river-packages, cases, barrels, and crates would be piled up on the river shore on the Canadian side until a train load would be ready, when the train would come down from Morrisburg and take the goods away into the interior of the country. Our Conservative and protectionist friends are very much exercised to-day lest some goods may find their way from the United States into this country at a small customs duty. At the time I speak of they allowed their friends to import goods into Canada without paying any customs duty at all. When Mr. Drew was giving his testimony before the Public Accounts committee he was asked to produce his authority for acting in the manner described. He said it was a letter he had received from the department giving him the instructions. He was asked to produce the letter. He then said that the Commissioner of Customs of that day, Mr. John McDougald, had sent his son a little while before that to Morrisburg and had asked him for the letter and he had given it to him. Mr. McDougald was subpoenaed before the Public Accounts committee and asked to produce the letter, but he stated it had been destroyed. He was then asked to produce the copy of the letter, but said the department did not keep a copy of
it. Finally he was asked who instructed him to write the letter, and did not seem disposed to answer the question in fact he tried to refuse to answer it. He hesitated and asked the chairman if he was obliged to answer the question. Finally he stated that the minister himself dictated the letter.
Now, Sir, that is the condition of affairs that prevailed at that time. It is not pleasant for me to recall those things and I would not do it if I did not see that an effort is now being made to create a false impression in the country, and to spread the idea abroad that the men responsible for such transactions or their impenitent assigns, are the men who should be placed in charge of the public affairs of Canada. I am not aware that those men ever did penance for their crimes. They have certainly expressed no sorrow for them, and until they do I think great care should be-exercised to see that they do not get another opportunity to repeat that kind of conduct.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and his associates are very meticulous now in regard to the honour of public men. They claim that public men should be above suspicion, and that the least speck of dishonour should not attach to them. At that time, in the days I have mentioned, they were ready to swallow a camel, yea they would swallow a donkey, ears and all. They have so changed now that I imagine they would have difficulty in swallowing an oyster.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition came to the Maritime provinces last summer and visited Prince Edward Island as well as the other provinces by the sea. He made a speech in Victoria Park, Prince Edward Island to which I am going to refer, but I am sorry he is not in the House at the present moment, because I think this would be interesting to him. His speech was reported in the Charlottetown Guardian, the paper from which I have just quoted, a strong supporter of the Conservative party, having supported them right along. The right hon. gentleman commenced his speech by saying:
My idea was to try to get firsthand knowledge of this province and the other maritimes-something of the knowledge that I think I have of the other provinces of Canada.'
I will have occasion to show, I think, that he has very little knowledge regarding conditions in Prince Edward Island. Whether he has any knowledge of the other Maritime provinces I do not know. The report of his speech continues as follows-
Mr. Meighen referred to the injustice whereby two or three provinces secure special pre-war railway rates, making the commission-
The Address-Mr. Hughes

That is the Railway Commissionincapable of reducing other rates. This was done to catch progressive votes in the West, and meant a reduction in profits of $17,000,000, which prevented a reduction of rates in the Maritime provinces, and the members supporting the government for this province-
Referring to Prince Edward Island-
-everyone of them voted for it. They joined with Mr. King in selling out the Maritime provinces.
That was the appeal of the leader of a great political party. That was the statement made by a man that wants to see no sectionalism in this country, who wants to see Canada become a great nation. We find him going down into the Maritime provinces and making an appeal of that kind, stating that the members of this House who supported the reduction that had been made on grain and flour last year had sold out the Maritime provinces and had given to the western men something which they should not have received.
First and foremost I want to explain to the people who may read my speech what that reduction meant. Away back in 1897 the Canadian Pacific Railway made application to the government for a sum of money to enable them to build what was known as the Crows-nest Pass railway. The government at that time agreed to the proposition, and in consideration of the sum of money that was given to the company to enable them to construct that line of railway, the company gave to the federal government a large area of coalbearing lands which they had previously received from the British Columbia government. They also made a reduction in the freight rates both east and west, which was of considerable advantage to the farmers of the prairie provinces at that time. The provinces^ were struggling then and were finding conditions difficult, and these reductions that had been made on the Canadian Pacific Railway rates were of very material advantage to them. As the years went on the Canadian Pacific reduced its rates and finally brought them, n I understand it aright, even below the rates in the arrangement made with the government. When the war came on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the other railways of Canada found it necessdry to increase their rates, and applied to the government for permission to do so, and the government of the day gave them that permission, and probably it was all right. The increase of the rates was much larger than the former rate. In order to enable them to do that the government had to suspend the operations of the Crowsnest Pass agreement. Last year that suspension and all these increases would 
automatically end, and the question was whether the suspension would be extended for another year, or whether the Crownest Pass agreement should be allowed to become effective. The arrangement made-and the Progressive party and the members from the western provinces agreed to it-was that if they got a reduction on grain and flour coming east, they would be willing to accept it and allow the suspension on the other articles enumerated on the list to remain in effect for another year. The West was working under adverse conditions. We had evidences of that from the members representing that part of the country, we knew it from the public records and we knew it from the public press. They were greatly in need of any consideration that could be extended to them and this was not a great deal. I voted for that, and I would stand upon any platform in the Dominion of Canada and justify my vote. It was for doing that that the right hon. the leader of the opposition came down to Prince Edward Island, denounced me and other members of that province and tried to raise sectional issues. Whether that is the man to be leader of a great party I have my doubts.
I want to call the attention of the House and of the public, so far as I can, to another statement which he made. The right hon. member admitted that he came to the province without having any knowledge of it, and I think he left it without having a knowledge of conditions there. The report of his speech says:
Mr. Meighen referred to the injustice whereby two or three provinces secure special pre-war railway rates, making the commission incapable of reducing other rates.
He was referring to the Railway Commission. That was simply a misstatement of fact. If he knew it to be a misstatement of fact, the matter was serious. If he did not know that, he left the Maritime provinces without knowing conditions, because as a matter of fact, the Railway Commission, last year, at the instance of the members "representing Prince Edward Island-I had the privilege of presenting the argument before the commision-very considerably reduced the railway freight rates as affecting that province. On coal transported from the mines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, we got a reduction of from forty to fifty cents a ton. We got a considerable reduction on grain, hay, straw, potatoes, lumber, lime, gypsum and several other articles of that kind. We got a reduction of about ten per cent on package goods. We got a considerable reduction on the internal freight, that is freight

The Address-Mr. Hughes
originating and ending in Prince Edward Island. We import about 70,000 tons of coal into Prince Edward Island each year and more than half of that comes by rail. If we suppose, say, half of it comes by rail, we got a reduction of forty to fifty cents a ton on between thirty and forty thousand tons of coal, and one cun easily estimate what that will amount to. I am satisfied the reductions we were able to secure through the instrumentality of the Railway Commission, because we made out a case, amount to something like $30,000 a year for Prince Edward Island. And the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) went into that province and apparently knew nothing about the matter. But he did make an effort to raise sectional issues and to misrepresent the members from that province for doing nothing but their duty, at least, for doing their duty as they saw it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was referring to the very considerable reductions that had been made by the present government in the consolidated revenue fund account. Since they came into office they have also reduced the personnel of the Civil Service by 3,952 employees. These measures of retrenchment were undertaken long before the economy cry was raised throughout the country.
In the early winter we had two by-elections in the Maritime provinces, during the course of which a great deal was said by our Conservative friends, particularly by the new- and I suppose distinguished-leader of the Tory party in that section of the Dominion, the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter). The changes were rung on the loss of the rights of the Maritime provinces. Now, I would ask that gentleman, or any other hon. member, what rights had the Maritime provinces that this government have taken away? And what wrongs, if any, did the Liberal party inflict upon the Maritime provinces either in 1896 or in 1921 upon their accession to office? If any wrong has been inflicted, I should like to get a record of it. Now, I ask my hon. friends on the opposite side who made such wild statements in the Maritime provinces, what rights have we lost down there that they would give us if they came into office? This is a pertinent question.
On the other hand, I propose to give them a short list of the wrongs that were inflicted upon the Maritime provinces by the Conservative party, and I am going to speak more particularly of Prince Edward Island, because I know more about that province than I do of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. When we entered confederation we had a customs duty of 12 per cent, which gave us a sufficient revenue for all our purposes, and we had practically no debt. We had some small industries at the crossroads-blacksmiths' shops, carriage and farm implement factories, even some cloth factories; we made these things for our own use and were a happy and a fairly contented people, and our population was steadily increasing. To-day it is difficult to get a blacksmith at the crossroads to shoe a horse. In a word, none of these small factories are now in existence. The customs duties have been increased to such an extent that the things which we used to manufacture for ourselves are now made in western Quebec and throughout Ontario.
We in Prince Edward Island have to find a market for our products in the open world. New England and old England have been our best markets. We are obliged to sell many of our products in the United States, regardless of the Fordney or any other tariff, simply because we have no other place to sell them. For instance, we have to sell our potatoes there. Now, the potato crop to us is very much what the wheat crop is to the prairie provinces. We must raise potatoes because our soil and climate are well adapted for them, and the potato crop fits in well with the rotation of crops. You cannot carry on dairying successfully without growing vegetables, and we find a market for our potatoes in the southern states. When the Fordney tariff went into operation it placed us at a disadvantage of 30 cents a bushel on our potatoes. We could not sell the ordinary potatoes there any longer and our farmers were obliged to raise a superior quality of this product. We raise the potatoes for seed purposes. We have got into the markets of the southern United States and also of Cuba, and in these warm countries they have to change their seed every two years. As a matter of fact, .they get better results if they change the seed every year Now, it has been found by experience that the potatoes that come from Prince Edward Island give better results than those obtained from any other part of the North American continent. We get a price for that article that enables us to raise it at some profit and sell it in the states of the American Union in spite of the Ford-
The Address-Mr. Hughes

ney tariff. We have to sell our butter and eggs and our cheese and bacon largely in England. We export some eggs to the United States. We can sell nothing in -the provinces of Canada except a few potatoes or a little hay or oats in Nova Scotia, and we send some of these products to Newfoundland. But we are shut out from the markets of Quebec and Ontario, no matter what the transportation might be, simply for the reason that the farmers in these provinces can supply and more than supply the cities around them. Not only do they do that, but they compete with us in the small markets of Halifax, Sydney and St. John. We sell a few eggs in Montreal, but only -a few. We are bound to cultivate the markets of the world wherever we can find them, and we are forced to buy our manufactured products in Quebec and Ontario at a price which is enhanced by customs duties. That is the condition of things; and these high customs duties were placed against us by the Conservatives in this country. That is one of the disadvantages under which they put us. But there is a greater one for Which they are wholly responsible.
For years after the so-called National Policy had1 been put into force we were told that it was only an instrument to secure a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States. The reciprocity agreement of 1854 had been abolished in 1866 and the condition was very serious in the Maritime provinces. But the people in that part of the country were willing to put up with a good deal of temporary inconvenience so long as they thought it would lead to a renewal of the reciprocal trade arrangement which we had had with the United States some time before. However, things remained' in that state for years and hope was deferred until finally in 1911 the Liberal government then in office succeeded in making a trade arrangement with the United States which was far better than anything we had ever expected. But the Conservative party in this House and in the country prevented the Canadian people from accepting the offer. No greater crime, no greater injustice could have been perpetrated, no greater disadvantage could have been placed upon the Maritime provinces. And they do not appear to be sorry for it. I heard the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) declare to-day that he was pleased that that arrangement with the United States had never been completed. It was better for the country, he said,-and in this he only repeats what other Conservatives have said hundreds of times-because the United States fMr. Hughes.]
later on would in all probability have abrogated or suspended that agreement as soon as they should have discovered that it was advantageous to Canada. How does he know that? That is only a surmise.


Mr. HOCKEN:: He knows it from past
experience.


James Joseph Hughes: We will examine that
point. That was immediately after the civil war had been concluded in the United States. Now, what attitude did official Great Britain take in that great crisis? I am sorry to say, as a Britisher, that the official attitude of Great Britain was directly opposed to the northern states regardless of political parties. Great Britain had shown no sympathy whatever with the northern states in that trying time.


Mr. McMASTER:: The upper classes
showed none.


James Joseph Hughes: And the political classes,
too.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What about John Bright?


James Joseph Hughes: I will mention him in a
moment. Disraeli, Gladstone, Palmerston, Russell, Roebuck and numbers of other men whose names I cannot recall went out of their way to show their lack of friendship for the United States. Privateers were built and fitted out in Great Britain and they went to sea and preyed upon the commerce of the northern states, prolonging the struggle. Those ships never saw an American port. They were built in Great Britain, they were fitted out in Great Britain, and they were manned in Great Britain; and this, notwithstanding that Mr. Adams, the American Ambassador, had informed the government time and again of what was going on. The common people of Great Britain were suffering great privations, particularly in the cotton industry in Lancashire and Manchester owing to the stoppage of cotton imports from the United States. But, to their eternal credit, be it said that the working people of Manchester, notwithstanding their hardships, sent an enormous petition to President Lincoln wishing him godspeed in the great struggle he was making for humanity and civilization. They told him that they were willing to endure those privations; they were making no trouble, because they knew that he was striving to do what was right. That incident perhaps did more than anything else to prevent an open break between Great Britain and the United States. Lincoln was touched to the heart by it and he sent a most cordial reply to those people, because

The Address-Mr. Hughes
he was one of the people himself and he knew that their heart was in the right place. Lord Granville, Cobden and Bright were outstanding figures who took the other side, because they were men and they understood the struggle that was going on. They understood what it meant to humanity and to civilization, and when the war was over it was then, smarting under those conditions, that the United States denounced the reciprocity treaty, and we have no right whatever to assume that they would have taken similar action provided we had entered into an agreement they had made in good faith with us in 1911. That agreement was proposed by the Republican party in the United States, the party of high protection. They would not have repealed it, in all human probability, and the Democrats, the party of low duties or moderate protection, if they had come into office very likely would not have denounced it; so when our friends opposite say that it was a good thing we did not enter into that arrangement because it likely would have been denounced they have no justification for suggesting such a thing. It is only an excuse, and a weak excuse, for the crime they committed against the Canadian people on that occasion.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That's putting it
over the plate.


James Joseph Hughes: I might say a few words
on the question of the tariff. The tariff is a perennial question in this country. It has been discussed in this House for many years and I suppose it will be discussed here for many years to come. Our Conservative friends take what appears to me to be a very peculiar position in regard to this matter, but perhaps they have their reasons for doing so. A short time ago I read in the Montreal Gazette an account of a speech delivered before the Conservative Business Men's Association in Toronto by Senator Gideon D. Robertson. Senator Robertson, having been a member of the late administration, being now a senator of Canada, and speaking before the Conservative Business Men's Association, and having been warmly commended the next day by the Montreal Gazette for his speech, I presume delivered on that occasion what might be considered almost an official utterance. In passing, I think the Montreal Gazette is the sanest and most respectable English-speaking protectionist newspaper in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Your forget the celebrated weekly.


James Joseph Hughes: I disagree entirely with the Gazette's policy but it presents its arguments fairly; and I fully believe this, that if you see in the Montreal Gazette what is alleged to be a statement of fact you can depend upon that statement. If it quotes figures, you can depend on them; but I do not agree with its policy, and I am not impressed with its arguments. Senator Robertson in that speech made this statement:
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.
I do not know what that means. Of course, I do not lay claim to any great amount of intelligence, but I suppose I have the intelligence of the man on the street. Now if the senator means that the British navy protects commerce from pirates on the high seas, I can understand that that would be a protection to commerce; but there are no pirates on the high seas now, and the navies of all the countries of the civilized world would be engaged in the same business if that is what he meant. They would keep the ocean lanes free from pirates. If he meant that the British navy imposes British goods upon the weaker nations or upon the Crown colonies at the cannon's mouth, I think he is mistaken. Great Britain herself and, so far as I know, the Crown colonies are open to the commerce of the world. There is no advantage that the British navy gives to British commerce that it does not give equally to the commerce of all the other countries of the world. It protects them all. However, that is not a very serious matter. He goes on to say:
The customs tariff serves two specific purposes. It protects home industries and the workmen employed therein, and affords a substantial part of the country's revenue.
Then he went on to make the statement, and he proved it, that Great Britain raises by her customs tariff $13.87 per head of her population, while the United States with its higher tariff, the tariff that he and other gentlemen of the Conservative party would have us copy in this country, gets a revenue of only $2.85 per head of the population-and he says that we should adopt a tariff of that kind in order to get revenue. He proves the thing that free traders have always maintained, that if you put the tariff high enough you will get no revenue at all. But the people will pay just the same. All through the senator's speech it is implied that if we adopt a tariff similar to that of the United States, we will get a larger revenue, and we can consequently do away with other forms of taxation. Of course, the senator contradicts him-
The Address-Mr. Hughes

self, but his arguments are just as sound and just as logical as any arguments I have ever heard from a protectionist.
When my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was speaking this afternoon, he referred to the importation of agricultural products and other things that we were bringing in from the United States, and when someone asked him why we were bringing these things in he replied, "Because they are cheaper there." He and others just ring the changes; they declare that if we adopt a tariff policy similar to that of the United States it will increase the price of agricultural products in this country, that is, it will raise the price to the farmer, while in the United States it appears to depress the price the farmer receives for his products. Why does the remedy act so differently just south of the international boundary line, a line that is almost invisible in some places? I cannot understand these things. I have not the intelligence of these men, I suppose; it is too intricate a question. Another thing I cannot understand is this: If the manufacturers of Canada cannot hold the home market with a moderate tariff, how in the name of common sense are they going to manufacture goods, send them into the markets of the world, meet competition there, and perhaps encounter customs duties in other countries? And yet they say they can do that. Sitting down and talking with some of my Conservative friends I have asked how that could be done and I never got an answer. I can see how it could be done in a small way, that is provided the customs duty, or the tariff, was put high enough in Canada to enable the manufacturer to have a large profit upon the goods he might sell at home and enable him to sell below cost what he might send abroad. That could be done, but would it be an advantage to Canadians? My impression is that it would be an advantage to the other fellow, the man we call the foreigner. He would be getting goods cheaper than we would be getting them, he would be getting goods below cost. My hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) spoke yesterday afternoon. I think he is a sincere protectionist, an honest protectionist. He was anxious to see a tariff in this country which he called "the cost of living tariff" and he was stating that when we would send our wheat, for instance to the Old Country, we would not load the ships with wheat entirely, but would load them partly with manufactured goods.
I think I will read the paragraph in question, it will serve to make my point clearer. In

reply to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) said:
Would my hon. friend expect any country to take nothing but wheat and flour from us? Would he expect a ship to be loaded with wheat and flour only? No ship will go out with such a cargo.
Then the hon. member for Springfield asked:
Why not ?	[DOT]
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said in reply:
To create a general trade we have to carry various products to other countries.
Then my hon. friend the member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) interpolated a question. He asked:
What will it bring back in return?
That was a crucial question. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George felt that, and he did the best he could under the circumstances. He said:
That is precisely the point I make with my hon. friend from Swift Current. It creates trade; but our customers overseas will not say to us that they want only our wheat and flour. It is necessary and essential for trade routes to be made up by exporting other commodities besides wheat and flour in order to create in the foreign port the needed market for our wheat and flour, because the more trade we have with any country the more demand there is for our particular product. Therefore I say we should export manufactured goods also with our wheat and flour.
Again I come back and ask, how can we export manufactured goods to Great Britain if we cannot hold the home market with moderate protection? The thing is a mathematical absurdity. No tyro in economics, in my judgment, would advocate such a policy. I think the manufacturers of Canada, and their friends, have dwelt upon that phase of the question so long that they cannot see any other side to the issue; they have come to think that they are stating sound doctrine. Was it not George III-


Andrew Ross McMaster: George IV.


James Joseph Hughes: Who thought he won the battle of Waterloo?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, George IV.


James Joseph Hughes: This monarch thought he commanded a division at the battle of Waterloo, and told the story so often that he finally came to believe it; and when somebody told him that they did not think he was at the battle he was very much offended. Hon. members opposite, and the protectionists generally, make the statement, and they repeat it, that a tariff does not increase the price of goods, that the manufacturers will not put up the price of their products, that home com-

The Address-Mr. Hughes
petition will keep down the prices. I have never heard one of these gentlemen give a concrete case; they speak in generalities; they are strong in platitudes and generalities, but weak, in my judgment, in concrete cases. But I have an authority on this question that I think my hon. friends opposite will accept, an authority I think even the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will not question. It is no less a personage than the present leader of the opposition.
On 18th January 1911, the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, and who was an active member * of the opposition of those days, moved this resolution in the House:
That in the opinion of this House, a substantial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Joseph Hughes: He added this-I want to give the whole of it:
-and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff.
Now the right hon. gentleman spoke in support of the resolution and I will quote from his observations as reported on page 1924 of Hansard of that year. I will start at the beginning of the sentence, I do not divide sentences :
But before I go into that, let me give you a few figures to show that the conditions of manufacture at the present time do not warrant a very material duty of any kind, particularly as respects the articles manufactured by the International Harvester Company, binders, mowers and reapers. And I think I will convince the House that there is very little if any difference in the cost of the production of these machines on this side of the border and in the United States.
Now have conditions changed so much between Canada and the United States that costs are higher, that it costs more to manufacture these articles in this country, compared with the cost in 1911? If such conditions have come about I would like to hear it. I do not think they have. The right hon. member is on record as saying that it costs very little if any more to manufacture in Canada than it does in the United States. Then why the necessity of protection? I can see why there should be a protection. If the home manufacturer wants to charge more than the price at which the imported article can be obtained, then he requires protection. But why should he want it? The right hon. leader of the opposition in another paragraph says:
Now sir, what are the manufacturers of agricultural implements enabled to do? They are able under this tariff to exact a higher price than they could exact if the tariff were lower. From 10 to 20 per cent is about the addition which these manufacturers are able
to obtain from our fanners by reason of the increased protection afforded them by this government.
I heard my right hon. friend declaim last session and the session before that he never changed his policy or his principles, that the wicked men on this side of the House had done that kind of thing, but he was far above such a course. I read an article in the Montreal Star-


Mr. GRAHAM:: The whisper of death.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, sometimes called the Montreal Star. It is headed "Bridging the gap", and it states that a large petition was being got up by the coal mine owners and others of Alberta and the coal consumers of Ontario, asking the government to so reduce the cost of transporting coal from the mines in Alberta to the consumers in Ontario that we could keep out American coal, and that the consumers would get cheap coal, and the petitioners went on to say, according to this article, that this would open up the mines in Alberta, give employment to a large number of miners and furnish cheap coal to the Ontario consumer, but the Star kills the whole thing in one line at the end. It enumerates all these things, and all the advantages that would accrue to Alberta, to the miners and consumers of coal but concludes with the following sentence-*
How about the other taxpayers who must meet the railway deficit?
Would the same argument not apply to protection? I will admit that protection is a good thing for the beneficiary.


Mr. HOEY:: I doubt it.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, it may increase the size of the city. It may have that result temporarily. It may do these things. But how about the consuming public who have to pay the cost. How about the general public who have to pay the bill? Somebody must pay the bill in the end. The Montreal Gazette, for which publication I have a great deal of respect, discusses quite frequently the subject of carrying grain from western Canada through the Maritime provinces, routing the grain that way and developing the ports of the Maritime provinces, and says that notwithstanding the fact that it might cost a little more to do that, the grain could be brought to Portland a little cheaper. The Montreal Gazette has frequently discussed that question, and it winds up by saying that it is bad economics because the general public would have to pay the deficit on the National Raibvay. If this is bad economics the policy of protection is bad economics, and the Montreal Gazette ably edited
The Address-Mr. Hughes

as it is, strongly advocates the one and denounces or discourages the other. I have heard our friends the protectionists state, and they had no hesitation in stating, that if we adopted a tariff policy higher than it is now, a policy somewhat similar to that which they have in the United States-although it does not seem to work very well there so far as the farmers are concerned

it would work splendidly here, it would stop emigration, would increase immigration, would give more employment, would raise wages, would raise the price of farm products, and at the same time decrease the cost of living. I think they are too modest in the advantages which they claim their tariff would accomplish. Would it not also cure earache and headache, lumbago and sciatica, remove dandruff and prevent the hair from falling out? Mrs. Lydia Pinkham's pills would be nowhere alongside an adequate tariff, which, in the estimation of these gentlemen, would be a tariff made up by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
Another argument, if it can be called an argument, that I often hear is that it is responsible for the development that has taken place in Canada. They say that a few years ago we were a smaller country than we are now, that we manufactured less, but that we are getting along better, and are developing and increasing. They point to the enormous development in the United States, and assume that it is all due to the protective tariff. That is a purely gratuitous assumption. The United States of America is an empire within itself. It has every variety of soil, climate and production. The people are most energetic and are the greatest commercial community on the face of the earth. They have prospered in spite of protection, not in consequence of it. Canada has done the same, in spite of protection and not in consequence of it. You might as well say that because the trees bud in the spring and the brooks run to the ocean and the birds sing in the forest, that is due to protection. I do not know what claim will be made for this panacea in the future. Perhaps the dictionary has already been exhausted in mentioning all the good things that can be said. But let us come back to the facts again. We must be sensible men, and surely we can arrive at a reasonable conclusion in regard to these things. If our protectionist friends would tell us frankly that we do not want to do business with other countries; that we want to have Canada for ourselves and for ourselves alone; that we want the home market for ourselves alone, I could then understand their argument in favour of

a tariff wall being placed around Canada. But when we say that our progress, development and future depend largely on the trade we shall do with other countries throughout the world, why in the name of common sense do we proceed to fine those who endeavour to carry on that trade? Customs tariffs are after all only a fine. Nations do not trade with each other, although I heard the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) make that slip the other day. I think it was a slip. Nations do not trade with one another except in a small way. Governments may buy things from one another in time of war; but in time of peace and under all normal conditions, individuals, companies or corporations trade with one another, and it is as true as the proposition that two and two make four that individuals, companies or corporations will not engage or continue in trade unless it is to their mutual advantage to do so. If it is to the mutual advantage of individuals, companies or corporations in different countries, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it must be to the advantage of the respective countries. All trade is founded in the last analysis on barter. We must buy if we want to sell.
Mr. H. G. Wells, the noted publicist, a man well acquainted with Europe, in an article that I read the other day, stated that the curse of that part of the world was due to the fact that there were so many small countries in Europe surrounded by national tariff walls, in consequence of which it was almost impossible to carry on trade and commerce between the different nations of Europe. There were national prejudices, national tariffs, national customs, national restrictions of all kinds. These nations hobbled themselves and then they wondered why they could not walk better. Are we to imitate that kind of thing in America? I do not see any sense in the world in nations subsidizing steamers, sending trade commissioners into other countries in order to promote trade, and then, on the other hand, fining the men who engage in the trade, trying to stop them; with one hand trying to promote trade, and with the other trying to stop or impede it. WTe ought to be sensible, logical, or at least endeavour to be logical. If we do ' not want the
9 p.m. trade of other countries, let us say so and confine ourselves entirely to Canada. The protectionists do not go that far; they do not want to go that far, because that would be ridiculous. They seem to imagine that there is something in that old

The Address-Mr. Hughes
dictum attributed to Barnum that a number of people are standing around all the time waiting for somebody to fool them. I hope the Canadian people will not be fooled.
Another statement that I was nearly forgetting, we hear from our protectionist friends. They deplore class consciousness in this country. They are sorry that the farmers of western Canada have grouped themselves together to promote their own interests. We have no room, they say, for that kind of thing in this country. There should not be any classes-except the Canadian manufacturers! They can monopolize that field. I am glad that the farmers are class conscious. They have some class interest and I do not blame them for it. I do not think they have much, because in a general way they do not want to place burdens on the other fellow in order to relieve themselves. They object, however, to being made to carry burdens foT the benefit of others, and I do not blame them for that. But before the rise of the Farmers' party, the farmers in this Canada of ours could be divided. It may be possible still to divide them between Liberals and Conservatives, but it will not be so easy. The Protectionist party is a well organized party. They have the money, and I will admit that they have a good deal of intelligence and a good deal of craft.


Robert Alexander Hoey: They do not show any of the intelligence.


James Joseph Hughes: They show that unfortunate principle that is with most of us, born with us, perhaps; they show a good deal of selfishness. And when elections come around, the unorganized people are largely at the mercy of the organized even though the latter group be much smaller. That is the way in which they hope to gain their victories, and they may succeed because it is no small group. We have an enemy that we cannot afford to despise. In the beginning of this protectionist business-and my memory goes back as far as 1878-it was then the infant industries that we were going to protect. Poor little things! They wanted only a nursing bottle for a year or two and it would be all right. They would return more favours than they had ever received when they would grow up to be big, strong, lusty men. A good many farmers were caught. The unsophisticated farmers will be caught by that kind of thing. I saw a cartoon somewhere that hits that off pretty well. The protectionist has just to be rocked for a year or two and to be fed carefully and tenderly until he grows to be strong, and he will return all the favours. The old farmer sat down by the cradle and he rocked and rocked.
Twenty years, twenty-five years, thirty years passed and the farmer was growing old and weary. The infant had grown to boyhood, then to manhood and had reached such giant proportions that it was very hard for the old man to rock the cradle and he complained and wanted to stop. What was the reply from the "infant"? "Old hayseed, if you stop rocking this cradle, and do any more whimpering, I shall get out and kick your damned head off". I was reminded of that cartoon by an article I saw in the Montreal Star a day or two ago. It stated that the present government had dropped two pilots, Mr. Fielding and Sir Lomer Gouin, and it referred to the historic parallel of Bismarck's dismissal by the young kaiser of that day, which led to the celebrated Punch cartoon by Tenniel entitled Dropping the Pilot. As I say, that reminded me of the other cartoon, and I thought it very appropriate.
I have endeavoured to put my views on the trade question before the House as clearly as I know how. I sometimes think that a good many of our really sane men are locked up in the insane asylums and that the mad fellows are on the outside, bungling the affairs of the world-preparing for war; creating, or not trying to assuage, national prejudices: carrying on commercial wars in a world that was made so fair and that produces an abundance for all the people whom God put upon it, if we would only agree to exchange our products with our neighbours. All we have to do is to be rational and reasonable, exchanging the things that we can produce cheaply and well for the products which the people of other nations can produce cheaper and better than we can. In this way the welfare of the whole world would be enormously increased, and this exchange of products would be in itself the greatest of industries and give employment to countless numbers of people. But we do not do that, we proceed in another way. Of course, I recognize that we in Canada cannot control the world; we have got to take conditions as we find them and do the best we can under the circumstances. For that reason I do not think we could do away altogether with customs duties or with tariff legislation; but we can show an example to the rest of the world. And I cannot imagine that a lowering of our customs duties and allowing the goods of other nations to come in will injure us to any great extent. Nobody will send us goods unless we pay for them, and we can only pay for them in kind-in products of the farm, the sea, the mine and the forest. If we pay
The Address-Mr. Bird

for them in that way, how in the name of common sense can our industries be ruined or destroyed?	[DOT]
But I am getting into the tariff question again quite unintentionally. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for listening to me with so much patience and attention.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with absorbing attention to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) who has just taken his seat. It is the first refreshing utterance that we have heard from that side of the House since the hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMaster) saw fit to move his belongings over here. In the early part of the hon. member's speech I shrank back a little when he ventured down the slopes of the Avernus of political recrimination, but I was glad he did not dwell there too long, and I hope he will not venture there again because I think it was the only blot upon an otherwise welcome speech.
In his remarks with regard to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) he shed a new light upon the hon. gentleman's character. I wish he were present, for I should like to have another good, square look at him. He was described as being a sincere and honest protectionist. Therefore such a protectionist is one who believes in the Laurier-Fielding tariff. I appreciate very much the strong grasp which the hon. member for King's, P.E.I., has manifested in his speech of the history of the controversy between free trade and protection, and I think we are indebted to him for presenting it to us in an historical light.
The other day we listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) dealing as usual with matters of partisan interest and forgetting, I am afraid, the matters that engage the public mind of Canada at the present time. I listened to them, as I always do, with unstinted admiration for their great gifts and powers; and as I listened I could not help asking myself the question, in the manner of the very well known phrase, what has all this to do with the condition of Canada? I think that question is the one that is uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada just now. Our political leaders remind me of the gods of Homer who, on the misty heights of Olympus, belabour and scold each other, forgetting the poor grovelling mortals down below, and unheeding their trials, their struggles and their sorrows, engaged the while in brilliant but trivial recriminations. I believe that were the public of 
Canada represented here to-night, as they are to some extent, what they would wish to hear from the leaders of the House and from the more prominent members of it would be some word of insight, some word of understanding, some word of discriminating sympathy for the trials through which they are passing to-day. I believe that if, in the opening of this debate by the leaders of the government and the opposition, there had been such words of sympathy and insight expressed it would have aroused a glad response throughout the length and breadth of the land where people have been cruelly hit by hard times and by the economic conditions that have overtaken this country.
In the Speech from the Throne complacent reference is made to the bountiful harvest with which our western country has been blessed. I am. afraid, however, that the significance of that bountiful harvest has been altogether lost upon the framers of that address and also upon other members of this House, if we may judge by their contributions to this debate. A year ago members on this side of the House painted the conditions of the West in very dark colours and they were scoffed at and sneered at for so doing. But time and events have justified them, and I think it is widely conceded that their picture was only too true; and those who took the opposite view are now thrust forth like foolish prophets. In my opinion time and events have fully justified the picture as presented from this side last year; and if conditions were bad then they are a good deal worse now, and I am afraid that the bountiful crop has onfy served to intensify, in the consciousness of the farmer of the West, the real character of the economic injustices under which he labours. There is a phrase that occurs in the famous Chartist Manifesto in reference to a similar situation, and I think it hits off the present condition quite well. I think it is the closing sentence which says:
Once more the foolishness of our rulers hath made the goodness of God of none effect.
That is true of conditions in the West at the present time. The good crop which has come from the bounty of Providence is like the spotlight: it has but deepened the surrounding shadows in the consciousness of western farmers. In days gone by good times have followed bad times and the farmer has been led to forget his troubles. But I doubt whether he is going to forget any more. I think the iron of circumstances has burnt into his soul so deep that from this time forth he is not going to forget. The seven fat kine may swallow up the seven lean kine,

The Address-Mr. Bird
but the farmer will not be misled. I believe that the farmer of the West and the farmers throughout Canada, by reason of Nature's bounty last year, will begin to study causes and not effects; they will become, as they are becoming, in a startling fashion which I could describe if I had time, radicals in the truest sense of the word, and are divining, with a clearness and precision which they have never indicated before, the true causes of their periodical misfortune.
I will not go detail by detail over the Speech from the Throne, but probably I shall serve a better purpose by presenting to the House as I see it the economic situation in which the farmer is struggling. If I were to analyze the condition of the Canadian farmer it would be in this manner: I would inquire into the matter from the point of view of the remedial measures that should apply. There are certain things which the farmer can do for himself; the remedy is largely within his own power. There are certain other things which the farmer can do only through organization and co-operation in association with his fellow farmers. But there are other things that the farmer can only accomplish through the sympathy and the co-operation of governments, and they form no small part of the farmer's problem at the present time.
Now with respect to these things which the farmer controls himself, they relate largely to the technical side of his profession, and include all those improvements he may introduce into his operations as an agriculturist. We all know what they are, because it is quite the vogue nowadays to press those things upon the farmer-the eradication of weeds, the conservation of the soil, the rotation of crops, the mixing of his operations, and so on; we are all familiar with that, it is the favourite remedy prescribed by the farmer's city friends. They are very fond of saying:	Now there you are; go to
it; there is the whole secret of your trouble, you do not know how to farm. Occasionally a general manager of a bank, a railway magnate, or a representative of big business, and sometimes a cabinet minister, will leave his highly polished office in the city and take a flying trip through rural Canada I notice that the poetic instincts of these gentlemen never fail to be impressed by the wide expanse of growing grain undulating in the glorious sunshine of the West, but at the same time they never fail to be impressed by the slovenly and inefficient manner in which the farmer is trying to make ends meet. I came across a gentleman of that kind when coming down to Ottawa He blamed the
farmer's economic troubles upon the farmer himself. The farmer was inefficient,, incapable, disorderly, and I forget just what other adjectives he used; but behind that man's loud and blatant arraignment of the farmer I saw as I nearly always do see, an impenetrable wall of ignorance as to the actual conditions under which the farmer lives. There are quite a number of people who are not ignorant, or who should not be, who often by implication make practically the same charge against the farmer. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) seems to trace all the troubles of the farmer to that cause- he is farming wrong, unscientifically.
The idea for the western farmer is to have a small farm, well-tilled, of not more than eighty acres. I read somewhere, where weeds were absolutely extinct, where everything was paradisiacal, where there was nothing that was not absolutely scientific; that is the secret of the farmers' emancipation; let him get down to mixed farming and all things will be well. Now there is nothing in the world that exasperates the average farmer more than talk of that kind, and the reason is plain. He is not lacking in modesty to the extent that he believes his method of farming is perfect. The farmer, as I know him in the West at all events is human and participates in all the weaknesses of our common humanity. Like the rest of us' he has a long way to go before he reaches perfection in his particular calling. But to say to the farmer at the present juncture, when he is up against it, when he is struggling for existence: You must change your methods of farming, those traditional methods into which you have entered after years of experience; you must change that or there is no hope for you-to speak like that to the farmer is about the same as offering a gilt-edged menu card to a starving man and saying: Now, eat, drink and be filled, and everything will be all right.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the average farmer is more willing to bring his methods up to date than sometimes governments are willing to help him. I noticed in the papers some time ago that the farmers of Manitoba were anxious to go in for mixed farming. At last the voice that had emanated from the city office had taken effect, and the Manitoba farmers really had a desire to go into mixed farming; so they sent word down to Ottawa to see if perchance they might import milch cows from Wisconsin free of duty. But I understand from the newspapers that they were politely but firmly told that it was not desirable to import American milch cows
The Address-Mr. Bird

free of duty, even though it would help in mixed farming
Then again I understand that the axe of economy, this new-found enthusiasm, this opportunist zeal for economy is going to fall first-where? Why, upon the annual grant that this government has made for the last ten years for the agriculture extension service. And yet t'he city man will go on saying that mixed farming is the cure, that nothing else is of any use whatever; so hang on to that for it will save you.


Mr. HARRIS:: Did not the leader of the hon. member's party intimate to this House the other night that diversified farming would help to a degree?


Thomas William Bird: Is not that just what I was admitting myself, that the farmer has a sufficient degree of intelligence to admit that diversified farming is desirable? Let me tell my hon. friend that diversified farming will come as soon as the antecedent conditions that are necessary are brought about, as soon as governments show the necessary sympathy and co-operate. I want to interject here that farming as an occupation is carried on by numerous people in this country who are the descendants of people who carried on farming before them, and that being the case the traditional rules of their, vocation have arrived at a consensus. There is an accumulated wisdom in the farming profession of this country which may not be quite as high as it ought to be. but I venture to say that this accumulated wisdom that resides within the average farmer of this country is superior to anything that can be offered to him from any office chair or from any college professor.
Let me pass on to the second series of cases I have in mind. Now, there are things which the farmer can do through organization, and I am glad to think that the co-operative spirit is taking so strong possession of the farmer of Canada. If there is one thing more significant than another in the rural life of Canada to-day it is the quick growth of the co-operative spirit amongst farmers, especially out West, during this last year or two. It is spreading through the West almost like a gospel, and is capturing the imagination and the mind of the farmer, and there is very little in the farmer's mind at the present time that weighs equally with it.
Two sessions ago when the organized farmers made representations here to this parliament for a wheat board they were met with very strong and very insistent opposition right in this place, and that opposition 
was so strong that the measure could not get 1 through the House until it had been debilitated by compromises that rendered it practically worthless. The farmer took it back West with him and tried to make some use of it and when he failed, as he inevitably did fail, he turned his mind in the direction of co-operative effort, and that is where his mind has been ever since. When the wheat board legislation was passing through this House the opponents of it said to the farmer "Now, it will be your salvation if you will learn to cultivate a little bit more self help. You are dependent upon governments too much. Why don't you go back and help yourselves?" But I find that the same people who opposed the wheat board and offered that advice are the very people who are trying to hamper the co-operative efforts of the farmers now. It amounts to this, Mr. Speaker: That every time the farmers of this country-or of any country for that matter -try to lift themselves up above themselves, they at once clash with some vested interest or another.
Now, as I said, the matter of co-operative marketing is a burning question in the West at the present time, and the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion, has the opportunity of its life, it has the opportunity right now to show that it is behind the farmer.
I know that the Department of Agriculture has carried on educative work for some time along co-operative lines. I read a pamphlet and a very good pamphlet, the other day on co-operative marketing in eggs. But what are eggs compared with wheat? There is a hint for the Department of Agriculture. There is a movement in the West that has for its objective the marketing of the western crop through the farmer's own self controlled channels. There is an opportunity for the government to show its sympathy for the farmer, there is an opportunity not only by lending its machinery for educative purposes, but if possible of getting behind the movement with some financial backing too. A short time ago there was a deputation of farmers here from the West Who had the audacity to ask the government for some of their own money in order to help them to organize for co-operative marketing of their wheat. I do not know, except from the newspapers, the effect of that interview, but I hope the result will be satisfactory to the farmer of the West in pursuing this very legitimate and very admirable aim of getting together and marketing the staple product of our western farms.

The Address-Mr. Bird
Then again there are a large number of things which the farmer cannot tackle, either single handed or through organization, except the parliament of Canada come to his help by administrative means or by legislation, and those things are most vital things that affect the farmers' position at the present moment. Co-operative marketing and the improved methods of agriculture will come in time, but it will be only in time. It will take many years to switch the western farmer over from his present methods to any other method, necessarily so. But what the farmers in the West, at any rate in my district, need is some relief now. That is what they need at the present time, they need attention; and the things from which they suffer are things entirely within the control of parliament. In fact the reason they suffer is because of the enactment of parliament, because this parliament has willed that they' should suffer in that way. It is not necessary for me to mention some of those things. There is the debt under which the farmer is labouring; there is taxation; there is the tariff; there is transportation. Every one of those factors in the cost of production is grinding the face of the farmer at the present time; and grinding the face of the farmer because this government here-I beg your pardon this parliament- wills that they should grind the face of the farmer. That is the situation under which the farmer is labouring at the present time. The economic situation of the farmer is right within the hands of this parliament, right within its hands at the present time. It is no use trying to move the responsibility over to the farmer himself or to any other outside origin. The crux of the whole situation is right within this Dominion parliament. Now, someone will say that this place, this chaste temple of national causes, ought riot to be degraded into a forum for the furtherance of class interest. This is the place where only the abstract good of all can be considered, and not the concrete good of a few. That is the position that one frequently hears put forward not only here but elsewhere-that this is not the place for a class to bring its grievances. But where else can the farmer bring his grievance, or carry his grievance, because here is the place of their origin? He is helpless if he is ruled out from bringing his grievance to the only place where he can possibly find redress.
Upon the financial difficulties under which the farmer labours at the present time I will not dwell very long, although I know that a good many farmers in the West believe that the financial side of their situation is the most important. During the war farmers 11
very often were led to invest their money, through patriotic incentives, and now in the process of a few short years they are left absolutely defenceless against the rapacity of their creditors. I know large numbers of them personally, and they are most sober, capable farmers, Canadian-born, who have lost all that they had accumulated as a result of their life's toil. There are many others who, though not losing all, have been saddled with a debt that will embitter their lives as long as they live. Perhaps if I were challenged to say just how parliament could help that situation I might not be able very clearly at the moment to say; but surely parliament exists for the very purpose of seeing that that kind of thing does not happen, or if it does happen that some relief can be found. During this debate an attempt has been made to show that the war was not paid for as it proceeded. We know it was not paid for as it proceeded, but it is being paid for at the present time, to the ruination of many hard working honest farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country. Talking about capital levy, I know farmers who have suffered a capital levy. Some of them have lost four, five, six or eight thousand dollars in the course of a short time, and why? Because a war occurred in which the whole nation was involved, which was the means, not of impoverishing the nation as a whole, but simply the means of transferring millions of dollars of wealth from one part of the nation to another, and is this parliament not the place to come and lay a grievance of that kind? Surely this is the place to present it because the whole financial system of this country hinges right on this Chamber.
As I said before, I have no suggestion to make as to how the government should come to the relief of victims of our financial system. Probably if I were to venture one suggestion I would be classified amongst the theorists. Last session in the Banking committee room we had a professor from a noted American university standing before us, telling us that the war had been the means of transferring wealth, without any equivalent, from one set of persons to another set of persons to the amount of billions of dollars. I think it was said to be forty billion dollars in the United States. The same thing has occurred in Canada. There are thousands of people in Canada to-day who took homesteads in the West twenty or thirty years ago, who ever since have been working hard, saving and improving their farms, and who to-day are without farms at all. I travelled to Winnipeg

1(32
The Address-Mr. Bird

with one farmer the other day who was coming down to see his wife in the General Hospital in that city. He told me that when he stood in the bank the other day and was told by the manager that the decision had been made to close him out, he felt as though it would have been as well if that manager had come and knocked him on the head. He said "My life's work and all the savings of all these years had gone." That man is homesteading afresh, at an age approaching almost sixty years. That is not an isolated case at all by any means, as I could prove if I had time. He was a capable man, born in old Ontario, sober, diligent and a good farmer; and that is the position he is in to-day. The bank manager said to him. "Why do you not write home to the people in Ontario and ask them to try and help you settle up the little balance that is left?" He told him he was ashamed to write home to old Ontario and tell the people the position he was in, after all the ' years he had been out West. I do not know what the intention of the government is in regard to the financial aspect of the farmers' business, but one would hope there will be an attempt at any rate to do something. It is not an easy matter for the government to address itself to the farmers' financial needs. There is a wide area for experimentation, but. a beginning ought to be made in that direction, in order that the financial aspect of the farmers' business might be made as easy for him as possible.
Dealing for a moment with the question of the tariff: I have listened with a great deal of interest to that subject of never failing interest; and I believe that the farmer especially in the West, will continue to be a free trader so long as he has to sell his surplus produce on a foreign market and produce those goods under conditions of protection. It needs no prophetic gift to know just where the western farmer at any rate is going to stand on the question of free trade or protection. We have before us to-night at this stage of the debate the amendment proposed by our hon. friends to the right. As I listened to that amendment, after having listened to the previous debate, I thought to myself, now here is a new version of the mountain and the mouse. After all this fierce rumbling, booming, cracking, banging, flashing and flaring, here comes forward a mouse, a poor anaemic mouse, alas, the poor distressed agriculturist. " Cheer up Mr. Farmer, we are going to add a little to the tariff; felicitate yourself, we are going to increase the duties on your machinery; leap and shout for joy, we are going to protect you into prosperity." 
I notice that the amendment draws our attention to the exodus from Canada-that doleful subject. I wondered-and yet I did not wonder-where those people are going. Does anybody here know where they are going? They are leaving Canada. Where are they going? They are leaving the farms of Canada and they are going on to the farms of the United States.	.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Not on your life!


Thomas William Bird: An hon. member here knows
more than I do, and I am glad he does because that is what I would fain believe myself. That is just where they are not going. No farmer in a country that has a medium protection would ever go and farm in a country that has a big protection, because that is where the farmers really starve. They do not quite starve in Canada; but they do actually starve in the United States, and they could not help starving. I will tell you where all these people are going. They are going into the cities of the United States, those great, big swollen parasites that suck the life-blood of the American producer. They are going to swell the numbers of the parasites. Long before Great Britain enjoyed free trade, William Cobbett, when he took his ride through rural England, described the city of London, which had grown prodigiously in the then recent years, as a wen, a wart, an unsightly and ugly protuberance growing up like a weed and sucking like a vampire the lifeblood of the nation. That is true of the American cities. They are living on the lifeblood of the American producer, the man who works in the mine, in the forest or on the sea. That is where they are going. But our friends says:	"The cities create the home
market." Let me tell you what they create- a big, wide-open mouth that swallows up the hard-earned toil of the man who works by his hands, the farmer in the wheat states, the corn states and the cotton states. Oh, there is no prosperity in rural America, but there is prosperity in urban America. That is always true of protectionist countries. It cannot help being true
I noticed that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland), who moved the amendment, was not quite so sympathetic with the poor working man. He said some awfully stinging things about the poor civil servant in this city and about the workingman who, by organization, had, at last, been able to protect himself. It is all right for his friends to protect themselves, but it is not right for anybody else's friends to protect themselves. This parliament and this government is suffering, not

The Address-Mr. Bird
through the influence of the big interests, but through the awfully corrupt influence of the civil servants and the workingmen of this country! He said: "It would be a good thing if this building and this institution could be taken right away from that corrupting influence and all those gentle, innocent looking men whom we meet in the street and who are the servants of this country." The civil servants-they are the people who are threatening the integrity of this country, and the sooner we get this parliament.away from that atmosphere, the better it will be! I will tell the hon. gentleman that right in my constituency I have a number of sites that ivould be ideal. Only I will warrant him that they would be just about as inaccessible to his friends as to anybody else's
10	p.m. friends, and it would be a fearful tragedy if the Manufacturers' Association, like the civil servants and the poor workingmen, could not bring its influence to bear upon this parliament. I think, possibly, I have summed up in those few words, the quality, essence and quintessence of that thing that was tagged on to the end of the hon. gentleman's speech and that is called an amendment. Mark you, they are asking the government to do what a speaker, a short while ago in this debate, told them was criminal to do-that was to interfere with the tariff in the middle of a parliament. It is all right to move it up, but you must not move it down.
I come now to the question of transportation. and I would like to tell the House that in the farmer's mind, there is no factor that weighs upon him so much as transportation. Neither the tariff nor anything else figures with the farmer like transportation. If you stay to consider for a moment what it costs a farmer to send a bushel of wheat or a steer to Liverpool, or eggs or poultry or cream or anything else to the home market, you will know just how much transportation figures in the mind of the average farmer.' Two sessions ago this parliament dealt with the Crowsnest pass agreement, and that was very highly appreciated by the western farmer, although, mark you, it was not much of a con-session. It was a fragmentary piece of justice that was very quickly becoming overdue. At any rate, the farmer was grateful. Last session when the government attempted to grapple with the shipping ring on the Great Lakes, the farmer was likewise appreciative according to its degree. The failure of that attempt is just as significant to the western farmer as the injustice itself with which the attempt was made to deal. It is all very well
m
for the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to taunt the government with the failure, as he did; but I would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that when you begin to struggle with the big interests, it is not the species of government at all that matters, it is the genius. It was not because it was a Liberal government that it failed, but it was because it was a government-well, just as it was a government. Governments, hitherto, and even up to the present time, are not so constituted that they are of any great advantage when they begin to handle the big interests, because the big interests seem to have some kind of inside hold, and therefore, it is not easy for any government, such as we have known governments, to tackle those big freshwater monsters that batten and thrive upon the hard-earned toil of the western farmer, that Great Lakes' Kraken that lies in wait every fall until the crop ripens and then sinks its fangs into the vital spot of commerce and holds on. But we are willing that the government should try again, because they know by this time that it is a monopoly of a peculiarly vicious kind, and the only effective way to deal with such a monopoly is either to destroy it or take it over and use it for the advantage of the public at large.
Now, this naturally brings me to a very congenial subject

the natural outlets of western Canada to the sea. There is the crux of the whole transportation question. If Canada could develop its natural outlets to the utmost, these things might not happen; if every one of Canada's avenues to the sea were developed to the fullest extent, the strain that periodically falls upon any one of them would automatically be relieved, and the element of competition would assure to the farmer a minimum charge for the carriage of his products. My friends around me know what I am aiming at. In the Speech from the Throne there was some mention of transportation and, by implication, of its importance to the farmer. But the reference was in a form that, to the western mind, seems totally unwarranted. For years, and never more insistently than now, the West has been asking for the Hudson Bay route, and the government in the Speech from the Throne says in effect: Oh, yes, certainly; here is the Welland canal. We asked for an egg and they gave us, not a white stone -using the simile of the leader. of the opposition-but a white elephant, which is worse even than a white stone. The West has had the Hudson Bay route in its mind and imagination for over a generation. Between the years 1907 and 1917 the activi-
The Address-Mr. Bird

ties of both governments were such as to make the West believe that at last its long cherished aspirations were about to be realized. In the latter year, 1917, however, it was thought best to suspend the work on the Hudson Bay railway in the interests of national economy. The West acquiesced in that view, with the distinct understanding that when the financial condition of the Dominion warranted it the work would be resumed. That was the compact, and so for four or five years public opinion in the West in regard to this project lay dormant; but two or three years ago certain sinister signs began to appear, certain signs of opposition, certain signs that that compact was in danger of not being observed. The opposition began to assume a very bitter form, until in the fall of 1922 it culminated in an attempt at vandalism such as has scarcely ever been equalled in the history of this country. An attempt was actually made not only to deface, lout even to obliterate, the work which had already been done. I am not blaming the government for it. The thing was done unknown to the public, it was done, I venture to say, without the knowledge of the government as to its real significance, and in the West there is a firm conviction that it originated in the minds of the enemies of the proposition.
That was in the fall of 1922. By that one act public opinion in the West was aroused to fever pitch. The long cherished aspiration to which the people out there had clung was attempted to be defeated in that underhand method. The revival of public opinion in the West in regard to the Hudson Bay route coincided practically with the beginning of this parliament two years ago, and during the two sessions that have passed western representatives have done their best to present the Hudson Bay railway case to the House, as Hansard will attest. Last year our hopes were again revived by the grant of $350,000 for the continuation of the work and also by various professions made on both sides of the House, only to be dashed to the ground last summer and fall by the almost entire absence of any visible attempt to spend the money. The excuse made by the government that the vote was passed too late may be a good one, it may even be adequate-and I do not question the sincerity of the government-but I would point out that it is not the kind of excuse you can use twice; it would look a little bit faded if ever called upon to do a like service. To-day the West is looking for an early vote, an adequate vote, and a sincere vote on this matter, in spite of all this talk about economy, this opportunist economy, 
that has suddenly sprung up like a mushroon in certain quarters of the Dominion, because I tell you that to the western farmer, especially in the north of those rich provinces, the completion of the Hudson Bay railway is supreme economy. Why, if the expenditure made on the Welland canal for one year were spread over two or three years it would suffice to build the Hudson Bay railway to a point where it might be tried out and taken forever from the sphere of embittering controversy. This is not merely a business proposition that you can estimate in dollars and cents. It is a matter of profound sentiment, indefinable yet nevertheless powerful, that always grows in the consciousness of people who are isolated, as we are out West, towards their natural outlets to the wide world. You are dealing with a profound community consciousness that you cannot defeat. Mention is made in the Speech from the Throne of the everlasting problem of East and West, and we know it is a problem the solution of which is of supreme importance to the Dominion. Here is a chance for statesmanship to prove itself, to grant this generation-old aspiration of the West for its natural outlet to the sea. I venture to say that if this government will see its way clear to do that, if it will make a favourable and definite pronouncement of policy on this question, it will work a revolution in the mental attitude of the West towards the East which has become exasperated by reason of an unscrupulous propaganda that has been carried on by certain newspapers in the East.
The Hudson bay proposition will come up before this House at a later stage. My hon. friend for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has a resolution on the order paper, and when it comes up for consideration I hope to be able with others to meet some of the arguments which during this last year have been spread broadcast throughout Canada, and especially throughout eastern Canada, in regard to this proposition. Statements, in reference to facts, that are patently false, have been scattered throughout the country by means of newspaper propaganda in order to defeat the West of this legitimate aim of theirs for the opening-up of their natural channel to the markets of the world; and when the resolution of the hon. member comes up I shall deal with these misrepresentations.
On motion of Mr. Logan the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Perry Graham: I move, Mr. Speaker, that

Privilege-Mr. Sinclair (Queen's)
the House do now adjourn. In doing so I think it might not be out of place for me to observe that if this debate is to be concluded within a reasonable time the House, beginning next week, should sit somewhat later.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Monday, March 10, 1924