1925-02-10

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Health for the fecal year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Beland.
Copy of order in council No. P.C. 1876 setting out a regulation under The Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act.-Hon. Mr. Beland.
Annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Graham.
Annual report of the Commissioner of Highways for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Graham.
Report of work done and expenditures made during calendar year 1924 in connection with Acts (Chapters 14 to 32 inclusive of 14-15 George V) respecting construction of Canadian National Railway lines.-Hon. Mr. Graham.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. WT. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): The hon. member for London (Mr. White) asked me last night during the course of the debate on the Address to give the exact reference to the statement I quoted from the Iron Age with reference to the production of coke, anthracite and pig iron in the years 1920 to 1924 inclusive. I was sorry I had not the number of the Iron Age before me at the time. The reference will be found in the issue of January 8, at page 153.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 9, 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.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, we have had the Speech from the

The Address-Mr. Forke
Throne, and now it has been moved and seconded that an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General to offer the humble thanks of the King's dutiful and loyal subjects in parliament assembled for the gracious speech which His Excellency was pleased to address to both houses of parliament. This very pleasing fiction, the Speech from the Throne, has been put in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General; as a matter of fact we know it is a pronouncement by the government.
I have much pleasure in tendering my compliments to the hon. members who moved and seconded the Address. Unfortunately I was unable to follow the remarks made by the mover (Sir Eugene Fiset) but judging from his past history and from the delivery of his speech I have no doubt that he will be a valuable acquisition to the debating power of this House. To the seconder (Mr. Hanna)
I also extend my congratulations. He did the work that was allotted to him in a very creditable manner. I am sure that his entry into this House must have afforded the government a great deal of satisfaction, judging by the royal reception they gave him when he was introduced.
We have had two further speeches in the House on the Address, one delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) one by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In some respects it was a case of the story being told in a pessimistic way on the one hand and in an optimistic way on the other. It makes a great deal of difference sometimes on which side you happen to be, from which point of vantage you look at the situation. Judging from the remarks made by the leader of the opposition, things are in a bad way and the quicker we realize this the better. I am sure he ably presented that side of the case. Then the Prime Minister made his address, and he took the view that after all we were in a happy condition; that without question Canada is a land of hope and glory; that compared with the United States we are living in a very fortunate condition indeed. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, we can have a fatal pessimism and a foolish optimism- though I do not want for a minute to insinuate that either of these two right hon. members went to that extreme. But if we are too pessimistic we are apt to lose heart. People sometimes get too sorry for themselves, they have too much pity upon themselves, and when they reach that stage their courage is apt to ooze out at their fingers' ends, with
the result that objects aimed at are not accomplished. On the other hand it is sometimes just as foolish to underestimate the magnitude of the task that lies before us. While the Prime Minister was very optimistic I hope he realizes that we are not yet out of the woods, that we have a great many difficulties to overcome and that everything is not just as happy as it ought to be.
I happened to be reading the other day a biography of Sir John A. Macdonald and I came across the statement that he was the originator of the phrase, "Canada is a difficult country to govern." Now, I have no doubt of that fact, having regard to the physical characteristics of our country, reaching as it does from ocean to ocean, divided by natural physical barriers; and to the fact that the different sections of our population do not always take the same point of view and that, unfortunately, their economic interests do not always run parallel. We have a sparse population, compared with the great extent of our country; consequently it is difficult at all times to have legislation that will be in the interests of every section of the community. The factors bearing upon government are very numerous-international relations, manufacturing, trade and commerce, agriculture and all its allied industries-consequently we find that the functions of government are being widened day by day and the position is becoming more and more difficult.
Another point that should be considered in regard to all governments, provincial and municipal as well as Dominion, is the increasing wants of the people, the increasing demands of the people for further public services and utilities. Unfortunately these demands are not always accompanied by a desire to pay the taxes and to bear the burden of debt that is incurred in instituting and carrying on these public improvements and public utilities. I have heard it stated that progress first began when men began to five beyond their income. I feel perfectly satisfied that if that saying is true we have been progressing at a very rapid rate during this last number of years, individually and provincially as well as from the Dominion point of view. However, I am inclined to question the truth of that saying. It has been said also that the people to-day are eager for legislation but impatient of law. I do not know whether that is as true of the Dominion government as it is of the provincial governments, but we find a tremendous demand all the time for new legislation, and it is very
The Adrress-Mr. Forke

often the case that just as soon as the legislation is placed on the statute book it seems to be passed into the limbo of forgotten things. I am one of those who believe that governments, whether Dominion, provincial or municipal, should be careful in passing legislation; should see to it that the legislation is really wanted, that it is really in the interests of the people and not merely the whim of the passing moment.
There is a cry everywhere at this time for a forward-looking policy. Among people on the street, in the public press, all over the Dominion, you find a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling that something -might be done more quickly than is 'being done at present to help the situation. There is a looking for someone to lead us out of the land of bondage into the promised land. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to find any supermen; I do not think they make them nowadays. No doubt we need good government, but at the same time the continued prosperity of the people of Canada, the 'practice of the quality of farsightedness, will rest mainly upon the industrious effort of the great masses of the people. Governments cannot make people industrious or happy; governments can remove obstacles and make it possible for the people to do these things for themselves. One of the wrong tendencies of modern times is for people to look to governments to cure every evil of the body politic, things which sometimes they can do much better for themselves.
There is no doubt that we have been passing through very trying and difficult times, and they are still with us; but we are not going to get out of them unless we face the situation and look to the future with cheerfulness and courage. I am going to read a short extract from a speech delivered by a gentleman in Ottawa not long ago. The Prime Minister quoted from his speech last night. I am inclined to believe that the Canadian people must have treated this man very handsomely judging from the remarks that he made during his visit here. I have no doubt he was quite honest in what he said, and I think perhaps he spoke the truth. I refer to Roger Babson, head of the Babson Statistical Corporation, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts. He said:
I am not indulging in exaggerated language or in flattery, but am soberly measuring my words, when I say that the growth and development of Canada have been of unalloyed benefit to the world. The Canadian people have added to the value of the world's common assets; they have grown to wealth and power; they have so conducted themselves that everywhere the name of Canada commands both goodwill and esteem. A daughter of the Empire, grown

to be a potent partner, your nation stands, strong in self-reliant independence, but equally strong in loyalty to the British Commonwealth, clear-visioned, sound in mind and limb, coveting nothing, fearing no one. A great race in a great country is shaping and working out for itself, with high courage, energy and ability, a great destiny.
I do not know if all that he said is exactly correct, but it does us a great deal of good anyway to hear these things. I think I can say without exaggeration that we have an intelligent and industrious population, one that will compare favourably with that of any other country in the world. In these days we need to have faith in ourselves and in our country. Given these two requisites, I think perhaps we sfiall yet be able to solve the problems that seem so heavy to be borne at the present time.
Now I want to say a few words in regard to the Speech from the Throne. The first paragraph is very optimistic. Of course the reports we are getting from the government side are all very optimistic in character. We are told in that first paragraph that there is an excess of exports over imports to the amount of $260,000,000. That in itself is a very satisfactory statement. I might also mention just at this point that the big increase in our exports is largely due to the products of the field and of the forests; I think we should bear that in mind. The first paragraph then goes on in a very optimistic way and says that everything is very satisfactory, and that prospects for the future are very bright. Well Mr. Speaker, although we may be climbing the hill, I am perfectly sure that we have not yet reached the summit.
The second paragraph in the Speech deals with the cost of living, and says that this problem is to be solved by increased production. I am rather puzzled over this paragraph. High cost of living causes high cost of production; and high cost of production causes high cost of living. Now how are we going to get out of that dilemma? It seems to me that we are going round and round in a vicious circle; we get nowhere; we do not solve our problem.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has a panacea for all our ills, and I will pay him the compliment of saying that he has been very consistent ever since I came into this House in preaching that one doctrine, the doctrine of protection. The latest resolution he has placed on the order paper is a very happy document. I think it is even more encouraging, perhaps, than the speech of Mr. Roger Babson from which I quoted a moment ago, because the leader of the opposition has something good in his knapsack for everyone, no one is going to be left out;

The Address-Mr. Forke
he includes the farmer, the merchant, the artisan, the manufacturer and the labourer- they are all going to be protected.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: Hon. gentlemen say, "hear, hear." I am waiting with a great deal of anxiety to learn just how all this is going to be accomplished. At all events, we are told that no one is going to be left out in the cold, that every one is going to be protected. I notice that one paper in the west says that this solution of the leader of the opposition is something like a Christmas tree; there is something on it for every one. There is green for those who are green, and tinsel for those who do not believe that all is not gold that glitters.
There is one thing I would like to make plain to this House. It is sometimes taken for granted that some of us are not friendly to Canadian industries. Now I want to make it plain beyond any possibility of equivocation that nothing would please me better than to see the industries of this country thrive and prosper and serve the people of Canada. But if we are going to have industries we want them about one hundred per cent efficient. We want all the water squeezed out of the stock, and no dividends paid on watered stock. We want exotic and artificial industries wiped out of existence. And when that is done, I feel perfectly sure, the industries of our country are not going to suffer so very much after all.
We have cheap power in Canada. Two years ago, while the premiers of two of the states of the Australian Commonwealth were here, I heard them again and again express admiration for the great rivers we had in Canada and for the tremendous water powers that were available to the people of this country. One of them said that Australia had no such privileges as Canada enjoyed in the way of cheap water power. We want to take into consideration the fact that we have this cheap water power, and that our people are just as energetic, just as intelligent, and just as industrious as the people of any other country in the world; and, given equal conditions, equal facilities and some privileges I wonder why our manufacturers cannot compete with those of any other nation in the world to-day in industries which are suited to this country. We sometimes hear about mass production, the low cost of living, depreciated currency, and a great many other things that we have to contend against in this Dominion. There may be a little in some of these factors, but I have never attached a great deal of weight to this 4
factor of the high cost of living, because where you find underfed and underpaid labour you will generally find that that sort of labour is inefficient, while the well paid labour in this country, living under proper conditions, is able to compete, I believe, with the labour of any other country in the world. Besides, I do not think you will ever find that by taxing people to keep industries alive you are going to solve the problem of unemployment. The whole thing is economically unsound, and is no solution of what I know is a very difficult problem at the present time. Sometimes we hear of a national policy. Yes, we want a national policy-a national policy for all the people, a policy that will suit the people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Since the days of Sir John Macdonald we are living in a new Canada. This is not the Canada of Sir John Macdonald. Since his day a vast consuming and producing population has come into existence between the head of the lakes and the Rocky mountains. That fact must be borne in mind when reference is made to the national policy of the late Sir John A. Macdonald; and let me state that no amount of reasoning, no amount of argument can ever convince the people dwelling upon the prairies that a protective policy can be of any benefit to them.
Sometimes we hear a great deal about the home market. And here let me make myself quite plain; we all understand the value of a home market; every one would rejoice if Canada were able to consume all that she could produce, it would be an ideal situation. But we know the facts. We are aware that in some parts of our country production reaches such a volume that it has to find a sale in the markets of the world, and the home market, while valuable in itself, certainly will not solve our problems.
The third paragraph in the Speech deals with the question of production, and also refers to the subjects of immigration, the development of our natural resources, and the need for colonization. I should like to place emphasis on the word " colonization " because I do not believe that we should have immigration unless we can properly absorb the people who come here, unless we are able to provide them with employment, or place them upon the land1 or in some position where they can support themselves. Unless we can do this it would be far better not to induce immigrants to come here simply to swell the volume of unemployment which exists in Canada at the present time. The keeping of people in Canada after we get them here is a very difficult problem. I

The Address-Mr. Forke

listened to the opposing speeches delivered yesterday with respect to the size of the movement of population across our borders into the United States. I q'o not know which speaker gave the correct figures, but I do know that more people are leaving Canada to-day than we like to see quitting this country. I am aware of the fact that living as we do beside an immense country like the United States, containing a vast population of one hundred and ten millions which is rapidly growing, that the country to the south will always offer an attraction for some of our people because of the wider field' there for the exercise of their .talents and the greater opportunity for employment. To my mind the problem presents itself in this form. First, how can we retain our native born people? In this regard a difficulty arises, and I want to state it as plainly as I can without any misunderstanding. Who comes, and who goes? Who are the people who come to our shores, and who are the people that are leaving? I have been very much interested in the question of education and for a very good reason. I have noticed the large number of young people who attend our high schools, our colleges and our universities, and I have wondered what becomes of the immense number who receive such a splendid education in Canada. In speaking upon this subject I do not want to be misunderstood'. I think it is a splendid thing that Canada is able to offer such an education to our young folks but here is the difficulty: A great number of these young people who have been educated in Canada-of course the parents paid for that education but in the long run the cost devolved upon the country-find' no scope for their activities in this country and they cross the border into the United States. There are the answers to the questions: Who come to Canada?-Some immigrants from eastern Europe; who go from this Dominion? -some of the brightest and best minds that we have. I cannot help mentioning these facts. My only regret is that I have no solution for the question.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Hear, hear; support our3.


Robert Forke: The night hon gentleman
says " hear, hear." I did not catch his other remark.


Arthur Meighen: I say "Support ours."


Robert Forke: I cannot see that that would help the situation in any way. I think if we could make certain occupations in Canada a little more attractive, a little more remunerative, it is possible we would induce the bright young Canadians to whom I have

alluded to stay and engage in them, a thing they will not do at the present time. If we want people to stay in Canada we must make the Dominion a good couni ry to live in and to do business in.
My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler)-and I am sorry he is not in his place this afternoon-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He is here.


Robert Forke: My hon. friends are quale
right; I observe the hon. gentleman now and I am glad he -is here. The hon. gentleman made a speech in Montreal not so long ago which I must say was most admirable in tone, and a good deal of what he said I appreciate. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a few sentences from the speech in question; to my mind they embody good sense.


Mr. MARLER:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: By that Temark I intended
no (insinuation whatever. This is the paragraph I have in mind:
There is only one way and that way is to make living profitable not only in one section but in every section of the country, because one depends on the other and on the prosperity of the whole depends the general advancement. There is no other solid foundation on which we can build any immigration policy-money spent otherwise is fruitless and at the best only leads to temporary and not to permanent colonization. That is clearly shown by the results of experience in immigration. In the twenty years (1901-1921) the first ten cf which should be remembered were the greatest spending and immigration period in our history-had we retained our natural increase and our immigration we would have increased our population by 5,580,797 people. We only increased it by 3,417,168. In other words, people who were Canadians or who had come in with the apparent intention of settling left to the extent of 2,163,629. Had we retained these people our population in 1921 would have been 10,952,112, whereas it was only 8,788,483. We spent in these twenty years directly on immigration over $22,500,000. I am attributing no particular blame to anyone in this regard except to repeat that I do not think we were building on a solid foundation.
Now, I think that in those words the hon. member spoke very sensibly. But I am beginning to wonder why he should now preach as a remedy for the existing state of affairs more protection.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No.


Robert Forke: Or protection.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No.


Robert Forke: I think that was the statement the hon. gentleman made.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let my hon. friend read
my speech right through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

The Address-Mr. Forke


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. gentleman is
quoting an editorial from the Manitoba Free Press.


Robert Forke: I do not want to be unfair
to the hon. gentleman, I wish to be fair in every way, but I understood from his remark that he believed in the protective policy for the central provinces, and a bonus to the railways for the west to meet its difficulties. Am I correct?


Herbert Meredith Marler: To a moderate extent,
yes.


Robert Forke: That is all I wanted to prove. I am surprised that the hon. member should point out that that policy was a failure for twenty years, and now should want a little more of it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is misinterpreting my remarks. I think that if he reads carefully w'hat I said in Montreal he will find that what I said was very fair and just towards the west, and a very fair exposition of the feeling in Montreal towards the west. My hon. friend is not fair in the attitude which he has assumed to-day. The feeling in Montreal is one of sincerity, fairness and justness so far as the west is concerned.


Robert Forke: I do not doubt for one
moment the sincerity or good will of the hon. gentleman. I think he really meant well towards the west in the statement which he made in Montreal at the time referred to. But I differ from the conclusions which he draws from the conditions which now exist. Apparently he takes the ground that central Canada could not possibly get along without some means of protection, but that the west would not be helped by protection. I would infer that they could not, because in return for protection to the central provinces you are willing to give a bonus to the railways carrying freight from the west. Is that not a fair interpretation of the hon. gentleman's argument? That is all I have tried to prove. I think the address of the hon. gentleman was one of good will and showed what might be called a very reasonable spirit. However, I am inclined to think that the idea of a bonus to the railways is not going to solve the problem either of the west or of the Maritime provinces. I had another extract taken from a Maritime province paper that I might have read, but I will not do so. I am inclined to believe they are in as difficult a position in regard to railway transportation as we are, if not more difficult.
4i
Speaking about industries, I feel perfectly certain that an increased population and an increased purchasing power of the people of Canada will do very much more to solve our industrial problem than any question of tariff policy is likely to do. I noticed that in the Speech from the Throne the government almost despairs of any reduction in taxation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last night pointed out the large volume of taxation that can be attributed to the war and he also pointed out the deficits in the operation of our Canadian National railways which could be attributed to the same cause. I hope the government has not given up the idea of economy. Drastic economy is necessary in the public affairs of the country at this time. Taxation is pressing heavily on all classes of the people. The tremendous taxation, not only Dominion and provincial, but also municipal, is perhaps the one drag on our prosperity at this time. There is no doubt that all governments indulged in a policy of rapid spending, and now after the money has been spent we are trying to pay the bill. In regard to taxation, I should like to see the field of taxation accurately defined between the Dominion and the different provinces, so that there will be no overlapping and no extra expenses incurred in the collection of taxes.
Another matter that I think should be settled at an early date is the question of the natural resources of the different provinces. If our field of taxation were properly mapped out, and if the question off the natural resources of the provinces were definitely settled, there would be no necessity for those pilgrimages of provincial premiers and other officials to Ottawa, to confer with the Dominion authorities here. If these questions were settled, it would make no difference which party was in power in the Dominion or which party held the reins of office in the different provinces.
The fourth paragraph of the Speech from the Throne states:
It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that quite as important a factor as the customs tariff in their effect upon production and living costs are transportation costs and rates, by land and sea. It is the opinion of my advisers that the attention of parliament at the present session should be directed more particularly to the desirability of effecting a freer movement of commodities through an equalization of railway freight rates-
And so on. Now. Mr. Speaker, I think this paragraph is rather adroitly worded. It mentions tariff, taxation and transportation in almost equal terms. I am quite willing at this time to admit the tremendous importance of transportation and the great significance
The Address-Mr. Forke

of having that question settled definitely and rightly at the present time; but I want to give notice to the government that members who sit in this part of the House at least have not yet given up the idea of tariff reduction, and do intend pressing for further reduction along this line. I am greatly encouraged in this after listening to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last night. I thought perhaps that, having made some little movement last year he felt now that he might rest upon his oars and leave things alone for some time. But he was careful to explain to the House last night that the manufacturers were never so prosperous as they are to-day, especially those who had been affected by the reduction in the tariff. This being so, I expect he will come forward with renewed courage and touch other fields that have as yet been left untouched.
I wish to say a few words with regard to transportation. What the arteries are to the human body, transportation is to the industrial and economic life of a country. The transportation system is really the very centre of our national life. The whole question of railway rates to-day is now before the country, and we want to have it definitely and rightly settled. I mentioned the Maritime provinces some little time ago. I notice they are also in earnest in this matter. I have learned to know just a little during the last three years about the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec. No one can admire those provinces more than I do, and no matter what the future may hold, I expect that they will grow and become prosperous. But I desire to make a prophecy. I predict that in the not distant future, under proper conditions, the great majority of Canadian people wild live in the territory west of the Great Lakes. I make that statement at this time to the people of eastern Canada, just to remind them that when the balance swings the other way, we will be just as ready to do justice to them as they are willing to do justice to us at the present time.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is that a threat?


Robert Forke: No threat is intended. I desire to say a few words about the province of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). The future of British Columbia is all right-no question about it. I believe the great arteries of trade in the future will be on the Pacific ocean, and nothing in this world can prevent the province of British Columbia growing in numbers and prosperity.


An hon. MEMBER:: Chinamen.


Robert Forke: No. But at the present time transportation to the prairies is a question of tremendous importance. Situated as they are in the centre of the continent from east to west, and denied, Mr. Speaker, an outlet to the north at the present time, it follows that any system of railway freight rates is a great problem to the people living in those provinces.
Another point is that any railway situation which rests upon high rates is not resting upon an economically sound foundation; increased population, increased production and increased traffic would be a very much safer basis for our railways than extremely high rates imposed upon a small population. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in the west with regard to freight rates, and I believe for that reason more attention should be paid to this matter than has been given it in the past. The Premier of Manitoba made a statement the other day, and with permission of the House I should like to read what he said. This was a communication to the Montreal Herald of January 10. He said:
Railway lines have been built and equipped and goods are transported into and out of the country, but shippers are asked to pay a freight charge which is excessive. There is also imposed upon the people of the province-
Speaking of Manitoba.
a tariff on imported goods which renders their position most difficult. The people are convinced that this arbitrary economic arrangement is unjust and unfair, and it may be taken for granted that the fight will never cease, until there has been a more satisfactory arrangement.
The fifth paragraph of the Speech from the Throne deals with ocean freight rates. The government has been twitted a good deal about the legislation that was passed in regard to lake freights, and perhaps the whole thing did not turn out as satisfactory as might have been the case. I have never felt inclined to blame the government for any mistake or miscarriage that has occurred respecting legislation passed in this regard. Everyone is aware to-day that lake freights are in a very unsatisfactory condition; that one-half of our grain is at present being carried to American ports; that it can be carried from Fort William to American ports at a cheaper rate than it can be transported a shorter distance to Canadian ports. As long as this condition of affairs exists, do hon. gentlemen believe that the situation on the lakes is what it ought to be? When we come to deal with ocean freights we are, perhaps, grappling with a wider question, but we can let this matter stand until we hear what proposals the government has to make in regard to it. I would

The Address-Mr. Forke
make just this comment, that the whole question of the cattle trade between Canada and the Old Country rests, at the present time, upon this question of freight rates. I have no hesitation in saying that if the present rate continues, the traffic will dwindle and die, because farmers will soon get tired of raising cattle just to create freight for ocean steamships, just as they will soon get tired of raising grain in order to provide traffic for railways. There must be a reasonable profit for the man who is carrying on the work.
I was rather surprised when I read the seventh clause in the Speech from the Throne, dealing with the Senate. Some reference had been made to speeches delivered throughout the country during the recess; and from some speeches delivered by the Prime Minister we expected that something drastic was going to happen to the Senate at this session. But the language now in the Speech from the Throne is much more careful and guarded, and I am beginning to think that the Senate are getting more firmly placed in their seats and they are not likely to be disturbed, at least for some years to come. While I believe in a second chamber, my little experience in this House having led me to the conclusion that it is quite possible that ill-considered legislation may slip through and that some check is necessary, I think it is an anachronism to have a non-elective body, a body whose members are appointed for life, which can permanently defy the enactments of this House. Certainly some other system of carrying on the business of the country will eventually have to be adopted, and I hope this government will have the courage to tackle the question in the very near future.
We are promised some amendments to the Grain Act which will be a very important document, and we are also asked to deal with some trade agreements. These matters I will leave for discussion at a more opportune time.
We are told' that the estimates are being prepared with extreme care and with economy kept always in mind. I do not mind expressing my opinion as regards the method in which the estimates come before this House. I have always felt, coming into this House as a layman, knowing nothing about the situation, that our method of criticising the estimates is very lame, the idea being to drag the information out of the minister, to get all we -can out of him. I am nest casting any blame on any particular member of the government, but it is evident very often that the least said -the soonest mended and the minister, perhaps, sometimes knows just as much
about the subject-I say this quite candidly and not in any derogatory manner-as -the member who asks for information. For instance, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) may have thousands of employees in his department and it is impossible that he should be familiar with all- the work they are doing. The system is wrong and a better method should be devised whereby members can criticise the estimates more intelligently. Every year estimates are brought down for improvements all along the Atlantic coast. Probably we devote our energies to blocking something the blocking of which is an absolute necessity, yet at the same time we let some vote slip through that is not needed at all. That is not the proper way to do business. I hope the government will practise every possible economy, do no unnecessary work and do what is necessary in the most efficient manner. The country is impatient as regards taxation. We know that every government professes economy and every government, to some extent, practises extravagance. The sooner that sort of thing ^tops, the better.
I want to make just a few general observations in closing. Perhaps a better day is dawning for Canada and I am hopeful for the future. I know very well that we are not yet out of the woods; that we have many troubles to meet. The other evening I picked uip a Scottish newspaper that a friend had sent me and I read a speech that had been delivered in the town of Berwick, which is neither in Scotland nor in England, but just between the two. This speech was delivered by an Alberta farmer who -gave a most glowing account of conditions in Alberta and of what could be accomplished in the way of wheat growing. In fact, he pointed out that Canada, western Canada in particular, was a most desirable place to live in. He also made this statement which I hope will go abroad, that it was a paradise for women. The same evening, in discussing western conditions with a friend, I heard the story of people living on the -prairies who were unable to secure the ba-re necessities of life. I have no doubt as to the truth of both of those statements. And that just explains how difficult it is for an easterner to get an accurate conception of conditions in western Cana,da. We have a good country and under proper conditions I can, without any hesitation, advise immigration into that country; but we want to see conditions made suitable for people who desire to earn an honest and decent living.
At the present time we hear a good deal about our natural resources and we sometimes get tired of the term. A section of the
The Address-Mr. Forke

richest agricultural land' in the world is of no value until it is cultivated and producing crops; the richest mines in the world are of no value until they are developed. Therefore, while it may be quite true that we have great natural resources, they are of no use to Canada until they are developed.
I should like to have said a few words about the minerals of Canad'a, but I am not going to take up the time of the House. Not long ago I listened to a speech delivered by Professor Wallace of the University of Manitoba dealing with the great pre-Cambrian shield which occupies about sixty-five per cent of the whole area of the Dominion. He pointed out the fact that the Sudbury mines were discovered only by the building of the Canadian Pacific railway; that the Cobalt mines were only discovered' during the building of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway through the finding of a lump of silver in a rock cut. The fact was also pointed out that it was highly probable that riches just as great existed throughout that great area if only they could be discovered. Let me say here that for three hundred miles along the shores of lake Winnipeg, and for a distance back of some four hundred and fifty miles, there exists the same pre-Cambrian shield which is supposed to be rich in mineral wealth and which can be developed when the Hudson Bay railway is in full operation.
It is my desire to see Canada a land of happy homes and of moderate wealth widely distributed; I do not want to see it a land of multi-millionaires and poverty-stricken people living side by side. This ideal is what I stand for, as far as it lies within my power to bring it about, in any public policy I advocate. I have no quarrel with any sections of our population; I believe that to some extent at any rate there will always be rich people and poor people. At the same time, however, I do think that there should be equal chances for all, and I certainly do not think that riches should grow like a rolling snowball with some while others have to struggle to secure a bare existence. I hope that in the days to come our country will prosper and that this nation will be a people happy and contented in every sense of the word.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWOKTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Whatever else may be said with
regard to the Speech, it probably indicates fairly well the policy of the government-a policy which we must say consists very largely in the enunciation of some vague generalities rather than in the bringing foward of concrete proposals; a policy which perhaps gives the

appearance of activity while actually marking time; a policy which resorts to the use of catch words without advancing any definite solutions for the new and pressing problems that face us at the present time. Indeed, I think we might go further and say that this policy even fails to recognize these new and pressing problems. It is interesting to note that a conference is being suggested to deal with the question of the Senate, and possibly to consider wider revisions of the British North America Act. Whether fihis conference between the Dominion and the provincial governments will achieve any further results than, have been attained by other conferences of a similar character, remains to be seen. There is not the slightest doubt, however, that, as we tried to point out last year, there is an urgent need of a revision of the British North America Act. This has been brought very forcibly to our attention by the recent decision of the Privy Council touching the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which decision must have very far reaching effects indeed. Much of the Dominion legislation as it now stands on the Statute books may well be called in question; an appeal might show that it is ultra vires of the Dominion parliament. Further this decision may handicap us in this House in trying to place any progressive legislation on the statute books, inasmuch as we are at an utter loss to know what is and what is not within the po-wer of the Dominion parliament at the present time. Without laying blame on any one government, the fact is that our constitution, which was drawn up nearly sixty years ago, was framed at a time when conditions differed very fundamentally from the conditions that exist to-day. I am not reflecting in any sense whatever on the Fathers of Confederation when I state that some change is necessary. There is no doubt at all that they did the best they could to provide for the needs of their day; but their day is not our day, and if we wish to be true to them we must do in our day what they did in theirs-make such necessary changes as shall provide for the needs of our own times. It would be absurd to imagine that private business could be conducted to-day in precisely the same way that private business was conducted sixty years ago. When we think of all the modem inventions that have been instituted, the modern complicated organization of industry and commerce and finance, it is absurd to think of going back to the methods of sixty years ago. Yet we in Canada in the conduct of public business are practically confined to an instrument that was created so long ago.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
With regard to conditions in general in Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) declared last night that we might well listen to what the bankers had to say. It seems to me that he was quite right in that, because under the existing financial arrangements the bankers can very largely decide what the conditions shall be. If they decide that there is to be another wave of prosperity at the present time, I have no doubt that the wave of prosperity is already under way. But it may be said, nevertheless, that even they are unable to decide, under the economic conditions that prevail, whether prosperity will remain for any time. The Speech tells us that for Canada the year 1924 was a period of substantial progress. Listen to what one of the bank managers has had to say-and the Prime Minister did not quote him. Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor, the general manager of the Bank of Montreal, at the annual meeting, to which the Prime Minister did refer, said:
My view, in brief, of the situation is that business generally in Canada is unsatisfactory, but with some bright spots. This expression of opinion may not be popular, but it seems to me much better to look the matter squarely in the face than to allow ourselves to be led astray by popular delusions. That general trade is dull, to put it mildly, is no delusion. Many of our industries are running on half time, with diminished profits or no profits at all. Taxation is heavy to an extent which discourages new enterprises. The cost of living is high and our population in point of numbers is at a standstill or worse.
Here we have a frank recognition of our heavy overhead charges, high taxes and high cost of living, and factories running on half time. So far as labour is concerned, the high cost of living and half time work means unemployment and suffering; it involves in its larger social aspects sickness and crime of all sorts. Right here in the city of Ottawa we have had in recent months several oases of suicide which appear to be directly traceable to despondency owing to lack of work. Within the last few days the press has been telling us of a poor fellow who has been imprisoned in a cave and to rescue whom every effort has been made and every expenditure possible incurred. Millions of people throughout the country have been interested in his fate. Yet there are tens of thousands who are suffering to-day very acutely because of unemployment. I am not very much concerned whether the unemployment in Canada is greater than the unemployment in the United States; the fact is that unemployment exists here and we have its consequences to deal with. Last autumn a conference was called by the government to deal with this matter. That conference might
almost- be described as a cruel farce. There were some fifty delegates representing the Dominion -and provincial governments, as well as the municipalities, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian bridge and construction industries, labour, the Canadian railways, and the employment services of Canada. After all these delegates had assembled, the Minister of Labour stated on behalf of the Dominion government that nothing could be done by the Dominion. He simply, as it were, flourished the British North America Act and said it w-as impossible to do anything. His statement included this:
If indeed, the matter were one of other than financial assistance, the participation of the Dominion government might be regarded as interference with provincial rights.
Thus a very real and pressing need is brushed aside as of comparative unimportance and we have a purely technical, legal, constitutional attitude presented. Even then the Minister of Labour might have remembered that so far back as 1920 a report on this subject of the draft conventions was submitted to the Governor id 'Council by the Minister of Justice on March 2 and duly concurred in by the council and approved by His Excellency the Governor General on November 6. In that report we find the following statement:
Unemployed insurance has a pronounced federal aspect and on the whole the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployed insurance is competent to the Dominion in the exercise of its residuary legislative power with regard to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
As I think I said last year in this House, where there is a will there is a way and where there is no will there is no way. The position of the Minister of Labour was very largely backed up by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). In flat contradiction to the representations at the conference of Canadian manufacturers and to the evidence submitted by mayors and responsible officials from Halifax to Vancouver, he said:
I say trade in this country is good. .	.	. That is
the reason for unemployment. .	. . There are too
many people flocking to the cities. .	.	. There is
work for them on the farms if they want work.
Where can we get with statements of that character, in the face of the undoubted evidence to the contrary? Since that conference conditions have not improved. According to the press despatches as published, we had a deputation here a few weeks ago from eastern Canada headed by Premier Armstrong in which he is reported as having stated:	[DOT]
That at the Sydney mines in one of the coal towns, so acute is the situation that people were suffering
o6

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
from hunger and some were actually living on mushrooms picked in the woods. Such a situation, he said, required action by the government. There were 23,000 people unemployed and more than 100,000 dependents affected.
In my own city of Winnipeg we have at the present time some 1,200 married men and 800 single men in receipt of relief very largely owing to their unemployment. Large and influential deputations recently waited on the city council of Montreal to bring to the attention of the council the extremely serious situation which prevailed. Within a few days we have had deputations from Toronto and Ottawa. We had evidence presented at the unemployment conference with regard to the serious conditions even among the immigrants from northern Europe. The Danish Consul and the Scandinavian Emigrant Station have both protested in the very strongest terms against the bringing over of Norsemen into the midst of a population where there was a great deal of unemployment
I do not wish at this time to discuss the responsibility of the federal government, but I should like again to take the position I have taken on previous occasions, namely, that the body which is so largely responsible for the immigration policy and for the financial policy of this country cannot possibly escape responsibility for the unemployment which is largely the result of those policies. The government which through its arrangements fails to make it possible for people even to obtain the necessities of life-food, clothing and shelter-cannot possibly have a claim upon the loyalty of its people. It may be a government of certain interests; decidedly it is not a government representative of the great masses of the people.
The Speech suggests with regard to our big problems that their ultimate solution lies largely in increased production and the development of new and wider markets, apparently ignoring the fact that already from one end of this country to the other we have production that is altogether in excess of the buying power of the people. Surely it does not require a man of any great economic knowledge to recognize that if we have already too great production we shall not solve our problems by having still greater production. It would seem almost obvious that what we need to do is to increase the buying power of our people. That is the point of view which again and again during the past two or three years members in this quarter of the House have been trying to urge upon the government. There are only three or four factors necessary to production. We need the 
natural resources; we need labour; we need equipment, and under the present financial system we need financial capital. It is not necessary to speak of the natural resources of Canada; the Prime Minister has already waxed eloquent on that. It is not necessary to say anything in regard to labour; I have already indicated that there are vast numbers of our Canadians who are not able to obtain work and who could readily be utilized in developing these natural resources. In regard to equipment, you will permit me to quote just a few of the recognized authorities along this line. Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, says;
Canada is blessed with more railways than she has traffic for.
The Journal of Commerce declares:
We now have a plant capacity which in many lines is 20 per cent ahead of domestic consuming demand. In order to run full, 20 per cent of the output must be sent abroad.
The Shoe Manufacturers' Association declares :
The productive capacity of the Canadian shoe manufacturing industry and the distributing facilities of the shoe trade of Canada are much in excess of the requirements of the present Canadian population.
Mr. S. G. Latta, of Saskatchewan, said:
My province is now producing enough to feed approximately thirty million people. Oui population is about three-quarters of a million and we are not making a living out of our production.
So much for the equipment that is necessary to develop these resources. But we have been told all along that in addition to these primary factors we must have financial capital. Well, that problem is now solved for us; for Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor at the last meeting of the Bank of Montreal stated:
It is a matter of national importance that the commercial loans in Canada of all our banks are $100,000,000 less than a year ago. .	.	. These figures
indicate the ability of the banks of Canada to finance a trade revival when it occurs. Furthermore, while there is this excess banking capital in the country, borrowing abroad, which increases our interest remittances-already too heavy-is not a necessity.
At present, then, according to one of the outstanding authorities in banking circles, we already have more than abundant financial capital to carry on the affairs of this country, and that without resorting to any of the changes which have been advocated by my colleague and other members of this House. I am speaking of the economic system as it now stands. We already have our natural resources, our labour, our equipment, our financial capital; what more do we need? I think that the real difficulty was indicated many years ago by the United States Com-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
mission on Industrial Relations, from which I should like to quote a few sentences:
A careful analysis of all available statistics shows that in our great basic industries the workers are unemployed for an average of at least one-fifth of the year, and that at all times during any normal year there is an army of men who can be numbered only by hundreds of thousands who are unable to find work. .	.	. fundamentally this unemployment seemsto rise from two great causes, though many others are contributory. First, the inequality of the distribution of income, which leaves the great masses of the population, the true ultimate consumers, unable to purchase the products of industry which they create, while a few have such a superfluity that it cannot be normally consumed, but must be invested in new machinery for production, or in further monopolization of land and natural resources. .	.	.
The result is that we have an equipment in plant and developed property far in excess of the demands of any normal year, the excess being in all probability at least 25 per cent. Each of these plants keeps around it a labour force which on an average can get work for only four-fifths of the year, while at the same time the people have never had enough of the products of those very industries-have never been adequately fed. clothed, housed, or warmed-for the very simple reason that they have never been paid enough to permit their purchase.
I think surely that is all that needs to be said to indicate the way out.
The Speech goes on to speak of the existing burden of taxation as being due mainly to uncontrollable expenditure in the nature of payments and obligations arising out of the war, and to the encumbered position of the National Railways. The burden of taxation no one will deny. Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote a few figures, because in this connection we should think not merely of the taxation under the Dominion government but of the other taxes which Canadians must bear. The gross debt of the Dominion is $2,940,099,088.35. The securities guaranteed by the Dominion amount to $590,510,932.55. The funded and floating debt of the provinces amounts to $697,785,627. The funded and floating debt of the municipalities amounts to $706,644,567. That gives a grand total of $4,935,040,134.90; that is $548 per capita on a basis of 9,000,000 of population, or an average capital debt of $2,740 for a family of five. That is the burden of debt which we carry at the present time. But should the expenditures involved be regarded as uncontrollable? A great many people of this country are beginning to ask questions along these lines: Why should bondholders be exempted from the ordinary vicissitudes of life? Why should the value of bonds be nearly doubled [DOT] since their issue and their enhanced value held sacred? Why should the Canadian Pacific Railway be permitted to take 10 per cent as a first charge on industry? Why should the banks, after the most lavish overhead
expenses, be permitted to declare 12 per cent and a bonus? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that sooner or later the war debt itself must be tackled. We cannot forever allow the people of Canada to be saddled with this enormous debt.
According to the Bankers' Trust Company the net result of the war so far as it concerns most of the people of this country has been the transference of wealth from one group of people to another group. In speaking of this redistribution of wealth caused by the war the Bankers' Trust Company in a little book, the In ter-Ally Debts, says:
The actual wealth of the country in real estate and other tangible assets has not changed materially, but the mortgage on that wealth, if we may use such an expression, held by the owners of the government's debt, has materially changed.
According to the figures of this authority the pre-war wealth was per capita $1,831.25. On the supposition that we have now 9,000,000 people the post-war 'debt is $1,666.67, almost as great. The pre-war income was per capita $250; the post-war income is per capita $266.67. That is, we are on the average better off since the war than we were bef ore the war, and still we hear about bad times, still we are bearing enormous burdens.
I have spoken of our enormous war debts. What about the coeT of government? The cost of federal government, from the 'latest figures available lor last year, was $424,645,217. The cost of the provincial governments was $130,887,303. The cost of municipal governments was $247,255,345. These make a grand total of $802,787,865. That is $89 per capita oil an estimated population of 9,000,000, or $445 of an average annual charge for a family of five. These are some of the enormous burdens which we are carrying at the present day It may be of interest to note, by the way, that if the figures of the Bankers' Trust Company are correct, and comparing those with the figures which I have just now given, it would seem as if one-third of the average income goes to keeping up the governments of the country.
Last night the Prime Minister quoted Mr. R. S. White, in the Commercial and Financial Review of the past year. Mr. White says in a passage not quoted:
On November 30th the funded debt of the Dominion was $2,593,000,000, of which no less than $1,929,000,000, or upwards of 70 per cent, is payable in Canada. Approximately $100,000,000 of interest on debt is being paid annually to Canadian bondholders.
That is, the war had this effect: It transferred the wealth of this country into the hands of a very small group of people or perhaps, to put it a little more accurately, put

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
into the hands of a little group of people mortgages on the entire wealth of Canada. The result is that to-day a comparatively small group of people is receiving an annual tribute from the rest of the citizens of Canada of $100,000,000 per year. Further than that, of this enormous tribute over one-half is tax free.


Mr. LANCTOT:: That is worse.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Much worse. That is the thing to which we need to pay attention. That is the situation with regard to our internal affairs.
I should like to ask, in passing, one other question:	How was this debt created? I
think attention has been drawn within the last two or three years to a little pamphlet issued by the Liberal party, back in May, 1915, with regard to war contract scandals-horses, boots, drugs, binoculars, motor trucks, and so on. This same matter is alluded to in a motion already on the order paper of the present session. It was stated at that time:
One outstanding fact in connection with the investigation should be kept in iriind. The total amount of money involved in the purchases investigated was no more than $3,000,000. This included the price of the submarines. In other words, the Public Accounts committee's investigation touched less than one-sixteenth of the $50,000,000 voted by parliament in August for war purposes.
What about the other two billions that were spent on the war?	Whut are we going to do about it? Simply forget all the past and burden ourselves, and our children, and our children's children with these enormous loads? Have those who looted the public treasury been prosecuted? This is the question that many are asking to-day, though it may not often be asked in this House. Has the government sought to recover the loot? No. On the other hand we continue to pay interest on the graft. It may very well be said that many of the present bondholders are innocent. That may be true, but I submit that in ordinary legal practice the receivers of stolen goods, although they may suffer hardship, are not protected in this way.
I should like to pause for just a few minutes to consider another development that has taken place in Canada that will bring us under bondage not merely to a portion of our own people, but ultimately to an outside nation. In a review of the United States investments in Canada, issued by the United States Department of Commerce under the direction of Herbert Hoover, the following statement is made:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States, and our tTade with Canada is in many respects more like domestic trade than our foreign trade with other countries.

The United States capital invested' in Canada, the department shows, has increased from $420,000,000 in 1915 to at least $2,425,000,000 in 1922, or nearly six-fold. In the same period British capital in Canaa'a has remained very nearly stationary, amounting to $1,860,000,000 in 1915, and to $1,980,000,000 in 1922. Further than that, the United States in recent years has largely replaced Great Britain as Canada's banker. In the eight years just preceding the -war 73.5 per cent of all of Canada's borrowings were from Great Britain and 9 per cent from the United States. In the eight years ending with 1922 only 2 per cent of Canada's borrowing came from Great Britain and' 33 per cent from the United States. I might add, on the authority of Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor that in 1924 Canada's borrowings in the New York market amounted to two hundred millions which, as he quite correctly points out in a passage already quoted, means a definite added interest charge on the people of this country. It would seem that if these conditions continue very much longer Canadians may be reduced to the position of being literally hewers of wood and drawers of water for the capitalists of the United' States. Then too, it should be noted, these enormous incomes that are being enjoyed by the people of the United States are not taxed as the Canadian incomes are taxed. According to the Commissioner of Taxation "under the provisions of the Income War Tax Act, 1917 a non-resident is not liable to income tax in respect of dividends or interest paid' to him by the Canadian company." So there we have the situation, that although enormous wealth is being produced in this country a very considerable proportion of it is being drained away to others who do not assume their fair share of the load. I have nothing whatever against the capital being American in ownership; but this condition enables us to see very clearly the character of the great economic movements of the present day. There are some in the west who will tell us that the solution is to break up confederation. There are some from the east who are inclined to echo the same doctrine. I do not wonder very much that this position is being taken by those who are carrying an undue proportion of this -load. But I should like to urge that economic questions are deeper than political questions, and that economic questions cannot be solved by mere political methods; they require economic solutions.
I should lake now, for a few moments, to come particularly to the Speech as it refers to the labour people of Canada. I do not know that it was any great surprise but

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
certainly it is a matter of keen regret to the labour men across Canada that the Speech contains no intimation whatever that the government is proposing at the present session to carry out its pledges made to labour. I hold in my hand a copy of a pamphlet entitled Liberals and Labour. A pre-election appeal to labour issued by the Liberal committee in October, 1921, at the very forefront of which stands the name of Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Liberal leader. This document begins by criticising the Conservatives for their action, or rather inaction, with regard to labour affairs.
The Conservative government failed to act. It was all a case of promise and pretence used only to fool the labour vote on the eve of elections.
I wonder whether this document can be said to differ very largely from those issued by the Conservatives, and I consider that it ought to be known to the labour people across Canada from coast to coast that the actual record of the Liberal government during the past three years has been almost barren of any enactment that is in the interest of the group commonly known as labour. The Liberals advocated at that time, the placing of the implements of production and food on the free list. I waited for three years for something along that line, and then last year introduced an amendment to the budget-but without any very noticeable results. In addition to the tariff policy referred to this document goes on

Resolved that the committee recommends that the National Liberal Convention accept in their entirety, as a part of the Liberal platform in the spirit they have been framed, and in so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit, the terms of the Labour Convention and general principles associated with the League of Nations and incorporated in the conditions of peace.
Now, let me remind the House that these general principles incorporated into the treaty at the Peace Conference of Versailles are just as vitally a part of that treaty as were any of the international boundaries drawn up at that time, and labour had a right to expect their fulfilment. And further, we have here the promise that the Liberal party would carry out these provisions to the utmost of their ability. I propose to read these clauses with very brief comments, asking what the government has done with regard to these reforms to which it is solemnly committed.
These methods and principles for regulating labour conditions so set forth in the treaty are as follows: First, The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
I should like to ask the government to point out any specific cases in which they have
regarded labour, or enacted legislation providing that labour should not be regarded, as anything else than a commodity. I fail to see any application of that principle in the immigration policy or in the provision for unemployment for example to which we have already referred.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What would
the hon. gentleman say with regard to the appointment of the president of the Tradtes and Labour Congress to the Board of the Canadian National Railways?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite intended
to recognize that the government had carried out that provision, but I fail to see how he connects the appointment of the president of the Trades and Labour Congress to the Board of the Canadian National Railways with this principle that labour is not to be regarded as a commodity. I am quite open to any suggestion along that line, but I cannot quite see how this action is an application of the principle.
Second. The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
The only opportunity that we have had of testing the government on that was a resolution I brought forward two years ago, asking that bank clerks be given a right to organize, which resolution was voted down by the government.
Third. The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
It is pointed out here repeatedly that the average wage paid to the employees in this country is far below the average minimum set by the official government standard. Furthermore, many of the government employees are receiving far less than the standard which the government itself sets up as being the minimum for a decent standard of living. As I think I pointed out when the estimates were before the House dealing with civil service employees, there were postal workers, in the city of Winnipeg, employees of -this government, receiving a smaller amount than was being paid in doles to those in receipt of charity from the city.
Fourth. The adoption of an eight-hour day or a forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
The government has sought to escape responsibility for this by saying that this was not within the province of the Dominion government; but last year when they were pressed on this matter by an amendment which I introduced, the Minister of Labour said that it would not be possible to put into practice this principle of an eight-hour day
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

on the government owned public works, because that might involve unfair competition with the private employers.


Mr. MURDOCK:: I am sure the hon.
gentleman does not desire to make a statement that is not correct, but he does make a statement which is not correct when he says the Minister of Labour said it would not be possible. If the hon. gentleman would stick to the record it would be better I think for him and all concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to
have members of the House refer to Hansard for what was said in regard to that matter.


James Murdock: Will the hon. gentleman correct that statement by reading Hansard himself and giving the House the statement made by the Minister of Labour? The reason I make that request is that all over the country according to the press, the same misstatements have been made by the hon. gentleman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I can only reaffirm what I said. My recollection of Hansard-and I think I am correct in this-is that what was said was in line with the statement I have just made. I have no desire to misrepresent the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), and if on reading the statement in Hansard I find I have not quoted him correctly I shall be very glad to bring the correct statement before the House.
Fifth. The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours which should include Sunday whenever possible.
Yet we have had for example the steel works in Nova Scotia when they are in operation working their men eleven and thirteen hour shifts, and every other week twenty-four hours on end. We have even had the seven-day week existing here in the city of Ottawa among some of the government's own employees.
Sixth. The abolition of child labour, and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
I am glad to know that the Liberal Association recognized their responsibility along educational lines, even although that is not expressly stated under the British North America Act. I am quite aware that the actual conduct of education comes within the scope of the powers of the province, but the fact is that there are thousands of children across Canada to-day who, because of the prevailing economic conditions, are being withdrawn from school. In my own province 
we have had a large number of schools shut down because of insufficient financial resources. Further than that, we have had the government carrying on the existing system of juvenile immigration which has involved a very large supply of child labour for the farms and homes of this country.
Seventh. The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
I can find no effort whatever in the civil service even to carry out this principle.
Eighth. The standard set by law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
I cannot find that any effort has been put forth to make good this promise. As a matter of fact, we have not even the political rights that ought to be accorded to labour, and to all citizens. We still have on our statute books legislation by which certain groups of people born outside of Canada are deprived of the right of trial by jury, and other legislation very decidedly limiting freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
I am not entirely blaming this government; I want to point out conditions as they exist, so, perhaps, I should say in fairness to the government, that one or two efforts have been made to amend the Immigration Act but that these amendments have been rejected 'by the Senate.
Ninth. Each state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the unemployed.
I cannot leam that any action has been taken along this line. Further, this document goes on to say:
1.	That the introduction into the government of industry of principles of representation whereby labour and the community, as well as capital, may be represented in industrial control, and their interests safeguarded and promoted in the shaping of industrial policies.
That has not been carried out even in government departments. In the Department of Public Works for instance, and in our other civil service departments, especially the Post Office Department where it would have seemed possible to introduce something along the line of the Whitley Councils, so far that has not been done. I read further:
2.	That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective co-operation between the several governments.
Up to date there has 'been no provision whatever for unemployment insurance. Last year's committee of this House prepared a report on old age pensions. That report, however, was only presented and was not recommended to this House, and the Speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever that action along this line is contemplated. As to maternity benefits and sickness benefits, these have not even been mooted.
3.	The representation of labour on federal commissions pertaining to labour matters.
We might very well have representation, as has been asked for by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, on the Industrial Research board and other boards. That seems a very reasonable request.
4.	Effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health.
In the past year or so there has been a distinct tendency to cut estimates along these lines rather than to make more abundant provision for the conservation of life and health.
5.	The representation of labour on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.
I gladly admit that this has been done, and we have the president of the Trades and Labour Congress, one member on the board, representing labour.
6.	That the system of re-training soldiers, unfitted for their past work because of physical injuries, be extended to disabled workers in industry.
I have been unable to learn that any steps have been taken to make good this pledge.
7.	More effective restriction of Chinese immigration.
In face of this, we had last year the iniquitous regulation-I can call it no other -of permitting Chinese in bond to work on the boats of the British Empire Steel Corporation.
8.	The federal incorporation of co-operative associations.
This has been urged again and again. What action the government will take on a resolution in this regard before the House at this session remains to be seen; but when two years ago we in this comer of the House pressed for legislation that would permit of the organization of co-operative banks, it was refused us.
9.	The acceptance of the principle of proportional representation.
The government may possibly say that it agrees with the principle. Certainly, it has not put it into practice because we have had
that proposed from this side and it has not received government support.
10.	Immediate and drastic action by the government with respect to the high cost of living and profiteering.
Perhaps we should hope along this 'line, for at this fourth session of parliament the Governor General's Speech offers to us the prospect that the government may still continue to consider this matter.
11.	Restoration of the control of the executive by parliament, and of parliament by the people through a discontinuance of government by order in council and a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions.
I do not know that we have had government by order in council. I think we have been a good deal freer in that regard than we were during war-time. But I would point out the danger that we may substitute government by commission, because in recent years, not altogether by this government, but by previous governments, there have been erected powerful commissions that are not very directly responsible to this parliament. Further, we have had one or two examples of what might be termed government by department. I think of the case of a man refused entry to this country not in accordance with regulations passed by this parliament, 'but because of certain regulations decided upon by the then Minister of Immigration. We have had placed before us this charter of Labours Rights by the Liberal Association, and no doubt many labour men have been induced to support the Liberal government because they believed the government would carry out at least some of the provisions contained in this charter. Labour has been patient, perhaps too patient. At this fourth session of parliament we might surely have expected that something would be done. I do not intend here to urge in detail what could be done even under existing circumstances. I should 'like to suggest to this House, as I have done before, that as we gather together in the comfortable surroundings of this chamber and discuss general principles and statistics, we are very far removed indeed from the great masses of the people of Canada. During the past recess, I have had an opportunity of going across Canada from coast to coast, and I do not find that the people in the east, or the west, or the centre, are very happy. Possibly the Prime Minister and those who accompanied him may have had opportunities of meeting with the well-to-do and those who are profiting by. and comfortable under, existing conditions. I have had an opportunity of coming into very close contact with those who are anything but comfortable or satisfied. I would' urge that we

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
should not, for the sake of mere party advantage, neglect the pressing problems of the hour, nor fail to carry out the principle that underlies one of these clauses of the Liberal platform which I have read-that human values are of infinitely more importance than mere material considerations. We should recognize clearly that the interests of labour and of the common people of the country ought to receive the first consideration. There, it seems to me, is the fundamental question that confronts the people of this country. Everywhere we are told that property must be protected, that the bondholders must be made secure, and so on. The time is coming when the people will rise in their might, not by means of armed strength, for they do not need that in this country, but in the full force of their intelligence, and demand that the governing bodies of this country see to if that their welfare shall receive first attention.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) will not consider it amiss if I do not follow his address in detail nor attempt to reply to the various arguments he has made, whether I disagree with him or approve wholly of anything in particular which he has said. I do wish, however, to observe that the hon. gentleman's remarks on this occasion have been very moderate, in large measure reasoned, and in some respects, I think apt and timely. I cannot always follow him in some of his views, nor can I endorse his policies, but we can all agree that he is at all times most earnest in the advocacy of whatever views he happens to hold.
The hon. gentleman somewhat severely arraigned the government for its dereliction of duty in the carrying out of its pledges to labour. I think he has done the government in this regard a slight injustice, which I am sure they will welcome my hastening to rectify. If the hon. gentleman had read carefully the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or if he had listened with keener attention to the right hon. gentleman's speech as he delivered it, he might have observed that the Prime Minister does set forth what the government proposes to do for labour. As a matter of fact, it is the only reference to the subject which I can find, and I hasten to give the government full credit for it, even though it is nothing very substantial. The Prime Minister said:
We have taken steps to improve the labour situation as regards the development of the natural resources by strengthening our immigration programme.
I think my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) ought in justice to the government to give
[MV W/wiwKorth i
them credit for what they are attempting to do: they are going to cure the unemployment evil and appease the dissatisfaction in regard to short hours, and all that, by bringing in more labour. That is the government's policy, and as far as it goes it deserves recognition. I shall have something to say later on however, concerning the wisdom of this policy.
I followed with a great deal of care and interest the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. The right hon. gentleman spent, I think, about two hours placing on Hansard long lists of statistics to demonstrate that the conditions in the United States were worse than they are in Canada, in some regards at least. He quoted copiously from Iron Age, Dun's, and Bradstreet's and other periodicals of that kind, including certain government publications. In my opinion the Prime Minister may quote from now until Doomsday without once persuading the people of Canada that conditions here are at all liquid-I am not referring to the province of Quebec but to the whole country. To put it more positively, so far as industrial development is concerned the conditions in this country are stringent and there are difficulties facing the people which they are most anxious to see tackled, with some solution in view. But the present pressing problems apparently are receiving no attention from the government from the practical standpoint of providing such a solution, and the lengthy quotations of the Prime Minister certainly will not convince the people that things are as happy as he tries to make out. I do not intend, however, to follow the Prime Minister's example and quote endless lists of other statistics to disprove what he has said. Rather, I shall endeavour to place before the House certain major problems which I believe the House should consider and which I conceive it to be the first duty of the government to take hold of and if possible remedy, at least so far as they can.
There are three main problems which, I think, should receive consideration and which I shall examine in some detail. These problems are:	First, the question of taxation;
second, the great problem of transportation; third, the paucity of credit and capital and the alarming depopulation of Canada. I purpose following these questions with some care and I trust I shall be able to offer to the House some suggestions of a practical nature.
I am, of course, not so foolish as to suppose that either this government or any individual or group of individuals is capable of at once offering a policy that will remedy all these conditions, but I do think that we should

The Address-Mr. Stevens
make a most strenuous effort to provide some adequate solution, a practical solution moreover, and not suggestions that are merely visionary.
Let us take first the question of taxation. I shall refer first of all to some of the contents of the Speech from the Throne and I shall do so in my own language. The government refers to the question of taxation- or rather to put the matter more, accurately, it brushes the question aside with the somewhat gloomy comment that the most rigid economy will not solve the problem. Let me offer two observations in that regard. In the first place there is no evidence of rigid economy, and in the second place the government has not tried to apply the principle of economy to the solution of the taxation problem. As a matter of fact they have not sought to solve the problem at all. I am not disputing the statement of the Prime Minister, which has been made by other gentlemen, that taxation is heavy, and necessarily heavy, because of the war and the war debt. That is admitted. We also admit that we must have extensive taxation in Canada to meet the needs of government and of the country. On the other hand, it must be obvious, I think, that the problem of taxation is not- merely a question of quantity; the important question is the method of applying the principle of taxation. I want to draw the attention of the government to one or two matters in connection with taxation which I think can readily be met and which at present are working to the detriment of the development and advancement of business in this country. I will not go into any close analysis of the whole situation, but I shall refer to one or two very important facts. Let us take first of all the question of income tax on business, that is to say, the income tax as applied to corporations. All corporations outside partnerships are taxed by the federal government 10i per cent on their net profits, while, in addition to that, certain provinces impose a further tax. In the case of British Columbia the provincial tax is 9 per cent. So that in that province the total tax on business is 194 per cent; I am not sure what the tax is in other provinces. Some have no income tax. Manitoba has, and I think Saskatchewan has, though I am not quite certain. At any rate, some of the provinces have an income tax. But this is what I want to bring to the attention of the government; and' if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will give me his attention for a moment I will offer him a problem
which I think is worthy of his consideration. We will take a lumber exporter or a fish exporter in British Columbia-I use these for purposes of illustration because I am familiar with them. A Canadian business man in British Columbia buys or sells lumber or fish upon the world market. He pays to the provincial and Dominion governments 19i per cent in taxes on his net income. The business man in Seattle can send an agent into British Columbia, buy timber in the same market, sell it in the same market, ship it on the same vessel,-and he pays no income tax to this country. I ask the government, which is going to persevere. Which is going to last in his business, the Canadian business man or the American business man? Unquestionably the American. So far as British Columbia is concerned-and mark you, the same thing applies in other sections-one-half of our lumber export business, or nearly so, is being done to-day from the United States, by business men in the United States, and we are not getting a revenue from that business. Furthermore, many Canadian business men are considering the removal of their head offices to Seattle and the operating of their businesses from that point.
Let me give an illustration in connection with the fisheries. Certain Japanese fishery companies export fish from British Columbia. I will name one, a very noted company-one of the largest in the world-Mitsui & Company, with head office in Seattle. A white fishery company, operated by Canadian citizens and with head office in Vancouver has to meet the competition of the Japanese company with headquarters in Seattle. Both handle Canadian fish, on the same markets. The Canadian company pays a 194 per cent tax, whereas the Japanese company, established in Seattle, gets off free. I use this illustration for the purpose of pointing out a gross inequity in our income tax law. And I am not going to leave it there. What do they do in the Old Country? In the Old Country when an outsider comes in and does business in that way the Tax Commissioner or his agent presents him with an assessment, whether or not he is resident in the district, as representing a foreign firm. The assessment is made without any access to the books of the company, and usually it is made very high, forcing the company's representative to appeal the assessment and then to disclose what his earnings in the country have been. By that process they get the income tax.
Now, I want to point out to the Prime Minister that this is a type of taxation that is steadily driving business out of Canada and will drive more out. And it is a type of
The Address-Mr. Stevens

taxation that is capable of being remedied by a very minor amendment to the act. I bring that to the attention of the government and point out that while the Speech from the Throne says that the most rigid economy, and so on, does not solve the problem, the adjustment of these inequities in connection with the administration of the act will aid in the alleviation, of the burden of taxation upon the Canadian people. I shall refer to taxation in a general way a little later.
Let me now turn briefly to transportation. I do not intend to deal at great length with this matter, because we are severely handicapped in that regard. The ministry have the advantage of knowing what they purpose doing in respect to a certain reference made in the Speech from the Throne; we have not that advantage. So far as I am concerned I propose to suspend all criticism, friendly or unfriendly, of the government's proposal until I see the proposal in all its details. But there are certain observations I am justified in making in connection with the government's position on transportation. As regards freight rates, I shall not go into those at great length because the land freight rates question has been very thoroughly threshed out in this House and out of it. But I wish to say to my hon. friends to my left that whatever the Supreme Court of Canada may see fit to do with the Crowsnest pass agreement, whether they restore it or do not restore it, the transportation question so far as freight rates are concerned will not be solved. If they restore the Crowsnest rates on the prairies it simply means continued chaos and confusion in the matter of the freight rates of this country. So far as my province is concerned it means an increase of the gross discrimination which already exists. As to some of the prairie sections and some sections in the east it simply means further discrimination against particular parts of the country. If Canada is to expand and develop there must be found in connection with transportation, as in other lines of public activity, some harmony, some equity.
It will not do for the government simply to say that as the matter is before the courts nothing can be done in regard to the freight rates question. The Prime Minister indicated in his western speeches that he was very much alive to the need of a solution of this question. While he did not say so in express terms or in language that would justify the claim that it should later be given expression to in legislation, yet his remarks on the subject to the people all through the west implied that this government was deeply concerned with

the freight rates problem, was seeking a solution of it, and would offer to parliament a solution at the coming session. I want to say to him in all courtesy that the fact that the Supreme court is studying this technical and legal point does not in the slightest degree absolve him and his government from responsibility in the matter.
In regard to ocean rates I have already stated that I am necessarily precluded from offering any criticism or any approval of the government's proposal. I will say that any proposal which will bring about the carrying of the produce of this country to its ultimate market at lower cost than at present will undoubtedly be welcomed by Canada. But when I heard the Prime Minister last night in the closing remarks of his speech-the last fifteen minutes-preface his discussion of this problem with the word "combine", I knew at once that he was simply seeking first to create in the public mind the impression that a combine existed, and then to make the subtle suggestion to the people that he was about to dissolve or dispose of this combine in some way. So far as the north Atlantic freight rates are concerned there is just one point I might suggest to the Prime Minister. It is not a question of combine; it is a question of whether the freights of this country are being carried at a fair cost and a fair rate to those who carry them. I want to remind the Prime Minister that for three years he has had under his control a splendid fleet of ships.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends laugh, and what they are laughing at is this, that during the war the cost of producing shipping was higher than it is to-day. That applies to every private shipowner in the world; many of the companies have gone into liquidation and bankruptcy because of that fact. So that will not excuse them for neglecting an opportunity of dealing with this problem. I say they have had under their control a splendid fleet of ships, some of them operating' on the Pacific, others operating in different parts of the world. Why is it necessary-I ask this question in reference to this proposal, whatever it may be, and of which we can learn only through the newspapers-to ask the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize a privately owned line when you have ships, a large number of ships and better ships than they have, already in your possession and operating allegedly at a loss? Here we have ten or fifteen ships, or thereabouts, operating in this Atlantic combine to-day. The government have for three years sanctioned, blessed, approved and supported the

The Address-Mr. Stevens
membership of their own ships in this combine, and now they come forward and say: The combine is an iniquity; it must be smashed. This combine question is simply something that is reared for the mystification of the public mind: that is all.
My hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) a moment ago referred to the Great Lakes freight bill as not being a success. Not only has it not been a success, but my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), some of my colleagues and myself, told the government two years ago when the bill was introduced that it was a farce, a hopeless piece of legislation that could not be enforced. The result was, as my right hon. leader stated yesterday, that a year ago last fall the government went on their knees to Cleveland, Buffalo and Chicago to beg American shipping to come into the lake carrying trade. Last year the government brought down an amendment to that legislation. We told them then that the amendment would not work; we pointed out the weaknesses in it. But they insisted on carrying it through. After wrestling with it for two days the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) went away with some sort of a nervous breakdown, knowing perfectly well that the bill was a piece of abortive legislation, simply an effort to hoodwink my hon. friends to my left, to induce them to believe that the government was looking after their interests. I want to warn the government before they bring down this new legislation respecting ocean freight rates that, in the light of the fact that they have for three years had it in their hands to do without subsidies what they now propose to do with subsidies, we are justified in expecting this new legislation to [DOT]be more or less abortive.
l he great problem in transportation, as far as it can be practically dealt with here, resolves itself into this-the carrying of the major or basic product of the west, wheat, to the seaboard at a lower cost than at present. Why? It is a simple economic problem and ought to be faced. When I say simple, I mean it is a problem simple to see: I do not say it is simple to solve. The problem is this. The wheat of western Canada must compete on the foreign market at Liverpool-Liverpool being the centre-with the wheat of the Argentine, India, Egypt and some other countries, but these in particular. The wheat of the Argentine and Egypt is within a few hundred miles of the seaboard; the wheat of Canada is approximately from one to two thousand miles from the seaboard. How can we give the Canadian farmer a fair, equit-5
able chance to compete with this other wheat? If we can get his wheat to our seaboard at a cost commensurate with that paid by his competitor, he has a fair chance of competing on the world market. How to do that is the problem that this House ought to attempt to solve. Shall it be by absorbing a part of the mileage cost? I think that is a good idea; I think it is worth studying. But the government offer no solution of that problem. They offered nothing last year but an abortive lake rates bill, which after two years of trial and amendments has proven to be useless and a farce.
The other problem is the question of transporting coal and iron from the Maritime provinces to the great consuming centres of Ontario and Quebec, and of transporting the coal from Alberta to those markets. What are the facts? Last year $120,000,000 was sent from Canada to the United States for coal. Yet Canada possesses within her borders, so I am told, upwards of twelve hundred billion tons of known coal. I am told that this is approximately one-half of the known available coal deposits of the world. In Alberta alone there is 17 per cent of the available coal resources of the world, and yet last year we imported $120,000,000 worth of coal from the United States, and the same the year before, and for many years before that. The question Canada must face is this. Is there not some way of using this Canadian coal, and of using our great transportation systems for handling it, and thereby save sending out of this country to the United States $120,000,000 every year for coal? When I say sending it to the United States, that has significance. Why? For fifteen-yes for fifty-years, we have had a strong adverse balance of trade with the United States. For fifteen years our adverse trade balance with the United States has averaged $250,000,000 a year. But the significance of that figure can only be appreciated when you realize that we must export to the United States a very large sum every year to pay interest on the money we borrow from them. We have borrowed from the United States two and one-half billions of dollars for industries, upon which we pay interest. That interest is paid in the export of goods. But when you have an adverse trade balance such as I have mentioned, and built up in the way I have mentioned-whereas as a matter of fact the exact reverse should be the case-if we are to break barely even with the United States we ought to be shipping to them $250,000,000 a year more than we buy from them; that is in order to pay for the goods we buy and to pay the interest on what we borrow. But



The Address-Mr. Stevens
exactly the reverse is the case. We ought to correct that situation. It is sound business to tackle that problem. Why does not the government tackle it? The subject has been brought up in the House time after time, but the government have always turned a deaf ear to it; they have offered no suggestion, they have made no effort to meet the problem. We say this great question of transportation applies particularly to coal and iron from the Maritimes, and to coal from Alberta.
There is also in connection with the transportation problem the great waterways scheme. We have heard nothing from the government on this problem. I have no suggestion to make at this time other than this: The people of Canada ought to be and must be adequately and properly protected in whatever negotiations are carried on in connection with the great waterways development. We have in Canada tremendous water-powers, tremendous hydro-electric development and hydro-electric possibilities, but we must be mighty careful not to commit ourselves to our friends to the south in the way of contracts which later on will be construed as a vested right in Canada. That is the problem we are facing. What is the government doing about it? Is it doing anything? We have nothing said about it in the Speech from the Throne; there is not a particle of evidence that there is any interest taken in this great, practical problem by the government. Why, the development of hydroelectric power in Canada will do more to contribute to prosperity throughout the country than any other single thing. And yet this great question does not seem to concern the government at all; no attention is paid to it, no mention of it is made in the Speech.
Let us examine briefly the government's policy. I have here an excerpt from the Prime Minister's speech, and he will forgive me if I do not quote his policy in exactly the words he used, because it is quite lengthy. I have attempted to reduce it to one or two phrases. The government's policy is this: (a) To lower the cost of production. We agree on that. But how is it to be lowered? By removing the duties on instruments of production. Then (b) transportation; (c) markets. This is their programme. Now we take clear-cut issue with the government on this programme so far as we here are concerned. We are not objecting to lowering the cost of transportation; we are not objecting to getting markets for Canada; but we are objecting to the government's methods of doing these things. I want to examine the government's methods. I want to show, as I

think I can, that these methods will not solve the problem at all, but rather will accentuate the sufferings and the losses to Canada itself. Let me emphasize what I intend now to say, giving utterance perhaps to an axiom with which all may be familiar:-wealth, the national wealth of a country, is made up of the things that are produced in that country foy its people. I am quite aware that some may hasten to interject here that perhaps wealth may be got through trading. I am quite aware of that, but it ought to be apparent to anyone that Canada is not necessarily a trading country, that is, it is not necessarily a country of traders. Take a country like Greece or like Great Britain particularly; its people are essentially and primarily traders. Canada is not in that category at all. But even where a country is a trading country the greater amount of wealth comes out of the working up of the materials possessed by it into their higher degrees of development and production and marketing the products among their fellow men. That is where the maximum of wealth accrues to a nation; and there is no country under the sun to which that principle applies more definitely and clearly than Canada. The Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday, very properly said this:	We have great
natural wealth, we have great water-powers, we have unlimited coal resources, we have a tremendous mineral deposit, of the extent of which we do not dream, we have vast areas of fertile land to produce food, and we have great fisheries. All these things are perfectly true. These resources constitute a great asset placed in the hands of the government, and of each succeeding government, to be developed in the interest of the people. Now I come back to my principle, that the wealth of this country can be increased and built up. How? It can be increased and built up by taking all these resources co-ordinating them, and producing from them the very best and highest articles we can, to market in the consuming centres of the world.
Now, I want to proceed to analyze that a little more definitely. Canada requires citizen workers; that is the class of people we require in Canada-prosperous, happy, industrious, well paid citizen workers. The leader of the Progressive party this afternoon described Canadian labour as being superior to all other, and I may say that I support him in the statement that Canadian manhood is capable undoubtedly of the best. Certainly we all admit that. But my hon. friend said this further:	Canadian labour
ought to be able to compete with labour in

The Address-Mr. Stevens
all parts of the world. Now that is where we commence to take issue not only with my hon. friends to my left but with the government in their policy. We take issue with them and we say that while we know that, as far as the bone, and brawn and brain is concerned, Canadian labour is equal or superior to that of any other country, it is not fair to ask Canadian labour to compete with the lower standards of living of the labour of Europe. In other words: It is utter nonsense and absolutely incapable of being supported to say that Canadian labour shall compete on an equally free market with the labour of Europe and still maintain a Canadian standard of living. You cannot have it. There is no escape from that position. There is just one of two alternatives and that is this: Either Canadian labour will sink to the level of European labour or you have got to give them some protection. My hon. friends to my left talk very glibly about free trade. The leader of the Progressive party, for example. said a few minutes ago that as far as he was concerned he would' wipe out exotic industries. He failed to tell the House what an exotic industry is, and I would ask him to get down to facts: Is the woollen industry an exotic industry?


Arthur Meighen: No answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Forke) be pleased to answer?


Robert Forke: I would! not suppose so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not catch the murmur of my hon. friend.


Robert Forke: I would not suppose so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says that he would not suppose so. Very good, that is a frank answer. My hon. friend says that he would not suppose the woollen industry is an exotic industry. What are the facts? We told them to the House last year; let us look them frankly in the face. By law-a law supported! and enacted, I think, by my hon. friends to my left-the Ontario legislature says to the woollen manufacturer: Pay your help twice what is paid by the woollen manufacturer in England. That is an economic fact; there is no argument about it, it is a fact. The next step is this. Fifty-five per cent of the cost of your woollen goods is labour. What is the third step? The third step is simply this, that by statute you put a 27J per cent handicap on the Canadian worker. Is that what he is entitled to? Is not the Canadian workman entitled to protection?
5i


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: What act of the Ontario legislature
declares we must pay the Ontario workmen
such a wage?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minimum Wage Act. Under the Minimum Wage Act the minimum wage which is paid a worker in a Canadian woollen mill is double the wage paid by the British woollen manufacturer to operatives in England where there is no minimum wage act.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Does not my hon. Mend know that
the Ontario Minimum Wage Act applies only to female labour and not to male labour?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that case the situation is so much the worse because in the woollen industry practically all of what we call the lower paid grades is female labour. The same thing applies to the cotton industry and to many other industries. It is very humane legislation which I approve of, which my hon. friends approve of-at least they always say they do-it is a very humane thing, it is a recognition of the necessity of protecting labour. But I want to make this perfectly clear:	We stand not for the protection of
individual manufacturers, we stand for the protection of manufacturing industry. When I say that, I speak for every man and woman that works in a factory.
Now, let me take a step further in this matter. I remember that Mr. Drury once said before a committee in this House that if he had his way he would wipe out every industry that was not indigenous to the country. It is a case of playing with words-whether an industry is exotic or indigenous. Canada has certain resources capable of development, of utilization, and I want to examine a few of them briefly if I may. First, take pulpwood-and I want to appeal to my hon. friends from Quebec, because they perhaps are more largely affected than any section in Canada. Last year we produced in Canada-speaking roughly, I am not giving the exact figures-4,300,000 cords of pulpwood. Of this quantity 1,337,000 cords went out of the country as cordwood. Another one-third was manufactured into pulp and a further one-third was manufactured into paper. The price received for that pulpwood, putting it into terms of paper, amounted to half a cent per pound; the return for the pulp on the same basis was three cents a pound; the return for the paper and paper goods was approximately six cents a pound. The question we ask ourselves is this:	What pays
Canada best-selling paper at six cents a pound or selling pulp at half a cent a pound?
I leave that subject now and turn to the case of copper. Eighty-eight per cent of
The Address-Mr. Stevens

Canada's copper leaves this country in an unrefined condition; that is, in a condition below the condition of refined copper. A large portion of it goes out in ore, just taken out of the ground, common rock, until the smelting processes are applied; and some of it is copper matte. But 88 per cent of our copper-that is the point-leaves this country in an unrefined condition. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) talks about markets. He says we must have markets. I will give him an opportunity to get a market now. Great Britain purchases the largest quantity of copper of any country in the world. Over 100,000 tons of refined copper per year are purchased in Great Britain. Germany comes second with about 95,000 tons. Where does Great Britain get her copper? She gets a substantial portion of it, I venture to say over fifty per cent, from the United States, 7 per cent from Canada, some from Spain and some from other countries. Germany, by the way, gets 84 per cent of her refined copper from the United States. What are we doing? We ship 88 per cent of our copper production to the United States in an unrefined condition. Is not it the part of wisdom for the government to bring about a co-ordinating of Canadian production with British consumption of copper? Is not that a sound principle? And in this my hon. friends will acquit me at once of talking even tariff. I aim not talking tariff but talking simply business sense. Let us get round the table, consider this matter and bring this market to Canada. When I told some of the large consumers in the Old Country a- few months ago about the tremendous production of capper they were amazed and they said, "We buy on the general market." Let me point out ithe iniquity-the tragedy, I might say

of the situation. We ship 88 per cent of our copper to the United States, they receive that copper, they refine it. And they control the refined capper market of the world, largely or substantially with our copper. They add the refining cost and the speculative profit as well, and then it is sold to Germany and Great Britain at the highest peak market price. This is the process that has been followed for thirty years. The Americans get it at a low price. It goes to the American Guggenheim interests, the great American copper trust interests. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister may talk about combines if he likes, but what do the Guggenheims do? They make their bargains with the British Columbia mines and other Canadian mines at the low price. Once they get their contract, up goes the price, and the capper is marketed at their own figures all 
over the world, one, two, three and five cents profit above the refining cost. Here is a great resource in Canada; iet us take the necessary steps to bring that great resource directly to the market in the Mother Country.


Mr. HUGHES:: What does the government do to prevent the business men of Great Britain and the business men of Canada from getting together?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like to say. I want to be kind and charitable. I know of some things which I will criticise before the session is over, but I do not wish to say anything now. I am placing a positive duty on the government. The leader of the Progressives said that the government could give a lead in this matter. I am asking them to give the lead.
Then I take a third illustration, iron and steel. My hon. friend knows something about that or at least he ought to. The iron and steel industries of Canada were languishing last year. I do not see present in the House some members who are more directly interested in this.	The chief whip on the
government side (Mr. Kyte) is directly interested. However, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) is in his seat, and he knows that what I am saying is true. While the iron and steel industry was languishing in Canada last year we bought $140,000,000 worth of iron and steel products, of which we obtained $128,000,000 from the States. At the same time we had in Canada eleven hundred billion tons of known ore deposits in British Columbia, northern Ontario and the Maritime provinces, the vastest supply of iron ore I think of any *K>untry in the world. We bought $140,000,000 worth of iron and steel products. I am not saying that all of these products should be made in Canada, but a very large portion of them should be made in Canada. We bought $128,000,000 worth of iron and steel products from the United States at a figure a little higher than the price of the same products in Great Britain. You ask me, why?-facility- the long distance phone from Toronto to Pittsburg, and easy access to the source of supply made it desirable to pay the little higher price. But-and I am putting this proposition from the standpoint of my friends to my left-suppose that Canada increased her general tariff and left her preferential tariff where it is, we would at least divert some of this business to Great Britain. Is that sound? Great Britain buys about $225,000,000 more from us than we buy from her; for the last fifty years the balance of

The Address-Mr. Stevens
purchases has been on the same side. Is it not desirable that we should divert to Great Britain, if we can do so, some of this business of which I have been speaking?
Now I will address myself to my hon. friends to my left. Great Britain last year bought $337,000,000 worth of our agricultural products. She is the best customer you have outside of Canada. I am quite certain and satisfied that our present method of administering this great estate of ours is not in the best interests of Canada, does not conduce to develop Canada's trade and industry as it ought to be developed. Now I want to pass on to another phase of the matter. The Prime Minister last year said: We did a great thing for Canada; we lowered the price of machinery on basic industries. I am going to refer to one case and give an illustration of how it works, and I want you to tell me, if you can, where Canada gets any benefit from it-there are many other things that I could refer to, but I want you to consider this particular case. In Canada we had factories building logging machinery, working up a nice business, employing 250 or 300 men, the best type of labour; I mean that class of labour which is generally paid a wage which is looked upon as a fair and decent one. The employees were well organized and well protected by their organization; they bought Canadian material and Canadian goods. Last year the government took off the duty, and what is the result? The factory is closed, the men are dispersed, I do not know where; many of them have gone to the States. What are these companies doing? They have taken agencies for American machinery; they are acting as agents for American firms to-day. Where does Canada get the benefit in that? Do our people get cheaper machinery? Not a particle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend forgets the purpose for which the machinery is used.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Tell me where anybody
gets any advantage. I do not care what it is used for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend does not get my point at all. Let me make the point clear to him again. We had these factories building these machines, employing 250 men or thereabouts. To-day these factories are closed and the men are out of the country. These same firms are acting as agents for United States companies, selling
American machinery in Canada and Canadians are paying the same prices for it. Nobody can gainsay that. If anybody can tell me where there is an advantage to Canada in that, I should like to hear it.


Mr. DAVIES:: If the machinery did not become cheaper, what would cause the factories to close?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a very simple
question, and my hon. friend should not have required an answer.


Mr. CRERAR:: It is a very pertinent
question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very simple one
and I will answer it. The hon. member knows quite well, if he has given the question any thought at all, that what we are up against in Canada is American competition. You open your market to the American competition; you share your market with them and you have no access into theirs; we are absolutely shut out of their market. How in the world can we expect to compete under conditions of that kind? Let me illustrate this with a very homely illustration. Let us take Bank street running straight through Ottawa. Suppose the stores on one side of Bank street were altogether limited to business on that side, whereas the stores on the other side could deal anywhere they liked; which set of stores would prosper and survive? If my hon. friends will realize this fact and admit it, contrary to the statement of the leader of the Progressive party who a moment ago said that no amount of reasoning would ever persuade them that it was possible to have protection and to be successful in Canada-


Robert Forke: On the prairies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have his words here:
No amount of reasoning will ever convince the prairies in regard to protection.
We have an international boundary 3,000 miles or more in length, from one end of the country to the other, with 10S,000,000 people to the south, a huge market for their factories. On the other hand, we have Canada with a comparatively limited market. We open our doors and say to the American manufacturers:	Share our market with our
factories, but we cannot come into your territory. You cannot live under such conditions. It is all very well for my hon. friends to my left to state frankly, as I admit they do, and honestly, and for my hon. friends opposite inferentially to state, that Canadian
The Address-Mr. Stevens

industry, if it cannot survive, can sink. But when you are doing that you are dealing with blood and bone, and with the lives of people. The time has passed when we can look upon these questions from a detached, academic standpoint. This country, we know, is filled with unemployed. There is not in Canada a city of any size that has not its bread line to-day. My right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day said to the provinces:	This is none of our business. My
two hundred and fifty fellow citizens who were put out of business by h;s act last year -what is his answer to them? His answer is: I have nothing to do with you. You may be idle-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
says that citizens were put out of employment by an act passed by this government last year. I should like him to prove that statement to the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If he will give me Hansard I will show him the discussion on the legislation of last year. He knows the act, the amendment to the Customs Act. I have here a petition which he has received, in connection with the boot and shoe industry. Where is the hon. member for Quebec East, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)? Do I strike a sympathetic chord in his heart, I wonder?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Always.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has a smile on his face. I should' be glad if he would pass a little of that smile over to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a petition addressed to Hds Excellency the Governor General in Council, signed by two hundred and some odd workers. The Prime Minister will not be so facetious as to ask me to read the names and addresses. Will he take my word for this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend would answer this question: How does it happen that in the United States, where protection, which he is defending, is so high, unemployment in the boot and shoe industry is relatively greater than it is in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my right hon. friend' expects to draw me off into that endless-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was a pretty vacant laugh. This is a rather serious question. If the Prime Minister expects to draw me off into an argument on long lists of statistics such as he gave to the House yesterday, he will be disappointed. Let me tell him where

the competition is coming from. As regards boots and shoes it is not coming from the United States; it is coming just where the woollen competition is coming from,-from the Old Land and from Germany. We are being forced into competition with conditions of Great Britain and Germany. My hon. friends may say:	Well, we must stand by
Great Britain. I want to stand by Great Britain; but when I was over there -a few months ago, I told some of the people-and I found a great response from many-that it was about time Great Britain put up her own fences and looked after her own interests. Simply because Great Britain, by her big banking institutions, her big carrying institutions, the shipping group, persists in the old free trade fetish, is no reason why we should do so.
To come back to the boot and shoe industry, my right hon. friend tried to draw me off into a discussion of figures of which I have no immediate knowledge and which I cannot give; but I know what is happening in Canada and I am not going into a long dissertation on figures which becloud the issue. My point is this, that as a direct result of the action of the government in the reduction of duties in 1922, 1923 and 1924, Canadian industry has suffered. I have this petition in regard to the boot and shoe industry, from all the boot and shoe workers. Every one is a worker.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Where is it from?


Mr STEVENS:: Vancouver. My right
hon. friend has received petitions from other sections. Will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) question my presenting this petition?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, to some extent
My hon. friend says it is a result of the changes effected in the tariff last year and the year before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1922.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
not remember that many of his friends on the other side of the House said that the boot and shoe industry was not affected at all by the changes in the tariff owing to the Minister of Justice looking after that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend cannot
get away with that, for the simple reason that there was a reduction in the British preference.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but the leader of
the opposition, (Mr. Meighen) and many other hon. gentlemen said that it was so slight as to be of no effect at all.

The Address-Mr. Stevens


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am happy that the
minister reminds me of this. What we complained of then and what we complain of now is the drift of this government into worse or more dangerous waters still. It was the statement of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that this was the death knell of protection, and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that this was the death knell of protection.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I never used such
a word. Let the hon. gentleman produce it if he can.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend said that
they were going on and on until they fulfilled the 1919 platform.


William Richard Motherwell: There is plenty of
time yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is the death knell
of protection now, and where is the 1919 platform? We might ask the Prime Minister: Are they going on? He told them in the west that they were. In that triumphal tour through the prairie provinces and through British Columbia, the Prime Minister, on platform after platform, told them that this policy enunciated a year ago and two years ago was going to be carried on in growing fulfilment. In Toronto he said; no, the time has come to stop; we are going to stabilize this thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say anything of the kind in Toronto.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am wrong, it was in
West York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have lots of time to see how far the government will proceed with its policy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister is
getting anxious. In West York what he did say was this,-"It is not fair to this government to ask them to go further. Let us pause and see how this is going to work out."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Pause" is
right; my hon. friend is quite right in using that word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I am absolutely
right, and I am going to show as I proceed just how it is going to work out. But in the meantime, how long shall we pause? How long is this time of uncertainty and anxiety going to last? I am trying to show the Prime Minister the result of his first step. Here are boot and shoe workers, every one of them a
decent, honest citizen toiling daily for his bread, and it will not do for my hon. friends either to the left or opposite me to say callously, "Oh, if these industries cannot survive let them go down."


Mr. NEILL:: Is it not a fact that it was
recorded in the British Columbia papers last year or the year before that Messrs. Leckie Brothers, the biggest manufacturers of boots in Vancouver, proposed to spend a very large sum in enlarging their factory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be so, and I
hope it is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why the laughter? Hon. gentleman break out into bursts of ironical laughter simply because some factory in Canada proposed extending its business. What is the offence? I want to see every factory making money so that it can expand; I am sure that everybody wants to see industries making sufficient money to pay labour a decent, living wage. And while I am on that point, let me say that every dollar that industry can save and put into further development is infinitely better spent than if it were taken into the exchequer of the government. Is that a crime? It is the acme of perfection in economic development. .


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say it was any
crime for a factory to undertake developments, but I did think that this might be a place for the 250 idle men to get a job.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is, without question, the wit of the House, but it is a pretty callous thing for him to suggest with a witticism of that kind, no matter how clever it may be, that this petition is a huge joke and that the answer of the Prime Minister should be; go and look for work in this prospective factory which it is rumoured is to be built in the future. These people are suffering in common with boot and shoe employees throughout the country, and I had no idea of making political capital in referring to the matter; I simply wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the government. It seems, however, that the government is inclined to make political capital of it.


Ernest Lapointe: You might open a seat, for instance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These workers are in need of protection and they have every right to expect it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Address-Mr. Stevens
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was examining the government's policy as it relates to the problems at present facing Canada. Frankly, I had hoped to finish before six o'clock, but there are a few more things I desire to say before I conclude.
Before leaving the subject of increasing production, and so forth, and the government's policy of finding markets, it seems to me that there is a most excellent opportunity for the government to find markets. I have pointed out to the government the huge importations of coal and iron and the opportunity of a market for copper which I think is worth most careful study. Indeed, I am convinced that it is not sound business policy for us to continue importing $120,000,000 of coal and $140,000,000 worth of iron and steel products every year while within our own territory we have vast deposits of both these useful materials.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his seat, because I wished to press home the point with which I was dealing when the House rose, as regards the intention of the government. Last year we were informed by one of the responsible ministers of the crown that it was the intention of the government to pursue the course they were following until they had brought about the death of protection.


Mr. ROBB:: Will my hon. friend allow me, before he leaves the coal question-does he advocate an increase of the duty on coal? Is that the argument?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I am concerned, yes; because I think the Maritime provinces will never have prosperity until they get some definite protection for their interests as regards the production of coal and iron and steel. I am glad the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) interjected that question, for this reason -and I am not saying this simply to win a little sympathy or support from the Maritime provinces-I look upon the Maritime province problem as perhaps one of the most serious problems facing Canada. There is the problem of the great prairie provinces; we know of it; they have able representatives here and we have had it debated; it is a problem that has to be faced. The problem of the Maritime provinces has been presented here occasionally, but apparently it has not gripped the attention of the people of Canada as it should. I think their main difficulty is that of getting

their basic products, coal and iron and steel, to the great central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and having a reasonable share in that market.


James Alexander Robb: I just interrupted my hon.
friend because, as he represents British Columbia, I wanted to find out if that was the opinion of British Columbia. It has been represented to the government that the duties on coal should not be added to because the United States might retaliate and destroy the market British Columbia now has for coal in the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am aware of that, my attitude on that question is this-and I will say it for the benefit of my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) who said "hear, hear" a moment ago-so far as Canada is concerned a policy of protection must be a policy which applies from one end of Canada to the other. It is a policy, as I intimated a few moments ago, of protection, not of a few individual manufacturers-which so many seek to imply as our intention,-but a policy that protects the workers in these factories as well as the owners of them. I know perfectly well you cannot apply such a policy at a water level throughout the whole of a country so diversified in interests of this kind, but it should be a policy that serves the interests of the whole country as against the interests of the few. I am quite prepared to stand by the solution of this Maritime province question by a reasonable protection on iron and steel and coal. My hon. friend (Mr. Robb) has mentioned British Columbia. We have- within, I was going to say a stone's throw of Vancouver city, certainly within half a day's journey of it,-millions of tons of iron ore, lying in the mountains, capable of development, contiguous to fine coking coal; yet throughout the whole of our country we have been importing our iron and steel products- and we have quite a market for iron and steel. My point is that the policy of this country must be so framed and so directed as to make it possible and profitable to develop these natural resources and these industries. I hope the government will take notice of that. Proposals are before them at present having regard to the establishment of iron and steel industries in that section.


James Joseph Hughes: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.

The Address-Mr. Stevens


James Joseph Hughes: Is an industry that has to be supported continuously by the state, in whole or in part, no matter how that support may be given, no matter what form it takes- is that industry or business an asset or a liability?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer my hon. friend just as frankly as he asked the question. I consider that an industry established and made prosperous in Canada is a positive asset to the country. I do not agree with the inference in his question-it is only an inference-that the imposition of a customs tax is state support of industry. There is a great deal of difference-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A species of state socialism.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good; my hon. friend may interpret it as he will. I am not going to let my hon. friends escape from this point: the imposition of that customs duty is necessary to preserve the standard of living in Canada for our people in competition with a lower standard of living, chiefly in Europe and in other countries.


James Joseph Hughes: How about the United
States, where the standard is just as high?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Higher.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And with a 4,000-mile
boundary and a tariff three times as high as ours. In view of these interruptions, Mr. Speaker, I may as well pause to illustrate the point again. I have done it more than once in this House and I am going to insist on getting it through if I can. It is, as I said this afternoon in answer to a similar question, a simple economic problem. The facts are these:	In the United States under one
hundred and thirty years of more or less protection, but with high protection for at least six decades, they have built up the finest, the most efficient and the most modern machine shop in the world. In addition to that, they have a market of one hundred and ten millions of people. There is mass production. You may ignore these facts, but they are there just the same. Canada, on the other hand, has for years been going along under a comparatively low tariff. A few years ago our tariff was much higher than it is to-day, but for twenty-five or thirty years we have had a comparatively low tariff. Canada has nine millions of people-a sparsely settled country, a small market. Our manufacturers are barred from the United States market, while the manufacturers of that country have not only that one hundred and ten millions
of people, but our nine millions too, for their market. Is there any ground of fairness in that competition? I have no hesitancy in stating my position on this question, and it is a policy which I believe this country will accept if it gets a chance.


Mr. GOULD:: Never.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says
"never," before I announce what the policy is. That is an echo of his leaders statement this afternoon, when he said that there was no reason discovered or undiscovered that could persuade the prairie provinces to protection. Let me state my policy in regard to competition with the United States. It is this, that Canada ought to have a tariff in regard to American products entering Canada commensurate w'ith the tariff on Canadian products entering the United States. I will explain to the House my reasons for that position: In the first place the unfairness of the competition otherwise; in the second place- and I want my friends to my left to get this -you talk to Uncle Sam in his own language, dollars and cents, and protection, and he will open his eyes and consider whether or not he will give you any advantages in his market. You iput a tariff on against the United States, or a general tariff applicable to the United States commensurate with their tariff against us, and I venture to say they will be knocking at our door asking for consideration of favourable treatment, just as other countries have done. Then we can consider the question of an agreement with the United States, just as we have done with France, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden or any other country, but on our terms, not theirs.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Would my hon. friend
think it rude if I asked' him a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not aft all. My hon. friend is the most courteous man in the House.


George Perry Graham: I take a great interest in the question of using our own coal, but here is a difficulty that has arisen, and that does arise. We now in our railways pay 53 cents a ton on coal more than the railways of the United States pay, and we are in competition with them for transcontinental traffic. To that extent our cost of operation exceeds theirs. If we placed a higher duty on coal would not our transportation companies be at a further disadvantage? And would it not add to the cost of transportation to such an extent as to possibly do away with any advantage that might be gained by putting a duty on coal?
The Address-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is one of the problems. I presume my hon. friend is referring to this immediate locality, around Ontario.


George Perry Graham: Central Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the first place let me answer my hon. friend in this way: If it costs Canada 53 cents a ton more for her coal, and we can make Nova Scotia prosperous, I would pay the extra 53 cents and make Nova Scotia prosperous. Or if by paying a little more for coal we can develop the immense coal fields in Alberta, develop a great industry there, and have an industrial population that will consume the agricultural products raised by other parts of Canada, it may pay Canada to do it. As a matter of fact, it pays this country or any country situated as we are, to pay for a higher standard of living if we can get the work in this country for our people. A low cost of living is not an indication of prosperity in any country, as any student of economics knows. Every student of economics I think will admit without question that the countries with the highest cost of living and the highest standard of living are usually the countries that are most highly prosperous. I do not want to be misunderstood and have someone come along with the specious argument: Therefore, let us boost the cost of living. For the sake of illustration, take (the standard of living in Italy or in Czecho-Slo-vakia, from which countries we are getting a lot of goods. We cannot expect Canadians to live on the standard that prevails in those countries. I am not going to ask them to; I do not think we should expect our people to live on that standard. But we are asking them to compete with men who are living on that standard, and we have certainly got to face that question in Canada.
What I would have 'liked to ask the Prime Minister is this, and I wonder whether the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) or the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), under whose department it more nearly comes, would answer:	A year ago they were on the
way to the death of protection; the " death knell " had been sounded according to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). They were going to carry out to the full the 1919 platform. Is the " death knell " still sounding? Will the Minister of the Interior teli us if it is, or has he muffled the gong of that bell?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have then a declaration from the Minister of the Interior that

the " death knell " of protection is stall sounding. Will the Acting Minister of Finance say that? He will not. I challenge him to. No, all we get is a smile. Will the Acting Minister of Finance say the government is still persisting in that policy? Where do they stand? This Speech from the Throne, does not tell us, and it ought to. Where does the Minister of Railways stand?


George Perry Graham: He sits here; he does not stand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I paved the way for this. I said a moment ago that my hon. friend was the most courteous man in the House, and he is. We all honour and revere him. Perhaps he will now do me the courtesy of disclosing whether or not the government is in harmony with the Minister of the Interior in persisting in sounding the death knel of protection. Will he do me that courtesy?


Mr. BOYS:: Silence is golden.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may seem humorous,
but I want to say that this is the key to our whole economic situation in Canada to-day; it is the crux of the whole question, the very pivotal point-whether or not the government of Canada is going to go on reducing the customs duty in this country, or whether it is going to take cognizance of the situation and put on a protective duty sufficient to make Canadian industry thrive? That is the issue. You may be as silent as the tomb in the Speech from the Throne, but that is the issue and you cannot escape it.
My hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) last year officially thanked the government across the floor of this House, for what? For the start they had made towards the abolition of protection on Canadian industry. I do not know what he is saying to-day. He is supporting the government fairly well, but he has not thanked the government particularly for the Prime Minister's speech in York. He did thank them for the Prime Minister's speech in Winnipeg, and in Saskatoon, Regina and Calgary. The Prime Minister said: I am on the same road, going with the same velocity as the Minister of the Interior was last year. We are going straight through on "the death knell of protection." That is what he told them all over the prairies, all over the west. In the constituency of North York-which elected him to this House-did he say the same thing? Oh no, he said: We must pause. We must pause? How long is this government going to pause? How long can t'he country stand a pause?

The Address-Mr. Stevens
My hon. friends opposite know. The Minister of Railways, the Acting Minister of Finance particularly, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) know. Yes, it is subject for comment what the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is on the question. Does he agree with the Minister of the Interior? Will he go through on "the death knell of protection," or has Canada turned a corner and are we going back to protection? He said in some of those high-paid ads to *which attention has been drawn, that Canada had "turned the corner." We will hope for some declaration from him on this subject.
Now, I want to take another step. Looking at Canada's condition there is one stubborn fact staring us in the face. The net public debt of this country is $178,000,000 greater to-day than it was on December 31, 1921, three years ago, when this government took office. Fifty-one million dollars added to the net debt, $128,000,000 added in the form of guarantees of railway bonds, a net increase to the obligations of this country in three years of $178,000,000, in the face of a policy declaredly for the reduction of customs duties and for the protection of Canadian industries, resulting, as the Acting Minister of Finance knows to his sorrow, in a reduction of-how much? A reduction of $35,000,000 in customs collection or something like that, a tremendous loss in revenue, something that is agitating his mind and worrying him every day and every hour. And well it might. Then I want to tell him that there is no hope for Canada on that course-nothing but chaos and ruin. I do not want to be charged with talking too much blue ruin, but here we have stubborn facts before us: An increase of our debt and a steadily increasing public debt, whereas we ought to be reducing our public debt; taxation increasing as a consequence, revenues falling off, employment falling off, and unemployment increasing. These are the problems facing us.
I wish to refer, perhaps at some little length, to one other problem. The Prime Minister referred to the policy of the government but he wholly overlooked one or two important matters. Last year we heard a great deal about rural credits, we heard something about trying to face this problem of credit in the interest of those who need it in the country-* small business men, farmers and others. It was admitted in the Banking and Commerce committee that it was not the business of the banks to cover this field of what you might call long-term credits. The government virtually promised some action on it,
but we heard nothing about it in the Speech from the Throne. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) this afternoon referred to the huge bonded indebtedness of Canada-some $2,000,000,000 of victory bonds alone, added to which are provincial bonds and many others amounting in all to some four and a half billions of dollars. Of this amount, I venture to say that in victory bonds, which are Dominion bonds, to the amount of two billions, are held by Canadians or Canadian companies. What does that mean? First, let me make my position clear. I am not criticising those who bought these bonds; they did it under the impetus of the times and the moment and under the distinct encouragement of parliament and the people of Canada for purposes of war. But where did this money come from? Where was it withdrawn from? It was withdrawn from mortgages, industrials, and loans and stocks of various kinds. Now, it stands to reason that this country is short of working capital when it has frozen in victory bonds some two billions of dollars, and what I want to ask the government is this: How can we liquefy that frozen credit of some two billions of dollars tied up in victory bonds? It may be said at once that we cannot do it, but I think we can. Let me point out the further fact that during the last few years, say the last ten years, the United States has increased its holdings in Canada from something like three hundred or four hundred millions to two and a half billions of dollars, for which we must pay tribute. If it is possible to find some method of liquefying the two billions of dollars' worth of victory bonds held in Canada it would go a long way to solve the problem of rural credits or the financial stringency in this country. My hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) who is a radical- he will not criticise . me I am sure for using that term, I use it in its ordinary sense- would advocate, and others also, that we repudiate the public debt in probably much the same way, perhaps, as Germany did it, by inflation of currency, or a process of that kind. I am not making any such suggestion but I do believe that, while respecting and observing all our obligations, that it would be possible to have the large insurance companies, the large loan and trust companies, others who are large holders of these bonds, big commercial concerns, and the banks, to get together and see if it is not possible to have these companies function once again as money loaning institutions. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take an insurance company; I am not criticising these companies, I want

The Address-Mr. Stevens
to make that perfectly clear; I am merely trying to face a problem which I think is at the root of our money stringency in Canada. Take an insurance company; we will say it has $10,000,000-some of them have over $100,000,000-of victory bonds. Can we provide that by hypothecation the banks from time to time can advance half the value of these bonds to industries, for the development of the country generally? If this were backed up with the expert knowledge and the experience that their officers had in the past, and which I think will be readily available again, then, I believe, there might be released some of this frozen credit. This, I suggest, can be done. I believe it is the duty of the government to face a problem of this kind. It will not do for us to say; These bonds are a debt, they are an obligation, they are tied up, they are frozen, and all we have to do is to pay $140,000,000 a year interest. That does not meet the situation. The government, and parliament as well, is called upon to give this question most intimate study with a view to seeking the release of some of this credit which is at present tied up.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detain the House longer. Let me summarize very briefly what I have said, or at least a part of it. I referred to Canada as a great estate. I referred to the duty of the government as the directors and administrators of that estate-parliament being associated with them in the task-to look over the estate and see how we can direct affairs so as to develop it in the best possible manner, so that we can give to the people of Canada a full return from that estate.
One point I had overlooked but of which I desire to make brief mention is this; In connection with the policy of protection it must always be borne in mind that a factory in Canada is worth from four to eighteen times as much to our transportation companies as the importation of goods equal to the product of that factory. For instance, in the case of a ton of manufactured goods imported, it simply supplies a ton of freight to our railways which need freight very badly; but a ton of goods manufactured in Canada means the hauling to that factory of three tons of material of one kind and another, in other words increasing the transportation in Canada four times. That scales up as high as eighteen to one. I am giving utterance to a well-known fact, but I think it should be kept in mind at this time, when we are studying the dual question of the languishing industries and the high cost of transportation, and seeking to meet all the overhead charges

and obtain good results. We must bear in mind that for every ton of goods taken out of a factory in this country over four tons of goods are brought into that factory, and you must add to that the value of the labour expended on the production of the goods that enter that factory. I believe there is for Canada one method of resuscitating trade, and that method is to so direct the fiscal policy that we can take the materials afforded by our great natural resources and apply to them our own water power or coal power or steam power, apply all the ingenuity and skill of our people, and then bring them to the highest degree of production possible, so that we can dispose of them in the markets of the world.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: The Address-Mr. Millar
miles apart, and yet at the same time there are districts to the north, south, east and west where farmers have to drive eighteen or twenty miles in order to get their crops to market. Such a district lies to the south of one such point served by two railways. I have travelled over those lines several times and there are places where the railways are not more than a mile apart. Right to the south of that very district where there is duplication of railways, a man lives who wrote this letter. Listen to his words. This might be a little warning to some who have objected to building branch lines and I wish some of our senators were here. He says:
For myself I do not care which line is built, but for heaven s sake it is time something is done, for if there is no prospect for a railway this summer I am going to dispose of my property and if I get rid of what I have Saskatchewan would not hold me and probably not Canada. I have to team my grain eighteen miles and I have had my share of it. It is high time that the government took the matter in hand and saw that railways were built where districts are already settled.
I should like to make a remark about the Welland canal and the deepening of the St. Lawrence river. By the time the money is fully expended in deepening the St. Lawrence waterway, the St. Lawrence route is opened, and the vision of our grain boats passing from Fort William right through to the Atlantic ocean is realized, the time will have arrived when the bulk of our grain will be going to the Pacific. Whether that is pleasant new3 to Montreal or not, the trend of the North American continent has been for grain-growing, wheat-growing particularly, to move westward and northward. The time was when Manitoba was the banner wheat-growing province of Canada. It gave place to Saskatchewan, and, although I reside in Saskatchewan, I believe that our sister province of Alberta will see the time when it will be the banner wheat-growing province of Canada. When the Peace river country is opened up, the greatest grain ports are going to be on the Pacific coast. There will come a time later on when the customs barrier between Canada and the United States as regards grain foodstuffs will be brought down, and then will be the time when western Canada, particularly will have a harvest. We can supply grain to the grain markets of Minneapolis where they have a capacity of 96,000 barrels a day, cheaper than can any other place in the world, and I am convinced that the time will come when a great deal of our grain will go south. Therefore, while it is wise that we should have sufficient facilities at Montreal and other eastern ports to handle our commerce, 
in providing facilities for handling the grain of the West we should keep in mind the trend of our grain-growing and shipping business.
I am going to voice frankly some of the causes of dissatisfaction in the west. It strikes the west as very strange that the central provinces have approved the Hudson Bay railway as far as a certain point, until $21,000,000 have been expended there, and then they suddenly felt that it was only a joke; that it was not feasible, and that it was time it should be stopped. I think the central provinces and those who oppose the Hudson Bay railway are making a very grave mistake. It would open up a country that would constitute a market for their manufactured goods; it would bring about a better feeling, and I intend to point out a little later on where that better feeling is very necessary, where greater unity is required, where there is a grave danger of driving the western people into a comer where they will turn.
As regards the project of opening up the St. Lawrence waterways, our engineers tell us that it will cost $252,000,000, to be divided between Canada and the United States, and we know, from past experience, if that is of any value, that the cost will be twice that amount. I have referred to the over-building of railways, to the feverish haste in opening the Welland canal, and I have done so for a purpose, namely, to make this more impressive. I think the climax of an orgy of this sort in spending money for services in advance of population will be reached if our government at once, or in the very near future, plunges into this project of opening up the St. Lawrence route at an enormous expense. The time will come when the St. Lawrence route should be opened, but the eastern provinces or, more correctly, the central provinces, who are urging this, would be very wise if they would stop and consider the wishes of other parts of Canada that are not so well-off, that are passing through very hard times. If they will just have a little patience and wait for eight or ten years, it may be that Canada will then be in a position to open the St. Lawrence route without imposing upon Canada a burden that she cannot carry.
I said that there were four causes for our distress in the prairie provinces. I am going to refer to one that is very seldom touched on and that is inflation and deflation. It seems to me that this has been a large factor. Let me read some words of Abraham Lincoln, that great statesman, in reference not only to the question of inflation and deflation but also regarding the practice of governments

The Address-Mr. Millar
undertaking heavy obligations, as our government did in selling victory bonds and then bringing about deflation. President Lincoln said:
If a government creates a large debt when there is a certain volume of money in circulation and then contracts the volume of money it is the most heinous crime that government can perpetrate against its people.
I am not going to impute motives to Sir Thomas White or to anyone else in regard to the inflating of money during the war, but I simply state, what is a fact, that money was inflated until the purchasing power of the dollar was only about fifty, sixty or seventy cents and then millions upon millions of dollars' worth of victory bonds were sold, some of them tax-free, while money was cheap. That having been done, suddenly the money was deflated. I was in conversation with a bank official in the year 1920 and he told me that they were not loaning any money; he said, "our government has instructed us that deflation must take place in order to force prices down." I did not realize at the time what that meant, but I do now: it simply means that the people of Canada are compelled to pay millions and millions of a debt in bonds for which those who hold the bonds paid in some cases only fifty or sixty cents in the dollar. In other words, the Canadian people have incurred an enormous debt by means of this system of inflation and deflation which took place in the way I have stated.
There is another side of this question which is still worse, and that is the effect which it has had on the people of Canada not only in the prairie provinces but throughout the country. During a period of four or five years when money was so plentiful the people were encouraged in extravagance; they were encouraged to expand their business, and some borrowed money in large quantities while others bought houses and farms at high prices. Just at the moment when they thought that everything was in a settled condition, when they little realized how soon the change would come, the ground was suddenly cut from under them. What happened at that time reminds one of the practice which prevailed in the early days in catching rats. A barrel was filled almost to the top with something that the rats liked; all that the rat had to do was to climb up to the rim and jump in to get his fill. After the rat had acquired the habit of climbing up and jumping in, automatically as it were, the food was removed and water was put into the barrel in its place, so that when the rat
got up to the top of the barrel he jumped into water before he knew what he was doing.
I think it is unfair to bring about arbitrarily a condition of affairs that inspires the people with a false sense of prosperity, and when they have incurred heavy obligations in the belief that a permanent state of prosperity has set in. suddenly bring about a situation that makes it impossible for them to meet those obligations. (Logically, one would expect that all prices would be equally forced down by such a process, but this was not the case; the products of the farm went down suddenly because the control of prices was not in the hands of local people. The fact is that the prices of farm products were controlled by the importer in Europe and elsewhere, whereas the prices of commodities which the farmers and other people bought were controlled locally by combines which were more or less hard and fast, or at all events by gentlemen's agreements. The consuming public had been educated into paying ten dollars for a pair of shoes, and it was not difficult by means of these combines for the prices to be kept up, so that one would have to pay ten dollars or fifteen dollars as the case might be for a pair of shoes, and other prices in proportion all along the line. Such a terrible condition was brought about that we saw in this country such peculiar anomalies as this, for example, where the hide from a beef animal would not buy a hame-strap. Let me mention a concrete case. Walking down the street in my own town a few months ago I saw a bay team of horses. Two years ago I purchased that team for fifty dollars, and while they were a little undersized the5r were very good animals. If I had told the man who was leading them away to take them over to the blacksmith's shop and have them shod it would have cost me from eleven to sixteen dollars for the new shoes. Imagine one buying a team of good young horses for fifty dollars and having to pay from eleven to fifteen or sixteen dollars to get new shoes for them. The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) says that it is absurd to expect people to succeed under certain conditions which he has indicated; but it is not nearly so absurd to expect success in that case as it is to expect people to succeed under the conditions that I have described. And those were the conditions.
I am very doubtful whether it was necessary to borrow as much money as was borrowed during the war years; I think it was a gigantic mistake. When money was so plentiful why was not the war paid for as we went along? Had that been dene, it seems
The Address-Mr. Millar

to me that our present troubles might have been avoided to a large extent. We talk of unemployment, but I think that what I am about to quote upsets in part some of the arguments which we heard this afternoon. Arthur Kitson who, I understand, is one of the leading manufacturers of Great Britain and one of the world's highest authorities on monetary subjects, dealing with the subject of unemployment and progress in relation to the countries that were at war, and touching the question of deflation, concludes thus in an article of his published on December 9, 1924:
It is a significant fact that all the British colonies are suffering the same as the Old Country, and they have all been pursuing the same contraction policy- contraction of currency. On the other hand, France, Belgium and Italy have been enjoying prosperity and have escaped the scourge of unemployment.
I came across a dipping a few days ago from which I learned that the wheels of industry in France are humming, and that there are not sufficient men in that country to keep theiir machinery going and that they are obliged to import labour in large numbers. I do not pretend to be an authority on the banking question and consequently I do not speak with great assurance on it, but I have studied it enough to feel that it is a great misfortune that deflation took place so suddenly. Had the deflation, if it was necessary, taken place after ten years, say, after some of these victory 'bonds had been paid off- bonds that were bought with inflated money and which should have been paid off with inflated money also-it would have been much better. I certainly think that the deflation should have been brought about gradually until the gold basis was restored; I do not think that the hardship in that case would have been anything like what it has been.
I shall speak for a few minutes now on some of the features that have tended towards bringing the prairie provinces back to normal. Three years ago we got back what we called the Crowsnest rates. I assure bon. members that the effects were marvellously beneficial to our western people. Every oarload of grain going out from there since that time has gone out for about $60 less. I would like the government to know that when they apply remedies that are real remedies the west responds at once. All that is necessary to bring prosperity there, to make the people happy and contented and to enable them to take their places among those who constitute the buying portion of Canada's population, is to apply remedies that will be effective,
fMr. Millar.]
such as the one to which I refer. By that simple redress, by that change, many farmers have been saved from bankruptcy and others have been driven to it only more gradually.
Another remedy that has been attempted by the present government-and I wish to give them full credit for their part in it; I wish to encourage them to continue in the same direction-is the reduction of the tariff. It was small indeed, but it brought some relief-not very much, but some nevertheless. I do hope the government will follow up that policy. I believe the proper thing for me to do is to continue to press for further reduction in the tariff. It has been suggested by my friends to the right that the manufacturers have not been injured by the reductions; at least I understood it that- way. I assure the House that the part of the country to which I belong has certainly benefited by the reductions. That being the case, why not give us a bigger dose? If it helps all round, why not have a little more of it?
There are some other redresses which I think ought to be afforded to us in the west. I have already referred to the high rates of interest on the money we borrow. It may be a difficult matter to deal with, but the government should keep that in mind and should lend their efforts to having these rates reduced. Land rates and water rates axe also matters of paramount importance. Perhaps it is not generally understood-well, I will not say it is not generally understood, but I believe it is not always understood-that if we were to go back to the Crowsnest rates on the thirteen commodities covered we would still be paying a higher rate than those applicable to the same commodities in central Canada. When it comes to water rates I do not know that I am so optimistic of success, because I realize that the north Atlantic combine is a gigantic body. But the government should bend every energy to a solution of the problem; they should fight the thing to the end, because the saving of a few cents on a bushel of wheat or of a few dollars on a beef animal means all the difference between success and failure to those who are producing those commodities. Premier Dunning, speaking on this subject, put it this way: "I did not have any profit," he said, "on my farm this year. If I could have got the grain threshed for a little less, or if the freight rate had been a little less, or if the labour had been a little less-any one of these-I would have made a profit." While we cannot at present engage to any considerable extent in

The Address-Mr. Millar
the raising of cattle, if that freight rate question can be solved so that cattle can be carried to the Old Country market at a reasonable price, you will at once see a revival of that industry, and it will become a great industry. We would then be in a position to buy the manufactured goods of the east and any loss that would be sustained by the eastern and central interests would be more than made up by the increase in business.
Let me say a word or two on the immigration question. There are different ideas on the subject. Some would entirely prohibit immigrants from coming to Canada until conditions are better and they would have a better chance to succeed. Others would bring in immigrants as fast as possible, believing that that would make Canada prosperous. I do not think either course is wise; I think either would be a mistake. We need immigrants in Canada, but we need the right sort. To bring in a large number of immigrants might result in figures which, when read in the House, would make a good showing politically, but Canada might be veiy much worse off. If you look over the reports with respect to the nationality of inmates of gaols, or of hospitals where unmarried mothers go at times, you will find that the percentage of immigrants there is alarmingly high. What does that indicate? It indicates that there has been too much laxity in respect to the admission of immigrants; that the feeble minded, delinquents, and those having defects of various kinds have been admitted when clearly they should not have been allowed entry into Canada. What we need- is the best kind of settler. Immigrants should be well selected, and we should get as many of that selected class as possible.
You cannot conclusively say that because an immigrant has 8100 he should come in, and because he has not that amount he must stay out. By following a policy of that kind we might keep out such men as James Mitchell of Dahinda, Saskatchewan, a great asset to our province and to Canada. In the British Isles he was a cotton mill operator in 1907; in 1924 he was the wheat king of the world-a romantic story. He was a man with no previous experience of farming, no previous experience in Canada; yet from 1907 to 1924 he sprang to that position. The romantic character of the story is enhanced by the part played by his wife this last year. While Mr. Mitchell was attending the meeting of the Seed Growers' Association at Regina she telephoned to him and said, "It is raining here; what shall I do?" He said, "Cover up the stooks." She 6
covered up enough stooks in the rain to save the bushel of wheat that took the world's prize. We might by any such narrow policy as I have suggested keep out another type of man who is also a great asset. It gives me pleasure to refer to this incident because we do not get many men like this. In a Lethbridge paper recently there appeared an account of the heroism of a Scotch shepherd, by name Jack Ray, employed on the Ray Knight ranch at Brooks, Alberta. Last December he was herding 2,000 sheep when he was caught in a blizzard. With the thermometer fluctuating between 40 and 50 below zero, he drifted for three days and three nights rather than leave the sheep, with no shelter for himself except for an hour or two when he could get something to eat and have a chance to get warm. If we can get that type of men as a foundation stock for our future citizenship it will be well for Canada. There are not many men in Canada or in the world of such fidelity that they would endure what Jack Ray endured on the open range in order to save his flock of sheep. That is the type of man we want as immigrants.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made a remark to which I wish to refer. He said that it was absurd to expect the manufacturers of Canada to compete against the cheap labour of countries on the European continent. Let me point out that because of our advanced methods of farming, because of the greater efficiency of our intelligent labour, the farmers of Canada are able now to compete against the cheap labour of Europe, if you would only give them half a chance. They do not want any favours. Much of the wheat that is being placed on the European markets in competition with ours is grown only three or four hundred miles from the seaboard; much of it is right beside the water; but our wheat must be drawn hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles to the seaboard. But if you will remove our disabilities and give us a fair chance, we can compete against the cheap labour of Europe simply because they are less efficient. If the time comes when they are as efficient and their methods of agriculture become as advanced as ours, then it will be, I admit, absurd; but we can do the very thing now that the hon. member says cannot be done.
In closing, I think it is high time that we should quit haggling about who is to blame for our troubles. Two years ago, speaking in this House, I sounded a gentle warning. 1 said: Don't drive the west too far. My friends to my right interpreted that as a

The Address-Mr. Millar

threat, but it was not so intended, I assure you. What has taken place since that time two years ago. To-day there is one subject being talked about that attracts interest, and that is the question of secession. I regret that there is any sentiment at all in favour of secession on the prairie provinces. I do not think it should be encouraged at any time, but I would ask you not to underestimate that sentiment. The time was in the history of Great Britain when they ignored the just complaints of the American colonies, and it cost them the colonies. Later, ir. our early history the time was when the Canadian government ignored the not very unreasonable claims of the half-breeds of the northwest territory, and that caused a war. I hope nothing serious comes of this talk of secession, but I would ask you to draw on your imagination a little and try and understand' that there are thousands in a condition that would drive one to almost anything. Just to drive that point home, let me give you a concrete case. Two months ago I was riding on the train and got into conversation with a sheriff. He said, "Recently as I sat in my office an old man came in and said to me, 'Well, sheriff, I guess I have made a sad mess of it.' I asked him what was the matter, and he said, 'My stuff is all seized.' " The sheriff asked him his name, looked up the file, and then went back and asked the old man. "What sort of a crop did you have last year, in 1923?" "Well, sheriff," he said, "I cannot tell you exactly how many acres we cut because it was so poor we did not cut all we sowed. Neither can I tell you how many bushels we threshed because after it was all cut some of it yielded so poor that we did not thresh the rest of it, but I will tell you what I got for it. I got $380 for it all." The sheriff asked him, "How much did it cost you to thresh that?" "It cost me $280," said the old man "and I paid it. The grain was rusty, there was lots of straw, and the thresher would not thresh by the bushel; he must have so much per day. It cost me $280 to thresh that grain for which I got $380." The sheriff asked, "What did you do with the other hundred dollars?" "I gave it to the storekeeper," was the reply, "he had carried me for a year." "What did you live on?" the sheriff asked. "I would not like to tell you what I and my family lived on," said the old man; "I have had a good crop this year, 1924, but it is all seized. Part of my trouble has been caused by an accident I had three years ago, and I have not been able to do a full day's work since then until this year." The result was that the sheriff who was a 
humane man, and of good common sense, said, " I am not going to allow your creditors to take that crop and sell it at a disadvantage," at what we call street price, which meant that the farmer would not get full value. So the sheriff took possession of the crop and divided it among the creditors, giving each one a little, and leaving the farmer enough to carry on with.
Now that is not a very isolated case. The conditions are bad. Perhaps I am stressing them too much. I know the effect on immigration and on capital, but when I see these cases before my eyes I feel that I should try and persuade this House that the time has come for further redress. As I have tried to show, the west will respond immediately if the remedies are applied. Is there any reason why we could not to a greater degree forget party politics, unite our forces, and bring our best brains to bear on these problems and apply the remedy so quickly that the talk of secession will disappear. I believe it would be a calamity if confederation were to break up. I know that many will pooh-pooh the idea that there is any possibility of such a thing happening, but when you see thousands of people in that condition, when they feel their life's savings are being sweplt away and they soon will have not a dollar left in the world, and many of them with families, when the sheriff is knocking at the door, can you blame them for taking any way out? Hardly, I think. It is all right for one to shout about loyalty and to feel that Canada is a good place to live in when he is living in a mansion and has everything his heart can desire, but it is another thing when a man is turned out of doors and he and his family have to leave the homestead with the work of years gone for nothing; and that is the situation of many of our people. The country is all right; it is only man that is vile. I would say to the members of the government: Continue and move very fast to give us measures of redress as effectively as you did in lowering the freight rate to the Crowsnest rate. If you give us redress for those grievances I do not think you need worry at all about the west. We will help to solve the unemployment problem; we will employ the men, and the manufacturers of the east whose shops have been closed will be able to reopen their doors.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Does the hon. member
intend the House to understand that in his judgment there is a serious prospect of the secession of the west from confederation?


John Millar: It is very much more
serious than the general public appreciate.

The Address-Mr. Anderson


Mr. SPENCE:: That is a threat.


John Millar: No, it is not a threat. My remarks were misunderstood before. There is one other matter I wish to touch on. The manufacturers of the east seem to have experienced a change of heart to some extent. At any rate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), in a speech which he delivered a short time ago, seemed to have modified his views to a certain extent and was inclined, apparently, to hold out a friendly hand to those who differed from him on certain trade questions. The Manufacturers' Association have adopted a somewhat similar course. I would say to the manufacturers that I believe we as farmers-I speak as a farmer as well as a representative of the people in this chamber-will be prepared to meet them half way just as soon as they realize that the manufacturers are sincere in their desire to bring about a better feeling and to co-operate with agriculturists rather than act in a manner antagonistic to them.
There is one way in which the manufacturers can demonstrate their sincerity and it is in the matter of the standardization of machinery. I have here a clipping which I might read to illustrate my point:
Secretary of Commerce Hoover says in the foreword of a booklet entitled " Simplified Practice-what it is and what it offers " issued by the Division of Simplified Practice of the Department of Commerce: The necessity of maintaining a high-wage level requires that all processes of manufacture and distribution be reduced to the lowest possible cost. This can be done through the elimination of those wastes arising out of too high a degree of diversification in certain basic products.
" To-day dozens of different sizes, styles, types and patterns of the most commonplace articles are placed in the market by manufacturers who must possess special equipment and skill to produce these endless variations. Merchants accumulate great stocks which turn but slowly because of the excessive diversity and lack of interchangeability in their components. Because of this situation many manufacturers and distributors favour co-operation for simplification and standardization.
" The saving in national effort through such cooperation as demonstrated by many well known examples of simplification and standardization runs into millions of dollars. There is a great area still untouched in which the application of these waste-eliminating measures may well save not millions, but billions. The rate of our advance must be, and will be, in proportion to the extent in which we all cooperate for the elimination of waste."
A farmer who throws aside a binder and buys one of the same make breaks, perhaps, a small wheel. There may be a wheel, scarcely worn on the abandoned binder which he could use, but cannot do so because there is a very, very slight difference in the two wheels. Consequently he is compelled to buy a new wheel. I really believe the failure to adopt standardization is a deliberate policy on the part W
of the manufacturers. In fact this policy has been carried to such an extreme that in one province it has been found necessary to enact legislation to prevent a machine company selling binders and other machinery for a certain length of time and then withdrawing from the market and taking away the repairs. Such companies, if they sell binders must keep repairs for a given number of years after the binder is withdrawn from the market, thus recognizing that it has been a practice on the part of manufacturers to deal unfairly in this matter with the consumer. Only last fall I was talking to a farmer who had obtained a piece of sheet iron for this threshing machine. I could not give the dimensions but some of you hon. gentlemen who own threshers will understand about the size when I state it was to cover the lower part of the machine. Now it would appear that a sum of ten or fifteen dollars would have been a sufficiently high price and yet it cost this man $2S. If the manufacturers are sincere in their desire to bring about a better understanding with the producers of grain and those who are buying their machinery, let them adopt a different attitude in this matter, as well as in respect to some other questions, and we will meet them half way.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a disadvantage. I had expected that there would be another speaker from the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite before my turn came. Seemingly the hon. gentleman in question is not in his place. Not anticipating having to take the floor so soon I have not my notes with me. I would therefore ask permission to move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Perry Graham: I am shocked at this unpreparedness on the part of my hon. friend. I should have thought he would be able to speak at almost any time during this debate; I thought he was full of the subject.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Have you got any speaker over there?


George Perry Graham: We do not have to speak; we are satisfied with conditions. However, I realize the situation my hon. friend finds himself in, although I think he would, perhaps, do better without his notes. As the whips have talked this matter over I think we had better let the hon. gentleman move the adjournment of the debate.

The Address-Mr. Anderson


Mr. CALDWELL:: If we are ever going
to close the session we should not adjourn at such an early hour. I do not think there is sufficient justification for it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: May I draw
the hon. member's attention to the rule that
a motion such as this is not debatable. Shall the motion carry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Certainly not.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that to-morrow we can go on with the same business?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will anybody be ready then?


George Perry Graham: That is what I wanted to find out. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) assures us that he will be ready to-moiTow.


Robert King Anderson: I was quite prepared
to speak to-night but I understood that an hon. member opposite wanted to speak. Had I known the situation earlier I would have been prepared to go on.


George Perry Graham: We will not regard this
as a precedent because we shall have to sit later other nights. However, we will treat this as a special case.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the government
inform us what will happen to-morrow in the event of hon. members not being ready to go on with the debate?


George Perry Graham: I may say that my hon.
friend, and every other member who has a motion on the order paper, will have a chance at it to-morrow if we reach Notices of Motion.
Motion (Mr. Anderson) agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 11, 1925