1926-01-22

REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance on loan and trust companies for the year ended December 31, 1924; report of the Superintendent of Insurance on civil service insurance for the year ended March 31, 1925; report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the year ended March 31, 1925

Hon. Mr. Robb.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
HENRY DRAYTON (West York): Mr. Speaker, might I ask my hon, friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when we may expect the Auditor General's report?
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I directed the attention of the Auditor General to the fact that the time had elapsed for the tabling of his report. He replied that owing to circumstances over which he had no control-


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What were they?


James Alexander Robb: -the report was delayed, but that he was using every effort to have it ready for tabling. In justice to the Auditor General I think I should remind hon. members that parliament this year was called earlier than usual.



ALBERTA COAL-TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) as to what steps have been taken to ensure the movement of coal from Alberta to Ontario. Last session a sum of money was made available for the purpose of ascertaining the exact cost per ton of transporting coal from the west to the east and to meet any deficit that might arise by reason of the transportation costs being greater than $7 per ton. Large quantities of coal are now obtainable, in fact I am advised that 100,000 tons could be supplied in three weeks if that quantity could be used in central Canada. I understand that the National Railway management did not avail itself of the $25,000 subvention voted by parliament. If a rate of $7 per ton could be assured for future shipments beyond the 25,000 tons that has been or is about to be moved, and that has not absorbed any part of that subvention, there would be a ready market

Chicago Drainage Canal

for large quantities of coal in central Canada. If the hon. minister has any observations to make they will be gratefully received by those who are actively interested in coal production in Alberta.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct .that last year parliament voted $25,000 for the specific purpose of moving a quantity of coal from Alberta to Ontario, which movement was to be of the nature of a test. A careful accounting of the transportation costs was to be kept by a nominee of the Alberta government. Arrangements were all completed, as I understood the matter both from Sir Henry Thornton and Premier Greenfield, and the government of Canada was to contribute $1 a ton if the rate should be $8; if it should be $9, the Alberta government was to contribute the other dollar, making $2 in all. However, just before the inception of the movement the railway company handled the 25,000 tons without calling upon either government to make good any loss that might accrue. Therefore that money has not been used for the purpose for which it was voted.
About six weeks ago, when it began to become apparent that the strike in the anthracite field might create a fuel shortage in the central portion of Canada, or what we call the fuel area, the fuel board took steps to ascertain the situation. We found at that time that seventy per cent of the quantity required for this area had been already moved into the country. Since that time I cannot say definitely what further quantity has come in. We took occasion to notify the railway companies that if they were required to do so we would be greatly obliged if they would mobilize their rolling stock at convenient points to hurriedly move large quantities of coal to central Canada both from the east and the west. So far no serious situation has developed, largely I think owing to the very mild weather that we have been experiencing; but should the situation become acute we are ready to lend every assistance we can, and I know that the railway companies are prepared to move the coal very rapidly if a market can be found for it. Of course, it will mean that the prices will be somewhat higher, but in view of the possibility of a shortage it will be necessary to take every precaution to meet any emergency. [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might not the $25,000 or a portion of it yet be available for the movement of an additional quantity of coal beyond the 25,000 tons contemplated by the original arrangement? rw TV'TuneM.]


Charles A. Stewart: When I was discussing this matter six weeks ago that possibility had occurred to me, but the money having been voted for that specific purpose, the Auditor General, or someone in his department, advised that we could not use it for this purpose. However, if it became necessary to grant assistance to the movement, I know the federal government would facilitate any assistance that might be necessary.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) if in view of the ill feeling that is being engendered on both sides of the line by the Chicago diversion, now called the Chicago steal-I think very aptly- the government is making any move to deal with this; and if the government was represented at a big meeting in Detroit the other day. I believe this question is so important that a statement from the government should be forthcoming in order to let us know what .progress if any, is being made in regard to it.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to have the hon. gentleman wait until Monday in order that I may mobilize the information in possession of the government in connection with the matter. May I say to him now that we are watching the situation very closely. I cannot say definitely that vt7e were represented at Detroit, but we have been represented at every hearing which has been held in connection with this diversion.


Robert James Manion: Is the minister aware of
the great ill feeling caused at the present time all over the Dominion and especially at the lake ports through the lowering of the water, which is blamed on the Chicago steal?


Charles A. Stewart: We
are thoroughly informed about the agitation which is resulting from the diversion, in both Canada and the United States.


Robert James Manion: The minister will make a
statement on Monday?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston City):: May I ask the minister if he knew of this meeting at Detroit?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not know of the meeting in Detroit, but I have a pretty good idea of those who were represented at the meeting. There are some matters in connection with this question

Locarno Treaty
which I do not think it would be wise to make public at the moment. Suffice it to say for the information of the House that we are very closely in touch with all matters appertaining to the diversion.



LOCARNO TREATY


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, before the House takes up the Orders of the Day, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if the government would be willing to lay on the table of the House-previous to taking up the usual business after the Address is carried or not-the correspondence passed between the Canadian government and the British government with reference to the Locarno treaty, the preliminary negotiations, the concluding of the treaty itself and any part thereof which may have been the subject of an exchange of views between the two governments after the treaty, especially in regard to the possible adherence of Canada and the other dominions to the .treaty, by virtue of Article 9. It seems to me of the utmost importance, before the House broaches the subject, that the members -and senators-be furnished with all the documents of this international debate, the consequences of which may be very serious for the world in general and for the dominions in particular, in order to allow both Houses to enlighten themselves on the data of the problem. I would respectfully ask the government to kindly bring down said correspondence at their earliest convenience.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, there was in fact, correspondence exchanged between the Canadian government and the Imperial government with reference to the Locarno treaty. The said correspondence is not yet closed, it is still at present being carried on between the two governments. This correspondence is marked confidential. However, I must inform my hon. friend that so far as we are concerned, we have no objection to it being made public. I am glad that our attention was drawn to that important question and we shall seek the means to obtain the consent of the other party to the correspondence, and bring down, as soon as possible, everything that can be laid on the table of the House [DOT]with reference to said question. In the meantime, the government has had the treaty of Locarno itself printed with the various arbitration conventions relating to it, the treaty between France and Poland and that between France and Czecho-Slovakia, and later on in 14011-22i
the day, in order that members may have the opportunity of studying this question, perhaps during the week end, I shall lay this document on the table of the House, moreover, the distribution office will have copies for all the members.
Perhaps I might repeat in English the last part of my remarks. The government has had the Locarno treaty printed, with the various arbitration conventions relating to it-not only the treaty between Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium, but also the treaty between France and Poland and that between France and Czecho-Slovakia. I will lay a copy of that document on the table a little later to-day, if the House will allow me, and there will be copies in the distribution office for rhe use of those members who desire to study this matter over the week-end.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The Minister of
Justice said in French that most of the correspondence carried on between the British and Canadian governments was marked confidential. Of course, that is always the case. He mentioned also, if I understood him correctly, that this government would endeavour to secure from the British government permission to lay the correspondence before this House. I have never been a minister of the crown on either side of the ocean, but I know something of these matters. I know that such consent is given, in a large measure, according to the emphasis put upon the importance of letting the public know w'hat is going on between the two governments. I have known of instances, in this country as well as in South Africa and Australia, where the British government at first showed some reluctance to produce the correspondence; but when the Dominion government insisted upon the importance of the correspondence being produced, permission was given.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The spirit of Locarno must prevail until the question is regularly debated in the House. On the orders of the day questions only may be put.


Ernest Lapointe: I can assure my 'hon. friend that we will do everything possible to get this consent, find that there will be no reluctance on our part. The greatest emphasis will be laid on the importance ef the matter.



PERSONNEL OF THE CABINET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHBN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks we have been awaiting, and each day
Personnel of Cabinet

had a right to expect, a statement from the ministry as to its intentions in regard to the personnel of the cabinet. We are now in this position: the government, so-called, has nine of its ministers still without seats, and in addition, two ministers have been translated to the upper house, carrying their portfolios with them. There are others who have gone without them, but they are represented by new members, making eleven in all. I notice in the plan of the House now furnished us, that on the ministerial benches vacancies are for only three. What this may or may not indicate, I do not know, but especially in view of the fact that four provinces are without representation, and that we have now been sitting two weeks as a parliament, the statement from the government is long overdue, as to what its intentions are both with respect to provinces and with respect to portfolios, the disposition as to each and when these intentions are to be carried out.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, of course there is a little exaggeration in the remarks of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: In which sentence?


Ernest Lapointe: WhSn my hon. friend says there are eleven ministers who are not here. I do not see why my right hon. friend should include in the eleven members of the government missing those who were ministers without portfolio. It is true that two members of the Senate are ministers in the government, holding portfolios and administering departments, but there is nothing unusual about that. There have been members of the government in the Senate during all the years of my right hon. friend's administration.


Arthur Meighen: May I interrupt the minister to say that the reason I mentioned those was this: The Prime Minister in several speeches, which no doubt the hon. minister has read, stated that those two portfolios would be disposable to candidates in the late contest, to men who would enter the House of Commons. Consequently that makes eleven.
M|r. LAPOINTE: If there is a change in that regard, it will be announced in due course, but up to the present there has been no change in that respect. The two members of the government in the Senate are still administering their departments. The leader of the government, the right hon. the Prime Minister, as my right hon. friend knows, is now actually a candidate for a vacant seat in the House of Commons, and I have no doubt

that he will be here in the very near future. The Speech from the Throne has announced that there will be a consolidation of some departments. I am not in a position just now to make the formal statement which my right hon. friend would like to have about that, but I shall try to satisfy his curiosity in that regard as soon as possible.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister not indicate when this will be possible? I think the House is entitled to it from day to day.


Ernest Lapointe: I know my good friend will take care to remind me of the matter if I take too long.


Arthur Meighen: Each day.



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. BOIVIN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEO. H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): I desire to make a brief statement as a matter of privilege. The Ottawa Journal this morning carries an editorial in which I have been directly attacked for two alleged statements made by myself in a speech delivered at Montreal on Wednesday evening. Although my address was delivered in the French language and the reports complained of were translations over which I had no control, I may say that one of the statements is substantially correct and that the other was corrected by me, from my seat in this House of Commons, at least ten hours before the first edition of the newspaper left the office where it was published. The editor of the Journal, although he knew, or should have known, that I had made the correction that I have just mentioned, has attempted to read into my remarks a gratuitous insult to His Excellency, the Governor General, and it is this malicious insinuation which I most forcibly resent and most emphatically deny.
After applying to my Progressive friends the definition used by one of themselves, who stated that a Progressive was "a Liberal in a hurry," I expressed the hope that they would not be "in too great a hurry" and that Liberals and Progressives together could continue to apply Liberal principles to federal legislation for some time to come. I warned my young Liberal friends in Montreal that if we were unable to agree the result would1 be a general election. I undoubtedly said-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. minister is
speaking on a question of privilege, and is explaining what he said.

Privilege-Mr. Botvin


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a point of order? The point of order is that the hon. gentleman is getting beyond the point of privilege, and is now adding explanatory statements to square himself with those whom he may have offended in another way.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was merely leading up to this statement. I undoubtedly said) that when we could no longer count upon the co-operation of our Progressive friends, it would be the duty of the Prime Minister to ask for a dissolution of parliament, and it is not necessary to delve into the pages of ancient history to give to this House and to the country the names of other prime ministers who, realizing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would
respectfully ask you to determine the point of order. Again I must point out to Your Honour that the hon. gentleman is going far beyond the point of privilege, which allows him to correct a statement wherein he is misrepresented as to what he actually said, but that it is not in order for him to make lengthy explanations and arguments, or to clear up anything that may not be satisfactory. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he is wholly out of order in doing so, and certainly quite unfair.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. Minister of
Customs (Mr. Boivin) rose on a question of privilege, and he is explaining how he was misreported by the papers. I think due regard should be given to the explanation he is offering to the House, but, of course, he must confine himself to the points at issue.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Arthur Meighen: May I ask the hon.
minister if he has observed that the same quotations, in express terms are made in other papers taking different reports?


Georges Henri Boivin: What I observed was that
the same words were used in the report published in the Montreal Gazette, and the report furnished to the Canadian press by the same correspondent but if my right hon. friend would make use of his knowledge of French and read the four French papers published in Montreal he would find that they reported my speech correctly.


Arthur Meighen: After-


Georges Henri Boivin: He would see that they
contained absolutely no reference to any expression of that kind.	My right hon.
friend may interject the word "after," but I must tell him that Le Canada, in Montreal, was published at exactly the same hour as the Montreal Gazette, and long before this matter was raised in the House of Commons.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a few remarks on the subject matter contained in the Speech from the Throne, and also on some of the speeches that have been delivered in this debate. I do not think that I should offer any apology if I make these remarks in English. It has been a matter of discussion and controversy in recent years whether we French-Canadians, when we speak in this House, should use our own mother tongue, and thereby preserve the traditions of bilingualism, which are characteristic of this parliament. I admit at once that much can be said in favour of such a practice, and I
3*2
The Address-Mr. Rinfret

fee! sure that when the occasion arises, there will always be on this side, and perhaps even on the other side of the House, speakers who will avail themselves of their privilege of using their maternal tongue, ithe French language; but in other cases it may seem perfectly obvious, and even imperative, that if we wish to convey our ideas and our thoughts to members on all sides of the House, or to reply to some of the remarks that have been made from other quarters of the House, we should employ a language that will convey our thoughts to every member. We do not experience any comfort in doing that. Cn the contrary we realize that we labour under quite a handicap in using a language not as familiar to us as our own maternal tongue. At the same time, as I have already said, we have to do this because we are anxious to establish a medium of communication, a corridor as my right hon, friend (Mr. Meighen) would say, between our minds and the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. And if I wanted to rely on an example, coming from a sturdy champion of the French language, 1 could point out to certain papers, which have discussed the matter in the past, that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) himself, when he rose in this House a few days ago after addressing to you, Mr. Speaker, a few complimentary remarks in French-to which I desire to add an expression of my personal regard and admiration-proceeded in beautiful English to discuss the question then before the House. It is in the same spirit and influenced by the same motive, that I wish to-day to discuss the Speech from the Throne and some of the speeches that have been uttered by hon. members, in the English language. Perhaps I may be permitted to crave the indulgence of the House if I find it a little harder to do so in the English tongue, if I have not as great facility in giving expression to my sentiments as I would if I were speaking French.
First of all I desire to add my compliments to those which have already been paid to the mover and seconder of the Address. The mover of the Address (Mr. Elliott) gave us a picture of financial conditions as we find them to-day in the Dominion, a picture far different from the one drawn for us during the recent electoral compaign in the columns of Tory newspapers and in the speeches of Tory orators. Yet, my hon. friend made that picture very convincing. He produced figures, he produced statistics, which demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that this country is at least much more prosperous than the Conservative party were willing to give the 
Liberal government credit for during the last campaign. As for the seconder of the Address, my good friend the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), I understand he was selected for that honour because he is the youngest member of the House, and upon that I also almost compliment him. There is perhaps some melancholy in the fact that we members who have only been in this House a few years are already called upon to compliment other members upon their youth. But I do wish to remind the hon. member that youth while a precious thing is bound to disappear with the passage of the years. The hon. member made a fine speech, notable in delivery and elegant both in thought and in style, and I am sure he will be a distinguished acquisition to the debating strength of the House.
I also wish to welcome hon. members of both sides who are in the present parliament and whom we all like to see with us. I need not add that my welcome is a little more spontaneous when it is directed to hon. gentlemen on this side, but if I forget for one moment the party spirit with which I am imbued, it is in all sincerity that I welcome hon. members generally.
Previous to the present discussion we had a very interesting debate, the first of the session. We discussed whether this government had done right in summoning parliament, and in presenting the Speech from the Throne. The discussion was most interesting to a layman as I profess to be. We listened to precedents being quoted and cited on both sides of the House, and we were highly interested indeed in being told what took place fifty, a hundred, years ago and even farther back in the history both of this country and of England. For my part, I think that we should not attach too much importance to precedents. After all, Mr. Speaker, what is a precedent if not merely a solution that has been applied in the past to some new situation. There is no precedent that was not an innovation in its day; and if we are much interested in being told what took place under James I. George II, or Henry V, who have all been dead a long time, nevertheless, for my part, I rejoice that we have been able to proclaim the paramount power of this parliament; and representing as we do, not the dead monarchs or statesmen of a century ago, but the living Canadian people of to-day, that we have reached a proper decision, that we have come to the conclusion that we have full authority to deal to-day with the current affairs of the country. A division took place, and I remember that when the vote was

The Address-Mr. Rinfret
counted, hon. gentlemen opposite could not refrain from demonstrations of enthusiasm at the wonderful success they had achieved. These enthusiastic demonstrations were in marked and distinct contrast to the comments we read in the newspapers next day.
With respect to that vote, I wish to emphasize this particular feature of it. It was but natural that the Liberal members of the House should support the government. It was quite natural, also, that the Conservative members should support the amendment even if they did not like it. But we have here- counting the votes of members of the Progressive, Labour, and Independent parties twenty-eight independent members and out of those twenty-eight independent voters the government was able to command not less than twenty-three, a very large proportion of the independent vote in this House and, may I not add. a very large proportion of the independent vote throughout the country. Viewed from that angle, Mr. Speaker, you will discover that although the government only secured a majority of three on the first vote-a majority I am sure that will increase with the coming divisions of the session-it was at least able to command practically four-fifths of the independent vote in this chamber, and also of the independent vote in the country.
The opposition laid much stress on the fact that they were the largest group and that they could command the largest popular vote out of the groups in this House. I should like, however, to point out a fact which has been already indicated but not quite fully. That is that a certain number of hon. gentlemen opposite, although they have been elected in the counties they represent, do not hold a majority of the votes cast in those counties.
I have not the full list in my hand, I have not been able to secure the information from the Chief Electoral Officer, but from reports published time after time in the newspapers we find out that in a certain number of counties, especially in the western provinces, hon. gentlemen opposite, although they were elected, and although they were entitled to their election under our electoral system, at the same time did not poll the majority of votes in their respective constituencies. That is true, for instance, in the electoral district of Neepewa where the Conservative member (Mr. Murphy) polled 3,461 votes; the Progressive, 3,332 and the Liberal 1,809. So that 5,000 votes were cast against the hon. member whereas he himself only polled 3,400. That is also true of the division of East Calgary, where the Conservatives polled 5,562 votes, and the combined vote of the Labour and Liberal candidates amounted
to over 6,000. That is true of the constituency of East Edmonton, where the Conservatives .polled 3,927 votes, the Liberals 3,440, and the Labour man 2.765, or a majority against the member now sitting in this House of pretty nearly 6,000. That is true also of the constituency of Marquette. You heard from that county the other night. The hon. member (Mr. Mullins) spoke on behalf of 4,219 electors who voted for him, but we find that the Progressive candidate polled 4,084 votes and the Liberal 1,665 votes-there being a majority of almost 1,600 votes against the hon. member. That is also true of the constituency of Springfield, Manitoba, where the Conservative candidate obtained 2,268 votes, the Liberal 1,721 and the Progressive 1,660. I will not weary the House with more statistics.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member got the figures for Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and numerous other points in Saskatchewan represented by members on the other side?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was not looking for those figures.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have not those figures.
I was merely arguing this point that my right hon. friend claims he has the largest number of seats in this House, and I say that in a number of constituencies his supporters did not poll a majority of the votes. I do not say this did not happen in other places. Out of" 116 seats which the right hon. member obtained, his candidate in a number of cases polled a minority of the votes in the constituency. I know very well that my right hon. friend would want me to make a diSerent speech from the one I am going to make. If he interrupts me fifteen times I will reply to him as graciously as I can, but he will not prevent me from going on.
My hon. friend always stated that the main plank in his platform and in his appeal to the people was his fiscal policy. We have heard speeches from the Conservative members from the west since the commencement of this debate, and Conservative members from the Maritime provinces. They stated very plainly that so far as they were concerned the tariff was not the main issue; it was transportation. We heard the speech of the hon. member for Marquette; he stated that transportation was the whole thing with him. He blamed the Liberal government for not having reduced the transportation rates and for not having been able to put through a measure which would restrain the ocean shipping combine. Far from supporting the policy of my right hon. friend, his argument was that we had not
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

gone far enough. He wants the rates further reduced and he would like this government to try during the course of the session to bring forth a measure to restrict the combines on the seas and to lower the rates on transAtlantic transportation. That was tfhe argument of my hon. friend, and it was as different from the policy of his right hon. leader as from our policy.
In reference to the Maritime provinces, we all know that their problems are very closely connected with the problems of the western' provinces. They are practically in the same situation. The member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) stated that so far as he was concerned he would be in favour of a tariff that would be heightened on certain articles, but lowered on other articles. He was not at all in favour of high protection. He was in favour of a tariff that would cover the various items differently, according to the exigencies of the situation.
Then what was the argument of the hon. member forVictoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming)? Transportation. He wanted the grain from the west to come to St. John, and he prayed to us that we should take measures to reduce the rates on the railways to bring more grain from the west to St. John. We are trying to do that, but are prevented from doing it by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Every time we raised this question in the House the Conservative leader indignantly protested that we should not deal with it. Perhaps counting all these hon. gentlemen from the west or from the Maritime provinces as in favour of high protection on everything, my right hon. friend should be rather thankful if some of the electors, either in the west or in the Maritime provinces, forgot about his own policy. They come here and tell us that they are not cncerned at all with the tariff, but that what they want is merely cheap transportation for their grain or for the products they expect to handle in their harbours en route to their overseas destinations.
When we come to the province of Quebec the question of the popular vote becomes highly interesting. We had an electoral campaign in Quebec, but the Conservative leader never came within the borders of our province, or if he did come it was incognito. He would not let anybody know it, and I am perfectly at liberty to discuss this matter after the statements which have been made, and at the same time to deal with the speech that the hon. member for Kent, N.B., madte yesterday with regard to the election campaign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will welcome any applause, and I hope when I read some newspaper clippings applause will be forthcoming from the other side. If the hon. member for Kent, N.B. likes newspaper clippings he is going to get more than his share this afternoon. When that hon. member delivered his speech yesterday he even scandalized the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers). When the hon. member for South Winnipeg rose to speak later in the day he could1 not hide his indignation in regard to what had taken place in the province of Quebec. I am sorry my right hon. friend is not in his place. I do not want to be discourteous but it shows what a change has come over the hon. member for South Winnipeg.
My hon. friend has evidently cut off the moustache of his aggressiveness and rather let grow on the back of his head a mane of conciliation which he had not possessed in the past. However, we will deal with these matters in due time.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) did not come to Quebec, but later on when the campaign was over he did favour us with a letter in which he explained why he had not come to that province. This letter from the right hon. gentleman is written to the Hon. Mr. Fauteux, Conservative candidate, dated November 25, 1925, and says:
Canada is a iarge country. I had relatively little ft'ime to cover such an immense territory before polling day. I went to where I was called most insistently.
Before I read any more, let me say that I sincerely sympathize with my right hon. friend in this particular instance, as he will find by my further remarks. He was stating at least the truth in the last sentence that I mentioned :
Canada is a large country.
True Canada is a large country, but the province of Quebec is a very small portion of it. My right hon. friend went to Prince Edward Island and I find no fault with his action in that regard. I have gone there myself on several occasions and it is a very fine little province. But I would think, speaking politically, it might have seemed more important to visit Quebec where there are sixty-five seats than to go to Prince Edward Island where there are only four. Moreover, starting from Ottawa, one cannot go to Prince Edward Island without passing through the province of Quebec. I know my right hon. friend is willing to spend $3,000,000 on the Hudson Bay railway; but surely he never thought of taking that route in order to reach Prince

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
Edward Island, and he objects too much to the tendencies of our leader to have gone there by way of the United States. Therefore, I believe my right hon. friend went through the province of Quebec in his private car.
M.r. MEIGHEN: I do not have any private car.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps through the air,
through one of his speeches.


Arthur Meighen: I do not have any private car.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, some car. He made it as private as he could. I suppose he pulled down the blinds very carefully. Whether because he did not want to look out or because he did not want other people to look in, is a fine distinction I will leave for the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to decide. Another good reason was given by the right hon. gentleman and again I say that I sympathize with him. He was placed in an awful position by his own supporters in Quebec and he could not give any better reason than that. I am surprised that he could find even that to explain his action. I am afraid I would not have been clever enough to think of it. He said:
In election times a party leader has to depend for many things upon his organizers.


Arthur Meighen: Read it all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: He explained he could not arrange to visit Quebec during the campaign.
He concluded by saying-	.


Arthur Meighen: When the hon. member
is picking extracts from a letter which is not very long, in fairness to me he should read it all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It has been published in
every paper, at least in our province. I do not think I should be asked to load my speech with long quotations. What I am giving the House is the very wording of his letter.


Arthur Meighen: Part of it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend said in his letter:
No time should be lost in discussing-
But that was in Bagot.
-what after all, can onily be considered as a slight error on the part of devoted and loyal organizers.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman not read it all? He is trying to select one or two things as the reasons I gave. Other reasons are stated there. He is giving the House a false impression.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not feel like reading it all,, as to do so would add nothing to my speech. But I will hand the letter to one of my right hon. friend's supporters, and if later on in the debate, he wants to read it, he will be at perfect liberty to do so. What my right hon. friend termed as a slight mistake in organization was that he had forgotten there was a province of Quebec and his friends in Quebec had forgotten they had a leader. That was only a slight mistake in organization! But the reason why my right hon. friend did not come into Quebec was because the Conservative leader in Quebec at the time did not want him to come. That is a fact which nobody can deny. Mr. Pate-naude had been entrusted with the direction of the campaign in Quebec, and he made it very clear that he was independent of the leader of the Tory party. In his first speech at St. Laurent-and I have in my hand the full report published in Le Devoir of the 21st September-Mr. Patenaude declared most emphatically :
I am free in all respects, free ftrom Mr. Meighen as much as I am from Mr. King.
That is the declaration made by Mr. Patenaude, not only in St. Laurent, but in every one of his speeches, and made also in every one of the speeches of Conservative candidates in Quebec. When Mr. Patenaude reached Montreal, he delivered a great speech in the Mount Royal Arena, reiterating that declaration. I have in my hand his speech of the 26th October, and hon. members can read this printed in large headline type as the declaration of Mr. Patenaude:
Was I not right when I said at the beginning of this fight that I was as free of Mr. Meighen as I was of Mr. King.
I am not quoting that in order to embarrass my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It does not bother me.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I know that, but it may
bother some hon. gentlemen around the right hon. leader of the opposition, as I find, when I turn to the report of this meeting, that on the stage at that time were two hon. gentlemen, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). They both were there as candlesticks, one on each side of Mr. Patenaude. When Mr. Patenaude proclaimed that he had nothing to do with Mr. Meighen, the hon. member for St. Law-4 p.m. rence-St, George and the hon.
member for St. Antoine could not contain their enthusiasm and they joined in the applause. This may not bother my right hon. friend and it does not bother ine, but per-
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

haps it bothers them when they have to come to this House and follow the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Patenaude was so anxious to show that he had nothing to do with the leader of the Tory party that he published some posters. One of these I have in my hand showing a picture of the Hon. Mr. Pate-naude surrounded by his inspirers, the men whom he wants to rely on. I find there Cartier, Macdonald, Laurier, Gouin, Fielding, Mitchell, even the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). But one would look in vain for a picture of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, or the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), or even the hon. member for Argenteuii (Sir George Perley), or the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion).


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Perhaps they have lost the portrait of the right hon. gentleman in the office of the Star.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If they lost it in the office of the Star, surely they would not be able to find another in the office of the Gazette.


Mr. CHABOT:: What about Le Devoir?
You would not find it there.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: We publish no portraits
of any kind.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Those were the inspirers
of Mr. Patenaude at that time, and not the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was a Patenaude candidate, and I was surprised, as I listened to him in the House the other night, to find that he could speak in such a buoyant and partisan manner against the government and in favour of my right lion, friend's amendment. In fact he went so far that you, Mr. Speaker, had to call him to order. The first chance that the hon. member for St. Antoine had in this House he rose indignantly and in a tremulous voice said that he would stand forever for the leader of the Tory party. Well, that is a great victory for my right hon. friend. If he had been in Montreal at the time of the campaign he would not have counted very much on either of those gentlemen, unless he knew the undercurrents.
But the reason I raise the point, Mr. Speaker, is not merely to put these facts before the House; it is in reply to my hon. friend from Kent, N.B., who yesterday complained of the way in which we had treated his right hon. leader in Quebec. He cited an editorial, or rather a despatch in Le Canada, and he explained because we did say that we did not like the rhetoric of my right hon friend-a very minor matter, after all. Let me now ask the member for Kent: Have the

Liberals in Quebec ever offered a grosser insult to the leader of the Tory party than the Conservatives did during the recent campaign in our province? My hon. friend says that we misrepresented the leader of the Tory party. But these gentlemen in Quebec did not want him to represent them at all; on the contrary, they wanted him to be forgotten. In their opinion he was going to disappear. They rejoiced in the fact-my right hon. friend played them a trick there-that he was a candidate in Portage la Prairie because, they said: He will never be elected there-we will never hear any more of him. Is not that a greater insult to the right hon. gentleman than anything we have said in Liberal speeches or printed in Liberal papers? I stand here and say to the member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) that I never wrote or countenanced in my own paper, Le Canada, anything like the editorials I read about my right hon. friend in the Gazette or in the Star. And after all we were attacking his policies. We were his political opponents. But they were attacking his very personality, and they were dealing with the leader of their own party. We were fighting him in the open warfare of a political campaign; they were trying to stab him in the back, they were conspiring to sink him in oblivion. Will the member for Kent say that this was not worse than anything that he has charged against us? Perhaps the leader of the opposition feels that sometimes we have gone to extremes in attacking him. Even so, I tell him that no public man has been worse treated and more deeply humiliated than he has been in the province of Quebec by the .candidates of Mr. Patenaude, who did not want even to pronounce his name, who exclaimed it was a slander if we tried to connect them with the right hon. gentleman. Why did not the member for Kent mention that? If he wanted to demonstrate the truth, if he wanted to purify the political air-as he seemed to-and not merely scavenge in an effort to gain a flight party advantage, why did he not mention that? He could not quote one line either from Le Canada or from Le Soleil, i-and he gave us many quotations from that paper-which expressed such a want of confidence in his own leader and so misrepresented him as did the attitude of the candidates of the Tory party in the province of Quebec during the last campaign. What stronger prejudice could be raised against the leader of the Conservative party than that created by the attitude of Mr. Patenaude, who ignored him completely, who even objected to his setting a foot in the province during the

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
campaign? Can the member for Kent recall anything printed in the Liberal papers or spoken by the Liberal candidates which can parallel this unheard-of and most scandalous attitude of the Conservatives in Quebec towards their own leader? I am going to be fairer to him than they have been. As a Liberal I stand by my leader; but if I were a Conservative I would either insist on a change in the party leadership or else stand1 by the right hon. gentleman. And I will give him credit for this, thiat if he had come into the province he might perhaps have done no better, but he certainly could no't have done worse than Mr. Patenaude.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Patenaude is not a member of this House.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, he is not a member of this House because the voters in the province of Quebec did not want him to be.


Donald Sutherland: Exactly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Patenaude was the
Conservative leader in the province of Quebec in the last campaign. If he was not, then the Conservative party had no leader there at iall, and consequently did not take part in the campaign. Perhaps I should make an exception in favour of the member for Argenteuil who has great personal .prestige in his county -and who knows how to spread that prestige around him. He won a personal victory. And perhaps I should make some concession to the member for Mount Royal, who was not very warm for Mr. Patenaude, but who did say very clearly that he recognized no master, that he was a rule unto himself-like the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). But all the other candidates in the province of Quebec were Patenaude candidates. Nobody can deny that. If my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) really wants to know what took place in the province of Quebec he should listen to me and not rely on what he heard yesterday.


Donald Sutherland: I
have heard.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: They were all Patenaude candidates. They would have nothing to do with my right hon. friend, they would not stand by him; he was to disappear. They were all for standing by Mr. Patenaude, and if I insist upon that point, Mr. Speaker, it is because I want to tell the member for Kent that never has any Liberal offered the member for Portage la Prairie so grave an insult as that which came to him during the last
campaign from the Conservatives of the province of Quebec under Mr. Patenaude.
What was Mr. Patenaude's campaign? After very clearly asserting his independence of my right hon. friend, he stated that the country would soon be bankrupt if it remained under the Liberal regime. He inserted in various papers in Montreal and also in Quebec city a number Of posters in which he depicted factories that were closed and1 ships that were bringing in imports in such volume that the country would soon be ruined. A very strange picture, Mr. Speaker, by contrast with the latest trade figures for the past nine months, which show that we have increased our trade by over $300,000,000 due largely to a great expansion in our exports. Hon. gentlemen opposite always claim that as a result of the tariff reductions made by this government the country would be flooded with foreign goods. On the contrary, our imports have decreased while our exports have steadily increased; in other words, our favourable balance of trade is improving all the time. Notwithstanding this growing prosperity, Mr. Patenaude was trying to demonstrate that the country would soon be bankrupt, that all our factories would inevitably be closed, and that if the Liberals were maintained in power much longer everybody would be ruined. I might point out that although they printed the picture of Mr. Patenaude the posters all emanated from the Central Conservative Committee, 120 St. James street, Montreal. I do not want to quote them all, but in the course of the campaign my friends the Conservatives became lyrical and I would like to quote a few paragraphs to illustrate that phase. They predicted what was going to happen if the Liberals were maintained in power. Here is one advertisement published on October 26, called "La terre qui meurt"-"The death of the soil." This is a dramatic dialogue between Baptiste and Catherine. They do not tell us who Baptiste and Catherine were, and I regret, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot have these illustrations inserted. They would very much enrich my humble text, but unfortunately I know that my hon. friend would not support such a motion, because I did not give the customary two days' notice. I will not press that point.


Arthur Meighen: I will waive that objection if the illustrations of yesterday are put in also.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I know my hon. friend
is always prone to substitute his amendments
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

for our motions. Let us listen to Baptiste. He is made to say:
Baptiste: Our future is very dark, my poor wife; cur three sons have left for the States and we will soon have to part.
Catherine: You think they will not come back?
Baptiste: It is easy to see that from the letter you have just read, but how can it be prevented? It is not their fault. I understand they do not wish to till the soil and reaip debts.
Catherine: How is that? We used to live happily on our farm.
Baptiste: Then we had another government. The King government has sold us to the United States.
Later on:
Baptiste: That must change, and immediately. I heard Mr. Patenaude the other day-our only chance is to vote for him on the 29th.
Catherine: You are right, Baptiste. I never mixed in politics before, but as long as .politics are depriving me of my own sons it is another question. I will crawl on my knees to the polls if necessary.
I am afraid the lady was late in reaching the polls. This poster is signed by the Central Conservative Committee, 120 St. James street, Montreal. Here is another one, called "The voice of the spires." Again I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you will have to miss the illustrations. There is represented a steeple in the province of Quebec, with a voice issuing from it. There is apparently nothing the Conservatives cannot do during election time; here they have a spire which can talk. This is what it says:
It is the voiiice of the spires of Quebec, weeping on hundreds of deserted parishes on thousands of cold hearths. It is a voice plaintive and mournful. Through the vast spaces it goes to all those Canadians who have left our country, full of the accents of the tenderness of their beloved mothers.
Then this advertisement calls the young men back, and it adds:
Inflated by the indignation of a population which has been deceived and sacrificed-
That is Quebec.
-lit becomes terrible and revengeful against those politicians who are responsible for such a dire calamity.
Then the steeple asks:
What have you done with our sons, Mr. King? Where are they? But Mr. King, whose ears are turned towards Winnipeg, does not hear the mournful voice of the spires of Quebec.
That, also, is signed by the Central Conservative Committee, 120 St. James street, Montreal. This is part of the campaign waged by Mr. Patenaude on behalf of the Conservatives in the province of Quebec. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that it mentioned in this last beautiful lyrical effusion "the ears," of Mr. King, "are turned towards Winnipeg." This was one of the features of the campaign of Mr. Patenaude, accusing us in Quebec of having sold our province to the Progressives

of the west. That was the leit motif, the musical theme, which you heard time and again returning, and proving to be the main feature of the speeches of Mr. Patenaude and his candidates. I commend this to the attention of my good friends from the west. It was claimed during the previous debate that all we gave the west could be contained in a small suitcase. Evidently there is a difference of opinion as to that; if you listen to Mr. Patenaude it was not a small suitcase but a whole warehouse, even the whole province of Quebec, that we gave the west. And I shall prove that. Here is another advertisement published on October 13. The title is "A Nefarious Alliance," and it reads as follows:
Haunted by the spectre of defeat, Mr. King is re-soa'ting to every means. He canno-t hope to avert a disaster except by an alliance and he begs openly for the Progressive vote. At the same moment-who would fail to understand that?-the liberal chieftain delivers himseif into the hands of a group of selfish men who put their own interests above that of the country. By accepting their tutelage, Mr. King accepts necessarily absolute free trade. The Progressive-Liberal alliance, which is nothing else but a shameful bargaining, would achieve our ruin, and the electors will prevent it.
That was one of the first advertisements published by the 'Central Conservative Committee in Montreal, but there were others. They followed very rapidly, and I am afraid I cannot mention them all. There was one on October 19 headed "How Quebec is Being Deceived and Mocked." I will read it in Frenbh first:
Des raamours aux progressistes, des soufflets k la province de Quebec, voi!& comment se partagemt les affections de M. King.
In English it is as follows:
Love tokens to the Progressives; slaps in the face for the province of Quebec. Such are the affections and sentiments of Mr. King.
There was another one on October 20, where again you see the picture of Mr. Patenaude. That man was photographed very often during the last campaign. Here you have the whole story of how the King government began in 1921 to betray the province of Quebec-and not only in 1921, but also in 1922, and in 1923. The government is said1 to have made not concessions but bargains, practically giving away and betraying the province of Quebec into the hands of Progressive members. I have another one here published on the 23rd of October:
The King government has failed, deplorably failed, in its primary duty towards Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Rinjret


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It was Mr. Patenaude
who said that; I see hon. gentlemen opposite are in agreement with him. It goes on:
Oil any lowering of the tariff the solid bloc of Quebec has betrayed the workingmen of our old province and delivered them in exchange for favours from the Progressive party.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is correct.
Mr.	RINFRET:	That is	the	sort of
campaign that was carried on. Here is another one, dated the 26th of October:
On one side Mr. Patenaude and his candidates-
Not Mr. Meighen, but Mr. Patenaude and his candidates.
-who are devoted wholly to the interests of the province of Quebec. On the other side Mr. King and his candidates allied to the Progressives of the west against the interests of this same province of Quebec.
But	here	is the	prize one,	Mr.	Speaker,and I	have	saved	it	till the	last.	I wishI	could pass	it around	to show	hon. members.
Here is a picture of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, not with a small suitcase, but with a very large bag, and he is putting in the bag 65 members from the province of Quebec, including even our friend Mr. Marler, who is pictured on top of them all.


Robert James Manion: He is in a bag, all right.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The picture shows the
solid bloc of Quebec being delivered to the Progressives of the west as a gift from the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It may please my hon.
friend, but it did not fool the electors in my province. The title of this picture is, "The Province of Quebec Sold," and it says:
The Progressive members are too clever to overlook that Mr. King needs them and counts on their help to escape defeat. Therefore they do not fail to blackmail him-
That is a pretty strong term.
-and put a price on their support. That is why we have seen the Liberal chieftain at every one of his [DOT]meetings in the west increase the number of his concessions. He is willing to go still further until he has satisfied the exigencies of these 'saviours. Likewise the Indians of the northwest before obtaining possession of the big hunting gun that the fur hunters stuck before them, had to pile up before them as many skins of beaver as were needed to reach the height of the gun, but while Mr. King sings, who will pay for the music? Canada undoubtedly, but more especially the province of Quebec.
I may explain for the benefit of those members who do not understand French that the French word for "sing" and "blackmail" is the same. This will help hon. gentlemen to understand why it is said in the first paragraph that the Progressives are going to blackmail the leader of this party, and why later on it says that while he "sings" Quebec is going to pay for the music. That advertisement, like all the others I have referred to, is signed, "The Central Conservative Committee. 120 St. James Street, Montreal."
But there are more, and now I come to a different style of advertisement that was used in the campaign of the Conservatives in our province, under the Hon. Mr. Patenaude, and I hope that my hon. friends opposite who yesterday cheered and applauded to the point of nearly destroying the furniture of the state will listen to this, and appreciate the sort of campaign that was waged against us, and what we had to fight against in my own province.
This was published on the 28th of October. Here is Mr. Mackenzie King welcoming Sir Clifford Sifton and Mr. Norris. Sir Clifford has in his hand the constitution of the province of Alberta and of the province of Saskatchewan, and he is shown tearing them, and tearing also the guarantee that the Catholic and French minorities have in those provinces. Mr. Norris is shown throwing into the waste-paper basket a small French catechism, a religious book in our province, and Mr. King looks on and smiles complacently. Not only is the Right Hon. Mr. King pictured, but my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin), and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin), and even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe); they have respect for no one. These three ministers are shown in line behind Mr. Mackenzie King enjoying immensely the performance I have described. Here is the text of the advertisement, which I commend to the hon. member for Kent, N.B. He might quote it in his next speech; it might win him applause somewhere else. It reads:
An Odious Conspiracy
Hatched Against Quebec,
Its Language and its Religion.
Masks fall off and now we understand why the King government is so keen for Senate reform. Norris and Sifton have wrung that promise from it-it is the only one that it will keep.
These two rabid enemies of all that 'is French in Canada, have never laid down arms. After banning our language from the schools of the west, they are now storming the French fortress of Canada; their spite is now turned against Quebec and it is from our schools that they now wish to ban our language, for which we have fought so hard.
Norris and Sifton have realized that the Senate is the most solid safeguard of the Catholic and French minority in the country. Consequently they resolved to have it reformed in their own way, by placing in it men of their choice, men wbo before their appointment, have promised to vote for all government measures.
Norris, minister in the government, Sifton leader of a Liberal majority in the Senate, that is all that is necessary for the fanatical work begun in the west by
The Address-Mr. Rinfret

these two enemies of Quebec, to extend th rough out the country. Norris and the other fanatics that the west shall have elected, will do what Sifton did in 1905: they will force the government to proscribe the French wherever it still survives and Sifton, in the Senate, will have these iniquitous laws ratified by the senators that he will have had appointed by Mr. King and who will have promised to ratify all that came to them from the House of Commons.
That is the aim of Senate reform, in the minds of its real authors, Norris and Sifton: Total suppression of French in Canada!
The choice that Quebec will make to-morrow is a choice between:-
Es. L. Patenaude, on one hand, and T. C. Norris and Clifford Sifton on the other.
Norris! the fanatic who has never laid down his arms, who has sworn hate and death to all that is French in the country.
The man who has taken down from the walls of the schools of Manitoba, the last crucifixes forgotten by Greenway, his model!
The man who has wrought from the hands of little French-Canadian children in Manitoba, the A.B.C. in which they could learn to read in French!
The man who forbade these little ones to say "mama" and "church" in French!
Sifton, the man who in 1905, pushed Laurier down the "rock of the constitution" by forcing him to sacrifice in advance and for all time, the rights of the Catholic and French minority in the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan!
The man who negotiated with the North Atlantic Trading Company, the contract which brought to the west, at $5 per head, the scum of Europe so as to drown the French population which had already settled there!
It is at the instance of these two men that Mr. King parades the country to-day; it is for them that he asks Quebec to vote in preference to the Honourable E. L. Patenaude, a true son of Quebec, whose vibrating voice, the French voice, has been applauded throughout the province for over a month.
In the face of Norris and Sifton, arose Patenaude! and all Quebec is rising behind him for the defence of its rghts treachously menaced.
The Senate will remain what it is to-day, declared Mr. Patenaude, so that Quebec may continue to remain what it is, Catholic and French; so that from one end of the country to the other, French may regain the place to which it belongs, the place taken away from it by Norris and Sifton.
Halt Norris!-Halt Sifton!-Patenaude is there!
This is signed "The Central Conservative Committee, 120 St. James Street." I need not say that this has nothing to do with the St. James division.
But there is the conscription issue, and I now come more closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Kent, N.B. The hon. member was very careful yesterday to pick from the campaign in Quebec selected paragraphs and incomplete statements with a view to making a passing remark the main theme, and he has endeavoured to create the impression that the campaign in Quebec had been waged on conscription. I declare, however, and no one can controvert the accuracy of the statement, that conscription was not the theme of our campaign, nor was it the theme of Mr. 
Patenaude's campaign. It is true that the issue was occasionally mentioned and that we were occasionally provoked to discuss this phase of the war issues. Nevertheless, I must say, and I say it on behalf of the whole province, I say it on behalf of both political parties in Quebec, that the campaign of 1925 was not waged on conscription either by our own leaders or by Mr. Patenaude. It remained for the hon. member to raise that issue at the instance of leaders of his own party and more especially of some of the official fanatics of that party whose whole political careers have been given to the slander and misrepresentation of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Some hon. gentlemen opposite are calling out " order ". If any hon. gentleman opposite recognizes himself in this picture let him take the floor and raise a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, (Mr. Edwards) were here I have no doubt he would rise in his place. I could read from " The Wedge ", a well-known pamphlet directed against the province of Quebec and the Catholics of this country. But I am now directing my remarks to the hon. member for Kent, N.B., and I say, that when the hon. member heard the applause which echoed around him yesterday perhaps he felt a little ashamed of the work that some of his leaders had induced him to perform in this House. Let me tell him that in Quebec we French Canadians of the Liberal party entertain more regard and respect for the Acadians, even the Conservative Acadians in the province of New Brunswick, than he seems to feel towards my compatriots in the province of Quebec. The hon. member did not realize when the applause rang out during his speech that it was not a tribute to his ability as a speaker, but it was a half-restrained mark of contentment, a repressed outburst of joy at the slurs and mud that he was trying to cast upon us.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that expression. No hon. member can be accused of throwing mud on another hon. gentleman.


Mr. HANSON:: Nor is it in order to call
hon. members fanatics.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am willing to withdraw
the expression "mud".

The Address-Mr. Rinlret


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member must
withdraw the expression unreservedly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker, and leave hon. members to infer the appropriate parliamentary expression which comes nearest to it.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to withdraw his expression unreservedly.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Hon. gentlemen
opposite are getting all aroused. Why not take their medicine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why don't you resign and save the farce.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps it will be in
order if I say that my hon. friend from Kent, N.B., should have left his discreditable work to be done by some of the professional slanderers of his party, instead1 of allowing it to be imposed upon him.


Mr. DOUCET:: I believe the hon. member
for St. James-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. gentleman
rising to a question of order?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I believe the hon. member for St. James said a moment ago that I had been seduced by my political leader into making this statement-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: -and now he said that I
was compelled or practically forced to assume a certain role when I spoke yesterday. I deny the statement and I ask him to withdraw it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: That is not a point of order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I accept the hon. member's explanation but desire to say that if he spoke as he did on his own initiative I am all the more sorry for him.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: You need not worry.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I find once again that
hon. gentlemen opposite are more prone to speak than to listen. I stated and I repeat, that conscription was not the main issue in the province of Quebec in the last election. The main issue was the tariff and questions connected with it. Mr. Patenaude pretended in his speeches that the tariff policy of the King government was leading the country to ruin and bankruptcy. He attacked the record of the government and he denied that the country's affairs had improved under the
Liberal regime. The speeches of the Prime Minister himself, and the eloquent and numerous speeches of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries dealt with the tariff. I was present at several meetings in the district of Montreal and all over the province and I heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries discuss tariff matters. He took up the industries one by one, for example, the shoe industry and its peculiar conditions in our province and in Canada, and the textile industry. He discussed the influence of the tariff on the exports and imports of farm products-he touched all these points. He denied Mr. Patenaude's right to slander his country as he did during the last campaign. That was the main theme of the campaign on both sides. I say again, these were the main questions discussed by Mr. Patenaude and they were also the main subjects of our speeches during the campaign. As regards conscription, if we did discuss that matter, it was merely when we were provoked to it by our Conservative opponents. I agree with the hon. member who spoke last night that we should forget and abolish the conscription issue in Quebec and throughout Canada. It may surprise hon. members opposite when I tell them that I ran three elections in St. James and at each election I was accused by hon. gentlemen running against me of being a conscriptionist. What were they trying to prove? They were trying to establish that Laurier was responsible for conscription and that the Laurier Act of 1904 was much worse than the act introduced by the Conservative government in 1917. The hon. member for Kent presented that argument yesterday afternoon. He concluded that remarkable speech by saying that we were very imprudent in raising the question, as we were more guilty in regard to that issue than his own party. That is exactly the campaign we are subjected to in Quebec when we have to deal with that issue.
What about the Barette amendment? It has been contended very often on Conservative platforms that if we had voted for the Barette amendment it would have done away with conscription, and that because we did not vote for it we were responsible. But I have here another proof of my statement, from the Central Conservative Committee of Montreal. This statement was published on the 27th October and reads:
The truth regarding conscription.
The Liberal members of the province of Quebec havi all approved of the principle of conscription.
The advertisement quotes the Barette amendment, and gives a list of the Liberal members in the House at the time, and claims
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

that all these gentlemen are responsible for the condition of affairs before the adoption of conscription in 1917.
An election took place in Bagot a month after the general election. Senator L'Esper-ance was then the organizer of the Conservative forces and what did he claim? He claimed that because he had explained to the people of Acton Vale we were responsible for conscription, he had made some progress there. I hold in my hand a report of his speech in the Montreal Gazette December 13, 1925. The title will give an idea as to the contents of the speech:
Traces basis of conscription to Wilfrid Laurier.
Justification found in his speeches and Military Act amendment.
By Senator L'Esperance.
Then follows the speech of my right hon. friend's organizer in the county of Bagot, and my right hon. friend will not deny that. Therefore I say that we did not at all consider conscription as an issue in the last campaign, and we only discussed it when we had to meet the arguments coming from the other side and which provoked discussion of the issue. While the editorials of Le Soleil quoted by my hon. friend did not seem to have much effect on either side in the campaign, it seems that they have had a very strange influence on the mind of the leader of the opposition. He must have read them. These clippings must have been sent to him and been before him. It is a strange thing that after reading the editorials he became suddenly permeated with the idea that perhaps he had been wrong in his policy and he made up his mind to make a change. I do not know what occult influence operated with him. Perhaps he had faith in the past and found, like St. Paul travelling to Damascus, that a new light had entered his brain on his way to Hamilton, resulting in his famous speech in which he declared that from now on he would be in favour of a referendum or an appeal to the people before permitting Canada to participate in future wars. Perhaps I might ask the right hon. leader of the opposition how this extraordinary light came to him, and why he never made mention of it during the whole electoral campaign up to the 29th October. An hon. member speaking in this House said that he would not insinuate that there was any connection between that new policy originating in the mind of the hon. leader of the opposition and the announcement of a by-election in Bagot. Well sometimes strange coincidences occur. I remember the story of a hunter who killed a bird on forbidden ground. He contended that he was discharging his gun for pleasure, and it was a mere accident, because 
the bird happened to be passing at that particular moment. But I warn hon. members against relying on coincidences too much. Evidently he has been influenced by these editorials. What he did not want to do in 1917 or 1922 he is willing to do now. He says that under his regime never will Canada participate in a war until he has appealed to .the people. He came to Bagot with a new policy in his hand and brandished it to the people of Acton Vale. He made a speech, and I wish to compliment him on the very gener-,ous effort he made to address the people in French, and I am saying that sincerely. Then he expounded the new policy that from now on there would always be a referendum or an appeal to the people of Canada.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: A general election.


Mr. RINERET:: Yes, that was his statement-and he said he was willing to forgive and forget everything that had been said against him in Quebec. Then in the meeting a man rose, went to the right hon. gentleman, took both his hands and said, "You have a big heart; you should be prime minister of this country." But that man did not live in Acton Vale at all; he had been travelling on the train. Whether this was prearranged or spontaneous, no one knows. The hon. member had the great pleasure of seeing around him all of Patenaude's candidates. There were present the candidates from Yamaska, Dorchester, Montmagny and several of the Montreal candidates. All the Patenaude candidates were there around my right hon. friend, some of them making speeches; others who were not speaking that day were busy fixing chairs on the stage, in order that everyone might be properly seated. This is what took place in .Bagot.
Hon. members will see the situation. In 1921 at was the right hon. member and Mr. Monty who were leading the Conservative forces in Quebec. In October, 1925, it was Mr. Pate-naude. In Bagot one month later it was the right hon. gentleman again. But since that time Mr. Patenaude has held two caucuses in Quebec and God knows who is the leader of the party now. Such is the attitude of the Conservatives in the province of Quebec, and *because 'our people refuse to listen to such delusion and hypocrisy, because they reject such fallacious methods and those who practise them, the hon. member for Kent, N.B., has the audacity to stand up in this House and to say that in Quebec we yield to prejudice.


Mr. BOYS:: He gave some proof of it, did he not?

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
Mr. R.1NFRET:	I am going to deal with
my hon. friend's friends now.


William Alves Boys: Give us the proof.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: While this is said about
the campaign in Quebec, we are told what wonderful men are these members who have been elected in Ontario. You may not be aware of this fact, Mr. Speaker; but on the left of your chair you have a galaxy of supermen, all of them tariff experts, not elected by the common people, but chosen by commissions on the tariff, after having made special studies of all the items of the tariff and the fiscal policy of this country. The other day the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) could not contain his admiration when he said: "All the representative men of this country are on this side of the House."


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is misquoting me. I mi^ht have said all of them, but I did not say all, but "nearly all."
* Mr. RINFRET: When I was asked a minute of two ago to substantiate a statement, I would have welcomed my hon. friend's aid. He says:	"Nearly all." He missed two or
three on this side.


Robert James Manion: We missed the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But nearly all the expert tariff men are on your left, Sir. We, the members from Quebec, have been elected because of prejudice sentiment, and misunderstanding. But these men, or nearly all of them, are supermen, experts on the tariff. You will hear them on the budget. They know all about the tariff; they are going to tell us about it and we are going to learn a great deal from them. That is the picture that has been given even in the Montreal Gazette as regards the result of the campaign in Quebec and Ontario.
But let us see what some of these supermen said about the leader of the government during the last campaign. I would not indulge in this kind of talk, had we not been provoked to do so; but I think it is very proper that I should put on a 5 p.m. parallel line with quotations from hon. members for Quebec, some editorials that were printed in the good province of Ontario during the last campaign. We have heard a great deal about Mr. Mackenzie King being born in Berlin, now Kitchener, Ontario. That is a great sin. I do not think he could be held responsible for that. We have heard of his war Tecord, 14011-23
of his connection with the Rockefeller Institute, and they arranged this in such a way as to give the impression that this is not a philanthropic institution, but that he is working directly for Mr. Rockefeller himself, that multi-millionaire of the United States. I have under my hand a collection of editorials from the Toronto Telegram. On the 17th September, 1925, this is one of the themes.
I cannot say "recantation," but I will say theme No. 1. This is in regard to what is called French domination:	Vote for Mackenzie King and you are going to establish French domination in this country 1 The Toronto Telegram says on the 17th September, 1925:
There is no question that to give Mr. King the absolute power he is seeking would mean Quebec domination in a sense Canada never experienced before.
There is no moderation, no temporizing, no middle course in Quebec's philosophy. Enlargement of her scope of action would mean inevitably stimulation of her ambition and extension of her peculiar genius.
If Mr. King has failed to show the people his own fitness for the Napoleonic role he wants to adopt, it is equally true that Quebec has failed to show that she can be accorded, without prejudice to the rights of the majority of Canadians the imposing accession of power she is promised under his proposal of a political monopoly at Ottawa.
Why did the hon, member for Kent. N.B. not quote that? Why do my hon. friends opposite not applaud that? If the hon. member for Kent was so anxious to give both sides of the case to the House, if he was animated by anything but a low, political calculation on his part, why did he not lay both sides before the House?


Arthur Meighen: Why did the hon. member not read the whole letter?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If I listened to the
leader of the opposition, I would be reading a dictionary. My right hon. friend is a past master in the art of twisting, distorting and dodging all these things. This is the editorial. Does my right hon. friend infer that in the other part of it they were correct in the impression sought to be created or were saying something different?


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend is
asking me for applause, as I did not get much applause from the newspapers, why should I give any back?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My right hon. friend and
his colleagues could not restrain their applause for the hon. member for Kent yesterday. I am asking them now why they do not applaud this. Is this a discussion of the tariff? My right hon. friend was whispering yesterday every time a statement was quoted-"low tariff." Is this "high tariff?"

The Address-Mr. Rinfret

Theme No. 2 is the war record of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King. This is from the Toronto Telegram of October 26:
Sets war record of Premier against record of T. L. Church, record of selfishness compared to record of service.
And so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that all?


Côme Isaïe Rinfret: I might read it all, but
that would take a long time. Under the heading "Shame" it states:
Shame of Hon. W. L. M. King's war record
Scores, yes hundreds, of Canadians carried family responsibilities as heavy as the responsibilities carried by Hon. W. L. M. King and yet volunteered for service overseas.
The shame of Hon. W. L. M. King's war record does not begin or end with Mr. King's failure to volunteer for service in the Canadian expeditionary force. . . . The relationship of Hon. W. L. M. King to the causes of the Great War and the course of the Great War would never be mentioned in party discussion if there was no more in that relationship than the historic fact of Hon. W. L. M. King's abstinence from military service.
The shame of Mr. W. L. M. King's service did not begin with Mr. King's exodus to the United States in 1914. . . . The war record of Hon. W. L. M. King does not show that Canadian soldiers or their next of kin received much of the United States money that poured into Hon. W. L. M. King's pockets out of the treasury of the John D. Rockefeller Foundation in the years of the war.
The war record of Hon. W. L. M. King is the war record of an absentee from the land of his birth in war time, the record of a war time moneymaker, not to say war time profiteer, who worked for himself for the duration of the war, at the end of each year greatly richer in pocket than at the beginning of the year.
And so on. Sir, if the right hon. leader of the Liberal party had sold goods to Roumania or to Greece he could not have been more bitterly assailed by the Toronto Telegram. Again, I say, why did not the member for Kent quote that, and why did not my hon. friends on the other side applaud? Is this high tariff? Is this protection? Is this a fair discussion of public issues during the last campaign?
Then there is theme No. 3-something that the leader of the Liberal party tried to do. He wanted to create a new flag for Canada. This also was an awful thing. Of course, it is closely connected with the tariff, the tariff on tissues. I quote from the Toronto Telegram of October 20:
Canada's flag scandal, a shame and disgrace If the shame and disgrace of the proved facts of Hon. W. L. M. King's procedure do not constitute Canada's Flag Scandal, what w'ould constitute a scandal in the life of this country.
Canada's flag scandal is a reality, not a romance, an iniquity, not an invention.

Canada's flag scandal was conceived in the sin of Hon. W. L. M. King's resolve to thrust the flag issue into Canadian politics.
Canada's flag scandal was fashioned in the iniquity of Hon. W. L. M. King's neutrality on the question whether the Union Jack should stay up as Canada's national flag, or be pulled down in favor of, to quote the words of the Globe. "A design that did not include the Union Jack as a portion of the flag."
Then it prints a picture of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party with fingers pointed at him from all sides, and this is the title:
Canada's flag scandal and the author of Canada's flag scandal.
Then it goes on-but why should I quote more? It is all in the same tone. Again I ask, if the member for Kent wanted to be fair why did he not quote both sides of the question, why did he not put this before the House if he had anything in his mind but the desire to gain a petty party advantage? Here is the Telegram again, of October 23, containing something further about this awful flag scandal that it attributed to the Prime Minister of Canada. Perhaps I might read this:
The flag scandal had its beginning not in the talk of Hon. W. L. M. King's enemies bat in the truth of Hon. W. L. M. King's own actions.
The flag scandal was created by the cold-blooded impudence that misrepresented scores of thousands of Canadian Liberals and outraged all Canadians in the text of Hon. W. L. M. King's order in council.
The terms of Hon. W. L. M. King's order in council treated a life and death question as a routine question. The question whether the Union Jack -is to be hauled down or stay up is a question that can never be decided in the negative except over the dead bodies of Canadians who are resolved that their children's childrer of all generations shall die under the Union Jack that they and their people have lived under ever since there was a Union Jack.
That was more tariff talk, Mr. Speaker, and' the espousal of the protection policy of my right hon. friend! And what about this from the Evening Telegram of Wednesday, October 28:
Every vote for Sir Henry Drayton in West York is a vote against Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Here is a picture of the leader of the Liberal party. On one side he is termed a cold-blooded traitor, and on the other side an anti-conscriptionist of 1917, and it is said:
West York will never vote to send the help of Alexander MacGregor to Hon. W. L. M. King, whose policy refused to send Canadians to the fighting line in time of war, and whose policy does send Canadians to the United States in time of peace.
Why did not my hon. friend from Kent quote this? He said that conscription was the issue in Quebec. Is not this an appeal to the war issue in the province of Ontario? And if he wanted to be fair to both sides, why did he not submit this to the applause of hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
tlemen opposite? It will be found that in several paragraphs the same ideas as those contained in the first part I have quoted are further discussed on behalf of the candidature of the member for West York. Here is another one, The Record of New Toronto. It looks very much like the old World. It is the issue of October 1, and brings up the flag issue once more. This, again, I suppose, is the tariff issue. Will the House listen to this:
We'll never let the old flag fall. Why change the flag? Change the government. Vote for Sir Henry Drayton.
That is an example of some of the appeals made in the province of Ontario during the last campaign. Here is the Telegram again, for October 27. I believe it has already been quoted in this debate:
Let West York honour the soldiers who fought for liberty and vote for Sir Henry Drayton.
Apparently that was the same thing in Ontario-if you want to honour the soldiers vote for Drayton; if you are against the soldiers then vote for the poor Liberal candidate. Here is a new appeal. This is entitled:
"In Vain is the net Spread"
In sight of the Ontario Conservatives who vote for prohibition.
A tariff on alcohol this time! Here is a picture of Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, entitled :
Premier o<f an absolutely pro-whiskey government.
I hope the member for Kent or the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) will not connect the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) with this.


Robert James Manion: Will my hon. friend repeat that? I did not catch his words.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is very interesting- it is a reason why you should vote for the Conservative party:
Hon. W. L. M. King, Premier of an absolutely prowhiskey government and leader of the pro-whiskey Liberals who form and support the governments that have drenched Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia with rum.	.
I could quote more, Mr. Speaker, but really I must conclude.


William Richard Motherwell: Make a job lot of it while you are at it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps I might quote from a report in the Telegram of October 21 of a meeting on behalf of the Conservative candidate in the riding of Toronto East Centre. Colonel Cameron' was speaking, and here is what he said:
Colonel Cameron described a meeting he had a short time ago with a couple of American tourists in a hotel 14011-231
rotunda. Over the entrance were two flags-the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. They were discussing the prospects of the election, and suggested the possibility of the Union Jack disappearing altogether. But so far as the public opinion of Canada was concerned, he believed the outcome would be that Mackenzie King would be sent back to the United States and find a soft seat in the Rockefeller Foundation.
There Is an emissary of the United States in the person of the present Prime Minister of Canada. I charge Mackenzie King right here and now with being an emissary of the United States.
I was told the other day that we were using the Union Jack in this election. We are. I want to say now that I propose to take hold of the Union Jack with both my hands and keep them there. It is the only flag for Canada.
That was an appeal in behalf of the Conservative candidate in Toronto East Centre.
I am not surprised at all, Mr. Speaker, to read this, because that statement about the Prime Minister of this country being an American was so general in the province of Ontario. The other day the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said in his speech that the Prime Minister wanted to americanize his own government, and to establish in this country a condition of government very similar to that which exists in Washington.


Robert James Manion: It is looking more like
it every day.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, perhaps it is, but do not forget that the campaign of American prejudice against Mackenzie King was waged all over the province of Ontario.


William Alves Boys: Has my hon. friend quotations from any other paper in the province of Ontario? He seems to have an abundance of newspaper quotations. Has he some others from Ontario? .


Arthur Meighen: There is this distinction
between that paper and Le Canada and Le Soleil, that its owner is not a member of this House.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So far as 'Le Canada is
concerned I do not think I am mistaken in saying that the only quotation the member for Kent gave from that paper was the quotation of a speech alleged to have been made by the Premier of Quebec. I.think I saw it explained in the paper at the time that the report of that meeting had been clipped from one of the Quebec papers, But I do not want to screen myself behind that. I am offering proof that in certain parts of Ontario there was a campaign of prejudice waged against the Liberal party which, in my opinion, is much worse than anything the hon. member for Kent has been able to produce.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend answer
my question?
The Address-Mr, liinjret


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My point, Mr. Speaker,
is this: if the member for Kent did not desire merely to bring material benefit to his own party, but wanted to lay the bare truths before this House, his duty was to further acquaint himself with the conditions of the campaign in other parts of Canada and to lay the whole thing before the House. He had no right to read Le Soleil only and attempt to create the impression in this House that while we had waged a campaign of prejudice in Quebec everything had been pure and rosy and serene in other parts of the Dominion.


William Alves Boys: Once more I ask my hon.
friend if he will be courteous enough to answer my question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What is that?


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend knows what
it is.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend wanted to know if I could quote from other papers?


William Alves Boys: I merely wanted to have the
hon. gentleman give quotations from any other papers in the province of Ontario.


Mr. CANNON:: It is rotten enough now.


William Alves Boys: I am not speaking to my hon. friend.


Lucien Cannon: We have had too much
of it already.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The hon. member for
Kent ended his speech with a great appeal for national unity. I want to ask him now if these quotations which I have just given are fair samples of the appeals for national unity made by his own party? He referred, in a fiery peroration, to the career of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and said he was going to teach us a lesson of tolerance, expressing the hope that we would follow better in future the teachings of that great Liberal chieftain. It is a striking fact, Mr. Speaker, that since Sir Wilfrid Laurier disappeared from active political life his grip on the minds of my Conservative friends has tremendously increased. We are asked to remain 'true to the Laurier policies and the Laurier ideas, and now the hon. member for Kent takes it upon himself to ask us to practise the Laurier tolerance. AH his life Sir Wilfrid Laurier was subject to misrepresentation by the Conservative party. *He was branded1 in the province of Ontario as being disloyal to the crown, and stamped a traitor to his race in the province of Quebec, Now that he is dead these hypocrites praise him and hold him up to us as an example. We have no lesson to learn from the hon. mem-IMr. Boys.]
ber for Kent. The Liberal party has ever been a party of tolerance and conciliation, and we are well able to preserve the Laurier qualities and traditions without relying on those who (attacked him all his life and who are now *trying to use his memory as a weapon with Which to fight his true and legitimate successors. Let the hon. member for Kent and other Pharisees strike their own breasts. We do not claim perfection. We acknowledge that in the heat of a political campaign there is on all sides a tendency to indulge in excessive language. That is inevitable. We Liberals are willing to admit that and also that perfection does not belong to this lower world. But before directing his attack against us and posing as a champion of public purity, the hon. member for Kent, if he had been anxious ,to proclaim the truth, might have looked in his own party and perhaps into the recesses of his own conscience. That would have taught him a lesson in humility and repentance more essential to his moral improvement than the lesson he has tried to teach us, at the command of his leaders and at the expense of his compatriots.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should now hasten to the last part of my speech. I want to refer to some of the features of the Speech from the Throne. Mention is made of the tariff, and I wish to say that as far as I am [DOT]concerned-and I think I speak the minds of my Quebec friends, and Liberals generally *-we do not consider the tariff so much a matter of doctrine as a matter of business. We are not addicted to racial prejudice, notwithstanding what has been said against us, but we will never bow before the prejudice of high protection. We know very well that our friends opposite are too prone to confuse high tariff with protection. There are many ways of protecting industries besides raising the tariff. You may achieve the same purpose if you lower the tariff on raw materials 01 some of the articles entering into the fabrication of the finished goods. You also protect industries most directly if you open to the exports of this country markets in other parts <of the world. That is what the Liberal government has tried to do. It has reduced the tariff on agricultural implements, but it has also reduced the tariff on some of the raw materials entering into the manufacture of these implements. It has increased the British preference on shoes and textiles by 2^ per cent. A much-discussed matter during the last (campaign, was the effect of that decrease on (the shoe industries in Montreal and Quebec. (Much noise was created over the fact that a factory had been closed in St. Hyacinthe. It

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
was said that that was on account of the tariff, but a few months later the Arrow Shoe *.Company of Montreal opened another factory in the same town of St. Hyacinthe, under the isame tariff and the same conditions, and it is [DOT]very prosperous to-day. What are we to conclude from that fact, if not that the tariff alone has not much to do with prosperity or failures-if there are any-in the industrial *world. The government has promised that it will establish a tariff commission.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the hon. gentleman say how many industries depending upon the shoe industry have failed and gone out of business?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would take me pretty far. I am sorry my right hon. friend was not in our province during the campaign, where he would have heard the whole matter discussed1.


Peter McGibbon: Many industries depending on the shoe industry have gone out of business in Ontario.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend will readily understand that I cannot open up the whole question of the shoe industry. I must confess that I am flattered at the great desire of these gentlemen to hear me, but I must not forget that other speakers are to follow, and must not prolong my remarks unduly. The reason I mentioned the tariff was merely because I wanted to come to the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. If I understand the amendment well, the right hon. gentleman finds no fault at all with the Speech from the Throne.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: He is merely adding a paragraph to it, and that paragraph is a most extraordinary one when it comes from a high protectionist like my right hon. friend. In my opinion it is merely a statement of generalities which are intended to indicate a policy without stating it, and if I were in the position of the Progressive members of this House, and had to choose between that amendment and the Speech from the Throne, I would not hesitate for one moment.
The Speech from the Throne this year, Mr. Speaker, is simply the re-embodiment of what has been the Liberal policy in all times, and more especially during the last four years in which the Liberal party has been in power at Ottawa. If our hon. leader and his government have tried to achieve anything, it has been to unite Canada, and more especially to bring the east and the west together. We consider that we cannot govern this country
unless we give close attention to the needs of every province in the Dominion. I am proud to say that in the province of Quebec we have resisted appeals from the high tariff advocates to ally ourselves with them against the interests of the west. Those scrupulous Tories would not dare to discuss war matters of past years, but they would not hesitate one moment to stir up within our own borders a financial and economic war between the east and the west. The victory of the Liberal party in Quebec was not the victory of a prejudice; it was the victory over a prejudice. ' It was the victory of the good common sense of the people of Quebec, imbued with a strong Canadian spirit, that true spirit of confederation which should animate us all and which we should all try to develop and make the ruling Canadian sentiment-a desire for Canadian unity, based on an acknowledgment of the needs and aspirations of all groups of our population.
The Quebec victory was not won on the grounds that have been stated by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. The Quebec victory, and I say it with pride, was a refusal to listen to the big Tory interests in the east which are now bidding for western support because they need it, but who, if they had secured a majority in this House would have had no other idea than that of swamping and crushing western interests. Mr. Speaker, Quebec would not yield to that prejudice. Far from heeding any of the arguments which recalled memories of the war, Quebec refused to listen to the appeals of the Tory party and the Tory candidates in our own province who tried to unite us with the high protectionists of the east against the best interests of the west and against the best interests of the whole country. I say again, the meaning of the Liberal victory in Quebec is the intense desire of Quebec for national unity, for tolerance and justice for all parts of the country, and more especially for the true and just consideration of the needs of the west in this parliament.
Only one word more, Mr. Speaker, and it is to rejoice that in the evolving of the policies of this country parliament and members of parliament are gradually becoming more and more considerate. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) expressed regret that in the last parliament the government had to yield to demands from different groups of the House, and he cited several examples; for instance, that the Minister of National Defence had to reduce his estimates. That was an awful spectacle, he said, because, forsooth, Liberal and Progressive members had put before parliament the desire of their constituents,
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

and the government had listened to them. Of course that could not appeal at all to a Tory mind, but it does appeal to my mind, Mr. Speaker. In the past, some decades ago, we often heard the insinuation that the government of this country was too much influenced from the other side of the ocean; we used to be told that Downing Street was governing Canada. Then we passed to another period when it was said, especially during the war, that we had in this country government by order in council, and that that was not proper. In the last parliament the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, declared that his government considered itself not as a group of supermen but as a committee of parliament who were willing to listen to and consider the demands of the representatives of the people sitting in this House, and Mr. Speaker, if the present make-up of this House results in more of that spirit, I welcome it. Perhaps we Shall come to a time when we shall say not merely that the policy of this country is not to be decided upon by Downing Street or even in the council chamber in the eastern block in Ottawa, but that it shall be evolved and decided upon in the sole and only chamber proper for that purpose, right here in this House of Commons where the representatives of the Canadian people sit and are convened.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, if you are not already over-weary of receiving felicitations on your re-election to your high office, I should like to preface what I have to say to this House by paying to you as a distinguished member of a great race, and a representative of one of the oldekt of the constituent parts of this Dominion, my tribute as the representative of one of the ridings of the capital city of one of the youngest provinces of Canada. If my constituents should at any future election so far forget, in a moment of mental aberration, their own good fortune and that of the country, as well as of myself, as not to return me to any future house, one of the most striking, colourful and impressive recollections I should always carry with me would be that of your dignified presidency over this chamber.
I hesitate to assure the House that I will not trespass upon its time for undue length, because what is "undue length" is undoubtedly a matter of opinion, and I have observed that it appears to be the custom of hon. members upon that question to form their own opinion.
I listened throughout this debate with assiduous care for some effective answer from *hon. members opposite and particularly from

*ministers on the treasury benches, to the criticism and charges levelled by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) against the past and projected policy of the government. I 'have heard none. We did hear from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) certain expressions such as "outrageous misrepresentation" at the very moment when he himself was garbling the language of the right hon. leader of the opposition and grossly misrepresenting his political statements and political position. I do not for one moment assume that the Minister of Agriculture realized what he was doing, because I have no right to sacrifice the honesty of any member on the altar of his intelligence. But whatever be the explanation, reputable or disreputable, the fact remains unaltered that in the very citations which he read from tlhe statements of the right hon. leader of the opposition he himself, immediately afterwards, put them into his own language-language that was almost diametrically opposed to what was actually said. If the ministers who occupy the treasury benches are not too high seated in Olympus for my feeble and very modest congratulations to reach them, I should wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Agriculture for the wonderful expert ness, the wonderful dexterity and skill, which they have displayed in this House in setting up and knocking down men of straw; and the thuds which followed the fall of these dummies were hailed with such applause by gentlemen behind the ministers who were operating that I am forced to believe they have never been accustomed on that side of the House to anything better.
During the debate upon the amendment to the motion for consideration of the Speech from the Throne, the Minister o!f the Interior (Mr. Stewart) ventured to assume two roles, that of historian and that of prophet. He assumed the role of an historian when he essayed to tell the members of this House exactly why the Liberal candidate was beaten in Easi Edmonton in the recent election. Now the .role of an historian is not so easy as some people seem to imagine. It is not easy tc ,make history; it is not even easy to write history after it has been made, and when the Minister of the Interior told the House that East Edmonton had been won by the Conservative and the government candidate had been beaten on the tariff issue, I interposed. I am a fellow citizen of the hon. minister. I have known him for a great many years. We always have had the most friendly and courteous relations with one another when he was a minister of the provincial government and I

The Address-Mr. Bury
was nothing but what I still am-a poor but honest lawyer; therefore citizenship, friendship and charity demanded that I should intervene to lead back the wandering feet of the Minister of the Interior into the paths of truth from those realms of flowery imagination into which I am afraid the members of the ministry too often stray. I interposed to say that the cause of the defeat of the government candidate in East Edfnonton was not at all the tariff but the coal question, and that is the truth, though by no means all the truth. If the hor). members of this House desire to know what were the causes which contributed to that result, I can tell them. The first, indubitably, was the coal issue. We in Alberta find ourselves living over about fourteen per cent of the coal measures of the world. There was a clamour from the Ontario consumers of coal and the Ontario coal merchants for supplies of the very material, the very fuel that was under odr own feet in such enormous quantities. Pressure was brought to bear upon the federal government by the governments of Alberta and Ontario, and you would have thought that some action would have been taken. Weil, there was action taken of a kind, but what it was and what it effected I hope to lay before the House on some future occasion. I am not referring at any length to the coal question now for the simple reason that it is bound to come up here shortly, and I am not going to psk the House to traverse the same ground twice. I only mention it now because I am afraid if I did not do so, that owing to the confusion which seems to exist in the mind of *the Minister of Agriculture as to the meaning of words in his own language, the charge might later be made that I had performed a "recantation."
The second issue and the second cause that contributed to the defeat of the government candidate in East Edmonton was something just about as dark and subterranean in its ways as coal, but without possessing anything like the same latent heat or force or pumber of British thermal units-I mean the government itself. Wherever you went in my (constituency the burden of everyone was "Let us have a change of government." Now, that has occurred before in political history. It occurred in England in 1906 when the Unionist government had been in power almost without interruption for twenty years. .Then the cry rose for a change of government That was not the only cause which contributed to the fall of the Unionist government of 1906. *But I question whether in the political history of any country you will find a parallel- although in this I may be wrong-to a case
where four years after ,a government had come into power with a majority over all parties in the House, the country cried out "For goodness sake let us get rid of these men." That was the amazing, the striking feature in this case of what is sometimes a natural cry for a Change of government.
In his interesting recollections Goldwin Smith mentioned that Dr. Edward1 Pusey, while undoubtedly learned, was very weak in logic; his catenas wanted a link. I think something of the same error or defect marks the logic of some hon. members on the other side to whom I have been listening. The argument, for instance, of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) was this: the fact that the Liberal candidates in a number of constituencies-take my own for example-polled a number of votes which, when added to the votes polled by the Progressives, far outnumbered the votes for the Conservative candidate, was proof that the people in those constituencies did not want the government of the right hon. leader olf the opposition. My experience has been the common experience of many other Conservatives. First the supporters of the Labour candidate came to me and taking my hand said, "If we are beaten we hope that we shall be beaten by you." Then the supporters of the Liberal candidate came to me and said, "We hope if we are beaten that we shall be beaten by you." That does not look very much as though the one thing upon which both parties, Liberal and Progressive, were agreed was that they did not want a Conservative in this House to support the policy bf the leader of the opposition. I rather think it shows that if they had to have a second choice, and could not get their own man in, they both wanted the Conservative; and it is extremely pleasant to be in the position of having gratified both parties.
The third element entering into the result in East Edmonton was the Australian treaty. My constituents are mostly living in the city of Edmonton. It is not a closely populated place. It contains 27,000 acres with a population of about 60,000, or a little more than two people to the acre. They are interested in getting butter as cheaply as they can, and a reduction of three cents a pound is a matter of concern to them. But even the people of the city seemed to argue in this way: "After all what is the use of obtaining butter at three cents a pound less than the price at which it has been sold, if we have not got the wage to pay for the butter?" Further
The Address-Mr. Bury

I think they may have argued, "If this government is so foolish in its fiscal policy as to injure the butter industry in this province, how do we know 'that it will not be hitting to-morrow the very industry in which we are interested?" For such reasons as these, the Australian treaty did not find much favour even in Edmonton. The people understood that if the butter industry of the province was to continue it must not be subjected to the unfair competition with which it was threatened through the Australian treaty. It reminds me of the case of a poor man's wife who went to her husband and said, "John, what do you think? That -beautiful one thousand dollar Persian lamb and sable coat in Eaton's has been reduced to $975." The reduction was not-much good to her because she could not buy the coat anyway.
The fourth element that entered into the result in East Edmonton was the question of the policy of the government in connection with our raw material. I am not going to enlarge on that; I merely mention it.
The fifth was the question of the policy of the government with respect to migration, the movement of our people into the United States, and the inaction, or at any rate the ineffective action, of the government in the matter of getting new settlers on the land. And the last element was the question of the tariff. By the tariff I mean an honest protective tariff that will really protect, for there is no use, but great harm in any other kind of protection. If the question of protective policy did not play the part in the last election which some considered it should play, possibly it was because it was so difficult to understand the attitude of the leader of the government on that very question. There used to be a gambling device on some of the race courses in England-I do not know whether it is there now-consisting of two thimbles and a pea. The thimbles were operated in a certain way, and the bet was made as to which thimble covered the pea. That device reminds me of the operations o!f the leader of the government, the Prime Minister of this country, in connection with the tariff and the question of protection. You did not 'know where he was. You were ready to bet your money he was under -the hat of the Minister of the Interior, but when that hat was lifted, lol he was not there. Then you were ready to bet your money he was under the hat of Mr. Marler, at the other extreme, but when that hat was lifted he was not there either. At last the man on the street was driven to turn to the gen-

tleman who was operating the thimbles and say to him, "You may keep your thimbles and your pea; you are too smart for me. I am not betting."


Donald Sutherland: They got him at North York.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I -hope they did. But on this question of protection, when the ordinary man on the street, who wanted <o -poll his vote as he thought it should be polled, watched the efforts of the Prime Minister in his endeavour to construct his cabinet, he said to himself, "This is the most extraordinary piece of cabinet-making I ever saw in my life. This is not a cabinet at all; it is an omnibus." We had the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), with his views favouring virtual free trade-at any rate views that were diametrically opposed or very strongly opposed to protection; we had Mr. Vincent Massey going a little bit higher, and we had Mr. Marler, who, if my memory serves me rightly, would have nothing to do with a budget that sounded the death knell of protection. When the man on the street saw that, he asked himself which of these gentlemen represented the attitude and policy of the Prime Minister upon one of the questions most vital to the prosperity of the country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: When the House rose I had
just concluded my reference to the digression of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) into the realm of history, and my attempt as a friend and fellow citizen to correct his error and to inform the House, if it was interested, as to -the real issues and causes which brought about the defeat of the government candidate in my constituency.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that the same minister had in the previous debate assumed the role of a pro-phet. He indulged in prophecy as to the return of the Prime Minister to this House through the main entrance, although I do not know that it matters much as regards the issue whether he comes in through the main entrance or a side entrance. If the Minister of the Interior is as good a prophet u-pon that matter as he was on another famous occasion in respect of another matter, I am afraid hon. gentle-mem on the opposite side of the House will, like Tennyson's forlorn maiden, wait in vain- "He cometh not, she said."

The Address-Mr. Bury
The Minister of the Interior on the earlier occasion to which I refer, indulged in prophecy. At the conclusion, of the Crimean war that great tribune of the British people, John Bright, made one of the most famous speeches of his life, which, from a phrase that occurred in it, got the name and was immortalized as the "angel of death" speech. After the speech was over, Disraeli said to him that he would give almost anything he had to be able to make a speech like that, and John Bright, with his characteristic candour said: "So you could, if you were an honest man." I refer to this because we recollect that in connection with the budget of 1924 the Minister of the Interior made another speech which will go down to posterity, not as the "angel of death " speech, but as the "death knell" speech. I have already said that to attempt to write history is a dangerous thing. To attempt to indulge in prophecy is, I consider, a still more dangerous thing. If the minister must assume the role of a prophet, I would suggest, humbly and reverently, that he should remember two things: first, to try to select an event so far distant that he will certainly not be there when it does not take place; and second, if he must select an event that is of an impending nature, if he must make a prophecy regarding the death of any policy or movement, to make sure, before he buys the whiskey and candles for the wake, that the corpse is dead, and before his hand grasps the bell rope to ring out the tocsin telling the neighbours that the joyful occasion is on, to make sure that the corpse will not rise out of the coffin to enfold him in its cerements and push him into the box which he had intended for it.
Protection is very far from being dead. Coming from the west, I venture to say that protection is more alive than it has been for a long time. There is a general recognition throughout the country, even throughout the west, that protection is necessary for the welfare of the Dominion as a whole. There is a general recognition of the fact that if we assume, for purposes of argument, that proper and effective protection of industry is not in the interest of agriculture, then there are only two solutions possible if we are to have a national policy, if we are to have a system that is to be of benefit to all sections of the country, east and west, and all types and forms of industry, manufacturing and agriculture. Those two solutions are briefly these: Either in the interest of agriculture to do away with protection altogether and bonus industry, or in the interest of industry to have a sufficient, proper and effective protection and to give agriculture some countervailing
benefit in the form either of concessions in the matter of freight rates or of some protection for agricultural products, or possibly a combination of both forms. That being so, and that being the feeling throughout this country, I am not at all surprised that in the Speech from the Throne there has been an abandonment of at least one of the old tariff shibboleths of the Liberal party.
I refer to the shibboleth which we have so often heard cried from the Liberal camp, the shibboleth of "Tariff for revenue purposes only." That has been jettisoned. You have only to look at the Speech from the Throne to find how true that statement is. This is the policy of the government:
In their view the incidence of this form of taxation should bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life and on agriculture and other primary industries . . . that changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both .primary and manufacturing industries, and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation and report by a body possessing the necessary qualifications.
Not even the most purblind protagonist of " Tariff for revenue purposes " could claim that that is such a tariff. It is the enunciation of a doctrine that is at least sane, namely, that you have to consider the tariff not only from the standpoint of what revenue it will produce, but also from the effect it will have upon the industries of the country; that you have so to adjust the incidence and weight of taxation that it shall not merely produce revenue but shall have the best possible consequences and exercise the most beneficial influences upon that which is most important to a new country, namely, its commerce and its trade.
Now, I do not wonder that there has been this growing feeling throughout the country, for the simple reason that everybody at heart is a protectionist-at least with respect to his own product. Labour is protectionist. Labour has secured the position it now occupies, the advantages and powers, the privileges and rights it now possesses, by a programme and policy of protection-primarily by the machinery of protection which it devised, erected and put into operation for itself, and afterwards by the supplementary machinery of protection which quite properly it obtained by parliamentary enactment. I do not think there is a member on this side of the House, or on the other side, who does not from the bottom of his heart hope that Labour will long continue its protective efforts for the purpose of securing to itself every legitimate right, every legitimate advantage, every legiti-
The Address-Mr. Bury

mate enjoyment and every legitimate proportion of the profits of industry to which it contributes to such a large and important extent.
And the farmer is also a protectionist. I understand that the members of the Progressive party who were in the House when the Australian treaty was up, voted against it. Of course, they made the explanation that it was because there were other provisions in that treaty to which they were opposed. I wondler whether, if those other provisions had been eliminated, they would not still have voted against that blow to the dairy industry of the province of Alberta. One of the leading Liberals of the city of Edmonton, a gentleman who was most active in bringing voters to the registration offices to get their names on the lists to vote against me, stated that the Australian treaty was going to cost the dairy men of Alberta north of Red Deer not less than $100,GOO a year. He should know of what he speaks, since he has been for years connected with the great Edmonton City Dairy that turns out some of the best butter you can obtain anywhere.
There is also a growing feeling amongst the farmers themselves that the tariff plays a very small part in fixing the price of agricultural implements. I am not a farmer, but no reasonably well informed man can fail to understand that there are a score of other influences affecting the price of agricultural implements, and that the tariff as a price factor is insignificant. Recently there were quoted to the House, in proof of this, figures giving the comparative prices of agricultural machinery in 1921 and in 1925. I have not the figures for 1921. but I happen to have those for 1914, and I have compared them with the figures for 1925. A two-gang fourteen-inch plow with hitch, on which there was then a 26 per cent ad valorem duty cost $85 in Edmonton in 1914; the same plow with only 10 per cent ad valorem duty, exactly half, cost in Edmonton $153 in 1925. Will you tell me what the duty had to do-with that increased cost? I am not going to take up the time of hon. members going through the other items, but they are all pretty much on the same scale-whether disc harrow, mower, horse rake, or binder, the difference between the prices in 1914 and in 1925 is remarkable. Take the binder, for instance: in 1914 the price in Edmonton with a 17i per cent ad valorem duty was $175; in 1925 with a 6 per cent ad valorem duty, a little more than a third, the price was not $175, but $293. What is the use of talking about the effect of the tariff on agricultural implements in the
tMr. Bury.]
face of figures like those, or of the figures that were cited to this House the other day?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the speech of the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am not going to compliment the hon, gentleman upon his speech, because I understand that he is a distinguished lawyer, and of course we should expect from him nothing less than what he delivered. In any case, for me to compliment him might be considered as " deep calling unto deep But one part of his speech struck me as showing possibly the undue influence exerted on his thought by his leader. I refer to the passage in which he adopted and endorsed as his own the strange statement in the Speech from the Throne that the prosperity mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was aided by the policies of the government. Now, I think there is something to be said for that idea, because it seems to me that the policies of the government did produce a very general impression throughout the country that the government was going to be defeated at the general election, and I do think that that impression may have had some effect upon the prosperity of the Dominion. Unfortunately this government is not like any other that ever existed in this country; it has chosen to hang on to office and has disappointed the hopes of the people. But still there was the impression that there would be a landslide. I mention this as one of the possible explanations and one of the possible justifications for the statement. But I do not think that sense was in the mind of those who were responsible for putting the language into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General. I think what was possibly in their minds was the same thought which appears frequently to have been in the mind of the Prime Minister-that divine Providence was in some sense an adjunct or a colleague of the Liberal party-that these great natural forces of sun, soil, wind, rain, frost, hail, snow and so on were at the beck and bidding of the leader of the government, and that .by this providential connection, the Almighty and he had managed things rather well for Canada during 1925. I do not think that is an unfair interpretation, because I remember that the leader of the government regarded one great agent of Providence as his co-operator and colleague in connection with the scheme of Senate reform, which is still in its addled egg, and which when it appears outside the shell will no doubt be a credit to its origin. In discussing that scheme of Senate reform, the nature of which no one knows, the Prime Minister said that he was being assisted by

The Address-Mr. Bury
the Minister of Death-Death, like the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, summoning not members of this House to the Senate but members of the Senate to a more august chamber, in the interests of the leader of the government, that he might fill the vacant places with nominees pliant and compliant to his will. Any man who has that conception of death is capable of making the statement we have in the Speech from the Throne. And it is surely merely an extension of the same principle to regard the forces of nature-which have co-operated to produce the great crop of 1925 in which we all rejoice-as colleagues and allies of his own. If that be so I think possibly the question asked by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) the other day in respect of the present extreme fertility of the hens may not have been so frivolous as it may have appeared. After all, the fertility may have been part and parcel of the general policy of the leader of the government in respect of the lavish output of our raw material. There was another monarch in Europe some years ago, who was afflicted with a somewhat similar view of his connection with divine Providence. He got himself into a lot of trouble on account of it, lost his seat and has not recaptured it.
Now, I come to another part of the speech of the mover of the Address in reply with which I am in hearty accord, as I am sure must be all members of the House. That is the part of his speech in which he describes the needs of the Dominion. I am not going to occupy the time of the House by dealing at length with each of them. The first need which he mentions is that of rigid economy. That is a very vague phrase. It may mean anything; it may mean an attitude on economy so rigid that you do not do anything, or it may really be a very serious and strenuous attempt to effect economies in the government of the country. There is a second remedy proposed, that of better markets. I think we all agree with that, but the question which arises in our minds is, what has been done to secure them? What is being done to secure the better markets which we all confess we need? There are two elements in this problem of better markets. One is to keep our own home market as much as possible for our own manufacturers-to extend as far as possible their operations within these markets. The other is to get a larger share of the markets of foreign countries-the United States, for example. What is being done to further either of these two objects? We say that the chief instrument by which both of these necessary ends may be attained by any country is a
proper fiscal policy. We say that we should use the vast natural resources with which divine Providence has endowed this country -our nickel, asbestos and other natural resources and minerals-for the purpose of getting entrance into the markets of the United States. What use are we making of them? I think it was the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) who, speaking last night, dwelt on the enormous sums of money involved in our trade. I am not interested in the bulk amount; I want to know how it is made up. I want to know how much of our export trade is comprised in the exportation of raw material. You may have an enormous trade between this country and the United States and yet that trade may be little else than the feeding of the country upon its own bowels. Now, I can imagine some hon. gentleman saying: Ah, now we are getting at the real point; this gentleman is advocating retaliation. Well, I am advocating retaliation;
I have always believed in it and have never been ashamed of it. I think it is a common sense principle. It is the policy which the republic to our south would adopt in five minutes if it possessed our -resources. We have natural resources which are absolutely essential to certain industries in the United States-industries in which millions of dollars have been invested, and which could not carry on without us-and we make no use of our possession of these resources for the purpose of fiscal bargaining with that country. We should say: "Unless you give us certain concessions we will retaliate against you in the export of our raw materials, or in any other way which may seem best to us." Let me read to you a passage from an authority on political economy:
A non-protecting duty, on the contrary, would in most cases be a source of gam to t'he country imposing it, in so far as throwing part of the weight of its taxes upon other peo-ple is a gain; but it would be a means which it could seldom be advisable to adopt, being so easily counteracted by a precisely similar proceeding on the other side.
That is, by retaliation.
If England, in the case already supposed, sought to obtain for herself more than her natural share of the advantage of the trade with Germany, by imposing a duty on linen, Germany would only have to impose a duty upon cloth, sufficient to diminish the demand for that article about as much as the demand for linen had been diminished in England by the tax.
That is retaliation.
Things would then be as before, and each country would pay its own tax. Unless, indeed, the sum of the two duties exceeded the entire advantage of the trade; for in that case the trade, and its advantage, would cease entirely. There would be no advantage, therefore, in imposing duties of this kind, with a view to gain by them in the manner which has been
* 364
The Address-Mr. Bury

pointed out. But when any part of the revenue is derived from taxes on commodities, these may often be as little objectionable as the rest. It is evident, too,-
And this is the part I wish lion, members to observe:
-that considerations of reciprocity, which are quite unessential when the matter in debate is a protecting duty are of material importance when the repeal of duties of this other description is discussed. A country cannot be expected to renounce the power of taxing foreigners, unless foreigners will in return practice towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its commodities, is to impose corresponding revenue duties on theirs.
Where does that come from? Some Birmingham authority on political economy of the Chamberlain school? No, but from the political economist of the Manchester school, John Stuart Mill. If I believe in retaliation, I have at least his authority behind me. But I want to go-as 'hon. members opposite may deem it-higher in the scale of authority. Not merely does John Stuart Mill teach this doctrine of retaliation, but the leader of the government himself teaches it. Here is what he said in a speech at Alexandria, Ontario, on the 14th of September. Speaking of the suggestion of a tariff on farm products, Mr. Mackenzie King said:
Suppose a duty were put on fresh fruits and vegetables coming in from the United States; what would the United States do?
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the United States would do what we do, they would do nothing. But the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King knows the United States too well to think they would do nothing. He knows the United States too well not to know that they would retaliate at once, and so he says:
What would the United States do? Would the United States not say, if you put a tariff on our fruits and vegetables, we will put one on yours?
Surely they would. And if that is good policy and sound business for the United States, why is it not good policy and sound business for this country? And so, on the authority of John Stuart Mill and the Right Hon. Mr Mackenzie King, I avow myself an out-and-out retaliationist until by retaliation, if need be, the products of the industries of Canada find a fairer share in the markets of the United States.
The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) dealt with this question, and his objection, as will be found on page 331 of Hansard, was this:
In other words, if this House will give him (the leader of the opposition) the opportunity, he will enter upon a tariff war with our American neighbours just at a time when the troubles in the New England states 
and all over the Union are crystallizing into a demand for a lower tariff policy in that country which will result in giving the Canadian people, and more particularly the Canadian farmer, freer access into the United States nmrket, the world's best market, right at our own doors.
I say that is the most extraordinary argument I have ever heard. "Do not press this matter," he says, "while the United States, and particularly the New England states, are in trouble and considering whether it would not be well to have a low tariff." Why, that is the very time to press it for all it is worth. If opinion in the United States is crystallizing into a demand for a lower tariff policy in that country, for goodness' sake let us help the crystallization process as fast as we can; but you will not help it by telling them that, no matter what they do, we will not put up any tariff against them.
Another remedy which the mover of the Address mentioned was more people. With that, too I am in hearty accord. More people, yes; but what have you done to get them? There are three elements in this problem:	The first is the element of keeping on the land the people you already have there; the second is the element of bringing back to the land the people who were on it but who have left; and the third is the element of bringing in new people who were never here before. In my opinion I have given these elements in the order of their importance. The most important problem this government can grapple with is that of keeping on the land the people who are on it now, and the next most important is that of getting back our own people, who know Canada, who have Canadian traditions and Canadian connections, Canadian ties and Canadian viewpoints, rather than bringing new people in. I would much rather have our own people brought back to the land than newcomers brought in. The third element is the least important of all, except for its size; that is all.
In relation to these three problems there are three forces operating. There is the British government across the Atlantic, pouring [DOT] out millions of pounds, for the purpose of what? Of solving the third of these problems, of giving us new people who never were here before. The transportation companies are also willing to pour out millions of dollars to help solve that same problem. They are not particularly interested in keeping people on the land, because the more people move off the land, the more people and the more settlers' effects they will be carrying The third power that is trying to solve this problem is the Canadian government. It is

36a
The Address-Mr. Bury
pouring out millions and millions of dollars, and what has it got as a result? Something utterly inadequate to the expenditure it has made. What I want to point out to the House is this: We have focussed our attention, bent our energies, and made our expenditure, upon the third element of this problem and have done practically nothing in respect to the other two elements. This government and this country would be infinitely better advised to spend one-half, or even three-quarters, of the money that it is going to spend on immigrants-the British government and the transportation companies are prepared to spend money on that-upon keeping here the men who are here and bringing back the men who have gone, rather than spending it in an effort to secure newcomers to this country.
Now, how are you going to do it? I am not going to deal with this at any length. I think you will have to have cheap land. You are going to spend a lot of money on immigration. Take good care that your efforts in that direction are supplemented by legislation that will prevent land speculators, land companies, and land owners, from coming in and simply getting for themselves the benefit from the enormous amount of money the government is spending. Take care there is land cheap in price near the railways. I would go even this far-I may be rocking the boat; it may be that some of my leaders will come to me and say, if you do not modify your views, we will have to wait for a convenient whale to come along and throw you overboard to him-but it seems to me that one of the most important elements of this whole settlement question is some legislation that will see that land prices do not go up as the men come in to buy.
You will have to have cheap railway rates. I quite agree with the hon. member for Vic-toria^Carleton (Mr. Flemming), that our gigantic railway system should be made one of the biggest assets for peopling this land and assisting those who are already on the land.
You must, in addition to that, have cheap money. That is what the suggestion is in the Speech from the Throne-rural credits. I dare say I shall arouse a good deal of opposition, but may I say this: Rural credits are only a necessary evil. No country gets rich by borrowing. Countries grow by thrift. You may have to have rural credits, but only as a necessary evil; and the best intentions, the best energies, the best brains of this House ought to be directed to the problem of how the men can live without borrowing, rather
than to making borrowing easier. That is my theory; I may be all wrong. I know there are a great many people who are such splendid adepts at borrowing that they are living on their overdrafts, and have been doing that for a great many years. But it is a wrong policy, and one that never made any country rich.
Now, I must not detain the House at any further length, but I just want to say this:
I have indicated the lines along which I think the needs of this country must be met.
I have no hope that they will be met by the present government. I have no hope because that government is a discredited government.
I have no hope because that government is hanging on at the will, at the mercy, at the mood and pleasure of a party in respect to which the Prime Minister made no concealment of his opinions. I read from a speech of his delivered at Saskatoon on October 7, 1925, in which he said:
"Progressives have no hope of forming an administration. If," he added, "you support a party confined to one part of the country you immediately help to put that part of the country, so to speak, in opposition to the rest of the country."
Mr. King held that the attitude of Progressives in the last session instead of helping the administration had hampered it in a hundred and one ways.
And now, listen to this:
"We have had co-operation, very helpful co-operation in some cases," said the premier.
Here is the other side of the picture:
"I can tell you as Prime Minister that every time the government was face to face with some western problem, we had to face the false charge that we were acting as we were because we were living in the grace of the Progressives or because we wanted their support-which made it very difficult for us to do many of the things we would have liked to do."
I ask hon. members to consider this: If that was the position of things from 1921 to 1925, if that was the state of affairs when they had a majority over all, if at that time Mr. King was handicapped and hamstrung, hampered, cribbed, cabined and confined by the fact that he was so nearly dependent then on the Progressives vote to keep him in power that he could not bring in any measures he wanted to bring in for fear of a false charge against him of pandering to them, how in the name of common sense is he any better off now? If that statement is true there is only one conclusion to draw from it, and that is that if hon. gentlemen to my left got nothing in the last parliament they will get less in this; if they were chastised with whips in the last parliament they will be chastised with scorpions during this parliament. Either the statement is true or it
The Address-Mr. Bury

is false, and if it is false there is only one conclusion to come to: that is, that we have a Prime Minister in Canada who has so forgotten the dignity of his position and the traditions of constitutional government as to make a false statement for the purpose of party gain, that he may win seats for his own party.
I will only trespass further upon the consideration of the House in order to relate a short story. A negro had been sent up to mend a roof that was very steep-it was a shingled roof which he had been sent up to shingle. In the process of his work he slipped, and as he was falling down the very steep roof he cried out in terror "0 Lawd save this nigger; O Lawd, save this nig-" there his prayer suddenly stopped with, "Never mind Lawd, I done cotch on a nail." Ever since 1924 the Prime Minister of Canada has been slipping. During this process, and especially during the election campaign, he made the most undignified attempts to hold on and thus avoid a disastrous fall, until last week, when he "done cotch on a nail". ,1 hardly think it is worthy to be dignified as a nail, that half-hearted majority of three. It is but a tack. How long that fortuitous and precarious tack will hold I do not know; but when it does give;, the fall of the right hon. gentleman will not be the dignified descent which we would fain see accomplished by the head of the government of this country.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on the high honour that you have received for the second time? I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address on the splendid way in which they performed their duty. It is said that thought, discussion and the free exchange of ideas ought to bring truth from its deep concealment, and that may be so. But as several excellent addresses have been given in this debate already, and as the discussion is likely to last for several days yet, my contribution will be very brief, and I will try to look to the future instead of to the past.
In 1921 no Liberals were elected in the province of Alberta. Nevertheless the Prime Minister of Canada saw fit to call the exPremier of Alberta to the council table at Ottawa. As there was no vacancy in any constituency in Alberta the people of Quebec graciously allowed that gentleman to represent a constituency in that great province. This, Sir, was an act of courtesy on the part of the electors of Argenteuil and the people of Quebec that was very much appreciated by

the people of Alberta, because it has given them cabinet representation during the intervening years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the time of the House telling how I managed to-get elected in the west. Suffice- it to say that I succeeded in - getting !by in some way, and I believe I was as much surprised at the result as the other electors of that constituency. The hon. gentleman who has just preceded me (Mr. Bury) is the member for East Edmonton. All who have listened to his eloquent address will recognize that the hon. member is qualified as an orator. In the early part of his speech, recalling his association with the Minister of fhe Interior (Mr. Stewart) he told us that he had two other qualifications: in the first place he was an honest man, and secondly he was a lawyer. Now, Sir, I do not feel qualified to follow the eloquent gentleman. I have neither the first qualification, nor the third; and if I rightly interpreted the trend of his remarks he believes that none of us on this side of the House have what he considers the second qualification, because he intimates quite seriously that we depend upon Providence for any success which we may have. He mentioned, perhaps inadvertently, that the railways were not sorry to see settlers moving out of this country because they got the business of transporting their effects. I think he hardly meant that, because the railways have been great agents in the colonization of western Canada, and I believe that at present they are acting in conjunction with the government in endeavouring to bring about a real immigration policy which will be of great benefit to the west. Unquestionably the railway companies have been the great agents in the colonization of western Canada, and I believe at the present time they are acting together, in conjunction with the government, to bring about a real immigration policy which will benefit the west.
My hon. friend has no hope that good legislation will result from the present condition of affairs in the House. On that point again I must differ from him, because I believe we are in a position at the present time to get really constructive legislation for this Dominion. Canada is a country producing wheat, coarser grains and live stock, and we produce much more of the products of many of our industries than the local market can consume, or that we can hope it will consume, for many years to come. We are in a very different position here from the people of the United States. That great country has a population of 110,000,000 people. It has a

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
varied climate and varied products and resources. You get the grain and the cattle from the north, the cotton in the south, the tropical fruits in California and in Florida. That country is prosperous because it has free exchange of products within its own borders; so that we cannot mould our policy on the policy which has brought success to the United States. I believe the majority of the people in western Canada favour a lower rather than a higher tariff. Why have they that preference? It is not because they have any quarrel with the manufacturers or the industries of Canada. They are anxious to see the industries prosper, but they have that notion because they believe that any increase in tariff on an article is followed by an enhancement of the price which they must pay for that article. If some assurance could be given them that increased prices would not follow the raising of the duties, I believe they would willingly consent to an increased tariff. The people of western Canada are essentially loyal and patriotic. They have no wish to see the work of confederation undone. The men and the women in the rural parts of that country are a thinking people, a well-informed people on subjects of economy, and they are looking for a higher type of service from public men and more in the way of accomplishments from the government than they have received in the past. The people of foreign origin who have settled amongst us also are patriotic. Largely owing to the influence of the schools, and to the praiseworthy efforts of the young men and women who are engaged 9 p.m. in teaching in the schools, they have come to look upon Canada as the land of their adoption, and you will hear an audience which can hardly grasp the English language sing the national anthem in a way which would make some of us native-born Canadians ashamed of our national pride. I have no hesitation in saying that when the work of racial fusion or racial assimilation is completed, the result will be worthy of our traditions and will show the innate strength and lasting power of British institutions and British civilization. It is not for me to relate the suffering and the want and hardship which I have seen in my work as a medical doctor. But I realize that the purchasing power of the people at this time is extremely low, and I am convinced that what Canada needs just now is legislation in the interests of those who are carrying the heaviest burden.
A large part of the country around Medicine Hat formerly belonged to the rancher. Unfortunately it was thrown open for homesteads some years ago by the then officers of
the federal government. Two good years followed, and a great number of farmers settled there. Then a long series of dry years set in. In addition to the drought, soil drifting, cut-worms and grasshoppers took their heavy toll, so that most of the fanners lost everything they had, including years of hard labour by themselves and their families. They received aid from the federal government, and in view of the misfortunes that have befallen them, misfortune that has come through no fault of their own, I hope the department will be lenient in collecting the claims arising out of the aid so given.
The historic city of Mediciqe Hat is noted not only for its beauty but also as being the centre of the largest field of natural gas in the world. The tourist, after travelling over dry, burnt out country, is glad to see the green trees and the beautiful flowers growing there in such profusion. Not one stick of wood, not one pound of coal is used for heating purposes in that city. Gas is used entirely for heating and largely for lighting. It is sold to the consumer for 22 cents a thousand cubic feet, while the cost of gas here in Ottawa is $1.50. Electricity is used to some extent for lighting and is generated by the gas. In addition to the domestic uses, the natural gas, on account of its steady and constant heat, is used in the manufacture of clay products, bricks, sewer pipes, crockery, glass, and other things of that kind, and also in connection with the production of flowers in the large greenhouses located in that city. Gas is found at a depth of about twelve hundred feet. Lately the people in that district have been drilling for oil and hope to produce oil in commercial quantities in the near future. While dredging was being done at a depth of about twenty-four hundred feet a very large stratum of gas was discovered, so that the city is assured of a supply of natural gas for many years. It is the purest of natural gases, being made up almost entirely of methane.
In Medicine Hat three of the great milling companies of Canada have erected large flour mills. These mills are running at about half their capacity, and I should like to urge that the suggestion made by the Canadian Millers' Association receive serious consideration in this House, namely, that measures be taken to provide for the milling of practically all our Canadian wheat in Canadian mills. While the United States impose a duty of 42 cents per bushel on Canadian wheat entering that country for domestic use, Canadian wheat can be milled in bond in the large American mills almost free of duty, on account of
The Address-Mr. Gershaw

the drawback of 99 cents which is allowed. This flour competes with our Canadian flour in the European market. The quantity which is being milled in bond is gradually increasing, the figures being as follows:
Year	Bushels
1922		 6,000,000
1923		 9,000,000
1924		 13,904,837
From this wheat exported and milled in bond in the United States, about three million barrels of flour has been shipped to the European market. During the year there was a demand for fifteen million barrels of. flour, and one-fifth of that, or three million barrels, was milled in the United States. This means a loss to Canadian industries, Canadian railways and Canadian stock men, as they have not the by-products for feeding purposes. I know I may be misunderstood in this particular regard. I am not advocating and I would not advocate anything that would work out to the detriment of a number of our Canadian citizens.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Would the hon. member be in favour of an export duty in that respect on our wheat, to ensure its being milled in Canada?


Frederick William Gershaw: I am coming to that just in a minute. I believe the millers claim that the imposition of an export duty against the grinding of Canadian wheat in bond would not depress the price which the farmer receives and would not limit the market of Canadian growers. This does not mean that an export duty should be imposed on wheat that is going to any country in the world for domestic purposes. Wheat, being a food product, should move freely. It does not mean that it would handicap our Canadian farmers in their competition with grain growers of the Argentine Republic or Russia or any other wheat-growing country. But it seems to me it is a question which might well be investigated by this parliament ,and there would be many advantages in preventing our Canadian wheat from being milled in bond while passing through another country.
Mr. MoGIiBBON: Would the hon member take the same stand in regard to asbestos, nickel and pulpwood?


Frederick William Gershaw: I really am not informed on those particular subjects, and I am going over this very carefully because I wish first of all to make clear that I would not be in favour of anything that would be a detriment to a large portion of our population. But anything that would not work against their best interests, anything that would be in the in-

terest of another class of the people of Canada and would also raise the standard and reputation of our Canadian wheat and have it milled and marketed itnder our own trade mark, with advantage to this country should be carefully considered.
The wheat pool in the west is one of the big selling agencies in Canada and its success is a great tribute to the co-operative organization. Its managers and other shippers may feel that they must ship through routes where they get the best rates. If this makes it necessary for wheat to pass through another country, a bond or surety could be given that it would pass through to its destination unground. I would like to quote briefly this extract from a report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission which sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Turgeon:
At the present time, the duty on Canadian wheatentering the United States-is 42 cents per bushel. On wheat flour, crashed or cracked wheat, and similar wheat products, the duty is $1.04 per hundred pounds. These duties are practically prohibitive, in their effect. They prevent Canadian wheat or wheat products having access to the American domestic market. On the other hand under the provisions governing milling-in-bond and drawbacks, it is quite possible for the American millers to obtain Canadian wheat virtually free of duty to grind for export. Considerable quantities of Canadian wheat are ground in American mills and exported abroad under these conditions. This American flour gound in American mills, but the product of Canadian wheat, enters into competition with the output of the Canadian flour mills. The benefits of manufacture are lost to Canada, while at the same time, the general benefits of reciprocal free trade in wheat and wheat flour do not exist. It was suggested to us that in view of these conditions, an export duty should be levied at the same rate as the American tariff, upon Canadian wheat and wheat products entering the United States. The American tariff having already closed effectively the domestic market to the Canadian farmers, the result of such a levy would be to eliminate the export of American flour ground from Canadian wheat, and to transfer this market to -the Canadian millers. While, as a general thing, export duties are to be deprecated, the exceptional situation that arises in this instance might warrant such an impost.
Representing, as I do, a city having large mills and a country in which a good deal of grain is grown, I believe this is a question which should receive the serious consideration of the members of this House.
The time has come when light automobiles are more of a necessity than- a luxury, and quite a number of people leave this country and go across the border because light cars and gasoline are so much cheaper there than they are here. There they can buy them and give their families the advantage which such a possession brings. I hope that as the duties are reduced the light car will receive early consideration, because I believe it is wise economy to have such a cheap car on the average farm or ranch in this country.

The Address-Mr. Barber
1 am in favour of the motion which is before the House, because the Speech from the Throne forecasts aggressive policies which have received the approval of the mature judgment of experienced legislators. In fact,
I believe its approval has been very general throughout the country. I consider the carrying out of those policies will mean much to western Canada; and if that is the means of bringing some measure of success and prosperity to the west, all Canada will .benefit thereby. What is of advantage to the great, primary, basic industry of Canada must benefit all other industries. I am, therefore, in favour of the motion so ably moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I belong to the long list of newcomers to this House, and I wish to take this opportunity of falling in line with other members in extending to you hearty congratulations on your election to the honourable position which you now occupy.
On my arrival here to take up my parliamentary duties I wag fortunate enough to come in contact with a gentleman who had some forty years' experience of parliamentary life, and he gave me Some excellent advice. As a newcomer he told me for the first session I ought to keep my eyes and ears wide open, be constantly in my seat, and note and study parliamentary procedure; and that if I undertook to say anything I was to be brief and to the point. After listening to the address this afternoon of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), an address which extended over two hours, I imagine other new members share my opinion that the advice " to be brief and to the point " should apply generally.
Unlike many of my hon. friends who are so ready to impress the fact upon us, I am not a farmer, neither am I a lawyer; I am just an ordinary business man, who has lived in an agricultural community for over twenty-five years. And I think any man after that length of residence who does not become interested in the problems of his community can not be termed a very good citizen. As member foi the Fraser Valley district of British Columbia I am proud to say that I represent the richest district in the province and one of the richest agriculturally in the whole Dominion. True, that district, extending over 100 miles from west to east, and 50 or 60 miles from the international boundary line northward, contains also great timber areas and mineral resources, but to-night I intend to confine my remarks to matters agricultural, and in particular to two very important branches of it- the dairy and poultry industries. The men 14011-24
engaged in these industries are all of the highest type of Canadian citizenship, energetic and of good business judgment. Many of them are returned soldiers. They have built up good farms, and some of the finest dairy herds in Canada. Sir, if you or any other member of this House hadl the privilege of visiting the stock show at the Royal Winter Fair	at	Toronto	last month	you wouldhave noticed there some dairy stock from British Columbia, and you would also have noticed that the grand championship	as	well as	many other	prizes went
to Fraser valley dairy herds. The Dominion experimental farm is located in my riding and has a long line of prize-winning Holsteins. The management of that farm is held in the highest esteem, and the assistance afforded by the institution is appreciated by the local farmers.
It has	been said	of the dairy	industry thatwhile	it	offers no	opportunity	for acquiring
great wealth, yet it does open one of the surest and safest roads to a competency that is to be found in the whole realm of agriculture to the man who is willing to stick to it. Dairying is without doubt one of the most important industries of Canada. It has grown rapidly. The total production for the calendar year 1925 is estimated at $300,060,000- almost one-third greater than the mineral production of which we are so proud. The mineral production for 1924 was $209,583,406, this including everything that comes out of the earth-the precious metals, copper, zinc, nickel, coal, and the oil and gas that my friend spoke of. The dairy production amounts to about two-thirds of the value of the great wheat crop, which this year is estimated to be worth $450,000,000. We are pleased to note that with increased production we have an increase in exports of about 20 per cent over the previous year. At the same time we find an increase in imports. We imported: butter, 99,748 pounds; cheese, 10,274,338 pounds, or a combined value of $2,343,482. Add to this fresh milk, $12,453; caseine, $26,222; condensed milk, $27,076, and we have a total of $2,409,235 worth of dairy products imported into Canada during the calendar year 1925. From the way we are starting off this year it is quite apparent, Sir, that the importations will be still greater.
The first effect of the trade agreement entered into by our friends opposite has been felt. As has been drawn to the attention of this House by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), a large shipment of New Zealand butter has already arrived and has resulted in an immediate drop in price of three cents a

The Address-Mr. Barber

pound. According to the figures supplied to me by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the total imports of butter last year, as I have already stated, amounted to 99,748 pounds. Before the first ten days of this year had passed1, und'er the new trade agreement with Australia over 600,000 pounds of butter had been imported. I got in touch with the Customs department this afternoon and ascertained that instead of the 480,000 pounds mentioned by my hon. leader, over 600,000 pounds of butter has1 already been unloaded here. According to press reports yesterday, which I have not yet been able to confirm, another shipment of two million pounds is on the way, if indeed it has not already arrived. We must all admit that at times even small imports will demoralize a market in any particular commodity, but with such immense imports as we are having under the Australian treaty our butter market will be absolutely swamped and the dairy industry ruined. The dairymen of Canada fully realized what would happen as soon as they read the text of the treaty. And the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mir. Motherwell) knew perfectly well what would happen. In confirmation of this I have but to refer to what the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) quoted to the House the other day from Hansard of 1922, page 808, where we find the Minister of Agriculture stated:
New Zealand, on the other hand, has also a favoured climate and a comparatively short stabling season. It puts its butter right off the grass in British Columbia in competition with our winter-made butter, and we have a hard struggle to compete with it.
The hon. gentleman made this observation in 1922 and put the Australian treaty in force on October 9th, 1925. This butter comes in at one cent a pound with a proposed bonus of six cents a pound. The treaty provides that if Canada undertakes to ship to New Zealand or Australia we must meet the tariff of six cents per pound. Canadian farmers cannot live and compete under this handicap.
Now I wish to refer to the egg situation. If you have been following the daily press you will have noticed that we are having trouble in the poultry industry, and I just wish to say a word or two in regard to that situation. Things are very serious, so serious that I notice in a clipping from a Vancouver paper which reached me yesterday that:
Mr. J. A. McCrae, who runs a poultry farm at Central Park called at The Province office to-day and stated that he knows of three men who are killing off stocks, one of them, he says, having already slaughtered 500 head, another 700 and a third 900. The tragedy of it is that the 'birds have just arrived at their period of peak production when they would have

paid for themselves if the price of eggs had been normal. At the price feed is, however, the loss of keeping them is to great, says, Mr. McCrae: "Feed prices" he says, "run to as high as $68 a ton. Recently I was paying $55 a ton, but the grain was so tough it was almost useless to feed it to the chickens, and I had to get a better grade, which cost $68 a ton. Poultrymen are unable to stand this discrepancy between the 'high price of feed and the low price of eggs," he added.
This is a serious situation, as it applies to British Columbia and to all parts of Canada. The hon. Minister of Agriculture gave the mild weather as the reason for this apparent over-production. No doubt so long as the hon. gentleman occupies his present position the mild weather will continue. I was somewhat amused at that statement. The mention of eggs reminds me of a story of our grand old chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald. Shortly after an election, when his party had been returned to power, he was visiting in Toronto. A good lady of that city came to him and said: "Sir John, since the Conservative party came into power my hens lay more eggs, bigger eggs, and better eggs than they ever laid before." This was given by Sir John as a joke. The hon. Minister of Agriculture in making his statement the other day was apparently quite serious, but I think it was accepted by the House as a joke. I would rather be inclined to give the government full credit for the condition of the industry to-day, and to give his department some credit for the increase in egg production. I understand that something in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000 is expended by his department on agriculture each year, and no doubt a portion of that amount is used to develop and encourage the poultry industry. The poultry population of Canada has increased 180 per cent during the last twenty-five years, until at the present time it is estimated at nearly 50,000,000. What about the production? During the calendar year 1925 Canada produced 225,000,000 dozen eggs. That seems a large number, but if you figure it out you will find that it is less than one egg per person per day. The Minister of Agriculture says that his department is going to join with other associations throughout Canada in a campaign to encourage the eating of eggs. That is an excellent move, but I think the change in the policy of the government to which I shall refer later would be a great deal better.
W'hat about imports? We imported1 into Canada during the same period from the United States 2,577,400 dozen; from China, 79,174 dozen; from Hong Kong, 51,836 dozen; from Japan, 11,430 dozen; and' a few from

The Address-Mr. Barber
other countries, making a total of 2,721,606 dozen eggs imported into Canada. That means that every person in Canada must have consumed about ten foreign eggs every month in addition to our own good Canadian eggs. These eggs enter from the United States under a duty of three cents per dozen, and under the Australian treaty they come in free. The United States poultry industry is protected by a tariff of eight cents per dozen, and Australia and New Zealand have a tariff of eighteen cents per dozen against us. On behalf of the poultrymen of my district I urge the government to give us what everyone considers to be the only remedy-equal protection to that afforded the United States poultry industry, by raising the Canadian tariff to eight cents. I would suggest that they put into force, in addition, what we already have in British Columbia, the Egg Marks Act. That act has worked out very satisfactorily in British Columbia. Foreign eggs placed on sale in Vancouver must bear the stamp of the country of origin. American eggs are stamped "U.S.A."; Chinese eggs are stamped "China"; Japanese eggs are stamped "Japan"; and so on. I say this method has produced successful results in British Columbia and 1 would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he seriously consider its value. This is the situation as it exists.
A serious condition prevails in the dairying and poultry industries of this country and it is the reason I am on my feet to-night. Petitions have come from all parts of my district; appeals were made in this House last session, I believe, but nothing has been done. I have here the copy of a petition forwarded by one of the farmers' institutes of our province. It says that a copy is to be forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture, and no doubt he has received it. The letter accompanying the petition says:
I am enclosing a copy of resolutions passed at the annual meeting of the Surrey Farmers' Institute held on Tuesday, January 12th, 1926. As you are aware the poultry industry in the province of British Columbia has, during the past few years, developed very rapidly and is probably more attractive in view of the possibility of winter production, so that shipments to the prairie and eastern provinces have been gradually on the increase.
We are, however, faced with what we feel to be very unfair and unjust competition, that from the United States, inasmuch as we are required to pay on eggs exported to that country a duty of 8 cents per dozen but they may be imported into Canada paying thereon only a duty of 3 cents per dozen.
I trust that you will keep the facts herein before you, and should occasion arise endeavour to relieve the situation.
The petition covers what is stated in the letter, and requests some protection for the 14011-24J
industry in the province of British Columbia. Conditions in the dairy and poultry industries are very serious, and no effort has been made to provide relief.
I have been somewhat amused by the attitude of hon. gentlemen to my left. On every occasion they appeal from the standpoint of agriculture. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) the other day applied a term to them which I should not like to apply to the Progressives in this House, for though they may be termed wheat miners, robbers of the soil, or whatever you like to term it, I am sure they have the sympathy of the farmers of our province. The farmers of our province are delighted when they have a good crop, and they sympathize with our Progressive friends when they have a poor one. But we expect from them the same sympathy. We expect them to be interested in other branches of agriculture than the raising of grain. The members of the Progressive party occupy a position of vantage in this House, and are in a position to secure immediately relief for the daily and poultry industries of this Dominion. A few days ago they voted confidence in the government; they are responsible for keeping them in office, and I would suggest that the leader of the Progressive party go to the government and to the Minister of Agriculture and say: "We want you to serve notice immediately of the abrogation of the Australian treaty, which we voted against, and which is ruining the dairy industry of this country." I say also that, though it may be somewhat against their principles, when every man in every district that is engaged in the poultry and dairy industries is demanding the same protection for those industries as similar industries have to the south of the line, the Progressives should be at least fair enough to recommend to the government that they give the Canadian dairy industries this protection.
I feel that I must take a strong stand on the Australian treaty. The people of my constituency demand the immediate abrogation of that treaty, and I think tihis is the feeling in every agricultural district throughout Canada. Some may ask: What about the urban population? I think you will find those people fair when the question is put before them. I do not think they will want to buy butter at three or four cents a pound less when they understand that that would mean the ruination of our dairy industry. The reduction does not apply simply to butter, because, as every one acquainted with the dairy industry knows, the price of milk and all milk products is based on the price of butter fat, and butter
The Address-Mr. Barber

fat in our province is based on the price of butter at Vancouver. If butter in Vancouver drops five or ten cents a pound, the milk which the farmer sells to the creamery immediately drops in price.
I have said that the people of our district are opposed to the continuance of the Australian treaty. They pronounced on that treaty on the 29th day of October last. Gentlemen opposite had in their ranks in the last parliament a representative from the Fraser Valley. He sat on the other side of the House for four years. He is one of our highly respected farmers. He went through the district before the election and although he had been elected by a substantial majority four years before, on October 29, when the sole issue was protection and the Australian treaty, he was turned down by 1,286 votes.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Will the hon.
member tell us what kind of tough grain was selling in the Fraser Valley for over $2 a bushel ?


Harry James Barber: I could not say; I just
read the item as it appeared in the Province. The grain was purchased in Vancouver. I do not know the exact rates on grain going through Vancouver, but the freight rates question was a very live one in Vancouver, and it drifted out to the constituency which I represent, and during the campaign we all learned something about it. Suppose the export rate on grain from Edmonton or some other point to Vancouver is 21 cents, and that a train composed of 50 cars is shipped from Edmonton to Vancouver, including five cars of grain for local or domestic use. All the cars are landed on the same siding in Vancouver and are hauled by the same engine, but if the export rate on grain is 21 cents, the man buying the grain for domestic use must pay a rate of about 42 cents. That is one of the difficulties we are suffering from, but that of course is a different question from the one I was dealing with tonight.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to farmers on the apposition side of the House and in the Progressive party to endeavour to give some relief to the dairy and poultry industries in this country, which are on the verge of ruination at the present time.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I suppose it is so long, Mr. Speaker, since you have been congratulated on re-election to your high office that further congratulations must be rather refreshing, yet having known during the last four years your eminent fairness and justice and fitness for the position I feel I cannot let this opportunity pass without con-

gratulating you. I also congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address.
Before entering on what I intend to say on the Address proper, I should like to refer to a few of the arguments that have been used [DOT]by the last two speakers. I can hardly agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gersthaw), who desires an export duty on wheat. The theory is very nice that we should have our wheat ground in Canada, but the theory will not work out. The British millers have their mills, and their money invested in them, and they want wheat to grind, and if Canada refuses to sell them wheat, they will buy it elsewhere.


Frederick William Gershaw: I would not ask for an
export duty on wheat going to England. Probably I did not make myself clear. I would suggest that the duty should apply only against a country that did not allow our Canadian wheat the advantages in their domestic market that we allow their wheat in our domestic market. I would so draft the regulations 'that wheat exported for domestic use in any other country would not be affected by the duty.


John Millar: The farmer of the western
prairies looks upon this as a legitimate market which in many cases brings him a better price than he would otherwise get. In the mills of [DOT]the United States, such as the Minneapolis mills with their production of 96,000 barrels a day, they desire a considerable quantity of hard wheat to mix with their soft wheat. Now I admit there is considerable mixing done; in fact I think under one plan where they take our Canadian wheat through in bond it is compulsory for them to mix thirty per cent of their United States wheat with our wheat in order to get the ninety-nine per cent drawback. Under the other plan I believe they simply have to pay the expenses of a government official and the mill is bonded. In that case they pay no duty, but simply the expense of having a government official to look after the mill, and that mill is entirely under his charge while in operation.
I would like to make a remark or two in reply to observations offered by the last speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). My hon. friend stated that he was sympathetic to the prairie provinces. He said that in British Columbia they were very much pleased when the prairie provinces enjoyed a good crop. I think I can reciprocate that sentiment, for more reasons than one. We know that when there is a good crop of fruit in British Columbia we are likely to

The Address-Mr. Millar
get fruit cheaper, and they know that when we have a good crop of grain we are going to have more money to pay for British Columbia fruit. My hon. friend was very much exercised about the Australian treaty, as apparently the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) also was yesterday. The fatter hon. member might have asked his desk-mate, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) for information, because When this treaty was up for discussion last year two Conservative members spoke in its favour. We will now see what they said on that occasion. I think you will find that lawyers do not always agree in the advice they give. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. (Manion) said on the occasion referred to:
There is another reason why I feel there is no particular danger to be feared from this agreement. As set out on the orders of the day clause 5 provides-
Clause 5 is somewhat lengthy, but the provision is that the agreement can be terminated by either party upon six months' notice. The hon. member goes on to say:
An agreement which can be cancelled on six months' notice is to my mind not of such a character, in view of the other advantages it gives to this country, as to cause me to vote against it.
The hon. member for Vancouver South, speaking on the same subject-and you will pote the contrast between his advice to the Progressives in this corner of the House last year and the advice given by the hon. member for Fraser Valley to-night-said:
This Australian agreement is a matter of momentous importance to the province of British Columbia in some of its basic industries. The Prime Minister in his remarks has covered a number of the arguments that I had intended to take up. I propose for a few minutes to address my words particularly to my Progressive friends.
And he urged upon them the wisdom of taking a broad conception of the merits and advantages of this agreement and approving of its adoption that night. Further down the same member says:
My hon. friend might have taken my remarks as a compliment to himself, that he at all events, in my estimation, is still open to conviction. The public bodies of Vancouver, such as the Board of Trade, with some 2,000 members, the press of Vancouver-the Province, the Sun and other publications and large business institutions-have energetically and actively supported the idea of an Australian treaty, and until a few days ago I believe most members of the House, particularly in this quarter were equally in favour of the Australian treaty.


Donald Sutherland: Read on.


John Millar: There is nothing further.
I should! like to refer to a matter which I believe to be of urgent importance. I
am sorry there are only two members of the government present, but I would ask those two ministers, even if they do not pay attention to anything else I may say, to listen to the statement I am about to make. It has nothing to do with the amendment we are considering, but I believe the rules of the House will permit me to bring the matter up. Early in October last, when the threshing of grain was going on in the prairie provinces, there was a very heavy snowstorm. After that for a time there was fine sunny weather, and then snow came again, with the result that millions of bushels of grain were threshed in poor condition. You may say that it was an unwise thing to do, but if that had not been done the snow might have come in such quantities and the weather might have turned so severe that the grain would have had to stand over the winter, with the result that it would have been tom to pieces by stock and prairie chickens and gophers would have fed upon it. A great deal of .destruction would have taken place and the grain would have been very much discoloured. Much of the grain that is in poor condition has been shipped out and there are now upwards of one thousand ears lying in the yards at Fort 'William, while much more is held back in the country. There is no room in the terminal elevators at Fort William to take that grain in and dry it and store it. But something must be done with it. Some cars are worth $2,500, others less; there will certainly be a very heavy loss. Much of that grain instead of coming out in a saleable condition would have to be dug out with shovels in the spring and thrown into the lake. Now that is a very serious matter, and I see only two ways of preventing such a loss. One is to take the grain into the drying elevators, a few cars at a time, dry it and put it back into the cars. The other course is to do what should have been done long ago, reduce the rate over the National Transcontinental to Quebec. If the freight rate from Fort William on the Canadian National railways were lowered to the level of the Crowsnest pass rate, the dry grain in the elevators could be taken to the city of Quebec and put in the elevator there, which has a capacity of 4,000,000 bushels. That would give room to have this damp grain dried and stored in the elevators. These are the only two remedies that I can suggest for meeting the condition in question. I would suggest that the government use its best offices with the railway commission and the railway companies in this Matter. I believe the railways are aware of the danger and perhaps they will see that it is in their best
The Address-Mr. Millar

interest to take such steps as the situation calls for. They will see that if the farmers who have shipped this grain are to sustain this loss it will cripple many of them, indeed many of them will be put out of business. I ask the government to take this matter into consideration. I think every hon. member from the west, whether in Progressive, Conservative or Liberal ranks, should back up some movement. There may be a better remedy-I am not wedded to any particular one-but means should be taken to prevent the loss of the grain.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will be interested to know that only yesterday a member oif the grain commission brought to my attention the condition prevailing at Fort William. I do not Icnow the condition of the elevator at Quebec to-day, but I do know that about three weeks ago it was almost full. There was room, I believe, for about 400,000 bushels more. I wrote to-day to Mr. E. W. Beatty, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to Sir Henry Thornton, President of the Canadian National Railways, urging them to take up this matter at once with the grain commissioners and try to work out some plan with a view to doing just exactly what my hon. friend has recommended-that the grain Should be unloaded, dried, and reloaded in the same car. I will let my hon. friend know when I receive a reply.


John Millar: That is gratifying indeed,
and I thank the minister for his statement.
'With reference to the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I will pass very lightly over the Hudson Bay railway, not because it is not desired in my constituency-we are all most anxious to have it-but because the matter has been pretty fully discussed. We must compete in the markets of the world with our cattle and our grain. Since Port Nelson is approximately one thousand miles nearer to the centre of the grain fields than Montreal, and since Port Nelson and Montreal are practically equidistant from Liverpool, Port Nelson has a great advantage over Montreal. Because mark you, although we have some water between Fort William and Montreal, the route is a circuitous one, and much of it, is canal, and almost as expensive as the railway; so that it costs just about the same to take the grain from Fort William to Montreal over the water and rail rowte as it would cost to take the grain from Armstrong, immediately north of Fort William on the Canadian National,
[Mr. Millar.}
to the city of Quebec. The cost would be just about the same if it were under the Crowsnest agreement rate, but unfortunately instead of 11| cents the rate is about 21 cents. Why that is I do not know. The question has been asked many times in the House, who is responsible for it? The railway was built at a cost of $170,000,000, and anyone reading the argument presented when the 10 p.m. building of the railway was being discussed will see that the central thought in the minds of all was that it should be constructed of such a standard and grade that it would be able to compete for the transport of our Canadian grain, keep it in Canadian channels and take it to Quebec.
After the railway was completed, what was done? I understand the rate at one time was six cents a bushel from Armstrong to the city of Quebec, and I believe Mr. Symington, in presenting his case before a committee of this parliament one or two years ago, was able to prove that the railways at that time, at the rate of six cents a bushel, made a profit. I am not sure of that and I am open to correction. Then I believe it jumped to 24 cents a bushel, and is now back to about 21 cents-a most absurd situation, after building a railway at that expense. We have an elevator at Quebec with a capacity of four million bushels, yet the rails are rusting and the ties rotting over part of the line. Surely that should be remedied. I am glad there was a suggestion in the Speech from the Throne that the reason our grain goes through American channels would be investigated, in which case this other question would have to receive consideration. But I am inclined to think that both matters could be better dealt with, especially the former, by a committee of this House than by the railway commission.
In reference to the question of the return to the western provinces of their natural resources, I am glad to see that Alberta is going to get back its natural resources-something it should have had long ago.
Rural credits is a matter of vital importance, and I look upon this as one of the most important measures proposed to this House. One of the great burdens of the western farmer is 'that he has to pay an interest rate of eight, t< n and twelve per cent. And because he is paying that rate of interest he becomes financially enbarrassed and his credit is impaired. Instead of becoming wealthier he becomes poorer, and just as soon as he gets a little poorer and his credit is impaired, the banks refuse him credit-sometimes absolutely refuse him any credit. In regard to the

The Address-Mr. Millar
banks, white I wish to be fair toward them,
I must say that some instances have come to my notice in which I thought they were very unfair and very inconsiderate.
I will mention an isolated case. A farmer in my constituency borrowed last year from the bank in his town three small sums, amounting to $260, on three notes. The notes did not fall due till October or November, but on the first of July he had some money coming in from wheat on what we call the participation certificates, that is, the second or third payment from the pool. The bank, without his consent, and he claims without any arrangement or agreement oin his part, deliberately kept his money and cancelled the notes, notwithstanding the fact that he had paid interest up to November on the money he borrowed. I thought it was rather unfair. However, the trouble is not so much with the banks, because generally the amount a farmer is able to borrow from the banks is a very small sum,. What he borrows from the loan companies is four, five or six times as much. In some cases during the last three years when the farmer was unable to meet his mortgage when it matured, the rate was increased one per cent, so that what he could not pay at eight per cent, they thought, "Well, we will see if he can pay nine per cent." Or if he could not pay nine per cent, "we will see if he can pay ten per cent." Some system of rural credits should be introduced. I agree with hon. members who have stated! that this matter must be handled very carefully. I sometimes agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) but I did not quite agree with him when he was speaking in Regina and referred to me in the rather endearing term of wolf. I agree with him when he says that he does not approve of direct loans being made to the farmers by the government.


Arthur Meighen: I did not catch the remark the hon. member made with reference to myself.


John Millar: I was informed that when
the right hon. gentleman was speaking in Regina he referred to me by the endearing term of "wolf."


Arthur Meighen: I may have referred to
my hon. friend as a grit, but I never Called him a wolf.


John Millar: Misquoted.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think my hon. friend can get the quotation either.


John Millar: Another matter of considerable importance is, why does our Canadian grain go so largely through American channels? This is a matter that is not well understood by a great many of our people. The reason I believe is almost entirely economic. I notice that some blame the Canadian National management, others the Canadian Pacific, and some have complained of both, because their grain is not going through Canadian ports. I think the railways have very little to do in deciding its course. A shipper decides by which route his grain is going to reach its ultimate destination at the cheapest possible rate, and that settles the matter. Many great liners coming to the city of New York are anxious to have our grain as ballast and will therefore carry it very cheaply. More come there than to Montreal and, while at the moment I am speaking only from memory, although the distance from New York to Liverpool is 500 miles further than from Montreal to Liverpool, this causes our grain to be carried from New York at about one and one-half cents a bushel less than from Montreal. That is a handicap which it is hard to overcome. On the other hand the western farmer does not look upon it as a handicap. He believes he gets his grain carried to the ultimate market at a lower price because those great liners are carrying it more cheaply. Some have asked: If the United States route is the cheaper, how is it that so much United States grain goes through Canadian ports? I am not sure that I can give a full explanation, but I believe one factor is this:	In the early part of the season,
when United States grain, particularly corn, is moving to the waterfront, United States boats are very busy carrying ore. They find that trade more lucrative and they feel reluctant to leave the ore business for the grain. They are not anxious at that time to carry grain. On the other hand, Canadian boats, because of the coastal regulations, cannot carry United States grain from one United States port to another, but they can carry it to a Canadian port. At that season of the year, before our grain has started to move, one can readily understand that our Canadian boats are likely, if not to be entirely idle, to have a very slack season, and rather than be idle, they are ready to carry United States grain to a Canadian port at a reasonable rate. I believe that is one of the most important factors in deciding the route of United States grain, and it goes through Canadian channels for that reason. Moreover, at that season more space is available at Mont-
The Address-Mr. Millar

ton of tomatoes annually. He is an expert at preparing his produce for the shows. He goes to Regina every year. This year he won sixty-eight prizes, forty of them firsts. He goes down into the United States to the dry farming fairs, and is always a prize-winner. He is a real gardener. His Excellency the Governor General seldom comes to Indian Head without visiting that man's garden. This fall he placed in a store window, a small space about seven or eight feet square, probably the finest exhibit of vegetables that has ever been seen in western Canada. I spoke to him about it and said that it would be interesting and instructive if that exhibit could be displayed in the city of Ottawa just when the members are here. "Now," he replied, "I will present that exhibit as a free gift." I wrote to the Canadian National Railway and all I asked was that they give free transportation and perhaps display the exhibit in their window on Sparks street. It was all prepared by an expert, ready to be sent down. I was rather disappointed when after five or six weeks I was told that the National Railway people were so lacking in window space that they could hardly do what I had requested. I think I will make the same offer to the Canadian Pacific Railway if I can next year, and then I may be able to show what can be done in western Canada along horticultural lines.	[DOT]
Hon. members will probably be surprised to leam that on the experimental farm at Indian Head, there is not a greenhouse worthy the name. The gardener I speak of starts his tomatoes in a greenhouse, and the plants are a good size and ready to transplant when the frost is over. As I said, he raises each year more than a ton of ripe tomatoes; other vegetables in proportion. For instance, he had on display a box of twenty onions weighing 45 pounds. It was marvellous. Similar results can be obtained all over the prairie provinces. It seems to me that some money might well be expended by the government to build a greenhouse at Indian Head and put it in charge of a good staff in the interests of horticulture, so that what can be done in the prairie provinces in the growing of fruits and vegetables may be demonstrated. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for the necessary expenditure for this purpose. If this woii'k is undertaken I fully expect the time will come when we will not have to buy so much fruit from the Fraser valley.

There is a matter which I have dealt with before and which I would like to mention again. Those who live in the west, and especially those who are farming, know what an enormous expense it is to the farmer to have to pay the present prices for repairs for machinery. This fall a neighbour told me of an experience he had. He wanted to thresh but he had broken a concave, so he went to Regina to get a new one. It cost a considerable sum, and it was very brittle; when he tapped it with a hammer in putting it in place it fell to pieces, and the only way he could get his threshing done was to engage a blacksmith to make a new concave. The cost of these repairs seems far higher than it should be. Then there is the cost of repairs for cars. I think if a committee were appointed to take up the work of standardization of parts and the cost of repairs we would get somewhere.
I do not like to criticize the discussion which has taken place during the past few days. I can see that when wrong things are done in election time there is some benefit in bringing them to the light of day, but I fancy there has been rather too much of this in the course of this debate. It brings to my mind a story which I heard once about a court case. There were of course, two lawyers and a judge, and immediately the case started the two lawyers got into a heated altercation. One called the other a liar, and the other retorted with an equally offensive name. The judge said, "Now, gentlemen, you are each identified; proceed with the case." I -think I may say to both sides of the House that you are now identified, and I think we might proceed with business. I must say that I agree largely with both. There is a lot of important business which should be put through. The people of Canada are not particularly anxious about what Patenaude or some other man said, they want some redress for their grievances, some legislation which will be effective and which will enable them to make good. That is what the people of Canada want. I quite understand that when one man breaks out with a tirade and makes certain charges, replies are likely to be made. If you will permit me another story-I should not tell so many, but one more will do no harm-the remarks of the hon. member for Kent, NH. (Mr. Doueet) and what followed reminded me of something I saw at the theatre the other night. A young man was running after a pet dog, and was particularly anxious to catch it. Every time he got close enough to reach for it however, the dog was not there. At

The Address-Mr. Millar
last the dog -ran in through a little square hole in a fence. The young man reached his arm in and pulled out a dog, but it turned out to be a bulldog. The -point is, he got what he did not expect to get.
I would like to touch briefly on the amendment. As I understand it, it certainly includes protection, and I think there is a great deal too much being said with regard to what are alleged to be the beneficial effects of protection on eggs, butter, cheese and other farm products. Mark this, that while there may be some exceptions, in the main you cannot by making provision for freer imports injure any tracte which is on an export basis. Something was read in this House the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to the effect that on a certain day eggs had come to Vancouver from Australia or New Zealand and cut the price three -cents. I wondered if the price which was cut had been fixed by the cold storage plants, after cornering the eggs and raising the price above the export values. I would remind you that in the winter time, when eggs are not very plentiful, a great many people selling eggs are too far from the seaboard to be affected by the competition, be-jause they have a little market in their own community. Take the matter of butter, eggs, cheese, etc. I need not give the figures, since they were, given the other cliay, but we are exporting enormous quantities, and we cannot be seriously affected by such competition. If other countries could ruin our prices for eggs and other things, why cannot Australia ruin our price for wheat? Simply because, if Australia brought 50,000,000 bushels of wheat into Canada, the Canadian wheat so displaced would simply fill up the space left in the British market. Do not forget that eggs in Australia, butter in New Zealand, and all these other commodities are parts of the visible supply. They are in the world, and if we do not compete with them here we will compete with them somewhere else. I will admit that there are times when the prices of some of these commodities rise a little above export value, and then there is created an opportunity for foreign products to come in and cut the price. There may be a few individuals who will be injured in a case of that kind, but only a very, very small number. When the cold storage plants have cornered the market and raised the price above the export basis, it may be that foreign eggs will come in and compel them to -bring that price down. Do not forget that somebody is benefited in such a case; do not forget that thousands
are buying eggs and are being held up by the cold storage plants, which reap the benefit.
I think I have said enough about our wheat. The price of wheat is higher in the United States than in Canada and always will be, -because of the greater population and the greater demand. Then I would like to offer one word in reply to a criticism made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meigben). There have been times when he has made too sweeping denunciations, and one of those times was in connection with the Grain Inquiry Commission. During the past twenty or twenty-five years I think we have had three grain inquiries. We find that since we have had these inquiries our grain trade, while it has its evils, is clean in comparison with some other industries. It is clean as compared with the fruit industry, for example. Why is that? Largely because of these inquiries. The information is taken publicly; it is published in the papers; the farmers come to the various sittings, give evidence and listen to others giving evidence. They study the evidence and reports, and there is very little that can take place in the grain trade which the farmer will not find out. In an elevator in Vancouver a spout was operated which, to my mind, was built for the purpose of-well, I think I must use the word-stealing. The spout was built in this way: there is a conveyor or leg which carries the grain up, and a spout which brings it down again to the weigher. Underneath this spout was a hole to which was attached another spout, and by an adjustment of the slides the grain could be taken to the cleaner instead of to the weigher. The grain inquiry commission investigated the matter and the blame was placed by the harbour commission on the grain board. It was proved that the grain board were not responsible. The blame was then placed on the chief weighmaster, but he showed that he was not responsible and that he was greatly alarmed when he heard of it. To make a long story short it was found that a great many men had been taken on as employees in that elevator who had formerly been employed at Fort William. I am afraid the harbour commission were not such grain experts as harbour commissioners should be. There was a firm at Fort William which had operated the only other elevator .in Canada with this peculiar spout. That was discovered, and as we dug deeper and deeper, we became more and more suspicious, and the result, as told to me by one of the harbour commissioners, was this: "After you fellows left there", he said, "I went down and fired every
The Address-Mr. Millar

one of those men." They made a general cleanup.
The Grain Inquiry Commission went through the country, and found evils, small ones 'mostly. In one case they found that the beams of the scales had been filed. An inspector, according to sworn evidence, had said: "You get me a file and I will show you how our fellows get a little wheat," and he filed the shoulder of the beam so that the weight in balancing the scale need not be at zero, but about one-eighth of an inch, I think it was, nearer to the shoulder of the beam: and by experimenting they found that that gave them about sixty pounds to the load. That is only one irregularity of dozens, yes scores, that were discovered. For instance, they discovered the mixing of poor wheat with the good. The whole trade was investigated from one end to the other, and last session the Grain Act was revised by a committee of experts. The chief inspector, the members of the grain commission, the secretary of the Grain Exchange, and several members on this side of the House and in other parts of the House who understood the grain trade pretty well, spent weeks diligently revising the Grain Act, and I believe the reason our grain trade is comparatively clean to-day is because of just such work. It is difficult to lay your finger on any one thing you can consider a big reform. There were a few,-not very many, but taken altogether a great improvement was made. The right hon. leader of the opposition has said that the grain inquiry if everything be included cost $500,000. The commission itself did not cost half that much, but even if it did cost that much, when you divide that expense over the grain produced in only one season, the amount is next to nothing; it is almost lost sight of; and when you consider the benefits that will be reaped by those growing grain for the next ten years perhaps, the expense is not to be mentioned; it is not worth considering.
It is true that there were three important clauses that we were unable to get through the committee. Why? Because, I am sorry to say, members on both sides of the House who knew as little about the grain trade as I know about growing tobacco came to the committee and voted us down again andl again when we were almost unanimous on what we wanted. Now that is not wise; it is not fair. I think it would be equally ridiculous if I and my fellow-members, who know nothing about growing tobacco, were deliberately to vote down a certain reform that the tobacco growers of Quebec and Ontario united in asking for.

The Speech from the Throne contains very much that I want, and want h * lly, and that the people of my constituency want. I have noticed a generous spirit amongst Quebec members towards the west.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Millar: Do not say "hear, hear" too soon. I noticed an item in the paper recently that made me sit up and take notice. It intimated that the harbour board of Montreal would ask for perhaps ten or twenty million dollars this year. It may be that the harbour board of Montreal requires to make further improvements, but, mark youf the parts of Canada that have not been getting their just share in the past are the Maritime provinces, the western prairie provinces, and two years ago I would have said the fruit-growers of British Columbia. Now I think it would be wise if the people of Ontario and Quebec would1 just have patience for another year until we can build up those parts of Canada that are in distress. Do not say to us, " we will take say ten million dollars to be spent in the central provinces, and we will give you four or five millions for the west." We are not exactly in distress in the western provinces. There is optimism and a considerably better feeling there; we are not hopeless by any means. Give us cheaper money, not easier money, and a few other things, and we will make good. The west is coming back, and coming back fast, but give us a few of the things we really need and do not take too much for Ontario and1 Quebec. Let the people down here have patience for a year. It is not forgotten by this House that Toronto got $7,500,000 for its viaduct, Montreal $5,000,000 for a new bridge, and Quebec $5,000,000 for harbour improvements last session. Money has been spent fairly freely in these two central provinces, and I think there will be a very much better feeling if you will have a little further patience in Ontario and Quebec and first build up the other parts of the country, and try to solve the problem of the Maritime provinces.
There is only one thing I have to say about the Maritimes that may perhaps give offence, but my opinion is that when the government built an elevator at Halifax they might as well have thrown the money into the sea. In my humble judgment-I may be wrong; I hope I am-Halifax can never be made a grain port. If one million dollars had been spent to help those provinces which I am convinced need help, I would have been very glad indeed to support that expenditure. But I say that that problem down by the

Alberta Coal
sea should be solved, and if something practical can be done to put the Maritime provinces on their feet it will be for the benefit, not only of (those provinces, but of the Dominion as a whole, for we want a united Canada. I think perhaps my thoughts are better expressed in this little pamphlet than I can express them myself, so 1 will close with the following quotation, and leave you to guess the source until I get through:
Bear in mind that all classes in our Dominion are just as much affected by inequitable transportation costs as are the grain producers of Western Canada. Never overlook what the fact is, that the source of all wealth is original Mother Earth. That is why the railroad owner, the railroad worker, the manufacturers and their employees, banks and their staffs can only be assured of conserving their own property and their own positions when the grain grower and the cattle breeder are assured of a fair living wage for their labour. In a word, the future success of our country depends upon the prosperity of our farm life.
The grain grower is the foundation for a broad and high pyramid of population; he is the ultimate consumer of what most of the rest of our people produce.
I would draw the attention of the leader of the opposition particularly to this sentence which follows:
If we fill our country with happy and contented grain growers and cattle breeders, who are assured of a fair living wage, every man in a factory, every man in a shop, every man in a railway, every man in an office will be in a vastly better and safer position.
Who do you suppose wrote that? The hon. *member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers).
On motion of Mr. Quinn the debate was adj oumed.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Monday, January 25, 1926