1926-03-31

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, 30th March, 1926.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as Deputy of the Governoi General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 4.15 p.m., on Tuesday, the 6th of April, for the purpose of giving the royal assent to an interim supply bill. I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servajit,
A. F. Sladen,
Governor General's Secretary.
To The Hon.
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. FOSTER:: '
1.	Has the government or the Canadian National Railways decided to rent, lease or sell all or any portion of their station grounds in Shubenacadie Hants county, Nova Scotia, bordering on the main highway and lying between Manning's garage and the Pineo property between the loading wharf and the *main highway? If so, to whom has the property been rented, leased or sold and what remuneration, if any ihas been secured for same?
2.	For what purpose is the land to be used?
[DOT]'3. Was the decision, if any, to rent, lease or sell this property advertised, and if so, in what papers?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	See No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-WAREHOUSE AT GEORGETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	Have representations been made to any departments of the government during the years 1925 and 1926 regarding improvement to warehouse on the railway wha-rf at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, with a view to making said warehouse suitable for handling potatoes for export during the autumn months?
2.	What is the intention of the government regarding this matter?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes, by Senator J. J. Hughes.
2.	Matter under consideration.


FREIGHT HAULAGE AND REVENUE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	How many tons of grain and grain products did the Canadian Pacific Railway haul in western territory to the head of the lakes during the calendar year 1925?
2.	In making this haul, what was the resultant total [DOT]of tons of this traffic carried one mile?
3. What was the average length of haul of this traffic ?
4.	What additional total gross revenues would have been earned had this traffic been carried under existing rates on similar traffic in the United States?
5.	How many tons of grain and grain products did the Canadian Pacific Railway haul in western territory to Vancouver in the year 1925?
6.	In making this haul, what was the resultant total of tons of this traffic carried one mile?
7. What was the average length of haul of this traffic ?
8.	What additional total gross revenues would have been earned had this traffic been carried under existing rates on similar (traffic in the United States?
9.	'What was the total percentage of grain and grain products hauled in western -territory to the entire tonnage of that territory in 1925?

10.	What percentage pf the entire ton-mileage in the western territory in the year 1925, did the carriage of grain and grain products entail?
11.	What was the percentage of the total revenue earned in western territory in 1925 by the carriage of grain and grain products?
12.	What was the average rate per ton-mile earned by such traffic in said territory and year?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	5,873,286 tons of grain.
2.	4,237,738,165 tons one mile.
3.	721 miles.
4.	Approximately $16,267,972.00.
5.	733,065 tons.
6.	574,805,646 tons one mile.
7.	784 miles.
8.	Approximately $1,658,351.00.
9.	51.7 per cent.
10.	63.3 per cent.
11.	41.4 per cent.
12.	56/100 of one cent.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS REVENUE
Mr. DOUCET:: What was the total revenue received from each branch of experimental farms and stations for, (a) 1924-25, (b) 1925-26 to date;
(1)	In the province of Nova Scotia,
(2)	In the province of Prince Edward Island,
(3)	In the province of New Brunwick,
(4)	In the province of Quebec,
(5)	In the province of Ontario?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1924-25	1925-26
Nova Scotia.	To	March 30.Kentville	$12,935.19	$10,853.58Nappan	11,387.69	14,969.95Prince Edward Island.	Charlottetown .. ..	6,522.22	6,061.02New Brunswick:	Fredericton	9,107.09	8,449.57Quebec.	Cap Rouge 	11,653.25	9,544.62La Ferme	5,108.89	5,169.98Lennoxville	15,539.74	18,289.74Ste. Anne de la	Pocatiere	5,267.48	8,302.33Farnham	6,030.14	4,655.03Ontario.	Kapuskasing	10,296.17	10,035.10Harrow	11,233.47	12,119.60MR. R. C.	WRIGHT


Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Was Mr. R. C. Wright, chief architect, of the Department of Public Works, absent from Ottawa from February 18, 1926, until noon of March 8, 1926?
2.	If so, was he cn government business, annual leave, special or sick leave?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No 1.

Prison Rejorm


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
RECLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES Mr. STEWART (Leeds) (for Mr. Doucet):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Public Works, the Deputy Minister and Chief of Legal Branch with the Civil Service Commission, relating to reclassification of Mr. M. O. Durant, Miss Berthe Hebert, Miss Violet Becker and Miss Yvonne Parent, together with copy of report made by the investigator of the commission, Mr. C. R. Media nd.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds) (for Mr. Doucet):: For a statement showing the annual leave, special leave, sick leave, or absence on government business, of Mr. R. C. Wright, chief architect, T. W. Fuller, assistant chief architect, and Messrs. Antonio Boucher, T. D. Rankin, A. J. Barclay, all of the Department of Public Works, Ottawa, for the fiscal years 19211922, 1922-1923, 1923-1924, 1924-1925, 1925-1926, giving date in each case.
TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD On the Order for Motions:


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: If I could have the unanimous consent of the House-I know I have no right otherwise-I desire to ask if the government is going to fulfil the promise of the Prime Minister in reference to laying on the table of the House a copy of the order in council giving the personnel and powers of the tariff advisory board.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I mentioned the other day that I hoped to be able to lay the order in council on the table of the House on Monday, but I beg now to inform my right hon. friend that it will be laid on the table immediately after Easter.


Arthur Meighen: What is the trouble?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
trouble.
. PRISON REFORM


PRODUCTIVE WORK AND COMPENSATION FOR INMATES OF PENITENTIARIES
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the administration of penitentiaries be amended to provide: first, sufficient productive work to keep the inmates employed; and, second, that a share of the proceeds go to dependents, and in case of no dependents such 6hare to be held in trust until release.
She said:	Mr. Speaker, the resolution just
read by yourself was presented by me to the House last year and was received very favourably. I think it would have been adopted
by the House if six o'clock had not arrived too soon. I believe that no party, as a party, opposed it, and if I remember correctly only one individual member objected to the resolution. I possibly should have inserted in the resolution a declaration that manufacturing operations in penitentiaries should be limited to state goods-that is goods needed by the state. In this case it would apply simply to goods required by the federal government, because there would be no control over provincial governments. That statement is not in the resolution, though it was my intention that it should be.
The object of penitentiaries is I suppose two-fold; first, to protect society by taking out of society those who are harmful to it and, second, to reform the criminal, making it, safe for him to return to society again. The old idea of putting people in a place of confinement was one of revenge; that is, the state took upon itself the duty or task of revenging the wrong done. This idea has been gradually changing until now we think of a penitentiary as a place where people are reformed so as to be made fit again to come out into society. I should not like to say that punishment does not enter into the reform of the criminal. I think it does; I think it is just that it should. Possibly the most terrible punishment that can come to anyone is to have no freedom, to be confined, not to be able to move among one's fellows as one would wish. This terrifying punishment is the prisoner's and always will be. It is true, however, that the state should be above revenge.	[DOT]
The committee of three appointed under the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty to advise upon the revision of penitentiary regulations and the Penitentiary Act went into this question fully, and presented a report in which they state that the Penitentiary Act has not been changed for a very long time. They say:
The Penitentiary Act has from time to time been repealed and re-enacted and some of its provisions from time to time amended, but the present statute does not substantially differ from that passed in 1868.
There has been a great change in the public mind regarding the treatment of prisoners, regarding, indeed, what is meant by punishment and penitentiaries, but the act has not been changed so as to keep pace with changing public opinion. All that is said in the present act in regard to what I am advocating, namely, productive work for prisoners with pay, is said on page 17:
Section 62. Imprisonment in a penitentiary shall be with hard labour, whether so directed in the sentence by which such imprisonment is adjudged or not.
Prison Reform

Paragraph 3 of the same section reads:
The convicts may be employed in labour under the control of the crown; but no labour shall be let out to any company or person.
The provision was a wise one that no labour should be let out to any company or person. But while convicts may be employed under the existing administration of penitentiaries, they are not employed in productive labour to the extent at least that those who are in charge of them would like. In regard to the pay of prisoners, the present act states that when a man is freed and leaves the penitentiary he is-
-furnished with a suit of clothing other than prison clothing, and with transportation to the place at which he received his sentence, and such other sum in addition, not exceeding ten dollars, as the warden deems proper.
That is all the provision that is made in the present act for productive employment with pay for prisoners. Inasmuch as this report prepared under the direction of the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty was exhaustive and was made with a view to amending the administration of penitentiaries and the act itself, we should put a good deal of reliance upon it. This report emphatically recommends that prisoners be given work and be paid for their labour. On page 21 of the report, after leading up to this conclusion, they say:
The committee, therefore, most' emphatically recommends statutory provision to provide productive labour for all convicts. Such provision need not extend to any work except for what is known as "state use" and can, in Canada, not extend*any compulsion beyond the federal service, but the evidence taken by the committee has satisfied it that manufactures within this limitation will afford much more than ample scope for all the industry and activity which the penitentiaries can put forth.
Further down on page 21 with regard to pay they say:
The mere provision of work is not, in the opinion of the committee, sufficient. That the heaviest penalty for a crime is paid not iby the criminal, but by his dependents has been chiefly emphasized before the committee, not by philanthropists and charitable workers but by judicial, police and penitentiary officers of long standing. Their views are based upon the unfortunate and expensive social consequences of the pauperization of decent women and children, upon the destruction of the convict's sole anchor holding him to decency of conduct after discharge.
I need not read all the report. It concludes :
If anything but evil is to follow punishment by imprisonment for long terms, it is, in the opinion of the committee, essential that such provision should be made as will allow the convict to earn at least something towards the support of his dependents during his confinement or of himself after his release.
	'*'	,
I will give briefly a list of associations that I know of that favour this or a similar resolution, or at least this principle:
The Canadian Prisoners' Welfare Association; General Secretary, John Kidman, Montreal.
The Child Welfare Bureau of Canada; Secretary, Charlotte Whitton.
Neighbourhood Workers' Associations-79 organizations in the city of Toronto; Secretary, F. N. Stapleford.
The Trades and Labour Council of Canada.
The United Farmers of Ontario.
Superintendent of Penitentiaries, Brigadier-General Hughes.
The wardens of all the penitentiaries.
Canadian Bar Association.
Committee of three appointed under the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty.
So we see that those who are most interested, not only in. the welfare of prisoners, not only in the protection of society, but in the welfare of the women and children that are left helplessly upon society, are recommending that this step be taken at this time by the government.
I am going to quote briefly from the report of 1921 by the Superintendent of Penitentiaries, Brigadier-General Hughes:
The inmates of the penitentiaries are the wards of the Dominion government and there is no valid reason why goods required for state use, and state use only, should not be made, as far as .possible, in the .penitentiaries. The government spends many thousands of dollars yearly for furniture, furnishing, and equipment of various kinds, a small portion of which could be made in the penitentiaries. The revenue derived from this source would enable the institutions to pay each inmate on his discharge, or to his family while he is in prison, a small wage, which would materially assist the stricken family in keeping the wolf from the door while the wage-earner is incarcerated ; or, in case the inmate had no family responsibilities, would furnish him with sufficient funds on discharge to assist ihim in making a fresh start in life.
The Superintendent of Penitentitaries goes on to point out that he has recommended the same thing in his reports of 1896, 1897, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1914, and 1915; I have read1 the reports of 1919, 1921, and 1923, and he has continued to ask for this thing which up to the present has not been granted.
One could quote in a way that might weary the House from the reports of the superintendent and from the reports of the wardens of the penitentiaries, the different wardens asking that work be provided for the prisoners under their charge. The situation is not as difficult in a pentitentiary where building is still going on, where the prisoners can be employed in building their own prison. The-men are kept at work; they are more contented, and the duty of keeping them in order is a simpler one although it is true they do not get any pay for the work that they do.

Prison Reform
I quoted last year, and I do not intend to repeat it this year, various authorities on prisons and prisoners in different countries throughout the world, and they are in absolute agreement that you cannot reform a prisoner unless you keep him busy and contented. They are in agreement that it is a very bad thing to break the most tender link, if there is any tenderness and human feeling left in him, that binds the prisoner to his home. As it is, this link is ruthlessly broken. It is felt that this is the worst thing that can happen to the prisoner, his dependents and society as a whole.
There is a general feeling among social workers that it is unwise to release prisoners, whether men or women, from the responsibility of their families. In the case of men there is a tendency not to want again to assume that responsibility, and the effect on the families themselves is injurious. The wives and children are often left absolutely destitute, the children being forced out into the streets where they become criminals. This would not happen if they had enough money to keep them at home where they could be brought up by mothers who, in some cases at any rate, are very far from criminal in type.
I should think that there would be a strong tendency toward embittering the whole family by the treatment which it now receives in consequence of the breadwinner being sent to prison. The family is innocent of any offence and yet it is called upon to bear the brunt of the burden. This, I am sure, cannot inspire them with any great respect for the law or for society at large. But you may look at the matter in another light: why should hard working people be asked to pay to keep prisoners in idleness, and to support their families who have no means of helping themselves? Those of us who for the time being at least are out of prison have to bear the expense of keeping the whole family unit in two different places in a manner that is exceedingly expensive to us and quite disastrous to the family.
I believe that work would make for discipline, which possibly is one of the grave problems in the conduct of prisons at present. Work would render prison discipline much easier than it can be where the prisoners are in idleness. As a matter of fact, good behaviour where there is no work is not possible. The objection that is usually made to this reform which I am asking for is that labour is opposed to it; labour is opposed to prisoners putting the product of their toil upon even a restricted market such as might be afforded by the state. But that objection will no
longer hold. In 1920 the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada at its annual convention held in Windsor between the 13th and 18th September asked for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the administration of prisons, and requested that labour be given a place on that committee. The committee was appointed and labour was included on it, Mr. Biggar being its representative on a body of three. Labour in 1924, at the annual meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada held in London between September 15 and 19, endorsed not only this principle contained in the report, but the entire report, and asked parliament to pass an act to give effect to such prison reform as was recommended in the report of the special advisory committee on Prison Reform of 1921. So that labour, as such, does not object to this reform.
The cost of penitentiaries in Canada for the year 1923 was $1,441,900.93: the cost of a conviction is $1,200. Now, by giving the prisoner work you would help him to make a more harmonious adjustment to life upon his release and to some extent, at any rate, prevent a recurrence of conviction. If we can do that we shall effect a saving. If, too, the productive work is increased until such time as the prisoners earn enough to keep themselves, we shall lift from the state the burden of this sum of money which must be voted by the tax-payers from year to year, amounting to approximately a million and a half.
Before this resolution came up last year I received a letter from Brigadier General Hughes. He said:
I note with pleasure, from partiamentary publications, that you have given notice of a motion regarding the providing of work in the penitentiaries. While the revenue from this source has been increased from $53,000 to $167,000, we aire still only doing about one-tenth of what we are capable of undertaking.
In conversation with Brigadier General Hughes I judged that, with the equipment they now have, if they could get work for the prisoners to do they could accomplish nine-tenths more than they are able to perform now.
The mayors of our cities and towns and the reeves of the various municipalities often find themselves in a quandary. They have the prisoner's family on their hands. The breadwinner is in prison where possibly he ought to be, and the head of the municipality, while he does not want to interfere with justice, while he does not want the man at large if prison is the proper place for him, dislikes on the other hand having to shoulder the burden of supporting the family. In fact, too often
Prison Reform

prisoners are released, not because they are ready once more to enter society as good citizens, or because their time has expired, but simply because pressure has been brought to bear upon the authorities to have them released so that they may take up again the task of caring for their families.
This proposal of providing productive work for prisoners, with pay, has been successfully tried in Jackson penitentiary, Michigan, as well as in Minnesota. These are the two outstanding successes. The plan has also been tried in New Jersey and New York. Let me quote from my speech of last year: Mr. Yasaly, speaking for the Minnesota Penitentiary Board says:
In the first place, our prison earns its support; it saves the state something like $360,000 a year in that respect.
Reading later reports I find that they provided a large sum, described as a revolving fund, of some $6,000,000 with which they buy the raw materials required for their work. This officer was very much pleased with the success of the plan and he writes:
In that connection let me say that I know of no greater aid to prison discipline than wages. . . The prisoner is contented, first of all, because he is working. He is contented because he is earning something for his family. These things put together have great effect on discipline and make the prisoners more content and make them feel much more hopeful than they could otherwise be. It seems to me any system of prison labour, no matter what it may be, that does not take into account that side of things, the creation of contentment and hopefulness in the prisoner, not only with regard to himself but his family, is a mistake.	.
In the year ending June 30, 1917, Jackson penitentiary had made a net profit of $156,000 after paying all expenses of the institution and making proper allowances for depreciation on buildings and machinery, paying wages to the inmates and providing food, clothing and other necessities.


Mr. NEILL:: What rate of wages was paid?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The wages ranged from ten cents to $1.50, to which must be added cost of shelter, food, clothing, medical attendance, chemistry, and so on.


Mr. HAMILTON:: What proportion of the prisoners who have received, either through parole or otherwise, treatment which can be considered kindly, have returned to the penitentiaries after release? Has the hon. member any record of that?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That information can be got from any superintendent's report. But the fact is that recurrent convictions are diminishing as time goes on. I do not recall it at the moment. However, the recurrence of 
convictions is lessening as time goes on possibly on account of the more humane methods of treating prisoners.
I do not want to dwell on this subject any longer. I appeal to the House to pass this resolution; I do not want six o'clock to arrive with the motion still undisposed of. Personally I am not interested in the resolution because I am going to do my utmost to avoid ever being placed in such a position as to need its provisions. But I do think that I can appeal to all hon. gentlemen to support this resolution on the grounds of economy, humanity, and common sense. Everybody conversant with the subject desires to see this policy caried out, and I see no reason why those who may not be as familiar with it should object to the realization of the desired end. It seems to me that our duty in the matter is obvious, and that we have the privilege this afternoon of demonstrating that we are as wise as our constituents conceive us to be. I hope that we shall all live up to that high standard by supporting this resolution.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: The few remarks I have to make
will not I think offer any obstacle to the passage of the resolution this afternoon. Some years ago it was my privilege as a member of this House in consequence of certain reports that were brought to me to ask for an investigation into the conditions at the Portsmouth (penitentiary. Because of that I had an opportunity to visit that institution and to estimate for myself the conditions as they prevailed at. that time and I take a great deal of satisfaction in the fact that as a result of the investigation then made, very much-needed reforms resulted which took away from the people of Canada the reproach of continuing practices which were a disgrace absolutely to any civilized people.
There is, perhaps, no person so good as to have no bad in him. On the other hand, there is no person so bad as to be absolutely devoid of good. I encountered a striking instance of that, which I recorded on the pages of Hansard some year ago. I had made an application to the then Minister of Justice for the release of a prisoner who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life, on the condition that he would immediately go overseas. The family from which this convict came was highly' respected and this man was the only black sheep of that family. But after several years' confinement in the institution

during which time he had the opportunity, I believe, of saving the life of at least one of the guards who was attacked by

Prison Reform
a fellow-convict, and, perhaps the life of another-his brother having gone overseas and made a good record and come back in shattered and broken health, this convict conceived the idea of trying to wipe out his past by doing something which would be creditable to himself and to the family to which he belonged. That man was given the opportunity to go overseas, and whenever any dangerous task was to be performed he asked for the privilege of taking the risk. While overseas he gave up his life, and I received later a number of letters stating that the regiment to which he belonged gave this ex-convict all the honours they could accord him in his burial, firing a salute over his grave, and holding impressive funeral services. I cite that instance to show, Sir, that no matter how unenviable may be the light in which society regards a man, the worst individual has in him some element of good if those in charge of our penal institutions only had the tact and good judgment to bring that good to the surface.
I have had the opportunity on many occasions of going to the penitentiary at Portsmouth, which is very close to the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I have noticed this fact:	Those convicts who were
engaged in such work as making boots, or brooms, or clothing-in fact, any work which required some activity of the mind-had an entirely different appearance from the men who were sitting on a block of wood from day to day breaking stone. One could not help being struck at once with the difference in the appearance of the two classes of men. There was some glimmer of intelligence in the eyes of those performing work demanding some mental activity; there was a deadness in the eyes and general appearance of the men who were doing nothing but breaking stone. In the crushing or breaking of those stones the convict had a task which held no attraction for him and in which he could see no result. He was not only breaking stone but he was breaking his own health, and what was of more importance, in my judgment, he was crushing his mental and moral fibre as effectively as he was crushing into dust the limestone that he hammered.
I believe this resolution is along the right lines. As the hon. ' member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has indicated, it is not a new matter; it has 'been under consideration both in this House and in the country on various occasions. I see no reason why these convicts should not be engaged in productive work and paid at a rate of wages on a sliding scale. I can conceive that even
though the man is behind prison walls there is still a tie which unites him with the outside world-perhaps the only one that is left-namely, love for his home and family. And under our boasted civilization that family is forced to bear the burden of the convict's crime. To me that is the greatest tragedy of all. We feel that the man who is incarcerated because of his own misdeeds deserves the punishment awarded to him; but there is no one who does not feel that when that punishment reacts on the innocent wife and children there is something wrong with the conditions which make such a thing possible. Such a result may be inevitable, bui it is not impossible for us to ameliorate those conditions so far as regards the wife and family. It is quite possible, within reasonable limits, to bring about that amelioration, and I submit that it is our bounden duty as civilized human beings who are desirous of doing the right thing to take the necessary steps toward that end.
It seems to me that a great many things required by the state might very well be standardized and produced by prison labour. Some good would flow from that, even if it resulted in nothing else than the taking out of the hands of officials the initiative in furnishing their own offices. For we observe that whereas some officials furnish their own offices reasonably and decently and at moderate expense to the public, others do so on a scale which would seen to indicate that they thought the public treasury was inexhaustible. I see no reason why one man sitting in an office should have a mahogany table while another man has a table made out of Canadian pine or maple. You can write just as well on the one as you can on the other. There are many things required by the state which could be produced by prison labour, and a rate of wages might be set on a sliding scale, which would be an inducement to the prisoner to conduct himself properly within the walls of the institution. A man might start, we will say, at 10 cents, 15 cents or 25 cents a day and be told that as his conduct warranted it that rate would be increased by 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent, to the extent that he was endeavouring to make some provision for those dependent upon him. Under those conditions, I venture to say that his conduct would become very much better. Not only that, but I presume it is in the mind of every convict that while perhaps he is being justly punished for his misdeeds, there is an element of injustice in that his family are obliged to suffer; that the state in punishing him-which punishment is warranted-is doing
2108
Prison Reform

a wrong in carrying that punishment on so that it falls upon his wife and children.
I would like to see something done along this line. I believe it is in the right direction, and I merely wish, Mr. Speaker, without taking up any further time, to give my very strong support to the resolution proposed. I daresay it can be worked out by the government and the heads of the departments in such a way as not to harm the industries of the country, but rather to result in much good to the convicts and to their dependents.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I supported a similar resolution last year, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to give my support again this year. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) for having brought this subject before the House; there can be no worthier subject for our consideration. There is no doubt that work must be given to the convicts in our penitentiaries; nothing could be worse than idleness, and if we give them work, I entirely agree with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) that such work should be productive. The idea of former times, which was to force prisoners to break stones, I can only characterize as being stupid and very dangerous to the their well being. It was an idea which surely could not conduce to any reform, and after all reform should be the main idea with regard to convicts.
As my hon. friend said, the work could be done especially to meet government needs. At present, on account of the dilapidated condition of the buildings in most of the penitentiaries-with the exception of the Saskatchewan penitentiary, which is a new building-a fair portion of the-inmates will be employed for some years to come in reconstructing, remodelling and repairing the buildings. For many years prior to 1919 very little work in the way of repairs was done to these buildings. As a matter of fact, only last week the warden of the Manitoba penitentiary asked that convicts be transferred to that institution on account of the' large amount of work to be done in reconstruction. At the same time the warden of the Kingston penitentiary reported that he had not sufficient shop room to enable him to employ the number of inmates then confined there, and that from 75 to 100 of them might be removed to another institution. This we have done; 80 convicts have been transferred to the Manitoba penitentiary, where there is work for them.
We should have enough revenue-producing work to employ the inmates for whom employment cannot be found at reconstruction, but of course this must be done gradually.

I may say that this is the policy I intend to carry on so long as I am at the head of this department. The additional work must be taken on gradually, as shops can be remodelled and equipped with the necessary machinery. It is deemed advisable, of course, not to attempt too much until the institutions are prepared for the work. As the hon. member who moved this resolution indicated, improvements have already been made in that direction; there is a revenue of over $160,000 yearly from penitentiaries.
Until 1888 I think contract work was carried on, but this has now been abolished. Prior to 1921 organized labour as a rule was opposed to work being done in the penitentiaries which might compete with free labour, even for the use of the departments of the government, but that opinion has been changed. Only this morning the government received a delegation from the Trades and Labour Council of Canada, and one of the requests made by that delegation was that the conclusions contained in the report of 1921 should be adopted and carried out. They believe that so far as the needs of the government are concerned, the work might well be done by the prisoners. After this question was discussed here last year, the secretary of the Garment Manufacturers' Association wrote me-I think it was Mr. Sparks-objecting to the idea of having uniforms made in the penitentiaries, even for government use. I called to his attention a resolution passed by the garment manufacturers of the United States who, while opposing the prison manufacture of garments which would compete on the market with free labour, had no objection to the manufacture of uniforms for the use of officers of the various departments. I indicated last year what was being done in the penitentiaries, and what work could be done. I might perhaps state the classes of goods which might easily be made in our penitentiaries, and for which it would be very easy to have the necessary equipment:
All classes of canvas goods, such as tents, tarpaulins, flies, nose-bags, water pails, packs of all descriptions, and so on; furniture of all descriptions, in wood; all classes of galvanized iron and tin goods; clothing and the manufacture of uniforms-military, mounted police and other such; leather goods, including harness; bookbinding; boots and shoes; hickory handles of all descriptions; blacksmith shop work; machine shop work; stone cutting; broom making, and so forth.
As I said, if all the departments of the government were giving orders for such articles, it would be an easy matter to keep

Imports oj Eggs
the population in our penitentiaries busy. In the United States there is some co-operation between some of the states by which one state will give orders to the penitentiary of another state for special work, and in Canada I believe it might be possible to come to some agreement with the provinces whereby the provinces might give orders to our penitentiaries for articles which they require for their own departments.
As to remuneration, this is a very important question. I believe a way might be found to give some reward to hard-working convicts who have a record of good behaviour in the penitentiary. There is no doubt that the lure of gain or the hope of some improvement in their situation would be an incentive to good behaviour and to work. Of course, a certain amount would have to be kept by the state, representing, the expenditure to which the state was put for the upkeep of the convict, but a little might be set aside not only for the dependents of the convict but for the convict himself, because I am rather of the opinion that it is hard after having kept a man in penitentiary for six or seven or ten years to put him out on the street at the end of that time with only a suit of clothes and five dollars in his pocket, as we do at the present time. If he has reformed and wants to try to lead a good life henceforth, it is rather hard not to provide him with a little money to enable him to look around and live for a few days at least before he can find some work to do. This could be done by giving some remuneration to the well-behaved prisoners, and such a system would provide us with the best kind of punishment, I think, because when a man had done something for which he deserves punishment a fine might be imposed and deducted from the amount which he would have to his credit. This would be better than those punishments to which we have to resort at the present time. There is no need to talk of big sums at all. After the deductions are made for the cost of the convict's maintenance in the penitentiary and for any fines which may have been incurred-and also for tobacco; because the convict is allowed to smoke in 4 p.m. some of the penitentiaries, at least in the United States, at certain times-there would not be left a very great. sum, but the amount would be very useful to the convict when he comes out of the penitentiary.
There is another thing which is not made the subject of the resolution, but to which I am giving a good deal of thought, and that is the possibility of segregating the young
convicts who are sentenced for the first time. Under present conditions they are mixed up with the hardened criminals, and that does not give them a chance. If we could find a way to build a special institution, or even two institutions, for the purpose of receiving and keeping these young men, rather than put them with the hardened criminals, I think that would be a good reform to undertake.
As I said at the beginning, I am strongly in favour of the principle embodied in this resolution. I shall certainly vote for it, and I hope the House will.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay) moved:: Whereas the low duty of three cents per dozen on eggs entering Canada from the United States and the entry of Australian eggs free of duty, encourages the importation of storage eggs, thereby creating unprofitable conditions and unjust competition for Canadian poultrymen, and
Whereas the entry of Canadian eggs to the United States is prevented by reason of a tariff of eight cents per dozen, this House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canadian poultrymen will be fostered by placing a duty on United States eggs entering Canada, equal to that on Canadian eggs entering the United States.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, representing a constituency which is very much concerned in advancing the poultry industry, I wish to say a word on this resolution. The basic principle of the resolution is the encouragement of the poultry industry in Canada by protection against unfair and unjust competition occasioned by the dumping of the products of foreign countries, particularly the United States, into this country by reason of the low duty of three cents a dozen, and protection also against Chinese eggs shipped into Canada, not only in shell, but in bulk, and against Australian and New Zealand eggs which now come into Canada absolutely free of duty under the Australian treaty, which went into operation in October last.
Perhaps the greatest menace in connection with this question is the vast quantity of cold storage eggs imported into Canada from the United States at the very low duty of three cents per dozen. These eggs are purchased in the southern states at the height of the season at a cost of ten, twelve and fifteen cents per dozen; they are placed in cold storage, kept there for several months, and at the time when the Canadian poultryman hopes to realize something in return for his expenditure and his efforts, he finds he is confronted with
Imports of Eggs

a serious problem on account of the dumping into Canada of these vast quantities of eggs from the United States. We have in Canada grading and marking regulations, in British Columbia particularly, and these may be evaded or criticized. The fact remains that the only effective measure to encourage the poultry industry is a protective duty which will give the Canadian producer the benefit of his own market.
In British Columbia we have probably advanced beyond any of the other provinces by reason of the fact that we have an eggs marking act. Neither British Columbia nor any other province can protect its poultrymen by the imposition of a duty or a tariff, but in British Columbia we went this far-and of course it was a Conservative government which took the step-back in 1916 the Conservative government of the province placed on the statute book an egg marking act, which provided that all eggs imported from a foreign country must be marked; each egg must be stamped as the product of such and such a country. The result is that we in British Columbia are not hampered by our producers being forced to enter into competition with eggs imported from China. The distribution and the use of Chinese eggs, therefore, or rather the monopoly, is confined almost entirely to the prairie provinces, to Quebec and some of the eastern provinces.
These Chinese eggs are imported not only in the shell, but in tin containers, buckets and barrels. They are frozen hard, brought into .Canada, and put in storage until an opportune time arrives for placing them on the market in competition with other eggs. They are used, of course, in the different bakeries, in the extensive line of cheap restaurants, and for confectionery and colouring purposes generally. These eggs have been scrambled in China, so that my friends from Montreal, when they go into a restaurant and order an omelet, do not know whether they are getting Chinese eggs or eggs of very much older vintage than they imagine. But the marking acts do not prevent the dumping of United States eggs under a tariff of three cents per dozen, or the dumping of Australian or New Zealand eggs which are to come in duty free. I think we ought to realize fully the importance of this resolution, because it simply means that every case of eggs imported into Canada discourages to that extent the production and business of our own Canadian poultry men.
In order to show the enormity of these importations, I may point out that in the calendar year 1925 we imported 2J million dozen

eggs from the United States and 150,000 dozen from China, Japan and other countries. As my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) pointed out in his address earlier in the session, the consumption of eggs in Canada is ten foreign eggs to one Canadian egg. From that statement we can realize the extent to which the poultry industry is being jeopardized. This accumulation of United States eggs purchased in the southern states at the height of the season at ten, twelve and fifteen cents a dozen, is at an opportune time dumped upon the Canadian market. Hon. members will observe from statistics that they do not come in during the whole year, but principally during the first three months of the year. In the last nine months of 1925 there were 125,000 dozen eggs brought in from the United States, while during the first three months the total import was 2,451,860 dozen; so hon. members can see that they take the opportunity to dump them into Canada at a time when they will be in greater competition with our own producers. Then we have the bulk and the frozen eggs from China and other countries, which in 1925 amounted to
1.507.000	pounds. Those bulk and frozen eggs come into Canada by the pound, not by the dozen. During the first three months of 1926 we have imported already from the United States, at the low duty of three cents a dozen,
2.620.000	dozen eggs, and from China, 241,000 pounds or 400,000 dozen. There again we have an emphatic illustration of the injury which this dumping of low grade storage eggs is doing to the production of the Canadian poultrymen.
The government is taking measures to encourage immigration, and we are clamouring for more people to go on the land. We are urging intensive farming, and certainly poultry raising is a very important branch of farming. We look upon farming as the backbone of the country, yet by actually discouraging one of the very important branches of farming we are really breaking that backbone. In January last a meeting of the provincial poultry association was held in Victoria, at which more than a hundred members were present, and a resolution was passed and transmitted to the Minister of Agriculture, urging that the federal government be requested, as an act of justice, to do something to provide a remedy. In all these resolutions passed in western Canada we usually find the request that, as an act of justice to the poultrymen, the duty on eggs be raised sufficiently to make it equivalent to the duty on Canadian eggs going into the United States.

Imports of Eggs
Then in August last, at Des Moines, Iowa, there was a meeting of the National Association of Poultrymen, which was attended by the Canadian representative, Mr. J. B. Martin. I notice that Mr. Martin, in his address to the association, made this statement:
The dumping of low grade United States eggs, on the Canadian market, brought about by the low tariff of three cents per dozen, was one difficulty the Canadian poultryman found. Producers in Canada were demanding that this be raised to eight cents and no doubt this would be done in the near future as a mere act of justice.	[DOT]
I regret that the hon. member for Fraser Valley, being at present under the care of a physician, is not here to-day, because this is a matter of vital interest to his district, also, and I know he would contribute much interesting information on the subject. I hope, however, for some sympathy from the other side of the House, and especially do I hope for that of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). We have his pronounced views on this matter; as reported on page 908 of Hansard he admits the principle of protection, and says:
I think it extremely unjust and one-sided that we should have to compete with an eight cents per dozen duty on eggs going into the United States from Canada, when eggs coming into Canada from the United States pay a duty of only three cents a dozen. If we have protection I want to see it provided all round and not to have it centred on a few industries in Ontario. I want to see it applied to British Columbia.
So do all of us from British Columbia want to see the principle of protection applied to all industries in that province; and that was the issue in the last election in Comox-Alberni as well as in all other parts of the province. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni admitted that, because on the same page of Hansard he made this statement-and we must remember that this is our independent member from British Columbia:
I promised my constituents. . . I would vote for an increase in the duty on eggs coming from the United States. I attached a proviso to it. . . that it should not be wrapped up with a vote of want of confidence. If the proposition is made as a clear, separate issue, I am quite prepared to vote in favour of it.
This is a clear and separate issue. It is for the purpose of encouraging the poultry industry in Canada. It is a vital factor in connection with the farm. We are spending a vast sum to bring settlers to Canada; the government are urging that the great need of this country is immigration; they want to fill up the land, and yet they are placing an obstacle in the path of the man whom they are inviting to go on that land. In view of the utterances of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and as we must have the sympathy
of some hon. members on the other side-I know we have the sympathy of all members on this side, including my Progressive friends -I hope the House will give careful consideration to, and vote in favour of, this resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I should be surprised if a motion of this importance should pass with only one speaker from the other side of the House. My hon. friend who moves the resolution (Mr. Esling) referred to Australian eggs coming in. No Australian eggs have come in so far. As regards United States eggs coming in, the number has decreased, according to the latest official annual government returns, from six million to two million dozen per annum. The hon. member says that the only effective measure of dealing with the well known slump in the egg industry in British Columbia is by this measure of protection that he advocates. I would point out that the organization under whose auspices the meeting from which he quoted was conducted used this language in a letter which I quoted the other day:
The Board of Directors and management of this association are of the opinion, and very strongly of the opinion at that, that the Eggs Marks Act is a much better form of protection than 5 cents extra duty, at the same time we believe that if the act was a federal measure instead of a provincial one, it would have a better chance, etc.
And so on. I would suggest another measure that would also be a great benefit to the poultry industry, more possibly than even the one that the hon. member is now advocating, and that is the adjustment of freight rates on wheat. I alluded to this in the same speech from which my hon. friend quoted. I do not want to go into that issue to-day; but as I mentioned before, freight rates on wheat for export from the prairies to Vancouver have been twice reduced within the last eighteen months or two years, and on neither occasion was the domestic rate on wheat for use by poultrymen in British Columbia reduced at all. Therefore, even if the discrimination was just before then-and I do not admit it was-it cannot be now because the export rate has been reduced twice and the old domestic rate remains on wheat for chickens which is, of course, of lower quality; while the export wheat is of the highest quality. It is cheaper to buy wheat of the same grade in China than in Vancouver.
The hon. member, of course, had to give his resolution a political aspect by going back to the Eggs Marks Act of British Columbia which he said was passed during the
Imports of Eggs

regime of the Conservative party there, and giving his party credit therefor. I think he might have left that out, owing to this fact that While there was an act passed, presumably during that period, it was not as beneficial and as effective as the present act which was passed in 1923. The old act to which he alluded-I take his word for it that it was passed then-demanded or required principally that egg containers should have marked upon them the country of origin. While that is good so far as it goes, it was found to be of very little practical effect. For instance, a woman would go into a store and ask for a dozen eggs, and the man would go behind the counter or to the back of the store and take eggs out of a case marked Chinese or United States eggs. The customer would not see the container; the man would put the eggs in a bag and the customer would take them away. The provision was found, therefore, to be of very little use. I do not think the present act was due to Liberalism at all; I am not going to suggest any credit in that regard. If was the pressure and insistence of the poultrymen of British Columbia that led the government, which happened to be Liberal, introducing and having passed the present Eggs Marks Act, which requires each particular egg to have stamped on it the country of origin. That is a totally different thing, and poultrymen agree that it has been of tremendous advantage in British Columbia. It was that reason that led me to introduce the resolution which I brought in the other day to extend the benefits of this act to the whole of the Dominion.
My hon. friend wasted a gTeat deal of ammunition on my humble self by quoting extracts from my speech in order to demand my sympathy and support for this resolution. He need not have worried; my sympathies are entirely with the resolution. I do not need to tbe reminded of former remarks I made in this House or elsewhere to be compelled to manifest that interest. I will certainly vote for the hon. member's motion, but I think bis advice, his admonition and his demand for sympathy would1 have been better expressed to his own party friends the other night when I had before the House a resolution in regard to the Eggs Marking Act. which resolution only two hon. gentlemen opposite supported, while others opposed it. 1 lacked then even from himself that expression of sympathy which the hon. member now demands from me, and I was advocating on that occasion a resolution which this association in British Columbia say they regard as more important even than an increase of
[Mr. Neill.1
five cents a dozen in the duty. However, as regards its main aspects I am entirely m favour of the resolution and I earnestly hope that it will be adopted and carried into effect.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: The first part of the resolution reads:
Whereas the low duty of three cents per dozen on eggs entering Canada from the United Statesi and the entry of Australian eggs free of duty, encourages the importation of storage eggs, thereby creating unprofitable conditions and unjust competition for Canadian poultrymen, and-	.
That is an allegation of fact which my hon. friend is scarcely able to prove. As a matter of fact, no eggs have come in from Australia or New Zealand since the treaty went into effect.
Mr. ESLIN'G: Are Australian eggs not permitted to enter Canada absolutely free, whereas they have a barrier of 18 cents a dozen against us? There is nothing to prevent them from sending eggs into Canada when they are ready.


James Alexander Robb: It would not make any difference if Australia had a duty of a dollar a dozen on eggs, for the fact is that eggs will not come into Canada from that country. Nor have any eggs entered Canada from Australia and New Zealand for some years.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon.
gentleman is wrong.


James Alexander Robb: The most recent importation
of eggs in any quantity from New Zealand and Australia amounted; in the year 1921, to $6,844 from New Zealand and in 1922 $13,917 from Australia. Australia has a very limited quantity of eggs to export, and what eggs it does ship out are sent to the United Kingdom, which is also Canada's market. The fact is that Australia is an importer of eggs. The figures for the past five years show that 92 per cent of the eggs imported into Australia have come from China, while the bulk of the eggs exported from Australia come from New South Wales. The 1925 Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia reports that in the fiscal year 1923 the exports of eggs from that country totalled 1,236,000 dozen and in 1924, 655,000 dozen.


Arthur Meighen: What were the imports?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the imports.


Arthur Meighen: Almost nothing.


James Alexander Robb: I am quoting the exports.
, second half of the resolution reads: hereas the entry of Canadian eggs to the United es is prevented by reason of a tariff of eight cents

Imports of Eggs
per dozen, this House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canadian poultrymen will be fostered by placing a duty on United States eggs entering Canada, equal to that on Canadian eggs entering the United States.
My hon. friend appears to argue that because the entry of Canadian eggs into the United States is prevented by reason of a tariff of eight cents, Canada is injured in consequence. But he seems to forget that the United States is itself an egg-exporting country. There again I submit he is not on very sound ground. The development of the egg industry depends largely upon the ability of the producer to sell fresh eggs, because fresh eggs receive the highest prices. The records show that the people of Canada are the greatest consumers of eggs in the world. In 1901 our average consumption per capita was 190 eggs, while in 1924 it was 313. For that reason, when considering the condition of the egg business, we must bear in mind both the producer and the consumer. The greater part of our imports of eggs in the shell come from the United States, and these importations take place during the winter months. The following table shows our imports from the United States.
Calendar year	Dozen
1923		 0,568,973
1924		 4,920,819
1925		 2,577,400
The hon. member will observe that our exports have dropped almost two-thirds. The figures I have just quoted will bear out the statement of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that our importations have been declining from year to year.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Can the minister give us the importations for the three months of the present year?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is over-hasty.
He will have the floor in a few minutes.


Donald Sutherland: I
thought the minister could give those figures to compare with the others.


James Alexander Robb: The greater part of these importations come in during the months of December, January, February and March.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Just when our
prices should be highest.


James Alexander Robb: Has my hon. friend no regard for the consumer? The total importations throughout the year from the United States I have already given, and if hon. gentlemen will place alongside those figures the importations during the winter months, they will observe that what 1 have stated is correct, namely, that the bulk of those eggs come in 14011-135
during the four months I have mentioned. The following table will show this:
Total U.S. Winter imports Year	imports	from U.S.(Calendar)	Dozen	Dozen1923	
6,568,973	5,742,1481924	
4,920,819	4,862,1991925	
2,577,400	2,484,993
My hon. friend from South Oxford wants me to give him the recent importations. The most recent figures we have are for the nine months ending December last. The imports during those nine months were 125,540 dozen, and during the same period we exported 2,425,643 dozen mostly to the United Kingdom.


John Wesley Edwards: Were those
exports to the United States?


Mr ROBB:: To the United Kingdom
mostly.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister gave the imports from the United States into Canada for certain years. Has he the figures there to complete the statement by giving our exports to the United States during the same period?


James Alexander Robb: What difference does it make
where we export our eggs-*


John Wesley Edwards: I asked if
the minister had the figures there to give. If he has not got them all he need do is to say so.


James Alexander Robb: What difference does it make
where we sell our products if we sell them in the highest market and get the highest price for them? That is certainly what we are out for.


John Wesley Edwards: My object
was to find out if the minister could give .our exports of eggs to the United States for the years he mentioned. That may not be of any importance to the minister but it is of some importance to me or I would not have asked the question.


James Alexander Robb: What occurs to me is that
Canada is out to sell her eggs in the market in which she can get the highest price. As I say, during that period-


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister permit me to ask a question?


James Alexander Robb: In a moment. Let me repeat that in those nine months we imported 125,540 dozen eggs from the United States and we exported 2,425,643 dozen to the markets of the world. Most of those exports went to the United Kingdom.


Arthur Meighen: If it does not matter
where we sell our eggs why was the minister so particular to tell us where we buy them?

Imports of Eggs


James Alexander Robb: Because the hon. gentleman
raised that question.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member raised the question but the minister, would not give him the information.


James Alexander Robb: I did not have the information. My hon. friend knows very well that if I had the information I would be very glad to give it to him.


John Wesley Edwards: May I
suggest that if such is the case the minister might have said so.


James Alexander Robb: I have nothing more to say.


Arthur Meighen: Do not say the matter is of no importance.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit with my hon.
friend (Mr. Esling) that the industry is of considerable importance in Canada. In 1924 the total production of eggs in the Dominion was 212,648,685 dozen. During that year we imported from the United States 4,920,819 dozen. In 1925 our production of eggs increased. I suppose it was owing to the good policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. In that year the production of eggs amounted to 224,778,867 dozen, and the imports from the United States had dropped to the extent almost of one-half from the imports of 1924-they had dropped to 2,577,400 dozen. In other words, our imports from the United States in 1924 amounted to just about 2.3 per cent of the production of eggs in Canada. Under the circumstances I submit there is no justification for the resolution. I contend that my hon. friend has not made out a case to warrant us in following the policy of the United States. We are exporters of eggs as well as importers, and the export trade of the country is worth considering.


Mr. BOYS:: Can the minister inform the
House what the importation of eggs has been for the last three or four years? If my memory serves me correctly since 1921 over 30,(XX),000 dozen eggs have been imported into Canada.


James Alexander Robb: I have no other figures than
those I gave a few moments ago.


Arthur Meighen: They are not very conclusive.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit at once that our
imports are largely from the United States because it is the nearest country to us, I imagine.


Arthur Meighen: What conclusion can be
drawn from the figures that only give the imports from one country, and the minister who assumes to answer for the government

has not the figures with him to tell what other imports there are?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine this discussion is
quite out of order. I have been following the lines laid down in the resolution. What my hon. friend (Mr. Esling) complains of is the United States duty, and in my remarks in reply I have adhered strictly to the terms of the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: The resolution calls for
an increase in the duty all round.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: I am in sympathy with the resolution. It is true that there have been no importations of eggs from Australia, but that does not denote that there will not be any. The minister has stated that Australia imports eggs. That being the case there was a splendid chance to help our poultrymen when the Australian treaty was being negotiated.


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to interrupt the speech of my hon. friend but the Australian is no more ready to buy eggs that are seven weeks old under the guise of fresh eggs than the Canadian is. "We do not eat that kind of egg.


William Foster Garland: Yet he is buying eggs from China. In the face of an adverse duty of 18 cents a dozen there is no possibility of the Australian buying eggs from Canada. That is one of the chief reasons why the Australian will not buy them. But there is no reason why we could not send eggs to Australia under a proper tariff arrangement. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) also stated that the increased production of eggs in Canada is probably the result of the legislation enacted by the present Minister of Agriculture. I think the former Minister of Agriculture had something to do with the. regulations now in force.


James Alexander Robb: He did.


William Foster Garland: And I feel sure that these regulations are in the interest of the poultrymen as well as in the interest of the consumer. The Minister of Finance has said that the egg forms the breakfast food of the nation. In other words, every person in Canada, according to the figures of consumption, is eating three-quarters of an egg per day. That represents from ten to eleven dozen more per year per capita than the consumption in the United States represents, and from ten to fifteen dozen more per year per capita than the consumption in Great Britain. I think one reason for the increased consumption is the high quality

Imports oj Eggs
of the Canadian egg, and the special care taken to see that the fresh egg is properly graded. There is no reason why we should not be able to increase our sales of eggs not only to our own people but to the United States and to other countries as well. We certainly can sell more eggs to the United States although the climatic and other conditions which attend production there seem to be in their favour. If there was an equalization of duty as between the two countries we could increase our exports and it would not make one iota of difference to the consumer as far as the price of eggs is concerned. In any event there would be a better chance for the Canadian poultryman to increase the consumption in Canada from three-quarters of an egg per capita per day to one egg. If we could increase the production of every hen in Canada so that she would just lay one egg a day more it would mean, at the current price we will say of 40 cents per dozen, an additional amount between fifty and sixty thousand dollars a year. That may not seem very much to some people but it is worth aiming at and it could be done. I firmly believe that through the medium of an equalization in the tariff the poultry industry would be helped very much without the consumer suffering any harm whatever. The minister has given the figures of imports of eggs from the United States. We might just as well have had a duty of eight cents on those eggs as to permit them to come into this country at three cents. Our treasury would have been that much better off; it would not have made any difference in the price to the consumer and it would have been a stimulant to the poultry industry.
I am very much in sympathy with this resolution, and I believe it is a step in the right direction. The duty should be reversed in order to accomplish what should be done for the poultry industry in Canada. As we are aware, practically all these eggs from the United States come into Canada during the months of December, January and February, the only season of year during which the Canadian poultryman gets a good price for his eggs. That point, I believe, should also be taken into consideration.
There are other things than eggs in connection with this poultry industry, baby chicks and so on, just as important as eggs and entitled to equal consideration, but those points can come up at some other time. I really think our duty should be at least equal to if not higher than the American duty.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?
14011-135^


William Foster Garland: Certainly.


John Power Howden: Assuming that a duty of
8 cents a dozen would make American eggs prohibitive during the winter months, when we need them, where would the hon. member suggest we get our winter eggs?


William Foster Garland: You could get them all right here in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The industry would be increased that much more; production would be that much greater, and we would be eating Canadian eggs.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not going to take very long, Mr. Speaker. I rise merely for the purpose of completing the statement which I endeavoured to get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to complete. The Minister of Finance spent quite a bit of time in giving us the importations from the United States year by year, and I repeatedly asked the hon. gentleman to give our exports to the United States. He thought that did not cut any figure in regard to this resolution at all, but I propose to give him the figures. In the year 1924 we imported from the United States 6,454,000 dozen eggs and exported during the same year 141,379 dozen. I reason from that that the United States sent over 6,000,000 dozen eggs into Canada because we made it easy for them to do so, with a duty of only three cents, and that we sent only 141,000 dozen to help feed those 110,000,000 people because they made it difficult for us to do so by putting on a duty of eight cents. In other words, the United States-and other countries as well-have adopted the principle of giving to their own people encouragement in the production of those things which they themselves require. Every other government in the world except this remnant of a government has taken this course. It is a sensible course, and therefore one which we could not expect this government to follow.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
would like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland) with regard to this resolution. He is a gentleman with wide experience in the poultry business, and knows what he is talking about. With regard to the importations from Australia, if Australia is an importing country I should say that when the treaty was being negotiated, we should have applied to Australia for the privilege of entering that market with our eggs. If she is able to take eggs from China -eggs which are known largely by their odour -there is no reason why she should not learn to import good Canadian eggs which are far
Imports oj Eggs

superior to practically any others in the world. That we consume more eggs in Canada than in some other countries is due, in my opinion, to the fact that we have regulations here which place our eggs on the market in a fresh condition. As soon as they become a little stale they lose their popularity with the consumer, who knows what a fresh egg is like. I want to say also that Australia, developing its agriculture as it has been doing, may before very long be an exporter of eggs to Canada, just as the United States is at the present time. During the opposite season of the year, when we are not producing at home, they will soon be exporting eggs to this country.
The great disadvantage under which we are labouring at present in competition with the United States, where the duty is eight cents per dozen as against our duty of only three cents, is that during January, February and probably a part of December, when our eggs are produced at the very highest peak of the cost of production, the California hen, the Carolina hen, the Florida hen and the Texas hen are basking in sunshine and enjoying spring weather. Anyone familiar with the poultry industry realizes that under spring conditions you can produce eggs at a very much lower cost than under the midwinter conditions prevailing in Canada at that time of the year. Therefore the tariff against those eggs should be at least equal to the United States tariff, to place the Canadian producer on a good sound footing.
Looking at this proposition generally, in a protectionist country such as Canada, I cannot understand why the farmer should not be protected as well as everyone else. I cannot understand the reasoning which permits the expenditure of about $6,000,000 each year in developing a splendid Department of Agriculture-and I want to say that I think it is one of the best in the world-in developing our experimental farms; in carrying on egg-laying contests; in catering to the great world's poultry congress which is to be held here in 1927; in aiming to improve our poultry in every way and in inducing our farmers to stock up better breeds and so forth, and then leaves our market open to unfair competition. This is one of the vital points; if we have no markets to sell in we will have lost our greatest inducement to produce more eggs. In this connection I think we should follow in the footsteps of Australia, and protect our farmers here; we should follow the example of the United States, who did not hesitate at all to raise their tariff on butter to twelve cents a pound, when they began to come into competition with the Australian and New

Zealand product. I strongly endorse the resolution, and I think the hon. member who introduced it is to be congratulated upon bringing this matter before the House.


Donald Sutherland: I would like to say a few words
in this connection, Mr. Speaker. I thought two years ago, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) introduced his bill providing for a balanced ration for the Canadian hen, that we would not be troubled with any eggs coming into the country. That bill was to solve our difficulty, but apparently the balanced ration has not overcome the difficulty', and eggs are still being imported into Canada in large numbers.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has evidently taken a great deal of trouble to look up statistics favourable to the position which the government have taken on this matter. I asked what I thought was a very reasonable question, in view of the importa tions which he gave for a number of years; my question was what were the importations for the three months of this year. He intimated that I would have a chance to speak on this matter, and he did not give the information asked for. For the benefit of those who do not know-because I am satisfied that the minister does know-


James Alexander Robb: No.


Donald Sutherland: The minister says "no"; I will withdraw that statement. The information has been given in the House, however, during the present session. There have been 2,620,644 dozen eggs imported, during January, February and part of March, with a value of $747,890. These figures were obtained a few days ago from the Department of Customs. That amount of Canadian money has gone out of the country to pay for eggs imported almost entirely from the United States. These figures do not include the eggs referred to as coming from Hong Kong and China, frozen eggs or broken and canned eggs, because 287,245 pounds of those eggs were imported into the country during those months, in addition to the figures I have already given. The principle on which our customs tariff is based is the thing we must consider. It is essential that we arrive at some understanding on the matter if we are going to have unity in this country and a contented people. You cannot afford to have a number of people enjoying a high degree, or a reasonable degree of protection in this country, and others having little or none at all; that is the basic

Imports of Eggs
principle which must be settled by the people of this country and by this parliament before we can hope for the success and progress we should have and to which we are entitled.
Everyone knows that climatic conditions in this country are severe during the winter months, and that difficulties are encountered by those who are engaged in producing food products. Is it fair to people who have to contend against these natural climatic handicaps, and who have spent enormous sums of money in order to enable them to do so, that the government should encourage competition from countries more favourably situated in order to put our own producers out of business? Will the Minister of Agriculture say that the agricultural experts in connection with our various experimental farms contend that eggs cannot be produced successfully in this country during the winter months? I do not think he will. On the contrary, there is every inducement for the people of this country to engage in this business, but they are becoming so discouraged owing to the restrictions which have been placed upon them during the last year or two that they are quitting the business, and the minister will soon find that the egg importations into this country will greatly increase as a result.
Some few days ago I placed some questions on the order paper with regard to the egg grading which is in effect here, and I find by the answers that there are about fifteen different grades of eggs. The minister shakes his head. I will quote from the answer that was given to my question. There are in class (1), specials, extras, pullet extras, firsts, seconds; then in class (2), storage, preserved, extras, firsts, seconds, cracked and dirty. You have all those different grades of eggs, and I venture to state that there is no one engaged in poultry raising in this country who could satisfactorily explain why all these regulations are in existence, but the dealer in eggs can explain. The pressure has been brought to bear by the packers who are grading these eggs, with the assistance of the government graders, and who are receiving the benefit of these extras and extra specials, while the producer receives little benefit from these grades. It is true that in a few instances the producer benefits, but in the main you will find that it is the ^packer who is reaping the benefit from the regulations provided by the minister.
With regard to some of the arguments which have been advanced, particularly by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I remember when the Australian treaty came up it was pointed out that the government might have obtained some concessions 5 p.m. from Australia in connection with this matter, but the voice of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was not heard at that time. On the contrary, I believe he shirked his vote on that occasion, for his name does not appear in the records at all, which shows the interest manifested by him at that time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question, and I am inclined to think that even the Minister of Finance himself, when some other question comes up, takes the view that we should protect ourselves, because I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of March 5, 1925, headed " Use Tariff as Club on U.S., Mr. Robb Hints," which reads in part as follows:
"If the Americans put up a prohibitive tariff against our agricultural products, why shouldn't we put up a tariff against some of their products?" Hon. J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, asked a delegation from the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which waited upon the government this morning. "The government needs to have some club to handle these fellows," he said.
That is the statement attributed to the Minister of Finance, and that is all this resolution asks for. The tariff is very low in any event, and it is quite apparent that agriculture is suffering, and suffering seriously, for want of a reasonable degree of protection. I think the suggestion contained in the motion is one which should be adopted by this House. Until you realize that some consideration must be given to those who are engaged in agriculture in this country, you may rest assured that we will continue to experience the difficulties with which wTe are now confronted in trying to persuade people to stay on the land. It is true that a great many of them are there and cannot get away, but they are subject in many instances to most unfair competition that is costing this country many, many millions of dollars annually to supply our people with the food products that ought to be supplied to them by the farmers of this country. It is no wonder that a revaluation of the soldier settlers' land has had to be provided for, and that other means are being adopted by the government in order to meet the situation with which we are confronted. Why not adopt the fair and sensible measure which will encourage production, rather than attempt to deal with the resulting situation by means of bonuses, old age pensions, and things of that kind? The country is all right; the people are all right if you give them a chance. If the Minister of Agriculture will only strike out these regulations and restrictions which he has imposed upon the people, and remove the
Imports oj Eggs

army of inspectors and graders which he has turned loose on the country, conditions, I feel sure, will be much more satisfactory. I find that last year, for instance, S79,174 was paid out to these inspectors whom the Minister of Agriculture has going around the country, chasing people who are engaged in poultry raising and the production of eggs, worrying and heckling them on every hand. Oh, yes, if we purchase eggs from the United States, China and Hong Kong, it is all right; the minister contends that the consumer must be first considered. Has he no word of sympathy for the producer? Is no consideration whatever to be extended to him? Apparently it is all right to send our good money out of this country to buy goods in the United States, in China, and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in favour of this resolution, and it is high time the government took some action with regard to agriculture in order to protect those who are engaged in this industry from the unfair competition which they are meeting on every hand.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution brings up a very wide question; in fact, it has to do with the production on the farms of all the lines which we are raising at the present time and trying to find a market for.
The resolution suggests that eggs are being dumped into Canada. Now dumping at one time did mean that foods were being sold cheaper for export than for home consumption in the country of origin. We are now giving to the Minister of Customs full power in the matter of the appraisement for customs purposes of all natural products entering this country. It might be something for the consumer if he could buy foreign produce at dumping prices, but such is not the case. The distributing combines to-day are the only ones that benefit by cheap imports.
The Australian treaty has been mentioned. I might say that trade treaties are a feature of protection all by itself, but the agriculturists are only asking to-day the right that other classes enjoy, the right to buy and sell where they can to the best advantage. The fact that the United States impose a duty of eight cents a dozen on eggs does not debar Canada from exporting eggs .to the United States, and does not in the least concern Canada, because the distributing combine in the United States raises the price of the product up to that level.


Mr. LADNER:: Does the hon. gentleman
say that is a fact?
cMr. D. Sutherland.]


John Evans: Yes; I will prove it as I
go along. It is just as easy for a country that can raise its produce according to world prices to get over a high tariff wall as to get over a low tariff wall, because the price in that country is raised to the level of that tariff above the world price.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Theoretically.


John Evans: Yes. It is unfair to the producers of all natural products in this country to place the manufacturing, and particularly the distributing combine, outside of competition. I believe the distributing combine has become in Canada during the last few years the most tyrannical of all, even surpassing the tyranny of the manufacturers in price-fixing powers. These combines are placed entirely outside of competition, and thereby raise the cost of production to a point where we cannot compete. Were it possible to-day for the producers on the farms of Canada to buy commodities at world prices, the Canadian farmer need fear no competition from any country whatsoever. The one great detriment to production in Canada of all lines is the high cost of production. That is what the mover of the resolution is feeling to-day in the production of eggs raised through the artificial or price-fixing power of the combine. There has never been in Canada yet any relation between the price of products as they leave the farm and as. they fall into the hands of the consumer. There is no relation between the two to-day and never has been. The prices paid by the city man for commodities derived from the products of the farm, such as flour, rolled oats and so on, bear no relation to the price received by the primary producer. Why? Because we have placed the distributing combine entirely outside the pale of competition. He has the price-fixing power, and the importation of any quantity of eggs or butter from China or Australia, does not mean that the consumer will get these products at a cheaper price. The distributor or the middle man has the price-fixing power in regard to these things, and whether they are raised in our own country or not, the cost of living is kept to the height of the tariff.
That is the one great obstacle in the way of production, including manufacturing. Production in all lines in Canada is placed out of competition, and therefore taken out of the line of world prices. The agriculturist has to find hjs market outside of Canada. He has to look to the export market to find his revenue, and the export market will have to be his market for many years to come yet. The home market which our friends here bring to the front so often is simply a joke, so far as

Imports oj Eggs
the farmer of Canada is concerned, and I defy anyone to say how we are to be protected. The price of eggs is affected by the cost of production and the placing of the middleman outside the pale of competition.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman
say that the home market so far as eggs are concerned is a joke, and did he ever hear a poultryman make such an assertion?


John Evans: Taking agricultural production in general-yes, it is a joke. I say it is a fallacy to look to protection or an increase in the duty on anything to remedy the situation to-day, and I will say that the tariff is a fallacy, apply it on what you please, and that it drives t'he cost of production and the cost of doing anything out of line with world prices. Even if Canada wanted to become a manufacturing country, even if we hope to compete with the United States-and we can- the only thing to do here is to lower the cost of production. This is the reason our young men are leaving us to-day. This is the reason that the most enterprising, the smartest young men and women are crossing the border, or going to Europe or somewhere else looking to freedom for their own enterprise and the qualities that they inherit.
Mr. MEIGHE<N:	Who is going back to
Europe?


John Evans: Many are going back to
Britain, and I might say for the information of the right hon. gentleman that a friend of mine visited England last year. He was in the city of Hull. There was a football match there and the crowd seemed to be going to it. My friend said to one of them, "How far are the football grounds from here"? And the man replied, "Come with me and I will ^how you. You are a stranger?" And my friend replied, "Yes I am from Canada." The man said. "What is the matter with Canada?" Well, he said, "It might be better than it is, perhaps"; and the Englishman said, "I thought so." He said that on every boat going into the port of Hull there were half a dozen stowaways all coming from Canada, that they were all lined up by the bobby every day, taken before the beak and given a month of hard labour, and they all went to their doom with a smile. This is a fact. Canada is to-day becoming a by-word.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How long ago was this?


John Evans: This was a year ago last
summer. Look at the United States, the country we are supposed to emulate, the paradise of the protectionist, what is it? The United States to-day is following the same old
method of concentration of wealth and industry The States cities are being built up at the expense of the agriculturist, and I do not need to quote any better authority than Professor Macey Campbell of the Iowa University, inspector of education. He said in three blocks in Chicago he saw better homes- homes occupied by men who were earning more wages-than he had seen in an eight hundred mile drive through the two Dakotas. More than that, he said that he saw white men and white women working in the fields bare-footed trying to keep themselves above the line of want. In five states in one year 125,000 farmers were foreclosed. Does that bespeak prosperity? All it bespeaks is this, and I want the right hon. gentleman to pay attention-


Arthur Meighen: I am paying attention.


John Evans: It bespeaks the concentration of wealth and industry in the hands of a few and a price-fixing power which thej. should not have.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member
any information about stowaways going back to England from the United States?


John Evans: I am not supposed to know
everything. I think it is enough to know what is going on in our own country; never mind the United States. Canada is one of the best countries in the world; we are perhaps blessed with more natural resources needed for the manufacture of goods than any other country on earth. Canada ought to be the cheapest country in the world to live in, but as a matter of fact it is the dearest country on earth to-day with perhaps the exception of the United States in some lines. The cost of living has gone up in Canada to such an extent that even the manufacturers themselves find it impossible to use our own natural resources. That is a very serious state of affairs. We find it necessary to give them free trade; in fact they are the only free traders in Canada. They claim the right to scour this world for raw material and then we give them and the middlemen as well a price-fixing power. The fact of the matter is that the cost of production is put out of line entirely with world prices. We need not look to the tariff for any benefit. Even if every farmer in this country is given protection under the tariff, the old ring will soon be completed again, the cost of living will go up and he will find it just as hard to compete as he did before. The thing is a fallacy from beginning to end and I suggest the right hon. gentleman should take this to heart.
Imports oj Eggs


Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem rather anomalous for me representing one of the unban districts to take part in a debate which pertains almost exclusively to agriculturists. We have heard a great deal about protection, about the protection of agriculturists, 'but at the same time why should we not think a little of the protection of the consuming public whom we city members are elected to represent? I have not seen any slump in the price of eggs during many years. From my experience and from what I hear and read in the press the price of eggs throughout the winter season is always over the dollar mark per dozen, which I think is a very lucrative price for a common article of diet. I had no idea that the consumption of eggs amongst our people was as great as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) told us it was. Agriculturists might do a little better if they were to improve their grade of hens. Only recently, I had an opportunity of visiting the agricultural college at La Trappe and there I found hens called the Chanticleer, hens which laid practically every day, over 300 eggs in the year. The matter is simply one of cultivating the hen and bringing about a proper breed in order to have a more prolific crop of eggs.
What I rise particularly to dwell on is the question of public health in regard to eggs. We hear of eggs being imported from Australia and China. Anybody knows that such eggs are unfit for human consumption and if such eggs are imported, especially in bulk, it is nothing short of criminal to allow them to be put on the market for human consumption. When I was mayor of Montreal in 1911 I remember a consignment of Chinese eggs arriving in that city, which were examined and found to be practically putrid. The Board of Health endeavoured to stop their use and the importers sued the city fo.r interfering with their business. Naturally, in all things litigious the wheels of justice grind very slowly and these eggs were sequestrated for several months whilst the learned judge was coming to a conclusion as to whether they were fit for human use or not. Finally, after several months, he concluded that, for sufficient reasons, the city had no right to confiscate the eggs, and we at once proceeded to seize the eggs more effectively in order to have them destroyed at the public dump. But what was our amazement when we found that the eggs had been taken away in some manner that I do not understand, through some of the intricacies of the law, and had been sold to confectioners and others, so that we felt that we had eaten all those eggs.

If there is anything that we should do more than another it is absolutely to prohibit the importation of eggs in bulk. There is no more prolific medium for the development of micro-organisms than the albumen of eggs, and we know perfectly well that when, in these oriental countries, eggs are broken into cans which are sealed up and sent thousands of miles away for the consumption of white people, the same precaution or trouble is not taken as if the orientals were going to eat the eggs themselves. One rotten egg in a barrel of eggs is sufficient to make the whole barrelful rotten inside of- a week or two.


William Kemble Esling: Does the hon. gentleman
remember that the statement was made on the floor of this House, I think in January, that there were seventeen carloads of Chinese eggs in storage in Montreal?


James John Edmund Guérin: I was not present at the
time. It may have been said. I hope, however, they will be used for manure purposes to increase the fecundity of the ground in order that we may grow more grain to feed the hens that will lay fresh eggs. I would not advise the use for human consumption of the eggs to which the hon. gentleman refers. There is no doubt that in dealing with the question of contamination we cannot be too careful in regard to eggs, especially those imported from another country. These eggs come to us in bulk, bringing with them probably some germs of disease of which we know nothing and which we never suspect, so that we run the risk of infecting all our people. We remember that during the year 1917 we had a visitation of a disease which we called Spanish influenza or grippe. It was not grippe at all, nor was it influenza in the ordinary acceptation of that word. It was some imported disease which I firmly believe came from the Orient; it bore all the earmarks of the bubonic plague. Where did it come from? We know that mingling with our soldiers there were Chinese, Japanese and other orientals who might have carried the germs of the disease with them. I ask, therefore, is there anything more menacing than the importation of these oriental eggs in bulk? To me it is unspeakable; it is something that should not be tolerated. Not only should there be a high duty on eggs coming in bulk, but they should be absolutely prohibited.
Now, I am in favour of protection-protection for the people of my constituency. I want to protect them against the high cost of living, so that they may be able to buy reasonably eggs, of which they use large

Imports oj Eggs
quantities. I want to protect the fathers of families of ten and fifteen children, such as we have in Montreal and in the province of Quebec generally. It is imperative that these children be given wholesome food. We should therefore put every facility in the way of their fathers to get eggs, among other things, at a reasonable price. An increase of five or eight cents a dozen on eggs would make them prohibitive to the father of a large family, and I am not in favour of that.
In the debate this afternoon some hon. gentlemen seemed to favour a tariff as a means of retaliation, while others to whom I have listened want a tariff for the purpose of protecting the farmer. I am quite sympathetic with the farmer but I am more sympathetic with the public in general. In any case I do not believe in legislating for the sake of retaliation; I do not think any good comes of such legislation. Whatever laws we pass we should enact with a view to benefiting our people in some way or other, and I do not see what benefit can accrue from legislation that is framed merely for the purpose of hitting back; nor do I believe in legislation which will result in misery to the greater number of our people. For these reasons I purpose voting against the proposition. I feel that the interests of the majority should be safeguarded and I believe that a proper system of inspection and an absolute prohibition of eggs in bulk would be a step in the right direction.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: This is an interesting resolution, the discussion of which may prove of value to the House and perhaps to the country as well. It seems to me that before parliament is asked to pass a resolution having for its object the remedying of a certain condition of affairs, we should have some evidence as to the cause of that condition. Very little has been said to-day about the causes of the alleged condition of the egg-producing industry in Canada. The hon. member who proposes the resolution (A{r. Esling) comes from British Columbia, and another hon. member who has spoken in favour of it also represents a constituency in that part of the country. I am led to believe that the poultry industry ol British Columbia is an important one which is suffering from disabilities with which the people in other parts of Canada are perhaps not familiar. We find therefore, from time tc time, that many resolutions are introduced in this House and discussed by members from British Columbia who are interested in the production and marketing of eggs. To me it seems but reasonable that before any action
is taken, such as is proposed in this resolution, we should inquire of these members the reasons why, from a province like British Columbia where the climatic conditions are favourable and where many other conditions conduce to the successful raising of poultry, such as cheap material for buildings, the complaint comes most often that something must be done to remedy the evils existing in the egg market.


Alan Webster Neill: Dear wheat.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has anticipated a question I was about to put as to the high cost of production. He says that it is due to the high price of wheat, by which I presume he means the high price of feed generally. In my opinion, if the basic conditions in this industry are as they have been stated to be, and if care is exercised in the production and sale of eggs, the results should be reasonably satisfactory. If the various conditions surrounding the poultry business are as they ought to be, including climate, distribution, and so forth, I see no reason why the industry should not succeed.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni touched briefly in his remarks on the cost of feed. He said that certain reductions had been made in the freight rate on grain going through British Columbia for export, and he contended that reductions should be conceded in the freight on grain going into that province for home consumption. When the hon. member made the first remark, to the effect that the remedy would be found in part tc consist in a reduction in the rates on wheat, I applauded for the reason that I felt the statement was in line with something that should have been done many years ago. I observed that some of my Conservative friends across the way smiled when they heard me applauding, as though they thought, " Here is another of those representatives from tht west insisting on a reduction in the freight rate on the things they want to sell." Now, that was not the idea I had in mind at all. I was merely thinking that a reasonable and fair rate should be fixed, for the benefit of Canadian* living in British Columbia, on the grain they have to buy in order to keep one of their industries going. There should be given to them a freight rate just as fair and reasonable as that which applies to the wheat or other grain produced on the western prairie or elsewhere in Canada and consumed by the people of China, Japan or Europe. That should be adopted as a fair and reasonable principle, provided it costs no more for the railroad to
Imports of Eggs

bring to Vancouver a carload of grain destined to be fed to poultry in British Columbia, than it does to haul a carload of grain bound for the Orient or other world markets. Given that condition, I see no good reason why grain should not be moved at the same rate. It may be that the railroad officials could defend the existing rates. I am perfectly satisfied they could; but on the basis of fairness and common sense I see no good reason why those rates should not be adjusted.
The hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin) mentioned another condition that is absolutely necessary in connection with the raising of poultry or any other kind of stock, namely, that the right strains of poultry only be kept and brought up to their highest efficiency. Given these basic conditions-that is to say, the use of the best egg-producing strains of fowls, fed at the lowest prices which world market conditions permit; the favourable climatic and other conditions that are characteristic of Bi'itish Columbia, and the concession of reasonable distributing and marketing facilities-there is no reason in the world why British Columbia should not produce and market eggs in competition with any other part of the continent. In considering the necessary facilities I have reference not only to climatic conditions but also to cheap material fci the erection of buildings, the long season out-of-doors, and cheap electric light in the poultry houses to extend the period of laying.
Some hon. members referred to eggs produced in Florida, Georgia, and other southern states. I do not think poultrymen in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada need fear the competition of the hen in the southern states. The great bulk of the soil of Florida, and I believe the same is true of Georgia, is impregnated with pure sand, and there has to be considerable outlay in enriching that soil before it can be made to yield the green stuffs or other foods necessary for the production of eggs. Then the cost of transportation to the northern market has to be borne in mind. Furthermore there is the disability under which the hen lives in hot weather. I am satisfied that any poultry producer in the House would probably admit it is harder to overcome the handicap of hot weather in the case of poultry than it is to overcome the disability which results from cold weather Providence seems tc have provided the chicken with feathers suitable for defence against a cold climate, but I do not know of any provision of nature which gives it relief in a hot climate.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Why not provide the hen with rubber boots and snow-shoes?


Malcolm McLean: Sometimes we equip the sled dogs in northern latitudes with moccasins but we have not yet reached the stage where we make such provisions for hens.
Taking the facts which I have enumerated into consideration-climatic conditions, the cost of feed, and the cost of transportation- I think it would be well for hon. members to rid their minds of the impression that competition from the southern states by reason of milder weather in the winter and hotter weather at other times of the year is going to run the Canadian hen off the market. There is of course the further fact that the time consumed in bringing the southern eggs to the northern market would make them far from "strictly fresh" eggs when they landed here. I am firmly convinced that if feed of all kinds can be provided for the British Columbia poultry raiser at reasonable prices, through a fairer freight rate, it will be of great assistance to him. In the winter he is able to raise green stuffs and to feed his poultry out-of-doors. He has that advantage over the producer on the prairie or in the east, ll also think that if the poultry producers of that province adopted the principle of co-operative marketing they would find it a decided advantage.
Before passing on to another phase of the question I should like to express my appreciation of the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Ann in that no eggs in bulk that are unfit for human consumption should be allowed into this country for that purpose. If such importations are bad for the people of this country they should1 be absolutely excluded; there should be no tinkering with the matter. On the other hand, if eggs in bulk are good for our people they should be allowed in as freely as possible consistent with justice. It is possible that such eggs may be needed as raw material in certain lines of industry, in which case I would allow their admission provided their use is confined entirely to the object intended.
In conclusion may I be permitted to quote a few figures from the commercial page of the Ottawa Journal of March 31:
Western eggs are rolling to eastern points in large quantities. No price changes are reported to-day.
"Western" eggs, it will be noticed, not southern eggs or Chinese eggs.
Toronto: Country shippers are making sales extras 34 to 35, firsts 30 to 31, seconds 24 to 26. Prices to retailers extras 38 to 39, first 34 to 35, seconds 29 to 30.

Imports of Eggs
Montreal: Dealers are paying country points delivered, extras 33, firsts 30. A car was sold in Winnipeg for shipment here extras 32J, firsts 281,, seconds 26.
Winnipeg: Three pooled cars are rolling to Montreal, costing extras 33 to 34, firsts 28J to 30, seconds 25 to 26 fob. Prices to retailers extras 35, firsts 32. seconds 27.
That is from Winnipeg, one of the points in what used to be considered as the frozen west. There has been very little agitation there for
any extra duty on the few eggs coming into this country. Here is a report from Calgary: Calgary. Dealers paying country shippers extras 24, firsts 22. seconds 17.
The report from Winnipeg of the pooled cars illustrates what I said a moment ago, that producers were getting together for their own protection and not asking favours from anyone. They are undertaking to put their products on the markets of the country in the best possible condition. The quotations go on:
Edmonton: Country dealers are making sales extras 24, firsts 22, seconds 17. Prices to retailers extras 32, firsts 30. seconds 25.
Saskatchewan: The markets are firmer and receipts during the past week have been light due to bad road conditions. A car is rolling east from Moose Jaw costing extras 31, firsts 27, seconds 23 fob.
As you get further west prices apparently get lower.
Vancouver: Dealers paying country shippers extras 24. firsts 22. Jobbing extras 28 to 30, firsts 26 to 28,
seconds 22.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Malcolm McLean: Certainly.


Alan Webster Neill: Does he consider 24 cents a
dozen a fair price for eggs produced in British Columbia, in view of the high price of wheat and so on?


Malcolm McLean: 
Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
very generous in his advice to the egg producers of British Columbia, and while I do not make any comment on the quality of the advice, the quantity is such as one would not expect from one who resents it very much when applied to his own class of production. The wheat farmer is ready to chide any who tell him how better to produce his grain, what he really needs, or how better to farm. While he is in that mood he does not add to the strength of his case or to his popularity by giving the advice which he declines to accept from others. We are faced with statistics just quoted to show that eggs are very cheap-22 cents, 24 cents, 26 cents, and so forth- following the speech by the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin), who told us that the people of Montreal had to pay $1 a dozen in the winter time.


An hon. MEMBER:: In certain seasons.


Arthur Meighen: The season is not very
far removed when eggs were that price. Is it not remarkable that jwith a condition of affairs under which the .Canadian market is invaded by foreign eggs, resulting in a lowei price at a time when it is essential that the price be high, the whole situation is met with the suggestion that we ought to have cheaper freight rates for carrying the grain to the egg producer; the poultryman ought to know better than to raise the kind of hens he has been raising, and should get the 300-eggs-a-year hens; he ought to get cheaper electric lights, so the hens can see to lay-everyone else ought to do something, other than affect any government policy.


Malcolm McLean: Will the right,
hon. gentleman permit a question? Did he understand me to advise the farmers of British
Imports oj Eggs

Columbia to get cheaper lights and cheaper material, or to say that they were already in possession of them?


Arthur Meighen: I understood my hon.
friend to say they ought to get cheaper lights. I do not know what he meant, and I do not know' what we can do about it.


Malcolm McLean: I did not say
that. I said the egg producer was already in possession of cheaper lights and cheaper building material, not that he should get them.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that it
makes verj' much difference.


Malcolm McLean: Yes it does; it
is not advice.


Arthur Meighen: I think if the hon. member will look up Hansard he will be rather surprised at what he finds the reporter has taken down. All this is offered by way of explanation of the existing state of affairs and by way of advice as to what should happen through one source or another. But is not the matter rather simple so far as the policy of parliament is concerned? We must either have a protective policy in Canada or not have a protective policy, and if we have a protective policy we must apply it to all classes. Surely that is the subject raised in this resolution. As to which we should have, I despair of converting-or at least bringing to articulate conversion-hon. members from Saskatchewan. Their minds may be affected but if they are they will never admit it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Does the right hon.
gentleman think he will ever get it to apply to Canada as a whole?


Arthur Meighen: Apply what?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The right hon. gentleman's policy.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly; it is applied to-day with such force that hon. gentlemen cannot avoid it. It has applied for forty years and it applies to-day. I warn hon. members from Saskatchewan-and I might include hon. members to my left-not to be too pronounced on this subject; do not put yourselves on Hansard in too forceful a fashion; you never know when you may be called upon to vote in exactly the opposite way, Hon. members to my left did not fun that risk so much in the last parliament, but they are running it norv, and hon. members from Saskatchewan are running it also. Let me take their minds back. Only a few years ago the leader of the Liberal party declared strongly for free food, clear of customs duty. We have 
never had the reduction of a fraction of a nickel on any food since, and those who proposed the free food policy are called upon to pay as much as ever.


Malcolm McLean: Would the right
hon. gentleman permit a question?


Arthur Meighen: Make it pertinent.


Malcolm McLean: The right hon.
gentleman has been complaining about the reductions effected by the Australian treaty on foodstuffs and now he says there has been no reduction.


Arthur Meighen: There has been a reduction in duties affecting Australia, but is that a move towards free food? No, that is ju3t a move towards a better sale of automobiles and a better sale of paper and pulp in Australia. That was not done to reduce the price of food; it was a concession made at the expense of the Canadian farmer, in order to serve other interests, and the hon. member knows it. No, at the convention you had that resolution, and how it was thundered on the stump in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and everywhere else where it was considered popular, and how much of that have we in effect to-day? Not a particle. But the members who thundered it and lauded it to the skies now come into this House and vote for the government that will not take one step in that direction.
The budget is coming this session, and I ask hon. members to be very careful; they do not know what they are going to be called on to vote for in that budget. This government is capable of anything in the way of a convolution-anything at all-and they will have to support it. This government, if it felt it could sustain its position another hour by putting the duty on eggs up to eight cents a dozen, would do it and never turn a hair, and hon. gentlemen would come up and vote for it; they would have to. Con-sequentlj>-, it is always wise in this House, especially under present conditions, for hon. gentlemen supporting the administration to be very careful in their commitments on Hansard. Hon. gentlemen have learned that in days gone by. Those who have come into this parliament perhaps have not had the opportunity yet; their experience has not been so hitter, but it is certain to come. We know that in this country we have either 4 to maintain a protective policy, or permit the labour wage in Canada to fall to the level of other countries in the world.


Mr. McPHEE:: Was the hon. gentleman
referring a moment ago to a change of mind

Privilege-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
on his own part from his resolution and speech in 1911?


Arthur Meighen: Not a particle. Hon.
gentlemen have been quoting that speech for ten years, and the quotation is usually the best part of the speeches they have delivered. That speech was a confirmation from beginning to end of the protective principle and its application, but the protective principle does not mean that every time you touch the tariff you must raise it. No, see that it is left conformable to the protective principle, but it must still mean protection for industry in this country. We must submit to one of two alternatives: a Canadian wage scale as low as that of any other country where the competing article is produced, either that or the protective system. Those who choose the first, let them consistently follow it through, but those who choose the second, let them follow it through with equal consistency and apply it to all classes of Canadian production.


An hon. MEMBER:: It can't be done.


Arthur Meighen: The protective system
is one that, to the utmost that it can be done, applies the protective principle to every branch of industry in the country. It cannot be done with equal application to all; that cannot be done in any cotmtry in the world. The bigger the volume of export compared to home consumption, the less can it be applied, but to every industry it can be applied to a degree, and to all vital industries it can be applied with beneficial results. But the system must be adopted, no matter whether it falls unevenly in its benefits or not, or you must submit to the condition of a wage scale in this country as low as that of any other country where the competing article is produced. If you are going to do that, are hon. members going to vote to expose the Canadian farmer in his home market to world competition, and then tell him to get light for his hens and raise a better breed, and get cheaper freight rates to carry grain to his hens? The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) should recall that his newly chosen leader, the crown prince from Saskatchewan said just a few days ago that you cannot get reduction of those freight rates. In the face of that statement, surely the members from Saskatchewan are not going to come here-


Malcolm McLean: The hon. gentleman has asked me a question. The Minister of Railways stated that there would be no general reduction, but an equalization where there was injustice.


Arthur Meighen: The equalization the hon. member asked for was a reduction.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman was trying to take up time and he was very shrewd in doing it, because his own speech was in an awful condition. It is nearly six o'clock, but I must finish at least the sentence. If you cannot have these things, if you cannot have them to any extent that would be appreciable at the price, what is the use of bringing that in as a smokescreen to becloud the issue? You have either to give the farmer protection or not, and if you are going to give it him, give it him on a parity with all other classes of people.


ROYAL ASSENT
Hewitt Bostock: Before I leave the chair,
I wish to read the following communication which I have just received from the Governor General's secretary:
Ottawa, 31st March, 1926.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 4.15 p.m. on Wednesday the 7th of April, for the purpose of giving the royal assent to an interim supply bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. F. Sladen,
Governor General's Secretary. To The Hon. The Speaker of the
House of Commons, Ottawa.
This letter follows the one I read at the opening of the sitting this afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule, until Tuesday April 6.
Tuesday, April 6, 1926