1926-02-22

RESIGNATION OF MR. DARKE

Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to lay on the
table the letter of resignation of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Darke) which will be published in the Votes and Proceedings.



REPORT TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Report for 1924-25 of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in Canada.-Hon. Mr. Robb.

Hon. J. H. KING (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the
table of the House the authentic text of a recommendation adopted at the sixth session of the International Labour Congress-

League of Nations-in 1924, concerning the development of facilities for the utilization of workers' spare time. The proposals contained in this recommendation were considered by the law officers of the crown, and were found mostly to be within provincial jurisdiction. The text of the order in council on these subject matters which was adopted on the report of the Minister of Justice is also being laid on the table.
Copies of this order in council and of the recommendations referred to are being communicated officially to the respective provincial governments.



DEATH OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House doth unite with the Senate dn an address to His Excellency the Governor General, praying His Excellency to transmit a joint address of both Houses to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the deep regret and heartfelt sorrow at the demise of Her Majesty the late Queen Mother, in such a way as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the throne, and that they have filled in the blank space therein with the word "Commons"; and that the Olerk of the House do carry the said message to the Senate.
I will ask my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to second the motion.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I beg to second the
motion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the government to a telegram which I sent on February 17 to the government of Alberta, to the effect that:
There is danger that the coal rate inquiry under the order in council recently passed may not reach a finding in time for parliamentary action this session, and that any movement of coal would cease should seven dollar rate be suspended in the meantime. Necessity of holding market and satisfying public sentiment and demand was obvious. Therefore recommended that governments of Alberta, Ontario and Dominion guarantee any difference between the seven dollar rate and rate determined by railway commission up to two hundred thousand tons.
I am assured of the sympathetic attitude of the Alberta government. Premier Ferguson has already made public his entire sympathy with the proposal according to to-day's press. I now desire to ask if the House may have the

Resignation of Mr. Graham
assurance that the Dominion government will co-operate with the two provincial governments in this matter, and immediately make the necessary arrangements with Sir Henry Thornton.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I think I cannot do better than put on Hansard the wires that passed to-day between the Prime Minister and Premier Ferguson of Ontario. Although I did not see this wire in this morning's papers I understand it appears there:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister, Ottawa, Ontario.
Understand that pursuant to order in council passed by Dominion government on application of Ontario and Alberta governments for investigation of coal rates from Alberta and Nova Scotia the railway board has fixed hearing for late dn April. Any order made at such hearing will be too late to be of value in relieving coal shortage this winter. If National Railways will pending hearing continue movement coal under present arrangement provincial governments supervision Ontario government wild pay one-third out of pocket costs in excess of seven dollars per ton if Dominion and Alberta will each pay one-third. Urgent Ontario consumers have immediate supply. Feel sure you will agree important to encourage development and use of Canadian resources and retain money in Canadian channels. Would appreciate early reply.
G. Howard Ferguson.
To which the Prime Minister forwarded the following:
The Honourable G. Howard Ferguson,
Premier of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario.
Your wire received in which you enquire if the government will pay one-third of the excess cost of the movement of Alberta coal to Ontario pending the report of the investigation to be held by the railway board.
On the 26th of January our government decided to bear a proportion of the excess cost of the transportation of fuel, both east and west, and on that date wired Premier Rhodes to that effect with respect to a movement from has province. We did not notify your government or the government of Alberta on account of seven dollar rate being in effect on the Canadian National Railways at that time.
In the event of the railways discontinuing the seven dollar rate as an emergent situation appears still to exist we will be pleased to contribute one-third of excess cost of movement until the finding of railway board, provided that your government and the government of Alberta will each contribute a like amount.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
RATE ON NOVA SCOTIA COAL On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Can the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, West Edmonton) now give us the answer which he promised us three weeks ago or, to be exact, on January 28, with reference to the coal situation in Nova Scotia? On that occasion the minister said:
There is still under advisement the matter of the shipment of the 15,000 tons. I have the matter up
with the Railway department, and I hope to be able to give hon. gentlemen who are interested and the House generally a definite answer to-morrow.
Will the minister give that answer to-day?


Charles A. Stewart: I always like to be courteous but I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that I answered that question long ago, when the railway company agreed to increase the
120.000	tons to be banked to 135,000 tons, making an addition of 15,000 tons to be taken from the Princess mine. That was the answer I gave my hon. friend.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask another question? Am I to understand that the minister wishes us to consider his reply an answer to my question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: There can be no comment on an answer.



MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform
the House that the Right Hon. George P. Graham has tendered his resignation as Minister of Railways and Canals, and that it has been accepted. I beg to lay on the table the correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and Mr. Graham.
I also desire to inform the House that the Hon. Charles A. Dunning has accepted the portfolio of Railways and Canals.


Arthur Meighen: It may perhaps be premature on my part before having had an opportunity of reading the correspondence just tabled to offer any comment on the announcement of the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe). The event, however, is of such consequence that it seems to call for at least a brief observation. The Right Hon. Mr. Graham has retired, following of course his defeat in the late election, and his resignation is now accepted. I am sure I am not going beyond the demands of courtesy when I say that, aside altogether from the merits of Mr. Graham's defeat in the contest, all of us regret his absence from this House as a fellow member. He has been connected in most distinguished, stations for very many
Australian Treaty

years with the public life of this country and has been at all times a popular member of the House of Commons. I stated that my remarks are entirely aside from the merits of the rebuke of the government which wa3 passed by the electors in the late contest, in which rebuke Mr. Graham shared; but I can add this, that if ever there was a defeat of which the causes went to the root of public policy and the demerits of the administration as a whole and were not personal to the candidate himself, it was the defeat of Mr. Graham. I feel that he has taken the right course in offering his resignation and am only sorry that such a good example has not been more generally followed. I again express regret that Mr. Graham has passed from the stage of our public life.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise for the purpose of expressing to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) my deep gratitude for the kind words he has said with regard to Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham is certainly one public man in Canada who has richly earned the affection and respect, I should say the love, of all those with whom he has come in contact. I only hope, indeed I feel sure, that his services to the Canadian people will ibe continued in some other high capacity.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: 
Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the hon. member that it is hardly permissible to read long articles on the orders of the day.


Donald Sutherland: Jusfc three or four more lines will complete the item, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I would advise the hon.
member to reduce his statement to a question and put it on the order paper.


Arthur Meighen: It is doubly objectionable when the article read is a telegram sent by the reader himself.


Donald Sutherland: 
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: May I point out to my hon. friend that according to the statement he has just read that cannot be true, inasmuch as the telegram indicates that they completed the arrangement only a few days ago.


Donald Sutherland: It
dates back.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL 'Minister of Agriculture): My attention has been called to the article which the hon. gentleman has just read. It may or may not be reliable, and in order to make sure the Minister of Finance, I understand, is in communication with the government of the Australian commonwealth to ascertain to what extent it is true. In the meantime our information is that the matter is purely one of private concern and has nothing to do with the commonwealth, although, of course, that does not prevent its being of interest to the Canadian people.



ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Proveneher):: In
view of the coming adjournment may I ask the government a question? Would it be safe for hon. members to make their reservations for the end) of the week?


Ernest Lapointe: I would refer my hon. friend to the other side of the Hobse.

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan


Arthur Meighen: Speaking for this side
of the House, I may say, without any indication that an adjournment will take place, that I have no objection to the hen. member making his reservation at any moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I rise to ask whether the hon. gentleman who now represents in this House our newly appointed Minister of Railways would be kind enough to table the two orders in council relating to the Inverness railway. They should be tabled.


Ernest Lapointe: I will direct the attention of the Acting Minister of Railways to the question.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will be Acting Minister of Railways until Mr. Dunning enters parliament.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: "That this question be now put."
Mr. STEWART McCLENAGHAN (Ottawa) :: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned on Friday night I was about to make a few remarks on the question of the tariff as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but before doing so I should like first to clear the ground a little. On Friday night the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Darke) spoke of a great barrier being set up between the west and the east, and insinuated that there was a likelihood of grave differences of opinion arising owing to the avarice of the protectionists in the east. A few nights before that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), spoke of the people in the east looking upon the people of the west as colonials. The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) speaking in this debate referred to the manufacturers as parasites, bloodsuckers and robbers. Evidently, Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling in the west that there is in the east some sort of a conspiracy antagonistic to the west. Now before we can get this question of the tariff properly before the people of the west, we
must try to break down this barrier of misunderstanding that apparently exists. I am not a manufacturer, but I want to say from my experience of some thirty-five years in business as a retailer that I have found the manufacturers of this country, the great big producers, probably the finest class of men in it, and for these gentlemen from the west to have such extraordinary ideas about the ordinary plain business men of the east indicates a very peculiar frame of mind. I have been associated with a great many business organizations and have attended many business conventions, and never upon any occasion have I heard any class of business men in the east, either retailers, wholesalers or manufacturers, reflecting upon the people of the west. We are all proud of the people of the west; we are just as proud of them as we are of oui people in the east, because we are all Canadians, and we should approach this questioi of the tariff purely from a business standpoint I have always felt that the tariff is a question that should be considered purely as a business proposition, and not as a political question at all.
Before leaving this question, I should just like to give the House my ideal of a great manufacturer, and I think hon. members will agree that the majority of the manufacturers in this country belong to his class. Within the last few months in the city of Ottawa there passed from the scene one of the outstanding captains of industry in this country; I refer to the late John R. Booth, probably one of our greatest Canadians. He came to this city a poor man, with just his axe and saw. He started out as a saw filer, then became a mill hand, and eventually started a small mill for himself, and from that small mill there grew the great works that we can see from the parliament buildings known as the John R. Booth industries. I am sure that every member of this House can at once visualize some manufacturer in his own community who has had a similar experience, starting in with practically nothing beyond his own ability and initiative. I believe that ninety per cent of the manufacturers of this country have started from the botton and have worked their way up to be masters of the institutions they control.
I remember hearing the late John R. Booth speak at a banquet held at the Russell House in this city under the auspices of the board of trade. Earl Grey was the guest of honour, and at his side sat the late Mr. Booth and the late Sir Wilfrid! Laurier. On that occasion Mr. Booth made one of the very, very few speeches of his life. He made only about

1200 .
The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
I have just been in Montreal and Toronto, and I am very much surprised to find that most of your merchants are able to get all they want from the Canadian mills." Practically, he did not get any orders. But the next year they got the extra ten per cent preference, and they are in here larger than ever. In fact the same agent has a permanent office in Toronto, and is handling the whole of the trade of Canada from the agency there, selling the goods purchased in England, instead of buying goods from the manufacturers in this country. To me it is strange that the government seem to be so anxious to safeguard the payrolls of the artisans in Great Britain instead of looking after the artisans of this country. That is a peculiar situation, and I cannot understand why the government does not treat these questions on a purely business basis.
I turn now to another phase of the question, that having to do with the garment workers, especially in women's apparel. I refer to the French treaty and see what is happening there on account of the peculiar way in which that trade arrangement is applied. The French treaty, entered into so gaily by our treaty makers here in Ottawa, and put into effect in September, 1923, put the finishing touch to the difficulties of the wool cloth manufacturers in Canada. It had two effects. It directly increased the amount of goods made in France and sold in Canada and so replaced goods made by workers in Canadian mills, and at the same time it gave an excuse for Bradford manufacturers, to press for 19 per cent reduction in the duties on cloth from Great Britain. The increased imports of cloth from France under the French treaty, added to the increased imports of cloth from Great Britain, is the last straw. Who can fathom the workings of the minds of those who committed the folly of reducing duties on goods from France at a time when the value of the franc was continually depreciating instead of safe-guarding Canadian workers and Canadian industry by increasing the duties? Sir Henry Whitehead, president of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, addressing that body in May, 1923, said that they could claim that the 1923 reductions in Canadian duties on woollen goods from Great Britain were solely due to their "direct action." That coincides with what Mr. Caldwell says in his letter, that they were given the ten per cent extra without the knowledge of the manufacturers of Canada.
The low duty rates granted by Canada to France under the French Treaty were put into effect#in September, 1923. The total imports of woollen and knit goods into Canada from

France in the twelve months ending September, 1923, which preceded the putting into effect of the lower duties, amounted to $1,439,748. For the twelve month periods end-September, 1924 and 1925, the imports from France amounted to $3,246,813 in 1924 and $3,156,234 in 1925, or an average of $3,151,523 each year following the reductions in duties.
Invoices from France are still valued at the exchange value of the depreciated franc for assessing the duty. In other words, the reduction in the Canadian duties doubled the competition from France.
For the fiscal years ended March the importations of woollen and knit goods from France were:
Year	Value
1922		 $ 699,838
1923	 1,020,122
1924			2,061,935
1925	 3,284,976
Here is another Canadian industry in which the merchants of this country are deeply interested, and the principal place of manufacture is Montreal.
Perhaps there could be no better example of the injurious effect of the tariff policy of this government on industry in Canada than what has happened in regard to the importation of women's silk clothing from France.
There are in Canada more than one hundred factories making women's silk dresses. Up until 1921 by far the greatest proportion of the silk dresses and other silk clothing worn in Canada was produced in Canadian factories. In 1921 the value of silk clothing imported from France was approximately $142,000. This was about the time that the fall in the value of the French currency commenced. As the value of the franc went down imports increased as the following statement shows:
Imports of Silk Clothing from France
Year	Value
1922		 $187,288
1923		 264,958
1924		 500,026
1925		 810,183
While it will be Observed that the imports in 1925 had increased nearly 500 per cent, it should be kept in mind that these figures are based on the value of the franc at the time of importation and, as the value of the franc dropped from approximately 20 cents to less than five cents, it will be seen that the actual quantity of goods increased nearly 2,000 per cent. As a matter of fact what happened was that a very important industry in this country was practically wiped out.

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
That this was going on was well known to the Minister of Finance. Deputations, not only from this industry, but from many other industries, pointed out to the government that their business was being ruined, but, owing to pressure brought to bear by the Progressive party, nothing was done. Canada remained practically the only commercial country in the world which took no steps to protect industry against the demoralizing effect of the depreciated European currency.
The effect of this lack of intelligent interest in the industries of Canada was reflected in the functions held within the past few weeks, of which members of this House were observers. At the opening ceremonies of this House and later at the Drawing Room I am told by those who are competent to express an opinion that probably more than half of the gowns worn by the ladies attending these functions were made in France. One way in which hon. gentlemen who may not be familiar with the details of feminine embellishment could select the French dresses from those made in Canada would ibe by observing that practically every dress which was adorned with beads or other glittering ornaments was French made. The stringing and sewing on of beads, which is largely done by hand, cannot be profitably done in a country like Canada. In France it is done in the homes of the people, is largely carried on by young children and the older women, who, in their spare time, earn a few francs in this way. This work is frequently carried on in homes where poverty and disease exist and can properly be described as pure sweat shop labour. The products of these sweat shops is a pure luxury in so far as Canada is concerned. Even our Progressive friends, I think, will recognize that a tax upon luxuries of this character is more than justifiable. I venture to say that of the ladies who attended these functions those who wore dresses of Canadian made silk and fabricated in Canadian factories were not less attractive to the eye than those who felt that Paris gowns were necessary to show their beauties to advantage. There is no doubt at all that the failure of this government to recognize the demoralizing effect of depreciated currency of foreign countries has led to the ruination of an important industry.
As I have pointed out, work of this particular character cannot be done as cheaply in Canada as it can abroad, primarily because, in most of the provinces of Canada, we have minimum wage laws. In Ontario the minimum wage for women workers in this industry is $12 per week. This is probably more than a whole family of French people would earn in a month. Few, if any, members of this House will take objection to the principle underlying the minimum wage. Particularly, I am sure, no objection will be found by the Progressives, because, in so far as Ontario is concerned, this legislation was developed and extended under the Drury government.
I have referred to the fact that this government failed in its duty in not taking notice of the effect of depreciated currency on Canadian industry. In this regard it will be interesting to observe the attitude adopted in Great Britain, which some gentlemen regard as the home of free trade. I have in my hand an original copy of the instructions to investigating committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. These instructions point out that, where owing to unfair competition the products of other countries can be sold at less than similar products produced in Great Britain, steps may be taken to safeguard British industry, and in describing what should be regarded by the committee as "unfair competition" this document in paragraph (5) of section II stated:
Competition fo-r the purpose of such enquiry is not to be deemed to be unfair unless it arises from one or more of the following causes:-
(a) Depreciation of currency operating so as to create an export bounty.
Ob) Subsidies, bounties or other artificial advantages.
(c) Inferior conditions of employment of labour, whether as respects remuneration or hours of employment,. or otherwise, obtaining amongst the persons employed in the production of the imported goods in question as compared with those obtaining amongst persons employed in the production of similar goods in the United Kingdom.
But this government, dominated as they were by a desire to retain office rather than a desire to safeguard the legitimate interests of the country, failed in their duty, and allowed this and many other industries to be ruined. Many members do not realize that there has been such a ruinous effect on the dressmaking business of many factories in Montreal and Toronto and that enormous importations from France have been encouraged. It may surprise hon. members to know that at the present time there is a duty of 32^ per cent on importations of silk from France into Great Britain because Great Britain is beginning to realize that she must protect and safeguard her industries. On the other hand, the same article can be brought into Canada under a duty five per cent less than that on importations into Great Britain. That will give the House some idea why the tariff should be treated by experts, by men who are familiar with

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
ticularly point out to you that the Canadian Pacific .Railway and the Canadian National Railways publish pamphlets containing lists of business opportunities. They mention hundreds of different points showing that general stores, grocery stores, blacksmith shops, garages, drug stores, etc., are needed at those points. They accept no responsibility for this but these pamphlets are compiled from enquiries they make from the people in the district and retailers are invited at the request of the community to invest their money in opening up, say a general store only to find that 50 per oent of the business in the community goes direct to mail order houses or to hawkers and peddlers.
It would appear that the purchasing public are friendly disposed towards both catalogue houses and peddlers, but at the same time they do desire to have the country merchant with a good stock within an easy distance so that they can patronize him when they do not happen to have the ready money to deal with the mail order concerns.
My third letter is from the secretary of the New Brunswick provincial board, thus showing that the condition extends right across the continent and affects this vast number of retail merchants. He writes to me under date of January 6, 1926:
Replying to yours of the 4th instant, please note that the mail order houses are on the broad road to putting 90 per cent of the country stores out of business, as well as having a most demoralizing effect upon the stores of our towns and cities, from the fact that the mail order houses are cutting prices on standard lines and freight and expressage is paid on parcels over five dollars from these mail order houses.
The new post office regulations are, we believe, more beneficial to the mail order houses than to the local merchants. Our only suggestion for protecting our local merchants in small towns, is the price maintenance plan, which will stop prices being cut on standard lines, and the proposed legislation, which we are working on at the present time, of taxing mail order houses a certain percentage on the amount of money they receive from each town, city, municipality or county.
One instance of unfair competition is the fact that the Canadian National Railways issue passes to the families of employees and the ladies take these passes to go to Moncton, because Eaton's are cutting on standard lines of groceries, cottons, threads, etc., and it naturally pays them to go to Moncton when they don't have to pay railway fare.	_
We will send you a copy of our proposed legislation regarding the taxation of mail order houses as soon as same is received from our solicitor.
They are trying to have a bill put through the legislature of New Brunswick with a view to remedying this unfair condition. He adds the following postcript:
Since Christmas, four firms in St. John have failed and are in the hands of the receivers. Three of these firms were members of our association and the other was a prospective member.
That somewhat offsets the talk about our "great prosperity". Now let me give the Blouse a letter from the president of the association. He is a prominent Liberal of Vancouver and is now in Ontario. I might say that the Retail Merchants Association of Canada has no politics. I am president of

the eastern Ontario branch, and my vicepresident is the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet) who is sitting on the other side of the House. It will be seen that we are pretty well distributed so far as our political affiliations go. The president wrote me on February 16, 1926, as follows:
In answer to your enquiry I would say that, as a result of a resolution passed at our last annual convention in Vancouver, B.C., I arranged to make a tour of Canada, to personally discuss the cause or causes of complaints, made to our association, of unsatisfactory trading conditions.
Accordingly, this tour of investigation began early in September at Victoria, B.C., and up to this date (February 12, 1926) I have visited every chief centre almost without exception in all provinces from there to Quebec city.
In the smaller communiites particularly the outstanding cause for complaint was mail order competition for two reasons
1.	By adopting a policy of featuring well-known branded goods at ridiculously low prices, the impression is created that all mail order goods are sold on the same value basis.
2.	Mail order houses take business from the community and make no return in kind as a community contribution as is made by local merchants in various ways.
Based on information obtained from all quarters I am of the opinion that Tetail trading conditions are most unsatisfactory not only to the trader but to the public in general, and that it would be in the best public interest for the Department of Trade and Commerce to investigate these conditions, in an effort to improve trading conditions and standards of retailing, in order that domestic distribution could be established on a better basis, to the ultimate advantage of producer, distributor and consumer.
That gives some idea of the feeling that prevails throughout the country to-day in connection with one of our biggest businesses, a business that has never been discussed in this House. Now, the farmer goes upon the principle that the bawling calf gets the milk, while the motto of the merchant is to suffer in silence. If the merchant begins to cry about bad business, inside of twenty-four hours the banker jumps down upon him; if the banker does not catch him the wholesaler does, and if the wholesaler does not get after him and he keeps on talking about bad trade he is pretty soon confronted with the landlord. The moral is therefore that, however bad business may be, the merchant must always take the view that it might be worse. This was the advice given to me forty years ago by an old Scotch merchant. On asking me how business was at that time and hearing my reply that it was pretty bad, he said, "Tut, tut! Never say that. Always say, if business is bad, that it might be worse." And that has been my motto ever since; the merchant should always be optimistic whether he feels so or not.

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
I want now to show that there has been a certain falling off in relation to the Post Office Department. That department, whether it knows it or not, is contributing to the general decline in revenue. I have no intention of reflecting on the Postmaster General, the Hon. Senator Murphy, whom I regard as one of the best members of the cabinet to-day and who has been one of the most efficient administrators of the Post Office Department. But the facts I shall bring to the attention of the House are important. On September 5, 1925, the Post Office Department put into effect a radical change in the parcel post system of Canada by increasing the limit of weight carried by the post office from eleven to fifteen pounds. When this change was made the rates were fixed on the heavier parcels in proportion to the rates previously in effect on the lighter weights. For example, taking the case of a parcel mailed from a point in Ontario to a point in Quebec, we find that whereas the rate for five pounds was 38 cents, six pounds 45 cents, seven pounds 52 cents, eight pounds 59 cents, 9 pounds 66 cents, ten pounds 73 cents and eleven pounds 80 cents, under the new rates twelve pounds cost 87 cents, thirteen pounds cost 94 cents, fourteen pounds cost $1.01 and fifteen pounds cost $1.08.
This increase in weight was of great advantage to the chief users of parcel post, that is to say, the mail order house. On October 1 postmasters were notified of another important change which notification, however, was not given to the public until October 24, or just five days before the election. In this change great reductions were made in the rates and at the same time another fundamental change was made in our system. Instead of rates increasing from pound to pound, making fifteen different rates, according to weight, for any specific destination, the fifteen pounds were divided into five scales of three pounds each. What I want to point out particularly is that whereas, after the increase in the weight limit, to ship a twelve pound parcel from Ontario to Qubec cost 87 cents, under the new schedule the same parcel can be shipped for 65 cents. A thirteen pound parcel heretofore cost 94 cents and is now carried for 75; a fourteen pound parcel which cost $1.01 is now carried for 75 and a fifteen pound parcel which was carried for $1.08 is now carried also for 75 cents. In view of the fact that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925, the operation of the Post Office Department had shown a deficit of nearly $1,300,000, what justification was there for a large reduction in parcel post 14011-77
rates? In order to answer this question it might be well to inquire who was to benefit by lower parcel post rates. There is no doubt that among the chief beneficiaries will be those concerns which carry on a mail order business. It is an interesting fact, which may of course be only a coincidence, that practically at the same time as these low rates were going into effect the chief executive officers of the two largest mail order houses in Canada issued certain documents. I have in my hand copies of statements made twelve days before the election by Mr. R. Y. Eaton, president and general manager of the T. Eaton Company, and Mr. C. L. Burton, general manager of the Robert Simpson Company, Limited. Perhaps it was not the intention of those who issued these statements that they should be regarded as political documents. Nevertheless they were seized upon by Liberal newspapers from one end of Canada to the other and used to assist in the election of Liberal candidates. While, as I have pointed out, these gentlemen may not have intended such documents to serve the Liberal party, they had very good reason to make a thank-offering for benefits just received. These articles were published respectively in the Toronto Star of October 16, 1925, by the Eaton Company and in the same newspaper of October 14, 1925, by the Simpson Company.
I would point out that it is rather dangerous turning the mail order business into express transportation. It is injurious to the express companies in this country, and I refer here to the National Express. It is significant that in the United States, where the weight has been increased to something over fifty pounds, the average loss in the Post Office Department in the last five years has been $54,826,400 a year. This would show how important it is for governments to exercise care and caution in dealing with a matter of this kind. I have brought this matter before the government in order to see whether something cannot be done to get the Department of Trade and Commerce to function so that it may be of service to the 140,000 or 150,000 merchants throughout Canada, because I believe that when the people become aware of the fact that this class of our citizens have never up to the present time received any consideration, although they have always cheerfully paid the fifty-seven varieties of our taxes, they will be given a fair show. I hope the government will see its way clear to look into the question of retail distribution and give to the great mass of the retailers proper treatment.

1206	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: In this, my first attempt to address
the House, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to ask your indulgence as well as that of hon. members while I endeavour to place my views before you. The debate has been rather protracted and our friends across the way have shown an inclination to charge us on this side with obstructing. This is the point to which I wish to address myself at the moment. We were brought here early in January after the government had had over two months at its disposal in which to put its house in order. The government assumed on and after October 29, although its ranks had been decimated, that it had the confidence of the people and of parliament, and had therefore the right to continue in office. Hon. gentlemen opposite called the House to meet on January 7 and, presuming to function, they presented to parliament an Address through His Excellency the Governor General. They knew nevertheless, as events since that time have shown, that there were doubts as to whether they could continue to administer the government, and from the outset they intended to take such a course as would in ail probability necessitate their asking for an adjournment sooner or later. Early in September the previous parliament was dissolved and the government advanced reasons why it should appeal to the country. The election was fought on those reasons and in the province of Ontario there was no doubt about what the issue was. Protection was the one vital issue before the country. Our fiscal policy and subjects allied thereto were prominent in the various discussions, not only in the constituency which I represent, but in other ridings in the province of Ontario.
When we assembled here on the 8th of January we naturally expected to have presented to us a Speech from the Throne along the lines of the reasons given by the Prime Minister for the dissolution of parliament in September last. The government were not under the necessity in September, 1925, of going to the people at all. The life of that parliament had still over a year to run during which the government could have continued1 to function, but the Prime Minister said that he had very grave reasons for going to the country a year or a year and a half prior to the lapsing of the lifetime of the last parliament, and the reasons he then gave are rather interesting in view of what has happened since. He had carried on the government of this country for four years with the assistance of our friends to the left, and he stated very plainly in his election manifesto

that on all large questions he had had a big majority and was able to carry on. Then where was his fear? Why (fid he not continue for the lifetime of that parliament? Where was the necessity for going to the country? The Prime Minister gave as his reason that he wished to be free from the necessity of depending upon our friends to the left, the Progressives, and upon the other groups in this House, that such a situation was irksome to him; he disliked it and wanted to get away from it; he felt he was under their domination, and he asked that the situation be cleared by a general election. It was certainly no compliment to those groups that had been supporting him for him to take that position. It was ungrateful in the extreme. It showed that he had no confidence in them. It also showed that he himself felt that he was not free to go on and legislate as vigorously as he would like. Apparently he wished to bring in certain legislation on which he was not likely to have the support of the Progressives and the other groups who had been giving him their support for four years. Otherwise, why did he wish to go to the people at all? He even mentioned the matters on which he wished to be free from that alliance and in regard to which he required the extra strength increased numbers would give to his own ranks.
Well, he went to the country, and he came back with reduced numbers. Still he felt that he had the mandate of the country to carry on, and the very first thing his supporters did when the House met was to present a resolution in which they asked the House to express confidence in the government-and when I say the government, I mean the Liberal party, and the government chosen from the Liberal party, and none other. I say that the presenting of that resolution was in itself an evidence of weakness. That motion not being pressed, for reasons that were given at the time, the debate on the Address then began and continued for some weeks. In regard to that debate the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Darke), who has I believe within the last two days tendered his resignation from this House, speaking on Friday night last said that he had been very much pleased with the character of the earlier part of that debate. I suppose it was to his liking because during the earlier stages of the debate the Liberals were taking part in it, but the hon. member was not so pleased with the latter stages of the debate because, I presume, the debate was then left to this side of the House. Whether it was that hon. gentlemen opposite could not debate, or did not want to debate, is a matter for them to

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
decide, but in any event the hon. member for Regina was not pleased. Up to two weeks ago the debate had been carried on alternately by the various parties in this House. I do not think anyone could be charged with obstruction there. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that not only has every member of this House a perfect right but it is his duty to express himself in regard to the matters dealt with in the Speech from the Throne, as well as matters that it does not touch on but which he thinks should be contained in it.
In the midst of that debate the Liberal party, through the cabinet and the government, admitted their weakness by asking for a six weeks' adjournment, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the real cause of any obstruction there may be in this House. I did not come here from Toronto for the purpose of adjourning after three weeks' debate. I made all my arrangements with a view to sitting here continuously till the business of parliament was finished, and when the motion for adjournment was placed before us I felt that a great injustice was done not only to myself but to many other hon. members who were similarly placed, and naturally the reasons given for that adjournment were closely looked into. For a considerable time no reasons at all were given why we should adjourn. Later on the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) told us that the condition of the government was precarious, and that it was necessary to appeal to the country for the purpose of reconstructing the cabinet. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the formation of the cabinet is a matter for the Liberal party alone. The government is composed of members of the Liberal party alone, and only the Liberal party is consulted. The members of the cabinet are not chosen from the Progressives, Independents, Labour, or any other group in the House. Cabinet reconstruction is a matter purely political, and solely for the Liberal party to decide. Then why should we who are not consulted at all in the construction of the cabinet have to adjourn the House simply for their convenience? I submit that the adjournment was asked for merely for the purpose of enabling the Liberal party to strengthen their weakened ranks.
I do not know that it is any compliment, in fact, it is no compliment, to the 101 members who have been elected to this House on the Liberal side that the premier and his advisers in the cabinet did not see fit to reconstruct the government from among the members already elected. On the Liberal side there are 101 members who had gone through the general election and won their
14011-77J
right to sit in this parliament, and surely if cabinet ministers had been chosen from among them they would have had no difficulty in going back to the people and being re-elected. I submit that it was only fair and right that the Prime Minister and his nearest advisers should have taken that course, and taken it as early as they could. They may say in reply: We could not open constituencies. But that has been done in the past, and members have sat in this House as a result of situations of that kind arising. It was open to the government to do it. They could have strengthened their ranks before the 7th of January. However, they did not see fit to do that. A vacancy did take place by death between the holding of the election and the summoning pf parliament. A resignation has taken place since the opening of parliament, and the Prime Minister has been elected to a seat in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alexander James Anderson: My friends
from Saskatchewan seem to be pleased about that. I do not begrudge them any satisfaction they may feel, because during the last six weeks I fancy they have felt very much at a loss for somebody to lead them, and that is no compliment to the Minister of Justice and other ministers who have been endeavouring to lead the party. Certainly hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to experience great relief when the news came from Prince Albert that their chief had been elected, and they are welcome to all the enjoyment they can get out of it.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that as it has been possible since the 7th of January to fill positions in the cabinet in the way they have been filled, why not follow that up with other resignations in order to elect ministers? As a matter of fact the Liberal party have come to that conclusion. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Darke) spoke here on Friday night. To-day I understand his resignation is in the hands of the Speaker, the hon. gentleman having vacated his seat, according to the morning papers, to provide a place for Hon. Mr. Dunning. The holding of this by-election justifies the position that hon. members on this side took-that there should be no adjournment for the purpose of filling vacancies in the cabinet, that if the government were afraid of losing their majority in this House they could fill these vacancies one by one. But the government seemingly had no particular fear when they were sustained by a majority of three on the occasion of the first division. On the contrary they were so well satisfied with that small majority that they
1208	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
considered themselves justified in holding on to the reins of office. Under the circumstances why do they not open up two or three more constituencies and proceed at once with the reconstruction of the cabinet? I can see no good reason why they should not do so. We on this side strongly take the ground that we are not responsible for any obstruction that may be occurring here. As il said before I can only speak on behalf of my own constituency, and in taking the stand 1 am taking I consider I am only performing the duties for which I was sent here. That is a perfectly legitimate position to take,. and in assuming that position I do not for a moment consider I am guilty of obstruction.
What has been presented to this House except the Speech from the Throne? The Speech itself is a very meagre proposition. It is but a small meal composed of but one particular fare. Instead of giving us an entire meal the government have only given us a very limited portion. It is not the meal they intended to serve up when they went to the country in the first week in September, not by any means. In fact what the government have submitted to us does not appear to be part of the original meal which they contemplated at all. An entire change in their plans has been caused1 by the vote cast on October 28. As a result of that vote the Liberal party came back to this House with a membership of 101 instead of 116, and their friends to our left have come back with a membership of only 28, including the Independents and Labour representatives, instead of 66. That result changed the whole situation for the government. The Liberal party not the government-I am going to put it that way-assumed they had the right to hold on to the reins of office. They assumed that in doing so they would have the assistance of these other groups. I am not going to use the word " purchase " in this connection, Mr. Speaker, as that term has been railed out; but in order to get the support they needed the government placed in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General a Speech which would naturally appeal to the Progressives, the Independents and the Labour representatives, a speech promising to deal with subjects upon which they were determined to secure some legislation. The members of these groups have some hope of getting the legislation Which they favour, which is going to be beneficial to themselves and themselves only, owing to the weakness of the government. Had the Liberal party been as strong in their own right as they wished to be when they caused parliament to be dissolved, the Speech from the Throne would not have been 
in the form in which it is to-day. It is in that form simply because of the weak state in which the government find themselves as the result of that election. But the government need not have limited themselves merely to indicating in the Speech from the Throne matters of legislation. They could have brought down the estimates, they could have nominated the standing committees and those committees might have been functioning; they could even have introduced bills for the House to consider. We are prepared to go on with the work of parliament; and speaking for myself, had the government, when the motion to adjourn was first introduced, said they were prepared to introduce legislative measures, or bring down the estimates, or work of any kind, I would gladly and willingly have helped them in every way I coiuld. But I will not be a party to a motion to adjourn this House to March. 15, or any other date, in order to help the Liberal party with their electioneering programme. My contention is that we were brought here to do business and we Should do the business which the country needs instead of adjourning.
The question naturally arises, why did not the government bring down estimates or measures of some kind so that this House might get to work? To this question several answers can be given but I shall limit myself to one. They knew that without their leader, and in their weak condition, they were unable to bring down any constructive legislation for us to consider. That is the truth of the matter. I make that statement regardless as to whether it pleases or displeases hon. gentlemen opposite. They are inefficient, incapable, and afraid. And they are not certain that they are going to continue in office very long; for the moment they bring down legislation that does not meet with the approval of the other groups upon whom they depend for support, that moment they will be in the same position as they were on October 29. The government have been told very plainly by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), by the Labour representatives, and also by the Progressives, that they will receive the support of these groups only so long as they bring down legislation of which they approve.
The Liberal party-and when I use that term I refer to the old party that used to boast of their strength and their brilliance in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-are reduced to this humiliating position; ithe3>- are going round with hat in hand to the various groups indicated and saying "Please help us out, we cannot do anything ourselves, we are inefficient". That is the position in which

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
they are placed before the country and I make no bones about expressing that opinion. The people of Canada ought to be made fully aware of the pitiable position in which the government stand. I hope the public press will be instrumental in spreading this news far and wide throughout Canada, so that the people will realize how the government are holding on to office without any right, setting aside all proper precedents and making their own precedents, too timorous to allow His Excellency the Governor General to commit them to any very definite undertakings. It is no answer for them, when taunted with the weakness of itheir position, to say that the right hon. leader of the Conservative party could not carry on any more successfully than they. He should be called upon to form a government, and in the event of his failure to obtain the confidence of the House he could appeal to the people who I am convinced would' sustain him. Sooner or later it will come to that, and when that time arrives our Liberal friends will find they are in a minority. They may think that the Progressives are strongly with them. But the Progressives are as conscious as they are that the weakness on the Liberal side is going to be the downfall of that party and of the parties who are co-operating with them-and I hope it will be within a few months rather than a few years.
In reference to the reconstruction of the ministry, I am not veiy particular who is put into the cabinet; that is a matter for the Liberal party. If they have not men of ability among their 101 members who are capable of handling the departments, it is a reflection upon the electors of the respective ridings as to the character of the men they send here to do the business of the country. I do not know any reason why Mr. Marler, Mr. Massey, Mr. Dunning, Mr. McDougald or any other gentleman whose name has been mentioned in connection with the vacant portfolios should be brought in as departmental administrators and members of the cabinet. Mr. Marler was unable to carry his constituency in Montreal. He wenlt down to defeat, as did three other protectionist Liberals. The name of Mr. McCrea was mentioned in the debate the other day. He ran in Sherbrooke, Quebec, and was defeated, as has been pointed out, largely because he was 'a protectionist Liberal. There is no particular mourning over his loss, and there is no particular desire to get him into parliament. There is a desire, however, to get Mr. Marler in, who, as I have pointed out, could not carry the constituency in Montreal which he represented for some considerable
time. Mr. Massey never has been in this House. He is a iman without a home; he cannot get a seat in Toronto or in fact in Ontario. Whether he will get a seat in Saskatchewan where the Prime Minister had to go is a matter for the government to decide; I cannot tell. He is a man without home or friends, yet he wants to get into the government and the government want to bring him in, believing he would be a source of strength to them. Why do they want Mr. Massey? Is at 'because he has veiy considerable means, or because he has administrative ability? If his administrative ability is to be taken into consideration, I do not know where it is. The institution which is the basis of the wealth that Mr. Massey and his family enjoy is one that was built up on the protective system in this country, and it is flourishing to-day because consideration was given it in certain fiscal changes that were made in such a way as to benefit that particular concern. In other words, that institution has been the subject of a certain degree of consideration and favour which has enabled it to function and to make a good showing. That opportunity has not been afforded to other manufacturers in Ontario or in Canada generally; and I do not know that there is any very great credit to be given to Mr. Massey. If it had been urged that the credit was due to Mr. Bradshaw, the general manager of that concern, I would have been inclined to agree, because he is a man of very considerable executive ability and should -have got the credit. I am not particularly interested in getting Mr. Massey into the House.
Why do the government not open the constituency of North Waterloo, and let the present member for that riding appeal to the people with a view to his inclusion in the ministry? His name has been mentioned. Why do they not open West Middlesex for the gentleman who moved the Address in reply? These gentlemen are men of ability who could presumably go -back to their constituencies and be re-elected without much difficulty. But probably not-and perhaps that is the fear; I do not know. Why should any other member resign? Why should the former member for Regina, Mr. Darke, resign in order to bring Mr. Dunning in? The hon. member for Regina felt the necessity of speaking to this House on Friday, because he would have fallen into oblivion if his name had not appeared in Hansard at least once. What will he get for it? I cannot say. Perhaps something will be said about his resignation being purchased, but as the -Speaker has ruled against using the word "purchased" in that way I shall be careful to keep within the
1210	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
rule. But the people of the Dominion are very apt to look at the matter in this way: what is there in it for Mr. Darke? Why was Mr. Darke not appointed Minister of Railways? The man who occupies the position of Minister of Railways enjoyed the confidence and good-will of the people of Canada generally. He was a very estimable man. Wo may differ from him on some political matters but everybody feels that the Right Hon. Mr. Graham was a credit to the House and to the country. He was one of whom everybody spoke well. But does he come within the category referred to by Lloyd George when he said, "When everybody speaks about a politician in a creditable way you must take it for granted that he is a back number?" I would be awfully sorry to think that that applied to the Right Hon. George P. Graham. I do not think it would at any rate. But the government are regarding him as a back number and treating him with ingratitude. If a safe seat could be obtained for him in Canada, he is the man who should have the position of Minister of Railways. Why does the government give the portfolio to the man who is at present Premier of Saskatchewan? I suppose the object is to reinforce the debating strength on the other side of the House, which is no compliment to those who are sitting at present on the other side of the chamber.
Reconstruction of the cabinet is a purely political matter, and I am not going to assist the government in any way in regard to it. I propose to stay here as long as it is possible to discuss public questions. I am not physically able to do very much debating myself, nor am I in a position to supply the necessary information to do it. But I will Stay here as long as possible in order that the representatives of the people assembled in parliament will be forced to function in some way.
The Speech from the Throne is a meagre bill of fare. Far from being national in its character, it is purely sectional. It has been framed purely and simply with the object of appealing to the agrarian vote of the prairie provinces of Canada. When you read the Speech and follow up the discussion in this House on the Address you will be convinced more and more that the object is as stated so forcibly by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), in his forcible manner. The matters referred to in the Address are not objectionable in themselves: they are proper subjects of legislation, but it seems to me that a great many other matters which should properly be considered in parliament are not mentioned here. For that

reason I say the Speech is not national but sectional and limited.
My conception of the Speech from the Throne is that it should foreshadow all the legislation the government intends to deal with, matters which the government feels are of prime importance to the country at large and which should be dealt with at the session of parliament in which the Speech is delivered. It is not necessary to mention the particular matters in detail, but the 'Speech from the Throne should foreshadow as matters of policy the things that should be attended to at this session of parliament. The Speech from the Throne which is now before us, however, is absolutely devoid of policy. A reading of the various paragraphs of that Speech should convince anyone that the government are at sea. They are unable to state what should be stated. They do not know what they want to do; and they are simply bidding for support.
The first clause' of the Speech from the Throne gives expression to some platitudes, congratulating the House on the favourable character of the conditions prevailing ini Canada. It talks about prosperity. I do not know all the elements that enter into prosperity, tot as we pass along the streets to and from our places of business: from, day to day, certain conditions are apparent to us. The best evidence of prosperity, to my mind, is the distribution of the wealth of the country in such a way that all parts of the population feel the beneficial effects of it. At the present time it seems to me that prosperity is limited largely to those to whom the Speech from the Throne is addressed, namely the Progressives, the agrarians from the prairie provinces. These people may be enjoying prosperity as a result of the kindness of Providence during the last two or three years, although I will give them some credit by saying they are enjoying it probably also as a result of their attention to their own agricultural affairs.
In -this discussion about prosperity something has been said as to the large amount of exports and imports and the great increase of trade that Canada has experienced in the last two or three years. Something has also been said about the considerable amount of money that has accumulated in the banks and the trust, mortgage, and insurance companies. That is an evidence of prosperity. It has also been said-quoted, I think almost unconsciously, from a statement credited to Sir Wilfrid Laurier-that if there is prosperity you will find it jingling in the pockets of the people. If that were carried to its logical extreme we would find very little jingling, because there is no jingling in the pockets of a great part

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
of our people, and that is the best evidence that prosperity is not with us. Unemployment is too prevalent to justify our saying that prosperity is here. I represent a constituency which depends absolutely upon industrial, manufacturing, railway and mercantile activities, and which has nothing to do with agriculture except to the extent that any other big city or urban centre has. The western part of the city of Toronto was first formed as a divisional point on the Canadian Pacific and the population there has largely developed as a result of that section being a railway centre. About seventy per cent of the 42,000 people in that section are dependent for their wages, salaries and income upon manual labour or clerical employment. The people in my riding are dissatisfied on account of the extent to which unemployment is rampant in that section of the city, and so long as that condition exists, so long as that jingling does not take place in the pockets of the people, just So long will prosperity not be there.
During the last election my constituents were placed in rather a peculiar position. My opponent was the former Minister of Labour, a representative of the Liberal party, who came before the constituents of High Park as not only the nominee of the Liberal party, but as a labour man, as one who 5 p.m. rose from the ranks of labour.
To his credit it may be said1 that he rose from the ranks of labour-from railway employment; indeed, from a very humble position-to probably the highest position the railway men have in their gift. Because of that he was given prominence in a political way and' he expected to get the support of the labour people and the railway men in that constituency. He appealed to them on the fiscal policy that is 'Supported by the Liberal party in this House; but what was the result? His policy was regarded as that of the Liberal party which had produced the condition of unemployment in High Park and which was producing so much distress and hardship, and he was very properly repudiated on the 29th day of October last. The policy that was presented by your humble servant was one of protection in order to safeguard the industries of the constituency and of the country and, in doing that, to protect the wages of those who depend upon employment for their livelihood. That position was sustained.
I am quite in accord with my leader that protection, is the proper fiscal policy for this country. Established in 1878, it has gone on continuously. It may be it has not always been the most stable; it has been tinkered with; it has gone up and down, and this has
created uncertainty in the minds of those who have capital to invest. The fact that the Liberal party are wavering and have wavered during the last four years in connection with the administration of the fiscal policy of Canada has brought business to the condition in which it is at present. I am not necessarily anxious to see the tariff made as high as some people say it should be, probably as high as it is in the United States. I do not care how high or low it is so long as it gives proper protection to the industries of our country. I want the protection to be sufficient to protect our industries, to protect not only our people who have money invested, but our people who want employment, so that everyone can feel the full benefit of it. Our friends on the left have frankly said that they do not consider it necessary that we should have high protection, or indeed any particular protection. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Darke) the other night rather qualified that by saying that although he felt free trade was the proper policy for the west, he believed a protective policy was the proper thing for this country under present conditions. That was an admission which I did not expect to get from him, but he made it, and in that he is only frankly stating what I think is in the hearts of many in this House. I had a conversation with one of the members of the Progressive group and if he were free to express himself as he would like; if he were free from the conditions under which he is sitting in this House and the position in which he finds the three parties here, I believe he would seriously consider some scheme whereby protection would be given to industry not only in his own province but in the other provinces as well. There is no reason under the sun why in the prairie provinces, just as in every other part of the Dominion, the natural resources should not be protected in their fabrication into manufactured articles. I believe the agrarians will come to realize the necessity for that.
At the present time the chief natural resource of Alberta is grain; but it is not the only natural resource of Alberta, neither is it of Saskatchewan nor of Manitoba. Let me take the province of Alberta first. Its other great natural resources-coal, oil and gas-are all factors that enter into the production of power, and sooner or later that province will find it necessary for its own economic existence to make greater use of those particular resources than they are now doing. One of the chief natural resources that I have mentioned is coal-and incidentally I may remark that the Speech from the Throne is absolutely silent respecting any national fuel policy.
1212	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
This is not only of interest to Alberta, it is also of interest to the other provinces, particularly Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia and Alberta have brought their complaints respecting the transportation rates on coal to the attention of this House. The province of Ontario has recently gone through a serious fuel shortage. Quebec has not said much about her fuel supply. But undoubtedly we should have a national fuel policy, for it is neither a transient nor a sectional question. In Alberta no doubt a very considerable amount of coal is not of merchantable quality, but if industry of the proper type and in sufficient volume were established there, a great deal of this non-commercial coal could be used economically to produce electric energy.
I think in the near future we shall find manufacturing industry established in Alberta on a large scale, and then it will come home to those who represent the people in this House and in the local legislature that they should give it greater attention. In Saskatchewan probably they are not as well provided with other natural resources besides coal, but this form of natural wealth could be developed there just as well as in the neighbouring province of Alberta. I believe that within the next twenty-five or thirty years Alberta and Saskatchewan will have such a greatly increased population that manufacturing industry will become quite as important as agriculture. This being so, it seems to me that we might as well begin now to foster manufacturing industry by protecting it against undue competition from United States and other foreign countries.	For
manufacturing industry cannot be built up in a day, it takes many years; its foundation is adequate protection. When Alberta is asking the rest of the Dominion for particular privileges and concessions by way of railway rates, lower tariff, and so on, it seems to me it is only fair that the people there should do something towards advancing the welfare of the other provinces.	The
province of Ontario is an industrial province. True, our agriculture is very highly developed and, unlike that of the prairie provinces, is not confined1 to grain growing; it is mixed farming, and it depends practically wholly on the home market for its success. The farm products of Ontario are almost as great in value as those of the western provinces. But rich as Ontario is in her agricultural resources, I believe its future depends not so much on the foreign market as on the home market, not only in respect of the products of the farm but of the factory. I believe it will [Mr. A. J. Anderson.)
develop more and more along the lines of the great republic to the south of us-industrially. This must be so in the very nature of things.
The Speech from the Throne says in general terms that there will be no increase in taxation so far as the tariff is concerned; but that does not necessarily mean very much. True, it is an indication to the Progressives that duties on the commodities they are chiefly interested in are not going to be raised. Of course it does not follow that there will be no variation of tariff duties in response to pressure brought to bear upon the government by its Progressive supporters. But I for one do not think that the Progressives have any great reason to look for much consideration along that line. We in Ontario frankly admit that we want an adequate tariff, and I see no reason why our fellow-Canadians in the western provinces should not consider our needs as well as their own. We in Ontario have been longer engaged in the task of nation-building than our brothers on the prairies. To-day they are represented in this House largely by agriculturists, and they have very frankly told us that they are ready to support anything that will build up this nation. That being so, they are concerned in something wider than the interests of agriculture alone, of buying everything as cheap as they can and selling their products as high as they can. We, in Ontario, are not so largely dependent on the foreign market as are the people of the western provinces. We rely mainly on our home market, and this is affected by the fiscal policy of the United States. In other words, we need protection for our agriculturists and our manufacturers from undue competition from the other side of the line. We have not yet been able to achieve mass production, and until our population has increased very considerably we cannot expect to manufacture on anything like the same scale as is possible in the United States. Therefore there is all the more reason why we should so shape our tariff policy as to adequately protect our -manufacturing and other intersts from, the undue competition of their rivals on the other side of the line. We adopted our national policy in 1878, and since that time agriculture has prospered, and its wonderful development, under protection is a sound reason for continuing a protective policy and so shaping it that our manufacturing industry may be adequately protected from the competition that I have described.
I hold no brief for the manufacturers. I am not in the manufacturing line, being neither the owner of nor a shareholder in a

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
manufacturing establishment. Neither am I engaged in raising farm products. But I am interested in a population of which seventy per cent are dependent upon industry. Those people get their daily living as the result of a prosperous manufacturing industry, and if that industry is not on a solid 'basis, of course those people cannot carry on. They are the people amongst whom I do business, they are the people who pay my fees and give me a living. In other words, I am speaking rather from the standpoint of the labouring man, the wage-earner, the salaried man, than from the standpoint of any other class in the community.
Now, we find in the Address two matters particularly mentioned, both of especial interest to the west-rural credits and the Hudson Bay railway. Ontario is not clamouring for rural credits, and I am informed by representatives of Nova Scotia that there is no agitation in that province for such a system; nor have I heard any request from British Columbia or from Quebec. There has been no clamouring in New Brunswick, either. There is an agitation in the three prairie provinces for rural credits on the ground that they are not getting money as Cheaply or as easily as they think they should. I would suggest that the representatives from those provinces consider for a moment what the people of Ontario and the older provinces had1 to go through in years gone by when they were pioneers; and the prairies are at present more or less in a pioneer state. They may think that they have gone beyond that stage in their development, but in my opinion they are still pioneers. Certainly their outskirts are still in the pioneer condition. I do not know that there is much difficulty in the most thickly populated districts of the prairies in the matter of securing credit, although I may be wrong in that regard. But so far as the rural districts in the prairies are concerned I should imagine that they are going through now the same stage which the earlier settlers in the province of Ontario had to experience. Today there is no difficulty in Ontario because there is security to be offered for any credit asked. And security is the basis of all credit. Rural credit in Ontario is just as good as mercantile credit. Any farmer in Ontario who owns a farm and has any particular interest, any equity of redemption in the concern, and who owns any sort of farming equipment fully paid for, has no difficulty in getting all the money he requires either from loaning companies or from banks to enable him to carry on. And he gets it at rates that are perfectly legitimate and fair. The general
rate of interest in Ontario to-day is lower than it has been for some time; for in the city of Toronto any amount of money can be obtained at from 6 to 64 per cent. Not long ago it ran to between 7 and 74 per cent on first-class realty securities, but now the rate is as I have stated. To-day all our financial institutions are in possession of very large amounts of money uninvested and are seeking for opportunities of investment; and the moment the western provinces attain the position of being able to offer security for the loans they ask they will not encounter any particular difficulty in obtaining the money they require.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: There is little difficulty in securing money in the prairies; the difficulty is in the rate of interest.


Alexander James Anderson: Well, the
rate of interest depends on the security offered. In Ontario, if you go to a loan house, a mortgage company, a bank or a private individual and present security that has in it, not the elements of true security but something that involves a risk, then the institution or the individual will say, "I will take your risk, but I want a certain rate of interest." If, however, you can offer substantial security there will be no difficulty in getting a reasonable rate of interest. I do not know what the government has in mind or what our friend's from the west propose in regard to the rural credit system which it is intended to bring into force, but I notice according to a statement in the Toronto Globe-and I am not saying that the Globe speaks for the government-that the federal act will provide that loans made under the new system shall rank second only to taxes as a charge against property. No doubt the newspaper in making that statement had some idea of what the government proposes to do. The rural credit scheme which is proposed is apparently some form of loaning by the federal government to the provinces or to those people in the provinces who desire to borrow money. So far as I am concerned I am going to hesitate long before giving my consent to any proposition by which the government will enter into the lending of money, whether it be to rural or to urban inhabitants. That is not one of the functions of government.


Milton Neil Campbell: Let me point out to
the hon. member that the group in this section of the House have never asked the government to advance money directly to the farmers. Indeed, we are opposed to that principle. We are merely asking that the
1214	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
government provide the necessary legislation to allow us to pool our own securities and thereby secure better rates.


Alexander James Anderson: I am glad
to have that statement from the hon. member. If the proposal is merely to pass legislation to provide for the formation of something in the nature of a land bank or some system by means of which securities may be pooled, as the hon. member suggests, then I am prepared1 to give such a proposal fair and honest consideration, the security being always understood.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That is not in the
Speech from the Throne.


Alexander James Anderson: 
Mr. HOWDEN:: Do you think the opinion of Dr. McGibbon should be placed alongside that of a man like Captain Bernier, who has spent half his life in the far north?


Alexander James Anderson: Yes, I do,
for this reason:	Dr. McGibbon is a professor
of political economy. His duty is to study the economic questions which affect this country, and he has been studying them from the standpoint of Alberta. On the other hand Captain Bernier is an explorer. He goes through those northern waters in a vessel suitable for making exploration, not in a com-merical vessel adapted for the carriage of grain to the markets of Europe.


Mr. BROWN:: Where would Dr. Mc-
Gibbon get his information on this subject?


Alexander James Anderson: I have no
doubt he had before him the very evidence that Captain Bernier has given with respect to this matter. However, Dr. McGibbon, as a professor of political economy, would arrive at his conclusions after due consideration of every report he could possibly get. He would not form his opinion from any shallow investigation, but after a proper consideration of every particular feature that might have been presented to him in regard to the subject. I would far rather accept the opinion of a man who had made such a thorough study of the question than the opinion of Captain Bernier.


John Power Howden: May I ask the hon.
gentleman another question?


Alexander James Anderson: Yes, but
speak out so that I can hear you.


John Power Howden: Does the hon. gentleman know that the Hudson's Bay Company for the last one hundred odd years have imported the goods they needed into Canada by that route, and exported their bundles of furs in the same way, ini preference to the more southerly route?


Alexander James Anderson: I do not
know anything about Dr. McGibbon further

than that he is reported to have made, before a convention of the agricultural societies of Saskatchewan, the statement I quoted. He was invited to address that convention, and the gentlemen responsible for extending the invitation to him must have had some respect for his ability and his judgment or they would not have asked him to address them on the Subject. I accept what Dr. McGibbon said, and the fact that he is professor of political economy in one of our foremost Canadian universities gives me ground for believing his report and relying upon it.


John Power Howden: I was not talking about Dr. McGibbon but about the Hudson's Bay Company.


Alexander James Anderson: There is the trouble. I have some difficulty in hearing in this House, and] if I have not answered the hon. gentleman's question directly it is because I did not catch its exact terms.


John Livingstone Brown: If the hon. gentleman is relying so much upon the opinion of a professor of political economy let me say to him that most authorities on that subject are in favour of free trade.


Alexander James Anderson: Are they?
That may be, but this opinion by Dr. McGibbon is dead against the Hudson bay proposition.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would the hon. member rather entrust his life and property, if he had to go on such a trip, to Captain Bernier or to Professor McGibbon?


Alexander James Anderson: I would trust my life rather to the man who arrived at his judgment, as Professor McGibbon did, after a profound study of the subject. Professor McGibbon studied not simply the reports of one man, but all the reports he could collect and he has given us his well-considered opinion. Captain Bernier is an explorer, and is prepared, Kke any other adventurer, to take a chance-the chance I would not take. Professor McGibbon is not taking chances, and I, as a citizen of Canada, am not going to take any chances. I do not want to disparage Captain Bernier; he is doubtless a Canadian of whom we ought to be proud, but he is an explorer and as such would take a risk that you and I would not take. I do not doubt that hon. gentlemen opposite or hon. members to my left would not feel like going. to the Arctic ocean and running the risks that Captain Bernier has run, personally I am comfortable enough here. I would rather rely on the studied judgment of a professor

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
of political economy in the province of Alberta than I would on Captain Bernier.
So far as the Hudson Bay railway is concerned, a certain amount of money has already been spent on the line, and the people of the western provinces want the project extended to the bay. I am prepared to meet their wishes to the extent of building the road to the bay rather as an experiment, because we have already spent something like $22,000,000 on the work. My idea is that if we were justified, even to only 'a small degree, in spending $22,000,000, we will be justified in making a further expenditure of three, four, five or even six millions to extend the line to the bay and find out whether or not the project is any good. But the moment toe enterprise is shown to be not feasible or not practicable I shall hold the Liberal party and the Progressives accountable for the advice they have given this parliament in its favour. So much for that. Now the next-


Mr. WARD:: Will the hon. member not
give some credit to the party to which he belongs for the sum of approximately $20,000,000 already expended?


Alexander James Anderson: The hon.
.gentleman must understand that a contract was entered into by the Liberal party before 1911 for the building of this line, and the Conservative party were honest enough to try to carry out that contract. They did not 'believe, like the German kaiser, in regarding contracts as scraps of paper. The action they took was an honest endeavour to carry out the contract into which their predecessors had entered. In any event the Liberals have been in power for the last four years, and why have they not carried out the work?


William John Ward: Why was the work on the Hudson Bay railway stopped in 1918?


Alexander James Anderson: The hon. member probably knows that better than I do; I do not know the reason. If the Hudson Bay railway was a justifiable work for the Liberal party to undertake in 1910; if it was a proper work for the Conservative government to carry on until 1918-I suppose the war had something to do with the suspension of the work at that time-why have not the present government made themselves responsible for its continuance and the necessary expenditure of money it involves?


John Livingstone Brown: But does not my hon. friend think the Conservative members from Manitoba are entitled to credit or to blame, as the case may be?
Mr. ANDERSON '(Toronto): I think the province of Manitoba is capable of looking after itself. All I would ask is that that province give us the same consideration as we are prepared to give them, for instance, in the matter of reasonable tariff protection. If they do that we in Ontario are prepared to do what is right and proper for Manitoba, and by so co-operating each will do its part in building up a united1 Canada.


John Livingstone Brown: But what about the Conservative members for Manitoba?


Alexander James Anderson: Let them speak for themselves. I am here representing the constituency of Toronto-High Park, and it is for the people of that riding that I am speaking here.
In reference to immigration, the Speech from the Throne points out that some ar-rangments have been made by which assistance is to be given to agricultural and other immigrants coming from the old country to Canada. We are not only to assist their passage to Canada, but after we get them here we will assist them to establish themselves. That may sound all right, but so long as we have unemployment in our country and so long as our own people are going to the United States to obtain employment, I am opposed to such a contract or agreement in regard to immigration. If that agreement had been preceded by some arrangement by which the unemployed in our own country could be assisted and those who have gone to the United States in the last three or four years brought back and put upon the land under the conditions that it is proposed to apply to the British immigrant, then I would be prepared to support it. But as it stands I am opposed to it; I see no reason why we should give a preference to British or foreign immigrants as against the people of our own country. We are suffering from lack of population, yet our actual resident population is going down by emigration as rapidly as we add to it by immigration. The returns show that the number we have brought in has been practically equalled by the number who have left. Our population remains stationary. It is no use spending money to bring people here while our own people are leaving; we may just as well spend our money to keep our own people here.
The best form of immigration is the bringing back of those who have been forced to leave our shores, and the next best is the immigration that we get from the cradle. This is a phase of the question of population
1218	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
that should be carefully attended to; and the members of the medical profession will appreciate that better than I can. When we think of the number of people who are going to the States to find employment, spending their money and their time in the building up of American industries, by investment of capital and otherwise, instead of building up the industries of Canada, we must realize that we are working on a wrong basis. We should begin our work in this connection at home; we should foster our own people, give them assistance and keep them here.
It may be said the Dominion government has no land upon which to put the immigrants; -that the lands are largely in the hands of ithe provinces. The Dominion must have some land, otherwise their immigration scheme is no good. Where do they hope to put the immigrants? Surely they expect to place them on the lands in the western provinces which are still in their hands. The government are giving to Albertla the control of the lands which they now hold in that province, so they will have no land there for settlement. They may have some in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I have no doubt Saskatchewan will make a demand upon the Dominion government for the return to that province of its natural resources. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have just as much justification for such a demand as Alberta. After these lands are handed over the Dominion government will have no means of carrying out the immigration scheme. It will be for the provinces to join in this matter; and it seems to me there should be co-operation between the Dominion and the provinces in order that we may retain our population, and work out our own destiny. We should not allow these people to go to other countries. It would be better to put the money into the pockets of the people of our country and let them maintain their families here, than to permit them to cross the line.
In reference to the cradle immigration which I mentioned, I will read from an address given by Mr. Justice Riddell of the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario. This paper gives the result of an investigation. Mr. Justice Riddell says:
But the best immigration and the immigration that Canada must in the long run rely upon is immigration by the cradle, and surely that immigration demands and should receive as much care and attention as immigration by the steamship. What would the Canadian people say if one out of every ten immigrants died within a year of their arrival? And yet that as well within the percentage of deaths within one year of their birth of our Canadian baby immigrants. One out of forty dies at birth, 10,000 within a week and 5,000 more within the year.

And here is the unfortunate part of it.
Nor does the mother escape; one out of every twenty births means a dead mother. Proper care would reduce the appalling number of 370 dead mothers in Ontario in 1922 by more than three-fourths.
That statement is applicable to, and the percentage would be equalled in, the other provinces of the Dominion.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend has expressed great interest in immigration by the Cradle. Would he, in order to assist such immigration, be willing to support a policy of mothers' pensions?


Mr. PRESTON:: What has that to do with it?


Alexander James Anderson: That might
be a solution, but that money should be first spent upon the people in this country, in order to retain theim here, no matter whether they are babes or adults. Any scheme that will lessen the death rate amongst children is a proper one on which to spend money. Any proposition that will save the lives of 'the children and the mothers is more important to this country than bringing in hundreds of thousands of British immigrants, paying their way and supporting them for a while, which is the policy the Liberal government is offering to the Progressive party and my own party. They are asking us to support such a policy, yet they will not do anything to support or retain the people who are here.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has the Progressive
party ever asked for that policy of immigration?


Alexander James Anderson: I do not
know. If the hon. member does not, he should.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander James Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I referred to the question of unemployment as it affects Ontario generally and my constituency in particular. Sir Thomas White, who delivered an address recently before the Canadian Cluib in Montreal, had evidently collected some information respecting unemployment in Canada and I think it is rather useful as it demonstrates that although there is not a great percentage increase in unemployment, yet in many branches of industry the percentage of unemployment is high. He stated that the trade union returns in September, 1925, showed a percent-

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
age of unemployment of 5.7. That would not necessarily indicate a great amount of unemployment. It would mean a very considerable amount if the unemployment happened to be grouped in any particular place or places, but if scattered over the whole Dominion, the amount of unemployment would not seem to be very great. When we come to consider specific industries, we find1 that in many of them the percentage of unemployment is high. The percentages in certain
industries are as follows:
Industry	Percentage
Unions in manufacturing industry, grouped 11
Garment workers	 34
Building and construction	 10
Non-ferrous metal, group	 25
Textile and carpet workers	 25
Mining	 6
These various groups show a heavy percentage of unemployment and that unemployment will be more or less accentuated1 in urban centres. The city of Toronto, being the largest urban centre in Ontario, necessarily has a great deal of unemployment and we are suffering because of that. The unemployment situation in Toronto and generally throughout the province is such that it accounts for much of the migration of our people to the United States. Many of them may not be fitted by experience or knowledge for agricultural work, and I doubt very much whether the government is going to succeed in its aim in trying to bring agricultural immigrants from Great Britain. As I understand the matter, Great Britain is an industrial country; agriculturally, it holds a low position. Agriculture in Great Britain is at a low ebb, and that is one of the reasons that has impelled Lloyd George to put forward his land policy in an effort to solve the problem of unemployment. Whether he wiil succeed or not does not affect my argument. He sees the necessity of stimulating agricultural activity by putting into use land now held as private paries and for other unproductive purposes. This means no surplus of agriculturists in Great Britain, and therefore we are not likely to get many immigrants of that class, for naturally those who are already well established at home are not likely to wish to come here, especially when they read the press and find that a large number of our people are going to the United States for lack of employment here, and that Old Country immigrants have failed in the northwest to get any but seasonal employment extending over three or four months. Moreover, they know that Canada makes no provision for her unemployed-they will not find the dole system in operation here. In view
of these conditions in Great Britain it appears to me that the government will fail to induce any of the farming class to settle in Canada. The only immigrants we are likely to receive are the unemployed of the cities and towns of the Old Country. They certainly cannot be numbered among the agricultural class, and I doubt if they are of as good quality as our own unemployed. Rather than spend money to bring such people here why not utilize it to assist our own people? The latest figures of our expenditure on immigration that I have been able to secure are for 1924. In that year we spent $2,417,374, in return for which we received 148,560 immigrants. We lost practically as many of our population by emigration to the United States in that same year. Instead of this negative result, I think it would be much better if we put our business on such a footing that the prosperous condition of the country would not only attract newcomers but would help to retain our own people; and, besides, would cause many of our expatriated Canadians in the United States to return home to share the benefits of steady and remunerative employment.
My hon. friends to my left have suggested that by strengthening agriculture we shall be able to cure all our troubles, both economic and political. I do not think so. Since 1878 agriculture has developed rapidly along sound lines, and in recent years it has expanded even more rapidly owing to the excellent wheat crops of the three prairie provinces. And agriculture has also prospered in the other provinces. In other words, the protection of our manufacturing industries has not hurt agriculture; on the contrary, it has benefited it. As I said in an earlier part of my remarks, protection is absolutely necessary for the greater part of Canada, and consequently we should not hesitate to stabilize our protective policy. In this connection it is interesting to note that of the 148,560 immigrants who came into Canada in 1924, 65280 settled in Ontario; 7,940 in the Maritimes; 19,979 in Quebec; 21,451 in Manitoba; 13,200 in Saskatchewan; 10,430 in Alberta; and 10,280 in British Columbia and Yukon. The three prairie provinces absorbed 43,081 immigrants or 30 per cent, whereas old Ontario took 65.280, or 43 per cent. It is interesting to analyse the figures a little further. Of that total number of immigrants, men, women and children of the farmer class numbered 56,308- So Ontario took a greater proportion of the total than comprised this class. General labourers numbered 18,337; mechanics, 22,319; clerks, 8.327; miners, 3,372; domestics, 13,865; miscellaneous 26,082. What accounts for Ontario attracting a larger share of these immigrants
1220	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
than any of the other provinces? Simply because it is ahead of the rest of the Dominion, both agriculturally and industrially. This desirable condition of affairs might just as easily be extended over the whole Dominion.
This brings me to the position of the prairie provinces, and I am going to take Saskatchewan as an example, for it has made greater progress agriculturally in the last few years than the other two wheat-growing provinces. In 1925 the field crops of Saskatchewan exceeded the value of those of 1924 by 53 per cent; that is, the purchasing power of the people of Saskatchewan was increased by that percentage. The crop value exceeded even the high water mark of 1919, when high prices prevailed-in 1925 Saskatchewan received for its field crops S383.837.000. At that time its population was 757,510. To-day, allowing for natural increase, it is probably about 800,000. At any rate, putting it at 800,000, that crop return of 1926 represents $454 to every person in Saskatchewan or, to a family of five, $2,000 in purchasing power. Now the question naturally arises, where has that purchasing power been in evidence in the Dominion? It has not shown itself in the province of Ontario and II doubt whether there has been any evidence of it in Quebec. Certainly the Maritime provinces have not benefited by it, if I follow the statements made by the representatives from that part of the country, and the people of British Columbia declare that they have seen nothing of it in that province. Obviously it must have been expended in the prairie provinces. If the prairie provinces, then, have had the benefit of the prosperity resulting from that purchasing power, if it has been confined exclusively to that section of the Dominion, the people there must be in a position to buy more readily than they could before.
The next question therefore is, where are they buying? It is interesting to note that we imported in 1925, of manufactured goods of which we have knowledge, goods coming in through official channels and not in any underground way-and I hope that in this regard the investigation now in progress will reveal something sooner or later-a total of $520,000,000 worth. I have been wondering to [DOT]what extent the crop return of Saskatchewan is represented in that import value. I have not the figures here, but II am rather inclined to think that a fair percentage of that purchasing power to which I have referred has gone into the buying of goods which have come into Canada, and which are represented by that total I have just given. At any rate, this inference is consistent with

the view put forward by the representatives of the prairies, that they are entitled to buy in the cheapest market and are therefore on that principle opposed to any protection being given to the manufacturers of eastern Canada. This, I think, is not an unfair inference, and it is a logical conclusion therefrom that the large proportion of the purchasing power from the crop return of the province of Saskatchewan has gone into the purchase of manufactured goods coming in from the other side.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is not the hon. member
taking ,the gross receipts and representing them as purchasing power?


Alexander James Anderson: I am making a general statement. Saskatchewan and the other two provinces have shown splendid crop returns, and whether the money thus acquired is distributed locally or in the world's market it represents so much purchasing power to the western farmer. The crop is worth a certain amount of money and the farmer consumes very little of it, so that what is not used locally is naturally sold abroad. My contention is that this purchasing power should be reflected not merely at home among the farmers and their immediate friends but throughout the Dominion, through the ordinary business channels.


John Millar: But a great deal of it
goes in expenses.


Alexander James Anderson: And that is
true of all production. But even assuming that a part of that $363,000,000 goes in expenses, it is not all consumed in that way. If it all went in expenses then I would declare that farming was a farce and a failure and did not deserve the encouragement hon. gentlemen ask for it. But I do not agree with that view. I say that farming should be productive, and as a matter of fact it is productive and is adding to the wealth of the country. Now, I do not care how you use that purchasing power, but I do think its effect should be felt not only among the farmers of the west themselves but throughout the country.
An. hon. MEMBER:	How much of a
country would you have if there were no farming?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Alexander James Anderson: I did not
hear the question, but as it is received with ridicule on this side I will not stop to answer it. Now, I repeat, that purchasing power has not been reflected in Ontario, and1 I say that

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
if the agriculturists of the west ask concessions of us, concessions which are not necessarily unreasonable in themselves but which entail a certain obligation in return, and if they are anxious to have us grant those concessions, then they should be as ready to concede to us something for the benefit of our industries in Ontario and in other parts of the Dominion. They should be prepared to concede protection to our industries against the unfair competition that comes from the other': side, which, as everyone knows, is quite considerable.
On looking into figures obtained from the Bureau of Statistics, I find that in 1922 the amount of capital invested in Canadian manufacturing industries-for which, as I have before said, I have no brief, being however very much concerned for the men who are dependent upon those	industries-totalled
$3,125,773,000. Of that sum the proportion invested in industries in Ontario was 52.6 per cent and in the province of Quebec 29.8. So that these two provinces represent 81 per cent of the total capital invested in Canadian manufactures. That being so, are they not deserving of very great consideration from other parts of the Dominion, especially in view of the fact that the agricultural portions of Canada are coming to parliament and demanding concessions which, though not necessarily unreasonable, should be granted only so long as the people who ask for them are ready to give something in return? Those people cannot expect to get what they want without giving a quid pro quo to those who shoulder the burden of taxation in this country. The Canadian manufacturing industry pays the taxes of the country, and not agriculture. It has been said, by some who seem to know what they are talking about, that of the taxation in Canada the three prairie provinces bear about three per cent, leaving aside income tax; and if you take the income tax into consideration then they bear less than one per cent of our taxation. I am not sure that these figures are correct, but they have been quoted authoritatively.


Mr. SPEINCER:: Does not the hon. member realize that the farmer pays a very large amount of taxation indirectly?


Alexander James Anderson: Yes, so do we. My constituents 'are all labouring men who have to buy clothes and boots and shoes the same as my hon. friend, and they must also procure for thelmselves food and other necessaries. They, on the other hand, have no big crop returns. Let the agriculturists compare themselves with the workingmen of 14011-78
the city of Toronto, from which I come, and see what a contrast there is. The workingman in the city cannot raise a particle of food for himself; he does not grow any vegetables', nor does he produce any meat or flour. All these things the city people must pay for, and where will they get the money to pay for them? They are dependent absolutely on industry, and that industry must be protected.
Now who are the competitors cf our manufacturers? They are the manufacturers in the United 'States and elsewhere, and though we should naturally expect the farmers of the west to purchase from otir own manufacturers, they unfortunately do1 not do so. They are purchasing from our competitors. Their money is going to a large extent to the United States to build up industry there in competition against our own manufacturers. We object to that; we say that the farmers of the west should help us if they want us to help them.


Mr. EVANS:: Does the hon. member imply that we are evading the tax collector? Or does he suggest that our industry is so impoverished that we cannot pay more than one per cent of the taxation?
Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto). The hon. member has asked me a very civil question, and I shall try to give him a civil answer. He may not cheat the collector, but I must tell him right now that there are too many in all classes in this country who are cheating the collector, and from the fact that the farmer does not pay income tax and other taxes to this Dominion it is a fair inference that he is not bearing his proper share of the taxation of the country as compared with those who are dependent on industry.


John Evans: The hon. member infers that that is something peculiar to the agriculturist alone?


Alexander James Anderson: I can only
give the general impression that is abroad, and it is quite current throughout the industrial part of Canada that that is so. What we say is that agriculture in this country should bear a larger share of taxation. If agriculture, after all the assistance it has received, is not profitable, what excuse is there for you to come to us and ask us to give further assistance? The agriculturists have received great assistance already.


Mir. FORKE:: Whom do you mean by
" us "?


Alexander James Anderson: 
John Livingstone Brown: In order to get the hon. gentleman's, viewpoint may I ask him a question. Do I understand that my hon.

friend is advocating the imposition of a duty sufficiently high to exclude United States coal, in other words the application of an embargo?


Alexander James Anderson: I would put the duty sufficiently high that we would be able to conserve our resources for ourselves. The extent to which the duty should be raised would be a matter for the much vaunted tariff commission to advise us upon, bu't it should be sufficiently high to effect the purpose I have mentioned. The duty should be sufficiently high to enable us to retain for ourselves the whole benefit -of the coal product of this country, and no higher. If we then pay a little more for our coal the money will be spent in Canada and not spent to keep up American industries.


John Millar: Would the horn, member be willing that the people buying coal in Ontario should pay the extra price?


Alexander James Anderson: Certainly.
What difference would it make to me? If as a result of this strike I am asked to pay $18 a ton for fuel that ordinarily I get for $15, would it not be far better to say to the mine operators of Nova Scotia and Alberta. "Let me have your coal and I will pay you $18 for it." Would that not be far better? That money would be in Canada, and would perhaps get into the hands of some of the grain growers. I am something like the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) who commenced his address by saying, "I am a protectionist." Well, I am a protectionist along the same lines that he is. I am not in favour of creating many Carnegies and Henry Fords in this country, but I do not know that that is one of the greatest dangers in Canada. I am not inclined to the view held by many people that Mr. Ford is a menace to the United States. I do not think he is. With the great wealth which he has accumulated, with his ingenuity, his courage and his business ability, he is able to distribute benefits, comforts and conveniences and happiness to more people probably than any other man in the United States; and it is chiefly due to the fact that he has been largely protected in the products of his manufacture. I do not think any of those wealthy men accumulate large amounts of money for the purpose of menacing the country in which they live. I do not. think it is any sin that a man, on account of his business ability, should acquire more money than I have been able to gather because I have not the ability to do it. Why should I be jealous of him? If I have got the conveniences of life, why should I worry?
122.5

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
I am not strong on the Scriptures, but I think there is a passage which says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, that is his lookout. I am striving along the road, but it is not the road to wealth. I do not think that the wealthy man is a sinner. I do not think that Mr. Carnegie, with all the wealth which he accumulated in the steel business, did harm with it. After he became wealthy he did not die with his money piled up around him, not having done good with it. He spent it in trying to advance the educational interests, not only of his own country but of Canada. He spent it in profusion. I do not think it is true that a few men are being made wealthy at the expense of the many. The statement was made the other day that the Ford Company at Walkerville had a paid-up capital of $125,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it not millions?


Alexander James Anderson: I understand the capital of the Ford Company at the time of the incorporation in Canada originally was .$125,000. That does not mean that the present company attained the high position it now occupies on that amount of capital. It simply means that the men who put up the money to establish the company had the 9 p.m. confidence of the financial institutions of the country to such an extent that they could borrow for the purposes of their industry all the money they required to carry it on. They borrowed to a great extent, and as a result of these borrowings they were able not only to pay back the borrowed money and interest, but to make a profit; and that profit figured on the total money invested was only a. fair dividend. When you figured the profit on a capital investment of $125,000 it looked like a big sum; it showed a dividend of $1,100 a share. That, of course, was not taking the money out of the people. [DOT] It was not the $125,000 that made the profit. It was the large amount of money which was borrowed by the institution that made it. Every man in any industry or business who has not a large amount of his own money necessarily has to resort to borrowing as a means of financing; but if he has the brain power to make the business successful, he will not only be able to repay principal and interest on the money he borrowed, but will be able to make a profit out of it, which, sipread over the large amount of money he has borrowed, may not be a very heavy percentage. Ten millions of money invested in a concern might make a
profit of one and one-half per cent, but if you spread that over a capital of $125,000 it is a big profit. But that is not the money of the people of the country. In the case of Henry Ford we have cheap automobiles as a result of his method of business, and the people are enjoying the benefit of it. Ford has reduced the prices of new cars almost as low as the prices of second-hand cars. He is doing that, why? Not to put the money in his pocket; that was not his first object. His object was to do a service to the people, and the money comes back to him in the profit he makes on the tremendous output.
I submit we should establish in this country such a fiscal policy as will conserve our natural resources for our own benefit and result in the development and fabricating of those resources into the finished product. There is no reason why we should be producing natural products of all kinds for the purpose of creating wealth among the Americans and others. By developing our resources we are going to increase our immigration and get people in Canada who will not be transients, so that our immigration will not be a carrying system only, but rather a settling policy which will enable us to colonize our country, something which is not being done at the present time.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: I
congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on having been chosen to fill the position you now occupy. Your selection for the important office you fill shows the faith that members of parliament have in you. We feel that you are eminently and highly qualified for the dignified position. I next wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, on the logical way in which they dealt with the subject. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) spoke the French language so fluently and eloquently that even those who could not understand that language felt quite at home and could understand his meaning.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to dear up a misunderstanding which occurred the other night. When the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) was speaking I was in a far distant section of the House and asked the hon. member a question. Hon. members on the opposite side made much noise and racket, and said "Shut up, sit down", and al that kind of thing; therefore the hon. gentleman did not understand the question I asked. I wish now to tell hon. members what I was asking. He was talking
The Address-Mr. Baldwin

about this government doing am injustice to the beetroot sugar factories of Canada, particularly at Wallaeeburg. I rose to ask him if he knew that in the year 1885, during the heyday of the National Policy, beetroot sugar factories were established in the town of Coaticook in (the district I represent, and also in the town of Farnham; and that each of those factories was closed down about two years. I do not say they were closed down on account of Sir John A. Macdonald's policy, but I believe the farmers got sick of drawing their beets when the roads were knee deep in mud. At that time labour was cheap; farmers could get plenty of help, and men only got from $150 to $180 per year. Sugar was selling at nine to ten cents a pound, and yet the factories were closed. I do not say they closed on account of the National Policy; but the hon. member for East Lambton spoke about the factories ceasing to run. I think probably if the roads were as good then as they are now those factories would have succeeded in doing a fine business.
The next member to whom I wish to refer is the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who answered some questions which I put to him but who refused to answer one. I will tel! him what it was. I asked him if in his sojourn south of the Rio Grande his body was so impregnated with venom, poison and spite that he thought he could come to parliament and talk to his colleagues here as he would address a jury trying to convict a criminal for murder. I have listened for nearly seven weeks in this House to the expounders of the other side and to their logic. They first said that it was unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to summon the parliament of Canada in order to choose who should rule this country. These expounders of Blackstone on jurisprudence cited precedents over a period of two * or three hundred years in the British parliament. They said that it was unconstitutional for the free and independent electors of Canada to choose their representatives to come to this national capital and, here assembled, to decide who should rule this country. They cited one precedent after another as to the uneon-stitutionality of the action of t'he government, but I will not follow that up except to comment on the spite that they revealed in their remarks. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) spoke, and I say, with all due deference to him and his age and experience,

that he used language more befitting a rowdy than the polished gentleman which he should be.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to withdraw the expression "rowdy."


Willis Keith Baldwin: I will do so most generously. Moving down the front row I come to that flowery and gifted orator from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). I will give him credit for being able to smile at almost anything, for having a great conception of humanity and knowing that you can gain more in this world by smiling than by grouching. Next I come to the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) who delivered a most eloquent speech and whose eyes were closely confined to his work. The next was the bon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), a polished gentleman, but he like all ihe rest decided that this parliament could stand only for hours or days. They did not reduce the time to minutes, but they said: You have no right here; your action is unconstitutional. Then the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a point-blank bid, stating that this parliament could run for four years or even its full length of time under certain conditions on the part of a group in this House whom I highly esteem. I move down until I come to the vile vituperation of the hon. member for Frontenac-Ad-dington (Mr. Edwards) who attacked the Chair.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression "vile vituperation".


Willis Keith Baldwin: 
Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Thank you, Sir. Surely I cannot call them angelic. This debate has proceeded for nearly seven weeks. Now they are blocking and daring us to put on the * closure.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Well, I do not wish to give away any secrets, but I may say we have no idea of invoking closure. We won the election of 1921 largely in my province by telling our people about the use of the closure by our opponents. I do not believe that the framers of the British North America Act ever supposed that a government in Canada would send ballot boxes to a foreign country to record the votes of those who had never seen the Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the Australian treaty. Why have these great and noble men become all at once so solicitous for the farmer? It is a joke. Their solicitude is simply camouflage to bemuddle his mind and persuade him to vote for the Conservatives so that they may dominate the country. In 1922 and 1923 this House worked assiduously to repeal the oleomargarine law that was put into force by the Conservative government. That legislation worked tremendously against the interests of the farmers. Many precedents were quoted to demonstrate that no country had ever repealed legislation to permit the manufacture of oleomargarine. Butter at that time was selling in this country around 30 cents a pound. After a hard fought battle in 1923, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) we repealed the act-and only seven members of the Conservative party helped us. Thereupon butter gradually rose in price, but not one of that group over there that go around in their Packards, their Pierce Arrows, their Rolls Royces, and other high-priced cars said a word on behalf of the common people of
122S
The Address-Mr. Baldwin

Canada. Let any of those hon. gentlemen go into any of the poorer quarters of our cities and see the people of small means suffering that the selfish few who are rich may become richer. I am a protectionist-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am perfectly happy. I am quite content to stay here till morning if necessary. I am a protectionist, but I am not of the kind that want to raise the tariff. I say to my hon. friends opposite:	You are
not sincere over there, you dare not raise the tariff. From 1911 to 1921, while you were in power, how much did you raise the tariff? I challenge you to tell me. You are talking everlastingly of high tariff, but when in office you dare not attempt to increase the customs duties. The policies of this government have not injured the country. Facts and figures demonstrate that the balance of trade has turned in our favour, and this has brought our dollar back to par. Someone has belittled this condition of affairs, and has said that there was nothing of advantage to this country from the increase of our foreign trade. The butter business, the cheese business-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Oh, oh. I am quite
conversant with that.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Those whom the gods
would destroy they first make mad. Now, you cannot make me mad, so you may as well
keep cool. The mill of the gods grinds slowly, yet it grinds exceeding small.


An hon. MEMBER:: Exceeding fine.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I thank my hon. friend
for the correction. I am trying to keep within the rules of the Chair, but an hon. gentleman in the back benches opposite used very strong language the other day; he said:	If
you don't get out we are going to push you out. Well, that is a fair sample of those who are condemning group government. Let me tell him and other hon. gentlemen who share his views that this government is going to rule Canada for the next four years. Do not have any doubts about that. Let those who have so villainously attacked the government bear that in mind. The other night while the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was speaking there was a feeling among some hon. gentlemen that he was rather ill and some expected him to collapse. Happily however the hon. gentleman belies that suggestion; he is apparently quite vigorous and I am pleased to see him looking so bright and charming to-night.

With regard to the tariff, I have not taken the trouble to analyse the figures, but it is significant that whereas between 1911 and 1921 hon. gentlemen opposite did not undertake to increase duties to any extent, for the simple reason that they knew the people would not put up with it, so soon as this government came into power they began howling for protection and higher protection. That shows the insincerity of the opposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite have accused this government of every wrong which could possibly be laid at the door of a party, but they know very well that these charges are without any foundation whatever. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) not long ago was provoked to make certain remarks and in the same way I too am provoked to say things sometimes for which I might apologize. I am sure also that some hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House regret many of the speeches that their confreres have made in this debate. I think it is most unfortunate that we should be wasting the time of parliament as it is being wasted at present. Here we have spent seven weeks discussing almost nothing else but the Address in reply to the Speech from t-he Throne and amendments while matters of great national importance are waiting to be undertaken. Why should hon. gentlemen obstruct the business of parliament in this way instead of allowing the House to get down to business? One important matter that should be attended to is the effort to prevent the present diversion of water at Chicago. One hon. member at the last session of parliament spoke about deepening the river to accommodate larger boats, and he made the suggestion that it might be well to make boats that were adaptable to the river. Well, let me tell the House that the Chicago interests pay no more attention to the overtures of the western states, which are working in conjunction with this government to stop this diversion, than they would to the moaning of the winds, and they will continue draining off the water from the lakes until some effective action is taken by this parliament to deal with the matter in co-operation with the United States government. An attempt will be made on the other side to build a canal from lake Erie through to New York and when that is done it will be good-bye to Canada and to Montreal as the port of our ocean steamers.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are obstructing the business of the House and I charge them with keeping people from coming into Canada. Through their "whispers of death" and their

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
Jeremiah wailings during the past five years they have served to drive untold capital away from Canada, and the gloomy speeches which they have been making in this House and which have been recorded in Hansard have been circulated broadcast not only throughout this country but in other parts of the world as well. But although hon. gentlemen may retard for a time the progress of Canada, nothing that they can say or do will prevent this country eventually from being one of the greatest on earth.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other night devoted considerable time and attention to the Rouyn railway, which it is proposed to build into the gold fields of Quebec. Why hon. gentlemen should oppose a proposal of this kind, having for its object the development of one of our great resources, I cannot understand. We have been paying $6 a bushel for potatoes in Rouyn gold fields and it is impossible for us to develop our mines without proper transportation facilities when we have to meet such prices. You cannot mine gold or silver unless you can do the work at a cost that will bear comparison with the cost of similar labour elsewhere, and in order to make this industry a success it is necessary to have such transportation as will make it possible to get foodstuffs and other supplies on a reasonable basis. Along with certain other gentlemen I waited upon Premier Taschereau with a view to having some action taken in this matter and I was sorry to see the ex-Minister of Finance throwing cold water on the proposition the other night, after the efforts which the Prime Minister and the government of Quebec have been making to provide transportation into that country. A highly reputable geologist was sent into that country to explore it and his report was quite favourable. I am interested in the concern and you could not induce me to take up any proposition if I did not consider it profitable.
Hon. members opposite, it seems to me, have not yet caught the vision of a united Canada, such as the late member for St. Law-rence-St. George, who sat in this House from 1921 to 1925, pictured to us. I regard him as one of our outstanding Canadians and though he did on one occasion vote against the budget, in the year 1924, he saw his mistake and later rectified it. And as that gentleman showed us, it is impossible for us to have a united Canada without give and take.
So far as the proposed tariff commission is concerned, I would suggest' that in addition to manufacturers there should be on that board representatives from various walks of life. I would even include some mother who
had raised a number of children and who would therefore know what it was to clothe, house, educate and discipline a family. I would not have only manufacturers who could spend their winters in California, in Florence or in Naples and their summers on the golf links, and have a retinue of servants to wait upon them, living in chateaux and palaces. Any country in which that sort of thing exists must sooner or later sink into the depths of an Ireland or a Russia, if they will not think of the toilers of our land. Do you think for one moment that the brains of the poor are not the equal of those of the rich who are swaddled in eiderdown and fed on luxuries? No public man who has not a heart should be in any government, municipal, provincial or federal, or on any board administering public affairs in this country. Right here I think of two examples. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), when he was High Commissioner for Canada, wTas the means of raising men who had not a doilar to the high pedestal of the councils of men. They have been made rich. He said, if I remember rightly, that he had got through with his lumber product business. We on the eastern coast have to pay our taxes, insurance and overhead, and we have had to ever since the Panama canal was completed. That is what we are suffering, but he gloried in what he was able to do. Then he said that the young ladies were most efficient in that wonderful country to the south. I would ask him why he did not stay in this country. We have wonderful resorts here, a Caledonia, a Carlsbad. we have the springs at the old Welland canal, and they are delightful. People from the south come up there and are delighted. Why don't our people stay at home in our own country and see our beautiful resorts? Then our beautiful maidens would stay here.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) has been over at Clifton Springs, New York. He could have found1 much better springs on the Canadian side, within fifty miles of where he was. But he went to Clifton Springs and watched the trainloads of coal coming to Canada. I pray that Canada with her mountains of coal will develop her own coal resources, and I heartily agree with every member on the other side of the House who has expressed any patriotic ideas in regard to coal or anything else. I agree with every one of them -who has expressed patriotism and love of this grand and glorious country. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in an eloquent speech the other night told us of the wonderful mineral resources of our country. If we would only develop them, and as yet we have hardly touched the
The Address-Mr. Baldwin

fringe, we would develop wealth that would make our public debt seem a bagatelle. We have exploited our timber resources, our farming lands, and to some extent our fisheries, but our mineral wealth we have hardly touched. Let us work together and develop these wonderful resources for the sake of thi3 great and wondrous country. Do hon. members realize that more than two-thirds of this country is west of	the western
border of Ontario? We have members telling us how large their constituencies are. One member the other day mentioned that his constituency was 300 by 600 miles. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) compared his constituency with some of the empires of Europe. Let me tel you a little story, and it is true. Last June I was introduced to a German on Bank street, and he told me something of his business. He had met a Canadian in London and Berlin, who had told him of this wonderful country, and he came out here. First he got his Dominion charter. He was told of the great deposits of silica in this country, and at last he found a wonderful silica mine at East Templeton. To show his sincerity he took out a 125,000 insurance policy for the benefit of the company to be; he took out a guarantee bond with a guarantee company for $25,000 for the benefit of the company to be. He went to a man like the late J. R. Booth, who put his hand on the German's shoulder and said, "Mr. Pease, I know something about glass. I sent my son Jackson over to Belgium, and made over a million dollars out of glass'. Soon after, 1 met this young Bavarian and I asked him how things were going. "They are not going at all," he said, and he laid the blame on the public men of this country. He said, "J went down to New York and they said yes, they would finance me. They told me to bring the silica on the boats below the falls of the Ottawa river, and then bring them over here. They told me they would furnish me with one and a half million dollars for this glass factory." It was a factory making bevelled mirrors, automobile glass-expensive plate glass, not common glass. He referred me to one gentleman in this city, a noble old gentleman, a hard worker like myself, but ten years older, though full' of pep and ginger and energy. I went and saw him and he said, "I will be vice-president and put forty or fifty thousand dollars in the company. We do not want our money going to the United States; let us keep it here." The next morning I gave the man a cheque for $10,000. Within three weeks, I saw a very substantial man, running

up into the millions, one of the members in this House, and I asked him for a cheque for $10,000. lit was the member for Sherbrooke, and he said, "I will do it on your reputation." We have now got out our prospectus, and our auditors are Price, Waterhouse and Company. That firm is good enough for me. The foreman, the superintendent, the general manager, the vice-president or the president of your company could not take ten cents worth of merchandise without that firm property charging it up. I wrote to them and said, "I have put a good deal of money in my life in companies because you were the auditors." I got a letter back on Saturday saying, "We accept with pleasure, although you will not want us this year. We never accept the position of auditors without knowing the members of the board personally, for it is our business to look out for the shareholders." If we had more companies like that Canada would be the gainer, and we should not be troubled so often as we are by crooks, shysters, and hot air artists. There is no place in Canada where we are more troubled with people of this class than we are in this building. I do not know how it . is but they swarm through these precincts, and even invade our very rooms. The other day I put this notice on my door: "One hundred thousand dollars waiting for crooks, hot air artists and shysters. Kindly rap before you enter."


Hewitt Bostock: It would be well if the hon. member would pay due regard to the dignity of parliament and adhere to the king's English.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have unwittingly violated the canons of good taste. But the circumstances are such as to prompt me to an unusual1 display of feeling. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it would be much better if they entertained the same degree of confidence in this country as does the Bavarian to whom I alluded a moment ago. Let us be true to Canada and to its institutions. As a man who has had a long business experience I would much rather invest in Oanadian securities than I would in the securities of any other country.
Now I should like to say something on the subject of our great inland waterway. In New York state they have the Erie carnal; and the cities of New York, Portland, Boston and Baltimore are decidedly opposed to the deepening of the St. Lawrence canal. H, however, the movement for the diversion of water from our Great Lakes to the Chicago

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
drainage canal proves successful, what is to hinder our friends across the line from deepening the Erie carnal and taking a vast volume of water from the game source, a source in which this country is so vitally interested? And I believe theTe is a possibility of that being done. And yet hoo. gentlemen opposite are spending their time arguing and quibbling here over the emoluments of office! Hon. gentlemen opposite are fighting and trying to upset the government, and allowing the great problems of this country to remain unheeded. If the people of other countries observe that nothing is going on in this parliament but fighting and squabbling we are not going to attract immigrants here to the extent that we should. Of course they will come here to some extent because we have wonderful natural resources in Canada waiting development.
Here is the immigration policy that I would adopt, if I were an immigration agent. I would go to the populous countries of the world and say to them:. "Canada is the greatest country on earth. We have cheap lands, and it is even possible that at some time we may have free homesteads again. H you go to Canada you will go to a great country where we have good laws, a beautiful climate with plenty of oxygen in the air and plenty to do. You can sell the products you raise from our soil, fish you take from our waters, and the materials you derive from the mines and forests. You can manufacture the raw materials and ship them, as well as the products you raise, to the markets of the world." I often think of the case of the Mennonites who settled in the west, many of whom became wealthy there. They moved to Mexico, but some of them did not like that country and have returned to Canada. I believe that those who have come back will yet conform to our laws and become good citizens. I hope that every one of them will eventually return.
The problem of immigration has been often to the fore in this parliament. Personally I would not have too many restrictions. I well remember being at Castle Garden, New York, in former years, as well as in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. I have seen many people arrive in that country with their entire wordly possessions contained in a red bandana handkerchief, an old garment, or a tin can. To-day many of those former immigrants are occupying positions of the highest character in that great country. I lay the charge against the government that was in power in this country from 1917 to 1921 that they endeavoured to stir up hatred against the Germans. So incensed were they and their
followers against the Germans that one gentleman, who is now the Premier of New Brunswick, rose in this House on one occasion and said. "I would not spend a cent to save the last blood of the German empire." It is too bad to see manifestations of hatred of that kind in this country. The Scandinavians make the very best kind of settlers where-ever they have gone. They help largely to create the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas in the neighbouring republic. Go down to those states and see what they have done. Examine also what the Germans, the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Finlanders have done in the United States. On the other hand consider what has happened in the New England states, largely owing to the fact that their native sons have forgotten marriage, or have too generally adopted divorce. If you travel through the fertile valleys of the Connecticut river you will see farms which have been vacated by native Americans, whose places have been taken by Italians, Poles, and people of other nationalities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who will develop this country? Will it be those people who are fond of the jazz and go to picture shows?
I say no. Unfortunately, we have to the south of us a great and rich country. Since the Civil war many people in the United States amassed wealth but of course others became poor. Canada has wonderful potential wealth which should be developed.
We must admit that every member of this House has been elected by from 25,000 to 100,000 people, and we are supposed to be able properly to represent their views in parliament. When I came to parliament eight years ago I expected to come in contact with many great minds. I am a very modest man myself, and I hope I shall remain so. Even if 1 became wealthy and accumulated as much money as the Rockefellers and Morgans. I should not be any different from what I am, because it is said that by the sweat of our brow we Should earn our daily bread. That is not the exact scriptural quotation, but I think it is near it. To me it is inconceivable that the parliament of Canada should drag along as it has been doing for some weeks. Some people on the other side say, "Get out and have an election." Well, let them talk to the Chief Electoral Officer of the Dominion. If they cannot get any information from him, let them call up the Auditor General, and he will tell them that one quarter of the counties have not been paid their election expenses. It is absolute nonsense to talk about another election before the expenses of the last have been paid.
The Address-Mr. Baldwin

More than two millions in solid cash have to be disbursed during an election and an army of officials have to be employed.
How many countries of the world to-day are being administered by group governments? Could any hon. gentleman enumerate them? Now in this parliament we find the brilliant men of the great Tory party rising on the other side and advocating either one thing which is nonsensical or another thing which is absurd. But nothing more nonsensical could be suggested than that we should go to the country again. The people would not stand for it. I do not believe there would be a revolution, but the people would not elect anybody who suggested that parliament should dissolve.
We have many good business men in this country. I have a business which is over a hundred years old, and I am getting the largest number of calls for timber that I have had for years; in fact, I am getting so many that I do not answer all the calls to enlarge or build new factories. At present I am running my business from Ottawa and I have not been home for weeks. Now I face a group that want to destroy the
10 p.m. country, but they will not have their way. I run down to Montreal, buy my goods, and have them sent home. Of course if I cannot buy as cheaply as a Jew I do not buy at all. That is a compliment to both Jews and Scotchmen. If I have a dollar in my pocket and I cannot see something worth more than a dollar I keep my money in my pocket. Of course if I could see a bargain I would take advantage of it.
When I think of the grand and glorious people I represent, when I think of fifty years of married life on a beautiful farm in a beautiful country with sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters around them, I feel my inability to represent them. Now here in this parliament we have the administrators of public affairs being slammed and abused. We have the right temperature in this country with its snow, ice and coid weather to freeze our rivers and lakes, so that we can transport the products of the forest. We do not have too much winter, and I do not want to leave the country in the winter season. My wife goes to the British West Indies, to Bermuda in the winter. She has at other times gone to California, but sees more beauty in the West Indies, more beautiful flowers and very nice people. She tells me Bermuda is delightful.
Many millionaires go to the south. I presume there are more millionaires asleep in the balmy climates of the south than are 
sleeping in Canada. If I had to go away, I would go north. That may seem strange to some people. The people of the north live on fresh air. The sun, the oxygen and the air would cure almost any malady if taken properly. It is sad to hear people say: "My children are sick and I am worried to death". Oh, that the time would come when Canada would put herself on a par with China and Japan, and employ medical men in this country who would attend to the eyes, ears, noses and throats of the poor people. Those people have raised our population to what it is. but if we continue as we are doing our country will be as bad as Fifth avenue, New York. Twenty years ago Fifth avenue families had but two children. Is there anybody who would laugh when we are appealing on behalf of the poor of the country, in order that they may be clothed, fed, educated and receive medical attention? Is there a person in this country so heartless that he would not endorse a proposition to have medical attendants go about this country, to every municipality, every town and village? It would cost less than it is costing the country at the present time. Every man must feel that we should adopt a policy of that kind in this country and it should be at the public expense. It is well known that the rankest weeds grow in the richest soil that produces the best wheat and potatoes. Young people sow their wild oats and yet they grow up and make the most brilliant sons and daughters and the most useful people on this earth, if they turn back quickly.	.
I know a great deal about the nefarious work that went on during the last election, and I have some extracts from Toronto papers in regard to what happened in Stanstead constituency, but I will let these heinous things go because the Speaker might call me to order for using unparliamentary language if I were to describe properly some of the things that were done. I have some sympathy with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) because I heard a schoolmate of his, who sits in the far corner of the House, speak about him in his early days. He said that he was maligned in the province of Quebec and that more than one-quarter of a million people voted against him. His name was not mentioned in the constituency which I represent except in one place where it was said, "A vote for Baldwin is a vote against Meighen." In all the other places it was "Vote for Pate-naude." I have a number of extracts that I could read, but I will leave 'them for a later instalment. It has been said time and again on that side of the House that if you in-

The Address*-Mr. Baldwin
elude the Patenaude vote, the Tory party have a majority of a quarter of a million over Liberals. That is a mistake; the parties forming the government have a majority of a quarter of a million. The Progressives, Independents and Labour men combined, therefore, have a right to rule. I cannot see any reason why we are not acting in perfect harmony with the constitution, with the wishes of the people, with everything that goes to make a great country. I can see that that side of the House has changed in the last few days from the attitude of the New York curb to a fellowship, a fraternity meeting. The last great gun that boomed out was that of the gallant old gentleman from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and if I thought more of that bombastic stuff was to be delivered, I would talk for an hour or two longer, but I will wait and see what happens.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go to it.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am not directed from
that side of the House. The other day in the corridor a big, burly fellow who was walking alongside the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones), came up to me and put his clinched fist close to my face. I straightened myself up and went closer to him, saying: "What does this mean?" When he saw that I was not afraid of him he withdrew a little and said:	"I wish every damned member in this
House that is against Meighen could be sent to Mexico and made a target for the Mexican bandits."


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression "damned."


Willis Keith Baldwin: It was not a member.


Hewitt Bostock: It matters not.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I will withdraw. The
only thing stronger than his language was his whiskey-tainted breath. I also learned that he was a lawyer from New Brunswick. This kind of proceeding will never make this country prosper as it should.
The hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson) spoke about hydro-electric development and seemed to intimate that no one was making efforts to develop the great water-powers of this country. A company in which I am interested is proposing to develop 50,000 horse-power, and another company to which I belong is going to develop 80,000 horse-power, in accordance with the engineer's report. There has not been a hydroelectric development anywhere which has not had its power sold before the plant was completed. Hydro-electric development is making steady progress throughout this country, and no other country, according to population, is making faster progress than the Dominion of Canada. One would think a man with a great brain and intelligence like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George would know better than his statements would seem to indicate, because some fifteen years ago, before electricity attained the prominence it has to-day-and it is only in its infancy yet- he obtained control of a company by hook or by crook when he happened to be in the Rocky mountains. There is not a hydroelectric development to-day where the power is not sold with a demand for more, and that is why I am deploring the fighting that is going on in this House when great questions are crying for solution. There is the question of preventing that great country to the south of us from developing water-powers which would carry back the head waters to the city of Quebec instead of the city of Montreal; for even at the present time it is costing a tremendous sum of money to permit seafaring vessels to reach the city of Montreal. Then there is the question of the depletion of our forests, which will naturally lessen the water supply on account of the higher evaporation. There is also the matter of the United States diverting the waters of the Great Lakes to her canals and sewage systems. The settlement of these questions is being delayed on account of the discussion that is going on in this House.
As regards immigration, if hon gentlemen opposite would not say so much about conditions in Canada, as they are doing simply on account of a desire to get into power, many more people would come to this country. Capital is certainly coming in. and I am delighted to see that last week the stock exchange in Montreal-and the same thing is true of Toronto-has become just about independent of the New York stock exchange. Some hon. members opposite are endeavouring to show that we are retrogressing instead of making progress. That is not the case. We have become well known throughout the world as a great nation; we shall continue to be so notwithstanding all the things that are said against us, and this government will continue to work for the greatest good of the greatest number. Mr. Speaker, although you have called me to order, I thank you for your kindness and courtesy.


Mr. E. F. ARMSTRONG (South Timis-kaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that in my maiden speech I shall not be as entertaining as the hon. gentleman who has just resumed
1234	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)
his seat (Mr. Baldwin). I feel a little timid, but I know that you, Sir, are very sympathetic towards a young member who has had very little experience in public speaking and is addressing this House for the first time. But I am sent here by people of the north. You have heard members from the west, you have heard members from the east, you have heard members from the south, but so far you have not heard a representative from the northern part of this Dominion. I come, Sir, from a new district created by the increased population due to the development of industry in the country between North Bay and Hudson bay. There you have two new electoral districts known as North Timiskaming and South Timiskaming, which now have representation in this House.
I have listened with considerable interest to many of the subjects discussed during the past few weeks, and when I look across at the other side of the House I am pleased to see that four of the young men who left primary schools some twenty ypars ago are now members of parliament. Two went east and two went west, and now they grace the other side. I, Sir, am a young man who went north because I believed that the march of empire was in that direction rather than east or west. There was a strong inducement for me to go to the United States, but I had faith in Canada-I have still and I am going to stay here as long as I live.
You have heard many excellent speeches on the Hudson Bay railway, Sir. I too, live on a Hudson Bay railway, one of the most romantic railways in the annals of our history, and possibly it -may be of interest to the House to hear something about that undertaking. I have heard many references to the railway and to the mining industry which are not accurate. I know that hon. members are interested in the mining industry. I have been to every mining camp in the last twenty years; the only rush I have missed was that into Red Lake the other day, and I would not have missed that thrill if I had not been elected to this House. Twenty years ago the government of Ontario projected northward what is now known as the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It was regarded as a waste of public money to build a railway into what many people described as muskeg country. But after the contractors had carried the road beyond the confines of North Bay they ran through the valuable silver formation at Cobalt-a camp that has become known throughout the world as the highest grade in the history of mining. It is going as strong 
to-day as it ever was. It has already added $230,000,000 to the wealth of this country, and is still producing from $7,000,000 to $8,000.000 a year. The history of the advancement of that country is even more wonderful than the realm of romance. Hon. members may think I am enthusiastic. Well, I am enthusiastic, so much so that I am afraid I shall not be able to tell the story of the romance of the Temiskaming railway as it should be told. That railway has followed the trail that Champlain blazed. And that wonderful road is going towards Hudson bay.
Beyond Cobalt is the beautiful town of Haileybury, which was recently burnt out, but which its enterprising people have rebuilt and improved. It looks across lake Timiskaming, to the purple hills of Quebec. In fact we get our inspiration from that province. Further up you strike New Lislceard, and thence north for eighty miles you have the finest agricultural country in Canada. You will find there as beautiful farms as you have anywhere in old Ontario. Men have gone in there within the last few years and have taken off enough pulpwood from their land to provide them with working capital sufficient to establish themselves as farmers. Then you can drive over a fine automobile road for nearly one hundred miles. In about a year and a half we hope to have a trunk road from North Bay to Cobalt, passing through the beautiful forest reserve of Timagami. I would ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to have a recess not in the winter but in the summer, when we shall be glad to entertain hon. members in the beautiful isles of lake Timagami. That agricultural territory, Sir, is the embodiment of a great principle; the mining industry opened up there has made it possible for people to come in and till the soil with profit to themselves and benefit to the mining population-. We are almost a self-contained country. That is the only market the farmers have, but it is a good market. When referring to some statistics recently I noticed that our mining people are paid twice as high wages as they are in the Maritimes. The Maritimes have my sympathy. Many of our finest miners come from the provinces down by the sea.
Passing seventy or eighty miles over that agricultural area is the mining district known as Swastika and Kirkland Lake. Swastika, the magic word, was given to that town by a recent member of this House. Kirkland Lake is only a few years old, and yet it has the highest grade mine on the continent. In the Teck-Huehes, the Lake Shore, Tough-Cakes and a number of other mines we have very

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)
rich producers. The Teck-Hughes is producing a millhead of $32. Men interested in mining will understand what that means. We have the highest grade ore coming from that mine. We have silver at Cobalt and gold at Kirkland Lake. I may say that Kirkland Lake is right opposite and on the same belt as the famous Rouyn district. It is just thirty miles from Rouyn, and we 'hope with the co-operation of the two provinces to be permitted to have a railway connecting fifty thousand people with that part of the province of Quebec. We are a very harmonious people up there, we are on the best of terms with our Quebec neighbours. Fifty per cent of my constituents come from the province of Quebec, and I am glad to represent them. As you go further north some fifty or sixty miles you come to what is known as the Porcupine district. You turn to the left and pass into Porcupine.
Mr. O'NEILL: Hear, hear.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: My hon. friend from North Timiskaming will be able to tell you all about hie country. I want to tell the House about some of the wonderful gold mines. For instance, take the Hollinger mine that is producing and putting through the mill six thousand tons of ore a day. Last year our gold mines produced about $23,000,000 and this year they have created $30,000,000 of wealth in gold. They are increasing at the rate of 20 per cent per annum so that in the next five years northern Ontario will be producing over $?0,000,000 in mineral wealth. To-day we hold the third place in the world in the production of gold and to-morrow, that is to say, within the next two or three years, we shall occupy second place. We shall be beaten only by the mines in South Africa. To the right of this wonderful mining district you have the pulp industry at Iroquois Falls, where every twenty-four hours they produce 600 tons of newsprint, a train-load that goes south to supply the great cities of this continent. And that is only one pulp concern in the north country. Twenty-five miles further up the road you come to the town of Cochrane on the Canadian National railways, which is the best built road, with the easiest grades, on the North American continent. This road does not stop at Cochrane, however; it goes further down over the height of land and passes on towards the icy waters of Hudson bay, and at the Tin Can rapids there is a flow of 25,000 horse-power which is utilized to turn the wheels of the Abitibi mills. There is a wealth of romance in that northern country and I tell the people from the west that if
they do not get a hustle on we wiil beat them to it. Beyond that we have the largest china day belt probably known to the world, and we have asbestos. A gentleman who came out the other day brought also a very fine sample of coal. We have not much coal but if we can get this commodity in the north country we shall have the greatest industrial centre there that will be found on this continent.
This brings me to the Rouyn railway. I do not intend to dwell on this matter but I may observe that this railway is a branch line commencing 112 miles east of Cochrane and going down to within thirty miles of the interprovincial boundary. The road, when it is completed, will provide a freight and passenger service to the Canadian National railways in the north. To-day they have only three trains a week, so that you can readily understand that at first the service will not be very efficient. If this government could possibly bring about harmony between the two provinces so as to facilitate the building of that short railroad between the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway and Rouyn, a daily service would be provided. Passengers at present embark in Montreal and pass Swastika each day on the trip either way, and if it were possible to have the connection made you would have the best service to Rouyn that could 'be given. And that service could have been provided without spending one cent of money from the Dominion treasury. That $5,000,000 could have been saved, and in this connection I wonder why the Hudson Bay railway should be mentioned at all in the Speech from the Throne. We have been discussing that railway for weeks and yet we have $5,000,000 being spent on a railway here without any mention of it in the Speech. Why do not hon. members from the west get on to this scheme? Do they not ask themselves how it is that $5,000,000 can be Spent on this railway without its being mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, while it is necessary to mention the Hudson Bay railway specifically? Let the government take that $5,000,000 and devote it to the Hudson Bay road. The Hudson Bay railway may have many things in its favour, for our history in the north country has been one of romantic and profitable adventure. There are members here representing the east and the west and those who are in the mining area know that the country stretching north of the western provinces and taking in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, known as the pre-Cambrian area, has been swept clean by the wonderful forces of nature, exposing to Canada the greatest treasure country in the now known
1236	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)
world. That may strike the House as strong language, but it is backed up by the best geologists who come to this country.
Now, I represent the people up there and I have come here to put some pep and spirit into the mining branch of this government. I come to offer some assistance to the minister in charge of our mining affairs, because I want some action taken. The people up there want something done, and I am here to urge their needs upon the government. We feel the influence from the west. We want coal and we want fish from the Atlantic. We *want those who go down to the sea in ships to send their products to our country. We are in the centre of Canada and it costs us more to live there than it does anywhere else in the Dominion. A ton of coal there to-day cannot be procured at less than from $25 to $30, and you cannot even get it at that. We are the people who stand dn need of some action in the matter of transportatiop for we are the greatest sufferers. We reach both east and west. We gather the sentiments of the people of the west, the people who have certain transportation problems, and we know their political views. And we derive from the energetic and magnificent province of Quebec a good deal of inspiration. We are the melting pot of Canada. The young people of that country are vigorous and they want me to represent their case in parliament and to get the wheels of government moving in their behalf. This is the day of great opportunity. Fortunes and opportunities are passing daily, and I would ask the House to look forward to a great development of that country in the future. A spirit of strong Canadianism is being engendered up there. As I say, we have been called the melting pot of this Dominion, and \ve look forward with hope to a great development in the not distant future. And I know we shall not be disappointed.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: With considerable diffidence as a new member, I rise to address the House on this occasion, but before proceeding to a discussion of the subject under consideration I desire, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your elevation to the exalted position you hold in parliament. The members here, I am sure, all appreciate the grace and dignity you bring to your high and exalted position, the fairness of your decisions and your impartiality in disposing of all questions that come before you for review. I desire also to congratulate some of the hon. members on the Liberal side who have taken part in the various debates which we have so far had in this House, particularly during the earlier part of the session. 
I refer especially to hon. members from the province of Quebec who have astonished me by the extent of their knowledge of the English language and their proficiency in its use. It has been indeed a great pleasure to listen to those hon. gentlemen speaking in a language other than their mother tongue, and giving expression to their ideas in such well-chosen terms. I listened particularly with a great deal of interest to the address delivered some time ago by an ex-Speaker of this House in the person of the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) who, I thought, was uncommonly fair and open minded and who couched his observations in faultless language.
We have a rather peculiar situation in this House at tire present time. We came into parliament following a general election on October 29. We know that on that occasion the government of the day appealed to the country after propounding certain principles, certain doctrines and certain policies which they thought should be inaugurated in this country if they were to carry on the business of this Dominion successfully. In the Prime Minister's manifesto delivered on September 6 last, he propounded those questions of policy which he thought Should take precedence, and with which he thought this parliament should deal. After the election we find that the remnants of that government came back to this House with a following much depleted. They had been storm-tossed and shipwrecked. The government was decapitated on election day, and although they have since recovered their head, I think the people of this country realize, as do the members of this House as they look across to the other side to-night, that they are indeed a very dilapidated remnant of a government.
Those of us who took part in the election of 1921 will remember that the Liberal party on that occasion appealed to the electors of this country on a very definite platform from that which had been laid down in the convention held in this city of Ottawa in the year 1919. At that convention the Liberal party selected a new leader, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and we all know that he was selected as the leader of the party pledged to support a certain platform, certain policies which were enunciated and laid down upon that occasion. The Liberal party appealed to the country in 1921, but I am here to-night to say that they did not * appeal to the country on the policies enunciated in the platform of 1919. In my own constituency, the Liberal platform as laid down in 1919 was never once mentioned during the campaign of 1921. During that whole

The Address-Mr. Cotnam
campaign the Liberal party carried on under the name of the late revered leader of the party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose name was continually conjured up in order to carry the party through. Mr. Mackenzie King, the leader of the Liberal party, was in1 my own constituency during the 1921 campaign, and wthile there he failed to discuss the platform or enunciate the policies of the Liberal party; in fact, the Liberal candidate, who afterwards became the Liberal member in this House from 1921 to 1925, although he had been an avowed free trader all his life, when the election of 1921 took place declared that he had changed his policies and that he was now an out-and-out protectionist. The leader of the Liberal party, I say, when he was in my constituency did not discuss the Liberal platform of 1919; in fact, I do not think the Liberals in this House or in the country want to see that platform of 1919 carried into effect at all. Mr. Mackenzie King, when he came to my constituency in 1921-he was then leader of the opposition-spoke of other problems, problems which were more or less local, and which perhaps appealed more or less to the people of that constituency. Following Mr. King during the whole progress of his 1921 campaign, I believe that he conducted it entirely as he did the last campaign, on geographical principles, enunciating, not the policies or principles of the Liberal party, if it has any, but rather the policies which he thought would suit the particular constituency in which he happened to be speaking.
When Mr. Mackenzie King spoke in mv constituency in 1921 he took up such problems as these:	As hon. members know, he claims
to be a very strong opponent of trusts, mergers and combines, although as a matter of fact he was a member of the Laurier administration during a period when there were more trusts, mergers and combines formed in the Dominion of Canada than, there had ever been before or since. I notice that in his manifesto at Richmond Hill Mr. King again took up the subject of monopolies, declaring that he was unalterably opposed to monopolies, trusts, mergers and combines in any shape or form. That is all very fine as grandstand play, but what actually has taken place during Mr. King's regime, even within the last year? In my constituency in 1921 he declared that if he became Prime Minister of this country there would be no more bank mergers in the Dominion. He was opposed to mergers then because it happened that at that particular time a merger was being negotiated between the Bank of Montreal and the Merchants Bank, yet we find that in 1924, 14011-79
just last year, there were four bank mergers consummated in the Dominion of Canada without a word of protest from Mr. King or any member of his government. There were amalgamated last year the Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Hamilton; La Banque Nationale and La Banque dTIochelaga; the Standard Bank and the Sterling Bank; Molson's Bank and the Bank of Montreal; and yet Mr. King says that he is opposed to trusts, mergers and combines in any shape or form.
During that same campaign of 1921 Mr. King declared that if he became Prime Minister of this country he would have an investigation into the affairs of the Riordon Company of Canada. That was a company in which a great many people in eastern Canada were interested at that time, particularly the people of Ontario and Quebec, who had put their money into that corporation expecting that it was an organization which was being fairly and equitably handled, and one in which the shareholders would have a fair chance. The government that went out of office in 1921 found it necessary to take I.O.U's from the Riordon Company in payment of certain business taxes, because the company, owing to the financial position in which they found themselves, were unable to pay those taxes at the time. When Mr. King spoke in my constituency in 1921 he tried by innuendo to make it appear that the Conservative government was in some way allied with the big interests and with the Riordon Company, that there was some secret underhand dealing between them whereby the Riordon Company was exempted from taxation, yet subsequent events proved that the Riordon Company was in a serious financial position at that time, and that it was impossible for them to pay their business profits taxes. Mr. King became Prime Minister in 1921, and from that day to this no one has ever heard anything further from him about the Riordon Company or of any investigation which would disclose the real cause of the failure of that company.
Mr. King went further than that. He said that the government of Mr. Meighen was a government by order in council, that parliament was not consulted, that practically the whole business of the country was carried on by order in council. Of course, he knew perfectly well as every hon. member knows, that no government can carry on in this country without orders in council. I venture to say to-night that the present government; during the last four years, have passed not five hundred, or a thousand, or fifteen hun-



The Address-Mr. Cotnam
dred, or two thousand orders in council, but probably three thousand such orders. And yet Mr. Mackenzie King said at that time that he was the great protagonist of responsible government in this country, that the people through parliament must be consulted in regard to everything. What do we find to-day? We find that this government-this responsible government of which Right Hon. Mackenzie King is the head-guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National railways for the building of a line of railway costing the people of this country a sum probably in the neighbourhood of three to five million dollars, for which we are directly responsible. They do this by order in council, although Mr. King insisted when in opposition that government by order in council was altogether unfair and should not be permitted under our British constitution.
I wonder if any of the Liberal members of this House have ever read over the platform of the Liberal party as enunciated in 1919 under the caption of "financial conditions and taxation." I should just like to read a little from that platform to-night for their enlightenment, to see if it conjures up any memories of the past when that platform was framed. It reads as follows:
Whereas the national safety demands that the serious financial position of the country should be known and appreciated in order that steps may be taken to cope with the same; and
Whereas on the 31st March last, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, the net public debt was $1,584,000,000 or roughly, $220 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion, involving an annual interest charge of about $115,000,000 and thus imposing an annual burden for interest on debt alone of $15 per head of the population; and
Whereas the estimated expenditure of the Dominion government for the present fiscal year is over $800,000,000 or roughly $100 per head of the population; and
Whereas the estimated revenue is only $280,000,000, thus creating an estimated deficit of over $500,000,000- a sum equivalent to $62.50 per head of the population- which sum the Finance Minister proposes to obtain by borrowing; and-
Just listen to what they say here:
Whereas national disaster will overtake this country should the present method of financing the country's affairs be continued-
National disaster, they say, is to follow. These were the gentlemen opposite who are telling us to-night that we are the people who are preaching blue ruin in this Dominion; and yet that is what they were saying in 1919-that national disaster will overtake this country. I continue quoting:
Whereas both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation, while Canada raises not more tian 20 per cent;

Be it and it is hereby resolved:
That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundest consideration of all patriotic citizens and the exercise of severest economy by the government;
That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions;
Taxes on luxuries.
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance. First: diminishing the. very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people,-
And by the way, the cost of living is five per cent higher than it was when that platform was framed, yet nothing is said about the high cost of living to-day.
Second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and sawmill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; net twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.
I am sure it must be refreshing for hon. gentlemen opposite to listen once more to these words, which they surely must have heard in 1919. That suits hon. members from Saskatchewan all right-So impressive is the statement: " The Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement these provisions by legislation." You would think the proceedings were as solemn as a funeral. And yet to-day when we draw the attention of these gentlemen to their platform of 1919 and the explicit planks they laid down therein, in which they said that national disaster would overtake the then government if they continued on this course, and that we had a national debt of $1,584,000,000, or $220 per capita; to-day when we draw their attention to the fact that the national debt of this country has risen until it is over $2,500,000,000, or $300 per capita, they say that we are crying blue ruin.

The Address-Mr. Cotnarn
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, February 23, 1926