1926-05-31

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House
will have noticed that I have on the order paper a motion, to come up to-morrow, that when the House adjourns on Wednesday the second of June, 1926, it stand adjourned until Friday the fourth of June, 1926. That is to permit of an adjournment over the King's birthday. I believe that the members generally are anxious that we should lose as little time as possible in bringing the work of the session to an end.


Mr. MANION:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
therefore, with the leave of the House to propose the following two motions. If there is any exception taken to their being proceeded with a't this stage, I will let them stand until to-morrow. The first motion will be, seeing that we adjourn for Thursday:	that the
House sit on Wednesday night of this week and all subsequent Wednesdays. The other motion is that on and after Monday next to the end of the session the House sit at two o'clock in the afternoon instead of at three o'clock.
I will read the first motion:
That on Wednesday, second of June, 1926, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the sittings of the House shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask that the
motion stand until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And also the following, I presume:
That on and after Monday, the seventh of June, 1926, until the end of the present session the House shall meet at two o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day.


Arthur Meighen: I will also ask that that motion stand until to-morrow.

Criminal Code Amendment



CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 151, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
He said:	This bill is introduced, Mr. Speaker, at the request of The Canadian Red Cross Society, which operates under chapter 68 of the statutes of 1909, and the amending act, chapter 13 of the statutes of 1922. The society does not possess legal authority to dispose of any property which it holds, and particularly is not competent to give another party legal title thereto. It is given authority to purchase and hold certain property for the purposes of the society. During the war a number of properties which the society obtained throughout the country increased, and now they are being exchanged or disposed of in the interests of the society. It is proposed under this bill to give the society the power to deal with those properties.
Arthur Meighen: Is it not really private
legislation?


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: Yes, but the Red Cross Society asked the government to introduce it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 152, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this bill covers an
amendment to section 5 of the act to require that where a retail druggist sells narcotics to a physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist he must have an order in writing. The object is to check up a little more closely the sale of narcotics by druggists.
The other clauses, with the exception of the last, are to make the act conform to certain divisions made last session when subsection (d) was divided into (d) and (f). In referring to that subsection later in the act subsection (f) was omitted. That is purely formal.
The last clause consists of adding the word "prescribe" to bring prescribing within the meaning of the act, some question having arisen as to this.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 153 to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: The first amendment proposes to repeal sections 97A and 97B of the Criminal Code as enacted in 1919 concerning unlawful association. There is also an amendment which has passed this House many times and been thrown out by the Senate-respecting offences against girls. We propose to delete the words "of previous chaste character", and in this form we think the amendment will meet with a better fate. Another amendment is to restore to the crown the right of appeal which involves questions of law alone. This existed prior to criminal appeals being established three years ago, which gave to the convicted person the right of appeal under such circumstances, but took it away from the crown which had had it previously. That bill originated in the Senate. The last amendment is the bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) regarding scrip issued to half breeds. The House adopted his bill last year and the year before but it was rejected by the Senate. The hon. member has introduced it this year, and in order to give the bill a chance to come before the House I have taken the responsibility for it and inserted it in my own bill.
Mr. CLARK:: With regard to the right of appeal may I draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the provisions of section 1014 of the Criminal Code.
On the 'hearing of any such appeal against conviction the court of appeal shall allow the appeal if it is of opinion-(a) that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
Under that section there is the right to allow an appeal on a question of fact if the verdict of the jury is found to be against the weight of evidence. But the great majority of criminal trials are speedy trials before 'a judge alone, and under that subsection there is no right to disturb the decision of a judge on a question of fact. Under subsection (c) there is the right, however, to allow an appeal on the ground that there has been a miscarriage of justice. This section was copied from the act in England, where all trials are by jury, I understand, and in England it has been the custom to

Senate Bills
confine the application of subsection (c) to jury misconduct or some error in trial procedure. I understand the judges of appeal have found it very embarrassing to interfere with the decisions of trial judges on questions of fact where the trial has been held without a jury. This has been brought to my attention by a justice of the appellate division of Ontario, and he strongly suggests that the amendment be made to section 1014. If I may refer the minister to the proposed amendment, section (a) would read as follows:
That the verdict of the jury or the judgment of the trial court. . . .
The words "or the judgment of the trial court" are added.
Mr.^ LAPOINTE: I will read my hon. friend s remarks in Hansard to-morrow and give careful attention to his suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain more fully what the two clauses are which are being repealed? He stated that they were clauses against unlawful associations, and I cannot recall just now what their provisions were.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I suppose this would come more properly when the second reading of the bill is moved. As my hon. friend well remembers, these two sections were inserted in 1919, some time after the labour disturbances in western Canada. They give the right on the warrant of a justice of the peace to search the papers of a citizen who is supposed to be a member of an association which would come under that section, and anyone attending meetings of such an association would be guilty of the crime of sedition. These were new clauses inserted in the code at the time of the unrest in this country, and that was the reason given for their adoption. All the labour unions of Canada have protested against these sections, believing that they might be construed as dangerous to themselves. However, I will give a fuller explanation when the second reading is moved.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	[DOT]



SENATE BILLS FIRST AND SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 117 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mabel Ellen Barrett.-Mr. Simpson.
Bill No. 118 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Victoria Westerby.-Mr. McClenaghan.

Bill No. 119 (from the Senate), for the relief of Morgan Hart.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Arthur Breadon.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marjorie Esther Splan.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 122 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Orme.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 123 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Andrew Reid.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Thomas Charlton Spence.- Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 125 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Lucie White.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert Stewart McIntyre.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of Goldie Luella Russell.-Mr. Mew-burn.
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Atkinson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Edith Hudgin.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary Booth.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bernard Ernest Sleeth.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 132 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elsie Fray.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 133 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecilia Marrie Peters Kendall.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elias Malky.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 135 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Beatrice Walker.-Mr, Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 136 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Elgie Dulyea.-Mr. Cassel-man.
Bill No. 137 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Wilson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 138 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Sydney Wright.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 139 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillie Torrance Cascadden.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 140 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Thomas Young.-Mr. Church.

Civil Service Superannuation
Bill No. 141 (from the Senate), for the relief of Copland William Evans.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 142 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur John Harman.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Rebecca Herbert.

Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 144 (from the Senate, for the relief of David Joseph Potter-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 145 (from the Senate), for the relief of Walter Harold Bingley.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 146 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Harriett Little.-Mr. Tum-mon.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon, H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):	I would like to ask the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he can give me an answer to my question appearing on page 3352 of Hansard for May 14, having reference to the continuation of the privilege under the Civil Service Superannuation Act to certain members of the civil service who do not come under the provisions of the act. On that occasion the minister said:	-
I will submit my hon. friend's question to the actuaries and I shall be in a better position to answer him in a few days.
Is the minister prepared to now answer the question?
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Yes. I carried the memorandum in my portfolio for several days, but my hon. friend was so busy in the committee that I did not have an opportunity to give it to him. I will bring it to-morrow, however, and if my hon. friend is in his seat I will send it to him, or I can give it to him personally if he so desires.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W, L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister' .* The right hon. leader of -he opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me -owards the cl«j of last week if I would give the House a statement as to the legislation to be proceeded with this session, and as to whether it was all on the order paper. I can, of course, say nothing as to what legislation may be necessary, arising out of the reports of committees, but with that exception I think all the legislation which the government have any intention of introducing appears on the order paper now. There is one possible exception, an amendment to the Montreal Harbour Commission Act and an amendment in the nature of concurring legislation respecting the control of water in the railway belt of British Columbia. The government of British Columbia have passed an act dealing with this matter, and we are asked to concur in their legislation. With those two exceptions I think the House has now before it all the legislation which the government intends to introduce at this session. But I would ask my right hon. friend not to hold me too literally to what I am saying. I am not aware of anything else contemplated, but it is just possible that some slight amendment to some act or some unforeseen measure may come up before the end of the session which the government might wish to ask parliament to pass. I am giving to the House now the position as I see it.
My right hon. friend also asked whether there was any legislation on the order paper which the government did not contemplate preceding with. There is. So far as the legislation referring to the transfer of natural resources to Alberta is concerned, it is not contemplated to proceed with that legislation at the present time.
Arthur Meighen: I would ask if the Prime Minister has no statement to make to the House in reference to this abandoned legislation, and the reason for not proceeding with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to my right hon. friend's query, it would be better, I think, that any statement on that subject should be made by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I would ask him to make a statement to the House on that matter to-morrow.



APPOINTMENT OF POST OFFICE INSPECTOR-MARITIME PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as the representative in this House of the Postmaster General, if a report appearing in a despatch under date of Moncton, N.B., May 29th, respecting the appointment of an additional and fourth district post office inspector in the Maritime provinces is correct. I would like to point
Nova Scotia Coal

out to him that we already have three post office inspectors in the Maritime provinces, where I think perhaps two or even one would do. There is no necessity whatever for a fourth. This statement, I think, has all the earmarks of having been given out as an inspired utterance.


Ernest Lapointe: I will make the necessary inquiry, and give the information to my hon. friend.



SALARIES OF POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On' the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. M. BOUTILLIER (Yegreville):: I would ask the representative of the Postmaster General in this House whether the scale or plan upon which the salaries of town, village and rural postmasters are to be based after the 1st of July has been completed, and if so, when the information will be available to the members of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: I remember having answered some time ago a similar question. The salaries of the postmasters for the coming year will be based, of course, on the revenue of their post offices during the present year, and will not be affected by any change to be made on July 1st. During the period from July 1st on the department will consider whether it is opportune to change the method of paying salaries to the postmasters.



RETURN TO GOLD STANDARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr.  J. S. WOODS W O RTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) state whether on July 1st next Canada will revert fully to the gold standard, or is there to be introduced any legislation modifying the present Finance Act?


James Alexander Robb: I have no intention of introducing any legislation, and automatically Canada will go on a gold basis on the 1st of July.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN SCREENINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: I would draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to the fact that on May 17th the following order of the House was passed:
For a copy of all orders' dn council, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the purchase of screenings during the years 1917 to 1921, inclusive, along with a statement showing the firms from which the said screenings were purchased, the amount from 
each firm, the price paid, to whom sold, the amount to each firm and the price in each case.
I would ask when we may expect this return.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Getting this information is
rather a long process. I was speaking to my deputy about it a week ago, and he said it would be ready in the next two weeks, which would be a week from now. I will make further inquiries and try to expedite the return.



NOVA SCOTIA COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Mines a question based on an article which appears in this morning's issue of the Ottawa Journal, contributed by the Canadian Press. It refers to an interview with the leader of the group to my left, and among other things quotes the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) as follows:
Western fanners, Mr. Forke said, were quite favourably inJolmed toward the tariff reduction on automobiles, but the problem of protection was a difficult one.
"We are supposed to be low tariff men,'' said Mr. Forke, "but in practice it is difficult to carry out theories. Take the coal and steel industries in Nova Scotia, for instance. The simple fact is that the mines there are not economically sound. Coal is produced at an excessive cost, and when it is produced it is poor in quality."
I shall not continue further, but I would ask the Minister of Mines if his attention has been called to this matter, and if he will take any steps to induce his colleague the commander of the left wing of this government to make the amende honourable in connection with a statement of this kind, iwhich, as a matter of fact, is an absolute misstatement of fact and contains three libels in regard to the premier industry of the province of Nova Scotia.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Of course, I do not read the
Journal; I read the Citizen. I did not see the article in question-


Mr. GOTT:: The Citizen had it too.


Charles A. Stewart: I missed it then. All I have to say is that I can be responsible only for my own statements. I suppose that what my hon. friend is taking exception to is the statement with reference to the quality of Nova Scotia coal.

Dexter P. Cooper Company
Mr. MEIGHE'N:	Is there no such thing
as cabinet responsibility extending to the hon. member for Brandon?


Charles A. Stewart: I nearly
got into trouble the other day by butting into a discussion in the House, and I would commend to my right hon. friend the wisdom of refraining from such a course.



THE CANADIAN DEXTER P. COOPER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved the third reading of Bill No. 93, to incorporate The Canadian Dexter P. Cooper Company.
James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, my attention has only now been palled to this bill. I suppose it has been carefully considered by the private bills committee, but I notice that under the bill the company asks the right to sell power not only in Canada but in the United States. I would like to know from the promoter of the bill, who is a good lawyer, what will happen under the terms of the act of 1907 if the government determines not to allow the export of power, if, for instance, the province of New Brunswick determine they cannot export power.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The direct answer to that
in this connection would be that under this bill the power itself will not be generated in Canada, but the storage, nine-tenths of the storage, I should say, will be in Canada, and a new section was inserted in the bill in the Private Bills committee whereby all these matters will have to receive the imprimatur not only of the International Joint Commission but also of the Governor in Council of Canada. The provisions of the Export of Electricity Act have been made to apply to this bill, in the same way as the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I might say for the information of the House and of the minister that the bill was considered at three or four long sessions of the Private Bills committee and we gave that aspect, as well as other aspects of this bill, our very best consideration, and finally we adopted as a new section 16 provisions which will in my opinion at all events absolutely safeguard Canadian interests. If they are not safeguarded I wish the House would safeguard them; but so far as I am aware they are already definitely safeguarded. The matter is left in the hands of the Minister of Public Works with respect to navigation; in the jiands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with respect to fisheries; in the hands of the Minister of the Interior with respect to power;
in the hands of the International Joint Commission with respect to the division of power; and finally the approval of the Governor in Council must be secured before anything is done. Therefore I think we have done all we can to protect Canadian rights.


Mr. MARCIL:: The bill has not been reprinted. Will the hon. gentleman read the clause in question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the bill has been reprinted. The section in question is a new section-section 16.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. member be
good enough to read it?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: You will find
it in your copy of the reprinted bill.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: The bill has been reprinted, I have
a copy of the reprinted bill here. The measure was fully considered in committee, amendments to it were adopted, and its passage was unanimously approved by the committee. Furthermore, as my hon. friend from York-Sunbury said a minute ago, every possible interest has been looked after and safeguarded. No less than three departments of this government are to be consulted, and the International Joint Commission as well. Finally, after all these proceedings have been gone through, the Governor in Council has to give his approval.


Mr. J. G. ROBICHAUD (Gloucester):: Have arrangements been made for the Canadian fishermen interested to be heard by the Departments of Public Works and Marine and Fisheries before a decision is given with respect to this matter? If the fishermen are not so represented I am afraid the privileges which they have enjoyed for several generations past will be jeopardized. I believe the House should be very careful before giving this bill its final reading. Certainly provision should be made so that the fishermen concerned may be well represented before the different departments that have to do with this matter.


Lucien Cannon: The suggestion of my hon. friend is an appropriate one. I have no doubt at all that should any difficulty arise when the question comes up before the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, he will see to it that the fishing interests in New Brunswick are fully represented and heard, and that no decision will be rendered before the case has
Dexter P. Cooper Company

been explained to him. I am confident that no decision will be rendered by the various departments concerned until after the interests affected have been fully and completely -heard.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Following up what the Minister of Finance has said, may I put this question: Supposing this company had incurred enormous expense in developing this tidal power, would they not insist then on being given an opportunity to export that power, and is the country protected in that respect?


Lucien Cannon: They cannot export power unless they are authorized to do so.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but they
may spend millions and then make a demand to be allowed to export power.


Lucien Cannon: That is their own lookout. I have no doubt the company would not expend a very large amount unless they had the assurance that they would be in a position to exercise the powers conferred by this bill. However, as I have already said the company cannot do anything contrary to Canadian interests without first putting their .case fully before this government, and also before the International Joint Commission, I do not think any hon. member need be apprehensive that Canadian interests will not be fully protected.


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W O RTH@Winnipeg North Centre: There is. one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Undoubtedly, it seems to me, the fishing and navigation rights, and the rights of riparian owners, are safeguarded in the bill. But there are certain new rights with regard to the development of water-powers by means of tidal waters that do not appear to me to be quite so fully guarded. With respect to these new rights, there has not as yet been any judicial expression.
In connection with water-powers developed on Dominion lands, it has been usual to have a clause inserted by which, after the expiration of a certain period, the Dominion government may expropriate the works and regard them as for the general welfare of Canada, provision being made, of course, for the reimbursement of the owners for the outlay they have made. It seems to me that there ought to be a clause along this line inserted in the present bill. We do not know as yet whether there is much prospect of this particular undertaking being a success. We have had no evidence of that from any engineer other than the promoters; but if the scheme of developing electricity 
from tidal waters should prove feasible it may mean a great deal to the future of Canada. Now, I have no desire to enter into a controversy as to whether these waters come directly under provincial or under Dominion jurisdiction, the lawyer members of the committee were inclined to think they came under provincial jursidiction; but I would submit, as a layman, that already the Dominion has certain rights in these waters. The navigation rights of the Dominion are admitted, the fishing rights of the Dominion are admitted, and why should not the Dominion also claim rights with regard to the generation of power. A new right is being created as to which there has been no definite allocation, and I should like to see inserted a clause to the following effect:
The property in and the right to the use of all tidal water ipowers situated within the Dominion of Canada are hereby declared to be vested in and shall remain in the crown; and every undertaking hereunder is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Unless there is some real objection to this being inserted, I should like to have it adopted as an amendment to the bill-if we have the right to do that in this House. It seems to me that something of the kind is necessary at this stage to safeguard the. rights of the people of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. The amendment is out of order, no notice having been given of it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The point of
order is well taken. The amendment should be referred back to the committee and then notice of it given. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, No.


William Duff: Those in favour of the third reading of this bill will please say "aye."


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In
order that the amendment which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has submitted may be duly considered I would move the the bill be referred back to committee for the purpose of amending it in the manner referred to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I doubt very much if the
hon. member for Bow River knows what the amendment really is. I could not grasp its purpose while the mover was reading it, but I have an idea that the hon. gentleman was advancing a principle that the committee has already passed upon, namely, that the gov-

Dexter P. Cooper Company
eminent should have the right to take over this proposition at any time. I do not see that any good purpose can be served by the amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend
right about that? Is the principle not rather that the control of the power right should be in the hands of the federal authorities rather than in those of the province? If I am wrong I should like to be corrected?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is in the
hands of the provincial authorities now, is it not?


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W O RTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman did not hear me, although I thought I was speaking loud enough to be heard, I may repeat the wording of the resolution. I said that I was not trying to raise the issue as between the province and the Dominion, but I thought that we as representing the people of the Dominion have a right to safeguard the public interest. This follows pretty much the wording of the act with regard to water-powers developed on Dominion lands:
The property in and the right to the use of all tidal water-powers situated within the Dominion of Canada are hereby declared to be vested in and shall remain in the crown; and every undertaking hereunder ds hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Mr. STEVENS:: To what clause is that
amendment moved?


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W O RTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Clause 8.


William Duff: It is necessary to give notice before moving this amendment. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has moved an amendment which will, I think, satisfy the hon. member for AVinnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to committee.


William Findlay Maclean: I am surprised that the Minister of Finance has not protected the rights of Canada in this matter. Here is a proposal for a big exploitation of something and they are to sell power to the government. The export of power is a great question in this country and we are hearing more of it every day. I challenge the government on this question, to take action. They will have an opportunity of bringing down their policy by the remission of the 'bill to committee for further consideration. If the government will not say anything, possibly it may be taken for granted that they approve of the principle involved in the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: While the question which has been raised as to the ownership or control of water-powers within the provinces has not been definitely settled, nevertheless it has been within the realm of discussion for some considerable time. The same question would arise in regard to the water powers on the St. Lawrence river. The question raised now is as to who should control the water powers. We have raised no question with the provinces in regard to such control. There are times when this matter is called in question, but it would raise a difficult issue to bring up here the question of ownership of whatever Canadian waterpower rights there are adjacent to the province of New Brunswick.


Lucien Cannon: This amendment was never proposed before the committee. I see no objection to the bill being referred back to the committee and in the meantime we can study the amendment and aseertain exactly what it means. I would not be prepared to express an opinion on the effect of the amendment until I had had time to study it.


Arthur Meighen: If I caught the amendment aright, I do not think it is worth the time of the House to make a reference back tc committee to have the matter considered. There was quite a lot of discussion and I may not have got the purport of it, but if I heard it rightly the purpose of the amendment was to enable the crown in the right of Canada to expropriate at any future time it might be so advised. In the first place, in so far as Canadian property is concerned, that right is inherent. It can be exercised at any time, and the case is not strengthened in any appreciable degree by such a clause in the enabling charter of the company. The right to expropriate is one which is inherent in this parliament in relation to any company coming under federal jurisdiction. I have just read over the bill for the first time, but it is not hard to understand, and I think I have a grasp of it. It enables the company to do certain things, notably to develop waterpower, and I believe the locus of the development is to be somewhere in an inlet of the bay of Fundy, the idea being to utilize the tides for the purpose of developing waterpowers. Now certain work will be Canadian and certain work will be American, and included in the later category is the power site itself. It is next to inconceivable that Canada as a Dominion would want to expropriate half of the work, and especially the half that does

Dexter P. Cooper Company

not work. It is the other half that does the work. Consequently if there ever was a bill in which it would not be necessary to insert this safeguarding clause it would be this one, -but I never saw much value in inserting that clause anywhere. In fact where I saw it put in I thought it was simply an endeavour to sugar-coat it for parliament, because that right of expropriation can always be exercised at the will of parliament. All that is necessary is to pay adequate compensation under the law of the land. I do not see any value in having it referred back to the committee to consider an amendment of that character. I can think of one or two amendments I would like to insert in the bill myself, but they are not of such a character as to justify delaying the passing of the measure. They will probably be brought up in the Senate. It seems to me there should be something holding the company to some certain area. It is rather a company at large, under the terms of the bill, but this does not go to the heart and substance of the matter, and I have no doubt will very quickly be taken care of by the upper chamber when the bill gets there. I see no object at all in delaying the measure by referring "it back to committee with instructions to insert a clause to provide against something which in any event would scarcely be dreamt of in a case of this kind. Even if it were inserted, it would be mere surplusage, because that right is inherent in all cases.


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W O RTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Why is it that in the Dominion Waterpowers Act we find inserted clause 4 which reads:
The property in and the right .to the use of all Dominion water-powers are hereby declared to be vested in and shall remain in the crown, saving, however, any rights of property in or to the use of such powers which have heretofore been granted by the crown; and every undertaking hereunder is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I gave a hint of the
reason which I think often prompts the insertion of a clause of that kind. It makes it look a little more palatable, but I will remind the hon. member that under our Soldier Settlement Act we take power, which we can do in relation to any property, to expropriate the individual farm of a farmer, if we want it for soldier settlement. When we give the farmer his patent we do not make a reservation that we may some day expropriate it. If we had done so we would not have enlarged our right of expropriation one iota. There was no need of it in the act to which my hon. friend refers, and no need of it here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having regard to the state of the law as it now exists, I would ask the hon. member not to press the amendment or to further impede the passing of the bill. I think the House can take it for granted, on the word of the Solicitor General, that every provision for safeguarding the public interest, so far as it occurred to the hon. members attending the committee, was put in this bill, and this company is tied hand and foot to the approval of the three departments concerned, the approval of the Governor in Council and of the International Joint Commission. If anybody else can suggest any further safeguards -in the public interest, I would be glad to have them inserted in the bill, if they are reasonable at all, but not the amendment which the hon. member suggests, because I do not think it is necessary.


William Duff: Mr. Garland
(Bow River) moves that bill No. 93 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee of the Whole with instructions to amend said bill.
Mr. MEIGHEN.: I do not know that I feel very secure in rising but I do not think -that amendment is in order either. It says " instructions to amend " with no indication of the line of amendment; and as the hon. member made his motion, " with instructions to amend in the manner referred to " it is certainly not in order. We cannot conduct our business in such a slip-shod manner as that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may be able to save the House considerable time by saying a word. I was not sufficiently able to grasp the amendment as put to the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. My intention was quite clear. After, however, the explanation which has been given by the leader of the opposition and other hon. members I have no wish to proceed with the amendment and with the consent of the House I would withdraw it.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Clause 12 has reference to the case of a possible dispute as to the price to be paid for the use of power and it States that such dispute shall be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. If any dispute should arise in connection with the purchase of power produced by this company, should the matter not be referred to some more local authority than the Board of Railway Commissioners?

Questions


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I am in order I would like to answer that. The same point was debated in the Private Bills committee and the suggestion, I think, was advanced by myself that perhaps it ought to be under the board of public utilities for the province concerned; but inasmuch as this is a federal organization I understand it has been the 4 p.m. general practice to refer matters of this kind to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada which is a body analogous to the public utilities commission of a province for just such purposes as this. It seems to have been passed unanimously by the committee with that statement and I would ask that the clause pass as it is because I still have confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker-


William Duff: The hon. gentleman can speak only once on the third reading of the bill.
]YTr HEAlPSi I wes going to ssk s Question.


William Duff: I will allow
one question.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Even if we assume that the
Board of Railway Commissioners is a good authority to determine prices and profits, does the question of provincial jurisdiction not enter into the matter?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CCOTE:: 1.	What was the total amount of grain handled by the Vancouver Harbour Commission's elevators during each of the last five years?
2.	What were the total receipts from the operation of these elevators during the said years?
3.	What was the total number of persons employed in the operation of the elevators during the said years?
4.	What was the total amount of wages ipaid to said employees during [DOT]these years?
5.	What was the total amount and value of overages of all grain during said years?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
	Elevator	Elevator
Crop year 1923-24 grain and screen-	No. 1	No. 2ings shipped	53,096,150	-1924-25 	18,907,378	4,606,0381925-26 (to Apr. 30,1926) 14011-2451	11,973,813	7,606,1442.	Total receipts of elevators (exclusive of value of overage):-
Elevator Elevator
Crop year	No. 1 No. 2
1923- 1924	$790,186 65	-
1924- 1925	 420,687 01 $ 93,174 06
1925-	1926 (to Apr. 30,
1926)	 385,284 90 142,477 06
3.
Elevator Elevator
Crop year	No. 1 No. 2
At January 31, 1924 (mid-	not
season)	 196 completed
At January 31, 1925 (midseason)	
101	96At January 31, 1926 (midseason)	
142	81
4.
Elevator Elevator
Crop year	No. 1	No. 21923- 1924	$221,046 38	-1924- 1925	
151,656 93 $ 49,858 081925-	1926 (to April 30,1926	
117,648 14	67,591 685.	Crop year:	1923-1924-195,098 bushels
grain, 1,742 tons screenings short, $168,307.03.
Crop year: 1924-1925-33,747 bushels grain, 398 tons screenings, $42,669.41 (subject to confirmation at coming weigh-up).
Crop year: 1925-1926-Cannot be determined until annual weigh-up.


PHILADELPHIA SESQTJI - CENTENNIAL EXPOSITION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is the government aware that a great international exposition is to be held at Philadelphia, known as the Sesqui-Centennial exposition?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to make an exhibit at such exposition?
3.	Has the government, made any 6tudy of the advertising value of this exposition to Canadian business?
4.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to advertise the tourist advantage of Canada
at the said exposition?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	With respect to immigration, yes.
4.	It is the intention of the Canadian National Railways to make a liberal distribution of our general literature setting forth the advantages of Canada from a tourist standpoint. This distribution will be made by a permanent office and staff located at Philadelphia. It is not the intention of the
Questions

Canadian. National Railways to have an exhibit at the exposition. It is also our understanding that neither the Canadian Pacific nor the Dominion government will have an exhibit.


FRENCH LANGUAGE-POSTAGE AND EXCISE STAMPS
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Can the government give assurance that, when any further issue of postage or excise stamps is made, they will carry out the provisions of our constitution by issuing them in the both languages?
2.	If the stamps are to be issued in one language only, would it not be the proper course to have an English and French issue alternate, so as to satisfy the wishes of an important part of our population?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will carefully consider the representations made by the hon. member in his question.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-MR. CHARLES REID
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Is Charles Reid in the employ of the Vancouver Harbour Commission?
2.	If so, when was he appointed and what is his salary?
3.	What duties does he perform?
4.	Is this a new position?
5.	If not, who formerly diid this work and what was his salary?
6.	Has Mr. Reid any other employment?
7.	If so, what is the nature of said employment?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Appointed January 1, 1923, as comptroller and purchasing agent, salary $4,000 per annum.
3.	From January 1, 1923, to October 15, 1924, performed the duties of comptroller and purchasing agent. From October 15, 1924, to date, as purchasing agent exclusively owing to enlarged scope of commissioners' activities.
4.	Mr .Reid is the first incumbent.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.	[DOT]
7.	Answered by No. 6.


WHEAT GRADING
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How much wheat inspected as "No Grade 2 Northern Tough" has been received into public terminal elevators at the ,port of Vancouver from September 1, 1925, to April 50, 1926?
2.	How much of the said wheat has been dried?
3.	After drying has any of this wheat been graded, *"2 Northern"? If so, what was the amount?
4.	After drying has any of this wheat been graded, "Dried 2 Northern"? If so, what amount?
5.	After drying has any of this wheat been graded, "3 Northern"? If so, what amount?
[Mr. Lapointe.l


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	In so far as the elevators of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners are concerned, 1,134,759 bushels.
2.	1,133,617-20 bushels.
3.	640,147-40 bushels.
4.	438,770-20 bushels.
5.	Nil.


OCEAN RATES-COMMITTEE EXPENSES
Mr. DOUCET:: What were the amounts, disbursed for the special committee on Ocean Rates 1925, (a) for witnesses, (fo) for counsels, (c) for printing, and (d) other expenses?


Ernest Lapointe: House of Commons:
A. Full amount paid to Mr. Symington in fees: No payments whatever have been made to Mr. Symington up to the present date; B. Amount in fees still due to Mr. Symington: Mr. Symington's remuneration was fixed at $200 per day. No account has yet been received from Mr. Symington but he was employed approximately 50 days at this rate which would bring the total due him to approximately, $10,000; C. Total amount paid and incurred for expenses to Mr. Symington: We have no other claim for expenses to Mr. Symington. Mr. MacDonald of Winnipeg was engaged as M'r. Symington's assistant. His account for fees and expenses, etc., amounts to approximately ,$2,800; D. Amount paid to each witness for fees and expenses: These accounts have been paid by the Ocean Freight Rates committee of the House totalling $639.50:
J. W. Alexander...		 $ 27 35
S. B. Brown			 37 00
W. R. Caldwell.. .		 32 45
J. M. Carruthers..		 127 35
H. B. Clemes.. ..		 31 00
F. C. Cornell.. ..		 24 45
G. A. Gillespie.. .	
W. A. McKay.. ..		 86 70
W. J. McLean.. .,		 30 00
D. W. Moore.. ..	
W. A. Mullins.. ..		 127 35
II. T. Shaw			 32 90
E. Amount paid or	proposed to be paid to
Sir Wm. Peterson for fees, or, and for expenses: Nothing was paid to Sir Wm. Peterson for fees or for expenses; F. Amount in full paid to W. T. R. Preston: As already reported in the return to the House made on June 22, this amounts to $487.08, outstanding, $4,232.45. All other expenses includ-

Questions
ing reporting and printing incurred by the
committee, 812,914.44:
Gordon Scott	17,315	79S.	R. Gordon	
4	65Map (Public Works)	
131	84Watchman	
100	00Reporters	
1,826	90Printing	
3,506	60Telephone	
15	70Telegraph	
12	91
Department of Trade and Commerce:
(a) 81,862.07; (b) $16,324.28; $487.97 to be paid when funds available; (c) No information; (d) Expenses in connection with the funeral of the late Sir Wm. Petersen, $4,891.58.



POWER PRIVILEGES IN NATIONAL PARKS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government made any decision in connection with the application for power privileges at Spray lakes in the national park, Alberta?
2.	Has the government in contemplation any legislation which will place the status of national parks upon a definite basis?
3.	If so, is the intention in such legislation to grant industrial privileges within national parks areas only by an act of parliament?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	None this session.
3.	Matter under consideration pending such legislation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STATIONS CLOSED

Mr. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: 1.	Is lit the policy of the Canadian National Railways to close small stations?
2.	If so, how many stations have been closed in each province?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes, when the earnings are not sufficient to justify the expense.
2.	From January 1, 1923, to December 31, 1925: British Columbia, 1; Alberta, 3; Saskatchewan, 1; Ontario, 17; Quebec, 8; New Brunswick, 2 Nova Scotia, nil.



GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AT OTTAWA

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many buildings are rented by the Dominion government in the city of Ottawa?
2.	What rents are paid for said buildings?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Forty-eight.
2.	$649,908 56.



McMURRAY DISTRICT OIL SANDS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL:
1.	How many leases are outstanding in the McMurray district 'for oil sands, what is the acreage and to whom are the leases given?

2.	Are the 'leases in arrears, and, if so, to what
extent?
3.	Does the government regard the question of the extraction of the oil from -the oil sands as settled from a commercial standpoint, and what information has the government on this subject?
4. Is the government making any tests for the commercial extraction of oil from the oil sands, and, if so, what?
5.	Has the government given any bonus or assistance to finance the industry?
6. Is the government aware that it is claimed "that oil extracted from the oil sands can be cracked, by modern refining processes, and that 40 per cent of gasoline can be extracted from a barrel of oil which has been so taken?
7.	If the government has not that information what information has it along the lines mentioned in the preceding question?
Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Tar sand lease No. 17. Recorded owner, Alberta Tar Sand Products, Limited. Area, 215 acres. Tar sand lease No. 20. Recorded owners, Thomas Draper and McMurray Asphaltum and Oil, Limited. Area, 1,603 acres.
2.	The leases are not in arrears. The only remaining tar-sand location held under lease lies about five miles north of McKay and thirty-five miles distant from McMurray. It is assumed, therefore, that this location would not be considered as being in the McMurray district. The information respecting this lease is: Lease No. 15; recorded owner, The Consolidated Asphalt Corporation of Canada, Limited. Area, 1,825.2 acres. The rental of this lease is in arrears to the extent of $2,687.35.
3.	The Department of Mines does not regard the question of the extraction of oil from the bituminous sands as settled from a commercial standpoint.
The files of the Department of Mines contain references to many proposed processes for the separation of oil from the sands and also copies of many process patents which have been issued in Canada; the United States and elsewhere. (A report on the bituminous sands of northern Alberta is now in press which contains some information with respect both to proposed processes and patents).
4.	No tests for commercial extraction of oil from the bituminous sands are being made by Department of Mines.
5.	No bonus or assistance in financing an oil extraction industry has been given or offered by the Department of Mines.
6.	The Department of Mines is aware of the claim quoted.
7.	The reference libraries of the department are provided with nearly all the published information with respect to processes for cracking and refining oils. (A list of references
Questions

would require several weeks' time for preparation and would be very bulky.
The department is aware of the claims made for various processes and is fairly well informed from the technical literature and through its investigations respecting the progress that has been made in the experimental development of processes for the extraction of oils from the bituminous sands and the treatment of the oils extracted.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Have repeated representations been made to the government to the effect that a complete revision of the Canada Shipping Act is required?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce such legislation at this session?
3.	Before such legislation is introduced,' will the substance of it be submitted to the shipping interests and to the Masters' and Mates' Associations, so that they may have an opportunity of expressing their views?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It has not been found feasible to have the legislation ready for submission to parliament during the present session. It is confidently expected that a complete revision of the act will be undertaken during the next session of parliament.
3.	Yes.



EMPIRE DAY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Why did not the government, on Empire Day, send a message of cordial goodwill and hearty appreciation and affection to the Mother Country?
2.	Will any recognition of this event be yet taken by the government ?
3.	Why was the usual Empire Day message not forwarded as formerly?
4.	Did the officials of the Department of External Affairs ask leave to do so, and what became of
their request?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 
Ernest Lapointe: Port Arthur . Moose Jaw . Saskatoon .. Calgary ..	.
Edmonton ..
Expenses,
exclusive of interest
Income $418,393 00 14,907 29 33,024 57 190,618 36 112,667 27
and insurance $142,833 72 42,652 16 51,019 77 52,158 42 51,802 61
$769,640 60	$340,466 68



IMMIGRANTS FROM HEBRIDES

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many immigrants arrived in Canada during the last fiscal year from the Hebrides under the supervision of Father MacDonnell?
2.	What salary was paid to Father MacDonnell?
3.	What amount was paid to him for personal expenses ?
4.	What amount was paid for expenses other than personal ?
5.	How many, if any, have been deported or ha\7e returned to the Hebrides?
6.	What were the reasons given for their deportation or return?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Sixty-nine, comprising twelve families- thirty-two adults and thirty-seven children.
2.	$1,741.94.
3.	$2,177.76.
4.	None.
5.	One family, comprising one adult and five children, was deported.
6.	Public charge.



MURRAY CANAL BRIDGEKEEPER

Mr. MAYBEE:: 1. Who laid the complaint responsible for the dismissal of Mr. John Hanna, bridgekeeper, Murray canal ?
2.	Was an investigation held in this matter, by whom, what charges were submitted, and by whom?
3.	Is it not the policy of the government to hold investigations in such matters before taking action or making dismissals?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Charles Hanna, Esq., M.P.
2.	No.
3.	For many years, the written declaration of a member of parliament to the effect that, to his knowledge, a government employee has been guilty of political partisanship, with a request for his dismissal, has been deemed sufficient grounds for dismissal without investigation.

Questions



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY

Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: What is the estimated loss to Canada in rural mail delivery?


Ernest Lapointe: It is not possible to accurately estimate the profit or loss to Canada on rural mail delivery. Rural mail delivery is a factor in the settlement of agricultural lands and is an attractive aid to immigration. Rural mail delivery indirectly produces a large part of the revenue of large city offices such as Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina. In addition, it provides service which would otherwise have to be provided through the medium of post offices and the ordinary mail service system. The cost is $2,750,000; but there are no means of computing requirements and estimating the cost of a substitute service.



GRAIN EXPORTS

Alexandre Joseph Doucet: How many bushels of Canadian grain have been shipped through the port of Portland, Maine, during the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively?


James Alexander Robb: ,
Calendar Years	Bushels
1918		 20,755,240
1919		 15,873,522
1920		 9,967,333
1921		 12,184,027
1922		 19,718,465
1923		 18.955,277
1924		 6,888,652
1925		 4,474,222



MR. E. J. SEXSMITH

Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac Addington) :: 1.	Has E. J. Sexsmith, ex-M.P., for Lennox and
Addington, been recently appointed to a government position?	.
2.	If so, what, is the nature of the position, when was the appointment made and what is the salary?
3.	Did the Civil Service Commission advertise for the above position?
4.	If so, when and what are the names of those who applied?
5.	Was E. J. Sexsmith appointed on his merits after competitive examination?
6.	If not, on whose recommendation was he appointed?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Field supervisor of Indian soldier settlers; appointed May 14, 1926; salary $1,800 per annum.
3,	4, 5 and 6. Appointments of this nature are not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission; this appointment was made under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 as administered by the Superintendent General off Indian Affairs.



CARDSTON BLOOD INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. FRED DAVIS (East Calgary) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the department and any persons whomsoever, with regard to the suspension of Indian Agent Faunt of the Blood Indian reserve at Cardston. Also a copy of the report sent to the department by Inspector Christensen of Regina in this connection.


Charles A. Stewart: Although this notice of motion has been standing for some days I have just learned that the Indian agent in question has not been suspended, and in fairness to him I think this motion should be changed. Our investigation is now complete and if that change is made I can supply the information.


Arthur Meighen: It might read "suspension or otherwise."


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think the word "suspension" should appear at all. Let the motion stand and I will have it amended to-morrow.
Motion stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GUERIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams between the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any officer of those departments and public bodies or private individuals of Montreal or other parts of Canada in connection with the construction of a subway under Lachine canal in St. Ann's division, city of Montreal.	[DOT]



SADDLE LAKE INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. BURY:: For a copy of all orders in council, regulations, directions, correspondence and all other documents passed between the government or any minister or department of the government and the Saddle Lake Indian Band, or the Soldier Settlement Board, or the Indian agent of the said reserve or any person or (persons, or between the said Soldier Settlement Board or the said Indian agent and any person or persons relating to or in connection with the surrender or sale of any portion of the Saddle Lake reserve during the years 1925 and 1926, including the conditions of such sale and all reports made thereon and including also the names, addresses and occupations of,
(a)	The applicants for purchase;
(b)	The applicants who balloted for the right to purchase;
Boundary Waters Treaty

(c)	The successful purchasers or allottees with the number of acres purchased by or alloted to each;
(d) The names and addresses of such of the said successful purchasers or allottees as were at the date of the said sale bona fide farmers, and the acreage then being actually farmed by each;
(e)	The names and addresses of such of said last-mentioned persons as carried on any other profession or business in addition to farming, and the description of such additional occupation.



BURGLARY STT. JOHN GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr. MacLAREN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda, orders in council and other documents, relating to the burglary which took place in the Canadian government office, King street, St. John, New Brunswick, in the year 1917.



BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY


Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre) moved:: Whereas, Article V of the Treaty between the United States of America and the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, proclaimed May 13, 1910 and relating to boundary waters between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, reads as follows:-
"The high contracting parties agree that at is expedient to limit the diversion of waters from the Niagara river so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shalil not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both parties to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which have already been made dn the construction of power plants on the United States side of the river under grants of authority from the state of New York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses authorized by the Dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario.
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters of the Niagara river above the falls from the natural course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the purposes and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the state of New York of the waters of said river above the falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thousand cubic feet of water per second.	.
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of navigation."
Whereas, official engineering reports of both governments show that about ninety-five per centum of the flow of the Niagara river passes over the Horseshoe falls, largely on the Canadian side of the International boundary line; that the erosion caused thereby is rapidly changing the contour of the Horseshoe falls 
and is threatening the ultimate destruction of its scenic beauty unless the flow over the falls is lessened and remedial works are constructed to spread the flow of the waters at the crest of the Horseshoe falls;
Whereas, the limited amount of the waters of Niagara river permitted by Article V of the Boundary Waters treaty to be diverted in both the United States of America and in the Dominion of Canada from Niagara river from above the falls of Niagara for power purposes, have already been wholly diverted and utilized in the generation of hydro-electric .power, the demand for which is increasing in the province of Ontario more rapidly than the same can be generated and supplied to its customers by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, rendering necessary the early resort to steam generated electric power, unless Article V is promptly amended to provide for a greater diversion of the waters of Niagara river from above the falls of Niagara;
Whereas, the utilization of the waters of the Niagara river provide the most expeditious, efficient and economical source of electric energy in the Dominion of Canada, whereby to supply its municipalities, citizens and industries with cheap electricity which is one of the most important factors in the public, private, social, economic and industrial development of this Dominion;
Whereas, the diversion of the waters of the Niagara river from above the falls can safely be increased to a total of eighty thousand cubic feet per second without the installation of remedial works, and such increased diversion will tend to lessen the erosion and to prevent the anticipated "Suicide of Niagara", and so to preserve the scenic beauty of the cataracts and rapids, a still greater diversion with more favourable results being pehnissible provided the interested governments shall determine on the remedial works to spread the flow of the waters above the crest of the falls;
Whereas, the government of the United States of America has intimated its willingness to conduct negotiations with the United Kingdom through this Dominion of Canada further to protect and preserve the natural and scenic beauty of the falls and rapids of the Niagara, which can only be accomplished by amendment of Article V of the Boundary Waters treaty; and
Whereas .this government recognizes and acknowledges the urgency of co-operative action with the government of the United States of America to the end that the splendor of the cataracts of Niagara may be protected and preserved and the imperative electric power needs of the Dominion may be supplied.
Now, be it resolved: that the parliament of Canada should instruct and authorize the Honourable, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to communicate to the proper officials of the government of the United States of America the willingness of this Dominion to discuss the advisability of amending article V of the Boundary Waters treaty, proclaimed May 13, 1910, with reference to an increase m the amount of water permitted to be diverted on each side of the international boundary from the Niagara river above the falls for power purposes and in reference to the joint construction of remedial works for the protection and preservation of the scenic beauty and splendour of the cataracts and rapids of Niagara.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this motion went
on the order paper on January 8, of this year, and I discovered at that time that the government were giving the subject matter consideration; therefore the motion has stood

Boundary Waters Treaty
over till the present time. Now, with the approval of the Premier of Ontario I want to introduce it for the consideration of the House, as I think it is, without exception, one of the most important matters affecting the people of Canada and particularly t'he people of Ontario. The privy council have recently decided in a case affecting the province of Quebec and important matters bearing upon provincial rights, that it is clear that the province of Ontario and the state of New York jointly own the waters at Niagara falls. It is not, of course, a navigation question, it is purely a power question, with which is mixed up the scenic beauty of the falls, under a former treaty with the United States.
Now the water-powers of this country are day by day becoming of more vital importance than they were in the early stages of our history because of our knowledge of what can be done with electric energy. The great province of Quebec has probably the largest power interests in the world. On the St. Lawrence river, within fifty miles of Montreal, they have within their jurisdiction about
2,700,000	horse-power, and this and other water-power developments within that province are of great provincial and national importance. Sometimes I am sorry that the Dominion does not own those vast resources, which would go far to pay oS the national debt.
As soon as you get beyond the boundaries of Quebec you have on the one side the province of Ontario and on the other the state of New York. It has I believe been decided legally that one-half of the water-power on the St. Lawrence belongs to the state of New York and the other half to the province of Ontario. At Niagara falls the same situation exists. The vital importance of this matter and its relation to section 5 of the treaty is self evident. Section 5 is not affected by any other section of the treaty, nor is it affected by any dispute which has arisen or might arise under the treaty generally. Section 5 merely deals with the property of citizens of the state of New York and of Ontario. Any amendment of that section under the laws of this country is under the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, and of Great Britain as representing Canada in dealing with the government at Washington with respect to treaty matters. But I know the government of Canade are fair to the province of Ontario; that they are prepared to protect the interests of the province and are acting in concert therewith.
Now whatever disputes may arise under the act, if there are any, I want to call attention
to the fact that section 5 is not one with which we should concern ourselves at the moment. The state of New York for over three years has been trying to get the government of the United States to take action. In order to show the position of that state,
I should1 like to read a few extracts from a speech made by the Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey, Chairman of Rivers and Harbours committee, before the mayors of the cities of the state of New York at Buffalo, June 14, 1923. I think these extracts will be considered of great national importance because in my humble judgment they express a fair and proper view of this question and also of the friendly relationships that must and should exist between Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Mr. Dempsey said:
The development of such water as can be diverted from the falls, at Niagara, without impairment of its natural grandeur, is one of the most important of the water-power development problems confronting the country. The question is not alone one of conserving the limited coal supply of the country, but it involves as well the transportation question, which is pressing for solution and becomes acute whenever we have prosperous times, with good crops and factories running full time.
However, as has been saud, the development of our water-power is one of the most important factors in the solution of the very serious transportation problem which now faces us and is bound, with the prosperity and growth of the country, to become more acute before it is solved.
Two hundred and twenty-six thousand cubic feet per second come down the Niagara to the falls. Canada and the United States have agreed, by treaty, to divert 56,000 cubic feet per second for power purposes-36,000 on the Canadian side, and 20,000 in this State. The cataract is divided into two falls

the American, between the American shore and Goat Island, and the Horseshoe or Canadian falls, between the island and the Canadian shore. ' The visitors who view this world's wonder find that the American fall is 1,000 feet wide and has an ample flow of water over its entire width. He learns, on the other hand, that the Canadian or Horseshoe falls is about 3,000 feet wide and sees that a great portion of -that width has a very shallow supply of water, "being for broad widths, nearly bare; that the fall is horseshoe in shape, with almost the whole of the vast volume of water flowing over it at the centre of the horseshoe, and that this concentration of water, with its force and power, is rapidly wearing away and impairing the beauty of the falls. Yet the American falls carries only 10,000 cubic feet per second, while the Canadian falls has the enormous volume of 160,000 cubic feet per second. If the flow of water was spread on the Canadian falls, as it is on the American falls, over the entire width, to cover its 3,000 feet stretch, the Canadian falls would need only three times as much as the American falls, or 30,000 cubic feet per second, to give it ample water and conserve the entire beauty and grandeur of the falls, and corrective works can be placed on .the river, at a reasonable cost, which will spread the flow of the water over the Canadian falls and make a flow over the entire 3,000 feet just as the 1,000 feet of the American falls is covered. Allowing 30,000 feet per second for the Canadian falls and 10,000 additional
Boundary Waters Treaty

to insure against any (possibility of miscalculation, we -could 'have, after deducting this 40,000 cubic feet, the
10.000	cubic feet which fall over the American falls -and the 56,000 cubic feet now diverted for power purposes, 120,000 c.s.f. remaining, which can be diverted without any injury whatever to the falls.
This calculation was made three years ago, 'but the calculations recently made by American and Canadian engineers with a view of finding out what really can be done show
3.600.000	horse power available to the two countries.


William Findlay Maclean: Under whose instruction was this report prepared?


Edmund James Bristol: I understand it was prepared for the governments of the province of Ontario, the Dominion of Canada and the United States. I have not seen these reports personally but I am taking these statements, and those going into the matter will have to verify them. I am not an engineer, but the average given me by engineers is ten tons of coal to an electrical horse power, which means that instead of a saving of 24,000,000 tons of coal there would be a saving of 36,000.000 tons. I am told that coal is worth about $10 per ton, which means that about $360,000,000 is going to waste yearly. Taking it from another point of view, the
3.600.000	horse power belongs equally to the United States and Canada, and we are losing half that amount of money yearly or about $500,000 per day. Mr. Dempsey goes on to say:
This water-power is an all year round power, the most dependable and the best water-power in the world. It can be developed and furnished at the lowest cost per horse-power. And, froan this 120,000 cubic feet, we can develop practically four million additional horsenpower, the equivalent of twenty-four million tons of coal-1/125 of all the coal mined in the United States.
It lias been shown that this power can be developed without lessening, but, on the contrary, heightening the grandeur and beauty of the falls. This power can be furnished the consumer at a much less rate than he can generate from coal. The average cost of power generated from coal is, at the present price of coal, $60 per horse-power, and water-power can be furnished from Niagara to the people of our state at half that price. The demand for power is growing rapidly and steadily, and -it must be supplied either from coal or from water-jower. Should we not then bend every energy (to see that a new treaty is enacted without delay, so that our people may be furnished with this cheap power; that the railroads may be relieved by this one development of carrying 1/125 of their present total tonnage; and the farmer and manufacturer be given the benefit of this carrying capacity to market the products which he has produced; that the demand upon our coal mines may be lessened to this very great extent and the likelihood of a coal shortage or famine be greatly lessened, and that we may, by reducing to this appreciable extent, the demand for coal increase, in some measure, the chances of reduction in the price of coal?

While this next extract is perhaps not relevant, I think it is a proper thing to read now. In his remarks Mr. Dempsey says:
The question of the diversion of water for power, at Niagara, is only one of the many great questions now pending and which will constantly arise between the two countries. If the two countries are to prosper, if they are to have their legitimate growth and development, they must settle the questions that arise between them in an amicable, equitable, give and take way, each remembering that an unconscionable or unfair advantage obtained at one time is sure to be in the mind of her neighbour and may be retaliated many fold when a new question between them must be settled	
The negotiations for a permanent treaty should be undertaken immediately. All that is necessary is the bringing to the attention of the Departments of Foreign Affairs of the two countries the situation as it exists and how easy and immediate the remedy can be. In doing this, the action of just such bodies as that which is in session here will be invaluable. To lessen out transportation problem, to help make our coal problem less acute, to lessen the cost of manufacturing-in consequence, the cost of the manufactured product to the consumer and the cost of living-and to make the state of New ^or^ and the province of Ontario even more desirable places in which to live than they are to-day. I urge that this association bring this matter of the increased diversion to the attention of the State department of the United States, leaving it to act as, with the relations and conditions between the two countries, shall be best and most likely to bring a quick and favourable termination of the negotiations.
I have a number of quotations which I do not intend to read, but I think this opinion, given bjr a distinguished minister of the United States government, might fairly be taken to explain the reasons why prompt action should be taken. I would like to give an extract now from an article written by Mr. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce of the United States, on Government and Power Development, appearing in the English Review at page 786 et seq:
The real purpose of all this development will be not to make self-satisfying statistics or to provide means for insurance of new stocks and bonds. Its real purpose will be this: That through more power we shall make a still greater saving in labour, shall increase the product of labour, and shall lessen the burden upon labour. Thus we shall gain in higher standards of living, and in wider enjoyment and comfort to every fireside-a goal which should be the sole end and purpose of the economic effort of every nation.
The new vista in progress which has been opened to us is due to the perfection in transmission of electric energy up to 200. or even 300 miles and to higher 'mechanical efficiency of our generators, with capacities reaching up to 70,000 horse power in a single machine. With these twin developments comes the opportunity to generate power in much larger and more economically located stations and to harness and bring to the centres of population water powers which were too remote for use even ten years ago. . . .
When the energy can be supplied in the form of electricity and delivered over a wire, and when the supply is equally available in country and city, there

Boundary Waters Treaty
will no longer be occasion for the crowding we now deplore. . . .
The indirect results, both human and material, are more important than the preceding statements would imply; for no account has been taken of the vast losses to industry and to commerce by the actual 'interruption and threatened interruption of fuel suppQies to our several hundred thousand independent steam units, no account of the relief to shippers from already overburdened transportation and terminal facilities, no account of the increased production of factories from cheaper power, no account of the reduction in physical labour, and the increase in comfort.
To secure the rapid adoption of these demonstratedly possible results is of profound public importance.
The last extract I will read is a short statement from the report of the New York State Power Commission to the legislature of the state of New York, which body approved of the report, made in 1924:
A revision of the treaty on boundary waters for the purpose of securing an increase in tihe amount of water that may be diverted from the Niagara river for power purposes, is urged by the commission, inasmuch as it is provided in any plan for increasing the amount of diversion to safeguard the scenic beauty of the fa-lfls.
The full amount of water permitted t(T be diverted from the Niagara river on the American side has been utilized since July, 1922. At the present time, a large addition to the steam plant of the Buffalo General Electric Company is being made for supplying the increased demand for current in western New York. Current generated at the falls is sold at prices below the prices for current produced by steam.
The development of energy from an increased diversion will make available down the years a large amount of power which may be furnished at a cheaper rate than steam produced power.
In 1910, when this treaty was made, there was very little known about power production. The Niagara Falls Power Company, which was in existence then, had 100,000 horse power, and only used 100 feet of fall. To-day the Hydro-Electric Power Company have a fall of 315 feet, and whereas the old company develops only 10 horse power to the foot, the Hydro-Electric Company develops 35 horse power to the foot fall, so it can readily be seen what a vast change has taken place. The United States has passed legislation that no longer could a company proceed to get power for any length of time if they only took the 100 foot drop. . They have to get all the power out of the water available at the falls, and the only company to do that today is the Hydro-Electric Power Company. They have not enough power. It is quite current in our papers that Canada has 36,000 second-feet, and the United States only 20,000 [DOT] second-feet. When that treaty was made, the United States had two power companies in Canada shipping power into the United States, and that power came out of that 36,000 second-feet belonging to Canada. So that ever since the treaty was made the United
States has been getting more power from Niagara Falls than Canada. That, of course, was a matter of arrangement. We used only about 3,COO horse power when the treaty was passed.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: That is not the case now.


Edmund James Bristol: I hope the hon. gentleman will speak after me, because he is familiar with this question, but with all respect to my hon. friend, on information from the head of the Hydro-Electric Company, the United States are still getting more power from the falls to-day than is Canada. I think the proportion is about 29,000 for Canada and
31,000	for the United States. That was my information a few days ago.
So far as this Niagara Falls question is con-erned, it is not a new one. Sir Adam Beck, when he ibuilt that famous hydro plant of his- and it is the best in the world-bought enough land on one side of where the water comes from, that is from Chippawa down to Queenston, to build another plant just as big, and that right of way has been in existence now for four years. I am told that he was trying during his lifetime to get some agreement made through the government of Canada with the United States so that he could get more power at the falls, but whatever the reason of the refusal may have been, it looks now as if the two countries were getting together on this matter, which is of the greatest importance both to the state of New York and the province of Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the
Chicago diversion?


Edmund James Bristol: What about it?


William Findlay Maclean: Are we getting together on that?


Edmund James Bristol: The state of New York, and twenty-one states altogether, are behind tho American government in the legal battle with Chicago. There are ten states down south that are fighting with Chicago. The case is now before the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is for that court to decide, but why the province of Ontario and the state of New York should not have their own power properly developed is something I cannot understand; I cannot see the logic of it. The state of New York is fighting our battle. They need power just the same as we do, and the state of New York will be entitled to one-half of whatever we get. I think the province of Ontario should get what belongs
Boundary Waters Treaty

to it, and the state of New York should get what belongs to it.
I have perhaps spoken too long on this matter. I have a feeling that if the engineering statements are correct-and I believe that the best engineers we can secure and the best engineers the United States can secure are right-it is obviously a national crime to both countries for the present state of affairs to continue. The people of this generation in the state of New York and in the province of Ontario, and perhaps elsewhere in Canada and the United States, should have the use of this 3,600,000 horse power a year, or, if you like to put it that way, of this 36,000,000 tons of coal. This power can be produced probably cheaper than any other power that now remains in the world, except, perhaps, the power on the St. Lawrence. Taking the cost of the coal at S10 a ton, it means that we are throwing away $360,000,000 a year through not using this power, or about $1,000,000 a day. That does seem foolish, or crazy, if you want to put it that way, because this is power to which every man and woman in Ontario and Quebec and every man and woman in the state of New York are entitled to have the benefit of. This power belongs to the state of New York and to the province of Ontario, and its development will cheapen production in the state of New York and in this province for every man and every woman in that territory. In the words of Mr. Hoover, it would be a national crime if we did not as soon as possible see what changes can be made. The engineers have admitted that the scenic beauty of the falls can be preserved for all time. It will not longer be committing suicide, as Mr. Hoover describes it, to use this power. The front portion of the Horseshoe falls will have to be raised up with asphalt and other material, so that you will have the same level on our side of the falls as on the American side. To retain the scenic beauty of the falls-and it is disappearing at the rate of eight feet a year-you have to raise the level of the water of the Horseshoe falls and if you do not use that water so raised for power purposes you would flood jhe state of New York and the province of Ontario.


James Dew Chaplin: Five feet a y'ear.


Edmund James Bristol: I saw it put at eight feet.
I sincerely hope that the province of Ontario and the state of New York will get that power for the benefit of their people at an early date.


James Dew Chaplin: This question, Mr. Speaker, is one that is interesting,
I take it, to the whole country. It certainly is of interest to us who live close to the falls. The first thing it strikes me that we have got to do is to preserve the scenic beauty of the falls. What effect will it have upon the falls to make the diversion of water to the extent that the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Bristol) has mentioned? That is not exactly known, but I can say to the House this much: The Parks commission, who have in their keeping the water of Niagara Falls, have been in close touch with this matter for thirty-five years, and I can say this also to the House, that the amount of breaking back of the falls amounts to five feet every year. That takes place at the peak of the Horseshoe falls, and it can be prevented. Not only that, but the scenic beauty of the falls can be preserved and a lot of water diverted to commercial purposes provided we go about the matter in the right way. -
Now as to the method to be adopted for the preservation of the falls and the utilization of the water at the same time, I can say this much further:	Anybody who has
been there will know that the volume of water is in the centre of the Horseshoe falls. All that needs to be done to spread the flow of water over the whole area of the brink of the falls is to provide remedial works of a very inexpensive nature that will stop, or tend to stop to a great extent, the erosion at the centre of the Horseshoe falls. I do not know whose duty it is to carry out that *work, but it is a very important matter. If it be true that you can prevent further erosion and at the same time preserve the scenic beauty and then utilize the remainder of the water for commercial purposes, see what an immense asset you have. For the information of the House I can say that the
10.000	cubic second feet that is being diverted by Chicago would be equal if utilized at Chippawa to 330,000 horse power. That is what Chicago is stealing from us to-day. I ask hon. gentlemen to pause and consider what that means. Now if an additional
10.000	cubic second feet will provide 330,000 or 350,000 horse power at Chippawa on a fall of 315 feet, then twelve times that amount will yield three and a half million horse power such as my hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) has spoken of. One of the members from " Toronto asked how the calculation was made. The calculation is correct; the engineers of the Park commission have compiled the data.
To illustrate further what the Chicago diversion means, all you have got to do is to

Boundary Waters Treaty
visualize a stream of water three times the width of this chamber with a depth of ten feet. That will enable you to realize what Chicago is stealing from this country. In the face of that is it any wonder that lake Erie, lake Huron, and the other lakes, are being emptied of water? Something must be done in this matter without further delay. I have been a member of this House for a number of years and whether we are getting anywhere on this question I cannot say; but I realize that nothing effective is coming from any protest we are making: Chicago keeps on taking the water, and the level of the lakes continues to fall. We have noticed that the water of lake Erie, for example, is going down at the rate of six inches a year. I happen to belong to a shooting club that had shooting and fishing rights at Port Rowan on lake Erie, and during the last three years the water on the marshes there has receded 32 inches. Just imagine a situation of that kind. I only mention it to illustrate what happened on these lakes. It will not be long before this government will have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in order to keep the inland harbours of this country open.	.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: We are spending
large sums now.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, and if
this situation continues we shall have to spend a great deal more. It seems to me that a concerted effort should be made by the Dominion and the provinces, especially the province of Ontario, to bring about remedial measures. The federal government and the provincial authorities should co-operate in an endeavour to prevent a further continuance of what is happening on these lakes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no complaint to make
about any of the statements made by the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Bristol) or the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). The matter of developing increased power at Niagara is receiving our very active consideration. I was delegated by this government to go to Washington a short time ago and discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and may I say that all our negotiations with respect to this and other international matters are carried on directly with the Washington authorities. While there I discovered that there is a wish there to discuss the whole problem.
The hon. member for Lincoln has spoken of the lowering of the lake levels. The hon.
member for Toronto East Centre has discussed not only the lowering of the lakes but also the Chicago diversion. While the latter question incidentally plays some part in the matter it ought not to be a factor in delaying the completion of an understanding about the power development at Niagara. That is a point I wish to make, and it is [DOT] one I urged very strongly at Washington. I pointed out that this question was vital to the province of Ontario for the reason that the Chippawa power plant is advantageously located for the distribution of power throughout central and southwestern Ontario, and the development of increased power there would be beneficial to the power users of the province. Furthermore a great deal of money has been spent in developing the Chippawa plant, and they are getting the highest efficiency out of the use of the water there, perhaps higher than anywhere else in the world. For that reason we want the full concurrence and assistance of the Ontario government in whatever steps we take. I may say that we have kept them very thoroughly informed as to every move we are making in connection with this matter.
On going to Washington I found that the American authorities were particularly concerned about the preservation of the scenic beauty of the falls, taking the ground that that must be the first consideration-with which we agreed-and that before there was talk of diversion that problem must be taken up and satisfactorily settled. Needless to say, that will be solved by the better distribution of the flow of water across the face of the falls, which will prevent what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has just pointed out, the rapid rate of erosion, withr out endangering the scenic beauty, and will permit a further utilization of the flow of water in addition to that already in use. But that is a question that will be settled by the investigation which is about to take place.
May I say for the information of the House that we have named Mr. Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer, to go to Washington, meet representatives of the government there and discuss in detail the investigation that must take place-first as to the preservation of the scenic properties of the falls, and secondly as to what further amounts of water can be diverted.


William Findlay Maclean: Will Ontario be represented through the Dominion government?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Boundary Waters Treaty


William Findlay Maclean: What we want
to hear now is what Ontario's attitude is in this matter. Is the hon. member for Toronto East Centre speaking for Ontario or not?


Charles A. Stewart: The province of Ontario is quite in agreement with us in the matter, and all we are waiting for at the moment is an answer from the American government as to whom they propose to name to meet our representatives. Then we shall get busy at once on this very important question.
I think it is unnecessary for me at this stage to enter upon any discussion of the question of the Chicago diversion or the lowering of the lake levels. That is a matter which perhaps can be discussed at a later date. I think on a former occasion I stated that when the report of the joint engineering board came in we might very properly discuss the problem of the lowering of the lake levels. I quite agree with the hon. member for Lincoln that the diversion at Chicago plays an important part in the reduction of our lake levels, but I wish to say, in fairness to all parties concerned, that there is a very considerable lowering of the levels in lake Superior not affected by the diversion in Chicago at all. So that irrespective of the diversion at Chicago we are coming to a period of drought that is having an effect on the lake levels.


Robert James Manion: Lake Superior has come
up considerably in the last year.


Charles A. Stewart: The record over a considerable period of years shows that at times the levels are lower owing to climatic conditions. But it is the intention of the two governments to make a thorough study of all matters pertaining to the lake levels, and to make recommendations that may be effective in preventing the lakes from again going to the extremely low level they may touch this year.


Robert James Manion: Is it not all the worse
if, having regard to their present low level, they take advantage of that diversion to lower them still more?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not want to raise a question as to the qualifications of the gentlemen who have been named by the minister-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Only one name.


James Dew Chaplin: -but I should like to ask the minister if there should not be somebody with him to advise him? Is the minister going to make an arrangement of that kind?
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Biggar
is only the legal adviser.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the
others?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Johnston, our water-power engineer, who succeeded the late Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Camsell, our geologist. They will be the two men who will appear for Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that
this matter will not be tied up with the development of the St. Lawrence and thus delay it?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
government should make it perfectly clear that we will not be tied up by associating the troubles of the lower St. Lawrence with the necessities of Niagara, and that the personnel will not be too much mixed up.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
what I was trying to convey to the House, namely, that what I endeavoured to secure at Washington was action on the Niagara situation, quite apart from the St. Lawrence or the lake levels or Chicago, having in mind the interests of Ontario. That is what we are doing at the moment. We are not asking the United States government to consider any other question-simply the preservation of the scenic properties of the falls, and further diversion for power purposes.


James Dew Chaplin: What board is Mr. Johnston on?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Johnston succeeded the late Mr. Stewart on the Niagara power board, which has been in existence for a couple of years. Representatives of both governments have been on it.


Edmund James Bristol: They go there and report to you and do not conclude any matters at all?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Edmund James Bristol: It is only fair perhaps to
consider that the state of New York, whose case I was presenting with that of the province of Ontario, is suffering just as much as we are.


William Findlay Maclean: For whom is the hon. member for Toronto East Centre speaking?


Edmund James Bristol: I told my hon. friend that
I was speaking with the authority of the Premier of Ontario and nobody else.

Boundary Waters Treaty


William Findlay Maclean: I would like
to have some assurance of that.


Edmund James Bristol: You can get it from the
Premier of Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the question is brought forward by some of the superpower interests which are becoming permanent interests. While the hon. member says we are going to make cheap power for poor people, is he not making cheap power for profiteers?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech, I would remind him that I have not concluded.


William Findlay Maclean: Go ahead.
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton):	Having in
mind that we are doing practically everything that my hon. friend desires us to do, and that we are particularly engaged at the imoment on this very question, I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would withdraw his resolution.


Edmund James Bristol: I am perfectly willing to
withdraw it.


Mr. GEARY:: When the minister says
he is engaged on the same matter as is the subject of this resolution, does he mean there are instructions going forward from our government to the Imperial government to rearrange section 5 of the treaty?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I
thought I made that clear. We are dealing directly with the United States government, but with respect to the treaty we must first arrive at a basis upon which an amendment to the treaty may be made.


George Reginald Geary: The whole matter is fraught with great difficulty. There are combinations affecting it on every side. There are threats that we may in some way suffer through some approval of the Chicago diversion, or that our large enterprises on the St. Lawrence may be delayed in some way. I expect these are matters that are present to the mind of those who are negotiating, but until we get further information I fail to see that it would be wise for this House to tie itself to any course of action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the remarks
made by my hon. friend, it might be of interest to the House to know that recently when we had a visit from His Excellency the British Ambassador at Washington to our capital the government took advantage of the presence of His Excellency to discuss with him very fully the whole question of the diversion
of power at Chicago and other matters relating to water levels on the Great Lakes, and also the question of the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls, and to ask His Excellency whether in his opinion everything was being done that it was possible to have done at Washington from the point of view of both the interests of Canada and any interests of the British Empire in a large way that might be involved. The opinion given by Sir Esme Howard' was that everything that could possibly be done was being done in the right way, both as respects the representations by Canada to the United States, and as to the British government being kept fully informed of all negotiations. I mention that because two or three times there has been a question in this House which rather implied that, in the view of some hon. members, negotiations should be conducted through the foreign office in Great Britain. The British Ambassador was quite emphatic in his view that the procedure had been regular in every particular both as regards our relations with the United States and any relations the foreign office might wish to have considered in the matter. As regards some of the matters we are discussing here to-day, the British Ambassador felt that being the subject of negotiation it was just as well that too much be not said publicly at the present time. Hon. members have, I believe, had that aspect of the situation in view this afternoon.


William Findlay Maclean: If Canada is to
make a declaration in regard to this matter it should be made by the government of the Dominion, associated with Ontario if the province cares to join. But I do not want any-declaration made in the way it has been made here, without the responsibility of the government going with it. A private member makes a proposal, and I again ask who are the super-power people who are ready to menace our supply hereafter? I do not know who they are, but it has not been stated here to-day for whom the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Bristol) speaks.


Edmund James Bristol: Yes, I told the hon. member.


William Findlay Maclean: He does not make out a clear case.


Edmund James Bristol: Why do you not telephone the Premier of Ontario, instead of talking nonsense? I did it under the instruction of the Premier of the province of Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: The document
has not been produced.
Boundary Waters Treaty


Edmund James Bristol: I do not have to produce it. The Premier telephoned the leader of the House to the same effect and later told me to go on with the motion.


William Findlay Maclean: That is what I want to get at.


Edmund James Bristol: When did the hon. member become leader?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not pretend to be, but I am a citizen of Toronto, of Canada.


Edmund James Bristol: What harm is this doing to Canada?


William Findlay Maclean: My position is this: I am perfectly satisfied with the statement made by the government to-day that they are taking up the matter; that it will be worked out, and that the rights of Ontario and Canada will be protected. The two nations are vitally interested in the levels of our lakes and the flow of water in our rivers. This is our greatest asset and I do not like to see a motion come up in a round-about way like this. I should prefer that a debate take place in the Ontario legislature in regard to it and to hear from the new chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission and all these other commissions. The government should see that no declaration is made by this House, but for the time being the matter should be left in the hands of the two governments so that they may work out a progressive and national policy which will preserve these waters, the beauties of the Niagara falls, and if possible deepen our harbours and increase the depth of the upper lakes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is withdrawn I should like to direct the minister's attention to some criticism that I have passed in earlier discussions in this connection. My criticism has always been that there has tn.cn a lack of co-operation of Canadian interests in this whole matter; that for a long time both the federal government and the provincial government took no action whatever as to the scenic effect of the Niagara falls, as to the condition along our shores and so on. But one body which took some interest during the past number of years was the shipping interests although the minister some time ago did not seem to think their interests were common with those of the federal government. I strongly opposed that because this is a very important matter to Canada and every force should be impelled along one channel. This government should be united with the shipping interests of Canada and

it should not be possible to say in this House that a committee had met in Detroit and another committee had gone to Washington whose objects and works the government knew nothing about. Consequently, if this government cannot do anything else they can unite every interest, shipping, provincial and federal, and get busy on this question because it is a very important one.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Prime Minister that such negotiations as go on at the present time will not result in any definite action until this House has some opportunity of discussing the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rather hope that some definite action will come before there is occasion to discuss it further. There is a reference to a joint committee dealing with the question, of the scenic beauty of the falls and it is to be hoped that they will arrive at conclusions fairly summarily. I think I can assure my hon. friend that no treaty will be consummated between this country and the United States without the House having an opportunity of approving it in the first instance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It could not be consummated otherwise.


George Reginald Geary: I was going to point out in connection with that that the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission had within the last two weeks entered into a contract with-power interests on the Gatineau river for the purchase of power at a rather high price, owing to a threatened shortage in its supplies which are mainly derived from the Niagara Falls. The longer we are delayed in going ahead with the Bt. Lawrence development the more pressing is the need for Ontario to get a power supply. The logical places for the power to come from are the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers. I understand we are not to have a report as to the St. Lawrence development until some time during the present month, and I had hoped that this report would be ready before the House prorogues. I trust the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior will keep this matter very well to the fore because we are suffering in Ontario from a lack of electric power. Our people have become users of electrical power in a big way and they should not be. handicapped or delayed any further than is absolutely necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, there is not or, if there is, there ought not to be very much difference of opinion as to the present situation. It is a

Boundary Waters Treaty
situation which ought to be considered entirely apart from the Chicago trouble because if it is going to take as long to settle it as it has taken to get anything done in connection with the Chicago trouble, Ontario will have to look elsewhere for electric power. But apart from that altogether it is something which ought not to be tied up with the Chicago trouble unless we come to the conclusion that the abstraction of water from lake Michigan by Chicago is such a marked departure from ordinary treaty rights that it is dangerous to have any further treaty obligations with that country. We should hesitate a long time before we come to any such opinion. Of course I have not heard our rights under the treaty in regard to the Chicago matter challenged upon any ground in law. It may be that there are difficulties that the government have told us nothing about.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we are
in this unhappy position, that a great country has found itself unable to live up to its treaty obligations owning to the attitude taken by certain of its people. W hile that is a most regrettable situation, it is no reason why we should not attempt to accommodate the not only apparent but real interests of both these great countries where we can and that is at Niagara. The Niagara point of 5 p.m. power development is the one that should first be exhausted; it lends itself more easily and readily to a power development than do any of the other sites. I think the minister will agree with me in connection with that. The drop is .immediate; the characteristics of the waters and of the lakes are extremely well known, and if, as apparently the engineers think, it be the fact that the falls on the one hand can remain and at the same time bring to Canada the electrical energy which it sadly requires at the present time particularly in Ontario, we ought beyond all question to go ahead with the development. My suggestion to the government-and I think I carry with me the "judgment of the responsible minister -is that this question of greater power development at Niagara should be considered entirely apart from the lower St. Lawrence, Chicago or anything else. The one thing we ought to do is to attempt to get immediate action.	_
I am going to make another suggestion. If we want to get immediate action our representatives should be people who know the subject and who do not have to be
instructed in it. The minister is acting in connection and in co-operation with the province of Ontario which of course is entirely committed to this project. The power commission has bought a lot of land there which will be absolutely valueless unless it can be used for further development, but so sure were they that the sensible thing would be done that they went on and purchased riparian rights and the like, and as soon as an arrangement is made between the Dominion and the United States they are ready to proceed with the work. My suggestion there would be that instead of referring this question to gentlemen who, I think I am within the mark in saying, have been working some two or three years in connection with the lower St. Lawrence and from whom as yet we have got no action, the government should call to its aid-it need not accept their advice, but, it can get from them the facts-those who have, not for months but for years, been studying this question. You have engineers at the falls who have been studying the flow for years, who have been collecting data and keeping themselves in touch with what can be done. The Ontario officials are there. Why cannot they be used?


Charles A. Stewart: They are being used.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I did not get the names aright. I heard the names of Mr. Biggar, Mr. Camsell-


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Johnston is the engineer who succeeded Mr. Challies, who in turn succeeded Mr. Stewart.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I am speaking not of the gentlemen who have been engaged on the lower St. Lawrence for years. They have been specializing on that part of the waterway.


Charles A. Stewart: There are none of them on it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking of the local provincial engineers who have been at work on this thing for years.


Charles A. Stewart: You mean the Ontario government engineers?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: They are in collaboration with Mr. Johnston-Mr. Acres and other local Hydro men.


James Dew Chaplin: They are Hydro men.

Boundary Waters Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the park commissioner's engineers were looking after the scenic side of the case.


Charles A. Stewart: Our dealings have been with the Hydro Commission and with the Ontario government directly.


James Dew Chaplin: The park commissioners have charge of all power matters on the Niagara river.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The engineers of the park commissioners, I entirely agree-


Charles A. Stewart: May I say for the information of my hon. friend that we are working in perfect co-operation with all those interests, and we are not making any move without their knowledge, so that our whole case may be harmonized in every way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I should like to see some action, and I should like to see somebody on this committee that is really vitally interested in seeing that something is done.


Charles A. Stewart: Does not my hon. friend think that the Hydro are intensely interested?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not understand that their engineers are on the committee.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but they are acting with the members of the board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Without any authority.


Charles A. Stewart: We cannot have an international board of a dozen members. But I want to assure my hon. friend that no move is being made without the full knowledge of the Ontario government and the Hydro Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand that from my hon. friend. I have just been handed the debate in 1925 in connection with the St. Lawrence question, and I find the gentlemen whose names I understood my hon. friend is referring to-


Charles A. Stewart: I only re-.erred to them for the purpose of making it ^ery clear that they were not in any way amployed on this particular problem.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought my hon. friend gave me three names of those who are employed on the problem-Colonel Biggar, Mr. Johnston-and I forget the third one.
I Mr. Chaplin.] \


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Camsell.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see if they are not on the other committee.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought my hon. friend had reference to Mr. Mc-Lachlan, and other engineers. If he means they have some connection with the other board in a technical way, I answer yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not in a technical way; apparently they were an interdepartmental committee.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.
Sir HEiNRY DRAYTON:	There is a lot
said about co-ordination. .It does not seem to have got anywhere. I suppose it has reached the length of framing instructions. Perhaps something has been done of which we know nothing. The impression in the country, I may tell my hon. friend, is that everything done in connection with the lower St. Lawrence is a pure stall, that committee after committee were appointed, not for the purpose of action -but to show that the government were giving something to somebody to do which was not going to be done. I notice these names are on that committee; take, for example, Colonel Biggar and Mr. Challies, alternate Mr. Johnston. My suggestion to my hon. friend is that we should try and get some action here. I do not know whom the government have engaged, but I do not know why they should not, for example, accept somebody from the park commissioners or from the Hydro, and put it up to them to get action and report. As it is to-day, it is said, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. STEW'ART (Edmonton): Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to listen to criticism that is warranted, but in this case I think what my hon. friend says is unwarranted. The late Mr. Stewart, the hydrographer in the Marine and Fisheries department, perhaps the best informed man in Canada in his day on international waterway questions, was a member of this international board in connection with the Niagara river, and he was succeeded by Mr. Challies, who in turn, was succeeded by Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston's connection with the St. Lawrence committee is only as an adviser. He had nothing to do with the St. Lawrence, but he sat in on the definition of the questions to be referred to the joint engineering board. But this is why I take exception to my hon. friend's remarks. There has been a special study going on by the engineering board at Niagara for a number

Boundary Waters Treaty
of years with respect to the preservation of the scenic features and of getting more power.
I do not want to make a second speech, but may I say that we have been pressing this question, and I do not want my hon. friend to confuse it with the lower St. Lawrence, with the Chicago and with the Great Lakes. We have, in full concurrence with the Ontario government and the Hydro Commission, been pressing this question on the attention of the American authorities, and that is why I do not want to be dragged into a discussion of other questions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had not quite finished. The minister's second or third speech, I do not know exactly which, came in before I could finish. I certainly want the minister to have every possible opportunity of talking as often as he likes upon the subject because I want to know what the government's attitude really is. My hon. friend is wrong in his last remarks. I completely dissociated Chicago and the lower St. Lawrence in dealing with this question. I may not have made that sufficiently clear to him, but I thought I had. The more completely to cut one from the other, I was also suggesting that the men who have to do with these other questions perhaps had better not have anything to do with this one, so that we would have a clean issue here. Now my hon. friend says he wants action. So do we all. He is quite right in saying, I suppose, that simply because the government cannot do anything with their committees on the lower St. Lawrence is no reason why they cannot do something here.


Charles A. Stewart: 1 do object to my hon. friend putting words in my mouth; I never made any such statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never suggested he said that. I am merely taking the natural deduction from his remarks, and my hon. friend knows it. If he does not know ;i the people know it.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do dbject to the hon. gentleman making any such suggestion or deduction, because it was not intended.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
why my hon. friend1 is on his feet now; I do not think this would be a point of order or a question of privilege. I was simply referring to some general public beliefs as to the condition of business on the lower St. Lawrence. But I am going to take my hon. friend at his own valuation. He says that the first 14011-246^
thing to be considered is the question of the scenic properities of the falls, and I suggest that he will find a body of men on the Canadian parks side and another body of men on the American parks side who have been considering this very question of scienic beauty for many years. I suggest that the quickest way of getting action-and I am again taking him at his own valuation when he says he wants action

would be to get in touch with these people who know.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my
hon. friend would not expect me to go past the government of the province of Ontario, and I am certain that the government of the United States would not go beyond that of the state of New York.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is wrong as usual. I did not ask him to go past the government of Ontario; I asked him to go to the appointees of that government who have had to deal with this question for some years.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my
hon. friend knows that the provincial government will consult with their own officials.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not talking about matters of consultation; I am talking about matters of action. The government may do as they wish with my suggestion, but I would suggest that we will get action more quickly if the men who have had to do with these very matters are in a position to make recommendations themselves.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the hon. member
have leave to withdraw the resolution.-


Mr.   M ACKENZIE KINO@: Before this is withdrawn, if my hon. friend will let me regard his remarks as' a question, I will give a. partial answer and in that way avoid speaking twice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But you are
speaking twice. I do not mind, however.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it desirable to have of record 'the different bodies investigating this matter. I happen to have a statement in my hand which, if given earlier, would have perhaps prevented the misunderstanding. The statement is to the following effect:
In August, 1823, a joint Niagara control board was established for the .purpose of measuring and supervising the diversion of water from the Niagara river. As the result of new instaJllaitions on both sides of the Niagara river, the hydro-edectric companies possessed a capacity, measured in second feet, con-
Boundary Waters Treaty

siderabily in excess of the diversion permitted by the treaty of 1910, and it was therefore considered desirable to check the diversion by methods of measurement uniform in both countries.
Major P. S. Roimecke was appointed to represent the United States, and W. J. Stewart, and after his death J. T. Johnston, to represent Canada on the Board.
The report of the board, officially published on September 19, 1925, after referring to the methods of measuring diversion at hourly intervals, and the system of weekly inspections, and noting that on both sides the older and less efficient plants were being partially closed, stated that on neither side of the boundary had the diversion at any time exceeded in the aggregate the daily diversion allowed by the treaty. The board is continuing its records and inspection.
In the meantime a Canadian Niagara research committee, in which the Department of the Interior is co-operating with the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, has been preparing data. The United States War Department has been collecting data and publishing some reports for a .much longer period.
In November, a despatch was received from Washington enclosing a suggestion from the Secretary of State that joint inquiry should be made into the serious erosion of the escarpment of Niagara falls, with a view to preserving the scenic value of the falls from further injury. It was added that such discussions and recommendations should be confined to scenic questions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the date of the last appointment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last November, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And who were the personnel then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Johnston, who has been on this Niagara control board from its inception, and who is perhaps more familiar with the conditions than is anyone else, and associated with him now is Mr. Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the November investigation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. In fact that matter has proceeded to the point where we are now awaiting some further communication from the United States government before what we hope will be the final adjustment is arrived at.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the
trouble was that the United States had not appointed anyone as yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are now
awaiting a communication advising us of their personnel.
Motion withdrawn.



CATTLE INDUSTRY MOTION FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should be appointed to examine into the whole situation of the cattle industry with power to recommend any measures that in their opinion might conduce to the benefit and further development of the industry.
He said: The cattle industry, Mr. Speaker, is one of our principal industries, first in its relation to the greatest of all industries, that of agriculture; in regard to the capital invested; the value of its production, and as to the number of persons employed. I notice that in the Year Book for 1934 in the list of principal industries of Canada that of slaughtering and meat packing is second in 1931 and third in 1922 so far as value of production is concerned. This industry, of course, is almost totally dependent upon the cattle produced in Canada. I notice ilso that in regard to the amount of capital invested the cattle industry stands third or fourth in the list. I might just give a few figures regarding the capital invested in certain leading industries, in order to give a comparison. These figures are to the nearest
million:
Pulp and paper	 $381,000,000
Lath and sh ingle mills	 162,000,000
Automobiles	 47,000,000
Boots, shoes and leather goods	 29,000,000
Foundries and machine shop	.products. 55,000,000
Leather tanneries	 32,000,000
Agricultural implements	 92,000,000
Woollen goods	 20,000,000
I have mentioned these other industries, in order that hon. gentlemen might be impressed with the importance of the cattle industry. I find that the capital invested in that industry is given in this book over a term of years, and as I read the figures I hope hon. members will note the decline in the amount.
1919		 $381,000,000
1920		 228,000,000
1921		 183,000,000
1922		 156,000,000
1923		 143,000,000
This amount of capital does not, of course, include anything for lands or buildings used by those engaged in this industry. If this were included it would be found that the capital invested in the cattle industry is exceeded by that invested in only one or two other industries of Canada.
It is because of the decline in the value of the cattle in (Canada shown by these figures which I have quoted to the House that I am asking to-day for the appointment of a

Cattle Industry
committee of this House to examine into the condition of the cattle industry.
Might I also point out the gross annual revenue, as given by the Canada Year Book, of all farm animals during these same years:
Value
1918		 $194,000,000
1919		 186,000,000
1920		 143,000,000
1921		 98,000,000
1922		 77,000,000
1923		 82,000,000
Hon. members will again note the decline in the annual revenue from all farm animals. In 1920, 70 per cent of the value of all animals marketed in Canada was represented by cattle, so the decline is principally due to the decline in the price of cattle.
The Live Stock Market Review for 1924
gives the estimated per head value of cattle sold on all stock yards in Canada from 1920 to 1924. The per head value for all Canada in 1924 was $43.50; and in 1920, $73.15. Hon. members will note the decline from $73.15 to $431.50. For the same years the per head value of cattle sold on the Calgary stock yard declined from $72.95 in 1920 to $39 in the year 1924.
I have figures here from the Canada Year Book showing the value of all cattle exported from Canada , from 1920 to 1924. I will not give the totals, but simply the average value, as I think that will serve the purpose I have in view:
1920,
1922 1923. 1924
Average value per head of cat tile exported ..	$100
..	50
..	40
..	62
Hon. gentlemen in listening to these figures will realize, I hope, the hard years through which the men engaged in the cattle industry have come. I have here a statement showing the exports of live stock from Canada for a period of ten years, but I shall quote only two or three years to show how it has affected our total export:
No. of head exported	Value
1919	
467,000	$49,000,0001920	
240.000	22,000,0001921	
174,000	9,000,0001922	
212,000	7,000,0001923	
160,000	10,000,0001924	
183,000	12,000,000
That is a tremendous drop, just a little bit over half of what it was in 1920.
I have some further figures here giving the average value of cattle, headed "Other Than Milch Cattle" on Canadian farms for a period
of years from 1915 to 1924. I will simply quote the price per head in each year to show hon. members how the price of cattle had declined:
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
Average Value of Cattle Exported ,	$45
,	54
,	57
.	61
,	58
.	47
,	28
.	26
.	26
.	27
The average value of cattle exported to the United States during these years is as follows:
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920. 1921 1922. 1923 1924.

I have here a page taken from the annual catalogue of the Alberta Cattle Breeders' Association showing the prices which were paid for bulls at the annual spring bull sale at Calgary. I shall give only two or three years to illustrate how the value of these purebred animals has fallen. In the year 1913, which is always taken as a basis for comparison, the price received was $202; in 1925, the price was $128. But the real acid test for the cattleman, Mr. Speaker, is the price which his steers bring on the stock yards of this country when they are ready to market, I have here the prices paid at Calgary in November of each year since the year 1913. I have chosen Calgary because I am more familiar with conditions existing in my own province. I would ask hon. members to note how uniform the prices were from 1912 to 1916. The prices given will be per 100 pounds for live steers in the month of November of each year:
Price per 100 pounds
1912		 $ 6 12
1913	
6	651914	
6	151915	
5	901916	
6	651917	
8	751918	
10	751919	
10	001920	
7	541921	
3	881922	
3	781923	
4	171924	
4	291925	
5	11
Cattle Industry

The Bureau of Statistics price index, using 100 as a basis for 1913, was last month $1.60. This shows the purchasing power of the farmer's dollar to be about 64 cents to-day compared with it was in 1913. This would to-day give his steer ready to market a purchasing power of only 50 per cent of the purchasing power of his steer in 1913. I do not think I can give to this House any better indication of the position the cattle man is In to-day. The cattle industry is of great importance all over Canada, but it is of particular importance in the province from which I come, the province of Alberta, and it is of very sgreat importance to my own constituency. It was in this constituency that the ranching industry was first started in western Canada along the foothills of the Rockies. It was in this area that the Prince of Wales bought a ranch for himself when he visited Canada. I think there is no finer cattle country in Canada than exists in that particular part of Alberta. In 1924 there were shipped from points in this constituency about 16,400 cattle. I find that in that year cattle were marketed on stockyards by provinces as follows:
Alberta	 271,190
Saskatchewan	 207,099
Manitoba	 85,457
Ontario	 382,649
Quebec	 28,625
Unfortunately I have not the statistics for the other provinces. May I point out here that the total number of beef cattle in Alberta, which is, I think, probably the premier cattle province of the Dominion, has decreased from 1,430,364 in 1921 to 1,066,007 in 1925, or a drop of about 400,000 head. These figures, I think, are very significant as to the condition the cattle industry is in today. I may also point out that the number of cattle on the farms of Canada has decreased in the last five years by over one million head according to the figures given by the Bureau of Statistics. In view of these figures, and the facts which I have brought to the attention of the House, it is certainly incumbent upon us to use every possible endeavour to help this industry.
May I point out here that a great deal of money is being expended, and great efforts are being put forth, by the federal Department of Agriculture, the departments of agriculture of the provinces, and by both our railways, to increase the growth of forage crops in western Canada. I have here a little item, taken from one of the western papers, telling of a special train which is being run by the Canadian Pacific railway through the western provinces in an endeavour to enl**r Coote 1
courage the growth of forage crops by the farmers in that part of the Dominion, particularly fodlder com and sweet clover. Now I do not know of any way in which fodder corn and sweet clover can be utilized except by feeding cattle. At the present time I think most men will admit the raising of cattle is not a profitable undertaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: Then what is the use of these farmers being induced to grow sweet clover or fodder corn, or some other kind of fodder crop, unless a profitable market can be found for the cattle which are to be raised on that feed. In many parts of western Canada we are now troubled with what is called soil drifting. This land has been farmed for several years for the raising of grain crops almost exclusively. To prevent this soil drifting we are advised to grow fodder crops so as to get the grass roots back in the soil. I think that is very necessary. At the same time we must have some profitable way of using the crops which are so grown.
I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House in connection with this subject, but I think I have presented enough facts to convince hon. members that something should be done to help this industry if a way can be found to do so. I think the best way to discuss this matter is in a small committee; it is very difficult to do it in a House composed of 240 members. I am now only going to suggest very briefly how the industry may possibly be helped, and I hope that a committee of the House will be appointed which will deal with the matter. We are faced with an exportable surplus of cattle of, I think, between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand head. I did have the figures here but for the moment I have mislaid them. Can we increase the consumption in Canada so that this total surplus may be eaten here? I think it cannot be done at the present moment at any rate; we must export quite a percentage of our cattle crop. The two principal export markets which we have to-day are Great Britain and United States. I find that we are practically shut out of the United States by a tariff of l\ cents per pound on cattle weighing less than 1,050 pounds, and by a tariff of 2 cents a pound on cattle over that weight. Then we have a freight rate from Calgary to Chicago of about $13 per head. The tariff of 2 cents a pound on a 1,200 pound steer amounts to $24. That is we have to pay $37 to get a steer from Calgary into Chicago. Then with respect to our other market, Great Britain, we find that the total freight rate from Calgary to Britain,

Cattle Industry
according to information which is given in a government bulletin here, is $50.79 per head. It seems to me that in the case of both these markets there is a very fertile field for investigation by a committee to determine whether some relief might foe secured for the cattle industry. For instance, I find that the feed for a steer from Montreal to England costs $4.50 per head. It is quite possible that might be reduced. The ocean freight is $20 per head. It is possible that some arrangement might be made whereby that might be reduced. I also notice in the booklet already referred to that the department itself is suggesting the possibility of co-operative shipments to the Old Country. I should like the committee to-carefully investigate that matter and see whether, through some assistance rendered by the federal government, it might be possible to ship cattle co-operatively to Britain. I was told recently by a friend of mine that a neighbour of his had sold some cattle last fall before making a trip to England. He sold one steer in particular for $25. He afterwards engaged on a cattle boat going to England and assisted in feeding the cattle on board. While on the way across he found that this animal which he had sold was one of the stock on the boat. He took the trouble to see some of the steers sold in the Old Country, and although he failed to see his own particular steer sold he observed animals which were very similar in weight and conformation sold for $125 per head. Now the freight over is about $50, and he had secured for the steer $25, a total of $75. But the steer apparently brought in Great Britain approximately $125. If the man who raised the steer in Alberta could have secured that other $50, or even one half of it, it might have encouraged him to stay in the business. It is possible that the committee which I am asking may suggest means by which a part of this spread may be retained for the producer.
I do not want to say very muhh about the United States tariff against our cattle, but I notice that the Financial Post of a recent date had a front page article regarding the benefit of the United States market to Canadian beef cattle. According to the press there is a wish at the present time on the part of a large number of farmers in the corn belt of the United States that the American tariff against Canadian cattle should be lowered or removed. I think that this matter too might be carefully considered by a committee to see whether anything should be done by Canada to co-operate with these United States farmers in an endeavour to secure a reduction of
the tariff. I may point out that the great loss which our cattle men suffer-and which I am sure hon. members will realize by the figures I gave at the opening of my remarks-wa3 largely occasioned by the fact that the United States in 1921 placed an emergency tariff of 30 per cent against our cattle. The following year that duty was changed to the rates I quoted a moment ago, namely li cents a pound on cattle weighing less than 1,050 lbs, and two cents a pound in the case of cattle over that weight.
It should be pointed out that for a period of six or seven years while the United States had cattle on the free list Canada maintained a duty of 25 per cent against cattle coming from the United States into Canada. Mr. Tom King, of Washington, D.C., addressing the Western Canada Live Stock Union in December last, said that in his opinion, if they wished to secure free entry for their cattle into the United States it would be necessary that Canada should grant to the United States the same concessions in regard to the tariff on cattle as we hoped to get from the United States. We must have reciprocity in the matter. I am not going to suggest to this House what should be done. I will simply bring the matter to the attention of the House, and if the committee is appointed I think this point Should be carefully discussed by that committee.
Before closing I desire to give to the House the opinion of the Western Canada Live Stock Union and the request they are making to the members of parliament. Possibly all hon. members have received this request and I will simply read the last three or four sentences:
That Canada oould, if the master were to receive the attention it should, negotiate for the modification or removal of this tariff.
That is it improbable that this (tariff ever would have been put in iforce with respect to Canadian cattle if there had been a Canadian representative at Washington.
We therefore earnestly ask for your active assistance in securing a modification or the domination of this tariff, thus removing this handicap from the cattle industry of Canada.
We would also ask for your interest in securing the appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington, and we believe that when appointed, such representative should be familiar and an sympathy with the live stock industry. Such a representative could be of inestimable service to Canada.
It seems to me that the plight the industry is in, the hard years it has gone through, make it unnecessary for me to speak at any greater length in support of the request that a committee should be appointed to inquire into
Cattle Industry

the industry and report to parliament any measures that in their opinion might conduce to the benefit of the industry. I ask hon. members of this House to give their support to this resolution.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: I can scarcely let this resolution, with which I have so much sympathy, pass this House without saying a few words. Permit me to congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Coote) on his effort in placing before the House the position and needs of the live stock industry, the most important and basic industry in western Canada. It is important because you must have live stock on the farm to produce fertility and to keep the soil and the crops from deterioration. The live stock industry plays an essential part in this feature. The hon. member who introduced the resolution has covered the points pretty well. There are many things of importance pertaining to the live stock industry which come vividly before us. I have appealed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and I have appealed to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) to try to get him to reduce the rate on live stock to Great Britain, but up to the present I have failed Many promises have been made but there has been no action. They say it is impossible to convent the government merchant marine vessels into cattle boats, on account of their construction. However, I have my doubts about that statement. I have shipped on the Canadian government boat Victor and several other boats, and found them splendid cattle boats. If the Jensen boats could be converted into cattle carriers, I do not see why the Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels could not be made available for the carriage of cattle, and thus relieve this industry. A statement was made before toe Railway committee on Friday that the Jensen line was in the hands of a receiver. That is not the case. Mr. Teakle, the manager of the merchant marine I understand made that statement. The boats of the Jensen line were changed in Germany, and in connection with the changing of the boats some dispute arose. The price for the changing of them was to be based on the Clyde estimate, and not on the price fixed in Germany. I understand from the owners or the men who had to do with the Jensen line that the money is waiting in Toronto to pay for the remodelling of the ships. I have asked the government for a 815 rate on cattle and I am about through 
with it. I do not think I will bother the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Agriculture any more. I am not speaking for my own purposes at all, but I am making a plea for the industry. Here we are with a market in Great Britain clamouring for our live stock. There are men the Old Country prepared to buy thousands of cattle. But we have had nothing but promises from the minister. Every time the Minister of Agriculture goes west, he says, "We will give you redress," but so far he has taken no action. I have finished with my appeals to the minister. I cannot make any impression on him and I have done my duty to my constituents.
Here we are in Canada with a dwindling industry. We are shipping 100,000 cattle as the hon. member for Macleod has said. Ireland is shipping a million and the Argentine shipped 1,285,000 cattle as dressed beef. They are shipping those into Great Britain.


Mr. DUNNING:: Do you want to do it
that way?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am going to talk kindly to the minister because I want to make a few converts. Ireland ships a million cattle, Ireland contains 32,605 square miles, Manitoba 255,832 square miles and Canada 3,745,674 square miles. Canada ships a paltry 100,000 cattle when we should be shipping a million. There are lots of cattle in the country. Canada has wonderful possibilities, particularly in the agricultural line. The Minister of Railways knows something about what this industry used to be in the early days, but it has been dwindling every year, because no encouragement is given to it. When you commence to talk to anyone about the cattle industry, he will say, "Get out of the way, I do not want to be bothered with you." But the day will come when people will be bothered with us. Our shipments of cattle are dropping every year and soon they will be at a vfery low figure.
As to the question whether Canada should go into the live cattle industry or the dead meat industry, I say the only hope for Canada is in the live stock and shipping industry. It is absolutely impossible to ship dead beef, and I make that statement after fifty years experience. I tried the experiment of shipping dead meat and suffered losses. The dealers in Ireland want us to get out of the business and to make way for them. In effect they say, "Don't come over to the Old Country with your Canadian steers which are of such a superior quality." I have stood in the Glasgow market and have sold a hundred cattle while the Irishman has been left standing at the rail with the same number. That

Cattle Industry
is due to the stamina, the admirable quality of the Canadian steer as a feeder. I saw Canadian steers eating 112 pounds of turnips a day in Scotland. Anyone who knows anything about the live stock industry knows that a country that goes in for raising live stock is a wealthy country. If you come with me to Illinois or Iowa I will show you a rich country. Scotland, the north of England, or any other country that is in the live stock industry is prosperous and doing well.
As regards shipping dead meat the Argentine Republic ship great quantities of dead meat into the Smithfield market where it is sold for 4 to 41 pence per pound. I have a quotation which came to-day of Canadian cattle selling at 11 pence per pound. What do hon. members want? Do they want to ship dead beef at 41 to 5 pence per pound or do they want to ship live cattle and get into the 11 penny market. The minister through his department tried an experiment in regard to dead meat and I think the loss was $50 per head. They tried live cattle and succeeded. Why is it not possible? The Englishman is a connoisseur on meat; he knows the quality. Scotch home-fed cattle are selling at the highest pinnacle in the Old Country; then come the English home-fed cattle; then come your dressed cattle from the other side of the water and last of all comes the Argentine chilled and frozen meat selling for 4-| pence while the better cattle get the higher prices.
I would not advise anyone to ship yearling steers because nowhere in Canada have we as much roughage feed available as we have in western Canada and in western Ontario we have similar facilities. We should bring our yearlings up to two years or three years until they weigh about 1.200 pounds and when they have reached 1 200 pounds that is the time to send them to the market.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker, when the
House adjourned at six o'clock I was dealing with the live stock industry and trying to steer a few of our members in the right course by pointing out to them the absolute imposs:bility of shipping dead beef in competition with our live cattle. I desire to be brief, but this is a subject of such great importance to the cattle industry of the Dominion that I want to bring it before, the House in a very definite form for the last time, as I have spoken of it so often that I feel sometimes I may have been
thought out of place in referring to the subject.	.	_
Canada has taken a foremost place in England with her live cattle. She cannot retain that place by shipping the beef dead; it is an absolute impossibility. At the greatest cattle fair in England, the Norwich fair, a Canadian steer took the first prize. But there are those in the British Isles who seem to want to get Canada out of the live cattle industry into the chilled meat business; in fact, they are so strongly opposed to the importation of our live cattle that an Irish paper, the Mid-Ulster mail, of September 29, 1923, contained the following article:
Those Canadian "Stores"
At long last the Canadian stock exporters seem to be realizing that in attempting to send store cattle into Great Britain in open competition with Irish stores they are "on a bad egg," and that the removal of the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle was not, for the Dominion stock-breeder, synonymous with an introduction to El Dorado.
It is now announced in the press that Colonel Mullins, of Winnipeg, who is largely interested in the export of cattle from western Canada to England, has accepted an invitation to attend an agricultural conference in London at the end of December to explain how the present high freights have put business out of the question. Exactly, btit let us not forget that high freight rates are not entirely to blame for the lack of business in Canadian store cattle. From first to last this embargo business has been a "stunt"-in Canada worked by the politicians, and in England by some sections of the press. Cattlemen in the Dominion who understood their business never wanted the embargo raised, for the very good and sufficient reason that Canada can put meat on the British market for 3d a pound less as chilled beef than when the animals are imported alive into this country.
Several shipments of Canadian cattle have been landed in Britain this year, but in the majority of eases the animals have not been "stores." They are practically fat cattle, and some of them had even been specially fed in Canada so that when they arrived they would create a good impression among British cattle buyers. When consignments of real Canadian "stores" arrived the animals were in many cases practically unsaleable, being considered too old and too rough to repay the cost of finishing in the fields of the Mother Country.
It is evident that Ireland desires to divert Canada into the chilled beef line of business. Now I do not want to see this country make that mistake and so let the Irish cattle breeders have a monopoly of the store cattle market in Great Britain. The prices in England to-day are very high, lid. per pound, while chilled beef is selling at from 41d to 5d. Lord Bledisloe has become a convert to the purchase of Canadian cattle. At one time he was our absolute enemy, but he has purchased 100 Canadian steers and placed them on his grass. England wants as many cattle as we can send; we have an unlimited market
Cattle Industry


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the House on this resolution, namely:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should be appointed to examine into the whole situation of the cattle industry with power to recommend any measures that in their opinion might conduce to the benefit and further development of the industry.
let me say, that the words of Horace Greeley are as true to-day as they were the day they were uttered, when he said: "At the head of all science and art, at the head of all progress and civilization stands, not militarism, the science that kills, not commerce, the art that enriches, but agriculture, the mother of all industry and the maintainer of human life.'' This is an expression which we in Canada might well take to heart, and we might well consider it at this present time when we are discussing the possibilities of this country, because we know that when agriculture in Canada is prosperous it follows that every other industry will naturally be prosperous. That fact has been brought home to us very plainly during the last twelve months, as the result of the splendid harvest and the splendid success which has attended our agricultural operations throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion.
We have heard a great deal said on the floor of parliament this session, and a good deal from our hon. friends opposite, respecting the keeping of the boy on the farm. It has been amusing all through life to me to listen to these fellows, some of whom have been born on the farm, and who are now engaged in other walks of life, turning and telling us that we should do everything possible to keep the boy on the farm. It reminds
me, Sir, of the following lines which I noticed recently in a New York journal:
"Stick to the farm," said the president To the wide-eyed country hoy,
Then he hied him away to his White House home With an air of rustic joy.
"Stick to the farm," said the railroad king To the lad who looks afar,
Then he hies him back on the double quick In his rustic private car.
"Stick to the farm," said the clergyman To the lad on the worm fence perched,
Then he lays his ear to the ground To hear a call to the city church.
"Stick to the farm," said the doctor wise To those who would break the rut,
Then he hies him away where appendix grows In bountiful crops to cut.
If you can show to the farmer's boy that there is a sufficient margin of profit in the old farm, you will not need to give him advice to stay on the farm. He will see it just as quickly as anybody else, and he will not be looking over the weekly newspaper to see where Doctor So-and-So gets possibly two or three hundred dollars for the performance of some operation, and Lawyer So-and-So four or five hundred dollars for the pleading of a case, or somebody else gets five or ten thousand dollars for the promotion of some scheme or another. That is the way the thing is going to too great a degree.
We have heard them talk about protection to keep the boy on the farm. We know in this country that in the main there is no such thing as protecting the farmer. You may ask what this has to do with the live stock industry.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas McMillan: It is the same response we have heard from my friends opposite during almost every discussion this session. We hear it to-night from the men who know absolutely nothing about conditions on the farm. They are the first to say, " Hear, hear." They wonder what this has to do with conditions on the farm, when every person who knows anything about agriculture knows that the live stock industry is the very right arm of a permanently successful agriculture. I am not one of those who would say to our western farmers, or to the young man who comes out from the Old Country and goes to our western prairies: You must at once engage in live stock lines. Not at all. These men have to do as circumstances will permit them, nevertheless, if we are going to make agriculture as successful as it ought to be, if we
Cattle Industry

everything he requires in the matter of raw material at the lowest possible cost.
I have often heard it said by hon. gentlemen: "Oh, I would not treat with the American people at all." What are the conditions? Here we are, two friendly nations, living alongside of each other, with two artificial tariff walls' built up by each country against the other, and yet in the face of those walls, out of a total foreign trade of 2,255 million dollars we are doing over 1,095 million dollars' worth of business, almost one-half the entire trade of the country, with our American cousins across the border. Does that fact not prove how anxious these two people are to do business, the one with the other? Trade is not a national business. Trade is an individual matter, and if a Canadian buys anything across the line he does so for one reason only, and that is he thinks he can get better value for his money by purchasing there than he can get anywhere else in the world. If an American does any business in this countiy it is for the same reason. Therefore, I repeat, to such a degree do the people of the two countries realize that they can do better trading with each other than with any other countries that nearly one-half our entire foreign trade is carried on with the United States. Is that not at once an illustration of the power of natural trade laws, and an indication of the only rational trade policy? I do hope that as soon as possible we may be able to show the great benefits which will result to both these countries by the following of such a policy to a greater degree than we have been able to do up to the present time.
When we consider the terms of this resolution we find that it embodies another thing. If this is to become a great agricultural country and continue to grow and thrive as it ought to, we must not only encourage a system of keeping live stock but encourage the keeping of the very best class of animals which can be obtained. That is something which, if I wished, I could spend hours dilating upon, because as agriculturists the greatest drawback towards the success of the live stock industry in this country is that those who are engaged in the business do not understand the science of live stock breeding and feeding to the degree to which it ought to be understood. If we did understand and practice the proper system of live stock production we would not see so many of those half-starved animals going into every live stock market from week to week and month to month. To accomplish the best results, a start must be made during the breeding period. Whenever animals are dropped we should realize that the first func-

tion of food is to support the requirements of the animal system, and it is only from what the animal can properly digest and assimilate over and above that which is required to support the animal system that we can derive a profit. Therefore it should be the aim 'of every farmer, of every live stock raiser, so to look after those animals from the moment they are dropped as long as he keeps them in his possession, that when he disposes of them they will be in such a condition that he can get the highest price it is possible to obtain in the best market.
I am not going to continue this discussion at any greater length because there are members to my right and to my left who are able to give us a great deal of valuable information along this line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas McMillan: Hon. friends apposite
may say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Thomas McMillan: If there are any questions which my hon. friends across the way desire to ask, I would be glad to try to answer them. Tha question might be put: What is the use of trying to get freer access to the markets of the United States when our United States cousins seem inclined to raise their tariff still higher? What are the conditions? I have the report of that great gathering held at Des Moines in the month of December last where a million farmers met to discuss their conditions, and for the benefit of every member I would like to place upon Hansard some of the particulars regarding that meeting. That conference was held prior to the sitting of the present congress and these farmers, about a million strong, were preparing their presentation for submission to congress. To-day congress has rejected the only proposition that has been placed before it that would go to help the United States farmer out of the undesirable position in which he finds himself as a result of a high protective tariff in that country. I happened to be on the other side while this conference was in session and this is the report from the St. Paul Pioneer Press.


Eccles James Gott: I thought the hon. member
was speaking in the interest of the Canadian farmer.


Thomas McMillan: I am. If my hon.
friend will follow me, the point I want to make is that the United States farmers realize that protection has been such an injury to them that they think it is time it should be removed, and when protection against the

Cattle Industry
United States farmer is removed the Canadian farmer will be permitted to enter the United States market and get the benefit of the best live stock market in the world for his product. I wish my hon. friend who is situated a great deal nearer the border than I am would listen to what I am about to read:
Des Moines, December 22/26.-Representatives of a milibon western farmers issued tiheir manifesto at the dosing session to-day of the conference of the corn-belt committee and the executive committee of the American Council of Agriculture.
Th-ey repudiated the President's speech before the American Farm Bureau Federation convention at Chicago.
They declared in principle for the export co-operation idea-
That is the McNary-Haugen bill which has been defeated in congress.
-the legislation to take the "simplest form compatible with effectiveness" and to promote the co-operative movement. They saluted the Jardine co-operative bill with the statement that "it is not information we need but a fair price."
They assailed the Fordney-McCumber tariff.
They made an overature to the agriculture of the south for union with that of tlhe west for a common effort for a common end.
They appointed a joint legislative committee of twelve with power to speak for the twenty-eight, organizations represented at the meeting, to co-operate with the spokesmen of other bona fide producers' associations of the south.
They authorized the organization of an agricultural statistical department to be situated at Des Moines, comparable in efficiency to those maintained by railroads and other great interests.
"With all due respect to the President," the conference declared, "we desire to say that the farmers of this country know the source of their difficulties."
The reference was to the President's speech at Chicago in which he disparaged the movement to make the tariff effective on the major products of agriculture. The Chicago speech drew the fire of the conference in a lengthy declaration closing with the pronouncement that agriculture "once more demands equality."
They realize that agriculture in the United States cannot be protected, cannot be given the benefits which protection will accord to the other great industries in that republic. The report continues:
"We protest against such a misrepresentation of the movement for equality in which the people of the great staple growing empire of America are enlisted with all their hearts," the declaration, sets forth. "We protest against the abrupt dismissal of a petition in the formulation of	which the	best	intelligence	of agriculture has put so	many years of	devoted and sincere
study."
The conference asks, if the tariff is of so great benefit to farming as the	President	said,	"how can	the factbe explained that	although	this	tariff has	been in
operation for five years agriculture is at this hour staggering on the brink of complete collapse?"
It says to Congress that either agriculture must be brought within the system or it must expect to see agriculture declare a war on the protective system.
That was the viewjpoint before congress assembled, before the McNary-Haugen bill
was discussed on the floor of the United States congress. That bill has now been rejected. The farmers of the United States are placed where they were before, and as a
9 p.m. result of their present situation do hon. members think they are going to continue to lie under the great detriment of a high protective system which, while accorded to the other great industries, does not benefit the United States farmer? Further, more than sixty-six per cent of the people of the United States of America reside in towns and cities and all these people, more particularly those who have not a large income, require the necessities of life as cheaply as possible. For the benefit of Canadian agriculture, if we could only get access to the American market we know there are in the cities of the eastern states more men able to command an annual income of $10,000 a year than are to be found in all the rest of the world. These individuals do not require to consider the cost of living; they are bound to have the best at any price. Canada, on account of her northern climate and her capabilities, on account of the brain and brawn of her people, is able to produce the best goods in the world, and1 if we could secure access to those markets our superior quality of product would displace a great deal of the inferior article produced by the United States farmer to the wonderful benefit of the Canadian farmer. For these reasons, which I have in a few minutes tried to enunciate, it is the duty of this House to see to it if possible that a committee is appointed to make an exhaustive investigation into the whole matter of the live stock industry of Canada with a view of finding some remedy, through the medium of cheaper transportation and better returns, which will enable us to produce more profitably in the future than we have done in the past.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I have been impressed by this debate and still more by the debate which recently took place in Washington, where it was brought out that the American farmer did occupy an unfair position in the protective system of the United States-so unfair that even the president and the government had under consideration a policy of subvention or of loans to equalize the position of the agricultural interests with that enjoyed by the industrial organizations of the United States. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. McMillan) presented an argument which I admired, but I do not think
Cattle Industry

Cattle Industry

in the United States. I know something about the situation in the midwestern states. I know a great many of the men who are connected with the American Farm Bureau Association. I know something of the difficulties the farmers have been in in that country. Some are in those difficulties yet, but in the by and large there is no one there who will tell you truly that conditions are not far better now than they were five or even four years ago.
What is proposed in the McNary-Haugen bill, to which allusion has been made? It is not proposed that the United States should do away with protection and become a free trade country; not at all. What is proposed is ^merely to provide a huge sum of 'money, $675,000,000, for the purpose of taking care of the exportable surplus produced in that country. There is no desire among those people in the central states to do away with protection; there is no movement of that kind there. Who is the one outstanding figure in this whole movement? Ex-Governor Frank O. Lowden, of the state of Illinois, and a more staunch protectionist you cannot find either in the United States or Canada or in any other part of the world. The men who are foremost in that movement of the American Farm Bureau Association believe that protection, properly applied, will protect the farmer in the United States just as it will in any other country, and I share that view. Some people have said that a man is a protectionist in his early youth, and again just before he dies, and that in between he is something else. That may be so, but the fact remains that agriculture in this country can, in my humble judgment, be protected, and that protection will give it added assistance and new life. If we have not been protecting it in the past, that is no reason why we ought not to protect it in the future. If we have not been doing the necessary things to create new wealth in the past, that is no reason why we ought not to do them in the future. Some of these things occur to this House from time to time. Others, I believe, could very well be studied by a group of experts in this country. I have not had a chance to examine into all of the studies that Doctor Tory, for instance, has made, but I say to this government and to the last government and to any other government, that if we would utilize one-hundredth part of the intelligence of our universities and of our business men, and of the genius of the people of this country, we would find solutions for a great many of the problems which are now left to drift from session to session.


Mr. WARD:: Hon. gentlemen to our right frequently tell us that they are going to protect the farmer. I think it would only be fair to the House if they would explain just how they are going to protect the Canadian farmer as such.


Mr. FOSTER:: 
William John Ward: Does the hon. member advocate subsidizing the wheat growers of Canada?


George Eulas Foster: I was coming to a statement which would, I think, take care of the query which has just been addressed to me. As to subsidies, being a protectionist, and .subsidies being the highest form of protection, I am able to advocate a subsidy where it is necessary to produce new wealth from the resources of this country. I do not hesitate to say that. In the four years from 1919 to 1922 the United Kingdom imported some 670,000,000 bushels of wheat. Of that amount 60 per cent came from foreign countries and 40 per cent from the dominions, and on the average that 40 per cent which came from the dominions cost the British consumer 42 cents a bushel less than he paid for his world wheat, or the wheat he bought from foreign countries. I realize that that statement will likely be challenged, because men will say: WTien wheat is sold at the Liverpool price, how is it possible for that to be true? Well, the fact that it is true can be verified by referring to the imports of the United Kingdom for those

Cattle Industry
years, which will be found in the library, if you take your pencil and divide the number of bushels into the cost to the British consumer, c.i.f., you will find that the statement I make, which bears the imprimatur of the British government, is absolutely true. So when the hon. Minister of Agriculture says he hesitates to ask the British people to reconsider their attitude on preference because this government does not feel like asking the British consumer to tax himself in favour of Canadian goods, I say to him that the British consumer of wheat in these four years-I have not been able to get the returns for later years-taxed himself on the average 42 cents a bushel more for foreign wheat than he did for empire grown wheat.


William John Ward: Would the hon. member advocate such a policy with regard to cattle?


George Eulas Foster: We do not need that. The hon. gentleman and those surrounding him talk about the identity of our wheat being preserved in western Canada. I say to this House that the identity of Canadian wheat is lost when it crosses the border into the United States, and the British consumer knows nothing about the identity of this Canadian wheat when it is mixed with American grain.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Are you sure of
that?


George Eulas Foster: I am as sure of it as the English people are sure of it themselves, and they say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) says, "No, no". Does he say that English people who pretend to know the trade have not told me that? I am sure he would not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, his statement is entirely contrary to all the evidence taken by the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission from the British importers. There was very little complaint as to the integrity of the Canadian certificate giving the Canadian government guarantee as to the quality and identity of our wheat.


George Eulas Foster: Shipped by Canadiain ports direct to Great Britain, or shipped through American ports and mixed with American wheat?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
take the trouble to read the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, he will find that all the evidence indicated that wheat 14011-247i
of Canadian origin, whatever route it might have taken to get to the Old Country had, on the Whole, lived up to the specifications of the Canadian law and the Canadian certificate.


George Eulas Foster: That is true of wheat
shipped from Canadian ports only, if it is true at all. I wish to point out that our trade returns show that 176,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat were shipped to the United Kingdom in the year 1923. The English returns for the same year show that only 47,000,000 bushels were imported from Canada. Now where did the rest go? It went somewhere else, to countries other than the United Kingdom. That 47,000,000 bushels that was imported by Great Britain from Canada may have lived up to the grades at which it left this country. I am not finding fault with that; perhaps that is what the minister refers to. But take the millions of bushels that go through Buffalo and other United States ports, and which are mixed with American grain and then shipped overseas. Surely the identity of that Canadian grain is lost; there is no question about that. So that after all my point is this: A system of education amongst the British people themselves should be undertaken, and in addition to that distribution centres, not controlled by foreign countries, should be established. Because practically every avenue for the distribution of Canadian wheat in Great Britain to-day is a distribution centre which handles wheat from the Argentine and from every other foreign country from which Great Britain makes importa-[DOT] tions. Consequently it is in a position to determine what quantities of foreign wheat shall be handled there, what quantities of Canadian wheat for example, and the price is set according to the world's parity, although it may differ in different months of the year. The subject is a complex one and I state at once that I do not know everything about the problems of wheat. That may be apparent from my remarks, but I also say this: I have given the subject some close study, and I daresay there are many other hon. gentlemen here who have not given it any study at all. I have been interested in the matter because I am trying to find in my own mind some basis upon which we in the east could stand and assist the people in the west. In other words, the application of protection to Canada and the empire as well. If, for instance, Great Britain bought one hundred million more bushels of Canadian wheat and paid 20 cents more a bushel for it, instead of
Cattle Industry

42 cents less as she did in 1919-1922, then the market there for world-grown wheat would be one hundred million bushels less. Is it not reasonable to suppose that under those circumstances the price of foreign wheat in Great Britain might fall 20 cents? If so the British consumer would be 20 cents in pocket for every bushel he consumed, and the Canadian selling his wheat there would also be 20 cents a bushel in pocket by virtue of the higher price. I give that to hon. gentlemen as a point to think about.
I believe that the new Self-Supporting League recently established in England, with the object of enlightening the people there as to the quality and value of the various products which are imported into the United Kingdom and sold there, will accomplish a great deal of good, and that the overseas dominions will reap some benefit in this direction. That the embargo on Canadian cattle was not removed for a considerable number of years was due largely, I think, to personal interest somewhere on the other side. If we can harness personal interest in the Mother Country with personal interest in the dominions overseas-with personal interest in Australia, South Africa and Canada-if we can get on common ground in the matter of marketing the products of the far flung portions of this empire, in the heart of the empire, and get a preference in exchange for a preference I think we shall make progress along the line of developing not only industrial life but farming life in the overseas dominions themselves as well as in the Mother Country.
I may tell hon. gentlemen who are interested that if they will get in touch with the secretary of the Self-Supporting League in London they will get from him information which bears the imprimatur of Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, along the various lines I have been speaking of. Furthermore, the British government are giving close attention and study to this subject to-day with the idea not only of doing something in the direction of developing trade between the various portions of the empire but also along the far greater line of providing opportunities in the dominions where people from Great Britain can go and establish homes animated by the hope of finding a market in the land they have left for the [DOT]commodities they subsequently produce. My argument applies not only to wheat but to the apple industry and to many other industries in Canada, in the east as well as in the [DOT]west.


Mr. MILLAR:: Did I understand the hon.
gentleman to say that the British people paid more for wheat because it was wheat from Canada?


George Eulas Foster: No, the hon. gentleman
misunderstood me, I stated the very reverse of that. I said that in the years 1919 to 1922 the British people, on the average, paid 42 cents more per bushel for foreign wheat than they did for wheat grown or purchased in Canada, Australia, and other parts of the empire. That was the statement I made.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Did not government
control in this country have something to do with that?


George Eulas Foster: Not in those years, I think.


John Vallance: There was government
control in 1919.


George Eulas Foster: That may have been the
case in 1919, but not in other years subsequently. There are a great many factors which account for the existence of such a condition which I could rjot explain in a four hour speech; at least it would take the greatest part of that time to explain it even if I could offer a full explanation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: Some hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. They do not know anything about the subject themselves, they have never studied it. They would probably say, with a smile and a smirk, that it was not true that the British government paid 42 cents more for foreign wheat. May I point out, however, that the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin has issued a statement, which is to be found at the very beginning of a certain book, in which these facts are set forth, not only with regard to wheat but as respects many other products, including live stock, chilled meat, apples and all the other commodities which have been imported into Great Britain during the years I spoke of.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a very important
statement, that Canadian wheat sold on the average in Great Britain during a period of four years at 42 cents a bushel less than the price at which foreign wheat was sold in the same country during the same years.


George Eulas Foster: Correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like my hon.
friend to please quote his authority for the statement, because it is very interesting and very important to Canada, if true.

Cattle Industry


George Eulas Foster: I did not intend to discuss
this subject this evening and therefore did not bring the necessary documents with me, but if a page will go up to my room and bring down a statement of British imports to be found there I will quote thej necessary authority to my hon. friend. Or, if he prefers it, I will send the documents over to him when I have finished my speech and he can figure the prices out for himself.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish you would.


George Eulas Foster: I am not giving this information to the House as taken from Belcher's Almanac, or some authority of that kind. These are facts which will stagger the English people themselves. I have only been able to examine the period from 1919 to 1922. Whether the same condition has obtained since then is another matter. However, the fact remains that the statement I made is correct according to the imports of the United Kingdom for the years mentioned.


Mr. EVANS:: Is my hon. friend's statement true of wheat delivered in the same month to Great Britain from different parts of the world, or does it refer to a time when it was not possible to effect delivery on Canadian wheat?


George Eulas Foster: I appreciate my hon. friend's question and perhaps the factors he speaks of entered into the situation. However, the cost of which I have reference was the average cost for all months. Of course the competition from Argentine and other countries during the months when our wheat is being marketed enters into the matter.
Now I want to make another observation in connection with the very important resolution we are now considering. It is that this government, or any government in power in Canada, can afford to let a great many of our undertakings in the matter of public works, stand for the time, and concentrate their attention and the attention of parliament upon these very important industries, the cattle industry, the agricultural industry, and above all the manufacturing industry. I believe we have got to find new avenues and new methods for the financing of new enterprises in this country, because it certainly will be utterly impossible for anybody to go out among the investing public-certainly no group of men in this House can do it-and get new capital for new industries; they will not be able to sell new preferred stock, or bonds, or common stock in new enterprises, directly the people become seized of the fact that double taxation will have to be paid-that is if that taxation
remains. In any case, if it does not remain, the difficulties in a new country are to get money for the development of our industries, save and except that money which comes in in large developments through such sources as the International Pulp and Paper Company, and similar corporations, who bring in forty or fifty millions for the development of a water power or some other national monopoly. That is an investment entire and apart from those I have in mind, because back of that they have large properties upon which they can issue further bonds and stock, et cetera. But I am speaking of new capital for new industry, and it seems to me that in this particular line this government and this parliament has to devise some new method of assistance, in order that we may have new industrial life in this country, new agricultural life and new cattle industry in portions where it does not now exist. I believe it is possible to have t'hiis renewed vigour in a nation devoting itself to that financing and that development through private sources, if you will, or by whatever method may be devised, and we wil find here plenty of attraction for immigrants all over the country, even from the United States. Once we have provided the places to work in, which are infinitely more important than the places to live in, we will have immigration. If we provide places to work, whether in the workshop or on the farm, immigration will take place and those who come will stay here. Under present conditions the immigrants come, remain only a short time and pass on, and the thirty or forty millions we have spent in the last few years, so far as the sum total of development in our country is concerned, might as well, in my humble judgment, not be spent.
I support the resolution, not because I believe the appointment of the committee will bring us nearer to a solution this session, but because I think we should have all the information we can obtain on the industry from whatever source it comes, so as to be able to make up our minds what we can do. While I do not believe we can do much this session, I support the resolution for the reason I have given.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
wish to congratulate the mover of this resolution (Mr. Coote) for having presented it to the House. While we cannot perhaps gain much new information, I think we may get light on some phase of the subject that will assist us in securing a partial solution of the situation as we find it. There is nothing more
Cattle Industry

important in my opinion in agriculture than the development of the live stock industry and of a mixed system of farming, in preference to a single crop system. I do not criticize or censure the man who settles on a new piece of land where Providence has supplied him with nitrogen, potash and phosphates, which he can help himself to in favourable years. I think he is quite right in getting himself established by securing as much natural wealth from the soil in the early years of his occupation as he can. These products assist him in becoming established. History will repeat itself on the new lands in Canada, as it has done in all parts of the continent of America; after ,a while that stored-up fertility of the soil will become exhausted and he will have to adopt a mixed system of farming, or live as some men do who grow wheat on poor soil in some other parts of the world.
I think it has been clearly shown that we can produce in Canada as high a quality of beef as can be grown anywhere. We have on more than one occasion shipped grass beef from Alberta to the Chicago market, where it has easily topped the market and Obtained a higher price than the American beef sent from the various American states. We have also shipped some of our store cattle over to Great Britain, where they have been prepared and finished by the feeders on the other side, and in competition with the best British animals at some of their most important exhibitions have won the first prize. 'In British Columbia we produce a very 'high quality of beef on our ranges, and I wish to say that the taste of British Columbia bunch grass beef would attract a person under any conditions. We have in that province one of the largest cattle ranches in Canada. Among the various problems we have to meet in the cattle business are first, the production of good quality, secondly, the growing and finishing of those animals, and third, the [DOT]spreading out of our marketing system [DOT] over a greater period of the year. These are problems that can be controlled very largely by the farmer himself. In the first place, he requires to breed properly in order to produce the proper kind of beef; in the second place he must feed that beef liberally during the growing years, and then finish it off to a greater extent on our western plains and on our western farm lands than is being done at the present time. I quite understand that it requires a good deal of skill and perhaps some more expensive appliances in the feeding of cattle, although in the western country those animals feed out in the open, with the light brush found there as a protection,
[Mr. Tolmie.l
do much better than those tied up. In that great country where cheap food is easily secured the feeding of cattle should be profitable.
Another serious fault is rushing the cattle to market during the last three months of the year. I have seen train loads of cattle being sent out to the market at Winnipeg heading from the newer sections of the prairie provinces and these cattle looked as though they were bred for speed rather than for beef. It is no wonder they secured only a small price when they reached their destination.
With regard to freight rates, in a country with such large areas and huge distances the question of rates will always be an important matter in transporting the animals to market, and every effort should be made to lower the freight rates as far as possible. There are many problems in connection with the shipment of cattle across the Atlantic which have to be seriously considered, and the matter of fixing freight rates is not nearly so easy as one might be induced to think after hearing some of the remarks which have been made on this question. Return cargoes have to be looked for and many other things have to be taken into consideration before a solution of the problem can be found.
In regard to the shipment of chilled meat as compared with live beef to the British market, it has been solved long ago. Argentine can beat us in the matter of chilled beef. I was much surprised to find the uniform quality of the Argentine beef in the Smith-field market in London in 1921. The quarters were very similar, well-conditioned and even in quality, and much in demand by those who desired beef that had been chilled or frozen. However, the Britisher is perhaps the best judge of roast beef in the world-and he has not acquired his knowledge in a short time; he has acquired it after hundreds of years. At the time I was there fresh-killed beef was at least 50 per cent higher than the chilled article, so that it is reasonable to say that when the Britisher demands that quality of beef we must pay attention to that particular phase of our export market rather than attempt to make any experiment at the present time.
Again, Argentine is able to produce her beef at a very much lower cost. Therefore when it comes into competition with that beef on the other side our chances of success would not be good.
We have heard the United States referred to on two or three occasions to-night and I am quite sure that anyone familiar with the live stock business will admit at.	*u-t

Cattle Industry
the United States, situated as closely as it is on the south, is the natural market for our beef. But the people of the United States have something to say about that and we are not going to be able to remove that tariff until they feel inclined to do so and that it is to their benefit to have the tariff removed. The range cattle men of the United States cover a large part of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Washington and Oregon, parts of California and Nevada. These men are producing meat under the same conditions as our men on the western prairies. They are looking fo.r a market in the -corn-belt. It is these men who together with many other farmers brought pressure to bear on the United States government in 1920 and brought in the emergency tariff at that time to be followed shortly afterwards by what is known as the Fordney tariff.
Therefore the United States farmers are not inclined to favour the removal of the tariff and I am rather surprised to hear that there have been some large meetings of farmers asking for this. I would imagine they would be largely influenced by the Democratic party. Only a week or two ago I quoted a number of articles from various live stock papers in the United States clearly showing that when the dairy industry was in jeopardy only a few months ago the United States did not hesitate to increase their tariff on butter by 50 per cent. In addition to that, resolutions I quoted showed that they desired an increased tariff on canned meats, hides and some of the other by-products of cattle.
With regard to the British market I think at the present time we might supply animals of better quality. As I said a short time ago better breeding of our live stock and better feeding of these animals during the growing period will, if carried on in this country, have good results in relation to our success in the British market. We are a little short of animals of as high a quality as might be desired and there is some inclination on the part of some shippers to fill out shipments of cattle with animals of an inferior quality. This is not going to help our market in Great Britain. We have established a high standard there and we should maintain it so as to keep Canadian cattle continuously in demand in that country.
Another very important market is the home market and we should produce beef of a better quality. I will never forget attending the annual meeting of the Aberdeen Angus Breeders' Association in the city of Brandon a few vears ago when beef was served from prize steers. This was the finest beef I ever
tasted in this or any other oountry and anyone getting a taste of such beef as that would want as much of the same quality as he could possibly get. One of the reasons why people do not consume more beef in this country is because they frequently get beef of a very poor quality. Just to-night I faced a piece of roast beef that I had to give up after arguing my way through half of it. It was so tough it would drive a hungry man away from a chuck wagon. It is by raising a high quality of beef and putting -it on the market so that it will be more attractive to the consumer that we shall help to build up our home market.
Beef has to face the competition of discarded old dairy cows that have done years of service in the dairy business and that have earned their cost over and over again. When they reach an age when they are of no more profit in the dairy business they are sent to the packing house. If we produce more of a good quality of beef to come into competition with those animals, we can drive them into a can or a sausage casing, which is where they really belong.
We should make every effort to gain entry into Great Britain with our dairy cattle. We have been more progressive than any other country in the world in cleaning up our dairy herds and placing them on a good, sound healthy basis by the use of the tuberculin test. We have developed the producing quality of our dairy animals to a great extent so that they will be in demand in any country in the world. We have on more than one occasion held the dairy record for the production of milk and butter, and after looking over some of the dairy herds of Great Britain I am quite sure they could be much improved by the addition of some good Canadian cattle.
I heard the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) comparing farming conditions in Canada with those in Great Britain. The farmer in Great Britain is not a pioneer farmer; he is on a farm that has been cultivated for many ears. He is farming land that is under drained, that has probably permanent fences and permanent buildings, and in that way he does not have to invest much money on capital account. In my farming operations west of the mountains I have always found that when I get a little bit of money saved up I have somewhere to put it, such as in clearing land, putting up a fence or new buildings, or draining land. The British farmer has not these things to do and he is consequently aJble to put more money aside where a reasonable profit can be made.
Cattle Industry

I am rather surprised to hear the statement about the United States farmers not desiring a tariff, because as I said a moment ago the government did not hesitate to increase the tariff in the United States on dairy butter once the farmers made an appeal to have that done. With regard to the Haugen bill, which has been referred to on more than one occasion to-night, this had its object, if I understand it correctly, the assistance of the United States congress in finding a market for the surplus products of the fanners of that country. The great objection to this, I understand, is that if a price was set above the normal market prices of the world it would cause a tremendous increase in the production of these particular products with the result that it would be very difficult to find a market for the surplus, and the deficit would have to be carried by the United States government.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for South Huron, who I know is an expert in the breeding of beef cattle, a gentleman whom I met on Farmers' Institute platforms years ago west of the mountains, and who is well known to the beef producers of Canada. I heard him a few minutes ago speaking about the wonderful market in the United States. I quite agree with him. He also referred to
10 p.m. that market of moneyed men in the larger and more populous centres, the men in those centres who would demand a nice thick, juicy steak from a choice steer and who are not afraid to pay for it. In some of the United States hotels it is not uncommon to pay as high as three dollars for such a steak. Let me ask my hon. friend how those conditions were created in that country. How did they get their wealth? Why are those people able to pay those high prices for the products of the farm? This has occurred in a country that has maintained for many years the highest protection in the world. They have conserved for their people the wealth of that country; they have conserved for themselves their own market, and just as soon as we get sense enough to plug up the leak in Canada, to keep our home market for ourselves and keep our young men at home, we shall enjoy our full measure of prosperity.
The hon. member sitting to my right (Mr. Maclean) also referred to a proposal of his to combine the two great railways of Canada.
I have been informed by some of our largest shippers that if there is one thing in the world they do not want it is a combination of these two roads. They said that while freight rates were fixed on the same basis on these two roads, still there was a great deal of competition for the business, which was very beneficial [Mr. Tolmie.3
to the live stock owners, and as a result they got their cars much quicker and in better condition and the animals were handled much more expeditiously to the market than under the old conditions when one railway controlled the whole situation.
I have very much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in suporting the resolution.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, I find myself
largely in agreement with the very excellent remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). Indeed, I doubt very much if we could work up any controversy over a resolution with the spirit of which most of us seem to be in hearty accord. I think it is generally accepted that we can not have agriculture in a permanent and sound condition without some form of live stock. It will be recalled that after the war probably no line of agriculture was more severely hit by the terrible deflation of 1920 than live stock. Most of us expected there would be a tremendous slump in grain prices, and many farmers thought they would make provision for it by going more largely into live stock, only to be hit at least as quickly and sometimes more fatally than were the grain-growers. It was because of that deflation, and of the further fact that we were shut out of the American market by the tariff and had not yet acquired the British market by the removal of the embargo, that our live stock men found themselves wrestling with three difficulties-terrible deflation of price, exclusion from the American market, and the British market still closed to them. As a result the live stock industry, especially in the ranching country, was struck a staggering blow and for a while we were afraid it would disappear. Since then there been a marked improvement, especially during the last two or three years, not only in the quantity and quality of our live stock but also in prices and profits.
Just a word on the British market.. While it is far away it has many advantages. There are three conditions we must comply with before we can get in there and stay: one is quantity, the next is quality, and the third is continuity of supply. There is a general opinion that if we have a run of cattle in the early spring and another in the fall, that will suit the British market. This is not correct according to my information. That market will take Canadian cattle every week and every month of the year, provided you have the right kind to offer. What we have shipped

Cattle Industry
so far is only a bagatelle required with the aggregate requirements of that market.
Why is it we need more quantity now? It is true that the quantity that is being shipped to-day to Great Britain as compared with 1922, the year before the embargo was taken off, -has increased 500 per cent, and during the same period our shipments to the United States have decreased 230 per cent leaving a slight net gain in the aggregate of our shipments. But why are there not moire? I can remember when almost every farmer of western Ontario had a fine bunch of steers which he turned out for the admiration of the visitor. Down in the Mari times, adjalcent to the bay of Fundy, where the hay barns sometimes are full to overflowing, with the hay market gone and no stock to feed it to, why are they not shipping more beef stockers to the British .market? I wonder if we have lost the desire for the constant work that usually goes with fattening live stock? Or is it because our youths for the most part have left the eastern farms and are doing this work out west? Whatever the reason may be, we have to start over again and build up this industry. Therefore, is it not natural that it should take time, to build it up? For thirty long years this industry with the Old Country was destroyed, and now we have to build it up almost from the bottom. During the three short years we have been able to increase our shipments, as I say, by 500 per cent, though we have to admit during the same time a decrease in our business with the United States of 230 per cent.
The fact that we are deprived largely of the American market has driven us to the overseas market and has had the effect of improving the quality of our stock; because nothing but quality can afford to pay the freight rates for that tremendous distance. To that extent, perhaps, we have benefited. That is to say, the more remote your market, the higher the quality of the goods must be to stand the freight carrying charges. The poorer the quality of your live cattle, the nearer at home you must market them because they will not cany themselves to the distant market. Consequently we have an incidental advantage in the improvement of our stock. I do not take much consolation from that fact, for I should like to have both the American and the British market, but having been deprived of the former, it was nothing but a godsend that shortly after we secured practically free access to the latter. Continuity means that we must be in the business in
earnest, shipping every month of the year, so that those who have gratified their appetite for our cattle can look forward to getting a constant supply.
My good friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins), whom we always like to hear on the cattle industry, is no milk and water admirer, he is a real live stock man. He may not feed very many live stock, but he understands the game and he is in it heart and money and everything else I expect. But sometimes he makes remarks that may leave the impression that if I chose to do so I could dig up some real cheap freight rates, and could even command the waves. Well, my hon. friend will remember we made a rather futile attempt to do something in the direction of lower ocean rates a year ago. Maybe if it had been made at some other time than what was supposed to be just before a general election, the effort would have been received with some degree of unanimity on all sides. Nevertheless it was a gesture in the direction that my hon. friend desires, and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future another effort will be made. At all events I think it is required. But under the present method of shipping our co-operative marketing facilities have not reached the stage where they can ensure that boats at -Montreal, Quebec or St. John will be filled shortly after arrival in port. That is the trouble. By actual working out we find that at least in the first two years after the embargo was taken off, 30 per cent of the space for cattle was not utilized. How can we get cheap freight rates when at times only 70 per cent of the space is filled on the return trip? It is a matter of evolution, but our boats at the various ports must be met systematically with our shipments of cattle and practically every space be filled- so that those may earn the fullest possible revenue.
I am not as free to speak as the hon. member for Marquette, but I do not find myself entirely in sympathy with his desire for a cheaper freight rate. I can assure him that there is no great shortage of space at present. His information is that spaces are short and that some of our space brokers in Montreal could place lots of cattle if they had the boats. That is not our information; they have succeeded in concealing that condition from the Live Stock branch. If there is any shortage of spaces I can assure my hon. friend that I would be very glad to know of it, but that is not my information.
Cattle Industry


Henry Alfred Mullins: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the Welshman, the largest carrier out of Montreal, is laid up, and that the Ionian has been taken off the run, leaving a shortage of ocean space?


William Richard Motherwell: The actions of these big shipping companies are very mysterious, and I will not pretend to account for them. But at all events there is a tremendous market in England, able to consume anything we are likely to produce during our lifetime. We are now only shipping a bagatelle, but we are trying to encourage the production of cattle in Canada. Cheap rates are being given eastern buyers in order that they may go west to buy cattle, shows are being promoted in the west, and the result is that the feeding of cattle in winter has been stimulated since the British market was opened.
I might just add a word or two to what was said by the hon. member for Victoria regarding the remaining restrictions against Canadian cattle. I do not want to criticize too much; I think we have made good progress, but there are still restrictions against our cows which might be investigated by this committee, and a case might be prepared for the Imperial conference which is to take place some time m October. Representations might be made to the home government to put Canada on a parity with Ireland with respect not only to stockers but other cattle as well. A committee of the English House, after debating this question last year, strongly recommended that no discrimination should be made against one overseas dominion as compared with another in the matter of the shipment of live cattle. That referred to Canada, of course, and our representative was largely instrumental in having that resolution passed.
So much for the British market. I would now like to say a word about the American market. I do not wish to revive the old question of reciprocity with the United States; I do not think it is a live question except to certain individuals. Some day it may come to life again, but just now there seems to be only a hope on the part of Canada that something may be done. This hope is not shared by the hon. member for Victoria; he does not think there is much sign on the horizon that the United States will reduce the duty against our cattle. Nevertheless, in 1923 Right Hon. Mr. Fielding brought down an amendment to the Customs Act, which I would like to read:
If the president of the United States, under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1922, determines to reduce the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say:

Cattle; wheat, wheat flour; oats; barley; potatoes; onions; turnips; hay; fish as enumerated in paragraphs 717, 718, 719 and 720 of the said tariff of 1922, the Governor in Council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on such articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation foY such reductions on Canadian products imported into the United States.
It was then thought that this would constitute a friendly gesture towards the United States in the way of reciprocal relations on these specified products. Speaking from memory I think nothing materialized from that amendment. As the 'hon. member for Macleod pointed out, Mr. Tom King, speaking last winter at a meeting in Saskatoon, drew attention to the fact that we in Canada could not expect to have any particular move made by the government of the United States towards a reduction of duty while we maintained a tariff of 25 per cent against American live stock. For a time our live stock went freely into the United States, before the Fordney tariff was established while we maintained! a 25 per cent duty against importations from that country, and Mr. King pointed out that the first step we should take in Canada was to make it plain what we meant by the term "as may be deemed' reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions on Canadian products imported) into the United , States." In this connection the following order in council was passed by the present government on May 18, 1926:
At the Government House at Ottawa,
Tuesday, the 18th day of May, 1926.
Present:
The Deputy of His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
Whereas section 80 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1907, as amended by chapter 42 of the statutes of 1923 reads as follows:
"8C. If the president of the United States, under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1922, determines to reduce the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say:
Cattle; wheat; wheat flour; oats; barley; potatoes; onions; turnips; hay; fish as enumerated in paragraphs 717, 718, 719 and 720 of the said tariff of 1922, the Governor in Council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on such articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions on Canadian products imported into the United States."
And whereas the time would seem to be opportune in so far as cattle are concerned for the talcing of such action on the part of Canada as is possible, looking toward the freer exchange of agricultural products between the United States and this Dominion: Therefore the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, is pleased to authorize and doth hereby authorize and instruct the Minister of Finance to take such action as may be necessary towards the reduction of duties on cattle entering Canada

Cattle Industry
from the United States in the event of the United States reducing the duties on Canadian cattle entering their country, the reduction in Canadian duties on cattle to toe in the same proportion to tihe present duty as the reduction in the United States duty is to the present United States duty.
That is to say, every advance made by the United States government in the way of a reduction in duty on Canadian cattle will be met by a corresponding reduction in the Canadian duty against American cattle. So it will be seen that according to this order in council we have a brick for brick policy; that is to say, every brick the Americans take off the tariff wall against us will be met with the removal of a corresponding brick from our tariff wall against American cattle. There is this outstanding difference between our policy and that of our hon. friends opposite. They usually speak of their policy as brick for brick in a wall that is being built up. Our policy is a brick for brick downwards. I shall not dilate on that except to say that we just as well as our friends opposite, have a brick for brick policy, but ours is brick for brick downwards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the policy of
destruction.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think my
hon. friend will take much exception to this. Exceptions prove the rule, you know. On occasions like this we do not want anything but a real good discusion of this very important question. I do not know that the American people are ready yet, but we will be ready on this side, ready to come downward the moment there is any such indication on the other side.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Why does not the minister use the tariff against them on the things they want to sell to us? Then he would be in a position to get them to come to some understanding.


William Richard Motherwell: What, for instance?


Donald Sutherland: Many things.


William Richard Motherwell: On wheat? The
wheat growers would not stand for that.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend understands that they are not selling wheat to us.


William Richard Motherwell: But we are to them.


Donald Sutherland: We are buying about $120,000,000 a year more goods from them than we are selling to them.


William Richard Motherwell: It has been suggested by some that we might put an export duty on wheat and hold that over them as a lever in order to get concessions for our cattle. I do not preach the doctrine that the end justifies the means, although I would like to see access for our cattle to the American market.


Donald Sutherland: I
thought the minister had in mind a brick for brick policy.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, brick for brick downwards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In this very connection,
does the minister know of any responsible member of the Republican party who has at any time within the last five years expressed adherence to the principles he is now trying to enunciate?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I do not think they have. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not one.


William Richard Motherwell: But just as soon
as their urban population get into the same frame of mind as they were in in 1910, and cry out for cheaper meat, they are going to get access to meat from Canada and elsewhere. The time was ripe for action then. That time has not recurred1; it may recur sooner than we expect, and we propose to be ready, aye ready, for that occasion.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Whom did
Mr. Tom King represent when he was making those statements in the Canadian west?


William Richard Motherwell: He is a Canadian
correspondent at Washington and seems to be giving the news for all parties. We see his articles in our press, and he is usually looked upon as a reliable dispenser of news on agricultural matters.


Robert King Anderson: Was he not
representing somebody from the United States when he made those statements in the west?


William Richard Motherwell: He might lhave
been, but I have found him a very levelheaded gentleman.
I would judge from the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that he had in mind the desirability of securing the American market for our beef animals, our stockers, and such like. I presume he will agree as to the advisability of extending the scope of this inquiry to dairy cattle and breeding cattle.
Cattle Industry

He does not differentiate between them, but simply speaks of the cattle industry. With that in mind, may I say a word with regard to our dairy cattle industry in this country?
We are making good progress, I think, with regard to dairying, especially of recent years, particularly with regard to the export of butter and still more with regard to the quality and quantity of our exports of cheese. Cheese is the standby of the average Ontario farmer. It is to him what wheat is to the western farmer. It is the chief source of revenue of many of the farms here in Ontario. When you look up the statistics and find that the average production of milk per cow in Canada is less than 4,000 pounds per annum, I do not see how some of these cattle are worth carrying over. The production of some runs to twice that amount, and consequently some must run to only half that amount, and with the drag on the industry of a large number of dairy cattle not paying their board, it seems to me that if it was only for that one thing the committee might do a lot of educational work by pointing out, if it be for the one-'hundreth time, the advisability of culling out these animals from our dairy herds. It is distressing. They take up just as much room in the stable, eat practically the same amount of feed as the good producers, and the result from these culls is negligible, and the little bit they do give they are very often unwilling to give, and you have to run around all over the shop after them. I can think of no greater drag on the dairy industry. My hon. friends opposite may blame that on the Australian treaty. I do not think so, even accepting their viewpoint of the treaty. Examine the dairy herds within a certain radius of this city. Go out in the middle of summer and see the calves out in the open, with not a twig to shade them from the burning sun, wagging their little tails off shaking off the flies, wearing themselves out in their infancy- that is the way they are preparing themselves to become dairy cows. It will not do. We have a lot to learn yet.
It is amazing to me that with this disability, and with the further disability of the small cheese factories with their small output per factory, and the consequent higher cost, that we stand top of the ladder to-day in the British market in regard to the quality and quantity of our cheese. We would be several notches higher still, and the farmer would have more profit in his pocket at the end of the year, if we removed these disabilities. A lot of the men with good herds are doing well, but, on the other hand, the man who has only this kind of herd, whose cows 
milk for only six or seven months of the year, who tries to economize on feed in the winter and turns his dairy cattle out in the spring so poor that it takes half the summer to get the old hair off, cannot succeed. I think, therefore, if the hon. member for Macleod will open the door wide enough and have the committee consider the improving of the individual dairy unit, which is the cow, it will be worth while. The improvement of the quality of our dairy products in western Canada has been very gratifying. We have come to it gradually. Someone has said that if you abuse this old earth of ours by bad farming, sooner or later that earth will discipline you, and by climatic or other conditions will compel you to adopt some system of farming that will enrich the fertility of the soil. We are learning that lesson.
I would not presume to speak authoritatively regarding agriculture in the Maritime provinces, but if there is one thing agriculture needs in the Maritime provinces more than another it is live stock, particularly around the bay of Fundy where they have such an abundance of feed and frequently nothing to feed it to. By way of encouraging them, at a number of our experimental farms down there last winter we put on a bunch of feeder steers to demonstrate what could be done in feeding steers and getting them ready to ship to the British market. The Maritimes are right at the front door of Canada, and shippers of cattle in the Maritimes are better off by $19 per head than the shipper of cattle at Regina or Saskatoon We in the west have to pay $19 more freight in shipping our cattle to the British market. They have nothing but ocean transportation, while we have the long land haul with its consequent increase in cost. It is true that^there are other conditions as to which we enjoy an advantage, but I am satisfied the Maritime provinces are starting out on an era of improved agriculture. I had an opportunity of discussing the matter with some of the public men down there, some of the ministers of agriculture, and they impressed me very much with having the right slant on some of the things that are wrong in the Maritime provinces. You can get wheat gliding through their ports on a scale of ten and twenty million bushels if you like; but what you want is something that will develop new wealth and production, and, instead of importing farm products as they are in many cases, exporting them to the markets of the world.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Macleod that he take advantage of an exist-

Cattle Industry
ing committee instead of asking for the appointment of a special committee when we feel that we have just about had a surfeit of special committees this session. We are all looking to the time when this session will close. Prorogation we hope is not too far off in the distance, and instead of organizing a special committee at this time, which would make it more difficult than ever to carry on morning sessions in the course of a week or two, why not take advantage of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization, or some committee that is already constituted? If such committee is too large the question might be referred to a subcommittee. I would have much preferred had this resolution come up for discussion earlier in the session, because there was a long period-three or four months, three months anyway-when the Agricultural committee had nothing to do but kick their heels waiting for something to turn up. That would have been an excellent opportunity, when we were wasting our time in other respects, to have referred the whole question to them. However, that opportunity is past, and it is no use in expressing regret over the fact. But I w'ould suggest that even now the subject would receive more attention from the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization than a special committee would be able to give it at this period of the session.
However, whether or not my hon. friend accepts that suggestion I am going to support his resolution. There is no reason why, either at this session or at another session, we should not have a useful discussion on how to improve the live stock industry of Canada. Because it is not keeping pace, not even in the matter of production. There is a popular idea that the question of production does not enter into the problem at all. My experience is that if you have a good export steer it is half sold, there is no doubt about it. But it does not follow that because you get that far you should stop there. The great question of co-operative marketing is still in its infancy in Canada. But the evolution stage is proceeding rapidly from ,one stage of perfection to another, and when the process of co-operation is carried out to its fullest extent with the result of saving the greatest possible amount of time and money, then producers will realize better prices for their animals. It is sometimes asked: What can we do? Well, the situation here is the same as in the case of any other gospel, the gospel of salvation for example, or of better markets. You have got to keep talking about it and pointing out methods of improvement in order to get people to listen.


Donald Sutherland: I have listened with much interest
to the remarks made by different speakers on this resolution, and particularly to the remarks offered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who would naturally be supposed to be in close touch with the whole question, and in view of the fact that he has been engaged in agriculture all his life would be regarded as having as intimate a knowledge of the whole subject as anyone in Canada. I regret, however, that the Minister has taken his seat without throwing very much light on this much vexed question. It is true he told us that agriculture is on the eve of a great development, that good times are in store for us, and that the government passed an order in council in 1926 offering certain concessions to the people across the line if they would only allow our cattle access to the markets of the United States but no solution of the difficulty is suggested. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) I observe, has had this resolution on the order paper since January 29, upwards of four months, and as the minister says that in all probability the session will close in the course of a few weeks we may not have an opportunity to go into the matter in detail even though a special committee were appointed.
In closing the minister touched upon the subject of co-operative marketing, a matter which might well have occupied the attention of himself and his department. But so far as I can see the government have been absolutely asleep at the switch in regard to action on their part. It is true that in western Canada something along the line of cooperation has been done during the last year with regard to the marketing of wheat and grain grown in those provinces, and I am quite confident and quite hopeful that good will result from those efforts and that it will blaze the way for other branches of agriculture making progress along similar lines. But in the meantime what has the federal Department of Agriculture been doing in the matter. We are spending upwards of $6,000,000 per year on this department and the head of that department admits to-night that they are not doing anything in regard to co-operative marketing. It is true, he says, there are great possibilities along that line and that we are on the eve of a great era of development, but so far as his own department is concerned, I cannot see that it is doing very much in the way of encouraging development.
The minister says that the average milk production of the dairy cow is below what it should be, that the people are not providing proper shelter for young and growing stock,
Cattle Industry

and so on. It is all very well for the minister to criticize those who are endeavouring to carry on in this country, but let me tell him that to my mind there is no one so much in need of censure for his lack of doing what he ought to do for the live stock industry as the Minister of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: As to what?


Donald Sutherland: For not doing anything with the amount of money which is spent on the department over which the minister presides.


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon.
friend enumerate some of the things I have not done that I should have done? I am asking the question seriously.


Donald Sutherland: You are doing a lot in the matter of grading, it is true. You are appointing graders and inspectors, not for beef cattle, it may be, but for hogs for the convenience of the packing companies. You have inspectors in all the packing plants to grade the intake and there is not a pound of bacon passing out of them that you have any check or control over as to grade. The government have been spending enormous sums of money in grading for the benefit of the packers.


William Richard Motherwell: That is nonsense absolutely.


Donald Sutherland: The minister says it is nonsense but let me tell him that he cannot sit there and say things of that kind. Let him, first of all, look at the records in his own department and he will find that the lower grades have been in a tremendous majority while the selects form a very small percentage indeed and no attempt has been made to grade the output of the packing companies. And the same thing applies n-ow with regard to wheat and eggs and many other things which the department is grading. What percentage of the eggs produced in this country are paid for on the bas;s of extras or extra specials? A trifling quantity. Yet the packer has taken advantage of what the government are doing and reaping the benefits from the grading along this line. The same thing happens in regard to the wheat. The wheat poo1! in t'he west I believe is endeavouring to secure the control of their wheat until it is placed on the market. They are endeavouring to obtain the advantages which heretofore went to those who were changing the grade of their grain after it had passed out of their control at the terminal elevators. This is what the Minister of Agriculture is doing all along the line

with an army of inspectors and graders all through the country. The department is costing 86,000,000 a year and the government is looking after the interest of those dealing in the produce of the farm rather than the farmer. They say, "Oh if the farmer would only produce -more?" What inducement is there to do so? The minister says that the winters are long and the cattle come out poor. There are thousands of farmers who are carrying on in the winter months producing the 'articles which are produced during the summer months, doing it well, it is true, under a handicap as to climate. What encouragement are they receiving from the government? All I have to do is to refer to the remarks of the Minister of Finance a year ago in this House. He said:
Why is it of advantage for Canada ta make a trade agreement with Australia? Well, the seasons in the two countries are exactly opposite. It is now summer in Canada,-the growing period; it is winter ds Australia. To-day our commission merchants have their agents throughout the country buying eggs, butter and cheese, to place in cold storage, on which they will have to pay storage charges, interest and insurance. Those carrying charges will be paid by the Canadian breaksfast table next winter. But we will be saved this burden if we can effect an economic arrangement wiith Australia whereby there will be a continual flow of these products from our sister commonwealth, while we are shipping our products to the United Kingdom.
During the months of the year when it is costly to produce in this country the minister will encourage imports from Australia and New Zealand to ship their products to Canada. Let me tell the minister that during the four months of the present year there have been upwards of 7,000,000 pounds of butter brought in as a result of the treaty made with Australia-subsequently extended to New Zealand-something that never happened in a like period before.


William Richard Motherwell: It was more than that in 1915 and 1916.


Donald Sutherland: I said in four months. There was never a time in the history of Canada when for a like period so much was imported.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes.


Donald Sutherland: The minister says he is going to cheapen the cost of the breakfast table. That is apparently the object in view and not the development of agriculture. I could not help but imagine how the Americans must have smiled when they read the order in council passed by the government. "If you will only allow our cattle to have access to your market, we will do the same for you." It is the American people the minister is looking after and not

Cattle Industry
the Canadian people at all. Those who listened to the president of the United States a year ago last fa'll at the Chicago winter fair will realize that they have no intention of lowering the duty to compel the farmers of the United States to compete with imports of cattle or anything else from this country. That is not their object at all, when the president stated that if it was found that the American farmer was suffering from the competition of other countries the tariff would be increased to protect him. The American does not look upon this matter the way hon. gentlemen opposite looks upon it. In the United States they have appointed a tariff commission to look after their interests. I have here the ninth report of the tariff commission of the United States. How do they look at these matters? There they ascertain the cost of production, and the Minister of Agriculture, with his $6,000,000 annual expenditure, is not able to tell us the cost of production of a single thing grown on the farm.


William Richard Motherwell: I can tell the hon. member the cost of every one.


Donald Sutherland: I
hope the minister will at last be able to give us this information rather than to indulge in the generalities he has indulged in to-night. What does the tariff commission of the United States say in regard to their objective? It says:
The law seeks to provide a mathematical formula for the equalization of costs of production in accordance with the provision of section 315. If, for example. the existing duty on a particular commodity does not equalize, as between the foreign and domestic manufacturer, production costs ascertained as provided in the statute, it is the function o-f the tariff commission to make investigations to assist the president to find a rate which will tend to correct the inequality.
The object they have is to ascertain the cost of production in their own country and in other countries, and if something can be produced in a foreign country cheaper than in the United States, then they put up the tariff to protect their people. I know that the matter of tariff, or the safeguarding of industries, or protection, the elimination of competition or whatever you see fit to call it, is not a popular issue with many people. Personally I would prefer to see free trade indulged in by all the countries of the world. In that case I believe we could hold our own with the best of them, but unfortunately the attitude of other countries is to increase their tariff in order to protect their own people against the imports of other countries, and we have to deal with the conditions with which we are confronted rather than with some
idea! which we may have in our mind and which we would like to see in effect.
The cattle industry of this country is undoubtedly the very foundation upon which successful agriculture must be built up, and if the cattle industry is not successful then the agricultural industry is not successful, and we may just as well brush to one side all these generalities which the Minister of Agriculture indulged in with regard to what ought to be done. One of the essentials is a better and cheaper arrangement for the transportation of live stock in this country, particularly beef and store cattle, on account of the different conditions to be found in different provinces. In some sections it is apparent that while they can raise young cattle they find some difficulty in finishing them on account of the lack of suitable accommodation as to shelter and feed. I do not believe the climatic conditions are so very difficult to overcome, but I do realize that with the costs of tronsportation for short hauls in the old provinces, which have been not only doubled but nearly trebled in the last twenty years, great difficulties are encountered. We have not as good a rate for shipment of live stock as is enjoyed by the shippers of many other commodities. This is a matter that ought to be pressed as forcibly as possible upon the Board of Railway Commissioners, in order that better rates may be given for the transportation of cattle than now obtain. The United States market is undoubtedly a good one. When we realize that despite their high tariff against our cattle, immense numbers are still being shipped across the line, we fully appreciate what we lost when they raised the tariff against importations from Canada. That, however, is their business and it is something that we cannot force them to give way on.
Nevertheless we are in a most favourable position by reason of the fact that in all this northern country, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, British Columbia, while the Americans to-day practically control the greatest proportion of our pulp lands and many of our water-powers, and they are taking our raw material in immense quantities across the line to manufacture them over there. It is our duty to look after our people and their interests and if we do that in a scientific way we can very quickly obtain these concessions from the United States instead of going begging to them, as the minister apparently has 'been doing and saying: Oh, if you will only remove the tariff off our cattle we will remove our tariff on yours, or something that it is immaterial to you
Cattle Industry

whether we remove it or not. You will never obtain anything by methods of that kind.
This is one of the most important questions that can come before parliament. It is something that has been before parliament ever since we met this session. But instead of the government doing something along the line advocated by the hon. member for Macleod, there has been a constant knocking, knocking of agriculture from the beginning to the present by encouraging the importation of agricultural products from countries where they can be produced more cheaply than in Canada. The minister steps down now and says that the blame is on all those farmers who produce this inferior stock and tells them to produce better stock. Only two years ago he was predicting that the day would come when stores would be opened in the large cities of this country retailing the agricultural products of Australia and New Zealand. Since that time he has removed what little protection we had against importations which were then coming in from those countries. Only three or four weeks before the last general election an order in council was put through on the quiet, without publicity, and the same concessions which had been granted to Australia were extended to New Zealand. I placed a motion on the order paper asking for the correspondence which had taken place. Was there any correspondence on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture with the government of New Zealand in regard to why those concessions should be granted? There was not a scratch of the pen to show that any correspondence had taken place between the two governments or any members of the government. The government granted those concessions to New Zealand without obtaining anything in return from the sister dominion, although it maintains a high protective tariff against us.
Why was this done? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) stated this year: Oh, we were afraid they were going to raise the tariff on newsprint and paper; that is the reason why we granted the concessions to New Zealand and sacrificed the interest of agriculture. These concessions were not asked for by New Zealand, but the government granted them under pressure from somebody, not those engaged in agriculture, and I defy the Minister of Agriculture to show where, since he has been minister, he has shown that he has had the interests of agriculture at heart and that he has not given way to those engaged in some other occupation to gratify their desires.

Oh, but he will say, we got the British embargo removed from Canadian cattle. It is true that the embargo was removed while this government was in office, but the hon. gentleman sitting in front of me, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) was the man who started that matter and who secured from the British government a promise that the embargo would be removed. This was under pressure, because the British people believe in carrying out their promises, and they adopted this policy not on account of any disease amongst our cattle but as a means of protecting their farmers, because they have a protective policy just as much as any other country in the world. That was the reason why they put that embargo into effect and when they were charged with breach of faith with those to whom they had made the promise they realized that it was up to them to remove the embargo. The embargo, I will admit, was removed while the minister was in office, and he wants to carry off all the glory for having had it removed.


William Richard Motherwell: I have always
given my predecessors every credit.


Donald Sutherland: The minister took good care to-night to claim all the credit he could for it.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not.


Donald Sutherland: I did not hear him give his predecessors much credit for what was done along that line. I have a list of the imports of agricultural products and it is really startling to leam that a country with such immense agricultural possibilities as we have should be importing such large quantities of agricultural products. This goes to show the effect of a policy such as we have in this country where the government are not protecting the people but are allowing surplus products from other countries to come in at certain times when the cost of production is high so as to destroy the market absolutely. The result is that the farmers become discouraged and say: Well, if that is the kind of treatment we are to receive we will go out of business. People can go out of business more easily than they can stay in an unprofitable business, and that is the reason why they are going across the line just as fast to-day as they ever were.
I was bom in this country; I have been engaged in agriculture all my life, and I have been hopeful that the great possibilities of agriculture in Canada would eventually be realized and that we would obtain the full

Safeguarding of hidustries
advantage to which we are naturally entitled. But I must confess that as the days and the years pass I have reached the conclusion that if the present policy is to be continued and applied to agriculture, all I can say is: God help those who are engaged in agriculture in Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker-


William Duff: If the hon. member for Macleod exercises the privilege of replying he closes the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak he should do so now.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to make only one or two remarks before closing the debate. The first is in regard to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that it is unfortunate that this motion did not come up earlier in the session. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I would have
11 p.m. been glad to have it come up much earlier in the session, but unfortunately the government took most of the private members' days since the beginning of the session and if my memory serves me aright we have so far only had four Mondays as private members' days. I hope that in later sessions of this parliament the government will not need to take private members' days; that they will find some method of improving the rules of the House so that we shall not have debates on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne lasting six weeeks and budget debates lasting five weeks. If this parliament is to function as a legislative body it is necessary that some change in the rules should be made. I do not want to get away from the question under discussion to debate the rules of the House, but during the last three months I have sat here very impatiently wondering if we would ever get down to business.
I am going to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture, and if the House will permit I will ask the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) to move an amendment asking that this matter be referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization. Before I sit down I would like to say just one word in regard to the question raised by the Minister of Agriculture who cannot understand why the farmers of Canada do not produce more cattle for the British market. As I pointed out to him this afternoon in my remarks, the steer that the farmer does produce now for export brings him only 50 per cent of the purchasing power of 1913,
and he was not making any inordinate profit then. That is the reason why we are asking for this committee to-day. I hope my good friend from Lethbridge will now move an amendment asking that this matter be referred to the standing committee on Agriculture.


William Duff: I might point out to the hon. member that by unanimous consent it would not be necessary for the hon. member for Lethbridge to move an amendment. The motion could be carried, with the understanding that it be referred to the standing committee on Agriculture.


George Gibson Coote: With the unanimous consent of the House I will be very glad to make that motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Edward Ross: That in the opinion of this House our industries here have to have safeguarding with respect to competition from other parts of tlhe worM, competition from the country to the south, competition from conditions as they are in Europe.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I shall shorten my remarks as much as possible on this very important subject and confine myself to the discussion of three main features: first, the relation of the membere of this House to t'he resolution; second, the relation of Canada to other countries in regard to this resolution; third, the relation of this resolution to one of the great problems of this country. In addition I shall deal with two or three special features.
If I had been at a loss for a reason for introducing this resolution, I would have found a very good one in the speech by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McMillan). The tenor of his speech was-if you could only gain an entrance into the markets of the country to the south, wihat a fine thing it would be for us. In a way it was a wail, the expression of a lost hope, of an anticipation that he did not see possible of realization. I would recall to 'his memory the words of his former leader, who some years ago laid down thB policy of himself and his party that they would no longer "make pilgrimages to Washington." We are also reminded of the futility of such pilgrimages by the remarks expressed to-day in this House about looking to Washington for the solution of another question of great importance to this country. Pilgrimages to Washington have been failures in the past, and I would remind my hon.

Safeguarding of Industries

friend from Huron that they will lead to failure in the future.
Members in all quarters of this House have talked of protection, calling it 'by such terms as encouragement of industry, safeguarding of industry, and so on. This resolution now desires the opinion of the House on the question of safeguarding Canadian industry from all forms of competition. The appointment of a tariff board does not eliminate the necessity for such a resolution. Its discussion will give everybody in this House an opportunity of expressing opinions such as they have voiced on many occasions in the past. The position set forth in the resolution is one taken and maintained by this party throughout all the years of its history since Sir John A. Macdonald introduced the National Policy. The resolution should also secure the support of many of our friends on the opposite side, if they could but give expression to their real feelings. They should have no hesitation in supporting the policy I have outlined because their leader has on more than one occasion expressed himself fully in accord with it. In fact when I have quoted several remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) it will be found that this resolution is in language he has used on several occasions. At Erindale in September of last year the Mail and Empire reports him as follows:
He stood for a tariff to give us what we need in the way of revenue and at the same time to safeguard industrial development.
At Fort William in October he made use of these words:
We do not want to work injury to any industry. We want to help as far as possible all industries.
During the campaign he had occasion to come to Kingston and give a lengthy address in an attempt to win over the city. The position taken by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion, as reported by the British Whig, was as follows:
We have decided to form a board to consider all tariff schedules, and to call for advice to the board representatives of manufacturing, of commerce, of agriculture, cf labour, and also of the women so that the homes would be dealt with fairly. The government widl take final action because the power of taxation cannot be given to a non-responsible body. The desire was to help every industry-
These are his own words:
The desrire was to help every industry, and the one aim was to establish them. His government was not in favour of free trade, it never was, never would be. There must be protection against competition.


Arthur Meighen: Those are his words?


Arthur Edward Ross: Those are the
words of the Prime Minister quoted from the party's own paper, the British Whig of King-
ston. I have also a quotation from the same speech as reported by the London Advertiser. No one on the other side can offer any objection to a quotation from that paper. Its language is contained in the resolution, and is the language used by the right hon. Prime Minister in the city of Kingston that same evening. This is what he then said:
We realize that our industries here have to have safeguarding with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south, competition from conditions as they are in Europe.
So there is no member on the other side but can find good reason for supporting this resolution when it is coubhed in the words of their own leader. The Mail and Empire contained this report:
The city of Kingston need have no fear from a Liberal administration as to the well-being of its industries. The industries would be taken care of.


Arthur Meighen: Whose words were those?


Arthur Edward Ross: The same speech made by the Prime Minister in Kingston. Taking their cue from the Prime Minister, all hon. members opposite should be in favour of this resolution.
The next point is the relation of this country to other countries in regard to this resolution. I am not going to dwell very long upon this, because it has been repeatedly mentioned in the House during other debates. There are one or two new features, however, to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. As has already been said, every country with any degree of prosperity has adopted some method of safeguarding industries, but our friends across the border have some new ideas in addition to the strong stand they have taken. At present they have a board of survey making an examination of the articles manufactured in Canada, to see if they can stimulate the manufacture of the same articles in the United States and so obviate the necessity of importing them from Canada. They have also certain treasury agents in France whose actions are being complained of by French manufacturers. These agents are investigating the cost of manufacturing goods, so that the goods will be brought into the United States at a proper valuation and not at some fictitious figure given by the manufacturer. These two features show the attitude of the United States in preventing interference with their industries.
I have a long article here dealing with the work of David Syme in Australia. I am not going to read it at this late hour, but I would like to draw attention to the conclusion of

Safeguarding of Industries
the article. David Syme founded the colony of Victoria under a policy of free trade. The gold mines had brought a large population to Victoria, but the mines failed, and the population of about one million were left in idleness and almost destitute. David Syme immediately initiated a policy of protection, and succeeded in having the raw products of Victoria manufactured in that country. It is very interesting to study the results; he found that a nation of specialists, whether of farmers or importers or manufacturers, did not supply the requisite and fundamentally necessary condition of permanency which can only be supplied by a society of varied enterprises and multifarious employments. So he inaugurated a policy by which the raw products of Victoria should be manufactured in the colony, rather than brought in from the outside.
Let us consider what was accomplished. Side by side with the colony of Victoria was founded the colony of New South Wales. That colony also had a policy of free trade and a policy of bonused immigration, which Victoria did not adopt. In comparing the two colonies, in 1922-23 the manufacturing industries of New South Wales numbered 6,072, while those of Victoria numbered 7,096. In 1919 New South Wales had employed 144,454 persons, while Victoria only employed 136,522 people. But in 1923, four years after this new policy was inaugurated, New South Wales had employed 152,266 while Victoria had reached the same number. But when it came to the density of population, notwithstanding the fact that New South Wales had brought thousands of immigrants into the country by means of bonuses, the density of population there was 7.14, while in Victoria it was 18.49. These figures will immediately prove that the policy of initiating and safeguarding industries has brought excellent results in Victoria.
Another point I wanted to bring to the attention of the House is that this resolution has a very intimate relation to one of the greatest problems facing us to-day, that of immigration. During the debates which have taken place in this House this session I think every person has come to the conclusion that we require population, and that population will solve all our difficulties. Increased population will lessen our taxes and relieve the railway situation, and I want to demonstrate how this resolution affects that great problem. This government, along with other governments, has been on the wrong track altogether in their attempts to make Canada prosperous. We are at present directing all our efforts 14011-2484
in immigration to bringing into this country farmers and farm labourers. Never in the history of the world has a policy of this kind, the restriction of immigration efforts to the bringing in of agriculturists, produced any great increase in population. If I can prove that point I think I can bring every member of this House to look favourably upon this resolution. The only occasions when population rapidly increased were when some impetus was given to industrial development, and I believe that if we study the history of the world we will find that that has been the case in every country where such a rapid increase has come about.
It has been said that population is the wealth of a country; without population there can be no wealth. Colorado was a desert in 1858, but in 1890 the property of Colorado was valued at $239,000,000. So it was with the Cobalt district and so with the Yukon and many other places; without population there can be no wealth. On the other hand, as another illustration let me refer to the valley of the Amazon. Here is perhaps the richest country in the world, with great natural resources, but with a very sparse population. On the other hand, in the island of Barbados, you find great wealth and a large population. Population is the secret of wealth. The instances I have given prove that population is necessary for the production of wealth in any country. On the other hand, no state can support a lot of unproductive consumers. The prosperous state is that where there is population and the wealth, the country where you have population, and work for the people. There are a lot of countries where there is density of population but not wealth. Take China, for instance, and some parts of India. The secret is this:	Population and work must go hand
in hand.
While we all recognize that agriculture is our basic industry, it cannot give us that increase of population of which Canada stands very much in need at the present time. All increase of population has been due, as I said before, to an impetus in industrial development. Let me take a few countries for the sake of illustration. In the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the population of England and Wales was almost stationary. There were forty-two towns with a population of 168,000 and thirty-eight counties with a population of 1.200,000, making with Durham, Chester and Wales a total population of about 2,250,000. London had a population of only 35,000; York, 11,000; Bristol 9,500. There were no other places with a
Safeguarding of Industries

population of over 5,000, but in 1690 a hearth tax that was taken showed that the population had doubled, just by natural and other causes. Now agriculture, which was the chief industry, had made no advance. Whatever growth there had been was due to the introduction of weavers and textile workers, and their industries, from the continent.
Now jump from that period of three or four centuries without any growth in population to the period from 1831 to 1896. The population of England and other countries showed a great increase in that period. The population of England increased from 24,000,000 in 1831 to 39,500,000 in 1896; Germany, from
29.000.	000 to 52,000,000; Russia, from 58,000,000 to 105,000,000; the United States from
9.000.	000 to 70,000,000, or an increase of 626 per cent. What were the reasons for that great growth?-and here we get the proof that development along agricultural lines alone will not give us the population we require. There were different causes for that rapid growth in population in all these countries during the period from 1831 to 1896? The tremendous jump in the Russian population was largely due to the granting of the freedom of the serfs. These serfs, who had been retained on the farms, when set free entered the towns. There was a real townward tendency at that time, and the population of the cities went up. With the better conditions of the serfs, the growth of population was very rapid.
But that did not account for the rapid increase in population in the other countries. In these other countries it was due to certain other factors, one of which was the introduction of steam. The use of steam led to a great growth in railways, steamships, trade and commerce, manufactures, and in the use of manufactured agricultural implements. There followed a great industrial development, and there was in consequence a rapid growth in population. At the end of that period we find that the'number of towns with a population of 50,000 were as follows:
In 1831 there were 85 towns and cities in Europe with a population of 50,000; in the United States, 4; in the colonies, none. In 1891 there were 255 towns in Europe with a population of 50,000; 56 in the United States;
9 in the colonies. In this period of sixty years, the cities throughout practically the whole world showed an increase of population of 470 per cent, while the population outside the cities rose only 70 per cent; agriculture rose 110 per cent; and manufacturing 800 per cent.
My object in quoting these figures is to prove that the impetus given to industrial

development is the only means for giving that increase of population which is desired in this country, and the rapid increase in population which I have mentioned in these various countries was due to the causes I have given 

the discovery of steam principally, and other powers. In 1831 there were hand powers, 23,400; horse powers, 93,900; steam powers,
6,000.	In 1896 those figures had increased to hand powers, 38,000; horse powers, 179,000; and steam powers, 222,000, showing a terrific growth in the development of horse and steam power, due to the discovery and the use of steam. Manufacturing was advancing in every way, and commerce was building up large coast cities.
Just a word in regard to France. The growth in France did not come up to the measure of England and the other countries for the reason-and this will strengthen my argument- that in those days France was obtaining her manufactured products from other countries. She was getting woollens from Spain, linens from Holland, and silks from Italy. But about the year 1800 France began to wake up to her situation at that time, and saw that she was being a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for other countries, and so she set about developing her manufactures, and the result was that her population increased rapidly. There are many figures that would prove it, but I think the figures I have already given will prove that the attitude we are taking as a country to-day in lending all our efforts to the development of the industry of agriculture alone, great as that industry is, will not give us the population we require unless we attend also to the development of our other industries. Watchfulness, wakefulness, a careful attitude towards industry-this is what has made the difference in all countries. Take Scotland and Ireland, which are equal in population. The former country is estimated to be 60 per cent richer on account of the greater development of industrial work. Spain without any industry is thinly populated; Italy is thickly populated, but both countries are poor. Belgium has the maximum density of population and Sweden has the smallest density of any country in the world, yet both these countries are rich. What is the secret? The secret is population and work. You have population in Italy without industrial development. In Spain you have want of work and want of population. In Sweden you have a minimum population but a very active industrial life and consequently a rich country. Belgium is thickly populated and there the industrial and the agricultural life is very active. The density of population is the maximum of the

Safeguarding of Industries
entire world and, what is more important, the emigration from that nation is the smallest of any country.
By our careless and indifferent attitude towards our industries we have been left in the position w'e are in to-day. Without going back for any extended period let us take the population Canada has lost in the years 1924 and 1925. In 1924 the loss of population was
148.000	and in 1925 it was 111,000. Not only have we lost this amount of population but we have lost a revenue of S18 per head which that population represented. Wh have actually thrown $4,680,000 into the coffers of the United States in addition to permitting an exodus of
260.000	people to take place to that country. And that exodus is still continuing. The statement that Canadians are now returning from the United States does not impress me. They are going from Canada at a faster rate than they are returning. The port of Kingston is passing out an average of 25 a week. The staff of the American consulate in Toronto has again been increased in order to cope with the exodus from Canada. Therefore we are not in a very prosperous condition. It is evident when thousands are still leaving the country that we have not adopted a policy that will give us population.
Now, what relation has population to this question? If we adopted an actual, active policy of safeguarding Canadian industries what would it mean in regard to the population of this country? I will explain the method I adopted in order to answer that question. We are importing into this country millions of dollars of manufactured goods. I have taken the figures representing those imports and I have gone to the industries in Canada which manufacture the same class of articles, and have inquired whether these goods could be produced in Canada. In every case, in connection with the figures which I am about to give, the answer returned has been "we can". Translate that importation of manufactured goods into labour in this country and see what it will mean to Canada in the way of population. Last year we imported in round numbers cotton goods to the value of $34,000,000. I went to Dominion Textiles and said to them: "You manufacture these goods. How many people could t you employ in Canada every day in the year, all year round, if you manufactured these imported articles?" They answered. "Seven thousand." So that if these goods brought in last year were manufactured in Canada we would be able to give employment to 7,000 more people in this country.
Now, as to printed material. The importations last year amounted to $12,000,000. I went to some of our people who are engaged
in printing and sgtid to them: "If these purchases were made in Canada what would it mean in the way of labour?" Their answer was that it would give employment to 4,000 people. We imported engines to the value of $11,600,000. If these were manufactured in Canada they would give employment to 4,200 people. Of machinery there is $30,200,000 worth imported. If manufactured in Canada they would give employment t.o 10,000 people. Wearing apparel to the amount of $6,350,000 was imported. The manufacture in Canada would employ 3,000 people. Of cloth, yam. blankets, rugs, and felts, we imported $35,000,000. The manufacture of these articles in Canada would give work to 18,500 people. We imported vehicles to the amount of $36,400,009. If made in Canada they would give employment to 8,000 people. We brought in leather goods to the value of $7,324,000. If they were made in this country, 2,500 people would be employed. The importation of farm implements represented $11,200,000. Their manufacture in this country would keep 3,000 people busy. Our importations of paper amounted to $9,100,000. If the manufacturing were carried on in this Dominion it would mean employment for 1,800 persons. Taking the foregoing ten branches of industry the manufacture of goods to the amount given would mean employment for 73,700 people in Canada, or taking four as the average number to a family, an addition to our population of approximatly 280,000 persons. We have spent $3,000,000 a year on immigration. If you safeguard our industries you can add 280,000 people to our population and save that expenditure of $3,000,000 yearly. Apply the same argument to other lines of industry such as electrical apparatus, gas apparatus, explosives, furniture, matches, fibre ware, mouldings, and amusement and sporting goods. If you put into operation a thorough and active policy with respect to them you will have no fear as to the future of this country and its growth of population.
There are one or two other points to which I wish to draw attention. We are actually lying down on the job of developing two of the greatest industries that any country could have, with almost illimitable possibilities. I refer to the working of our ores, and along with that the development of a chemical industry. We need to-day encouragement enough to produce still another Consolidated Smelters, to be located in eastern Canada. Study for a moment what that great industry means to British Columbia. By a policy of working our own ores a return has been brought to that province from two or three
Safeguarding of Industries

mines amounting in the case of silver to $3,105,000, in the case of lead to $20,066,630, in the case of copper, to $4,763,707, and in the case of zinc, to $36,012,600. The development of these ores from two or three mines only in that province has produced a wealth such as I have described. In fact, it takes your breath away when you think of what this country could do if the government would come to life, wake up to the immense possibilities of this country and put in operation a policy that would develop them. Along with that goes the development of the chemist. You cannot work on ores without connecting them up with the chemical industry, and no other industry in the world will store up as much wealth if it is properly protected and its development is placed in the hands of experts. We have everything in this country that would produce as valuable a chemical industry as that which flourishes in the United States or anywhere else.
In addition to these rich ores that we have -and I have only given the House an example of what two or three mines in British Columbia will do-a great development is going on now up in the Rouyn area, in the new field w'here zinc, copper and lead ores, which we have not touched in the east before, are being discovered. Hon. members will realize that if this government would only become alive to the interests of the country, or get off the job and let the Progressives take charge, they might develop one industry at least and increase the wealth of this country. But I am surprised that even the Progressives have not pointed out the fact that we have non-metallic products in this country. Some person came down from the west and tried to interest the government in Epsom salts. Perhaps they thought it would be a good thing to give them, but they are not even interested in that. Along with that salt you have the importation of household salt, with immense fields in this country, of phosphates and sulphate of soda. You have also the graphite industry. The pencils that are used in the House of Commons are United States pencils, made with United States graphite, whereas there is a very large supply of graphite in Canada. The field for graphite in this country, however, is lying idle for want of interest, and productive development is not taking place.
It has been pointed out that this government does not keep alive to the development of the country. I might draw attention to the fact that in the county of Frontenac there is the only field of feldspar on the American con-
[Air. A. E. Ross.]
tinent. Canada has now undertaken the grinding of that feldspar. There is a factory in the city of Kingston and one in Toronto, yet this government it sitting idly by and seeing the feldspar taken out of this country, sent over to the United States, ground in the factories there, and brought back to Canada as ground feldspar. With those two industries trying to compete in a situation such as that, it is deplorable that the government, with their experts in the Department of Mines, should take no action. Just imagine; we have a Department of Mines, which has repeatedly, by reports from experts, brought before the government the importance of the development of these ores and non-metallic substances, but no action is taken. The feldspar still goes out of the country. In 1924 we brought into Canada 1,661 tons of our ground feldspar while at the same time we had two mills of our own. In 1925 we brought back 1,712 tons of this ground feldspar.
I have coupled up with the subject of industry, perhaps, matters that have not been taken up before, because I tried to cover a new field, and to emphasize the fact that the safeguarding of our industries, agricultural and manufacturing, the development of our ores and of the chemical industry, would produce in this country a population such as we desire and such as we are not obtaining, in spite of the fact that we are spending $3,000,000 a year upon immigration.
In conclusion, I point out that the safeguarding of our industries will produce a settled permanent population. Just imagine the economic loss to this country and to the world at large when the policy introduced by this government closes up mills in Canada and sends the population of workmen away I What does it mean? It means that these people must get employment in some other country, and the unfortunate part of it is that if they do not go out of the country they must begin to fit themselves for some other employment and so interfere with those already engaged in that employment. It is an economic loss any way you look at it, owing to the carelessness and the indifference of the government in regard to the industrial development of the country, whether it be agriculture or otherwise. If* industry is looked after, watchfully handled and taken care of in the manner adopted by other countries, it will give us a permanent population.
I have endeavoured to-night in dealing with this question to keep to the four points I set out to discuss; first the relation of the members of this House, including the Prime

Minister, to the safeguarding of industries; second, the relation of Canada, in comparison with the other countries of the world, to the safeguarding of industry; third, the relation of this resolution to the great policy of population, which will be the panacea for all our troubles, and fourth, the special features to which I have referred. We have listened this afternoon and this evening to discussions on wheat in relation to cattle and during that discussion topics of all sorts have been brought up. But I am desirous to-night that we shall confine ourselves to this one thing, the safeguarding of industries, and I think I have proven to the House that if we would take care of the industries we have and endeavour to establish others along lines connected with our natural resources, we would in a short time save the expenditure of this $3,000,000 on immigration and have a stable, settled, happy and prosperous Canada.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I beg to
move the adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: Can I not prevail upon
the hon. member for Cartier, who I know is deeply interested in this question and who will not need to be reminded that these are the words of his leader, to avoid so early an adjournment to-night and to have a division on this motion?


Ernest Lapointe: Early at twelve o'clock?


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite are always in a hurry to get home when there is a motion that means something.


Ernest Lapointe: This has been discussed practically all session.


William Duff: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: What motion is carried?


William Duff: That the debate be adjourned. I put the motion.


Arthur Meighen: I protest against its
being declared "carried." I rose to ask if the hon. member would not withdraw his motion. None of us on this side of the House heard the motion put.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Business of the House


George Reginald Geary: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mer-cier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewbum). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: I was paired with the
member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


James Alexander Robb: I was paired with the hon.
member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). Had I voted I would surely have voted for the motion. It is time to go home.


Mr. CARDIN:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Jean George Robichaud: I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Culligan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Lucien Cannon: I was paired with the
hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-man). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. ROBITAILLE (Translation):: Mr. Speaker. I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. WThite). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. IMr. Manion.]
MacDonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
(There being no official list, all the pairs announced are not recorded.)



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I was not
paired with anyone. I move the adjournment of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was going to ask, in view of the anxiety of the government to shunt this motion, will the leader of the government undertake that we get an opportunity to continue and have a division on this question before the end of this session?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as far as
I can remember we have already had four debates on protection-


Arthur Meighen: Let us have a division.


Ernest Lapointe: -and I may say to my right hon. friend that I have no doubt he will have another opportunity before the session closes to talk about the safeguarding of industry by way of protection.


Arthur Meighen: I will undertake, so far
as this side of the House is concerned, that there will be no speeches if the minister will see that we get an opportunity to divide the House on the question.


Ernest Lapointe: That will be a new
method for my right hon. friend, and it would be a pity not to give it to him.


Arthur Meighen: Will you accept the suggestion? What will be to-morrow's business?


Ernest Lapointe: The first item will be
the third reading of the bill to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act; then rural credits, item 38; Bill No. 149 to amend the Railway Act, item 39; Bill No. 150 respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners, item 40; Bill No. 91 to amend the Immigration Act, item 31; then the West Indies trade treaty, item 314; and possibly the budget legislation. If there is some other work to do we will go into supply on Trade and Commerce.


Arthur Meighen: Better divide on this resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: We may, yes.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Tuesday.

Peace River Election
Tuesday, June 1, 1926.