1926-01-26

NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I beg do lay on the table the
agreement made on the ninth day of January, 1926, between the Dominion of Canada and

Fuel Supply
the province of Alberta, on the subject of the transfer to the province of its natural resources.

Copy of the joint report upon the survey and demarcation of the boundary between the United States and Canada from the source of the St. Croix river to the St. Lawrence river, also a copy of the accompanying atlas.-Hon. Mr. Stewart.



RAILWAY ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT SPECIAL RATES PROPOSED ON COAL AND COKE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
He said: The object of this bill is to provide a remedy for the existing problem of supplying coal in Canada, and of rendering Canada independent of foreign supply. The bill is an effort to establish a national policy for the carriage of Canadian coal and coke on the same basis as is provided by the special tariff on grain and flour. The government by an order in council rescinded, and then restored, special rates on grain and flour. The coal question is 95 per cent a transportation question. Canada owns the National railways and merchant marine, and has the facilities to solve the coal problem and put in force a national coal policy which would forever make the country independent of foreign supply. Action is wanted. Coal is as much a necessity as flour and grain. Part of the Canadian grain going through American channels gets special rates. There should be equality of treatment for carrying coal on the same basis as flour and grain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I would like to ask the government a question based on a despatch from Ottawa in yesterday's Toronto Globe, reading as follows:
Negotiations begun some time ago between the Department of Railways and Canals and a Toronto syndicate for the erection by the latter of a skyscraper at the northwest corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, have been terminated, according to Graham A. Bell, Deputy Minister of the department. "At the present moment we are where we were before those negotiations were commenced," said Mr. Bell. "The syndicate with whom we were dealing made a deposit with the department as an evidence of good faith for
the execution of the agreement, but their part of the bargain was not carried out, and they forfeited the deposit."
I would like to ask the acting leader of the House as we have no Minister of Railways, if he will be able to tell the House to-morrow what is the situation, and whether the railway offices will be moved back to King and Yonge streets, and if so when, or whether the whole negotiations have fallen through.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: I will make the necessary inquiry,
and give the information to my hon. friend to-morrow, if possible.


Mr. STEVENS:: What about the House?



FUEL SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Thomas Langton Church: I would like to call the attention of the government to the very severe coal shortage in the Toronto district. The Toronto Globe of yesterday says that the "coal situation is serious," and the mayor of the city says the same thing in letters to the government, and adds that the conditions will become worse. The dealer to whom the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) referred yesterday has little anthracite, and cannot fill all his customers' orders. Coal has not been coming in for weeks. Will the government not arrange with the Canadian National Railways and the railway commission to continue for sixty days or three months the $7 rate from Alberta, to tide us over the winter months?


Charles A. Stewart: The Canadian National Railways-I am speaking on the authority of Sir Henry Thornton-have decided to bring down a further 25,000 tons of Alberta coal at the S7 rate, making a movement in all of 50,000 tons from the province of Alberta to the province of Ontario. I think the statement of Sir Henry Thornton covers the situation for the time being, at all events. It means a further movement of 25,000 tons at the rate of $7 per ton.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will corresponding rates be applied to Nova Scotia coal?


Charles A. Stewart: As I stated last evening in the House, I have wired to the Premier of Nova Scotia, and if I may be permitted, I should like to make a further statement with respect to the Nova Scotia situation. The following statement regarding the purchase of Nova Scotia coal was issued
Fuel Supply

by the Canadian National Railways at the headquarters of the system to-day:
In order to assist in every way possible the Nova Scotia coal mining situation, the Canadian National Railways agreed more than a week ago to take 600,000 tons of coal from the British Empire Steel Corporation for use this year. The railway further agreed, in order that coal mining operations could be resumed immediately that it would accept 120,000 of this order in banked coal, although this banked coal is by no means as satisfactory as freshly mined fuel. The price to be paid for the 600,000 tons of coal was agreed upon between the Besco interests and the railway, and confirmation of the acceptance of the order was received from the Besco management on January 20th. The contract has been drawn up and only some minor details remain to be settled. The management of the Canadian National Railways from the beginning has done everything within its power to co-operate sympathetically with a view to bringing about better conditions in the industry.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: May I ask the Minister of the Interior within what period the 25,000 tons of coal to be shipped from Alberta to Ontario are to be transported? I understand that the dealers are being rationed now, and I should like the House to know within what period these 25,000 tons are to be moved?


Charles A. Stewart: My information was that the coal was to be moved at once.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: But in what quantity?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, as fast as the railways could bring it. I understand they are bringing it down now.


Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: The Minister of the Interior having granted a special rate for the carriage of 25,000 tons of coal from Alberta to central Canada, may I ask whether he is not prepared to grant a special rate for the transportation of the coal from Sydney Mines which Besco agrees to deliver in Montreal? If that were done, it would relieve the situation with respect to Sydney Mines, which, of course, is separate and distinct-


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


William Anderson Black: -from that at Glace Bay, whence the 120,000 tons are coming.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, the government are not framing the rates for the railway. The Canadian National made a voluntary rate for the movement of coal from Alberta; and while we wrere informed !by speakers in the House yesterday that a reduction was asked on the rate from Sydney to Montreal, and was refused by the railway, I have no confirmation of that state-
[Mr. C. A. Stewart. 1
ment. However, I wired Premier Rhodes asking him to give me his views on the situation, and offering to assist as a government in carrying any additional rate required to move the 15,000 tons referred to.


William Anderson Black: I may say that Nova Scotia expects to be treated equally as well as the west in this matter.


Mr. CAHAN:: May I ask the government to inform the House as to the quantities of coal consumed in Canada each year during the past eight years?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member should understand that notice must be given of a question of that nature. The question will stand as a notice.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what progress he is making with the Auditor General's report. I think he will realize that we had quite large additions made to the staff by his predecessor, or perhaps under the minister himself, in connection with the Auditor General's office so that the report might be brought down without delay. We are paying the salaries but we have not yet received the report.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I shall again direct the attention of the Auditor General to the observations of my hon. friend, but I must remind the hon. gentleman that parliament met this year earlier than usual.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the salaries are higher.


James Alexander Robb: I am not prepared to admit that. However, I shall again urge upon the Auditor General the importance of bringing down his report.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister also draw the attention of the Auditor General to his own speeches and those of his leader a few years ago on the same subject?


James Alexander Robb: I shall have to look up Hansard for that.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CAMPBELL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has just been drawn to a news item which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 22nd, the heading of which reads

The Address-Mr. Qidnn
" Thinks Progressives should support the government The item itself refers to a letter which I am sending out to my constituents outlining the political situation. I may say that in the letter referred to I do not indicate how I propose to vote in the coming division on the Address; neither did I for a moment suggest to my hon. friends in this section of the House how they should vote, nor did I offer any opinion as to what their course should be. What I tried to make plain to my constituents was this, that just as soon as a government was established on the treasury benches by the votes of a majority of the members in this section of the chamber, I would consider it my duty to give an honest support to that government, regardless of whether it was Liberal or Conservative, to enable it to carry out the policies that have been promised us by the respective parties here.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to resume the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech of His Excellency may I ask the indulgence of hon. members in view of the fact that this is the first time I have had the honour of sitting in this or any other parliament. For this reason I ask hon. members to forgive any shortcomings of mine in trying to express my views to them.
Before going further, Mr. Speaker, may I tender to you my sincere congratulations upon your unanimous election by this House to the honourable position which you now hold. It is a matter of record that since your first incumbency of this honourable office you have discharged your duties in the fairest and most impartial way. Again, may I congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address upon the manner in which they performed their duties in that regard.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go over anything, or very little of anything, that we heard in the House yesterday, but I feel that it is my duty to say something in defence of the new government of Nova Scotia, the province to which I have the
honour to belong and which I am proud to represent in this House. The hon. member for Queens, P.EI. (Mr. Jenkins), criticized my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and at the same time subjected the Premier and government of Nova Scotia to criticism because, as he said, Premier Rhodes had declared during the provincial elections that if his government were elected to power they would immediately remedy all the ills and troubles from which Nova Scotia was suffering. One of my colleagues has already told you that the local legislature of Nova Scotia has not yet met in session. Permit me to add that the provincial government made these three important promises to the electors of Nova Scotia:	If we are elected
to power we will immediately make efforts to settle the awful coal strike, which up to that time had been in progress for four or five months; we will promise this province an independent audit of its business and governmental affairs; we will promise you a royal commission to try to solve the coal situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened? In connection with the settlement of the coal strike the late Minister of Labour, Hon. Mr. Murdock, was sent to Cape Breton and had to come back without having obtained any results. He, the Minister of Labour, could not settle the coal strike in Cape Breton. Hon. Mr. Armstrong, the Liberal Premier of our province, also tried to settle it, but without results. As we were told yesterday by one of the hon. members who spoke, the coal strike in Cape Breton was settled three weeks after the Conservative party was elected to power.
The second item was an independent audit of the finances and business affairs of the province. Not very long after the present Nova Scotia government was established they engaged one of the most prominent firms of auditors in the Dominion of Canada; they went outside their own province to get an independent firm from Toronto, which audited the affairs of the province. With what result? I ask hon. members on both sides of this House whether the result of that independent audit has redounded to the credit of the Liberal party? We have found that the words of a former Liberal premier of Nova. Scotia, Hon. George H. Murray were true. He said that the long holding of office brings about its inevitable consequences of bribery and corruption in every branch of the public service. Every branch of the public service in the province of Nova Scotia was found to be corrupt, and we have there to-day former public servants convicted criminals. That reminds me of a
m
The Address-Mr. Quinn

statement made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss MacPhail) in the course of her remarks last night. She said something in criticism of some of the appointments made by this government to the bench of Nova Scotia. In connection with that I might just point out without any comment that two of those self-confessed thieves in the employ of the government of that province were brought before one particular county judge-a gentleman who sat on the opposite side of the House in the last parliament-for stealing some thousands of dollars. One of them was given a two years' suspended sentence and the other received a sentence of twelve hours in jail.


Hewitt Bostock: Order! I must call the
attention of the hon. member to the fact that without a direct impeachment no reference of this kind may be made. I will read the comments of Bourinot on the subject, to be found under rule 19 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I do not know that the hon. gentleman is at the present moment attacking one of the judges, but I wish only to warn him to be careful in handling this subject, because only by impeachment can the actions of a judge be brought to the notice of the House.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Speaker, if I have transgressed the rules of the House I express my regret. As I said in the beginning, being a new member I am unaccustomed to parliamentary ways.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member should be assured that as yet he has not violated any rule. He made no comment whatever.


Mr. DUFF:: Yes, he did. He is on his feet; the hon. member can make his own explanation.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Speaker, I said before
mentioning this matter that I did not wish to make any comments, and I have not mentioned any names as a matter of public record. However, I will leave it at that.
The third pre-election promise made by the Hon. Mr. Rhodes and the Conservative party was that they would, at the first opportunity, appoint a royal commission to look into the coal industry of that province. This commis-siqn has met; its composition was dealt with by hon. members yesterday, and I think the
	.
report brought down will prove to be satisfactory in every way both to the miners and to the operators. In view of this fact and in view of these statements, which you all know to be true, I ask if this is not proof of the sincerity of the Conservative party, and proof that in Nova Scotia, at least, that party is anxious to fulfil its pre-election promises and pledges.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne I do not wish to take up too much of the time of this House. You have heard quite a number of lion, gentlemen express themselves already, and I know there are a number yet to be heard. I will not trespass on the kindness of the House too long, but will confine myself mostly to that part of the Speech which applies particularly to my native province of Nova Scotia, and incidentally to the Maritime provinces generally. I am a Maritime righter, and have been proud to learn since coming to this House, from the expressions of hon. members from different parts of the Dominion that others are just as keen on Maritime rights as the hon. members from the Maritime provinces themselves. In' all the talk heard about Maritime rights, with particular reference to the use of Canada's own Atlantic ports for our foreign shipping, the fact should not be forgotten that the direct benefits will be to Canada as a whole. Is not the prosperity and greatness of any country represented by the sum total of the prosperity of the individual communities comprising that country, from the smallest cross-road hamlet to the larger towns and thriving cities? I do not wish to take an insular view of this question, but prefer to speak as a citizen of Canada. I believe the development to the maximum of our own great seaports is a right which the Canadian people should justly expect from the government of this country. In the natural trend of commerce, trade and trade routes open up and grow automatically in obedience to the law of supply and demand,, and follow the most economical and profitable channels. The good offices and resources of the government are incidentally solicited and given in aid of these. When this is done, the people of Canada as a whole have vested interests in these trade routes, and it is the bounden duty of the government to see that the people's money is spent to develop the commercial and industrial life of our country and not that of a foreign nation. Our successive governments, I submit, should be builders of Canada.
It is a well known fact that Nova Scotia was averse to joining confederation. - Nova

The Address-Mr. Quinn
Scotia was prosperous in the early sixties and prior to that time. Nova Scotia had her own customs and post office. She had a great industrial life. She controlled her own fisheries. She had the greatest mercantile marine in the world at that time. It is a matter of record that Nova Scotia ships sailed the seven seas of the world. Nova Scotia ships made of Nova Scotia material by Nova Scotia workmen and manned by Nova Scotia seamen carried the products of Nova Scotia to all parts of the civilized world. She enjoyed an era of prosperity and she had no desire to come into the union. But representations were made by gentlemen who were interested in confederation, and when it was shown and explained to the people and the government of Nova Scotia that, not only from a Canadian standpoint, but from a British standpoint, it was necessary that they should join the union, so that the Union Jack should fly over this great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Nova Scotia made the sacrifice and came in. But promises were made to Nova Scotia to compensate for the sacrifice which she was making, and I have in my hand what Sir George Etienne Cartier said. In a speech made at Halifax on September 12, 1864, Sir George' Etienne Cartier, who represented Quebec and who was one of the leading delegates at the convention,, said:
I have heard since I have been in Halifax the objection thrown out that you will be absorbed. It will be very easy for me to dispel such fears.
I answer them by a question. Have you any objection being absorbed by commerce? Halifax, through the Intercolonial railway, will be the recipient of trade which benefits Portland, Boston and New York.
So that these words may sink into the minds of hon. members I am going to read them again:
Have you any objection being absorbed by commerce? Halifax, through the Intercolonial railway, will be the recipient of trade which benefits Portland, Boston and New York.
If you are unwilling to do all in your power to bring to as satisfactory consummation this great question, you will force us to send all this trade which you ought to have, through American channels.
Will the .people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick be 'better off because they are not absorbed by commerce or prosperity ? It is as evident as that the sun shines at noon that when the Intercolonial railway is built- and it must necessarily be built if that confederation takes place-the consequences will be that between Halifax and Liverpool there will be steamers almost daily, leaving and arriving at the former.
In fact it will be a ferry between Halifax and Liverpool.
The makers of Canada were determined that the course of trade should run east and west, instead of north and south. That is axiomatic-the fundamental principle of Canadian nation-building. From the days of the 14011-28
fathers of confederation down to the days of Laurier and Borden, that policy was preserved as the bedrock of federated Canada. The great statesmen of the Dominion realized that Canada was an east-and-west country; that the various provinces can be held together only by bonds of east-and-west trade, and upon that knowledge they based every action of parliament and government. This is all so true, so plain, so wholly Canadian, that to emphasize it is like emphasizing the fact that there is a confederation of the Canadian provinces. EVen the present Dominion government has declared in its reports that the reversal of the east-and-west policy is a matter affecting Canada's most vital interests:
That so small a percentage of Canadian export wheat is shipped by Canadian seaports, in sipite of the recognised efficiency and superiority of Canadian transportation and harbour facilities, is a matter affecting Canada's most vital interests.
This declaration is taken from a report issued by the Canadian government something over a year ago and bearing the imprimatur of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). It goes on to say:
Statistical returns published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics make evident the fact that a large proportion of the wheat and flour exported by this country passes through other than Canadian channels after leaving the head of the lakes. Of the 174,000,000 bushels of wheat exported to the United Kingdom during the crop year ended August SI, 1923, 125,500,000 bushels were shipped via United States ports, compared with 48,500,000 via Canadian ports.
Then the Dominion government report adds this:
Commenting upon this aspect of our export business, the port of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for 1922 says:
It thus appears that though Canadian capitalists and taxpayers have provided, within the bounds of their own country, large storage and ample transit facilities at every stage in the movement of the crop to market, yet the marketing and thus the forwarding of more than three-fifths of the grain is controlled by agencies which see to it that tribute and toll are paid to transit systems competing with our own.
It is! then that the Dominion government makes its arresting and alarming comment as above:
That so small a percentage of Canadian export wheat is shipped by Canadian seaports, in spite of the recognised efficiency and superiority of Canadian transportation and harbour facilities, is a matter affecting Canada's most vital interests.
The foreign, shipment of grain is probably our biggest individual shipping problem. It has already been admitted that commerce automatically follows the cheapest and shortest route, and this is commercially sound. It has been stated that it is absurd to take a circuitous and more expensive route for the sake of carrying trade over a

The Address-Mr. Quinn

given territory, and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) speaking the other night said that 400 miles was in his opinion the limit of a railroad haul in order to reach the seaboard. Let us look at this from a national standpoint and see if it does not contain a fallacy. This is a real question of economy where the government must step in and protect the interests of the people as a whole. Canadian grain is being shipped through the foreign port of Portland and now the additional foreign port of Baltimore is under construction, justified apparently on the ground of cheapness to the shipper. Let us take specifically the shipment of 60,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat through Portland. It has been shown recently that there is an actual saving in cost of transportation to the shipper at present rates of $157,000 as against the shipment of this grain through the ports of Halifax and St. John. But this is only one side of the account. What about the actual loss to Canada? To move 50,000,000 bushels of grain over the American section of railway to Portland requires about six trains per day with a capacity of about 70,000 bushels per train distributed over four months. The cost of this including the wages of train hands together with fuel and incidental railway expenses amounts to approximately $864,000. Then there must be considered the wages and upkeep in connection with the grain elevators, shipping supplies, expenses of officers and crews, incidental outfitting and so forth which will represent a total loss to Canada in this single transaction of over $1,000,000 to say nothing of a loss in population. It would therefore be a good investment on the part of this country to equalize the freight rates to the extent necessary to wipe out the difference between the cost of transportation from Port Arthur to Portland and the cost through to the Canadian ports of St. John and Halifax.
There is another equally serious consideration, and that is the folly of one nation placing itself at the mercy of another in the matter of her world trade. The history of the past gives abundant evidence of the fact that no nation has ever dwelt for long beside another in such harmony as to eliminate all possibility .of a breach of peace. England and France will not yet agree to connect the two countries by a tunnel under the English channel; and in our own case we need not look further back than the Cleveland message to be awakened to the possibilities on this continent. Even recently Canadian grain shipping on the Great Lakes was threatened with paralysis because of the

complete control of our lake shipping by American interests. What I believe in and what I think every loyal Canadian believes in is the building up of a self-contained Canadian nationality-a Canada that will foster and develop her own resources; a Canada that will export her own products through her own great ocean ports and develop and populate her own territory; a Canada with a people who will stand before the world strong, proud and self-reliant. And to further this end is, I submit, the work of the government. The natural growth of commerce and the automatic drifting into open channels is one thing; the intelligent supervision by the government and the direction of national interests for the benefit of the country as a whole is another thing; and this is the concern of the government of the country. This is a national problem and it must be met, if it is met at all, on a national basis by a national government. It seems to me that a subsidy in some form will be necessary, a subsidy which this whole nation must pay. It is not pleasant; but neither is the plight of the Maritime ports pleasant, nor is the continuous stream of Canadian traffic through American ports a pleasant thing.
Unfortunately the various political parties have usually shown a disposition, on acquiring the reins of government, to utilize the resources of the country to the limit in promoting their own political .interest in the expenditure of public moneys. This was particularly true of the Liberal government from 1896 to 1911. The Liberal government came into power on a wave of industrial and commercial prosperity and a wild carnival of reckless expenditures followed, the people's money being squandered in millions. Probably the greatest and most unjustifiable expenditure of that period was the third transcontinental railway, the Canadian Northern. Had this money been expended in deepening our canals and extending a deep waterway to the Atlantic seaboard a permanently useful public service would have been established. The grain and other Canadian products contributory to the Great Lakes could be loaded on vessels for direct overseas export trade without further handling, and Nova Scotia coal could be put into the Great Lakes and return cargoes be available, thus cutting freight rates on coal in two. But political circles were more concerned in railway construction and the Mackenzie and Mann interests than they were in the real development of the trade and commerce of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Quinn
The development of Canada's great coal fields is another of Canada's rights which should concern the government. It is now well known that there is no purpose to which anthracite or other hard coal is put which cannot be met by coke, whether it be for blast furnaces, heating or what not. It is simply a matter of making Canadian coal and coke available and teaching people how to fire it. Nova Scotia and Alberta could economically supply the entire coal requirements of the two great provinces of Quebec and Ontario if proper transportation rates and facilities were supplied along the lines suggested in reference to grain, and the industrial population of Canada would be very materially enhanced in the coal fields. This is all I am going to say on the subject of coal. We had a very lengthy debate yesterday on the whole question and although I had intended to elaborate considerably on the coal situation I shall refrain from adding anything just now to what I have already said. I think that hon. members are satisfied with yesterday's exposition of the question and I hope that the debate will be fruitful of results.
The Liberal government from 1921 to 1925 was equally reckless and inconsiderate in its expenditures, and there was probably nothing more glaringly and impudently insulting to the finer sensibilities of an intelligent people than the election eve squandering of a million dollars on a grain elevator for Halifax without the slightest practical effort to justify this enormous expenditure. Either this million dollar million bushel grain elevator was needed to facilitate the shipment of grain from the port of Halifax, or it was a mere political sop thrown in the face of the people for election purposes. In any case, if there were the slightest sincerity or business intelligence behind the project, arrangements would have been made to supply it with grain, especially as it was completed in the midst of the grain shipping season. The most important consideration seemed to be that it should be promoted just previous to a by-election when my hon. colleague, now the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), was brought out in opposition to the government candidate, and that it should be completed on the eve of the recent general election. It is a well-known fact that in the fall of 1923 the Mackenzie King government suddenly developed a great interest in the province of Nova Scotia, and particularly in the port of Halifax. Why? Because the hon. gentleman who represented it in Halifax resigned his seat in this House to receive an appointment. The writs were issued-and 14011-28J
immediately Halifax needed a grain elevator. Certain promises were made during that campaign by the hon.. Minister of
4 p.m. National Defence (Mr. Macdonald)-I do not see him in his place-in the course of which he told the people of Halifax that the grain elevator would immediately be built. I have his words as quoted by the present senior member for Halifax when he made his first address to this House. Speaking at a large gathering a few days prior to the election, the Minister of National Defence said:
With the prospects of an enormous grain crop, the government, carrying out the policy of Canadian trade through Canadian ports, had decided upon the erection of a grain elevator at Halifax, modern and complete. Tenders had been called for and eight had been received. If Hon. W. S. Fielding, the acting Prime Minister, had not taken ill upon his return to Ottawa the other day from Halifax he would have called a council meeting and the contract would have been awarded by now. But just as soon as the Prime Minister returned to the capital-
He was only two days' journey from it.
-the contract would be awarded by the government and the work would start immediately.
That was in 1923. It was then promised that the work would start immediately but it did not start until the spring of 1925, nearly two years afterwards, and probably would not have been started then were it not that a general election was in view and the government had to do something. This makes it evident that the whole affair was nothing but a political trick resorted to in a criminally extravagant and bungling attempt to hoodwink the electorate of Halifax and Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has given her answer in no uncertain tones-she has sent eleven of her fourteen representatives to this side of the House. That is the answer that Nova Scotia has given to the government. I believe that the people of this country have come to the parting of the old political ways and will no longer tolerate the exploitation of the public domain for partisan, political purposes, and that they are now awaiting the opportunity to more emphatically confirm their verdict against governmental insincerity and political debauchery.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said that Nova Scotia has given its answer to the government. So have the other two Maritime provinces. In 1921 Nova Scotia sent a solid representation of sixteen members to the government benches. I am quite sure that in the recent general election the government was judged on the record of those members, and that that is the reason why the people of the province gave such a striking verdict in condemnation of the administration. The same thing applies
The Address-Mr. Quinn

to the neighbouring province of New Brunswick. To-day there is only one representative from that province sitting on the government benches; the other ten are on this side. While the result was not so decisive in Prince Edward Island, still we split fifty-nfifty, and I am confident that the two representatives on this side of the House are well able to look after the interests of that province. Perhaps the two supporters of the government from the island may try to comfort themselves by the reflection: Well, we did not lose very much, we have the same representation as they have. But I would ask them: Can they feel very much satisfaction in the verdict of Prince Edward Island the other day when three Conservative members were elected to the local legislature?
I do not purpose, Sir, to trespass longer on the time of the House than to add this with respect to the clause in the Speech from the Throne promising to appoint a commission on Maritime rights. I want to say that the people of the Maritime provinces do not desire, and will not be content with, the opinion of a mere government-appointed commission upon t'he important issue of Maritime rights. They expect instead to have these issues tried out right here on this floor; that is the view expressed by the hon. leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe). He said that this was the tribunal of the country. This is the place to thresh out these matters. The parliament of which this House is an important part is the sovereign people's own great commission, their ultimate political tribunal, and they have sent here twenty-three witnesses to testify to their grievances and twenty-three counsel to expound their conception of what are their rights. Here, Sir, and here alone, must their problems be solved.


William Duff: I am sure, Sir, it is hardly necessary
for me to add my congratulations to those which have already been tendered you on your unanimous appointment as Speaker of this House. I bad the honour and the privilege to sit under you from 1921 to 1925, and after listening this afternoon to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Quinn), I am sure that not only my fellow-members of those years but also the new members must realize your courtesy and generosity to all hon. gentlemen, particularly to those who are sitting in the House for the first time.
I regret exceedingly that the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn), in the speech that he delivered, referred to certain appointments

which this government made a short time ago. I think his references were much to be regretted, because both political parties in this Dominion ever since confederation have appointed judges to the different courts in this land, and I think everybody will agree with me that in all cases, whether the appointments were made by a Conservative or a Liberal government, the best men available were appointed to fill the vacant positions. Whilst he did not mention any names, he complained of certain decisions given by a certain judge-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, might I
rise to a point of order? Personally I am not objecting to my hon. friend continuing his discussion along the lines he is pursuing, but I submit to Your Honour that one hon. gentleman having been called to order, and having discontinued his remarks, it is not now competent for another hon. member to take advantage of the bare suggestion that was made by a previous speaker, and then to base upon that a discussion of the topic which was not completed by the preceding speaker.


William Duff: The rule, as I understand it, prevents any criticism of any of the judges of the superior or county courts. I am not going to criticize them, or to say very much-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


William Duff: That is not fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: His Honour will control
the House. The rule is not simply that you shall not indulge in any criticism of the judges, but that these matters shall not be discussed at dll, as Your Honour read a few minutes ago. I submit to Your Honour that it would be, I was going to say absurd, to permit one hon. gentleman to proceed with what he might term a defence or an eulogy, or whatever he chooses to call it, with reference to a member of the judiciary when-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was a remark the hon. member had no business to make.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I would suggest-


Hewitt Bostock: Older.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if favourable comment is to be allowed, I shall not object, but only on condition that we are allowed to say what we think of what was done.


Ernest Lapointe: The rule is perfectly
plain. No imputation can be made, but surely commendation is in order at any time.

The Address-Mr. Duff


Arthur Meighen: I do not think anything could be more absurd than that.


Ernest Lapointe: What my hon. friend says is more absurd.


Arthur Meighen: There cannot be comment favourable or unfavourable, and I give notice that if favourable comment is allowed, we are to be free to say what we think on the other side.


Ernest Lapointe: Strong and abusive
language is no argument. It is my right hon. friend's peculiarity to speak of absurdities when he refers to his opponents. I claim that he is wrong in his contention, and that so long as you do not impute any motives, you have a right to refer to a member of the judiciary.


Hewitt Bostock: I had heard only a few
words from the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), and I was allowing him to complete his phrase. For the information of the House I would remind them that under rule 19, as stated in Beauchesne, there are certain prohibitions, and paragraph 234 says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member while speaking must not:
(i) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts un'less such conduct is based upon a substantive motion.
Then further on, Bourinot says, as will foe found in paragraph 246 of Beauchesne:
AU references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of persona1! attack and censure have alway been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order. Members have even been interrupted in committee of the Whole by the chairman when they have cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding. The proper course for persons who feel called upon to attack the conduct of a judge is to proceed by way of a petition in which all the allegations are specifically stated so that the person accused may have full opportunity to answer the charges presented against him.
The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) immediately dropped any references that he 'had to make regarding judgments given by one of the judges in Nova Scotia, upon my pointing out the rule, and I would ask hon. members to avoid as much as possible, not only imputation, but commendation with respect to the' judiciary. Dragging the names of the judiciary before the high court of parliament is not conducive to respect for the courts of the land, and I think it would be better to forget this incident altogether, and to proceed with the debate without further references to the judges.


William Duff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
upholding me. I have not broken the rule
which you have just read, but I shall not refer any further to the judges.


Hewitt Bostock: I thank the hon. member. He is setting a very good example. I thank also the hon. junior member for Halifax, who very gently said that he would observe the rule.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Might I suggejst, in order that the
matter might be cleared up, that the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) be asked to have the remarks and reflections he made expunged from Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: He never made any.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I think I can deal with this matter. I do not intend to refer to the judges of the province of Nova Scotia or any other province, 'but I would like for a moment to refer to a case which came up in the town of Truro, the case referred to by the junior member for Halifax, in which the crown prosecutor, appointed by the Tory government of the province of Nova Scotia, agreed that the prisoner should be let off on suspended sentence. The crown prosecutor agreed to it. That is all I have to say on the subject. It is pretty hard, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy some of our Tory friends in the province of Nova Scotia. At one time they say the sentence is too lenient, and at another time it is too harsh.
I would like now to deal with a few paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne. I regret that it is impossible for me to deal with all the subjects mentioned in the Speech but there are one or two to which I must make reference. One paragraph reads as follows:
I congratulate you on the growing prosperity of this favoured land. The products of our agricultural and other basic industries have greatly increased. Our export trade shows remarkable expansion. Our manufacturing and related industries throughout the Dominion have experienced a development not enjoyed in many years. Further evidence of industrial progress is reflected in the greatly improved earnings of the railways.
I think every business man in Canada, every man who studies the conditions of this land, must realize that conditions are improving every day. That is what always seems to happen when a Liberal government is in power. Instead of pessimism we have optimism; instead of hard times, we have progress, and an era of good times. There is no question but that just as we had great prosperity from 1897 to 1911, so this country has been advancing along the path of prosperity-although slowly it is true-from 1921 to 1925 until in the present year-in fact that condi-
.438
The Address-Mr. Duff

tion had already appeared in 1925-we see Canada going ahead by leaps and bounds.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: What part of
the country?


William Duff: If my hon. friend will just
listen to me I will tell him.


David Spence: Tell us now.


William Duff: I am speaking of the different parts of the country, and I hope my hon. friend will be a little patient and will listen to what I have to say.


David Spence: It is very hard
to listen to that kind of stuff,


William Duff: Perhaps my hon. friend who just interrupted me will take the word of an authority in his own city. Of course I do not expect him to take my word, and perhaps that is the reason he interrupted.


David Spence: I will not take
the word of everybody.


William Duff: I am going to give my hon. friend the word of a prominent gentleman in the city of Toronto. Let us see what the gentleman in question says. I refer to Sir John Aird who is perhaps slightly known to my hon. friend. He is the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association with headquarters in the city of Toronto.


David Spence: That is sufficient; we do not need it.


William Duff: This is what Sir John Aird
says about the general prosperity in Canada:
There is in Canada to-day $125,000,000 more money available for general business purposes than usual at this time of the year. There is plenty of money available to finance new undertakings needed for the development of Canada. The Dominion is in splendid shape to go ahe^id. Manufacturers, in practically all lines, and commercial houses in general, have this fall reduced their indebtedness to an extent impossible for several years past.
That is, of course, when the Tories were in power.
All the banks show the same thing-a great reduction in commercial loans and a big increase in bank investments, in stocks and bonds.


David Spence: That is not a
good sign.


William Duff: That is a splendid sign. The
people do not have to borrow money from the banks because they have it in their own pockets.


David Spence: They are not
doing the business which-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker,
have I not the right to make a statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to ask the hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


David Spence: Is it not a sign of prosperity when we have to borrow money to carry on business? We cannot afford to borrow money to-day because we cannot make anything out of it. That is why there are fewer commercial loans.


William Duff: That must be the Toronto
aspect.


David Spence: Yes and that of Lunenburg too if you only tell the truth.


William Duff: We do not have to borrow
money in Lunenburg; we have money of our own.
This fall, continued Sir John, more grain was shipped out of this country and paid for than ever before in the history of the Dominion. This means that approximately $125,000,000 usually needed to carry this grain over the winter is now released for general business purposes.
May I say to my hon. friend that is the reason there is more money available-the people have more money.
He pointed out that the large agricultural implement industries this year had made 'large reductions in their debts to the banks. "We want population to make progress", he stated.
Now, Sir, there is the statement of a gentleman who has his finger on the pulse of the whole industrial situation in Canada. I am going to give my hon. friend some more evidence, and perhaps I may convert him to a realization of the fact that this country is again becoming prosperous. Here is what the Bankers' Trust Company of New York says. They sum up a survey of the Canadian conditions as follows:
All of the accepted criteria of prosperity, such as carloadings, bank clearings, etc., demonstrate a marked advance in general business for the first three-quarters of 1925 as compared with the parallel of 1924. Canada is perhaps not near the high tide of prosperity which the United States is enjoying, but the divergence between the conditions of the two countries is diminishing and it is expected that dn the coming year Canada will enjoy a period of prosperity equalling that of her southern friend and neighbour.
That, tribute to Canada's progress is from a New York source. Perhaps a better indication is to be found in the trade returns of our own country. Let us see what they say. Canada's total trade in 1925 amounted to $2,161,000,000,

The Address-Mr. Duff
or $295,000,000 more than in 1924. Our imports in 1925 were $890,000,000, an increase of $82,000,000 over 1924. That means, Sir, that the balance of trade was in our favour.
If we deduct the imports from the exports we find that there was a balance in favour of Canada which amounted to $381,000,000.
Now, let us ma'ke a little comparison between the conditions to-day and the conditions as they were when our Conservative friends were in power, previous to 1921. In that year, the last year of the Conservative rule, Canada had no favourable trade balance, in fact, we were buying from other countries $29,000,000 worth more than we were selling them. As a result of that, Sir, the Canadian dollar was only worth 83 cents in the New York, market, or a discount of 17 per cent. Now let us see what happened during the four years the Liberals were in power. In 1922 we had a favourable trade balance of $5,122,677, but in 1923 there was a very great improvement, which must have gratified every business man in Canada. That year our favourable trade balance was $142,716,693. Then in 1924 we had another increase to $165,398,430. and in 1925 the trade balance amounted to $381,000,000. The prosperity of Canada may be demonstrated still further if I give some figures which have reference to the business which we do with the United States. We remember, of course, that in the 1911 election some of our friends opposite wanted no truck or trade with the United States, and in 1921 there was an adverse balance of trade with the neighbouring republic to the amount of $223,000,000. In other words, in that year we bought $515,000,000 worth from the United States and sold to that country $292,000,000 worth. But according to the trade figures as shown at the end of last year we bought from our neighbours south of the line $539,000,000 and sold to them the large amount of $456,000,000 worth. The adverse trade balance with the United States was lowered from $223,000,000 at which it stood when the Conservatives were in power to $S2,000,000 last year when the Liberals were in power. To put it in another way, there *was a difference in our favour of $140,000,000 by reason of the great reduction in the former adverse trade balance.
One of my friends from Toronto interrupted me to ask where this prosperity was. I agree with him that all parts of Canada are not as prosperous as we would like them to be. That is bound to happen in any country. Take Great Britain, United States, France or any other country and you will find that while some parts are prosperous, other parts are
not going ahead as they should. If I may be allowed to say so, Sir, yesterday we sat from practically three o'clock in the afternoon until eleven o'clock in the evening listening to members, who were no doubt sincere, telling us that in one part of Nova Scotia conditions are not as good as they should be. I am quite ready to admit that such is the case. There is no doubt that in the island of Cape Breton and in perhaps all the coal mining areas, for several years past, conditions have not been as we would like to see them, and there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the men mining the coal, the operators who have their money invested in the mines, and the general public. But it seems to me that if we are to deal with this question in a businesslike way we must go a great deal further than we went yesterday. Last year we spent at least a day in discussing this same problem, and at that time, so far as this House was concerned, no proper solution was arrived at with regard to the trouble in the Cape Breton area. I say again that in all the speeches I heard yesterday no one came forward with a practical solution for this great question, a solution which would be satisfactory to the people interested in the mining areas of Cape Breton. I may say here that after all the time we spent dealing with the subject yesterday we had the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) rising to say that on January 20, six days ago, Sir Henry Thornton gave an order to the Cape Breton coal operators for 600,000 tons of coal, 120,000 tons to be banked, and the rest taken in the usual way later in the season. It seems to me, Sir, that in addition to not solving this great problem yesterday we wasted a whole day in debating something which had been settled by Sir Henry Thornton. I am not representing the county where coal is mined, but as a Nova Scotian I am interested in the welfare and prosperity of that great province. Let me say in passing that whilst there is a festering sore in Cape Breton it is all nonsense for anyone to say, either in parliament or in the public press, that the province of Nova Scotia is not fairly prosperous. Go to the city of Halifax whenever there is any great event; go to any of the towns in the province and see the hundreds and thousands of motor cars and well dressed men and women who gather there. I say it is neither fair nor right for any hon. member of this House to defame the province of Nova Scotia by saying that that province is not fairly prosperous.
The Address-Mr. Duff

I have heard about this coal situation for several years and I say again that from 1896 to 1911, when the Liberal party was in power, we did not have anyone, whether in parliament or in the public press, asking for alms for any part of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was prosperous during those years, and it was only after the Conservative party came into power in 1912 that things started to go wrong in the coal mines and steel works of Cape Breton and in the province generally. If it had not been for the terrible catastrophe of the Great war, conditions would have been very, very bad in the coal areas of Cape Breton from 1914 to 1921. But I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with this coal situation there were people, and especially newspapers, who, in order to get some political advantage, defamed the fair name of their province. We remember that last year, when the discussion in reference to this matter came up, it was sought to place the onus for the trouble on the provincial government, and particularly on the then premier of the province, Mr. Armstrong. It was said that he was entirely to blame, and our Conservative friends in the province at that time said that the provincial government should settle this question. It is quite true that the discussion which we had was only with regard to relief for the distressed miners. The question of responsibility or of who should settle the strike was not brought up. The Conservatives in Nova Scotia said at that time, both in the public press and on the platform, that the Liberal government then in power should settle those questions. No less a person than one of the members of the present provincial government, Hon. J. F. Cahan, made the statement in the public press that if a Conservative government were elected the Nova Scotia coal strike woujd be settled in twenty-four hours. He said there was no question but that the government was responsible for the strike in Cape Breton, and if another government were elected the strike would be settled in twenty-four hours. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) made the statement this afternoon that this strike had been settled. Of course, it all depends on how you look at the question. I make the statement here and now that the strike is not settled. I say that it is only a temporary settlement and that there is as much dissatisfaction in the coal fields of Cape Breton to-day as there was at any time during the last two or three years.


Felix Patrick Quinn: There is no strike.
	.


William Duff: There is the whole trouble.
The miners of Cape Breton are not working; they are not striking, but there is no question about it that the poor miners of Cape Breton, after all the promises made to them by our Conservative friends before the provincial election, were compelled to submit, and go back to work. Before the Conservatives were elected to power they told the miners that, if they were elected, they, the miners, would get better terms; after waiting three months, and after being out of employment for four or five months previously, the miners had to go back to work. And what was the settlement? It was a settlement entirely in favour of the British Empire Steel Corporation.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is it not true that the miners themselves voted on the proposed settlement, and voted to accept it?


William Duff: I am sorry my hon. friend did not hear what I said a few moments ago;
I thought my voice carried pretty well. That is practically what I said.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They voted on it.


William Duff: I do not care whether they
voted or not. They had to accept it, and it was accepted only because they were compelled to do so, because their wives and families had been practically starving during the past two or three months. I say they were compelled to accept the settlement, and what was the settlement they accepted? It was a settlement entirely in favour of the British Empire Steel Corporation. They- may I use this word?-damned the Armstrong government all over the province for not settling the strike, when it was a well known fact that Mr. Armstrong could have settled the strike two months before a final settlement was reached.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why did he not do it?


William Duff: I will tell you in a moment
He did not do it because the Tories were going out every day and telling the miners to have nothing to do with Armstrong. At that time Mr. Armstrong made an arrangement with the Besco whereby the company agreed that the men should go back to work with a five per cent reduction in wages. But the miners would not accept it, mostly because an agitation was worked up. They had been told to hold out; that as soon as a change of government took place, they would not have to accept any cut. The change of government came, and although Mr. Rhodes said that he would go to Cape Breton and

The Address-Mr. Duff
stay there until the strike was settled, while he went there, it is true, he stayed for only two days and returned to Halifax without the strike being settled. Negotiations were carried on in the city of Halifax, and the result was that, instead of the miners getting the 1924 rate of wages, instead of their accepting what Mr. Armstrong could have got for them, namely, a reduction of five per cent, they were compelled under the Rhodes so-called settlement to accept an eight per cent reduction in their wages. More than that, the leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia, in order to get Besco to make the reduction eight per cent instead of ten per cent, which they thought was right, was compelled to tell Besco that for coal mined in 1925, instead of their paying into the treasury of Nova Scotia 12i cents per ton, they would be asked to pay only ten cents per ton.


Felix Patrick Quinn: They made a Sacrifice.


William Duff: Who made a sacrifice?


Felix Patrick Quinn: The Nova Scotia government.


William Duff: Not the government, but the people of Nova Scotia had to make the sacrifice. Every man and woman in Nova Scotia made the sacrifice in order to make up that $125,000.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: For the six months prior to the settlement of the strike which the hon. member derides, how much royalty went into the coffers of the Nova Scotia government?


William Duff: I do not know. If there was no coal mined, no royalty could go into the coffers. Perhaps my hon. friend knows the reason why no coal was mined, and he might have done something to stir up the agitation to keep the miners from going to work. The attitude that some people take is very strange. For instance, our friends tell us what great things Mr. Rhodes, the present Premier of Nova Scotia, has done with regard to this coal situation. They tell us about the Duncan commission which he appointed. He did appoint that commission, and these gentlemen, after taking evidence at Sydney, Halifax and Montreal, brought in a report in which there is not a solitary word iin favour of the miners of Nova Scotia, and in which everything is for Besco. These gentlemen went around prior to June, 1925, saying that Besco had the provincial government, Mr. Armstrong, by the throat and that Mr. Armstrong was the tool of Besco. Yet their own government appoints a commission, and this
commission brings in a report, every item of which is favourable to Besco, with nothing for the Cape Breton miners except a few kind words.
Last night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to the capitalization of Besco. In the reference which the provincial government made when they appointed the Duncan commission, they askedi the commission especially to look into the matter of the capitalization of this company. If anybody will read the clause in the report of the commission with regard to the capitalization of this company, he will certainly have to come to only one conclusion, and that is that the Duncan commission skated over this part and said practically nothing one way or the other as to whether the company was over-capitalized or undercapitalized. All they did was to give a table showing the stock issued and the bonds and preferred stock. They did not state whether the bonds or the stock were issued properly or whether there was too much water in the company's business or not.
What really is the trouble? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says that the only remedy for this is higher protection on coal. Instead of a duty of fifty cents a ton on coal, he would raise it, and I presume he would raise it high enough that coal from Alberta would come to Ontario and coal from Nova Scotia would come to Quebec and Ontario. I am opposed to that suggestion. I am not in favour of the consumers in Nova Scotia paying a dollar or two dollars per ton more for coal nor of the consumers in Quebec or Ontario paying a dollar or two dollars more for their coal. The funny thing is that when the Duncan commission held its sitting at Halifax, whilst the organ of the Conservative party was talking about increased duties on coal, which mean, of course, increased prices, prominent Tories in the city of Halifax and the town of Dartmouth went before the Duncan commission complaining that the price of Nova Scotia coal was too high when they bought it from the Besco mines. So, hon. members will see they did not want a settlement of this question; they wanted it to drag on. They used it in the provincial election and perhaps they are now trying to use it in order to make political capital against this government.
This question will never be properly settled until the operators of these mines and the miners realize that the cost of production in some of the Nova Scotia coal mines is too high. We must not forget that somebody
The Address-Mr. Dufj

else is interested. When the miners say that they want higher wages and the operators say that they want higher prices, we must not forget that another important interest in this regard is the consumer in this country. It does not matter what you speak about, whether it is coal, or steel, or boots and shoes, or clothing, or anything else, the consumer in this country is far more important than anybody else and his interest should be protected. The whole question is this and we may as well face it:	There are too many mining
men in the island of Cape Briton for the requirements of the present markets which Besco can get for their coal. In other words, perhaps the reason is that during the extraordinary times we had from 1915 to 1918, coal was in greater demand and, consequently, it was necessary to get more miners into the Cape Breton area; but after these extraordinary times passed and there was only the ordinary market for coal, they did not require so many miners. That, of course, is a sad thing to say, but it is something which cannot be avoided and which applies to any other business in the country. I think, Sir, you will agree with me that if a lumberman is carrying on lumbering operations and he finds that either his timber lands are getting cut over or that the market does not pay him to cut logs, he has to discharge some of his men. The same thing applies to a boot and shoe factory, or any other kind of business. Consequently, the only thing for the miners to do when they get out of employment, is to seek employment somewhere else. That I think is the case in Cape Breton and the only solution is for some other occupation to be found for the surplus men in these coal fields.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Will you let them go to the United States?


William Duff: Perhaps my hon. friend would give them some work in his business.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What about yours?


William Duff: I would take 500 of them if
they could row a dory without getting seasick.


An hon. MEMBER:: How far off shore?


William Duff: About 200 miles off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Now what is the remedy-and it is only temporary at best- which hon. members proposed in their speeches yesterday? It is that the Canadian National Railways should be compelled to take more than their necessary requirements of fuel. To my mind this would not settle the question even if it were desirable. But it is not fair to the Canadian National Railways or to the 
people of the country that the railways should be compelled to take more coal than they require. It will be remembered that some years ago while parliament had under consideration the bill for the incorporation of the Canadian National Railways, Limited, a great deal of discussion took place in this House on the necessity for keping the whole thing out of politics. Nearly every gentleman who discussed the question at that time declared that the principal tenet of his faith was that there must be no political interference with the management of the Canadian National Railways. And I must say that personally I was rather, shall I say, annoyed to find that upon his landing in New York, after being engaged by the Canadian government to undertake the management of the Canadian National system, Sir Henry Thornton before meeting any of the representatives in parliament of the Canadian people made the statement to the reporters in that city as he came off the boat that so far as the Canadian National Railways were concerned he was not going to allow any political interference. But let me call to my aid a greater witness even than Sir Henry Thornton, a gentleman who for a whole session of parliament occupied the position of Acting Prime Minister; I refer to no less a person than Sir Thomas White, a former Finance Minister in the government of Canada. At page 1634 of Hansard of the first session in 1919 I find that Sir Thomas White is reported as follows:
Now we are getting away from tha-t. The government of the day will appoint the directors of the Canadian National Railway system. Those men will have as their duty the administration of that system and will not be subject to immediate interference on the part of the government. We appointed some time ago a board of directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and so far as I know, these men have had an absolutely free hand, subject only to this, that with regard to expenditures the government must be consulted.
I am exceedingly desirous, as I am sure the government is, that this system should be administered absolutely in the public interest without interference on the part of governments having regard to political considerations.
Now, if hon. gentlemen are prepared to concede that this is the only way in which the Canadian National Railway system can be satisfactorily operated, what is going to become of that system if we are to brook interference with it? We hear our Conservative friends complaining about the deficits, and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) the other day, with tears rolling down his cheeks, deplored the fact that Mr, Bell had stated that the railways had gone behind to the extent of $572,000,000 in five years. Well, if we are to adopt the policy which our

The Address

Mr. Duff
friends opposite advocated yesterday what are we to expect the Canadian National Railways to do? What will become of them? It is obvious that 120,000 tons of coal, or any quantity for that matter, is bound to deteriorate when it remains banked and subject to the atmosphere and the conditions of the weather; so that before it could reach the engines perhaps half or more than half of that coal would not be fit for use on the railways. The result would be a loss to the system of perhaps a half million or three-quarters of a million dollars.


Mr. PRICE:: The hon. gentleman speaks of the deterioration of coal that is banked. Is it not a fact that the Canadian National Railways have been banking coal for years at various points along the line?


William Duff: Of course they have done so; is there anyone who does not know that? There are strategic points along the line where the railways keep reserves of coal. But if I understand the situation correctly, this
120,000	tons will not be required until next June or July or August, while the railways have plenty of coal in reserve at the moment to carry them through until spring.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cane Breton):: Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is American or Canadian coal that the Canadian National Railways are using at the present time?


William Duff: I really do not know and it does not make a bit of difference to my argument.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: That may be so, but we want to see a little Nova Scotia or Canadian' coal sold to the railways.


William Duff: Does the hon. member suggest that I do not want to see Canadian coal sold to the railways?


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: It would seem so.


William Duff: If the hon. member thinks so he is mistaken. Indeed, I am more interested in the sale of Nova Scotia coal to any available customer than, I think, is the hon. gentleman himself.


Otto Baird Price: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the Canadian National Railways import 5,000,000 tons of American coal every year?


William Duff: I did not know that there was imported such a quantity of American coal, but I repeat that for the purposes of my
argument that point is of no interest. Let me tell the hon. gentleman however that if that 5,000,000 tons of American coal had not been purchased by the Canadian National Railways hon. gentlemen opposite would have put up a greater howl about the railway deficit than we have heard from them. The point I am making is simply this, that if we are to compel the Canadian National system to purchase extra coal which it does not require in order to relieve distress in some section of the country we are establishing an unsound precedent. Let us suppose that representatives from the province of New Brunswick should come here at the request of the lumber interests of that province and ask,-because the price of spruce and hemlock and pine being low in the foreign markets the lumber was not worth cutting,-that the government should compel the Canadian National Railways to give an order for a million railway ties as the only means of saving a number of people in New Brunswick from starvation. What would the country' say to such a proposition?


Otto Baird Price: Let me ask the hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask hon. members to desist from interrupting. Unless the hon. member who has the floor is willing to allow these interruptions I must see that he is permitted to proceed.


Otto Baird Price: I rise simply-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Duff: I do not mind answering questions but I want to get through. Suppose, again, that one of the members representing the city of Montreal-one of the Pate-naude members-should get up on the floor of the House and represent that ow'ing to business depression in this country sufficient orders had not been given to the Canadian Car A Foundry Company and that this concern had been obliged to close its shops with the result that 2,000 men were out of employment. Might they not just as readily demand of parliament that Sir Henry Thornton be directed to give an order to this company for extra cars, although he might not require them, in order to keep these workmen employed?
If this practice is going to be followed, Mr. Speaker, whenever the price of fish is low in Nova Scotia-and I expect for some years yet to hear that it is low-we must come to this House and ask that Sir Henry Thornton, on behalf of the Canadian National Railway's, give us a twelve months' order for the fish
The Address-Mr. Duff

required for their dining cars. We may have some aggressive manufacturer from Toronto asking the government to direct Sir Henry Thornton to give him an order for so many thousand uniforms for conductors and other employees. I submit that that is a bad principle to establish. I think that we should keep the National Railways out of politics as far as possible; but if we adopt the attitude which some hon. members adopted yesterday, then I say we cannot expect Sir Henry Thornton or any one else who is managing the National system to pull it out of the hole.
The other night we had a few remarks from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) -I congratulate him on his maiden speech- with regard to the lack of prosperity of his province. May I remind you, Sir, that this is another case of history repeating itself, because you will remember that in 1897 the then member for Cumberland was bewailing the fact that the Hon. Mr. Fielding in his budget was reducing the tariff, and Sir Charles Tupper gloomily predicted that manufacturers all over Canada would be forced to close their factories. Just one week ago the gentleman who has now the honour of representing Cumberland started wailing again about the troubles of Nova .Scotia under this administration. I would remind him that when Mr. Logan represented Cumberland in this House the town of Amherst was prosperous. The other night my hon. friend stated-and of course he intended to convey the impression that it all happened since 1921-that 1,300 people had left Amherst in the last four years. That may 5 p.m. be quite true, I do not doubt his statement for a moment, but he was not altogether fair to the House. Had he fully stated the facts he would have informed the House that more men left Amherst from 1919 to 1921 than in the four years from 1921 to 1925. Why did they leave? I assert that the town was prosperous when the Liberal government was in power. But we all remember the amalgamation of what was known as the Rhodes-Curry Company with the Canadian Car & Foundry Company of Montreal. When the Rhodes-Curry Company owned the business in Amherst, at the time the Liberal party was in office, 1,500 men were employed in their workshops. If anybody is to blame for the unfortunate turn in affairs it is the hon. gentleman who is now senator for Cumberland and lives in Montreal, because it was he who sold out the business to the Canadian Car and Foundry Company. In discussing the prosperity of Nova Scotia I would remind my hon. friend that although the former member for his constituency, Mr. Logan, did get orders

from the railway company for cars to be manufactured in Amherst, the gentleman in charge of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company in Montreal-and Senator Curry is one of the directors

refused to allow the cars to be made in the Amherst plant. So what is the use of my hon. friend trying to make a point against the government by saying that Amherst is losing its population? I am rather surprised that he should make that complaint against the government, especially in view of the fact of what happened in April, May and June, 1925. Those of us who had the honour, the privilege and the pleasure, if you can call it such, of reading one of the Conservative newspapers in the province of Nova Scotia, will remember that for several weeks previous to the provincial election practically a whole page of that newspaper was taken up with the photograph of an old lady, apparently about 70 years of age, wringing her hands in despair and wondering what was going to become of the province, and she was represented as saying that she wanted her boys back home. Underneath this picture was this admonition to the electors, written I presume by one of the .paid writers of the paper:	"Turn the Armstrong government out and the boys will come back home to their mothers and fathers in this province." Well, the Conservatives have been in power in the province for nine months, and yet the hon. member for Cumberland continues to wail and tells us that the boys are still leaving Amherst. In fact, Sir, the .only boy that came back home to his native province was he who now occupies the post of premier.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: He didn't do too bad when he got
home.


William Duff: It was too bad he got home?


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: No, I didn't say that. It was too
bad for the Liberals of Nova Scotia that he came home.


William Duff: No, I think it was a good
thing.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: He cleaned them up.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Duff: that expenditure resulted in the building of two or three piers and a breakwater, which is falling to pieces, the fact remains that no Atlantic liner, mot even a tramp steamer, can lie at these piers if there is a ripple on the water. So I say it is about time when hon. gentlemen, especially inexperienced members, come here and try and gull the people by saying that the Liberal government have wasted $1,000,000, they should realize that the Tory government wasted $15,000,000 right alongside that elevator.
I think the hon. member also mentioned Mackenzie and Mann. Why, Mr. Speaker the Tory government gave Mackenzie and Mann $85,000,000 of the money of the people of this country. We never did that, Sir. In addition, they made a contract for $5,000,000 for a dry dock in Victoria which was not necessary, and which was done deliberately on the eve of an election for the purpose of electing the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). The junior member for Halifax talks about the Halifax elevator being an election dodge. I am surprised that a member for Halifax who comes here and talks of Maritime rights, Should dare to say that the elevator at Halifax is not needed. How are you going to get Maritime rights, how are you going to ship grain through the port of Halifax, how are you going to take it there -in bags or in bushel baskets?-if you have not got an elevator? Yet the hon. member says they do not need the elevator in Halifax, that the building of it was only an election dodge.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I wish to contradict that
statement. I did not say we did not need the elevator in Halifax.


William Duff: That is exactly what the hon. gentleman said. I took his words down and I have them in black and white. He said it was not necessary, it was a waste of money. Evidently he does not want any grain to go through that port. I want to tell him that the Liberal members of the previous parliament all joined hands with the then member for Halifax, Mr. Finn, in going to the government and asking that that grain elevator be completed. I wall tell you later on of other things that Mr. Finn and the other Liberal members for Nova Scotia did.


Mr. CLARK:: How many bushels of grain have been handled through that elevator in 1925, or in any previous year?


William Duff: The elevator was completed
in November, 1925.


John Arthur Clark: How many bushels of grain has it handled?


William Duff: Just a moment, please.
Since November, 1925, although the Tory papers and the Tories of the province of Nova Scotia refer to the elevator as a pigeon roost, 500,000 bushels of grain have gone through that elevator so far, and I am in hopes that the elevator will do more business year by year; but the way to get more grain for that elevator is not to do what certain Tory newspapers and certain Tory interests in the province of Nova Scotia are doing to-day, saying that Sir Henry Thornton and the officials of the Canadian National Railways have no interest in Nova Scotia and no interest whatever in Halifax. How can they expect Sir Henry Thornton or Mr. Dalrymple, who is in charge of this matter, and who is one of the best railway officers on this continent, to have very much sympathy with the port of Halifax-


Arthur Meighen: May I ask-


William Duff: Just a moment till I finish
my sentence. How can they expect the Canadian National Railways to have much sympathy with the port of Halifax, I say, when Halifax newspapers every day call the elevator a pigeon roost, and say that the Canadian National Railways do not want to ship any grain through the port of Halifax?


Arthur Meighen: I was not going to interfere with the usual run of the hon. member's speech.
Mr. DL1FF: Just be careful now.


Arthur Meighen: I wras going to ask if that
500,000	bushels were not necessarily stored in that elevator because of a wreck, and really did not pass through for shipment at all?


William Duff: The trouble with my hon.
friend is that he runs too fast. He talks of my running. If he would stop making faces across the floor and act like the leader of the
opposition-
Some hon. MEMJBERS: Order.


William Duff: Yes, he is making faces now.


Arthur Meighen: Nature made it.


William Duff: If my hon. friend would try and look pleasant, it would be far better for everybody concerned. It sort of gets on our nerves over here after a while.


John Arthur Clark: So do personalities on ours.

The Address-Mr. Duff


William Duff: Especially your own. I may say that from 400.000 to 500,000 bushels were taken from a steamer that was brought into Halifax in a leaking condition, but only about a week ago 500,000 bushels passed through Moncton, according to the Halifax Herald and other Halifax papers; so I presume it is true.
The junior member for Halifax and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) have complained about the expenditure under this government. Of course, some expenditures have gone up in the last few years. If they did not go up we would be standing still as we did in 1911 under the Tory government. But let me say to my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and to my young friend from Halifax (Mr. Quinn) that the conditions in this country are entirely different from what they were in 1910 and 1911. Let me remind these hon. gentlemen that in 1911 when the Libera! party went out of power it took $72,000,000 to run all the great federal departments of this country. That was a large amount, and perhaps you will remember, Sir,-I know I do; my young friend perhaps does not because he was in swaddling clothes then no doubt,-that- during the 1911 campaign the Tory newspapers all over Canada and the Tory speakers on every platform in this country said it was a terrible thing that the Grit government was spending $72,000,000 and they said " Turn these rascals out of power- these wastrels and spendthrifts who are spending $72,000,000 ". Our Conservative friends came into power and in 1912, one short year afterwards, they raised the expenditure from $72,000,000 to $92,000,000; and in 1914, not counting one dollar which may have been spent for war purposes, the expenditure on current account had jumped from $72,000,000 as it was in 1911 to $152,000,000 under Tory rule. And what was the condition in 1921, the last year my hon. friend was in power in this country? Did it spend $152,000,000? No, oh no! This was a government of economy, a government that was careful-yes, very careful ! It only spent $464,000,000 in the year of our Lord 1921. Yet my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax gets up here with a serious mien and says this government should be condemned because of wastefulness and extravagance. Of course I want to be fair to the government of my right hon. friend, and I must say that in that $464,000000 of expenditure in 1921 there was included the interest on the public debt, the sum of $133,000,000, and it is only right that the latter sum should be deducted from the former. But in the year 1922 when a Liberal government was in power, and of course it had to provide for the interest on the public debt the same as the Conservative government did, instead of spending $464,000,000 it spent $434,000,000 and in 1923 only $370,000,000.


John Arthur Clark: Does that include the railway expenditures?


William Duff: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry indeed at the density of some of my hon. friends opposite. I would not get up and ask a question like that-


John Arthur Clark: You would rather not.


William Duff: -because the House would imagine I was stupid. Of course it does not include the expenditures on railways. I am coming to the railway question in a few moments and I hope I shall be able to satisfy my hon. friend. That was general expenditure on current accounts. I know it is like sticking a knife into my hon. friends opposite to compare the difference between an expenditure of $464,000,000 and one of $370,000,900.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend will not
worry me.


William Duff: In 1924, after having been only three short years in power, the Liberal government, instead of spending $464,000,000 as the Conservative administration had done, carried on efficiently and reduced the expenditure to $350,000,000.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Are you as correct in these
figures as you were when you stated that 500,000 bushels of wheat had gone through the Halifax elevator?


William Duff: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the
quantity that went through the elevator may have been 499,999 bushels. I do not know; I was only faking the word of the Halifax Herald, which stated that 500,000 bushels approximately were going through the Halifax elevator.


Felix Patrick Quinn: My hon. friend does not
want wheat to go through the Halifax elevator; we do.


William Duff: Oh 'no, you do not, or you
would not be grouching about it. I want to see 500 million bushels go through that elevator.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Will you permit me another question:	Will you deny the statement that
500,000	bushels of grain is the total amount appropriated to the Halifax grain eltevator for this winter season?
The Address-Mr. Duff


William Duff: Five hundred thousand bushels is the amount appropriated so far, quite right. Please let me get on. I was talking about expenditures and giving the junior member for Halifax some political history in reply to what he said about the waste of the Liberal government. If my hon. friend will compare records of the two governments he will find that in the three years from 1921 to 1924, under a Liberal government, the expenditure was reduced $114,000,000. Adding that $114,000,000 to the $74,000,000 and the $30,000,000 to which I have already alluded you will find how much the Liberal government saved the tax-payers of this country in that period.
Now, Sir, mj7, hon. friend (Mr. Clark) asked me if the expenditures which I mentioned included the expenditures on railways. I may say, Sir, that it had nothing at all to do with expenditure on railways, but the hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) the other night made the statement that the Canadian National Railways had gone to the bad in the last five years some $572,000,000. Well, even if that were true how much did they go to the bad when the Conservative government was in power during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921? Whether that statement is true or not-and it is not true, of course, but I must accept it because it was made by an hon. member of this House-the fact remains that no such amounts were lost to the people of this country on the railways although the situation is bad enough goodness knows. I was never in favour of public ownership, I am not in favour of it now, but we have these railways on our hands, and there is no use going all over the country decrying them and saying you are losing hundreds of dollars on them.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: A deficit in the running expenses.


William Duff: Yes. My hon. friend is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I do say that no hon. member should come here and try to make out that these railways have gone to the bad to the extent of $572,000,000 in the last five years. What are the real facts? I have here a statement showing the additions to the funded and unfunded debt of the Canadian National Railways from 1919 to 1925 inclusive. In 1919 when our Conservative friends were in power the debt to the public on the Canadian National Railways was $28,167,000. The debt to the government including the interest-this is where my hon. friend did not quite give us the information he should have given us; and that, remember, was interest to the government-was $73,982,-

000, making a total in 1919 of $102,149,778. In 1920 when the Conservatives were still in pow'er the debt to the public was $19,419,237 and to the government, including interest, $126,224,810, or a total of $145,644,048. In 1921 the total on both accounts was $132,921,254. In 1922, when the Liberals were in power, the debt to the public decreased $26,326,305.07 and the debt to the government, including interest, increased $85,654,123.70, making a total of $59,327,818.63. In 1923 the debt to the public increased $18,595,912.04, and the debt to the government, including interest, increased $97,437,273.96 making a total of $116,033,186. In 1924 the debt to the public-because of the expenditure of money on capital account- increased $90,814,026.70, and the debt to the government increased $28,085,159.35 making a total of $118,899,186.05, or in the six years a total of $674,975,272.45-$380,000,000 of Which should have been debited against the Tory government if in any way a government is responsible under the present system, which I do not claim. The hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) tried to make the point against the government that they spent all this money, or allowed the Canadian National Railways to spend it, in 1921 and 1922. But we have a brighter picture with regard1 to the expenditure. I am sure this will interest the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). It is headed "Operating surplus or deficit during each of the years from 1919 to 1925."


William Findlay Maclean: That is the point.


William Duff: I think you will like this. During the year 1919, when the right hon. leader of the opposition was one of the members of the government, the deficit was $14,223,712.85; in 1920, during part of which my right hon. friend was Prime Minister, the deficit had increased to $34,532,701.76.


William Findlay Maclean: They were short that amount in the running expenses?


William Duff: Yes, this is the net operating revenue or deficit. I wonder if my hon. friend appreciated that last figure of over $34,000,000. In 1921 there was another deficit of $11,543,577.69. In 1922, however, there was a change. Sir Henry Thornton was in charge, and a Liberal government was in power, although it did not interfere and perhaps does not deserve very much credit. But if they may be censured, they should certainly be given credit if credit is due. In 1922 there was a surplus of $2,886,711.55.


John Arthur Clark: Was that for the calendar year?

The Address-Mr. Duff


William Duff: Yes, from January until December. In 1923 the surplus was $20,430,649.08. In 1924 there was another surplus of $17,244251.48. Up to November 30, 1925, under the management of Sir Henry Thornton and his officials, backed by a Liberal government, the surplus for the eleven months had increased to $26,916,204. Why should anyone come here and wail and complain about the position of the Canadian National Railways under the present government? I said a moment ago that perhaps the present government does not deserve very much credit, but when my hon. friends try to show that we are to blame for the present condition of affairs, I am perfectly justified in showing that under the Conservative government there were deficits of some $60,000,000.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask my hon. friend
another question? Does he claim credit for the capital expenditures of the railways in the last three or four years?


William Duff: If, as my hon. friend from
Victoria-Carleton said, the government is to blame for the expenditure^, yes; but I think I made it quite plain a moment ago that I did not blame either the last government or this government for the deficits or surpluses. In view of the attempt of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton to show that this government was to blame for the Canadian National Railways going to the bad in the last five years, I think I am quite justified in putting these statements on Hansard in order to show that when the Conservatives were in power the railways were not in quite as good condition as they are at present. The reason for that is not hard to find. In the first place Sir Henry Thornton is a good and efficient railway manager, and in the second place, under Liberal rule this country is getting prosperous. As I said some time ago, the country is going ahead by leaps and bounds.


William Findlay Maclean: And the public
expenditures are going ahead also.


William Duff: Yes, of course. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another clause in the Speech from the Throne about which I would like to speak for a few moments. The clause to which I refer reads as follows:
The government also propose to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims that the rights of the Maritime provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial Railway 'have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration, and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially in their position under confederation.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
The question of Maritime rights, which has been discussed during the past three or four years by Conservatives both in the press and in this House, is one deserving of some attention. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that previous to 1921 you never heard the so-called question of Maritime rights brought up. It is rather strange that those gentlemen who are now discussing this question, either in the newspapers or on the public platform, were the gentlemen in power from 1911 to 1921. I think I am stating the case correctly when I say that from 1911 to 1921, in spite of the fact that we had, I think, nine members from the province of Nova Scotia sitting on the treasury benches-and included in those nine members were such hon. gentlemen as the present Premier of Nova Scotia and the present Attorney General of that province-neither the present Premier of Nova Scotia nor the present Attorney General nor any of the other seven gentlemen ever raised their voices in this House to discuss so-called Maritime rights. They never wrote a letter to the newspapers on the subject and never went on the public platform to discuss it. They evidently were not very much concerned about Maritime rights from 1911 to 1921. It was only when a Liberal government came into power that they wanted to discuss what we now call Maritime rights. It seems rather strange, Sir,, that the gentlemen who sat in this House for eleven years should now be coming forward and saying that this government is not doing its duty by the Maritime provinces, and that consequently it does not deserve the confidence of the Maritime people.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Will the hon. member
be kind enough to define Maritime rights? I have been trying for years to find out what they are and I have not found out yet.


William Duff: I have confidence enough in
mv own story to think that, after I am through, the hon. gentleman will ibe quite satisfied that it is wholly Tory propaganda, and that if the Tories had been elected last October with a clear majority in this House, nothing would have been heard about so-called Maritime rights in Tory constituencies. If the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) was in the House this afternoon when the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) spoke, he must remember that the hon. member waxed very wrathy with regard to the conduct of the Tory party during confederation days and' the days from 1878 to 1896. He practically did not leave it to me to blame the Tory party for anything we have not got in



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Duff
[Stage Direction]
the Maritime provinces. The hon. member was good enough to bring from, his grave Sir George Etienne Cartier to prove his case that confederation did not benefit the Maritime provinces. Whether it has benefited1 us or not, we are in confederation and the people of Nova Scotia are going to stay in confederation. They are willing to work in conjunction with the rest of Canada in order to solve, not sectional problems whereby certain sections of the country may benefit, but national problems in a national spirit, and all they ask for the province of Nova Scotia is fair treatment and mo special favours.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), in his speech the other night, spoke mostly on what he called Maritime rights. He said that these rights had been "pertinently enunciated at the time of confederation." I am quoting from his speech as reported at page 228 of Hansard. He said:
At one time in 1874 we in the Maritimes had forty-three members in this House of Commons. We now have twenty-nine. Where once we had more than twenty per cent of the membership of (this House, now we can scarcely muster more than ten per cent-an appalling decrease, due mainly to the north and south policy that ihas been pursued; to excessive railway rates; lack of substantial protection to our main industries, and to an utterly reckless and indifferent violation of that east and west policy so pertinently enunciated at the time of confederation.
The point I wish to make is that our Conservative friends do not agree on the question whether this was a "reckless and indifferent violation of that east and west policy so pertinently enunciated at the time of confederation." The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will remember this incident. He 'held a meeting at Truro in September, 1923, at which prominent Conservatives from alii parts of Nova Scotia were assembled to do him honour. Evidently he read the Conservative newspaper before he made his speech, or perhaps some of his friends called his attention to this so-called Maritime rights question, because in his speech he referred to it. Hon. members remember what the hon. member for Cumberland said, namely that special privileges were enunciated at the time of the confederation pact. What does my right hon. friend say at Truro?
Turning (to the subject of Maritime rights, Mr. Meighen said that when depression over a country was greatest, special demands were strongest. He proposed to speak frankly on the subject of Maritime rights. With regard to transportation, he said he could not conceive that there had been any breach of contractual right established by the pact of confederation.
In other words, the leader of the opposition does not agree with the 'hon. member for Cum-beland when he says that we had certain rights under the confederation pact. The

hon. member for Cumberland, talking about Maritime rights, said that he was here to stand up for his country, but he qualified his remarks with two reservations; he said that although he was not a party man, although he was going to put country before party, he was going to support Conservative principles and the leader of the opposition. If I were the leader of the opposition I would take that statement with a grain of salt, because at this large gathering at Truro in the fall of 1923, seated on the platform with the leader of tihe opposition was a gentleman who at that time was the leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia and who was acclaimed on that platform by the people assembled there and in the public press the day following as the next Premier of Nova Scotia. Just six months afterwards, at another Conservative meeting in Nova Scotia, they turned their thumbs down and put him out of the leadership of the Conservative party in that province, and another gentleman now reigns in his stead. If by any chance the number of aspirants who sit in the front rows would arrange for a change of leadership and suggest it to my hon. friend from Cumberland, he would be one of the first Tories who would say: "The King is dead; long live the King!"
The hon. member for Cumberland at the close of his speech on this question gave what might be termed the gospel of the Maritime righters. This gospel has been published in one of the Conservative newspapers in the province, and if you will read it carefully, Sir, I think you will agree with me that there is not very much in it-certainly not very much more than this government has been trying to do in the last four years and what, I will also say, previous governments have tried to do since confederation. The first verse in this gospel is:
The restoration of the integrity of the Intercolonial railway with the western terminus of the system reestablished at Montreal.
A pious wish. But let us investigate this question and see the reason why the terminus of the Intercolonial is not at Montreal. It is quite true that when the Conservative government was in power there was no terminus of the Intercolonial at Montreal or Riviere du Loup. The Intercolonial was managed from Toronto, and the orders in council, which I need not read, will prove exactly what I say. It was only when the Liberal government came into power after 1921 that they took the management of the Intercolonial railway or that part of the Canadian National system from Toronto and made what was known as the Maritime division extending from Sydney

The Address-Mr. Duff
and Halifax to Riviere du Loup. It is all very well for my hon. friends sitting in opposition or their newspapers to say that they would like to see the terminus of the Intercolonial railway at Montreal. Of course everybody would1 like to see it go as far as Toronto or Winnipeg as long as the management was at Moncton. But what are the facts? The hon. member for Cumberland spoke about our contractual rights under confederation. Everybody who has studied this question knows that when the Intercolonial was first built the terminus was at Riviere du Loup and not at Montreal. It was under a Liberal government that there was acquired that part of the Grand Trunk from Riviere du Loup to Montreal, and the first chance they got the Conservatives took the whole thing away from the Maritime provinces and placed the management in Toronto. The Liberal party and particularly the Liberal members from the Maritime provinces who were in this House from 1921 to 1925 have been charged with this breach of faith, and we are usually referred to an order in council dated January 20, 1923, P.C. 115, which declares that the different railways in the whole Canadian National system are to come under the railway commission in the matter of freight rates.' This order in council was passed not for the purpose of amalgamating the Intercolonial railway with the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk and other lines, but for the purpose of bringing the freight rate structure under the railway commission. The Liberal party in Nova Scotia are blamed for not looking after the interests of the people of that province and for ceding cur rights under confederation in the matter of railways. But I am going to show that the Liberal party have not only been innocent in this regard1 but as a matter of fact have opposed the taking of the Intercolonial railway into the Canadian National system. They voted against the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway. What are the facts? In the first session of parliament in 1919, the Conservative party being in power, Hon. Mr. Reidi as Minister of Railways introduced a resolution, as will be seen at page 1380 of Hansard of that year, to provide for the incorporation of the Canadian National Railway Company. In this connection he made the following statement:
I hardly think that there would be any objection to the resolution; it is merely to provide for the incorporation of a company to operate the whole of the railway systems which are under the control of the government.
14011-29i
He goes on to say:
The resolution .provides for the incorporation of a company to operate the Canadian Northern Railway system, the government railways-
Which means of course i the Intercolonial from Montreal to Halifax and Sydney.
-and such other railways as the government may purchase or acquire.
Further on, at page 1394, there will be found the resolution which was introduced by the Minister of Railways. That resolution reads in part:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the incorporation of Canadian National Railway Company, under which the railways, works and undertakings of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system may be consolidated, and together with the Canadian government railways may be operated as a national railway system.
Further on the resolution states:
The provisions of the Railway Act respecting the operation of a railway (as distinguished from the provisions of such act respecting ithe construction or maintenance of a railway) shall apply to such of the Canadian government railways as would but for the passing of this proposed legislation be subject to the Government Railways Act.
So that it was under a Conservative government, with Hon. Mr. Reid as Minister of Railways and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) then Minister of the Interior, that this legislation was put through; and I may say that the right hon. gentleman was at Doctor Reid's shoulder helping him in the passage of that act. 'In the course of the debate that ensued Doctor Reid was asked certain questions by Mr. Copp, when he made this statement:
I think some time in January the order in council was passed. So far as my memory goes, it indudes the line between Winnipeg and Moncton, the Intercolonial railway between Montreal and Sydney, all the branch lines connected with the Intercolonial, and the Prince Edward Island railway. . .
Mr. Copp: Was it with the Canadian government system before the order in council?
Mr. J. D. Reid : Yes, it was under construction and the contract was taken out of the hands of Mr. McArthur.
I have proved conclusively I think that so far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned the Liberal party did not introduce any legislation to have it taken over but on the contrary opposed this in parliament.
Mr. MacLAREN:: Why has not that order in council been cancelled with regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway along with the rest of the Canadian National system? It was done purely by order in council; it would require only something like an hour to cancel the arrangement.
The Address-Mr. Duff


William Duff: The hon. member is mistaken; I have shown that the Intercolonial was taken over by act of (parliament. The order in council was passed merely far the purpose of bringing the freight rate structure of the Intercolonial under the railway commission; but the amalgamation of the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial with the other roads was done by an act passed in 1919. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard he will see that the Canadian National Railway Act was passed under a Conservative government. He was not in the House at the time and cannot therefore be held responsible, but his friends put through that legislation bringing the Intercolonial railway from Sydney and Halifax to Montreal into the Canadian National system.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member is
just in his complaint why has not the government introduced legislation to amend the act?


William Duff: Would the right hon. gentleman support that legislation?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly would not,
but I am not complaining of the act as the hon. member is.


William Duff: I am not complaining of it
either; I am simply saying that the Liberal party was not responsible for the Intercolonial being made a part of the Canadian National system. I am sorry not to have convinced the right bon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: If the act is all right why complain about it? The hon. member says that I was at the railway minister's side helping him to put through the legislation, so that if that legislation is sound I ought to get some credit for it.


William Duff: I thought I gave the right
hon. gentleman credit for it. And I beg his pardon; I was not complaining. I am only stating a fact to refute Tory propaganda. I am showing that the Liberal party had nothing to do with the Intercolonial being taken over.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock I think I had proved conclusively that the severing of the Intercolonial railway from the Department of Railways and its incorporation in what is known as the {Canadian National railway system was the

work of the Conservative government when they introduced in 1919 legislation known as the Canadian National Railways Act. I may have reminded hon. gentlemen that during the recent election an order in council was very generally quoted in the Maritime provinces in an effort to show that the Liberals are to blame for this amalgamation. It will be remembered that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me why the government did not amend the legislation of 1919 or cancel the order in council. I immediately asked him if he would vote for such an amendment if I introduced it, and he replied, No. I hope that every man, woman and child in the Maritime provinces will now realize that the leader of the Conservative party in this House is against the Intercolonial railway being restored to the position it occupied when the Liberals were in power.
Let me go a step further with regard to the Maritime rights propaganda. During the recent .election the Conservatives in the Maritime provinces tried to make capital out of an expression used by the Prime Minister during his tour through that country. At one meeting he asked what were Maritime rights. Now,. Sir, there is no question whatever that our (Conservative friends and their newspapers twisted the meaning of the words the Prime Minister used, because I feel quite sure that he was asking the people of the Maritime provinces to be good enough to tell him anything that his government, or previous governments for that matter, had neglected to do in regard to what they considered their rights, in order that he might try to make good any such omission. It seems to me, Sir, that it came with very poor grace from the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to charge the Prime Minister with political inconsistency, for if there is any member of this House who should not say a word on the subject it is the hon. gentleman from Fort William.
The Liberal party is also blamed by our Conservative friends in 'the Maritime provinces for doing nothing, as they allege, to stop the export of grain and other Canadian commodities through American ports. They and their newspapers would almost make us believe that the Liberal party is to blame because the country is now saddled with the Grand Trunk railway, including the line from Montreal to Portland. Everyone who is familiar with the recent history of this country knows very well that the Liberal party had nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway. That railway was taken over by the Conservative government

The Address-Mr. Duff
in 1919. In order that this may be properly put before the House and the country, may I be permitted, Sir, to show what happened in parliament at that time and the stand taken respectively by the Conservative and by the Liberal members from the Maritime provinces with respect to this matter? In 1919 we had two sessions of parliament, and I think perhaps one of the main reasons for the second session was to approve of the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway. This afternoon an hon. member in a very friendly interruption asked me if I was including the railway expenditure in the statement which I was then giving the House of national expenditures for a number of years past. I was not. But let me say that the Conservative government by the acquisition of the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk railway increased the national debt to the' extent of $2,340,000,000. Now if the government which acquired 'both the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk had been good business men, they would never have paid this price for these roads. In the first place they took over the Canadian Northern, (after having given Mackenzie and Mann $75,000,000. They guaranteed 'the bonds and preferred stock and took over the road in spite of the fact that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) had stated that the ..common stock of the Canadian Northern was .not worth one dollar; and in 1916 or 1917, I forget which, the Conservative government of the day gave Mackenzie and Mann another $10,000,000, making $85,000,000 in all.
What did the Conservative government do when the Grand Trunk railway was taken over? Instead of allowing it to go under the sheriff's hammer, as would happen to you, Mr. Speaker, and to me if we could not pay our debts and meet our expenses, and letting it be sold for what it would bring in the market at that time, the Conservative government purchased the Grand Trunk railway, which included the road from Montreal to Portland, at a price more than twice what they would have had to pay if the road had gone under the hammer. They had guaranteed its stocks and bonds for hundreds of millions of dollars, but instead of letting it go under the hammer and buying it at a low valuation, they purchased it and the Canadian Northern at a cost of $2,340,000,000. By letting the roads go under the hammer they could have* purchased them for half that amount, and the country would be paying only half the amount of interest it is paying to-day on that account. And now they come and say that the Liberals are to blame because the Grand Trunk railway goes to Portland,
and because grain is not flowing to Halifax and St. John in larger quantities but is going instead to American seaports. What are the facts?
On the 15th of October, 1919, Hon. J. D. Reid, then Minister of Railways, introduced a resolution which will be found on page 1012 of Hansard1 of that year, and which appears under the heading "Grand Trunk Railway System-Resolution Respecting its Acquisition by the Government." I do not need to read this long resolution but if my hon. friends will look it up they will see that the Conservative government of that day introduced not only this resolution but the necessary legislation afterwards. The resolution was passed; every member of the Conservative party in the House at that time voted for it- voted for the acquisition of the Grand. Trunk railway, which included, as I said a moment ago, the line from Montreal to Portland. The present leader of the opposition was very anxious to have this resolution and the subsequent legislation passed, so that the Grand Trunk railway could be taken over by the government and the country. On page 1021 of Hansard of 1919, when we were endeavouring to find out from him if they were going to take over the American lines, he said:
The American government have been aware for almost two years that the Canadian government were the owners of a system Which controlled, bWned or operated-or all three together-lines in the United States. They are now the owners of another system; by means of the same process, stock ownership, they do the very same thing.
Mr. J. H. Sinclair, then the member for Guysborough asked:
The policy of the Grand Trunk, as I understand it, has always been to make Portland, Maine, the Atlantic terminus for their traffic. What is the view of the Minister of Railways in regard to that? Does he intend to continue that policy?
That was a plain question, but the hon. Minister of Railways sidestepped. He said at page 1021 of Hansard:
So far as I am concerned, as I stated a few minutes ago, when we take over the Grand Trunk railway system we will have one great national system of railways, and we must get the very best men available to manage the system, and they must, of course-
And this is very important:
-adopt whatever policy they think is best to ensure successful operation. I could not express an opinion on the question put by my hon. friend. The manager to be appointed will be the only person in the position to answer such a question.
In other words, he did not tell us that the Conservative party were opposed to the purchasing of the road from Montreal to Portland, nor did he say that when the road was purchased there would be no Canadian
4o4
The Address-Mr. Duff

goods or Canadian products go over the American line and through American seaports. Mr. Sinclair went on to say:
I asked the question because the government is making a bargain to take over the road, which ends in Portland, Maine, and if that port is not to be used as the winter terminus the road will be of very little use to us, and it should not be purchased. I presume from his answer that the minister does intend to continue the policy that the Grand Trunk management has always pursued and maintain Portland as the Atlantic terminus.
But the Minister of Railways held his peace; he did not answer that question. There is only one conclusion anyone can come to, and that is that the Conservative government of 1919 knew very well what they were doing when they took over the Grand Trunk railway. They knew Portland was its terminal, and they intended to keep Portland as the Grand Trunk terminal.
Now I go a little further. When the bill came up at a later stage, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) moved a resolution which I think the House will be interested in hearing, because it shows exactly where both the Liberal and the Conservative members for the Maritime provinces stood, and how they voted. On November 4. 1919, Mr. Parent moved the following resolution, which will be found on page 1746 of Hansard: That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that the House do come to the following resolution: That the Grand Trunk railway system which the government proposes to acquire, comprises many miles of railway lines on American soil;
That the Grand Trunk Railway Company has diverted most of its traffic from Canadian ports to the United States terminals;
That a continuance of such policy by the Canadian government would be injurious to Canadian trade and detrimental to our national welfare;
That the ownership by the Canadian government of the American section of the Grand Trunk railway would involve this country in international troubles respecting labour administration and public policy;
That for the above-mentioned reasons, the* acquisition of these lines means a serious danger of the annexation of Canada by the United States;
That the House is of opinion that before taking action towards the acquisition of the railway referred to the government should give an immediate assurance to this House that it does not intend to divert Canadian trade from Canadian ports by taking over that portion of the Grand Trunk railway situated and operated in the United States.
In that resolution three or four very important questions were put to the government of the day. The first was that the Grand Trunk railway had diverted most of its traffic from Canadian ports to its United States terminal; second, that a continuance of such a policy by the Canadian government would be injurious to Canadian trade and detrimental to our national welfare; third, that before the government took over the railway they should give the House an immediate 
assurance that it did not intend to divert Canadian trade from Canadian ports by taking over that portion of the Grand Trunk railway situated and operated in the United States. What did the government do? Did they heed the request of the hon. member for Quebec West? Oh, no. Almost immediately there was a vote on this important resolution, and every Conservative in the House voted for the taking over of the Grand Trunk railway system; voted for traffic to go from Canada to Portland and thence to Europe; voted also, against the protest of the Liberal party and the Liberal members from Nova Scotia, to take over the line which had its terminal at Portland.
As I said a moment ago, every Liberal member from the Maritime provinces voted for Mr. Parent's resolution, and every Conservative member from those provinces who was here in 1919 voted that Portland should be the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway, and that Canadian traffic should flow through an Aemrican port. Now, Sir, there is the record' of the two parties. Every Conservative member from the Maritimes provinces voted that Canadian traffic should go through an American port and did not raise his voice in favour of Maritime province ports, the ports of Halifax and St. John. There is the record, Sir, and I say that when hon. gentlemen opposite try to make out, either here or anywhere else, that the Liberal party is responsible for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway, or that if Canadian grain and other products have not been flowing through the ports of St. John and Halifax of recent years it is because the Liberal government allowed such a thing to take place, they ignore the facts.
With regard to the question of grain which is handled by the different railways in this country, especially by the Canadian National railways, let me say this: The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), the other night gave figures to show how much grain went through American ports in certain years and how much went through American ports from Canada. Of course I have to accept the hon. gentleman's figures, but I really do not know where he obtained them, because I went to the trouble of asking the Department of Trade and Commerce for the figures showing the grain movement during the period mentioned by my hon. friend, and for a number of other years. The hon. gentleman said that in 1919-20, when the Conservatives were in power, 48,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and only 13,000,000 bushels through American

The Address-Mr. Duff
ports. Now, Mr. Coats, the head of the Statistical branch, says that in 1919-20, 60,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and 22,000,000 bushels through American ports. The hon. member also said that in 1920-21 there were 32,000,000 bushels shipped through Canadian ports and 54,000,000 bushels through American ports. Now, the correct figures given by Mr. Coats show that 62,000,000 bushels went through Canadian ports and 64,000,000 through American ports in that year. But the worst is yet to come. There is no doubt in my mind that the hon. member was trying to convince the House that while the Liberal government was in power, from 1921 down, it did not do as well as the Conservative administration because the amount of Canadian wheat shipped through American ports, as given by the hon. gentleman, was very much greater than the quantity shipped through Canadian ports. My hon. friend says that in 1921-22, 34,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and 100,000,000 bushels through American ports. On the other hand the figures given by Mr. Coats show that in 1921-22 there were
66.000.	000 bushels shipped through Canadian ports and 118,000,000 bushels through American ports-quite a difference, as hon. gentlemen will notice. The hon. member also says that in 1922-23 the shipments of grain through Canadian ports amounted to 69,000,000 bushels and those through American ports, to 129,000,000 bushels. In opposition to this, Mr. Coats' figures show that 109,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and 153,000,000 through American ports. In 1923-24, the hon. gentleman says that 72,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and 141,000,000 bushels through American ports. The figures of Mr. Coats establish that in that year 152,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports-double the amount mentioned by my hon. friend-and
170.000.	000 bushels through American ports.
Now, Sir, I wish to give some more figures
because I think we may as well go back and see what our Conservative friends did when they were in power. The figures are as fol-
1915	Bushels
Through	Canadian	ports	
47,856,789Through	United	States	ports	
40,531,372Through	Canadian	ports	
47,000,000Through	United	States	ports	
133,000,000Through	Canadian	ports	
80,000,000Through	United	States	ports	
160,000,000Through	Canadian	ports	
76,000,000Through	United	States	ports	
104,000,000
So that during the time the Conservatives were in power a far greater quantity of Canadian wheat went through Portland and other American ports than has gone since the Liberals held office, or is going to-day. Efforts are being made through the medium of newspapers throughout the country to show that the Liberal government is not endeavouring to have Canadian grain or Canadian products go through Canadian ports, but that on the contrary it is trying to encourage their shipment through American ports. Sir, as to the movement of grain, let me say that so far as this government is concerned-and the other government is on record as iwell-there should be no political interference with the Canadian National railways. They were supposed to be placed on a strictly business footing and, as I said this afternoon, Sir Thomas White in the speech which he made in this House told us quite plainly that there was to be no political interference with the railways. Speaking personally, I should like to see every kernel of grain raised in the west go through either the ports of St. John, Halifax, Montreal or Vancouver. But, Mr. Speaker, if you were a grain-grower or a handler of wheat in Winnipeg or Regina or some other point on the western prairies, and you felt that it would be to your advantage, that you could make a better bargain, by shipping your wheat over a certain route, that is your business and not the concern of anybody else. The trouble in this country, Sir, is that there is too much governmental interference with private business, and I say the less the government interferes with private enterprise the more surely will business in this country grow and prosper. That is one reason why I was glad to see the Business Profits Tax taken off, because while it was in effect people would not invest money in this country. So I say there should be as little interference with business as possible. Of course the Canadian National Railways Should do everything possible to get the grain, the cattle, and the manufactured products to go from the western provinces, or from Ontario and Quebec, through Maritime province ports; but I repeat that if any man in the west desires to ship his grain through United States channels, you or I have no business to dictate to him what he should do.
Right here let me also say this: the Liberal government had endeavoured by every means in its power to have Canadian grain go through Canadian ports. The only thing, it seems to me, the present government or any government could do is to give
The Address-[DOT]Mr. Duff


Mr. MULLINS:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? What did the Liberal government do to -help -the cattle industry in regard to lowering the rates on live stock to the seaboard?


William Duff: I am not interested in the
cattle business, but I do know that the face of my hon. friend was very familiar to me when he first came to this House about a fortnight ago. I remember my hon. friend appearing before the Ocean Rates committee last year; he was one of the best witnesses the government had on the question of having the rates on cattle reduced. I suppose if the government now -brings in some legislation to decrease or regulate freight rates, my hon. friend will support his leader and vote against that proposal.


Mr. MANION:: Some proposal such as the Petersen contract?


William Duff: No, not the Petersen contract or the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, for which my hon. friend voted $80,000,000 of the money of this country.
Mr. MAN'ION:	I did not vote for the
Petersen contract, and- I do not think my hon. friend voted for it either.


William Duff: My hon. friend did not have
the chance to vote for the Petersen contract. I might have had something to do with that myself, for all my hon. friend knows.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman helped to kick it out, I think.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I have shown
conclusively that this government has reduced the rates, and I say that is all it can do. It seems to me that if we want the Canadian National Railways to help the people in the Maritime provinces get lower -rates on grain in order to have that grain flow through St. John or Halifax, it is not good business or good politics to fly in the faces of the Canadian National Railway officials. You can catch flies with sugar much more easily than you can catch them with vinegar.


Mr. HANSON:: Has my hon. friend caught very many either way?


William Duff: Yes, I have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A fly-catcher?


William Duff: Yes, but I do not open my
mouth like my hon. friend.
I have dealt with the first chapter of the so-called gospel of Maritime rights, and I have also dealt with the second, which refers to trade through Canadian -ports. I have proved conclusively, I think, that the reason we are not getting -more trade through Canadian ports is because the Conservative government bought the Grand Trunk Railway. Another reason, to my mind, is that there are greater facilities available in New York, Boston, and other United States ports; vessels find it far easier to arrange for cargo out of those ports than out of Maritime ports. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a danger in the propaganda which results when we on the floor of .this House, in the public press, or on the public platform, talk about the amount of Canadian grain that is flowing through United States ports. There is a danger in it, and- we should stop, look and listen. We should remember that we get a great deal of business through Canadian ports from the United States, and if we are going to talk about stopping Canadian grain from going through United States ports, can anyone suggest that the great nation to the south will not retaliate and say, "If that is the way you feel about us, we will put on an embargo or do something else to prevent American exports from going through Canadian ports"? We had better be careful because I will show you what this business amounts to. In 1918 fifty iper cent more grain came through Canadian -ports from the United States than went from Canada through United States ports. In 1919, 22,000,009 bushels of wheat went through United States ports from Canada and 12,000,000 bushels went through Canadian ports from the United States. In 1920, 64,000,000 bushels went through American -ports from Canada and
40,000,000 bushels went through Canadian

The Address-Mr. Duff
ports from the United States. In 1921, 89,000,000 bushels of American wheat went through Canadian ports; in 1922, 55,000,000 bushels of American wheat came through Canada; in 1923, 28,000,000 bushels came through Canada and' in 1924-25, 88,000,000 bushels went through Canadian ports from the United1 States. Are we going to say that no Canadian wheat must go through American ports, and in that- way stop this great flow of American wheat which comes through our own ports, giving work to large numbers of our citizens?
Let me go a step further. The other clauses in this gospel of Maritime rights, which you will find in page 229 of Hansard, mean practically nothing. They are only pious wishes, but if any hon. gentleman who speaks after me can explain the meaning of clauses 4, 5 and 6, I am sure the House would be glad to hear him. We hear a great deal from our Conservative friends about the Transcontinental railway; they say there is no reason why Canadian grain cannot travel over the Transcontinental railway to St. John and Halifax. Oh, how times have changed. I have before me a copy of a newspaper with a photograph of our late lamented leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which covers almost half the page. This paper goes on to tell what Laurier did for this country when he built the Transcontinental railway, and now my hon. friends opposite want to know if the pledge made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the people of this country is going to be broken. I say it does not lie in the mouths of the Conservatives to talk about what Laurier did in connection with the Transcontinental railway because every Conservative in the House at the time the matter was under consideration defamed the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I say it ill becomes them to say that the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier should be carried: out and that grain should thereby flow through Maritime ports. It is quite true that this railway was built so that Canadian grain could be carried over Canadian railways. But what did our Conservative friends do immediately after they came into power in 1911? The railway was not quite finished'. There were a number of bridges to be built and there was grading to be done. Did they finish the railway in accordance with the plans of the engineers? No. They degraded the railway; they put in wooden bridges and1 they made the grade such that one engine could1 haul only some sixty cars of grain instead of one hundred and twenty. This is what our hon. friends did1 and' now they say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy should be carried out so that grain can be taken through the Maritime ports of Halifax and St. John.
These so-called Maritime righters took their appeal to the western city of Winnipeg. A conference of boards of trade I think was held there this summer and they put their case before that large assembly of prominent business men from all parts of Canada. I believe some of them even had their expenses paid to go there. But what happened? Even Conservative papers in Nova Scotia gave only about two inches of space to what occurred at that Winnipeg conference in regard to Maritime rights. A delegation was appointed from the conference to come to Ottawa and interview the government about certain matters such as railway rates. What did they do about Maritime rights? Not one word did this committee of a large conference of boards of trade say about Maritime rights when they came before the government. They forgot all about that question.
Let me go a little further. What does a Conservative newspaper in Montreal say about this question of grain going through Canadian ports? The Montreal Gazette is a Conservative newspaper, and speaking of the Winnipeg conference it has this to say:
It is significant that the resolutions discussed at Ottawa included no reference to the tariff, though alleged inequalities in the operation of the tariff have been stressed on many occasions by spokesmen for the Maritime provinces and the west. Nor was any recommendation made respecting freight rate concessions in favour of the Maritimes, the conference having taken the fair and common sense view that no section or sections of the Dominion are entitled to special treatment in -this respect. As a matter of fact, the recommendations made by the conference on Wednesday were more notable for what they avoided than for what was actually contained in them.
Asked by one of the members of the government what could be done for the Maritimes, Lieutenant Colonel Brown suggested immigration, water power utilisation and the improvement or harbour facilities.
The Gazette goes on:
The Dominion has already spent millions on harbour improvements on the Atlantic seaboard, and further expenditures have been planned, but the provision of better facilities will not, alone, create business for Maritime province ports. The difficulties, so far as relations with the rest of the Dominion are concerned, are geographical, and no one has yet been able to show how they can be overcome by other parts of Canada. As to the development and utilisation of water powers, those-like so many others-are matters for the Maritimes to deal with themselves, as other provinces have done.
These are words of wisdom from a Conservative paper published in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec.
Let me turn to Ontario for a little while and see what is said there about all this agitation by certain people in the Maritime provinces in regard to so-called Maritime rights. This is from a newspaper which supports the leader of the opposition and the
The Address-Mr. Duff

Conservative party. It is headed, "Exporting Grain via the Maritimes," and it says:
The Maritimes ports' plea that they be given a larger share of Canada's export grain traffic is receiving much sympathy from journals in other provinces. There is a general demand that Canadian grain which is now exported via the United States should be diverted to the Maritimes, and reference is being made to pre-confederation promises that geography should not be allowed to prevent the Maritimes from participating equally with sister provinces in the prosperity of the new Dominion. Saturday Night, a journal with as many readers in the Maritimes and the west, in	proportion to	population,	as	in thecentral provinces, desires no less than its contemporaries the welfare of the Maritimes, but it believes that there is	a general lack	of information	in the
present matter, and that nothing but harm can result from neglect or refusal to face the facts.
The truth is that if Halifax and St. John are to handle a large volume of export grain, the whole of Canada must	pay the cost,	and that	cost	wouldheavily outweigh the benefit	derived by the	ports.
Grain handling is not quite so remunerative as some people in the Maritimes seem to imagine. There are not millions in it. A writer pointed out the other day if a Halifax elevator were to handle fifty million bushels of grain it would receive but some $200,000 for its services. Outside of the regular liners, which take grain for ballasting purposes, 250 vessels might be required to carry such an amount and assuming that each vessel would spend $1,000 in port while loading, and that half of this, or $500, was profit, the city's merchants would make $125,000 from the custom of those 250 ships. Add this sum to the $200,000 received in elevator charges, and we have $325,000 as the profit to the community from handling fifty million bushels of gram.
Now as to the cost of getting this $325,000. At the present time, in order to provide grain to ballast passenger liners, the railways haul grain all the way from Georgian bay ports to Halifax and St. John ror 9.1 cents per bushel, including elevator charges, this works out at about three-tenths of a cent per ton mile, whereas the normal freight rate on grain is about three-quarters of a cent per ton mile. This means a loss to the railways of the difference between those rates, or sixteen and eight-tenths cents per bushel. Thus if it carried fifty million bushels, ~e Canadian National Railways would according to Mr. A. A. Wright who compiled these figures, have to contribute the nice little sum of $8,400,000 to enable Halifax to get its $325,000. And the Canadian National Railways means the taxpayers of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway is out proportionately on gram earned to St. John, and if the amount were increased the loss would have to be made up, as it is now, by other users of the line.
It is obvious, therefore, that rather than ship large quantities of grain to Halifax and St. John, the rest of Canada would find it better to pay these ports a subsidy in place of paying larger amounts in radway
We have heard from Montreal and Toronto. It seems to me our Maritime friends had better ibe sure of their ground if they think they are going to get very much from our hon. friends on the other side, especially in view of the fact that the leader of the opposition stated definitely that if an amendment were moved to the Canadian National Railway Act to put back the Intercolonial railway under the management of the Rail-

way department, he would not support such an amendment. In other words, he is against the Intercolonial going back under the control of the department.
My hon. friends say that when the Liberals were in power from 1921 to 1925, they did nothing to decrease freight rates either to or from the Maritime provinces. I hold in my hand the freight and express rates on fish from Halifax, St. John and other ports in the Maritime provinces to western points. It will perhaps be remembered that a complaint was made by shippers of fresh fish to Ontario and western Canada that the express rate especially was very much greater on fish going from the Atlantic to inland points than from the Pacific to Winnipeg and other points. The Liberal members of parliament went before the railway commission and they arranged a substantial decrease. For instance, the rates on fish to various points were as follows:
Old Rato New Rate Per 100 pounds Per 100 pounds
Winnipeg	
$10	06	$5	40Toronto	
2	12i	1	70Montreal	
1	81	1	45Ottawa	
1	94	1	55
'So that it is the Liberal party that has tried to make reductions in the interests of the Maritime provinces, whereas all the time our Conservative friends were in power, from 1911 to 1921, they never made an attempt to have the freight rates reduced on the Intercolonial. In the Halifax Chronicle's New Year's edition there appeared a letter from Sir Henry Thornton disclosing the conditions as he saw them on the Canadian National Railways. We are told sometimes by the advocates of (Maritime rights that the people in that part of the country are putting large sums of money into the Canadian National Railways and getting little out. Now I do not know precisely what the facts are, but I have not the slightest doubt that Sir Henry Thornton is intimately acquainted with them, and I am quite prepared to take his word for it. Let me read to the House what he has to say on the subject:
Encouraging Results on Atlantic Region In spite of the situation as it existed over the greater partt of this year, some encouraging results have been achieved on the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railways. If we consider for a moraemt the matter of exports and imports handled by the Canadian National railways through the sea ports of the Maritimes, we find that our figures, covering the period from January to October, inclusive, show an increase of 26.43 per cent in the total exports of package freight routed through the ports of Halifax and St. John, as compared with the corresponding period of 1924. Exports of live stock routed by the Canadian National Railways over the same period through the same ports, show an increase of 22.4 per cent and the import traffic an increase of 37 per cent.

The Address-Mr. Duff
It would not seem therefore that we are going to the demnition bow-wows in the Maritime provinces as hon. gentlemen from that part of the country suggest; things down there are all right in spite of the wailing of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). Sir Henry Thornton made the further statement that last year the Canadian National Railways spent in the Maritime provinces in purchasing supplies and paying wages some $33,000,000, although they collected in gross earnings only $20,000,000. After all is said and done, therefore, it appears that the portion of the Canadian National Railways known as the Intercolonial is, as a matter of fact, not doing so badly under the present management and since the present government has been in office.
I do not think that we in the Maritime provinces can ever hope to make much progress so long as there are people there who insist on going around decrying the country. I have lived in Nova Scotia for thirty years, and standing in my place here I say quite emphatically that if a man is willing to work and is endowed with a little horse sense and some ability there is no reason whatever why he should not do as well in the 9 p.m. Maritime provinces as in any other part of Canada. I challenge any hon. gentleman in this House to tell us what the Conservative government did for the Maritime provinces during its term of office between 1911 and 1921. It accomplished nothing, whereas the Liberal government has a record to be proud of so far as the Maritimes are concerned. Let me mention some of the things which the Liberal party has done. In the first place, in 1911 we tried to make a reciprocal arrangement with the United States in regard to natural products, and that agreement, which would have made for the prosperity of the Maritime provinces, was defeated by the Conservative party. It would have been distinctly in the interests of the Maritime provinces, and I have no hesitation in saying that most Conservatives agree to-day, as do all Liberals, that the greatest mistake we ever made was in rejecting that agreement. The Liberal government built the National Transcontinental purposely to take business to St. John and Halifax, and the Liberal government removed the differential in freight rates in order to allow grain from AVinnipeg and the western provinces to move to Halifax and St. John, as it does now, at the same rate as it can be taken to Portland. But when the Conservative government was in power they did nothing in this respect; they never attempted to take off that differential and so give the Maritime provinces a chance to live. The Liberal government, further, increased the British preference ten per cent. It was provided that on every dollar's worth of goods coming into Canada through any of the Canadian ports of Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal and Vancouver- not through the American port of Portland or through New York-the importers should get a special preference of ten per cent. The result has been that they have been enabled to sell their goods cheaper to the consumer in this country. The Liberal government also arranged with Lloyds and other great insurance companies in Great Britain and the United States to reduce the marine rates from Europe to points in the Atlantic region, including the ports of Halifax and St. John. For a number of years we had had to pay a larger insurance premium on goods or ships coming to Maritime province ports than was paid on goods or ships going either to Montreal or to New York, and the Liberal government arranged with the insurance companies that a reduction should be made so that the same rate should apply to goods coming into the Maritime provinces as to goods going to Portland, New York or Montreal.
And the Liberal government, in order to encourage the routing of grain through Maritime province ports, built an elevator in Halifax. I should like to see sufficient grain going through Halifax to warrant the construction of ten or fifteen or even twenty elevators, and in this regard I must take a different view from that expressed this afternoon by an hon. member who spoke on the other side. I am in favour of the operation of elevators in Halifax, although I am free to say that it would do me no good personally nor would it benefit my own constituents. The Liberal government, to stimulate that traffic, constructed that grain elevator in Halifax and they also completed a landing shed. As I said this afternoon, the Conservatives had practically wasted $15,000,000 on so-called ocean terminals, and when they went out of power they left this shed a mere iron frame rearing itself up to the sky. The storms of five or six years beat upon that stark, halffinished structure, and it was only when this government came into office that the shed was put into proper condition. The Conservatives left it with its ribs sticking out and the Liberal government had to complete it. Again, it was the Liberal government that built the pier in the sister town of Dartmouth. Formerly the lumber that was manufactured on the eastern shore and brought to Dartmouth had to be taken either to private wharves or else to Halifax to be put on board ship, and the Liberal government, realizing

The Address-Mr. Duff
that something must he done to accommodate the lumber shippers, constructed a. large pier at the town of Dartmouth, thus facilitating the movement of lumber from that vicinity. And in order to look after the wants of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins), the Liberal government provided cattle shipping facilities at the port of Halifax. In this connection I beg to tell my hon. friend on behalf of the people of the Maritime provinces that I should be pleased to have him send as many shipments of cattle as he possibly can through Halifax. But the Liberal government have done more than that: they appointed a special immigration officer for the Maritime provinces. Our Tory friends while the}' were in power did not care about immigration, although they indulge in a great deal of criticism now about the number of people who are leaving the Maritime provinces. Of course there are some people leaving the Maritime provinces; there always will be. We would not have such a virile race if everybody stayed at home. Our people move from province to province; sometimes they leave their native land. In my view there is nothing to be alarmed at because of this spirit of adventure among our people. But the Liberal party has always been in favour of immigration. As I said a moment ago, the government has arranged with the Canadian National Railways to appoint a special immigration officer with headquarters at Moncton to get immigrants for the Maritime provinces. I also referred to the fact that the government had arranged for lower express rates on fish.
Then, again, the Liberal government has done something for the coal business in the Maritime provinces. When our Conservative friends were in power they did nothing for the coal business, and although they boast of being protectionists they did not even raise the duty on coal. This government did raise the duty on slack coal in order to keep out coal from the United States which was being marketed as slack coal but was really competing with our run of mine and screened coal. If protection is so excellent a thing as our Conservative friends claim, certainly they should give us credit for what we have done in that respect. But we did more than that, Sir, in order to encourage the shipment of Nova Scotia coal to the central provinces. The Conservatives all the years they were in office did nothing to this end. Two years ago in spite of the opposition of our Conservative friends, the Liberal government introduced a vote of, I think, $200,000 to help 
the movement. There is the record of this government in their efforts to help the coal industry of Nova Scotia. But that is not all. Last year the government, realizing that great quantities of slack coal could be converted into coke, which could be marketed in the central provinces, introduced legislation to effect that purpose. I hope similar legislation will be introduced again this session, because I believe it will be of great benefit to the Maritime provinces.
Now, Sir, what more can be done for the Maritime provinces? What are really Maritime rights?


Mr. PETTIT:: Does the hon. gentleman
say that the rights asserted and the grievances complained of by the hon. members from the Maritime provinces are groundless?-for the whole trend of the hon. member's speech to-day has been that they are-if so, why the proposed appointment of a royal commission mentioned in the Speech from the Throne to inquire into Maritime matters?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I do not know why my hon. friends are applauding. I did not say that those rights and grievances were groundless. What I have been trying to prove is that our Conservative friends did nothing for the Maritime provinces, that anything that was done must be credited to the Liberal government. For the last five minutes, if my hon. friend has been listening, he must have heard me read out the list of things which the Liberal government has done for the Maritime provinces. I challenge him or any other member to tell me one thing that the Tory party ever did for the Maritime provinces.


George Hamilton Pettit: You have not answered my question.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend cannot expect me to answer a question founded on something that I did not discuss.


George Hamilton Pettit: Did not the hon. gentleman say this afternoon that Maritime rights was Tory propaganda?


William Duff: I said that what the Tories were talking about was Tory propaganda.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: Yes, that is what it is, and I have proved it conclusively. In fact, in the corridors last night and this morning they were talking about the good deal they had made with Sir Henry Thornton on the coal

The Address-Mr. Duff
question. Here I have a despatch from Sydney which says:
Miners' chief scores Rhodes ministry.
J. W. MacLeod claims government has done nothing to remedy distress in mining districts.
No response to frequent appeals.
Cape Breton county council appoints committee to meet government representatives in Halifax or Sydney.


Robert James Manion: What did he say about the Dominion government?


William Duff: Nothing. If my hon. friend had been here this afternoon when I was talking about the coal question he would have heard me say that barely ten months ago the Tories in Nova Scotia were stating on every platform and in the public press that the coal question was a matter entirely for the local Armstrong government in Halifax to deal with, and they were going to hold him and his government accountable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the Armstrong government was held accountable.


William Duff: Now, Sir, I was asking what could be done for the Maritime provinces in addition to what the Liberal government has already accomplished. I omitted to say that the Liberal government had arranged for a trade treaty with the British West Indies, whereby certain manufactured goods and raw materials which we export would enter the West Indies duty free, or at much lower rates of duty than formerly, with corresponding concessions to goods from the West Indies entering our markets. Of course, the leader of the opposition-and some of the Conservative candidates at the last election stated from the platform that they agreed with his policy-urged that we should sell our Maritime province goods in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Who said, "hear, hear"; was it the hon. member for York-Sunbury?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


William Duff: No, he had better not! The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), of course, knows very well that we cannot sell our natural products in Quebec or Ontario, simply and solely because those products are apples, potatoes, lumber and fish. Can we sell apples in Ontario or Quebec? No, because they raise more than they require for their own use. We have to send our apples to Great Britain and foreign countries. The same applies to lumber and pulp-wood. As to fish, it is true we sell perhaps one per cent of our catch to Quebec and Ontario, but our great markets for fish, for lumber, for apples and for potatoes are the
world's markets, and the Liberal government i3 on record as encouraging our export business by making trade treaties with foreign nations so that the Maritime provinces can have their "place in the sun". What else do we want? Our Conservative friends talk about reduced freight rates. Personally I believe that lower freight rates on goods from Quebec and Ontario would be the worst thing that could happen to the Maritime provinces. Why? Because, as I said a moment ago, practically we cannot sell one dollar's worth of our products in the great markets of Ontario and Quebec; but under the present fiscal policy we are compelled to buy our goods from the manufacturers of the central provinces, and if the freight rates were reduced we would still be compelled to buy from them and they would get the benefit. What we want is to be able to. trade in foreign markets, with the United States, the West Indies, Europe, anywhere outside the Maritime provinces or outside of Canada, practically. What we want further, just as fast as it can be given to us, is as low a tariff as it is possible for this parliament to give the Maritime provinces. I am not a free trader. I would like to be, but I know free trade is impossible on account of the fact that we are a confederation and we must deal fairly with every part of this great country, but I do say that instead of talking a lot of nonsense, if these so-called Maritime righters who are willing to follow the policy of the leader of the opposition for higher protection would say: No, we believe in a policy of wider markets for our products, and in as low a tariff as possible- -then the Maritime provinces would come into their own.
I do not want hon. gentlemen to take my word alone. A greater than I has spoken on this question, a strong Conservative; he is not a Grit, not even a renegade Grit; he .s still a Conservative. I refer to the Hon. F. B. McCurdy. Of course, he did not appear at the Truro meeting when the leader of the opposition was there a year ago, nor did the present Premier of Nova Scotia appear on the platform of the leader of the opposition in Halifax when he was there this fall. Let me quote what Hon. Mr. McCurdy says:
We who live in Nova Scotia must pay the tribute to Ontario and Quebec exacted by the so-called "National" ipolicy, but when it comes to a question of protecting our interests and our ports, that we are told, is another matter; our protests go unheeded, and we are left, to watch the growth and development of a great system of transportation.
He says further:
The mass production at the large industrial centres has driven to the wall the modest manufacturing estab-
462	.	COMMONS
The Address-'Mr. Duff
lishments of this province, whose failure was the signal for the mass producers to raise their prices to the utmost limit permitted by the tariff. The system has brought to Oanada in twenty-five years the branches of seven hundred American factories, of which, however, the first has yet to be located in these (the Maritime) provinces. It protects an automobile industry that can export 60,000 motor cars in a year to foreign lands in competition with the States, while soaking consumers in this province (Nova Scotia) and elsewhere in Canada from 50 to 60 per cent more than duplicate cars sell at retail in the United States.- very fine, perhaps, for the Windsor and Oshawa districts where cars are made, but economic death to the people who pay.
I agree with Mr. McCurdy, and the quicker the duty on automobiles is reduced, the better for the people of this country. I was telling this afternoon of one of our Tory senators closing a big industrial plant in Amherst. I could tell of another gentleman in the Senate, anothgr Tory, who moved a woollen mill from Amherst to Truro. He did not care much about Amherst; he did not care about the people of Amherst leaving there and going to the United States or elsewhere-that is the attitude of our friends the Tories in Truro and Montreal. Mr. McCurdy goes on to say:
With our factories dosed and closing, and having therefore to buy our manufactured goods from Ontario behind that tariff wall which reaches to thirty-five per cent, we find each of our dollars alarmingly clipped in buying power. Were we able to pay for these purchases by sending in exchange goods on which we enjoyed a like protection, there would be no hardship, our relative position in that regard would not be unfair, but we find in practice that those who thus sell us cannot, or will not, take our products. They do not need our beef, cheese, butter, eggs, lumber, or fruit, and we must send our produce to other lands; potatoes to Cuba, fish to Brazil and the Mediterranean, lumber to foreign lands, and apples to England, all to be sold in competition with the world, and therefore at low prices, in order to provide the dollars wherewith to pay for goods from central Canada manufactured and .sold to us behind a tariff wall, reaching to thirty-five per cent .vhich keeps out competition.
The tariff arrangements of the Dominion are naturally made to suit the centres of greatest population and no consideration is given to our needs.
Under the present Canadian economic system every home in this province is in jeopardy and members of every family are threatened with expulsion. If the choice must be between party and province then in the interests of our homes can we hesitate in our selection? Not the fortunes of rival political forces at Ottawa is of interest to the people in their present plight. What we need, if we could thrive, is the opportunity to live our own lives, to develop our own resources and to increase our own culture under fiscal arrangements that are suited to our needs, that will ensure us a square deal.
Those are the words of Hon. Mr. McCurdy, a leading Conservative in the province of Nova Scotia. I repeat that what we want in the Maritime provinces is for this government to endeavour to encourage the production of our natural products. Let this government do everything possible to increase

the products of our farms, our fisheries, and everything else in which we in the Maritime provinces are vitally interested. Let them help us look for markets so that we can get a better price for the goods which we have produced and which we have to sell. Then a Liberal government, a real Liberal government-and I am glad to see that a tariff board is to be appointed; I hope the very best men available will be placed upon it-will take steps, I hope, when the report of this board is presented, to see that Maritime interests are properly protected and a lower tariff given to the Maritime provinces.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, may I, too, lay at your feet my respectful tribute of esteem, born of good1 report, matured in pleasant experience. May I also express my felicitations to the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address in, reply to the Speech from the Throne-two speeches, each excellent in diction and in delivery; good performances, and all the better because given in a hopeless cause.
Mr. Speaker, I have followed with at least great attention the remarks of the hon. member for Queens-Lunemburg (Mr. Duff). It took some time doing it, and I am not prepared to discuss all that the hon. gentleman had to say. He cited many good things the Liberals had done for his province and the Maritimes generally, and I could not help wondering at the ingratitude of the people down there in returning at the last general election only six of those Liberals Who did so much, and twenty-three Conservatives to support my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). It would not be useful for me to attempt to add to what my hon. friend has said. I gathered that largely what he had to say had been said before. His extracts from Hansard proved he was dealing with subjects long ago settled, and at this stage I doubt whether I or anyone else can usefully add to the discussion in that regard.
There was one matter that came out in the course of the speech of my hon. friend that I would like to have heard something more about. He said that two years ago the Liberal government reduced the freight rates on certain commodities. That certainly is a statement that requires some explanation.


William Duff: Pardon me, I said the railway commission.


George Reginald Geary: No. My hon. friend may
have intended so to say, but he certainly, if he will take my word for it, said the Liberal government.

The Address-Mr. Geary


William Duff: What I said was-I was talking of express rates on fish-that the Liberal members from Nova Scotia-


George Reginald Geary: That came afterwards.


William Duff: -had gone to the railway commission and got the express rates on fish reduced.


George Reginald Geary: The Liberal members did no such thing. I happen to know a little about freight rate inquiries, and I know how they have proceeded pretty generally throughout this country for the last few years. If my hon. friend intended to say that the railway commission reduced the rates, where then was any argument he sought to adduce on behalf of the Liberal government? I mention this because the hon. gentleman was very clear in his statement throughout the afternoon that a body independent of this House, such as the Canadian National Railways, should not be interfered with in any degree either by this House or by the government of the country. What caused my astonishment was the suggestion-and I am glad my hon. friend has withdrawn it-that the government of this country had anything to do with the reduction of freight rates, which matter is entirely controlled and handled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I desire with your leave to address myself to what seems to me to be the most important matter touched upon in the Speech from the Throne and dealt with in the amendment offered by my right hon. leader, the fiscal policy of Canada. One would have expected, Sir, a clear, unmistakable enunciation of the policy of the government in that regard, because it is the supreme question of difference in this House. It is the question of all questions that were laid before the people of Canada in October last. The Prime Minister in his election manifesto delivered at Richmond Hill put the tariff along with three other matters as being the four prime subjects for discussion before the electors-the tariff, immigration, railway, Senate reform. I do not pause, Sir, to devote any attention whatever to what the Toronto Globe was so unkind as to call "the feather duster policy" of the government, Senate reform, but pass to the three great questions which are left-tariff, immigration, railway. Of these three the greatest is the tariff. It is the greatest because it is the basis and foundation upon which is reared the superstructure of production and commerce which has to do with the prosperity or otherwise of this country. That being so, the solution of the other two problems follows clearly and inevitably in its train.
In the election on October 29, Canada voted for protection. I want to adduce just one evidence from the other side, the statement of the Toronto Star to that effect; and while I do not take an affirmative statement of the Toronto Star as being of any particular value,
I can take its admission as being somewhat damaging to its party. That at all events came definitely from the crucible. I am not to be taken as unaware that it is said that the policy of the Conservative party on the tariff met with defeat in the province of Quebec. Nor have I any observations to add to those already made with respect to the recent election in that province. But if the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) will forgive me I should like to say that his speech was a disappointment; it did not seem convincing to me. I mean it in no offensive sense when I say that largely it struck me as intended to amuse and enthuse his acquiescent colleagues. His main argument was the tu quoque argument: "If we were bad, so were you." I gather that the hon. gentleman was not in accord with Mr. Patenaude whose name occurred quite frequently during his address, and I gathered too that he was solicitous as to the feelings of the right hon. leader of the opposition. But while he spoke-


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: May I suggest to the hon. member that we shall be able to hear him better and to follow his argument with more intelligence if he raises his voice a little.


George Reginald Geary: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the suggestion. The hon. member for St. James informed us during the election that there was discussion in his own hearing as to tariff questions, and I think he mentioned particularly having heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) in that regard. I regret to say that the hon. member left us uninformed as to the stand which the Liberal party took on the question of protection during the election. This much can be admitted, that there was some animation during the election in Quebec; that the contest was characterized by a certain liveliness. And it may be taken I think, on the whole case as put before us, that if the tariff was discussed from the point of view of protection or no protection, in some cases at least that issue was overshadowed by the discussion of irrelevant issues. I think it will be frankly admitted -it has been frankly admitted-that there are many members of the Liberal party sitting in this House at the present moment who are avowed protectionists. I make bold to say-my hon. friend need not contradict
4M
The Address-Mr. Geary

me; I will take it as if he had-that the old province of Quebec to-day is as strongly protectionist as ever she was. Mr. Speaker, there has been some contradiction in terms. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), questioned as to the policy upon which he and his colleagues had been elected, said it was on the policy of a moderate tariff. The right hon. Minister of Justice-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not "right hon."


Ernest Lapointe: Not yet.


George Reginald Geary: I am, perhaps, anticipating. At any rate the minister stated that the tariff policy upon which the Liberals were elected was a policy of low tariff. Sir, to me those are words only, purely a matter of terminology. There is no such thing as high, low, or moderate tariff. Those words are relative terms only, and indicate no principle. You may have a duty that is higher than a protective dirty; you may have a duty that is lower than is a protective duty; but the policy of the Conservative party has never been any of these. The word to be used in describing the policy of the Conservative party is a simple word-"protection." Its meaning is clear. It is unmistakable, understandable. It does not mean a tariff that gives a bonus to a farmer or to a manufacturer. It does mean a tariff that gives to each a fair chance to compete under the unfair conditions which he is obliged to meet. That, as I understand it, is protection, the policy of the Conservative party. I should like-and again I will be disappointed, I am afraid-to learn from those opposite one by one whether that is the policy of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Reginald Geary: One cannot ask them to
stand in their places; I hear "sure" and "no." I should like to poll them. I am not to have that opportunity, but I do hope each of my hon. friends, as he discusses the matters before the House, will dearly indicate whether or not he believes in a tariff for protection. I must seek to extract from written articles and verbal statements what the Liberal policy was during the last campaign. At Richmond Hill the Prime Minister issued his call to battle. He described his policy in these words: This is the difference; the Liberal tariff policy is a tariff primarily for revenue, as opposed to the Conservative policy of a tariff primarily for protection. Just what the word "primarily" may add to

that statement is beyond me. The Prime Minister, conscious of having made a direct and perhaps understandable statement, referred to it later. in bis manifesto as one which must, of course, have regard to established industries, or something of that sort. Then I refer to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who said recently in this House that tJhe tariff policy of the Liberal party is a tariff for revenue. I suppose he still adheres to that statement. What a tariff for revenue means to me is a tariff to get revenue; it is a tariff so low that goods will come freely over it and so produce the revenue. It is understandable in that sense, and if that is the policy of my hon. friends I accept from the Minister of Agriculture, at least, his firm declaration as to where he stands. After making the speech at Richmond Hill Mr. King took a wide swing, through the west. I am not sure jvhat happened to his views during his itinerary, but he came back and made a speech at Kingston, a speech which savoured very strongly of protection. In fact, he went so far as to say that if Sir John A. Macdonald, the great leader of the Conservative party, were to rise from his tomb he would be found joining with Mr. King in advocating the policy which he was advocating. But I might point out, Sir, that that speech was made in the evening, and according to the press reports the Prime Minister in the afternoon made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Sir John, where doubtless he saw that all was well. Coming through Durham he had occasion to support Mr. Massey. One may excuse Mr. Massey for some confusion. Some eighteen months before, Mr. Massey had been a convinced and emphatic protectionist, and one understands that the adjectives he used to emphasize his conviction were very potent. At all events, Mr. Massey was a convinced protectionist. But by the time Mr. King reached Durham Mr. Massey had swallowed the pill which Mr. King had sugar-coated in various ways, as perhaps you know. He was also talking something akin to protection, although again I think he was confused. The stock argument of Mr. Massey in that campaign was the old free trade argument heard in the United States, which went, "How can you ever get rich trading jack-knives each with the other?" He brought out that old saying, indicating some little confusion of mind; but he was disposed to agree with Mr. King if he only knew what Mr. King wanted him to agree to.
I have read speeches made by hon. members opposite, to which I draw the attention of the House as more or less indicating the feelings of hon. members on the other side.

The Address-Mr. Geary
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) looked toward my hon. friends the "Liberals of the left"-so described by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-and said to them, "We have given up part of our principles for you. At the behest of our leaders we have done what is against our principles"-Liberal tariff concessions were apparently in his mind-"but should you defeat this government we must withdraw our sacrifices." The gallant and hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), although his beautiful language did not reveal his intention quite so directly, in closing his speech quoted those famous lines from Le Chien d'Or and carried his threat into them. He said:
Un temps viendra qui n'est pas venu
Que je mordrai qui m'aura mordu.
I should like to say to my hon. friends the "Liberals of the left" that, as between you and me, I rather think he would like to bite you here and now. The hon. Minister of Justice in a very apt way illustrated his conception of the victory of a week ago Thursday by likening the contest to an ancient race where he who won was not necessarily the competitor who crossed the line first, but he who crossed the line first bearing still alight the torch with which he started. My hon. friend got a judgment-not of the original judges, the people of this country-but a vicarious en-dorsation by this House. But I am curious to know what was the light which he carried across the line. Was it the light of free trade? Was it the light of commercial union? Was it the light of tariff reform? Was it the light of unrestricted reciprocity? Was it the light of the Liberal platform of 1919? Or was it perchance the light of protection, dimmed, darkened and disguised? With my hon. friend's permission I should like rather to adopt the alternative method of competition in that race where a torch was lighted at the commencement, carried on and banded by one relay to another, each striving toward the ultimate goal with the lighted torch. I should like to recall to him that fifty years ago the torch of protection was lighted by the Conservative party, and faithfully and loyally it has been handed down from one to another until today it shines as a beacon light, a guide, to the people of Canada, burning as strongly as ever. The Conservative party, Sir, has right loyally obeyed the injunction so beautifully put by Colonel John McCrae in another connection, when he said:
Take up our quarrel with the foe.
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch: be yours to hold it high.
[DOT]	14011-30
The attitude of my hon. friends opposite and of those to my left has brought together strange companions, strange bedfellows indeed. Let me recall three of them to you. First, one of those protectionists referred to by the hon. member for Joliette; second, a gentleman named Drury, a candidate of the Progressive party in North Simcoe during the last election-he was not opposed by the Liberal party, by the way, and had the endorsation of Mr. ICing when he was quoted as saying "Drury is a Liberal to the core." Mr. Drury's whole attitude may be summed up by one illustration of what he thought and believed when he said: "The way to solve our railway trouble is to buy your rails cheap. Do not buy your rails in Canada. Go to Germany where you can get them for thousands of dollars per mile ;cheaper." Those two gentlemen will want outside positions in the bed as far removed from each other as possible, for the obvious reason that they will be the more difficult of ejectment and the means of exit will be the more ready. I know the very fellow to put in the middle-a certain candidate of Mr. King, a favoured candidate of the late Liberal government, who tried to oust the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). I may say that his aspirations in that regard were attended to with neatness and despatch by the hon. gentleman sitting here at the moment. When Mr. Parker was called upon to address a meeting ,of fruit farmers he was in some difficulty, because he knew they were entitled to a tariff to let them live. So he said to his fruit farmers:	"You are suffering and you cannot
sell your produce; you cannot make a living because you cannot get a protective tariff. I am all for giving you a protective tariff and a protective tariff you should have." He said: "That is not orthodox Liberal policy, but it is justice." I thank the gentleman for that clear distinction.
Those three companions must have a covering, and so we 'have this blanket clause which has to do with the tariff board. It may be a bit narrow; they may be pulling a little hard at the edges of it, but it must do. It is a clause which, I submit, is colourless, and ineffective, and it grives no indication of action. It leaves the government free to take the right or the left as it chooses. I find no fault with a proper tariff board. The Conservative party has advocated one for years, but a tariff board can function only if properly organized. It must function according to some defined principle. For instance, India, in her new constitutional character, acting through her fiscal commission, authorised a tariff bomd; but in doing so she laid down clearly

The Address-Mr. Geary

and unmistakably the principles upon which that tariff 'board was to operate. It was to operate upon the principle, I think in that particular case, of protection with discrimination, as it was called, and upon certain principles laid down as the basis of its operations it was to go on to make recommendations in order to carry out the declared principles. But in this case there is no principle upon which the tariff board can operate, and there should be if the tariff board is to operate with any satisfaction to the people of Canada. Assume, if you like, that the Liberal party is protectionist in some points,-and I did hear some hon. members on that side say so individually. If the question is one of protection, the people of this country have to decide in whose hands the matter is safe. Should protection be committed to the hands of the Conservative party, which has always been and still is protectionist, or in the hands of the Liberal government, whose whole record in the matter has been a long story of temporising expediency and a series of uncertain changings. I am very much obliged to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman)-who, I think, is a free trader; he nods his head at the epithet, so I fancy I have the right man-for a statement he -made. He said that he was afraid to trust the Tories because they would carry into effect itheir policy, and he was equally afraid to trust the Grits because they would not carry theirs into effect. The only comment I have to make in that regard is that it is a little difficult to understand how they can neglect to carry out what they have not.
From all this welter of conflicting views, running the gamut from free trade to protection, I should like to find someone to extract some principle. I wish my hon. friends would extract some principle and give it to us. I cannot do it. Will -they put their tariff policy from that end of the room clear around the corner and quarter way up this side of the room? Can we have something which is a clear cut issue between us and, having got that, will they come into the open and fight the matter out with us fairly and squarely? Or, do they intend, as they have done for a long time past, to remain in the lines of Torres Vedras?
I am not one to emphasize bad conditions existing in this country, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that things are not good at the moment. Hon. members on both sides of the House may hand me statistics as they please as to unemployment, bu.t I tell them frankly statistics mean nothing to me. I know of the unemployment, and so does every hon. member. There is no use in telling me

that there has been no exodus from this country to the United States. I know there has been, and I think every hon. member knows from his own experience that that is the case. For certain reasons, economic, climatic and otherwise, -we in the Dominion of Canada are forced to submit to unfair competition with other countries, such as low wage countries, countries with different ripening and climatic conditions, countries with the economy of manufacture which manufacturing on a large scale enjoys because of the wider distribution of overhead. Things of that sort make it difficult, almost impossible, for us to compete with -many countries in many articles. But even under these handicaps I have every faith in this country of ours. I have faith in its natural resources and in its people. I think there is no goal too high for us to attain. There is no future too bright to be ours. Canada is strong enough to get over these handicaps. Canada, if given a chance, is strong enough to make its way towards that high goal; but in doing so she requires protection, particularly at this time of growth while she is making her way.
Protection may be a tax, as is argued by free traders, for instance, and others who are as near free trade as they can be and who would like to be free traders; but rather it is only a tax for the present to produce greater dividends in the future. Cheapness is set against this policy of protection. How often in this debate have we heard the argument of cheapness raised as against the policy of protection? This worship of cheapness is selfish. It is short sighted and unpatriotic. The doctrine that cheapness itself brings all good things in its train is a doctrine that is discredited to-day even in free trade England. By the current of industrial legislation to-day the Whole civilized world has set its face against the all-sufficiency of cheapness and in opposition to that is bending its energies upon the double task of making a living wage a first charge upon the community and of giving security a larger place in industrial life. I am quoting from an address delivered by Sir William Ashley to the British Association.
The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) says: Who would not want the cheaper butter? If that is the only argument that appeals to him, close out our dairymen. What business have they trying to organize a dairy industry in this country if cheapness is to govern? My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) speaks of the necessity for cheapness in clothing. If that is to be the test, very well; shut down the textile industry in this country and away with wool producing. Let us get all our goods abroad

The Address-Mr. Geary
where they are cheap; it will serve us right for trying to organize a textile business in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, how can a thing be really cheap if its production drives your brother farmer off his land or your brother Canadian workman from a factory that cannot go on? We should take the long run view, the all Canada view. I am not disposed just now to argue the matter with my friends from the west, but do they think that they are always going to grow wheat in so great a proportion to their other farm and industrial products as they are doing at the present time? Are they always going to have the same unlimited world market for wheat, or are they to have greater competition in that product? Are they going to go in for more varied production? Perhaps they will find that their future lies in developing on a more intensive or a more widely diversified plan:	For the life of me I cannot see how
this country is going to be built up by growing wheat, mining minerals and hewing down forests merely for the purpose of sending out our raw material to other countries to be finished there, making others prosperous while we ourselves are impoverished. Is not that simply to make of us Canadians hewers of wood and drawers of water for the world, dependent, even at that, upon the whim or the necessity of the other country that wants our wood and water hewn and drawn? No; I should say that the policy for this country is to fabricate here, consume here and to sell here as well as elsewhere if we are to build up this Dominion. And this can be done under a policy of. protection, with hosts of busy producers, developing markets for
10 p.m. those producers, particularly the best of all markets, the home market. At present much of our raw products go from north to south and if we want the manufactured article back it comes from south to north. That does not keep Canadians at home nor does it bring Canadians back to the abandoned farm and the factory that was closed. Nor does that attract new immigrants or solve our railway problem, which is one that may be expressed in terms of the need of more people and more freight to haul.
There is little hope of getting anywhere, going on as we are at the moment. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that this country wants tranquillity. True, in a sense; but it does not want the tranquillity of do nothing, the tranquillity of marking time. It wants the tranquillity that accompanies stability and certainty, and stability and certainty in this country must and can arise only from a settled and proper tariff policy. And I submit with all respect 14011-301
to the House that that proper tariff policy for the Dominion is a tariff policy of protection. In the nature of things this government cannot give us a lead. The Conservative party can, and I suggest that the remedy is for the government to resign. I take it that it does not intend to do so for the moment; but failing that it should be forced to resign, and forced to resign in whatever is the proper constitutional method At any rate this whole matter should be submitted at the earliest possible moment to the judgment of the people of Canada. Perhaps it cannot be settled otherwise, in any case an end should be put to this hanging on which we see at present. We are losing weeks, months, perhaps it may be years of precious time, doing nothing and getting nowhere. Regard, Mr. Speaker, the unhappy state into which we have fallen, the spectacle exhibited to this country and to the world,- a government self-confessea in its impotence, condemned by its own words to resume the policy of the last four years of marking time; unable, on its own statement, to carry out the measures which it thinks should be carried out for the good of the country; unable to do these things but occupied now solely with a convulsive gripping of the reins of office. Without intending to give offence 1 can say that opposite me is a government of remnants, a thing of shreds and patches without a leader. Urbane, bland and charming as he often is, the Minister of Justice is leading this House simply as a proxy, and for instructions or confirmation of action he must go somewhere in the dim recesses of this building to find out what is to be done. Regard the government once more,-Hamlet without the Prince. The cast is large, the players few, and one man must act many parts, the roles must be doubled, and the Prince himself is forced to play the Ghost. When is he coming back? When is this Prime Minister to be with us? And when he comes how is he to come? .


An hon. MEMBER:: By the front door.


George Reginald Geary: By the front door: well, that will be a welcome change to him after the side door he has used for the last few weeks. And1 if he come by the front door, let me say that to the casual observer his entrance will be less complete and considerably less hurried than was the right hon. gentleman's recent exit.
I come once more to my subject. If a definite tariff policy is essential to the good government of this country, how in the name of conscience is the government opposite going

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
to govern, powerless as it is because of varying opinions on the subject of the tariff in its own ranks? This pretence of government should be stopped; there should be stopped this wandering in a maze of instability and uncertainty. Hon. members on all sides, those opposite as well as the "Liberals of the left," should join in putting an end to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Why fear a dissolution? The defeat must come sooner or later, probably sooner. Why not then anticipate it now, put this government out of power, and go to the people for their judgment just as speedily as can be arranged?
A word more. I agree with all those who have spoken in such glowing terms of the virtues and blessings of unity in this great confederation. But who has spoken of disunion? Who has threatened dismemberment? I have not heard it over here. There is a strong Canadianism in this country yet, perfectly sufficient to carry on the country as it is for all time to come. All it wants is a great national non-sectional policy, and such a policy I believe to be what is generally termed the National Policy, or protection. This policy, I have endeavoured to point out, Mr. Speaker, is immediately necessary for the progress and prosperity of Canada.


Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some degree of interest to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Geary). In the course of his address he stated that in his opinion the present condition in this House ought to cease. He thinks that the verdict which this House pronounced not very many days ago in favour of the government of the day- because there is a government of the day- should be reversed, that the co-operation which has been extended to the ministerial party by the independent groups ought to be broken, parliament dissolved, and a new election held.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My friends opposite say, "That is right." It is not what they say, it is what the people of Canada say that is right. What the public opinion of this Dominion has concluded to be right is that this House should get down to business, co-operate along political lines, take up the Speech from the Throne and proceed to deal with legislation of importance and concern to the different parts of Canada. So I think the contention of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) is not very sound. We have only recently come through a general election, and
(Mr. Geary.]
I do not believe that the people in any part of the Dominion, except perhaps those in the larger industrial centres, desire another election.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he reads the press of the country?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I not only read the
press, I edit the press.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Does my hon. friend include the Globe in that classification?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Certainly.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What does the Globe say?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member for South Toronto also referred to the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. I am here to-night, Mr. Speaker, to say that the right hon. gentleman is already practically elected to this House. On nomination day next Monday the Right Hon. Wiliam Lyon Mackenzie King, who is potentially the leader of this House at the present time, will be the member for Prince Albert riding. Very soon afterwards he will enter this chamber by the front door, and will lead the House along lines of legislation which will help towards a solution of the great problems that now confront the Dominion.
As a new member, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the many splendid speeches which have been delivered from different quarters of this assembly. We are always ready to give credit where credit is due; that is part of the political game. And after all, in a great national assembly such as this, made up of representatives from all parts of the Dominion, we naturally expect the debating to be on a high plane and to contain material that will direct not only this House aright but also the electorate on the great national issues which are to engage attention. The many excellent addresses I have heard remind me of a story of an ancient Athenian statesman. His opponents contended that they were of gentler breeding than he, that they were possessed of superior accomplishments, and that consequently he should surrender to them the reins of power. He replied: You may be of gentler breeding than I am, you may have qualities that I do not possess, but just the same I am satisfied that wrapped up in my personality are those great forces which, given the opportunity, will enable me to raise my country from its present insignificance to a position of commanding influence and lasting glory. And so to-night I believe that if we use our different talents in co-operation we can do something that will be specially useful for our country.

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
Our friends to your left, Sir, no doubt have one outstanding talent: since confederation they have had the talent of winning elections. Not a bad talent after all, because without it no party can continue in political harness very long. They won the election in 1867, they registered another political victory in 1878, and another in 1911, and all in all they have ruled Canada for about thirty-four years. The Liberal party has also had a talent for winning elections. They won the last election on October 29.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Our friends opposite say, "Oh, oh".


An hon. MEMBER:: That is funny.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, the Liberal party won the election in 1873 and again in 1896. All in all they have been in power about twenty-four years, and although I must admit that numerically, they are a few years behind the party to your left, I believe that with the spirit of co-operation which is being shown at the present time we may catch up with our friends before this parfiament goes out of business. But the party to* your left, Sir, as stated by the last speaker, has another talent-the talent of standing four square on protection. And the Liberal party also has another talent-the talent of standing four square for freer trade. In its devotion to that principle it went down to defeat in 1878 and again in 1911. Our friends of the Progressive group have also certain talents. That group, in my estimation, has one talent of which it should not be ashamed; I believe it has taught the Canadian people that they ought to take a greater interest in and have a much greater regard for public affairs in this Dominion. I think it is important that we should take a greater interest in public affairs in Canada, and unless we do, we are not going to have the people of this country as much in touch with its problems as they ought to be, and the consequences will be poorer government.
Our Progressive friends have another talent, which they have demonstrated in the present parliament. They came into this House with a certain number in their group, and they have already demonstrated that they are ready and willing to co-operate with any party that has for its aim and ideal better government in this country. I believe that is necessary at the present time if we are going to make progress. The co-operation which is being extended to the government of the day by the Progressives and by the members of
other independent groups in the House is making history, for I believe that before this parliament is dissolved it will have to its credit much splendid legislation.
May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon being elected to the highest office in the gift of this parliament? The position of Speaker in any parliament in the British commonwealth of nations is an important one. If I remember correctly, the first Speaker in the Mather of Parliaments was elected in the year 1376. In that year the Good parliament was assembled. I am not sure whether this is going to be a very good parliament or not, but I believe we have made a very good start The Good parliament was summoned in the year 1376 to deal with special questions, one of which was the reduction of expenditures and the removal of corruption from the public affairs of the country. Mr. Speaker, your position in this House is one of great importance. You have to maintain order; you have to control debate, you have to see that the House has that direction in discussion that it ought to have, and my wish is that you will so direct the destinies of this parliament, that when it is dissolved we can look back and say that we have done many things and done them well.
I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their deliverances were splendid, and I am sure that through the direction we have had in those two addresses we shall soon get down to the actual business of government and make history so far as this parliament is concerned.
As a new member of this House, I speak from two points of view. First, I represent the riding of North Battleford, If I have read histoiy aright, a member represents not only his riding, but the country as a whole, but first we should stand for the riding that has honoured us by sending us to this House. I therefore speak first for the riding I have the honour to represent, and then from the point of view of Canada, of which my riding is a particular part.
So far as the riding of North Battleford is concerned, it might be well for me to state a few facts in connection with the province of Saskatchewan of which that riding forms a part. The province of Saskatchewan has an area of 251,000 square miles. The name Saskatchewan comes from an Indian name signifying a rapidly moving current or stream. That name was identified with the Saskatchewan river; it was afterwards applied to a part of the old Northwest Territories, and

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
when Saskatchewan entered confederation in 1905 it was applied to the present province of Saskatchewan. The name signifying swiftly flowing is an important one from the standpoint of the province, because its history has been a rapid one, almost magical. The development of Saskatchewan has been the most raipid of any province in Canada. In the year 1901 we had a population of about 91,000; to-day we have a population of 828,000. Our gross agricultural wealth in 1924 was $1,682,000,000; our agricultural production in 1924 was $282,000,000; our dairy production in 1923-1924 was $19,000,000, or about five times what it was in the year 1904; our agricultural land totals 60,000,000 acres, and' of that area 30 per cent is not occupied; that is, there are about 18,000,000 acres yet unoccupied in the province. Our per capita production for the province is $371, as compared with a per capita production for Alberta of $341, and for Ontario, $151; so that Saskatchewan leads all the provinces of Canada in its per capita production. Our fur production in the year 1923-1924 was $1,927,000 odd; our fish production, $482,000; our mining, over $1,000,000; our forests, over $2,000,000; our water-powers are .in excess of 1,000,000 horsepower. These facts in connection with the province to which I belong will bring to our minds not only our great potential wealth, but. also the fact that during the last twenty-five years Saskatchewan has developed in a wonderful manner.
. The riding which I have the honour to represent, and which is a part of this splendid province of Saskatchewan, is practically 500 miles long by 126 miles wide; jit has an approximate area of sixty to eighty thousand square miles. An idea of the riding can be got in this way: One hundred and twenty-five miles north of North Battleford, which is situated on the Saskatchewan river, and two hundred and fifty miles east of Edmonton, we come to Meadow Lake, which is the outskirts of settlement to-day in that riding. Meadow Lake is practically the middle point of Saskatchewan, taking the province north and south, so realizing that the middle part of the province north and south is 125 miles north of North Battleford, you get an idea of its wonderful size and can visualize that in the days to come agricultural development will take place miles and miles farther north of Meadow Lake, which is practically the end of agricultural development to-day.
Now, the occupations of the people in this riding are miany. We have farming, we have dairying, we have ranching, we have fishing, and we have, the fur trade. The number of occupied farms 5s 5,893. The area of occupied
fMr. McIntosh.]
farms is over 1,786,000 acres and the improved area 709,841 acres. The field crops occupy 528,464 acres. Up to the present time the leading railway instrumental in opening up that road has been the Canadian National running westward to Edmonton and northeasterly to Prince Albert. We have another line of railway running from North Battleford into the Edmonton district; it runs northwesterly for about 100 miles, and it also runs easterly from Edmonton. But there is a gap of about 90 or 100 miles that must soon be completed, and that gap includes some of the finest farming and mixed-fanning areas that can be found in western Canada. The people there are anxious to have that line completed in order that they may have another highway from North Battleford westward to Edmonton and thence to the Pacific ocean. That that gap has not been completed is not the fault of Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the Canadian National system. He has done his best to have the work carried out, but you know what took place in the Senate in the year 1924 when the bills for the construction of branch lines in western and eastern Canada were thrown into the discard with the result that no action ensued.
We have another line running from Turtle-ford, about sixty miles northwest of North Battleford, eastward to the line running also from North Battleford to Prince Albert. Twenty-three miles of that line were graded in the year 192,1, but the steel was only laid this year. A contract has been let for the completion of about sixty miles this year, and settlers in that part of northern Saskatchewan are expecting to see that work carried out. That road would have been completed two or three years ago had not that branch line developments, as well as the one I have just mentioned, been held up by the Senate. The result is that thousands of settlers have been hauling their wheat, grain, and other produce sixty to seventy miles into North Battleford and other points. We look upon the interference with this construction as a crying shame. The men and women from different parts of Canada, as well as from different sections of the outside world, who went into that large area in 1905 have suffered for the last twenty years-certainly for the last seventeen or eighteen years-from the want of railway communication. To-day there is not a railway point nearer to them than North Battleford, and that is sixty or seventy miles away. When that road is completed they will be nearer the markets for their

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
products, and we expect that part of the province to fill up quickly and successfully.
In connection with the constituency of North Battleford, I think I should state that so far as rural mail delivery is concerned, there is practically none in the riding. I believe the time has come when rural mail delivery in western Canada ought to be extended on a wider basis and for this reason: If you cannot get letters, periodicals, newspapers, pamphlets and facts from one part of Canada to the other, from one province to the other, or from one part of a province to the other, there is a fundamental lack in connection with our national development that merits attention. If you cannot get the facts of government before the people, if you do not give them that chance to educate themselves which they ought to have in a free country, a problem is created which must be very carefully handled. I have in my hand a statement dealing with the rural mail delivery in other parts of Canada, and when I scrutinize it I am impressed by the fact that western Canada, that the province of Saskatchewan, is not getting what we might term a square deal. The following table will illustrate at a glance my contention that the west is not receiving fair treatment.
Uural Mail Delivery Statistics as on 1st January, 1925 Total No. of R.M.D.
Postal District Charlottetown..	..
Halifax	
St. John	
Quebec	
Montreal	
Ottawa	
Toronto	
London	
North Bay	
Winnipeg	
Moose Jaw	
Saskatoon	
Calgary	
Vancouver	
Routes Total present Cost
176		 $ 95,172 95
105	
109,348	28279	
154.534	39297	$179,803	08522	353,079	40536	$404,730	79609	481,442	01821	680,896	3524	17,554	5198	
69,122	6829	15,536	2751	28,700	5498	
72,764	9767	
53,405	55
According to the above schedule a great deal of money has been spent in Canada on rural mail delivery, but the province of Saskatchewan stands at the very bottom of the list in the matter of expenditures for this purpose. I believe the time has come when the system of rural mail delivery should be extended. When that is done, it will help greatly not only to develop educationally the province of Saskatchewan, but to more successfully link together the other provinces that constitute the confederation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do the figures my hon. friend has quoted include mail delivery in
cities, or do they relate exclusively to rural mail deliveries?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They relate to rural delivery routes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My reason for asking the question is that I cannot quite understand why the expenditure in the cities referred to is included if it relates to rural mail routes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: These figures relate to rural mail deliveries, there is no question about that.
There is one more point I wish to speak of in connection with that far north country. I am not ashamed in this House of Commons to take a stand in behalf of railway development for my riding, and for the extension of rural mail delivery, and further than that, I deem it my duty to impress upon this House the necessity of hospital accommodation in the far north. There is at present a base hospital located at Meadow Lake, 125 miles north of North Battleford. One nurse and a medical doctor are in charge from year to year, the institution being run under the auspices of the Red Cross organization. It has done splendid work in safeguarding the health of those who occupy that promising area of country. But two or three hundred miles north of Meadow Lake there is the Hudson Bay Company trading post of Isle a la Crosse, where there is a population of 1,500 or 2,000 people but neither a hospital nor a doctor. Now, we have forest rangers in the employ of the Dominion government, we have also officials of the provincial government, and my contention is that the Saskatchewan and Dominion governments ought to co-operate and erect a suitable hospital at Isle a la Crosse, put a first-class practitioner in charge of the hospital, and pay him a good salary in order that the health of the population in that remote district may be properly looked after. That is important not only from the standpoint of Canada and the officials of the Dominion government who are in that region, Jsut also from the standpoint of the province of Saskatchewan. By co-operation the efficiency and success of that hospital would be assured. I believe this is an opportunity for splendid service. If we neglect those who are pioneering in the far north, those who are broadening province after province, extending the area of civilization and driving back the frontiers of development, I say we are not acting in a worthy way as Canadian citizens.
Now Mr. Speaker, I said that one representing any part of this country should not only speak for his constituency but should also have


Arthur Meighen: While this motion is not debatable, certainly we ought to be closing this debate and not dragging it along at such great length with such extended speeches.


Hewitt Bostock: I think there was an arrangement that another speaker was to follow.
Nova Scotia Miners


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the next speaker was to move the adjournment.


Ernest Lapointe: But I do not think it would 'be fair to the speaker who has the floor now to deny him the right to go on tomorrow for a little while if he wishes to do so.


Arthur Meighen: I understand from the chief whip that the adjournment was arranged for this side to-night.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It was arranged for our side because the adjournment was moved last night by the other side.


Arthur Meighen: If that be the case I will not press the matter, although I understood that the arrangement was for the adjournment by the opposition side.


Hewitt Bostock: I have a list of speakers furnished by the three whips and I see on it, " Liberal adjournment." Following the hon. member who is now speaking, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) was to go on, with the understanding that, as it was late, he might continue to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: Then he would have the adjournment?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, but it was a concession to the father of the House. I understand that at first the adjournment was to be with those to my right. It is not, however, my business; I am in the hands of the House.


William Anderson Black: Before that motion passes, may I have the permission of the House to refer to a matter of importance?


Hewitt Bostock: Before the House adjourns the hon. gentleman may make a remark by leave of the House.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-WEDNESDAY SITTING NOVA SCOTIA COAL MINERS

Ernest Lapointe: I move that the House do now adjourn, and that when it adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.


William Anderson Black: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


William Anderson Black: I hold in my hand a telegram reading as follows:
Am advised Ly Canadian Press that Hon. Charles Stewart made a statement to-day that he had sent a communication to me and had received no answer. fMr. Speaker.]
Mr. Stewart has not communicated with me by wire or otherwise nor has any other member of the government nor anyone indirectly on their behalf. The only intimation I have had is that afforded any other reader of the press.
E. N. Rhodes,
Premier of Nova Scotia.
I would call attention, Sir, to the remarks of the hon. member-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. At the present
juncture the hon. member may not, under the rules, amplify the statement he has already made. Through the courtesy of the House I have allowed him to make the statement, but he has no right to follow it up with a speech.
Mtotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, January 27, 1926