1925-02-13

BEREAVEMENT OF MR. SPEAKER

Mr. SPEAKER:: Before I proceed with the Orders of the Day, I desire to offer my sincere thanks to the House of Commons for its kind expression of condolence on the occasion of my recent bereavement.

Fifty-seventh Annual Report of the Fisheries branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.-Hon. Mr. Cardin.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, respecting Divorce.
He said:	The sole object of this bill is to
give the wife a right to secure a divorce from her husband upon the same grounds upon which a husband may secure a divorce from
138	COMMONS
Business oj the House-The Address
his wife. As hon. members may know, in the four western provinces, whereas a husband can secure a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery only, yet a wife, under the existing law, must not only prove adultery, but in addition, either desertion for a period of two years, or cruelty. The purpose of this bill is to remedy this inequality.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: Owing to the fact that statements have been appearing in the press in regard to the pensions of the old veterans of the mounted police, which statements have not been confirmed in any way, I desire to ask the Minister of Justice if steps are really being taken to overcome the very serious handicap under which these old veterans are suffering.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In reply to my hon. friend I say,
yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MF.IGHEN (Leader of the Opposition): I regret being under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to an occurrence in this Chamber last evening at six o'clock. A special order, being a motion by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), was under debate. The speaker was the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). The whips had arranged that the debate be continued by one of the hon. members to my left, I believe the hon. member for Lennox and Addington (Mr, Sexsmith). At six o'clock, during the speech of the hon. member for South York, the Deputy Speaker who was in the chair declared it six o'clock, but did not pursue the matter further. Having so declared it the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who, at my request was leading this side of the House, rose and left the chamber. The hon. member for South York continued with a very few word's, two or three sentences and closed his address. The Deputy Speaker thereupon asked him if he was through, and on receiving a reply in the affirmative, put the motion. I parenthetically add that the words of the Deputy Speaker declaring it six o'clock do not appear in the Hansard record. This is the more strange because I am in a position
FMr. Shaw.]
to state that the Hansard reporters heard the words. I do not understand why they are not in the records. However, that difficulty does not arise, because the Deputy Speaker has very frankly stated that he did just as I have said, and as many hon. members heard. This ended the debate on the Address irregularly. When the matter came to my attention and the facts were fully disclosed to me, I of course realized that no default whatever had occurred from our side of the House. I am not ascribing fault to any side of the House; certainly there was none here on the part of any officer or any member. I called the matter to the attention of the Deputy Speaker, and, having done so. suggested to him that he lay the facts Defore the Prime Minister and express to him my view that it was the duty of the Prime Minister under the circumstances to move that the order be restored. I am glad to say that the reply of the Prime Minister, which the Deputy Speaker brought to me, was in the affirmative -that he would feel it his duty so to act. I do not go further at the moment, save to say that I have no doubt the Deputy Speaker should not, under the circumstances, have put the motion. That seems very manifest indeed. I do desire to comment on the fairness with which he received the subject since and his disposition to have the error corrected. I simply make this statement of the facts preparatory to the motion which I believe the Prime Minister intends to make.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In reference to the remarks of my hon. friend. I might give the House the impression I had at the time of adjournment last evening. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) was speaking at six o'clock. As I reeal, it was, as stated, just six o'clock as his address was obviously being concluded; when he concluded, the Deputy Speaker, being in the chair at the time, looked around to see if any hon. member intended to follow. No one in the house rising, and no exception being taken, the Deputy Speaker then asked the House if he should put the motion, and it was put with due deliberation. Personally I had not heard any mention by the Deputy Speaker of its being six o'clock. I do not question for one moment the word of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that the Deputy Speaker may have used the words "six o'clock". The Deputy Speaker himself, undoubtedly knows whether he did or not. But I did not hear any mention of six o'clock, although I may say to the House that it certainly was six o'clock before my hon. friend for South

Business of the House-The Address
York (Mr. Maclsan) concluded. When he concluded, the Speaker, as I have said, put th0 motion. He put it very deliberately, and he paused. There were present in the House hon. members representing all groups, and no one present took any exception. As I sized up the situation at the moment, it was that all hon. members who desired to speak had already spoken. I had understood earlier in the day that there were to be no further speeches from this side of the House and that the number of speeches that might be made from the other side would probably be determined by whether or not there were additional speeches from this side. I concluded that the debate was ended and of course took no further notice other than to observe the procedure which seemed to me perfectly regular on the part of the Speaker, bearing in mind that very frequently the House, when it is concluding a piece of business, does run a few minutes past the hour indicated by the clock and further bearing in mind that the Chair in the matter of the time makes formal reference to the hour, as regards which, as I say,
I had not as yet heard any formal declaration made.
The government, have no desire in any way to restrict the debate, much less to deprive any hon. member of an opportunity of participating therein. It seems to me that the matter is one entirely for your own determination, Mr. Speaker, as to what the rules of the House may permit. I do not recall having made any agreement to make a motion. That subject, as far as I can recollect, was not discussed; but if that is the correct method of proceeding, I would be quite prepared to proceed in that way. I would, however, point out, that I should not care to take any action that would have the effect of rescinding the proceedings or that in any way might alter or adversely affect the conclusion of the debate. It is for Your Honour to rule as to the action that should be taken. I would hope that it might be possible to consider the proceedings of yesterday after six o'clock as being in the nature of an inadvertence and to let us proceed with the debate on the Address on that assumption, but that Mr. Speaker is a matter upon which the government is entirely in the hands of Your Honour.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker,
before we proceed any further on this subject I rise to a point of order. Rule 19 states:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
It must be quite obvious to anyone that nothing can be done except by way of motion. This was fully understood by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he mentioned a minute ago that he expected the Prime Minister to make a motion. I submit, on my point of order, that even the Prime Minister cannot make a motion at the present time to rescind the vote that was taken yesterday. All that could be done by any member of this House including the Prime Minister would be to give a notice of motion with two days' notice according to rule No. 40. Under rule No. 40 notice of motion can be given to the effect that after two days the House will consider the question of rescinding this vote. The vote cannot be altered; it cannot be qualified; it has to remain just as it is now or it can be rescinded.
Rule 19 states quite plainly:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Therefore, there can be no comment on a vote. There can be no explanation given on the motion, but the vote can only be rescinded purely and simply. Should the vote be rescinded purely and simply after due notice has been given, what would be the consequence? As I see it, the consequence would be that the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) would be defeated. The Votes and Proceedings read as follows:
And the question being put on the said motion, it
was agreed to.
If you rescind this, in my opinion it will mean that the question being put to the said motion, it was disagreed to. Can this be done? Can this motion be entertained? That would be a matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, but at the present time my point of order is that no motion can be entertained unless due notice has been given and then, after due notice has been given, these different points which I have just mentioned can be raised at the proper moment.


Mr. G. N. GORDON (West Peterborough, Deputy Speaker):: Mr. Speaker, in your absence owing to bereavement in your family, I was delegated to take Your Honour's place in the chair, and it might, perhaps, be well if I said a few words as to the incident mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and very fairly stated by him and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There were left with the government whip the names of Messrs. Evans, Marler and Maclean (York) as the speakers of yesterday after-
140	COMMONS
Business of the House-The Address
noon, and those speakers were the ones that I expected to address the House, as they did, yesterday afternoon. At six o'clock, or nearly six o'clock, I followed the habit of Your Honour and former Speakers, where an hon. member is addressing the House, to remind him that it was six o'clock, and I said to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean): Six o'clock. He immediately sat down and I asked him if he had finished his address because, if he had not finished his address, I intended to declare that it was six o'clock and also to declare my intention of leaving the chair so that he might resume at eight o'clock. He said that he had finished his address at that time. As the Prime Minister said, I thereupon looked over the House to see if any other hon. member indicated his intention of going on, and finding none I called to the Clerk for the motion and I read it to the House. The misunderstanding and confusion have arisen owing to the fact that when I was reminding the hon. member for South York that he had reached the six o'clock period, some members assumed that that was a declaration from the Chair that it was six o clock and the debate had not been terminated. Among those Who left the chamber at that time was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who was leading his party on that occasion. The reason for Hansard not hearing what was said was because I intended to address the words more particularly to the hon. member for South York and, while doubtless many members heard me, maybe the reporter did not. There has been some confusion; I have since learned that it was assumed by tile acting opposition whip that one of the members of the Progressive group intended to speak yesterday, and it was assumed that opposition members would have an opportunity after eight o'clock of continuing the debate. In order to put myself quite clearly before Your Honour and this House, I have the list which was submitted and handed to me by the government whip and which contains the names of those who were to address the House, the names being submitted to him by the other whips. The same list was used by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and there is no doubt that this is the same list, only three names being on it. Under those circumstances,
I submitted the Address of acceptance and thanks moved by the hon. member for Rim-ouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). It happened that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre left the chamber about the time that he heard me suggest to the hon. member for South York that it was six o'clock, assuming, I 
think, that I was about to leave the chair and the debate would continue at eight o'clock. I saw the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in his place yesterday when I was reading the motion to the House, or shortly after, and I assumed that he was leading the opposition and knew what the situation was.
As I afterwards learned, he had come in in the meantime, just as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was leaving, and it is more than probable that he was also under a misapprehension as to what had taken place. The leader of the opposition represented the facts to me and I immediately communicated with the Prime Minister, explaining the incident as it had developed. Thereupon the Prime Minister intimated that he was willing to restore the matter to its former status so far as it was within his power to do so, speaking on behalf of himself and the government. The statements of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, set forth the facts exactly as they occurred. In making this statement, Mr. Speaker, my purpose is simply to acquaint Your Honour with the situation precisely as it developed, in order that you, Sir, may be in a position properly to understand and pass upon the questions involved.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: What the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) has said is practically my own recollection of the matter; after I had concluded my speech I took my seat, and that is all recorded in Hansard. But I did also hear that the understanding was that other speakers would follow me; as a matter of fact, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) informed me that he understood the debate was to continue. Now, probably no harm has been done, the occurrence being the outcome of a misunderstanding, the consequences of which it is for His Honour the Speaker to dispose of.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I think it is quite clear that the situation which has arisen has arisen entirely as .1 result of inadvertence, and there seems to be a disposition on the part of every hon. member who has mentioned the subject to right the wrong if a wrong has been done in the matter. It is obvious that, under the rules the Deputy Speaker, who last evening occupied the chair at six o'clock, would have no right at all to put the question when he did. Rule 3, which is the one that applies to the House sitting beyond six o'clock, is very explicit on the point:
If at the hour of six o'clock p.m., except on Wednesday, the business of the House be not concluded, Mr. Speaker leaves the chair until eight o'clock.

Business oj the House-The Address
The meaning of that rule is, in my opinion, that at six o'clock it is the bcunden duty of the Speaker to leave the chair unless the business is concluded; he would have no power to put the question except by unanimous consent of the House. I have heard it stated by Speakers in this House that unanimous consent is not to be presumed or assumed; it must be asked. And, so far as I am aware, no request was made yesterday that unanimous consent be given to the question being put after six o'clock. That is admitted. My point, therefore, is that the hour of six o'clock having arrived, as is admitted on all hands, the duty of the Deputy Speaker under the rules was to leave the chair. I can quite understand that he would not leave the chair if in doing so he would interrupt the remarks of any hon. member who was about to conclude at the time. The inadvertence and the error into which the House fell last evening was simply this, that instead of following the rule governing the procedure in this connection, the Deputy Speaker proceeded

without asking the consent of the House-to put the question. There is no doubt about the fact that nobody expected the question to be put yesterday afternoon. I am informed that the whips had notice that other speakers intended to take part in the debate, though I believe the names had not been communicated to the Deputy Speaker. But neither had there been any intimation to the Deputy Speaker, as I understand that there was any intention that the debate should close yesterday afternoon. So far as the Deputy Speaker knew, the list before him included the names of those who would speak yesterday afternoon, and he had no intimation that there would not be other speakers in the course of the evening. Now, this question can be righted, as we have righted so many of our technical errors in this House in the past:	all that
is needed is the unanimous consent of the House. In every quarter of the House it is agreed that the present incident is the result purely of inadvertence and not of intention, and the mistake can and should be rectified by consent of the House.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Owing to an engagement, I had to leave the House yesterday about ten minutes to six, so that I am not acquainted with what took place at that time, although I have no doubt that the explanation which has been made by the Deputy Speaker is perfectly correct. A careful reading of Hansard does not disclose that there was anything irregular in the proceedings. With reference
to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie), who has just spoken, I would offer this observation. In all the time I have sat in this House, invariably the calling of six o'clock was purely a technical affair; it never meant six o'clock by the clock: it always was six o'clock when the Speaker from the chair so declared. That is what I have always understood. So tar as the debate is concerned, I must say that I was astonished to see, on taking up the newspaper this morning that the leaders of the House had agreed, upon being consulted, that by means of a motion or in some other way the debate should be re-opened. When it was learned that the debate had closed, I think there must have been a sigh of relief wherever the fact was made known.


Mr. McMASTER:: That is all very well for those who have already spoken.


Robert Forke: Well, so far as that goes,
I think that probably before this session is over my hon. friend will have had his share of speaking in the House. And as regards those hon. gentlemen who have not spoken, I am sure that there is no subject which can be referred to in this debate that hon. members will not have had ample opportunity, before prorogation comes, to cover in other debates. I have listened to debates in this House on the budget which were largely a repetition of speeches that had been made on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have no desire to appear contrary, but I do believe that it would be in the interests of the country if the debate were allowed to stand closed.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I appreciate the spirit
in which this debate has been carried on, and the pertinence of all remarks anent the question raised. I cannot fail to express my surprise that the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) should have so utterly failed to grasp the principle at stake as to seek to cover the discussion over with a lot of irrelevant talk about how long the debate should continue. The question is this: Is advantage to be taken of an inadvertence on the part of the Chair-because it is there that the inadvertence occurred-to shut off the speeches of hon. members? If the debate is to be discontinued, I have a higher opinion of the House than to think that this will be done because some hon. members who have spoken do not want to listen to those who have not. I should have preferred the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to concur with the Deputy Speaker in the understanding that he was to move the rescission of the
142	COMMONS
Business of the House-The Address
motion which has been agreed to. The Prime Minister has stated that he is ready to do so if the Speaker holds this to be proper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no understanding that I should make such a motion; at least I was not a party to that understanding.


Arthur Meighen: However, he has stated that he is quite ready to do so if the Speaker holds that it is within the rules of the House. I am quite satisfied with that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no understanding that I would make a motion. At any rate I was not consulted in regard to it.


Arthur Meighen: That was the information brought me by the Deputy Speaker.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Prime Minister stated that he would be glad to assist in any way to put the matter right.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what you said at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: You said to me that a motion would be made to restore the order, because that was my suggestion to the Deputy Speaker. I am stating the facts.
However, the point is not worthy of further discussion for the reason that the Prime Minister has stated his willingness to do whatever is within his power to get rid of this awkward situation. I suggest that inasmuch as the Deputy Speaker's declaration was undoubtedly that six o'clock had arrived, the Deputy Speaker thereafter had no right to initiate any further proceedings on the part of the House, and that therefore any such proceedings are null and void. Hon. members had a right to assume once those words had escaped his lips that nothing further would be done; and having assumed that they left the House. There is no doubt that whatever was done after six o'clock was done without authority, and I am sure that all hon. members who want the rules of parliament to be lived up to, who want the fight to be carried on in a fair way between the parties, would never dream of objecting to a ruling on the part of the Chair that what followed after the declaration of the. Deputy Speaker was null and void, and at best an inadvertence, and that we proceed just as we were when that declaration was made.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the right hon. gentleman explain why the hon. member for West York

(Sir Henry Drayton), who was leading his party then, did not object to all the motions w'hich were carried thereafter?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
West York was not in the House at all. He arrived after the motion was being put to engross the Address. The only one at the time entitled to speak for the opposition was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who had been left by myself in charge. He remained until the declaration by the Chair. The hon. member for West York arrived after that. Not being acquainted with the situation or having any instructions from me, he would have no authority to speak for the opposition.


Thomas Vien: Surely there were some members of the opposition present to raise the question then?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member did
not listen to me. Any member cannot speak for the whole opposition; he can speak only for himself, unless he is deputed to lead his party. The one deputed by me was the member for Vancouver Centre. On the declaration of the Chair he left the chamber, so there was nobody in authority to speak for the opposition. And nobody would be called upon to speak for we had the right to assume that after that declaration no more business would be transacted. We did assume it; our members left. I am sure that of all men the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) would never suggest that anything valid should be held to have been done after that. There is no difficulty in the way of remedying the error; no precedent is going to be established that will embarrass anyone, for such a situation after the declaration of the Chair would never arise again. This suggestion meets the ends of justice, and I sincerely hope no hon. member of the House would object to its being carried out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we continue the debate on this point we shall occupy as much time as if we had resumed the debate on the Address. It has been made apparent that the Deputy Speaker had mentioned that it was six o'clock, and that no one in the House had any intention of proceeding other than in accordance with the rules. The rule is that at six o'clock the Speaker leaves the chair. In view therefore of what took place last night after six o'clock the House having proceeded inadvertently, I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will find it possible not to take cognizance of what was then done and allow the debate on the Address to continue in the regular way.

The Address-Mr. Simpson


Hewitt Bostock: This puts me in a very
awkward position. When I looked at the Votes and Proceedings this morning I saw that the House adjourned at six o'clock last night; but the Deputy Speaker with characteristic frankness has declared this afternoon that the House was really adjourned after six o'clock. If I were dealing with this matter from the point of view of the letter of the rules of the House, I would be placed in a very awkward position, as I stated a moment ago, because the House could not but rescind the proceedings which took place yesterday after six o'clock, and this is a very grave course to take. If hon. members will refer to Bourinot- my guide in this matter-at page 328 of the fourth edition, they will find the following: Renewal of a Question During a Session
When a motion has been stated by the Speaker to the House, and proposed as a question for its determination, it is then in the possession of the House, to be decided or otherwise disposed of according to the established forms of proceeding. It may then be resolved in the affirmative or passed in the negative; or superseded by an amendment, or withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House. It is, however, an ancient rule of parliament. . . .
Amd this is what I wish to emphasize-
-that " no question or motion can regularly be offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the House has already been expressed during the current session." The old rule of parliament reads: " That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House."
It is on this that rule 19, cited by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), has been based.
On the other hand I cannot forget that the rules of our parliament are based on common sense and on the broad principle of freedom of speech. Now, it is admitted by the Deputy Speaker, and by both sides of the House that a technical error was made; that after six o'clock the House continued sitting; and that someone was to continue the debate this afternoon on the main motion as moved by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) seconded by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Hanna). If I should follow the letter of the rule, a motion would have to be made under rule 19 to rescind the decision of the House agreed to yesterday. However, I have it deep in my memory that, during the thirty years that I have sat in this House with my good friend the member for South York (Mr. Maclean), time and again when a technical error was brought to the notice of the Speaker, by unanimous consent, that error was expunged from the proceedings of the House. And
if a motion should be made this afternoon to expunge from the Votes and Proceedings, and therefore from the scroll, the proceedings which by inadvertence, took place yesterday after six o'clock, I would accept the motion, provided of course it received unanimous consent. For the objection by the hon. member for Joliette is well taken; by rule 40 notice has to be given for any such motion. But by rule 41 notice can be waived by unanimous consent.
I therefore, rule that under these circumstances, a motion to expunge from the proceedings the error which was made inadvertently yesterday after six o'clock is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my light
hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) will join with me in this motion by seconding it, I shall have much pleasure in moving:
That this House agrees that all the proceedings which took place after six o'clock on Thursday, the 12th instant, having been the result of inadvertence are declared void and ordered to be expunged from the Journals of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: Will that impose on me the making of another speech?


Robert Forke: I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of your explanation I will support the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Sir Eugene Fiset for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I take it for granted that I have the floor. I will simply say this:	My main
object in speaking yesterday was to prepare in substance, a brief for the motion I have on the order paper under Notices of Motion. I have got that brief; it is on Hansard today, and I will conclude my speech of yesterday by saying that I endorse all I said then and will endorse it on another occasion.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (Wesu Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, now that the motion has been properly restored to the order paper we can proceed with the discussion of the Speech from the Throne.
The Speech from the Throne is usually looked forward to with a great deal of interest, not only by the members of this House but by the country generally, because it is expected that it will forecast the principal

The Address-Mr. Simpson
items of legislation that the government purpose bringing before parliament for consideration during the session. I regret that in the Speech of this year no reference has been made to legislation that would tend to relieve the overburdened taxpayer or that would have a tendency to encourage the investment of capital in this country and thus provide employment for the many who are now out of work.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to deal briefly with the general conditions in the iron and steel industry of this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his address a few days ago was pleased to cite the iron and steel industry as an index of business prosperity and general conditions prevailing in the country. I would first like to refer, however, to one or two statements contained in the Speech from the Throne.
There is a reference to the improved conditions and to the favourable balance of trade. Now, a favourable balance of trade is desirable, particularly if it has been obtained by the sale or export of the finished product of the farm, the forest, the mine or the sea; but not always so if it has been obtained by the sale of our raw materials to be manufactured in another country and subsequently returned to us in the form of finished products. You will find by a study of the trade returns for the calendar year 1924 that the exports of that year exceeded the exports of the calendar year 1923 by some $43,113,624, and that increase consisted entirely of raw material-or unfinished products-exported. A favourable balance of trade obtained in that way is not always a safe barometer of business conditions.
Reference is made in the Speech to the cost of living as the most important matter engaging the attention of the ministers at the present time. Well, it was the most important, next to winning the general election, that engaged the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in 1921. They were particularly concerned about the overburdened taxpayer at that time, and they referred to the leader of the government and the members of the government of that day as those who, in carrying on the affairs of the country during the period of the war, had become so accustomed to thinking in millions that it was difficult for them to get down to the consideration of matters on an ordinary basis, and that the only hope for the poor suffering man with a family was a change of government. Well, we had the change of government. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power now for over three years, but 
still there is no relief. Let me quote from figures published in the supplement to the Labour Gazette of January, 1925. I find there the figures of a family budget, covering staple foods, fuel, lighting and rent, and being retail prices prevailing in sixty cities throughout the Dominion. We find that in April, 1922, a few months after this government came into office, and before they had an opportunity of affecting the prices one way or the other, the index price given for the weekly family budget was $20.66, whereas in December, 1924, the index price was $20.90, showing the cost of living still going higher, and the government still looking for the remedy.
We also find in the Speech from the Throne this statement:
The cost of production of raw materials and the necessaries of life has been lessened by the reductions in the tariff and the sales tax effected at the last session.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the chief reductions that I have been able to find are reductions in the national revenue, reductions in the output of our manufacturing establishments, and a reduction in the pay cheque of the average citizen. But let us compare this statement in the Speech with the figures provided by the Bureau of Statistics covering the wholesale prices of 238 commodities. The index price given for May, 1924, just at the time the budget was adopted, was 150-6, while for January, 1925, we find the index price is 165-2, an increase of almost 15 points, so that statement in the Speech from the Throne is effectually answered by the government's own figures and requires no further comment on my part.
The Prime Minister in his address a few days ago quoted a mass of statistics in an endeavour to convince the House and the country that business conditions in Canada were more favourable than those in the United States. He stated:
I submit that if my right hon. friend (the leader of the opposition) takes the trouble to compare the statistics in this country with the statistics which I have just quoted from authentic sources in the United States he will find that, having regard to the tremendous influences which conditions in the country to the south have upon conditions in Canada, our showing is considerably the better.
If that is so, why is it that the government have found it necessary to spend no less a sum than $9,000,000 in the past three years in order to induce 322,000 immigrants to come to this country, while during the same period the United States had to rigorously enforce their quota law in order to keep out those who were clamouring for admittance at their door? Why was it necessary for

The Address-Mr. Simpson
upwards of 600.000 Canadians during the same period to cross the border to the United States, if it was not for the purpose of finding there employment which was denied them at home? Sir Wilfrid Laurier once stated that it was not necessary for him to quote statistics showing the amount of deposits
4 p.m. in the savings banks or a favourable balance of trade in order to convince the people of the prosperity of the country. All you have to do, he said, is to feel in your pocket, Mr. Speaker, you cannot camouflage the issue by a mass of statistics. Everybody knows that Canada today is not enjoying the prosperity that a country blessed with our natural resources should be enjoying. And what is the trouble? In my opinion the chief trouble is that we are exporting altogether too much of our natural resources in the raw or unfinished state, and we are importing altogether too much of the products that we could successfully produce at home. Why should it be necessary for a country like Canada, to import, as we did in 1924, over $25,000,000 worth of fruit, almost $5,000,000 worth of vegetables, large quantities of butter, meats, eggs and cheese, all of which with the possible exception of a few articles of fresh fruit, could have been produced equally as well at home and with material profit to the farmer?
Let me turn now to the iron and steel industry. The Prime Minister in his address the other day stated that the condition of this basic industry could be taken as a fair index of the prosperity of the country. He said:
I pointed out that in gauging the industrial situation, economists have always had particular regard to the basic industries, and that the iron and steel industry is usually regarded as the most significant. The figures that I gave the House indicated, I think, conclusively how very considerable had been the falling off in the production of the basic industries of the United States during the period I mention and in particular the falling off in the production of iron and steel.
Now let me quote from the monthly report on the production of iron and steel in Canada for December, 1924, as furnished by the Bureau of Statistics. That report shows that the total production of pig iron in Canada in 1924 was 593,024 gross tons, a decrease of 33 per cent from the 880,018 tons of 1923. In the United States the production of pig iron in 1924 was about 31,000,000 tons, or about 22 per cent less than in 1923. You will observe that the falling off in the production of pig iron was considerably greater in this country than in the United States. At the same time we imported upwards of $140,000,000 of steel and steel products into 10
this country, a great portion of which could have been successfully 'manufactured here. During the very same period our own steel industries were closed down from five to eight months in the year.
I am going to quote from an interview given by the vice-president of the British Empire Steel Corporation, an institution that received a very severe castigation at the hands of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) who, I regret, is not in his seat at the moment. Just before quoting from that interview I want to say in connection with the figures given by the hon. member for Saskatoon, particularly those with reference to the bounty that had been paid to the iron and steel industry, that while I do not dispute his figures as to the amount of bounty paid, I think they leave a very unfair impression if other figures are not placed alongside of them. I propose to give other figures showing the amount that this country has received in customs duties and in taxes from some of these industries that received the bounty. The only figures I have available are those applying to 1916, 1917 and 1918, a three-year period, and they apply to four of the steel companies operating at that time, the Algoma Steel Corporation, the Steel Company of Canada, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and the Nova Scotia Steel Company, the latter two being now included in the British Empire Steel Corporation. They paid into the public treasury of this country in customs duties and war taxes in that three year period no less a sum than $7,793,000, half as much as the total amount that was paid to the steel industries by the way of bounty, and they have been operating for the last twenty years; so that it is only natural to assume that they returned by way of customs duties and taxes to the Dominion treasury very much more than they have received by way of bounty. That is not all. During the three-year period they paid out in freights no iess a sum than $25,890,000. They paid in wages during that three year period $71,775,000, employing on an average 20,000 men, and I think hon. members will agree at once that industries that are contributing in such large measure as that to help in the upkeep of our railways in this country and in the employment of labour should not be subjected to the castigation that my hon. friend gave the British Empire Steel Corporation the other day.
I was going on to read an interview of the vice-president of the British Empire Steel Company, Mr. J. E. McLurg, to show the condition in which these steel industries are



The Address-Mr. Simpson
at the present time. This was an interview given on June 27, at Sydney. He said:
Two batteries of coke ovens will be operating until July 15, after which one battery only will be operated. Blast furnaces No. 1 and No. 8 will operate on basic iron until July 15, when No. 1 furnace will be blown out and No. 8 will be operated on foundry pig iron from July 15 to July 21. All open-hearth furnaces will operate to capacity until July 15, when they will cease operations. The blooming mill, billet mill, rod, bar, wire and nail mills will operate until July 19, when all orders on hand and tonnage for stock will be completed. Ample stocks are being carried and adequate arrangements have been made to fill and ship any and all orders received while the plant is shut down.
The above programme means that after July 19 the entire plant will be closed down with the exception of one battery of coke ovens and No. 8 blast furnace for three months at least.
And as a matter of fact it was closed down for considerably longer. I see one of the members representing that constituency, the government whip (Mr. Kyte) is in his seat, and I am sure he will verify what I have said But the most unfortunate part of this interview is the following:
This protracted ehut down makes necessary the reduction of idle expense to the absolute minimum and for this reason only, we are forced to dispense with the services of a considerable number of valued salaried employees to whom notices are being sent, advising them that their services will be no longer required after July 31.
The conditions prevailing down in that section have been such that it was found necessary to send a very large and influential delegation-


Mr. MURDOCK:: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member suggest that the laying off a large number of salaried officials of the British Empire Steel Corporation was a result of the fact that they did not have as large orders as usual, or a result of the fact that the company had been overmanned in its official capacity for many years?


Thomas Edward Simpson: In reply lo my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, I may say it is quite evident they did not require the high-salaried officials when they were closing their plant. They did not have the orders and they did not have the business.


James Murdock: It was for one reason or the other, my hen. friend will admit. I have the personal word of Mi, McLurg as to what the reason was, and I would like to give it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, ord'gr.


James Murdock: I would like to know what my hon. friend's opinion is.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I have given the facts as I received them. I do not live there. I am giving the interview of the vice-president of fMr. Simpson.]
the company. I was going to say that a very important delegation came up from that locality to lay the situation before members of the government, and I have no doubt the Minister of Labour was there to receive the delegation. I believe several members supporting the government were in the delegation, and' I only hope that before this debate concludes these hon. members will rise and tell the House and the country what they stated to the government at that time. The vice-president of the same company had occasion to be in Ottawa at the national conference on unemployment held in September, at which my hon. friend the Minister of Labour presided, and according to the report this is what he had to sav with respect to conditions in Sydney at that time:
Our plants are closed down; our blast furnaces ere idle; our open hearth furnaces are cold since fifth day of August, and instead of employing 3,200 men in our steel plant in Sydney we have to-day between six and seven hundred men employed.
What I have said with respect to conditions at Sydney can be said with respect to conditions at Sault Ste. Marie, where the Algoma Steel Corporation operate. The greater portion of their plant was closed' down in June last year and they have not resumed operations. When they are operating to full capacity they employ 3,500 men. During the past eight months they have been employing in the neighbourhood of 800 men and' the period of this shut down is the longest that they have experienced in the last twenty years. There are, Mr. Speaker, twenty blast furnaces in the Dominion of Canada, and at the present time only three of these blast furnaces are blown in, or in operation; and up until a few weeks ago, there were only two. The one in Sydney was blown in a few weeks ago, if my information is correct.
Now what is the cause of this depression? It is largely due to the fiscal policy of the government.


James Murdock: The same comparative
condition is in effect in the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. MANION:: That is why all our people are running over there for work.


James Murdock: Not on your life.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I gave the figures a short time ago showing the production of steel in the United States last year as compared with the year before, and I also gave the figures showing the production in Canada as compared with the year before. The reduction in the production in Canada was 33 per cent, whereas in the United States it was 22 per

The Address-Mr. Simpson
cent. Before I finish my remarks I shall give some more figures that will be interesting to
the minister.


James Murdock: The hon. member will
hear some, too.


Thomas Edward Simpson: The trouble is that so
many articles of iron and steel are on the free list, or subject to a drawback of duty, and that several more articles were added to the list by the tariff changes made by the government in the budget of last session. These are exposing our industries to unfair competition from the more highly specialized industries of the United States and to the industries of Europe where labour conditions are very different from what they are in Canada. Let me quote some figures to the minister to show him what effect the last tariff changes had on the production of pig iron and steel ingot and castings in this country. I will have to quote a number of figures in order to get the matter properly placed on Hansard, because I have to give the figures month by month during the last year in order to show the proper camparison.
Production of Pig Iron in Canada, 1923 and 1924, by Months
	1923	1924
	Long	Long
Month	tons	tons
January			64,000
February			60,000
March			77,000
April			84,000
May			85,000
June			57,000
The budget changes were beginning their effects:		to have
Month	1923	1924
July			45,000
August			23,000
September			23,000
October			29,000
November			23,000
December		.. .. 60,000	23,000
The production of steel ingots and		castings
in long tons was as follows. The minister will have an opportunity of reading these in the monthly report of the Production of Iron and Steel in Canada for December, 1924, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce: Production of Steel Ingots and Castings, in Canada, 1923 and 1924, by Months
	1923	1924
	Long	Long
Month	tons	tonsJanuary	.. .. 48,000	41,000February	.. .. 46,000	71,000March	95,000April	104,000May	108,000June	69,000July	52,000
10i
You see the effect coming right along.	of the tariff	changesMonth	1923	1924August	23,000September	18.000October	20,000November	.. .. 55.000	23.000December	26,000
That should be conclusive evidence of what effect the tariff changes of last session have had on the production of iron and steel in this country. The Prime Minister was very strong in quoting from the Iron Age in the statistics that he presented to the House the other day. I desire to place on Hansard one quotation from the Iron Age, from the issue of 29th January, 1925:
Why does the iron and steel industry in Canada languish? This is a question of importance and the Toronto representative of the Iron Age was requested to make an investigation and report, especially as to whether the frequent reductions in tariff rates had had any effect on the prosperity of the industries in the Dominion.
Mr. Sanderson's investigations and report show that the tariff, or rather lack of it, has had a very important effect, not only in reducing production but in causing many workmen to leave Canada for the United States, where employment conditions have been more satisfactory. Canadian iron and steel industry is experiencing severe competition from many directions. The action of the government in connection with its budget for 1925 is awaited with interest.
The answer, I presume, they will get from the government in that connection is that the government is pausing just now before giving any further consideration to tariff reductions.
Let me turn to another phase of this question, and that is the development of iron ore. That is one way in which some encouragement and assistance might be given to the steel industry of this country, not so much affecting the British Empire Steel Corporation as the other steel industries of Canada. Such a great basic industry as the iron and steel industry of this country should not be dependent upon foreign countries for its raw material. We have in Canada vast deposits of iron ore, millions and millions of tons. These have been actually proven up and are known to exist. They have been proven to exist by diamond drilling through the enterprise and ingenuity of private capital. It is a well known fact that these bodies of ore are of low grade and that they require certain treatments before they are merchantable or fit for blast furnace use. Here again private capital has entered in and after the expenditure of large sums of money it has been discovered that these ores can be successfully treated, impurities removed, the iron content increased, and an ore produced that will produce as good steel as is being manufactured
The Address-Mr. Simpson

to-day. A few years ago the Ontario government, then the Drury government, appointed a committee of practical men to study and investigate the whole situation and to make a report to the government as to what, in their opinion, should be done. This committee made an exhaustive study of the whole situation both in Canada and the United States, and I am going to read just a few sentences from their report:
That whereas there is a gap between the cost at which Canadian iron ore can be mined under present conditions and the price that Canadian smelters can afford to pay and market their product, and this condition will continue to exist unless assurance is given that aid will be available to an extent that will warrant the erection of the necessary beneficiation plants, and that such aid will be received and when earned during the years these mines are developing tonnage in sufficient quantities to carry their overhead and operate economically. They recommend that the provincial and Dominion governments aid to the extent of one cent per unit of iron, on each long ton of merchantable iron ore, natural or beneficiated, produced and actually marketed from Ontario deposits, and that such bounty be available to producers of merchantable iron ore for a period of ten years.
They state further:
We are of the unanimous opinion that one-half of the bonus recommended should be provided by the Dominion government.
And they cite the following reasons:
(1)	The active development of our iron ore resources and the enlarging of our steel industry will be very effective in maintaining a favourable international trade balance.
(2)	The colonization of northern Ontario is largely dependent upon the mining industry, and that portion bordering the non-productive sections of our National Railways is dependent largely upon our iron resources.
(3)	Largely increased traffic may be obtained for the National Railways from domestic productions of iron ore, and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the profit to be made by our publicly-owned railway would, in the gross, equal, and in time exceed the proposed Dominion share of the bounty.
This is the recommendation of a committee of experts. Following their report, the present government of Ontario at their last session passed the necessary legislation to provide their portion of the bounty. This government was asked to take similar action but has not yet done so. I would strongly urge upon the ministry the necessity of dealing with this important matter during the present session. Surely if we have money to spend in subsidizing a large steamship line to operate in competition with the merchant marine we should be able at least to consider this proposal for the development of our own resources.
One other matter which I desire to touch upon is the question of our pulpwood resources. I expect that an opportunity will be given later in the session to go into this matter fully and therefore I shall be brief on

this occasion. Last year there was exported from this country some 1,330,250 cords of pulpwood for which we received $13,536,038, a little over $10 per cord. If that quantity of pulpwood had been manufactured into newsprint before it was exported we should have received, at the rate of $70 per ton for that product, approximately $65,000,000, or over $50,000,000 in excess of what we received for the raw wood.


Arthur Meighen: What proportion of that $13,000,000 did the actual producer receive?


Thomas Edward Simpson: A considerable portion of that money was taken up in freights, transportation charges and so on, and the actual producer would not receive, I suppose, more than $3.50 to $5.50 a cord, net.


Mr. BELAND:: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the farmer who produces the wood received last year only some $3 per cord for his pulpwood? My information is far different.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I cannot answer the question very definitely. The price is usually 60 much per cord at the mill. If the farmer or settler cutting the wood lived any considerable distance from the mill, the freight rate might be so high as to reduce his actual price to as low as $3 or $4 a cord.


Henri Sévérin Béland: One would have thought that the total which the hon. gentleman has quoted was exclusive of freight.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member, I
think, has given the export figures, including freight in Canada.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Would it include freight in Canada? I should not have thought so. At all events, I know that people in my district who are selling pulpwood received last year $9 a cord and even as high as $12.


Thomas Edward Simpson: That is quite true, but that was the price at the mill; the price quoted at the mill was from $10 to $12.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, at the station.


Thomas Edward Simpson: That is not my understanding.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the fact in my district.


Thomas Edward Simpson: 
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal briefly with some of the questions suggested by the Speech from the Throne. Before doing so, however, I desire to congratulate the member for St. Lawrence-
St. George (Mr. Marler) upon the speech which he delivered yesterday. The hon. gentleman always deals with a subject comprehensively, exhaustively and fairly. We may not always agree with his conclusions or his deductions, but his speeches always indicate great labour, thorough analysis of the situation, and conclusions based upon that analysis.
I agree very largely with what he said in reference to the development of our trade and what is necessary to bring about prosperity in this country, and after listening to him I am persuaded that he must entirely approve of the resolution standing on the order paper in the name of my leader, the leader of the opposition. I know there are other members on the government side who must feel much the same as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. He has invited those of like minds to unsheathe the sword and to stand together in defence of those policies which will make for the upbuilding of Canada, and I have every reason to expect that both he and they by their voices and by their votes will support the leader of the opposition when his resolution comes before the House.
I congratulate the mover (Sir Eugene Fiset) and the seconder (Mr. Hanna) upon their efforts in dealing with the Address. True, the Speech from the Throne does not present anything striking or new except a proposal to subsidize a certain shipping line engaged in north Atlantic transportation. Yet these gentlemen have built up a superstructure of praise and congratulation that must be very flattering to the government.
The debate has already disclosed the fact that the leader of the Labour party in this House (Mr. Woodsworth) has pointed out to the government its complete failure to carry out its programme announced previous to the last election. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has also pointed out that his party expects the government to redeem the promise made on the eve of the general election for a general downward revision of the tariff.
The Speech from the Throne speaks about improved conditions in Canada, and in support of that is cited our large volume of export trade. We all admit that it is creditable, that it is desirable, and that we should do everything in our power to increase the volume of that trade. An examination of our history shows that about the time of confederation our exports were largely of natural products. After the adoption of the protective tariff in 1878 there was a development of manufacturing industries and a steady increase in the export of their output, until to-day I believe our
150	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart {Leeds)
manufactured products are the second largest item in our export trade. The exports of our natural resources consist largely of the products of the farm and the forest. Two thoughts occur to me in this connection. The market for our agricultural products is necessarily a fluctuating one, subject to world conditions, changing from time to time, and therefore uncertain and precarious. The export of our forest products must be approached from another standpoint. We are constantly using up the available supply, and the time may not be far distant when the exhaustion of these vast resources will be in sight. Therefore if we continue recklessly to export our raw materials, nothing but disaster can come to us. It is clear, I submit, to those who have made a study of the question, that the safest course for us to adopt as a nation is to develop our natural resources to the point where they are as nearly completely manufactured as is possible before we export them. That was advocated by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George.
The Speech from the Throne does not make any reference to our national debt- perhaps because the record would not be creditable to the government. Since they attained office, although they condemned, the magnitude of the national debt while in opposition, we find that in the last three years they have increased it by approximately $178,000,000; that is, $128,000,000 of direct liability and about $50,000,000 of indirect liability. The House will see at once why there is no reference in the Speech from the Throne to the public debt.
Nor is there any reference, Sir, to the tax conference which, at the last session, was announced with such gusto by the government as likely to produce permanent and beneficial results to the country. That conference took place-this government is strong on conferences and commissions. It is an easy way to avoid responsibility, temporarily at least, and to delay the solution of a difficult question. We had this taxation conference: it came, it met, it dissolved, and there is no record of any tangible, any visible or any helpful result. That, perhaps, is the reason why no mention of this conference appears in the Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: What about the unemployment conference?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Another celebrated conference was that on unemployment. The Prime Minister states that conditions in Canada are not as bad as those in the United States. I wonder if the records show that numbers of deputations waited on the govern-
ment at Washington asking for relief from unemployment, and if those deputations were sent away empty-handed, were referred to the states for assistance in that direction and told that the central government had nothing for them, that it was not their business to look after the unemployed. Surely if anything of that kind occurred in the United States the Prime Minister would have mentioned it in support of his argument that the conditions in the United States are much worse than they are in Canada.
The income tax in Canada has been found so severe and so burdensome that it has practically driven capital out of Canada and caused it to seek investment and employment elsewhere. On a previous occasion I referred to this matter. Surely the taxation conference could have found some relief for the Canadian people who are suffering from the triple burden of federal, provincial and municipal taxation, where there is a great deal of overlapping, particularly in relation to income tax. Let me urge upon the government a reduction of the income tax to bring it more in line with that of the United States, thus preventing the removal of Canadian capital to that country, where it now finds investment under more favourable terms.
The Speech from the Throne recommends increased production. In this connection we must consider the dealings of this government with the tariff, because the tariff is intimately related to production in Canada. What do we find? When the government came into office it was pledged to a general downward revision of the tariff, a pledge on the strength of which, no doubt many votes were obtained in some parts of Canada. At the first session after the government attained office an effort was made in this direction- small, it is true, but heralded as a step in the right direction and in fulfilment of this pledge in the party platform. It is true that the reduction was offset by an additional measure of taxation, by an increase in the sales tax. But in the second session we had the statement from the then Finance Minister that we must have stability in connection with the tariff; that there must be no more reductions for some time. Then at the third session we had a substantial reduction in the tariff, so substantial, indeed, that it has affected many industries in Canada, has closed many factories, caused grievous unemployment and brought about the emigration of many thousands of our people. This session we have no reductions forecast in the Speech from the Throne, as we had last session. We have it from the Prime Minister thlat there is to be at least a pause in connection with tariff ac-

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
tivities. This discloses, Mr. Speaker, a condition of political paralysis on the part of the government so far as tariff matters are concerned; they are so confused that they cannot move in any direction. Worse still, the result has been to produce paralysis on the part of the industries of this country.
The question of increased production in *connection with our natural resources may be made the subject of a reference. I wish to deal very briefly with the question of pulpwood, because those of us who live on the banks of the St. Lawrence river have an almost daily illustration of the folly of allowing our raw pulpwood to be exported to and manufactured in the United States. We see the steamers passing by laden with pulpwood; we see great mounds of it piled up on the American shore of the St. Lawrence river. We submit that this wood should be manufactured as far as possible in Canada. The government took to itself the power to place an embargo on the export of raw pulpwood and a commission was appointed to investigate. That commission has reported, but there is no indication in the Speech from the Throne that the government contemplates any action in the matter. What is the reason for this inactivity? How long are the Canadian people going to stand this sort of thing? Why does the government not come down with a policy either one way or the other on this important question? It is said that action on our part would meet with retaliation on the part of the United States. But surely this is a Canadian question. This is a Canadian natural resource, a Canadian asset, and the Canadian people have the right to deal with their own resources as appears to be best in their own interests. It would not be an unfriendly act on the part of Canada to impose an export duty or to place an embargo on the export of pulpwood from this country. A careful reading of the tariff of the United States- indeed, a casual reading of it-clearly shows that it is framed in the interests of the people of the United States and regardless of the interests of the people of Canada. It is high time that the government acted in this matter and that instead of Canada getting the benefit merely of the price of the million or million and a quarter cords of pulpwood we export every yeajr, we should get three times the price if the material is manufactured into pulpwood, and six times the price if manufactured into paper and then exported. A policy of this kind in connection with pulpwood and with our other raw materials would bring about the establishment of new mills, of new factories in Canada; new towns would rise up around those mills, new markets would
be created for our Canadian products; labour would be provided for the Canadian people and the flow of emigration from Canada to the United States would be stopped. This policy is so apparent as being necessary to the interests of the Canadian people that one wonders that it has not long since been adopted.
I have said that this Speech is remarkable for what it does not contain. It contains no reference to the tariff. It does contain some vague and indefinite references to economy, but intimates that economy will not solve our taxation problems. An examination of the public accounts and the expenditure for public works must, I think, convince members of this House that the government in this direction at least are not effecting any great measure of economy. In the condition in which we find ourselves, with a mounting public debt, with falling revenues, with our budgets failing to balance, surely we can curtail any and every unnecessary public work and allow them to stand until conditions improve. We will await with interest the bringing down of the estimate in connection with this line of the government's activities and see whether, or not there is any evidence of economy visible there.
There is, however, Mr. Speaker, one field in which I have found evidence of economy, and that is in connection with the pensions of returned soldiers and their dependents. I have had many complaints; in some cases pensions have been discontinued altogether; in other cases they have been reduced, and a great deal of hardship has resulted. I urge upon this government through the responsible Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment that all these reductions and cutting off, of pensions be investigated. I know that the Canadian people desire to discharge their duty to those to whom they owe so much, and to properly care for their dependents, and I sincerely hope that something will be done to restore these pensions that are being cut off, with such hardship to so many people.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I dislike to interrupt
my hon. friend, but I may say in this connection that the government is responsible for the cancelling of no pensions in Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The government may not be directly responsible.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nor indirectly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It may be done by the Board of Pension Commissioners, but they are responsibible to the government-


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.
152	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
Mr. STEWART (Leeds)and the Canadian people will hold the government responsible for their dealings with the returned soldiers and their dependents. It will not do for the minister or the government to say the responsibility rests upon the Board of Pension Commissioners or some other board or organization. All these boards are creatures of the government and of parliament, and are responsible to parliament for their actions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may tell my hon. friend with all due respect that the pension bill for the year is larger than last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That may be
so, but it does not alter the fact that in some cases pensions have been discontinued and in other cases reduced, and that hardship has resulted, and that is the point I desire to press in this connection.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the development of hydro-electric power upon the St. Lawrence.
This is a great natural resource which must receive attention at an early date at the hands of the government, and let
5 p.m. me urge upon the government that immediate action be taken in this connection. This, of course, at once suggests the larger scheme for the deepening of the St. Lawrence, but as to this let me suggest that it can well wait until our finances are in a better shape. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of the province of Ontario has submitted to this government a plan, and estimates in detail, providing for the development at Morrisburg of a vcr\ large volume of hydro-electric power. The commission has made surveys and observations of the St. Lawrence river extending over a period of years, and has expended, I think, at least a quarter of a million dollars in that connection. The plan has been approved by the province of Ontario and has been submitted to this government for its approval. It does not in any way affect or interfere with the larger scheme for the deepening of the St. Lawrence, but on the contrary facilitates and makes in the meantime ample provision for navigation. The supply of hydro-electric power in the western part of Ontario has been very largely over-taken, and there is need' for this development in the eastern part of the province to supplement the supply. The work can be undertaken at once without any large cost to the Dominion of Canada, and what I am urging is that the government give its approval to the plan submitted by the Hydro-Electric Commission cf the province of Ontario and allow this work to proceed. It may be pointed out, properly enough, that 
this is a complicated matter, that it involves a conflict of jurisdiction between the province and the Dominion, between the province of Ontario and the state of New York, and between the Dominion of Canada ami the government of the United States of America; but all these things have been taken into consideration, and I do not think there can be anything wrong with this plan or anything that will prevent the immediate development of this large volume of power.
Let me urge that as the larger part of this power belongs to Ontario and to Canada, the control of it be retained in the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and that it be not handed over to any joint international commission, or any other body that has international jurisdiction Let us preserve in Canada our full share of this supply of power and let us see that it is not exported under any lease, agreement or other arrangement either temporary or permanent. That is the only way to secure in Canada a development to which we are entitled ;n connection with this great natural resource. This is not a matter for eastern Ontario alone; it is not a matter for Ontario alone; it touches our national life at many points. It will stimulate agriculture, it will develop industry, it will bring traffic to our railways, it will increase our population, and with a wise and careful development of this power I foresee along the St. Lawrence the most extensive and intensive industrial development in the world. I commend this matter to the most serious consideration of my friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), whom I see in his seat. He knows the conditions, he knows the need', and I sincerely hope that he will find a way to give an early approval to the plan that has been submitted by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
Mention is made in the Speech of railway rates. It is of course a very important question and a complicated one, but one Mr. Speaker, which I think should have been dealt with by this parliament at its first, or at latest its second session. The Crowsnest pass agreement was before this House. It was manifest I think to all that it had outlived its usefulness, that it had brought discrimination both in the east and in the west and the government should, I submit, have faced its responsibilities instead of running away from them; it should have revoked or cancelled that agreement, and should have referred the whole question of the revision of rates to the railway commission, the only body in Canada with the expert knowledge

The Address-Mr. Manion
and equipment necessary for determining a matter of that kind. But as usual the government dallied with it. It dealt with it in a measure, it nursed it along, and we have had several rates in the meantime. We have had confusion, and we have had appeals and litigation and a great deal of expense, and now the whole matter has to be faced and dealt with as it should have been faced and dealt with two or three sessions ago.
I do not propose to deal with the question of the North Atlantic Conference, and the efforts that are outlined in connection with freight rates on the ocean, as another opportunity will be presented for dealing with that question. Speaking of an export duty the recent report of the grain commission intimates that an export duty might well be imposed upon wheat going to the United States, in view of the very high duty that is imposed against us. A great deal may be said in favour of this, and on behalf of the eastern farmer, I can see that the by-products of this wheat, if milled in Canada, would be available for the feeding of his cattle.
I wish to summarize some of the matters upoip which I have touched, and in order to condense my contention as much as possible,
I make the following submissions:
Fijrst, that there should be a downward revision in the scale of the income tax, to mak{3 it approximately the same as that of the }CJnited States.
fbecond, that there should be an upward re/vision of the tariff wherever necessary to protect the Canadian farmer in respect of the large volume of American produce that is coming into Canada, which we can produce here, and which has been referred to by the previous speakers, and also for the purpose of protecting such industries in Canada as suffer from unfair competition from the products of countries having depreciated currency and cheap labour.
Third, an export duty or embargo on pulp-wood and other natural resources.
Fourth, approval of the plan of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario for development of electrical power on the St. Lawrence.
Fifth, curtailment of all unnecessary expenditures.
These I submit, Mr. Speaker, for the earnest consideration of the House and for prompt action at the hands of the government. I cannot help, in conclusion, comparing the pale anaemic Speech from the Throne with the resolution which is proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). The
Speech from the Throne seems calculated to outline as little as possible for the relief of the Canadian people. It seems to be intended for a short session, with possibly an election in June, when there may be a new issue of political promises as there was in the last election. The resolution of the right hon. leader of the opposition which will be discussed in due time sets out a programme, not for a session, not for to-day, not for an election, but for a generation, a plan that will, if properly applied to varying and changing conditions, bring about the development of our natural resources, will build up our population and will make of the Canadian people a virile, strong and vigorous nation.


Robert James Manion: In the early part of the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion as to whether the Speech from the Throne should be further 'debated in this House. I have been sitting in the chamber for the last hour and a half since that discussion occurred, and I think if we required any proof that this discussion should not be shut off, the two speeches that have preceded mine are proof enough. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the constructive suggestions which were made to the government by both of those speakers. One remark of my hon. friend for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) struck me as particularly true, though it was not a suggestion. He said the Speech from the Throne was " anaemic," and I found myself thinking it was pernicious anaemia that was the trouble. I think many of his suggestions were well worthy of the consideration of the government. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) who preceded me, a gentleman who, unhappily for the House, has been for the last couple of years, due to illness, unable to raise Inis voice in the debates of this House, but a man who has the respect of everybody in this House and the respect of everybody in Sault Ste. Marie, whence he comes. His voice once more raised in this House dealing with the problems of Canada will be an acquisition to the House. I was particularly interested in his remarks about the development of iron, and I may point out to my good friends to my left that the report from which he quoted dealing with the iron development of Canada, or the oounty system, was a report gotten out by a commission appointed by the late Drury government, the Progressive government of Ontario. I do not know whether my hon. friend mentioned that fact. That commission reported an favour of helping to develop the iron resources of this
The Address-Mr. Manion

country by a bounty system. I believe the proposition is a very good one. I 'believe that their proposal to this Dominion government, that they combine with them and bring in a bounty system which would help to develop the hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore which exist in nearly all sections from the Atlantic to the Pacific, would be a worthy project for this parliament to undertake in order to help develop some of these resources of which some of us speak .perhaps too much, but for the development of which we do so little.
I intend to confine my remarks pretty much to the Address and some of the subjects contained in the Address. I do not propose to discuss the tariff question, except to make a few remarks in reply to some statements which have been made, because I believe that my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) gave us such a very fine address upon the tariff, supported by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson), that we require from this section practically no elaboration of the theme at thia time, though on the motion of my right hoa. leader (Mr. Meighen), which is on the order paper, and on the budget itself, no doubr. we shall be able to offer whatever suggestions we may wish to make. I intend to limit myself fairly well to discussing the Address, and in doing so, may I .pick out what the government itself has declared to be the most important problem of Canada at the present time? I will quote the words in the third paragraph of the Speech from the Throne:
The problem of the cost of living is the most important that my ministers have in mind at the present time.
Therefore, if I take that as my text, I am sure that the government cannot quarrel with me, and if in speaking to that, I do what is usually done in speaking to texts, if I tell them a few wholesome truths, I am sure that they will not be able to quarrel with that either. The cost of living has become to the Prime Minister almost an obsession. I remember for the past seven or eight years, when he was either moving amendments to the Addresses of the government which preceded him or putting into the mouth of His Excellency the Speech from the Throne, he invariably brought up the question of the cost of living. That to him, as I said on another occasion, has been a little like what the head of Charles I was to Mr. Dick. It has got in his road and prevented him from seeing any of the other problems of the country.
I remember reading what Mark Twain said of the weather. He said that everybody complained about it but nobody did any-
IMr. Manion.]
thing about it. The trouble is that the government keeps on talking about the cost of living, but does nothing about it. A difference of two or three or four points is the most the Prime Minister has claimed as the reduction in the cost of living. During the four years he has been in power a reduction of two or three or four points out of 150 will not make any appreciable difference, and they have probably been lost since he has made his speech.
The Prime Minister says that the most important problem the government has under consideration is the cost of living. I do not agree with him at all. I think the real problem in Canada to-day for the vast majority of our people is the problem of getting a living at all. Would you mind telling me, Mr. Speaker, if out of the 180,000 or thereabouts who left the Dominion of Canada to go to the most highly protected country in the world to earn a living, did one leave this country because of the cost of living? Not one. Every one of those without exception left this country because in Canada he could not earn a living at all. It is not cheapness the people are always looking for; they are anxious to be able to buy goods at all. They are anxious to be able to get work and wages so that they can buy for themselves, a living of some .kind or another. This they have not been ab le to do in this country.
The second question of importance, \_pas ticularly for the business man, is the probflen of the appalling taxation under which business; in this country is suffering. Therefore the Prime Minister himself, as is usual in the slipshod methods of the present government, made a wrong diagnosis of the cause altogether, and as is so well known in the profession which I practise when I am not in parliament, if you make a wrong diagnosis, your treatment is necessarily wrong. You cannot treat a patient correctly unless first your know the cause of his illness.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What happens to the
patient?


Robert James Manion: What happens to the
patient is just what is happening to the country at the present time. He goes into dissolution. What is really needed in Canada is a policy to permit the people to earn a living here instead of expatriating themselves to the United States to earn a living, and to permit particularly those who cannot afford to expatriate themselves to the United States, to exist in this country. What we want is work for the worker and less taxation for the business man. In addition to that, we want

The Address-Mr. Manion
[DOT]enough work so that we can bring into this country a steady stream of immigrants who will, by increasing our population, decrease our debt and help to develop the natural resources of Canada. Instead of that we have a policy which has brought about conditions which I intend to describe, ever keeping in mind the danger of being called a pessimist which seems to be the popular way among politicians of describing anybody who looks the facts in the face. Conditions in Canada to-day are so depressing that they are frightening all people who live in the country, all people who have a hope for the country to become the great, powerful, peace-loving nation that its destiny says it should become. It makes them fear for the future of Canada. It makes them ask themselves if we have got into a morass from which it is impossible to extricate ourselves. I am forced to think of something which illustrates this point very well. Any member of this House-and you, Mr. Speaker, are one of them

who has been in Europe, has, while in London, no doubt, visited that splendid cathedral of St. Paul's. As you enter the cathedral, on one side there is a tablet in honour of the architect, Sir Christopher Wren, and on that tablet the following words are engraved:
If you wish to see his monument, look around you.
In the same way, if you wish to see the monuments of this government, look around you. Its wreckage lies on every side. We have idle plants, idle people and idle talk by the Prime Minister that Canada is prosperous at the present time. We have wrecked businesses, closed factories, closed plants of all kinds, depressed people, unrest, discontent, dissatisfaction and finally, to cap it all, we have discussions going on which have not gone on in Canada to any extent for a long time past, discussions regarding whether we should have secession in our country, that is, breaking up our confederation, or whether we should have annexation to the United States. In other words, we have in Canada to-day a veritable slough of despond. I suppose my smiling friend over there, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) will say that I am exaggerating, but I am not exaggerating and I intend to prove my statements. As regards unemployment, I do not need to give proofs, though I intend to give very briefly two or three. Anybody who knows the country at all, knows that unemployment is more rampant in Canada to-day than it has been in twenty-five or fifty years.


James Murdock: Nonsense.


Robert James Manion: Of course, my hon. friend
always has some reply of that sort to make,
but idle men on the street will tell him that I am speaking the truth. I will quote from one of the articles from which my right hon. friend quoted the other day and which I had also run across. This is an article from the Montreal Star of February 6, reporting a Trades and Labour Council meeting in Montreal, and I intend to quote just two or three passages from it. The report of their committee shows that out of 48,000 odd men covered by their unions, 9,500 are out of employment and 22,000 are working on short time, these two figures together being over 65 per cent of the membership of the union who, are either out of work altogether or working short time. Further down the report states:
The extent of unemployment was greater than in the same period last year and a very serious condition of affairs existed among the working classes of the city.
A little further down, it states:
More calls from distressed people for personal aid had been received than during the last winter or the winter preceding.
In the report it shows the official figure given by the Minister of Labour as to unemployment in Canada as 44,000, and the report states:
The figure given for Canada is ridiculously low and the actual condition must be at least twice that amount.
That is the reply of the Trades and Labour Council to the nonsensical statement of my hon. friend. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) suggests that the Salvation Army in Toronto, his own city, could give him some information also which would hardly agree with his statistics. I hold in my hand a circular which was sent out to many members, probably to all members by the British Empire Steel Corporation in connection with unemployment in the steel industry in Canada. They give figures to show that there are 48,000 less employed in the iron and steel industry in Canada to-day than there were in 1920. The Halifax Herald is quoted. I do not know what the polities of the Herald are, but the fact is that this newspaper is quoted:
What do these figures tell us? That the work is being done in the United States. It is there that men find employment. It is there that wages are being earned-while Canadian mills are closed down.
I give another quotation:
The special correspondent of the Iron Age-
This is another Toronto paper.
-who investigated conditions in all the Canadian iron and steel works makes it quite plain that they are much the same in Ontario as they are in Nova Scotia-
The Address-Mr. Manion

My hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) agreed this afternoon with that.
-and that the reason is not one that applies to one locality more than another, but is general. It is simply tariff reductions.
A little lower down there appears the following :
Mr. Sanderson's investigations and report show that the tariff, or rather lack of it, has had a very important effect not only in reducing production but in causing many workmen to leave Canada for the United States, where employment conditions have been more satisfactory. Canadian iron and steel industry is experiencing severe competition from many directions. The action of the government in connection with its budget for 1925 is awaited with interest.
I hope that the budget will show something substantial, but I do not base my hopes strongly on anything I have heard. Let me tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) that in the Toronto Globe, a newspaper which can hardly be described as a supporter of this party, there appeared on October 9 a group picture on. the front page, which I possess among my papers, of some fifty mayors of the cities and towns of Ontario-not of Canada but of Ontario-who it was stated were visiting at that time the Conservative Premier of Ontario, Mr. Howard Ferguson, asking him for relief for unemployment conditions in the various places which they represent. And I can speak for my own city, which perhaps has not been harder hit than any other, and which it may be has been more fortunate in this regard than some. Today I can hardly walk down the streets of Fort William without being stopped both by business men and by workers who want to know what in heaven's name is the matter with this country of ours. They all ask the same question-what has happened to this Dominion? I can assure my hon. friends that I have told them to the best of my ability.
As regards the exodus from Canada, there is no doubt that it is declining, and some of the Liberal newspapers as well as the Prime Minister have boasted of this fact; they have made much of the decline in the exodus of the Canadian people. Well, there is no doubt that the exodus is lessening, but the reason is obvious: there are fewer people to draw from. The exodus, Mr. Speaker, is declining for the same reason that the flow of a man's life blood decreases in proportion as he gets nearer to dissolution. The Prime Minister the other day in his speech made the statement that the figures of the Labour department of the United States were incorrect, that is to say, that the actual figures in regard to the exodus from Canada to the United States were not as high as they were represented. And no doubt the Minister of Labour will agree with 
that. But I know sections of this country,- such for example as the district around Fort Frances-which lies on the international border, where I am informed that daily towards dusk there are streams of men slipping across the line into the United States, of whom, of course, no records are kept. And I know also that in my home town in the practice of my profession I am flooded with requests from young Canadians, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Englishmen, who have been living for some time in this country, for certificates of health which they require as a pre-requisite to entry into the United States, since it is necessary that they produce such a certificate before being admitted in to that country at the present time. The very cream of our British stock is leaving the country and going across to the United States. If hon. gentlemen need further proof I will quote once more the Toronto Globe. Here is an article which appeared in that newspaper on December 15, less than two months ago, being a special despatch to the Globe from Windsor, Ontario:
Windsor, December 14-Upward of 1,250 persons from the British Isles have made application at Windsor for permission to enter the United States, Marshall M. Vance, United States consul at the border, said Saturday. Under the present quota law, the consul explained, enough applications are on file to fill the quota needs for the next 42 years.
I notice that the Minister of Labour makes no comment. However, I think I have given sufficient proof from various newspapers as to the exodus that is taking place. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to love my country any better than other Canadians do, but I do think that to every patriotic man in Canada it must be a sad sight to see the very life blood of the nation flowing out as it is. It must be a matter of great concern to every serious citizen to see the young men and women of this country emigrating to the United States, probably never to return. Whoever has studied French history knows that in those cruel days of two or three hundred years ago, the days of religious persecution in that country, France lost tens and hundreds of thousands of Huguenots, the finest artisans in France, who were driven into England, Germany and Holland for conscience sake. England, Germany and Holland profited to an enormous extent, while France's loss was inestimable, in the exodus from their native land of these Frenchmen. Unfortunately the same condition exists in Canada to-day, but the fact is that the present situation is due not to the tyranny of any autocratic king but to the stupid policies of a vote-hunting government who desire to maintain themselves in power. To-

The Address-Mr. Manion
day the factories of England, Belgium, France and the United States as well as of Czecho-Slovakia and other countries, are retaining their artisans, producing goods that find their way into Canada, while the young men who work in our Canadian factories are among those who are making their exit to the United States.
The Prime Minister has declared it unpatriotic for us to discuss these facts. But, Sir, what is there unpatriotic in one's saying publicly what everybody says privately? I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be accused to-morrow of being a pessimist merely because I have ventured to look the facts in the face. But I take it that this charge will come from those who place party above country, who are Liberals first and Canadians second, or rather perhaps, I should say, who are politicians before being patriots.
But let me ask hon. gentlemen a question. If a man who has worked during a substantial period of his life and has gradually accumulated a competence and built for himself a home which he loves, should upon returning some evening find that house in flames, with all his savings in the course of destruction,-what would one say of such a man if he stood by and, with cheers and laughter, declared that conditions for him were never better than at that particular moment? Would such a man be considered an optimist? I would call him an imbecile. Well, Mr. Speaker, without intending any oflence at all, I must say that it seems to me that those who stand up in this country and declare that conditions were never at any time better than they are to-day are suffering from the same mental condition.
Let me say that I am no pessimist so far as Canada's future is concerned; I am not pessimistic regarding the great destiny of this country. I am, however, doubtful whether under present conditions, and under such a policy as is being pursued to-day, Canada will realize, as soon as we should hope, the destiny which we all anticipate for her. I am afraid that if present conditions are continued indefinitely the great destiny of the Canadian people will be retarded ten or twenty, indeed perhaps fifty years. I am alarmed at the prospect, Mr. Speaker. But some of the greatest men in the country share this misgiving; men like Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor, the president of the Bank of Montreal, Sir Herbert Holt, Mr. Beatty, and representatives of the Trade and Labour Council are all uneasy. These gentlemen have expressed views pretty much the same as I have voiced to-day, although
perhaps in milder language; but they have all reached absolutely the same conclusion. The only period in our history in which I can find a parallel to the present state of affairs was that period around 1878, when conditions were indeed severe. Anyone will discover, if he takes the trouble to read the speeches of members of parliament as recorded in Hansard of that time, how tense the feeling of the nation was then, when the Prime Minister on leaving the House of Commons was accosted on the streets by people who cried for either bread or work. To-day too the people are crying for bread or work; the workmen are crying for bread or work and the Prime Minister gives them statistics, statistics in regard to Canada's external trade.
I am sure that these statistics will serve to relieve the pangs of hunger of these workmen and help to pay their rent.
My right hon. friend appears to be of the opinion that external trade is more important for a country than internal trade. Internal trade is the really important trade for a country; in other words, the ability of the people to buy and sell among themselves. You can look back over the history of the world and find many instances of countries where the people were dying by the tens of thousands and even by the million from absolute famine while their foodstuffs and other products were being exported to a large extent.


Mr. ROBB:: Before my hon. friend leaves
the question of population, perhaps he can give me this information, as he comes from just on the edge of the prairies. If I understood him aright, he was referring to the exodus of our people to the States. Will he explain how it is that the three prairie provinces are basing their demands for the subsidy we pay them of 25 cents a head on a population of 169,000 more than in 1922?


Robert James Manion: Of course, I have not the
mind of the prairie provinces in my keeping. The only answer I can give the minister is this: I heard the representatives from the three prairie provinces in this House asking the government for the return of their natural resources, and I presume they have got so tired waiting that now they are making a substantial demand in order to secure good fair treatment.


James Alexander Robb: No, this is based on the
statistics of population. As my hon. friend knows, we pay the provinces so much per head of population. To-day they are basing their claim on a population of 169,000 more than they had in 1922.
.58
The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: Of course, I do not know
anything about it.


Arthur Meighen: I presume they took
the figures given by the Dominion statistics office, which lately published statistics of our population. They would be justified in doing so. But the Chief Statistician will tell the minister that in arriving at those statistics he took the rate of progress in the ten years previous and projected the curve into the three years. So the minister will see of what use those figures are.


James Alexander Robb: I would not admit that at all.


Robert James Manion: I do not care anything
about the figures the prairie provinces sent down in making their demand on my hon. friend; but I do know, as everybody else knows, that the exodus from this country is painfully large, that our people are going out by tens of thousands to the United States.
I was going to give some further proofs of conditions in this country, and I was going to point out that for the first time in very many years we have had what happened many years ago-talk of annexation and of secession. We have people asking if confederation is a failure. I have seen it stated in some Toronto paper that there is no talk of annexation in this country. I think that statement must have been made in a Pickwickian sense, because I have heard openly on Pullman cars and on the streets talk of annexation, I have had sane business men ask me if it was not necessary, in order to get out of this morass of difficulties, to join up with the United States. Just within the last week an outstanding gentleman in this city, one whose name is familiar to everyone in this House, one who is not. an annexationist, told me that if a vote were taken in one of the largest sections of the country, comprising about a third of the population, annexation would carry overwhelmingly. What a terrible condition of affairs to exist in such a country as this!


Mr. GRAHAM:: Do you think he was well informed?


Robert James Manion: I think he is just as well Informed as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. I know him as well as I know my hon. friend, and I am not making any reflection on the Minister of Railways, indeed I have the greatest respect for him. But the gentleman to whom I am referring is just as well known throughout the Dominion as my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: That is not the point.
He may be as well known as the toll gate
rMr. Robb.]
used to be. What I am trying to get at is this. Are you serious in telling this House that you believe that one-third of the people of the Dominion, take any third you like, are in favour of annexation?


Robert James Manion: I did not give that as my own statement; I gave it as the statement of an outstanding gentleman in this country, a gentleman whose name is familiar to everyone in the House. He said to me that if a vote for annexation were taken in this section of the country, which comprises one-third of the people of Canada, it would carry overwhelmingly.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend and myself are agreed; he does not believe that statement any more than I do. At least I imagine he does not.


Robert James Manion: I am not so sure if at the present time a vote were taken in the section of which he speaks it might not carry, due to the terrible conditions brought about by the foolish policies of this government.


George Perry Graham: I am surprised.


Robert James Manion: When I was interrupted
rather generally, I was explaining what a crime it was to have even the suggestion of annexation whispered in this country, with its magnificent resources, its wide spaces, and its sparse population. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if anybody here is drawing the conclusion that I am advocating annexation.


James Murdock: I am drawing that conclusion.


Robert James Manion: I do not care what conclusion my hon. friend draws; he is likely to draw any conclusion. I was asking if any private members were drawing such a conclusion. I say here, so there may be no misunderstanding, that I was quoting what someone had said to me, and I was pointing out the crime of even a suggestion of this kind. So far as I am concerned I am a Canadian first, last and all the time.
And we do not need to go outside this House to hear talk of secession. The hon. member for QuAppelle (Mr. Millar), I think it was, said the other night that the feeling for secession in the prairie provinces had grown to a terrible extent in the last few years.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: That is the effect of his
speech-I heard him-that the feeling for secession was very marked in the prairie provinces at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is better.

The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: But apart from that, we do not need to go outside the House at the present moment in this respect. My good friend the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in a speech, heralded from one end of the Dominion to the other, said that if the western provinces could not get their demands satisfied he did not see any reason why confederation should be maintained.


Mr. HOEY:: My hon. friend is wrong again, and perhaps he will allow me to state what I then said, which -was this: That if confederation could not be maintained on a basis of justice, I could not see why it #iould be maintained at all.


Robert James Manion: I am not quarrelling with the words. At least, my hon. friend was in a condition to discuss the reasons why we might have secession, why confederation should break up. Have those conditions existed in this country before where people on the street, business men and members of parliament have been standing up and discussing secession? Never in my memory.


George Perry Graham: Have you read the history of the annexation manifesto?


Robert James Manion: But that was away back in the times I speak of when conditions were very much as they are to-day, about fifty years ago. The hon. member for Springfield has been in this country only fifteen years. Might I suggest that he leave the talk of breaking up confederation to some of our native sons? Because when he remembers that he has been but fifteen years in the Dominion, and in that period, according to a speech he delivered in this House two sessions ago-what he then said has been applied to him, and he has not denied its application-according to that speech, within the fifteen years he has raised himself from a $7 a week labourer to a college-bred man and a member of parliament at $4,000 a year. I think that record is very creditable to him, but I also think it is very creditable to the opportunities which this country offers to those who come here. And I may add that to me his stand appears to be somewhat similar to that of a man whom you invite to partake of a good, substantial meal and who criticises the fare.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if the Conservative party in 1911 did not establish the precedent when they talked annexation?


Robert James Manion: The Conservative party
of 1911 never talked annexation. They did point out what many people are pointing out
in this country to-day, namely, that if foolish trade policies are carried out they might lead to annexation.


Mr. MARTELL:: Mr. Speaker-


James Murdock: They waved the flag
to fool the people.


James Alexander Robb: May I interrupt my hon.
friend? Was not my hon. friend a supporter of
that policy?


Robert James Manion: I have answered that
question a number of times. I do not like to repeat to my hon. friend what I said last year when another hon. gentleman asked me that question. I pointed out to him that I got wiser with age.


James Murdock: And three months'
experience in the cabinet.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I did get wiser
with three months' experience in the cabinet, but my hon. friend has not appeared to get wiser with three years'.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: He is here yet,
anyway.


Robert James Manion: Well, we are very glad
of that. I am sure my hon. friend over there has sat there about as long as he can. Now, if I may be permitted to go on with my speech, the other hon. gentlemen having made theirs, I would like to do so. I had hoped to get through by six o'clock, but I am beginning to see now that I shall have to go on after the recess; that, however, is not my fault. My hon. friend and leader (Mr. Meighen) asks why hon. gentlemen opposite do not make speeches. I understand that they have made a resolution not to make speeches; perhaps I may succeed in stimulating them to come back a bit.
I have noticed-if I may be permitted to resume my remarks-that the severest critics of our country have always been newcomers, men who perhaps have gone through some hardships, but whose difficulties have been very small indeed compared with those of our native-born Canadians, particularly the pioneers of the earlier days. As to this talk of annexation, I hope I can reassure my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that I have not become an annexationist.


George Perry Graham: I did not suggest that
my hon. friend was. I would not do that with him-if he will allow me: I was pointing out that when my hon. friend quotes from somebody's remarks as an evidence of the spirit in the country he ought at least, if he does not believe them, to tell us so.
The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: I have done that. I hope I have dissipated the worries of my hon. friend on that point.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to see
the hon. member go wrong.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has been
going wrong so long that he does not like to see others go wrong. Well, Mr. Speaker, such talk of annexation, such talk of secession is unpalatable to those native-born Canadians of all races and creeds who wish to see this become a great country, who wish to see Canada develop into a great nation, who wish to see their sons, even if at some personal sacrifice, remain good, whole-souled Canadians and not become Americans. It is true that we have some difficulties to surmount, but to the courageous man or the courageous nation great difficulties should lead to great achievement, not to despair. I was quoting these statements regarding annexation and secession and so on simply to prove that the conditions in this country are terrible at the present time-the conditions of depression in business; the conditions of unemployment; the conditions of unrest and dissatisfaction and discontent among the masses of the people of this country.
I wish in the few moments that remain with me before six to give what I consider to be the two chief causes for the dissatisfaction, the discontent, the unrest and the unemployment which prevail in Canada at the present time.
In the first place-and I place it first because I believe it is the most important-I consider the cause of the conditions which exist to be the unstable tariff policy of this government, because that unstable tariff policy has led to instability in business to reluctance on the part of investors to invest their money, and to fear on the part of all Canadians for the future of their country. Now I am going to quote another prominent citizen of this country, a manufacturer, who told me the other day that within the. past year he had sold all his interests in his big manufacturing plant in Canada, because, he said, "I do not wish to take any dhance of being driven out of business by the unstable tariff policy of the present government." I do not need to go outside of the Liberal party to get quotations which show the need of stability, In 1923 Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance-and, I believe, still Minister of Finance-stated that if we were to have progress and prosperity among our business men we must have stability in our tariff policy. Then he went on to say that if we were to have stability the
IMr. Graham.]
tariff cuts must be considered as finished; that we must not go any further; that the tariff was low enough at that time. Then the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) comes forward in the following year, with the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding sick in bed, and makes some further cuts. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who is not in his seat, said on that occasion that that was the "death knell of protection." Then the Prime Minister in Toronto the other day said that there was going to be "a pause." He did not say how long the pause would be; in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) the other day he said it was only a pause. In these circumstances, in view of the talk of the death knell of protection; in view of the "pause" that is now suggested, and in view of the statement of Mr. Fielding to which I have referred, is it any wonder that nobody can tell what the tariff policy of this government is? Is it any wonder that as a consequence manufacturing plants in my city and in other cities throughout the country have been closed? Is it any wonder we have unemployment among the artisan classes of Canada? And, Sir, the whole condition as I have described it can be laid at the door of this government because of its unstable tariff policy.
I. am going to touch for a moment on one or two tariff questions which came up in the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister the other day. He made a statement in the House which he has made in various parts of this country and with which I do not agree, namely, that the tariff is a tax; and he usually ends up his reference in that connection with the words. "Now, remember that the tariff is a tax."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: He says "hear, hear", so he reiterates his statement of the other day. He throws out to the people the inference that if you raise your tariff at any time you thereby raise your taxes. That is what he implies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Well, I do not agree with that. It is one of those half truths which my right hon. friend criticises when other people are responsible for the statement of them. There are times when the tariff is a tax. The tariff is a tax upon the people when the people purchase goods which are imported and against which customs duties are imposed, and it is also an indirect tax-

The Address-Mr. Manion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Just a minute. It is also an indirect tax when the manufacturer takes advantage of the tariff to raise the prices of his goods. Does that suit my hon. friends? That is what I think they had in mind just now. I usually go so fast that they cannot get in between the words of my sentences, but apparently I did not succeed this time. Well, I do not agree that that condition exists, except in perhaps a small proportion of cases. There are very many cases where the tariff has no effect in the raising of the prices of goods. Where the people buy the home products and the prices of those products are not raised by reason of the tariff. Will the Prime Minister claim then that the tariff is a tax?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The tariff is always a tax.


Robert James Manion: No, it is not always a tax, and my right hon. friend is either wilfully attempting to delude the people or he does not know what he is talking about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
different types of taxes. There are taxes in the nature of sales taxes; there are taxes in the nature of customs dues. Customs dues are determined by the tariff, and they are certainly taxes.


Robert James Manion: Customs dues are a tax when the manufacturer takes advantage of the tariff to raise his prices; I will admit that. But there are very many cases where the prices are not raised at all on account of the tariff, where all the tariff has done is to hold the Canadian market for the Canadian people. That applies to many lines of goods in this country-very many; and there the tariff is no tax at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Robert James Manion: I have here an article by Mr. F. W. Stewart, of the city of Montreal, a man who is well known to many members of this House, one of the best known citizens of that city. He represents in this country the Cluett Peabody collar and shirt people, and is therefore in a position to judge of the conditions as affecting men's furnishings, much better perhaps, than members of this House. Mr. Stewart is a personal friend of mine, and he has pointed this condition out to me on many occasions. He has written an article for the Listening Post. Nobody will accuse the Listening Post of being a friend of ours-recently, at any rate. There was a 11
time when the Listening Post did seem friendly to us.


James Alexander Robb: Is not Mr. Stewart-I am not referring now to the Listening Post-president of the Conservative Association of Montreal?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I think he is president of one of the Conservative associations of Montreal. But does my hon. friend not think that there are a few truthful Conservatives?


James Alexander Robb: That is not the point. My
hon. friend was trying to tack it on to the Listening Post.


Robert James Manion: I think Mr. Stewart is
president of one of the Liberal-Oonservative associations of Montreal. However, here are the facts. I remember reading a letter in a local newspaper from someone in this city who had been accused of doing this, that and the other, and who replied, "Supposing that is all true; supposing I am brother of the devil himself; what has that to do with the facts?" It is the same with regard to Mr. Stewart. His position in the Conservative association has nothing to do with the facts.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would not the hon. gentleman apply that same line of reasoning as to whether a man is a native bom Canadian or an immigrant who has come to this country?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I submit that the native born Canadian who has lived here all his life should surely be the first to 6peak of breaking up confederation, if there is to be any talk of that kind.


James Murdock: There are some in this
House, not native bom Canadians, who have lived here under the conditions that existed in this country longer than my hon. friend has lived in Canada.


Robert James Manion: They may have lived here longer than I have; I cannot help my age, but I will not admit they have lived here under the conditions that we have at present because there never have been conditions in this country such as we have at present.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Is it not so that some
are Canadians because they cannot help it while others are Canadians because it is the land of their adoption?


James Murdock: And loved it.


Robert James Manion: I was going on to quote
Mr. Stewart, if my hon. friends will permit me. Mr. Stewart enumerates the items of clothing which a man wears in this country and compares the prices here and in the United States. He gives the price of hats.



The Address-Mr. Manion
suits, overcoats, woollen underwear, cotton underwear, collars of various kinds, shirts and ties, in fact practically the entire outfit in wearing apparel that a man requires in this country, and gives the prices for these goods of equal quality and of equal workmanship in Canada and the United States. The cost of the outfit in Canada is $95.30, as compared with $124 in the United States, a difference in favour of Canada of $28.70, in sp'te of the fact that there is a duty of something like 37i per cent against practically all of these goods coming into Canada.


Mr. BROWN:: Is it not, however, the
British competition in these lines that our friends complain of? The comparison should be between British goods and Canadian goods.


Robert James Manion: That is true in regard to woollen goods, but not of the goods generally. It is not true with regard to cotton goods for instance.


John Livingstone Brown: Why not? Is not Britain
a manufacturer of cotton goods?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but so is the United States. Not only that, but cotton goods in Canada, Mr. Stewart claims, and he has shown me at different times the actual items, despite the duty, are cheaper in this country. The point I make is that the tariff itself does not necessarily raise the price of goods, and any man who is fair-minded and looks at the question from the proper standpoint knows that is the absolute truth.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I regret very much that, on account of the various members on the other side of the House insisting on making speeches this afternoon while I was making my remarks, I am forced to continue after eight o'clock this evening, and I sincerely hope what I have said will stimulate my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) to come forward and make a statement. I see he is ready now to come forward and give us a lot of facts of which he speaks.


James Murdock: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: 
Mr. BIRD:: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the British customs tax is a protective tax?


Robert James Manion: 
Mr. EVANS:: Are they produced in Great Britain?


Robert James Manion: What that has to do with the question I do not know. No, they are not produced in Great Britain. That is why it is a free trade tariff. Britain has a free trad'e tariff, but they collect by customs tariff on sugar, tobacco and tea, practical necessaries of life, from the ordinary working man; and I think my hon. friend, who called us a lot of evil names the other night when he was discussing free trade, will agree that the ordinary working man probably consumes and has to consume as much sugar as the millionaire; 80 that the duty in England, instead' of being divided so as to place more duty on the rich man than on the poor man. bears equally on the poor and the rich.


John Evans: Will you tell us how much the customs tariff in Great Britain favours the manufacturer?


Robert James Manion: 
John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member does not dispute the fact that these protective tariffs are taxes.


Robert James Manion: I admit that the tariff is
sometimes a tax, but the Prime Minister makes it a general statement, threatening the people that if you raise the tariff in this country, you increase the taxes. I submit that you do not necessarily do anything of the kind. I am going to try to prove that further and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me when I have done.
The tin-plate industry in the United States was something which I looked into some years ago. I referred to it in this House about five years ago and I looked up Hansard to refresh my memory as to the facts which
The Address-Mr. Manion

are these: In 1890 there was in the United States no tin-plate industry to amount to anything and they imported 680,000,000 pounds of tin-plate, mostly from Wales. They put a duty on tin-plate being imported into the United States from Wales, and in 1913, 23 years later, they were importing, instead of
680,000,000 pounds, just 28,000,000 pounds, or a very small proportion of what they had been importing 23 years previously. In manufactured plate they were in 1890 producing only 2.000,000 pounds in the United States. In 1913, 23 years later, after they imposed their tariff, they were producing 2,000,000,000 pounds, one thousand times the amount, and prices had gone down. In addition to prices going down, they had supplied thousands of workers in the United States with work in that industry and they had actually driven the tin-plate industry of Wales nearly altogether out of business and forced many of the tin-plate workers of Wales to come to the United States to reside.
I am not satisfied to stop at that; I am going to give my hon. friends some more proofs. In 1867, steel rails in the United States cost $150 a ton. There was a duty on them, but they were importing too many, they felt, and they raised the duty in 1867, because, if members will remember, the United States became highly protectionist, as it has remained ever since, about 1861. In 1872, five years after they raised the duty, steel rails, instead of costing them $150 a ton, cost $112. Where in that case was the tax that the Prime Minister states the tariff is? In 1876, four years after that, steel rails cost only $39 a ton, or about one-quarter of what they cost in 1867. In 1885, still under the same tariff, they were costing $27 a ton, at which price they practically remained until prior to the war. Of course, the price of steel rails has gone up since then because the war has disarranged prices, but prior to the war the cost of steel rails remained at about $27 a ton. From 1867, with a low tariff, to 1885, with a high tariff, the price of steel rails decreased from $150 to $27 a ton.


John Livingstone Brown: Could the hon. member
give the corresponding prices in other countries from which those rails might have been imported during that time?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I cannot do
that.


John Livingstone Brown: Would that not be necessary in order to prove the hon. member's point?


Robert James Manion: It would be, perhaps, if I had been comparing prices in different
[Mr. Manion 1
countries. What I am proving is that a tariff is not necessarily a tax; that under a tariff you can lower prices down to one-quarter and even down to one-sixth in that period of time. Further, the greatest producer of steel rails in the world before the war was the United States and also the greatest producer of iron and steel. Not only is that true, but it is also true that Germany, the most highly protected country in Europe, had surpassed Great Britain in the production of iron and steel while Great Britain was producing under free trade. Germany had undersold Great Britain in prices and oversold her in amount in ten of the most important countries in Europe, so that Germany must have been producing her goods at a cheaper price or she could not have ousted Great Britain from ten enormous markets of the world. I could quote Mr. Keynes and various other authorities. I could easily prove my facts, but I do not wish to go into that at the present time. Not only is what I have stated the case; but Sir Gilbert Molesworth, a British economist, stated in a book which he wrote, that between 1861 and 1883, a period of twenty-two years, under protection in the United States, cotton and woollen prices decreased 25 per cent. He gives a list of 214 articles showing the same result under protection with the home market. In other words, under a tariff protection you keep your home market for your producers and prices go down by competition amongst the manufacturers. What is much more important is that you have work and wages for your people instead of driving them to highly protected countries. Large volume production, with plenty of work and wages, is much more important than cheap importation. Of what value are cheap goods if the people of our country have not any money with which to buy them, as is the condition to-day? Cheap importation, I will not deny, will make things cheap. If you wipe away the tariff altogether, many things will be cheap. I am not claiming that what I have said is universally true, that prices do not go up. Some prices do go up; but what is the use of cheap goods if the people are out of work because of killing industry and they cannot buy cheap goods. As I have said before in this House, the cheapest countries in the world are invariably the poorest countries in the world. India and China are the cheapest countries in the world to live in. You can hire a labourer in India or China for probably five, six or eight cents a day. According to the labour wage, which is a good criterion of a cheap or a dear country, they are the cheapest and the poorest countries in the world with regard to the people. It is not cheapness we want; we

The Address-Mr. Manion
want work and wages for our people to keep them at home in this country. How can you possibly get work and wages for your people and keep your industrial plants going if you allow importations from the cheapest countries in the world which have a low wage rate, because hon. members will remember that, in reply to a question put by me and also, I think, by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) said that for all classes of labour wage rates in Europe were from one-half to one-fifth the wage rates in Canada. Therefore, with low wages, with low exchange, so that European money does not begin to be worth the amount of money ours is worth, and with lower standards of living than our people will put up with, how can you expect our workers to compete? They cannot compete under those circumstances and at the same time maintain their standard of living. Only under a system of protection is it possible to safeguard our labourers against the low labour costs, the low standards of living, and the low exchange of Europe, and of Asia too, when the countries in that part of the world have begun to produce on a large scale. And in that regard, it is evident that those countries are forging ahead rapidly, particularly Japan. Suppose some particularly brilliant genius arose, let us say, in China and began to exploit the three hundred or four hundred millions of people there, drawing upon them for labour and hiring them at a few cents a day: what chance would the working man in Canada have of surviving under such circumstances? Would my hon. friends still advocate free trade in Canada in that event?


Mr. LEWIS:: What about the high cost
of labour in the United States? Do we need protection from that ?


Robert James Manion: Yes, because of the fact
that the factories in the United States produce on so large a scale. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) gave a very apt illustration when he pointed out that in the case of a large population it is possible to manufacture more cheaply than we are able to do in this country, so that the goods produced can be dumped into Canada to the disadvantage of the local product. The hon. member gave an illustration with reference to Sparks street which I need not repeat. The fact, however, is that because in the United States they are able to manufacture on a large scale, and because they frequently have a surplus of goods which they do not know what to do with, they are able to interfere materially with our market here; rather than carry
their goods to the following year they dump them here. You may get cheap goods for a little while until the home industry which produces that particular commodity is put out business, but once the Canadian business is destroyed you may depend upon it that the exporters in the United States will put up their price and the consumer here will be worse off than before.
Some hon. gentlemen to my left have described the tariff policy of the party led by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) as being as high as Hainan's gallows. This is absurd; our policy is nothing of the kind. The policy which this party advocates is a tariff sufficiently high to give our manufacturers and producers in various departments of industry a fair opportunity to compete with those of other countries. That is our policy, and nothing more than that. Let me go further. Speaking for myself-and I have no doubt that I express in this regard the views of my right hon. leader as well as of other hon. gentlemen on this side-I will say that the policy I advocate is qualified to this extent, that so soon as it is shown that any industry in this ountry is taking an unfair advantage of the tariff I am prepared to advise the taking off of the tariff on the products of that particular industry, no matter what it might be. And that is the advantage of a tariff commission such as is suggested by my hon. friend whose resolution regarding tariff is on the order paper.
A fact which has impressed me rather favourably this session is the marked extent to which hon. gentlemen to my left have avoided the advocacy of free trade. That I take it is due to the favourable condition in regard to wheat, which has increased in value to $2 a bushel. Personally, I hope that the price of wheat will stay up; I sincerely trust that it will remain at least $1.50 or $1.75, or even $2. I am anxious to see my friends in western Canada make a profit on their production, because living as I do at Fort William, which is tributary to the west, I naturally want to see that section of the Dominion prosperous. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, as I am sure every hon. gentleman must be, that unless every part of the country prospers, the Dominion of Canada as a whole cannot hope to advance. I repeat, therefore, the hope that the price of wheat will stay up; once it is established on a reasonably permanent basis of from $1.50 to $2, say, so that the farmers of western Canada may make a fair profit, I am sure that we shall have no more tariff agitation than we experienced in the west before the war. Why, in 1917 there was only one
The Address-Mr. Manion

man from the west who talked about the tariff -I refer to Dr. Michael Clark of Red Deer. His was the lone voice in the wilderness and he had practically no support in the House except possibly from my hon. friend for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who occasionally came to his assistance. Generally speaking, Dr. Michael Clark was the only absolute free trader in the House; and my belief is that if we have a proper price for wheat from now on we shall hear less and less about the tariff question, which I believe will cease to agitate the minds of the people in the prairie provinces, who will come to see, what is an absolute fact, that the tariff has done them very little injury. As a matter of fact, has the tariff had any effect either in raising the price from SI to S2 or in lowering it from $2 to SI? It has had no such effect; and, as I say, if the farmers of the west are assured a reasonable return for their wheat they will be inclined to take a correspondingly reasonable view of conditions in the east and be prepared to accept a fair tariff which will operate to the advantage of the whole country, benefit-ting not only the manufacturer in eastern Canada but as well the farmers who live in the vicinity of the manufacturing plants.


Mr. HUGHES:: Suppose the policy my
hon. friend advocates is nationally sound, and suppose we take it for granted that the manufacturers of Canada do not want to take advantage of the customs duties and raise their prices accordingly, would my hon. friend recommend that the excise duty be raised to about the same figure as the customs duty on similar articles?


Robert James Manion: I am not sure that I quite understand the question, but if you put a customs duty on goods coming in and put an excise duty on the same goods produced in the country, you simply have free trade. That is not protection.


James Joseph Hughes: You are protecting the
home market.


Robert James Manion: No, not if you impose an excise tax. Now, I think I have submitted to any open-minded man in this House, or woman either, sufficient proof that the tariff is not necessarily a tax, as has been so generally expounded by the Prime Minister in his western tour and in this House.
When I began to discuss the tariff I was giving reasons for the present deplorable conditions that prevail in this country,-depressed business, unemployment, discontent, and discussions regarding secession, annexation and all that sort of thing. These are condi-

tions such as have not existed in this country for many years. So far as I can remember, looking back over Canadian history, a similar state of affairs has not been seen in Canada since 1878. Between 1873 and 1878, such conditions did exist, but we have not had any recurrence of them from that time on. I submitted in explanation of the present situation two main reasons: first, the unstable tariff policy of this government which, as I believe, I have reasonably proved has been the means of strangling the business of the country and keeping the working men idle; and secondly, the unnecessary expenditures of this government, entailing an unnecessarily high taxation which is weighing as a heavy burden on the business men and as well, to a certain extent, on the labouring classes. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Marler) yesterday made an excellent speech in which he sought to prove that the government wTas in no way to blame at all for the high taxation, inasmuch as, according to him, most of it was uncontrollable. He made a very fine defence of the government and tried to discharge it of all responsibility in this connection. And I think I am but drawing reasonable inference from his remarks. Now, after making the sweeping statement that the government has been expending money unnecessarily, I should certainly be open to criticism if I did not substantiate this generalization with a few particulars. I shall therefore cite six instances in proof of the statement that expenditures have been made which could have been avoided. Those few illustrations will, I think, suffice to show that I can back up what I have said. First of all there was an increase in the Auditor General's salary from $6,000 to $15,000 a year. For many years we had an Auditor General who was quite satisfactory and who was content to perform the duties of his office at a salary of $6,000 a year. This government, however, appointed an estimable gentleman, against whom let me assure the House I have absolutely nothing to say, a gentleman from Montreal, at $15,000, an increase of $9,000. This I say is an unnecessary increase, for as Mr. Fraser, his predecessor, was willing to perform the duties of the office at $6,000, I submit that it would not have been difficult to get a good man at $8,000 a year to fill the post. Then there was the trip to Wembley of the whips of the Liberal party and the Progressive party, covered by a vote of $20,000 passed last session. I do not believe that ever in the history of our country has a more disgraceful expenditure of public money been made. I do

,	The Address-Mr. Manion
not know any reason why a member of this House should get a trip to the Wembley exhibition at the cost of the taxpayers. I have said that on the stump, and I feel it is only fair that I should say it here.


Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: Did not the chief whip of the party to our right speak in favour of the vote at the time?


Robert James Manion: I am not sure that he
did not support it; but he did not take the trip. I may tell my hon. friend further that every member of this section of the House, perhaps with his exception, voted against it; every member of my hon. friend's party, with the exception of six or seven, supported it, and all the members of the government so far as I remember.


James Murdock: Do you hold the same view in regard to the trip which your hon. friend from St. John City (Mr. MacLaren) and one of your own party in the upper house with others made to South Africa?


Robert James Manion: That trip was not paid
for by Canada; it was paid for by South Africa.


James Murdock: Exactly.


Robert James Manion: I am discussing Canada,
not South Africa. I can quite understand that my hon. friend and any other member of the government would wish to import South African affairs into this discussion to get away from the problems at home.


Mr. MacLAREN:: As I have been referred to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), I should like it cleared up whether it is correct that he stated that the Canadian government paid my expenses to South Africa.


James Murdock: No, far from it. I never thought of such a thing. I have been told that the government of South Africa spent several hundred thousand dollars in entertaining you and other gentlemen from various parts of the Empire, and I wanted to know if the same principle would be held by my hon. friend from Fort William to apply to the South African expenditure.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend will have
to go and ask the people of South Africa. I have nothing to do with their expenditure. I am discussing Canadian affairs. We have quite enough to do to handle the problems of our country without meddling with the affairs of other parts of the Empire.


Thomas William Bird: Did I understand the hon.
member to say that the Progressive party took a share in the responsibility of sending the whips to the Old Country?


Robert James Manion: They certainly voted for
it, with a few exceptions.


Thomas William Bird: The members of the Progressive party stand exactly on the same ground as the party of the hon. gentleman with respect to that expenditure.


Robert James Manion: How many of the Progressive party voted against that expenditure?


An hon. MEMBER:: A good many.


Robert James Manion: How many? Six or seven if my recollection serves me correctly.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: Say ten.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two-thirds.


Robert James Manion: At least two-thirds voted
against that expenditure? Well, I was in the House when the vote was taken, and I had the pleasure of voting against it. I am open to correction, and I most assuredly would not attempt to put my Progressive friends in a false light, for I am attacking the government, not the Progressive party, but my recollection is that all the members of the Progressive party voted for the expenditure with the exception of seven or eight. Let me test my recollection in this way:	One
of those who voted against the trip was the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) if I remember correctly.


Thomas George McBride: If my memory serves me right, I was about the only one in this party that voted for it.


Robert James Manion: Well, my hon. friends show
some symptoms of improvement in being ashamed of the expenditure, anyhow, which is more than I can say for anybody on the other side of the House. Then there was the purchase of the Union Club in London. Canada was, I think, quite satisfactorily carrying on-I have been over there a few times- with our quarters down on Victoria street, where Lord Strathcona and our other high commissioners held out for many years, and yet at this time of financial stress, when the country is labouring under these terrible burdens of taxation, the government, through the high commissioner Mr. Larkin, purchases the Union Club in Trafalgar Square at a cost of over a million dollars-an absolutely unnecessary expenditure of the people's money. Then there were these very fine advertisements which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) has been spreading around from end to end of the Dominion. They are advertisements for the

The Address-Mr. Manion
Liberal party-I have not noticed anything in them for the benefit of the Progressive party-and the people of Canada have been paying for them. I think the Liberal party ought at least to pay the expense of their campaign literature. Then the government have appointed from time to time various commissions, I do not know how many, at a cost of over a million dollars. I admit that a few of these commissions may have been justified, but at least half of the expense could have been saved if the government had taken its courage in both hands and decided for itself. Then there was the expenditure on public works-little piers here, little docks there, a little dredging down around Belle river-various expenditures of that kind. I do not blame the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) for getting the money spent in his constituency, but I certainly think the government should put its foot down upon such expenditures. I go further, I declare that if our party comes back to power at the next election, as I am thoroughly convinced it will-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are an optimist!


Robert James Manion: They were calling me a pessimist this afternoon! If our party comes back to power at the next election, as I fully believe it will, one of the things it will have to take in hand will be the cutting down of these unnecessary expenditures on public works until Canada begins to get back on her feet again.


Thomas Vien: Is not my hon. friend hurting the hon. member for Vancouver Centre?


Mr. STEVENS:: Not a bit.


Robert James Manion: I will allow the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to take care of himself-he did so pretty well the other day when he was interrupted. I am speaking for myself. I do not think the government appreciate the fact that the country will absolutely drift on the rocks of despair if they continue their present course.
What do we get from the government in its Speech from the Throne as a cure for these conditions? We get a group of pious political platitudes and useless generalities. Let me give some instances. In addition to the statement which the Prime Minister put into the mouth of His Excellency, and which I quoted this afternoon, that the cost of living is the important problem for Canada, we find also this passage:

It is apparent that even the most rigid economy ii>
public expenditures will not suffice to solve this pressing problem.
I do not know how they can pass that very dogmatic opinion upon the question, for they have never yet tried to economize. That is the first misstatement. We are told in the Speech that the only solution lies largely in increased production and the development of wider markets. Then His Excellency talks of uncontrollable expenditure which is pressing upon the people of Canada, but the government does not get within a hundred yards of the controllable expenditure,-does not make any promise to cut down controllable expenditure in the matters I have suggested. Next, immigration is dealt with, and we are left to infer that this has reference to the Peace river territory. But what is the use of bringing in immigrants when you are driving out Canadians faster than you can fill their places with newcomers? The equalization of freight rates is then discussed and ocean transportation, and we are informed that money is to be spent upon the St. Lawrence river and the Pacific and Atlantic coast ports. We are also told that a treaty will be introduced into the House to prevent the continuance of the opium and narcotic drug traffic in this country. And that made me reflect that if the Prime Minister expects to remain as leader of this country much longer he will have to relax, not tighten up, the legislation against the importation of opium and narcotic drugs, because we will need some tons of these materials if we are to put the people of this country in the proper somnolent condition to go on believing the pipe dreams that he has been handing out to them for a long time. Finally, the piece de resistance, if I may be pardoned for speaking in the language of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec-


Mr. FOURNIER:: That is fine.


Robert James Manion: I am always pleased to
speak in the language of my very good friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier). Now, the Prime Minister says-and this is the piece de resistance:
You will be asked to sanction the calling of a conference between the federal and provincial governments to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act with respect to the constitution and powers of the Senate and in other important particulars.
Well, when I remember the fire and brimstone and the sulphuric speeches of the Prime Minister in the prairie provinces, in which he gave the impression that he was going to come down here and tear the Senate from

The Address-Mr. Manion
limb to limb, I cannot help thinking he must have been impressed when he was going through that part of the country with some of the tales he had read in his youth of the wild and woolly western people, and he must have come to the conclusion that their diet out there was raw meat and moonshine whiskey. But when he comes back to the east he is probably posted by some of his friends in the matter and told that there are sections of the eastern country where at least the abolition of the Senate is not quite so popular as it is in some other sections; so he comes forward with this milk and water proposal with regard to a conference to deal with the question.
May I just interject here that since we of the House of Commons have taken the holier-than-thou attitude and propose that a conference be called to deal with Senate reform, perhaps at the same time the Senate might suggest that a conference be called to deal with House of Commons reform. While I do not by any means suggest that we cannot usefully reform the Senate, I think by that method at least both the Senate and the House would be mutually improved, to the ultimate benefit of the whole country.
But, where is there in the Speech from the Throne any practical solution offered for the conditions which exist in Canada to-day? Where is there a suggestion made for the relief of business depression, for the supplying of work to the unemployed? Where is there a suggestion to arrest the exodus of the tens of thousands of people who are going from Canada to the United States, or to lessen the taxation which presses so heavily upon the people of this country? Where is there any suggestion even of an idea that retrenchment is required in the expenditure of Canada? Where is there a suggestion of any doctrine to bring back stability to the industry of this country? To every one of these queries, Mr. Speaker, echo answers, where? The government, so far as I can see, has no policy which will bring about any of these things. The only purpose of this government is to keep in power, and they have raised that purpose to the level of a principle.
I am going to close by suggesting three methods of assisting to relieve the conditions which exist in Canada at this time. The first is-and I am not offering it in any spirit of criticism of the government-that we should have in this country to-day a greater spirit of national unity, a greater desire to build up a real national feeling as a result of which the people will be satisfied not only to live in Canada during the sunshine of prosperity,
but to remain in Canada during the storm and stress of adversity. It should be a spirit whereby each section of the country, west as much as east and east as much as west, will be more willing than they have been in the past to make some sacrifices for the good of the whole. It should mean the inspiring of the youth of Canada with a real patriotism, not that false patriotism which the Prime Minister spoke of the other day in which he proposed to hide the facts instead of facing them. I do not think there ever was a time when a spirit of unity was more needed in this country, when it was more desirable that we should wipe out all antagonisms of race and creed, all antagonisms as between east and west, and cultivate a spirit which will inspire that patriotism I speak of in the hearts of the sons of us of the House of Commons and of the people of this country generally, making them desire to remain in Canada, even at the cost of some material sacrifice, rather than expatriate themselves and become Americans, probably never to return to the land of their birth. That is the first-national unity. The need for that, I say, I do not lay against the government; I do not wish to charge them with any objection to that policy.
The second thing that we require to relieve the burden of our country is national economy and retrenchment, a real desire on the part of whatever government is in power to reduce its expenditure, to wipe out some of our terrible taxation and to try to copy the systems of the United States, Great Britain and other countries which are cutting down their national debt. And as I say, one of the most necessary things is to wipe out, if they can, some of the appalling taxes which are depressing the people as a whole, and doing an injury to our country the immensity of which the present government shows no signs of appreciating.
And, third, we require a stable national policy of protection for all classes of the people, a policy which will bring about stability of business, will provide Canadian markets for the Canadian people, will give work to those who are unemployed and not force them to go to the United States. In closing may I say, Sir, that these three suggestions may well constitute an appropriate slogan for any party in this country if it desires to bring about Canada's success and prosperity

national unity, national economy, and the national policy.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is supposed to embody the conception of the government as
The Address-Mr. White

to the needs of the country for the coming year. The most important problem which faces the people of Canada to-day is the cost of living, a subject which is referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and referred to in a rather hopeless way. The government states that the most rigid economy that it can exercise will not suffice to solve the problem. The relief which that will afford to the people generally, who are deeply concerned about this question, is not very great, and	relief in	the	matter of	taxation is avery necessary thing in Canada at this time. I have never known a time when so much objection was	voiced to the	extent of thetaxation imposed upon the people. Like the hon.	member	who has just	spoken (Mr. Manion) I have met many people on the street who have protested strongly against the taxation to which they are subjected. People have even telephoned me at my house and protested in the same way. Not only is the burden of taxation objected to by the rank and file of the people, but men who are in high	positions	are	giving a great deal of
thought to the matter and are expressing opinions along the same line. The views ot these men of attainment who occupy commanding positions, should be deserving of attention.
Mention was made during the progress of the debate that the presidents of various banks had expressed their confidence in the future of Canada; that they were hopeful of the future. But at the same time they issued a strong warning as to the direction in which Canada was headed on account of high taxation. A great deal of attention was devoted to the subject by the president of the Bank of Commerce, Sir John Aird, in his annual address. After going into it thoroughly, he said:
Undoubtedly we shall suffer by the handicap of the higher level of income in this country as compared with the United States since the reductions recently made in that country.
Sir Herbert Holt President of the Royal Bank also had a good deal to say with regard to taxation and tariff stability. He said with regard to the income tax:
Let me emphasize here that it is not the wealthy who are the greatest sufferers from high surtaxes, but the rank and file of the people, who find it difficult to secure employment when industry is stagnating, and those who should be investing their money in new enterprises find no incentive to do so. Such a situation can only end in capital leaving Canada to find employment in the United States and elsewhere.
Mr. J. W. Hamilton, general manager of the Union Bank, said in his address:

Taxation in this country has reached the point of oppression. It has become more than a problem; it is a menace.
Mr. W. R. Allan, president of the same
bank, said:
Taxation in Canada requires anxious thought. Federal and municipal taxes with in some cases provincial additions have become so onerous as to stifle business and discourage effort.
Mr. Speaker, similar warnings were given in many speeches in this House last session, but in spite of that the government pursued a course which aggravated the situation. The result is that not only has the revenue declined very seriously, but the public debt has gone up, and the remedy now proposed by the government is increased production and the development of new and wider markets.
First, as to the necessity of increased production, I am in absolute agreement. It is only by increased production, by mass production, that the costs of manufacturing can be reduced.
As to wider markets, that also is very desirable. The government, however, should not forget that we have the old and reliable market, the home market right here. It is not being supplied by Canadian people, and it should have more attention. We have been abandoning policies which retained in large measure the Canadian market for the Canadian people, and substituting therefor a policy which has given a great deal of our market over to the workmen of other countries. Our Department of Immigration states that the regulations are being enforced very rigidly. No immigrant can come into this country except under agreement to take up domestic service or to work in agriculture. No shop workman, no tradesman is allowed in; he is kept out absolutely, and yet when the product of the labour of that tradesman who is refused admittance comes and knocks at the door of Canada for admittance, what does the government do? It welcomes it by lowering its tariff, and it welcomes it by its neglect to provide this country with a reasonable protection against the depreciated currency and the lower standard of living of these other countries.
The Speech refers to a reduction made in the cost of production of raw materials and the necessaries of life by two measures passed last session. One of these is the reduction in the sales tax, but inasmuch as the government in 1923 increased the sales tax by 100 per cent, and subsequently reduced it from six to five per cent, I suppose they are entitled to all the glory they can extract out of the achievement.

The Address-Mr. White
The other factor that is mentioned as having reduced the cost of production is the reduction that was made in the tariff last session. This I suppose refers principally to the changes in the tariff on agricultural implements. I propose to consider that from three angles: first, from the standpoint of the consumer, second from the standpoint of the manufacturer of implements, and third from the standpoint of the manufacturer of the materials that go into the implements.
There has been some controversy over the result of the reductions in the tariff. The right hon. leader of the opposition has maintained that the government has not redhced prices on agricultural implements; the Prime Minister claims that the prices
9 p.m. have been reduced, and quotes figures comparing the last two years only. I support the leader of the opposition in his contention that this government has not reduced the price of agricultural implements. I will go further than that and make this assertion, that on many of the different implements in use on the farm to-day the prices are higher than when this government assumed office. My authority for that statement is found in the retail price lists of implements that have been issued' from time to time from December, 1921 to December last by the International Harvester Company, copies of which I have here. The prices I am going to quote are the retail prices to the consumer f.o.b. Hamilton, London and Ottawa. The prices are given in every case as for two October payments These prices include the sales tax in every case where sales tax was applicable. The sales tax on these goods in December, 1921, when this government assumed office was three per cent; that was raised in the session of 1923 to six per
cent, and cancelled entirely in April, 1924. There were five distinct price lists issued and used since December, 1921. d'own to the present day, namely one issued December 1, 1921, and the others on February 1, 1923, November 1, 1923, April 11, 1924, at the time of the announcement of the budget last year, and the last one on December 1, 1924. I have prepared a table showing the prices charged at the various dates on eight different machines, confining myself principally to the list used by the Prime Minister on Monday of this week. I have compared' the prices on wagons also, and in fairness must say that the price of wagons is somewhat lower than in 1921, ranging from one to eight dollars less, depending upon the type of wagon. For the sake of brevity and clearness I shall only quote the prices in December, 1921, and those ruling to-day, and I would ask that the whole table be inserted in the record.
A seven-foot binder with no attachments, in 1921 cost $235; the price tc the farmer today is $237. A sales tax of 3 per cent existed in 1921, and does not exist now.
A five-foot heavy mower in 1921 cost $96 50; to-day it is the same price.
A ten-foot rake with thirty-two teeth, in 1921 cost $52; to-day $54.
A single disc drill with thirteen discs, two and three horse, in 1921 cost $147; to-day $157.
A six-foot, twelve-teeth, three horse cultivator, in 1921 cost $79; to-day, $82.
A sixteen-teeth, spring tooth harrow, with teeth one and a quarter inches wid'e, in 1921 cost $16,50; to-day $18.
A walking plough, No. 121, in 1921 cost $23.50; to-day $23.50.
A disc harrow, out-throw twelve discs, in 1921 cost $58; to-day $62.



COMPARISON OF PRICES OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS IN ONTARIO AT VARIOUS TIMES-INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Number and date of issuance of price list	7-ft. binder, no attach- ments	5-ft. heavy mower	10-ft ra«ce, 32 tooth	Single disc drill, 13 discs, 2 and 3 horse	6-ft. 12-tooth 3-horse cultivator	16 tooth spring tooth lbtooth	Walking plow No. 121	Disc harrow out- throw 12-disc	Sales Tax at various times$ cts.	$ cts.	5 cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	5 cts.	S cts.	S cts.	Dec. 1, 1921-List No. 22..	235 00	96 50	52 00	1*7 00	79 00	16 50	23 50	58 00	3% sales tax.Feb. 51,1923-List No 23..	243 00	99 00	53 00	153 00	84 00	18 00	24 50	64 00	\\% sales tax.Nov. 1, 1923-List No. 24..	264 00	106 50	58 00	166 50	91 50	20 00	26 50	68 00	6% sales tax.April 11, 1924-When Budget announced discontinuance of Sales Tax-List 2,*	251 00	101 50	55 00	153 00	86 00	Sales tax discontinued.iy *.3	Dec. 1, 1924-List No. 25.. Compared with Dec. 1921..	237 00 $2 higher	96 50 Same	54 00 $2 higher	157 00 -510 higher	82 00 53 higher	18 00 51.50 higher	23 50 Same	62 00 54 higher	Sales tax discontinued.
*A11 prices include Sales Tax 3% until Session 1923, 6% thereafter until April 1921.
The Address-M:. White
[Stage Direction]
These figures, Mr. Speaker, should throw some light on the controversy. The price lists I have here contain a diversified list of machinery, and cover many different types, but I have taken one machine and carried the price through on that same machine in making my comparison. It may be found in these price lists that the prices are in some cases lower than in 1921, but I submit that the prices of the great majority of the machines used by the farmer to-day are higher than they were in 1921.
Now let us consider the question from the standpoint of the manufacturer of implements. The prices I have just quoted were the prices the farmer paid, and included a three per cent sales tax which was collected in 1921. This sales tax was paid by the maker of the implement into the exchequer of Canada.
When this reduction was made; the price the manufacturer really received for the binder referred to was, in 1921, $227.95, while he now receives for the same machine $237, which gives him to-day a price actually $9.05 higher than he charged in 1921.
For the mower he receives $2.90 more than in 1921: for the rake he receives $3.56 more than in 1921; for the disc drill he receives $14.41 more than in 1921; for the cultivator he receives $5.37 more than in 1921; for the spring tooth harrow he receives $2 more than in 1921; for the plough he receives 70 cents more than in 1921; for the disc harrow he receives $5.74 more than in 1921.
These advances in price figured out, make the price received by the manufacturer to-day about 5 per cent higher than the prices charged the farmer in 1921. In the meantime, the government by its 1924 budget reduced the duties on raw material to the manufacturer of implements.
Pig iron was put on the free list; previously, being subject to 99 per cent drawback of duty. Rolled iron and steel bars were put on the free list, being a reduction of duty of 21 cents per 100 pounds. All other materials entering into the machinery, a list of which comprising some 140 different articles was placed on Hansard by the Acting Minister of Finance on May 23, 1924, were also reduced. This long list was formerly subject to varying duties on all but averaged about 20 per cent. The duty was reduced to 6 per cent thereby making a saving to the agricultural implement manufacturer of about 14 per cent.
No wonder the manufacturer of implements, as he reviews his position of three and a half years ago and contemplates the enhanced price of his product and the cheaper price of raw materials, can say with a smile that the tariff changes of 1924, " didn't hurt us at all."
Now let us go one step farther back in the process of manufacturing and consider

the effect on the business of the makers of the raw material for the manufacture of agricultural implements.
I find by the Trade and1 Commerce report issued in November, 1924, that items in the miscellaneous list of materials reduced to 6 per cent duty have been coming into Canada from the United States since April last at the rate of about $1,000,000 per year-manufacturing business lost to the workmen and manufacturers of this country.
Pig iron used in this business has been coming in at the rate of 32,000 tons per year; this is also business lost to the workmen and manufacturers of this country. Iron and steel bars, on two items only, No. 445 and No. 446 of the tariff-which was all I could identify in the report-are coming in at the rate of 13,000 tons per year, the manufacture of which is also lost to this country.
Nor is that the true measure of the harm that has been done to the iron and steel industry of Canada, as many manufacturers, unable to get enough business to keep going and anxious to keep working organizations together, are taking a portion of such business at a loss.
The Prime Minister in his address referred to the iron and steel business of Canada and sought to give the impression that Canada had not suffered in 1924 as had the United States.
Everyone knows that in 1924 the United States was in the throes of a presidential election. The experience of that country is that presidential election year is rarely a good business year, and owing to the peculiar circumstances existent during last election, there was an unusual amount of uncertainty in the minds of the people and, as a consequence, business was halting. Business had been good until April of that year. In fact, the pig iron output-which is regarded as a very good barometer of business-was in April of 1924, within a comparatively small amount of the highest monthly record of the last five years. This pig iron output gradually declined during the progress of the election campaign, but; when the election-with its reassuring results-was over the business activity revived at once. The iron and steel trade recovered quickly and is now producing at 80 to 90 per cent and in some cases 100 per cent of its capacity.
The Prime Minister also quotes the Iron Age, a trade journal published in New York, as an authority. I accept his authority, the Iron Age is generally regarded as a fair and1 accurate mirror of conditions in the iron and steel industry.

The Address-Mr. White
He made some quotations from an issue of January 1925. I would like to make reference to, and quote from, an article which appeared in the columns of the Iron Age in the last issue of last month, with particular reference to Canada.
The Iron Age commissioned one of its correspondents to make special inquiries as to the results of the tariff of 1924 as it affected Canadian iron and steel industries. The report was published in the issue of January 29, 1925. It is headed; "Tariff reductions have disastrous effects"; "Canadian industries depressed and production greatly reduced".
The iron and steel industry is one of the most important factors in Canada's national life. Accord ing to the latest returns available there were in 1922, 1,046 firms engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products in this country.
In 1922, 75,434 wage-earners were employed in the steel industry of this country; the amount of capital employed was $526,109,953.
Following the close of the Great War, the iron and steel industry of Canada has been waging an uphill fight to keep its head above water. In addition to the general depression in the markets of the world, the Canadian industry had to contend with steadily decreasing tariff protection, with the result that the number of plants engaged in this industry have been steadily decreasing for the past three or four years. Reliable reports indicate that 30 plants engaged in the iron and steel industry failed in the year 1921; 77 in 1922 and 83 in 1923. While figures for 1924 are not available at the moment, it is estimated that the number of firms to cease operation during the past twelve months will equal if not exceed those which closed down during the previous year.
The monthly reports of the Dominion government indicate that in 1923 the iron and steel industry experienced a partial recovery from the depression of the two previous years, but that a marked decline took place at the beginning of 1924, followed by nn upward trend during the first quarter, when a further decline took place, following the announcement of the Robb budget with its drastic tariff reductions on April 11.
Data on the comparative number of workers engaged in the iron and steel industry indicate that only 48 per cent of the normal working force is employed at the present time. Presenting the antithesis of this, there exists in this particular branch of Canadian industry unemployment to the extent of 52 per cent of workers who could be given employment under normal conditions. The returns show iron and steel plants to be working only 74.4 per cent of normal or full time, with the 48 per cent of working force referred to above. This in effect means that workers now employed are, on an average, losing 25.6 per cent of their working time and the corresponding earnings, due to short time operations, which in itself adds appreciably to the extent of actual existing unemployment. A majority of firms engaged in this industry are operating on reduced schedules, in many cases at a loss, merely as an alternative to closing down and adding further to the volume of unemployment.
Data as to the additional number of workers who could be. engaged, if conditions should warrant an immediate return to normal operations, indicate that on a very conservative estimate 51,000 additional workers could be given employment. As a consequence of the unemployment situation brought about by depression in industry chiefly resulting from the lack
of adequate tariff protection, it is estimated that upward of 400,000 workers emigrated to the United States during the past four years to seek employment in the protected industries of that country. While the loss of Canadian workmen through emigration during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923 was a serious blow to this country's population, the number of workmen who left this country in 1924, following the depression caused by the Robb tariff changes, was considerably greater than for any corresponding period during the past four years, being estimated at between 13.000 and 14,000 per month.
While it is recognized that the depression in the iron and steel industry is not entirely attributable to lack of tariff protection, it is certain that conditions now existing definitely reflect the adverse influence of tariff reductions made effective early last year, and point clearly to the conclusion that proper and adequate protection would contribute largely to a revival of business and a renewal of productive activity. Complete information as to the number of plants closed down as a result of tariff reductions would require considerable time and investigation to secure. It is reported, however, that nine plants have closed down as a direct result of the tariff reductions and in other case3 these reductions contributed largely to discontinuance of operations. The gas tractor industry might be cited as an illustration of inadequate tariff protection.	Considerable investment was made in
former years in plant and equipment for the manufacture of gas tractors. The tariff on these was removed during the war period and was never restored in spite of promises that this would be done. Foreign competition on a free basis forced the closing down of Canadian plants, or their diversion to other lines, and the great volume of the Canadian tractor business has gone to the United States.
There is a further report as to the reduction of production and a statement as to the reduction in the tariff in 1924, followed by
these remarks:
Not only has the volume of business in the agricultural implement manufacturing industry been definitely curtailed as a result of these tariff reductions, but prospects for improvement have been seriously affected by reason of the widespread uncertainty and lack of confidence which the possibility of further reductions has engendered in the minds of financial men, individual investors and manufacturers generally regarding the stability of factors which control industrial operations.
The report is a long one and takes up many other phases of the situation. It refers to the effect of putting pig iron on the free list. I have referred to that in my earlier remarks. It gives a table of production of pig iron in Canada during 1923 and 1924, showing that during the eight months which succeeded the bringing down of the budget of 1924, the decline in the production of pig iron in Canada was 52 per cent. The 'production for last year was the lowest on record since 1908 with the single exception of 1923. The report states further:
Within the past few months, European interests have been making strong bids to secure a footing in this market. Especially is this the case with regard to Belgian concerns, whose production costs are considerably below those of Canadian mills and are able to undersell the latter in their own market.
The Address-Mr. White
[Stage Direction]
Then follows a table, showing the production of steel ingots and castings in Canada during 1924, the results being practically the same as those in connection with the production of pig iron. The report concludes by stating:
In a speech delivered in Toronto on January 12, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, stated that, for the time at least, the Liberal government is through with tariff reductions, and there will be no more tinkering with the existing schedule of customs charges until there has been an opportunity to see how the present arrangement works out. Despite the foregoing statement Canadian steel interests are not ready to announce future plans, but are waiting to see what steps will be taken by the government with regard to tariff changes when the budget for 1925 is brought down.
That is from the authority quoted by the Prime Minister and accepted by him. I have another statement in regard to the export business in iron and steel in the United States during 1923-1924, which shows that in 1923 Canada consumed 39 per cent of the total export business of that country and in 1924 she consumed 31 per cent, the next highest being Japan with 16 per cent. It also adds that Canada, whidh was the largest individual foreign market for United States iron and steel in the 1923 period, " maintained its commanding position in the 1924 period." The report I have just read contains statements as to the lack of continuity in employment in this industry in many concerns, giving names, and I communicated with one concern which, in June 1924, wrote me that their production had been affected to the extent of 65 per cent by the tariff changes of last year. I have this wire in reply to my inquiry:
Hamilton.
Replying wire there has been no improvement our business situation since advising you last June. Cannot ourselves look for any decided improvement under present tariff conditions. Same restricted business operation continues as result budget changes explained in our letter June 24, 1924. Mill operations from July 1st to January 31st only 23 per cent of the possible. Mill closed down since February 1st. Outlook immediate future not good. Unemployment situation most serious.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation in which the iron and steel industry of Canada finds itself to-day, and it is anything but a healthy condition. The customs duty is specific, so much per ton, no matter what the price may be. On rolled products, the duty which used to be about nine to twelve dollars per ton was placed at seven dollars per ton in 1907. It has remained the same when the commodity was selling at one dollar per hundred pounds as when the price was three times that amount. Gradually the duty has been lowered by means of drawbacks until the description
IMr. White.]
which I have just read from the Iron Age of the condition of the industry is a very accurate one.
I said last year, in speaking ou the budget, that I believed that as regards the implement industry, only the manufacturers themselves could make an accurate forecast as to how these changes would work out, because they only knew all the intricate details of their business. I also said that in my judgment the iron and steel industry was called upon to make the greatest sacrifice. I also said that the whole situation in relation to the industry should be subject to an exhaustive survey and intelligent treatment if the industry was to be retained in Canada I showed that, as regards the iron and steel used in the implement industry, Canadian manufacturers were deprived of all tariff protection while they were subjected to customs levies on their fuel, to customs levies and sales tax on their machinery and supplies of all kinds. Events that have occurred since last session have been a confirmation of my statements. Truly, as the Iron Age states, Canada "is in a commanding position," a position of prominence, of eminence-yes,	eminently
foolish in my judgment when, with ail her natural resources of millions of tons of coal and millions of tons of iron ore, she welcomes from the nation which produces 55 per cent of all the iron and steel produced in the whole world, one-third of the export business in iron and steel which that country does. If the government last year had even left the tariff as it was, and in its opulence, due to the surplus then claimed, had reduced the sales tax still further; or if it had made provision for competition with the United States in the reduction of its income tax levy, then Canada, and particularly the iron and steel business, would be in a better position to-day. I am not now referring to the detrimental influence which this has had on the National Railways or on general business. According to the press, many requests have been made of the government recently for increases in the tariff. Not long ago the coal and steel interests of Nova Scotia were reported as having interviewed the government; and they were supported, I understand, by most of the members from that province. These hon. gentlemen supported the government last year in helping to destroy an industry, and in a few short months they come back asking that their mistake be corrected. The boot and shoe workers have also demanded recognition of thear claims for consideration. Nor is the

The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
demand all from the industries. During the life of this parliament the onion growers of Essex, the tobacco growers of Kent, the sheep breeders of western Ontario, the Niagara Peninsula Fruit Growers' Association, the United Farmers of Quebec, only a few days ago, and no doubt others, are all on record as to their desire to keep Canadian markets for the Canadian people. In spite of all this expressed public opinion there are some in the government who say that they are determined to persevere until the famous 1919 declaration becomes a reality. The Prime Minister declares that for the time at least nothing more will be done; but this is not reassuring to business. There is no stability, and business men are afraid to invest. I should like to know why the government does not proceed to carry out its entire programme. There were other fields to be entered; the principal articles of food, lumber, oils, gasoline and cement were all to go on the free list; they have not been interfered with and the government has been in office four years. The substantial reductions that were to have been made in wearing apparel and footwear have not yet become evident. I might suggest also automobiles and furniture; but of course if the government were to tamper with automobiles they might lose the support of the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Clifford) or possibly the support of the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy), while if they touched furniture they might suffer the loss of the support of the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Only this week the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has pledged the support of his followers, to the last man, to the government if they will carry out the 1919 platform. The hon. gentleman might, hoTvever, keep his eye on the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Elliott). If the government has any faith in its platform it should give it effect; if it has lost faith in its doctrine it should retrace its steps and try some other plan.
Reference is made in the Speech from the Throne a6 to the constitution and powers of the Senate. Like many a new member, I had hopes of a few reforms in the Senate, myself. When I read in the press the declarations of the Prime Minister in many speeches, during the recess, I had hopes that he had a panacea for all the ills brought about by the Senate, and I expected from the tone of the speeches it would be handled as some express it, in two-fisted, he-man fashion. But when I found the programme had taken the form of a mild request to parliament to sanction the calling
of a conference on the subject, my hopes vanished. Why ask the sanction of parliament for the calling of a conference? If the Prime Minister was deeply in earnest on this subject, why did he not call a conference during the recess and bring the results to this House in the form of a government measure? Action could then have been taken at this session.
Without the consent of parliament, the government has called other conferences. There was a conference on the natural resources question which was to be settled, instanter. There was a conference on taxation, which *would be productive of a lessening of the burdens of the people. There was a conference on unemployment, which resulted in the advice to everybody to employ more workmen, but nothing further. If this proposed conference on Senate matters is not productive of more tangible results than those I have mentioned, the members of the Senate may rest at ease in Zion for some time to come.
In closing, I wish to say that a careless House of Commons which lets legislation go through without due consideration, or a politically careful House of Commons which lets legislation go through rather than offend some of the electorate, will have to assume responsibility in direct proportion as the powers of the Senate are curtailed. Is the House of Commons ready to accept the responsibility and discharge that responsibility in the interests of good government?
Arthur Edward Ross: Kindly permit me, Mr. Speaker, to express my regret that the genial leader of the Progressive party has seen fit to take a retrograde step in his decision to oppose an ancient custom of the British race, that of free and unrestricted speech. I want to remind the hon. gentleman on this occasion that opportunities to discuss matters that arise in the Speech from the Throne are not always available. I would call his attention to the fact that last session many matters of interest would have failed to receive adequate discussion in this House had it not been for the insistence of another leader of the Progressive party that sufficient consideration should be afforded-I refer to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). We must at this time take issue with those who seek to restrict discussion of the Speech from the Throne; otherwise we disclaim our responsibility as individuals in this parliament to study, to advocate or to support statements when they have been made. And once that phase of routine passes, then, as we saw this afternoon, it is very difficult to revive it. Consequently as an individual member of the
176	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
House I am willing to take whatever criticism comes to me concerning the detention of the House while I undertake to express my views touching the Speech.
We must after some study in the House concur in the opinion that there are two parties and but two parties here. There is a party that sings prosperity and there is a party that doubts it. There is a party that has a policy and there is a party that has none. There is a party that had a policy but has not now, and there is the other party that has a policy of stability. There is the party also which, no matter what policy it may adopt, will be certainly followed by the other party even if it comes to a question of agreement by silence. Therefore, when there is dissatisfaction with statements that have been made in the House, no member has a right to sit silent. The Speech from the Throne has been defended wholly by the Prime Minister, consequently our differences of opinion will be largely with him. His speech was filled with tables, graphs and indices. In my school days I always regarded with amazement the student who could go to the blackboard and prove: Cosign 1 equals cosign 2 plus X over Y minus Y over Z. Such a problem we have had exhibited to us by the Prime Minister, but the mystification will not deceive the country.
He states emphatically that our people are returning from the United States. Why? Because, he says, Canada is more prosperous than the United States. I have interviewed some of our men who have returned, and I find the principal reason for their doing so is that most of them had not legally transferred themselves. As the House is aware, at the present time this transfer necessitates the completion of several papers at a considerable expense. Many of our workers, unfortunately, have not had the requisite funds, ana' have crossed illegally, and after some length of time they have been forced to return. That period may run to six months and over, because very often they are given the privilege of securing the necessary papers from Canada. Another class cf worker who has returned is the physically unfit. Many of the factories across the line are ready enough to retain our physically fit men, but they object to the physically unfit.
It is impossible to maintain the position that there is no exodus at the present time from the Dominion to the United States. I have a clipping from the Kingston Standard in reference to this migration, in the course of which it is stated:

It is learned from an authentic though unofficial source that the exodus of Canadians from this Dominion to the United States in search of continuous employment has iby no means ceased. In this city three or four Canadians apply every day for passports and other documents necessary for them to cross the boundary line, while in Toronto the records of the United States consul are reported as showing that 25 Canadians leave that city daily to take up permanent residence in the country to the south. In addition to the general exodus amongst bona fide Canadians, it is understood that Britishers, that is, English, Scotch and Irish, who do not come under the category of Canadians, are just as anxious as the real Johnny Canucks to leave the country of their adoption. The quota for Britishers is complete, but this does not deter many of them from applying for passports to cross the boundary, and it is interesting to note that there is at present a waiting list of such applicants which is sufficient to fill the quota from Kingston until November, 1925, while in Toronto the waiting list is so big that the quota is easily filled for the next ten years to come.


James Murdock: What is the date please?


Arthur Edward Ross: This month-
February. Another sign of prosperity relied on by the Prime Minister was the opinion expressed by bank managers at the annual meetings of their shareholders. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) stated that the Prime Minister quoted what suited him from such statements, and I agree with the hon. member. The House will pardon me if I repeat what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg quoted. Sir Vincent Meredith of the Bank of Montreal said:
The figures of foreign trade are encouraging. We have been able to reach this large amount chiefly because of the enormous western grain crop in 1923. The other outstanding item in respect of exports is forest products.
These two things are taken up in the trade reports.
But the general manager of this same bank reports as follows:
Business is quiet. A stronger definition might be used without exaggeration.
Then we have the rather interesting words of Sir Herbert Holt, president of the Royal Bank. I will quote only these few lines:
At our last three annual meetings while expressing faith in the utimate future of Canada, I have on each occasion to chronicle a year of slow business.
These bank managers do not at all agree with the Prime Minister. He sees another sign of prosperity in the blowing of factory whistles-a sufficient proof to him that industry is very satisfactory. Well, one of our largest industries in Kingston blows its whistle every day, but out of an ordinary payroll of between five and six hundred men only fifty are employed. And that is the state of affairs at a time when engines are being manufactured in the United States for our Canadian railways, paid' for by Canadian money, and giving employment to workmen in that country.

The Address Mr. Ross (Kingston)
The whole speech of the Prime Minister can be answered by a single word,-why. If this country is prosperous, why do people leave? If this country is more prosperous than the United States, why are our people crowding the American Consul's offices to be transferred across the boundary? If the policy of the government has produced results so satisfactory in the opinion of the Prime Minister, why does the government pause in its course; why not go full steam ahead until all the desires of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argen-teuil) are fully satisfied by the death of protection? No, Mr. Speaker, these are not the signs of prosperity. The Prime Minister, I am afraid, has surrounded himself with his graph master and his index master, instead of going out among the people and observing conditions as they really exist. If he will come with me through the main streets of any of our towns and cities he will see there unoccupied stores, for the first time in many years, and if he goes into the occupied stores he will find the clerks standing idle; if he goes down to the parts occupied by the working people he will find for the first time in many years signs "to let" on empty houses all along the streets; if he comes to our city markets he will find there abundance of agricultural products, but few buyers and low prices; if he goes to the grocery shop he will find the grocer complaining of lack of money -a complaint that is general throughout the city. These are more reliable signs of the condition of the country than second-hand evidence.
The Speech from the Throne refers to immigration. If the government would cease its declaration of policies and be practical, it would absolve itself from many errors and complaints from different classes of the people; it would withdraw from any aggressive policy of immigration at the present time. And in that I am voicing the opinion of our municipal authorities and our labour men. I quite agree that we need more population, but it will not be gained until we have employment or places to put people who come to this country. Great errors have been made by the government, indirectly by their agents or by the railway agents. Let me refer here to the experience of three splendid men who came to the city of Kingston and interviewed the mayor. They complained that they had been misled by lectures and by shows in the Old Country. The experience of these men is set forth in the following paragraph:
The Dominion immigration problem as it affects local conditions was brought home very forcibly this morning when three young English-men interviewed the mayor, registering a complaint against the inference which they were allowed to draw regarding industrial conditions in Canada by Canadian government and steamship agents in the Old Country before taking their passage to Canada.
The trio were all married men, splendid types of intelligent mechanics, one of whom held a commission in the Imperial army during the war. Each one of them is in possession of references proving them to be experienced workmen of a high grade, and one of them was for twenty years a supervisor with the same firm in England.
These men told a story to the mayor, corroborating one another as they went along, which points very distinctly to the fact that there is something wrong with the present immigration system.
They stated that they had been greatly influenced by lectures which they had attended in England, in which the industrial and agricultural opportunities which exist in Canada were painted in very glowing colors. Questioned by the mayor they were unanimous in the statement that the need for agricultural workers m Canada had not been emphasized in any degree whatsoever, and that industrial conditions were painted m the same colors as agricultural conditions.
This will show that the policy of bringing immigrants here indiscriminately for the sake of numbers is a very wrong policy, and the government, whether directly or indirectly, is subject to criticism in that respect. '
With regard to the government's settlement policy as referred to in the Speech from the Throne, I should like to deal with one feature of that subject which has already been touched upon by one of the speakers, namely, the intention to bring settlers to this country and place them in the Peace river district. I think we have already seen the great mistake of having men go .away up into the Peace river country and then make complaints. It would be very unwise, it seems to me, on the part of the government to place even one settler in the Pe'ace river country when there are other sections suitable for settlement. There is a great opportunity to resettle areas in Nova Scotia. Here are vacant farms; here are pleasant conditions by which our British citizens can be surrounded. There is also an opportunity in New Brunswick and in Quebec, and there is a very great opportunity in Ontario. I would refer the government to what I look upon as one of the most promising areas in this Dominion. Astride the Grand Trunk Pacific, in northern Ontario, on iand just north of the great divide separating the drainage into James bay from that into the St. Lawrence, is situated a great area of arable land 40,000 square miles, more or less, in dimensions. It projects about 140 miles into Quebec and the same distance into Ontario. The greater part of this area lies south of the 50th parallel of latitude, which on the

178	COMMONS
The Address Mr. Ross (Kingston)
prairie passes just north of the city of Winnipeg. The physical properties and derivation of the clay in this area are exactly those of the Winnipeg clay belt. Both are the result of glacial lake deposits. Both represent the existence of a huge lake which was formed by the damming up of the northward flowing rivers as the ice cap retreated northward from its great southern encroachment. Where thick beds of this lake deposit have been sectional by post glacial action of rivers, it is found to consist of comparatively thin bedded sand and clay which when cultivated will form the richest of loams.
Here is an area far preferable at the present time to that of the Peace river district, although I will not disparage the Peace river district, because I know the quality of the land there; it is one of the finest areas in the Dominion. But here is an area almost as good, with all sorts of possibilities, with proximity to transportation and with very many other advantages to the settler. In addition to that the settler would be close to the great gold belt, and he would have a diversified employment. He would have the privilege of cutting the light timber which is found there, for the purpose of making a living in between seasons. I would strongly urge upon the government the desirability of considering these areas which I have mentioned rather than the Peace river district for the purposes of settlement of this kind. If the intention of the government is to create a railroad connection to serve that elevator which is to be built at Prince Rupert, then I think they are placing a great burden upon the country, increasing the taxation and the capital expenditure, which we in time will have to pay, without very much result.
In regard to ocean rates. I look upon the reference to the matter in the Speech as a red herring, nothing else, to draw the attention of the people from the unemployment and from the other conditions of depression which prevail. Or it may be a camouflage, to pretend to carry out this promised war on the combines. If that is the case I fail to see why they should undertake to bonus when they have in their midst the greatest combine eater in America in the person of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). Why, for years he has been gnashing his teeth against the combines; he has had three years of opportunity, but nothing has been done. If the proposal is really a measure of protection, and as our friends to the left intend to support the government, then that will be another policy of protection which they must stand back of.

If that is what it amounts to, where are those champion bell ringers, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and will they permit this system of protection to be instituted? We had an example of the position in which the government finds itself in the expedition, referred to by another speaker, which, accompanied by the chief whip of the government, came up from Nova Scotia and asked for protection. As the chief whip journeyed to Ottawa I would like to have known his inmost thoughts when he remembered the declaration of his two colleagues that they were ringing the death knell of protection. Here he was, coming up from Nova Scotia to plead the very cause of protection. I would like to have had his thoughts as he recalled the many days and nights that he worked here, pressing his party from both sides of the House to kill protection, to murder it at any cost; and now the ghost rises up to torment him in this latest protection proposal of the government. If this proposal is real, why not place in the Speech from the Throne the promise of a bonus to the National Railways and to the Canadian Pacific to carry coal from the east and the west to the central part of Canada for the benefit of the workingmen and the miners of the east and the west? A bonus for that purpose is just as much justified as a bonus to ocean steamers. If the government is really sincere, why not bonus a Canadian steamship company? One cannot say very much further on this matter. We can only wait for the promise to be carried out; but if there is to be a bonus to a steamship company, then I am willing to support members from Nova Scotia and members from Alberta in asking for a bonus for the railways to develop the mining industry in eastern and western Canada and to help bring Canadian coal to central Canada.
Passing from a mere criticism of the Speech from the Throne, I would like to refer for a few minutes to some special requirements pressing upon us at the present time. Reference has been made to improvements in the harbours on the St. Lawrence route. I want to join with the member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) in pressing upon the government the opinion he expressed this afternoon, that more important to the province of Ontario is the development of power on the St. Lawrence. Some years ago -when the hydro-electric system was introduced in Ontario, we believed that we had an abundance of power in this country. We never believed that we would reach a time of shortage, and yet so splendid has been the development of that system and

The Address Mr. Ross (Kingston)
so popular and widespread the use of electricity in the province that we are now face to face with a power shortage, and if the government does not give immediate support to the offer of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission, it will bring about a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in this province. The development of this power will not cost the citizens of Canada one cent; the province of Ontario is willing to pay the cost of the whole development. All the province wants is that the federal government shall give the commission permission to go forward with that development. Electricity is not now used simply in the development of industry. It has become just as important to the farmers and to the citizens in general; its benefits are not confined to any one class. We in the east have stood aside, and have supported the development in the central part of Canada, believing that our time would soon come when the development of power should take place upon the St. Lawrence, and we do not wish now to see that project connected with any other problem. The deepening of the St. Lawrence is important and will come in its own time, but there is a pressing necessity at the present time for the development of power on the St. Lawrence, and we feel that we can ask for the sympathetic support of the east and west in this matter, especially as the development will not cost Canada in general one cent, for Ontario is willing to bear the whole extent. There is no reference to this matter in the Speech from the Throne, although if this question is not faced by the government it will bring a calamity upon the province; it will affect the country generally, because if we cannot get electrical power in the province of Ontario we must turn to the importation of coal and increase the millions of dollars we already send over to the United States for that purpose, unless we give a bonus to the railways to bring coal from western and eastern Canada. A calamity will face us if this development is not gone on with, and we feel that we can appeal for the sympathetic support of both east and west in urging upon the government the granting of immediate permission for this power development on the St. Lawrence.
There is also before us the question of the completion of the Welland canal. We are quite aware that its completion will be some years off yet, but the government-
10 p.m. should now place itself on record as to the policy they will adopt in regard to navigation beyond the Welland canal. We in Kingston believe that the harbour of Kingston has been naturally selected as the terminus of the deep waterway to the Welland 12i
canal. Work was begun there some years ago, and we are now looking to this government to say that the policy which was instituted some years ago will be continued by them when the proper time comes.
There is another matter of very great importance to this country which has not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and that is the effect of present conditions on shipbuilding. Some time before the war and during the war the shipbuilding industry in this country developed greatly, especially at such points as Port Arthur, Collingwood, Midland, Toronto and Kingston on the Great Lakes, at Montreal, Quebec and Halifax in the eastern provinces, and at Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert in British Columbia. Now the people who have invested their money in this great industry in Canada find themselves in this peculiar position. Perhaps I had better read the clauses of the resolution which has been submitted to the government by the Associated Boards of Trade in aid of the shipbuilding industry:
Whereas under the provisions of the United States Merchant Marine Act, Chapter 250, of the year 1920, known as the Jones Law, all ships built or owned outside of the United States are prohibited from entering the coast-wise trade of the United States, and under the customs tariff of the United States, a United States vessel which has repairs made or purchases equipment in any foreign port is subject to an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent on the cost of repairs or equipment, to be paid at the first United States port of call;
That is a very important clause, and is another example of how thoroughly the United States protects her industries. The resolution goes on:
And whereas under the Canadian Customs Act of July 20th, 1908, there is no duty payable on repairs or equipment purchased in any foreign port, except a duty of 25 per cent in the ease of vessels engaging in the coast-wise trade within a year after repairs have been made or equipment purchased in the foreign port-.
No other industry suffers such an apparent disadvantage as is placed upon the shipbuilding industry by these two clauses, one from a United States law, and the other from a law of Canada. The shipbuilders of Canada are pleading with the government to come to their support and give them a law somewhat similar or equal to that which has been given to shipbuilders of the United States, and they have asked:
Therefore be it resolved that the Dominion government be urged to take such action in respect of repairs made or equipment purchased in a foreign port for any Canadian registered vessel as will accord thereto the same treatment as the country of such foreign port extends to repairs made or equipment purchased in Canada.
I am going to make a suggestion as to the ways and means by which the condition in
180	COMMONS
The Address Mr. Ross (Kingston)
this country can be changed. I have another suggestion, which I think should have a place in the Speech from the Throne and should have been dealt with by this government; that is as to the development of our ores. I suggest that the government could very well cut two or three millions dollars out of their present immigration expenditure and employ that money on the development of those . ores in the Dominion of Canada. We are rich in ores and yet the only use made of them is to carry them to the United States. The development of our ores would mean a great deal to the industrial world of Canada, because some of the largest industries of the United States are purely developed from the smelting and converting into products of Canadian ores in that country. I would thoroughly and heartily support any assistance by way of bonus that this government could give to the development of our iron ore industry. It would build up an immense asset, and would result I am sure, in an immense increase in our population.
I should like to make another suggestion which if adopted by the government would enable them to make use of men who are walking our streets. As hon. members travel over our Canadian railways they will hardly ever pass a central place at which they will not see a number of idle and disabled cars and engines. The government could very well undertake the repair of these cars and engines at the present time. Hundreds of them are lying idle. My suggestion would give employment to our people, and would also lessen the capital expenditure which will have to be made later on for equipment and so forth, on the railways. If anyone travels along these railways he will see hundreds of these cars lying idle at different places, and these cars simply require repairs to make them useful. This would obviate expense in the future.
In conclusion I point out that what we need more than anything else is a policy. We cannot hope for any change as long as our present government look at the conditions as they do. I am sure that, even though the members to our left support the government, they feel the need of just such a policy, and I would like to read the words of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), speaking in the west, in which he demands a new policy. These are his words with regard to the Prime Minister:
What about Premier King? I heard him speak in Winnipeg recently and it was the address of an elocutionist. There was not an interesting sentence or a stimulating thought. What is the Liberal policy? I have been trying for three years to find out and am more mystified than ever.
IMr. A. E. Ross.]
And I am sure after he has heard the present Speech from the Throne his mystification will very much increase. We need a policy, Mr. Speaker, which will look conditions squarely in the face and will undertake to better those conditions. If I am wrong in saying that there is unemployment and dissatisfaction in the country which can be corrected, then I should like to hear discussion on those lines in the House and not merely a policy of silence. If the government have no policy, if the leader of the Progressive party has no policy as he said in the debate, then surely it would not hurt him to come under our banner where there is a policy, not of to-day or to-morrow, but a stable policy under which we will guarantee a return to satisfactory conditions in this country. We ask consideration and discussion of such a policy, but we do not want a policy of silence, or apparent agreement with conditions, as expressed by the Prime Minister. If we are wrong in what we point out now as the real condition in this country, then it should be up to the government to further discuss this question.
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish with your permission, to move the adjournment of the debate.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is yet
early; my hon. friend has his notes in readiness; with his glib tongue, I fancy he would find it an easy matter to go on with the debate this evening.


Mr. DOUCET (Translation):: For several reasons, I should have preferred abstaining from addressing the House this evening:	In
the first place, it is rather late, and after sitting for three consecutive hours, some relaxation is welcome. However, I shall go on speaking in English.
In attempting to speak upon the debate, Mr. Speaker, I will adopt the old English axiom, that brevity is the soal of wit; not that I pretend to be witty, but I assure hon. members I shall endeavour to be brief.
When I moved the adjournment of the debate, it was not due to superstition, because this is Friday and the thirteenth of the month; but because I did not wish to tire the House at this late hour of the evening, after we have been in session since three o'clock.
I wish to say a few words upon the Speech from the Throne as delivered in this House. In my view the first section of it which states that the year 1924 was a period of substantial progress is altogether at variance with con-

The Address-Mr. Doucet
ditions as they exist from the Atlantic to the Pacific. No one knows that better than the members of the government who have been travelling from the Pacific to the Atlantic during the recess. Progress we have not in this country, and I make no apology for stating here this evening that unless the policy of the government is amended so as to give some benefits to the various industries destined to develop and manufacture our raw materials, we shall not have substantial progress in Canada.
Again referring to the Speech from the Throne, I find that the government intends economizing on public works. This is somewhat in keeping with a statement made in Vancouver last October by the Prime Minister himself, but only as regards the east, because I have in my hand a copy of the Vancouver Sun of the 22nd October last, according to which the Prime Minister himself said:
Recalling the difficulties of government, Premier King said he would have to tell his friends in the east that they could not yet count on their needed public buildings, wharves nor branch lines as the money was needed in the west.
We, in the east, interpret that, in these words, " that the east must wait ". The east is anxious to give fair treatment to every section of this Dominion; the east is anxious to see that fairplay is given to every part of this Dominion, but the east, after having submitted to the tariff reductions of last session which have paralyzed its industries, is not in a mood to submit to a curtailment of public expenditures for the benefit of one section of the country alone. We are told in the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in this House the other day and reported on page 38 of Hansard, that farm implements have been reduced in price in 1924. Citing six different farm implements, he states that they have been reduced from S953.50 to $905.50, a total reduction of $48. That does not cover the excess in price due to the increase of the excise tax which the present government placed in the statutes of 1923. Yet they try to pacify the farming population of this country by stating that their tinkering with the tariff in 1924 has caused a decrease in the price of farm implements. My hon. friends to my left must realize by this time, as we representing the farming population of the Maritime provinces realize, that there has been no decrease in the cost of farm implements; that while there have been various and substantial cuts in the tariff on farm implements since 1907, I submit, as has been submitted by the hon. member for London (Mr. White) that to-day
we are paying more for farm implements and will continue to pay more. Why? Because our farm implement industries are not getting the protection they need against goods from without. From the speech of the Prime Minister, as reported on page 39 of Hansard, we find that the cost of living has decreased, or that it is not as high as it is in the neighbouring republic to the south of us. It does not matter very much to me whether the cost of living is reduced or not if our workmen, our mechanics, our railwaymen and all men who work for a daily wage are not getting the money with which to buy the necessaries of life. In making the comparison, the Prime Minister states that, taking a number of articles, the cost in the United States is $10.46 as against $8.70 in Canada. In taking those figures, I am led to ascertain in what respect the cost of living is less in Canada than in the United States. I find the following:
United
Commodities	Quantity States Canada
Beef, four different cuts. 1 pound 44 cents 32 cents
Milk	1	quart	13J	cents	lli	centsButter	1	pound	49	cents	39	centsCheese	1	pound	34.4	cents	28.4	centsEggs	1	dozen	39.4	cents	31.8	centsPotatoes	1 bushel $l.y8	$1.28


Mr. BALDWIN:: Is my hon. friend aware that it takes five quarts of American measure to make four quarts of Canadian measure?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I quite realize that, and I believe at the same time it takes sixteen ounces of American measure to make sixteen ounces of Canadian measure. While I have cited six different items, the quart measure appears only once and the other items reveal a much greater spread in price. How can we expect our Canadian farmers to be prosperous when there is such a variation in the prices of their products as between the two countries?
I wish to compliment very sincerely the hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) who, speaking on the Address the other day, spoke very feelingly of what is known throughout Canada to-day as Maritime rights and the grievances of which that part of the country is complaining. He stated that the St. John Telegraph and the St. John Times and Star had sent delegations to the western provinces for the purpose of trying to induce the people of those provinces to develop an inter-provincial trade with the Maritime- provinces. True; and the unfortunate part of it is that this government, while spending through its Department of Trade and Commerce thousands of dollars from the provincial treasury in advertising its political principles, did not see fit to make
The Address-Mr. Doucet

any effort to develop an inter-provincial trade between the western and the Maritime provinces, but left it to private enterprise to undertake this task. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with my hon. friend on the question of protection. He says that if we had a population of 110,000,000 such as they have in the United States we should be able to stand protection; he wants a lower tariff so that the farmers may be in a better position to carry on. Now, I will submit a few figures for the consideration of the House. In the year 1923 our importations from the United States of fresh fruits amounted to $5,000,000, while fresh vegetables totalled $2,500,000; grain, $8,230,000; seeds, $1,660,000; tobacco in its unmanufactured state, $5,600,000. And the total of such imports as are represented in the category of farm produce was $65,559,000. This was all to the disadvantage of each and every Canadian farmer who is trying to carry on within the bounds of this Dominion. This being the case, how can we hope to secure any advantage, how can we derive any benefit or render the Canadian farmer more prosperous, by taking away even the little vestige of protection that still exists? The argument of my hon. friend should be taken the other way; what we do want in this countiy is higher protection on farm produce so that this $65,559,000 worth of farm produce would not be permitted to cross the imaginary border to supplant, on the Canadian market, the produce of our farmers who have tilled the Canadian soil.
I have listened patiently from time to time to my hon. friends on my left advocating free trade in every commodity, and I have an extract from their own platform of 1921, which demands that all foodstuffs be placed on the free list. Let us consider a few more figures in this connection. The estimated value of the production of the farms for the crop year 1922-23 was $1,172,855,000, of which $822,918,000 worth was consumed in Canada; or 70.16 per cent of the total production was consumed in Canadian territory. Let me amplify this statement. Taking wheat out of production and consumption, of the balance, 90.78 per cent, was consumed in this country. In view of this fact it will be seen how important it is to us to conserve the home market for the Canadian farmer. Apart from the growing and the shipment of wheat, those farmers who are occupied in mixed farming require a certain protection. The question may be asked why the farming population of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces should' have any grievance. Well, they

have a grievance because their farm produce is not bringing the revenue which it did two or three years ago. I have taken the trouble to prepare a comparative statement in regard to the Maritime and Quebec markets, for which I have the figures for the years 192122-23 and 24. In 1921 the wholesale price for hay delivered on the Maritime market was $32 per ton, whereas in 1924 it was $17. Fresh pork was worth 18 cents per pound in 1921 as against 12 cents in 1924; beef was 10 against 8; mutton 17 and 12; chicken 40 and 30; butter solids 42 and' 36; eggs by the case 50 and 38; and cheese 24 and 18 At the same time, what the farmer has to buy has increased, so that the purchasing power of the farmer's dollar to-day is much less than it was in 1922. With these conditions existing, and in view of the increased burden of taxation, how can we expect the farmer to q'o anything but complain of the situation? And what is the reason for all this? It is all due to the nibbling at the tariff and the juggling that has been going on. Tariff conditions in the country are unstable and our manufacturing industries of the Maritime provinces and even of central Canada are not in a position to provide employment for our own Canadian born and bred, who are leaving the country by the thousands. The Prime Minister questions the accuracy of my right lion, leader's statements in regard to immigration, and he gives us the impression that the people are returning to the country in train-loads. Now, I do not care how you manipulate statistics, but the best proof one can have of the depopulation of Canada is one's own experience in his travels. Going through the rural sections of this country from Montreal to the Atlantic, you will find in numerous sections country houses by the dozen, yes,	indeed by	the	hundred,boarded up, the farmers and their families having left for the United States where they hope	to better	their	fortune.
We have statements made by those who appeared before the government no later than November last, all supporters of the administration from the Maritime provinces, led by the Premier of Nova Scotia, who is also a stalwart and faithful follower of the government. They said that for the lack of protection on bituminous round coal and on slack coal mined in Nova Scotia, and by allowing the entry of anthracite dust from the United States free of duty, coupled with the lack of preferential freight rates for the transportation of the coal of Nova Scotia to central Canada, their industries in the Maritimes were languishing and their population of between

The Address-Mr. Doucet
125,000	and 150,000 people was seriously affected. This is not Tory propaganda, this is not Tory camouflage; it is gathered from the statements made by the delegation which interviewed the government. The members of the government themselves know that what I am saying is correct, because in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) have challenged the government time and again throughout this debate to refute a single argument, not one member of the administration has yet taken time to reply. It is true, Sir, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) ventured the assertion that the offices of the British Empire Steel Company at Sydney were over-manned with officials. But with ten blast furnaces idle since June and with only three or four hundred men working out of a total force of thirty-five hundred it stands to reason that no financial or any other genius is needed to tell us that the company do not require the same number of officials.
No, Mr. Speaker, conditions have been brought about because the government has been trying to please a certain portion ol this House to the detriment of the rest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Well, I am sorry for my hon. friends to my immediate left that they are to-day realizing that the juggling, the nibbling and the cutting of tariff duties is not going to benefit anyone. What we want is a consistent policy of protection. The National Policy wias introduced in 1878 and consistently maintained by every administration up to a recent date. It was even maintained after 1895 by the very men who on every platform talked freer trade, by the very men who in that general election advocated a low tariff policy. It is a matter of history now that before the first budget speech was delivered the Liberal party resorted to the policy that had been in force since 1878, with a few minor alterations, I admit. With a population of slightly over three million in 1871 we have under protection prospered to the extent which the figures I now wish to place on Hansard amply demonstrate. Our field crops in 1901 were valued at $194,953,420; in 1923, at $891,755,200. Our live stock in 1901 was valued at $268,651,026; in 1923, at $613,260,000. Our dairy products have increased in value four times, from $29,-
731.000	in 1901 to practically $105,000,000 in 1922. Our fisheries, which in 1871 produced less than $8,000,000, in 1922 produced $41,800,210. Our minerals, developed through a system of protection that is to-day denied the mining
industry, were worth $10,221,255 in 1881 as against $214,102,000 in 1923. In 1871 our manufactures employed about 188,000 men, as against 517,141 in 1921, and while in 1871 the salaries and wages paid amounted to $40,851,000, by 1921 they had increased to $581,402,385. The products of these factories were worth $221,617,000 in 1871, whilst in 1921 they had reached the enormous value of $2,747,926,675. All that progress, Sir, was made under a protective policy.
Now, I do not maintain that protection is a panacea that will cure all ills; but I certainly say that unless we have such a fiscal policy as will give our industries a chance to work full time, manufacturing our raw products and giving employment to our working men, we are not going to prosper. Unless every class of our population gets employment six days a week and a full dinner pail, this country cannot be said to be flourishing. I am reminded that in 1921 the right hon. Prime Minister-then leader of the opposition-and his present colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), addressing a meeting in the Grand Opera House in the town of Sussex, county of Kings, N.B., stated that with the return of their party to power we would get the benefit of a golden era of prosperity and our working men would have a full dinner pail. There was a by-election in the city of Moncton last November and some one was uncharitable enough to place an advertisement on a billboard, worded after this fashion:
Lost, a full dinner pail between the city of Moncton and Ottawa.
And a reward was offered if it should be sent to a certain person in Ottawa.
Now, in order to benefit the Maritime provinces there must be some reduction in transportation rates. If the Maritime provinces are prosperous; if they can develop their industries; if their people are contented- and the same thing applies to the prairie provinces-the whole Dominion will benefit thereby. But we are told that if we do reduce transportation rates on the Canadian National railways the result will be an increase in the deficit. Not necessarily. Let the government and the Canadian National Railway Board practise some economy. I do not mean that they should practise economy by laying off the men with overalls, by curtailing their hours of employment or by giving them two weeks' holidays without salaries at Christmas time. But we have numbers of highly salaried officials on the Canadian National railways who could easily be dispensed with and others whose remuneration could certainly be reduced without any loss to the country or to the railways. I say advisedly
The Address-Mr. Doucet

that the administration of the Atlantic section of the Canadian National railways, between Halifax, Sydney and Riviere du Loup on the Intercolonial and between Moncton and Monk on the Transcontinental, is costing more today than it did prior to December, 1922, when the Atlantic section extended to Montreal on the Intercolonial and on to Winnipeg on the Transcontinental. That is where we can practise some economy.
Then it might be well to suggest that the management of the Canadian National railways should forget about this radio craze. In Moncton we were treated last year to the erection of a radio transmitting station that cost, I am told, $125,000, while those who ship their produce over the railway in that district are struggling in vain to get a reduction in rates in order that they may place their products on the central markets of the Dominion. Then, again, why not eliminate a few of the private oars? That is another craze. Everybody has to have a private car over that railway. The president of the board himself made a flying trip to the Maritime provinces in November. I understand that he left Montreal with six private cars attached to his train, and when he reached the hub of the Mari times he had eight. No one seems to know how many he had by the time he got to Sydney. When we realize that apart from his salary of $50,000 a year his expenses for 1924 amounted to something like $75,000. we can appreciate the fact that transportation rates could be easily reduced if the necessary economies were practised in connection with the higher paid officials and the administrative heads of the railway.
But if we ask for a reduction of transportation rates, what do we get? In a brief submitted by the secretary of the Nova Scotia Poultry Association before the Board of Railway Commissioners at their last sitting in the city of Halifax, he pointed out that while it cost three cents per dozen to import eggs in refrigerator cars from Chicago to Halifax, it cost two cents per dozen to ship them from Truro to Halifax, a distance of 64 miles, and four cents per dozen from Loch Broom station to Stellarton or New Glasgow, a distance of 11 miles. I could quote also a statement presented to the same board by the North Atlantic Fisheries Company which shows a discrimination against the fishing industry of the Maritime provinces in respect to carriage by express. The fish merchant shipping 100 pounds of fresh fish by express from Halifax to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,993 miles has to pay $10.06 per 100 pounds, or 10 cents a pound, in round figures, whereas the shipper

of fish on the Pacific coast can ship 100 pounds of fresh fish from Prince Rupert to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,758 miles, for $3.59. The service is the same in each case-express- and the cost is $3.59 in favour of the British Columbia or Pacific fisherman and $10.06 against the Atlantic fisherman.
The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), in moving the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, said that we should select our immigration, and in that I quite agree with him. It should be the bounden duty of this government, before introducing any legislation in connection with immigration or adopting any further immigration policies, to study the conditions with a view to seeing that our own native born Canadians should be enabled to stay in this country and not have to leave in hundreds of thousands. Why, Sir, it is appalling when you realize from the public accounts that practically five millions of dollars have been taken out of the public treasury within the past three years to bring something like 350,000 immigrants into this country from European shores, whilst in every town and hamlet of this Dominion you will find vacant houses and houses boarded up by our own native born Canadians who have gone across the line. I care not what statistics may say; I know as one who has travelled considerably in the last eight months, and some of my honourable friends know it, of villages in a neighbouring county where I have counted as many as fifteen houses in succession boarded up. I made it my business to inquire and found that they had been boarded up within the last two years. Yet we are spending millions of dollars to bring men to take their places on Canadian soil. To my mind one of our own Canadian bom citizens, one who knows our soil and is used to our climate and our customs, is worth more than half a dozen of these importations from European countries who take years and sometimes decades to accustom themselves to conditions in this country.
I think I have said sufficient on the question of transportation to demonstrate to this government that what is necessary for our farming population both east and west is equalization of conditions, not favouritism to any one section of the country, but the same standard of conditions throughout every part of this Dominion. Give us a chance to keep our own population in this country, to develop our industries and the production of our natural products, and enjoy a measure of prosperity not comparable with the prosperity spoken of in the Speech from the Throne.

The Addrnss-Mr. Doiret
In connection with steel and coal, I wish to give a few figures, because to my mind they are very striking, and as one from the Maritime provinces I think it is my duty to do so. I am sorry that we could not during this debate enthuse one of the representatives from the province of Nova Scotia to speak on this subject and place the facts as they should be placed before this House and the country. In view of the policy that has been consistently maintained by the present government of ignoring conditions as they are in the provinces by the sea, of ignoring the hundreds of thousands of tons of bituminous coal and anthracite dust and screenings that are being imported into this country and come into direct competition with the products of the mines of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, I think it behooves one of the representatives from the provinces by the sea to get up and state to the House the conditions as they actually exist.
The government was advised last year that the wiping away of the $2.50 per ton duty on pig-iron and $7.00 per ton on rolled iron and steel would cripple the steel industry of this Dominion. What do we find? We find that whilst practically 115,000 men were employed in the steel industry in 1920, less than
75,000	men were employed in 1924; that while $150,000,000 was paid in wages to the men employed in the steel industry in 1920, only $90,000,000 was paid in 1924; that while in 1913 the total production of coal in the province of Nova Scotia was over 8,000,000 tons, that amount had fallen to something like 5,500,000 tons in the year 1924. And yet with a production that had fallen off by practically 3,000,000 tons, they are unable to find a market for their products.
While on the subject of coal, let me say that we have in the province of New Brunswick considerable coal deposits. In the county which I have the honour to represent in this House there is a coal mine, and although they have endeavoured to get our Canadian National Railway System to purchase their coal, which is within easy reach of the divisional station of Moncton and of Newcastle, I learned from the general manager less than a week ago that he had not been able to place the product of that mine for use on the Canadian National railways.
I bring this matter to the attention of the government because I believe ttiat this coal deposit in the province of New 11 p.m. Brunswick should be developed and encouraged, inasmuch as it is a much shorter haul for the coal from the
Beersville coal mine than it is from any other section of the province.
Having placed these facts before the House, in conclusion I wish to say that with conditions as they are to-day in the eastern provinces of this Dominion, what is required is the equalization of conditions. Let the transportation rates be such as to permit of our natural products, the products of the farm, the fisheries, the forests and the mines, reaching their logical market in the central provinces. Let the government consider the advisability of increasing the protective duty on bituminous coal so that our own coal in the Maritime provinces and Alberta may find its way to the central provinces, and that less of our good Canadian money be sent across the line to give employment to American workmen in the bituminous coal mines over there.
Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Ca^leton) moved the adjournment of the debate.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it is a great disappointment to the House generally that this debate has not come to an end this evening, but in view of the intimation that a few more speakers intend to address the House I think we should now adjourn the debate, it being understood with the leader of the opposition that the debate might come to an end on Monday.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Beland the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Monday, February 16, 1925