1924-03-18

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, to change the name of The Travellers Life Assurance Company of Canada to "Montreal Life Insurance Company"- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 9, respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 10, to confirm an Agreement between The Ottawa Electric Railway Company and the City of Ottawa.-Mr. Chevrier.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 19th March, instant, and every subsequent Wednesday until the end of the session the House will meet at three o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition from the Rev. T. Crawford Brown and others in opposition to certain phases of a proposed bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT -EXCURSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Railway Act 1919.
He said: The object of this amendment ia to restore to the public the privilege of cheap tickets for such occasions as weekend holidays, excursions, fall fairs, conventions and sporting events which they enjoyed before the war. This privilege, I may say, has been restored in every other country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminister) :: Might I be permitted to ask if the government intends to recognize the claims of British Columbia in filling the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): Mr. Speaker, so far as the government is aware there is no vacancy on the board.
26J



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Kelly for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland, resumed from Monday, March 17.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I have been an interested and docile listener for two weeks, during which time I have learned a good deal, because no man can listen to any intelligent speech without getting some new angle on the questions that are being discussed. I have learned that it is hard to satisfy the opposition-in fact I learned that many years ago.	In other years the government has been chided for its sins of omission in the Speech from the Throne, it has been chastised for the things that it has left undone; but this year it is being criticized for what it has done. In other years we were told that the Speech was too lean, that it was notable rather for what it did not contain; this year we are told it is too fat, that there is too much in it. It reminds me somewhat of the discussion over the British cattle embargo. Inspectors found some Stockers too fat, and they had to be slaughtered; the next day they found some that were too lean, and as it took too long to feed them they could not be accepted either. It strikes me that the Speech from the Throne contains a good deal of meat. While I am not going into it in detail, may I be permitted to say, it looks as if it had thrown some consternation into the ranks of the party led by my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Meighen).
Mr. MEIGHEN:: And the country, too.


Mr. GRAHAM:: My right hon. friend
says, "And the country, too"-he being the country. It has been recounted in this House that certain highly respected gentlemen on this side have expressed views divergent from those which the leader of the opposition says appear in the Speech from the Throne, and that is looked upon as a tremendous blow to the Liberal party. Why, that is the pure essence of Liberalism: members of the Liberal party can differ on details and still be true to the great principles of Liberalism. What would have happened on the other side of the House if some member had got up and talked free trade? He would have had a very cool reception all through the lobby; the chances are that he would have moved out. That is the difference; members of the Liberal
The Address-Mr. Graham

party do not take carefully selected views of others as their own, but are at perfect liberty to express their own opinions; and when it is suggested that the views expressed by certain gentlemen on this side were really an explosion, I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that those who so express themselves are but following out the instincts of real Liberalism.
I think that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition's trouble is religious in its character, and that his depression is caused by certain views he holds-I do not mean church union views. There is a large sect the members of which face the east when they pray, but since December, 1921, the people of this country have compelled my right hon. friend to face the West when he prays in this House. That to my mind accounts for the great depression.
Certain references have been made to the Canadian National Railways. While I do not intend to enter into any lengthy discussion of that great national undertaking, I do wish to say a word or two. It is the greatest undertaking of its kind in the world, and it is the longest line of railway. The difficulties surrounding its management, semiparliamentary and semi-private, are very great; no one understands them better than I do. The present management has a task unprecedented, a task that was not imposed on the former management. Sometimes we are apt to forget, in making comparisons, that in former years, prior to the time that Sir Henry Thornton became president of the Canadian National Railways, there were two systems, managed by two boards with two presidents, the Grand Trunk, and what then comprised the Canadian National Railways. These two have been merged, and the load upon the president at the present time far surpasses the load placed on the shoulders of the head of any other railway system in the world. To amalgamate these two staffs, to get them in working order, to bring together men who had been keen competitors in the years gone by, was a task in itself that would try the mettle of any man, however great. That friction cannot be wiped out in a few days or in a few months, but the management of the road and the service that it gives are, I think, an evidence of the fact that these wrinkles are fast being ironed out.
Some person has said that the President of the Canadian National Railways makes mistakes. So he does. There is only one class of people that make no mistake. They are dead. The live man, the man who is alert

and who is putting every pound of energy behind his job, is sure to make mistakes. If the errors made by the managements of private companies were discussed year by year before this House and the country, it would be found that Sir Henry Thornton had made fewer mistakes than the average man who manages a big concern. I think it was a mistake at that time to acquire the Paris building; I have no hesitation in saying that-Liberalism is free to express its opinion. But it will not be so grievous a mistake as some people are trying to make the country and the world believe. The greatest enemies of the Canadian National Railways are not found among the men who honestly oppose government ownership; its real enemies are those who, while pretending to be its friends, take advantage of every opportunity to decry it. A sample: At one of those very large meetings held in the province of Quebec- perhaps more than one-which my right hon. friend attended, he had with him a former colleague-a colleague on the weekly instalment plan, I might say, because he was there but a very short time. This gentleman had the temerity, in the presence of my right hon. friend, to refer to Sir Henry Thornton as a "foreigner"; to say that the Government of Canada had appointed* a foreigner to manage the Canadian National system. I want to ask this House, since when did a British subject become a foreigner? Why was it said? A little cheap clap-trap in order to make the railway men of Canada and the people generally believe that we had brought in a foreigner to manage a national enterprise. Sir Henry Thornton originally was an American. Trained on one of the best-managed railway systems in the world, the Pennsylvania Railroad, he went to the Old Land and was given very important work by the Allies during the war; and so competent was he in that work that His Majesty the King called him in and knighted him in recognition of his services to the Allies. This man comes to us a British subject not by birth but by choice. And, forsooth, in order to get a few hand-claps and to make capital against him, an ex-minister of the Crown of the Dominion of Canada refers to him as a " foreigner." The people, Sir, resent that kind of thing. Our forefathers, a great many of them, were foreigners, but they came to this country and applied themselves to its development, and the sturdy race we see in the Dominion of Canada to-day is the offspring cf these men whom the gentleman, a former minister of the Crown, would describe as "foreigners."

The Address-Mr. Graham


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. member may be misinformed. I do not know to whom he refers, but the only one I heard refer to Sir Henry Thornton was Hon. Mr. Monty, speaking in French, and I do not know what the French word was that he used.


George Perry Graham: I think my right hon.
friend understands French pretty well, because he read French to us the other day and then translated it. There is no question but that the gentleman referred to Sir Henry Thornton as a foreigner. I have the reports in several papers up in my room.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to interrupt, but the reason I mention it is this. It will be recalled that on a former occasion in the case of Lord Dundonald, a reference was made to him in the French language as a foreigner. It was so translated into the English language, but the explanation given showed that the French term had an entirely different meaning.


George Perry Graham: I read it in a Conservative newspaper.


Arthur Meighen: An English paper?


George Perry Graham: An English paper, but
if it had not been the proper translation, surely, surely such an attack would not have gone this long unanswered. My right hon. friend must have read it.


Arthur Meighen: I never read it.


George Perry Graham: Well, is that not interesting. He did not even read his colleague's speech. He did not understand it in French, and he would not read it in English. I am making no plea for Sir Henry Thornton, but what I ask the people of Canada to do is this:	Give the manager of the road, the
president and the board who have undertaken this great work on behalf of the people of Canada, at least the same chance for success, as is given the manager of a private company.
Some person has suggested that the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways might be reduced. That is a very large question, and I just want to place this viewpoint before the House. There are many securities out against the units that form the Canadian National System, and to write down the capitalization would be to retire these units. It is not as easy a proposition as it looks. It must be remembered that the Intercolonial railway, the Prince Edward Island railway, the National Transcontinental, and the Hudson Bay railway, are not in the capitalization. These roads have no capitalization, having
79041-1J
been constructed by the government. There have been certain amounts charged to the railways, but they are put in what is called the inactive list and are paying no interest at the present time. It might be possible some day to consider the question of writing off these amounts which are charged to the Canadian National System as loans.
Now I want to have a word with our manufacturing friends. This House should not be led to believe that the manufacturers of Canada as a whole are against the sales tax. We who are members of the government have in our desks and on our files many letters written a year ago by men who are now complaining but who then asked the government to do just what we did with the sales tax-put it in one amount, in one place. I want to say, further, that some of the men engaged in the largest industries in this country have during the past ten days informed me that notwithstanding what the Manufacturers' Association has officially said, they are and always have been in favour of the sales tax, and they urged the government through me not to remove the sales tax as it was most equitable. Further they pointed out, which was the truth, that in not a few instances the sales tax is lighter than the tax paid the previous year. I know it is unpleasant to pay taxes; nobody likes to do it; it is uncomfortable at times. I am a firm opponent of capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, and the only time and occasion when I doubt the soundness of my opinion on that subject is when I hear or read the words of men who got rich during the war and who are now kicking about paying their share of the cost. These men before the war, lived in ordinary residences like most of us, but they now live in palaces. Before the war they felt like saying "Thank you" and felt honoured if they were allowed to stand on the running board of a Ford car; but now they ride up in a Packard and say: Cut down the taxes! cut down the taxes! I am not a communist, but if anything would lead me to squint in that direction it is the chattering of these men who made their wealth out of the war, and who are able to pay, but who now refuse, or are trying to get out of, paying their share of the taxation. Taxes must be imposed; taxes must be collected. Are we ashamed of the part we took in the war? No. The mothers of the boys who lost their lives in the war are wearing emblems to-day indicative of the bravery of their sons, and they feel honoured in being allowed to wear them, though wearing them in sorrow. The
The Address-Mr. Graham

wives of the men who lost their lives during the war are also wearing these emblems with the same proud satisfaction. As a tax payer of Canada I am proud of the honour of paying my share of the war taxes of this country. I look upon that as an emblem of the part I am allowed to take. The war was not over when the armistice was signed, the financial war was just beginning; and we in Canada must face those difficulties. We must face taxation; we must face all the problems that the war has brought to us. And we are not worthy of the boys who laid down their lives if we shrink from that duty.
If I might be allowed to correct my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, again -for he leads his innocent following astray at times

the other ' day, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was discussing the Canadian National Railways in connection with the debt, my right hon. friend interposed with these words:
Mr. Meighen: I am grateful to hon. gentlemen for their applause, but I do not need it. I was only going to ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to tell us how much of an obligation the country has incurred by guarantee of railway bonds, which is the plan this government has taken instead of lending the money directly out of the treasury.
Now, the Ottawa Journal, believing that there had been no bond issue by the former government and that all the carrying charges and indebtedness had been paid out of the treasury, fell into this trap.
Among the chief reasons for the debt increase in 1921-22 the railways now resort to bond issues.
I might read a little before that:
Surely the Prime Minister knows better than that. For what are the simple facts? Simply that Mr. King's government has changed the S3rstem whereby instead of making loans to the Canadian National Railways-among the chief reasons for the debt increases in 1921 and 1922-the railways now resort to bond issues.
Now that is not the case. There was a bond issue in 1920-21 of $50,000,000, and for Canadian Northern short term notes there was an issue of $11,000,000, making a $60,000,000 bond issue for that year 1921-22 which ' is the year referred to by the Journal. The readers of the Journal have been led astray, and I think it is my duty to correct that wrong impression because the system has been for years, could not be otherwise, than that at certain intervals there was a bond issue. Mr. Fielding-excuse me I am referring to him in that way in his absence-the Finance Minister in 1922-23 did what the Journal says the preceding government did.. There was no bond issue in 1922-23; the Finance Minister under this government paid out some

$85,000,000 to the railways and had no bond issues. Had there been a bond issue in 1922-25 the surplus that year would probably have been something like $50,000,000. This year there has been a bond issue of $50,000,000 and an equipment issue, which is a separate thing.


Arthur Meighen: How much to equipment?


George Perry Graham: If I remember right the
issue is $22,500,000. I am free to say this that if the errors as to bond issue had been left out the right hon. gentleman would be right in saying there was a larger amount loaned to the railway out of the treasury than there was during the past year; there is no question about it. But the railway situation is getting better, it must be improving else we would be in a sad dilemma. But the returns show it is improving, and this year there is to be a payment out of the treasury I think of some twenty-four or twenty-five million dollars. I am expressing my own view now when I say it appears to me that as the conditions improve on the Canadian National Railways, what is strictly capital expenditure should be provided for by bond issues, and the people at the present time should not be taxed for what is rightly capital expenditure tending to improve the property and to bring better returns to the railways. Under the Inter-state Commerce Commission laws it would be impossible to do anything else, because the railways of the United States are not allowed to expend out of operating surplus any amounts for truly capital expenditures. The principle is clear. Money earned by railways belongs, after the current overhead charges are paid, to the shareholders, and no company has a right to take the money of the shareholders, earned in a proper way, and use it in capital expenditure. The principle further is, that money gained in operation ought to go to the shareholders for their dividends, and to the reduction of rates. I am expressing my own views when I say I believe the principle ought to be adopted on the Canadian National Railways, and it practically is at the present time, that railway capital expenditure ought to be provided for by bond issues extended for a term of years, at least as long as the betterments which have been constructed will last, and the balance if any in Canada will have to be raised by taxation.
Now. Sir, leaving the Canadian National Railways and the question of bond issue, may I turn for a moment to the things that took place at the Imperial Economic Conference, and I must be excused for again saying to

The Address-Mr. Graham
my right hon. friend that I think he led some of his followers astray in what he said on this matter. It is a kind of impediment to good government to have such implicit confidence in one's leader that the members of a party fail to turn up the facts for themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the case over there.


George Perry Graham: Even the whip of hon. gentlemen opposite will not allow me to compliment his leader. In reference to what took place at the Imperial Economic Conference there is apparently a misapprehension abroad judging by some speeches I have heard, particularly that of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie). The hon. member said, if I remember correctly, that the Prime Minister of Canada sat silent and did not say a word at the Economic Conference, although things were transpiring that were of much interest to Canada. The hon. member mentioned preferential duties on fruit, and particularly apples, if I remember correctly. I want to tell him now that the man most responsible for having apples placed on the preferential list at that conference was the Prime Minister of the Dominion. So far from sitting silent he was very active in regard to every question. I know my hon. friend will say "I did not see it in the official report" which the hon. gentleman said he did not read. There were two conferences. It was the first time in the history of the Empire, I think, that two conferences took place simultaneously. Previously the Imperial Conference included the Imperial Economic Conference. On this occasion there were two conferences, the Imperial dealing with the larger lines of Imperial matters, and the Economic Conference dealing with economic questions. Of necessity, as the right hon. leader of the opposition will know, the greater part of the proceedings at the Imperial Conference proper were of a confidential nature and could not be published, but I sat beside the Prime Minister time and again in that conference. He was one of the most active spirits in it; and without giving away any secrets, policies that I have since heard announced were advocated by the Prime Minister of Canada. He was very urgent at that conference that each part of the British Empire, each dominion, should have a right to sign its own treaties where the matters in question affected only that particular dominion. The Imperial Conference unanimously adopted that conclusion. There are others to which I might refer but I will not detain the House.
I want to come now to the question of preference. Some people have the view that
Canada should approach the Motherland as she approaches other countries in the matter of trade. That has not been the policy of the people of the Dominion of Canada. This country gave a preference to the Motherland in the time of Laurier and Fielding, against some opposition but because these men and the people of the Dominion thought it was a wise thing to do. It would knit more closely the relationships between the outposts and the centre of the empire, and in addition to that it was best for the people of the Dominion of Canada. Never was Great Britain approached by Canada in a bargaining spirit, but this preference was given to her out of the hearts of the people of the Dominion of Canada-not altogether altruistic because the people of Canada believed, and it has turned out to be true, that giving a preference to the Motherland would be for the benefit of our own country, the Dominion of Canada. When the Economic Conference opened the Prime Minister was there, as he was always on the spot when duty required in the Old Land. I will not read all his remarks on that occasion, but I will read what he said concerning the question of preference. It as as follows:
Mr. King: Perhaps I had better leave the question of Preference for more mature and careful consideration at some sitting of the Conference when that subject will be specially discussed. I should like to say this, however, with regard to trade Preference, that Canada feels not a little pride in the circumstance that she was the pioneer in granting a preference to British goods. At the present time we are giving a preference averaging 33.1 per cent, or more, on all goods coming from Britain and also from different parts of the Empire. In the last session of our Parliament, we made a slight additional increase in the preference by undertaking to give a discount of 10 per cent of existing duties on any British goods that came through Canadian ports. We had in mind there development of trade by the "All red" route, but we had also very much in mind the action of the British Government in undertaking to remove the obstacles to the importation of our cattle into the British markets here. Throughout, the Canadian attitude in the matter of Preference has been one of goodwill; it has been based on goodwill; bargaining has not been the basis of it. We have done what we have done believing it would be to our advantage, but believing also that it would be helpful to the countries to which the preference was extended, and especially to the Mother Country; and I would like to repeat that the action we took at our lasVses-sion in increasing the preference was due primarily-and I can speak rvith a knowledge of the circumstances which governed it-to the action of the British Government in meeting us, as they did meet us, with respect to an important commodity of trade and commerce. Now that spirit of seeking each other's mutual advantage will, I believe, go further than anything else to help to build up the trade and further the industrial development of the Empire.	.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to tell us what he is reading from?
The Address-Mr. Graham


George Perry Graham: I am reading from the proceedings of the conference, as published in the Times. He will find it also in the official report of the Economic Conference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As tabled?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I think a copy was placed in the box of every hon. member. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), in one of his speeches at one of these small gatherings in Quebec made reference to what your humble servant had said or had not said. The quotation only went this far in the papers.
Now note what Mr. Graham said.
The discussion branched off into something else, into some other line, and I think it is only fair to myself that I should put on Hansard what I said, following up the speech of the Prime Minister, because it is very essential to the people of Canada, to the people of the British Empire, and to the people of the world, that they should understand Canada's attitude on this question of preference, and I believe the attitude taken by the Canadian representatives in London is the attitude of the people of Canada. This is from the official record as well, and occurred at the opening of the preferential discussion-
I do not know that I can say anything further as to the Committee. I am not in favour of Royal Commissions except to do things which we do not want to do or cannot very well do ourselves, but in regard to this question of the Tariff I want to repeat what I said before, this is the proposition made by the British Government, this is the best proposition they can make. I am bound to say that it will help some of the other Dominions more than Canada, but it will help the Empire, and it must not be considered that it is really missionary work among the Dominions because the first thing the British Government must look after, as file first thing that the Dominion Governments would look after, is the interest of their own people, and as far as Canada is concerned, we are glad to accept that proposition without any discussion. If the British Government desire to enlarge it that might help us but it is their business primarily and not ours. After 'll, trade is developed on sentiment to a certain extent, *nd I can assure you that the Canadian people, if they can, on equal terms, would prefer to buy British goods rather than American goods. The feeling at the present time is that our friends across the line, and these are really the only neighbours that we have in trade in close proximity, have raised the bars so high that though the action may be aimed at us it will injure them to a certain extent and eventually they will probably reduce these duties. But that is their business again and not ours. In the meantime we should like to develop wider trade in every respect with otir relatives within the Empire, in ail parts of it, but for practical purposes, as it is your duty to look after the interests of your people, we are compelled at every step to keep in view, as the paramount question, the interests of the people of the Dominion of Canada.
I want to know if that is a fair position to take or not. Where is the criticism? Where

is there something that is worthy of criticism in this attitude? At the very beginning of the discussions on preference we tried to make our position clear. But let me follow that up a little further-and the House, I am sure, will pardon me for reading these extracts, as I find it impossible to place the viewpoint clearly before this House in any other way. Further, it must not be forgotten that the real negotiations at these conferences did not take place in the conference, they took place at private conferences outside. And the Prime Minister (Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King), the former Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) and myself occupied as much time having conferences and holding meetings for discussions tvith the members of the British government as we did in the conferences themselves; and the result, as shown in the records of the Economic Conference, is, to quite a large extent the result of private agreements which werr made binding-so far as conferences can make them binding-when the conference met. 1 wish to read a letter to make it clear that whoever says that the Prime Minister was silent got the wrong tip- from his leader. Here is a copy of a letter which is not even in the official record, it is just correspondence. The House will understand, as I said before, that many private conferences took place, and the result of these conferences was crystalized into resolutions at the conference, if all were agreed. The Prime Minister, acting with his colleagues, had discussed certain matters with Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, the chairman of the Conference, and as a result this correspondence took place. First, we have a letter to the Right Hon. Arthur Neville Chamberlain, M.P., Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the Prime Minister of Canada (Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King) which reads:
Dear Mr. Chamberlain :
I enclose a copy of a letter which I have just sent to Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame as Chairman of the Imperial Economic Conference. It contains, in the form in which we should like to present it, the reply to your request for our opinion of the proposals submitted and for suggestions as to how, in the event of other fiscal changes being made, the interests of Canadian producers would be most effectively furthered by a preference.
I notice in one of the morning papers an intimation that the government is contemplating subsidizing shipping freights for goods coming from Australia and New Zealand, so as to cheapen the cost of placing their main exports on the home market. This probably is nothing more than surmise. If by any chance, however, the government is considering subsidizing shipping freights, I sincerely hope that what may be done in this regard for any of the British Dominions, will be done in like manner for Canada.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.

The Address-Mr. Graham
I desire to read another letter which goes to show what the Prime Minister and his colleagues were doing. They were not always attending dinners, even in the evening, they held a consultation every night and almost every morning as to the views to be expressed before these two conferences; and notwithstanding what may have been stated in the press in any part of Canada, let me say that the views expressed at these conferences by any individual of the Canadian representatives were the views of all three representatives :
The Rilz Hotel, London, October 23, 1923.
The Right Honourable
Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, K.B.E., M.C., M.P., President of the Board of Trade,
Great George Street, S. W. 1.
My dear Sir Philip:	.
My colleagues and I have been considering with care the proposals as to preferential duties put forward by the Government of Great Britain at the meeting of the Conference on October the 9th, and which I discussed rvith you in our conversation at the Board of Trade on Saturday morning.
These proposals, which it was observed were within the framework of the existing fiscal system of Great Britain, will, we believe, be received in Canada with due appreciation as of distinct value to' Dominion producers.
On two subsidiary phases of these proposals, questions have been put for consideration by the Dominion representatives.
(1) The duty on "other dried fruit" is proposed to be imposed on "such fruit, e.g. apples, pears, and peaches, as the Dominion representatives may consider of interest to their trade."
That is in a letter written by the Prime Minister of Canada, and I desire to call the attention of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) to these words

"Apples, pears and peaches."
The dried fruits suggested, in addition to those already included, appear to comprise those in which our producers are chiefly interested.
(2) As to tobacco, two alternative proposals are made, stabilization of the existing duty over a term of years, or an increase of the preference from one-sixth to one-fourth. An increase of the preference would, in our belief, present most in the way of advantage to the producers of tobacco in Canada, As to the course which the British Government and Parliament should follow, we would not venture to express an opinion.
More important are the general issues raised in the statements made by yourself in your presentation of the present proposals, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may quote from the statement made by the Chancellor:
"We want you to tell us whether what we have proposed is going to help you, whether our proposals can in any way be improved, and if so, in what direction. That does not bind us to accept any suggestions that you make to us, any more than you are bound to accept any suggestions we may put to you as to what we might desire by way of increasing our trade with you; but it does give us the opportunity at any rate of realising what the position is, and then it will be for us to say whether, consistently with the interest of our own people here, we can carry out what you have suggested to us."
In response to this welcome overture, I have pleasure in giving you a brief statement of our position.
Canada has been the pioneer in the modern development of preferential trade within the British Empire. She gave us the first preference to British goods in 1897-8, and took the initiative in requesting the abrogation of treaties which stood in the way of Imperial preference. This policy she has steadfastly maintained. The Canadian preference now covers, in varying degrees, practically the whole range of competitive British exports to the Dominion. During the last session of Parliament, a ten per cent, discount on existing duties, constituting a further increase in the prevailing preference, was provided in the case of British goods imported through a Canadian port. Canada has given preference in her own interest ns well as in what she conceived to be the interest of the rest of the Empire. It has never hitherto, in the case of the United Kingdom, been made conditional on the grant of an equal preference in return. We have at all times recognized the importance of conceding to each Government concerned the right to legislate as its own interests might demand, on tariff matters, or, in other words, complete control over its own fiscal policy. Should the British peoples decide at any time that it will be in their own interests as well as what they conceive to be the interests of the Empire to make far-reaching changes in their present fiscal policy, Canada will naturally expect that in the establishment of a tariff, full and adequate consideration would be given, through preferential duties, to the interests of Canada's producers and to the substantial preferences which Canada accords to British goods.
Coming specifically to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we state what preferential duties would be of most advantage to our producers, and noting that the Chancellor quite properly observes it will be for the British Government to consider whether such duties would be in the interest of the British people, I now outline some of the chief Canadian exports to Great Britain in which an effective preference would be of most value. The list, of course, is not exhaustive.
Wheat obviously comes first and easily foremost. It is our most important article of export: the quality is unquestioned; the market is now highly competitive; Canada's export surplus is greater than the total British import.
Next in export importance among the grains comes barley, of which Canada normally produces sixty to seventy million bushels, and exported to the Uqited Kingdom last year about ten million bushels.
Milling, particularly of wheat flour, ranks high among Canadian industries. It is closely and naturally connected with our agricultural industry. The production of flour normally runs about 15 000,000 barrels; last year our exports reached nearly 7.500,000 barrels, of which nearly 5,000,000 came to the United Kingdom. The industry is capable of very great expansion if greater markets are opened. Flour is, of course, a commodity of which the production and milling capacity in Great Britain is large. The effect of a duty would, therefore, depend very largely upon the extent to which the Canadian miller was put in a less advantageous position than the British miller; a duty which was distinctly protectionist rather than preferential would not, in the long run, we believe, be as advantageous to Canadian millers as the existing situation.
Of the other agricultural products, excluding those already covered, the most important are fresh fruits, apples, peaches, pears, and plums, all of which Canada produces in unexcelled quality, and, especially in apples, in very large quantities, with difficulty at present in finding profitable markets (for Canada, a preference on fresh fruits is of much more importance than on dried or preserved fruits); cheese, butter
The Address-Mr. Graham

and eggs, bacon and hams, canned vegetables. Of our fishery products, canned salmon, which is faced with competition from the United States, Japan, and Russia, would at present be most helped by a preference.
I want hon. gentlemen from British Columbia to note these lines, because
4 p.m. the Canadian representatives urged that apples and salmon should be put on this list, and they were.
Of our fishery products, canned salmon, which is faced with competition from the United States, Japan, and Russia, would at present be most helped by a preference.
Our forest products, with due observance of conservation principles, are capable of great expansion, notably lumber, newsprint paper, millboard and straw-board. and chemical and mechanical pulp. Canada has also large resources in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and in the non-metallic minerals, which a substantial preference would assist in developing. Our iron and steel and other metal industries, including agricultural implements and electrical apparatus, our wood-working, rubber and other manufacturing industries would supply a wide range of products.
I understand it is not your desire at this stage to obtain other than a very general statement. On all the above, and any other branch of Canadian industry which might be included within the range of duties to be imposed at any time ,our Government would be pleased to avail itself of the opportunity, as occasion arises ,of making suggestions in further outline and in detail.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
I went to the trouble of reading this because some of the criticisms concerning the Prime Minister are so at variance with the facts that it is but fair to him, to the country, and to this House, that his work at the Imperial Conference and the Imperial Economic Conference should be placed on Hansard in order that the people may appreciate just what service he did perform in the interests of the Dominion.
Now, in addition to the letter which I have read, I took the liberty of presenting a memorandum to the Economic Conference as the enlargement of the. Canadian attitude towards the British preference. I must again ask the indulgence of the House while I read this extract from my presentment to the conference :
I would like to call the attention of the conference to this phase which I am now going to present, but to which I made reference yesterday. That is the allegation that has been made time and again in the press, that Canada is merely a place for the assembling of products of other countries to be forwarded to Great Britain in order to secure the benefit of Great Britain's market.
The statement is sometimes made here in the press and in public discussion that Canadian manufactured goods are not rightly entitled to a preference in the British market, as they are not really manufactured in Canada, but are merely assembled from imported parts and sent over here as Canadian products. Tt nay be pertinent to our discussion to-day to state that this conception is wholly erroneous. It could not survive a visit to Canada's manufacturing centres or a study of 
the statistical reports of the development of our industries.
Our chief manufacturing industries are based primarily on the natural resources and extractive industries of Canada. For example, our two largest manufacturing interests, flour milling and meat packing, represent the two broad divisions of Canadian agriculture; our third largest is lumber; our fourth, pulp and paper; and our fifth smelting. Of scores of our other largest industries-based in part, according to the universal practice, on imported raw materials-it needs but to mention them to note that they are wholly Canadian, as for example our textiles, rubber goods, chemicals, agricultural implements, boots and shoes, etc.
The British people have in general exactly the same measure of assurance that goods which come from Canada and claim preferential tariff rates are distinctively Canadian as the Canadian people have that goods which come from Britain and claim our preferential rate are distinctively British. When Canada first granted a preference to British goods, complaints were raised that German and other goods were coming through Britain and securing the benefit of our preference. It was therefore provided that no goods imported into Canada should be entitled to the preference unless at least 25 per cent of the value consisted of British labour and materials. When this country adopted a limited preferential system a few years ago, it adopted the same rule.
But it is not merely on these general considerations that I wish to rely in repudiating the reckless statements that have been made, I may take the specific items which bulk largest in our export of manufactures to Great Britain and to the Dominions and India. Paper, particularly newsprint, takes a high place in this list. It is a 100 per cent Canadian product, made in Canadian mills from Canadian wood. Wheat flour and rolled oats are also widely exported, again, made in Canadian mills from Canadian wheat and Canadian oats. Sugar now comes first among our exports to Great Britain which receive a preference. While we grow larger quantities of sugar beets in Canada, our raw material in this case comes preponderantly from outside, but the refineries are out and out Canadian; and further the sugar which we use for our exports to Britain is drawn mainly from the British West Indies, to which Canada gives a very substantial preference. Under the British regulations, the preferential rates apply only to sugar produced within the Empire; and by a further application of this principle, which goes beyond anything in our regulations, preference is not accorded on jam or condensed milk, unless the jam or condensed milk is made in Canada, and the sugar used is refined in Canada from raw sugar grown within the Empire. Automobiles are another large factor.
And this is very interesting.
In some instances, our motor factories began as assembling plants, but this stage has long been passed. Our motor factories are substantial and efficient organizations, carrying the process of manufacture from the ground up; it is almost exclusively from these factories that the half million cars which Canadians themselves now use, have been drawn-one car for every four families. Engines, radiators, axles, wheels, springs, sheet metal w'ork, hardware, upholstery, tyres, are all manufactured in Canada; one company draws upon 485 Canadian sources of supply. Of the two cars of Canadian make most largely imported into Britain, not 25 per cent, but, in one case 60 per cent and in the other, 80 per cent of the cost is represented by material and labour of Canadian origin; and in the case of the car chiefly exported to other parts of the Empire, the percentage runs still higher. It is not necessary to go into further detail; the items mentioned constitute the bulk of our export of factory

The Address-Mr. Graham
products; the same story would be told of the great majority of other manufactured exports.
I apologize for taking so much time. I think I have gone far enough into the subject, both generally and in detail, to explain our position. I wish again to say how thoroughly we appreciate what the British Government has seen fit to do in its proposition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the hon minister reading from correspondence?


George Perry Graham: I have read from nothing except what is in the official record.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought my hon. friend said a moment ago that he was reading letters which were not in the record. Perhaps the letters he has read are contained in the correspondence which has already been tabled? I am asking merely for information.


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I ask my hon. friend whether the correspondence-I am not referring to the official record-has been tabled or not?


George Perry Graham: There is no objection to tabling it right away. As I explained at the outset, the letters are not in the official record. What I have just read is an extract from the official record.
I mentioned a moment ago that what might appear to be a preference on our flour would probably be no preference at all. For example, this commodity is now allowed free into Great Britain. British millers are capable of milling their own flour. Suppose Great Britain imposed a duty on flour, then, even if Canada were accorded preferential treatment, our millers would not be in as good a position in the British market as they are at the present time, because what appeared to be a preference in favour of Canadian flour would in fact be a great benefit to British millers, a punishment to our millers, and a greater punishment to foreign millers. So your representatives thought it was in the interests of the flour industry of Canada to urge that unless a duty were put on foreign flour, and Canadian flour still remained free, it would not be preferential treatment to the Canadian producers at all, but would leave them in a worse position than before.
With respect to motor cars, this industry has greatly increased its exports to Great Britain under the preferential treatment given to Canada. Under the preferential tariff our trade has increased most in three commodities-sugar, moving picture films, and motor cars. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I read a few figures to show that the preference accorded by Great Britain is of
great benefit to the Dominion. This table has been prepared by the Bureau of Statistics and shows that during the past five years our exports have increased to a very substantial extent. For instance, our export of automobiles has increased from a value of 8713,920 in 1919 to $9,110,752 in 1923; sugar, from $3,185,853 in 1919 to $13,641,327 in 1923; unmanufactured tobacco, from $3o,911 in 1919 to $248,374 in 1923; moving picture films, from $130,953 in 1919 to $707,964 in 1923. There is no question that a preferential tariff, if Great Britain saw her way clear to give it to us. would be of aid to Canada, but as I said before, the fiscal policy of Great Britain is in the hands of the electors of Great Britain. While we are glad to accept a preference, as we have given them a preference, the fact still remains that so long as the great British market is wide open to the Canadian people, and until they see fit to give us a preference, we will meet our competitors in that market on the present terms.
I know it is tedious reading, and I fear that it will be tedious listening, but I think it would be wise to put on Hansard the specific proposals that the representatives of Great Britain made at this Conference, so that the information may be available to hon. members who may wish to deal with the matter among their constituents or elsewhere. These were not the original proposals, but they were the complete proposals, including the additions,-apples and several other things-which are of particular interest to Canada and which were made largely at the request of the Canadian representatives. If hon. gentlemen will refer to page 241 they will find a summary of the proposals. I quote:
Dried Fruit. .
At present dried figs, raisins and plums (includes apricots) are dutiable at the rate of 10s. 6d. per cwt., if from foreign countries and enjoy if of Empire origin a preference of one-sixth, i.e., of Is. 9d.
per cwt.
It is proposed to admit these goods free of duty from the Empire so that Empire raisins, figs and plums will enjoy a preference of 10s. 6d. per cwt.
Currants.
At present dried currants are dutiable at the rate of 2s. per cwt. and enjoy a preference of one-sixth, which on the existing duty only amounts to 4d.
His Majesty's government are prepared to offer free admission to Empire currants and to consider what increase in the duty on foreign currants may be necessary to make the preference effective, such increase to come into force at a future date to be agred upon.
Other Dried Fruit.
At present there is no duty on any other dried fruit, but whilst continuing to admit such Empire dried fruit free, His Majesty's government would propose to impose a duty of 10s. 6d. per cwt. on such foreign dried fruit (e.g., apples, pears and
The Address-Mr. Graham

peaches) as the Dominion representatives may consider of interest to their trade.
Other Preserved Fruits.
Preserved fruits other than those mentioned above are not dutiable save in respect of sugar contents, if any. It is proposed in addition to any such duty on the sugar contents to impose an all-round duty of 5s. per cwt. on the principal forms of preserved fruit not at present dutiable, except fruit pulp for jam manufacture, which will remain free of duty. All such fruit will be admitted free from the Empire. Sugar.
At present sugar is dutiable according to a scale dependent	on the polarisation	of	the	sugar with abasis rate	of 25s. 8d. per cwt.	on	fully	refined sugar.a	sugar e*joys a preference of one-sixth or
4s. 3$d. per cwt., being nearly a halfpenny a pound on refined sugar.
It is not possible at present to offer an increase in ns preference, but His Majesty's government are ready to guarantee that if the duty is reduced the preference shall for a period of ten years not fall with it but be maintained at its present rate of nearly jd.	per pound so long	at	least	as the dutyon foreign	sugar does not fall	below that level.
Tobacco.
At present the duty on tobacco varies according to kind, being of course higher on cigars than on unmanufactured tobaccos. On the latter it is about 8s. 2d. per lb., on which the Empire enjoys a preference of -one-sixth, or, say, on raw tobacco of Is. 4d.
His Majesty's government would be prepared to adopt the course proposed in regard to sugar, i.e., to stabilise the existing preference for a term of years or alternatively they are prepared to increase the preference to one-quarter, i.e., to about 2s. on unmanufactured tobacco at present rates, the amount of the preference of course varying as the basis varies.
As a result of consultation with the oversea representatives concerned, it has been decided to adopt the second alternative, i.e., to raise the 'preference from one-sixth to one-quarter.
Wine.
The proposals are:
1* To double the existing preference of 2s. per gallon on the duty of 6s. per gallon on wines of a strength exceeding 30' and not exceeding 42'.	The
rate of duty on such wines coming from the Empire would thus becofne 2s. per gallon.
2.	To increase from 30 per cent to 50 per cent the preference on the surtax of 12s. 6d. per gallon on sparkling wine.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) is not here, after his remarks of last night, to hear about the decision of the conference on wine. Now, coming to something which is of particular interest to Canada-and this is from the official record again; what I am going to read now was not included in the first proposals-


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, J understand the statement was made that by reason of the preference which Canada ne w has in the British market, enormous Quantities of automobiles were exported to that country from Canada, also sugar and some other items. Would the hon. member tell us wLut the tariff is against these articles? I think the statement was

made that the British market was wide open to Canada, and also that Britain had no tariff; that she was a free trade country. How comes it that Canada has a preference on these articles, and if eo what is the tariff against them?


George Perry Graham: I have not the tariff at
my hand. Great Britain has a tariff, in some instances, but where Canadian products are allowed to enter that market free and a tariff is imposed against similar goods from other countries, that p* the essence of protection in our favour.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It is the existing tariff that I am asking about.


George Perry Graham: I have not the existing
tariff with me. I was reading that quotation from the memorandum to show that the British preference was 01 some use to us and that it undoubtedly might be of further use to us.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: May I as!
whether the regulations defining the percentage of manufacture i.] Canada required in the case of automobiles exported from this country to Great Britain have been somewhat modified, and whether greater freedom is allowed in the bringing of parts of automobiles from outside into Canada and the shipping of them across as Canadian made?


George Perry Graham: The percentage of Canadian labour and manufacture that must enter into the exported product is still necessary to entitle it to the preference in the British market.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it defined to
w-hat it must be in regard to automobiles?


George Perry Graham: It must be 25 per cent,


William Findlay Maclean: And 75 per cent is made up in Canada, is that, the idea?


George Perry Graham: The law in Great Britain is that at least 25 per cent of Canadian labour or raw material must be included in any imports that get the benefit of the preferential tariff, and the same applies in Canada in the case of goods coming from Great Britain. As a ^matter of fact, as I tried to point out a few moments ago, in the automobile industry of Canada the amount of Canadian labour and raw material included is far in excess of 25 per cent. In the case of one factory it is,
I think, 85 per cent, and in the case of another, 60. I doubt whether any of them run as low as 25 per cent. Year by year the

The Address-Mr. Graham
Canadian manufacturers are including in their products a greater percentage of Canadian labour and Canadian raw material.
Now, if I may be permitted to go on, I was coming to a very interesting part of these proposals. The next reference is to raw apples, which were not included in the first proposals made. The memorandum says:
Raw Apples.
U is proposed to levy a duty of 5s. per cwt. on raw apples of foreign origin and to admit raw apples from the Empire free of duty as at present.
Canned Salmon and Canned Lobster, Cray Fish and Crabs.
It is proposed that a duty of 10s. per cwt. shall be imposed on foreign canned salmon and canned lobster, Cray fish and crabs, and that these goods shall be admitted free of duty from the Empire.
Honey. .
It is proposed that a duty of 10s. per cwt shall be imposed on foreign honey, and that honey of Empire origin shall continue to be admitted free of duty.
Lime, Lemon and other Fruit Juices.
The proposal of His Majesty's government is that a duty at the rate of 6d. per gallon shall be imposed on foreign lime and lemon juices and His Majesty's government would consider a list of other fruit juices which the dominions regarded as of interest to their trade: Fruit juices from the Empire will continue to be admitted free of duty.
I must apologize to the House for reading these extracts, but I did not see how otherwise I could possibly place the case of Canada before the House as it was presented at thf Imperial Economic Conference.
Now, I come to a questipn which is of vital importance to the Dominion of Canada, and that is the cattle embargo. I trust that the stock raisers of Canada will not consider me bumptious in attempting to deal with this question. Let me say at this juncture, lest I forget, that the representatives of the Canadian Civil Service and others who accompanied the delegation to London need not take second place to similar representatives of any country in the world. I think it is only just to the Civil Service of this country to say that every man behind us giving us the necessary information w'as the equal, at least, of his counterpart in the British Civil Service and in the service of the other dominions. We prized their work. Without their aid nothing could have been accomplished of any consequence, and what would have been accomplished would have been done in a rather slovenly manner.
The cattle embargo is not a new thing. For thirty years, except in one or two instances, Great Britain has kept her markets closed to the cattle of the Dominion of Canada. Time and again it has been pointed out by representatives of the Canadian government that this embargo was merely a subterfuge,
and I use the word with its full meaning. The reason given for keeping our cattle out of the British market was the fear of contagion, while as a matter of fact, Canadian cattle have been free from any disease that w'ould bar them out from the British market for many, many years. That was admitted long years ago, and in 1917 an effort was made by the Canadian government and, I think I can safely say, a pledge was given-by the British government, to have the embargo removed; but is was not brought about. In 1922 the Finance Minister and the present Minister of Justice in this government while in London came to a distinct understanding with members of the British government that an act would be introduced to provide for the admission of Canadian cattle into the British market. The terms of the act were agreed upon. There were, as a matter of fact, two acts. One provided as I have just intimated, and the other act, which was to "be brought into force by proclamation or by order in council, provided for the admission of Canadian breeding cattle into the Old Land.
The first act was introduced in the British House of Commons, but an amendment was made to it while it was passing through parliament which nullified to a great extent its provisions. This amendment made it possible for an inspection to be held, and nullified to a certain extent the provisions of the act. In addition to that, the act which was to be brought into force by proclamation or by order in council never was so brought into force. As a matter of fact, we found when in Great Britain that the Minister of Agriculture in the Baldwin government was in our opinion, unalterably opposed to the admission of Canadian cattle into the British market; we may as well use plain language. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and myself were accused of being brutal in our frankness in dealing with this matter. I shall not trespass on the time of the House to read what we said in the Economic Conference but we were both roundly thumped in the London press for talking so strongly. We placed the viewpoint of the Canadian stock raiser before them in no uncertain way. Now the act is amended, providing for inspection that was never anticipated when the act was introduced or when the arrangement was made between the Finance Minister and the present Minister of Justice. And how was this inspection carried on? It was pointed out by your representatives at the Economic Conference, as a sample, that a load of cattle, of one hundred head, if I remember correctly, were shipped across the ocean, half of them
The Address-Mr. Graham

being landed at one British port and the other half at another. One-half of the cargo was admitted as stockers and the other half were nearly all rejected as being too fat. Thus by inspection the British government took into its own hands the power to tell the farmers of the Old Land that they could not buy the Canadian cattle they wanted to buy, although the British government had agreed with the Canadian representatives that they should be able to buy them. At the conference I had a number of photographs in my hand, and to my surprise some of these photographs showed that some of our Canadian cattle were rejected because they were too thin. That was the reason given in that case-these Canadian cattle that the British farmers wanted to fatten were rejected because they were too thin. It made a clear case that what the British government had in the back of its head was the protection of the cattle industry in Great Britain and the prevention of our cattle entering that market.
The injustice to the Canadian cattle producer was two-fold. Not only was there an injustice to the cattle raiser who sold his stock to be sent across the ocean, in that they might be slaughtered when they got there and he get only half price for them, involving a great loss on every head, but another injustice was done. The cattle that were considered stockers here, only partially fat and capable of being finished for a month on the other side, were slaughtered on the dock without being allowed to go to an abattoir, and this half-fed beef rvas sold on the British market as Canadian beef. Thus the reputation of our beef wras injured, and a monetary loss caused in the slaughter of cattle that should have been still further fed. Remember too that Canadian cattle slaughtered bore the official stigma of disease although they had no disease.


Donald Sutherland: What number of cattle were shipped from Canada during the year the embargo was off, and what number the year previously?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Agriculture will give me that information in a moment. I also want to point this out in connection with the cattle embargo. When the question was introduced at the conference, no progress was made. I am afraid we were not in a temper to take excuses on this cattle embargo question. The case was compared by the Minister of Agriculture to a license given to a picture show, that it really did not mean what it said, that while the language of the act was quite plain to us and meant a certain definite thing, it was never intended to be

enforced in that manner. As a matter of fact if the regulations had remained as they were when the Economic Conference met, Canadian cattle, stockers and all, would probably have been shut out of the British market.


Donald Sutherland: Slaughtered when they got there.


George Perry Graham: They would slaughter them on the dock. They would not even go to the abattoir. We met in several subsidiary conferences, which were found to be much more helpful in straightening out some of the difficulties than discussion in the open conference. Let me say this in passing-and I am not passing nearly rapidly enough- that our former Governor General, the Duke of Devonshire, was a friend of Canada every inch of the way, and we owe a great deal to him for his efforts in straightening out this difficulty. We met in conference on several occasions and it was finally decided, after plain talk had been indulged in across the table, that the Minister of Agriculture was to place in writing with the Prime Minister of Canada what had been agreed on. I am afraid I will have to weary the House over this correspondence because it is not as yet on record, but this is really what was agreed on between the Minister of Agriculture of Great Britain and the Canadian representatives. Here is a letter, which was written by the Prime Minister of Canada:
The Ritz Hotel,
London, November 8, 1923.
Dear Sir Robert:
I am in receipt of your note of November 5th including memorandum re your proposed administration of the Importation of Animals Act 1922, insofa! as it affects the admission of stores from Canada.
Your memorandum sets forth substantially the conclusions reached at the meeting in the Colonial office on October 31st. If your inspectors carry out the instructions contained in sub-clauses 1 and 2 of clause (b) of section three of your memorandum, we believe the export of store cattle from Canada to Great Britain can be carried on with quite a measure of success, and we wish to express our appreciation of the proposed changes in administration of the act.
In view of your Government's definite decision not to amend the law, or place the order for breeding cattle before parliament, in accepting the proposed changes outlined in your memorandum, and the proposal for reciprocal trade in pure bred cattle, we would like to have it clearly understood that Canada does not in any way abate her claim for the complete removal of the embargo against any of her cattle, and she will from time to time continue to press for the same treatment, in the matter of " Diseases of Animals," as she is accorded by other countries.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Sir Robert Sanders, M.P.,
Minister of Agriculture,
Whitehall Place, S.W.I.

The Address-Mr. Graham
The memorandum follows. I think I ought to place it on Hansard because it is really an agreement with us that was arrived at by conference, and this letter of the Prime Minister of Canada confirming it, with the warning, mark you, that Canada did not accept it as a final solution, but would from time to time press her claim to have her cattle, and all her cattle, admitted into the British market:
Canadian Store Cattle
Memorandum by the Minister of Agriculture
1.	At the meeting at the Colonial Office on the 31st ultimo I promised to put into writing the proposals I made to meet the points raised by the Canadian representatives as to the interpretation and administration of the words in section 1 (8) of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, which inter alia define store cattle as castrated or spayed animals " which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter."
2.	It was made clear that the British Government are not prepared to propose any amendment of the Act in this respect, but they are ready and anxious to co-operate in arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the manner in which the definition should be interpreted and administered, having regard always to their responsibility to Parliament to see that the law is observed.
3.	In view of that responsibility the Ministry of Agriculture cannot surrender the final word in deciding whether any particular animals come within the facilities afforded by the Act and as to the conditions under which their movement should be licensed out of the landing place. But subject to this I am prepared to give instructions to the Ministry's Inspectors as follows:-
(a)	In the case of any cattle which the Inspector is satisfied can reasonably be regarded as suitable for feeding for a further period of not less than 28 days before slaughter, the inspector will on application grant a license for their removal from the landing place to any special authorized market or other premises, subject only to the conditions embodied in the Schedule to the Importation of Animals Act, 1922.
(b)	In the case of cattle where the Inspector is not so satisfied, the Inspector will on application either
(1)	Grant a license for their removal to a slaughterhouse for slaughter with such conditions as may be considered necessary to secure their slaughter thereat and will not, as at present, require them to be slaughtered at the landing place, or,
(2)	If the owner of the cattle is prepared to undertake that they will be fed for not less than 28 days before slaughter, the inspector will grant a license for their removal to premises other than a slaughter-house subject to such conditions as may be considered necessary to secure that the undertaking will be observed.
In either case the additional conditions imposed by the Schedule will necessarily apply.
4. Cattle for which a license is not applied for or in respect of which a license cannot be granted in accordance with these instructions will have to be slaughtered at the landing place as heretofore.
5.	It must be understood that cattle which have not complied with the conditions applicable to stores, i.e. three days isolation and supervision in Canada and supervision by a veterinary surgeon on the ship, must continue to be landed at an imported animals wharf and not at an imported animals landing place and will accordingly be slaughtered in the wharf. The ministry
has no power to allow such cattle to be moved from the wharf to a slaughter-house.
6.	I make this offer with the desire of meeting as far as possible the case made by the Canadian representatives, consistently with my primary duty to safeguard the interests of British agriculturists, but I couple it with the request to the Canadian Government that they on their part will co-operate with us in carrying out the provisions of the Act and that they will give instructions to their officers not to certify as store cattle animals which cannot reasonably be regarded as suitable for feeding for the period above referred to.
7.	The Ministry of Agriculture has no desire whatever to whittle away by administrative means the privileges granted by Parliament to Canada for the importation of her store cattle, and the Ministry is confident that with goodwill on both sides the provisions of the Act can be carried out satisfactorily. It was inevitable that some difficulties would arise in the early stages, but there is every reason to hope that the trade will soon adapt itself to the conditions so that it can be carried on to the mutual advantage of both countries. The Ministry of Agriculture will spare no effort to secure this result, and I am confident that the Canadian Department of Agriculture will do the same.
R. L. Sanders.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
November. 1923.


Mr. WHITE:: Mr. Manning Doherty was credited last year with being the means of the removal of the cattle embargo. Just where did his activities end?


George Perry Graham: I do not know what effect his activity had on the minds of the British people. We did not encounter it over there.
There is only one other point to which I will refer in connection with the Economic Conference, although there are many questions of interest, and that is this: The Canadian representatives declined to become a party to the establishment of a permanent Economic Committee. I think the same thing was proposed in 1921, and was not then adhered to by Canada. The position that Canada's representative took, and I think it was right in both cases, is that a conference is a conference and nothing else. We were there from different parts of the Empire to discuss problems of mutual interest; the conference is not an executive body at all. It makes no laws, it makes suggestions, an economic committee would have to have something to do. And something that the Economic Committee might attempt to carry out might be altogether at variance with what people throughout the Dominion wanted such a body to look after. It is said that if you get one live man, and give him a chair, a desk, and a pencil, he will soon surround himself with a staff and some work, but there was nothing which Canada wished to refer to such a body as an economic committee. We were further established in this view during the discussion because the representatives from one of the overseas dominions when asked by myself "What subject would
The Address-Mr. Graham

you refer to this body" replied "Well, the effects, for example, of the dumping clause in tariffs might be referred". Of course, when that suggestion was made it began to get into the minds of Canada's representatives what possibly might be meant. There might be, perhaps not in the mind of any person except ourselves, the thought that it might prove the introduction of the thin end of the wedge of having other people interfere with our fiscal property.
So far as Canada is concerned, whether she is right or wrong Canada proposes to manage her own affairs, and make her own fiscal policy. The government in charge of Canada's affairs is subject only to the electors of the Dominion of Canada. That being the case, we saw nothing for the economic committee to do that would be a benefit to us. All the other overseas committees of the British Empire approved of the establishment of such a committee. However, the new government, giving the reason which Canada gave for not establishing such a committee, has declined to establish an economic committee.
I will not deal with this matter any longer. I hate to acknowledge that I have got to the time when my age is referred to. Coming into the House to-day I heard two of the younger members say "the Old Man is going to talk to-day." Being in that category, without scolding or lecturing, perhaps the young men of this House will allow me to say a few words from a long experience. I have been in public life a great many years, and I am not making any insinuations that I intend to quit. I want to take this opportunity of saying two or three words. It is a wholesome sign to see the young men taking part in public life. We are not, or at least we should not be, in the. frame of mind in which we were in before the war. If the war accomplished anything, it has taught us to have a broader view and an outlook that includes others besides ourselves. One word of advice I would give to the younger men in this House is this. Do not be too pessimistic. That feeling grows on one just as rapidly as the measles at high tide. You may allow yourselves to get into a groove where everything seems to threaten danger and there is no way out of the difficulty, because the rut gets deeper the further you go. As I said, the war taught us some lessons, and one of them is this: that bravery and courage are needed; they are needed now by us as much as they were needed a few years ago in Europe. We should not shirk our responsibilities but should bear them, as I know we will. There are so many

more things in life that have a bright side and a golden tinge than those that have a sombre side If you can-and I am speaking now to the younger men-turn your attention more to the bright things in life, cultivate the spirit of optimism, even under great difficulties, and you will be suprised to find how this will grow on you.
Every day as we rise in the morning we will find that life is full of brightness and there is no burden cast upon us that we are not able to bear. There is another thing I would like to say to young men just entering public life. Do not, under any consideration, either for party's sake or personal vengeance, allow yourself in your public duties to handle the muck rake. I have been in public life a great many years. I see the pathway strewn with the wrecks of men who tried to climb into power and prominence over the ruined reputations of men whom they attempted to assassinate. Sometimes that kind of thing will succeed temporarily, but eventually it recoils on the men who handles the muck far more seriously than the man for whom the muck was intended. We in Canada have no need to despair. If we value our assets and liabilities as any business man does, we have no right to complain. The liabilities of the Dominion of Canada all told are something over three billion dollars, while the wealth of Canada is estimated at twenty-three billions. If any man in business life could show such a balance sheet as that to his bank, he would be given all the credit imaginable, up to the limit of his wealth. True, we cannot count Canada's assets in the same way, but that is one of the bright sides of life and one of the bright pictures. Our taxes are high. We are going through a time of depression. But our fathers went through times of depression. The men who made the Dominion of Canada in years gone by came to this country, cut down the trees, built their little log cabins, clearing half an acre, then an acre, two acres, three acres, four acres, until they got a hundred acres cleared, and the families they raised are now among those who are aged, or are gone. But they left stock able and sufficiently courageous to face any difficulty that ever can confront them in this country. Then, with reference to the young men who have come to us, I may be allowed to say a word that may be personal. Notwithstanding all the discouragements, there is not a young man or a comparatively young man in this House who came to Canada from elsewhere who to-day would return to the country from which he came. That is a fairly good test, I imagine. There are opportunities here. We must buckle on our

The Address-Mr. Brown
armour, and refuse to become members of the Ancient Order of United Gravediggers. We must stand erect, look to the future, take lessons from the past. As strong Canadians, members of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, let us march forward as men worthy of our fathers, realizing that the Creator has given to us in this country of ours a heritage second to none in the whole world.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I am sure
we are all inspired by the words we have just listened to from one of the elder members of the House. I wondered, however, if he has not made a mistake in thinking it was he who was referred to as "the Old Man." I do not know, but I am inclined to think that some of the younger members who sit behind me might have referred to myself as the old man who was to speak to-day. I remember that on one occasion, when visiting some of my French friends, one of them spoke of me as an old man. "Why," I said, "I am only a boy." "Well," he said, "your hair he lie on you."
I desire to call attention for a short time to some of the remarks made in this House and some of the opinions expressed to which I think sufficient consideration has not been given. I desire, first of all, to direct a few remarks to the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) who spoke last night. He was wonderfully jubilant, evidently expressing the sentiments of the group to which he is attached. His jubilance seems to result from the Ontario elections held last summer. I am not disposed to minimize the significance of by-elections, or any elections. I recognize that sometimes straw's show the way the wind blows. But perhaps we do not get any great distance in discussing these matters. However, just in order to throw a little cold water on the hon. gentleman, I wish to call attention to the fact that there were elections held somewhere else. It will be remembered that there is a Progressive government in Manitoba, and some cabinet reconstruction last fall necessitated two constituencies being opened and by-elections held. The Conservative party in that province had been carrying on a campaign, all through the summer, trying to bring together its shattered remnants; for in no place is it more shattered than in Manitoba. They carried on a campaign of misrepresentation such as they did against the Drury government, and they hoped to meet with an equal degree of success. The time came when two constituencies w'ere opened and ministers were to be returned. Instead of following what is now the generally accepted custom and allowing these ministers to be returned by acclamation, 27
they considered it a good time to put the matter to the test and see whether the campaign had had any effect. I can speak for one of those provincial constituencies, the one in which I live, and I can say that never was a more determined effort mhde to capture a by-election than was made at that time. The results, however, were undoubtedly most disappointing to the men who were looking forward to them. In one constituency the Conservative candidate lost his deposit, while in the other the candidate saved it only by a small handful of votes. The result was in a large measure attributable to the fact that in Manitoba the people have long memories and they connected these things with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke of the other day as a love feast that was being held at Saskatoon. Perhaps I might issue a word of warning to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the words that were once used in a warning that was given a king of Israel:
Lo thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it.
I think the application is very obvious. So that there are indications that seem to point in the other direction. There is a story I heard last summer from the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) that seems to illustrate the situation. A traveller was in the state of Texas and it was one of those periods to which the prairie countries also seem to be subject. There were great winds blowing and there were storms of dust in the air. This traveller inquired whether there were any cyclones in Texas. "No," said the man to whom he asked the question; "two or three came along one time and tried to start something, but these steady winds blew Hades out of them." Now, what hon. gentleman have taken for the steady wind is simply the little whirlwind that passes over the prairies; they forgot about the great wind that is still blowing in the direction of progress, and will continue to blow.
The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) made another unfortunate allusion: he introduced at this stage the subject of church union. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a subject that will engage the most serious attention of this House at the proper time, and it will call for all the sane judgment we possess. We shall require to approach it with all the Christian tolerance and charity that we can command; and by this time the hon. member, I think, will recognize that it was a piece of gross impropriety to bring forward a matter on which parties will necessarily be divided

The Address-Mr. Brown

and make it the subject of an attack on the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party.
I desire to direct a few remarks to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr, Marler) in connection with some of the subjects he discussed. With some of his opinions I am entirely in accord; with others I must differ. With the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), I think that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George for the clear analysis he made of our present financial position. We are greatly indebted to him, and I say this because I wish to point out later the particular field in which I think the hon. member will find great scope for the ability he undoubtedly possesses to handle large problems and discuss large matters. He made one reference to. the fact that there are still outstanding some $915,000,000 of tax-free war bonds. In my judgment that was one of the worst iniquities ever perpetrated on the people of Canada. I quote here a short extract from an editorial that appeared in the Citizen of last week:
During the war, people were urged in many patriotic orations to give, or to save, till it hurt. Most people responded earnestly: usually, the people who could least afford it imposed the severest privation upon themselves. Some bought war bonds sincerely under the stimulus of patriotism. Upwards of 1,000 million dollars in tax-free war bonds passed into the hands ultimately of a comparatively small number of investors who enjoyed the double thrill of patriotism and profit.
Put side by side with that the sacrifices of those men who, as the Minister of Railways pointed out, took the field in
5 p.m. our defence. It is not yet too late in the day to indicate the contrast which we have frequently found in this connection. I had something to do with selling some of these war bonds and I have dis-tictly in mind one man who borrowed $500 at eight per cent interest and invested it in war bonds. Put that side by side with the horse-buying scandals and the scandals connected with the purchasing of drugs and surgical supplies, in which people of Ottawa were in some degree interested. Put these two things side by side and then let us remember that those people who profited during those times, largely the people who made money out of war contracts, are now coming out in opposition to the income tax. In my judgment the income tax must be retained. I have no patience with those who advocate that we should discard that system of taxation. It is at least an attempt to get money from those who have it and not from the people who have it not; for upon the people who have had little in the past the great burden has

lain. It is true the Income Tax Act must be revised. Certain amendments have been suggested since this parliament met and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has refused to accept them under the plea that the entire act must be revised. I agree that it needs revision. We must retain it, but there are some points in which it can be improved. Let me suggest one or two. More consideration must be given than at present to the source of income. A distinction must be made between salaries and investments. My present disposition is to agree with what was said by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that industry might be freed from that particular tax, but that personal incomes must be made the subject of taxation. One of the grossest inequalities that we find in the system as at present administered-and I have talked this matter over with some of the officials who are now administering the act -is found in the fact that in some cases husband and wife are classed as having a joint income while in other cases their incomes are treated separately. In one case they can claim only the individual statutory exemption, and in the other case they can claim exemption both for husband and wife. Take an illustration. A farmer and his wife-and sometimes all the family-are engaged in work on the farm, and their income is considered as joint. They have an income estimated at $2,500. If there are no other exemptions claimed than the statutory $2,000, they will pay income tax on $500. On the other hand, I have cases in mind-cases brought to my attention by one of the heads of the department that came under his notice-one, for instance of a man and his wife living in Winnipeg. They have no family. They live in a little suite and are able to take in all the city amusements. He is earning $2,500, and his wife is earning another $1,800 as a stenographer. They can both claim exemption up to $2,000 because they are married. If we accept the words in our marriage ritual, "Whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder", and "With all my wordly goods I thee endow", then I think for taxation purposes we must accept the principle that the income of both husband and wife must under all circumstances be considered as joint income.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) drew attention to the fact-and I do not dispute it for a moment-that our farmers are paying only 2 per cent of the $46,000,000 income tax collections. I do not know why the hon. member introduced this into his speech. I think he is too much of a gentleman

The Address-Mr. Brown
to insinuate that the farmers are evading the tax. I do not think he meant to imply that at all. Then why did he introduce it? It seems to me it does nothing to strengthen his case, while it does a great deal to strengthen ours, when we submit that you can offer no better proof of the things for which we have been contending than just that fact, that we are not in a position to pay any bigger share of the income tax.
Now I come to the National Railway System, and it is on this particular matter that I see fit to differ with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) this afternoon placed before us in a very clear way certain facts relating to our National railways. I wish to present the subject to the House from the standpoint of the common people throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and in speaking as I propose to do I believe I shall be voicing the views of the great majority of our people. I regret that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George marred his speech, as I thought, by his reference to the government ownership of railways. Of course, he has the right to express his opinion on this subject as on any other. But it is frequently urged upon us that we should consider facts and not theories, and in this particular matter we have passed the academic stage of discussion and must consider the position simply as it is. During his speech a question was asked by some hon. gentleman behind me, "How did we get the railways?" Perhaps that was not a pertinent question at the time, but a perfectly pertinent question would have been: How does the hon. member propose to get rid of the National railways? On that particular subject we have not yet been given any light, and I think his address is weak in that particular, as is everything that is said by those who oppose government ownership of railways, simply because they have not offered us any alternative. Let me illustrate the point by another story. Two Irishmen, Pat and Mike, were out in the bush. They were some distance apart, and Mike heard a great row going on. He ran towards the noise and found Pat wrestling with a wildcat. "Hold on Pat! Hold on Pat!" "Bedad!" exclaimed Pat, "I can't let him go!" That seems to be somewhat the situation in which we find ourselves in regard to our government railways. We have not had indicated to us any plan by which we can let them go without finding ourselves in a position where our last state would be worse than our first. Are we asking too much then when we request hon. gentle-27i
men who are opposed to government ownership of railways to present to us some reasonable proposition as to how we are to get rid of them, and on what terms? There is another story going the rounds of the press which I think is quite apropos in this connection. A coloured preacher was in the habit of using big words. His congregation disapproved of the practice, and they sent a delegation to remonstrate with.him. In his defence the preacher said, "Don't I argify and sputify?" "Yes," replied the delegation, "you do argify and sputify, but you don't show wherein." Now, in my judgment, we have a right to put that proposition up to the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and all others who take a similar position, that they at least should "show us wherein." Let us suppose, for instance, that we went to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or to any other corporation or syndicate, with a proposition that they should take over national railroads with all their encumbrances. They would very likely regard it somewhat as a man would regard a leap-year proposal from a widow with ten children. But even if they did consent to talk the proposition over, what is the first thing they would do? They would probably go to the Railway Commission and ask for an increase of rates to enable them to carry the burden, and that benevolent body would very likely grant the request. What would that mean? It would mean if we are to have uniform rates-all over Canada, that we would have the same rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the situation for the railways would be lovely. But supposing they agreed to take over our system at a fair valuation, then we would certainly have to meet the problem which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) says is so difficult-the problem of capitalization. Some figure would have to be arrived at to represent the value of our national railways, and the difference between this figure and the original capitalization would have to be put over to the general debt of the country, where I think it should be. There has been a good deal of controversy in the past as to who is responsible for our present railway situation. Let us suppose that former governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have been guilty of bad railroad financing. The consequences of that mistaken policy ought not to be borne by the users of the road; it ought to be borne by all the people of Canada. And so I say again to those who condemn government ownership of railways, let them show wherein.
Now, do we want to get rid of our National Railway system? The hon. member for South
The Address-Mr. Brown

York (Mr. Maclean) I am sure would say, No, most emphatically, and what he says I am certain the people of Canada would say. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) told the House last night that during the recess he had attended a conference in Kansas City. I remember that on his return to Winnipeg he met a group of the organized farmers who were gathered together there and made an informal report respecting the conference. I was very much interested in what he said. He reported that during his visit he had come in contact with a great many of the leading business men of that part of the United States, bankers and others standing high in all departments of big business. They told him that they were greatly interested in watching the railroad situation in Canada. They put it this way: "We believe you have the ideal system. You have forty-five per cent of your roads under private ownership and fifty-five per cent under government ownership. We think that is better than if they were all under government ownership, because no matter how efficiently the railroads were operated there would be no standard of comparison, and it would therefore be easy to raise prejudice against the system and convince the people that the enterprises were not being efficiently managed. But when the government-owned road is placed side by side with such a system as the Canadian Pacific Railway there is an incentive to good work and to efficient management on the part of both institutions." It seemed to me that there was much food for thought in that statement of view. On the other hand they said: "If the railroads were all under private ownership you would be in the grip of a monopoly just as we are." It may be interesting to know that there are about 150 different railway systems in the United States under private ownership, and their rates are higher than ours. I thought I had brought with me a clipping from a New York paper which indicated the keen interest that the United States financial people were taking in our roads, but I find that I have not got it among my papers.
We are glad to know that the national railways are prosperous. We are glad to know that there is improvement in the whole system.-We are glad to believe that we have at the head of the system a man of outstanding ability. Sometimes people say, "You are treating and speaking of Sir Henry Thornton as if he were a superman." Not at all; we are thinking of him as the equal of the men who have "been at the head of the great Canadian Pacific Railway system-Van Home, Shaughnessy and Beatty-of the men who are making an outstanding success of that en-
	.
terprise; we are thinking of him simply as their equal and nothing more. As I said in speaking on this matter last session, we have given Sir Henry Thornton the biggest job that ever has been given to any man in the business world. I think he recognizes that, and I believe he is big enough to rise to his opportunity and to make a success of these roads, with resulting enhancement of his own reputation and general benefit to the whole of our country. Let me say to the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot), I think it was, who wanted to sell the National Railways for a dollar, and to other members who are opposed to government ownership of railways-and I know I can speak most emphatically for all this group and for the people we represent in the prairie provinces-that the people of Canada are not going to put the National Railways on the bargain counter.


Mr. LANCTOT:: That may be the case
for your part of the country, but it is not the case for my people.


John Livingstone Brown: Well, a little education
will perhaps change their point of view.


Roch Lanctôt: lou may come to my
constituency of you like, and I wish you all the success that you may get.


John Livingstone Brown: 
Mr. CALDWELL:: When was the reduction made?


John Livingstone Brown: The reduction complained of was made in 1922 so that the mill in question had been burned down fully five years before the budget effecting that reduction was presented to the House. Can you blame us when we sometimes question the statements made in the literature that we receive? We want to know the facts; we want to deal fairly with the people, and we insist that they deal fairly with us.
Here is another. I have a clipping here from a little paper published in Winnipeg called Canadian Farm Implements. This article from which I quote was written in reply to an address given by President J. B. Reynolds of the Ontario Agricultural College, at a meeting of the Canadian Society of Technical Agriculturists. He made some reference to farm implements to which the writer of this article took exception, and here is what he said:
Despite this fact, and the professor did not tell this to the technicians, at the present time the cost of all the necessary implements for a half-section farm are four per cent lower in price than they were in October, 1914. True, some implements cost more than they did then, but this is offset by the fact that other implements cost a great deal less.
When I read that statement first in the Farmers' Sun, which quoted it, I was'amazed knowing the facts as I knew them, that such a statement should be made anywhere. I wrote a letter to the Farmers' Sun asking for an explanation of those figures, but I was not satisfied, so I found out where this paper was published, and I went to the editor and got from him the sources of his information, and my intention was at one time, on the basis of the figures that were put into my hands by the man who was responsible for that statement, to have those figures put on Hansard. I have them here, but since the editor of that paper and the man who is responsible for such a statement being made admitted to me that it gave an entirely wrong impression to the country, and since I am told that he admitted it later to a meeting of his own salesmen that he gathered together, I shall not go any further with the matter unless some person wishes to assume responsibility and stand behind the statement I have just quoted. In that case I shall be most happy to discuss the matter with him and show wherein the whole statement is absolutely absurd. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that we consider we have a right when manufacturers or any other set of business men undertake to place any of the details of their business before us or give any reasons why they take the position they do, to ask that, they treat us with absolute fairness and not
The Address-Mr. Brown

make as was done in this one case an absolutely false, and in the other case a misleading statement.
I want now to turn my attention for a short time to the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I do not wish to accuse that hon. gentleman of making deliberate misstatements of fact. I do not wish it for a moment to be thought I am doing so, but I do wish to point out that his error in discussing his own amendment, which so far has received very little attention, was not in giving wrong facts but in dragging facts into the discussion which had absolutely no place in it, and cluttering up the records with a lot of superfluous material. You will remember that in the course of his argument, after pointing out the amount of animal and vegetable products imported into Canada for food purposes, thinking to strengthen his argument, no doubt, but as a matter of fact it only weakened it, just as any argument is weakened when unnecessary material is drawn in, he mentioned some $43,000,000 of vegetable products other than foods that were imported, and a question came from this corner of the House, what was included in that list? "I do not know", he said. Evidently he did not think it was worth his while to find out. Some suggested that it would be very desirable to find out just what was included, and on the spur of the mement I asked the hon. member if it included rubber. He ,did not know. Well, the force which his total had in the discussion depended very largely, if not altogether, upon the particular items which it included. I do not know whether he has since taken our advice and found out what is included in that list, but here is his opportunity.


Donald Sutherland: I was referring to
the importations into this country of vegetable products which were foodstuffs and also animals and animal products. After having done so, I pointed out that in addition to that there was some $43,000,000 other than foodstuffs.


John Livingstone Brown: That is just what I have
been trying to tell the House, only the hon. member has expressed it probably more clearly than I did. My complaint is that in dragging in that $43,000,000 he was simply dragging in unessential facts. The figures that I shall give do not cover exactly the same period, but that is not a particularly important matter. They cover, however, a similar period. They cover the fiscal year that ends March, 1922, but the argument holds no matter which particular period you take. I have not all the articles that might be considered

as vegetable products other than foods, but I think perhaps the list I shall give includes the principal ones, and the only point I want to make is that the figures he introduced had absolutely no bearing on the discussion.


Donald Sutherland: I was referring to
the increase in the importations of such commodities since the United States put their tariff as high as it' is at the present time. The hon. member is undertaking to quote importations prior to the adoption of the present tariff by the United States.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not see that that ha3
any bearing on the subject at all. The same argument would apply to the present situation just as it applies to the particular period for which I have the figures. The total I have here is $64,410,281, of which alcoholic beverages accounted for $24,524,202.


Donald Sutherland: Is that a foodstuff?


John Livingstone Brown: I do not understand the
hon. gentleman. I distinctly said that I am dealing with importations other than foodstuffs, just as the hon. member said himself. Evidently the gentlemen who have compiled these figures have not adopted the theory that alcohol is a foodstuff, for they include it here. Gums and resins, $1,958,395; total oils, vegetable not for food, $5,554,180, and perhaps I might point out that under that head there is a small item of $112,369 of linseed oil that could be considered a Canadian product. The other articles included are plants, shrubs and trees, which may or may not be produced in Canada, $934,242: rubber and its products, and this was the thing I wanted to find out about; including some manufactured rubber the imports amounted to $7,142,258; seeds, $2,936,335; tobacco, $21,360,669. There are a number of smaller articles, but I have given enough to make my point. The two large items in that total are alcoholic beverages and tobacco, and I can say this to the House, that if there is any proposition to increase the duties against alcoholic liquors and tobacco, or any proposition made to curtail their use, the chief opposition is not going to come from those who sit in this corner of the House. So, when you take out those two large items, and the $7,000,000 of rubber, the $5,000,000 of vegetable oils not for food, which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said the other night were used for making soap, we have left less than $1,000,000 for plants, shrubs and trees, and less than $3,000,000 for seeds, and these are in large measure used by farmers. So I submit that in cluttering up the record,

The Address-Mr. Brown
as the hon. member did with vegetable products other than food stuffs, he was simply introducing irrelevant matters into the discussion that might very well be left out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to direct attention to some remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Perhaps it rfiight seem to be unkind to him after the almost complete and utter annihilation he suffered at the hands of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) last night, even to utter another note of criticism. And yet there was one point in the hon. gentleman's speech that was not dealt with by the member for Springfield to which I would like to direct attention; that part in which'he dealt with the trade of Canada with Great Britain and other countries, and with the United States. When I listened to that part of his speech it sounded to me absurd. I do not wish to use the term in an offensive way but simply as we used to use it in euclid, as something that does violence to our reason and our judgment. I read that part of his speech over a number of times, and the oftener I read it the more absurd it seemed to be. The hon. member has given evidence of his great ability in the accumulation of facts, and I am not going to dispute them, but we have to take exception to some of hi3 conclusions. Turn to that part of his speech and you will find that he points out that for a period of fifteen years our exports to the United States were double the amount of our imports; that for the same period our exports to Great Britain and other countries were two and three times, and in some cases perhaps more, the amount of our imports; and that with respect to Great Britain and the United States there was a considerable balance in our favour. And the hon. gentleman does not seem to take any satisfaction out of this because of the fact that our bills have tc be settled in New York. He asked the question: Is our policy so framed at the present time as to bring about a proper distribution of our foreign trade? That is just the trouble with protectionists. They think it is incumbent upon them to settle every little detail in foreign trade, and the trouble is when you interfere in one way you never know the effect is going to be what you expected it to be, and then you have to do something to counteract the effect of the thing you have already done. I may say this: The theory which he propounds seems to me to be preposterous, even if the argument as to the balance of trade is true-that any advantage that we may have from the fact that the balance is in our favour is offset by the fact that we have to make our payments in New
York. But let me refer more particularly to what he said with respect to the exchange in New York:
Now there is a vital significance in that fact, and that significance is apparent, for one thing, in the exchange of four per cent against the Canadian dollar in New York. It was apparent to a marked degree three years ago when the exchange stood at nineteen per cent on one occasion against our dollar. But the main point I am making is that for this period of time we have had this adverse balance of trade as regards the United States and there has been no real advantage from the favourable balance of trade in relation to Great Britain.
The hon. member has fallen into what is a very common fallacy, perhaps the most common of all fallacies, known to logicians as post hoc ergo propter hoc-after this therefore because of this. He sees two facts and he places them side foy side, and then he begins to establish the relation of cause and effect between two facts that simply co-exist. That seems to be the fallacy into which protectionists have fallen or into which they have deliberately walked-either the one or the other-in discussing this question of the balance of trade in relation to foreign exchange. Ever since this question of the rate of exchange became an acute one it has been the practice for the protectionists, and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen)-unless he has been misrepresented as he generally is-to fall into the error of accrediting this variation in the rate of exchange entirely to the fact that there was an adverse balance of trade. Some of us venture modestly to suggest that there might possibly be other factors in the problem; and our complaint against the men who take this position is that they persistently ignore these other factors, because they seem to wish to make a certain situation created by the war an occasion for preaching certain economic doctrines. We modestly suggest that there may be other reasons; and it is some satisfaction, when you do not pose as a financier or economist yourself, to have opinions which you formed at the back of your head confirmed by men who are economists. So I am going to quote from a little book entitled Foreign Exchange Before, During, and After the War, by T. E. Gregory, of the London School of Economics and Political Science:
This little book does not in any way pretend to be an exhaustive treatment of the problems of foreign exchange. Let me hasten to add that it is not incomplete in the sense that it scamps what I believe to be the real matters of principle at issue. Exchange experts at the present time divide themselves into two camps: those who think that the exchanges are dislocated because of inflation, and those who think that they are dislocated because of 11 an excess of imports over exports." To the inexpert reader I have^
The Address-Mr. Brown

hoped to make clear the underlying principles, but I should be glad if, to my colleagues of the universities, and the counting house also, my defence of the first of these schools of thought should prove of interest. Fortunately, there is less reason now to emphasize one's belief in this school than there once was.
I do not know whether he would have written that sentence if he had been in the Canadian House of Commons:
The view that the " adverse trade balance " is an effect, and not a cause, which sounded so strange a little while ago, is being accepted fairly generally at the present moment, though not always, perhaps, very consciously.
Now if we accepted the theories advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre we would expect that the exchange rates would vary just as the balance of trade was adverse or favourable. But is that what we find? We find absolutely the reverse. I have here some statistics obtained from the Bureau of Statistics covering the imports of Canada and the exports from Canada to the United States during the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915; and during the years since the war, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923. In giving these figures I should say that the imports include dutiable goods and free goods, and the exports are divided into Canadian produce and exports of foreign produce. But since the imports deal only with those for consumption in Canada I shall deal onlv with the Canadian products which were exported from this country.
1911..
1912..
1913..
1914..
1915..
Imports	Exports
$297,824,265	$104,115,823
331,384,657	102,041,222
436.887,315	139,725,953
396,302,138	163,372,825
297,142,059	173,320,216
I want to direct attention particularly the totals. The" totals are:
to
Imports	Exports
$1,737,540,434	$682,576,039
The point I want to draw attention to in the totals is that during the five years before the war as I have quoted, our exports to the United States were only one-third or little better than one-third-I am not giving the absolute proportions, but a little more than one-third-of our imports at a time when the common people knew nothing about exchange, when exchange was at par and was only an academic question. That was the situation that prevailed then. Now what happened since? We will take the last five years, and I think I had better place the figures on Hansard :
, Imports	Exports
1919	
$750,203,014	$454,873,1701920	
801,097,318	464,028,1831921	
856,176,820	542,322,9671922	
515,958,196	292,588,6431923	
540,989,738	369,080,218
Notice the totals again. The total imports were $3,464,425,096, as against exports of $2,122,893,181. That is, the proportions during these five years were two to three, instead of one to three as they were before. And yet we would have expected, if there was anything in the argument which that particular school advanced, that the situation would be absolutely the reverse. It is not possible for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), or anybody else, to establish on the basis of the trade returns that relation which they seem to think exists between the balance of trade and the rate of exchange. But he says further:
But it is also highly desirable so to frame our fiscal policy as to divert a portion of these purchases from the United States to such countries as have for so many years been favouring us with their purchases.
Have I not just been pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that that is exactly the result that is being obtained in a natural way. Is not the effect of the depreciated currency at New York simply to curtail our purchases in New York? I had a striking example of that brought to my notice four years ago. When travelling on the train I came in contact with a business man, a westerner, going to England to buy one hundred thousand dollars' worth of jewelry, which under ordinary circumstances would have been bought in the United States; so that this matter was being reflected in the export trade to the United States, bringing about in a natural way just what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre says he wants to bring about by a tariff.
I do not presume, Mr. Speaker, to enter into a discussion of the question of the rates of exchange in all its intricacies. It is a complicated question, and so far as governing my own conduct is concerned, I would take warning by the old adage which says that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," All I will say is that my judgment' revolts from the theories propounded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and perhaps I cannot do better than quote a remark made in the British House of Commons on December 21st, 1920:
Lieut. Col. Hurst: Of course this subject of foreign exchanges is one I know very little about, and I believe very few people do know anything about it. Indeed,
I have read that only one person knows the real arcana of foreign exchanges, and he is in a lunatic asylum. The late Lord Goschen was thought to know something about it, but to the great mass of the people

MARCH 18, 1924 [DOT]
The Address-Mr. Brown
it is a very difficult subject indeed, and very humbly and tentatively I make the suggestion to my right hon. friend that it might be wise to appoint a small committee of experts, if any in this country, who do understand this question.
The only point I have been trying to make, in so far as I have dealt with this question of exchange rates, is that the protectionists are simply making use of the situation created by the war by laying all the emphasis upon one factor in the problem of exchange factors, to the neglect of others in order to promote their economic theory.
I will come now to the question of prosperity to which reference is made in the Speech from the Throne. I know it is possible for those on the mountain tops to get a view of the things in their proper perspective, which those who live upon the plain cannot get. Perhaps those who have drawn up the Speech from the Throne have been able to get a vision which is withheld from those who dwell on the plain, or it may be that the Prime Minister is only the servant of the prophet who was bidden to go up and look towards the sea, and who, after going seven times, came back with the welcome news that there was a cloud the size of a man's hand in the sky. If he has really seen the cloud, even if it be only the size of a man's hand, giving promise of abundance of rain, it is most welcome news. But what of the Ahabs and the Jezebels who have seduced Israel during the last forty-five years to worship at the shrines of the false gods of protection? The temper of the country would seem to be that while they will hail with delight the news of an abundance of rain, if it is really coming, there will be but little consideration given to those who have led us into the worship of these false gods during all these years.
But after all, what are the criteria of prosperity? I remember once hearing Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose name is honoured and revered in this House, giving an address in the city of Montreal. It was in the election campaign of 1896 and he was discussing the question of prosperity. He said, "When we come into power you will not need statistics to tell you that you are prosperous; the people will feel it in their pockets". It is possible to prove by statistics that there is prosperity. You can take the railway returns, the trade returns, and the annual reports of the banks, and, as I say, it is quite possible to prove from these sources that the people are prosperous. Nevertheless we know that back on the farms, in the remote regions, instead of enjoying prosperity the great masses of the people do not as a matter of fact know what their next move will be. I had intended
going at some length into this matter, but you will observe on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, a resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) dealing with the question of soldier settlement. It seems to me that we are going to realize the prediction that some of us made more than four years ago, namely, that with the falling prices of farm produce there was a danger of the whole soldier settlement scheme going on the rocks. I have not seen fit to modify my view in that respect one .iota. It will be a calamity if it comes, but I am afraid that such an eventuality is more imminent now than before. However, we shall discuss this matter more fully when dealing with the resolution in question. And what the soldier settlers are going through the farmers all over Canada are experiencing; at least this is true of those for whom we speak. The situation is more serious than is generally recognized by those who live in the East. I desire to conclude my remarks before the House rises at six o'clock, and consequently I cannot on this occasion go into the matter to the extent that I had intended. That the situation is serious cannot, however, be questioned. Men have seen their savings of a lifetime wiped out. It may be said that the same thing is seen in the cities. That may be true, but in the city when a man goes out of business he remains there and enters some other line of activity, whereas when a man goes out of business in the country he simply goes to swell the ranks of the unemployed in the cities.
This party of which I am a member is often looked upon as representing selfish class interests, but that is far from being the case; we have had a larger outlook than that. We have seen this tendency, and in some respects perhaps it is inevitable, emphasized undoubtedly by certain economic policies; and it has been going on for years. Let me say, without decrying the character of the people in the cities, that the whole wealth of the country is being poured into the great centres of population while there is not enough left on the farms to maintain that standard of life to which the farmers of the country are entitled equally as much as the people of the cities. This is the problem we have been endeavouring to solve, and it is a national problem, because, as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) pointed out last night, the farm is the place from which the nation draws its life. If you go back only two or three generations you will find that the great majority of the men prominent in public life are the men who came direct from the farm. If therefore we lower the
The Address-Mr. Fortier

standard of public life it will be disastrous for the future. In closing let me quote the words of Sir Horace Plunkett, taken from his book. The Rural Life Problem of the United States:
The country life movement deals with what is probably the most important problem before the English-speaking world at this time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the
Throne, this year, reminds us rightly of an improvement in our finances, of the approaching realization of the so long cherished hope of balancing our budget, and also of what we looked forward to most anxiously, true signs of a happy return to prosperity. It is a fact, Sir, that the leaders of the Liberal party took hold of the affairs of the country, in 1921, at a very critical time. Indeed, during the last years of the late administration, our country had been plunged into an abyss of debt and a sad economic plight. It was the duty of the present government to solve these difficult problems and remove the serious dangers which threatened our industrial and agricultural welfare. The views of the administration may have differed, but they showed that they had but one thought, one aim; to find the right policy which the country demanded. Faced with new problems which are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, they realized that, by discussing the subject together, not with the set idea of having their own personal views adopted, but with the patriotic object of uniting their wisdom and prudence, they might find new means of restoring the prosperity of the country. The government understood clearly that Canada had to be saved. from bankruptcy, disunion and impending distress. In view of the success this government has obtained, and is obtaining, realizing that our . finances are being put on a sound basis through a remarkable decrease in expenditure and the balancing of our budget for the first time since 1911, and considering that a decided improvement is being effected in the opera-' tion of the National Railways and further that a sound economic policy is prevalent through out the service, may we not congratulate the government on the work ' already accomplished? For my part, I can at any time return to my county and tell my electors: Brown.]
It is the Liberal party that deserves your confidence, it is that party which will restore prosperity to our country in an admirable "entente cordiale" in a pledge of the heart and soul so manifestly necessary to this country.
Among the tasks accomplished by the government, none is more to the fore than the question of immigration and repatriation. In a young country like ours, with vast stretches of farming land and with the greatest variety of natural resources, there is the need of a Minister of Immigration and Repatriation, whose entire work will consist in finding settlers and placing them on fertile lands. The government has understood the importance of this work and has created the Department of Immigration, entirely independent of the others, they have organized it with the twofold aim of repatriation and immigration.
Much has been said in this debate, on the emigration of our people to the United States, the exodus of these numerous Canadians who are flocking to the neighbouring republic; it has been computed that 2,000,000 of our countrymen have taken up residence in the New England states. I think that it is now more than time to look after the repatriation of our people. Unemployment is, indeed, at present, being felt in certain Eastern states of the republic to the south, and, I believe that the time is ripe to give more encouragement to that policy. I am aware that the present government has created that movement. I, therefore, beg of them to still continue encouraging and supplying it with all the necessary funds so that it may expand and succeed in repatriating a greater number of our people. It would be a pleasure to me to see allotted to this branch of repatriation, a greater amount of the funds which are voted to the Department of Immigration. I think the government would be approved throughout the Dominion, if it equally encouraged repatriation and immigration. The repatriated person would prove more useful to the country than the immigrant, since he is already a citizen familiar with our habits, while, the fact of a foreigner residing in Canada does not prove him to be a Canadian. The government would, therefore, act wisely by placing repatriation and immigration on the same footing. Moreover, this work should come directly under the Minister of Immigration. However, a deputy minister should be appointed who would have full charge of the work and be the prime mover in all matters pertaining to that department. The repatriation of Canadians would thus take place on a large scale for the greatest

The Address-Mr. Fortier
benefit of all the provinces of the Dominion. The deputy minister would have under his supervision agents, missionaries and publicity. Already, many centres of the eastern part of the United States have been advantageously canvassed; there exists an extensive field of action, but everybody knows that this staff of agents, missionaries and advertisers is indispensable for the success of such an enterprise. It will also be necessary,-and I have no doubt that the government is well disposed in this respect,-to help in the homeward coming of these people by issuing reduced rates on railways for themselves, their family and their luggage. Where poverty exists, I even maintain that the fare should be issued gratuitously to these families, and care taken of them in the homes of settlers until they have chosen a lot where they will settle down. Briefly, I would like to see the same favours extended to repatriation as is extended, at present, to immigration.
Far be it from my thoughts, to wish to minimize in any way, the importance which we must attach in this country to the question of immigration. I had the opportunity not long ago to visit western Canada, and, I . was present, in the large city of Winnipeg, at a banquet given in honour of Lord Shaw upon the occasion of his visit to this country for the Canadian Bar Conference. This distinguished English barrister made the remark that our western plains were vast but that they are not peopled and that it would evidently be in the interest of Canada to bring over a great number of immigrants who might easily be assimilated and would settle in those vast plains. I fully agree with those views, so often expressed by the public men of this country, and I think that a sound immigration policy is absolutely necessary. There is, Sir, in the Speech from the Throne, a passage which especially drew my attention. It is this:
National unity, not less than national prosperity, depends upon the surmounting of those barriers which have tended to separate western from eastern Canada and to discourage permanent settlement upon the land. Foremost in this regard are the problems incidental to tariff readjustments and to the marketing of agricultural and other natural products.
The readjustment of the tariff is not a new phrase prompted by circumstances, but a plank in the Liberal party's programme, proclaimed on several occasions. The readjustment of the tariff, meaning the lowering of duties aiming at a tariff for revenue, has been the aim of the Liberal party since the convention of 1893. This object the Liberal party, on the first opportunity desired to attain at the time of the reciprocal pact of
1911 with our neighbours, and it again proclaimed it at the Liberal convention of 1919. Therefore, we, of the Liberal party, prove our consistency by adhering fo this policy of the government which favours the lowering of duties in regard to instruments of production. If Laurier were still living he would gladly welcome this passage in the Speech from the Throne. But there is yet another reason for sympathizing with the downward revision of duties so greatly desired by the representatives of the western provinces, it is because, above all, we desire national unity so as to conform to the spirit of the Fathers of Confederation, our great statesmen of 1867. National unity, in this country, is not a passing fancy; it is not without importance to the sparse population inhabiting a boundless territory and geographically partitioned by physical barriers. Do you kpow what was the greatest concern of the Fathers of Confederation? It was national unity, Without that unity the confederation was but a myth. It was for its sake that they burdened the country, from the outset, with the great cost of the construction of the Intercolonial so as to unite the Maritime provinces to the central provinces, and, they gave away millions of dollars in land to the Canadian Pacific Railway so as to link both the western plains and British Columbia to the central provinces. With that end in view they encumbered our country with these great expenditures. To-day, in order to preserve this unity, in order to follow the traditions of the builders of this country, should we not still strive to make all possible concessions to one another so that we may agree and work together more efficiently for the prosperity and greatness of our country.
Mr. Speaker, the interests which I represent in this House-and this is one of the main reasons why I take part in this debate- oblige me to draw the government's attention to two questions of interest to my county. They are not, properly speaking, local questions, because they are of general interest. I wish, first, to broach the subject of branch lines of the National Railways. Last year, the House adopted a measure for the construction of branch lines to be added to the National Railways. Unfortunately, the Senate threw out the bill which had been submitted to parliament.
The Speech from the Throne acquaints us with the decision of the government to again submit, for the approval of parliament, this important measure. Nothing, at present, is more urgent for my county, than that proposed branch line which will connect the village of
The Address-Mr. Fortier


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: matters, but I am sorry that one occupying his high and responsible position did not pay a little more attention to the facts before making the statements he uttered regarding the Esquimalt drydock. The writer in MacLean's, too, filled with enthusiasm, has departed from the high plane of journalism and attempted to be sensational in the hope of attracting attention. His statement regarding the Esquimalt drydock is very inaccurate indeed, and while it makes very excellent reading it suffers from one severe handicap

it is untrue. But if the story had been told plainly it would have lacked political sting, and no doubt this would have very seriously interfered with its commercial value. Had he taken the trouble, he could have found the facts within the pages of Hansard. Ananias and Baron Munchausen have probably gained a very much wider reputation for the extravagant and the marvellous in fiction than our friend of MacLean's; certainly they are notorious. We all know that Ananias' effort was rather disastrous to him. The Baron, I think, simply indulged in fantastic tales as a pastime, but not as a means of livelihood. Unfortunately such articles as have appeared in MacLean's recently in connection with the public service inflict severe injury on a great many people who have' no possible opportunity of defending themselves. I am now referring particularly to those who occupy positions in the Civil Service of this country, men and women who have devoted their whole lives to the public service, who have done splendid work in their time and who have played a very important part in building up Canada. Such sensational articles convey an impression throughout the land which is very unfair to those people.
I have talked often about the Esquimalt drydock and I do nci want to repeat my remarks unduly, but under the circumstances I think it is only fair to the late government, to the member for the constituency in which this drydock is situated, and to myself, that the facts should be fairly placed before the House. In the first place; no drydock is being built at Victoria, B.C., as stated by MacLean's magazine. The drydock is not in my constituency, but in that of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Then again, it is not 450 feet in length, but 430 feet, and the difference is a very important item if you are tryng to dock a ship which is a little longer than 430 feet. That drydock has been built for about forty years; it has rendered very excellent service, but it is too small for the mercantile and naval vessels that are being built to-day. During the war a number [Mr. Tolmie.,
of warships, four during one year, had to seek dock facilities in the United States owing to the small capacity of the dockage on the Pacific coast of Canada. Ali that work was lost to our Canadian workmen at a time when they needed it very badly, and the American workmen benefited accordingly. It has long been recognized that larger drydock facilities are necessary there. A site was purchased at Esquimau m either 1913 or 1914, at a place called Langs Cove. This was at least three years before I entered public life, so that the statement made in MacLean's magazine and the inference thrown out by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the course of his remarks the other day, that the Esquimalt drydock was built for the purpose of electing Dr. Tolmie on the occasion of the by-election in 1919, are hardly correct. I was not connected with the project in any way, directly or indirectly, at the time the site v'as purchased, and I have not since then been connected with it in any way except as representative of the city of Victoria. >
Yarrows Limited, the greai Glasgow shipbuilding firm, decided to locate a branch plant somewhere on the Pacific coast, and after making a very careful survey of th4 whole of that area, both on the American side and on the Canadian side, they decided that Esquimalt was the best place to put' their plant. During the war no efforts were made to carry on construction of this dock, as might reasonably have been expected; we had other more important things to take care of. But at the conclusion cf the war strong pressure was brought to bear in the matter and every effort was made to have the work carried on to a conclusion The Hon. Mr. Car-vell, then Minister of Public Works, announced on June 27th, 1919, that the dock would be constructed. Shortly after that, very early in July, boring operations were commenced at Lang's Cove under the supervision of the Department of Public Works, with a view to the securing of such information as would be necessary in preparing the specifications. Early m July $500,000 were voted for the purpose of commencing the work. At that particular time I hid no intimation whatever that I would be offered the position of Minister of Agriculture. Some time after that, upon my return to the coast, I was offered the position, and I accepted it, and remained in the office for a period of "two years. I want to say right here that so far as the drydock is concerned my acceptance or otherwise of the position would have made

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
no difference whatever, because we felt that the drydock was a necessity and we certainly should have continued to press for its immediate construction, particularly in view of Mr. Carvell's statement that the work would proceed.
A very important ship repairing business has already been established at Esquimalt. The commerce on the Pacific has increased by leaps and bounds. The traffic over to Australia and to Asiatic ports has increased very largely during the last ten or fifteen years. Apparently this fact has not been appreciated by those who are criticising the construction of this dock. Numbers of vessels are now traversing the Pacific of a burthen of 20,000 tons, and large vessels are becoming more numerous in proportion to the small ones, so that a small drydock is of no use for their accommodation. The development of the wheat business through the port of Vancouver has been tremendous. Just the other day when I left Vancouver on my way to the opening of the House there were no less than forty-four vessels lying in the stream at the port of Vancouver waiting for cargo, these ships having a capacity of over eight or ten thousand tons each.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I ask whether any of the Canadian merchant marine were awaiting there?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I did not stop to examine their teeth. There was also a tremendous growth in the United States shipping from all the ports from Seattle down to San Francisco and further south. To give you an idea of the importance of the establishment of Yarrows at Esquimalt, let me say that during the twelve months ending March 1st, 1924, 111 ships were repaired by them, having an aggregate tonnage of some 280,000. Twenty-five vessels occupied the dock, one of them for a period of two months, indicating that a large trade has already been built up at that point. Other vessels were turned away because the present dockage facilities are far too small for their accommodation. This trade is a very important one. I recall that during the war one ship occupied the dry-dock at Esquimalt for a period of five months, the bill for repairs on which amounted to nearly half a million dollars. Only Canadian workmen were used in that work. In the case of crippled ships it is necessary to have dockage at a very convenient point, and Esquimalt is particularly well suited for this purpose.
To give you an idea of how our live American friends are taking care of the dock
situation, I may point out that there are no less than sixteen floating and graving docks between Seattle and San Francisco as compared with our two docks in use at present and two on the British Columbia coast under construction. Is it not better to be able to provide the accommodation for these vessels so that the work on British and Canadian vessels may be done on the Canadian side by Canadian workmen? The late government deserve very great credit for their farsightedness in commencing the construction of, proper docking facilities at the port of Esquimalt.
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), when in opposition, objected very seriously indeed to the building of the Ballan-tyne pier at Vancouver, stating that it was an extravagant expenditure, that it was quite unnecessary, and that it would not be occupied for years. What is the situation now? The whole of the accommodation is taken up. This Ballantyne pier is rendering very valuable service, and I am quite sure that the Minister of Justice has seen the error that he made, and particularly at the time he had the honour of opening that pier amidst the popping of champagne corks. In fact my Liberal friends have always been rather slow to appreciate the great development on the Pacific coast. They object to the construction of the Esquimalt drydock, which I think I shall prove in a few moments to your entire satisfaction is a very timely piece of work indeed.
They have objected very sterenuously to the building of the Ballantyne pier. They even objected to the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway and some of their leaders of that day got up in the House and said: "This line will never earn its axle grease. Where is it going? It is only going to British Columbia, where there is nothing but a sea of mountains." In spite of those statements, and in spite of the fact that the country has been handicapped by Liberal governments since that time, the Canadian Pacific has made good and to-day it is one of the greatest transportation organizations in the world. However, as we say in the racing game, the Liberals are only riding to form in connection with the Esquimalt drydock when they object to its construction. I want to predict to my Liberal friends that before very many years it will be found that the dockage facilities on the Pacific coast are inadequate. If the increase in shipping proceeds at the rate at which it is going at the present time, I am quite sure we will not have to wait very long for that day.
The Address-Mr. Tolmie

Our friend the correspondent for MacLean's Magazine also takes violent objection to the location of this dock. Now, while it has always been recognized that he possessed a good deal of ability as a correspondent, I have never been informed that his services have been in demand as an expert on the location of drydocks. As a matter of fact, Esquimalt is very well located for drydock purposes. Situated on the Straits of Juan de Fuca, fifty miles from the Pacific on that arm of the sea through which every ship bound for southern British Columbia ports and for Puget Sound ports in the state of Washington must pass within a distance of twenty miles, this port is almost fog-free during the whole year, so that it is readily accessible at all times. The rainfall is very light indeed. The temperature at that port will run probably about 42 in winter time and about 60 in summer, with about five-and-a-half or six hours sunshine daily, on the average, throughout the year, enabling the workmen to work outside on these ships without the least inconvenience and without any artificial heating such as is necessary in eastern yards.
Situated from the Columbia river north to about the middle of the west coast of Vancouver Island, and covering the entrance to the Straits of Juan de Fuca, is what is known as the Graveyard of the Pacific. There is a tremendous current that sets in from the Pacific ocean to that coast. This current varies a great deal, and sometimes it attains a speed of five miles an hour. In thick weather vessels attempting to make these straits are affected by this current and frequently carried to the Vancouver Island coast and wrecked. I think I am safe in saying that more wrecks have occurred in that particular neighbourhood from the Columbia river north to the point I have mentioned than on any other part of the Pacific coast. Esquimalt is situated about eighty or ninety miles closer than any other drydock on the Canadian or American mainland, so the dry-dock is very conveniently situated for the ships in the event of their getting into trouble.
Esquimalt has long been recognized as a very central point. In very early days when the Hudson's Bay Company decided to locate in southern British Columbia and give up the territory lying north of the Columbia river to the Straits of Juan de Fuca, they had the selection of all the ports in western Canada, but they decided to establish one of their principal ports at Victoria and Esquimalt. Then when the. British navy was looking for a location on the Pacific coast, after giving the place a thorough looking over, they also decided on Esquimalt as the most 
appropriate place for a naval station. Then Yarrows, Limited, one of the largest shipbuilding firms in the world, located there, and to give you an idea of the size of that firm, in four years of the war they constructed no less than 58 war vessels, all of which were put into commission and stayed on top of the water, which is quite a different record to that made by some other shipbuilding concerns during the war. There can be no question, I think, as to whose argument should be accepted in favour of the location of this particular drydock, either the experts of Yarrows, Limited, engineers of long experience and specialists in that particular line, or the correspondent for MacLean's Magazine.
There has been an attempt made, I am sorry to say, by some members of the government during their meanderings over -the western provinces last summer to make political capital out of the building of this drydock. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at Victoria had no criticisms to offer of this drydock at all. In a very pleasant way, and with a bland smile, he said there should be unity in Canada, that we should travel together shoulder to- shoulder to make this a great country, that there should be no Easterners and no Westerners, no Frenchspeaking and no English-speaking, but all one for the unity of Canada and for the building up of this country. This was all very excellent sentiment, but the good people of Victoria were impressed with his inconsistency. They could not understand how he would preach unity at the Pacific coast without preaching it in his own native province of Quebec, particularly, say, during the election of 1921. They could not understand why he with his associates during the election in Kent had preached anything but unity, in fact, why they had made efforts, to create racial prejudice for the purpose of getting votes. But when the Minister of Justice reached the prairies about a thousand miles from the sea, where the ozone from the Pacific did not permeate his nostrils any more, where the people did not know much about drydocks, and where he thought he was absolutely safe, his bland smile faded and with an indignant snort he announced that the previous government had built the drydock at Esquimalt for the purpose of electing Doctor Tolmie. He knew much better because he sat in the House here at the time this whole matter was discussed. But here was an opportunity, when he was safely away from the sea, and where nobody knew much about drydocks, where it would be difficult even to find a man who knew a drydock was something to put a ship into or

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
to tie it up to, to make such statements. He saw a chance there to attack the drydock and the previous government and he could not resist the opportunity.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in this debate, made statements that I was very sorry to see him make. I was sorry that he did not obtain as full information as possible before he touched upon this subject. A private member on the government or the opposition side can take a chance occasionally, but we look to ministers of the Crown to set an example to the whole House. Let us return to the days of the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a man whose name was respected from one end of this country to the other, a man whose ability was recognized and whose honesty of purpose was never doubted, a man who filled his position with dignity and who hesitated to make an inaccurate statement, a man who was fair in debate and who encouraged his associates to follow his example-compare this, if comparison is possible, with the example set by the two hon. members to whom I have just referred. Further, when we take into consideration the history of broken pledges, when we take into consideration the history of misrepresentations that have been going on since 1921, we must realize how the mighty have fallen and how a once great party in Canada has degenerated. On coming into power in 1921 the present government stopped the operations at Esquimalt for a period of several months. This incurred heavy damages from the contractors, and it is generally accepted at the coast that it was entirely unnecessary. Everyone knows that with the efficient Public Works department in operation, with their engineers actually on the ground watching every move of the contractors, that any information regarding the construction of the work could have been obtained within a few hours and this serious delay-throwing a large number of working people out of work and at the same time incurring a very heavy extra expenditure-would have been unnecessary. I want to say that the Minister of Public Works, in contrast to his colleagues and with a more particular knowledge of conditions on the Pacific coast, was manly enough to state that this dock was not only a good work but should have been commenced in 1912. Therefore I appreciate the action he took in this connection. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the drydock situation. I want to close by stating frankly that we have not got any more dock accommodation on the Pacific coast than is going to be necessary, and I think the late government deserves great credit for their foresight 28
in being able to look into the future, the same as Yarrows Limited, and taking measures to promote the great prosperity of the Coast.
The Minister of Justice in his speech on March 14, referred to the construction of four wooden barquentines in the city of Vancouver, and pointed to the gross extravagance of the late government in building these ships. Here again one is struck with the partial statement of facts. I am prepared to tell the story clearly and fully to this House and through this House to the people of Canada and let the case stand on its merits. In the first place the contract for these ships was not let in 1919, as stated by the Minister of Justice, but on March 16, 1920. He did not say a word about the desperate unemployment conditions that existed at the Pacific coast at that time. These ships were primarily constructed to meet that very serious situation which existed in British Columbia during 1919 and 1920. It will be remembered that when demobilization took place the returned soldifers were offered a chance to demobilize in any part of the country they wished. The result was that a very large number went out to the Pacific coast and were demobilized there. In consequence there were thousands of returned men on the Pacific coast, many thousands more than had enlisted in the province, greatly increasing the unemployment situation. The lumbermen of British Columbia, noticing the success of lumber carrying in wooden sailing ships, had long argued that if sailing ships were available they could convey lumber from British Columbia to distant ports of the world at very small expense. In the case of one of these barquentines such as was built at Victoria the crew numbered only fifteen or sixteen men, the carrying capacity would be around 2,000,000 feet of lumber, and, without any fuel being necessary, the transportation of lumber was done at the lowest possible cost, providing a reasonable trip was made. On looking round for some means of employment for the returned soldiers out of work it was decided that wooden ship construction offered the very best opportunities to provide the most work for the greatest number of men. In the first place work would be necessary in the woods in getting out the logs. Then it would be necessary to transport these logs to the sawmill, where work was provided for the men in the cutting up of the logs. Then followed the transfer of the cut timber to the ship yards where the returned men could take part in the building of the ships. So there was no other particular line of work offered as much opportunity for employment as the

The Address-Mr. Tolmie

construction of the wooden ship at that time. Strong pressure was brought to bear on the government by returned men and others at that period, and finally a delegation consisting of returned men, labour representatives, and merchants, headed by the mayor of the city of Victoria, came here in December, 1919, and urged the government to undertake the construction of these ships. The government refused to build ships on their own account, but after a while a compromise was reached whereby a company was to be created in the city of Victoria. They were to subscribe a certain amount of the money, and the government was to advance the balance needed for the construction of each vessel at 6 per cent interest, and to have a first mortgage on the finished ship. Some six hundred of Victoria's citizens co-operated with a view of helping out the situation and doing something towards getting the returned men re-established. In the contract a clause was inserted making it necessary to employ not less than 60 per cent of returned men, and every man was to be hired through the government labour bureau. Due to the men being new at the work- many of them having had no previous experience in ship building-and also due to a lack of capital, the project did not turn out successfully, with the result that only one ship was finished. She turned out very well and conveyed several cargoes of lumber to the distant ports of the world. Finally the ship got into a very severe hurricane in the southern seas, had to put into the port of Honolulu for repairs, and on her return to Victoria was disposed of by the government. The other ships were partially finished, the hull of one being about half done, another one fairly well advanced, and the keel of the third one, I think laid. When this government came into power it required from December, 1921, to October 3, 1923, to wind up the affairs of this company, almost two years. During this period there was a very serious loss incurred from the deterioration of material of various kinds but had this matter been handled in a more businesslike manner by the Minister of Justice, who was then Minister of Marine, many thousands of dollars would have been saved. I may say that the shareholders lost all their money in connection with this venture. There were several organizations, such as returned soldiers' bodies, that offered to take hold of these yards, but no bargain could be made with them. The Minister of Justice quoted a letter from Mr. Ballan-tyne addressed to me in which it was stated that he would take no interest in the construction of these ships. Let me say that 
during the whole period of the construction of the vessels the work was carried on under the supervision of the Department of Marine, Mr. Ballantyne's department, which maintained a man on the ground to supervise the work.
Let me point out too, Mr. Speaker, that the present Labour government in Great Britain to meet the existing labour situation there which is aggravated, but which is no
9 p.m. worse than the situation on the Pacific coast at the time I mention, have recently let a contract for the building of five cruisers. The British government do not really need the vessels, they are building them simply to meet the existing situation. I claim that the late government in Canada followed the only course it was possible to follow in the construction of these wooden barquentines and in undertaking other work on the Pacific coast to provide for the unemployment, and that this was ten times better than the adoption of the dole system which has very bad results on our working people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no further remarks to make in this connection. I only hope that I have made my explanations concerning these two ventures very clear to the House.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: It has
been gratifying to me, Sir, and to some of us in this part of the House, that the present debate has turned almost entirely on the tariff question. Old political prophets such as Cartwright and Blake foresaw this day. They knew it had to come. They said it would take more than a generation for the people of this country to wake up to the position they were placed in by the Old National Policy. It has taken more than a generation, but the day has come, and this question has got to be settled first. The trade penalty known us the tariff, is a tax that must be paid by a class who receive no benefit from it. In the case of Canada it is chiefly the farmer who pays because he is not able to pass on the unjust charge to any other class, and he can no longer bear the burden. Every advocate of trade penalties in this House during this debate has drawn an awful picture of what is going to happen to Canada if the tariff is abolished or even lowered. But they have not even deigned to notice the state of agriculture as it is to-day. That state has been brought about by the tariff during the years since the National Policy was first inaugurated. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has stated that the reference to the

The Address-Mr. Evans
tariff in the Speech is like the sword of Damocles hanging by a single thread, a slender thread, over the heads of the manufacturers. He declares that they cannot purchase their raw material without a proper interpretation of what this means. The inference is that they must have a privilege maintained or go out of business. But one thing which has appeared. very striking to me, Sir, during the whole of this debate, is that those who have taken part in this discussion and advocate protection, look upon it, not as a concession, but as an inherent right. But there has never been anything in this House before that has so nonplussed the manufacturers as the inference in the Speech from the Throne tnat the Liberal party is coming back to its own platform. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) indulges in his usual accusation of the density of mind of myself and my colleagues here, and indeed he almost despairs of penetrating that density in his plea for the manufacturers, in propounding the old joke of a home market. To me, Sir, the incongruity would seem to be that the hon. member is trying to elucidate a theory which the Romans four thousand years ago found to be a fallacy. That was when for a time the slave dealers of that period were successful in getting the ear of their government, The hon. member says at page 304 of Hansard-
I must be most weak in placing my argument if I cannot make myself clearly understood.
I wish to inform the hon. gentleman, since it is evident he does not know, that there is no logical argument for class privilege, or as he would call it protection. At best it is an imposition, it is a trade penalty, and in the end is bound to prove a boomerang even to those for whose benefit it was first inaugurated. Even on the hon. gentleman's own admission, which I do not admit myself, the woollen industry is in a serious condition, a most hopeless condition, after enjoying for 40 years this privilege of extracting from the home consumer at least one-third of their income, for which they have given nothing in return. No one can deny that the consumers of this country have paid one-third more for their woollen goods than they could have been bought for in the markets of the world. According to reports the Canadian Manufacturers' Association held a meeting at Hamilton on January 24th. It was devoted almost entirely to the tariff. Since then, I believe, they have been presenting demands to the government here for increased import penal-28i
ties. Now, the manufacturers have had protection since 1879, and since that time they have obtained privileges such as the manufacturers in other countries never dreamed of. They pleaded then for privileges because they were infant industries. They have abused these privileges. They have destroyed their own market. And now, like the dope fiend, they come back for more of the stuff that has brought them to this state of imbecility. The report of the special committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on taxation is perhaps the most illogical product of biased minds imaginable; and the resolution previously passed, and again reaffirmed at that meeting is almost ridiculous, to say the least, as it declares that the adoption of a stable and sound fiscal policy based on an adequate customs tariff will bind together more firmly the provinces of Canada in national unity. The report declares that this policy will attract capital, commercialize our natural resources, strengthen existing industries, and create new industries:	raise
revenue, encourage immigration, provide employment, increase traffic for the railways and for our national ports, lower freight rates and make farming profitable, create new markets abroad and facilitate profitable bargaining by means of tariffs with other countries. Well, everybody is to be made rich and happy. Producers and consumers alike are to be benefited simply by the process of reducing imports or prohibiting imports, the government is to reap an increased revenue from a diminished source-most remarkable. A protective tariff cannot benefit every citizen alike. If it did it would not be protection at all. And the fact tin-' Canadian manufacturers have benefited is because they have charged an unjust price, a price not based at all on competition for their goods which the home consumer must pay Without going into the whole question and answering all the statements in that resolution, I want to say that protection does not increase employment and importation does not lessen it. Why? Because all imports must be paid for by exports.
In this connection, I was surprised to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) declaim against the evil of spending $1.50 in the United States for every dollar they buy from us. This is an old argument, and to some extent in the past our people have believed that an evil did exist in the fact. But what are the real facts? The protectionist is equally averse to the importation of goods from Great Britain even though
The Address-Mr. Evans

from the application of the dumping clause. The words "fair value for home consumption" are no longer impartially interpreted; they are interpreted according to who the importer happens to be. It is not the business of any government to discriminate between one citizen and another; the laws of the country should be the same for all. I say these words are interpreted according to who the importer happens to be, and no co-operative concern can buy for co-operative distribution anywhere in Canada. They cannot get their supplies without being penalized under the antidumping clause. If anything is done at this session to lighten the load which at present bears upon the farmer of this country, it should be to abolish the anti-dumping clause. Of course if anything worth while is done it will be a general cut on the whole list so that the cost of living may be brought down to a lower level. But the anti-dumping clause as it stands to-day and as it is being applied today is the one thing that stands in the way of any co-operative effort of the people themselves to lower the cost of living.
The agriculturist has borne pretty well the whole burden. I fancy I can hear hon. gentlemen say that if we abolish the anti-dumping clause we shall be overwhelmed with goods from Germany, from the United States, and perhaps from some other countries. I want to tell this House that the agriculturists of this country can stand a good deal of dumping at the present time. People on the farms to-day are short of every commodity they need, but the distributing combine, which, according to the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, is sixty per cent too great in number, is so completely organized so far as this anti-dumping provision is concerned that they have got the prices too high to permit our people to purchase the goods they need, even after marketing the biggest crop in the history of this country. Our purchasing power has been destroyed through the operation of the anti-dumping clause and this condition will prevail as long as certain interests are protected by these measures. We sell our produce in line with the world's prices, after having to raise it under these conditions.
Coming to a remark made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) regarding the percentages of increases of our products, and of our commodities. I wish to correct him in one or two particulars. He says that the price of one or two of our chief products increased in 1923 over the 1913 price by 51 per cent. It is not so. Taking his own figures which he himself gives, the increase works out at 28 per cent, and not at

51 per cent as stated by him. The hon. gentleman may not have meant to create that impression, but an error of 23 per cent is rather too much to go uncorrected. Then again, on four of our chief products he says there is an increase of 44 per cent. Again taking his own figures, we find that the increase is not 44 per cent but 35 per cent. I am rer ferring to the figures he gave as found on page 311 of Hansard.
Although there are hard times in Canada to-day, I am not one of those who would write "Ichabod" over the portals of this nation. But I do want to give notice to some of those who are responsible for the policy of this country, financial and industrial, and who are responsible for the present conditions of life on the farms as well as in the centres of industry, that they have no right to saddle themselves on the backs of the workers, whether farmers or labourers. This nation needs a whole course of civic and national instruction, but at present it seems that our schools and colleges are muzzled by privilege. Our moneyed magnates and industrial kings are simply goading men into rebellion, and they have these measures to protect them. Let us treat men as men, and a display of the militia with their bayonets and rifles will not be needed to preserve order The working man of this nation, whether the farmer or the labourer, must be given his share, he must have his rights recognized. And when men are given their rights they willingly assume the responsibilities of citizenship. To this end the cost of living must be no longer burdened with trade penalties, and the efforts and enterprises of the people individual and co-operative, must not be held down by any class privilege.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I shall receive the gratitude of my associates-of my word weary associates, I might say-when I announce that I am not going to say a word about the tariff. It is a great temptation, I admit, but I have steeled my heart and my conscience and I am not going to say a word more about it I only want to speak for a few minutes about some remarks that fell from the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). He reproached the cabinet benches, more particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I think, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), warning them that whatever we might expect from the common herd of members, at least from the cabinet, from men of their position, we expected a measure of fairness and truth in their pronouncements. Surely that was a very modest statement, I

The Address-Mr. Neill
hope, Sir; the standard of our Canadian statesmanship as exemplified by ordinary common members is not so low as to cause us not to expect some measure of fairness and truth even from the common herd. However, he confines it entirely to the demand that those on the front government benches shall have some measure of truth and fairness in their utterances. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that is also extended to ex-cabinet ministers? I recall some months ago an ex-cabinet minister coming-shall I say, returning?-to British Columbia, after a careful and no doubt thoughtful and thorough survey of the political conditions of Canada, and, like all politicians, when he came home he told us what his reasoned judgment was as to those conditions. He told us that in the election, which he said was imminent, Quebec was going to return a large number of Conservatives. He told us that Nova Scotia, as evidenced by the recent by-elections there, would be probably solid Conservative. Ontario was going to tell the same glad tale, but it was when he came to the prairies that his enthusiasm fairly boiled over; he said that the Progressive party was breaking up and flocking in large numbers to the Conservative standard. I cannot imitate to the full the beauty of his language, but' it gave the impression of a mighty ice-bound river breaking up and the people who had been caught on the ice making all possible attempts to reach the haven of rescue which he described as being within the Conservative party. He gave us the impression that it would be like the children of Israel who, after they had been bitten by serpents, had only to look to the brazen serpent to their right and all would be well. Curiously enough he did not tell us anything about what was going to happen in British Columbia, because we might know what is going to happen there. It is noble to seek truth, Mr. Speaker; it is beautiful to find it, is it not?
Before I pass on to what I really want to speak about, and that is the drydock, I would like to say a few words about the question of wooden ships or ships of any kind that were built during the war in Victoria. I am sorry that any man from British Columbia has raised that question here to-night, for it is one that none of us who know the circumstances can recall with anything but reproach. I know something, a very little, of the way those ships were built, and what I do know gives part of the reason why we are paying such enormous taxes to-day. Graft was rampant in every detail in the manner in which they were built. I had a friend who went there
to work. He was a carpenter, employed in putting in panels, and he wanted to hold his job. Poor foolish man, he thought that working was a necessity to hold his job, and he started to put in his best licks. Along about eleven o'clock the straw boss came along and asked, "How many panels have you put in?" He spoke harshly, and the carpenter thought he was finding fault. "I have only put in five," he said, "but I guess I can put in another before noon, and once I get in my stride I will do better than that." "Good Lord, man" was the reply, "do you know what is a day's work here on these panels? Five panels is a day's work, and don't you put in another panel to-day." That is an absolute fact, recorded by a man who was there. Another man told me that his greatest difficulty was to keep out of sight. That was all he was asked to do. He registered when he went in and again when he came out, and all he had to do in the meantime was to keep out of sight. Those are facts perfectly well known on the Pacific coast, and it ill becomes any man from British Columbia to talk about the scandal connected with the building of ships in Victoria. I would not have mentioned this if it had not been forced upon me.
My hon. friend began his remarks, very much to my surprise, by a criticism of the articles appearing in MacLean's Magazine. I was very much surprised because I thought the general trend of those articles was distinctly favourable to the party of my hon. friend. If I recall correctly the very first article ended with a recommendation to turn the present government out of power. You would think that was more or less of a partisan statement, and I think the trend all through has been somewhat similar. Now my hon. friend finds fault with these articles and with the man who wrote them, but his views are not shared by the remainder of his party. In MacLean's Magazine of March 1st I find two pages of eulogies from various prominent statesmen, politicians and newspapers. One is from Mr. George B. Jones, M.P. who writes, "I feel sure the criticism will do good, and we do know that it is truthful." Then we have Senator Gideon D. Robertson giving the articles his blessing. We find also the Hon. H. H. Stevens, of Vancouver, giving them his blessing. How'are the mighty fallen from their seats! There is also a whole page of eulogies from newspapers. I do not know them all, but the British Columbia ones which I do know, are distinctly Conservative in their attitude, so my friend in finding fault with the writer is going contrary to the traditions of his party, which is generally all to stick together.
The Address-Mr. Neill

He has told us a great deal about the need of a drydock. He told us how a certain portion of the Pacific ocean is known as the graveyard of the Pacific, and he drew some kind of analogy that the one needed the other, But you do not need drydocks to rescue ships, not at all. After a boat has gone on that west coast there is very little hope for it. If it is pulled off it will be pulled off by a wrecking crew and a ship adapted for that purpose. It would be towed to the drydock; you could not tow the drydock to the ship. So all this talk about the west coast and the graveyard of the Pacific has nothing at all to do with the point. I failed to hear, but that might have been my misfortune, two years ago and again last year when I was in this House beseeching the Minister of Marine to take the necessary steps for properly safeguarding that graveyard-I failed to find my hon. friend with all his local knowledge and with his position as an ex-cabinet minister lending the weight of his great influence to my representations. But to the honour of the minister those improvements were for the most part put in order, and to that it can be ascribed that there have been very few wrecks there since then. One small addition alone, that of the direction-finding machine at Pachena, has been the means of saving several ships this winter. In the month of December alone they had seven hundred calls, which they answered. Of course, many of them were from ships just testing their position, but in many cases this improvement has saved valuable ships from going on the rocks, and that is far more use than this drydock after you have got it on the rocks.
But the point made by my hon. friend was that the Prime Minister in his opening speech made the statement that this drydock was built to elect the hon. gentleman. The Prime Minister did not tell us it was not a dry-dock or should not be a drydock, he said the drydock was built to elect the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and I will endeavour to show how much of that is true. By the way, in his closing remarks the hon. member said that this drydock was going to be necessary. There are a lot of things going to be necessary, but we do not spend five millions on them before they do become necessary.
The Prime Minister said that the drydock was built to elect the hon. member. Victoria, I am sorry to say, although I am not a native of that city, has always been a city that was peculiarly susceptible to invitations, we will call it, of that character. It always needed a hand-out in plain English. That is one of the reasons perhaps we find that the

representation in parliament from rural constituencies is-I will not say a cleaner body- but a less approachable body than those from the cities. You could bribe one big city with a drydock or with a great many other things, but you cannot bribe a whole agricultural community, because the little town that gets the graft will be vehemently opposed by all the other little towns. But in the case of a city like Victoria they look for, and generally get, a hand-out of some description. Far back in the history of British Columbia politics I can recall when railway charters were the order of the day. The government then was practically a Victorian government. I always used to notice that it did not matter where the railway was projected, either in the extreme eastern part of British Columbia or elsewhere, so long as the terminus of the proposed railway was in the city of Victoria they could get a charter for their railway no matter how outrageous and unreasonable it was. So it has gone all down the line. I can recall two elections, because the government generally carry one on the promise and one on its tardy fulfilment, that the government won on the building of enormous expensive docks. Of course, the fact that they were unnecessary had nothing whatever to do with it. That was many years ago, and even to-day those great ocean docks are not connected with the railway. But that did not matter. They had to have the docks, and it was only after they were built-I do not know why, because there was so little shipping-that they discovered that the dock was four feet too high or four feet too low and that no large ocean-going boat could dock there, or ever will dock there for that reason. Twenty or thirty years ago members who come from the Old Country will recall that there was a great cry in magazine articles, "What shall we do with our boys?" The boys were growing up; the colonies were but little known then, and every other magazine had an article on, what shall we do with our boys? Very often they sent them to Canada, to the great benefit of this country. But in Victoria the question has arisen among the latter day statesmen: What shall we do with our docks? Various suggestions were made, but the brightest one came a few months ago when the tide of wheat began to flow into Vancouver. One man wrote a series of articles in the papers to prove that the proper thing was to ship the wheat from them. The wheat was to be brought to Vancouver and transported thence to Victoria then I presume carried by wagon from the terminus of the railway to the dock, to the docks that were four feet out of level, and then put into the

The Address-Mr. Neill
ship, and as the writer pathetically said, "It will be something to do with our docks." As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, and I think perhaps it is a good idea for every one to speak the truth on this matter, that drydock should have been built in Vancouver, and I defy the members for Vancouver, any one of them, to stand up in his place and contradict me. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) went into facts and figures, and I am pleased to follow him. He said that? the drydock site was bought in the year 1913 or 1914 at a place called Lang's Cove. That is quite true, but there are some half truths that are worse than an absolute deception. I have no doubt that a site was bought. The sum of three or four hundred thousand dollars was spent, but the site was not worth anything because you could not make a dry dock there. Perhaps it was never intended to put one there. However it served to carry the election at that particular date. Later on came this other election, and it was felt that something really had to be done this time; the people would not stand putting off any longer and a drydock had to be built. However the dock was not built at Lang's Cove, it was built at Skinner's Cove. Now, the money was voted on the 27th June, 1919, that was five years after the false dock site was bought and found to be unsuitable. So they got busy. On the 27th June, 1919, the money was voted to go on with the dock, and on the 2nd August, the hon. member was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture. Could anyone see a connection between those two facts? On the previous occasion the site was bought at a place that was no good and the matter had not been touched for five long years, but at the crucial moment-not at the crucial moment, I am exaggerating, but five weeks before my hon. friend was sworn in, it was discovered that the site was not suitable. Another site was bought, and parliament voted the money to build this drydock. My hon. friend tells us further that half a million dollars was set aside out of that sum in July for boring to find out whether it was suitable or not, and he was sworn in on 2nd August of the same year. With true modesty my hon. friend merely told us that he was sworn in "some time after that".


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
tell us who was Minister of Agriculture at the time the vote passed this House?


Alan Webster Neill: No, but the hon. member
for Victoria was the expectant minister.


Arthur Meighen: I tell the hon. gentleman that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was minister and there was no expectation whatever.


Alan Webster Neill: I do. not suppose the hon.
member for Marquette was instrumental in getting a vote for his successor.


Arthur Meighen: He was the member
of ,.the government who recommended it to this House.	[DOT]


Alan Webster Neill: On the advice of whom?


Arthur Meighen: On his own advice.


Alan Webster Neill: On his own advice?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Marquette recommended a dry dock for Victoria on his own advice? Do I get that right?


Arthur Meighen: What I said, and I do
not propose to be misrepresented, was that he was the member of the government which recommended it. When the hon. member asked me upon whose advice he was a member of the government, I said, on his own advice.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not refer to the creation of the hon. member for Marquette, I was talking about the creation of the dry-dock, or rather the vote for the drydock.
Now, I propose with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to quote a few extracts, a very few, from the Victoria Colonist. Those who are familiar with it know that the Victoria Colonist is a strong Conservative paper, and therefore its absolute accuracy can be relied on.


Arthur Meighen: Much better than yours.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member wants
to speak I will be happy to yield him the floor.
On October 16, 1919,-by the way I may say that while the hon. member was sworn in on the 2nd August, 1919, the election was not held until October 27-that date is important; October 27. So we find on October 16 an editorial reading as follows:
The announcement is made that tenders for the dry-dock will be called for immediately.
That was eleven days before the election. Just about the psychological moment was it not? On the same date in the same paper at a meeting we find Hon. Dr. Tolmie speaking as follows:
They tell you that this drydock scheme is merely a vote catching one. Before I left Ottawa I had the definite assurance from members of the Cabinet that
The Address-Mr. Neill

this work will be proceeded with. I fully believe that assurance.
On October 19, we again find my hon. friend making the following statement:
As to the drydock there is no camouflage so far as I and the government are concerned. The government has given me its solemn pledge that the work will be proceeded with and I am here to say the work will go on.
You see he had to be emphatic because this was the second time the drydock had been undertaken. Then again, on October 21, in his printed manifesto to the electors my hon. friend used this language:
We secured a vote for it (the drydock) at end of June (1919) and work will be proceeded with without delay.
On October 26, as the final windup before the election, which was next day, we find an editorial reading as follows:
People will attest by their votes their estimate of how much Mr. Tolmie was responsible for having made it possible for this great shipping facility to be begun this winter.
And there are more with which I will not burden the House.
There is just one other point I wish to allude to. The hon. member (Mr. Tolmie) said in his speech, and so did the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) that, after all, Esqui-malt, where this dry dock is, is not in the district of Victoria but in that of Nanaimo. That is just one of these truths which is true but misleading. It is perfectly and literally correct that it is not within the actual confines of the district of Victoria, it is in that of Esquimalt which extends up to Nanaimo eighty or a hundred miles. But Esquimalt is, to all intents and purposes a suburb of Victoria about two and a half miles distant and connected with it by tram line. Citizens of Victoria live out that way in pretty villas, and so on. The working people of Victoria go out there to work and vice versa. They are one and the same to all intents and 10 p.m. purposes. The expenditure of $5,000,000 in Esquimalt would accomplish as much benefit and be as successful in vote getting in the city of Victoria as a like expenditure in Ottawa would be in the city of Hull; the parable is an exact one. While it is perfectly true it is in the Nanaimo district, yet to all intents and purposes the benefit and the vote catching value of it would be just the same as if it were in the actual city of Victoria. Truth is a noble thing. Truth is supposed to be at the bottom of wells, but some wells are very deep.
Now the text of my hon. friend's eloquence was directed towards the statement of the
Prime Minister that the drydock was built to 
ensure his election. I maintain that I have sufficiently demonstrated the facts to hon. members to make up their minds. As to whether the Prime Minister was correct in that assertion I will leave it to them to say-I recall that some years ago, in the time of the great boom there was an intensive campaign to advertise motor cars throughout the States. One man advertised: "This is the best car." A second advertised: "This is the cheapest car." A third man sai4: "This is the safest;" and so on. But one particular man thought he knew the mind of the American people, thought he knew the class of people to whom he was appealing, and he advertised his car with these words: "This is the dearest car." He knew his clientele; he was out to catch the purse-proud millionaire who wanted to be able to say: "My car cost more than anybody else's." So we find a parallel to-day in the case of my hon. friend. He goes about the country a great deal, during the parliamentary recess, engaged in a business which is a sort of collateral to his political duties, and he will be able to point to himself as "a pearl of great price." I remember that when Paul was haled before-was it not Agrippa?-in the course of his trial it came out that he was a Roman citizen, a great honour in those days. The chief captain looked at him and asked how he came to be that. Paul said, Yes, he was a Roman citizen, and the chief captain replied, "With a great sum obtained I this." So my hon. friend can say "With a great sum obtained I this seat." But the commoner, the ordinary members from the prairies and other districts, can perhaps say, like Paul, "But we were free born."


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I wish to deal briefly with the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-A-lberni (Mr. Neill), but before doing so I wish to express my regret as a young man'-and I am sure many hon. gentlemen feel the same way-at the absence of one of our Canadian statesmen, the Minister of Finance, the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). We all miss him in this House. We miss the brilliancy of his mind and the soundness of his judgment. I had not anticipated making any references to the remarks of the last speaker, but he has hurled at me and my colleagues from Vancouver a defy regarding the Esquimalt drydock. He says that he defies the members from Vancouver to contradict the assertion that a drydock should have been built at Vancouver. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deny this assertion and say that a drydock should have been built at Esquimalt, but may I add, as actually happened, another

The Address-Mr. Ladner
should have been built at Vancouver. I was much interested, really more interested, in the fact that the hon. member rose in this House for the first time as a champion of the government. He is the man selected to answer perhaps the most popular member of this House, the hon. member for Victoria City, and he seeks to throw ridicule upon him, invective, and to charge him with insincerity. Any hon. member who knows the hon. member for Victoria City knows perfectly well that none of those allegations could be applied to him, and these remarks, coming from an hon. member and a gentleman who for many years has known the reputation of such a distinguished member of this House as the hon. member for Victoria City, are somewhat surprising to me. I would have thought perhaps the government would have chosen someone from some other portion of the country to have performed this kind of deed, let me say, to use parliamentary language. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni reminds me of the experience of a friend of mine who was travelling from New York over to a great convention of Rotarians in Edinburgh, and, as many of you know, each Rotarian carries the badge on the lapel of his coat, with his name, place of residence and occupation. On one beautiful Sunday morning a certain serious-minded,-should	I say long-facedindividual, proceeded about the boat, and without any explanation or without any words whatever, he would come to one member after the other, take hold of the lapel of the coat, and examine the badge with a magnifying glass. My friend proceeded with his reading, but soon this individual found his way to him, and the friend suddenly saw a large hand appear under his nose which hand grabbed the lapel of his coat adjusted the magnifying glass and examined the badge. The gentleman looked up in great surprise and this is what the man said: "I am Alex. Smith of Spokane undertaker; I am looking for somebody". The double application of the story rather fits the present situation. The hon. gentleman has endeavoured to answer the hon. member for Victoria City with arguments and assertions, which are witty, but which are not nearly so substantial, and not nearly so sound in fact as the assertion we have heard from the hon. member for Victoria.
Before proceeding with the main portion of my remarks I would like-and it is with a little diifidemce I undertake this duty-to refer to the words of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) this afternoon. That hon. member is generally fairly accurate, but
to-day he launched into a torrent of political argument, no doubt for political effect, with regard to a certain statement made by Mr. Monty at Montreal. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that although the Minister of Railways may be good in the administration of his department he was a little bit out in his French, not that I profess any excellent knowledge of French, but I have special means of knowing something about it. The actual words which were published in the press on Tuesday, the 29th January, 1921 were as follows-
Les liberaux, dit M. Monty, n'ont pas tenu parole; its avaient formellement declare que les chemins de fer nationaux seraient remis a une compagnie privee; au lieu de cela, on destitue les commissaires et on fait venir un etranger pour les administrer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for the interpretation of those words I have not only my own authority but, the authority of one more skilled in interpretation than I am. The interpretation of that word "etranger" literally means stranger, not in the sense of meaning foreigner, but someone outside our gates. The French language is full of delicacies and sentiment which I am afraid most of the Anglo-Saxon race do nut appreciate.


John Livingstone Brown: Give us the whole quotation, because we require to hear the whole of it to understand its significance.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. gentleman's
French is in working order to-night he will have understood it.


John Livingstone Brown: Read the English version of it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The interpretation of it
would be-
"The Liberals," said Mr. Monty, "did not keep their word. They formally declared that the National Railways would be returned to private ownership, instead of which they dismissed the directors and had a stranger appointed to administer them."
A foreigner and an alien would be a different individual in sentiment and warmth of feeling, from an ordinary stranger. There is that line of demarcation on which the Minister of Railways in his characteristic, witty and skilful manner has seen fit to take a political advantage of ^nd make a great fuss over, so that the newspapers would have a Lord Dundonald case i'll over again.
Most of the discussion in this House has been directed to the question of tariff. We have heard advocates cf tariff and more tariff. We have heard advocates of duties and less duties, and, if I remember my history cor-
The Address-Mr. Ladner

rectly, I think for the past 70 years public men have been advocating the pros and cons of the principles of free trade and protection without giving actual practical application of those principles to the conditions of the country as we find them. I was reading the other day in the Life of Sir Alexander Galt, a speech which he made in the House in 1850, when he was raising the duty from 7i to 10 per cent, and in that speech he was remarking on the disaster that would fall upon the United States because they had such high duties. I think they were 25 per cent, and he had it skilfully worked out that people would' leave the United States because the cost of living would go up and they would come to Canada. He used the very arguments which hon. members to my left are advancing, which arguments have been proven in the light of history to be absolutely without foundation.
I propose to say a few words with respect to the portion of the Speech from the Throne dealing with the question of banking. The Speech from the Throne says-
The amendments made to the Bank Act in the last decennial revision of the last session provided better guarantees for the public in banking operations; their wisdom has already been abundantly apparent.
I suppose the wisdom which has already been abundantly apparent may be found in the disaster of the Home Bank, as to which some hon. members of the government have had some information. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that although the Banking Committee sat three and a half months, and took a great amount of evidence, which, with the report covers 1,060 pages; yet the government, in the full possession of a number of facts which I shall disclose to the House, made scarcely any changes in the act, in the face of a situation which is becoming inimical to the best interests of the country and of our banking institutions. The banks constitute the heart of our economic system. Our agriculture, our industry, our business generally, all live or die under that, system. To continue the parallel, money is the life blood of the economic state; and so long as the heart of the economic system pulsates normally and distributes that life blood properly throughout the whole economic being, the national health will be maintained in vigour and be able to carry all the burdens of war and taxation which bear down on the shoulders of this virile northern race. The banking question is not a very complicated one. The functions which the banks discharge are simple. They are to receive the savings of depositors subject to repayment on demand, and to act

as a medium for loaning those moneys to the business of the country. Banks, like other businesses, must take their chances; the shareholders and creditors must take a certain amount of risk. For nearly one hundred years parliament has seen fit, in the public interest, to make laws respecting our banks, and our banking institutions have performed a splendid service in this country. There is no question about that; in fact, I think we have one of the best banking systems in the world. Like all good systems, however, the banking system in Canada is capable of improvement, and I hope to demonstrate this in a few moments. With respect to the Committee on Banking and Commerce and its report, the responsibility lay primarily on the government. What did they do as a matter of fact? Briefly, these are the accomplishments. They restricted the loans to bank officials. They made a change in the form of monthly returns, but with little improvement. Amendments were made to make more effective the shareholders' audit and to give greater power to the minister to investigate the banks. The trouble, however, is that the powers which the minister has in that regard are generally not exercised until after the failure has occurred or until some catastrophe has overtaken the institution.
The most important change was the amendment in connection with the famous section 88, under which the Dominion banks advance moneys to business concerns and have a first charge on the goods. The government proposed-and it was inserted in the bill-to add section 8S (a), by which notice of intention to borrow is filed with the Receiver General for the express purpose of giving notice to the public of the existence of a charge against these particular goods of the business. The real truth is that this amendment, pretending to be in the interests of the public and of our business institutions, was nothing more nor less than a sham, because it was a very simple matter for a man to borrow under section 88, file his notice, order his goods from England and then borrow again under section 86, repaying what he got under section 88, cancelling the notice under section 88 (a), and then standing before the world as though his goods were not encumbered, whereas, in fact, they would be just as much encumbered as they were before. It was not from any lack of information that the government pursued that course. An expert witness from Great Britain explained the matter, as can be seen by reference to the Banking Committee's report. Yet the government pursued that policy, which was fair neither to the public nor to the

The Address-Mr. Ladner
business institutions. In fact, it was deceiving ; and business men will easily carry on their affairs under that amendment believing that there are no encumbrances against particular goods when in fact there may be. What is it that the government have failed to do? They have failed to grapple properly with the question of rural credits. Years ago when the banking institutions were first started in this country their purpose was as we see in the preamble to the bill incorporating the Bank of Montreal in 1817, namely, to use the words of this preamble:
The advancement of agriculture and commerce and the promotion of the prosperity of the province.
What a change has come over the institution of banking in one hundred years! We know to-day that banking is adapted to the commerce and industry of the country; short term loans are made covering periods of sixty, ninety and a hundred and twenty days, and money which is loaned over a longer period-investment money-is placed usually in long term bonds and mortgages for three and five year terms. But there is nothing to enable the farmer to secure a loan for nine, twelve or fifteen months. In that respect the last decennial revision of the Bank Act failed to grapple with the problem of rural credits, and nothing has been accomplished; no step has been taken to stop the absorption by the larger banks of the smaller ones, I will deal with that phase of the matter in a few moments.
Then we have the extraordinary situation in connection with the small amount of capital which is carrying an immense amount of deposits of the people. And nothing was done with regard to excessive rates of interest. I know that you cannot legislate on the question of interest rates, but steps can be taken to make impossible such incidents as were disclosed before the committee where on loans an interest of 10 and 12 per cent, was charged farmers in remote sections of Saskatchewan. Then, again, in connection with audit and inspection, it is well known that the government has not accomplished anything of advantage. They made certain amendments but they do not solve the question. It is generally understood that the government will probably provide some measure this session, but nothing satisfactory has been accomplished so far. There is also the question of penalties for false or incorrect returns. These penalties do not attach to the officials of the institution in the way they should in order to bring home the responsibility when such a catastrophe occurs as happened in the case of the Home Bank. Let me add that these are not dark
and mysterious questions which cannot be investigated nor understood. The history of the development of banking and financial institutions in Canada discloses the fact that time and again problems have arisen before the Banking committee and solutions have been suggested, tried and failed. In that respect the government, I think, have failed entirely to fix the responsibility, and they have not solved the problem as they should have done.
May I now direct the attention of the House concretely to some of the very important indications of the general tendency of events to-day. After all, the course of events to-day is merely a connection between the past and the future. I have obtained certain information from the returns given by our banks under the Bank Act and published in the Canada Gazette. In 1867 there were 22 banks in Canada; in 1890 there were 40, affording a wide field for competition. In 1900 there were 36, in 1910, 28, and in 1923 the number had been reduced to 14. What will the number be in 1933? If this does not indicate the trend of events, let me call attention to the question of the capital invested in the banking business of this country and the volume of the business carried on. In 1890, we had $60,000,000 of paid-up capital; in 1900, $67,000,000, in 1910, $100,000,000 and in 1923, 123,000,000 While during the last 23 years the capital has increased 84 per cent the volume of business done, as indicated by bank clearings and liabilities to the public, has increased 1100 per cent. So that you will see what a disproportion there is in the respective increases. It is true that a large reserve of $123,000,000 has been built up, I will deal with that shortly. In 1900 the bank capital was $67,000,000 and the bank clearings were $1,500,000,000; in 1923 the capital had increased to $123,000,000, and the bank clearings to $17,500,000,000.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a more significant feature than this. The bank premises in 1890 stood at $4,000,000, in 1900 at $6,500,000, in 1910 at $25,000,000, in 1923 at $70,000,000 plus $6,000,000 in other real estate. Leaving aside the reserves, we find this extraordinary situation, that out of a total of $123,000,000 capital invested in the banking business of this country, no less than $76,000,000 is frozen or locked up in the premises and real estate on which the business of the banks is carried on. In many cases these are handsome pillared institutions of considerable architectural beauty, presenting an appearance of solidity and substance to depositors. Let me repeat that out of a total capital invested in the banking business of

The Address-Mr. Ladner
$123,000,000, no less than $76,000,000 is invested in bank premises. Consequently, leaving aside for the moment the reserves, we have a total net liquid capital of $47,000,000 to carry on the banking business of the Dominion, amounting to $2,686,000,000, which represents the liabilities of all the banks to the public. There arises the extremely important question of confidence in our banking system, which to some extent has been shaken by the Home Bank failure. May I remind hon. members in connection with these figures that in 1890, 1900 and 1910 we had more liquid capital in the banking business than we had in 1923, and I submit that the situation is one requiring the attention of the government.
In order the better to understand my contention, may I ask the House to visualize a base representing $47,000,000 in net capital, and on top of that an inverted pyramid representing $2,686,000,000 liability to the public. The House will thereupon appreciate the delicacy of the situation in the event of business disturbances throughout the world, and it will understand the need for a substantial increase in this capital, or some other arrangement to meet any difficulty which might arise through international complications.
It is not because the business has not been profitable that we find this reduction in the number of banks, because the returns furnished by the banks show that, taking the net earnings or dividends of all the banks, good and bad-and some of them are bad-the dividends paid were: in 1890, 6i per cent; in 1900, 7 per cent; in 1910, 8 per cent; in 1923, 11 per cent, while the reserve has increased from $34,000,000 in 1910 to $123,000,000 in 1923. I suggest that these figures are very significant. But perhaps the most astounding discovery which I made while examining these returns was in connection with the deposits which the public have placed in the banks, and which the banks loan to the institutions of the country to cany on their business. Out of $2,050,000,000 and more of deposits, no less than 70 per cent-and these calculations are practically accurate within i per cent-are to be found in the four largest banking institutions of the country, while the ten smaller institutions endeavour to carry on their business with 30 per cent. The course of events during the past thirty years shows a most interesting development in relation to these deposits and their distribution among our banks. In 1890 thirty per cent of these deposits were in the four largest banks, and
TMr. Ladner.]
seventy per cent in the remaining institutions; in 1900, the percentages were 40 per cent and 50 per cent respectively; in 1910, 45 per cent and 55 per cent respectively; but in 1923, 70 per cent are found in the four largest institutions and only 30 per cent in the others.
Now, in face of these facts, whether in regard to capital, deposits, number of banks, or the creation of reserves, my submission is that unless something is done by co-operation between our banking institutions and the federal government-and the responsibility is primarily on the government-we must ask ourselves-What will be the situation in 1934? For my part, I do not think it is in the national interest or the interest of our banks that the banking business of the country should be centralized in four or five large institutions. When the decennial revision of the Bank Act is taking place we find, and quite properly so, the most experienced and able men in the banking world appearing before the committee to make their submissions. They are the master minds in the banking world. What opportunity has the average member of parliament or the average man in public life of offsetting their advice so far as the public interest is concerned? Though looking after the public interest the member is very seriously handicapped. The point I wish to put frankly before the House is this; the course of events is tending towards a strong centralization of our banking business, and the government, with all its protestations against mergers, combines and trusts, has failed to take any action whatsoever to correct this tendency during last session after an exhaustive inquiry into our banking system.


Mr. VIEN:: Would my hon. friend submit his proposals to prevent the tendency he complains of?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is on the next sheet
of my notes, and I shall be pleased to tell him exactly what I would do. I would suggest that as the banking business is a monopoly under our Bank Act, and property so, placed entirely in the hands of our chartered banks, with certain great privileges, such as note issue up to the extent of a bank's unimpaired capital, and likewise with certain obligations -I would suggest that parliament should assume its responsibility to the public and at this juncture stop the course of events by adopting the principles governing the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States and the Bank of England which are applicable to Canada-incorporate them in the Bank Act,

The Address-Mr. Ladner
and give this country an institution which will be representative of both the banks and the people, and so control the course of events which is now only too apparent. We need such an institution. Some of the older members in this House may smile or cast doubt upon my proposal, but if they will study the history of the development of our banking system, and will face the facts squarely and assume their responsibilities to the public, they cannot help but realize the necessity of taking some steps to carry out a proposal on the lines I have suggested. If the government and parliament fail at this juncture to take the necessary action, it is only a question of time when a similar proposal will be put into effect.
These are some of the reasons why we require a reserve bank. We need a check on the rediscount facilities provided by the Bank Act; we should divorce the banking business from the government; we should put it in the hands of the bankers. These rediscount facilities are not complete at present and do not operate to the best advantage of the country. There is hesitancy on the part of the banks to take advantage of them. And we all know the necessity for such facilities.


William Findlay Maclean: Is not the rediscount system obtaining to-day in the United States eminently satisfactory? It is in the hands of the government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think it is.


William Findlay Maclean: The bankers of
the United States and the public say it is.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow me a further question? Does he think that the federal board system would be any better in Canada than it has been in the United States, where one hundred banks have failed of late?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman has apparently altogether missed my point. I am not advocating the adoption in Canada of the principle of the federal reserve bank exactly as it is applied in the United States. I have said twice that that system should be improved upon; that it is the Bank of England system we should use here, where rediscount is penalized. But we should have rediscount facilities. To continue my illustration: the bank cannot carry this manufacturer of lumber, because the bank, like other institutions, must pay its debts-and the banks have a lot of debts; they owe more money than any other institution I know of. Now, under the rediscount system, if the 'manufacturer cannot pay up, the bank takes his paper to the federal reserve bank, hands it over and gets money in its place, and the federal reserve bank carries the manufacturer over the awkward period. In every commercial country of the world to-day except Canada you have rediscount facilities, and in Canada you have a pretence at it in the Finance Act. We have just reached the stage of a halfway measure,
The Address-Mr. Ladner

and the course of events is forcing us on, impelled by the power of an economic force which hon. members have not, I believe, perceived, which the public have not perceived and never do perceive until disaster overtakes them-and then public men are driven on by the force of public opinion instead of acting as leaders of public opinion.
Then, we need something in this country in connection with our smaller banks. How many hon. members here honestly believe that in the face of the official data which I have given to the House to-day our smaller banking institutions, which have only 30 per cent of the total deposits of this country on the basis of which to carry on their business while the larger institutions have 70 per cent- how many hon. gentlemen think that these institutions can go on under these circumstances? They cannot reduce their overhead, as one banker told me the other day. With the failure of the Home Bank, the agitation that has prevailed among the public and the consideration of the matter by parliament, there has been a weakening of that most delicate and powerful instrument of finance-confidence, and the result is that very quietly-we might as well face it; we might as well talk about it and assume our responsibility in that connection-very quietly the deposits are being taken from the smaller institutions and placed in the larger ones. Does anyone think the larger institutions are objecting to that? Not at all. And if they are not being placed in larger institutions they are being placed, as I know for a fact, in the United States, or, if not there, they are being put into Victory Bonds or other securities, resulting in an investment of money on long terms which should be used in the commerce and business of the country. So Mr. Speaker, I say that we must do something to maintain in the competitive field the few small banks which now exist, because there is no doubt that if we do not take some action they will go out and we will have a financial oligarchy in this country which will dictate not only to business and finance but to governments, federal and provincial. Experience has shown time and again, as would be proved if we had an opportunity of going into some of these facts, the wisdom of parliament's assuming its responsibility early before disaster occurs.
I have already referred to the question of interest rates. The federal reserve system is the most effective way of correcting unfairness in connection with interest rates in different districts. The federal reserve bank does not deal with the public, as a rule, but only with member banks. There is one occasion, however, when they do deal with the public.

If in some districts the banks get together and endeavour to force a high interest rate, as happened in Canada, according to the evidence which was revealed before the Banking committee, where the rate was never less than 10 per cent and was often 12-if a situation of that kind arises, under the federal reserve system a board of trade or some other public body or individual may protest against it, and the federal reserve bank then operates its only power to deal with the public, called its open market operations. They go into that district and they offer the money at 7 per cent, and by the law of supply and demand the banking institutions which had refused to give a fair deal are forced to reduce their rate to a fair level. We have no such institution in Canada; we have no protection of that kind, and having public responsibility I think it is our duty to say something about these things and to endeavour to bring about some improvement in regard to them.
Then, a federal reserve bank would be the proper institution to handle that most delicate and most difficult question of inspection and audit. We have had much discussion in the House on this subject, and still more before the Banking committee. It is something that cannot be handled by m.en who are not experts in the business. I believe that in the United States a great deal of good has been accomplished in that regard. Then there is the question of note issue. Our note issue at present is carried on under the Finance department; that should be placed under the federal reserve bank-our gold reserve and the control of our notes. Moreover, the federal reserve institution is a splendid thing in connection with foreign trade, as has been eminently established in the United States. I see no reason also why the government should not place all their business in one banking institution. If you had a federal reserve bank acting on behalf of the state as well as the other banks, an institution in which all banks were members, the government could carry on its financial business with that federal reserve bank. Then there is the very important question of disciplinary authority. There must be many occasions in connection with the relation of our banking institutions to the public where certain discipline would be helpful to the banks as well as to the people. A federal reserve bank could accomplish that.
Before I close I wish to give one or two reasons why parliament should act in this matter now and not ten years hence at the

The Address-Mr. Ladner
next decennial revision of the Bank Act, when we may have four or five banks left. A depressed situation arises and becomes acute owing to war or other extraordinary conditions. In all history wars have been the cause of disaster in finance and in business. Our debt in Canada increased from $330,000,000 before the war to two and a half billions after the war. The Great War was financed not as other wars, by the accumulated savings of the people, but upon the principle of inflation, and any of you who have gone into the question at all will know that just as the banks build up their assets and liabilities, debits and credits, so the government borrows from the public and from the banks. After absorbing all the accumulated savings in Great Britain and in Canada and after drawing upon the savings of the United States they were forced to resort to inflation in order to carry on the war, and the results has been that the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down through deflation, to the extent that it will never, in my opinion, attain the same purchasing power that it had reached before the war. Let me impress your mind with the seriousness of the situation by informing those who perhaps have not the information, of the colossal expenditure which this war has meant. During the six years from March 31, 1914, to March 31, 1920, more money was spent by the British Empire than it spent during the 226 years prior to that date. That is official data from authorities that are accepted as such. In other words, from 1914 to 1920 there has been more money spent than there was back to 1688, when the national debt of Great Britain was commenced. What does that mean? It simply means taxation. It means obligation on the backs of the people. It means an encumbrance on all financial operations, and the obligation of the state to recognize the necessity in the course of events to co-operate with the banking institutions, and in the face of obligations of that kind face the future, as we will be bound to do a few years hence if we do not do it at the present time. Let me remind you that the Napoleonic wars from 1793 to 1817, some twenty-four years, cost Great Britain 1,200 million pounds while the late war cost the Empire 11,268 million pounds during the six years from 1914 to 1920, and you will remember that the Napoleonic wars waged from one end of Europe to the other, and bear in mind the shortness of the late war. These are wide-world factors which have created the present financial situation.
Mr. Speaker, had I not occupied so much of the time of the House, I would like to have had the opportunity of saying a few words- which I will not do-in connection with the development of banking institutions in Canada. But the Prime Minister, whom I see in the chamber, may be interested in learning of an incident which occured away back in 1837 in connection with one of his ancestors, a distinguished Upper Canada reformer, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie instigated a run on the Bank of Upper Canada, and historians tell us that the bank paid the notes in silver and kept friends at the counter all day, and at night these friends brought back the specie in wheel-barrows. The analogy I wish to make is this: We have in this present generation a run of a different kind by his descendant. It is a run on the revenues of the country coming from agricultural implements and instruments of production, and while this descendant carries on a run of that kind, his cabinet friends carry on a run on other business in the country by increasing taxation and bringing back the money to the coffers of the government in that way. It is true these are in different ages but they have a political effect as they may have had at that time.
So far as the tariff is concerned, British Columbia wants a reasonable protection. The outlook of British Columbia is one of commercial, industrial, agricultural and mercantile development. We have diversified interests. Our agriculture amounted last year to $55,000,000; fisheries, $20,000,000; minerals, $44,000,000; forest production, $92,000,000. We have many things which we can send to the prairies, and they have their wheat which they can send to us, but I think that after all the West, British Columbia, and the prairies, together have one thing in common, and that is the claim for equalization of freight rates and the elimination of the discriminatory rates. I shall refer to this matter only in a general way because it has been so well threshed out that it is unnecessary to go into details. When one listens to this debate on the tariff and hears hon. members rising to lofty heights of eloquence on the subject of free trade or protection, one wonders exactly what the consequences would be if the tariff on agricultural implements were altogether eliminated. I suggest to hon. gentlemen to my left that more would be gained in a single month by equalization of freight rates than they would gain in ten years by the elimination of the tariff on agricultural implements. Mr. Speaker, the whole question is a farce so far as the tariff

The Address-Mr. Ladner

is concerned. It is a political farce, and anyone who has observed the attitude of our Progressive friends this year, as compared with last year or the year before, will realize the apparent intent, and in that connection I would ask the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), to bear with me while I take him on the course of events which may lie before him in the near future when the budget comes down. The leader of the Progressive party claims with great enthusiasm that the promise in the Speech from the Throne is a renewal of the Liberal platform of 1919. I wonder what he will say when the actualities are divulged in the budget. I suggest to him that he will be in the position of the Scotchman who was being married, and if I listen rightly I would judge that the hon. member for Brandon is connected with the Scotch himself. In the middle of the ceremony this Scotchman stopped; he could not go any further. The best man rushed up to him and said, "Jock, what ails ye. Have ye lost the ring?" "No," said Jock, "but I have lost my enthusiasm." I think the member for Brandon will find himself in that position when the budget comes down.
In closing, I wish to make an appeal to the members of this House on the question of making permanent the bonus which now forms a portion of the pension given to the soldiers. I am not aware that any comment has been made on this subject, but I do know from representations, from resolutions that have been passed and public meetings that have been held from one end of Canada to the other, as well as from newspaper comment, that the soldier body of this country is greatly exercised over this matter. There seems to be an idea that this bonus, which under the Pension Act of 1920, automatically expires on the 1st of September next will not be renewed by the government. If the government has any intention of not renewing that bonus, I think it is only fair and proper to the soldiers who are in receipt of this pension to say so.


Mr. BELAND:: My hon. friend suggests that the government should make known to the country whether it is their intention to extend the payment of the bonus to the soldiers. Six weeks ago in Toronto, before the Amputation Association, I was asked that question and I answered it, and my statement was published in the newspapers. It was to the effect that the government intended to introduce legislation to extend the bonus to the soldiers.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask for how long?


Henri Sévérin Béland: When the legislation is introduced, my hon. friend will know.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask if the principle of extending the bonus is to be carried out, or is the bonus to be made a portion of the pension?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have made my statement.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And that leaves the country in the doubt in which it now is, and it is because of that we find the most deserving group of men perhaps in Canada coming here to Ottawa in a great convention on the 5th and 6th of next May. The Amputations Club of Canada propose to come here and hold a convention. Along with other organizations they have submitted a petition to His Excellency the Governor General and "to the honourable members the House of Commons in Parliament assembled." The relief sought is this:
We therefore humbly submit that the payment of the bonus should be abolished, and the amount of the pensions commensurately increased in each case by the sum nowr'paid as a bonus; in other words, the pension should consist of such a sum as is now paid as a pension with the addition of the present bonus.
This petition is signed by The Amputations Association; the Imperial Veterans in Canada; the Great War1 Veterans Association: The War Widows and Widowed Mothers Association. I think when you consider whal the pensions amount to, no member of this House would have the ingratitude to endeavour to either lessen the pension or restrict it to a bonus. Let me remind the House that a total disability pension is $50 The bonus amounts to $25. If a man has an arm off he is paid at the rate of 60 to 80 per cent disability. If he has a leg off he is paid at the rate of 40 to 80 per cent disability. If he has two legs off below the knee he is paid at the rate of 80 per cent disability. A widow's pension is $40 and the bonus amounts to $20. The first child receives $15, the second $12, and the third $10. We must bear in mind the depreciation in the purchasing power of the dollar, a depreciation which-as in the case of the Napoleonic wars-increased by 70 per cent and has never returned to the rate it was before the war. The purchasing power of the dollar in this country will never, in the light of history and the knowledge of present day events, return to the rate at which it was before. With that one simple fact before us, and with a knowledge that the total disability of a man who has two legs and two arms off

The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
only entitles him to receive $75 a month, may I ask in all seriousness is there an hon. member in this House whose memory is so short, whose gratitude is so small, whose conscience is so callous that he would hesitate one moment in granting the prayer of the petition which has been presented to this House.
I thank hon. members for their courtesy in listening to me with such patience, and I say this in conclusion: When this convention of the Amputations Club shall take place in Ottawa what a gracious act it would be on the part of the parliament of Canada if it were to receive these heroes as the Romans were wont to receive their heroes in the days gone by when they presented them with the laurel wreath of victory in recognition of their distinguished service in defence of the country. Instead of a laurel wreath we might give to these gallant men the solemn obligation of the parliament of Canada that so far as the pensions are concerned they need have no worry, and that the gratitude of the people of this country would be expressed through the parliament of Canada by making the present bonus a permanent portion of the pension.


Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
to the complimentary words of preceding speakers, I ask the privilege of adding my felicitations to those gentlemen who have so gracefully moved and seconded the Address to His Excellency in reply to the Speech from the Throne. And, with a mandate fresh from the people, I wish to acknowledge the pleasure afforded the people of Nova Scotia by the visit of their Excellencies to that historic province last summer. Whether as Commander of the Canadian Army Corps in Prance and Planders, or as the representative in Canada of His Gracious Majesty, the people I have the honour to represent are proud that His Excellency is in spirit and in deed all that those who occupy high places in a democracy should aim to be. Such I can assure you is the appreciation of His Excellency in that historic province by the sea which I am proud to own as the province of my nativity and life long home, than which none of the provinces of this great Dominion more proudly acknowledges and values its British allegiance and traditions.
I think it right and proper that His Excellency be congratulated because of the fact that in his early career, serving as a subaltern in one of England's celebrated regiments, the 10th Royal Hussars-which fought at El Teb-he now has been selected as its new Colonel.
29i
I desire to express my regret at the absence of my personal friend, the Minister of Finance, tMr. Fielding), because of severe illness;
I hope that he may soon be restored to his usual good health. We, as boys, travelled the streets of Halifax together, each pursuing his respective calling, and whilst I have followed a retiring life, my lifelong friend has occupied a prominent position in the government and history of our Dominion.
To the former Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) I extend my sympathy, and trust that the balmy winds and the warmth of the Sunny South may be of lasting benefit to him.
I desire to extend congratulations to the hon. member (Mr. Lapointe) who has been selected as Minister of Justice, and to the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) who has taken the portfolio of Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
If, in exposing to this House the hardships and grievances under which my province is labouring, and which the trying post-war conditions have served not to create but only to clarify, we protest against our established order of things, please rest assured that it is not because of any slackening of fealty to the Crown. But we do indeed hold the view that unless all parts of the Dominion shall enjoy equal opportunity for prosperity, no prosperous Dominion can exist. Nova Scotia, having surrendered much and suffered much through her adherence to confederation, asserts the right to equal participation in the vast opportunities opened up by confederation in this great Dominion.
It is true that, for many years past, I have given allegiance to the Conservative party. I believed in the principles of that party, I believed in confederation, I believed in the wisdom of uniting the British communities of North America in one Dominion. I believed in the National Policy, and I believed that never was national decision more wisely made than when at the outbreak of the Great War, Canada's government of the day placed itself and the country unreservedly on the side of those who sought to repel German aggression. I have believed that in the great national issues confronting it, the Conservative party adopted the right national course and I have faith that in adjusting the balance of differences and setting the Dominion in the way of a new national prosperity, we are more likely to succeed under the direction of Conservative policy than under that of the present government. You may ask, Mr. Speaker, why I hold this view. My answer, in a word, is that the government has not kept faith.
452	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
My life has been spent in a commercial atmosphere trading in a community where contracts and commitments once made were adhered to, no matter at what cost. Now, I ask has the government adhered to its contracts and commitments? I ask were the commitments made in solemn convention in Ottawa in 1919 adhered to? Indeed, it is notorious that they were not. They have been more honored in the breach than in the observance, and the breach has been repeatedly and cynically condoned by the Prime Minister himself and by the hon. Minister of Finance who, laughing in his sleeve at what he thinks is the gullibility of the electorate, advances his unworthy view that platforms are only useful to attain power. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a too low and debasing plane on which to conduct public business; it is unacceptable and repugnant to our people; it will not wash.
Why, when the government's candidates presented themselves for election in 1921, they pledged themselves to bring us to a golden era, they were willing to promise anything that would secure political support. The hon Minister of National Defence (Mr, Macdonald) promised, if sent to Ottawa, to move a resolution in the House for an increase in the duty on coal to a level that would provide "real" protection instead of what then existed and what he called "fake protection" Have any of the members of this House encountered the "golden era"; have any of the members seen the resolution of the hon. Minister calling for "real" instead of "fake protection" on coal? And during the campaign in North Cape Breton in July last, the press reported the same minister appealing to the electors of that riding at North Sydney on July 28 as follows:-
A revision of freight rates on the Canadian National railways has been prepared and is now awaiting the return of Sir Henry Thornton from the West to put them into effect. It provides for a general reduction in rates affecting local traffic between Ontario and the Maritime provinces.
Polling day passed, and again the electors trusted the government. Have any of the members of this House seen the revision of freight rates? Seven months have passed and no one in Nova Scotia is conscious of any reduction. They continue to labour under rates which Hon. E. H. Armstrong, the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia describes as "excessive freight rates choking our industrial life."
Leaders of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia were formerly much addicted to the use of a slogan "Trust the people." It is founded on an axiom which must propeily prevail in all democracies, but it carries with it a natural

corollary that the people should trust the elected representatives. The representatives must needs be W'orthy (if trust. Can any one wonder that, in view of the broken promises to which I have alluded, the high-spirited electors of the city and county of Halifax should have turned from their false gods and sent to Ottawa a member to support the opposition. So it was in Halifax and so it was in Kent. And now I find myself honoured with a seat in this House, not as, primarily, a Conservative partisan, but as a protest against the perfidy oi politicians and with a mandate to strike hard for the rights of my beloved province. To that mandate I shall be true, no matter if it should lead to a breach in the present happy relations which have always exi=ted between my leader and myself.
I am going to ask for time to set out the embarrassing position wth which the province of Nova Scotia finds herself confronted today. Hansard p. 4220, June 19th, 1923, reports the hon. Minister of Finance as follows:
Many institutions which were prosperous in the Maritime provinces before confederation are complaining to-day. I do not want to discuss the question of confederation. I simply state a fact. I remember when there were twenty wholesale houses in Halifax all doing a prosperous business; to-day there is hardly one of them left. They have all been driven out by Montreal.
In order to get a pioper setting for the picture of to-day one must recall those prosperous and self-contained conditions hinted at by the minister in those days. Ten banks were then operated and contiolled in the province. To-day not one so remains. Fortunes were then being made by many different importers, exporters and shipping men, their varied activities affording generous employment to all who wished to work. To-day conditions are hard and, according to a reliable local authority, 30,000 of our best people are going annually to the States- driven to find a solution of their embarrassment in emigration to a foreign land and under an alien flag. Mr. Speaker, these things ought not so to be. These were not the prospects that were held out to Nova Scotians at the time that Ontario and Quebec statesmen were proposing that the Maritime provinces should enter a umon to safeguard the defence position of the country and create a nation. When these statesmen toured the lower provinces after the Charlottetown conference, they naturally dilated on the benefits that would follow the adoption of a plan of confederation. The politicians who attended the conferences were in favour of the adoption

The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
of their scheme, of couise, but it was received coldly by the public of the province. Indeed, it has never at any time been approved by the voters. Perhaps Cartier put the invitation to enter confederation as tersely as any one of the Fathers of Confederation. Speaking at Halifax on 12th September, 1866 he said:
I have heard since I have been in Halifax the objection thrown out that you will be absorbed. It will be very easy for me to dispel such fears. I answer them by a question: Have you any objection to being absorbed by commerce? Halifax, through the Intercolonial Railway, will be the recipient of trade which now benefits Portland, Boston and New York. If you are unwilling to do all in your power to bring to a satisfactory consummation this great question, you will force us to send all this trade, which you ought to have, through American channels. It is as evident as the sun shines at noon that when the I.C.R. is built- and it must necessarily be built if confederation takes place-the consequence will be that between Halifax and Liverpool there will be steamers almost daily leaving and arriving at the former. In fact, it will be a ferry between Halifax and Liverpool.
At St. John on the 14th' September, he said:
Canada has population and territory to make a great nation in course of time. But she wants what the Maritime provinces possess, an outlet to the sea.
He then explained how business would develop.
-when the goods of the Maritime provinces are exchanged for the goods of Canada-
And that
-the products of British Columbia and the vast prairies would also pour through Halifax.


Mr. FINN:: May I ask my hon. colleague
what was the policy prior to 1896? Were the subsidies given by the Tory government to the line to Portland or Halifax?


William Anderson Black: As it is evident
that the hon. gentleman has not heard much of the debate, I will proceed. The irony of the situation to-day is that the Canadian government, through its ownership of the Grand Trunk, with its chief railway terminus at Portland, is the chief instrument through which United States ports continue to be enriched by trade from the provinces situated west of New Brunswick. The present government has gained some friends by providing lower duties under the preferential tariff when goods enter through a Canadian port, although like much of their legislation the step is faltering and incomplete. And the idea of Canada now "taking the products of Nova Scotia in exchange for Canadian goods" is a joke. Geography and the fiscal system adopted by the Dominion are preventing that province from reaping the benefits of its maritime position, and are forcing its people to become
hewers of wood and drawers of water to the central provinces. "Canada," as it was called before Confederation, finds a good market in Nova Scotia for its products manufactured and sold under a 10 per cent to 35 per cent tariff at correspondingly high prices, and takes payment, not in trade, as Cartier foretold, but in cash, which Nova Scotians raise by selling their fish, potatoes, fruit, lumber and other natural products in the highly competitive markets of the world. Located on the circumference of a circle, Nova Scotia cannot become a factor in the Canadian industrial system because she cannot overcome the costly carrying charges to reach the centre and the other side of the circle in competition with the mass producers situated at the centre of the circle in Hamilton, Kitchener, Toronto, Montreal, and other cities. And her banking control, with its collateral benefits, has gone to the latter mentioned cities, absorbed, not by commerce, as Cartier prophesied, but as the result of legislative enactments imposed quite naturally by those sections who command a majority in the councils of the nation, who also naturally make the fiscal policy suited, not to the needs of the smaller provinces, but to their own. Our smaller factories of former days, with a few notable exceptions, have been driven out of business by the mass producers centrally located, and new factories with us are unknown. It is an interesting fact, and it tells its own story, that the 700 Canadian manufactories and branches of United States concerns erected in Canada in the last 25 years have passed up the Maritime provinces as a location for their factories. Their benefits accrue to Canada, but not to the East.
In 1867, those who opposed confederation did so because of the disadvantages and losses that they feared would follow. To-day the successors of the "antis" need invoke no one's imagination; the worst fears have been realized. The advantages then enjoyed from control of fiscal policy were surrendered; the advantages that were to take their place have not materialized. Along with the other supporters of confederation, we seek a remedy that will afford the residents of this province the same opportunity for profitable activities and development of its resources as are enjoyed by any sister province. Surely a way can be found. To admit failure is to concede that that province has no place in the Dominion, and this concession we do not wish to make. The present severe business depression in the Maritime provinces-the total building permits of their 1,000,000 people only amounted in 1922 to 2| per cent of the total of Canadian building permits-has caused a
464	*'	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
questioning of underlying conditions, and a feeling of exasperation that has not existed there in a lifetime. You find it in conversation with nine out of ten of the people you talk to. I would that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House and the country generally, should appreciate the difficulties which have weighed on us so heavily, but which have been borne in silence compared with the vocal prairies, who are making better material progress, and who, never having enjoyed large realized wealth, as our people formerly did, have surrendered nothing, and have no good old days to look back to.
Some Liberal partisans in considering the dilemma which confronts us assert that it could have been avoided had we accepted the reciprocity pact of 1911. There is something in their contention. Putting aside for the moment the instability of that arrangement, I willingly admit that between conditions in Nova Scotia to-day and what they would have been under reciprocity, we are worse off. While reciprocity lasted we could have marketed our natural products to better advantage than we can now market them in the competitive markets of - the world. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that when my province refused to approve of reciprocity, it did so on the highest national grounds. We were told at that time that it was essential to maintain an east-and-west system of transportation to which the treasury of the country and our national destiny had been overwhelmingly committed. That was good enough for us. Our imaginations carried us forward to the day when our east and west transport systems would include an All Red route from Vancouver to Liverpool which would carry the fertilizing stream of commerce and travel on Canadian soil alone and under the folds of the Union Jack by land and sea, and the immediate monetary advantages of reciprocity we passed up in favour of the grand idea of nation building.
But we never contemplated the idea of carrying Canadian trade part way east and west by rail and the surrendering it to the enrichment of Canadian Atlantic winter ports situated in a foreign land. In this our province has again been betrayed. We went on in good faith and while we have been let down, allow me to express the conviction that it is only for a season. We demand and shall insist on the remedy. No government since that day has addressed itself to the task. While the war was on we in Nova Scotia considered it our duty to devote our attention to its prosecution to the exclusion of all interprovincial differences. That peril is, fortunately, past, and the duty before all bluenoses

now lies clear. No government can ignore it except to forfeit all support. In this matter I feel confident that I speak with authority.
The question of taxation is a very serious one, but this government it would appear by the Speech from the Throne, after two years of slumber, seems to have awakened to a realization of conditions in our Dominion, especially in relation to taxation under which our people are groaning. Possibly the thunder from Kent and Halifax is responsible for this awakening. Relief is indicated. Let us "wait and see."
In my province, we are not at all interested in discussing who is or who is not to blame for this or that thing in the past. Hair splitting and casuistry do not interest us. We are confronted by vital living issues; we want a chance to live and we shall have it. We intend to place forever behind us the day when an ambitious young man or woman, in order to attain success, must desert his or her place of birth and go to the States-or migrate even to Montreal or Toronto. We feel that no political party can afford to write off even the decimated fourteen seats that will be our lot after redistribution. And we intend in future in our province to speak with a united voice. I have the honour of being here to-day as the first public spokesman for that voice.
The city of Portland, Maine, the chief Atlantic winter terminus of the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways, recently formed a 100,000 Club. The " Outlet " radio station at Providence, Rhode Island, is fond of broadcasting the importance of its city as an outlet for export trade. Less than a year ago, the state legislature of Rhode Island was assured by our railway people that if the charter of the Southern New England Railway was renewed construction would be completed by the Central Vermont and Canadian National Railways, whose subsidiary it is, and another Canadian Atlantic winter port in a foreign land be thus established. The people of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, are opposed to the policy of upbuilding Canadian National ports under an alien flag while their own harbour fronts are idle, the wharves deserted and the longshoremen unemployed. No longer are they content to remove from Halifax and reside in Portland and Providence in order to benefit from Canadian production, Canadian industry and the expenditure of the money of the Canadian taxpayer. For such, in truth, are the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. For over two years, these matters have gone on without a protest being uttered
MARCH 18, 1924	s
The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
in this chamber by our representatives-the former solid sixteen-elected by the votes of the people on the promise of the candidates that they would usher in a golden era, reduce the high cost of living and generally ease the conditions under which the people were labouring.
Hon. E. H. Armstrong the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, stated in the Montreal Gazette on April 24th of last year that:
The people of the Maritime provinces feel keenly that they have not been fairly treated by the rest of the Dominion. They have been made to feel that they are and should remain isolated, more or less forgotten, tolerated at the best, and not provided for like the more fortunate provinces to the west of us.
Sir, I have arrived at the time of life when I could fairly claim a period of rest, quietness and ease. It was only at the earnest solicitation of patriotic Nova Scotians that I consented to forsake the easier way and offer myself for election in opposition to this government which has so signally failed to solve any of the difficulties that their candidates promised to solve. Living, as I did, in pre-confederation days, throughout the early days of the Dominion, and up to the present, confident of the great destiny of our country, provided its fortunes are directetd by men of wide vision, I come before you to-day and plead for consideration of the conditions I have outlined. I implore the government to rectify the grievances. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and the country, that early action is imperative. I warn you that failure will bring us all to regret, if not to disaster.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, let me refer to one or two matters.- The right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister of this Dominion, on March 3 last, told this House that the by-election in Halifax was won on local issues-that the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) was in the constituency making appeals of a sectional character, and he drops the subject with these words,-"This by-election had no significance whatever." I will venture this statement, Mr. Speaker, that never in the history of this country have members of government sat in this House with greater anxiety, uneasiness and disappointment than do the gentlemen occupying the chairs on your right at the present time, because of the result of the election in Halifax-an election "with no significance whatever"-says the Prime Minister. Their position has been made still more uncomfortable by the electors of Kent who sent to this House my good, capable friend, roommate and desk mate (Mr. Doucet). Give us, in the Maritime provinces, Mr. Prime Minister another opportunity, and we will still further add to the discomfort of our friends opposite.	p .	.
If this by-election had no political significance why was it necessary to arrange by cable with the Prime Minister, then in England, to address a political gathering in Halifax just before polling day? In order that the right hon. gentleman might be in time for this meeting, the steamer on which he was a passenger was diverted from her course and came to Halifax. The Prime Minister was not the only speaker at this gathering, but was supported by half a dozen more or less of his ministers. His party was further fortified during the campaign by many hon. gentlemen, members of the once solid sixteen, representing in this House surrounding constituencies. "No significance whatever" in the Halifax byelection? I leave it with the House to decide whether or not it had any significance. The electors of the city and county of Halifax heard and read what the battalion of speakers had to say, heard their promises and pledges, thought out in their own minds the vital questions affecting our country, and decided for themselves. The result is well known to this House, and by none is it more keenly realized than by the hon. gentlemen opposite.
In passing I might mention that one reason given, but not the real reason, why the Prime Minister should divert his steamer and land at Halifax, was that he desired to reach Ottawa at the earliest possible moment. This is a distinct compliment to the port of Halifax, and I thank the hon. Prime Minister for it, as it emphasizes the fact that starting from Great Britain or any eastern point the quickest and most direct route to the West is via the port of Halifax.
The hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) has been referred to by the right hon. leader of the government. I want just here to say that this hon. gentleman was in my constituency during the campaign, that he did excellent work discussing the problems of our country, and that his forceful way of presenting the truth to the electors added greatly to our success.
Our campaign was carried on on the basis of a fair, broadminded discussion of matters concerning our great Dominion. Our friends opposite seem to have dwelt upon promises and to have pinned their faith to these, but there were already too many broken and unfulfilled promises, and this the electors full well realized and acted accordingly.
Much has been said on the question of an elevator for Halifax. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, taking up the time of the House at the present moment discussing this important
456	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
matter. Suffice it to read the words of the Minister of National Defence, who represents the county of Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) in relation thereto. Speaking at a large gathering a few days prior to election day, he said:
With the prospects of an enormous grain crop, the government, carrying out the policy of Canadian trade through Canadian ports, had decided upon the erection of a grain elevator at Halifax, modern and complete. Tenders had been called for and eight had been received. If Hon. W. S. Fielding, the acting Prime Minister, had not taken ill upon his return to Ottawa the other day from Halifax he would have called a council meeting and the contract would have been awarded by now. But just as soon as the Prime Minister returned to the capital-
He was then in Halifax, thirty hours' journey from Ottawa.
-the contract would be awarded by the Cabinet and the work of construction would start at Halifax immediately. (Cheers).
Of course there would be cheers.


Robert Emmett Finn: I would like to correct my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: I was at the meeting-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: -and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said nothing of the sort.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


William Anderson Black: Well, hon gentlemen opposite are so fond of commissions that I suggest they might have one appointed to examine the reporter and ascertain whether or not that language was used. Anyway, this was another of that hon. gentleman's promises which is still unfulfilled.
No elevator has yet been arranged for in Halifax. If this government was sincere, if it was in earnest about even considering maritime traffic-that is, the sending of Canadian goods through Canadian ports-why should it not make some use of the elevator now standing there? A beginning could easily be made with the existing facilities. Why not employ Canadian Merchant Marine steamers in this business instead of having them carry cargoes at low rates to American ports? But like all else with the present administration, it is a case of "let us wait and see."
Some items promised in Halifax prior to the election of December 6th were: elevator, pier, railway sidings-well, I shall not take up (he time of the House in mentioning them all. Hon. gentlemen have heard of the promises that were made in regard to the elevator as well as in regard to numerous other things. 
I might again refer to the inconsistency of hon. gentlemen opposite. One minister, the Minister of National Defence, for the improvement of our valuable fisheries promised Halifax a fishery station, while at that moment his colleague the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was touring the county of Kent. New Brunswick, and telling the electors of that constituency that he woidd not allow officers of his government again to enter that county to stop illegal fishing for lobsters. Consider the situation, Mr. Speaker: a minister of the Crown telling the people of this country that he will assist them in violating the laws, especially those of his own department!
It perhaps is not generally known by members of this House that of late complaints have been reaching this country from England and the continent about the quality of the finned lobsters sent to those markets. May these complaints not arise from the fact that lobsters are illegally caught, caught out of season when not fit for human food, packed in cellars and barns, swamp water being used in the process? Such are the facts, and in the face thereof the then Minister of Fisheries not only condones these offences but rather encourages them. The lobster industry is too valuable to trifle with in this way. With so much instability on the part of this government, is it to be wondered at that depression exists throughout our Dominion?
I was much gratified to hear from the lips of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), some encouraging words on the subject of Canadian Trade through Canadian ports. Yesterday when speaking he, as a member of this government, placed himself on record in unqualified terms as favourable to that policy, and I cannot do better than quote the hon. member's words which I will lead from Hansard of March 17. pages 377 and 378. He said:
It has been decided that an officer will be placed in New York who will there clear goods in transit for western Canadian ports and also goods coming from western ports to eastern Canadian points. But in the order making provisions for an officer at New York the government have thought it wise to stipulate that goods so moved should be placed in British bottoms, that is, ships of British or Canadian register. It is hoped that by this provision there will be established sailings of British or Canadian ships from Canadian Atlantic ports which will fully accommodate this traffic.
Mr. Ladner: May I inquire whether there are any lines operating ships of British or Canadian register which send vessels that way?
Mr. King (Kootenay): Yes, there is one line, and recently the Canadian National Railways have indicated their intention to put on two ships. I am informed also that there are two or three lines which propose to establish a regular service between eastern and western Canadian ports this summer.

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
Mr. Ladner:	Has the government any definite
arrangement with those lines, with a view to making certain that the goods will be carried?
Mr. King (Kootenay): I am satisfied that lines will be established if there are goods to be carried, and we have reason to believe that there will be a very considerable amount of business offering, because it is within the knowledge of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) that no less than two, and possibly three, lines are prepared to enter into this traffic.
Mr. Ladner: Why would it not be in the interests of traffic to allow any competing lines which would give the service at the reduced rates to have the benefit of the establishment of the customs officer at New York?
Mr. King (Kootenay): There will be a customs officer at New York and goods shipped to that point will have an opportunity of entering into ships of British registry.
Mr. Ladner: My question is, why not other ships?
Mr. King (Kootenay): I think it only fit and proper that we should endeavour to keep this trade within Canadian channels. It will travel over Canadian railways to Canadian ports and will there enter into ships of our own register or of British register to be transported. We are satisfied that in the British merchant marine we have facilities which are sufficiently extensive to give accommodation and to bring about a competition which will control rates in the matter of this tonnage.
I regret to say that one important public body in Vancouver has taken exception to this ruling and contends that these goods should enter ships of any registry and be allowed to move freely. Now, as a representative of British Columbia and a Canadian I do not agree with this contention. I think it absolutely essential, if we are to grow as a nation, that we develop and maintain our national ports. No maritime nation can afford to build up the ports of an adjoining country at the expense of its own. I am satisfied that the people of British Columbia as a whole will endorse this attitude. I am sure that if the position were reversed and the people of Alberta and central British Columbia were to find it more acceptable to ship their goods via the ports of Seattle and Portland, our friends of the Vancouver Board of Trade would be the first to take exception and to insist on certain restrictions that would tend to confine this business to our own ports.
Mr. Ladner: Is the government in possession of any assurances to make certain that the nature of that arrangement does not mean that the rates by water will be adjusted somewhat on the same basis and at the same rate as by rail in which case the advantages of going via New York would be virtually nullified so far as lower rates are concerned.
Mr. King (Kootenay): The government will always have it within their power to amend that regulation if it is found that the people who are going to engage in this business are trying to make excessive profits out of it; but primarily, I think, we are on safe ground. It is the policy of this government to develop our own national ports, and this business, which I believe is going to become of very great importance not only to our people in western Canada but I think of even greater importance to our manufacturing friends in central and eastern Canada, should certainly remain in the channels where the people of Canada will derive the most benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a move in the right direction-the policy which the Maritimes have been asking for for years. Apply it to transportation between Canadian Atlantic ports, and Canadian Pacific ports then it cannot be denied to transatlantic business.
I do not wish to further detain this House but hope to again refer to this subject, which is of such vital importance to the Maritime provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: May I on behalf of the House extend to the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) its congratulations upon his maiden speech, and express the surprise of the House at the rather brusque manner in which he scorned his colleague.
I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest, and I am going to take up the time of the House for only a few minutes; but I wish to say that I do not think I ever heard a better debate in this House than the present one. It has been marked by a great deal of independence, independence on the part of the last speaker, independence on the part of the speaker who preceded him (Mr. Ladner) in regard to banking institutions, and a great deal of independence from the other side of the House. Certainly three of the best and most independent speeches in the debate came from supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite. There has also been a great deal of independence shown by the hon. members from the western provinces, and, speaking in the sense not of a critic but one who has observed this House for a good while, I think the most encouraging thing to-day is the splendid spirit that is manifesting itself in regard to political affairs by the men who have come to this House from the West. I cannot endorse all that they say, but I think it is a good sign.
I am going to take up the time of the House just for a few minutes to refer to the issue now before us, and it is this:	I happen
to represent in this House 100,000 people, as shown by the last census, and to-day, if I can judge aright, I represent over 130,000. My neighbour in East York (Mr. Harris) represents at least 100,000 people, and my neighbour to the west of me, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), I should think represents 100,000 people. Over 300,000 people are represented in this House by three members, representing three constituencies, made up largely of the city of Toronto, of the growing township of York, and the growing townships of Scarborough and Etobicoke. Yet we in this House have only three votes, while, the other member for York, the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King)-and it is not his fault at all, and I make no comment upon him in that respect-represents 25,000 people. At

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
this time and under these conditions, judging by what we heard in the Speech from the Throne, confirmed more explicitly by the Prime Minister when he said there was to be a substantial change in the tariff as applied to instruments used in one of the basic industries of this country, and still further outlined and exemplified by hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party, there is not any doubt in my mind that an effort is now about to be made perhaps to wipe out the national policy of protection of the industries of this country, with which policy I have been identified for many years. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that that should not be done before at least two things transpire. Before that should be done, the first thing that we owe in an issue of this kind, which is far-reaching, which is a reversion of the past, and which may involve a great change in the future, is that the Redistribution Act should become a fact; and that the still more important act bearing on representation and the franchise should be revised. While that is being done the question of what should be done with the tariff policy of this country should be held in abeyance until revision in those two respects is made, or what has been put forward in this House very prominently, that there should be a conference or an attempt made by the different parties in this country to get together in regard to the tariff.
Further a policy which has been advocated m this country, and which I think ought to obtain, is the appointment of a royal commission of experts, to hear evidence from all quarters and to make a report to the House as to what the revision of the tariff ought to be. I believe the tariff question can be better dealt with in that way than in any other manner, and I should like to see that pohcy carried out. On behalf of the people of Toronto and I think I may also speak for the three ridings of York-I should like to say that they will regret, and will certainly protest against, this effort to change the National Policy without affording them an early opportunity of expressing their opinion in regard to it. I also want to point out that amongst the three hundred thousand people who live in the portion of Toronto of which I am speaking, and the county of York, the half of them are women, and the coming vote of Canada may be largely the women's vote. On account of their husbands, their sons, and their female representatives, they are just as much interested in the National Policy as anybody in this House. I say, therefore, that a great mistake is being made, and a

departure from parliamentary practice is taking place, in changing the present tariff policy without due consideration, and without creating the public machinery whereby a full and adequate Expression of opinion can be obtained from the people of this country. Before that opinion is obtained there should be a revision of the Redistribution Act and of the Representation Act of this country. With all the emphasis I can command I make the point that there should be no revision of the tariff without carrying out these two essentials at any rate; a thorough hearing by trained experts of the pros and cons of the case and recommendations by a tariff commission to the House, and an appeal made to the people on the issue. Hon. gentlemen opposite have chosen to bring up the tariff issue, and they are taking advantage of the situation in rather an unfair way. All I have undertaken to do here to-night is to express the view-on behalf of my own constituents, on behalf of the city of Toronto, on behalf of the people of York, and also on behalf of the great industrial population of the city of Montreal and other industrial centres in this country which are absolutely under-represented-that the question of revision should be held up until we can have a thorough investigation, can hear evidence, and the people are put in a proper position to decide the question at the earliest date, if it be remitted to them. I think I am absolutely on constitutional grounds when I say that, I do not think the Progressives should oppose that proceeding.
I think if they are the Progressives they claim to be, and think they are, they must listen to the people of Toronto and the people of Montreal. I am a democrat, and I am not the only one in this House, and I demand on behalf of democracy and progress, on behalf of the principle of government by the people, that the revision of the tariff shall be undertaken only after a thorough and competent investigation, that there shall be a revision of the act of distribution, and that there shall be an acceptance of the principle of equality of votes as between constituencies. It is not fair that one constituency with a population of 25,000 should have the voting power of a constituency with a population of 50,000. That does not obtain in any other modern country with a political practice similar to ours. They have that equality I want to see in the United States. Certainly the people who live in the industrial centres and pay their full share of the taxation of this country should have that share in the representation in parliament to which they are entitled.

The Address-Division
I think I am speaking on behalf of the industrial centres of this country in saying that they want a hearing before a competent board in regard to the tariff policy of Canada; but before even that they want the representation and the redistribution question so adjusted that there will be an equality of voting power, and an improvement in the franchise. If these essentials are not granted and one attack is made on the tariff, we may hear of many other changes proposed by this irresponsible parliament that undertakes to deal with it. There has been no mandate from the people to this parliament for changes in the tariff. I should only like to point out-and I am not going to discuss the question at any length to-night, I will have the opportunity of doing so when the budget comes up,-to the members from the West that their real relief does not lie so much in change in the tariff. The farmers of the United States have tried it and failed. Real relief to our western farmers-they have had their trials, I know a great deal about them and they have my sympathy-lies in other meas-urse perhaps than the tariff. It is their right to ask for tariff changes but I cannot agree with them that it is the proper course to pursue. When the budget is brought down I shall take an opportunity of showing that greater relief can be brought to the farmers of this country, and especially to the people of the West in certain other directions which ought to meet with the approval of the whole House, of all the parties in this Chamber, for the amelioration of the unfair conditions under which agriculturists live.
Mr. Speaker, this is all I have to say on this occasion. I shall have an opportunity later on to discuss the Banking 12 mid- Act, to discuss the question of the
night tariff and of railway legislation. In the meantime I enter my protest against this beginning of a whittling down of the tariff policy of this country, without at the same time making provision for an immediate appeal to the people on that issue. By that issue I agree to be judged and to accept the consequences whatever they may be.


Arthur Meighen: I do not rise to take any part in the debate but to what may be called perhaps a question of privilege. I am not desiring to correct any hon. gentleman, but rather to correct myself. I find that when I stated to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) at the time given by him for the passing of the estimate for the Victoria drydpck was Minister of Agriculture, I was mistaken. I was a month out in my recollection. The Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Crerar) resigned on the 4th of June, not on the 4th of July. Not only was he not minister at the time the estimate was passed, but on research I am convinced he was not in the government at the time the estimate was formulated; so that he can dissociate himself from the estimate altogether.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the vote is taken I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House, kindly to facilitate the task of the officers of the House in the polling of the vote. The custom is that leaders vote first, members then rising in their seats in succession, row by row. It will facilitate matters if this practice is closely adhered to.


Mr. BOYS:: I was paired with the right
hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn).
[The Chairman.)
Had I not been paired, I should have voted against the amendment
Main motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Lapointe it was ordered that the Address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved:: That the House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. minister
ready to tell the House when he will table the Estimates?


James Alexander Robb: To-mcrrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Alexander Robb: That this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On (motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, March 19, 1924