1926-01-19

DEATH OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House) moved, seconded by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Opposition): That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:-
Most Gracious Sovereign:-
We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, approach Your Majesty with the expression of our deep and heartfelt sorrow at the demise of Her Majesty the Queen Mother.
We deplore the loss of Queen Alexandra whose manifold and exalted virtues have for three generations commanded the respect and admiration of the world, and there has come to each of us a sense of personal bereavement which, we say it with all possible respect and duty, makes Your Majesty's sorrow our own.
We pray that the God of consolation may comfort Your Majesty and the members of the Royal Family in their affliction, and that Your Majesty may be long spared as the Sovereign of this great Empire.
He said:	The resolution which I have the
honour to move, and which my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has kindly agreed to second, is an expression to His Majesty the King and the royal family of the deep sorrow of the Canadian people at the demise of the illustrious lady who, for many years, was our beloved queen. The death of Queen Alexandra has broken one of the last links with the Victorian age. Her work and influence may be measured by the universality and the sincerity of the mourning for her loss. In all parts of the British commonwealth her charity, her sympathy and her graciousness have been acclaimed. Her kindness has won all hearts. During the life of a high personality the people may acknowledge and respect rank, power and exalted position, but after death real greatness is the true characteristic of only those who are loved. The family virtues which Queen Alexandra taught by precept and example, her great charity and the dignity of her life have endeared her to all classes of British citizenship and will never be forgotten. May I add that the royal family, while constitutionally having no direction or control in the administration of political affairs, has firmly established itself in the affections of the British Empire through its influence for good by example, and its devotion to all national interests, and none of its members has contributed a larger share than the late illustrious queen in the propagating of this influence which is, and I believe will remain, the strongest link between the various groups of the commonwealth.
This address will express the heartfelt condolences of this House and the assurance that the Canadian people participate to the utmost in the universal feeling of sympathy with His Majesty the King in his great loss.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: It is fitting that some
such address as this should be passed by this parliament, the parliament of the first Dominion of the British Empire. The secret of the power wielded by the queen mother and of the devotion of her subjects at this time lies in the fact that she possessed those feminine qualities of tenderness and sympathy, domestic devotion, and allied with them those attributes of dignity and of authority inseparable in the minds of us all from the notion of a queen. The extent of the sorrow of to-day, the universality of her influence, even though gone, among the people of the empire are a tribute to the supremacy of character in human life, to the enthronement of a strong and worthy character as the first great possession of humanity, the most lasting of all those qualities in the love they engender and the influence they wield among the entire human race. The resolution is graciously and happily worded. Its passing will be a credit to this parliament. I associate my name as seconder of the resolution most willingly.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it a privilege to have the opportunity of adding, on behalf of those with whom I am associated, a few words in support of this resolution. The memory of that great woman will live in the hearts of the people of the British Empire for a long time. From the day she set foot, a beautiful Danish princess, on Britain's shores, she captivated the hearts of the British people, and each succeeding year only increased their esteem and admiration. I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Lapointe moved, seconded by Mr. Meighen:
That the said address be engrossed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Lapointe moved, seconded by Mr. Meighen:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has passed an Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the deep regret and heartfelt sorrow of the House at the demise of Her Majesty the late Queen Mother Alexandra, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the same Address; and that the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Deceased Member-Mr. Mar die

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to complaints made as to the delays of the commission appointed to deal with those with over $500 on deposit in the Home Bank. I refer to the urgent cases of those in distress and suffering. Will the government look into the matter and give relief to those in need?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: At the last session of parliament, my hon. friend will recall, legislation was passed to take care of certain of the Home Bank depositors, and my recollection is that it was provided that any cases of distress were to be referred to the Exchequer court. I will direct the attention of the Judge of the Exchequer court to the observations of my hon. friend,
RELIEF TO WAR PENSIONERS On the Orders of the Day:


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to call the attention of the government to many requests made by the city of Toronto and other municipalities throughout Canada that aid should be given to returned) soldiers amongst whom great distress prevails this winter. I would also direct the attention of the government to editorials which appeared in the Globe of January 15 and 16 calling for prompt investigation and a reasonably adequate measure of relief, and pointing out the urgency of the matter. These complaints have been going on for four months. Will the government look into this matter, especially as regards the relief urgently needed in numerous cases of those of twenty per cent disability or less who were cut off from all relief in November last?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: I shall be pleased to submit the remarks of my hon. friend to the minister in charge of that department. I know he is attending to this very matter at the present time.



THE LATE MR. JOSEPH EDMOND MARCILE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate at this' stage to ment:on the regrettable circumstance that, only a few days after the eleotion and before the summoning of this parliament, one of the members-eleet was

taken from us. I refer to the then member-elect for the constituency of Bagot, the late Mr. Joseph Edmond Marcile. Mr. Marcile first entered this parliament in 1808 and was elected at seven consecutive elections. His election on the 2&th October last was indteed a great personal tribute on the part of his constituents, for they returned him although he could not participate in the campaign being confined to his bed by an incurable illness.
Mr. Marcile had the universal regard of all those who 'lived near him and whose interests he served with devotion and success. On this side of the House we shall always remember his kindly and generous disposition, his loyal and faithful support, his public spirit and devotion to duty. I believe no other member of this parliament enjoyed to a larger extent the esteem and respect of his fellow members. To me he was a dear personal friend, and I know I am expressing the sentiments of all members of .this House when I pray you, Mr. Speaker, to convey to Madame Marcile and the members of her family our deepest sympathy in their bereavement.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that references of the character made by the leader of the House should pass to the family of our late colleague, Mr. Marcile. This is particularly so when we recall that he was one of the very oldest of the members of the House, one of those who had served1 the longest without interruption of all in the last parliament. His personality was known better to his colleagues on the other side than to us. Perhaps no member of this chamber was of a more quiet and retiring disposition than he; but his association here ended, after many long years, with this result that, throughout that period, he had aroused the enmity of none and had engaged the friendship of all. But a few short weeks before he died, I had occasion to have a conversation with him of the most friendly kind, and the sadness of his passing was accentuated by the thought that in that hour so short a time before there had seemed nothing in his heart but pleasantness and joy. I can testify to the high standing of Mr. Marcile in his riding, having had some witness of the feelings of the people there on the occasion of my last visit. No one save a man who had a great faculty for friendship could1 have enj oyed the confidence of a constituency so long and so universally as he did. I, therefore, join warmly in the tribute of the government and in asking that a message of sympathy be conveyed by this House to his widow and his daughters.

The Address-Mr. Mullins


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, it would be an affectation on my part were I to say 'that I was very well acquainted with Mr. Marcile. I remember his kindly presence in this House sitting somewhere behind the leader of the House.
I am sure we all regret his passing, and I am only too glad to join in sending a message of condolence to those who were near and dear to him.	.


Mr. MORIN (Bagot) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with emotion, to the kind words of praise and sympathy which the hon. members who spoke before me have just uttered with reference to the esteemed and lately deceased Mr. J. Edmond Marcile. I am well aware that during the twenty-seven years he represented in this House our constituency, the county of Bagot, he was always the good and faithful servant, not only of his county but of his province and country. He was always, not only in his constituency, but in this House, a model of zeal and courtesy, placing the duties of his mandate before all his personal interests.
It will certainly give me much pleasure to convey to the family of Mr. Marcile and to the electors of Bagot the kind words of the hon. members who spoke before me, and J have no hesitation in taking the responsibility of expressing, on their behalf and mine, all the gratitude which we feel.
As the new member for Bagot, I wish to assure you that I shall always strive to profit by the excellent example and lesson bequeathed to me by my dear deceased friend, the late Mr. Marcile.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will convey to the
family the expressions of sympathy of the House of Commons.



AVIATION REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the government to the following despatch appearing in the Province newspaper of Vancouver:
Aviators Halted at Yukon Border American Flyers Forced to Travel Last 100 Miles By Dog Team
Dawson, Yukon Territory, Jan. 2.-Barred by Canadian regulations from continuing their trip by airplane, J. McPherson and E. B. Bigham, mining engineers of Fairbanks, Alaska, who flew to Eagle, a distance of approximately 300 miles, in four hours last Sunday, were obliged to travel the last 100 miles of their business trip to Dawson by dog team. They arrived here Tuesday, the journey over the snow from Eagle requiring three days.
I would ask the government whether the foregoing statement is correct, that these men by reason of our regulations were forced to make a hazardous trip on foot extending over several days when they might have reached their destination by aeroplane in as many hours. If this is so, I would ask further, whether the government will not invest its officials with certain discretionary powers so that they may administer the regulations with some degree of common sense.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been called to the despatch referred to by my hon. friend, but I am aware that there is a regulation which provides that aeroplanes coming from the United States into this country must first have permission from the proper Canadian authorities. However, I will investigate the matter and see if there is anything unfair or improper in enforcing that regulation.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The Bouse resumed from Monday January 18 consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the Session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, being a new member from the western prairies I take the privilege of congratulating you on your re-appointment to the Chair. It is nearly thirty years since I had the privilege of being a legislator; it was as a member of the local House in the province of Manitoba. The same class of men that sent me to that House have sent me to this one. It was said by some hon. gentlemen opposite that the question at issue in the recent election was the tariff. Well, in my constituency that was not the case. The tariff came into the issue slightly; the transportation question stood out foremost in the election. Marquette was formerly represented by Hon. T. A. Crerar. He was a grain _ grower, or at least he was in the grain business. I have the honour now to occupy that seat. But I am in a distinctly different business- the old time-honoured business called the cattle trade; in other words, the live stock industry of western Canada.
The live stock industry will save western Canada, if hon. gentlemen opposite will give it some consideration. Several attempts have been made to help out that industry, one
The Address

Mr. Mullins

attempt being to secure lower ocean freight rates. Being closely identified with the business, I was asked by those interested in Manitoba to attend before the special committee appointed last session to consider the Petersen contract, to give evidence and to do what I could to help the industry towards getting a reduction of freight rates. I attended with a perfectly open mind, but I never witnessed such an absolute farce or such a sham perpetrated on the public as the Petersen contract committee. There could not have been any sincere intention on the part of the government to give us a reduction in freight rates and so help that old industry, the cattle trade of western Canada.
I say that advisedly, Sir, for if they were sincere in their desire to help the industry they had the remedy in their own hands, without subsidizing any steamship company, without making any bargain with Sir William Petersen; they had their own ships-the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. When I discussed with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) this means of reducing ocean freight rates on cattle he said: Oh, those ships are no good, they cannot carry cattle. I submit that that is not correct. I have shipped cattle by the Canadian government boat Victor, and she carried my live stock as satisfactorily as any ship that I have chartered for the last thirty years. There are twenty-four ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine of over 8,000 tons . each that could be utilized to carry the live stock of the western prairies to the markets of the world, and they would be as suitable for this traffic as any cattle ships that are now in the service. A company in Toronto has taken over the Jensen line, and they have turned their ships into the cattle traffic by simply removing certain interior fittings and making a few other alterations. The first boat leaves this week, the Ontario; she will be followed by the Manitoba, the Saskatchewan and the Albertan.
If the Government were sincere last year in their expressed desire to help us as producers on the land, they could have refitted those ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine so that they would have been available to carry our cattle to the markets of the world. But no, Sir, they preferred to sell these ships at prices which make my blood run cold when I reflect how far they are below the real value of the ships.
I have been told by a man who knows thoroughly well what he is talking about that eight of these ships were worth three times the price they were sold for. I have under my 
hand a list of the ships sold. Six were sold to one company called the Great Lakes Transportation Company of Midland, and two others to N. M. Patterson. The latter were sold for $50,000 each, while those sold to the Great Lakes Transportation Company realized $40,000 apiece. Why, Sir, they were worth that for scrap iron. I do not know whether they were put up at public auction or not, but to me it looks wrong to sell these ships at such a low figure. The gentleman whom I travelled with on my way to Ottawa told me that he is connected with a shipping company in Cleveland, and that he would have bought these ships at three times the prices realized had he known they were going to be sold. He has a number of ships tied up in Fort W illiam at the present time and he is using them for the storage of wheat. He told me that these government ships were worth more money than they were sold for just for storage purposes.
All these ships were over 3,000 tons. In the early days when we were shipping out of Montreal the boats only averaged about 4,000 tons. A good many years ago one of the boats of the old Donaldson line of only 3,000 tons carried our cattle very satisfactorily. But these government ships were from 3,500 to 3,900 tons, and yet they were practically given away for the ridiculous prices of $40,000 and $50,000 apiece. This is wrong, this is unfair to those of us in western Canada who are engaged in the live stock business, and western Canada has protested and sent representatives to champion the cause of the live stock industry. There are plenty of men sitting at the other end of this chamber who will look after the wheat but not enough of them are looking after the live stock. I am not one of the men who is a soil robber; I am not one of those who went out to that western country and Stole the fertility out of the soil; I am not that type at all. I am in the live stock industry, a feeder and producer of cattle, one of those on the prairies who are trying to make two blades of grass grow where but one grew before. In the early days, as general manager of one of the leading ranches in western Canada, the Cochrane ranch, I was driven from pillar to post by those steam-plow propositions, those disturbing elements which came into that western country, stole the fertility out of the soil, drove the legitimate business off the prairies and took possession. They came in, tore up the soil and robbed it and what do we find to-day? We find the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) with a number of professors from the Minnesota Agricultural Col-

The Address-Mr. Mullins
lege coining back to seed the land they took from us and gave to their friends. Their friends had closed leases and they made us take open leases. The settlers came in and plowed up the land and we gave way to them. To-day we find them spending thousands of dollars on professors to re-seed that land and bring it back again. The constituency which I represent is one which believes in diversified farming, not in a steam-plow only, who if there is a little bit of roll in the land do not want it. They come in there with a steam-plow-God help them-sowless, cowless, and chickenless farmers. Just a short time ago, Mr. Speaker, I was asked to an old-timers' meeting in the northern part of the province. While I was there a chap came into the store and asked for six cans of Borden's milk, or Carnation milk-I do not know which, but he asked for canned milk. Then he turned around and asked for a crock of butter. I turned to him and asked if he was a farmer, and he said he was. I said:	"Well, you cannot be much
of a farmer if you are buying butter and canned milk," and he said "I haven't a live thing on the farm." Nothing but tractors and gasoline! The tractors are ruining western Canada. I am pleased to say to this House that the trend of the times is changing and they are starting again to love the horse; they are thinking more of the horse. They do not like the smell of the exhaust pipe. I read in the paper something to the effect that it was cancerous and they are afraid of a cancerous growth. They much prefer the smell of the horse, and we are going back to the horse on the prairies. When we do that we are approaching success and we will have a richer country. God and nature have endowed western Canada as they have no other country. We have wonderful opportunities out there. I can do on the western prairies, in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, what cannot be done in any other country-raise and produce live stock outdoors without putting them in a stable, fatten and prepare them for the British market and make a gain of two pounds per day on those fertile prairies. Many farmers neglected the live stock industry and let his lands run to weeds. The live stock industry has to come back and redeem a lot of these farms now in a deteriorated condition. The right hon. leader of my party (Mr. Meighen) knows what has happened in the Portage la Prairie district through the continual mining of the soil. The weeds have been allowed to grow and very little attention has been paid to fertilizing the soil.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I can only say to hon. gentlemen opposite who hold the reins of power that if they will give us a chance to get to the markets of the world at something like a reasonable figure we neither want nor ask for anything more. The tariff had very little to do with my election; it was the transportation problem that came in first and last, and the insincerity of the gentlemen opposite, who were always going to do something. I met the secretary of the hon. Minister of Agriculture-who apologizes for him quite often-the day I was leaving to go out on this campaign. She said "Oh, Mr. Mullins, we fixed it. We are going to get you the reduced rates on live stock." I said "Miss Cummings, you are too late; we are going to do it ourselves." She said "What do you mean?" and I said "I am going to run in a constituency and try to solve this question." You will not hear very much from me, Mr. Speaker, as to the constitutionality of the government's position or as to the question of who should control parliament, but you will hear from me on live stock and transportation questions, as they affect the men on the land in western Canada.
The mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Elliott) seemed to want to take the credit for the removal of the embargo. That is a question I at least should know something about. Twenty-eight years ago I wired a member of this House who was then sitting on the government benches as to that embargo. I have taken it up with every minister of agriculture including the present member for Victoria, B. C. (Mr. Tolmie), Hon. Mr. Crerar and the present minister. I have discussed the question for thirty years with various persons in authority. I was in Dundee when the British government placed that stigma against Canadian cattle, an action on the part of Great Britain which was absolutely unfair to Canadian shippers while it was in the interests of the Irish. Ireland at the time was represented in the House of Commons by a number of gentlemen who fought its case with vigor, and they finally won out. The occasion of the embargo was this. Two ships known as the Montseaton and the Huronia arrived in Dundee with shipments of cattle and it was claimed that an animal taken from one *of these ships was affected in some way. The cattle were removed and without a fair examination it was decided that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia. The Canadian cattle were thenceforward shut out. At the time of this incident I had an interview with two of my friends, a Mr. Edward Watson
The Address-Mr. Mullins

and a Mr. Witherspoon and they both agreed that beyond any doubt it was a most unfair deal to Canada. Mr. Witherspoon said to me, "It is utterly unfair, Mullins, but so long as I live on this side of the water I am determined to press for redress; I will fight the case on behalf of the Dominion." I on my part undertook to do the same; I said that I would champion our cause so long as I lived on this side and so long as the embargo remained in force. And between us we have fought on this side and in Great Britain incessantly for thirty years for the removal of that embargo. Those two gentlemen I am sorry to say have crossed the Great Divide; I am the only one now living of the three. Hon. gentlemen opposite are taking credit to themselves for the advance in the price of live stock which has accrued to us since the removal of the embargo. Well, the prices did advance. There was an increase of 2 cents a pound while the price was around 4 pents; that was before the embargo, was removed, whereas now the price is around Q cents per pound. It did make a wonderful difference to Canada, for the removal of the embargo opened up a great market for us.
I do not claim credit for this achievement; it was not I who brought about the removal of the embargo. But there are gentlemen to whom the credit is due and who are too modest to claim it. The removal of the embargo from our Canadian cattle was due to the efforts of two gentlemen who sat at the War conference in 1917. Mr. Walter Long had asked the question, "What can we do for Canada?" The answer came from a gentleman whom I can see sitting in this chamber at the moment; he said, "Take the embargo off Canadian cattle ". And the reply came back that this would be done upon the declaration of peace. This fact cannot be denied for I have the proof right here in a report of the proceedings as published in the Westminster Gazette. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a brief extract from this report so that hon. gentlemen may know exactly to whom the credit belongs. Sir Robert Borden and the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) took part in that conference and I have never heard either of these gentlemen on any platform in this country taking credit to himself for what was done. I do know however that the promise to remove the embargo upon the declaration of peace was extracted from the British authorities at that conference, and I am proud to live under the flag of a race of men whose word can be relied on. Let me read from the report:

Mr. Rogers: Yes, but still, we do not want to be placed in a false position. This is an old sore and an old grievance, and now is the proper time to have it cured, because the facts are all in our favour.
Chairman: The Minister of Agriculture has undertaken to do it.
Mr. Rogers: Do not you think we should have a resolution about it?
Chairman: You do not want a resolution, do you- or if you like you can simply move that the embargo on Canadian cattle be removed as speedily as possible.
Mr. Rogers: I beg to move that.
Chairman: Mr. Prothero accepts that, and there is an end of it.
_ Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain at the time, was utterly opposed to the admission of our Canadian cattle into the Old Country and he would not listen to any proposals looking to that end. He stood for election in England and his Labour opponent, with only one plank in his platform-the admission of Canadian cattle into the British Isles for the purpose of improving the food supplies of the labouring masses-was able to defeat so considerable a public man as Sir Arthur Bos-cawen by a majority of some 10,000 votes. Sir Arthur Boseawen got elected in Taunton afterwards but at that time he would not listen to any suggestion that Canadian cattle should be allowed to enter Great Britain. A royal commission was appointed to look into the health of Canadian herds and that commission reported a clean bill of health for Canada. I may say that on two or three occasions I took the matter up myself, writing to the Minister of Agriculture with a view to discussing the subject of the embargo with some authority. I received a letter from the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) together with an introduction to Sir Arthur Boseawen and I proceeded to England at my own expense to interview that gentleman. But he turned me down quite coldly; he positively refused to have anything to do with the question. I said therefore that inasmuch as I had fulfilled my mission I considered myself at liberty to do what I liked. As a consequence we held a meeting. Some of my friends who were very much interested in the live stock industry in England called a meeting in Central Hall in London and we moved a resolution which was accepted unanimously by that audience of 7,000. Everyone in that assembly was in favour of the removal of the embargo and the resolution carried without a dissenting voice. Let me read a paragraph from it:
This meeting of London retail meat traders expresses its great dissatisfaction at the decision of the government not to remove the embargo upon Canadian cattle coming into this country for purposes other t^an immediate slaughter at the ports. It reminds the government of the pledge given to Canada at the

The Address-Mr. Mullins
Imperial conference in 1917, to remove the embargo at the end of the war, and also points out the unanimous decision of the royal commission which reported on August 30 last, in favour of the removal of the embargo.
That resolution was transmitted to the British House of Commons. I accompanied Lord Beaverbrook to Norwich where we held a similar meeting and passed a similar resolution. I went also to Newcastle where the Duke of Northumberland presided at a large meeting and where the same resolution was adopted. The same thing occurred in Dundee and in Beccles, and these resolutions were all forwarded to the British House. The cause became so popular over in England that it came before the House in 1922, and became law in April, 1923. It has opened up a great market for us. As I said before, I do not claim any credit for this result but for thirty years I have fought for it, and I certainly know that no credit is coming to hon. gentlemen opposite. I leave that to the judgment of the House. This government has taken credit on the public platforms all through the west for the great prosperity in our cattle trade, and I say it is not fair for them to take the credit from those to whom it rightly belongs, and who really did the work. This is what former Prime Minister Asquith said, in part:
It really does not require any comment. Can you be surprised that every Canadian statesman-I think Sir Robert Borden was the principal representative of Canada at that conference-that every Canadian statesman from Sir Robert Borden onwards, including, as we know from the statement which he has made in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Meighen, the late Prime Minister, took that as an explicit and direct pledge, given with the full authority of the Imperial government, that the embargo would be removed, and removed as speedily as possible? This amendment asks the House to go back on that. Quite apart from the merits of the case-which, I agree, are arguable-this amendment asks the House of Commons to authorize the government to repudiate a pledge given with as much solemnity, as much emphasis, and as much definiteness as any pffedge could possibly be.
Commander Bellairs: It did not bind the House of Commons.
Mr. Asquith: You can repudiate it if you like. But consider the effect of a pledge, given as far back as 1917, to one of your principal dominions. Is the House of Commons going to go back on that?
A pledge was given to Sir Robert Borden and to Mr. Meighen regarding the entry of our Canadian cattle into Great Britain, and I say that the action of these two gentlemen has made thousands and thousands of dollars for the cattle raisers of western Canada. Western Canada does not want to ship young, light, immature steers into the United States, for feeders there to make a profit on them. We want to bring the animal up to about 14011-16
1,200 pounds, and then have an avenue open to a profitable market, and the British market is the best market of all. Great Britain is rampant with foot-and-mouth disease, their herds are depleted; but here in Canada we are in the unique position of having a clean bill of health all over the country, we are raising the best type of steer, the very kind that is asked for in the Old Country market. I know that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will endorse what I say. He is a Scotchman, and he knows the Scotchmen like our Canadian steers. I was over there last winter, and I saw the Irish steers standing at the rail while our Canadian steers were being taken. Our cattle do wonderfully well over there. The Scotchman, Mr. Speaker, is a wonderful man for feeding cattle. He commercializes his farm, makes a real farm out of it. He is not a soil robber, but puts back fertility into the soil. He is not a disturbing element at all, but is a satisfied, well-doing man. He believes implicitly in two things- the Sabbath day, and turnips. He feeds turnips lavishly to our cattle that go over there from western Canada. We can go into that market with our immature cattle and get the very top price. The United States market is all right for the bigger and older cattle, but the immature cattle of from 800 to 900 pounds should never be shipped over to the United States and sold there. In my opinion financial arrangements should be made so that a man can put cattle on feed lots in western Canada. The day of the big ranches is gone. All through the west, south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific, was a big ranching country, and it should have remained so, but the ranches have gone, and smaller herds on feed lots must now be raised in that part of the country, and cattlemen should prepare for that market on the other side which offers such wonderful opportunities.
Now the question is, how to get our cattle over there. I had 250 cattle on feed just outside the city of Winnipeg, and it is on account of shipping conditions in the cattle industry that I am in this House to-day, because it means a sacrifice on my part to be here. I did not come here for any other purpose except to champion this cause. I took up the question of moving these cattle with the Minister of Agriculture, because I found when I wanted to ship them from a point just thirty miles west of Winnipeg the transportation companies wanted to go fifty-fifty with me, and no man in the west, or in any other country, could stand that. The transportation companies took just one-half of these four-year cattle to pay the freight,

The Address-Mr. Mullins

and who were the offenders, Mr. Speaker? It was largely the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, under the control of hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House. I have a copy of the bill of lading here. I took that space at $25 a head, and contracted for shipment to Dundee. I then wired to the Minister of Agriculture and asked him if there was no way of getting that rate reduced, that it was excessive, and we could not stand it. The regular shipping companies, Mr. Speaker, if you put five cattle in the space intended for four will make a reduction of 10 per cent, but the merchant marine does not do that. The capacity of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boat, the Victor, is 233 cattle, and they wanted me to put 270 cattle into the space intended for 233. I refused to 4 p.m. do it; I said I would not crowd my cattle in that way, that they would not ride properly. But I put 243 cattle into that space, and they charged me for space for 270. They made me pay $27.33 a head, whereas in the old days I have shipped thousands of cattle at $7 a head. That is one of the hardships that the man on the land is suffering at the present time.
But there is worse than that. I had to pay $6,750 for ocean freight before ever the ship left the dock. The regular shipping companies never do that, but the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which this government controls, make you pay the freight before ever the ship sails, and as I say, I had to pay $6,750 for freight before the ship left the dock. Suppose, after she had run out one hundred miles, she had struck a rock; where would my freight have been? I had insured the cattle, but not the freight. Of course, if you insure your freight as well as the cattle, it is an additional expense to be charged to the cattle. If that sort of thing goes on and the freight rates continue to be charged up against the live stock industry where will it end? I tried to compile the figures up to date and it was a herculean task to find out all they really charged against the moving of the live stock from the western prairies. I looked up as many items as I could think of and memorized them. When we can draw these eastern provinces closer to the western provinces by establishing a reasonable freight rate we can build up the western country and we can supply feeders to the eastern provinces. You could put Ireland in one part of my constituency, and yet Ireland is shipping a million cattle to England per year, and this wonderful country of ours only ships 
110,000 head of cattle per year. True, the man on the land got discouraged. There were so many charges piled up against the live stock that he was getting very little out of it. In the old days we had a rate from Winnipeg to Toronto or Montreal of 601 cents, and to-day the freight rate is 85 cents a hundred. If you speak to the transportation companies, as I have done, they will say that there is no money in cattle. But they are common carriers and they must carry all commodities. Of course they like a car of wheat and lean more to the wheat man than to the cattle man. They can get 60,000 pounds of wheat in a car, and they can get only from 24,000 to 25,000 pounds of cattle in a car. They do not like the live stock industry because they cannot get the amount of earnings out of it. They have piled all their charges up against the cattle and have practically driven the cattlemen out of business.
Those who sit in the seats of the mighty ought to go out to the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and see the position of the farmer there. This country will never go ahead. The prosperity we hear about from members on the other side of the House does not exist. If those gentlemen simply go west to touch Winnipeg, Brandon, Saskatoon, Regina and the principal cities, they can have no idea, and cannot speak with authority as to the condition of the man who is struggling in the rural parts of the different provinces. They are simply struggling for existence, and are not at all in the position they are represented to be. When you get away from the cities and into the interior the conditions are such that the men become discouraged on account of the charges which are piled up against them.
From the year 1917 the rates went up considerably. In 1916 the rates were 60i cents a hundred to Montreal. In 1918 the rates were raised to 69| cents; in 1919 to 79 cents and in 1920 to $1.08 per hundred pounds. In 1921 the rates were reduced to $1.05. Today the rate stands at S5 cents a hundred. All those charges have been gradually raised for transportation of the live stock. It is not simply that charge, but it is the charge from here to St. John that we complain of. The government owns the shed at St. John and they charge for the cattle walking through the shed and for the electric light in the shed. They charge against the cattle everything possible. They charge for light and charge for labour. They charge in every way that can possibly be imagined, so that it means destruction to the cattleman.

The Address-Mr. Mullins
and he has gone out of the business. But this condition of affairs must be remedied and the trade must be put in such a position that it can survive. I say to the banks, "Under section 88 of the Bank Act you must give money at a reasonable figure to the man who requires it for the purpose of feeding live stock". They say to me, "We cannot do that". I say further, that more discretion should be given to the young men who manage the branch banks to make loans to the farmers under section 83 of the Bank Act, so that they can produce cattle. If any man comes to the bank and asks for a loan under section 88, and the risk is a good one, he should have a perfect right to get the money at six per cent, and not a rate of eight per cent, which is charged now, should be permitted. Cheaper money should be got for the purpose of assisting the live stock industry to bring back the fertility of the soil and rehabilitate the live stock industry in the country. I know that many good farmers have made applications to the banks for loans and have been refused. These men have not the banking facilities necessary to carry on the industry. I am not going to say much more now, but hon. members may rest assured that they have not heard the end of this question, because I will deal with it again. I may not present the case just as I should, in my first attempt after thirty years. After waiting that length of time it takes a little energy and a little nerve perhaps to appear here and speak before educated men including many trained in the learned professions. I am merely a cattleman of the western provinces, but I have tried to put it as fairly as I can.
The tariff does not play any part at all in connection with the live stock industry. One dollar will take care of the binder and fifty cents will take care of the mower, and so on, in regard to all the machinery that is used. You do not have to renew your machinery every year. I heard a discussion about the binders. When the tariff was 33i per cent I bought a binder for $168. To-day the tariff is 6 per cent, and I am paying $268 for a binder. If we have protection I honestly believe the price of all those commodities will come down. I would not be here behind my leader one minute if I thought the tariff would bear heavily upon the man struggling out in the west. If the manufacturer hides behind the tariff and raises the price of commodities my right hon. leader will see to it that that price is reduced. Knowing my man, I am convinced that in such a case the price will be reduced. I am satisfied 14011-16 J
to follow my right hon. friend as a leader. I have known him and watched him grow up, and I would rather take one dose from him than take the conglomeration of tariff doses that is handed out by the other party. I have talked to my constituents along that line and only one man said anything about the tariff. Mr. Mackenzie King started at the coast and gave the people there one dose; he came to the middle west and gave the people there another dose, and then he came to Kingston and gave the manufacturers there another one. This reminds me of the story of the man who had a nice cow which took ill. He met a friend who told him to give the cow a dose of assafcetida. Another friend told him to give her a dose of oil, and another said: "Put some ginger in," and he put all this into a bottle, mixed it all up and gave it to the poor old cow. The result was that everything was all right if she had not belched. The country is belching if we are to judge by the legislation that has come across from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, that good, kindly soul called W. T. R. Preston came into my constituency during the last campaign to talk on that sacred business, the cattle trade. That good, saintly, old man sang when I was a boy in Sunday School:
Bringing in the sheaves,
Bringing in the sheaves,
We will come rejoicing,
Bringing in the sheaves.
And on Monday the paper said that Mr. Preston was bringing in doubtful voters in the constituency. He endeavoured to talk on that sacred industry, the cattle trade and how he was going to place our cattle in the markets of the world. Fancy a man like that discussing a sacred proposition like the cattle trade! That is not the kind of man we want in our constituency. I do not know whether he was in the employ of the government or not, but he came into my constituency, and the result of his visit was that my good opponent, who was a rare type of man, received only 1,665 votes out of the whole constituency whereas 8,000 votes were cast against him. I would, therefore, advise my hon. friends to send a different type of man if they are sending anyone into my constituency.
I have spoken at some length and taken up the time of the House; but I speak conscientiously in regard to that sacred old industry, the first one that was established on the western prairies, that held sway out there until the soil robber and the exploiter of the soil came in and drove us out. Give us some consideration; help us to get to the markets of the world. Give that industry some prae-

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
tical help. Give the farmers some assistance. If the government are serious, with their merchant marine, they can break that ocean monopoly in ten minutes. Do not talk about the Petersen contract and the Atlantic combine or conference, as it is called, dictating from New York as to where the boats will sail, bringing us here to help the government in the effort to get redress so that we can reach the markets of the world at reasonable cost.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, let me at the
outset extend my congratulations to all who, on an occasion of this kind, are most worthy of them. I refer, Sir, to Your Honour and to the mover and seconder of the Address. Before dealing with the Speech from the Throne, I wish to refer to the vote of last Thursday when I think this parliament established a certain precedent. While some of us may interpret it differently, as I understand it, the meaning of the vote is that in the future no government representing a minority in this House will be justified in handing over the reins of office to another minority group, disregardful of all the rights of other hon. members even though they may number twenty-eight as they did in this particular instance. In other words, it is the majority of this parliament that governs, and not any particular group although it might be the largest group. After this, with that precedent established in this country, we shall not require to go to the dim and distant past, to the time of Gladstone and Morley and perhaps a century before that, in order to find precedents. We have established a precedent in this particular instance. It may be to the advantage of the government on this occasion, but at some subsequent time the leader of the present opposition (Mr. Meighen), with the various groups that are apparently developing on his side of the House, such as the Pate-naude group and the Maritime group, may possibly be able to summon this precedent to his aid in order to carry on. In the meantime the advantage falls to the government of this day, who themselves admittedly cannot carry out this programme alone. On the other hand, the opposition cannot carry out their programme alone; but one or the other must carry out their programme with the aid of some other group. Otherwise, we shall cease to function in this parliament, and some other parliament must be given an opportunity to carry on the affairs of this country. That is the present situation as I understand it.

Let me pass on to the Speech from the Throne that, after all, is the subject matter before us. The electors of Canada are responsible primarily for the present constitution of this House; but even though that be the case, they have a right to expect us to give them good government and that the affairs of Canada will be taken care of even under the present difficult circumstances. It will be noticed that while we are in this House debating and likely for many days to debate the Speech from the Throne, an Address in reply has already been passed by that honourable body the Senate of Canada. This may be putting the cart before the horse and I do not know whether there is a precedent for it or not, but the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) will, perhaps, be able to get his books together and tell us whether that constitutes a precedent or not. What I want to point out is that if there were some constitutional way whereby this parliament could extend a graceful address to Their Honours in the Senate for having anticipated the action of this House, I would personally be agreeable to moving it. By a sort of premonition the other half of this parliament has anticipated what we are going to do, so that that gives me some idea as to what the result of this debate will be. They have done this without debate, without opposition, in the half of this parliament in which the Liberals have no majority. That is surely a precursor of the co-operative spirit that must be abroad in this parliament if we are going to carry on acceptably.
Our opponents were very savage at the outset, but to-day they are almost as tame as pet lambs. When the debate opened a week ago last Monday, one would think they were going to eat us all up, without salt. But any of them now, even the wildest, will eat out of one's hand. If the Speech from the Throne is a bribe, an offer, anything improper, what are we to say regarding the Speech from the Throne that is accepted by the opposition with a very innocuous amendment added to it? That is an additional bribe, a little bigger one than the one we have been said to make. What about all the speeches of the last three or four years, of all parties since confederation, of all countries that have our practice of introducing a Speech from the Throne, outlining in a general way the sessional programme? I have in my hand the last three Speeches from the Throne. Hon. members will not be surprised to know that the same old harangue, the same old rancorous stuff has been handed out as on past occasions -this is a bid to the Progressives in order

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
that the government may get their support. If this is a bribe then all Speeches from the Throne are bribes, particularly the speeches introduced by this government. And equally is the amendment which my right hon. friend has moved to be considered a bribe if the .present Speech from the Throne is regarded in that light. We are only anticipating the wishes of the people in what we have outlined in the document. What would this House have thought if we had come down without any Speech from the Throne? Then indeed it would be said that we were not fit to govern, that we had no Prime Minister and that no government existed. So far as this allegation is concerned, I may observe in passing, I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite have discovered their mistake.
We must have a Speech from the Throne; is it not the most natural thing under our democratic form of government? The very essence of government is to anticipate the wishes and the requirements of the country and to embody these in legislation. That is what entitles any body of men to the right to govern. And we have anticipated the wishes and the requirements of the country in the proposals we have set forth in the Speech from the Throne, which proposals can be given effect to by the co-operation of the two groups in this House who voted together on Thursday last. But what do oppositions of all shades ever have to say about any Speech from the Throne? Did you ever see any opposition that came as near to agreeing to the Speech as did the opposition in the amendment proposed last night? Well, if the opposition can so nearly approximate the Speech from the Throne why should not hon. gentlemen adopt it as the Senate has done and let us get on with the business of the country? Of course I can sympathize with my right hon. friend: he got so near and yet he is so far from his goal. It is enough to make him and his friends opposite appreciate what Moses must have felt like when he was so near the .Promised Land and yet was denied the privilege of entering it. Hon. gentlemen are not so much worried to-dhy although they were last week. Their attitude of a week ago reminded me of a statement attributed to the late Sir Richard Cartwright, that a Tory out of office .was like a she-bear robbed of her cubs. That may be a little bit rough on the Tories of yesterday and to-day, but one thought last week that it was 'a trifle rough on the she-,bears. At any rate my hon. friends are becoming disciplined or chained, however you like to put it; and quite reasonably so. Now I will take up the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are waiting.


William Richard Motherwell: If any hon. gentleman wants me to hear him I would suggest that he throw out his chest as if he believes what he is saying. I would refer for a moment to my hon. friend from St. LawrenceJSt. George (Mr. Caban), whose genial countenance always charms me and whose voice I am delighted to hear because I can hear it. To hear him one would think that he was actually going to take a fainting spell in describing the heinousness of the government's conduct. I was afraid that he would be seized with a panic. According to the hon. gentleman we were fit for almost anything. Now, if hon. .gentlemen insist upon describing the Speech from the Throne as a bribe, will any one of them put his finger upon one single paragraph which is not consistent with Liberal principles and practices of the past? I invite any hon. gentleman now within the sound of my voice to say what particular paragraph in his estimation constitutes a bribe. I shall wait a second or two and if my hon. friends fail to answer me I shall take their silence as an admission that they agree with what is contained in the Speech. But they are all tamer than ever. Mr. Speaker; no one will say wherein the bribe lies. Well 'they must admit that there is no such .thing as a bribe in the Speech from the Throne. My hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White) in referring to the government was no doubt gentlemanly but he was obsessed with this idea. Is the bribe the Hudson Bayrailway? The leader of the House, I Would .point out, indicated in the famous Halifax /speech that Sir Robert Borden himself in 1908 jrad been pledged to the Hudson Bay railway, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier similarly pledged himself in a speech at Hamilton-a different sort of Hamilton speech from the one we usually conjure up in our minds at the present day. In that speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the first time committed his party to the building of .the Hudson Bay railway, taking the ground that whether it was likely to be a success or not it was the price that must be paid for a united Canada. The western people believed that it was practical and Sir Wilfrid Laurier committed1 himself and his party to the undertaking. And the Conservative party when they came into power in 1911 also committed themselves to the building of the road which Sir Wilfrid had started1 in 1910-11 but had to abandon because of his defeat at that time. So that the two historic political parties are both pledged to this project, from away back in 1908, and there is no doubt about it that the other groups in parliament representing

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
such an important factor at this time are also in favour of it. Now where is the bribe? Are we to wait another eighteen years before going ahead with the work? Have not all the great undertakings which have been in abeyance in the east been proceeded with during the life of the last parliament? Has not the Welland canal been gone ahead with pretty rapidly, and is not the viaduct at Toronto under way? That was a business proposition entered into by the railways prior to this government's coming into office. And has not the bridge in Montreal been undertaken, just as the harbour improvements so much needed in Quebec have been begun? Well, how much longer do you expect the west humbly to wait for this project when the road is within ninety-two miles of completion? Do you call that a bribe? The country knows too much to attach any importance to any such bunk coming from hon. gentlemen opposite. Evil to him that evil thinks, Mr. Speaker.
And what about natural resources? The very first session of the last parliament this subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and we endeavoured for two or three years to bring about some working arrangement with the four governments concerned. But from my experience I am convinced that it is impossible to secure any satisfactory agreement with four governments negotiating, and about two years ago we came to the conclusion that one at a time would be good fishing. We decided therefore to negotiate with the government that was ready and so we began to discuss the natural resources of Alberta with the government of that province. Is that a bribe? How delightfully silent hon. gentlemen opposite are, scraping away with their pens pretending not to be listening. Last year the then premier of that province, Mr. Greenfield, accompanied by his attorney general, came to Ottawa and spent some weeks negotiating with the government in regard to this matter. I would direct the attention of my Progressive friends to this fact. The Progressive government of Alberta came here in the person of its premier, accompanied by his attorney general, and sat around a common table with a sub-committee of the government to discuss the subject. The committee consisted of the leader of the House, (Mr. Lapointe) Senator Murphy, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) myself and one or two others. We worked out a solution which we incorporated in a bill, and that bill it was hoped would have been enacted into law at the last session of the last
IMr. Motherwel 1.]
parliament, but all hon. gentlemen know how that session was prolonged and the reason for it. In addition, to that handicap, certain opposition elements crept up both in the east and in the west, with the result that it was decided to let the bill stand over for another year. Is not this the logical time to re-introduce it? You all know that the opposition which then manifested itself both in the east and in the west has since disappeared. Where is the bribe in that proposal?
Then we come to rural credits. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) suddenly became a convert to the desirability of rural credits. Apparently he did not wait to consult his leader. Evidently they believe in being free lances over there. I wonder if that is the nucleus of another group at the coast. If it is, you will have another precedent to refer to without going back into the hoary past. I do not want anyone to think that rural credits, no matter what system is recommended, is going to solve all the troubles of our farmers; but there is a certain class of farmers, just as there is a certain class of businessmen, that got such a frightful jolt during the deflation period following the war that something of almost a heroic nature will have to be done to enable them to hold on. Outside of that, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is very much need in Canada of further borrowing facilities; but I do believe there is a real need with respect to the class that I have referred to. We brought down a bill last session, but even with the aid of the most powerful X-ray no support from the other side could be detected for it. Of course, the Senate, as they usually do, took their cue from hon. gentlemen opposite, and threw out the measure under the pretext that it came to them too late in the session. I wonder what would have happened if it had reached them later still. Can you think of any parliament that may ever be convened here that will not have to consider some legislation near the end of the session? It is like the outside row of corn. Well, evidently the bribe is not rural credits, because the right hon. leader of the opposition is agreeable to that proposal. He is getting very, very adaptable these days, Mr. Speaker, he is not nearly so stiff-necked as he used to be. I should not like to say that he was becoming pliable, I should not like to even think that, but it is astonishing how fast he is coming around on the rural credits proposition. I wonder why. Oh, no, he is not making goo-goo eyes at anybody! Oh no,
I would not suggest such a thing as that.
Now, I have run over the main features of this Speech from the Throne, and I have not

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
yet found wherein any of them constitutes a bribe. There is one other subject mentioned in that Speech-an advisory tariff board. Well, what difference is there between that board and the tariff commission suggested by my right hon. friend in his resolution last year? Why, there is hardly the splitting of a hair between an advisory tariff board and the tariff commission that my hon. friends opposite are agreeable to. We hope to be able to solve some of our tariff problems through this impartial and independent medium. Anyone who has ever sat around the council table must know how inadequate and unprepared the average privy councillor is in working out a tariff schedule. I hope to see that tariff board functioning at the earliest possible date. Then, I think, it will act as a great winner of the confidence of the country that the adjustments made in the tariff from time to time are not entirely and exclusively for expediency or for political purposes, but are based on the merits. It is quite possible that that tariff board may even recommend to the government some raises in tariff. We have a large free list and a great many people are wondering why many of the articles it covers .should not bear a certain measure of taxation. Nearly 40 per cent of our imports are free. The proposed tariff board will have a tremendous responsibility. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to be on it. I think I would prefer even to sit in this government, depending on co-operation with another like-minded group, rather than be a member of that board. Nevertheless, I think we oan find men to act on such a board who will do their duty regardless of consequences.
Now, not one citation of a single paragraph of the Speech from the Throne has elicited the faintest peep from hon. gentlemen opposite that it is a bribe. What becomes of all their humbug and nonsense of last week? It falls by the wayside. Some of the newspapers have been castigating pretty severely the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and describing him as the greatest sinner of them all. Well, he is only a half-baked Tory; it may be that that is the reason. But he is described as offering the Progressives a bribe. Well, he made some pretty visible gestures towards that corner of the House, there is no question about that; but the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said he did not object, he was capable of analyzing those gestures and apportioning to them their proper worth-which he and his colleagues did.
1 think I may pass on from the Speech from the Throne that they all thought with
one accord was a bride, but regarding which when it is put up to them our friends opposite are as silent as King Tut's tomb. We will have to get that explorer-is it Carson?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carter.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the one.
We will have to invoke Carter's services to burrow into these archives and get an answer from some of our hon. friends opposite. But our Conservative friends are running true to form. To show you that there is nothing extraordinary about either the programme of the government or the attitude of our friends opposite towards it, let me give from Hansard of May 15, 1924, what the right hon. leader of the opposition said about the budget, which, it will be remembered, contained certain substantial reductions in duty, especially on the implements of production:
This is the price hon. gentlemen of the government have paid, this is the sacrifice made to the Progressive gods in order to secure that party's vote.
So do not blame them, that is their regular style, they are running true to the Tory form that I have seen ever since I became a member of this House. Then we have a rather remarkable statement that 1 wish the leader of the opposition were here either to confirm or refute. We have heard something of the "sweets of office." Well, I do not see very much saccharine lying around government offices these days. Nevertheless it is the duty of somebody to shoulder the responsibilities of administration, and the body that can secure a majority in this House must be delegated to perform that important duty. I have before me two clippings, one from the Manitoba Free Press of December 21, 1925, and another one from the Morning Journal of the same date, reporting a speech made at Brandon by the right hon. gentleman. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition properly enough went out to express his pleasure, his appreciation and, possibly, his surprise at being elected. Here is what he said-and it is very seldom that you ever hear of such an honest statement. Perhaps if my hon. friend were here he would revert to his practice of denying things. This is what he said:
The whole of those opposed tq the administration are back with their numbers doubled.
That is so. There is a pretty formidable looking number of hon. gentlemen opposite. I must say, speaking for myself and I think, some of my colleagues-perhaps all of them that we would rather see them in reasonable numbers; not quite so many as at present, but a little more than they had in the last



The Address-Mr. Motherwell
parliament, because they were certainly shot up then in a way not in the best interests of the country as a whole. But it is hard to regulate oppositions. If you begin to increase them too much, they become really dangerous. My right hon. friend said in his speech:.
The whole of those opposed to the administration are back with their numbers doubled, back with the people of Canada behind their candidates and policy ready-
Ready, do they say? Yes, "ready, aye, ready."
-ready to enjoy the sweets of office and the emoluments of power.
Being moved by these feelings they naturally anticipate that those are the feelings we entertain and that that is why we are here. Just mark this well:	Here it is in
another paper. I thought at first perhaps that messages had been twisted, because you know it is very convenient to sometimes blame it on your secretary or on the reporter or on some mix-up in the transmission from east to west. But mark the similarity of this report in the Winnipeg Free Press:
They go back with the people of Canada behind their candidates and policy and now ready to enjoy the sweets of office and emoluments of power.
If that is the feeling entertained by my right hon. friend-I will not say by those who sit about him, because they have not expressed themselves-I can imagine his disappointment at not getting over here and as no one on that side refutes that statement I have to assume they are measuring our corn in this respect in their half bushel.
Now I come to another phase of the matter and I wish the right hon. leader of the apposition were in his seat. I am sure that if he had anything to say regarding me he would much rather I were present, and I feel the same about him. I come to a phase of my remarks which will have to d'o with his party as a whole and with my right hon. friend in particular. I refer again to that famous Hamilton speech. I do not want to read too much of it, but I want to show, Mr. Speaker, that this government and this party which we represent have been charged up hill and down dale with not carrying out their promises-and with regard to individual items I admit that this is so. With the best of intentions any government will bring down a bill of fare which they may find impractical and impossible to carry out. Why? That bill of fare is prepared before the private members arrive here, and frequently the private members, as factors in this House, cannot see their way to support the entire 
programme, and it is modified. That is not a new thing in any parliament. I would not say it was quite common, but it occurs in all the parliaments and legislative assemblies in this Dominion. Mark you, however, that while that is so, for the past forty years or more the Liberal party, because they have stood true to their principle on the tariff- that is, a revenue tariff in contradistinction to a protective tariff-has gone down, as my right hon. friend read in Hansard from my remarks of a year ago, three successive times, standing by their guns all the way. I refer to 1878 when Alexander Mackenzie was defeated; I refer to 1891 when the Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier were defeated, and I refer to 1911 when we were swept out of office by the fury of not only the Conservatives of that day but also some thirteen Liberal-Protectionists whom we got rid of and who went over, as they always do, to the tariff party. Then, in the last election, fighting again on behalf of the common people of Canada, we did not go down-but we came awfully close to it. But there is an old saying that an inch of a miss is as good as a mile. If that is so we are grateful for the inch. But let me refer to the Hamilton speech of my right hon. friend which I had almost forgotten. He said:
In future it will be best for all that before a government takes a step so momentous as the despatch of troops the will of the people should be known.
When I read that in the Morning Journal I certainly sat up and took notice.
Never would any government so much as dream of sending troops beyond our shores unless the authority of .parliament were first obtained.
Good Liberal doctrine, that. He did not think so at the time of the Dardanelles.
Indeed, I would go further. I do not anticipate that we of this generation will ever be called upon to take part in war again, and I earnestly hope that our children and our children's children may be free from the curse of war.
To which we all say amen.
But if ever the time should come when the spectre of 1914 should again appear I believe it would be best, not only that parliament should be called, but that the decision of the government, which of course would have to be given promptly, should be submitted to the judgment of the people at a general election before troops should leave our shores.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, what that means? Has the hon. gentleman gone mad to enunciate that doctrine? My right hon. friend made the remark referring to myself that my mind must be becoming diseased.
I wonder if that is the ailment that is befalling my right hon. friendl? But when you come to think of it there is method, as a rule, in his

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
madness. Who does not remember the wartime election? No, it was not an election at all; it was a procession, a parade. I remember talking to some of my good Conservative friends in the west and they said: "Well, this is one time it is downhill with us, with the wind at our backs. We never had it before and will never have it again." It is all right for the Tories to win a war-time election. But, after all, is this the action of a madman or the action of a man who wants an opportunity of repeating his experience of 1917? Worse than thait, what is going to be done when troops are being marshalled and trained, but not sent out of the country? Precipitate an election among people of such a heterogeneous nature as are the people of Canada to-day? Why, all hell will be let loose under such circumstances as that. Does he realize what it means? Anything for power-that seems to be his motto. Does that involve the War-time Elections Act too? Do the right hon. gentleman and his hungry followers intend to bring down another war-time elections act, wiping out a lot of the prospective supporters of the Liberal party, giving a selected portion of the women the franchise and then go triumphant, amidst the sounds of battle and -beating drums, to the polls? There was a king of Great Britain once who, when a fighit was just in the balance, lost his horse through a defective shoe, said to be due to the absence of a nail in the shoe, and cried out, " My kingdom for a horse." Why, my right hon. friend and his followers opposite are almost prepared to say: Our political souls for power; anything for power-a war-time election even. Is that going too far, Mr. Speaker? We do not need to conjure up what a war-time election would mean. If his language means anything, then it means just what I have said. Have I not put the right interpretation on his words? If I have not, let me invoke his loyal supporter the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who in an equally famous speech in Toronto, this time among the Tories of the Tories-


Mr. CAHAN:: I was always one of the
Tories of the Tories, and I remain so.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that is nice.
I like a real good Tory, I must admit, provided we can keep him over there. It is not nice that I should have to rub it in, but I think I will read a little bit. This is what my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George said, and he is not a Patenaude disciple at all, I understand, but a real Conservative :
They (the people of Quebec) contended simply that the matter of Canada's participation in a new war was one which the parliament of Canada must decide.
I am quoting from the Montreal Star, famous for its "whispers of death" last year; it has gone on whispering ever since, and now death has come to its hopes. This is how the Montreal Star reports the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen):
Britain sends a message to the Dominion-
I want the House to remember that this speech was made at a time when the government of Canada were staying up till twelve and one o'clock every night by the side of the cable operator, wondering what the next move would be. It Was only about five days after that, that this speech was made by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. We were all wondering what was going to happen; we wanted to do the right thing by our former allies and by the empire, but we were fearful lest this country might be thrust into another costly war, with all its toll of death and waste of treasure. We have been through war, and we know what it means, and at a critical time like that the right hon. gentleman with the responsibility resting upon him of leading the opposition in this parliament, waiting for an opportunity to strike, to do something heroic, to say something that would catch the popular ear, used this language, but like so many other times in this parliament he guessed wrong:
Let there be no dispute as to where I stand. When Britain's message came, then Canada should have said: Ready, aye ready; we stand with you. I hope the time has not gone by when that declaration can yet be made. If that declaration is made, then I will be at the back of the government.
Ready, aye ready! Just think of any nation that took the part we did in the war, and to our glory, going around with a chip on our shoulder and saying to everybody:	Ready,
aye ready! How long would the right hon. gentleman be lacking the opportunity to fight if he went strutting around in that unbecoming manner? When the history is recorded of the stirring and important events of that week, the very week in which that unbecoming statement was made by the right hon. leader of the opposition, it will be found that the firm stand taken by the government of Canada on that occasion was a big factor in avoiding war; I am confident of that. "Ready, aye ready," says the right hon. leader of the opposition. But no, his Hamilton speech evidently indicates he is 5 pm. not ready; he is only semi-ready, for various reasons, to come over here. I do not think he is impatient that he is not over here, because he knows his position would not be without difficulties. So,

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
Mr. Speaker, we have to assume that his policy is no longer, "Heady, aye ready," but just partly ready-a fit-reform sort of business. I shall not go any further with that.
We on this side of the House have been hounded up hill and down dale for alleged departures from policies, but in the main 1 say that we have stood, and to our loss, to the same policy of revenue tariff for the last forty or fifty years. But what shall we Say of the right hon. gentleman's change of front on the war question? Did you ever hear of such a complete recantation by a public man, of such a right-about ohange from his " Ready, aye ready " speech in Toronto, as he indicated in his Hamilton speech, when he enunciated the doctrine of consulting the people in an election before going to war? What was going on, M)r. Speaker, at the time of that Hamilton speech? The Bagot by-election. Somebody has absolved the right hon. leader of the opposition from any possible intent of affecting the result of that election by his speech, but mark you, the Bagot election was on, and the right hon. gentleman thought the government was trembling like an aspen leaf -anything for a seat in the province of Quebec, anything. Behold his attempt to execute his abdominal, his craven crawl all the way from Hamilton to Bagot; get there any way, on all fours so long as he gets there. But how vain a thing it was for the Tory net to be set in the sight of the Bagot electors, as the result of that by-election went to show. Maybe the House is not very familiar with the extract which I have made in part, but I think I have given it according to the Revised Version. How vain it was for the right hon. gentleman at Hamilton to set the Tory net in full view of the Bagot electors 1 And the result of that election showed that the Bagot electors saw the net, and acted accordingly' I am sure if I were a Quebecker I would resent that more than I do now as a Canadian coming from another part of Canada. I think it was the most shameful recantation ever uttered by any public man in Canada, and from now on the right hon. leader of the opposition will be rightly known in this parliament, in this year of our Lord 1926, as the great recanter; there is no question about that.
Now I come to recantation No. 2, his amendment to the Address. Where was the courage, the boldness, that he exhibited a year ago on the tariff when he came to draft this amendment? He had cause, I think, to be bold and courageous, judging from the number of seats that he won, but where hag all his courage gone? I have in my hand the programme of the Conservative party of last 
year. It speaks of protection, and all that sort of thing, makes no bones about it; it stands out in bold relief. It reads:
This Dominion requires an immediate revision of the Canadian tariff on a definitely and consistently protective basis.
What semblance is there between that and this innocuous milk-and-water amendment to the Address, containing not a single word about the tariff or protection? I wonder what it means? It is left to everybody to put the interpretation he desires upon it. According to Hansard I see that just as soon as my right hon. friend had read that amendment he squatted right down in his seat, as if overcome by the spuriousneSs of it himself. Never, Sir, did he utter one word of explanation-take it, there it is-no word, no reference to tariffs, no reference to protection, except inferentially, and then you can infer what you like on the hustings. There is where it will be, and there is his amendment -another abject recantation of his principles enunciated less than a year ago in this House, leaving an impression, no one knows what, but certainly lacking the phraseology that he presented a year ago. It may imply protection. It may imply subsidizing coal transportation on the railways and may imply anything you can imagine, but it does not say so in words. Thus we have another exhibition of recantation.


Mr. LADNER:: Is the minister really serious in all he is saying, or is he simply making a joke? Does the minister not remember that our right hon. leader stated specifically in that same speech when the amendment was moved that our policy was-and he stood by it- the declaration contained in the resolution of the 2nd of June? Of course the hon. minister may have been out of his seat.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I heard that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then the hon. minister
is making a complete misstatement.


William Richard Motherwell: And he can go outside the House, or inside of it, and blather away all he likes about whatever he likes, but there are the goods; there it is put into one or two paragraphs, and that is what he may be expected to be held responsible for. Go off anywhere else, and a cock-and-bull story may be told, which he can deny the next day. I am serious in this matter and I think my hon. friend will be feeling somewhat serious too by the time I get to the real substance of my remarks.
Here is another evidence, if such were required. The leader of the opposition said at Portage la Prairie:

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
1 have never used the expression of a tariff wall "brick for brick" with the United States, except in relation to farm produce.
The "brick for brick" policy was well understood all over the Dominion, and has been quoted in this House in various speeches, and it could not refer to anything else but ithe industries. Now that is recanted out in Portage la Prairie and in Brandon. Out there where they do not like protection, they are given a sort of lullaby, that it does not mean the industries at all-that it means the agricultural products. If the hon. member thinks he can hoax the farmers on the plains into believing that he can protect the wheat and the steers, he has some job on his hands. He was speaking to an audience whose farm products go beyond the seas for export. How in the name of conscience can the leader of the opposition, or any other protectionist, protect the wheat, cattle, butter and other exportable commodities sent abroad when we have a surplus in 'this country? Every child in economics knows that- the exportable surplus determines the price of what you use at home. I do not know whether you call it a recantation or not, or just an ordinary foolish statement, but it was certainly not a very wise statement to make before the men out in Portage la Prairie. He would not snare many rabbits that way. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) thinks by this time that I am serious.


Leon Johnson Ladner: No.


William Richard Motherwell: What would have
to be done before the farmers of the plains could have their wheat products protected? They would require to have sufficient population there to consume all their wheat, and then the tariff would protect it against any coming in from outside. It is estimated that the average man, woman and child in Canada consumes about six bushels of .wheat. Therefore we would need to have enough people in Canada to consume the 400 million bushels of wheat that we produce. Anybody who has a pencil can divide 400 million by six, and he will find the population that is necessary in Canada to constitute a home market for our wheat. The hon. member for Vancouver South got off a lot of nonsense about the home market last year as he has done every year, and I say that I do not disparage the home market for those who are catering to it, but remember that this speech was delivered at Brandon, where ninety per cent of the revenue of the farmer is derived from the products that are exportable, the price of which cannot be determined by any protective tariff on those
articles. I do not know how my right hon. friend expects to get support for such a proposition when he is going to have it carried out on farm products that they grow on the plains. There is something to be said on behalf of protecting vegetables, and something to be said on behalf of protecting fruit, if you like, and something to be said on behalf of protecting other products, but he was not talking Ito the fruit growers nor to the vegetable growers, but was addressing the men engaged in mixed farming, the cattle and grain growers and dairymen.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What about eggs, poultry
and so on?


William Richard Motherwell: I have a statement about eggs, I gave it to t'he hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, and I will be glad to' repeat it now if my hon. friend wishes me to do so. He asks: what about eggs?-he, the disciple of hen fruit. He is evidently in need of some information regarding eggs. I may tell him very briefly that until someone can control the weather conditions, nobody is going to be able to control the old hen that lays the eggs. The spring has come on three months in advance of the usual time, and the eggs have come accordingly. I noticed by the meteorological records the other day a promise was made of a cold wave going across the west. If that should materialize the extra large production of eggs, whether good or bad, will be curtailed somewhat. They are not proposing to interfere, Mr. Speaker, with the weatherman in this serious matter, except that the hon. member for Vancouver South thinks that somebody should intervene at this stage or that stage in regard to this matter. There is only one way, besides shutting old biddy off her job, and that is to increase consumption. We are increasing consumption by improving quality through our grading system. We have had an endorsation of that in British Columbia-keep on the egg grading system Which you have got with slight alterations-the better the eggs the better the consumption. I am going to make a proposal to my hon. colleagues-and I am sitting right next to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb)-regarding the encouragement of the consumption of eggs .as one of the methods of meeting the situation. Somebody suggested putting on an embargo. Do hon. members think we should interfere with our international relations with the United States by putting on an embargo and, in that way, coming to the rescue of business men who have stored eggs, who have taken a business risk and who are apparently

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
going to lose? If we are going to do that in the case of a man who has store eggs, what about the man who stores furs-not a perishable commodity like eggs, it is true, but something that has to be kept in cold storage?


Leon Johnson Ladner: What about raising the duty as is done in the United States?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not reached the budget yet. My hon. friend is like the hen-he is ahead of the game. He is too precipitate. The weather conditions have apparently affected him also. He wants us at this stage to put a duty on eggs. I will commend that to the favourable consideration of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Robb), but that cannot be done until we are through with this debate. "First things first," is a good old axiom, and my impetuous young friend will have to wait for the budget. I think there is some way in which this can be worked out. There is, indeed, only one. It may be said there are two ways, but one is impossible, namely that of trying to control the hen. The increased production that is taking place in the case of the hen is occurring also with dairy cattle. The mild weather has encouraged production amongst dairy cattle, and the result is an increased butter production of from ten to twenty per cent for this time of the year. Some suggest decreased production, but I do not know' how you are going to work that out. My hon. friends may have some over-check that I am not familiar with to put on the hen. The other method is to increase consumption, and I think a wise system of advertising and, perhaps, some other means I have in mind, may be instrumental in helping the situation from that end. Other than that I do not know of any method except that somebody has suggested that the dumping clause in the customs tariff be invoked. If the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will call upon the Minister of Finance and ask that the dumping clause be invoked, I have no doubt he will consider it carefully. But until my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman does that or until we can see Show the dumping clause can be invoked on a specific duty, I do not see how it can be invoked even if that were desirable. A flat three-cent specific duty is levied on eggs. Supposing they were put in at any price whatever; I do not know enough about the tariff and that shows the need for the establishment of a tariff board-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Impose a duty of eight cents as the United States has done against our product.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is no doubt a recognized authority, but his hearing must be as bad as mine because I have already pointed out that we are not at the budget yet.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the minister claiming that the budget has something on the matter?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know. We have not come around to that yet. It is true the Senate is ahead with its work. It has passed the Address, but we have not got as far as that. The leader of the opposition said further:
I have never used the expression of a tariff wall "brick for brick with the United States" except in relation to farm produce. They shut out our produce from their markets and we shut out theirs from ours. For manufactured goods there should be a policy of protection, not brick for brick, but sufficient to stop the emigration from our land, assist our industries, and enable them to exist.
That is protection. Why is it not incorporated in the amendment? That is, however, recantation number three.
Another recantation, according to the Halifax platform, is in regard to the policy of the Conservative party as enunciated by Sir Robert Borden in Halifax in 1908. Senate reform! Now, they make the atmosphere weird with their howls against Senate reform. That is recantation number four.
^ Mr. BURY: Is the minister using the word "recantation" merely to represent silence, or does he intend to use it as it should be used -to imply an express withdrawal of policy?


William Richard Motherwell: I mean it just in the usual way. To recant means to "crawfish." I am going to refer to another very vivid illustration of the same kind of backing out. The House will recall last session-it is not long ago; the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) was not here then or he might not have spent so much time on what occurred last session-the attitude of a number of hon. gentlemen opposite iwith respect to ocean rates. Years ago, shortly after my hon. friends came into power in 1911, when overseas at various times they looked into the question of ocean freight rates. My good friend the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) was amongst the number and he delivered himself of a very excellent piece of advice as regards ocean freight rates. The leader of the opposition did the same thing, as did the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the hon. Senator Foster,.

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
if I remember rightly, and also the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. They all looked into the question of ocean freight rates at various and varying intervals, and they all with one accord denounced the conditions and stated that something should be done. But they skated around it and kept far enough away to see that they did not get hurt. They then came back and concluded that all they cou'd do was to write a letter to Mr. Magill of Winnipeg asking him to look into the matter. The elections were not very far away and nothing whatever was done. Now, when we make an attempt, and an honest attempt, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. members opposite, to solve this important problem of the sea-it may be that we were indiscreet in our attempt but we certainly did not lack courage in making it-what do we find? All right-thinking men in the Dominion of Canada will give us credit at least for trying to solve a very important problem, a difficulty that stands directly between us and our market. Where do we find these former supporters of that idea? All against such a proposition, all against our attempt to do anything, with not a particle of sympathy, nothing but derision then and ever since. This is another deliberate recantation of their former position. Do hon. gentlemen say that because it is not in the same Speech from the Throne we are taking the same course? No. I take the ground that no parliament constituted as this one is can deal with such a tremendous question. Before a government can deal with a matter of so great importance as that of ocean freight rates, it must have a majority of thirty or forty in this House. What were we doing in the meantime? If I remember rightly, the hon. member for Marquette referred to the Jensen ships that are about to be launched, the first trip to be made from St. John at the end of this week. Well, what did this government do in helping to promote the launching of that boat? The Jensen company's representatives came to the Department of Agriculture last July and August and made certain representations -looking to the launching of a number of boats to be devoted exclusively to the carrying of cattle. These boats were to be four and five deckers, something that did not sail on the Atlantic at that time, and they were to carry from 1,100 to 1,200 head of cattle. The first requisite towards bringing this about was the consent of the Minister of Marine and we made the necessary representations to his department to make it possible -to embark from Canadian ports with five-deck cattle boats properly ventilated and with adequate facilities for cleaning them
out so as to preserve the health of the animals. That was the first step, the second being to get the British government to co-operate in the matter. This was, comparatively speaking, more difficult. We cabled however to our agricultural agent in the Old Country, Mr. W. A. Wilson, and to one of our veterinary surgeons, a Mr. Barker, who happened to be there at the time, requesting them to take the matter up with the British Board of Trade and the British ministry to have provision made for disembarking these cattle at their ports from boats containing four or five decks. To break into the established methods of the Old Country is not an easy matter and it took four or five interviews to get any action taken on their part. Finally, however, after some alteration in plans of the Jensen people, we got the verbal consent of the British authorities to the proposal and the Jensen company proceeded to reconstruct four boats carrying from four to five decks with a capacity of over 1,100 head of cattle.
Now that is what has been accomplished, and it has arisen partly from the discussions that took -place in connection with the Petersen -contract. There is no reduction of rates nor do I know whether such a reduction is contemplated. But I do know this, that the Jensen company has already felt the fan-gs of the combine and it will be interesting to see whether the people of Canada will stand by and witness complacently this effort to take care of our cattle snuffed out by the opponents of the Jensen people on the high seas. There is no subsidy involved in this so far as the government is concerned. Whether some provincial government has agreed to give a subsidy I do not know, although the British authorities apparently seem to think that this is -the case. So far as this government is concerned, however, the only expense involved in this matter was the cost in connection with a number of cables exchanged between Canada and the Old Country, and we were -the ones who were instrumental in starting the reconstruction of four specially equipped cattle boats carrying from four to five decks for the transportation of cattle -from this country to Great Britain.


Mir. BRISTOL:: When did the Canadian
merchant marine leave the combine? It was evident that up to last year they had been members of -the combine.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman does not attend the House often enough to know what is going on.


Edmund James Bristol: One would think that the minister would' be courteous enough to give me a civil answer.

The. Address-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: When we were discussing the Petensen contract the merchant marine was not in the combine. But what has that to do with what I am Saying?


Edmund James Bristol: I merely wanted to know when the Canadian merchant marine had withdrawn from the combine.


William Richard Motherwell: I have answered
the hon. gentleman. When this government came into power it found the merchant marine operating under the combine.


Edmund James Bristol: It so operated until last
year.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member were saying anything I would not mind all these interruptions; as it is, I am going out of my way to get some ideas driven into him. He has put me off the track. It was one of the shocks of my life, within a couple of months of coming to Ottawa, to find that the mercantile marine was a member of the combine, but it was withdrawn from that organization. I can assure the House that it would take four of the 'best boats of the mercantile marine to equal the Jensen boat that sails from St. John at the end of the week.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Would not the Canadian
government boat Victor be equal to the Jensen boat if the proper changes were made in it? The Jensen boats are owned by a private corporation in Toronto which I have been asked to join as a shareholder, and I am sure that the Canadian government Steamer Victor if it were properly fitted up could be made to serve the purpose as well as any of the Jensen ships.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me tell the
hon. gentleman that Sir Henry Thornton undertook that very thing. We took the matter up with him and requested that a number of mercantile marine boats be reconstructed for the purpose of carrying cattle. Surely the hon. member does not think that the government should1 have referred the matter to somebody else. And what else could we have done? Any man who hauls grain to the market knows that if you take only a quarter of a load you cannot transport your product economically, whereas when you take a full load your cost of transportation is so much less. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) and myself get along nicely together and we are equally interested in the cattle industry. I can quite understand that the tariff did not cut any figure in Marquette in the election. The hon. gentleman talked so much about cattle that he bamboozled the 
electors and made it impossible for them to think about the tariff. He knows that had he talked tariff there he would have met the same fate that befell other high tariff men in the west. If the hon. gentleman is suggesting that it is possible to transport a small cargo across the Atlantic as economically as a full load can be carried I do not agree with him; such a suggestion is not sane.
Now I shall refer to the last recantation, that with respect to the National railways. ,1 wonder where the leader of the opposition and his party stand on that question; I wonder where they stand on branch lines in this House. Hon. gentlemen who have witnessed their attitude towards branch lines are well aware that whenever a bunch of branch lines has been brought down it has always been marked for dteath. The cue is always taken from my right hon. friend and his deskmate to his left, and with only one exception that cue has been followed by the party opposite on all occasions. Now then we have a new doctrine preached, and I am taking this from i speech made by the right hon. gentleman at the beginning of the campaign and reported in the Saskatoon Phoenix. Speaking of the new investments in the Canadian National Railways he said:
The problem is too big for it, and I do not hesitate to say that if this government is returned the process of the last two years will go on and the gulf will soon be reached. You ask what I would do. I will tell you. I will stop these new capital investments with a strong hand-	*


An hon. MEMBER:: Haar, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: That may suit some people. I wonder to whom he was 'talking. Then he goes on to enumerate the capital investments that he would stop-the Scribe hotel, the golf club at Jasper Park, and' the radio installations. It is said' that all is well that ends well. The Scribe hotel has proved to be a good investment, instead of something to hullabaloo about as the opposition has done. ^Everyone who knows anything about the attractions of Jasper Park, and what a rival it .has become to the Canadian Pacific park at Banff, knows very well that it would cripple the Canadian National to abolish its summer resorts. If the Canadian National is to compete successfully with its great rival, it must be similarly equipped. The right hon. gentleman also says that he will have no more golf courses and no more radio sets. Well, what about the radio sets? I do not know what capital outlay is involved, but I feel assured that it is small compared with the value of radio to the National Railways in dollars and cents. But let me read to you a still more

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
astonishing statement. The right hon. gentleman goes on:
-there will be a determined effort to get the last dollar out of the property we have and not keep adding blindly to our obligations and our troubles.
Mark you, he is going to get the last dollar out of that property, and not keep putting anything into it. How would any business fare that was treated in that way? My colleague to my right (Mr. Robb) I understand is a practical miller. How would he succeed if he took all he could get out of his mill and did not put a dollar back in the way of capital investment? How would any farmer fare who after depleting the fertility of his farm, as suggested by the hon. member for Marquette, letting the gates and fences go to wrack, putting not one dollar into it, skinning it down to the bone-how long, I ask, would that farm be out of the hands of the sheriff or the mortgagor? That is the policy that the right hon. leader of the opposition is .reported in this newspaper to have in relation to the Canadian National Railways.
What was his former relationship to the system? He was its father. He took the first step towards bringing the railways together that now form our National system, and depriving the Maritime provinces of their low intercolonial rates-for which, by the way, they have docilely kissed bis hand. He was the father of the movement, and behold the father prepared to devour his own child! What is that called in criminology? Infanticide, is it not? Sir, I do not think it is straining a point to say that the right hon. leader of the opposition was the rightful father of this institution. It has often been said by some that we found it on our doorstep when we came into power. Of course, it was rightfully andl properly there. But if the policy enunciated in his speech is carried out it will ,be equivalent to the right hon. gentleman devouring his own child, because it will mean ruin to the Canadian National Railways. There is no business on earth that you can take every dollar out of and not put a dollar back without destroying it. I wonder if one of the hon. members for Vancouver has come to a realization of the fact that these are serious matters. I have a right to ask, the west has a right to ask, every part of Canada has a right to ask, where the right hon. leader of the opposition stands on the Canadian National Railways) in the face of that statement. Of course, that is only a newspaper report. Anything that is not reported in Hansard can be conveniently denied.
Now I come to recantation No. 5 on the list, and it is the last I shall mention, for
although I have several more of a minor nature I cannot deal with .them at this time. Ever since the legislation we put through with respect to the lake rates, as regularly as this parliament convenes, the opposition sets out on a tirade against our action. What is the reason of this? Is it because we solved the problem? I think that is it. Is there any problem, of excessive freight rates on our lakes now? Do you hear any cry from the prairies or from the press about excessive freight rates that we were familiar with in the fall of 1920? If the grievance has been removed, what removed it? Is it not reasonable to assume that our legislation provided the remedy, legislation which granted power, on the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners, not only to suspend the coastal laws but to provide for maximum rates on the lakes. Do you mean to say that the prospect of invoking those two remedies has no effect upon lake rates? The burden of the objection of the opposition is because the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, Mr. Boyd, went over to Cleveland in ordfer to make certain adjustments with the vessel owners of that city so that the intent of the law should be carried out. Did you never hear before of a law being found defective when it was first drafted and not meeting the expectations of those who enacted it? Why, it is happening every day in every parliament of the world, some law or other has to be disregarded in some detail in order that it may function fully. By a sensible adjustment between the Canadian and American vessel owners wre got the results that we were after. Well now, which was the better thing to do-sit back and say, " We cannot do anything, the law will not operate," and let the high freight rates continue; or bring about a fair and equitable arrangement by way of a remedial measure to the grain growers of the plains. That is the situation. Our friends across the way have shouted their heads off every session since, and we have another exhibition of it to-day. We have heard of the sow that was washed and returned to wallow in the mud. Well, here you have it right before you-the opposition wallowing in these wholesale accusations against our legislate* with respect to freight rates on the lakes.
Then I find my right hon. friend is not satisfied with the Australian treaty. That treaty has been, in force during October, November and December-not four months. It contains a provision that on the giving of six months' notice it may be either amended or abrogated. You cannot tell the effect that treaty will have either on the poultry or the

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
dairy industry until the winter is over. Up to the present my reports show that no eggs are coming from Australia. If they exported to us all their available surplus it would not amount to a snap of the fingers, and, besides, those eggs would be five or six weeks old by the time 'they reached here and would be storage eggs, consequently (they could not compete with our fresh eggs. As to butter, it has been coming to us from New Zealand for a quarter of a century. As I say, we will not know the exact effect of that treaty on our dairy and poultry industry for some time, and ini the meantime it is our duty as one of the parties to that treaty to give it a fair trial. Then we can sit down and take stock of the situation. If the results are unsatisfactory I know I have good friends of agriculture to my right-the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and I know they are not going to see the dairy industry suffer for want of adjustment of that treaty if such is deemed necessary. But we are prepared to take the risks associated with it, political and otherwise, in order that we may promote trade within the overseas portions of this empire of ours.
Let me devote just a word or two to the treaty with the West 'Indies, another case in point. I expect that we will have another furore over this. We will all be ruined if we trade with the West Indies. What we really want is a. wall around us, and no truck with anybody. That seems to be the doctrine of hon. gentlemen opposite. I happened, Mr. Speaker, to be at a Canadian Club luncheon in the city of Regina last fall, and there listened to a gentleman, a member of the British House of Commons and a follower of Premier Baldwin. I have not his name, but it can easily be found. That is not the important point. The subject Of his address was the absolute necessity and importance of inter-imperial trade. He told very briefly and candidly- and it was almost tragic-that the only way Great Britain could retain her standing in her trade relations with other countries as well as her former supremacy in certain respects, was to promote trade between the different component parts of the British Empire. He did not use the words "British preference"; he was discreet enough not to do so, but he went on to talk of it in a practical way and claimed that the vtery existence of Britain's trade depended on the promotion of greater trade within the Empire. That is what we proposed to do in the Australian treaty. If the cost is too great we can remodel it. That is what we propose to do with respect to the West

Indies treaty-and just wait for the roar that will be heard from hon. members opposite because we want to trade with our sister dominions. I predict that without any danger of being contradicted. They always run true to form in trade matters. Their policy in this matter is preference for preference, a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. There was a preference given to Great Britain long ago by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Apparently every good thing dates back to our great and worthy chieftain. We are giving a preference to-day, a preference which has been increased several times since this government came into power. According to what my bon. friend is preaching now we will not have this preference unless Great Britain gives us a preference in return. Why, we have an open market, a free market for our goods. They want Great Britain to tax the food coming from other countries to increase the price of it to the poor people of Great Britain for the benefit of the farmers and others in this country. Preference for preference-and they pretend to be the party of loyalty. It is lip loyalty, that is all. When it comes to the question of dollars and cents, the British trade can go to hang. And it is the same way with other things.
I wish the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) were here. I am a great admirer of the hon. member. Without any question I think he has the finest parliamentary style in this House. But comparisons are odious. I cannot congratulate him on some of his utterances if the reports in the press were true. I will not hold him too strongly to them, because I know I saw reports down there of what I was supposed to have said1 in the west and there was a fearful twist given them. So I will not hold him too strictly to these reports. But I want to draw attention to a determined effort on the part of many Tories in this province to discourage the government, especially the Department of Agriculture, in the matter of the standardization of exportable farm products in this country. To the member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie), I want to give credit for having during his administration as Minister of Agriculture started on this policy. It is true it was just in its infancy at that time, but he started it on the right track and I know he will pass no disparaging remarks about the grading of eggs or the grading of anything else, because that is essential if we are to keep up our quality and place our goods on the British market in an acceptable condition in competition with other countries. That is surely fundamentally sound.

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
I was going to refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) but first I should say I have not yet had the opportunity of replying to his letter, but I hope to answer it in the morning. In that letter there are a series of resolutions with regard to this matter taken from a meeting of poultrymen at New Westminster, British Columbia, in January of this year. Resolution No. 3 is as follows:
Whereas, there is reason to believe that an effort will shortly 'be made by certain produce dealers in the prairie provinces to secure the modification of the present egg grading regulations, which modification amounts practically to the abandonment of egg grading;
Be it Tesolved, that the federal government be requested to make no alteration in the present regulations beyond the amendment asked for in resolution number 2.
That is a trifling change.
And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia, and to each of the federal members for British Columbia.
I got it from my hon. friend first. I was speaking of the report as to the Tory campaign throughout Ontario with regard to these egg-grading regulations, which have brought our exportable storage eggs up to the first rank on the British market. The hon. member for South Wellington, so the report goes, said: "What is this man Motherwell doing with our eggs, anyhow? Can't our hens be permitted to lay as they want to?" That seems to be echoed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). "Why is he interfering with the grading of these eggs? Why can not the farmers be allowed to produce whatever kind of eggs they like and sell them as they wish?" And it was said in a disparaging manner by a man who knows nothing whatever about it. I know the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will not take that attitude, because I think he sees the importance of these regulations to the poultry industry. I think if the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and myself sat down together we could work out some further improvements with regard to the poultry situation, but we will have to wait for the first sitting of the tariff board. Then my hon. friend will have an opportunity, as will every hon. member, except the members of the government, of appearing before that board and making representations on behalf of any particular branch of agriculture or anything else which they think is not fairly treated under the present tariff.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I am through. I have taken nearly the allotted time and have only one further word to say. The people of Canada are watching this parliament very 14011-17
carefully. If anyone is suggesting that I have spoken too long on the Address let me say that this is the first time since I came to this parliament that I have spoken on the Address. This is my fifth session and I would not have spoken this time had it not been for some of the most outrageous misrepresentations that have been made by hon. members opposite and spread broadcast throughout the land. The Speech is plain enough without any discussion; I suppose the leader of the opposition thinks that of his amendment, but no one can dispute what the meaning of the Speech is, and this government cannot carry out the programme outlined in the Speech without aid from another group or from other groups. Neither this government nor any single group can carry out that programme alone, and surely, in the light of the expectations that have been aroused throughout this country, not only in the west but in the Maritime provinces, those who think it is a good programme should see to it that parliament is given an opportunity to function at least until the programme is carried out.
What is there in it, you may ask, for the Maritime provinces? There is every possibility in it. for the Maritime provinces. I am one of those who think that the Maritime provinces have not been squarely dealt with. How do I know? True, I spent only three or four days there, and it may be presumptuous in me to offer an opinion at all about that part of the country. I think some phases of their agriculture are weak, and we are doing our best to strengthen them. The fact remains that the confederation pact involved the building of a railway to connect up the Maritime provinces with old Canada, and the building of that railway involved also the establishment of such rates as would make the use of the railway possible. That pact was in force for years until those rights were ruthlessly taken away from the Maritime provinces by the representatives of hon. gentlemen opposite when the Intercolonial was taken into the National Railway system, and now these same gentlemen talk about their sympathy with the Maritime provinces, after doing that. The reason we from the west sympathize with the people of the Maritime provinces is because we know what these same gentlemen tried to do for us in connection with our Crowsnest pass agreement, and their policy to-morrow, if -they dared to put it in force, would be to legislate out of existence the maximum rates on grain and flour that we enjoy under that agreement. They have said so dozens of times, and because they tried to pull off that trick on

The Address-Mr. Forke

the west, our hearts are full of sympathy for the Maritime provinces who have had their little "Crow" taken away from them by hon. gentlemen opposite, who now shed crocodile tears and hypocritically profess sympathy for the Maritime provinces.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: The minister says
the Conservative party took these rates away. Will he tell the House what his government did to restore them? His government has never restored them.


William Richard Motherwell: Every time anyone tries to find out what the grievances of the Maritime provinces are, he gets a different answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes. I went
down there and tried to find out something for myself, and as I have said, I consider some phases of their agriculture are weak, and I am doing my best to strengthen them. Go to somebody else, and he will tell you that the grievance is something entirely different, that the Maritime provinces are suffering from a geographical disability which they cannot overcome. I know one thing; they wanted to get the American market, but hon. gentlemen opposite defeated reciprocity and deprived them of it. I know further, that the only proper way to set about finding a remedy for the grievances of the Maritime provinces .is to have a diagnosis of their ills, not by myself or my colleagues, not by bon. gentlemen opposite, not by any individuals, but a diagnosis by an impartial, competent, tribunal whose judgment will carry weight and confidence throughout the country. If we do that, and a report is made, I shall be very much disappointed if some substantial and logical remedy is not found for the difficulties down there.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Forke: At
the outset, Mr. Speaker, I desire to extend congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the speech of His Excellency. Some hon. members have occupied considerable time in discussing occurrences that took place during election time. I do not know that I have much to say in that connection. I had rather a happy experience. I had an opponent who acted like a gentleman in every way, and I hope I acted similarly my-

self. The only amusing thing I encountered during that election was that some of the lieutenants of my opponent, who were obviously rather mistaken in their facts, attributed to the Progressives a good deal of the doings of the Conservatives. However, it did not make very much difference, because the audiences seemed to enjoy it just the same, and apparently it was not so serious a matter as probably either the Conservatives or the Progressives seemed to think at the time.
We are met ini the parliament of Canada from all sections of this Dominion, and we hear a good deal at times about narrowness of views and sectional feelings. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that conditions in Canada lend themselves to that sort of thing. Already during this session of parliament mention has been made of the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves owing to the physical conformation of the Dominion of Canada, stretching as it does from sea to sea, divided into four distinct geographical sections. It is pretty difficult for the man living in Halifax and the man living in Vancouver to get the same point of view upon public matters; consequently it is not to be wondered at that some sectionalism may appear in our debates in the House of Commons. But I hope and believe, notwithstanding that fact, that most of us who come here are anxious to do what we conceive to be right for our constituencies, for our provinces, and for the whole of the Dominion, even though at times some sectional feeling may be manifested In the present parliament all the interests of Canada would seem to be represented: I saw the statement the other day that almost every profession and calling in Canada was represented here. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we ought to be in a position to get the views and ideas of all the people in a way that we have not done in any previous parliament.
I desire to say a few words in regard to the group with which I am associated, for the benefit more particularly of the members who were not here during the last parliament. I said a moment ago that there had been evidences in debate of what might be called a sectional point of view, and I think I am not going beyond the bounds of truth when I say it has been insinuated at least that the members of our group were sectional in their outlook and did not take a broad view of all the different interests in the Dominion of Canada. I want to deny that emphatically, and to make it plain that while perhaps in this section of the House we have represented the interests of agriculture more particularly than any other section in the House, yet at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have not

The Address-Mr. Forke
been narrow in our views; we have tried to inform ourselves, as far as possible, with regard to all the different interests, occupations and pursuits of the people. While it may be thought that we have no other interests than those pertaining to agriculture, I say that we try to take the broad view upon all the questions that come up for discussion in this House. It seems to me that during former parliaments agriculture has not occupied the prominent position that it ought to have occupied. I am blaming no one in particular for this, but the representation that had been coming to the House for a great many years came perhaps more largely from the mercantile, manufacturing and professional classes. It is perfectly natural, perfectly honest, I should say, on the part of those who come to this House more fitted to voice the wants and needs of their particular professions than of those of other industries with which they are not acquainted, that they should do so. It is a benefit not only to agriculturists but to the whole Dominion of Canada that we have in this section of the House a body of men who are qualified to voice the wants and needs of agriculture, men who know what agriculture requires and who realize the shortcomings of some of the legislation that has been passed by the Dominion parliament. I repeat that it is an advantage that agriculture, the greatest industry in this country, should be adequately represented in the Dominion parliament.
We all know in these modern times the growing power and influence of the cities. Everyone recognizes the fact, without looking with jealousy upon the cities, that the financial and other powerful interests that control public life and business in our Dominion and, in fact, in every civilized country in the world, are becoming more and more concentrated in the larger cities. As one who comes from rural parts and who understands something about country life, it has been one of my ambitions to do something in this House to try to make rural life more enjoyable, more prosperous and more to be desired in the future. I am not complaining of the people in the cities trying to make the best of their circumstances, but I view with considerable alarm the tremendous concentration that is taking place in the large cities in every country in the world and the prevalence of the idea that country life is something not very much to be desired. One of my earnest endeavours shall be at all times to do what I can to make country life pleasant, something to be wished for, so that the rural dweller may enjoy prosperity and some of the conveniences that come to a civilized community. This has been 14011-171	!, sstfi
more particularly the aim of this group in the House of Commons. The profession of the farmer makes him an individualist, in fact, he is almost an incurable individualist, and the wonder is that he is overcoming today as far as he is the circumstances in which he finds himself placed. No doubt the telephone, the radio, the daily newspaper, the motor car, good roads and many other conveniences that are coming to the country dweller are lessening the difference between the dweller on the farm and the dweller in the city. Nevertheless the farmer lives as a unit on his own farm and pursues his vocation from day to day by himself; consequently it is that the whole tendency of farm life is towards individualism. But I am glad that with the modern improvements that are coming to us in these days there is more of community and co-operative spirit amongst farmers than there ever was before. I look upon the spirit of co-operation that is coming very largely to the front in the western provinces as one of the most hopeful signs of rural life.
In the days that have passed the government has done very well in the matter of rural education. We have our agricultural colleges and many other institutions that are endeavouring to do something to educate agricultural people in their profession. We have all those pamphlets that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) sends out, and I am sure if we read1 them all there would be scarcely anything under the sun we would not know about agriculture. But governments have been lacking in another branch of agricultural activity. They have paid a great deal of attention to production, to trying to make the farmer grow two blades of grass where only one has grown before. But it is of no use to grow crops unless you can grow them at a profit. The farmer is not only a producer but a merchant, and that is a point which some of my hon. friends may not have taken into consideration. The farmer has to buy, and he has to sell the products of his farm. No matter how good a farmer he may be, no matter how successful he is in raising crops, if he is not in a position to sell his products at a profit he will fail in his calling. That is a point of education that has been neglected, and I am glad to say that the farmers on the western prairies have been alive to that fact in recent years. They are commencing to realize that they have to look into the whole question of the marketing of their prodlucts, and with their wheat pools, cattle pools, poultry pools and different methods of co-operative marketing I believe they are going to come
The Address-Mr. Forke

nearer than ever before to a solution of the problem of marketing.
There is another point of view that is worth while mentioning. The whole economic life of Canada has been organized from an industrial standpoint. I think none of my hon. friends who are engaged in manufacturing or in any of the other walks of life that are open to those who live. in our large cities, will dispute the fact that most, of the d;s-cussions that have taken place in this parliament, and in fact everywhere, have been made from the point of view of the industrial development of Canada. While I have no objection to industrial development, it is strange that so little attention has been paid to the development of what is the greatest industry in this Dominion. What do we find? The history of the prairie country for twenty or thirty years shows that individual farmers in the early days did just what they thought was right; they acted without guidance or direction, each man trying to find a solution for himself of the problems with which he was confronted. We have learned not to look entirely to legislatures or parliaments to solve our troubles and difficulties. We have realized that many of the remedies lie within our own reach; but we have nevertheless felt the necessity of coming to this parliament to see if we can secure remedies for certain economic disadvantages and difficulties. We have therefore, come here and voiced our demands, and I think we have faifly and adequately made our wants known to other sections of the community. No matter what be said I notice- and I say this quite modestly-an attitude of members of the House of Commons when agricultural questions are under discussion which is quite different from the attitude of hon. gentleman in the first session I sat in this parliament. If we have done nothing else we have at least brought home to our fellow citizens the fact that agriculture is worth looking after; that it needs care and attention just as much as the industrial life of this great Dominion.
Let me say a few words about some of the rumours, discussions and newspaper articles that have appeared in the newspapers during the last week or so about bids and bribes in parliament. I do not know anything about this, so I cannot say very much about it. Sometimes I pick up a newspaper and I read an article about the awful corruption that prevails, the terrible state of affairs that exists, and how the whole country is disgusted with what has been going on in the Dominion parliament. Strange to say, I do not know anything about it. I never

got any bid; I never received any bribe. I was delegated with some others of my group to interview the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and while I question the wisdom of this mission as a piece of political tactics I am bound to say at the same time that I see absolutely nothing dishonourable in it either to the two right hon. gentlemen or ito us who waited upon them. The wiiole thing was open and above board and1 there were neither bids nor bribes. Of course, I cannot presume to speak for the members of this group as individuals, but I certainly can declare on behalf of the party as an organization that there was absolutely no suggestion of any bid! or bribe under any circumstances. Nor, indeed,, do I think for a moment that any individual member of the government or of the opposition ever spoke to the members of our group with anything of the kind in view; certainly, at least, no one representing either of those two parties ever came to my room with any bribe. I want that statement to go out to the whole Dominion. Now we find ourselves in peculiar circumstances; there is no doubt that our situation is a unique one. We have found ourselves in a rather trying position in that power has come into our hands not of our seeking. But I can assure the House and the country that we are earnestly and honestly endeavouring to use that power, not for the furtherance of any selfish sectional aims but entirely with a view to promoting the general interests of the Dominion a>t large. Let me therefore emphatically repudiate on behalf of the members of the group whom I have the honour to lead in this House any suggestion that such bribery or corruption has taken place as a great many people outside of this House seem to fancy. I can make that statement with perfect assurance.
During the election campaign I criticized both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Probably my criticism was somewhat presumptuous, but I found fault with them for the undue attention which it seemed to me they paid to each other. As the leader of a group I found it necessary to go outside of my own constituency; I travelled throughout Saskatchewan as well as Manitoba, speaking in most of the principal towns of the former province. I was therefore able to gain a clearer insight into a good many things than I should have been able to get had I confined myself to my own constituency. As I Say, I found fault with these two leaders for spending too much time addressing each other. The Prime Minister would make some remarks to which the leader of the op-

The Address-Mr. Forke
position would reply, and so it went on; and I expressed1 the opinion that not enough time was devoted to a real effort to convey to the people some information regarding the great problems which are before the country today. The people as a rule take little interest in a great many of the small things which we spend so much time discussing here; they are looking rather for results from parliament and they want to know just what is being done. There is an old biblical expression,
" My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ", and perhaps there is nothing so evident to a keen observer of public affairs to-day as the fact that what the people stand in need of is information. They are suffering from a lack of knowledge as to what is happening in parliament. How little the people really know about the important questions before the Dominion at the present time. You will find men in public life quarrelling ever trifles, things that do not amount to a snap of the finger, while the really big problems are entirely neglected and left undiscussed. It seems to me that the campaign that precedes a Dominion election is pre-eminently a time when the leaders of political parties should try to educate the people and to give them some information concerning the difficulties that surround the problems which the people's representatives in parliament are expected to solve. I therefore criticized the two right hon. gentlemen as I did because I felt that they might have done better. It may be of course that I expected too much; perhaps I was taking too exalted a view of their sense of proportion in the positions they respectively occupied. The leader of the opposition spent a great deal of time discussing the tariff; there is no doubt about that. I do not think anyone will deny this statement if he reads the speeches that were delivered during the campaign. And what shall I say of the Prime Minister? It seemed to me that when he was out west he was rather sorry for himself most of the time: he appeared to lament the treatment that he had received in parliament during the four years the government had been in power. But really I do not think we did so very badly by the right hon. gentleman after all; indeed, hon. gentlemen to my right were not slow to suggest that we in this group were here to support the right hon. gentleman and to see him through his difficulties. So that I was rather surprised when he came west to find that he regarded us as a stumbling block. However, I will let that pass and will go on to something else.
The Prime Minister, in Lis first speech in the campaign, delivered at Richmond Hill,
mentioned four major problems-the fiscal policy that should be adopted in this country, transportation, immigration and the Senate. I shall briefly discuss these problems, with the exception of the Senate; I understand that the Senate has adjourned and gone home so we will let them rest in peace for the present. Let me first, then, say a few words with reference to the tariff.
I had almost expected to hear some hon. members heave a sigh at the mention of the word "tariff" for fear of the precipitation of a lengthy disquisition on that subject. Well, let me say that the tariff is not yet a dead issue; it is still very much alive and will be on the boards for a long time to come-in fact, until it is settled in the very best interests of the Canadian people from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And in this connection I am obliged to make some comparison between city and country life. If the rural communities are not alive to their own interests, if they do not bear constantly in mind the fact that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, they will find that in the inevitable course of events the industrial life of the country will have legislation passed which will be more in their interests than it will be in the interests of the agricultural population. Now I am not imputing any selfish motives to any class; I say simply that this will be the natural course of events unless the people are alive and on the job. Consequently the tariff is something that we have to keep in mind continually if we want to see that justice is done. The government, so far as the Speech from the Throne indicates, is not moving to any great extent in that direction. Last session it stood pat, while I am inclined to think that the leader of the opposition, on the other hand, occupies the same position he has held during the past four years-although for a few days I thought that he' was weakening somewhat and sliding back a little.


An hon. MEMBER:: Going forward.


Robert Forke: Put it that way if you like. However, from the remarks that I have heard on the right there does not seem to be much weakening so far as the tariff is concerned, and we can expect the doctrine of a high tariff to be the policy of the Conservative party in the time to come. The "brick for brick" story is getting to be a classic, and in this connection I would pay the leader of the opposition a compliment. The right hon. gentleman sometimes complains about being misquoted. Now I have no doubt that everyone in this House admires his felicity of expression and his clarity of thought; for there
The Address-Mr. Forke

is no one in parliament who can express his ideas in better or clearer language than can the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: There is always a fly in the ointment, though. For example, why should the right hon. gentleman be misquoted so often?


Arthur Meighen: He is not-very rarely.


Robert Forke: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) stole some of my thunder this afternoon in regard to the Brandon speech of the leader of the opposition. He dealt with that speech extensively and so he rather cut a good deal of the ground from under me. I was rather pleased with some of the remarks of the leader of the opposition at Brandon but I must say that about the shabbiest thing he said was this: he told the people of Brandon that they (had had distinguished representatives in the past and that some day they would have such representatives again. It reminded me of the manner in which I once heard Sir James Aikins enumerate those who had represented Brandon in the House of Commons. He said: There was Sir Clifford Sifton, myself, Dr. Whiddon, and so on down. In view of this I will excuse the right hon. leader of the opposition for what he said along that line.
I notice that at Portage la Prairie, referring to "building up the tariff brick for brick" he stated that this had relation to agricultural products. But I have here a quotation from the Manitoba Free Press. I suppose most hon. members will accept that authority as they would the Gospel.


An hon. MEMBER :: No chance.


Robert Forke: This is the quotation:
Mr. Meighen claims that he never advocated a brick for brick policy for all Canadian products. In that case he suffered from misreporting during the campaign. Thus the Mail and Empire report of his speech at Port Arthur has this paragraph: "The Conservative leader made "a strong plea for a 'Canada First' policy, brick for brick in the tariff wall with the United States."
At Calgary (Herald report):
He declared that "while a protective tariff is absolutely vital, it must be a resolute one and comparable with other countries: when theirs is low ours can be low, and when theirs is high ours should be high."


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: That is all right; that is
brick for brick exactly. The amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition is very adroitly worded, as we might well expect when we remember its 
source.	I do not know whether it will
accomplish its purpose or not; it may, again it may not. But duties on agricultural imports is not such a serious matter as a great many people might suppose. I know the word "protection" in itself has a certain fascination. It appeals to people. When you tell a man you are going bo protect him either in what he buys or what he sells or in any other respect he is naturally inclined to regard you very favourably at the outset. If you go to a truck farmer and tell him that you are going to protect his market, you are certain to get his attention right away. Consequently we who are opposed to protection feel that the cards are stacked against us right from the beginning. However, we are not going to give up the battle. I have a few figures bearing on this point which may be of interest to the House. During 1924 we imported from the United States $56,000 worth of wheat; we exported to that country $20,000,000 worth. Now a word about butter, because I know the importation of dairy products is regarded as a very serious problem. Strange to say, Saskatchewan is the greatest dairy province in the Dominion. I want the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) to note that. He gave us a very eloquent speech this afternoon about protection and contrasted the business of the stock raiser with that of the wheat "miner," much to the latter's disadvantage. But I do not mind that sort of comparison, for I know the circumstances. Members of this House who have been out west and are familiar with the circumstances are aware that there is a grain of truth in what the hon. gentleman says; nevertheless those who do not understand all the circumstances may be given a wrong impression. In the province of Manitoba, the oldest of the prairie provinces, there is a great deal of diversified farming; in fact I know of no farm where you will not find cows, pigs and other live stock. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the western farmer is no fool, and if he finds that any branch of farming is going to be profitable he will very soon take it up. Therefore it is not to be wondered at that owing to changed conditions in recent times our western farmers have found that mixed farming is paying them better than wheat raising alone. When I went out there thirty years ago there was only one way of making money on the land- by raising wheat; at that particular time mixed farming was out of the question. But let me give the House some figures on butter. Our imports from the United States in 1924 represented a value of $57,000, as against

The Address-Mr. Forke
exports to that country to the enormous value of $2,418,000. What are our fanners afraid of? By invoking protection they are going to close up a market where they sold two and a half million dollars' worth of butter in 1924 in order to exclude the comparatively small importation of $57,000 worth.
As we all know, the farmers of the United States have been calling for high protection. The doctrine taught there for the last three of four years has been:	Give us high protection. This, they were led to believe, would effectively bar out all competition. What is happening there to-day among the farmers? We may complain about farming conditions in Canada to-day, but we are in a much better position on our farms than they are in the midddle states. The farmers there are beginning to realize that they have been "sold" on this policy of high protection. We may stand for a certain amount of protection because we want to see our industries grow-
I am not going to give myself away on that-


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Be careful.


Robert Forke: -but you will never convince a western farmer that protection can help him in any way whatever.


Mr. MANION:: How about the eastern
farmer?


Robert Forke: Just at the present time the eastern farmer is being fooled a little.


Robert James Manion: He is being fooled a good deal.


David Spence: By the west.


Robert James Manion: Yes, that is the trouble.


Robert Forke: I do not admit that the
west can fool the east.


David Spence: Backed up by
the present government.


Robert Forke: Are you aware of that?


David Spence: You are aware of it, anyway.


Robert Forke: I am astonished at the hon.
member for Parkdale becoming annoyed. But there is another point of view, Sir, to which I want to draw attention. The United States is a market for a very large quantity of our dairy products. Suppose we begin to fight them? They have a population of 110,000,000 while ours is only 9,000,000. Suppose we shut them out of our market, then they will shut us out of their market? In that event who will suffer most?


David Spence: We are shut out now.


Robert Forke: What about that two and a half million dollars' worth of butter they bought from us?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: They had to have it.


Robert Forke: They had to have it, you
say?


David Spence: If they had had lots of their own you would not have got any butter in there at all.


Robert Forke: I know. That is the way business is conducted all over the world; people buy stuff because they need it. I shall not elaborate the argument further, but I do hope that our farmers will not fall for that sort of doctrine. If they do, the cost of living will go up, the cost of everything will go up. Moreover, once the farmer admits he has got to be protected he has no argument to come back against the manufacturer when the manufacturer seeks high protection, and he will find that he has sold himself for a mess of pottage.
I want to say a few words in regard to the transportation problem. That, Mr. Speaker, is a question of great moment in Canada, and while it is important to every section of the country it is vitally important to the prairie provinces. Geographically we are in the centre of the North American continent-we will leave the Hudson bay out of it for just a few minutes-and nowhere in any wheat-exporting country to-day do you find wheat being exported more than 400 or 500 miles from the seaboard. What is our position? We are competing with these countries though we are 2,000 miles away from the eastern seaboard and 1,000 miles from the Rocky mountains and the Pacific. Do you realize what a tremendous problem that of transportation is to the people of the prairies? Do you wonder that we are in earnest when this matter comes up for consideration? It is the one great question, I say, so far as the west is concerned, but it is a question of national importance also, affecting everyone in the Dominion.
I would like to say a few words in connection with the Canadian National Railways. On no subject do I find more ignorance in the west than upon this question. I think the people ought to have the facts plainly stated so that they may know just how things stand and look for a remedy; petty quarrelling over trifles does not really amount to very much in the end.
The Address-Mr. Forke

The capitalization of our National railways- I have the figures here for 1924 and I think they are correct-amounts to $2,056,181,518, a tremendous sum. It does not mean very much to me; it is beyond my comprehension to understand what two billion dollars really amounts to and I think I am in pretty much the same position as most other members of the House in that regard. In 1924 the railways owed the government $1,142,268,435. They owed the public in 'bonds and stocks, in round figures, $914,000,000, or, to be accurate, $913, 913.083. No one in this House to-day is, in my opinion, to blame for this state of affairs. I do not think anything can be gained by blaming anyone, but we have a condition of affairs in connection with our railways which we have to meet. I shall not therefore attempt to attribute the present situation to any particular individuals or to any particular section of the people. We all know how it came about. A lot of private individuals went wild-catting, building railways where perhaps they were not needed, using public money and public credit; then came the debacle and we found, as someone said, the Canadian National Railway system laid upon our doorstep. And yet, Mr. Speaker, all that took place when we had that ideal state of affairs under which there were only two parties in the House, a good, strong government and a good, strong opposition. They allowed that condition of affairs, though, to come about. Had the group system been in existence at that time I am sure a great- many members would have felt some satisfaction in dwelling upon the chaotic state of affairs in the House of Commons, when there was no good strong government to carry on business as it should be carried on. There is much propaganda going the rounds these days. I imagine other members of my group find themselves in the same position I do, in that I am getting numerous circulars and pamphlets showing the condition of the Canadian National Railways. I notice that the management has been criticized more severely than I have ever seen it criticized before. I am not able to give a very intelligent opinion, but I do know that the Canadian National railways are being operated efficiently and are giving good service. It is possible that some things may be criticized, some expense in connection with operation that is not really needed. I have no opinion to offer, because I do not know; I can only say that the Canadian National railways are giving efficient service to the public.
I saw a suggestion some time ago, I think it was in the Winnipeg Free Press, which I am going to give to the House for what it may

be worth. The idea was to capitalize the Canadian National Railways at $914,000,000; that is, the amount owing to the public. The amount owing to the government, $1,142,268,000, was to be added to the national debt. Well, it is there now, anyway, Mr. Speaker. The railways were to issue stock to the government for that amount, and with proper capitalization, with improving times and growing traffic, the time might come in the not far distant future when these railways would become a really valuable property, earning good profits. The government, owning stock, would thus be at least partly repaid for the amount added to the national debt. That is one solution which is offered. If that should be done it would be necessary to consolidate all the different bonds and outstanding liabilities of the railways so that they would be owned by the public in more complete blocks. They are now held by interlocking companies, in different issues coming due at different dates, and this ought to be remedied1, to some extent at least.
Then another solution was suggested by a committee of the Senate last year. I am not going to enter into the details of that plan, but it began by proposing the amalgamation of the two railways, the resulting system to be operated by a board of fifteen members. You know how that board was to be selected and where they were to come from. I am just a little suspicious about the way that board might be selected. However, we will pass along. Last year the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) suggested an amalgamation from the national point of view. Both these gentlemen are splendid exponents of the public ownership of railways, and I think we shall hear more of that before this parliament is over. I do not know just where I stand on that question. I am open to conviction. I want to see some way out, but I say emphatically now that I feel pretty sure I will never endorse a railway monopoly in this Dominion by a private company.
There is a mystery in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway. I remember years ago reading the debates that took place in this House before that railway was built, and the glowing accounts that were given of how cheaply it was going to carry wheat to our Canadian ports. But no wheel seems to be turning to-day to carry our wheat through our own ports. What is the trouble? Is there any explanation? I have been asked in public meeting why wheat could not be carried over the National Transcontinental railway at a rate that would be profitable to

The Address-Mr. Forke
the railway and that would pay the shipper as well, and I have been ashamed, Mr. Speaker, to have to admit that I could give no explanation. I hope before I leave this parliament I shall at least be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the difficulty.
Now a word about the Iludson Bay railway. It is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, so it is quite in order for me to bring it up.
I want to say a few words for the benefit of my friends from Saskatchewan particularly. We are going to get the Hudson Bay railway at this session of parliament.
Mr. HOC-KEN: Don't be too sure of that.


Robert Forke: I feel sure of it. During the election, the On-to-the-Bay Association gave a little banquet in Regina which they invited me to attend, and I was asked to give a short account of what had taken place in the Dominion parliament in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. Trying to be fairly honest, I thought to myself, this is a non-political gathering, with Conservatives, Liberals and at least one or two Progressives here, so I will try and give as straight an account as I possibly can, telling the exact truth. I went on with my story and told what the Progressives had been doing in parliament towards getting the Hudson Bay railway built, and I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I had done that I had nothing more to say. I want our Saskatchewan friends to know that, because I think it will do them good. When you hear about obstacles, do not believe that there have been any obstacles put in the way of building the Hudson Bay railway by -those sitting in this end of the House, right up to the middle of the chamber, it was last year, but it is not quite so far this year.
Very closely connected with the subject of transportation is the question of immigration, because it is commonly believed that unless we get more people into this Dominion, get more freight and passenger traffic for our railways, our transportation problem is not likely to be solved. What is cur immigration problem? I do not think it is so much a question of immigration at the present time as it is a question of emigration, of how to stop our people from leaving this country. How are we going to keep our own people here? I am perfectly well aware of the fact that just so long as we have to the south of us a nation with one hundred and ten millions of people, the law of gravitation will always draw a certain percentage of our population to the south. It is a law of nature, and it will work inevitably; but far too many
have been going, and one of the big problems that we must solve is how to stop that movement. Although it may not be generally believed, when we solve tne problems of agriculture and of rural life in this country we are helping to solve also this problem of emigration. Our friends to my right take a different view of that matter. They have believed that if they could set the wheels of industry moving and keep our factories working our population would stay in this country, but I say you will never do it that way. I am just as convinced as that I stand here that if you have twice as many factories in this country you have tv'ice as many employees, but you would get just the same amount of dissatisfaction because you would not have a market for your goods. It is claimed by our friends to my right that the manufacturers of this country cannot compete with the low priced labour of foreign countries, that our manufacturers cannot sell abroad. I ask, where are you going to sell if not abroad? You are going to sell at home, and the home market is the best market our manufacturers will ever have. When you have made the rural communities in this country prosperous, when you have dotted this whole Dominion with rural homes, when you have a contented agricultural community, you will find a market for your industrial products. When you develop agriculture in this country and make the rural communities prosperous-I am not belittling industry at all; I would like to see all our native industries develop, mining, fishing,. lumbering, and so forth-when all these native industries are developed you will have prosperity throughout this whole Dominion. That, I believe, is the solution of our immigration problem. I have no fault to find with any well-thought-out scheme for bringing people here provided you choose the right people and place them where they can earn a living when they are he-e. I have no fault to find with the Dominion of Canada. It is the finest country on the face of the earth; it can be the home of millions more people, and all of us would be better off if they were here, but we must have right ideas and know just what immigration really means. The first thing we should do, therefore, is to stop this leak of our people to the country to the south of us.
A very notable conference was held in Winnipeg in the month of November last. I do not know whether any members of this House attended it, but its pur-9 p.m. pose was a very commendable one. It was the getting together of people from all parts of this Dominion, to
The Address-Mr. Forke

have them sit around a common table to discuss their problems and endeavour to find solutions for them. I have a little clipping from the Manitoba Free* Press with respect to that conference which I shall not take time to read, but, paraphrasing it, the chairman, in opening the meeting, said that if any member of the conference introduced party politics he would be cast into outer darkness. I thought that was a lamentable state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. I think that is the trouble in this House of Commons. It is all party politics. Maybe I have become a little tinged with it myself, but it is well to admit that the curse of politics is party politics. Here we have in this parliament, elected from all parts of this Dominion, men from every profession and calling. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a committee better qualified to discuss the problems of this Dominion than the people representative of all walks of life who are elected to this parliament? Could a better committee be selected? If in a few days or a few weeks, or at the end of this session, we have to go back to the country and say we cannot function, we cannot do anything, I hope the people will have sense enough to keep every one of us at home and send others here in our place.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member has
raised an important point. All the newspapers of Canada are criticizing public men and political parties on the very same ground the hon. member mentions. I would ask him this: The members of a party are elected pledged to specific policies in the programme of their party. They come here with the support of a large proportion, if not the majority, of their community. Would he have them betray the communities they represent, make default in carrying out their pledges, in order to make some compromise on their principles? What are you going to do, stand by your principles and your pledges, or compromise and vote for something else?


Hewitt Bostock: I do not object to a question being put with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor, but it must be a question and not a speech.


Robert Forke: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we
have got some enlightenment anyway. I do not know what great principles we could not compromise upon in some degree. I believe if three or four really sensible people among the Conservative group and the same number from the Liberal side got together

and of course you could take in the whole body of Progressives, because they are all sensible- we could arrive at some solution of the difficulties which we seem to be tangled over at
[Mr. Forked
the present time. I am not blaming any one particularly; I am simply mentioning the condition-possibly there is something wrong with parliamentary life that such a thing should occur. Suppose we had an election and the same thing happened, what would we do then? Have another election after that?


An hon. MEMBER:: No chance.


Robert Forke: I do not know. The hon.
member to my right may know.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend speaks
of some understanding. I read a front page article in the Toronto Globe which stated that my hon. friend and some other member of his party and the Liberals were going to form a coalition government. Would he favour that?


Robert Forke: I would favour any coalition to get us out of the troubles which face us. If my hon. friends to the right are in power and are willing to form a coalition to forward the principles for which I stand, I am quite willing to go with them. I would, however, advise the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) not to believe what he sees in the newspapers, either the Globe or any other paper.
I have a word to say about rural credits. Nothing is more certain than that agriculture cannot continue to function and pay eight per cent for money, which I think is the present rate. No business in Canada can function and pay eight per cent for the money to carry on its affairs, and how can we expect agriculture to do so? I am not an advocate of easy money. I know that money should not be loaned unless there is adequate security, and it is the only way you will ever get low interest, with adequate security. But I leave the banking system out at the present time. I claim there are certain lines of industry which are not taken care of just now by any system of financing we have. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) this afternoota advocated cattle raising, and I have -great hopes for the west since we have been reinforced by the hon. member for Marquette because he understands western problems. I was glad to listen to his speech this afternoon, because there has been great difficulty in finding out who was responsible for removing the embargo on cattle. I always thought it was the member -for Marquette who had been responsible for its removal. For a number of years it has been a question of who killed cock robin, but the hon. member has now settled that question.

The Address-Mr. Flemming
There are certain lines of industry in connection with the raising of live stock which are not taken care of by any system we have at the present time; consequently, I hope to see some system of rural credits introduced that will serve the purpose in regard to that industry.
Another difficulty is that a great many mortgages in the west, and some in the east, are paying from eight to ten per cent. Something must be done in regard to those mortgages. They may be amortized and payments made over a number of years, but ohe interest must come down. I hope the mortgage companies will realize that it is an absolute necessity if they and the people of the west are to be prosperous.
I wish to say a few words in regard to taxation. We hear many complaints to-day about the income tax being higher in Canada than it is in the United States. What are the conditions? I sometimes wonder when I hear our patriotic Canadians comparing our conditions with those of the United States. We want economical government. I doubt whether we can get it. Every government preaches economy, but I question whether we are going to get that economy, but at the same time we must realize the fact that a great deal of our taxation to-day comes from fixed charges, war debts and shortages on the Canadian National railways. Now what has happened to the Dominion of Canada? We went into the war. We know the sacrifices that we made. We spent enormous sums of money. That money has to be paid back some day. The United States went into the war, though at a late stage. They became enormously rich as a result of the war, and why should our patriotic Canadian citizens tremble so much to-day because they have to pay a little higher taxes to meet our liabilities? They say, reduce the income tax. That may be all right, but we have to have money. Where are we going to get it? It has to come out of the great mass of the people if it does not come from the income tax.	I do not
know the opinions of the people behind me in this matter because I have not discussed the question with them, but I should be very slow to reduce the income tax.
The hon. member has referred to the position we occupy in this House. We are here to do the best we can for the Dominion of Canada.. There is not one of us who is not thinking seriously of the situation and trying to do what is best, and we are not now asking anything that we would not ask under other circumstances. I want hon. members to understand that. No matter what view may
be taken, I hope that in the time to come no one will be able to point to me and say I did anything that was disreputable or dishonourable in connection with the business of this House.


Mr. J. K. FLEMMING (Victoria-Carleton):: My remarks to-night, Mr. Speaker, will be brief. I shall confine myself to the question before the House and shall not discuss any matter in detail, because probably before the end of the session legislation will be introduced) covering the subjects dealt with in the Speech and hon. members of the House will have an opportunity to disicuss them then.
I simply wish to refer to a few paragraphs of the Speech with which His Excellency opened parliament. One paragraph reads:
I congratulate you on the growing prosperity of this favoured land. The products of our agricultural and other basic industries have greatly increased. Our export trade shows remarkable expansion. Our manufacturing and related industries throughout the Dominion have experienced a development not enjoyed in many years. Further evidence of industrial progress is reflected in the greatly improved earnings of the railways.
It is the duty of this House to thank Providence and not the government if there is an improved condition of things, because the improvement that has taken place has been within the last few months. Not until there was an assurance of a bountiful harvest was there any substantial improvement in financial conditions. It surely will be admitted by every hon. member of this House that the abundant harvest with which this country has been blessed, and the world conditions that have brought satisfactory prices for the wheat and other products exported from this country, are alone responsible for the improvement in Canada. As was pointed out by an hon, member, reading from the Montreal Gazette, the early months of the past yeav did not show a substantial or appreciable improvement in conditions, but later on, when a bountiful harvest was assured, the conditions were improved. The statement that manufacturing and related industries and the railways felt the benefit of that improvement is no doubt true. Why did that improvement immediately make itself felt in the operations of the railways? Because a bountiful harvest, means millions of bushels of grain and millions of dollars worth of agricultural products sold at a satisfactory price. It means a tremendous increase in the purchasing power of the people; the industries feel the effect of that increased purchasing power; merchants order goods more freely; increased orders are placed with the wholesale dealers; the wholesale dealers in turn go to the manufacturers

The Address-Mr. Flemming
and -they repeat their orders. Business begins to flourish because the purchasing power of the people is increased, and that increase has been due to the bountiful harvest and the assurance of a satisfactory price for the products of the farm.
The next paragraph reads!:
This increased prosperity and advancement have been aided by the policies of the government.
I dissent from that. I have failed to learn from a single hon. gentleman opposite what policy of the government has increased the prosperity which this country is enjoying today. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who leads the House with so much dignity, who spoke with such force and clearness yesterday, and whose smile is so attractive and magnetic on this side of the House, failed utterly to point to a single policy of this government that had in the slightest measure increased or aided the prosperity that has come to the country in the last few months. The reason the hon. gentleman failed to do that is because it is utterly impossible to do it. There are no facts upon which to base such an assumption, and there is no reason why such a statement should be placed in the Speech from the Throne. The paragraph winds up by stating:
In the opinion of my ministers the improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.
The next paragraph reads:
Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures.
And then this paragraph further states:
To aid in the reduction of expenditures in administration certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others and government services more effectively co-ordinated.
This subject of expenditures and taxation is the most important one that we can discuss in this House. That the people of this country would be delighted to have a further reduction in taxation, no one can possibly question, because our taxation is extremely heavy and onerous. That reduction in taxation can be brought about only by a reduction in expenditures. This paragraph states:
Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures.
If there is a substantial reduction in expenditures, a reduction in taxation might possibly be made, but the little bit of saving that would be made by the amalgamation and co-ordination of a department or two would be so infinitesimal as not to be worth mentioning. If we are to have any real 
reduction in taxation there must be a pruning down of the expenditures of the country until the process will hurt. Then and only then shall we get a sufficient reduction in expenditure to permit of any substantial reduction of taxation. But this government claim that they have reduced taxation. If my impression and my memory serve me aright, the sales tax, which is the one tax paid by rich and poor alike in this country whenever they buy a dollar's worth of goods, was increased by the present government from three to six per cent. They then reduced it to five per cent and they said:	We are lessening
the taxation on the people. If the government will honestly set about making every effort-to use the words in the Speech from the Throne-to reduce expenditures, they will receive my cordial and hearty support. The burden of taxation at present borne by the people ought to be lightened, and the only possible way to do that is to trim expenditures.
Let me pass from that to the most extraordinary paragraph in the Speech, the one which refers to the customs tariff. This paragraph reads:
My ministers are of the opinion that a general increase in the customs tariff would prove detrimental to the country's continued prosperity and prejudicial to national unity.
That seems to be a sufficiently general expression of opinion as not to hurt anybody's feelings. You might revise the tariff by increasing the duties on 75 per cent of your schedule, and yet you would come within' the wording of that paragraph. You might have a revision in which there might be a stem reduction downward, and it would meet the wording of that paragraph. That paragraph is broad enough, wishy-washy enough, to hold a free trader from Saskatchewan and a modem protectionist from Quebec equally consistently within its terms.
Further on the paragraph states:
Every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty.
This country has suffered from that element of uncertainty since 1921 and it is suffering from it to-day. If ever there was penned a paragraph in which uncertainty was set upon the throne, it is that paragraph of the Speech of His Excellency. In' every single word it may mean higher tariff or lower tariff. It may mean anything. I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that members on this side of the House are indeed anxious to eliminate every element of uncertainty. About a quarter to one o'clock on Friday morning we came within three votes of eliminating that

The Address-Mr. Flemming
element of uncertainty, and the fight will continue without abatement until it is eliminated. We shall then have an administration with a clear-cut, well-defined policy, an administration that will honestly and faithfully carry out that policy.
Let me comment briefly on the next paragraph which refers to the British West Indian treaty. Until that treaty comes down and we know its provisions it would not be wise to make any extended remarks in regard to it. But when the government of Canada is undertaking to make a trade treaty with the British West Indies, it is operating in the right direction. We are undertaking to make a trade arrangement with a people who are producing and' have to sell what we wish to purchase, and we in turn are producing and have to sell what they require to buy. Trade would be mutual between two countries so situated. All I have to say therefore is that if the arrangement in its terms and conditions is right then it ought to be favourably commented upon.
The next paragraph reads:
In pursuance of the fixed policy of the government to encourage the movement of grain and other Canadian products through Canadian ports, the Board of Railway Commissioners has been instructed to include in the general rate investigation now in progress, a special inquiry into the causes of diversion of Canadian grain and other products through other than Canadian ports, and to take such action under the Railway Act as it may deem efficient to ensure as far as possible the utilization of Canadian ports for Canadian traffic.
I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite what they mean by the word "fixed". They say it is a fixed policy of the government. Are we to understand from this that it has been the policy of the government from 1921 up to the present, or are we to understand that this particular paragraph is simply nailed down in the minds of members of the government more solidly than is the other paragraph? I cannot understand just what they mean. It seems to me however that this is a paragraph that comes very directly home to the representatives in this House of the Maritime provinces, and I shall therefore have something to say at greater length on the significance of this particular passage than on the other paragraphs of the Speech. If it has been the fixed policy of the government since 1921 to encourage the movement of grain and other Canadian products through Canadian ports, then I would tpoint out in the most conclusive manner that their fixed policy has been an absolute failure, that it has been indeed something stationary, something that has never moved, a policy that has never functioned and never brought any satisfaction
to the people. May I suggest too that the word "diversion" is inappropriate in this particular paragraph. You can divert traffic only after it has been started in a certain direction. When we ship, say, a carload of lumber and it turns out when that freight is in transit that we should have sent it to some other destination, we apply to the railway to divert that car. It has been already committed to the railway for transportation to a certain point and after it has been started towards its destination we can divert it to some other point. But the difficulty in this case is that there is no diversion inasmuch as the traffic has never been started towards Canadian .ports at all; it has never been diverted from Canadian poi'ts for it has never started thither.
I have here the figures showing the amount of grain shipped through Canadian ports and through American ports respectively during the last five years and I would point out that during the greater part of that five year period this fixed policy of the government was in full force and effect, this policy that was to take Canadian products through Canadian ports. And what do we find? The following are the figures:
Shipped through Shipped through Canadian ports American ports bushels	bushels
1919-	20	
48 345,771	13,023,2811920-	21	
32,194,478	54,193,0101921-	22	
34,728,284	100,009,4661922-	23	
69.044,984	129,871,0951923-	24	
72,980,977	141,079,337
In 1921-22 and in the succeeding years it will be noted that the fixed policy was in force. In other words, in that five year period the shipment of Canadian grain through Canadian ports increased fifty per cent while the shipment of Canadian grain through American ports increased tenfold. That is not a condition that should be accepted as satisfactory to this House; it is not a condition that should satisfy the people of the country; and standing here in my place I want to say emphatically that it is not a condition that is at all satisfactory to the Maritime provinces And of the millions of bushels of grain shipped through Canadian ports only a small portion, a comparatively small fraction, found its way through the winter ports of Canada. Why is this? Surely that fixed policy of the government, to encourage the movement of grain through Canadian ports, proved highly unsuccessful when there was an increase in five years of only fifty per cent in the traffic through Canadian ports as compared with a tenfold increase through American ports. This

The Address-Mr. Flemming
condition, Mr. Speaker, is one that should engage the most earnest and thoughtful attention of the whole House. The very principle of confederation requires this; the way we have travelled during the last fifty years demands that there be a change in this state of affairs, otherwise we shall be forced to admit that we have been travelling entirely in the wrong direction.
It is said that this grain finds its way to American ports because of our geographical situation, and we are told sometimes that our fight is one against geography. I admit that to some extent it is a fight against geography. But what have we been doing ever since the day of confederation? Have we not been struggling against the difficulties of geography? When New Brunswick and Nova Scotia came into the union those provinces made certain sacrifices, and I would remind hon. gentlemen that confederation would not have been possible had Nova Scotia and New Brunswick stood aside. When the Charlottetown conference was in session deliberating the question of Maritime union a delegation caime down from Upper and Lower Canada, now Ontario and Quebec, and invited the conference to disband and meet with them in Quebec to consider the greater scheme for the union of all British North America. The conference decided to disband and its members came up to Quebec and went into the consideration of the broader scheme of a federation of British North America. Now the men who sat around that table in the city of Quebec had a vision of a great united country, a great nation on this northern half of the continent of America, where British institutions would prevail and over which the British flag would fly. They therefore sank their little local differences, setting aside the momentary advantage they would derive from the pursuit of a different course, and decided to enter into the union. And they did this because they had caught that vision of a federation of all British America. Ever since that time we have been struggling with geography. The first fight we had with geographical conditions was engaged in during the construction of the Intercolonial railway to Connect the Maritime provinces with the great central portion of Canada. Then a few years later there was undertaken the construction of a thousand miles of railway in what was then an almost unpeopled country where railway construction was extremely difficult, the country from central Ontario to Manitoba. That was a struggle with geography. There was another and more stupendous struggle with geography when the 
people of this country undertook to build a railway across the Rocky mountains and connect up the province of British Columbia with the rest of the Dominion, and so keep faith with that province on the conditions under which it entered confederation.
But, Mr. Speaker, later we had another tremendous struggle with geography when, about twenty yearn ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of -the government of that day, proposed the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to -the Atlantic seaboard by the most direct route. This railway was to make possible the transportation of the products of the west, not to American Atlantic ports, Sir, but to Canadian Atlantic ports. Great man that he was, he looked down -the vista of the years and he saw the additional millions and millions of bushels of grain that would be produced on the virgin prairies, and he realized that there was necessity for another outlet- as he said at the ti-me, direct outlet-for the shortest possible -route to get to tidewater on the Atlantic. That was the object. I could take Hansafid of that day and read paragraph after paragraph repeating tha-t declaration not only by the leader of the Liberal party of that day but by his followers as well.
We spent $165,000,000 in building -that railway, a railway that was designed and constructed with the -m'ain purpose-with the single purpose I was going to say-of being the direct outlet from the prairies of -the millions and millions of bushels of grain that would be produced there. Up to the present time that railway has wholly failed to carry out the purpose for which -it was constructed. And worse -than that, the Canadian National Railway organization at the present -time have, metaphorically, -built a Stone -wall square across that railway by charging a prohibitive freight rate to prevent grain being hauled from Winnipeg or Fort William or Armstrong to Quebec or the Atlantic ports.
Now, I want to refer to a speech made in the city of Halifax on October 7, 1904, by the Hon. Mr. Fielding. He made a great speech on that occasion, a speech entirely in defence of the -construction of the Transcontinental railway. This is what he said:
A good friend speaking to me to-day said; Mr. Fielding, can you guarantee that the grain traffic of the west will be brought to Halifax by this transcontinental railway? I replied: No one can guarantee anything of the kind. All that can be done in any such case is to provide the best possible facilities and then look for the trade. This, however, I can safely say, that if the traffic of the west cannot be brought to Halifax by this route for shipment, then it cannot be brought by any other line that can be devised. We shall have a short line and a good line with all reasonable guarantee for the protection of the Maritime provinces ports.

The Address-Mr. Flemming
He said further:
We want an all-British line, an all-Canadian line, from ocean to ocean. That appeals to the imagination of every loyal British subject. We want it for commercial reasons.
Yet to-day that .railway is not carrying out the purpose for which it was created, it is not being used as a commercial project, it is not carrying grain from the prairies either to Montreal or Quebec, or to St. John or Halifax, Mr. Fielding declared:
That the government of the day intended to build the Transcontinental railway so that the products of western Canada would without fail flow uninterruptedly over an "all Canadian line" to the ports of Halifax and St. John.
Again, he said:
I am surprised to find the cry that under the contract-
That is, the contract that was being made with the Transcontinental! railway.
-entered into by the government, Portland will get the traffic of this road. There never was a contract more carefully guarded than this is.
And yet to-day the elevators at Portland are filled with Canadian grain that is being shipped over Canadian railways to Portland; only a little is going by St. John, and absolutely none is going by Halifax. When the matter was up in the House of Commons the late George W. Fowler, who represented ICing's, N.B., at the time, moved an amendment in this form:
All freight originating in Canada, and received along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, intended for export across the Atlantic, shall be shipped through Canadian ports when the route is not otherwise spec:ally indicated by the shipper, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall carry all such freight to the eastern Canadian seaboards as cheaply as any American port on the Atlantic.
There is the crux of the whole thing, that they will carry freight as cheaply to Canadian ports on the Atlantic as to any other Atlantic ports. What did Mr. Fielding say in defence of the government for refusing Mr. Fowler's amendment? Here are his words:
The government said that they would put in words that would serve the purpose better, and that they would put them, not in the charter, but in the contract, and that they would bind the company to these terms; so we put in the contract the section which has been printed in the press, declaring in explicit terms that the company accepts the aid given them by the government on the condition that it is the object and purpose to promote trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that contract with the company never became effective, and the road was never taken over by the company. Today it is being operated as a part of the Canadian National Railway system, which means that it is being operated by the people
of this country-by the government. Then surely any condition that was made to bind the company ought to be equally as binding upon the government itself, or the Canadian National Railways, when they are operating the railway instead of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, as was intended at that time.
But, Mr. Speaker, instead of serving the distinct purpose for which that railway was built it is to-day carrying no grain to Canadian Atlantic ports. The railway is open, the interest on that $165,000,000 of cost is being paid, and must be paid. Much of the overhead expense is being incurred, and yet the road is only operated to a very limited extent. Now I ask this House, has the time not come when the government of this country, on behalf of parliament, shall ask the Canadian National executive to carry out the object that parliament had in view when this railway was promoted and when the people's money was put into it?
It may be said that it is not a business proposition to carry this wheat to Atlantic ports in the winter, or to Montreal or Quebec in the summer season, over the Transcontinental. I think I have very good evidence to show that it may be, and likely is, a reasonably safe proposition. I have here figures taken from the report as to the grain trade of Canada for 1924. The rate I am going to give is the rate per bushel, not per hundred pounds, and the figures are as follows: to Montreal by water direct, 8.99; Montreal, all water, transfer at Port Colborne, 10.54; Montreal, lake and rail, 13.72; Montreal, all rail, 20.7. That last rate is prohibitive; nothing ever goes to Montreal by rail at that rate. The figure to New York, lake and rail, is 13.48, and to Philadelphia, Baltimore and Norfolk, 13.18. Now, Mr. Speaker, grain is being carried under statutory enactment from the point of production on the prairies to Fort William at a certain given rate, and I submit that that rate must be one not unprofitable to the railway companies conveying the traffic. My reason for saying that is that w-hen the traffic becomes very heavy, when the grain trains are running frequently and thousands of cars of grain are being delivered at Fort AVilliam, instead of losing money because of the increased traffic thenweekly net earnings go up tremendously and they are in a much better position than they previously w-ere. The gross earnings might go up while a loss -is sustained, but the net earnings could not go up without a corresponding gain being produced. Therefore I say it is reasonable to suppose that the

The Address-Mr. Flemming
statutory rate in effect from the point of production to Fort William is a rate which admits of a reasonable profit being made by the railways. The adoption of that rate from Fort William to Quebec would mean a rate of about 11 cents. That is, traffic would go to Quebec for about 2i cents less than it goes to the port of New York; to Maritime province ports the rate would be a little higher on account of the longer distance.
But there is another factor in that connection. The grades on the transcontinental are so much better than those on the other railways that a locomotive will carry a tonnage about 20 per cent greater than on the other roads. That means that if the statutoiy rate would land the grain at Quebec from Fort William for 11 cents, carrying 20 per cent more would decrease that cost to the railways very materially. You can see at once what it means: that the port of Quebec ought to have millions and millions of bushels of grain in the season when that port is open -and it is open later than the other ports in Canada, the port of Montreal, for example -and the traffic ought to be continued during the months when the port of Quebec is closed and the Maritime ports of St. John and Halifax are open and inviting it. It is not impossible; it could be worked out. In my judgment it is possible for the railways to carry out such a programme with reasonable gain. But I go a step further than that. If necessary, grain should be Carried at some loss to the country. As a matter of national policy we cannot afford to have the products of this country and a traffic which belongs to our railways and our ports diverted to a foreign country, even though the alternative 'would mean some loss. It is worth while that we should have a real all-Canadian policy that will take Canadian traffic through Canadian ports. If there was a little loss-I do not admit there should be-think of the gain that would adcrue. It would mean thousands more men employed by the railways; it would mean that those men would have employment all along the lines of our railways from east to west. Employment always means, in a sense, good times. It would mean that we would see hundreds and hundreds more locomotives than we see at the present time. That would mean more orders for the Kingston locomotive works; instead of running five months a year they would run twelve months and there would be no short time and no laying off of men. It would mean that thousands and thousands of cars would be used and these, Mr.' Speaker, would be built by Canadian car works, which would 
mean prosperity in another industry. So the thing would go on. A little current from here and a little from there; a little this way and a little that way, and the whole stream of commerce would be tremendously increased for the great good and benefit of the country.
There is a subject very closely associated with this, Mr. Speaker,, in connection with our transportation, and that is the subject of our coal policy. I do not think anyone will question the fact or deny the statement that in the central part of Canada there is a market for about $100,000,000 worth of coal per year. We have the coal in great abundance in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the east, and they have it in equal abundance in Alberta in the west. Yet parliament has never grappled with the task of meeting that condition and trying to solve that .problem. Instead, we have drawn that tremendous supply of coal from a foreign country; we have taken $100,000,000 of good Canadian money and sent it beyond our borders, never to come back. It seems to me that as business men in a business place we ought to sit down and say: What can be done to remedy the situation? A few years ago I was ill, and for several months I was at the sanatorium at Clifton Springs in New York state. Looking out of the window every day 1 could see trainload after trainload of nothing but coal, thirty or forty cars to the train, all going in the same direction, north. At night I could hear the trains going by every hour; I did not sleep well for a long time. I made inquiry and found that this coal was all going up to lake Ontario. And what was going to happen to it then? It was to be loaded on barges and .sent up and down the St. Lawrence river and around the lakes, supplying the Canadian market with coal. I thought that was a strange thing; that surely that condition ought to be remedied. We have coal in the east and coal in the west, and I believe we should set our faces strongly and determinedly to bring about a condition that will admit of our Canadian market in the central provinces being supplied from the east and from the west. I am not at this moment prepared to admit that with improved grades and locomotives of the greatest capacity, and hauled in the cheapest manner possible, the coal in the east and the coal in the west could not be placed in the central provinces in competition with the coal that is coming in here at the present time; but if that is the case, I lay down this proposition, that as a national undertaking we ought to convey the coal from Alberta and from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the central markets in Ontario and Quebec, and keep

The Address-Mr. Heaps
that $100,000,000 at home. What would that policy mean, Mr. Speaker? It is only a few days ago that I read in the paper of some mines in Cape Breton running only two days a week, and others being entirely closed down. If we were supplying this $100,000,000 market of ours with our own coal-and it is our own market, it belongs to us-the mines in Cape Breton would not be running only two days a week or shutting down entirely; there would be a market for all the coal produced in Cape Breton and in the Maritime provinces and in the province of Alberta, and additional mines would be opened. Business, to use the term of the street, would be humming in this country,, because we had had wisdom enough to stop buying from abroad and start to develop our own resources and our own wealth.
I thought this afternoon when I was listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) making that dignified and statesmanlike utterance of his, that I would take a few notes, but I find I have absolutely nothing to reply to. The greatest desire of the hon. gentleman seemed to be to pick a fight with members on this side of the House.
Before I resume my seat I want to make a reference to the speech made by the mover of the Address (Mr. Elliott), delivered in such a fine and temperate manner. Speaking of surpluses that had been reported by the various Finance ministers in Canada since confederation, he said that altogether they had reported $80,000,000 of surpluses, and that of that $80,000,000, $37,000,000 had been reported by the present government. I think of the occasions upon which this government did have a surplus, and the government had two-fifths. He also said, and this he pointed out with great satisfaction and pride, that the Canadian National railways had a surplus this year of $30,000,000. Being a new member I did not wish to interrupt him to ask a question, but I wondered if he had read the report of Mr. Bell, the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, made public just a short time ago, in which he points out that in the last five years the Canadian National railways was to the bad $572,825,435. Take away from that the $30,000,000 surplus of this year, which is a surplus on operating account, and the other surpluses 10 p.m. they have had in two other years.
amounting in all to about $40,000,000, and you find that in the last five years, there has been added to the debt of the Canadian National railway, $530,000,000, or more than $100,000,000 a year. But there is a wonderful system of bookkeeping 14011-18
whereby this is all charged to the Canadian National railway; but what in the world is the Canadian National railway? If there has been added this amount to the debt of the Canadian National railway, to use the words of the chairman's report, it has been added to the debt of the people of Canada, because Canada owns the railway. If there is a surplus on the railway, the surplus is ours; if there is a deficit, the deficit is ours, and if the road borrows millions and tens of millions, as they have been doing, and charge it up to the Canadian National railway, that is just as much a part of our obligation and debt as if it was in the regular debt statement. Nobody in the world can deny that. Now that is a most astonishing condition, it is, indeed, a. most alarming condition when in five years the Canadian National railway has added to its debt pretty nearly $600,000,000, or within $100,000,000 of the whole capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, operating 20,000 miles of railway, and with a net revenue in the last few years of about $37,000,000 a year. Yet this organization of ours has put this country to the bad to the extent of $572,000,000 in five years. That, I say, is a condition of affairs that calls for the most earnest and careful consideration by this parliament, in order that some remedy may be applied.
There are many other matters to which I should like to make reference, Mr. Speaker, but my strength will not permit. I am very grateful to the House for the kindness they have shown me in listening with the attention they have.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
am very sorry indeed that the previous speaker (Mr. Flemming) did not have the strength to continue. I hope that after he has been in the House a little longer his strength will be fully restored, and that he will be able to continue his speeches to the end.
It has become customary, Mr. Speaker, for the various speakers in this debate to congratulate you upon your re-election to office. With other hon. members, I also, on behalf of the group I represent, wish to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do it not only on account of the qualities which you possess but also on account of the fact that in your re-election a precedent has been broken. During the past week or so we seem to have done nothing else but be asked by the various speakers on different sides of the House to follow precedents. I am noit such a great lover of precedent myself; what I like to do is to congratulate a person wlho

The Address-Mr. Heaps

has been responsible for breaking a precedent. At the same time, while I congratulate tlhe Speaker of the House, I have to extend to him a little sympathy, because, after all, any hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Speaker and has to sit in the chair all afternoon and evening, listening to what one (hon. member after another has to say, is certainly deserving of a little sympathy as well as congratulation. I thought we had had enough lasit week in regard to precedents and that nothing further would be said by members of this House regarding them. But the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), not being satisfied after some of the members had gone back to the time of Cromwell and King John, actually went back to the time of Moses to find a precedent. I have no desire to igo back any further than that. Indeed I have no desire to discuss precedents in this House, but those which have been spoken of are such as might be well worth following in some respects. We little realize that when a precedent is made another has been broken. No precedent is made without another being broken. When it is stated in this House that King John was compelled to sign Magna Charta, there was then no precedent for a king being compelled to sign such a document. When Oliver Cromwell took certain actions, there was no precedent for the things he did, and when we speak of the mother of parliaments, those members who have been over there will have noticed that in one of the main halls of the mother of parliaments there is a little brass tablet on the floor which denotes the p'ace where Charles I was tried. In the yard of the mother of parliaments there is a bronze monument erected to Oliver Cromwell, and why was it erected? Because he was one who followed the customs and precedents? No, it was erected in his memory because he broke nearly every precedent he could think of.
We are now considering the Speech from the Throne, and from a purely Labour viewpoint there is nothing in it to be enthusiastic about. There is reference in that Speech to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
I am not enthusiastic about the completion of that particular railway. There is reference in the Speech to the return of the natural resources to the province of Alberta. I think the natural resources should be returned to all the provinces, but from a purely Labour viewpoint it is not of much importance or significance. There is also reference to one or two other matters, particularly rural credits, which I am quite prepared to support, but even that does not touch the industrial ques-
tion with which I am so closely associated and which I am anxious to see this parliament deal with. From the Labour viewpoint the Speech from the Throne is notable for the omissions, (there is no reference in it to some of the pressing problems which concern Labour. Yet when I look away from the Speech from the Throne, which I suppose is the settled policy of the government, and look over to the opposition and I analyse and scrutinize closely what the hon. leader of 4he opposition (Mr. Meighen) has to say in reference to matters pertaining to Labour, I find that the right hon. member's speech contains just as little with reference to Labour as does the Speech from the Throne. The only references made in that Speech and in the amendment have to do with enlarging the volume of employment in Canada-a very nice and catchy phrase, but what does it mean? I presume what the hon. leader of the opposition means by broadening the volume of employment in Canada is the imposing of a higher tariff so that more men may be employed' in Canada. I do not believe in the idea that an increased tariff necessarily means more employment. If I thought for a moment that an increase in the tariff would have the effect of making the conditions of the worker in this country better and of bringing about more prosperous conditions in Canada, I would be the first to vote for a higher tariff. But I am convinced1 that such is not the case; I cannot bring myself to believe that a higher tariff would bring about that condition.
Then the question arises, what are we to choose? What have those who are here ostensibly to further the interests of the worker to choose from so far as the Liberal party and the Conservative party are concerned? I have been in this House now for eight days. I confess that I have learned a great deal and have received a splendid .education-or reeducation-in history and constitutional practice. I have listened to the members on the Conservative side condemning the Liberal government for all they are worth, and with a good deal of what they said I am in hearty agreement. I have listened to hon. members on the Liberal side condemning the Conservative party, and with a good deal of what they said I am in hearty agreement. The fact that I am here, and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is here, and the fact that we have a fairly large Progressive group in this House, indicates that there is a very large section in the Dominion of Canada which has faith in neither one party nor the other.

The Address-Mr. Heaps


An hon. MEMBER:: What about yourself?


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the hon. member wishes
to ask anything, I am quite willing that he should do so in the proper form. He says, what about myself? I am quite prepared to say something about myself if he wishes me to do so. In the last election I ran in North Winnipeg, and in North Winnipeg they created a new precedent. They sent me down to Ottawa in place of a Conservative or a Liberal. Both parties had candidates in the election. We were in rather a unique position in North Winnipeg. When the election was over I met my esteemed Conservative opponent in the constituency, and one of the first things he said to me was:	"I am
glad of the result of the election, because you beat the Liberal." The following day I happened to meet the Liberal candidate, and he said:	"I am glad you were elected because you beat the Conservative." Furthermore, the members of the party which I represent were also satisfied. So that we happen to be in the unique position in my constituency that we were all satisfied.
I have not been very particularly impressed with the figures which were quoted yesterday, either from the Liberal side or the Conservative side. I tried to make something out of the figures submitted by the right hon. leader of the opposition and the acting leader of this House (Mr. Lapointe) but I found some difficulty in understanding what they were tiying to arrive at. We were told there was a decrease of employment in one month last year compared with the same month in the year 1924. That may be perfectly true, but a mere bald statement of that character does not prove anything. This evening I intend to present figures which I have tried to work out myself on the question of unemployment in Canada, and I have tried to work them out on a slightly different basis from anything I have heard in this House during the time I have been here. We were given figures yesterday in connection with employment in the United States. I have not thought it well to go south of the line in order to find figures to make comparisons with conditions in Canada. I do not think it is always fair to compare conditions in the Dominion of Canada with those in the country to the south of the line. The people of the United States as a result of the war became enormously rich, but the same cannot be said of Canada and most of the allied countries. But when my hon. friend speaks of a greater volume of employment in the United States, I happen to have under my hand some figures in connection with the railroads of the United States 14011-18J
-and what applies to United States railroads,
I might say, applies equally to railroads, as well as to manufacturing industries, in this Dominion. What do I find in this article, which is taken from the official records of the United States Interstate Commerce Commission? It states:
There were 5,578 fewer workers on railroad pay rolls in October 1925 than in October 1924, although traffic was larger in October 1925 by nearly 1,000,000,000 net ton miles and by over 13,000,000 passenger car miles.
Thus we find that although there is more traffic, more passengers and more tonnage hauled on United States railroads, less men are employed to-day than were employed in the previous year, and a similar condition applies to the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, it is not always fair to give bald figures without at least trying to understand the meaning and significance of them.
I want to deal for a moment or two more with some figures regarding industry in Canada, because so much has been said during the past few days about bad and good trade. I have endeavoured to secure some kind of figures which would give me and, perhaps, other hon. members, a better understanding of this particular question, I find that the total value of manufactured products-and this might be a fair criterion in any case of the total wealth produced by manufacturing industries in this country-amounted in 1917 to $2,805,800,366. These are only manufactured products; they do not include agricultural products. In 1923 the amount was slightly less, namely, $2,781,165,514. I do not intend to weary hon. members with all the figures in the intervening years, but with the permission of the House I will place the statement on Hansard. The statement is as follows:
Value of products manufactured
1917		$2,805,800,366
1918		 3,174,264,687
1919		 3,170,842,586
1920		 3,667,180,375
1921		 2,516,977,811
1922		 2,439,843,766
1923		 2,781,165,514
It would hardly be fair for me to give these bald figures to the House without at least referring to the true significance of them. If I say that in 1917 the volume of production was so large,. I also ought to state what the purchasing power of the dollar was in that particular year. What do I find in that regard? If I take the index number of 1913 as 100, the index number in 1917 would stand at 200.1 and in 1923 at 168.9. In other words, there was a decrease of about 31 points in the index number. This
The Address-Mr. Heaps

taken	on	the	basis of	168.9, would meanan increased purchasing power of 18.4 per cent.	So	if	you are	to get the actualvalue of the production in the year 1923 you will have to add to the figure I gave, 18.4 per cent, and this would mean that in 1923 the actual production in Canada was the greatest in our history. I am not trying	to	make party	or political capitalfor either	the	Liberal or the Conservative
party. I am trying to arrive at a true basis of the facts so that we shall have a better understanding of the situation.
Let me go a little further with this brief analysis of the situation. The following is a statement showing the actual amount produced by every man employed in industry, that is, every man who works for wages:
wn	$5,279
1918		 6,131
1919		 6,347
1920		 7,296
1921		 6,864
1922		 6,293
1923		 6,222
On the other hand we have again to follow the same form of arithmetic in arriving at a conclusion, because we find that in 1923 the value of the dollar was lower than in 1917, and in 1920 the index value of prices was 293.6, the highest in the history of the Dominion. Consequently if we are to arrive at a proper conclusion, we find that the actual amount produced in 1920 was relatively small. When we come to the year 1923, we find that on a basis of 1917 prices the actual amount produced by a person working for wages was $7,372. In other words, since the year 1917 there has been an increase in the individual output of the worker by approximately 40 per cent. That is a point I wish hon. members to notice when we are dealing with the question of employment and unemployment. The following is a statement of the number of men and' women engaged in manufacturing industries in this country:
1917		 531,466
1918		 517.704
1919		 499,557
1920		 502,627
1921		 366,694
1922		 387,689
1923		 416,994
1921 was a- low year, but in 1922 the number had slightly increased, and in 1923 the number of those employed increased to 446,994. We find, as between the years 1917 and 1923, a large number of men who were not employed. Although the total production in Canada had increased by a very large ratio, the number of men employed in industry was becoming less and less. Another question

arises. If fewer men are being employed in industry .to-day and! production is higher, what is to be the remedy? Is it possible for the tariff to deal with a situation of that character? Personally, I do not think so. The question lies far deeper than the tariff. One question is: what does labour get out of that which it produces? I have in my hand a statement showing the amount of wages received by labour for various years, as follows:
Year
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
1921.
1922.
192a.
Average yearly earnings ..	$	748
..	862
..	924
..	1,098
..	996
..	937
..	959
Although production by the individual had increased by approximately 40 per cent, the real wages, that is wages based' upon the purchasing power of the dollar, had increased by only about 11 per cent.


Mr. BOURASSA:: What classes of labour are included in those figures?


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is labour employed in manufacturing, all classes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: All salaries?


Abraham Albert Heaps: All salaries in this particular classification.
I listened yesterday to considerable arraignment of the government from the lips of the leader of the opposition and I gathered that one of the principal reasons for his condemnation of the Liberal party was the fact that in past years they had appointed so many royal commissions which had never accomplished anything useful. I quite agree with that statement, but it seems to me that before any member of the opposition presumes to criticize any other party on the score of appointing royal commissions that prove futile it might be just as well for him to consider what was done by the royal commission appointed by the Conservative party in 1919 for the purpose of investigating industrial relations in Canada. Such an inquiry would prove, I think, rather illuminating. In the year 1919 a commission was appointed to investigate industrial conditions in Canada and it submitted its report in due course. I have in my hand a copy of that report from which I learn that the commission consisted of the following members:
The Honourable Chief Justice Mathers, of Manitoba, chairman;
The Honourable Smeaton White, a member of the Senate, and managing director, Montreal Gazette Publishing Company, Montreal;

The Address-Mr. Heaps
Charles Harrison, M.P., railroad conductor, North Bay, Ont. As representatives of the public.
Mr. Carl Riordon, president, Riordon Pulp and Paper Company, Montreal, P.Q.;
Mr. F. Pauze, lumberman, *Montreal, P.Q. As representatives of the employers.
Mr. T. Moore, Ottawa, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada;
Mr. J. W. Bruce of Toronto, member of the Labour Appeal Board. As representatives of the employees.
This commission went at great length into the study of industrial conditions in this country and I cannot conceive what the object in appointing it could have been if its report was not intended to form a basis of action by this House. If commissions are appointed merely as a means of shelving difficult problems then of course they are absolutely useless, iand it has occurred to me that one of the reasons for appointing these commissions is precisely this. Any problem that is rather awkward is referred to a royal commission. And what did this particular commission report? After studying the problem from one end of Canada to the other it made the following statement in section 21:
The chief causes of unrest may be enumerated as follows:
1.	Unemployment and the fear of unemployment.
2.	High cost of living in relation to wages, and the desire of the worker for a larger share of the product of his labour.
o. Desire for shorter hours of labour.
4.	Denial of the right to organize and refusal to recognize Unions..
5.	Denial of collective bargaining.
6.	Lack of confidence in constituted government.
7.	Insufficient and poor housing.
8.	Restrictions upon the freedom of speech and press.
9.	Ostentatious display of wealth.
10.	Lack of equal educational opportunities.
The report goes on to give a list of what the commission regards as desirable measures to be undertaken by parliament or other authorities to cope with the situation. It recommends, for example, the fixing of a minimum wage especially for women and girls and for unskilled labour, a maximum working day of eight hours, and a weekly rest of not less than twenty-four hours. It also makes a recommendation in regard to special insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidism and old age. For many years we have been promised action along this line, and turning to the platform of the Liberal party of the year 1919 I find resolutions in this connection embodied therein as passed at the convention held in Ottawa at that time. I note also that the question of old age pension has been before the House on more than one occasion. If I mistake not, a committee was appointed last year to look into the question and it recommended favourably upon some form of old age pensions to be instituted as a
Dominion measure in co-operation with the provincial authorities. I hope therefore that in this House during the present session something will be done to put this recommendation into practice. I have had a little experience in looking after the needy in the city of Winnipeg and I am fully aware of the difficulties of the problem; I know what it means to an elderly person to have no means of making provision against the future. When we read what wages the average worker in Canada receives at the present time, I do not think that there is a member of this House who would suggest that those wages are adequate to meet any contingency either in connection with old age or on account of sickness or anything else.
Let me deal very briefly with the question of unemployment. In this regard I must give this much credit to the Conservative party, that when they were in office they did give some degree of relief to men and women who found themselves out of work by contributing one-third of the funds which the municipalities provided for the relief of unemployment. I regret to say however that when the Liberals came into power one of the first things they did was to cut off that relief to the unemployed. Now there is no use in this parliament trying to ignore the fact that there is in Canada to-day a serious unemployment problem, and the sooner that fact is faced squarely the better it will be for this Dominion. And in regard to old age pensions, the provinces are demanding some form of assistance for the aged throughout the country. This is becoming a pressing problem in the city of Winnipeg and it is highly important that something should be done to meet the situation. As regards unemployment, I have been receiving telegrams daily from the civic officials of Winnipeg demanding that the government take action in this direction; and in addition to these I have been getting telegrams with reference to the disabled returned men. The action of the government in cutting off those men who have less than a 20 per cent disability has imposed an added burden upon the various municipalities- The government so far have given no definite assurance that they will look after these particular cases. We dlo not know whether they will do anything to assist the aged and the needy in Canada. These are problems which I hope to see taken in hand at this Session of parliament. So far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I must say that it conveys very little that is promising to myself; I see in it very little hope or encouragement from the standpoint of labour itself.
278	COMMONS
The Address

Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)
As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House further. This is my first effort to address the members of parliament and I want to express my appreciation of the courtesy which they have shown me not only on this occasion but ever since I have come to the House. No doubt in the near future I shall have a further opportunity of discussing on this floor -the questions that are near and dear to us of the Labour group.


Mr. D. M. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford) :: As one of the representatives of western Ontario I desire to express our appreciation of the fact that one of the members from that part of the country was chosen to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Let me congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Elliott) and tell him that western Ontario will be pleased with his effort.
I think that the members, now that they have had an opportunity of hearing the hon. gentleman, will be relieved to know that there was nothing in the rumour that he was going to retire in order to allow the gentleman who * has just gone to Saskatchewan to seek election as a representative of western Ontario. The constituency which I have the honour to represent defeated Sir Francis Hincks in 1844. Since that time they consider there has been nothing worthy of censure in the Liberal party, and they have consistently returned to parliament, both before and since confederation, Liberal supporters. As an example of party loyalty I do not think that can be equalled in our parliamentary history. That I am here at all is solely dlue to -the fact that at last they came to the conclusion that there was something seriously wrong with the Liberal party, and the reasons which apply in my case apply with equal force in a good many other constituencies in western Ontario.
In the Speech from the Throne there occurs this passage:	.
That changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries.
There is no doubt in my mind that that is entirely a new idea on the part of the government, for otherwise the Australian treaty would never have been introduced in the dying days of the last session. Now, the provisions of that treaty did mpre to defeat the candidates of the government in rural western Ontario than any other issue in the election there. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) this afternoon said that the Australian treaty was on trial. Well, I dlaim that the effect of the provisions of that treaty upon our agricultural interests

should have been considered and that those interests should have had an opportunity to make representations to the government before the treaty was'consummated. That the Minister of Agriculture was aware of the possible consequences is apparent from what he said in 1922, for in Hansard of that year at page 808 I find the following remarks by him:
New Zealand, on the other hand, has also a favoured climate, and a comparatively short stabling season. It puts its butter right off the grass in British Columbia in competition with our winter-made butter, and we have a hard struggle to compete with it.
At page 812, referring to the same matter, he said:
Consequently anything that deprives the dairyman of his home market is detrimental to the industry.
We in western Ontario who are interested in the dairy industry maintain that the Australian treaty for which he and his party were responsible deliberately sacrificed the dairy industry, and realizing that naturally the people there showed their resentment by their votes.
In the past there is no doubt that for the most part rural Ontario has been strongly Liberal in its views, and in the 1921 election the -people there voted for the Liberal platform of 1919, pledging the party to a -low tariff policy. They fully expected that that policy would be put into effect, particularly as the -government was associated with the Progressive party, which was pledged to support even more drastic tariff reductions. But the people were disillusioned. They did not see any such general reductions in the tariff put into effect, but they did see their own industry, the dairy industry, sacrificed for the advantage of certain manufacturers, and of course they resented the action of the government. As a result of the Progressive and Liberal parties not -living up to their -preelection- pledges they fared badly at the polls in the rbcent election.
During the campaign we often heard that both old parties were equally bad, and since I have been in this House I have heard remarks from hon. gentlemen to my left which lead me to suspect that that idea is still entertained by them. But the truth of the matter is that both the old parties are in favour of a certain amount of protection. Rural western Ontario has realized that, and has -come to the conclusion that if all the other industries will benefit by protection then the farming industry may as well have some of it too. If there was one thing more than another that influenced the voters in favour of the Conservative party it was our leader's

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)
statement that if he secured the reins of power the first upward revision of the tariff would be the schedule relating to agriculture.
During the last election a great many people voted against the government principally because they doubted its sincerity. The insincerity of the government has been demonstrated in several ways, particularly with reference to the resolution which was introduced last session by one of the western members urging that a reduction should be made in the duty on automobiles. That seemed a reasonable resolution and likely to be passed by the government, supported as it was by the Progressive party, but in spite of their large combined majority in the House that resolution was defeated, proving conclusively that the government was absolutely insincere in its profession of the principles which it placed before the country in 1921. With that concrete example before them the people voted against the government.
Another example of the insincerity of the administration is its stand in relation to the tariff generally. Speaking this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture stated deliberately that the policy of the Liberal party on tariff matters was a tariff for revenue. As a minister of the crown he stated that explicitly. Well, I am going to prove to the House that during the recent election in western Ontario the candidates of this government were appealing to the people on a policy of moderate protection. During the campaign my opponent and the opponent of my colleague the member for South Oxford (Mr. Donald Sutherland) had a large page advertisement in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review explaining their views, and after I had asked my opponent publicly to give his opinion on the tariff the following announcement appeared in that paper:
There can be no shadow of a doubt as to where Dr. Sinclair stands on the tariff question. The Liberal candidate stands fairly and squarely on the platform of the Liberal party. That platform has been placed fairly and squarely before the Canadian people in the two words-"moderate protection."
That explains why such an overwhelming vote was given against the candidates of this government in the last election; it was simply on account of their absolute insincerity in relation to tariff matters.
Now, we on this side of the House have been deeply touched by the sympathy extended to our leader because of the references to him that appeared in certain papers in Montreal during the election campaign. We reciprocate that feeling because when the Toronto Globe expressed its opinion of Mr. Mackenzie King practically every Tory in
Ontario shuddered. I want to read a couple of extracts from the Toronto Globe with reference to that gentleman. The first one refers to a speech made by him in Edmonton, relating to Senate reform, in which he said that the Senate would be reformed as one old Tory after another was taken away to heaven. . This is what the Globe says in reference to that speech:
It is the way also of evasion and escape from bounden duty. What a feather duster for a premier to wave! What trifling with a public issue. What a frivolous, meaningless sequel to the seemingly brave words at Richmond Hill a few weeks back. What a namby-pamby, nursemaid's way of expressing displeasure at persistent wrongdoing.
That comes from the Toronto Globe, a paper with probably more influence in Ontario than any other, a paper with a strong reform history. It was founded by a former Liberal leader and for many years was his personal organ. It is taken in a great many homes as the last word in Liberal political faith. That is the way it referred to the Prime Minister and can you wonder that the general mass of the Liberal electors throughout the province hesitated a little as to whether they would be doing right in casting their vote for him? Later in the election, just three days before polling took place, after sizing up the campaign that he had been conducting throughout Canada, the Globe expressed itself again in this way:
It is a matter of real regret to this paper that it finds itself at the close-as at the beginning-of this campaign unable conscientiously to recommend on many counts the position of those who for the time being direct the destinies of the Liberal party.
It goes on to say that his administration had been clean and free from the charge of corruption. Then it says:
It has failed to justify its claims to represent the principles of Liberalism not because of what it has done, but because of what it has left undone, or half done-and fails to give indication of doing. It cannot expect support of a policy of political drifting which involves the evasion of issues that should be faced courageously. The Globe has waited day by day during the progress of the campaign with the hope that in at least some v,. *he issues to which it directed attention at the outset-issues that are undeniably in the public interest and for the welfare of the people as a whole-there would be forthcoming a ringing word of assurance, of leadership, of action. Repeatedly it has invited such a pronouncement. But still-three days from polling-there is silence.
There is given the explanation of the lack of votes secured by the Liberal party in this province, and when the Globe, the leading organ, goes out of its way in the heat of an election campaign to question the sincerity of the leader of its own party, can you wonder that the people at large throughout the province doubted his sincerity and that of his party?
280	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (N. Oxford)
I agree with the member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) when he says that for a country to be prosperous the farmers must be prosperous. He quoted the prices of binders, thereby following the example of many Liberal speakers throughout western Ontario for many years, both on the platform and in canvassing along the side roads and concessions. They say: If you vote for a Tory, up goes the price of your binder-as if the whole heart and sou! of a farmer is bound up in the price of a binder. Whatever may have been the case in the old days, that certainly does not apply now. The farmers are taking a general interest in the policies of the day and they are not thinking only of the price of a binder. They realize very clearly that it is more important to them to get a reasonable and1 fair price for the things they have to sell-their milk, for instance, something that they are selling every day in the year

than to worry about a binder which they get only once every ten or eleven yeans. Any decrease in the price of butter or cheese makes a very serious difference to his income. My hon. leader mentioned a case in point yesterday, when he spoke of the New Zealand butter which came into Vancouver and immediately lowered the price some two or three cents. That will happen more and more, and for every pound of New Zealand butter consumed there will be cut off a pound which could be made from milk produced in this part of the country or somewhere else in Canada.
Let me refer briefly to another point dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. It says:
Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population and to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience.
By legislation of that kind they cannot be prevailed upon to stay on the farms or to go back after leaving them. They are sensible people, and the only way to persuade them to stay on the farms, or to return to them, is to make it possible for them to earn a good living, a better living than they can make anywhere else. The only way to do that is to raise the prices they receive for their products, by building up a larger population in the cities and towns. That will give them their home market right at the door and as the towns and cities get more prosperous it will react right away on the prosperity of the neighbouring country people. When such a condition of affairs is brought about, the people on the farms will not want to leave, and if they have left they will come back.

It is a great education, as some speakers have said-and a young member notices it particularly-to be here in the House and to hear the expressions of opinion of men from different parts of the country bearing upon their various problems. I have been greatly impressed by the problems of the Maritimes as presented by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) who spoke to-night. These are problems with which we in Ontario are not well acquainted, and evidently they are problems which need quick solution. I think I am safe in assuring the representatives of the Maritime provinces that Ontario will not be backward in supporting their demands for a just solution of their difficulties.
I was also much interested in the addresses by the western members, both those delivered last week in connection with the other debate, and the address of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) to-day. Of course our problems in Ontario centre largely on the tariff. We need and must have a reasonably protective tariff. We realize however that if we are to get what we absolutely need we must help those in the outlying parts of the Dominion. As one speaker said-I think it was the leader of the House-all government must be by compromise. There is a great deal of truth in that. The people of Ontario must expect to have to make certain concessions which will cost something but which will be for the benefit of both east and west; and it is only proper they should.
On motion of Mr. Howden the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-WEDNESDAY SITTING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of
the House):	I move that the House do now
adjourn, and that when it adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.	,
Wednesday, January 20, 1926