1926-03-01

ALLEGED FRUIT COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether the interim report of the commissioner who is investigating the alleged fruit combine has been followed by a final report and, if not, if he anticipates the issuance of such a final report.


Hon. J. H. KING (Acting Minister of Labour):: The final report has not yet been
made. As my hon. friend will understand, the case is at present being prosecuted in court and there will be no report until the court action is completed.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 26, 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 motion of Mr. Bird: " That this question be now put."
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned on Friday evening, I was endeavouring to convince the House and the government that by a glance at the order paper they would see that there were many important matters to engage our attention to much better advantage than by closing up and going home until the 15th March. My particular reference was

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
to the very first question on the order paper involving an item of $100,000 which disappeared from the public treasury during the year 1924 in a most mysterious manner, so mysteriously indeed that when the estimates were being discussed last year, the government could not tell the House what had become of it or how it had got away. I was endeavouring to give hon. members an insight into the way in which the government of that day had handled the mining lands of Yukon. When bona fide miners and prospectors were limited by law to an area for their mines of 100 feet square, 250 feet square, 500 feet in length, political favourites of the government located at Ottawa were able to get grants of miles square plastered right on to the mining lands of Yukon Territory, thereby depriving independent and industrious miners of any land at all or of an opportunity to reap any benefit from their arduous trip into that northern country and the struggle they were making against the obstacles of nature.
This item of $100,000 had to do with one of those indefensible grants. It was a grant covering some five miles of ground right in the heart of the Klondyke placers, a grant issued in violation of law, in disregard of mining regulations, and obtained by fraud connived at by the government and the government's officials on the ground; otherwise the grant never could have been made. Great public indignation was aroused by the government's conduct in regard to these matters; delegates were sent to Ottawa to protest, and ultimately the government was moved to send into that territory a judge of the Exchequer court to make an inquiry into the numerous and well-founded complaints. The holders of this particular grant, not wanting to be put-on the defensive, filed a claim against the government for damages amounting to some $17,000,000 in connection with the government's treatment of them and their bogus grant. Instead of meeting that claim fairly and squarely the government, perhaps being unable to do so as it had been a party to the fraud on which the grant had been issued, filed on its behalf against these claimants an untenable defence. It set up the plea that the grantees had no miner's license and that if they had a miner's license it was invalid. That was a plea that never could succeed. But the judge sent in to try those cases did not inquire into the merits of this case. When he came to the coast he found, unfortunately, that he had a very short time to live, and in every case that had come before him wherever possible he gave judgment in favour of the government of the day. In this case he gave judgment in favour of the govern-
ment dismissing the claim on the ground that the grantees of the concession had no miner's license and were therefore not entitled to come to court. The case was appealed, and beginning as long ago as 1908 it found its way up through the courts to the Privy Council, ultimately coming back for trial to the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1914.
But something had happened in Canada between 1908 and 1914. The political wheel of fortune had made a turn and a Conservative government was in power. The Liberal government that had granted these nefarious leases was no longer in power to defend its work or to settle with the people who now claimed damages from it. The matter remained dormant from 1914 for ten years, nothing being done. The leader of this party (Mr. Meighen), when this matter was under discussion while the estimates were being considered last session, recalled that he had been approached for a settlement of this claim, but he saw in it nothing but a huge swindle, a gigantic fraud, and he referred those claimants to the court. He said:	If
you have any claim against the government, go to the court and secure what is coming to you; the government will make no settlement. So from 1914 to 1924 not a move was made. By 1924 the wheel had taken another turn and the Liberal party was again in power at Ottawa prepared to do business with its friends the holders of the concession. What happened? Was the case tried on its merits? , No; they made an agreement with the claimants; they went into the Exchequer court, and without a trial they consented to a judgment against the government for $100,000. Because it was a judgment of the Exchequer court, that sum of $100,000 was picked out of the public treasury and handed over without a vote of parliament and without being subject to sanction by the Auditor General. I say that in taking that $100,000 as they did, they performed as neat a bit of official burglary as probably has ever been pulled off in this country. If the claim had merits, why did the government not ask parliament for a grant? They would have had no excuse to give to parliament for any such grant, and no matter how big the government's majority might have been, I do not believe even its majority in the last House of 100 to 135 would have been a party to giving away that sum of $100,000 to those claimants without a trial.
That is a bit of business which this House could very well inquire -into even yet. It is true that the money is gone and cahnot be recovered, but the public would be interested to know what sort of government

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
we have had for the past four years. Having seen a Liberal government administer that mining camp in the north I can quite well believe that this government kept the Royal Canadian Mounted Police off the Quebec boundary during the past few years, for the people with whom they were dealing in the north in relation to these mining concessions were the same sort of people against whom the government should be defending the country along the Quebec boundary. In those days the mounted police in Yukon were a mixed blessing. They were charged with the disposal of criminal matters and they did it well, but I say that they were a mixed blessing for the reason that they protected not only the independent crook but the official crook as well. If the same thing had taken place on the American side they would have been minus a few mining inspectors and recorders. Had they been on the American side, Liberal officials in Yukon Territory would have been put on a raft and sent down the Yukon river. And that would have been too good for them. The mounted police were there to protect the just as well as the unjust and the public hand was restrained. I say therefore that we should know more about how this $100,000 was lifted from the treasury. It appears as an inconspicuous little item in the Auditor General's report, a grant to the Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Company charged up under the head of cost of administration in Yukon Territory. As a matter of fact it had nothing whatever to do with the cost of administration of that territory; it was merely a grant to some political concern, or to cover up the tracks of a Liberal government, to pay for improprieties on the part of Liberal officials. And in face of such transactions as I have undertaken to disclose the government says, "What does that matter? Leave us in office." That is the government's plea to this House to-day -leave us in office.
If you go through the order paper you will find lots of items just as important; yet the government says, let us go home until March 15. I see an election petition set out on the pages of the order paper and perhaps the House would not be wasting time if it moved to that order of business and dealt with it. It must be disposed of some day, and why not between now and March 15? Why should we not proceed with the business of parliament? Why should it be held up on the excuse which the government has given us in regard to by-elections? The most important by-election of the lot has been held while the House has been in session and it has not interfered with the session nor did the
session interfere with that election. Why therefore can the government not proceed with the others? Since October 29 the government has had practically four months in which to complete its by-elections. It had almost two months before the House met and two months would have been sufficient in which to have all the by-elections held, before meeting parliament. Surely no one is innocent enough to think that the government was deterred by any scruples as to the constitutionality of holding by-elections before meeting parliament, before coming here to get a mandate from the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) to carry on, and before getting the vote which the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) undertook on behalf of the government not to regard as a vote of confidence.
It was all just a bit of very poor acting. The by-elections were not held before parliament- met for the reason that the government was afraid to hold them; it could not make the arrangements to get the vacancies. The government never expected a majority in this House of less than twelve or thirteen. They did not think their majority would be one or three; they expected to put on a demonstration of strength before going to the country in the by-elections. Instead hon. gentlemen opposite gave an exhibition of weakness, great weakness. What is the state of affairs in the country while the government has been putting on this performance in parliament? Is the country prosperous? Prosperity has been just around the corner every time we have had a Speech from the Throne from this government, "but it has never arrived and never will so long as the present administration holds on to office. There is depression in business in Canada, there is great unemployment. What is the state of affairs in the Ottawa valley to-day, and where can a man or a woman seeking work get employment? Who is doing any work in the vicinity of this city or in the Ottawa valley outside the great army of civil servants? And what does the government offer to remedy this condition? It offers free fares to immigrants to come to increase unemployment, fares to be paid by additional taxation on the people who are here and taxation on the immigrants after they get here; for someone has to put up the money to pay these passages. The government is offering these people free fares and five year jobs to help bring about prosperity in Canada. I wonder if hon. gentlemen have ever considered giving unemployed Canadians guaranteed jobs for five years. Why should not the Canadians be entitled to the same treatment? Would it not be well to

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
take some of these out of work people in Nova Scotia and put them on a model farm in the west, giving them free transportation and guaranteeing them five years' employment? That would be much better than bringing in people from northern Europe. Every one of these Canadians is worth five immigrants and there is no reason why we should not keep them here.
When we look at the trade returns of this country we get an idea of the opportunities that are going by the Canadian people. We find last year that we imported no less than $115,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, practically all of which we could produce at home. For instance, we imported from the United States such commodities as flour and fish. Imagine Canada importing flour, fish, eggs, cheese, meat and lard when she could be self-supporting in all these products. And with our ability to grow wheat, and considering the fact that Canada is a great wheat-exiparting country, is it not astonishing to find that we imported from the United States in one year $10,000,000 worth of flour and breadstuff? Nevertheless that is what the statistics show. They show further that we imported from [DOT] the United States $9,000,000 worth of lumber of which $5,000,000 worth consisted of rough sawn material, which is the lumber we specialize in. We imported $9,000,000 worth of paper and nearly $1,000,000 worth of paper pulp. We also imported $23,000,000 in fresh fruits, $16,000,000 in dried fruits and $6,000,000 worth of preserved fruits, with Canadian fruit going to waste. Of milk and milk products we imported $3,000,000 worth, while dairying is one of our chief occupations. The same thing is true in regard to manufactured goods; we find that of clothing, boots, shoes, hats and hosiery, we imported last year goods to the value of $23,000,000.
It is up to this government to remedy that state of affairs, to so legislate regarding trade and commerce that that $115,000,000, or the bulk of it will be kept right here in Canada. It can be done, it should be done. True, this government, through its leader, admitted its inability when it went to the country last fall; he said that it could only mark time and draw salaries unless it had a greater majority of Liberal supporters. Well, where is the government to-day? Can we hope for any solution of our national problems by this government? It has, as I say, admitted that it is unable to solve those problems. What excuse is there, then, for this government to cling to office, outside of its salary cheques? And are its members content to stay here to draw their salaries? Last fall wdien the Prime Minister went to the country he said he was 
ashamed to stay any longer and draw the emoluments of office. He appealed to the electorate. Where did he land? He said: This is a time to march forward, not to mark time. What can we hope from the government now but marking time?
There is another item in the Speech from the Throne which perhaps is calculated to bring prosperity to Canada. I do not say whether it is a good proposition or not, but I do say that the House and the country should be given more information about what the government is going to do. I suppose the projected work is destined to help the ports of Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal. The government is proposing now to spend $50,000,000 to complete the Hudson Bay railway. I do not think the government will deny that that is the expenditure involved. True, no member of the government has told us yet how much is to be expended on this account, but surely the completion of the railway will cost that much, for it will also mean building an artificial harbour at Port Nelson, a fleet of icebreakers and of specially constructed ships to navigate the straits; all this will cost a large sum of money; it cannot be done simply by inserting a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that the work will be undertaken. In this connection, I quote to the House a newspaper item that caught my eye the other day. As I say, the Hudson Bay railway may be a necessary public work for the Dominion, but, I repeat, the government would be better occupied giving this House and the country particulars respecting this undertaking than attempting to adjourn the House until March 15. This item is from Regina, Saskatchewan, under date of February 5:
The board of directors of the Saskatchewan Elevator Company met to-day and approved the building of a
900.000	bushel storage addition to the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company terminal transfer elevator at Buffalo, New York. The addition will give the company 2,000.000 bushels of storage space at Buffalo, and a total storage capacity at the head of the lakes and Buffalo of 17,100,000 bushels. The contract for the foundation work for the new structure has been let to the D. E. Horton Construction Company, Buffalo, The addition will be completed early in July.
This action on the part of the Saskatchewan Elevator Company is not calculated to increase the use of Canadian porta, and yet the people around Regina are among those in the west who are advocating the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I wonder what they have to say about this increased elevator capacity at Buffalo. Why should they add
900.000	bushels capacity to the elevator there if the grain is to get an outlet through a Canadian port? If the grain growers of Saskatch-

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
ewan prefer Buffalo and New York to Vancouver and the St. Lawrence, is it likely that they will use the Hudson Bay route in preference to the American route? I do not think it is reasonable to expect that they will.
Another indication of the unsatisfactory condition of affairs in Canada to-day is shown in the volume of settlers' effects that have been taken out of the country in the last three years; their value amounted to $26,000,000, as against a value of incoming settlers' effects of only $18,000,000. That is an indication of the so-called " prosperity " spoken of in the Speech from the Throne. In the past four years we find that 460,000 immigrants came in, while 456,0100 walked out-ran out, as an hon. member suggests. Those people were forced to leave Canada to gain a livelihood; they would have preferred to remain here if they coiuld1 have found work. The bulk of the half million or so we lost were our own Canadians, compelled to leave their native land because there is no employment for them here. Yet we talk of free fares for immigrants and five-year jobs!
I repeat, Sir, the House is entitled to require from the government information as to what is proposed to be done to complete the Hudson Bay railway, whether the country is to be asked to put up $50,000,000, $40,000,000, $30,000,000, $20,000,000 or whatever the contemplated expenditure may be. We should have this information now, not after March 15. For the government to say that the Hudson Bay railway is to be completed "forthwith" means nothing from this government. It has used that term before.
Speaking of taxation, how can Canada hope to get or hold immigrants, or even to retain her own people here when the scale of taxation in the great prosperous and populous democracy to the south of us is so much less than it is in Canada? It cannot be done. The newspapers told us late last week that the United States income tax reduction bill has been passed into law. What does that mean? That some $350,000,000 of taxation is cut off the taxpayers' bill. It was small enough before in comparison with ours. It means that some 2,300.000 Americans have no income tax to pay. That is good business for the United States, but it is pretty hard on Canada. To-day the United States income taxation is not more than one-fifth of what we have to pay. That being so, how can we hope to make any success of an immigration policy? How can we hope to hold our people or to get fresh capital or even to hold the capital that is here?
The worst feature of the whole situation is that there is no prospect of an early change. We cannot hope for any betterment of conditions from this government. That is my opinion of the administration. But let mrj quote someone whose views should have more weight with hon. gentlemen across the floor; I quote the Prime Minister himself. He gave the public that opinion

he made that admission when he appealed to the country last fall. He said if he had been able to solve the problems of the Dominion with the majority he had in the House at that time he would not have gone to the country untd 1927, but as it was hopeless to attempt to do so with the parliamentary support he then had, he put it up to the people to help him out with an adequate majority. So I think I am justified in saying that the worst feature of the situation is that there is no immediate prospect of a change for the better. Unfortunately there may be a prospect of a change for the worse. The fiscal problem was one of the four great problems that the Prime Minister in his manifesto said he could not solve. It has not been solved yet. He gave up governing the country on September 5 last because he could nor solve those problems. What is he holding on to office for to-day? What is there in it for the country? What is there in it for him and his colleagues except their salaries? The mere fact that the King government is in office effectively prevents any revival of business activities in Canada, for under its unstable management and its unscientific tinkering with the tariff capital will not take a chance in enterprises that would restore prosperity. With this government tariff-tinkering to catch votes in certain localities, with its promises of special legislation calculated to secure a vote here and a vote there, do you blame capital, Sir, for not branching out? Do you blame capital for preferring to sit tight? That is the state of affairs in this country to-day, and, Mr. Speaker, the government might as well face the music now as just a little later on.	_
What is the need of an adjournment? This House is practically complete. There is a member here for every constituency, except Regina. A member has been sent here by the electors of each constituency of Canada, and it is the duty of the government with the material at hand to carry on. It would be different if there were eight or ten vacancies and the government asked for an adjournment to fill the vacancies. They might very well say they should get it at the hands of parliament, but with every constituency represented,

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
the people having made a complete answer to the government's appeal of last fall, why adjourn the House to enable them to patch up-to make repairs? If we were adjourning to fill vacancies that would be public business, but if the government creates vacancies by inducing some of its supporters to resign, that is not public business. It is a political manoeuvre and nothing else, and we should not be asked to become parties to the government's political manoeuvering. That has nothing to do with the business of the country. The government cannot get any more supporters in the House by byelections. That is a 'physical impossibility. The Prime Minister selected a bomb-proof dugout in Prince Albert, where he had no chance to lose, but there are not enough Prince Alberts to go around. The government's candidates are going to be opposed and some of them are going to be defeated, perhaps all of them, and the government will then be worse off than it is to-day.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Great optimism.


George Black: Why not go on as the government is now constituted? Why make a bad mess worse, and with nothing to justify the government's course in hanging on, which it is doing, with no known precedent to sustain it? Talk about cricket; the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) had the temerity to stand up in the House and say that the opposition was not playing cricket. They admit that with a full House they are not able to carry on. They want us to give them till the ISth of March to get stronger, so that they can do what? Take a firmer hold on their offices and the emoluments with which the Prime Minister was not satisfied-


Charles A. Stewart: Is that the
reason you are stopping the adjournment?


George Black: Is that a serious
question coming from the Minister of the Interior?


Charles A. Stewart: Quite
serious.


George Black: The minister asks, is that the reason we are stopping the adjournment? This opposition declines to be a party to the adjournment, because it is not in the public interest to adjourn. The government can cite to the House no reason for adjournment in the public interest. If they can they have not done it yet.. All the Minister of Justice, the leader of the House, said was "We want time to hold by-elections" to play politics to strengthen us. Yes, to do

what? "To fight you, the opposition," and then they complain because we will not be a party to that.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
not let them get stronger, either, if I were you.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Nobody else will.


Charles A. Stewart: It is an
awfully good reason, though.


George Black: They want to take a firmer hold of their salaries and the emoluments of office, but so far as solving the great problems of the country goes, the Prime Minister admitted he was unable to do that. He could not do it with 134 or 135 majority. How can he do it with the following he has at present in this House? Oh, but he does want to be Prime Minister, and his colleagues want to remain in office. He admittedly is hanging on to office for what there is in it. I do not want hon. members to feel offended when I say these things, because I am only repeating the words of their leader.


Charles A. Stewart: Do not
worry about that. You have repeated the statement forty times.


George Black: On Friday night
I quoted the Prime Minister's words, and the Minister of Public Works objected to the expression used by the Prime Minister which I quoted.


Charles A. Stewart: The way
you quoted it.


George Black: The Minister of
the Interior says "The way you quoted it." Now, hoping I may be able to suit him and his colleagues, I will take occasion to quote it again before I am through and perhaps this will suit him better.


Charles A. Stewart: Make it
fifty times.


George Black: When I quoted
the uncomplimentary, unkind, ungrateful, contemptuous and hostile remarks of the Prime Minister about his faithful and long-suffering allies, the Progressives, led by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the Minister of Public Works objected to the term, and what was the term used? The term used by the Prime Minister was that the Progressives were outlaws in parliament. I do not wonder the Minister of Public Works objected.


Mr. MOTHER YELL:: Will the hon. member tell us what he is quoting from when he makes that statement?

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)


George Black: I will do that, too. In quoting those numberless statements, contemptuous statements by the Prime Minister in regard to the Progressives, I was quoting from such journals as the Ottawa Citizen, the Regina Leader and the Canadian Press, right clean across the continent from Vancouver to Halifax.


Charles A. Stewart: Newspaper
statements do not stand now.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I was at several
meetings and there was nothing like that.


George Black: Does the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of the Interior, or any other member of the government deny the reports? Do they pretend to say that the Prime Minister did not make use of those words?


William Richard Motherwell: I was at three of
the Prime Minister's meetings in Saskatchewan, and there was nothing even resembling such statements as have been made by my hon. friend.


Air. MANION:: He said it in Ontario.


George Black: Perhaps the hon.
minister expects the Canadian Press to be doubted. Perhaps the minister expects the public to take his word, or that I will, against all those Canadian Press reports. He does not contradict me seriously. He does not mean it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am only speaking of what I know, having attended three meetings.


Mr. CLARK:: How many meetings did he hold, and did he make the same speech at every meeting?


George Black: When I quoted the Prime Minister's references to the Progressives, on Friday night, the Minister of Agriculture interjected "That is from some Tory rag," and he thought he had disposed of it. I wonder if he would call the Manitoba Free Press a Tory rag. !I will read What the Manitoba Free Press says about him.
If Mr. King, as a result of his organization, is not able to produce a government with more decision and punch than the one that appealed to the country on October 29, then it is not worth while going ahead with the proposition. If that is the kind o-f government that reappears after the recess of parliament, the end will not be far out of sight. Something a good deal better is required. The country is not hankering for a general election, but it will not be satisfied with a process of backing and shuffling at Ottawa that has for its object the keeping of a certain set of politicians in office.
That is not exactly a Tory rag. It is a good Liberal organ, talking about the Min-
HOil-89
ister of Agriculture. It refers to the Minister of Agriculture as one of the set of politicians in office, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the whole head and front of the government's case, to hang on to office. They cannot get away from it. As a matter of fact, this government has sunk to such depths that the Free Press cannot follow it any longer. It wants something better than that set of politicians in office. The government that went to the country in October is the same government, it is composed of the same gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches to-day, and the Free Press says we have got to have something better. But the prospect of producing something better is certainly not very bright. The public mind is simply shocked at the lack of self-respect exhibited by this government. It is admittedly, through the mouth of its Prime Minister, hanging on to office- for what? For the loaves and fishes, for the spoils of office, for the salaries and emoluments. The Prime Minister admitted that there were great problems pressing for solution, and that he could not solve them; he could only mark time and he and his colleagues draw their salaries and enjoy their emoluments. I ask them to-day, what do they propose beyond that? What afccomplish-ment can the country hope for beyond that? I think I am justified in using that language; as a matter of fact, it is not my language, but the Prime Minister's own. If any hon. member disputes that I refer him to the files of the public press. Look over the files of the Regina Leader; I did that myself this morning. I have quoted Canadian press despatches of the Prime Minister's speeches, some from Liberal and some from Conservative papers, also, despatches carried by the Canadian Press, which is an impartial service sent to tall the newspapers of Canada. I was not quoting editorial comment, but simply news items.
Mr. Speaker, the government's plain duty is to hand in its resignation. As some objection has been taken to my quoting the Prime Minister's remarks in regard to the government's allies to my left, I might as well pursue that theme a little further. The Minister of Public Works said, "I object to that term," referring to the term "outlaws in parliament." Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would not use that term to-day to the Progressives in this House; he would not dare to do it, but he had no use for them then. He thought he was through with the Progressives. He never thought he would have to go to them with his hat in his hand, begging for the continuance of his political life. But there they are, begging to be



The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
allowed to continue to draw tiheir salaries. The Prime Minister admitted that that was all he and his government could do, and now he is begging for support from the people, the Progressives, of whom, he said, "They will think twice before voting us out and so relinquishing their $4,000 indemnity." That is the way he sized up the Progressive party. That is worse than if he had said they were purchasable by legislation, which is not parliamentary.
I say again, that no government having branded certain members of this House as outlaws, as a holier-than-thou group, as a group that thought more of its $4,000 indemnity than it did of its independence, as a group whose usefulness was at an end, as a group that had practically disappeared, as a group that was standing in the way of the interests of the west, as a group that was simply helping to make the west ridiculous- I say that no government that has branded a party in this House in those terms can retain its self-respect and accept favours at their hands.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
a question? Is the hon. member serious in making the dozen or two statements he has just made,' as to the exact words of the Prime Minister?


Arthur Meighen: He said it over and over again.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, when an hon. gentleman rises in this House to ask a question, it is rather a strange thing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) cannot let the hon. member answer.


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the
opposition will not interfere with his answering. If there is anyone in this House who interferes constantly, it is the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart).


Charles A. Stewart: The whole onslaught is being directed against the Minister of the Interior and the government. The Minister of the Interior will take care of himself as well as the government. All I am asking the hon. gentleman, and I hope this time he will at least give me a direct answer, is this:	Is he honest in attributing
all those adjectives he has just used to the Prime Minister of Canada? Does he infer for a moment that the Prime Minister made those statements at any public meeting or at any place, with the single exception of the first statement? That I have not contradicted, although I have very grave doubts whether it ever was made.


George Black: Will the minister
repeat the statement he admits the Prime Minister made?


Charles A. Stewart: The statement that-I do not admit any statement. I said I had grave doubts whether it was authentic.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell us that one.
MV. STEWART (Edmonton):	Will hon.
members give us a chance, because before the session is over you will perhaps be glad you did give us an opportunity to speak. My question was this: Does the hon. gentleman want this House to believe that the ten or a dozen adjectives he has attributed to the Prime Minister were statements made direct by the Prime Minister at any time?


George Black: When the Minister of the Interior got up to catechize me-


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I got up to ask the hon. member a question.


George Black: I take back the
word catechize (because I would not allow him to catechize me. The minister asked me if I was serious in quoting all these adjectives, with the exception of the first statement, and I asked him what he means by that first statement which he accepts.


Charles A. Stewart: I made it very clear that I did not accept it.


George Black: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House must be impressed with the frankness of the minister after having heard him say, as he did in plain language just a few minutes ago, " with the exception of the first statement." He had evidently something in his mind. What statement was it he accepted? When I asked him to tell me which one it was, he says now he does not accept anything. I say this in reply to the Minister of the Interior: I am quoting from Canadian Press reports' of the Prime Minister's campaign speeches across the Dominion of Canada. I have quoted from papers regardless of their editorial political leanings. I have quoted from despatches sent out by reporters who attended the meetings at which the Prime Minister made 'these statements, and who telegraphed them to their papers. Furthermore, I do make them seriously, and I make them expecting them to be believed, knowing they are believed by the Minister of the Interior himself.


Charles A. Stewart: I must object to that statement. The Minister of the Interior does not believe them.

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)


George Black: Well then, all I
can say is the Minister of the Interior is softer than I took him for.


Charles A. Stewart: You will
probably find out before you get through with him.


George Black: He might not want to believe them. I can quite believe that the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister, and every other member of the government, would wish the Prime Minister had never said these things.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask another question? Will the hon. gentleman give us the papers from which those quotations were made?


George Black: I shall have great pleasure in looking up all the references and giving them to the minister. They cannot be expunged, they cannot be wiped out; I am quite safe in giving them to him.. They can be found in the files of all the newspapers of Canada, in the library of this parliament, in newspaper offices, in the archives.


Charles A. Stewart: I only want the quotations.


George Black: I hope to assemble a large number of them for the edification of the Minister of the Interior. I will undertake to do that just as soon as I get through. I am not surprised that the minister is shocked, not surprised that he objects to these statements.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
shocked; I only want the proof, that is all.


George Black: It was one thing
when the Prime Minister, thinking that he was going to persuade the country to his views, thinking that he was going to get a majority of his own supporters, denounced the little group on which he has been depending for the past four years for the existence of his government-that group that he thought was going to be wiped out. But it is not so pleasant when he finds to-day that more than ever he is under an obligation to, and even under the thumb of, the Progressive group and the Progressive leader. I wonder if the Minister of the Interior will say that the press reports of the premier's manifesto delivered at Richmond Hill were not correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I never said so.


George Black: Will the Minister
of the Interior say they are correct?


Charles A. Stewart: I was not
there; I did not hear the speech. I want to HOll-894
make it clear to my hon. friend that I am not raising any objection to any statement he is going to make about the Richmond Hill speech. My objection is rather to the other statement.


George Black: I do not take the
interjection of the Minister of the Interior as one of unqualified approval, though he says he does not object. I wonder if the minister objects to the press reports of the premier's speech at the Parker picnic, at Erindale, Ont. on 9th September, when he is reported as saying, although perhaps he did not say it:
You can never get the big problems solved unless you have a majority strong enough to allow you to act without fear or favour. If I were faced with the situation of the past four years I should ask for dissolution again.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would not like to expunge that statement? I wonder if the Minister of the Interior would not prefer to have that statement unsaid just as much as he would the unkind remarks made by the Prime Minister against the Progressive party.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am
not raising any objection to that statement. There was no reflection on a Progressive, member or anyone else in that statement,.


George Black: No, Mr. Speakerthere is no reflection on a Progressive or anyone else; but there is a definition of the government's policy and the government's stand which the administration does not dare to take -to-day. Does the government say that the' big problems of Canada can be solved by it?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


George Black: Then it would be refreshing to see some headway made. We have been here nearly two months, and as yet there has been no business submitted to the House. The only thing submitted to parliament has been the Speech which the government placed in the mouth of His Excellency, but it does not foreshadow anything of substantial benefit to the people of this country. No, the Prime Minister says: You can never get big problems solved unless you have a majority strong enough to allow you to act without fear or favour. Has the government got a majority now strong enough to enable it to act without fear or favour?
Was the Prime Minister correctly reported in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of 29th September when he is alleged to have said at Regina:
He was convinced that a government without a large majority m the House could not govern Canada with all its problems.
1400	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
Well, now we have got a government without a large majority in the House, and there is an admission by its leader that it cannot govern Canada with all its problems. If it cannot why is it hanging on to the treasury benches? What does it hope to do? What is the alternative?
If the government had possessed a large majority it would not have been necessary to appeal to the country, and an election would not have been held until 1927.
The government went to the country because the situation was hopeless; it could not get ahead. But what can it do to-day?
Realizing that the country was faced with problems which could be solved only by a government with a majority in the House of Commons a decision had been made to appeal to the people.
Well, the people gave the government its answer. It gave my hon. friends across the way their answer, and1 they are not willing to take it. What was the sense of appealing to the people-prefacing the appeal with the statement that the situation as it was then was hopeless -if on coming back to a worse situation the government is going 4 p.m. still to hang on to office? I say that the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister for his party to the public of Canada ought to be taken seriously, and ought to be adhered to by the Prime Minister and the government and by their supporters. It should not be lost sight of for one minute, and for my part I do not propose to allow the government to lose sight of it for very long. The Prime Minister further said:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office when great national questions press for solution, which for want of adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope with.
If that was the position of the government when they had a majority of 134 members what can it do to-day when its majority has been reduced to one varying from one to ten? Am I unfair when I quote the Prime Minister as making that statement? The Prime Minister asked:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office when great national questions press for solution-
The Prime Minister was not satisfied that the situation was sufficient. That is the reason he went to the country. I ask the Minister of the Interior is he satisfied that it is sufficient to-day? If it is not sufficient why do not hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches comply with the verdict of the people and get out? Surely the people asked them plainly enough to go. The Prime Minister predicted

that he could continue to hold office. Here is what he said:
Let me recall what I said a moment ago-as a government we can continue to hold office; we could I believe so arrange our sessional programme as to con-tmue to command in the House of Commons a support equal to that we have had during the last four years, but I doubt if we could do more than that- almost we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's affairs in which to mark time. It is a time to march forward.
How much marching forward could he do? It was evident he could stay in office no longer, and so instead of waiting until 1927 he dissolved parliament and went to the country. And now he is worse off than he was then. Yet now he and his colleagues are satisfied to stay here and draw their salaries and indemnities and enjoy the sweets of office. How are the government going to get away from that stand, except by admitting that' it is willing now to stay and do what the Prime Minister was ashamed to do at the time referred to. I should like to hear how the government get around that situation; I should like to hear how any explanation can be given that will compare the situation in September last with the situation to-day to the advantage of the government. Let the government, for once in its life, be candid and deal with the situation. Let it show the House how it is going to improve the situation which the Prime Minister complained of. How is the government going to solve the four great problems selected by the Prime Minister-transportation, immigration, the fiscal question and Senate reform? If the government could not deal with these problems during the past four years, how is it going to do so to-day? In what way has the government bettered its position? That, Mr. Speaker, is the government's whole impossible case as stated by its leader, and its whole unthinkable plea is, "Let us stay in office."
I have just had placed, in my hands a copy of a paper which, no doubt, has some standing in this House with certain members -I refer to the Grain Growers' Guide. In its issue of Wednesday, October 7, 1925, that journal published the following statement:
Mr. King Offers Bribes
Realizing that he will lose considerable support in the eastern provinces, Premier King is employing desperate tactics in an effort to win Liberal seats on the prairies. During the past four years he employed every art to lure the Progressive members into the Liberal camp. Last fall he toured this country gently wooing the electors, but he made no impression. Last week, however, on Tuesday evening at Neepawa, Wednesday evening at Regina, and Thursday evening at Calgary, he adopted a species of bribery. He urged >the electors to abandon the Progressive candidates and elect Liberal members to parliament, holding out a promise that if this were done he would be able to fulfil his preelection pledges on tariff reduction, the Hudson Bay

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
railway and others. He has stated that the Liberal party, with 117 members in parliament, had but a majority of oner and consequently, could not fulfil its pre-election pledges. "It isn't that the government does not want to do the things you want," declared Mr. King, at Neepawa. "You don't make dt possible for us to do them," he said, and he pointed out that the only way by which the government could carry out these pledges was by having a clear working majority of staunch and reliable Liberal members.
Not Progressive members. The government has not a clear majority of staunch Liberal members. Therefore it follows as a natural course that it cannot carry out its pledges, and if it cannot carry out its pledges why does it wish to continue its miserable existence in this House? The government's plain duty is to hand in its resignation to His Excellency and to advise him to call upon the leader of the Conservative party (lMr. Meighen) to form a government. When that is done business will revive and the exodus to the United States will stop. Immigrants will find a country able to assimilate them and give them remunerative and satisfactory employment. There will be no need to bait them here with free fares and a guarantee of a five-year job. Canada will attract population on its merits just as people are now attracted to the United States, and there will be no necessity for artificial inducements to lure people to come to this country. Canada will awake from her four years of stagnation and confidence will be restored. The government of the country will again function in a dignified and efficient manner after nearly five years of worse than marking time while, as Mr. Mackenzie King puts it, he and his colleagues have been drawing their salaries and indemnities.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, if your native modesty rises not in revolt against the many eulogies sounded in your favour by hon. members, may I, the youngest member of this House, youngest in years and in parliamentary experience, be permitted to add my humble tribute to those so eloquently expressed1 by previous speakers in this debate?	My observations in this
House lead me to affirm that you, Sir, possess all the requirements, all the attributes, which should properly distinguish one in the dignified and exalted position which it is your privilege to occupy. In honouring you this House has done honour to itself.
Before entering upon a discussion of the legislative programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne, let me state that it is not my purpose to indulge in carping criticism, or with bitter invective to upbraid the Liberal party or any other party. True, hon. members are not of one mind politically; we differ in our judgment as to methods and policies; but fain would I believe that there is a common ground, a plane far exalted above the somewhat sordid level of party politics, upon which we the representatives of the Canadian people may meet and agree. May we not of this fact make common cause, that irrespective of political affiliations we all desire to serve and advance a great, a common country, to which we owe a mutual allegiance and a mutual love?
To my mind, there is in this country a question more important than any or all the specific measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne, aye, more important than any amendment that could be suggested to that Speech. That question is whether or not the spirit of confederation is to endure in this land, or whether it is to be supplanted by sectionalism and selfishness bearing in their wake, as they inevitably must, disintegration and political chaos. Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives or Labour-all will admit that confederation was a great ideal-a goal worthy of the far-seeing and patriotic men who consummated it; but confederation was born of good faith and a sincere desire among the provinces to help bear one another's burdens. It is this spirit of good faith, unity, co-operation and sympathy between the provinces that the people's representatives in parliament must ever jealously guard, cherish and foster. Unless the provinces, the integral factors of Canadian union, are willing to work together in peace and harmony, Canada cannot achieve its highest political destiny; confederation itself may not endure. In order to prevent illwill and suspicion in the relations between the provinces, the federal government must be in a position to mete out even-handed justice to every province in this Dominion. If there is in the minds of the people of any province or provinces even a well-grounded suspicion that their rights are not being protected and their interests not being fully represented in this government, a situation fraught with dangerous possibilities to Canadian unity may well develop. To guard against any such fatal consequence, the federal government, which is supposed to be a government of all the people and for all the country, must be able to comply with two important conditions-conditions without which that spirit of co-operation and goodwill so essential to national unity cannot be maintained. These conditions are, first, the representation of all the provinces on a fair basis in the cabinet councils of this government; secondly, the ability of this government to formulate a legislative

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
programme suited to the needs and requirements of every province in this Dominion; not specially designed to catch the votes of a particular group or to placate a particular section of this country. The present government, and it is not may purpose to abuse or to deride it, is clearly incapable of supplying either of these two conditions, without which unity and goodwill cannot prevail between the provinces of Canada. Take the matter of cabinet representation. We find to-day that four important provinces in this Dominion, and one of the four the most populous, have no minister-no voice whatever in the cabinet councils of the government. Is that a situation that makes for goodwill, sympathy and harmony between the provinces? Nor is this government free; not even its most enthusiastic supporter would contend for a moment that it is free to bring down a legislative programme suited to the requirements of the whole country. This government can bring down only such measures as it thinks will meet with the support of the Progressive group in the House. In order to retain power it must always trim its sails to catch Progressive breezes. It cannot bring down legislation which it may think necessary in the interests of all the people of Canada and of all the provinces. As has been said in this House, the government can act only by the *grace and with the permission ,of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke); unless his spirit moves it, it cannot move at all.
Now this country requires stable government; it requires a government capable of taking forward steps. There are great problems crying for solution in Canada to-day; the problems mentioned by the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill are just as acute at the present moment as they ever were! For nothing has been done by this government to solve those problems since the Prime Minister made his announcement at Richmond Hill. Consequently this country demands a government which will be able to make some progress in the interests of the people as a whole. In face of this situation, with our people clamouring for action on the part of the government, we have in power an administration which is transfixed, motionless, and incapable of motion, like Joshua's sun in Ajalon. A striking exemplification of the im-poteney, I might add the political and moral cowardice, of this government is to be found in its unwillingness or its inability to formulate a national fuel policy for this country. This is a question of great national importance, which vitally affects the industrial and commercial welfare of all Canada. If our

country is to attain that proud position industrially and commercially of which it is certainly capable, our government must take immediate steps to make Canada independent of foreign countries in the matter of its fuel supply. If we do not do this we must be content to remain a vassal state in respect of industry, manufacturing and commerce. It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of coal in the industrial development of any nation. Students of economic history have attempted, and successfully attempted, to explain the growth of such countries as England, Germany and the United States in wealth, in power and in population, solely in terms of their coal industries. Writing on this very subject Professor Van Hise of Wisconsin university in a book entitled The Conservation of the National Resources of the United States, says in respect of coal, to which he attributes the industrial and commercial supremacy of that country:
Coal is by far the most important of all the mineral products. Next to coal in importance is iron. These two are of much greater consequence than all the other mineral products combined. The existence of extensive coal and iron fields has profoundly influenced modern civilization. The greatest commercial nations are England, America and Germany and each owes its industrial greatness to its extensive coal deposits.
Indeed, coal and iron may be described as the twin foundations of modern manufacturing industries and of commerce. They are at the same time the principal source of national power, wealth and population. 'In this respect England furnishes a very apt and at the same time a very striking example. In the centuiy from 16G0 to 1700, when England depended principally upon agriculture, and, a little shipping and commerce, the population increased by only 25 per cent; and from 1600 to 1760, while England in the latter part of that period still depended primarily on these three activities the population increased by 35 per cent. About the year 1760. there occurred what students of industrial history are pleased to term the industrial revolution; this was a revolution in methods and practices based fundamentally upon the use of coal in industry. If we take the 150 years from 1760 to 1910 we find that the population of England increased not by 35 per cent, as in the previous 160 years, but by 455 per cent. We find that even to-day England attaches great importance to its coal industry. This is shown by the fact, that the British government classifies it as one of the key industries of the country, and it may be of interest to certain gentlemen who are disciples of the Manchester school to note that as a key industry, whenever England's coal industry becomes threatened by outside com-

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
petition, it can be immediately protected by a duty of 30 per cent. Similar tendencies showing the importance of coal in national development can be discerned in the industrial history of Germany and the United States, where in both cases a marked increase in national wealth, power and influence is found to have resulted from the development of their extensive and important coal resources. Knowing that the industrial and commercial supremacy of England, America and Germany is largely due to the fact that these countries wisely conserved and used their great coal resources and so maintained their independence of foreign countries in the matter of their fuel supply, it is certainly logical to contend that if Canada is ever to attain that "place in the sun," industrially and commercially, which a bountiful nature ordained to be ours, this government must take immediate steps to formulate a national fuel policy. There is no good reason why in the years to come Canada should not occupy an important, if not a pre-eminent, position in manufacturing, in commerce and in industry. We cannot do this if we continue to be as we are at present, dependent upon a foreign country for our fuel supply.
Now I wish, Mr. Speaker, to lay before this House the situation which confronts the Alberta and Nova Scotia coal operators, but not in any partisan spirit, for this is a real national problem which should be solved by the government. Our chief manufacturing provinces are Ontario and Quebec, situated in central Canada. On the other hand, our coal deposits are situated in the extreme east and west in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia, and to some extent also in New Brunswick. Up to the present time the central provinces have been depending principally, if not entirely, upon the United States for their supply of both anthracite and bituminous coal for domestic and for steam purposes. Last year, taking into account -the amount of the American coal used for coking, the importations of United States coal into central Canada amounted to 15,000,000 tons. Which means, Sir, that 120,000,000 good Canadian dollars were sent to the United States to provide employment for their miners. And while this was going on, the miners of Alberta and Nova Scotia in many cases were walking the streets in search of employment and their families were threatened with starvation.
I have tried to point out from the industrial history of other countries the great importance that we should attach to formulating a national fuel policy. But aside altogether from that consideration, we may approach it
even from a selfish point of view. If the provinces of Ontario and Quebec say that they should purchase their coal where they can get it cheapest, I want to show them that they can no longer continue to rely upon the American coal operators and expect to get their fuel at the same prices as they have been paying in the past. In other words, I want to show briefly the tendency in prices of American coal in the future as I see them. Let me take the anthracite supply first. The householders of Ontario and Quebec have been depending almost entirely upon American anthracite for their domestic needs. Those of us who have given any study to the coal industry of the United States, know that competent geologists estimate that the present available supply of their anthracite coal will be practically depleted within the next quarter of a century-for no longer than twenty-five years at most will the provinces of Ontario and Quebec be able to obtain American anthracite coal. But long before that time elapses, perhaps within the next decade, the United States will not be producing enough anthracite coal to satisfy their domestic demand, and if the people of the central provinces continue the present policy of depending upon American sources of supply for their domestic fuel, they will find that within the next decade American anthracite will be a luxury and that they will have to pay the price of a luxury to obtain it. I venture the prediction, that within the next ten years the people of Ontario and Quebec, if our government does not bestir itself and formulate a national policy to enable them to get Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, will have to pay for whatever American anthracite they can get, not $17 a ton as at present but more like $25 or $30 a ton. I might point out that at the present time two of the anthracite coal areas which were important sources of supply, the Carbondale and Scranton districts, have already petered out.
When we come to bituminous coal, we find there are also certain tendencies which should convince one that the price of American bituminous coal will be on the upgrade in the years to come. Sixty-five per cent of the American bituminous coal which comes into the St. Lawrence market in direct competition with Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, is from the unorganized coal fields in the United States. As hon. members know, there was a time in the history of this and every other country when workingmen were denied the right to organize and to deal with their employers through collective bargaining; but that day has passed. Public opinion to-day

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
grants to labour the right of collective bargaining. The fight is going on in those unorganized coal fields of the United States on behalf of the men to get this right acknowledged by the operators. And I venture to say that within the next year or two, those unorganized fields, which, now supply sixty-five per cent of the American bituminous coal coming into direct competition with Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, will be organized. The result will be that these men will rightly demand1 the same scale of wages and the same working hours that obtain now in the organized bituminous coal fields of the United States. That will increase the price of American bituminous coal, and the American operator sending his product into the St. Lawrence market will pass that increased cost on to the consumer in Quebec and Ontario in the form of a considerably increased price for his coal.
Nova Scotia at the present time is suffering from a very severe and, I might say, very unfair competition in the St. Lawrence market. When we realize that in the United States they have a bituminous coal area of 496,700 square miles, we must appreciate what Nova Scotia is up against in trying to help in giving Canada a national fuel policy. Then again, the majority of the coal fields in the United States are inland, while many of our workings in Nova Scotia are submarine. Everyone acquainted with coal mining knows that it is much more difficult to operate a submarine mine, because you have very heavy costs for pumping and haulage which you do not meet, with in inland mining.
There is another point to which I wish to refer in respect to Nova Scoitia. Before 1914 the Nova Scotia operators were fairly well entrenched in the St. Lawrence market. They lost that market in 1914. Why? They lost it principally for patriotic reasons. The coal companies had a fleet of their own boats carrying coal from Sydney, Cape Breton, to Montreal. The government of Canada commandeered that fleet of boats for war service The result was that the Americans, who did not become a belligerent nation until 1917, were able to take advantage of this position and become strongly entrenched in the St. Lawrence market, and to-day the province of Nova Scotia is suffering on account of its patriotism. Talking of patriotism, I may say in reference to the miners of Nova Scotia, who have been given some advertising throughout this country, and who are sometimes depicted as lawbreakers, that the town of Glace Bay, the largest town in the province of Nova Scotia, having a mining population exclusively, Was the only part of Canada where the gov-

emment had to seriously consider the idea of stopping voluntary recruiting, because the miners were enlisting in such great numbers. I wish to state that in 1914, before the war broke out, and before an unprecedented demand for coal developed, the output of the United States annually amounted to about 400,000,000 tons. When the war broke out there was an unprecedented demand for coal. The coal industries of England, of Germany, of France, and to some extent of Canada, were demoralized by the exigencies of the war. The United States therefore, which did not become a belligerent nation until 1917, was in a position to take advantage of this unprecedented situation in the world coal trade, and coal mines were opened up in that country which in normal times wodld never have been opened at all. The result was that while they were producing 400,000,000 tons in 1914, in 1930, after the war was over, they were producing 900,000,000 tons. They more than doubled their annual output. When the coal trade returned to normal a great many of those small operators who had not made a very heavy investment in plant, saw that they could not compete with their larger competitors, hence they adopted a system of mining known as stripping, by which, instead of attempting to recover all the recoverable coal such as is done by the coal operator in Alberta and Nova Scotia, they resorted to a system of taking out the cheapest coal they could get in the mine and letting the rest go, and in some cases coal obtained in that way has been coming into competition with Nova Scotia coal in the St. Lawrence market. Nova Scotia is being subjected to very unfair competition by the United States coal industry. Then we also have distress coal coming into Canada. Everyone familiar with coal mining costs knows that it requires a great deal of money to keep a large coal mining plant idle for one day. Evidence given before the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States in 1921 was to the effect that when a large coal mining plant was idle for one day and worked the next day, the cost of the idle day would increase the cost of the coal the next day on which the mine worked by seventy-five cents a ton. In order to avoid that loss American operators tried to work their mines as regularly as possible, and they found it good business sometimes to sell some of their coal at cost, or a little below in order to offset the expense of an idle day. The coal obtained in that way is termed distress coal and in some cases it comes into the St. Lawrence market and competes with Nova Scotia coal.

The Address-Mr. Macdougall


Mr. BALDWIN:: Does not the hon. gentleman consider that it was a great blunder for the government to commandeer the fleets of boats of the coal companies of Nova Scotia, and thus prevent them from shipping their coal to the St. Lawrence market?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: If my hon. friend
thinks that it was a great blunder for the government to support the allied nations in that war then, perhaps, it was wrong.


Willis Keith Baldwin: My hon. friend did not
answer the question.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I wish to point out
what the gaining of the markets in central Canada for Alberta and Saskatchewan coal would mean to those two provinces. We find that in 1922 the coal mines of Alberta worked only 237 days. In 1923 they worked 227 days. In 1924 they worked 228 days. In Nova Scotia in 1923 the coal mines worked 250 days, and in 1924 only 202 days. If this government would formulate a policy by which Alberta and Nova Scotia coal could be obtained to supply the fuel requirements of central Canada, the wages of workmen in the Alberta field could be increased by about $500 a year, and the wages of miners in the Nova Scotia coal fields, on account of the continuity of employment that would be provided, could be increased by about $400 a year. That would go a long way to prevent any industrial unrest in those two provinces. Speaking of Alberta, although they are now producing yearly only 5,000,000 tons of coal; with their present equipment and plant they could produce a yearly tonnage of 12,000,000, if they had a market for it. That means that they could increase their output by 7,000,000 tons. Averaging that coal at $6 a ton, if the Alberta operators could get access to the central markets, it would mean that $35,000,000 more would be spent in the province of Alberta. In Nova Scotia we are producing about 6,000,000 tons of coal annually. With the present development of our coal industry we could very well produce 10,000,000 tons of coal a year. That means that we could increase our present output by 4,000,000 tons, or, averaging that coal at a cost of $5, we could increase our circulation of money in the province of Nova Scotia by $20,000,000. I think if that were done we would hear less about the grievances of the province of Nova Scotia, and Maritime rights than we do. What is the remedy for the situation?
I think my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and I would agree upon the remedy to be applied; at least we would have agreed some years ago, but I do not know whether we will to-day.
I think the minister, in addressing the miners at Stellarton in 1921, gave them at least a part of the remedy when he told them that if his government came into power and he were elected they would put a real duty upon American coal. I think he added, in very pathetic language, that they would thereby create conditions in the mining towns of Nova Scotia which would bring the sunshine of prosperity to every miner's home. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that those conditions have not been created. Perhaps there may be some reluctance on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to take that stand in this House to-day in respect to increased protection on American coal, 'but for my part I have no reluctance whatever. I am not afraid to take that stand just because certain men may have studied the principles laid down by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ricardo and others, for I consider it to be the solution of a problem of vital importance in this country. Some people may think that in order to give us fair competition in the markets of central Canada, the duty on American coal will have to be made very high. I have had an opportunity of studying coal mining costs in Nova Scotia, and it is my opinion that if this government would take a fearless stand, something along the line the Minister of National Defence advocated in 1921, and would increase the duty on American soft coal from 50 to 75 cents a ton, would put a duty of 75 cents a ton on anthracite screenings, and 50 cents a ton on American anthracite, and then use a portion of the revenue so derived to establish in Montreal and Toronto coking plants for the coking of Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, by that means we could give to the householders of Ontario, Nova Scotia coke, eight tons of which is equal in fuel value to twelve tons of American anthracite.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. member has referred to production costs. May I ask what is the cost per ton in the mines of Nova Scotia?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Of course, I can give my hon. friend privately the information he desires, but I do not think it would be fair for me to publish the costs of these mining companies. That is a thing for this government to go into if they intend to follow the steps I am suggesting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand that 75 cents per ton would cover the difference between the cost of mining in Nova Scotia and the cost of mining in the Pennslyvania fields?

The Address-Mr. Macdougall


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is my opinion that a duty of 75 cents a ton on American bituminous, 50 cents per ton upon anthracite, and 75 cents per ton on anthracite screenings, would put us in a fair position to compete with American coal in the markets of central Canada.
So far as Alberta is concerned, what they require is a reduced freight rate which will enable them to ship their coal into the markets of central Canada, and I want to say to the representatives from Alberta that I for one am very much id favour of seeing the Canadian National Railways establish such a freight rate as will enable the operators in Alberta to ship that splendid coal into the markets of central Canada to help supply the Canadian fuel demand there. But so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, we require an increased duty. Then if the government gave a subsidy, or assisted, in the erection of coking plants in Toronto and Montreal, by getting a sale for the by-products we could sell that coke at $12 a ton, which is considerably less than the consumers in central Ontario are now paying for American anthracite, and as I said before, eight tons of the Nova Scotia product has a fuel equivalent of twelve tons of American anthracite.
So far as the province of Nova Scotia i3 concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is our principal demand. One-fifth of the entire population of Nova Scotia depend directly upon the coal industry. If that coal industry is allowed to languish because . this government is either afraid or unable to formulate a national fuel policy which will give us access to the markets of central Canada, then the industrial pulse of the province of Nova Scotia must continue to beat very feebly. I do not see why we should not get the sympathy, even of those who are professed free traders. We were promised when we entered confederation that we would find a market for our Nova Scotia coal in central Canada, and if we are going to be precluded from selling our coal there, the one chief benefit we were to derive from confederation will be lost, and no longer will it be reasonable to expect that the province of Nova Scotia will continue to carry her share of the burden as a factor in the Canadian union, if she is not going to be given a fair deal, and if her chief industry is to be allowed to languish.
Reverting to the subject matter of the Speech from the Throne, the opening paragraph seeks to convey the impression that Canada is enjoying prosperity in a very bountiful degree. Should this paragraph be

read by the sorrowful Canadian contingent who during the last four years were compelled by the fell clutch of circumstance to seek employment in a foreign land, they may well realize the feedings of Tantalus, rich, and in the sight of abundance, but yet eternally starving. It is true that Providence has given us a bountiful harvest, and perhaps it is in keeping with the principles of "divine right", to which this government seems to adhere, that they, having no good works of their own to commend them, should arrogate to themselves the good works of the Creator. We may leave this paragraph in the Speech from the Throne for the edification of the credulous.
In its next paragraph the Speech informs us that the government has decided to put into effect a comprehensive immigration scheme for Canada. When one reflects upon the efforts made by this government in the past to give us a comprehensive, or any other kind of an immigration scheme, and the dismal failures which have resulted, we can hardly be expected to be optimistic about this new venture of this government. I understand that in the comprehensive scheme suggested by the government they intend to guarantee to emigrants a free passage to this country and five years' employment. That is a very nice thing for the emigrant. But we have in this countrv thousands of unemployed walking the streets of our city and looking for employment. These Canadian citizens have borne the "heat and the burden of the day"; they have contributed their share of taxation to the public coffers, and surely if the government can be generous enough to guarantee five years' employment to emigrants they should try to do something for the unemployed within our own gates.
With respect to rural credits I will discuss that question when it comes up. I want to say, however, without hesitation, that I am absolutely in favour of the principle of rural credits for the farmers of this country, and I should like to see it extended also, if possible, to those engaged in the fishing industry. Some hon. gentleman saw fit to condemn the rural credits system of Denmark. I am mindful of the fact that two commissions which visited Denmark also condemned the rural credit system in force in that country. A third commission, however, was unanimously in favour of the scheme. It pointed out that a rural credit scheme was adopted in Denmark in 1894, when the exports of farm products from the entire country amounted to only $34 per capita. In 1917 the exports of farm products from Denmark amounted to $119 per capita, and a great

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
deal of this increased output was due to the operation of a wise system of rural credits.
With respect to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, my attitude is this: If I can be convinced that the completion of that road is necessary, that it will help to build up the great Canadian west, and that the cost will not be excessive, I shall certainly be only too glad to give my support to the project. At the same time I will expect that when we from the east present the demands that we intend to present with respect to the construction of branch lines which are necessary to the development of the eastern part of this Dominion, we shall receive the same sympathetic measure of support from the representatives of western Canada as we are ready to accord to the Hudson Bay railway under the conditions I have mentioned.
A roj^al commission has been promised to inquire into the rights of the Maritime provinces. When I listened to that promise in the Speech from the Throne I felt that those men who inaugurated and are now strongly supporting the Maritime rights movement in those little provinces by the sea should be congratulated. At the inception of that movement they were ridiculed by the Liberal press of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They were depicted as calamity howlers, blue ruin-ists, and purveyors of pessimism. New adjectives of a highly coloured nature were coined and flung at their devoted heads. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) himself, following out the old policy of the Liberals in Nova Scotia, declared in this House that, there were no such things as Maritime rights, and that the whole business was Tory propaganda. It seems strange that the present government, composed of very eminent men, should go to the trouble of appointing a commission to investigate a matter which is nothing but Tory propaganda. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the present government have recognized the fact that the Maritime provinces have rights. As to the appointment of a commission of inquiry, however, I want to tell them that on October 29 the people of the Maritime provinces appointed their own commission. That commission now sits within the four walls of this chamber. I want to make this further statement to the government: that while the solid sixteen that represented the province of Nova Scotia in the last parliament sat silent in their seats from 1921 to 1925, although there were Maritime grievances to be remedied, the commission appointed on October 29th last have no intention of remaining passive and submissive;
they will take every occasion to press in the strongest possible manner the claims of the provinces they represent.
I may as well tell hon. members frankly that we have a bad situation down there. I have tried to deal with the coal situation which is, perhaps, the chief problem this government should endeavour to solve, at least so far as the province of Nova 5 p.m. Scotia is concerned. Our people are leaving; they are getting discouraged; they find it impossible to earn a living. Our industries are languishing. There is urgent need that some solution of the problem be found. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) said, referring to secession, that he did not think such a movement would find support from a corporal's guard in Nova Scotia. I sincerely hope that it would not, because I do not preach nor do I agitate secession; but I want to tell the House plainly, frankly and fearlessly that something must be done by this government to give the Maritime provinces those rights to which they are entitled as integral factors of Canadian union. It would be with "footing slow and sad reluctance" that we would turn our back on the great work commenced in good faith by our fathers in 1867. And before any such desperate measure is thought of or suggested, much less acted upon, in the Maritime provinces, the government should give a sympathetic ear to the people of the Maritime provinces, who are just as desirous as any other portion of our population to see that a united Canada is built up upon the firm foundations established by the Fathers of Confederation.
We understand from the Speech from the Throne that the government intend to appoint a tariff commission. I understand very readily why they are taking that course. The government want that commission to find some policy for it. This government have no policy on the tariff question and they are afraid to have any. As I listened to some hon. gentlemen opposite declaring for protection, while others pronounced for low tariff and some for no tariff at all, I wondered what the result would be if by a miracle the hundred gentlemen sitting opposite became endowed with the gift of divers tongues and sought one after the other to explain the Liberal tariff policy. We should have a confusion before which the confusion that raged round the Tower of Babel would fade forever into insignificance. I suppose it was because the Liberal party have been hopelessly at sea on the tariff question since 1921 that their honoured and distinguished leader saw fit to frame a chart to try to guide that party.

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
But when we contemplate the situation in their ranks on that policy, when we remember the diversity of opinion expressed by their own members, and when we reflect on what happened on October 29, we must come to the conclusion that, in spite of that chart prepared by their leader, "the mists are around them and the fog."
In conclusion, although the liberal government has no mandate to bring down any Speech from the Throne or to formulate any policies after its decisive defeat on the 29th October last, I would point out to the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) that he and his government have no mandate even from the Liberal party itself, to 'bring down the measures announced in the Speech from the Throne. I would like to ask him, since he is in his seat: Where and on what occasion during the last election did he ever get up before his compatriots in Quebec and say that the policy of the Liberal party was to restore to the province of Alberta its natural resources? In what part of Quebec or of eastern Canada was that question ever discussed during the last election? Did he ever discuss before his electors in Quebec the question of rural credits or the completion of the Hudson Bay railway? How does the government know that the rank and file of the Liberal party are in favour of the policy outlined in the Speech from the Throne? The Liberals who were elected in Quebec were elected to solve the problems which Mr. King, the Prime Minister, said at Richmond Hill were pressing upon this country so severely. There is no mention of those problems in the Speech from the Throne. The government have thrown overboard the principles of the Liberal party and have seen fit to try to implement the principles of a small group in this House who, although they are eminently respectable and intelligent, and for whom I have not an unkind word, nevertheless must realize that they represent in this chamber but eight per cent of the Canadian electorate. I wish to say in conclusion that the people of Canada will not long continue to tolerate in this country a situation in which the tail wags the dog.


Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members from Nova Scotia, may I along with my predecessors be permitted to extend to you my felicitations and congratulations upon your reappointment as Speaker of this House? I have been very much impressed with the fairness and dignity with which you administer the affairs of your high office and the courtesy that you always show to new members.

I have been designated by hon. members opposite as one of the Maritime lighters' group. They jnay call us what they like, but I support the policy of my right hon. leader, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) who, when the campaign opened last September, declared he realized that the Maritime provinces have their problems; that they had not received a fair deal from the late government, and that he was ready if he came into power to solve those problems even if it were necessary to take from the revenue of this country a sufficient sum to do so. Contrast this statement with the one made by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of this Dominion. Speaking at Kent-ville, Nova Scotia, he asked the audience: "What are Maritime rights?" He said: "If I knew what they were I would try to right them." Is it possible that he did not know? If he did not, he had for two years in this House sixteen members from Nova Scotia known as the "solid sixteen," and for three years he had fifteen members from that province. If the Prime Minister did not know what those problems were, surely those members who were sent to parliament as representatives from Nova Scotia should have told him. They certainly were, to use a slang phrase, not on to their job; they must have been asleep at the switch, because according to the records I have failed to find that one of those gentlemen during the term of their office from 1921 to 1925 ever stood up on the floor of this parliament and had anything to say about the needs and wants of Nova Scotia.
What those problems and rights are is well known. Under confederation we were conceded certain rights which have never been given to us. The question of Maritime rights was not the only issue in the late election in Nova Scotia. The tariff was also a most important issue, and the policy on this issue as laid down by my right hon. leader was declared on every platform by the eleven members who were returned as his supporters on this sidle of the House. We in Nova Scotia realize that if we are to make any progress we must have an adequate tariff, a tariff sufficient to protect the industries of our province. Two of our great industries there are steel and coal, from the latter of which the province derives its greatest revenue, and unless these industries are protected and fostered we cannot succeed and be prosperous. We must have a market for these, and that market is the Canadian market. If we cannot get our coal into the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario, we cannot expect to prosper. Why

The Address-Mr. Short
is it that our Canadian National railways cannot haul coal from Nova Scotia to Quebec and Ontario when United! States railroads can haul the Same kinds of coal from Pennsylvania and Wfest Virginia to those points? The distance is no greater from Nova Scotia than from the points named, and I am of opinion that if the management of our National railways were anxious for business and if the government of this country desired to assist Nova Scotia, a way out of this difficulty could be found. Arrangements have already been made with the National railways to have
25.000	tons of coal hauled from Alberta to Ontario at seven dollars a ton. But when an arrangement on the same mileage basis rate is asked for Nova Scotia to haul coal from Sydney to Montreal to relieve distress in that district, what are we told? We are told that the management of the Canadian National Railways cannot do so. This is one of the Maritime rights. If the Canadian National Railways can haul Alberta coal into Ontario for seven dollars a ton, why cannot the same mileage rate be granted to Nova Scotia? This can and should be done and it is the duty of the government to see that our province is treated fairly in this respect.
We have in Nova Scotia another great natural industry, one which I am surprised to find is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, namely, the fishing industry. I am proud to say that I have been connected with that industry for the past thirty years, and I feel therefore that in whatever I say on the subject in this House I know whereof I speak. In the constituency of Digby-Annapolis, which I have the honour to represent, we depend very largely-in fact one section of my constituency depends almost entirely-upon the fishing industry for a revenue. I am. surprised that the Prime Minister, when he framed this Speech from the Throne, should have overlooked this important industry!, because it employs in Nova Scotila alone some 25,000 persons, and in the whole of Canada some
70.000	persons. There is invested in vessels and equipment about $50,000,000', and the industry produces in wealth annually between $40,000,000 and $50,000,000. Surely therefore it is an industry that should receive some consideration from the government. It has not made the progress which would have been possible had it received from this and previous governments the assistance to which it is entitled. It is capable of wonderful development and instead of producing $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 per annum of wealth to this country it should, and indeed could, produce double that amount. If the government will
give more attention to fostering this great industry and assisting in its development in every way I am sure the expansion which I have stated as possible will be realized.
What we need now is an improvement in breakwaters along the coast to provide facilities for the fishermen to prosecute their vocation. We need also further markets for these products and cheaper transportation to these markets. True, the home market 'has shown a considerable increase in the last few years. This is due partly to the advertising propaganda which .has been carried on during the past two years in which the government has borne half of the expense and the dealers the other half. While the amount expended has brought good results, I have no doubt that if double that amount is spent in judicious advertising in the future, to bring this great food product to the attention of the public, a much greater demand will be created, and that will go a long way towards putting the industry on a more prosperous basis.
The people of Canada should eat more fish, as it is one of nature's best foods. The consumption of fish per capita in Canada is 21 pounds per annum, in the United States 18 pounds, and in England, where more fish is eaten than in any other country except Japan, it is 54 pounds per annum. If we could only induce the Canadian people to eat as much fish as they do in England, say 54 pounds per capita per annum, we should be able to find a great outlet for our fish products and at the same time furnish a cheap, nutritious and palatable food for the country. This can be done if the government will only give to the industry that assistance to which it is entitled. The government should look at the matter from a national point of view and try by means of adequate and proper advertising to induce the people of Canada to eat more of this food product. If this were done it would be 'better for the country and it would provide us with an outlet for a wonderful Canadian product.
It is a well known fact that fish is one of the most helpful .and nutritious foods known to man. If we could create a further market for our fish it would stimulate the industry and give increased employment to our fishermen, thus keeping our own folks at home rather than having them leave our shores to seek a livelihood in foreign countries. While our 'home market has shewn some improvement in the past year or two, I am sorry to say that our export market has hardly held its own; as a matter of fact, I do not think we are exporting as much
The Address-Mr. Short

fish to-day as we did some years ago. The American market, to which certain sections of Nova Scotia have always had to look for an outlet, is practically closed to us to-day because of the Fordney tariff, and it is only when there is a scarcity in the United States of certain varieties of fish that we can ship our product into that country, because the}' are themselves large producers and exporters of this commodity. Of course, we send shellfish there such as lobsters, scallops and other varieties of that class, inasmuch as there is no duty, the reason being that the United States do not produce a sufficient quantity of this class of fish to provide their own markets. On all other varieties however they have a prohibitive duty, and, as I have just said, it is only in times of scarcity there that-we can get our fish into that market. The Fordney tariff is so framed that it practically shuts us out and we have to look to other markets for an outlet for our dried and pickled fish, principally the West Indies, South America, the Mediterranean and other places.
This government, I think, should do everything possible to assist the industry in increasing its trade with foreign countries by having our trade agents in those countries put forth every effort to secure orders for the Canadian producers, at the same time educating the fishermen of Canada in improved methods of curing fish for export. At the present time, I regret to say, our dried and pickled fish for export does not compare favourably with the same class of fish produced in Norway and other countries, and it is the duty of our government to give all the instruction they possibly can to the industry so that the Canadian product when exported may receive as good a price as is obtained for the same class of product put up in Norway and other fishing countries. In the green State our fish is equal to that produced anywhere else in the world.
We have in this country a market that is capable of great development for fish, both fresh and frozen. I find according to statistics compiled by the Fisheries department that the amount of fresh and frozen fish shipped from the Maritime provinces last year to Quebec, Ontario and points further west was 42,000,000 pounds. Yet the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), speaking some days ago, made the statement that only about one per cent of the fish produced in Nova Scotia was sold in Canada. Let me examine the facts. Since the figures for 1925 were not available I have secured from the department the figures showing the total catch of all kinds of fish, except shellfish, for 1924 in the province of Nova Scotia. The total
[Mr Short.]
catch for that province was 195,823,300 pounds and of this amount 42,000,000 pounds of fresh, frozen and smoked fish were shipped to Quebec, Ontario and the west. It must be remembered that that 42,000,000 pounds would represent at least double that quantity, or about 80,000,000 pounds, because a large proportion of the product is converted into finnan haddies and filets, and 50 per cent is lost in processing. The consumption of Nova Scotia fish in Canada is therefore at least 30 per cent of these varieties alone. In addition to this a considerable quantity of pickled and salt fish is sold. Now, what becomes of the statement of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) that only one per cent of the Nova Scotia catch is consumed in Canada? If the hon. member's statements regarding the other matters in Nova Scotia which he spoke of are no more correct than his statement with regard to our fisheries, which he claims to have some personal knowledge of, what credence can the House place in his entire speech?
Now, Sir, I want to show the House what handicaps we have to overcome. Yet under these adverse conditions we have been able to market 30 per cent of our catch in Canada. If we are given the transportation rates that we are entitled to, and the government give the attention it should to the fishing industry, you can readily see what a wonderful expansion is possible. I think the hon. gentleman must have been speaking of his own constituency when he stated that Canada used only one per cent of the catch of Nova Scotia, because it is from his constituency that most of the fish is exported. But there are other sections of Nova Scotia which also produce large quantities of fish, and a substantial proportion of it is sold as fresh, frozen or smoked in the Canadian market. What we require to increase this business is better transportation facilities, cheaper freight and express rates, and a government that is ready and willing to assist the industry in every way possible.
When the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) was addressing the House recently he quoted some freight rates to show how Nova Scotia was discriminated against. Now I want to show the discrimination against our province in the way of express rates on fish as compared with similar rates in effect from the Pacific coast. The express rate on carloads of fish from Vancouver or Prince Rupert to Winnipeg is $3.59 per 100 pounds net weight. The distance from Vancouver is 1,465 miles and from Prince Rupert 1,785 miles. But the express rate from Halifax- I might say that this rate is practically the same from all other points in the province- to Winnipeg is $8.05 per 100 pounds gross

The Address-Mr. Short
weight, or $10.06 per 100 pounds net weight. This is a further discrimination against Nova Scotia. The carload and less than carload rates are based on the gross weight and 25 per cent is added for package and ice. The mileage from Halifax to Winnipeg is 1,993. This rate constitutes a difference of 146 per cent over the rate from Vancouver and Prince Rupert to the same point. Do you wonder, Sir, that we are discontented when we realize the unfair way in which we are treated in transportation matters? Let me quote another comparison. The express rate from Vancouver or Prince Rupert to Chicago is $3.93 per 100 pounds net weight. The distance from Vancouver to Chicago is 3,224 miles, and from Prtince Rupert, 3,595 miles. The express rate from Halifax and other points in Nova Scotia to Chicago is $4.30 per 100 pounds (gross weight, and $5.37 per 100 pounds net weight. The distance from Halifax to Chicago is only 1,669 miles. The difference against us there in favour of the Pacific coast is only 195 per cent I Do you think, Sir, that we can prosper with such unjust discrimination against us in express rates on our fish? And this discrimination goes on all down the line, it applies on our shipments to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia. For instance, the percentage against us to Boston compared with the Pacific coast rate is 325 per cent. How can we ever expect to build up'an industry in the Maritime provinces in the face of such discrimination?
Off the coast of Nova Scotia we have the greatest fisheries in the world. Our ports are so much nearer the fishing banks than those of the United States that we may reasonably look forward to the time when the fishing ports of Nova Scotia will be the bases from which vessels will operate and supply the fish markets of this country as soon as the government gives us the assistance that our industry is entitled to. The total value of the fisheries of Canada for 1924 was $44,534,235. Of this amount our exports represented $30,925,769, the balance of $13,608,466 being the value of the fish sold in Canada; in other words, as I have just stated, 30 per cent of the total value of our fish production found a sale in the home market. If we could increase domestic consumption to 50 per cent of our total production, it would stabilize the industry wonderfully, as there is no market like the home market. This increase would take place if the government would help develop our fisheries as it should. But, Mr. Speaker, very little attention has been given to our fishing industry by the government of the Dominion. One of the reasons for this comparative neglect is, I think, that usually the Minister of the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been selected from one of the inland provinces. As a rule such a man is not conversant with the needs and requirements of our fishing industry. I have always felt that the department should be presided over by a minister from the Maritime provinces, preferably Nova Scotia. Do you know, Sir, that Nova Scotia has not had a minister in that department for some thirty years? I think Sir Hibbert Tupper was the last member from Nova Scotia to preside over the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and that must be thirty years ago, or more. A man from the Maritime provinces is naturally familiar with all the local facts of the industry. I have no fault to find with the present minister (Mr. Cardin) but I understand he is a lawyer from the province of Quebec, and therefore he could not be supposed to have very much knowledge of the fishing industry.


Mr. ROBB:: If my hon. friend1 will allow
me-does he not recall that Sir Douglas Hazen, a lawyer from New Brunswick, was Minister of Marine and Fisheries for many years?


Harry Bernard Short: I have not any fault to
find there-but he was another lawyer. I claim that the department should be presided over by a man who has some knowledge of both the marine and the fisheries end. I think that is only logical. We would not expect a clergyman or a lawyer to know the different kinds of fish or what the requirements of the industry were.


Mr. STORK:: The hon. member has given certain comparisons of express charges from the Pacific coast and from Nova Scotia, claiming unfair discrimination in favour of British Columbia, May I ask from what authority he is quoting his figures?


Harry Bernard Short: You will find all those rates on file with the Board of Railway Commissioners. I want to put on Hansard a little of the earlier history and also of the .present history of the fisheries of Canada. About no industry, not even the fur trade, is the early history of Canada, and for that matter of the North American continent, so closely entwined as about the fisheries. Indeed a study of the development of the fisheries of the world involves in a large measure the history of man. How and when fishing began we can only conjecture, but our earliest records indicate that fish formed an important portion
The Address-Mr. Short

of the good of man in the very early days. The application of the net to fishing is older than recorded1 history, so that we have no knowledge of who invented it. It seems quite probable that it was the spidter's web anchored in the air to catch passing flies that first suggested to reasoning man the application of a similar method for the capture of free swimming fish. Fishing even with gill-nets and seines was a common method of making a living in the days of our Saviour and it was from amongst the fishermen of Galilee that He drew several of His most notable apostles.
It is an old truism that from the earliest days fishing has been the parent of navigation and the mother of commerce. Fishing was first confined to the inland waters and the estuaries of streams, but it was early learned that fish dried in the sun and air will keep for any length of time and could be transported to distances from the coast. It was this fact that gave a tremendous impetus to fishing and to navigation. To supply the growing demand fishermen went farther and farther from the shore, to do which better boats were needed, and these were supplied. So that as early as the 12.th century hardy fishermen from around the bay of Biscay and Norway were voyaging yearly as far eastward as Iceland, and tradition leaves little room for doubt that long before Columbus discovered America these fishermen were visiting the coasts of what are now Canada and Newfoundland for fish. In any event one of the first things that followed the discovery of North America by the Cabots was the establishment of an important fishery there. Each year vessels from France, Spain and other European countries came across in the spring to the rich fishing grounds off our coasts and left in the fall loaded with their dried fish. The first exports from what are now the New England States were dried fish and it may safely be said that the trade and commerce of that whole region was founded on fish.
Our sea fisheries may be broadly cast into two divisions, the inshore and the bank fisheries. The former is engaged in by the fishermen living all along the coast, who operate in boats, and fish anywhere from ten to twelve miles from shore and the latter by vessels. The catches of the inshore fishermen and of the steam trawlers operating on the banks go to supply the fresh fish markets, as well as those for cured fish, while the banking vessels' catches are practically Ml cured for foreign markets. Important as it is that our offshore fisheries should be developed! and expanded, it is for obvious reasons more important from a national stand-
[Mr Short.]
point that our inshore fisheries should grow. To enable this to be done, however, it is essential that the demand for fish in our own country should be continuously increased.
The difficulties in the way are numerous and great. Our country is one of vast distances and comparatively small and scattered population. Our first large centre of consumption, Montreal, is about a thousand miles from the seaboard. Extremes in climate prevail, which necessitate adequate and1 rather expensive facilities for transporting fresh and frozen fish.
The asset Canada has in her fisheries is as a general thing far too little appreciated. Practically every mile of her coastal fisheries on both sides abound in different varieties of food fish of first quality. In addition to the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes there are a vast number of wonderfully productive areas such as lake Winnipeg, lake Winnipegosis and Lesser Slave lake, which cover an area of over 220,000 square miles. Not being very familiar, however, with our inland and Pacific coast fisheries I shall confine myself to the Atlantic coast. In addition to the gulf of lSt. Lawrence, which is potentially one of the richest fishing areas in the world, the various fishing baniks on this side of itJhe Atlantic are adjacent to the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. Such names as the Georges, Brown's Bank, Roseway, LaHave, Sable Island, Banquereau, Misaine, St. Pierre and the Grand Banks are amongst the most productive fishing areas the world has known. Owing to their proximity to our Canadian ports fishing thereon can be carried on more economically from such ports than from any others. For instance the distance from Canso to Sable island bank is 88 miles and from Halifax it is only 159 miles, while from Boston it is 470 miles. Again the distance from Halifax to the centre of the Grand Banks is 588 miles while from Boston it is 928. It will be realized that a vessel operating from a Nova Scotia port, particularly when engaging in fishing for the fresh fish trade, can .produce much more fish in the same time owing to the shortness of her voyages to and from the fishing grounds.
Now, we have heard a great deal in this debate about rural credits for farmers in the west. What about extending the same credits and on the same terms to the farmers of the sea? I refer to the hardy fishermen of this country of ours. Why are they not entitled to the same consideration in the way of government credits as is given to the farmers of the west, so that they may be permitted to build boats and buy engines and equipment, in order to carry on their vocation and earn

The Address-Mr. Short
an honest living for themselves and their families? The fisherman is just as much in need of assistance of this kind as is the farmer of western Canada, and if the government decide that any system of credit is to be given to the farmers, of the west I hope and trust that they will also make the necessary arrangements so that the fishermen of our country may participate in these same credits.
A great deal has been said about the prosperity of our country, and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has stated that Nova Scotia is prosperous. That may refer to the county of Lunenburg where they depend for good or bad times upon the fishing industry almost wholly, and where the fishermen were fortunate enough to have a good catch the past season and receive for that catch a very high price, much higher than they at first anticipated. 'I am sorry the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is not in his seat, because I would have liked him to hear the remarks I am going to make. The Lunenburg fishermen are the greatest traders there are in the province of Nova Scotia, and they always get the highest price because they produce the class of fish that is required by certain markets. These fish are mostly sold in Lunenburg under the co-operative plan, and the fishermen are traders enough to realize the fact that the dealer has got to come to them and pay them their price, unless they are forced to sell. The price of the Lunenburg catch this year started at $6 per quintal, but the Lunenburg fishermen decided not to take that price and held on until the dealers paid them $8 per quintal. It is said the dealers who bought at this price are not going to receive a new dollar for the old one, but be that as it may I am glad1 the fishermen got their price.
But, Mr. Speaker, Lunenburg is not the only county in Nova Scotia. I can quite understand that there is prosperity there, but there are other sections of the province that are not prosperous-in fact, that are now and have been for some time past suffering from depression, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent in the province of Nova Scotia. Why, Mr. Speaker, if Nova Scotia were in the prosperous condition that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg would have this House believe, and if the government had dealt generously and fairly with that province, why was there such a change in the minds of the people of Nova Scotia from 1921, when they sent 'a solid sixteen for the King administration, and on October the 29th last only three of them survived? This, I think, is conclusive evidence 14011-90
that the people of Nova Scotia were more than dissatisfied with the late government, who during the four years of their administration neglected this part of the country in a most shameful manner, and the first opportunity the people had to record their votes at the polls they did not hesitate to show this government what they thought of them.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Were the people of
Nova Scotia satisfied in 1921 when they returned a solid sixteen?


Harry Bernard Short: They evidently were dissatisfied then, 'but they are much more so now.


Jean George Robichaud: They did not return
the solid sixteen this time.


Harry Bernard Short: They sent a solid sixteen in 1921 and expected something of them, but what did they get? Not one of them stood up in this House and opened his mouth for the province of Nova Scotia. During the whole four years they were here they were nothing but voting machines; that is all they were. But the members now on this side of the House from Nova Scotia are not going to be mere voting machines. We are here to look after the interests of Nova Scoba, and we are going to do it. One of my Progressive friends the other day said that he was sick and tired of hearing about Nova Scotia, and I told him, "You have only commenced to hear about it, and if we are here until next summer you are going to hear more about Nova Scotia every day we get an opportunity."
The time has arrived when the people of Nova Scotia will no longer be satisfied with any government that will not deal fairly and squarely with them, that will not treat them as an integral part of this great Dominion and see to it that the promises made to us under the terms of the confederation pact are carried out. We must, Mr. Speaker, be given a fair share of the shipments of the western wheat that now go through foreign ports. It was intended when the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, at such a tremendous cost to this country, that Canadian products handled by this railway should be shipped through Canadian ports. Why should this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money in building a railway to carry freight to be shipped out of foreign ports? It has been stated that geography was against us in the Maritimes, that freight must be shipped by the shortest haul. Geography was not against us when the Great war was on. What would Canada have done then had it not

The Address-Mr. Short

been for the ports of the Maritime provinces, where it was necessaiy to assemble ships to carry our troops overseas? Not only troops, but freight also was carried to the Maritimes and shipped from there. If these ports were necessary to the country then, why are they not just as essential in times of peace? The geography is just the same now as it was when we entered into confederation, and I say to this House that we will not be satisfied in the Maritimes until we get our share of Canadian products shipped out of our ports during the winter season at least. This talk about not having the ships available for the business is all nonsense. Ships will always follow the freight. If the management of the Canadian National Rail ways were at all anxious to carry western products to the Maritimes for shipment overseas, the ships would be forthcoming, but the fact of the matter is the management of the railway is wedded to Portland and other American ports, and just so long as the people of this country will stand for it that is the way our freight will be routed. But I can assure this government that the people of the Maritimes do not propose to stand for this sort of treatment any longer. The time has arrived when they demand that they get their fair share of the country's business.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Harry Bernard Short: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was discussing the position of the Canadian National Railway. I want to read a few extracts from a bulletin issued by the Railway Users' Association of Canada in connection with this railway, and also quote from a speech delivered by Sir Henry Thornton, president and general manager of the Canadian National Railways, 'before a convention of the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association in Winnipeg on January 28. Sir Henry on that occasion is reported to have made this statement:
He emphasized tthe fact that the Canadian National Railway was ready to support anything that would move the grain through Canadian ports, explaining that ft was to its advantage having no interest in Buffalo or any other United States port.
I should like to know how Sir Henry could make such a statement, in view of the fact that the Canadian National Railway has a contract with the White Star Dominion line by which the former undertakes to deliver as much tonnage as possible to the vessels of that line at the port of Portland, Maine.
[Mr Short.]
In giving evidence before the select committee of the United States Shipping Board at Washington, Mr. D. O. Wood, Foreign Freight Traffic Manager of the Canadian National Railway, said:
The traffic which comes through the port of Portland is, I should say, without going into exact figures, possibly SO or 90 per cent of Canadian origin.
The port of Portland has been practically built up by the Grand Trunk Railway, and largely, from Canadian traffic.
There are other lines coming to Portland, of course, besides the White Star Dominion, but we have no contract with them; they come there because we were instrumental in the early days in having them come here by trying to help them fill their ships as far as we could.
If that service were not there I do not know where it would be; most likely it would come to St. John, N.B.
In another part of his evidence Mr. Wood states that,-"'this contract may be terminated on six months' notice, such notice to be given prior to March 1st of the calendar year."
I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be good business on the part of this government to have that contract cancelled, because it is certainly not in the interests of Canada, and not at all in the interests of the Maritime provinces. A statement is then given in the bulletin referred to of the amount of Canadian grain that had been shipped through Canadian ports and through American ports:
For the crop year ending August 1, 1924, the clearings from the undermentioned ports were as follows:
Bushels
Canadian Pacific	ports, via Vancouver.. 53.809,505
Canadian Atlantic ports, Montreal via St.
Lawrence	 63 568,444
St. John, N.B	 9,412,231
Quebec, via St.	Lawrence	 2.309,412
Halifax, N.S	 302
Total Canadian Atlantic	ports	 75,290.389
United States Atlantic ports:
New York	 63.091,140
Philadelphia	 23,204.838
Baltimore	 14.989.417
Norfolk	 12,568,440
Portland, Maine	 7,713.330
Boston,	 7,173 269
All other United	States ports	 12.318.903
Total United States Atlantic ports.. ..	141,079 337
In 1919-20 the shipment of Canadian oats via United States ports was 5,802,538 bushels, but in 1923-24 it was 16.856,865 bushels.
The amount of all kinds of grain exported from Halifax during the crop year of 1919-20 was 2,695,677 bushels. In 1922-23 the amount of all kinds of grain shipped via that port was 203,831 bushels, and in 1923-24 the amount of all kinds of grain shipped via that port was only 342,404 bushels.
These figures tell a story that should cause every thinking Canadian to stop and consider the direction in which he and his country is being carried. The increasing costs of ralway service in Canada is not only diminishng producton and causing people to emigrate,, but it is diverting what tonnage this country continues to produce, to -the railroads of the United States at the nearest crossing point on the boundary. The Canadian National Railway cannot afford to carry grain from Montreal to Halifax, a distance of 841 miles, or to St.

The Address-Mr. Chabot
John, a distance of 481 miles; but it can carry Canadian grain from Fort William and the bay ports and other lake ports, to the boundary at Niagara, which is practically the same distance from Fort William as is Montreal, from where the railroads of the United States carry it to Philadelphia, a distance of 416 miles, to the amount of 23,000,000 bushels a year, and to Baltimore, a distance of 600 mi'les, to the amount of 15,000,000 bushels a year, and even to Norfolk, a distance of 860 miles, -to the amount of 12,500,000 bushels a year. No wonder that the press of these three cities are loud in their praise of Sir Henry. We cannot find that there has been any credit given in the papers of these cities to an official of any other Canadian road in this matter. Since Sir Henry has had charge of the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian people's road has carried practically no grain, and very little tonnage of any other kind, to any Canadian port outside of Montreal and Quebec, and to these ports a constantly diminishing quantity.
This is a paragraph which I should like the House to note:
If the port of Halifax had a railway system that pulled as hard for it as does the Western Maryland and the Pennsylvania railroad for Norfolk, Baltimore and Philadelphia, it would be one of the largest ports on the Atlantic coast. (Norfolk has an elevator Capacity of only 750,000 bushels, while Halifax has a capacity of 1,500,000 bushels.)
But it must not be overlooked that the Pennsylvania railroad has an exceptional advantage in that Sir Henry Thornton got his start in the railroad business with that company. For twenty years he was in its employ. He began with it in 1894 as an engineer, and rose gradually until he was General Superintendent of the Long Island railway, a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania railway system. In 1914 he was taken to England by the Great Eastern railway. From there he came to Canada.
This may explain why Sir Henry Thornton is not sympathetic to the Maritime provinces, and why we get none of that grain there. The facilities at the port of Halifax are certainly much better than those at Norfolk, where 12.500.000 bushels went in 1924 as against 342,404 bushels to Halifax. Does the country wonder why we in Nova Scotia are dissatisfied? Do hon,. members think we are going to stand for that sort of thing? I say, no.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Is my hon. friend not aware that at
no time in 1024 was there (any elevator at Halifax where grain copld be handled?


Harry Bernard Short: There has been a grain elevator at Halifax for years.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonlish-Guysbor-ough):: Not operating.


Harry Bernard Short: The same elevator is there
that, was there in 1920. It was dismantled1 not in 1024, but only last fall. It was dismantled in 1925, if I read' the press correctly.
Mr. Speaker, it is proposed, according to the Speech from the Throne, that a royal commission be appointed to look into the affairs of the Maritimes and report to this House.
14011-90J
We want no commission to tell us what is required to bring prosperity to this part of the country. The Maritimes are represented by twenty-nine members of this parliament, who know thoroughly the conditions there and who are in a much better position to advise the government than any commission that can be appointed. Why wtaste the country's money on needless expenditures of this kind? We have no faith in commissions of this sort; they will not satisfy the minds of the people. The country has already had too many commissions and too little action.
Conditions in Nova Scotia are serious and are getting worse instead of better. Why, Mr. Speaker, every time the census is taken we lose representation in that province. During the last redistribution we were the only province in the Dominion that lost any of its members, and we lost two. In the last House our province had sixteen members; now we only have fourteen. If we were as prosperous as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) would have us believe, why did we lose two members in the last redistribution? If something is not done to improve the situation we will go on losing in membership until we have only a handful of representatives coming to this House from that section of this country. Conditions are getting alarming in Nova Scotia, and it is absolutely necessary that the government of this country do something to right our wrongs and give us a chance to take our proper place along with the other provinces of this great Dominion.
I have in my constituency other industries than the fisheries, of which I spoke at length this afternoon. I refer to agriculture and fruit raising, particularly apples. A very large section of my constituency, known as the Annapolis valley, is devoted to appleraising, but I do not propose to weary the House at the present time with any further remarks in connection with those indtisfries. At some future day I shall have something to say with regard to them.


Mr. J. L. CHAROT (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I am not too late at this date in the session to tender you my sincere felicitations upon your election as first commoner in this land. It is an honour shared equally by you and by this House, an honour which gives us both pleasure and pride-pleasure from a contemplation of high achievement recognized; pride because I see in you, Sir, the embodiment of those lofty traditions of public services so richly contributed to the history of this nation by the race to which you and I belong.
The Address-Mr. Chabot

I rise to express as briefly as, I trust, will be consistent with lucidity, my determination not to support the motion of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). In so doing I am fortified by a knowledge that I am in harmony not only with the overwhelming opinion of this country, but with the view held openly by many, and secretly by some, of the majority of the members of this House. The reason for want of confidence in this ministry is neither invisible nor obscure. It is found1 in four years of cynical betrayal of the platform and pledges by which this government gained power. It is found in the economic dislocation which can be directly traced to the record and policies of this government since 1921. It is found in the humiliating spectacle of the disembodied entity calling itsdlf the cabinet, which lingers on the treasury benches at the present time. What has been the political history of this country during the past five years? In 1921 hon. gentlemen opposite came into office upon certain definite and specific pledges to the people of this country. They said that they would remove the burden of taxation which was then paralysing our industrial life; they said they would reduce the high cost of living bearing down upon the masses of our people; they said they would settle our transportation problem and solve our immigration difficulties; and they said they would give us a new fiscal creed. They were to bring back what they called the golden era of Laurier and make us all happy and rich.
There have been five years of opportunity for the fulfilment of these pledges, five years in which all the rest of the world has recovered from the devastating effects of the war. They were five years which saw this country blessed with some of the most bountiful harvests in her history, five years which saw this government with an enormous majority in the House of Commons to give effect to its policies and its programme. Yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, what has been the government's record? Did it reduce taxation? Did it reduce escapable expenditures? Did it reduce to any appreciable extent the high cost of living? What was its contribution to the solution of our transportation problem, of our fiscal problem, and of our immigration problem? The answer is embodied in the public records of this country. It is that taxation is almost precisely what it was in 1921; it is that this ministry launched1 the country, with almost profligate abandon, on a series of unjustifiable expenditures. It is that the cost of living, according to the reports of our Labour department, has actually increased; that our transportation problem has

not improved; that fiscal tinkering has produced widespread depression; and that our immigration is but a fraction of the emigration from Canada to the United States.
This government's record in regard to expenditures alone invites the severest condemnation. During the past five years nearly every nation in the world has reduced its taxation indebtedness. England, borne down by vast commitments, paying heavily for defence, and with an administration that encircles the globe, has paid her expenditures, reduced her debt by hundreds of millions, and reduced her taxation again and again. Australia, since the armistice, has reduced her debt by more than $300,000,000 and greatly reduced taxation; and little New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and even the little Irish Free State have all been retrenching, reducing taxation, balancing their budgets and giving the masses of their people a decent chance in life. And during the past five years the United States has actually reduced its public debt by over $2,000,000,000; it has cut its per capita taxation from $55 to $27; and although it has reduced taxes again and again, although the income tax in that country was before but a fraction of ours-not more than one-fourth-that country has just adopted a new scheme involving a further reduction of $350,000,000 a year, at the same time exempting vast numbers of the lower salaried people from taxation. To be correct, I believe that 2,300,000 Americans will now be freed from the obligation of paying income tax.
What in the meantime has been the record of Canada? While our competitors have been retrenching, Canada has gone on in a career of extravagance which has done violence to the development of the country. Wharves and sand-bars like Belle River; Scribe hotels in Paris; Union clulb buildings in London; a Prince Rupert elevator whose only service will be to compel our railways to haul grain 190 miles further than necessary; millions for a new harbour at Quebec city, when the present harbour is not being used to its capacity; a million dollar elevator at Halifax which has not yet seen a bushel of grain: these, with a store of other things almost equally unjustifiable, tell the story of this ministry's regime.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Is the hon.
member opposed to the building of the elevator at Halifax?


John Léo Chabot: I hope it will soon be in proper use for the benefit not only of Halifax but of the whole Dominion. Finally, there is the incomprehensible promise of the Hudson

The Address-Mr. Chabot
Ray railway. This government knows that there is an overwhelming opinion in this country against the completion of that project. It is aware that outside the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba there is no support for it at all. But notwithstanding its knowledge of these facts, notwithstanding the fact that the Liberal party is itself divided on the (Question, Mr. Mackenzie King, with an effrontery almost unparalleled in our politics, went to Saskatchewan last year and offered the Hudson Ray railway as a bribe for its support.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Is the hon. member opposed to the promise his own leader made that he would build that railway at a certain cost?


John Léo Chabot: I will answer that question in a moment to the satisfaction, if not of the hon. member, at any rate of the majority of people. Mr. King did not say he would complete the road because he considered its completion to foe in the national interest; he did not say he would complete it even though he knew the country could not afford it. What he said was, " Send me enough supporters, give your votes to the Liberal party, and I will build you the road ".


Malcolm McLean: What is the hon. member quoting from?


John Léo Chabot: I do not recall the dates or the places, but I am quoting from some of his speeches.


Malcolm McLean: From what
paper?


John Léo Chabot: This was a speech he made in Saskatoon.


Malcolm McLean: What paper is the hon. member quoting from?


John Léo Chabot: It makes no difference; I am giving the facts.


Malcolm McLean: It makes this
difference, that you are not quoting the truth.


John Léo Chabot: The statement has been
made in this House several times and has never been denied so far.


Malcolm McLean: It is denied now.


John Léo Chabot: If the hon. member denies it I will bow to his superior knowledge.


Malcolm McLean: I will get you the paper.


John Léo Chabot: During the succeeding four years, with the King governimient in office, the receipts were:
Receipts for total taxes
1921..
1922..
1923..
1924..
436.292.000
382.271.000 403,000,000
406.581.000
The average was $407,059,000, or $118,000,000 more than the average for the four years of ttye Meighen regime. In other words, Mr. King and his associates had that much more per ^annum than had his Conservative predecessors, and to precisely that extent the opportunity was theirs to make immense saving. But instead of saving, they proceeded to spend public money on an unparalleled scale. There is another factor which must be brought into the reckoning. During the four Conservative years preceding 1921 special war taxes in the way of imposts on income
were as follows:
1917		
1918		
1919		
1920		
Special War Taxes ..	$16,000,000
..	25,000,000
..	56,000,000
..	82,000,000
Following 1921, when our Liberal friends came into power, they amounted to:
1922.
1923. 1924
Special War Taxes ..	$177,484,000
..	181,634.000
..	182,036,000
The King government actually collected $529,601,176 in the form of special taxes more than did the Meighen government, and yet it did not cut taxation by a penny. Not the slightest effort was made by Mr. King and his associates to avoid this terrible showing. They had from the outset appeared to be callous to public necessity, to the urgent need of a really grave situation, to every consideration of prudence and expediency and the need for the most rigid economy. What they gave the country was an orgy of expenditure, and to keep up the pace they had to extract more money from year to year for the purposes of the public service.
The official figures themselves give proof of that beyond a doubt. The Liberal government which took office in 1921 was in a peculiarly favourable position to apply a policy of drastic retrenchment which would have led to a substantial reduction in the burden of taxation. The country had just
emerged from participation in the Great war. Vast economic disturbances had been caused by that war. Inflation followed by deflation had all but shattered the fabric of commerce. Readjustment on a comprehensive scale was everywhere made necessary. The need for readjustment was general. The public mind was prepared for changes. No government ever came into power under pledges of economy with such a favourable opportunity to make good. We may now calmly measure what actually took place. Once in control of the reins of power, all promises to relieve the popular load were forgotten. Instead of cutting down the outgo, the King government added to it. Instead of reducing taxation, official records show that the government took additional hundreds of millions out of the pocketbooks of the people. There was a little saving effected by whittling at the civil service. Imagine attempting to economize at the expense of the poor civil servant! They were always ready to indulge in petty economy, but the faucet was open wader than ever before and the broad result was as indicated. That is one of the main reasons *for the exodus to the United States. That is one of the reasons why since this government took office half a million of our people have been forced to seek a livelihood under a foreign flag. High taxation, allied with tariff tinkering and tariff threats, has strangled Canadian industry, with the result that our young men, young men whose ancestors have been rooted in this Canadian soil for centuries, have been compelled to become exiles in the republic to the south.
When they came into office in 1921 hon. gentlemen opposite declared that they would solve our population problem. Immigrants were going to flow into the country. But what has been their record since then? In 1921, the year that my right hon. leader was Prime Minister, 148,000 immigrants were brought into Canada and 72,000 persons left Canada for the United States-a balance in Canada's favour of 76,000. In 1922, the first year that hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, immigration to Canada dropped to 89,999, and 46,810 persons left Canada for the United States. In 1923, after the effects of tariff tinkering and tariff threats began to be felt, and when continued denial of taxation relief began to strangle business, immigration to Canada dropped to 72,887, while 117,000 persons crossed to the United States- a net loss to Canada of 45,000. In 1924 immigration rose to 148,000, but emigration to the United States rose to the terrible figure of 200,690-a net loss of 52,000 for the year. Last
The Address-Mr. Chabot

year immigration was 111,362, while 102,000 persons left Canada for the States.
Thus in four years we find that while this government was spending something like twelve millions of dollars to bring 422,000 persons from Europe, 466,511 persons left Canada and crossed over to the United States. Canada, in truth, was made into a second Ellis Island for America, and, in addition, tens of thousands of native born Canadians, descendants of families that have been in this country for generations, were forced to abandon this soil. And furthermore, from 192] to 1925 this government introduced at least a dozen measures with regard to immigration, and changed ministers, I think, on three occasions, on the assumption, I presume, that variety is the spice of life. The figures regarding immigration I take from the Canada Year Book. The emigration record is of those who paid the head tax upon taking up residence in the United States, and that does not by any means account for them all.
Since this House has met, hon. gentlemen have never tired of telling us how prosperous the country has become in recent months, and they point to our growing exports as evidence of that prosperity. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the value of our exports is increasing, but if the figures are closely analyzed some qualification is found for our confidence; for analysis shows that, apart from a bountiful crop, the greatest increase has been in our rich possession of raw materials, our pu'lp-wood, our nickel, our copper and our asbestos. We are simply selling our estate. We are shipping our raw products out of the country, and the American people, who are our chief competitors, are refining them and taking the profits, thereby giving work to their people, paying wages to their workmen, providing purchasing power for their communities, markets for their farmers, traffic for their railways, freight for their harbours and ports. In the meantime Canadians are compelled to leave home to secure employment, Canadian home markets are diminishing, Canadian purchasing power is decreased, Canadian railways are producing deficits, and Canadian ports go without traffic. Too much export trade of that kind is not a good thing, in my humble opinion, for this country; yet that with the other facts that I have cited constitutes the fruits of five years of this government. Summed up, they have been five years of violated pledges and broken promises, Uet me mention just a few of those promises. Mr. Speaker, promises which they intended carrying out in their four years of adminis-
tration, but not one of which has been redeemed.
For instance, they promised to reduce the cost of living, to reduce taxation, to reduce the debt, to solve the transportation problem, to increase immigration, to settle the ques^ tion of the ownership of the natural resources, to secure lower freight rates on the ocean for cattle, to formulate a national fuel policy, to secure wider markets for Canadian products, to establish a government wheat pool, and last, but not least, to reform the Senate. On many occasions during the last campaign the Prime Minister raised his eyes and 'his hands towards heaven and offered thanks to the Almighty for taking to his bosom some of our very much esteemed and invaluable Conservative senators, thereby creating vacancies in the Senate, which the Prime Minister with great alacrity filled with some of his true, faithful and devoted supporters. That is how far Senate reform has gone up to the present. Personally I do not think it requires very much reform, and I am sure my hon. friends from the province of Quebec will agree with me at least on that point.
Instead of the government redeeming those promises, we have had five years of the most wanton extravagance, five years of failure to reduce the debt and taxation, five years that have seen increased living costs, impotence to deal with the transportation questions, incapacity to deal with our fuel problem, depopulation of the country, and an entire failure to grapple with the major questions that imperatively Challenge solution. And why? Let me quote just one reason among many-and this, Mr. Speaker, is from the Ottawa Journal, one of the best edited, most logical!, and most reliable newspapers published in this country; I always like to give credit where credit is due. It says:
The King government has been lamentably lacking in constructive genius. It has either not had a definite grasp of the country's vital needs, or it has not had the skill to grapple with them. The only other alternative is that it did not care. The two outstanding needs were, as the bulletins of the leading banks have put it, reduced taxation and immigration. No other government in our national history had had a finer opoportunity to demonstrate capability in these regards than has the government.
If a government is not to be judged by performance, either positive or negative, how else is it to be judged ?
That is why, Mr. Speaker, neither this House nor the country has faith in the remnant of this ministry. That is why I should like to have been able to vote for a no confidence amendment.
What is the present position? The party which is claiming the right to rule is in a minority in this House and in this country.

The Address-Mr. O'Neill
I hate to repeat that, it has been said so often before, but sometimes by dint of repetition a wonderful effect can be pro-
9 p.m. duced. That minority I think would have been still greater had the government not appealed to the country on a policy of longitude and latitude, resorting in the province of Quebec to those tactics which were described here the other day by the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Doucet), and stooping in the west to the almost equally reprehensible tactics of offering bribes, like the Hudson Bay railway.
While I am on the subject of electioneering tactics let me say, Sir, that it was not alone in the province of Quebec that the Liberal party sought to fan racial hate in order to promote its cause. Here in the capital of Canada I was made the target of abuse, was denounced as a traitor to my race, because, forsooth, between 1914 and 1918 I held certain convictions as to how best to strengthen my country's arm in the war. As a French- Canadian who is proud of his origin as a Canadian, who cherishes the traditions and history of the old province of Quebec; as one who for a generation has lived in harmony and friendship with his English-speaking fellow citizens, learning to admire their generosity and their tolerance, I sincerely protest with all the strength that I can summon against such blows at the unity of this country.
Here may I address a word to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), the leader of the Independent group in this House? What that group lacks in quantity it probably makes up in quality, because I have great admiration for the hon. gentleman. He is very clever, very versatile, and possesses a great deal of erudition, but so far I have yet to learn what policies he has been promulgating and advocating in this House, as well as any definite policies which he may have fought for during the last campaign. But of one thing I am certain, that although he appears here in the role of the leader of the Independent group, he is really a Liberal, and I think it is about time he ceased masquerading as an Independent. I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment. I am not going to say anything that would injure his reputation in any way, but he proudly told us not long ago that he came from [DOT] Liberal stock, that he was born a Liberal. I think, Mr. Speaker, he is living a Liberal and will die a Liberal unless in the meantime his conscience is stricken and he seeks conversion. After reading the speech which he made in this House some time ago, I am convinced that the hon. gentleman is now undergoing a process of political evolution,
and he seems to be coming our way.
If he does, I am sure he will be well received, and	he will find	a haven
of rest and of happiness in our midst. As for the Labour gToup and the hon. gentlemen who compose it, I am not prepared to comment upon what they have or have not done since the session began, until I become better acquainted with them-and that will be a privilege-and with their methods and their policies. I can assure them that the pleasure for the present is deferred only.
But, Sir, I must return to this government. There it sits mutilated and formless in body, without control of its own actions, the admitted puppet of an outside force. What is there to suggest, to make one even hope or suspect, that anything of strength, or vigour, or clear purpose can emanate from a ministry in such straits? Do my friends of the Progressive party honestly believe that this government is in a position, or ever will be in a position, to put through any sort of programme? Does anybody in this House, knowing all the circumstances, seriously suggest that this government has the capacity to govern? Do the members of the Progressive party believe that this ministry, which failed to give them certain things when it had a majority of 100 to back their giving, is going to make good that failure now when they have not a majority at all? Anybody, Mr. Speaker, can write cheques. But what I suggest to my Progressive friends is that they are taking cheques from this government when there are not any funds in the bank. They are being deceived more completely now than they were after 1921.
No, Mr. Speaker, this government cannot and will not govern. It may prolong its death for a few months longer; it may succeed through desperate expedients and ingenious subterfuges in usurping office for some time yet-but its end is inevitable. It, has irrevocably lost the confidence of the people of this country, and every day it defies public opinion will but add to the completeness of its impending collapse.
Mr. J. R. O'NEILL (North Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker, it was never my ambition to be classified as a diatribist, but in spite of the Fabian policy of this administration, certain questions and certain considerations have been brought up for discussion, and in the interests of my constituency, in the interests of the greatest riding both actually and in potentia, in this great Dominion, I feel I should be derelict in my duty if I failed at this juncture to speak as the trustee of the
The Address-Mr. O'Neill

principles of the good people of North Timis-kaming who paid me the high compliment of sending me here. Furthermore, in view of the fact that I have not sufficiently mastered the language of our compatriots I shall confine myself to the use of the mother tongue, looking forward of course to the day when by study and application I shall be in a position to reciprocate the courtesies extended by them in the adoption of the English language for use in this honourable House.
Before proceeding further, Sir, by way of felicitation, I would make certain observations relative to your honourable self, personally as well as ex-officio. As a refreshing change from the atmosphere of inter-partisan dispute, of sectarian recrimination and reproach, of inter-racial guttersniping, of the indiscriminate and promiscuous use of the argumentum ad hominem, with nevertheless all due regard for the rules of this honourable House, I occasionally turn to the pages of Parkman, and in the transition, I have observed, Sir, with what facility, being within the shadow of the Speaker's chair, I enter into the esprit of an elder day-my point being, Sir, that you are not only a splendid specimen of our present-day compatriots of Norman extraction, but also to me, you are redolent of our grand and romantic Canadian past. Your experience as an outstanding Canadian citizen; your association with our great Canadian leaders .and statesmen; your personal role in the political life of our country, and greatest of all your personal sacrifice in the interest of our country- which sacrifice, I am sure is ever kept fresh in your heart by the excursions of memory across the sea to the grassy barrows of perhaps the happier dead-all these influences have indeed a mellowing, an endearing effect, as has the patine of time on a work of art.
Such is my tribute, Sir, and following the analysis, I would ask in the interests of our national pride and national unity, why not say henceforth, ex uno disce omnes? With common traditions and aspirations, with this great Dominion as a common heritage, won and held by sacrifices in common, why should the people of Canada, faced with the same great problems, not stand united and mindful of their glorious past, united and fully cognizant of their great future?
This young and aspiring nation is at this very moment hungering for unity and for a great national policy, and I submit, Sir, the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald is the sangraii of Canadian destiny. I have great respect for the past, Sir. I love the past. I maintain we should profit by the 
accumulated experiences of the past. Holding to the true fundamental philosophy of conservatism, I have in these days a tender regard for the views of Edmund Burke, whose works are unquestionably among the greatest exposition of the philosophic basis of conservatism ever writtten, and who looked upon "society as a pai'tnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be bom". But it was said "For him the present ceases to be merely the heir of the past, and becomes its slave". In stating that the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald is the panacea for all our ills and woes, I would not fall into Burke's alleged fallacy, but with all due regard for national evolution and development, with full consideration for every occupation and every interest, I say, Sir, I stand for the adoption of the principles as held by the Conservative party to-day.
In this connection, it might be well to quote Sir Lionel Phillips who had such broad experience in a country which, like our own has as its primary industries, agriculture and mining. I deliberately and purposely link those industries with reference to Canada, since there is no gainsaying their paramount importance. After stating .that farming stands in the first rank as the industry to foster-he would no,t favour the Australian treaty-he goes . on to. say:
"Whether any other occupations should be protected or not depends upon the extent to which they benefit the country, the number of people they employ, the conditions under which they operate in comparison with the conditions ruling in a competitive country. Every case differs and, for a well founded judgment to be formed, must be investigated separately and all the factors reviewed. Cheapness is not the sole gauge, for it is obvious, if all the commodities used in a country were imported, its inhabitants would earn nothing and could not pay for them. Assuming, however, some of them possessed accumulated funds and invested them abroad, the country would suffer, because the profits earned, though brought to the native land, would again be exported for investment abroad and the fertilizing value of the working costs in producing the commodities would always benefit the places where they were spent. Labels, loosely used, like those of "free trade" or "protection", do infinite harm, because they become political cries, and the masses who know nothing of the subject, range themselves under the one or the other, following, like flocks of sheep, their respective leaders. Politics again- hateful politics-uses in a question of vital consequence, mean phrases like "Your food will cost you more" without answering the pertinent rejoinder "How will our earnings be affected?"
No reference in this, hon. members will note, is made to the preponderating argument -the full appreciation and proper exploitation of the natural resources of our wonderfully gifted country.

The Address-Mr. O'Neill
A moment ago, Sir, I remarked that this young and aspiring nation is hungering for a great national policy. I say further that this young .and aspiring nation is calling for a leader who will, without fear or favour, consistently carry out this national policy to its complete, logical and just end.
You will recall, Sir, my submission was that this national policy is the policy of the Conservative party in Canada to-day, and my further submission, is that the man who will, without fear or favour, consistently carry out this national policy to its complete, logical and just end is, beyond a shadow of doubt, the present leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Meighen), for the moment the party in Opposition in this House. I am not one given to apotheosis and I made the statement with full premeditation, deliberation and sincerity. Wherefore, let us scrutinize the statement and examine into my ratiocinations in this regard. Does this admiration spring from sickly sentimentality, from the exuberance of a novice, or from the enthusiasm of a hero worshipper? Not at all. It is merely a straight cool, businesslike appreciation which, if adapted by the nation, would be in the national interest. I reach my conclusion as follows: In the great north country, a new country just opening up, just coming into its own, anyone interested in public life is confronted with an unusual number and variety of problems such as labour questions, colonization and settlement difficulties, and all the problems of farming, mining, prospecting, transportation, industrial establishment and expansion. In other words, as I stated on a previous occasion, if we consider the anomalies and complexities of our every day commercial, industrial and agricultural life, politically and economically North Timiskam-ing is a typical slice of Canada to-day.
My experiences and disillusionments in connection with municipal, provincial and federal activities have been such as to thoroughly convince me that in the final analysis politics is nothing other than a clash of interests, and I am sure every hon. member has reached the same conclusion. In other words, it is safe and logical for me to generalize and to state that in the whole arena of Dominion politics we have nothing but a clash of interests. I ask: W7hat characteristics must be pre-eminent in the leader who would successfully meet the present day situation? What virtues, if not courage, candour and consistency? I defy any hon. member or any reflective observer in the Dominion of Canada to deny that these are the outstanding virtues of the right hon. the leader of the Conservative party in this country today. Has he not a name for steadfastness and integrity? Of all the ingredients of leadership and statecraft he has admittedly an abundance. He has never derogated in his conception of duty from the great traditions of his predecessors, particularly Sir John A. Macdonald. His views have attained that clear and practical precision incident only to an accurate mind. With conditions as they obtain to-day, to be a leader, and for the sake of independence and knowledge, one must lead virtually the life of a slave and an ascetic. Thus I say that his very aloofness and his penetrating analytical mind are phenocrysts of character and ability respectively, in these days of self interest and over-reaching. In these days, I repeat, when politics is but a clash of interests, the leader of the Conservative party stands, after trial by fire at the hands of factions, friends and foes, beyond the reach of vested interests or privileged class, having demonstrated to this generation that he possesses that combination of moral excellence and intelligence which Canada desires in her public men. Once he is known in his true light to the Canadian people, the first turn in the political kaleidoscope, to use a borrowed plume, will restore to him the full and generous confidence of the electors of this country.
Now, Sir, assuming that the opinion of a new member-a milk white hind on the political lawn-corresponds with or more closely approximates the opinion of the man on the street in commenting on the present situation in this House, I wish to make the following observations: To my mind this rash government or aggregation, forgetful of the past, have in assuming office measured accurately neither public opinion nor practical politics, while the Conservative party, true to their fundamental principles, have been cautious in deference to the old adage "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." It goes without saying in the opinion of the intelligent electors of this country we are certainly on the side of the angels. Furthermore, if I were asked why we were not reinforced by the various vines and weeds which now alone sustain the crumbling ruins of Liberalism, I should say most unhesitatingly that the answer must be arrived at by psychological analysis, and the mere fact that we did have the proffered assistance and co-operation of a certain number strengthens my argument, since I found it impossible to have my theory square with their sterling qualities as I knew them individually. Their refusal or inability to sit in with the Conservatives was due to what I should term their urban complex, meaning by this a more or less morbid pathological mental process resultant mostly from that diffidence, that timidity, that self-complacency,
The Address-Mr. O'Neill

that parsimony, that narrowness, that simplicity, incident to rusticity. Due, I say, to this urban complex, the poor mind conjures up werewolves and hobgoblins at the very mention of industry or big business. As the Indian babes of yesteryear were frightened to slumber by the mere mention of the white bugbear, so the white bugbear who has replaced the savage on the plains shivers to sleep at the very thought of the dragon of industry. My contention is that in this frame of mind-and because of another outstanding characteristic that thrives in the same mental soil, their gullibility -they shrank in terror from the cool, consistent, logical Conservative party, albeit the latter having a monopoly of the intelligence of this House, and instinctively threw themselves as suppliants before the gates of the decadent Liberal party.
This of course implies not only a psychological similarity but two other notions. There is, by reason of intrinsic gullibility, the natural susceptibility to being taken in by a wolf in sheep's clothing; then, most important of all, is the Platonic element. We are forced to recognize the theory that the souls animating the frames of the various individuals in question had previously hobnobbed in some pre-natal sphere. Is it any wonder then that the sensus communis of this nation became spontaneously convulsive at any suggestion of alliance between the Conservatives and at least a certain element of the Progressives? I might remark that I have a great regard and a tender affection for the soil myself, and in making this analysis there is one other fine distinction I always draw, and that is in the aforementioned type, the term is properly spelt "pharmer," indicating as well, a class, presumably from within their own ranks, who would exploit the honest farmer. As to the shrewder and more independent members in the general consolidation, I should say the motivation was rather based on opportunism, with the same higher elements coming into service in the obtaining of the personal mandate-I mean at the source of power. However, no thinking man in any camp will quarrel with the view that the net and final result of this alliance will be the demolition of both Liberals and Progressives as distinct parties.
This brings me to a consideration of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This heterogeneous government, formed to support a policy of laissez faire, before their leader has found sanctuary in this House, comes before parliament with a minimum of practical programme. A programme has been formulated in which we have on the one hand a well prepared morphia as an anaesthetic to western passion, 
and on the other hand the indication of a certain amount of rhetorical sympathy with the east; and last, in the addenda, a sop to Cerberus. I refer to the decretals from the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) following the obsecrations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I have certain more or less pronounced and definite views on the various items in this so-called1 programme, but I should prefer on the whole to bide my time and refrain from expressing those views until I shall have had the benefit of the opinions and perhaps of the more mature judgment of other hon. members. This is not to be interpreted as a confession or indication of weakness but rather a desire on my part to study the problems from various angles, and to have my say in committee. I have said that my reason for taking part in the debate at this particular time was the fact that certain matters had come up affecting my riding. There are a great many questions under consideration just now of interest to the country as a whole, but we have had no opportunity to discuss these problems for the reasons that the government has presented nothing to parliament upon which parliament can take action. I should like however to discuss for a short while a matter of grave concern to the taxpayers of Canada and one which is agitating the minds of the people in the north of this country just now: I refer to the question of the Rouyn railway. And in this connection I want to tell the House that whatever I may say to-night on this subject is merely en passant, since, so far as any action is concerned, we are completely hamstrung, so to speak, by a motion which has been introduced by an hon. member who, by this very motion, defeats the objective he is supposed to have had in mind.
!I sat in this House and heard the Arguseyed member for Brandon state in his usual Laodicean manner that the railway problem was one which had been laid on the doorstep of Canada prior to the advent of the Progressives to parliament, the remark implying that naught could go wrong now that they were present. Yet here we have the exposure of a case indicating a wanton disregard of the authority of parliament, involving a complete subversion of principle, a clear case of sup-pressio veri, an act, I say, of wanton insolence committed in open defiance not only of parliamentary jurisdiction but of public law. In face of all this, what is parliament to do? There is not a peep out of hon. members to our left, confessedly demons for righteousness.
I maintain, Sir, that unless the members of
M4ROH 1 1<Mfi
The Address-Mr. O Neill
the agrarian group and the so-called independent members in this House wish to be classed before the electors and the taxpayers of Canada as a mere fungus growth on the outskirts of this crafty administration, as accessories after the fact, in this Rouyn railway procedure, their better judgment should prevail to the extent of having the motion of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) withdrawn so that we can come to a point where the representatives of this House will have a showdown on this question.
The Rouyn railway affair is unquestionably another Scribe hotel deal and one equally physiognomical of this government. Before I proceed to review what has been said in the matter, or to make further investigation,
I wish to make my position clear, although, as in the case of members who have already spoken, my premises may be utterly disregarded in press reports. In the first place, I approach this question strictly from the standpoint of a federal representative in the interests of the taxpayers of this country, in the interests of the well wishers of the Canadian National system; and in the second place I have no desire to interject myself in any way into the interprovincial controversy. Nor have I taken cognizance of the contentious utterances of provincial political protagonists. I am absolutely in favour of a railway into the Rouyn district but I stand for a right location and a proper method of procedure. It is hardly necessary for me to review in detail the exposures made of the way in which this matter has been dealt with. The House will remember how much the ratepayers of this country owe to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), whose energy, diligence and scrutiny are responsible for the expose of the nefarious and extravagant Hotel Scribe transaction, and that hon. gentleman has again shown his sense of duty as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition in giving to this House and to the tax-burdened citizens of Canada the benefit of his observation and of his critical analysis of the financing of the Rouyn railway, which he has proved to have been another flagrant violation of principle and utter disregard of the authority of the people's representatives in this House. I would direct the attention of the House to references in the press of February 19. We find, in spite of the hon. member's declaration that he was treating the subject strictly from a federal standpoint, Le Canada of that date containing the following:
L'honorable J. A. Robb dissipe les images legers ac-cumulea par Sir Henry.
The honourable J. A. Robb dissipates the light clouds piled up by Sir Henry.
La Chambre qui est honnete, a pres tout, a compris les explications du ministre des Finances et n'attachera pas d'importance a la derniere tentative des bleus & deprecier le gouvemement dans l'estime des independants.
The House of Commons which after all, as honest, understood the explanations of the Minister of Finance and will not attach any importance to this last attack on the part of the blues to depreciate the government in the esteem of the independents.
I leave it to the judgment of the House whether the so-called "refutation" did justice to the Minister of Finance, or in any way dissipated, "the clouds that were wracked up by the hon. member for West York." I find La Tribune of Sherbrooke of the same date, contained the following:
Sir Henry Drayton attaque la construction du re-seau de la Rouyn, en favcur de l'Ontario.
Sir Henry Drayton attacks the construction of the Rouyn railway, in favour of Ontario.
After the definite announcement by the hon. member for West York that he was dealing with the question strictly from the federal standpoint and attacking only the method adopted, this paper attempts to lead its readers to believe that he is taking up the case in favour of the province of Ontario! Le Soleil, of the same date, refers only generally to the question, devoting itself mainly to the advance issue of the Dunning propaganda with respect to the millions of dollars to be spent in the construction of railroads in Saskatchewan. That programme, however, was submitted to the House in the estimates and provided $6,000,000 odd for the construction of 168 miles of railway-practically the same amount as is involved for the construction of only 45 miles of railway into the Rouyn district. I find Le Devoir, also of the same date, refers to the argument of the bon. member for West York and sums it up in this manner:
Le gouvernement a observe la loi en tous points. The government has observed the law in every point.
It is because the stand taken by the hon. member for West York was so represented to the country by the press I have quoted that I stated at the outset of my speech that I am taking the matter up in the interests of the taxpayers of the Dominion, not by any means for the purpose of introducing any provincial issues. Those hon. members who had not the pleasure of listening to the member for West York no doubt have since read his speech in Hansard and have familiarized themselves with the main points of his argument and the principal exhibits. As I said, following his arraignment of the facts, we had a few weak, evasive remarks from the Minister of Finance, which were hailed by some of the press favourable to the administration as dissipating all the clouds piled up
The Address-Mr. O'Neill

aside from the question, and I would not wish to have any misunderstanding in regard to the matter.
On March 2, 1925, the Hon. Mr. Perrault said:
"It is a matter of life or death for the district," declared the minister; "at any rate as for Rouyn. I had hoped that the Canadian Pacific Railway would have continued its lines to Rouyn and thus open a promising colonization area, for there is splendid agricultural land in the region as well." It was also hoped that the Canadian National railways would bui'ld from *the Transcontinental line to Rouyn, a distance of forty-four miles.
The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway was also mentioned, but the minister refrained from mentioning the newly proposed Abitibi-Southern railway. Railway legislation, he said, is urgent, for without railways the mines cannot be developed.
I submit that in building the road from O'Brien the worst part of the country has been selected. If Sir Henry Thornton is not adopting the role of the shoemaker who in the early stages of the play Julius 'Caesar led the people about the streets of Rome to wear out shoe leather, then I am forced on to the other horn of the dilemma and must conclude that coercion has been brought to bear on him in this matter. I cannot put my own personal opinion against his railway experience or the advice of his officials, but I maintain that the logical route for the Rouyn railway was from Amos and thence eastward, but in building from O'Brien the road passes through some two and a half townships of sand, and then approaches the mining area at right angles. To get to any centre of importance a local train must be operated from O'Brien to Amos. That is another case of where traffic will have to be bolstered up to give the people some sort of notion that good service is being rendered by this end of the National railways.
Now what chance has that forty-five miles of railroad, even from O'Brien to the present centre, of paying? We have in that very same type of country a railroad with a mileage, regardless of yards and sidings, of some 460 miles, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway built by the province of Ontario at an expenditure of some $32,000,000. That road serves the Cobalt camp, the South Lorraine camp, and all the agricultural area in the vicinity of New Liskeard and Englehart. It serves the Kirkland lake and Porcupine country, the Abitibi district-and the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company alone gives the road a traffic of $1,500,000 a year, but with all these sources of traffic the net return to the provincial treasury is about $750,000 per year. That is regardless of carrying charges, for no interest is paid on the original investment, and there is no capital repayment. Iln 1922 the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway brought in a 
revenue for the provincial treasury of $712,000; in 1923, $836,000; 1924, $839,000; 1925, $786,000. This, Sir, as stated, was without any provision being made for capital repayment or the payment of interest. This road was built primarily, of course, for service, and there is no question that the province of Ontario is reaping great benefit from the building of the road through other departments, chiefly, Lands and Forests, and the colonization and opening up of the country. But when the province of Quebec wished to accomplish the same objective, apparently they used the Canadian National Railway system as a catspaw.
The Nipissing Central railway was prepared, under federal charter, to extend their road into Rouyn, a distance from the border of some 28 miles. Of course, the story of the holdup in this connection is quite familiar to the members of this House. However, they have no desire to antagonize the province, but are willing to co-operate with the Canadian National railway authorities and give service and help open up that wonderful mining country which is merely an extension of the great belt extending through Manitoba, Ontario and on into Quebec. *
I stated, Sir, that with all these sources of traffic the Temiskaming and Ontario railway could show a net revenue of only some $750,000 to $850,000 per year. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission or on the operation of that particular railway, because I believe it is operated as efficiently as any other road in the Dominion, the operating ratio for 1925 having been 80 per cent. The road serves some 250,000 people. Now with traffic running all one way on the Rouyn branch, with nothing grown in the country or manufactured to 'be shipped by return, it is only reasonable that those at the back of the Rouyn scheme should insist that the 30 per cent clause be inserted in the agreement. On that account I am inclined to believe that Sir Henry Thornton was coerced in this particular deal. There is no question about it, when it comes down to the annual repayment on the $5,000,000, the people of Canada will have to bear the brunt of the repayment of $306,957.70 a year, being equal annual instalments for thirty years, at 4i per cent-annuity bond'. And there is nothing in the agreement to show that the Canadian National railway will own the road at the termination of the thirty years.
There are a great many other considerations in connection with this particular project, but since we cannot take any immediate action on the matter I have touched only lightly on the subject, and shall wait until the strangulating

The Address-Mr. O'Neill
motion of the hon. member for Nelson. (Mr. Bird) shall have been withdrawn or properly dealt with before dealing further with the Rouyn railway.
I would like to refer to the great question of immigration and the colonization of that north country. In reviewing the work of the committees that have dealt with this question in the past two or three years, I notice that Mr. Black, one of the officials of this government, calls attention to the fact that the north country is suitable only for Canadians, for good axe men. Nevertheless, the government have insisted on bringing into that north country, very much against the wish of the settlers there, Europeans and foreigners. I maintain that that great north country should be preserved for settlement by the young men from the older provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, and this could very well be accomplished by a concerted effort on the part of the municipal, provincial, and federal authorities. If our young men in a municipality in the county of Lanark, for example, were assisted by their own local municipality, by ohe county, and as well by the province and the Dominion, and given an opportunity to settie in that north country and kept together, they would have the same opportunities and achieve the same results which our ancestors achieved in this part of the country in years gone by. I quote from the Illustrated Weekly Journal, Canada, under date of January 30, 1926:
There is no firmer believer in the future of the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec than Dr. C. V. Corless, the general manager of the Mond Nickle Company, and he has on more than one occasion in the past been at pains to expose some of the erroneous notions held regarding them.
Not long ago he pointed out that the area surrounding Hudson bay occupied fully 90 per cent of all Canada east of the western plains. He then predicted that this great "pre-Cambrian shield" would find its greatest economic future in mineral resources, but at the same time expressed his opinion that the ultimate foundation industry for a new country was farming. Developing this view in an address at Toronto the other day, he held that in the pre-Cambrian region there was room in the fertile intervals for an agricultural population of well over a million, and the natural situation was well adapted for the interchange of agricultural products with the near-lying mineral deposits and forest industries. Dr. Corless thinks there is danger of paying too exclusive attention to the agricultural west, to the neglect of the miming and lumbering regions of northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
In the matter of colonization and work done in the north country I would1 at this juncture pay tribute to the administration of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario under the leadership of the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson. I would go further and say that in these days when material considerations are given the greatest prominence, it is pleasing
to refer to the racial unity and religious harmony which prevails in Ontario and which has been the direct result of the efforts of the present provincial administration.
There is another question to which I would refer offhand. It is a matter of meta-politics and should be of interest to the hon. member for Labelle ((Mr. Bourassa). I refer to the question of dual citizenship. So many of our young Canadians go to the United States and when asked to swear allegiance to the American flag, do so unquestionably with a mental reservation, and it occurred to me it, would be interesting to hear a discussion of the old question of dual citizenship.
Now I should like to deal at some length with mining questions as they affect northern Ontario. Few not directly connected with the mining industry really appreciate its true importance in industrial life. Few realize how much industrial life is dependent upon mining and even how much directly and indirectly the present day cost of living is traceable back to mining. A great work has been accomplished in northern Ontario by the provincial Department of Mines and particularly by the present minister; and that hon. gentleman's good work is felt throughout the whole Dominion in the realm of the mining industry.
I should like to quote an extract, in connection with the general awakening of interest in mining, from the Monetary Times of January 15, 1926.
Mining Investments
The great record of Canadian mining in 1925, and the handsome profits derived from some mining securities, is enticing to the investor. Mines have had a bad repute because of shady methods pursued by some promoters and the lack of knowledge on the part of the investor. But where the investor has had a real run for his money he has, on the whole, no cause for complaint. At the recent annual meeting of the Canadian Institute for Mining and Metallurgy, John A. Dresser, Montreal mining engineer, gave the following practical suggestions for putting a mine property through the development stage:-
"After assuring yourselves regarding his title of ownership and making a satisfactory preliminary contract with the prospector, examine the property. Do this thoroughly and with an entirely open mind in which neither wishes nor prejudices have any place. It is a business opportunity that it would be either a serious mistake to miss, or a disastrous one to engage in ill-advisedly. At this time it is relatively easy to be impartial. But after one has become an owner and has expended money, thought and labour upon a property, it is much more difficult for him to be a reaJlly impartial judge of it.
"In the first instance, it is often an economy to employ a reliable prospector or mine foreman to make a preliminary examination in order to learn if the property is worth the expense of a technical examination of greater cost, and perhaps to get it into condition to make an engineer's examination useful. But in any case, neither buy a claim nor

143U
The Address-Mr. O'Neill

make any serious expenditure without really learning all that can be learned about it. Careful and competent inspection is a form of insurance that you cannot afford to do without in mining.
"In the course of a number of such efforts, you will find a claim that proves good-claim that with more time and care and money will become a mine. This period may be described as a period of absorbing interest, both financial and otherwise.
"When it becomes apparent that your claim has established merit, and there is reasonable promise, if not actual assurance, that it will make a mine, it is time to consider the disposition of it, and how to realize on the operation.
"Rarely, if ever, should a development, or exploration syndicate, however successful, attempt actual ' mining. If the pioneer work has been complex, and of a kind to require critical care, much more is this true of the organization and operation of a mine.
"Under favourable circumstances, the novice, for the exploration syndicate may still be a novice in min-, ing. may operate a mine, even at a profit. But in many cases the life of the mine depends on its management, and experience is essential. In any event we may rest assured that the maximum profit can only be obtained by exercising the maximum skill and this should be looked for in an experienced mining company."
There is, of course, the possibility of "grubstaking" a prospector and sharing in his success-if he is successful. Prospecting is generally thought of as an enterprise for individuals, but some of our large mines maintain forces of prospectors, while there are other companies and syndicates which do nothing else. Again, a proven and producing mine becomes an investment, in fact it is about as safe a stock as you can buy, for with an ascertained volume of ore the only uncertainties are 'in regard to market prices and mining costs, and similar uncertainties face an enterprise of any kind.
The prospector plays the same part in the success of the *mining industry as the man who wore the steel helmet did in winning the war: both bear the brunt without receiving proper appreciation. To me the prospector is at once an interesting and a romantic character. A true prospector must be both practical and visionary. His make-up partakes of the nature of poet, seer, philosopher and businessman-these to a greater or a. less degree respectively according to his original temperament. Leagues away from the noise of cities and the general activities of men, he navigates the rivers and lakes, meanders through the avenues of gothic spruce, over rocks and plains, sleeping under the starry heavens, oblivious of the lapse of years that eat away n dreamer's life. Greek-like he loves the rosy-fingered dawn and the beauties of nature. But Aurora is cold and irresponsive, like her prototype in this world of the flesh, when he is broke and without a grubstake. Unless he makes a sale the prospector has no income. To anyone interested in mining-and every true Canadian should be-I say: "Your best bet is to sit in with the honest prospector." And there are hundreds of them in the north country, the best fellows in the world. It has

taken them years of hardship and sacrifice to learn the game, and now with the great impending boom you have an opportunity for tremendous profit at a very small outlay. Help the prospector buy his grubstake, and help him do his assessment work, to show up his holdings to advantage, and when the deal goes through you and your descendants for the next three generations will be sitting pretty.
I would refer, Sir, to other general topics of importance to the north country. As to labour I represent a great many miners,- men from all parts of the continent and all parts of the world-Irishmen, Cornishmen, men from Nova Scotia. And here I would remark that there mj.ist be something radically wrong with the mines of the east when those chaps found themselves compelled to set up the disturbance they have done in the past. On the general questions of interest to labour I am prepared to support any measure brought down and submitted in workable form; but as regards the standing of the independent groups I submit, that on this short island portage known as life a man's reach should not exceed his grasp. Something definite, something tangible should be accomplished.
With further reference to protection and in connection with the woollen industry, I was interested and ironically amused to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. MfeClenaghan) in connection with the nemesis which had overtaken a woollen manufacturer who had throughout the years stood for the a priori dogmas and principles of free trade.
Questions such as rural credits and railway rates will unquestionably come up in committee form when there will be an opportunity of fuller discussion. At this particular stage of the debate I have other references to make in connection with the general development of the country. I would refer again to the mining industry and particularly to the mining of iron. A proposition was submitted by the provincial authorities in regard to the beneficiation of iron ore. From reports, however, we see that our iron ore development is not going ahead, but foreign deposits are still being operated to the disadvantage of the workers of this country and our great natural resources. I should1 like to quote an extract from the Canadian. Mining Journal of . February 12, 1926:
Still Buying Abroad
The United States Department of Commerce reports that in the month of November, 1925, the exports of primary forms of iron and steel to Canada amounted to 58,826 tons, which was forty per cent of the tonnage exported in that month. Japan came second, but took less than a quarter of Canada's purchases.
The great bulk of these materials could have been produced in Canada in works already established and

Motion jor Closure
by workmen already trained and ready, and most of them would have been produced at home if special inducements were not offered to buyers to procure them from abroad.
These special inducements are of two kinds, those that are normally offered by manufacturers in every country who are desirous of increasing their export trade, and those that are offered by our own government in the way of exemption from duty, or admission upon payment	of duties,	below normal	oraverage rates, or	the	return of	duties, when	the
materials are used in favoured industries.
The rates of duty on the steel imported into Canada from the United States in November, 1925, varied from 5 per cent to about 20 per cent. On nearly 20,000 tons there	are	two rates,	distinguished	byarbitrary units of	size	or weight.	Material in	one
form may pay the equivalent of 20 per cent while material of exactly the same kind, shape and purpose may be required to pay only 10 per cent. And as has been noted, some sorts are on the free list and pay no duty at all, while others have 99 per cent of the duty remitted if they are used for certain specifi.d purposes. If they are used for any other purpose, even though it may be equally essential to the comfort and happiness of some class of the people, no refund can be obtained.
We have great workable iron ore bodies through the north country, and co-operation by the federal authorities in this respect would give us an opportunity to call upon our coal miners for further supplies, give work to the men in that part of the country and at the same time develop the industry in both the east and the north.
I note in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Naturally, we maintain that the first railroad that should reach the Hudson Bay or the James Bay country is the Tern-' iskaming and Northern Ontario, which is now some sixty-five miles south of that point. But I look upon this great body of water in the north country as a national heritage, and the development of mines and power and other natural resources on and back from the shore line will bring about a great deal of inland navigation and traffic which will redound to the benefit of those roads. In saying that I should support the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, I do so with certain reservations as to the amount involved and the plan to be submitted, but it is my opinion that in ten years' time we shall have not only one railroad but three or four railroads to the Hudson Bay area.
Another great question in our northern country is one very closely connected with successful colonization. I refer to the construction of roads. Under the former Conservative administration a certain amount was allocated for expenditure in each province on roads to be built at the discretion of the provincial authorities. Under the Progressive regime in Ontario none of that money was spent in the northern country. I submit that development in Ontario has reached a point 14011-914
as a result of which the area referred to heretofore and very often in this House as the "hump" will shortly become the connecting link between the east and the west. The time is ripe for the construction of a national highway through the great clay belt, and a grant in that connection would be in the interest not only of the immediate district and the settlers there but of Canada as a whole. Money spent in this way would show up to great advantage, and the saving made in the construction of such a proposition as the Rouyn railway could be used in this way to advantage in building up traffic for our national railways along the route.
In conclusion, Sir, I submit that the present administration is not in the confidence of the people of this country, but, compromisers and trimmers, they and their works shall be swept away by the confluence of public opinion and national resolution at no distant date- swept, I say, into oblivion, like autumn leaves on a swollen stream.



NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLOSURE

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the debate. But before doing so, I desire to give notice that at the next sitting of the House, before the order of the day for resuming this debate is called, I shall move that the present debate, namely the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in answer to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird "that this question be now put" shall not be further adjourned. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to see that my right hon. friend is welcoming his child with delight.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Tuesday, March 2, 1926