1925-02-11

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924; Militia Service and Air Service.-Hon. Mr. Macdonald.
Report of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924; Naval Service.-Hon. Mr. Macdonald.
Copies of General Orders, Promotions and Retirements, Canadian Militia.-Hon. Mr. Macdonald.
Annual Report of the Department of the Secretary of State for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This is substantially the same bill as I introduced last year to amend the Copyright Act. There are very slight modifications, but substantially it is the same. The bill was not reached last year because time would not allow of it.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: What is the object of the bill?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The object of the bill is to afford sanctions for certain dispositions which were not contained in the original bill. It is to repeal certain sections of the bill. I do not need to go into it at any length because, as was pointed out last year, the modifications are completely set out m the marginal notes, and in order to give the whole effect of the bill one would have to read all the amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga): May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the
government has any announcement to make with respect to the Home bank depositors?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: ,1 expect to be in a

The Address-Mr. Anderson
position to make a statement to the House in respect to that matter in a very short time, shortly after the conclusion of the present debate.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 10. 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. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of interfering with the government's evident desire to bring this debate to a close when I moved the adjournment of the debate last evening. I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) for his courtesj' in allowing the motion to pass. I was somewhat interested to note that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) objected to the motion on the ground I think, that the time of parliament was being wasted. I would like to say that possibly no member takes up more of the time of parliament than the hon. member himself.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Wrong again.


Robert King Anderson: He oooupies more pages of Hansard than many of th-e ministers of the crown, not excepting the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) himself, nor the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), nor the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), nor even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who can ramble over the political sceneTy about as nimbly as any person I know.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the hon. member will permit me, I was not objecting to him speaking; I was objecting because he would not speak.


Robert King Anderson: The Address-Mr. Anderson
1921 to use their influence in the interests of all classes and all sections of Canada. How did they succeed in giving effect to those policies? One of their first claims was for the creation of a wheat board. The necessary legislation, as a result of the efforts of the beat minds in both parties, was passed but it proved a complete fiasco. The act was such a poor one that not a man of outstanding ability in the Dominion, even at a salary of $50,000 per year, could be found to assume responsibility of the measure. The consequence was that hon. gentlemen at my left were compelled to fall back upon the suggestion made by the right hon.. leader of the opposition, of a wheat pool, which, I am pleased to know, has (been a real success.
Another question which they brought prominently before the people was reciprocity with the United States. That pioposition, like many of the others, has gone into the waste paper basket, and seemingly nothing can be done in that direction.
They also requested the government to complete the Hudson Bay railway, but after two or three years have been spent in negotiations nothing has been effected along this line. That, too, remains to be dealt with in the dim and distant future.
They have often given utterance to their free trade proclivities on the floor of this House. A few efforts have been made in that direction by the government. There has been some reduction in customs duties, but the changes have not proved to be in the national interest.
Furthermore, a request was made that the freight rates on the Great Lakes should be controlled. Legislation for this purpose was passed, through the co-operation of both parties, but the act became as great a fiasco as the wheat board statute. The result was practically to make conditions worse than they were before. Consequently, the measure had virtually to be nullified until parliament could either amend it or put it out of existence.
Although the Progressives form a very strong party in this House they have not been able to enforce their views upon the government to any extent, notwithstanding that the ministry regards them with favour. There is a moral which I draw from all this and it is very clear that a class makes a serious blunder when they segregate themselves from other classes and come out as a distinct political entity.
The progress of disintegration is pretty we'll advanced amongst our Progressive friends. Three distinct groups have emerged as a result of a cleavage of opinions and policies 
which are as divergent as the individual members themselves, and the real Progressive party is revealed as farmer bloc from the prairie provinces. This group is distinctly a class group wedded to sectionalism. The fourteenth parliament is nearing its end and it has not accomplished anything in the interest of agriculture. Whether because of the blundering of the government or of the impossible nature of the demands. I cannot say, but the fact remains that nothing has been accomplished that could not have been better attained if these gentlemen to my left had retained their old time party allegiance.
A great deal has been heard in this country about blue ruin. On the other hand, the Prime Minister, in particular, has stated that Canada is more prosperous than the United States. That is something the average citizen of Canada finds it very difficult to credit when he realizes that six hundred thousand of his fellow citizens have left this country within the last three years and are now engaged in occupations in the United States. This fact alone constitutes a very strong argument against the claim of the Prime Minister.
I visited the province of Prince Edward Island last summer, and a banker in a small town where I stayed informed me that he had never seen so much American money coming into the place as he had that year. When asked how he accounted for this he replied, " Because so many of our citizens have gone to the United States and located there. Now they are sending this money back to help to support the remainder of their families who are still in Canada." A gentleman said to me the other day and the remark made me smile, that the Prime Minister was a very clever politician. His reason for saying this was that the Prime Minister had brought the Canadian dollar back to par. Well, if the Prime Minister was able to bring back our dollar, why cannot he bring back to this country the six hundred thousand Canadians who have gone to the United States in search of that dollar? Why cannot he biing back the 162,000 Canadian soldiers who have gone there in search of employment? If the process of bringing the Canadian dollar back to par involved losing one of our greatest assets to the United States then it is a very expensive operation.
In spite of all these adverse conditions I must admit that I am a consistent optimist so far as Canada's future is concerned. This country is bound to go ahead and' nothing can stop it. The government by its retrograde policies, may delay the wheels of progress for a time, but Canada will over-

The Address-Mr. Anderson
come every obstacle and will march forward to the great destiny which the future has iu store for her. But to facilitate its progress certain things are necessary. We have large natural resources which must be conserved and developed in the best interests of our citizens. I believe the raw material from those resources should' be manufactured into finished products in this Dominion, and that we should devote all our energies to bringing that result about. Those resources belong to the people of this country. They are so multifarious that they lend themeslves to every kind of human effort, and they should be developed as a whole, the one assisting the other. We want to attract to Canada not only money but men who will come here and develop our resources, bring out the wealth that lies hidden here and make it available for our people. Those who have the best right to that wealth are Canadians who pay the taxes and keep the country solvent. It is upon Canadians that we must rely for the payment of our taxation. Our huge debt of two and a half billions of dollars must be paid. The annual interest is large and must be met. In ad'dition a large amount must be raised in order to provide for the national services. There is only one class of people to whom we can appeal to meet this taxation and that is our own citizens. It is the duty of the government to make every effort possible to reduce the burden of taxation. In order to accomplish that desirable result the strictest economy must be practised in every direction. While doing that, the government should see to it that our people are not und'uly burdened in paying their fair share of necessary taxation. In the payment of taxation there are comparatively few shirkers; the majority are willing to do their share if they can only earn the money. If they cannot do that they must emigrate to other countries, or become a burden upon the state and a menace to society. The cnly way to make Canada prosperous is to protect our industries and our agriculturists to such an extent that a profitable home market can be maintained. They must be protected from cheap labour and the depreciated currencies of foreign countries. Our basic ind'ustry is agriculture, and it should be developed to its highest perfection, but we should not forget that a prosperous agricultural community depends upon the growth of large industrial centres. Our industries also are dependent upon the prosperity of agriculture. The two should go together, each is dependent upon the other, and' both should be developed to a just and equitable degree. The people of the towns buy the
product of the farms; the people in the rural sections purchase the articles produced in the towns. By an interchange of this character both industries benefit, and greater wealth is produced and remains in the country. If we want to make Canada prosperous that is the only way to go about it.
There is little need to detail the advantages of the home market. Everyone knows, and few will deny, its superiority over the foreign market. It is easy of access, the returns are quicker, transportation costs are less, the prices offer the greater profit and tire demand is steady. Not only that, but the growth of cities and towns increases the value of farm property in their vicinity and improve the living conditions in the country in many ways.
There should be the most friendly relations between rural and urban people since they are dependent upon each other. The farmer buys the product of the industries in our cities and towns and the people of the towns and cities buy the product of his farm; each buying from the other and both growing richer from the interchange since what they sell is the product of labour and is created wealth which remains in the country. This would make us a prosperous and contented people, and the only way to bring it about is to protect our manufacturers and agriculturists by means of the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald which has already laid the foundation so well that the ultimate objective is almost within our grasp. The foundation so well laid has been undermined by the unwise and ill-considered tariff reductions of the present government to such an extent that the whole fabric of our national structure is threatened with disaster.
We have our fruit growing section in Canada dotted here and there across the continent. They are to be found in the Maritimes, in Ontario and British Columbia, and the fruit produced is the best of its kind to be found in the world. The industry is therefore of national importance and any policy designed to benefit it can be said to be for the benefit of Canada. It is a live industry in which many millions are invested and in which many thousands of our population are engaged and they are heavy tax payers. Fruit is a necessary article of diet for our people and they must have it to keep physically fit to meet the extreme changes in our climate. When the returning sun melts away the snow and frost of winter and warms up our atmosphere to sixty and seventy degrees, a person's being clamours for a more cooling diet than ham and eggs or bully beef. Nature tells us our needs by this craving, and to ignore the voice is
The Address-Mr. Anderson

to pay the penalty in disease. This craving must be satisfied and our citizens are willing to pay the price, and do pay it to the Americans, for the fruit that first appears on the market. Nature is wise and provides the fruit at the psychological moment it is needed. Our strawberries come on the market at the proper time for our climatic conditions. Our American cousins need this fruit sooner than we and their climate produces it for them and thus enables them to anticipate our demand by putting their early fruit on our market fully three weeks before our own early fruit is ripe, thus creating an artificial desire in our people. By this means the Americans skim the cream of our prices and cheat the Canadian fruit grower out of his birthright. This should not be and it should be remedied by an increased protection on fruit. The duty should be ad valorem and not specific as now, to meet the situation adequately. I would advocate an ad valorem duty of at least 25 per cent so that the early American fruit would pay a duty in proportion to its price, which is usually about 40 cents per quart, and produce more revenue if the fruit must come in. Just as soon as our native fruit is ripe, competition or supply and demand, regulates the price and does so all the more promptly because the product is perishable. For this industry the home market is essential as the Canadian cannot compete in the American market on account of the increased cost of production due to the following causes:-
(1)	The American fruit is two or three weeks earlier and the cream of the prices is gone before our fruit is ready for. sale.
(2)	The cost of production in Canada is greater on account of climatic conditions. More labour is necessary to protect the plants from the frosts of winter and spring. The grower must provide himself with frame-yard room, sash, and fertilizer, to grow his seeding plants. This is not necessary or as expensive in a wanner climate.
(3)	Top dressing with straw, involving time
and labour is absolutely essential in this country and not necessary in the United States. The Canadian producer must employ his help longer in the year on account of these extra precautions which add materially to the cost compared with North Carolina and South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and New York. This applies to the production of fruit all over Canada and furnishes the reason why our fruit industry requires adequate protection. The same policy for the whole country and not for one section of it to the detriment of other sections.	.

The canning industry is intimately bound up with the fruit and vegetable industry and a fiscal policy that injures the one, hurts the other. The canners buy the raw material from the producers in their vicinity, give employment to many hands and put the perishable product of the gardener on the market many months after it is picked. But for this industry the gardener would be compelled to produce less or allow his product to rot in the field. There were forty-two canning factories in Canada in 1921 with an output of 816,000,000 annually, and employing 3,000 people and buying the product of 5,000 farmers.
In order to give the discussion somewhat of a home touch, I am going to tell you something about the county I represent, Halton. Agriculture and industry are represented in that county in the same proportion as in the Dominion at large. It is a district fairly representative of the needs of the whole country, and anything that injures Halton will injure the rest of Canada. Mixed farming is carried on to a considerable degree in all parts of the county-fruit growing, cattle raising, dairy products, and so forth. The home market in this country is estimated to consume from eighty to eighty-five per cent of the produce of our farms. It is absolutely essential that these farmers should have their home market.


Mr. CRERAR:: In that is included what
the farmers themselves and their families consume, of course?


Robert King Anderson: I think the farmers
must live, and they consume their product.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It rather knocks the bottom out of your home market argument.


Robert King Anderson: pound. The total exports in the same years were: 1923, 11,033,107 pounds valued at $841,401, or 7.6 cents per pound, and in 1924, 16,606,115 pounds valued at $1,193,450, or 7.2 cents per pound; 3,650,000 pounds and 4,340,000 pounds respectively going to the United States. Thus it will be seen again that we imported vegetable products in 1923 and 192-1 respectively, mostly from the United States, at 10.2 cents per pound and 10.6 cents per pound, and exported our own at 7.6 cents and 7.2 cents per pound, with a heavy loss to the Canadian market gardener. We imported canned vegetables from the United States in these two years amounting to approximately
12,000,000 pounds averaging 10.3 cents per
pound, and we sold them back 8,000,000 pounds at 7.4 cents per pound. This makes a huge loss to our market gardeners and is rather a high price to pay for the privilege of enjoying the American market. On this exchange the American is ahead of the game some $360,000, and on the total imports and exports for the two years of fruit and vegetables, the loss to Canada was $510,000 And this is duplicated year after year.
The farmers of Canada are interested somewhat in pork. We raise about 20,000 hogs annually in Halton and they must find a market. During the years ending February, 1923 and 1924 respectively, we imported from the United States pork products as follows:
Pork Products-Imports into Canada from the United States
1923	1924
Pounds	Value	Pounds	ValueBacon and Hams	
Fresh pork	
Pork in brine	
4,560,187 	
35,035,192 	
12,246,671	$ 670,976 5,495,129 1,331,611	6,652,399 21,135,387 9,611,282	$ 818.976 2,699.364 1.023,197Totals	
51,850,050	$7,497,706	37,499,068	$4,541,157
In the same years we exported, mostly to England:
Pounds	Value
Bacon and Hams	 101,830,400	$23,011,923
or 22A cents a pound
The point about this particular item is that it is hardly known how much of the American pork-which is cheaper than the pork produced in Canada inasmuch as it is corn-fed whereas the Canadian product is hard grain-fed,-is imported here and re-exported to England to compete there with Canadian pork. I am told that this American pork that comes here is re-cured to the extent of being smoked and dried, after which the hams and the bacon are sent to England in competition with Canadian produced pork. I am informed by the Department of Agriculture that the American pork is marked as such, and while I do not know to what extent it affects the market, the fact remains that it comes into Canada and is shipped out again through Canadian ports to compete with the Canadian product, and is sent abroad by Canadian exporters.
The dairy industry is an important one and one in which our farmers are very greatly interested. There are 3,072 plants in Canada employing 10,394 persons and paying an annual wage of $8,500,000. The raw material used amounts to $77,000,000 per annum while the manufactured product is worth $100,000,000 per annum. This applies particularly to the creameries and cheese factories in the country and does not include the dairy products of the farm; it does not include dairy butter but

Pounds	Value
96,108,800	$17,651,133
or 18.4 cents a pound
simply creamery butter and cheese from the various factories. Every province is interested in this industry, which is growing throughout the wnole country, and the prairie provinces are stimulating production in this particular direction. Our imports of butter have declined considerably during the last two years and I have the figures which have been compiled by the Department of Trade and Commerce in regard to this item. In the year 1923 we imported 3,767,000 pounds of butter for which we paid 38i cents per pound, while we exported 21,994,000 pounds for which we received 37| cents per pound, or a loss of 1 cent per pound to the Canadian producer. In 1924 our exports totalled 1,558,000 pounds for which we paid at the rate of 38i cents per pound, while our exports totalled 13,648,000 pounds for which we received at the rate of 37i cents, representing a loss to the Canadian producer of li cents per pound.
Cheese furnishes another example of loss from imports, although this product varies in price, according to quality, much more than butter. It is difficult to know to what extent our Canadian producer gets the worst of the deal. Our imports and exports of this article for the years 1923 and 1924, with the respective prices per pound which we paid and received, will be seen in the following table:

The Address-Mr. Anderson
Imports
916.000	lbs.

34 cents lb.
Imports
1.688.000	lbs.

32 cents lb.
Exports 114,548,000 lbs, $20,528,000
19 cents lb.
Exports 116,777,000 lbs. $23,426,000
20 cents lb.
Canada produces 135,000,000 pounds of cheese annually, the greater part of which finds a foreign market, largely in the United Kingdom.The imports and exports of cheese to the United States for the years 1923 and 1924, according to the returns of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1924, known as the Condensed Preliminary Report, were as follows: In 1923, we imported 614,872 pounds, for which we paid at the rate of 29.1 cents per pound, and exported 5,902,000 for which we received 16.6 cents per pound, or a difference of some 12 cents per pound against the Canadian producer. These products may differ in quality and variety; it is difficult to say, and I could not get at the exact facts. In 1924 our imports totalled 592,196 pounds for which we paid at the rate of 30i cents per pound, while our exports amounted to 3,347,000 pounds for which we received at the rate of 17.6 cents per pound, or a loss of about 12^ cents per pound to the Canadian producer. These exchanges were with the United States and they show a balance against the Canadian producer very much the same as in the case of the vegetables which he had to sell.
As I have already said, the county of Halton is represented in industry and agriculture in the same proportion as the Dominion at large. The industries of Halton in 1920 numbered 143. having a capital invested1 of 'approximately $8,000,000, and paying $1,517,000 annually in w'ages and using $4,610,000 of raw material, which was manufactured into the finished products valued at $8,500,000. None of these industries is large or has a great amount of capital invested, but their maintenance and prosperity is vital to the people of that county. If they should shut their doors and close their plants, fully 4,000 people in the towns would be in want and distress. Not only that, but in a short time half the population of the county would be seriously affected! and a little later the whole county. Every constituency in Ontario, and for that matter in the Dominion, is situated similarly to Halton and would be affected in the same way just in proportion to the number of industries and employees. The effect of this lack of business in our manufacturing plants
falls first and most heavily on the workingman and his family; then it spreads to the merchants and professional men and other classes until it affects every person in the community, and finally the municipal corporation itself; the artisan limits his purchases to the direst necessities, there is less money in circulation, business stagnates, and a feeling of pessimism and unrest pervades the community.
The industries of Halton require protection to enable them to attain their fullest development and to give continuous employment at fair wages to the working class. It is exceedingly discouraging to a thrifty, energetic workingman, who owns a home and has a family, to be out of employment from three to six months in the year and to find himself unaible to better his financial condition from year to year. Yet that is exactly the condition we find to-day: he can get only part-time employment at reduced wages just sufficient to provide him with the bare necessities of life. Most of the industries in the county are carrying on at a loss for the sake of keeping the men in hand in the hope of a revival in business. This condition h-as increased with each reduction of the tariff until the limit has been reached beyond which it cannot go without closing most of the industries. When you consider that over 1,300 factories have closed their doors within the last two years, the management of those in Halton must have been sound to have kept them solvent at all. But this cannot go on indefinitely without ending in industrial failure and economic disaster'for the whole county., The only bright, spot on the industrial horizon, and one that gives a gleam of hope, is the fact that this parliamentary term is nearing its close and the people will have an opportunity to name the present government's successors.
Brick is manufactured in Halton in large quantities and it is the best building brick in America. It is shipped all over Canada and the demand for it has been steady. While it has not been affected by reduction in the tariff, the general business stagnation and slump in building operations, occasioned by the vacillating fiscal policy of the present government, has lessened the demand and caused cancellation of orders resulting in lessened operations and unemployment.
Our knitted woollen industry has been seriously affected by the increase of the British .preference. The imports of the socks and stockings have steadily increased since 1922 and the increase will steadily grow as the market becomes better known to the British
The Address-Mr. Anderson

exporter. The following is a table of the imports of knitted1 woollen goods:
Socks and Stockings imported in 1922, 286.167 doz. prs. Socks and Stockings imported in 1923 . 606,867 doz. prs. Socks and Stockings imported in 1924, 640,880 doz. prs.
-an increase of considerably over 100 per cent in two years after the increase in preference was made.
Preference for trade within the empire is to be desired and such trade should be encouraged; but there is a limit beyond which it cannot go without doing serious and irreparable damage to our own industries. It was never contemplated that it should go to that extent. Our total imports of knitted and woollen goods, yarns and raw wool in 1923 were 345,734,000, and in 1924 they amounted to $47,318,000 in value. These can all be produced in Canada, and only a little fostering care is needed to bring it about. Forty-seven million dollars is a large sum, and the production of that large amount of goods annually would go a long way in keeping our people from emigrating to the United States in search of employment.
Our paper industry furnishes an example of a mistaken policy with regard to our raw material and to the encouragement of the industry in Canada. Our mills are in good financial condition and make a superior article, but they are compelled to meet a steady competition from the large mills in the United States. Our imports of paper were:
1922		 $7,900,000
1923		 8.400,000
1924		 $9,300,000
There has been a steady increase in the imports of this commodity, seven-eighths of it from the United States, which should be made at home giving employment to Canadians and retaining the money in Canada. Our own pulpwood cut is depleting our supply at a rapid rate. Our pulpwood is being shipped into the United States and sold to the Americans at a low price, and manufactured there, giving employment to their working men and building up markets for their fanners. The finished product is shipped back and sold to Canadian consumers at a high price, the gold going back to the States to swell their already immense hoard. An embargo on the exportation of pulpwood might result in reprisals from the United States, but we have suffered reprisals from the United States before, and it is high time that we met this situation by increasing our duties and making our tariff barriers equal to theirs. Unmanufactured leather is imported almost altogether from the United States, only a small 
quantity coming from the United Kingdom. Our annual imports in 1924 amounted to $4,170,628. This is quite a large amount for a population of nine millions. The large and wealthy tanneries of the United States manufacture this leather in large quantities at a lesser cost than that at which our smaller plants are able to turn out this commodity, and the competition is a serious factor to the industry in Canada. We have two long-established leather industries in the county of Halton, employing a large number of hands and operating extensive and valuable plants. They are both important factors in the growth and prosperity of the towns where they are located, and anything that injures them is of serious consequence to their community. One of these plants has closed down, and quite a large number of hands are out of employment, with the consequent depression of local business that is bound to ensue when a big weekly payment of wages is suddenly stopped.
Our steel industry, producing screws, bolts, nuts, washers, and so forth, has been hard hit by the recent abolition of the duty on farm implements and the raw material used in their manufacture. Wages were reduced and the working staff cut down to the lowest possible limit to keep the factories going at all. Our economic condition is fairly well put by Mr. J. R. Shaw of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who in the course of an address before the National Conference in Ottawa on September 3 and 4, 1924, which will be found in the report issued under the direction of the Minister of Labour, said:
What is the chief cause of unemployment? It is by reason of the fact that our factories are by no means fully employed. Over one thousand of them have been shut down during the past two years, and a great number of those remaining are only running part time.
A similar condition exists in the county of Halton.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that you have arrived at the conclusion that I am a protectionist. I believe in the principle of protection as applied to our economic structure by means of an adequate scale of tariff duties which will ensure the home market to Canadian institutions. I would apply it to all classes and all sections of Canada, giving due consideration to the needs of the people. I would not have it so high as to shut out competition from other countries, but just high enough to ensure the home market to our producers and protect them from the cheap labour and depreciated currencies of European countries. A young country like Canada, with a sparse population and great natural re-

The Address-Mr. Anderson
sources, needs to practice every art possible to attract to herself the men and the money necessary to develop those resources and make our natural *wealth available for our people. Those who have the first claim on this wealth and on our home market are the people who pay the taxes which keep the country solvent. Protection has become almost universal to-day. All countries have set up tariff barriers against their neighbours, even England being all but convinced that free trade is no longer a panacea for her troubles, and recent events leave little doubt that she will eventually turn to protection. In a world of protection where would a young country like Canada be under free trade? A lone country unprotected by a tariff, we -would be a prey for every marauder, the dumping ground for the surplus and refuse products of every land. We might get cheaper goods, but they would be of inferior quality and payment would be demanded in gold. We could not demand that payment should be taken in kind because we should have given away our bargaining power -our market would be already free. There would be no need of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) going to Italy, France or Belgium to make trade agreements if we adopted free trade, for he would be laughed out of those countries. They would tell him, "You have nothing to give; we have your markets already, and that is all we want." No, Mr. Speaker, free trade may be very plausible in theory, but it is utterly impossible in practice. The same may be ' said of the Prime Minister's policy of freer trade, or tariff for revenue, which is merely an indirect way of talking free trade. Such a policy would need to be universal, and even then it would be of douhtful utility to Canada unless humanity lived as one nation.
The present trend of the whole wTorld is towards protection. Even England has her Safeguarding of Industries Act, passed since the war, which protects a long list of articles made in that country. Mr. Baldwin went so far as to appeal to the people of Great Britain on the question of protection, showing that the policy is gaining ground there to a marked degree. His defeat on that occasion was not so much due to his policy as to the suddenness with which he sprung it upon the electorate. The slow-moving English people could not be turned from a life4ong habit in a six weeks' campaign.
Seventy-five countries have raised their tariffs since the war, showing that there is some real necessity behind this general movement toward protection. Is it because they are compelled to do so to meet the demand
for increased revenue to pay war indebtedness? If so, why did they not adopt, the policy of the Prime Minister, of freer trade or tariff for revenue, or the policy of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and put a tax on land or make a capital levy to pay the war debt? Why did they not increase their excess profits tax, income tax, sale3 tax and stamp taxes, to meet increased expenditure and lower their tariff?	Why?-
because the people did not have the money to pay these taxes and were not in a position to compete with the outside world with their industries crushed and ruined by the war. The government could not collect a land tax from the landlowners who were penniless. There was no capital on which to levy. There was no business to create income; none to pay sales taxes and stamp taxes. Consequently the governments turned to the other expedient and raised the tariff in order to stimulate home production so as to create wealth by labour in their own countries. They raised the tariff to build up their home industries, to protect their farmers in their own market, to give employment to their labourers and develop and conserve their natural resources so they might be available for revenue to meet the national needs.
The United States adopted this policy and have an almost prohibitive tariff-the highest in their history-and whether as a consequence or not, they are enjoying prosperity and great business activities while Canada, having adopted the opposite course of a lowered tariff, is suffering depression, business stagnation and loss of her people by emigration. Canada has had three reductions of her tariff in as many - years, and substantial ones too. in 1922, 1923 and 1924, and each one has been followed by a larger stream of emigrants to the United States until a conservative est'-mate is given that half a million of our artisans and labourers have crossed the border in search of employment. It is claimed that many of these have returned and are returning. I have met a few of them myself, but they are only returning to settle up their affairs here, and then move with their families across the border. Not only has the United States raised her tariff to a prohibitive extent, but she has lessened her importations and increased her exportations since 1921. She has done that to such an extent that she has cornered almost sixty per cent of the world's supply of gold. It is locked up in her treasury, and only time and experience will prove whether it is to her advantage or not. Economists say it will be her ruin, but speaking as an individual, I doubt it.
The Address-Mr. Anderson

Under this extremely high protection the Lnited States has been able to reduce her taxation in many ways, and has paid off huge sums from her war debt. President Coolidge in his address to congress stated that since 1919 the United States has paid off something over five billion dollars, amounting to one-fifth of the total national debt of the United States, and that since 1921 they had cut their taxation in two. That is a great achievement for that people under a high protective policy. Canada has followed the opposite course of lowered tariff, and our annual budget has not been balanced, our debt is increasing, taxation is mounting, business depression is rampant, our people are emigrating, unemployment is large and immigrants cannot be got even at a price. A country with Canada's richness and variety of resources, inhabited by a sturdy people in the north temperate zone, is bound to become a great manufacturing nation. It is also equally evident that we have the potentialities for becoming a great agricultural country, and the two make a complete combination for natural greatness. We have the raw material for almost any kind of industry to be turned into the finished products which will give employment to an immense army of artisans, who, in turn, will furnish a market for our agricultural products. All we need is the determination to press forward in the path we have followed during the last forty years, stimulate the development of these natural resources we have in such profusion, turn the raw material into the finished product, foster and encourage our basic industry of agriculture, protect the home market for both industry and agriculture, and trade with those countries that are willing to trade with us, especially those within the Empire.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to me to follow very attentively the speeches delivered' by the mover (Sir Eugene Fiset) and the seconder (Mr. Hanna) of the Address. It has always been my duty since I have been in this House to listen very attentively to the well prepared and well delivered speeches of the proposer and the seconder of the Address, and to both the hon. gentlemen to whom the task fell on this occasion I beg to offer my congratulations. I think each of these members is an acquisition to the House. One, the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), has given us the benefit of his experience in the administration of the affairs of the country, and my hon. friend from West Hastings (Mr. Hanna) has given us the benefit of his experience in business.
[Air. Anderson.]
We had a few by-elections in the year 1924, and I am glad to say that the results have shown that our policy has been thought a wise one and good for the country. The people all through Canada, and especially the electors of the county of West Hastings, in the old province of Ontario, have approved' of the policy of the present government of reducing the tariff at the last session.
Mr. Speaker, our friends to your immediate left in 1921 adopted a new name for their party. They added to an already long name the word "National." That was added to the words Liberal-Conservative, no doubt because they thought the word "National" would harmonize with the words "National Policy," and would carry them to victory at the polls that year. But the result of the election was that only fifty members of that old historic party came back to this House. Not very long ago, I understand, our friends who are devoted to a protective tariff could ntot bear even the good name of Liberal, and they tried to bury that too. At the particular meeting at which this matter was discussed, if I am well informed, the name of Sir John Macdonald was mentioned, in this way; it was said that with the good old label of Liberal-Conservative Sir John Macdonald had carried his party to victory on many an occasion. The name of Sir Charles Tupper was also mentioned, and the name of Sir John Thompson. The latest reports we have are that the name National is now buried, also the word Liberal, and only the word Conservative, which sounds like Toryism, remains and is the best word for our high-protectionist friends. But, Mr. Speaker, if w'e are to judge by the results of the last few by-elections, I do not think any name can help that party very much in the future, for some time at least.
We have a large debt to meet in this country. The war imposed heavy obligations upon us. Our soldiers, and the widows and orphans of those who fell in the war have to be looked after; the interest on our debt has to be paid. And I ask myself, and I ask this House: Are we going to be able to meet all our obligations? For my part I can see only one or two means of salvation for us, and those are economy, the further development of our natural resources, and better transportation facilities. During the war we made lots of money, through production and labour and so forth, and the people of this country contracted the habit of spending freely what they were earning, and gave very little thought to the obligations we had to meet in the future. If we are to meet these great obligations, we shall have to be very careful.

The Address-Mr. Michaud
We have assets which, if care is taken, will pay double and triple the amount of our debt. What are those assets? They are our farms, our fisheries, our mines and our forests. I had occasion during the last session to call the attention of the House to the necessity of the preservation of our forests. I pointed out then that we had to be very careful to cooperate with the provinces in order to protect our forests. We have been successful in that respect to a certain extent. As far as our fisheries are concerned, unfortunately we were blocked by our American friends from our natural market on the other side, and we were not so successful in the past year. As to mining, we have to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that we have taken out of the earth in the last year or two more gold than ever before. In order to bring about the expansion of our commerce, and assist in meeting our obligations, our government negotiated with certain other countries and dominions, with the result that our trade has been augmented to a certain extent. I must say, however, that our neighbours to the south have not dealt with us fairly. The United States to-day holds ninety per cent or more of the gold of the entire world. But, not satisfied with that, they are now trying to control the trade of the world and to penalize the commerce of other nations. Canada is one country against whose products they have placed an embargo. If an example of their action in this respect is needed it can be found in the Fordney bill. There is no doubt but that we have ample reason to complain of the unfriendly conduct of our neighbour the United States. In order to convince the House that I am amply warranted in this statement I shall read to you the statement of a writer in the Boston Post which has been embodied in an article published by a newspaper in my own town and headed This Embargo Business The article says:
That's the heading a writer in the Boston Post gives an article on the potato embargo. This writer deals with the question in a very frank manner and makes bold to state that the American nation is a persistent user of the embargo tactics.
The reason, that fine Malaga grapes were unobtainable in the American market the past holiday season was that the government had put an embargo on Malagas from Spain. Plant bulbs from France, England and Holland have likewise been excluded by the same process. "Some years ago," reminds the writer, "the onion growers of Bermuda were totally ruined for a season by an embargo excluding Bermudian onions from the United States. The last time Canada had an abundant potato crop the American government imposed an embargo on their importation."
"Now," concludes the Boston Post article, "with our record how can we consistently protest when our favorite tactics are turned against us."
Without a doubt this is a very fairminded editorial, published in one of the foremost papers of the republic to the south of us. Can we take it as being indicative of general feeling? Why should we worry if it is or is not? Britain has done what she thinks right and in doing so has incidentally helped a small portion of Canada, namely, The Maritimes. Too long has Canada been afraid of arousing the w'rath and indignation of the U. S. Too long have we acted as stepping stones for the use of the money monarchs of the U. S. while stepping across the gap, to politely take from us our very necessities of life.
Mr. Speaker, the foregoing is a very strong article but I think it states the situation correctly. In my opinion the Americans are pursuing a very shortsighted policy, because the indications are that in the not distant future they will be looking to Canada, to a greater extent than they now do to supply their needs. In support of this view permit me to read the following extract from a French Canadian journal:
Coolidge and Canada
However, the hour of Canada will come. Quite recently, the President of the United States, Mr. Coolidge, foresaw it in a speech which created quite a stir in the country. The time is rapidly nearing, he said, when the American Republic will be forced to import enormous quantities of farm products. Previous to the war, he added, it was on the eve, as in the case of England, of being self sustaining. However, during the great European conflict, the Government gave an artificial and temporary stimulus to agriculture, and thus put back for a few years, the coming of the new state of things. Yet soon the American farmer will not produce enough wheat or food for the nation, and when this happens it will have to turn to agricultural countries so as to obtain the food which it will require.
This may be briefly translated as follows:
President Coolidge has expressed the opinion that sooner or later the consumers of this country will have to go to other agricultural countries in order to obtain food to meet the necessities of the nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to the rights of the Maritime provinces in connection with transportation and trade with ether parts of Canada. We have in Canada such an immense mileage that it is a matter of great difficulty for one section of the country to compete with another when it is handicapped by a long freight haul. In the Maritime provinces we produce lumber and raise potatoes in great quantities, but by reason of the long railway haul our lumbermen and potato growers are not in a position to compete with shippers located much nearer the market, as for example the lumbermen of Ontario when they send their lumber into the mid'dle or southern states. It is equally difficult for our potato shippers to meet the competition of growers in Ontario and Quebec whose products have only to be hauled a comparatively short distance. That affects us in this way: Not very long ago I observed that our friends out on the Canadian prairies were importing potatoes from across the line,

The Address-Mr. Michaud
paying duty on them, and ignoring entirely dealers in the Maritime provinces. I suppose the reason for that was that they could buy their potatoes more cheaply in the United! States than they could from us. If such is the case our transportation system is not aiding us to the extent that it should. The freights are too high to allow us to compete with our fellow Canadians in other parts of Canada, or even with Americans who seem to have no difficulty in sending their products into this country. In order to illustrate the unfortunate position we are in, let me point out to you that it requires from thirteen to eighteen barrels of potatoes to purchase one barrel of flour. Is not this a very heavy handicap for the Maritime provinces to labour under? Is it any wond'er that the St. John Telegraph, and the Times and Star, published in the city of St. John, N.B. are sending a representative throughout Canada in order to explain to the people of Ontario and Quebec, and especially our friends in the west, the serious handicap und'er which we suffer, and the urgent necessity for lower transportation rates? We must be relieved of some of these disabilities if we are to do our share in building up Canada, and there must be the most complete co-operation between all sections of the country and the equality as far as possible if we are to make this country what it should be. I must congratulate the newspapers in question on the enterprise they have displayed in taking such a striking way of making our grievances known, and I must acknowledge also the sympathy with which the representations made on our behalf have been received in other parts of Canada. I do hope that as a result of the present movement we shall be, in the near future, more happily situated, and that a better understanding may be arrived at between the east and the west. I am hopeful that the policy which has been enunciated by the government will have the desired effect not only in an equalization of railway rates but in an equalization in the price of food products throughout the Dominion.
I wish to say a few words in reply to my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Anderson). The hon. gentleman spoke of the cost of transportation; immigration; and protection. He has spoken as a protectionist. He also spoke of the equalization of rates, and so forth. He is perfectly right in his own view, but the country to-day will not consider for a moment that high protection is the policy we need. He has referred to the United States. Well, give us a population of 110,000,000 and we will have a home market, but 
with a population of 9,000,000 and over-production in our manufacturing centres, overproduction in the prairie provinces, and overproduction dn lumber all through Canada, what are we going to do? We have to find a market. When, by a high tariff, you prevent the people of the United States coming to Canada, what can you expect in return from that country? The reason wiiy to-day we have so much difficulty in meeting our obligations, in my opinion, is that the tariff is too high. We are unable to deal with many European nations on account of their money having no value. We are at a loss for immigration. But when you say to this House, as my hon. friend from Halton has said, that we want a higher tariff, what are we going to do with our products? That is a question which my hon. friend is unable to answer.
I have before me a few words, published in the Free Press in Winnipeg, and I should like to put on the record what that newspaper has said referring to the Maritime provinces. It is about time that we representatives of the Maritime provinces should place our grievances before the House:
The Maritime provinces have been 'hit particularly hard in the last few years. Not only has business suffered, but there has been a very heavy exodus to the United States. The number of people who have gone from all parts of these provinces has been a matter of the greatest concern. The cause of it was the general depression, together with the Fordney tariff, which practically cut off the United States market for products of the Maritime provinces. The great slump from the war traffic passing through Halifax and St. John-the enormous volume of supplies and the constant stream of troops-to the reduced traffic of post-war years, has also been very discouraging to the ambitions of those provinces. It is equally discouraging to see the western provinces growing while they are more or less at a standstill.
It is very necessary that something should be done to improve conditions. What are the natural advantages, and along what lines can development be stimulated ? Can anything more be reasonably done to encourage traffic through the Maritime ports? The government has not only spent money liberally on those poTts, but it has also secured a reduction in marine insurance on shipping and has given an increased preference on British goods imported into Canada through Canadian ports. The National Railways have also abolished the differentia] against those ports so that the rate on import and export traffic is the same as at Portland.
The results of the efforts of the commission which is being appointed will be awaited with interest in other parts of the country. We would have no national spirit, and Confederation would have no object or meaning, if we were indifferent to the difficulties of any part of the country. The difficulties of the Maritime provinces are serious, but, with the energy and resourcefulness of their people and such cooperation as the Dominion can lend, it is to be hoped that those difficulties will be surmounted and that a new day of prosperity and development along their own lines will soon come.
Years ago the province of Quebec was privileged by the addition of a large territory

The Address-Mr. Lems
to its limits. Labrador and Ungava were added to that province. Ontario was accorded the same privilege and a large tract of land was added to its area, Manitoba received a large increase of land. The western provinces are 'large and have enough land for centuries to come. We in the east, who also form a part of confederation, were limited to a few hundred or a few thousand square miles of land, and it is up to us now, when the old provinces and the new provinces of the west are receiving privileges from this government, that we should ask for cheaper transportation, so that we can transport our goods. We have to come to this House and ask for these privileges. In conclusion I have here a few words which I found in a magazine published in the United States uttered by one of our Canadian historians, and it suits my purpose to place them on Hansard. He says, speaking about Canadians:	"Let us
talk success not failure. Let us picture our victories rather than our defeats. We have many commercial and industrial lights. We should not hide them beneath a shade, but should place them upon a pedestal so that their brilliance may no longer remain unseen, because of light shining from afar."


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: It is usual to say a few words in regard to the Speech from the Throne. If there is one commendation that might be given to it, it is its brevity, but anything that it lacked in length was surely compensated for by the speech given in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other evening. In the speeches that were delivered to us by the Prime Minister and the hoc. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) we got two entirely different pictures of Canada and her condition. On the one hand we had Canada bisected. We saw her great bony framework, her great arteries and sinews, and all the inside mechanism of this great country, and it failed to evoke any great enthusiasm or disturb our minds. Yet on the other hand we had a picture presented to us of Canada in lurid colours, showing the abounding prosperity and our happy position compared with any other country in the world. The question that came to me while the speeches were being uttered was this:	Which of these speeches
rings true in the heart of the individual in his own experience? It is the experience of the individual which counts, and he is only able to grasp the picture when it rings true with that which he finds true in everyday life. So far as I am concerned I am glad to believe that Canada is a great and mighty country. We do not believe that everything here is 7
ideal, but it is far better for us not to think too seriously of the ills of the body politic. The great constitution of Canada to-day is sound, and for that reason, although we may have various ills and pains here and there that depress us, as a whole the body politic is sound. There is a good constitution; and with real leadership, and the right kind of thinking I believe we can come out successful from the depression in which we have been placed during the past few years.
While the Prime Minister was in the west he delivered certain speeches that revealed to us what had been done in past parliaments, and especially to the drastic cut that had been made in taxation. But what surprised me more than anything else-especially in his speech in Regina-was this fact: The average person seems to lack memory. The Prime Minister made the statement that possibly he had made the cut too drastic in taxation, that he had hewed just a little close to the line, and when he said to the intelligent people of that city that he had lowered the taxation of the Canadian people $27,000,000 in one year the people applauded, and yet not a word was said against it, not a question was asked. I am bound to say he could not have made such a statement in a little rural public school house without some question being asked, because when the Prime Minister speaks of a reduction of $20,000,000 in the sales tax, and $7,000,000, in the tariff, if one has any memory he will know that in this House during the two sessions previous to that the sales tax was increased, not $20,000,000 but between $50,000,-OOO and $60,000,000. Therefore, even at the present time, though there has been a reduction in taxation of $27,000,000, we are still $30,000,000 to the good from the point of view of public revenue. I am not saying a word against the sales tax. We must raise money in this country one way or another Taxation is something like a pain, no matter where you have it in the body, you would rather have it somewhere else. The average Canadian is really not thinking seriously in regard to his taxation and how the money is being raised, otherwise, Canadians wculd not have allowed such a statement to be made without some comment.
Since coming to Ottawa I have heard a great deal in regard to the wonderful crop in the west, and more in regard to the wonderful prices. The Prime Minister in his speech the other night spoke quite truly when he said that the price the farmers had received for their products for the first time since the war nearly equalled the price that they had to pay for other things, but yet the year was very unsatisfactory to the great majority of

The Address-Mr. Lewis

the farmers of Saskatchewan. When it is considered that by the most generous estimate the crop of last year was 125,000,000 bushels less than the average of the last two years, you can easily understand how it affected certain people. It must also be remembered that out of every year's crop we require twenty-five to thirty million bushels of wheat for seed, feed and milling purposes. Premier Dunning, in his letter to the Montreal Gazette, speaking of conditions in Saskatchewan, stated that very few people were fortunate enough to harvest a bumper crop. It is true that nearly as much money has gone into Saskatchewan this year, on account of the higher prices, as went into that province during bumper years, but that is poor consolation to those people who did not harvest a crop. We know that failure in Saskatchewan was due not to poor farming methods or poor farmers, but to weather conditions, and no government, no legislation, can remedy this kind of thing. The difficulty to-day is that in the drouth-stricken area this high price for grain is a drawback because many of the farmers have bo buy seed.
As regards branch lines and branch line construction, last year when the government was enunciating its policy of a three-year programme, one of the arguments advanced in favour of that policy was the fact that it would enable the government to proceed rapidly with branch line work and especially to allow the work to be done by the farmers at a time when they were not busy. As soon as I heard that a railway was to be built in my particular area which was drouth-stricken at that time, I got in touch with the farmers and endeavoured to present to the authorities the fact that we had over 300 men and 300 teams who could work on this construction work. This announcement was sent before the contract was given. The contract was given and the contractors came into the district, but the sign was out "No farmers need apply." They brought in labour from other districts or from other contracts which they had just finished, and the result was that labour which would have been a Godsend to those farmers in the drouth-stricken area was denied them and any benefit that might have accrued to us went to those foreign to our district, none of our people reaping the benefit. I am speaking on this point only for this reason, to show that the argument advanced had no real foundation, because when it was put to the test the work and the equipment were furnished by other people.
As regards the needs of Swift Current, the constituency which I have the honour to

represent, during the last two or three years, Swift Current has splendidly come out of the hole. The people of that district have had most wonderful crops and are benefitting thereby. The northern part of my constituency was drouth-stricken and as a result there was very much suffering. However, I would plead with the government for a more just distribution of public funds to the needs of the provinces in the west. I am not belittling the needs of the Maritime provinces, of which we have just heard, or even of Quebec or Ontario; but it is a well-known fact that if you were to look over the estimates which are brought forward in regard to the public works of this country you would find that one little wharf possibly up somewhere in Nova Scotia that served the needs of a hundred people, received just as much consideration and expenditure as three-quarters of a million in Saskatchewan. That does not seem to me to be fair. Of course our friends will say: You have the branch lines involving an expenditure of millions of dollars. But if we take the Prime Minister's speech in regard to balancing the budget, money spent on capital expenditure for the railways is not a part of our capital expenditure, it is simply a loan and therefore does not count. We should remember that the government, although it may not have many representatives from the three prairie provinces, should not be a class organization because of that. It should legislate for the whole of Canada, and the three prairie provinces to that extent come under its jurisdiction. In the city of Swift Current we have a site for a government building, and I believe the matter of providing such a building is under favourable consideration at the present time. But we have four government offices in Swift Current, one here, one up another street, one two streets down and another three streets up the corner, and it is very difficult for us to get to them. It would be more efficient to have the whole administration under one roof, and I believe the rent that we are paying for those four buildings to-day would more than pay five per cent interest on any expenditure on a public building that might be erected for the city of Swift Current and that would be more efficient and more accessible.
As regards government control of ocean freight rates, the efforts of the government to control these rates and thus limit the power of the North American Steamship combine should receive a great deal of support from this quarter of the House. It is a well-known fact that the export of cattle from Canada to the Old Country has been seriously curtailed as a result of the prohibitive prices

The Address-Mr. Lewis
that have been maintained during the past two or three years. The question that we are anxious about is:	How do the government
intend to carry out their programme? The Speech from the Throne gives us no light on the matter, and the only announcement we have received is from the public press which tells us that the government intend to subsidize a certain steamship line or more than one with ten, twelve or more vessels. And as a result of the lowering of the rates they intend to subsidize them to the extent of millions of dollars. I do not know whether this is true, but if it is true, then so far as I am concerned I am opposed to the subsidizing of any steamship lines I am speaking for myself. One only needs to look over the estimates of last year and previous years to realize the amount of money that has been expended in the subsidizing of steamship service lines for the purpose of keeping them open. I can easily understand how the government can lower the fre'ght rates by subsidizing a steamship company. But in the truest sense of the term, does that mean lowering the rates? It is simply asking the whole of the Canadian people to bear a part of the burden, and those steamship companies that are fortunate enough to receive sudsidies will not only have a substantial reward for lowering the rates but they wall have a profit as well.
I do not know whether the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was correct in what he said about the Petersen company and the president's address to the shareholders. If what the right hon. gentleman referred to was the negotiations with this government, then I think the time is opportune for this government to cancel the arrangements, because you can readily see that the president of that company is not interested in the reduction of freight rates; he is not interested in smashing the combine of the North American steamship companies, but in receiving a subsidy that will give him a profit and line the pockets of has numerous shareholders.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. member
presume to lay down the government's policy in regard to this whole question?


Arthur John Lewis: I am merely commenting
on the speech of the leader of the opposition in his reference to the president of the Petersen line.


Mr. LOW:: A bad basis.


Arthur John Lewis: Be that as it may, that is
what I am referring to. I do not believe
n
in subsidizing any lines. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has told us time and time again that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships are not suitable for this kind of traffic, nor would it be wise to convert them. I am not speaking against the judgment of the hon. member because he knows more about ships than I do. But before any drastic step is taken I do believe that, seeing that the merchant marine has cost the people of this country $70,000,000 which now represents a heavy burden of taxation, the government should secure expert advice on the matter; for I believe that a government-owned steamship service operated under competent management would be far more advantageous to the Canadian people and in the long run would stand some chance of smashing the combine,
A great deal has been said recently about! our wonderful resources; we hear every statesman speaking about our mines and minerals, and our forests and fisheries; and we hear a great deal too about the land. I was rather surprised the other evening to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speak in the-way he did concerning our forests, especially in view of the propaganda that is being disseminated throughout the country and the discussions that have taken place in this House regarding the preservation of our timber resources. It is my purpose to speak rather on the preservation than on the exploitation of our forests. It may be quite true that our natural resources are in some instances inexhaustible, but this cannot truly be said of the forests, for every report that we receive warns us that these forests are being rapidly depleted. I would much rather see them preserved and cultivated for future generations. It seems to me that the whole tendency of those in authority, when they speak about our natural resources, is to regret the fact that we in this generation cannot utilize them as rapidly as possible to our own advantage. They forget that posterity and eternity are a long way ahead, that there are hundreds of thousands of years before us, and that our children and our children's children have some right to this splendid, noble heritage that has come to the Canadian people. I am glad to know, from the reading of a report in regard to Quebec, that that province is doing a great deal in the matter of forest preservation within its own limits. I believe that a programme of intensive forestation should be carried out throughout the whole Dominion. It was only last year that the Minister of the Interior reported to us the fact that over $15,000,000
The Address-Mr. Lewis

worth of lumber had been destroyed by fire alone, involving great wastage and a considerable loss to the country, owing to a large extent to the carelessness of the contractor, as well as of the railways, and possibly of campers who cut the slash and the waste and leave the forest to become a prey to fire, which destroys not only the timber but also the young trees that should become the timber supply of the future.
I do not know how much truth there is in the statement, but we have been told that our forests will last only a few more years,-a few in comparison to the time it takes these splendid trees to grow; it may be ten years or fifty years from now. But look at the tragic consequences that would come to the nation if it were devoid of its trees. We heard the Prime Minister boast the other evening that our timber forests were the second largest in the world. Some day we shall wake up to the fact that they are not the second largest in the world and that we have no longer the forestry resources of the British Empire. As a result of fire and waste and the blighting that is caused by insect and other enemies we shall largely be a nation devoid of trees.
Another statement that was circulated amongst us in the west was that as a result of the depletion of our forests the water level of Canada is being seriously threatened. I do not know just how much truth there is in that, but surely the condition is serious. I would urge the government not to wait altogether on the findings of royal commissions, nor to depend upon propaganda, but to take time by the forelock and look seriously into the situation and do all it possibly can in the way of reforestation. The Minister of the Interior told us something was being done in connection with the reforestation of those lands that are suitable for the growing of timber, But not one-fiftieth part of the land to-day is Te-planted in comparison with the depletion that is taking place every year. It is obvious that we need a more intensive policy of reforestation of suitable lands, and stricter regulations governing contractors who go into the forests. This will be an additional expenditure but the cost will not be half so much to the Canadian people as the loss that will ensue from the destruction that is continually taking place; and the tragic consequences that follow in the wake of a nation devoid of its forests.
There is one statement in the Speech from the Throne to which I shall now refer, the statement that: In due course steps will be

taken to futher colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as those of the Peace river. One of the greatest problems confronting us at the present time is due t.* our haphazard policy of settling the country indiscriminately, with the result that we have a very scattered development to-day. Wo have two great transportation systems, we have a network of roads, we have great urban centres, but we have not a settled country. The statement was made two years ago that at least thirty million acres of land in close proximity to our two great railways are unsettled. It seems to me that it would be good business on the part of the government to settle these vacant areas first and thus bring the people more closely together. It could be done with very little extra expense. I understand the Peace river region is very fertile and could support millions of people; and it may be necessary to complete the railway to the junction and give the settlers already there an opportunity of getting their grain to market; but on the whole I believe it would be the best policy for the Dominion to fill up the vacant spaces along our railways rather than open up new country remote from transportation facilities.
Equalization of freight rates is naturally a very difficult problem. It is a burning subject in the west, and from what I have heard in the House this afternoon it is attracting just as much attention in the east. It is obvious that the competition between our various distributing points is very unfair today; but equality of rates on a mileage basis has not been the practice here or in the United States. However, since this matter i? still subjudice before the Supreme court, I do not think it is wise to discuss it, for one should not try to anticipate the judgment of that tribunal. But I think the government is to be congratulated on suspending the order of the railway commission pending decision by the Supreme court. With that decision before us we shall be in a position to debate the question.
Immigration and emigration were given a great deal of attention in the Speeches delivered by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and they filled Hansard with columns of statistics. From the contradictory figures the right hon. gentlemen presented it was apparent that each was relying on statistics prepared by different departments. I do not think any stronger argument could be presented in favour of all statistics being gathered and printed by one bureau than the fact that the statistics relied on by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the opposition differed to such a marked

The Address-Mr. Lewis
extent; they failed to ooincide. It would save a great expense if this statistical worx were dealt with by one department, and the information compiled would be more reliable and more accessible.
Our problem to-day seems to be to get a suitable class of immigrants. Every statesman tells us about the necessity of augmenting our population by attracting the right type of people; our newspapers deal with the subject editorially; and we are speaking about it privately all the time. Our business men tell us that if we increase our population it will automatically solve many of our difficulties. I know that the question immediately raises opposition from those who do not believe that the time is ripe to bring in more settlers, but that the first duty of the government is to remedy conditions and so improve the lot of those already here, which in turn will be an incentive for immigrants to make their homes with us. Well, I believe it is a very healthy sign when those in authority begin to tell us the truth in regard to Canadian conditions. Time was when our immigration literature contained the most extraordinary stories and pictured the advantages of settlement in Canada in the most, lurid colours. Naturally, when the immigrant saw the actual conditions he got the greatest surprise and disappointment of his life. Today we are endeavouring to tell the truth about Canada, to let the intending immigrant know what to expect, and I believe that that will be found to be the best policy in the long run. The intending immigrant should study world conditions, particularly in comparison with the country where he intends to settle. As far as I have been able to judge, an impartial verdict upon world conditions to-day would easily give Canada the first choice for the homemaker. If I could go back twenty-two years and were again picking out a country in which to settle, in spite of the difficulties and hardships I endured, I would again choose Canada as my home.
It is well for us to remember that Canada is the last great west to be populated, and therefore we should not be in too great a hurry in settling it. We do not want a class of people that would be detrimental to our position and to our standard of life. Comparisons, of course, are odious, and when comparisons are made of so many immigrants going to the United States and so many coming here, it is well to bear in mind that these comparisons are of very little value unless we understand the conditions surrounding them. There is not a doubt in my mind that Canada is suffering from a too-scattered
development. We have railways branching out to almost every part of this great dominion; we have cities that are - tribute to the faith and energy of our people; we have all the modern conveniences, transportation, telegraphs and telephones; but, as I said a moment ago, our homestead lands were opened up indiscriminately. If you want confirmation of this you have only to look at the map of Canada. In three prairie provinces we have a little under two million people, and our public expenditure would look after more than double that number. In a word, we are so scattered over this great area that our expenses of administration are as great as if we had a very much larger population compactly settled; in other words, we could easily absorb a million more people without enlarging our machinery of government, or increasing the expense of our public administration. Of course, it would be necessary to build new homes. That would' be inevitable if you are going to increase population,-and, I am going to add, if you are going to decrease taxation in our country. For myself, and I have given deliberate study to this question, I d'o not see how any intelligent argument can be raised against more people of the right kind coming to our country at the present time. It is people that we require, and the more the better. The benefits that would accrue to us, I think, are legion. We know hat we have the finest agricultural lands in the world; our resources are second to none; our governments, our councils and our schools and our educational system are, I think, a credit to a new people. Our railways, with one or two exceptions, are reaching out to all our people. How, then, is it possible to remedy our conditions unless we fill up these \acant spaces? These modern improvements all cost money, and I believe that the population of Canada to-day is totally inadequate to pay the taxation that is demanded by this country at the present time. A greater immigration would assist trade all along the line.
Those who are opposed to immigration will say this: If this is all you have to offer to the intending settler-that is to help us bear the burden of taxation-I do not wonder the people d'o not come. But that is not all that we have to offer the people who come to this country. The people whom we are inviting to come to this country are already paying enormous taxation on the lands in which they now dwell. In spite of our business depression, in spite of over four years in the war, when we compare our taxation with that of the rest of the civilized world, and the modem

The Address-Mr. Lewis
conveniences that we have to offer, I think the comparison is very favourable to ourselves. For that reason I do not think any nation in the world has so much to offer as Canada to the people who come to us. We have farm lands at very reasonable prices; we have schools and' churches; we have modem conveniences; and I see no reason why people, if they have capital and experience cannot in a very short time make comfortable homes for themselves and have a fairly happy existence in this country. Of course, conditions are nowhere ideal under God's sun to-day, and we cannot expect them to be so here. But I believe that we are on the right track; I believe that with the experience of our Canadian people at the present time, with their energy and perseverance, we shall come out into the open and' into the sunshine.
I do not think that immigration should be restricted to agriculturists alone, that is, if they are willing to come to this country and farm, because it must be remembered that a great many of the world's sweepstakes that have been offered for agriculture recently have been won by men who are on the farm to-day but have had no previous agricultural experience. So for that reason there is hope. 1 can readily see there must be many people in this world to-day who are longing for a home and' for land of their own, for a chance to expand, and who would gladly come to this country. Naturally, as a Britisher, I would like to see an influx of British settlers to this country. They are familiar with our standards and our traditions, and the Britisher makes a very good colonizer, and a splena'id citizen. For that reason I think this great country cf ours should be open to that class of people.
Then, turning to the United States, conditions there have not been what people have been endeavouring to make out. One of the questions I would like to have asked the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) when he was speaking this afternoon of the great prosperity of the United States, with its taxation and its high protection, is this:	What
about the great farming community in the United States; has protection there assisted the farmer at all? We know that the farmers in the United States, as a result of the high prices of 'land and of the heavy freight rates, are in a very poor condition financially today, and I believe the United States is a good recruiting ground for immigrants to this country. Besides that we have more than one million and a half of good French Canadian stock now living in the United States who ought to be brought back here to develop the

lands of northern Quebec, and possibly the lands of northern Ontario. A way should be found whereby these men can come back to the land and the province of their birth. We have also about the same number of people of British origin living in the United States to-day, and with the upward trend of living conditions I see no reason why these people should not come back to their old home. The races in northern Europe, because of their experience in agriculture, and being used to a climate similar to ours, adapt themselves most readily to our climaie and become very good citizens.
In closing let me say this:	Tell the intending immigrant of the hardships and privations he will have to undergo in this country; tell him something about our winter, if you will; reveal all these conditions to him. Then tell him also of the thousands of his own race who have come to this country, and suffered the hardships and privations, and have still endured. Then show him the thousands of homes and the thousands of well-equipped farms, the thousands and thousands of well-bred children, strong, virile and intelligent, entering into an inheritance in the social and educational spheres that is no* equalled in any other part of the world. Teli him of all these conditions, and then let the invitation go out, and if they have the spirit of the Great West in their veins, if they have the perseverance and stability of the men who have made this Canadian nation, invite them to come and share our burdens, yea and enter into an inheritance of which no real Canadian is ashamed.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I almost apologize for getting up at
this time directly after one of my colleagues, but a speaker on the government side is not ready, and I wish to take up a short time of of the House.
The discussion on the Speech from the Throne has this time, as usual, particularly among the leaders of our parties, turned again on the great question of class privilege. This is a question that will have to be settled in the near future, and the government will do well to take into consideration the unrest brought on by it through the different parts of the country. In fact, Sir, I think this session of parliament is fraught with issues that are of the utmost importance to the unity and stabilization of confederation itself.
There is no forward policy outlined which the government seems prepared to follow. The diversified interests of this country call

The Address-Mr. Evans
for a uniform policy, a policy of equality that will harmonize the aspirations of the different classes of this Dominion. The people outside the industrial area-th3 manufacturing centres of Quebec and Ontario, are calling for their rights as free citizens of a free country. Now, a country must be a commonwealth; by that I mean its privileges, its advantages, its freedom of opportunity must be open to all on an equal basis. No country, however large, no matter how unbounded its natural resources may be, can develop on lines that are lasting or worth while if one part or one class of it is held in bondage to another class or to the people of another area. Our democracy here will prove a farce unless all the people share in its advantages.
The fact is that in Canada our policy, our class privilege, adopted as far back as 1878, has been a disintegrating policy, giving class advantage on the one hand and impoverishment on the other. A policy of concentration of wealth and power in the one case which results in poverty and dependence in the other. Ouf great employers of labour and those who direct the financial and industrial policies of the Dominion, are hypnotized by the fallacious idea of class privilege; and there is no indication even yet fore-shadowed in the Speech from the Throne, that our government is free from the mesmerism of this personal selfishness. Because of the policy of self-aggrandizement on the part of employers, backed up so long by succeeding governments, the cost of living has reached a level which puts the cost of production entirely out of line with the world's prices abroad. It has curtailed the market at home by destroying the purchasing power of the agriculturist who has had to curtail his production for the same reason. The power of the agriculturist in this country to consume home manufactured goods is limited only by his power of production. If the commodities the agriculturists need to use could be bought at the prices prevailing in the markets of the world to-day, if the workers on our railways and shipping lines could buy what they need at those prices, there would to-day be a greater utilization of labour in this country, while the power of the farmer to produce would b". immensely increased and consequently his capacity to consume) proportionately enhanced.
The manufacturer of this Dominion, pampered by privilege, is exhibiting indolence in seeking a market for his goods abroad, but is ever calling for increased protection in the home market which has diminished as class
privilege has been applied. Britain to-day is paying her way by her exports, a thing no protective country in the world which was directly concerned in the war is doing. She is setting a moral example to the world which all protectionist countries would do well to heed. Morally and economically speaking she is to-day leading the world by reason of the stability of her economic policy with which neither Liberal nor Conservative governments dare to meddle: and while the United States may have the gold of the world in her coffers she is learning that money is not wealth, and though it is the symbol by which we reckon reality, the true wealth of a nation lies in its power to produce and its freedom of exchange. Money is but a shadow, trade is the substance. In a country where trade is free and production unhampered, as in Britain, even the loss and destruction caused by a great war is soon overcome. Its exchange becomes normal, hope and courage prevail among all classes, and the nation faces the future with confidence. There is no continuous whine on the part of the manufacturers in Britain such as is put up in this House every session from year to year. And if we contrast the condition in Britain to-day with the condition in Canada what do we find? Morally we must admit that the economic policy of this land is yet subject to party expediency: and we need only peruse the Speech from the Throne and some utterances of our Prime Minister-notably in Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton-to know that our government is yet in close relationship with, or even dominated by the directors of industry and finance rather than by a sense of economic justice for the workers of this Dominion. The government is backed up in this by the official opposition, and while there may be party controversy, the contest does not hinge on economic equality for all classes alike, but as to which will dare by servility to make a old for the favour of those who may for the time being, through the concentration of wealth and industry, control the policies of trade and finance of this Dominion and the lives of the people as well.
Here I want to say that to protect an industry in any country is in the end bound to act detrimentally to the interest of the protected industry itself as well as to that ol' the consuming population. To the protected interest the cost of living goes up with the amount of protection that interest enjoys, and the consuming public is handicapped in its productive work by the same process. This feature in our economic life affects every phase of government. Protection or, as I like to call it, legalized robbery, has driven our country
The Address-Air. Evans

into a condition of debt and entanglement, from which it will take the co-operation of all classes to extricate it. Our climate is good, our soil is unexcelled. Therefore the reasonable thing to do is to remove every handicap from the one industry that asks no protection, the one class that desires no favours, so that it will be free to produce. The problem for this nation to-day, as it has been for some time, the one thing for the wage earner and the agriculturist to do is to set free the government of this country from the domination of the capitalistic and manufacturing groups and revise the industrial policy of the state.
The right hon. leader of the opposition has lately been stressing the point of bringing the old national policy up to date. But the old National Policy of 1878 has been tried and found wanting. The handwriting is on the wall, and for him and his policy it might well be written to-day:
Meighen, Meighen, tekel Upharsin.
What the hon. gentleman means by bringing the old national policy up-to-date, I do not know, except it be to raise the tariff to a point which will entirely prohibit the importation of foreign goods. Now that is what the United States intended doing by the Fordney-McCom'ber tariff, and which has proved a fallacy unprecedented, so far as importation is concerned. To-day Britain is finding it quite as easy to export to the United States millions of yards of piece-goods as she did before the tariff was raised. With the amount of tariff protection the manufacturers of any country enjoy the prices will go up equal to the level of that protection. I want here to read an extract from the Recorder and Times of Brockville, a paper published daily by the Recorder Printing Company. Hon. George P. Graham, M.P., it is said, is president of that company. The Recorder and Times has seen fit to place this article in its editorial columns and describes it as a United States indictment against protection. The paragraph which I would like to bring before the House reads as follows:
Philadelphia holds the protective principle in reverence and proclaims herself "the workshop of the world," but under the highest tariff rates the United States has ever known there is a higher percentage of unemployment in protectionist Philadelphia than there is in free trade London. Not a day passes but the daily papers record suicides of people out of employment or people unbalanced by business cares. Nearly two billion dollars' worth of recently-built modern ships (built in the United States) rust at their anchorage in the rivers and harbors of the United States, in the days of the highest tariff the country has ever had. The greater portion of the finest peach crop that Georgia has ever owned has been dumped into the river or allowed to rot on the trees because
[Mr. Evans.)
American housewives cannot afford to preserve peaches with the price of sugar what it is under the highest tariff that has ever existed. Under this high tarifF there are more idle manufacturers scattered throughout all the forty-eight states than have ever before been known. In New York there is such a lot of money that under certain conditions it may be obtained at as low a rate of interest as two per cent. Notwithstanding this, because of forced withdrawals of savings from the small banks in many sections of the country over two thousands of these banks have been obliged to close their doors. A quarter of a million families, representing a million and a quarter individuals, have been forced from their farms, while an equal number remain on their farms, entirely through the leniency of their friends.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Can the hon. gentleman
tell me what the date of that article is?


John Evans: September 27, 1924. Here is an indictment against protection, describing conditions in the very country whose policy we are exhorted by the opposition members of this House to emulate. Its ships are idle because of its trade barriers. Crime is increasing because of its economic fallacy-it would seem to be a verified fact that has often been put forward, that class privilege and crime are very closely related. The prices of all commodities are high because of the centralized control which is always a feature of protection or legalized communal robbery. A contented virile population on the land is a bulwark of morality and prosperity in any country. This is particularly true of this Dominion. But we are asked to emulate a country that has driven one and a quarter million from their farm homes by a policy which robs the agriculturist of his earnings.


Mr. STEVENS:: Some home for the protectionist.


John Evans: I must say that the mind of the protectionist advocate has always been a mystery to me. There is no accounting for it in any other way than that his intellect is clouded by the prospect of immediate gain by a policy which as it benefits one class, robs other legitimate industries, agriculture in particular, of its earning. Last session we accepted the budget at the hands of the government as an earnest determination on its part to evolve a policy of free or at least freer trade. In the Speech from the Throne our attention is now drawn to the high cost of production. But the one thing which is at the root of the whole evil is to remain as it is for the present. No, even the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not to mention the "death knell of protection" this year, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) states in his speeches throughout the country that the government has gone far enough; the

The Address-Mr. Evans
government is upholding the hand of the protected interests, while ominous sounds of separation are heard from both the east and the middle west of this Dominion.
I wish to take a few minutes to show something of the extent of protection the manufacturer enjoys at the expense particularly of the agriculturist, under the present system of protection which my friends to my right intend to have increased at the first opportunity. Now a cut was made in the tariff last session, but no cut in the tariff schedule as it stands can be effective in lowering the cost of living in the cities or the cost of production on the farms while the tariff act is administered as it is. While the dumping act is applied by the government to discriminate against private citizens and co-operative companies, the tariff schedule may be eliminated altogether, and the manufacturer would still have all the price-fixing power that he cares to enjoy. On the farms of Canada the agriculturist for some years past has sought to lower the cost of production by co-operative effort, but here the government steps in and says, " Thou shalt not." The politician-and I say this deliberately- is and always has been the chief link in the whole chain of privilege, and the seething discontent of the Maritimes and the middle west to-day lies at the door of the government. Nor is this dumping act all in which the politician becomes the vendor of privilege. A trade discount is taken into account in computing the cost for customs purposes, amounting in the case of big deals to as high as twenty per cent. In the case of co-operative companies and individuals this is not allowed, so again the politician makes another sale of the rights of one citizen as compared with another.
In spite of the much-vaunted cut in the tariff last year, the cost of living to-day in the Dominion is quite as high or higher than it was before the paltry change was made. Goods are just as dear for the workers, the cost of production on the farms is just as high. Equality is surely one of the main attributes of government, it is an inherent quality of citizenship. Yet our citizens are classified by the government at the instigation of the manufacturing and distributing combines as to their right to import on invoice prices. As far as I can find out no such classification is mentioned in the act and the power of the board is very loosely applied. Worst of all, what makes even our parliament a nonentity and government seemingly a mercenary scramble, refunds of these sums have been made just as the importer has had the
temerity to protest or has threatened to make public the doings of the board or the secret administration of the whole act. Fair market value is interpreted, not according to the act, but according to whether the importer is a consumer, dealer, jobber or manufacturer. Sections 41 and 43 of the act are simply a nonentity as regards its administration. So is section 53 relating to the same thing. They have no definite meaning, but they are interpreted simply according to the will of the board which is guided by the mandatory instructions of those concerned. No statutory regulations seem to govern their actions. This is why I say that government in this country is simply reduced to a mercenary scramble. Our whole system of collecting revenue under the tariff is, in the way it is applied, a system of banditry as regards some of our citizens. Because of the domination of Ontario and Quebec and the means those provinces take to maintain this domination, tariff matters have become sectional in their application. Not only does the tariff act prevent competition from foreign countries against the industrial areas of Quebec and Ontario, but discriminatory freight rates as well give them protection against other parts of the Dominion. Such -are the means taken with the connivance of the government to keep up the cost of living, which is at the bottom of all our troubles. Wages, freight rates, cost of distribution and manufacture, as well as the production of all things, hinge on the cost of living. Railway managers say that freights cannot come down until wages are lower. Railway workers say that wages -are only consistent with the cost of living and that they must be left at their present level to meet the high cost. All the time our farmers are leaving the land. But the government to-day is seemingly more careful to replace us by immigration than to retain experienced farmers. Given our freedom on the land to-day, in five years time we could fill up the waste places of this Dominion with contented home makers who would set the Dominion humming with industry.
The Prime Minister stated that the leader of the opposition must know that his panacea for the ills of the nation is futile in face of the results of the by-elections of this year. But what of that? The government to-day is maintaining the same old ruinous policy that the opposition maintained from 1911 to 1922, the only deviation made being the microscopic cut in the tariff at the last session of parliament. After all the severe castigation the government received* at the hands of the leader of the opposition that hon. gentle-
The Address-Mr. Evans

man must know that the condition on the farms of Canada to-day and the closing of the 2,000 factories, which, he says, he can vouch for, is the result of his own policy. The Libby-Owens incident was brought very forcibly to the attention of this House last year. It is a tragedy in industry to-day, and I am mentioning this one case only because 1 know something of it. The Libby-Owens factory is closed because of the quality of its goods. In Saskatoon at the present time we are build'ing a sanatorium for the treatment of tuberculosis and a great deal of glass is being used in the three large sun rooms that run the whole length of the building. Up there one day, talking not long ago to the foreman, and noticing that all these glass cases came from Great Britain, I said to him: " Why did you not buy this material in Canada? Why did you not buy the Libby-Owens products?" " Oh," he said, " we could not use the stuff. It is too brittle." That is only one case where our manufacturers are lying down on the quality of the goods today and depending upon protection to carry them through.
But to return, there is no difference between the two parties; they are both championing the great communism of pelf. The policies of the two are equal. I see the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). They are quite comfortable in the seats of the Liberals at this time, and I say that there is no difference between the two parties. Und'er present conditions agriculture is bound to languish and die, and no system of immigration will suffice to give us an increase in population under such circumstances. Under normal conditions before the war it was estimated that one out of every seven persons brought into this country and settled on the land stayed and made good. This estimate was made by two cf the most observant men in western Canada, Sir James Aikens and Mr. J. B. Mussel-man. Under this system of class privilege, however, not more than one in twelve at present can be expected to make good. I do not want to be misund'erstood in this matter: I am not opposed to immigration; I hope I shall live to see the day when the Dominion will have twenty millions of people. But we must do first things first, and the first thing to do is to set the agriculturist free, as free as God ever intended him to be.
The futility of a tariff-fed industry is amply exemplified to-day in the case of the British Empire" Steel Corporation. I have

no hesitation in naming that company. From the days of the inauguration of the Dominion Iron & Steel Company, that concern has been a source of expense and trouble to the taxpayers of the country. In bounties it has received at the hands of the taxpayer $8,115,399.75, while in remission of duties it has received nearly three quarters of a million. It received in 1921-22 as compensation for loss of contract $4,500,000. In other words, it has benefited to the extent of $13,276,672. This concern during the time of its operation has received for services, from the departments of this government, Railways and Canals, Marine and Fisheries, and Militia, no less a sum than $77,138,459. The price of rails charged to this government was $32 per ton, with $7 a ton bounty added, making a total of $39 per ton, while the same company could cut prices against the whole world to $24, delivered. This country at the time of the building of the Transcontinental railway bought its rails at $15 per ton more than it would have paid if it had brought them in from outside, and the taxpayer to-day has to meet the difference. Then we wonder why there is a deficit every year on our railways. Conditions prevail to-day at this company's works which are a disgrace to Canada and a disgrace to the name it bears. Twice since this parliament has been elected the militia has been sent in there to preserve order.


William F. Carroll: What were the occasions?


John Evans: 
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Were the wagons
referred to by the hon. member purchased at the regular price in the country of origin, or were they bought at a lower rate than the purchase price in that country?


John Evans: They were purchased in the
regular way in the country of origin, but after the valuation had been raised $108 and a duty exacted on that amount, this farmers' company had to pay a dumping duty of $104, which represented 46 per cent ad valorem on the purchase price.


Donald Sutherland: Why a dumping
duty?


John Evans: I will answer the hon.
gentleman's question, and my authority is a statement made by the Minister of Customs on the floor of the House last session in answer to a question by the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote).
Fair market value is not interpreted according to the Act, but according to whether the importer is a consumer, dealer, jobber, or manufacturer. Under this legislation no consumer, no co-operative company can get the standing of dealers or distributors of agricultural implements or any other commodity; they may import. This is tyranny. And yet the agriculturists of this country are expected to operate under it. Is it right?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not quite understand my hon. friend. Does he say that no co-operative or private concern can import an article direct from the manufacturer in the United States?


John Evans: You have it right, sir.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who is to blame for that? Surely he is not blaming the Canadian industrialist for that. The blame must rest
upon the manufacturer of agricultural implements on the other side.


John Evans: No, not at all. Why do
you put that construction upon it? It is so because the manufacturer in this country maintains that he only has a right to sell goods in this country. That is the idea of protection. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) made the statement in the House last session, in answer to the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). It is true enough.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is referring to the application of the dumping clause as passed two years ago, under which the matter is in the hands of the Minister of Customs. He supported and we opposed it.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Not at all; it was passed fifteen years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was amended two
years ago.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


John Evans: I think the hon. gentleman
is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The amendment to the act passed in 1922 related only to natural products. The right hon. leader of the opposition at that time gave the government the worst castigation that I have ever heard.


Arthur Meighen: It was not bad enough.


John Evans: I admit, Sir, it was not bad enough. But this is what I want to tell the House to-day, when I make the point that there is no difference between the two parties: both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) voted with the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On what?


John Evans: On that amendment. There is no mistake; I took a note of it at the time. I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I hope I have been able to bring before you the conditions under which agriculture is labouring to-day. Agriculture must have these conditions removed before the present population, or any augmented population, can operate successfully.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
The Address-Mr. Evans

Thursday, February 12, 1925