1926-02-23

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS INVERNESS RAILWAY

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) inquired about two orders in council relating to the Inverness railway. In reply, I have received the following memorandum from the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals:
With reference to Sir Henry Drayton's request that the two orders in council relating to the Inverness railway should be tabled, I may say that there was an order in council passed on the 28th October, 1925-copy herewith-empowering the Minister of Railways and Canals to enter into an agreement with the Inverness Railway and Coal Company to lease, with the option of purchase, the Inverness Railway and Coal Company. In the meantime the railway has been taken over by the Eastern Trust Company. Therefore the authority granted by the said order in council becomes null and void. I know of no further order in council relating to this case.
I table this memorandum, Sir.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: " That this question be now put."
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding
with the orders of the day-


Mr. SPEAKER:: 'It is too late.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, When I moved the adjournment of the debate last night I was referring to the platform enunciated by the Liberal party in 1919, and attempting to show that neither in the campaign of 1921 nor of 1925 did the 'Liberal party appeal to the people on that platform, but that on the contrary they had made sectional appeals in the various provinces. Yet for the last four years the leader of the Liberal party has preached from end to end of the Dominion what he 14011-79j
calls "national unity". Well, uip until, say, five years ago who ever heard of national disunity? I submit, Sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by his sectional appeals has had more to do with creating a feeling of disunity and suspicion in the minds of the people than any other of our public men. And he has been obliged to resort to such sectional appeals simply because of lack of cohesion in his own party, which has made it impossible for him to inaugurate a really national policy that would bind together in still closer ties the whole Dominion. He has one policy for British Columbia; another for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; east of the Great Dakes he has still another policy for Ontario and Quebec; but when he reaches the Maritimes he has no policy at all. I claim that a government so weak that it has no national policy is not fit to function, and indeed cannot function.
But fortunately for Canada we have the Conservative party, led by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). It is a party which stands for a national policy, a policy that will bind together the whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific; a policy that when inaugurated will give us a basis on which to build a real future for this Dominion. In my view the platform of the Liberal party adopted in 1919 is diametrically opposed to the policy of the party under the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That platform can only bring about disunity. Therefore I claim that the policy of the Conservative party is so fundamentally sound that it will prevent the provinces from drifting more and more widely apart. In a word, the policy of the Conservative party is a policy for the whole of Canada. And fortunately we have a leader who is unafraid to uphold that policy in every constituency. Undoubtedly that policy has appealed to the people, as is shown by the results of the recent general election, which returned my party in such augmented strength that it is now the largest in this House. That is because the people of this country have confidence in the policies and principles enunciated by the Conservative party. I believe there was never a finer compliment paid to any leader in this parliament or in any other than that paid to the leader of the Conservative party by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) when she said that she had no confidence in the Liberal party and was afraid that if she voted confidence in them they would not carry out their policies, but that, on the other hand, if she voted Conservative, she believed the leader of the Conservative party would see to
The Address-Mr. Cotnarn

it that the policies of his party were carried into effect. That a member of another group in this House Shad sufficient confidence in this party to believe it would be true to its pledges was a very fine compliment indeed to pay to our leader and to the Conservative party as a whole. If there is one thing more than any other that is undermining public confidence in government in this country to-day, it is the fact that the people have come to believe that our public men are not sincere in the public pronouncements which they make. Lack of sincerity on the part of our public men is doing more to undermine the morale of the electorate of this country than any other single thing and is probably making for a great deal of disunity in this country.
The Prime Minister in his election manifesto issued at Richmond Hill, on September the 6th, declared that this country required certain definite policies to be inaugurated in order that the affairs of this country could be carried on in a businesslike manner. He made it abundantly clear that he was not in favour of group government. He said that his government in the past four years had been futile. He admitted they were unable to meet the situation in this country. He admitted that during the last four years practically all his government had been able to do was to mark time. He said that there were at that moment great national problems pressing for solution which required the hand of a strong and popular government, and it seems rather strange, after those declarations, that hon. members opposite should declare today that they are quite willing to have group government in this House. Their forces were shattered on October the 29th as a result of the shock which they then received, and they have not yet recovered from the shock. We have in my profession the term "aphasia." It is a medical term which means inability to speak, or speechlessness, and those- of us who have watched1 hon. members opposite trying to function in this parliament for the last six weeks have realized that they are all suffering from that particular malady.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Would the hon. member give us the term for the opposite disease?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member is not suffering from it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that speech is silver and silence is golden?


Mr. PARENT:: That is a gold brick.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think hon. gentlemen opposite should be able to give some reason for their speechlessness. I notice that one of the first hon. gentlemen opposite to suffer from that malady was the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe), who, when he was supposed to rise and give us reasons why the government was asking for an adjournment, sat speechless in his seat for a day and a half; in fact, he was never able to rise properly and give us reasons for the adjournment until the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) had come to his assistance and explained why he thought an adjournment was necessary at this particular time. Is it not further an admission of weakness, incompetency and inability to carry on the affairs of this country, not only that this government should ask for an adjournment when members have come here prepared to carry on public business, but that the government have not been able to submit any business to the House? Yet over and over again the attempt has been made to make it appear that we are obstructing business, obstructing the government from carrying on. Is it not a confession of weakness on their part that they are not able to carry on? Is it not further an admission of weakness that although every seat in this House except the Prime Minister's was filled when this parliament met some six weeks ago, the government now finds it necessary to go outside its own ranks to find men it deems to be of cabinet timber? Is it not an admission of weakness that they to-day are trying to find a seat for the Hon. C. A. Dunning in the city of Regina?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Why does the hon. member think it is an admission of weakness for Mr. Dunning to run in the city of Regina?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I did not say that. I said it was an admission of weakness on the part of this government to go outside their own ranks; they evidently considered they had no cabinet timber within their own ranks in this House.


Malcolm McLean: Is there anything unusual in a government strengthening its position at any time it sees fit and has the opportunity?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I simply repeat that it was an admission of weakness; the government could not find amongst their supporters in the House men of cabinet rank.
I should like to quote a Canadian Press despatch dated February 17, and by the way this was just before the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. Cotnarn
Regina (Mr. Darke) resigned, and I am just wondering whether this announcement means that the government was paving the way, trying to make it a little easier for Mr. Dunning to be elected in Regina. The despatch reads:
The Canadian National Railway contemplates an expenditure of $5,896,000 in 1926 on branch lines. This is the estimate brought down by the government and tabled in the House of Commons yesterday.
Between fifteen and twenty branches throughout the Dominion remain incomplete. On seven of these, track will be laid during 1926. The biggest expenditure will be on the Turtleford, Sask., branch, on which about 44 miles of track will be laid and $1,571,000 expended. A million dollars will be spent on the Dunblane-Central Butte, Sask., branch, and $915,000 will be spent on the Rosedale, Sask., branch, which will be practically completed this year.
It seems rather strange the government should be contemplating all this expenditure on branch lines in Saskatchewan at the present juncture, and I was wondering whether this announcement had any bearing on the local political situation in Saskatchewan and particularly in Regina. A little further on the statement says that only two branch lines will not be completed, one of them at Kings-clear, New Brunswick, and the other at Grande Fresniere, Quebec. Evidently they think there is no use for branch lines at those two points. I have been wondering why, in view of the press reports, the government did not bring Mr. Massey into the cabinet. I wonder if they consider that Mr. Massey would not. be any great acquisition to the cabinet, or if they believe with the electors of Durham that, as a result of the verdict on October 29, " Massey's in the cold, cold1 ground ",
Another thing which struck me very forcibly was that when the Prime Minister made the appeal to the country, and when he issued that now famous manifesto, he cited certain reasons, or causes, why that appeal should be made. He told us, in effect, that the government found itself in the position where it was marking time. He said that it would be unable, as at that time constituted, to bring down any great measures of reform to parliament. He stated that there were grave and important problems awaiting solution by this parliament, and among those problems he mentioned Senate reform. Now, I think every member of this House will agree with me that Senate reform is one of those hardy perennials that is dragged dut in election campaigns in this Dominion. It has been one of the red herrings which the Liberal party has tried to drag across the trail in every election in Canada for the last twenty-five years; and everyone knows that throughout the course of the last election campaign Mr. King himself did not offer one real, tangible solution by means of which he intended to effect the rdform of the Senate, only that Providence, in -time, might possibly take enough Tories out of the upper house to enable him to nominate Liberal appointees and thereby secure a majority.
We were supposed to have a transportation problem in this country, and during the campaign Mr. King spoke at some length upon it. I do not intend to go into the transportation problem, more than merely to make reference to the fact that during the course of the campaign the Hudson Bay railway was not made an issue by the Prime Minister. It was only mentioned in the province of Saskatchewan, where he promised that if he secured sufficient Liberal representation from that province he would be prepared to go ahead and build the line. Now we on this side of the House are willing to consider the Hudson Bay railway on its merits. We are not opposed to it, not by any means. I think every Conservative member is ready and willing to make a study of the whole problem and is prepared to vote on the merits of the question; but I do say that there is a vast difference between the Richmond Hill speech of the Prime Minister with regard to the transportation problem, and the method of dealing with it as expressed in the Speech from the Throne. If the Hudson Bay railway is feasible, if it is practicable, if it can be built without too great_ expenditure of public funds, I believe this House wotild be in favour of the scheme-at any rate would be in favour of ascertaining, beyond all question, whether it is practicable or not. On the other hand, the government has not given any intimation, up to the1 present time, as to how much it proposes to spend on the project, how much on terminals, and so forth. As yet we have had no intimation from this government on these points, and I was wondering whether the government wished to keep in abeyance any discussion of the railway, or the possible cost of the project, until it succeeds in getting some ministers elected in eastern Canada, and obtaining cabinet representation in this part of the Dominion.
The Prime Minister further stated that we had an immigration problem in this country, and that it would take a strong government to deal with that problem. To my mind it is not nearly as important to deal with the immigration problem of Canada to-day, as it is to find same solution for the emigration problem from which we are suffering. During the four years of the Liberal regime there was an exodus of Canadian citizens from the Dominion totalling probably 5001,000 souls. I
The Address-Mr. Cotnam

do not believe that our people are thoroughly alive to what that exodus means. While this government has been juggling with the immigration problem-trying to bring into Canada people who, in many cases, know nothing of our race, our language, our religion or our customs; people whom it will probably take one generation or perhaps two to assimilate into our population1-we are allowing our best Blood, our very best brawn and brain, to leave Canada, and nothing has been done to check that exodus.
I believe that the fathers and mothers of families in this country have a right to expect that we, through our government shall, as far as possible, develop our own country; that we shall, through the policies inaugurated by the government, endeavour to develop our own natural resources and our own industries, and assist in every possible way, the growth of the agricultural industry. I believe that we should have a policy that will meet the needs of all classes of our people. In a family, say, of five or six children, you will have one boy or probably two who will wish to engage in farming, another who will wish to take up the legal profession, another who may desire to become a physician, and possibly two with a desire to engage in business. We cannot all be agriculturists, and unless there is diversity of employment in Canada, through the medium of a policy such as will develop our agricultural resources and our industries to the utmost and afford employment for our labouring people, we are bound to have an exodus of Canadian boys and girls from our shores.
Some people are inclined, perhaps, not to take that exodus very seriously. As regards my own constituency, however, I take it very seriously indeed. Five years ago we had a very prosperous, industrial town, surrounded by a prosperous, agricultural community. Today that town-and every village, and practically every crossroads-is mute evidence to the fact that Canadian boys and girls are leaving our communities by the score and by the hundred, and crossing into the United States. I noticed a short time ago that there have gone from the Dominion into the United States during the last four years no less than 3,600 graduates from the university of Toronto alone, and that they are now engaged in employment in the United States. That is an appalling figure. It means that the very best brains of Canada are being attracted to the republic to the south. It is estimated that it requires at least $10,000 to educate every one of these students 'before they graduate from the university, and when they graduate

they cannot find employment and are not finding employment in this country but are going across to the other side of the line. That means that we spend during the four years in the University of Toronto alone at the rate of $10,000 per student to educate the young men and young women who are now leaving us and giving their brains and ability to the republic to the south of us. If that is taking place in the case of the University of Toronto, I think it only' fair to assume that there is a similar exodus from other universities to the American side.
With regard to our fiscal trade or policy, Mr. Mackenzie King says that he believes in a tariff for revenue. Mr. Marler says he is an out-and-out protectionist, and he was a member of this government. Some members on the other side profess to be out-and-out protectionists. Therefore, it is only fair to assume that the Liberal party as a whole has no settled or fixed policy so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned. In my constituency we have all classes of people. We have English, Irish, Scotch, French, German and Scandinavian, and they are all very fine types of people. We are endeavouring, and they are endeavouring, to build up in that section of Canada a strong, self-reliant Cana-dianism. These people are engaged in the different walks of life. We have many large industries employing a great many labouring men, and we have also a large agricultural section in the constituency. The policy of the government during their tenure of office has not been such as to operate in the best interests of the people in my constituency. The constituency sent a Liberal candidate to this parliament for the last four years, and elected him by a handsome majority. But they reversed their decision on the 29th of October because they were utterly opposed to the policy of the Mackenzie King government. The farmers in my district consider that they have been unfairly dealt with by this government, owing to the fact that when the United States government inaugurated the Fordney-McCumber tariff, under which Canadian agricultural products going to the United States were taxed such a high rate of duty that it was practically prohibitive, this government, instead of taking action to relieve the Canadian farmer from the unfair competition of the American farmer, took practically no action at all, and allowed free access to the Canadian market of the same kind of produce that was being grown by the United States farmers. The farmers of Canada considered it was absolutely unfair that while not a bushel of Canadian wheat could get over that

The Address-Mr. Cotnam
American tariff wall without paying 42 cents a bushel, wheat from the United States or anywhere else can come into Canada on payment of a duty of 12 cents, and that while the Canadian farmer cannot sell his corn in the United States without first paying 15 cents a bushel duty, United States corn comes into Canada free. Canadian wheat flour is shut out of the United States by the imposition of a duty of $2.04 a barrel, whereas American flour can be shipped into Canada on payment of a duty of 50 cents a barrel. The Canadian farmer can sell his hay to the United States on payment of $4 a ton duty, while the United States farmer can export his hay to Canada on payment of $2 a ton. The United States impose a duty on Canadian potatoes of 50 cents a hundred pounds, while potatoes .coming from the United States into the Canadian market pay a duty of 35 cents a hundred pounds. If we wish to ship our butter into the United1 States we have to pay 8 cents a pound, but when the American farmer sends his butter to Canada he can ship it to us on payment of 4 cents a pound duty. American cheese is taxed 3 cents a pound coming into Canada, while Canadian cheese pays a duty of 5 cents a pound when shipped to the United States. The American farmer is protected to the extent of 8 cents a dozen on eggs, While the Canadian farmer has a protection of only 3 cents a dozen against American eggs; and so on all the way down the line. The farmers in my constituency feel that the government of Mackenzie King has been remiss in its duty to the farmers of the Dominion of Canada by not protecting them against the unfair outside competition of the American farmers.
Then, not satisfied with that, this government, without any regard for the farmers of the country at all, decided to negotiate a treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, with the result that again the Canadian farmer has to compete on an unfair basis with outside products. I do not wish to .put on Hansard the terms of that Australian treaty. All I have to say is that the farmers of any constituency and the farmers of the Dominion of Canada consider that it is absolutely unfair and unjust to them. We want to trade with other countries, and are prepared to trade with them, but we wish to trade on a fifty-fifty basis. We want it to be a straight business arrangement. We do not want to make one section or one class of people in Canada pay for certain advantages which we may derive in other markets. We propose that every treaty should stand on its own feet, and that the
people of Canada should get a square deal as a whole. In my constituency we had a textile industry, and everyone knows what has happened to the textile industry of the Dominion of Canada in the last four years. Everyone knows that the present government raised the British preference to the extent of 124 per cent, with the result that British goods produced by the cheaper labour of Great Britain, and also goods that are brought in from France and Germany as well, are coming into, our market to competq with our Canadian goods. Why is it that when you walk down the streets of Ottawa and look into the windows and other places you see goads marked, "Made in England"? Why should those same goods not be manufactured in Canada to-day? Why should they not provide work and adequate wages for the labouring men of Canada? Why should not our industries be running full time in Canada to-day, producing textiles and woollen goods for the people of 'Canada? According to the recognized authorities there are really no physical or climatic reasons why textiles and woollen goods should not be manufactured or cannot be manufactured in this country. Furthermore, if the woollen goods and .textiles were manufactured in this country it would mean that our farmers would benefit to a great extent indeed. Alt the present time the Commonwealth of Australia has about 80,000.000 sheep and we in the Dominion of Canada have probably only in the neighbourhood of 2,500,000 sheep. If the textile and woollen industries were properly protected, it would be possible to carry out a great sheep raising project that would ultimately react to the benefit of our farmers and agriculturists.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Does the hon.
member object to Canadians buying goods in England?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I did not say that.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Do you object to it?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: No, but I believe any
treaty entered into by this Dominion should be on a fifty-fifty basis, so that Canadian industry and Canadian workmen will not be penalized for the benefit of industries and workmen of other countries.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the hon. member do away with the British preference?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I would lower it sufficiently that our market would not be flooded with those goods. I do not believe in a onesided preference. We want an all-round Canadian trade arrangement.
The Address-Mr. Cotnam


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Have the
British people a preference against our wheat?


Mr. MANION:: Neither have they against United States wheat. It is on the same basis as ours.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: As the hon. gentleman
opposite comes from Saskatchewan, perhaps he does not realize the present condition of public affairs in this country, and I am afraid some other hon. gentlemen from the west, while they are honest and estimable in every other way, do not appreciate it. They talk about prosperity; they quote statistics to demonstrate that we have great trade balances and they point to our exports and imports. I prefer to go to the man on the street, the business man, and according to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, if you go to the man on the street, you will not have to quote statistics because he will tell you whether the country is prosperous or not. When I go to the business men of my town, as I did last week, and I ask them if business is reviving, improving, I want to get a candid expression of opinion from them. When they tell me, one after another, that business is in a depressed state, I fail to follow the statistics of hon. gentlemen opposite. In my town at the present time-and it is only an index of other towns in this country-people are living on very low rates of wages. Men are glad to procure a job at any wage and they are asked to go to our lumbering camps at $26 to $36 a month. Out of that they are being asked to pay part of the taxes to keep their children in this country, to pay for rent and fuel and schooling for their children. Yet hon. gentlemen tell us that the people of Canada are exceedingly prosperous. Those are not isolated examples; I can take hon. members to my constituency and show them scores and scores of people who are to-day in that unsatisfactory position. I think it was the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) who told us a few days ago about the condition of affairs he found in that city. Four years ago you could not find a vacant house in Pembroke and to-day I believe there are from one hundred to one hundred and fifty vacant houses in that town. Still hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the country is prosperous and that there is plenty of employment. In my town we had a textile industry, a woollen mill which, a few years ago, was running at full blast. As late as 1922 it was employing 110 mill hands with a monthly wage of $6,500. It was giving employment to many labouring men in that town who were receiving fair wages and were able to support their families in some comfort. The British preference came

into effect and what was the result? Last year that mill was compelled to close its doors, and the operatives who used to work in that mill are to-day very largely to the south of the line working for our United States neighbours. That is true not only of one textile mill, but of scores of them in this country. In Renfrew, you will find the Renfrew Woollen Mills, owned and operated by Senator M. J. O'Brien. The manager said to us during the election campaign: "We are not making one cent in our industry to-day; we are simply marking time and only succeeding in trading an old dollar for a new one." That is a mill with an immense amount of capital and that is the only thing that is keeping it going. The other day that mill brought in a shipment of Australian wool worth about $72,000, whereas if we were protecting that industry as it should be protected, it might just as well have bought that wool from the farmers of this Dominion. Woollen mill after woollen mill has been compelled to close its doors in this Dominion during the last four and five years under the British preferential tariff.


Mr. MCMILLAN:: If the government put on a duty, would that help the hon. member's woollen industry in Pembroke?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The British preferential tariff has been the means of closing down our mills, I am not speaking from a party or partisan standpoint at aill; I believe this is a great national question and one of vital interest to our farmers. I believe it would be of advantage not only to 'the farmers but to the woollen industry of this country if we had a duty on wool, and if the British preference were lowered sufficiently to allow our manufacturers of textiles and woollens to compete on a fair and equitable basis so that they would not have to compete with the cheap labour of England and in some cases, I understand, with cheaper goods still that are imported from France and Germany through Great Britain which is simply the clearing house. We are suffering from that condition of affairs at the present time. I believe the tariff could be so regulated that we could have in .this country a splendid industry which would be of vast importance to our agricultural 'classes, our labouring .people and our various industries.
Some hon. gentlemen in this House and during the election campaign have endeavoured to make it appear that the policy of the Conservative party is one of high protection. As I understand it, and Os I believe every hon. member on this side understands

The Address-Mr. Geary
it, ouir policy is one of adequate protection whereby the manufacturer, the labouring man and the farmer of 'this country will be protected against unfair competition from other countries. In other words, it is a policy of Canada for the Canadian people. It is the policy that was inaugurated in this country in 1878 and maintained under the regimes of both the late Sir 'John A. Macdonald and the late revered Liberal chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That policy has been departed from by the Mackenzie King administration during the last four years and they have made no effort to remedy the conditions and evils from which the people are suffering at .the present time. We believe under a policy of adequate protection we would weld together the people of this Dominion into one great nation, so that we would not have one section west of the Rockies, another in the prairies, another in central Canada and another in the Mar-itimes.
We are free to admit that there are difficulties in the way; there are great problems to be worked out if we are to consummate that unity which we are looking forward to. We in the central provinces also have our grievances, although, as you will notice, we are not complaining much, but we are willing to concede something to our western friends in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We are wiling to concede to them anything that is fair and just and right, and we are also willing to make to the Maritime provinces such concessions as are necessary in order to secure to them the rights to which they are entitled. Having all this in mind, we believe that a strong government with an adequate policy which it would not be ashamed to enunciate to the people of Canada; a government ready to make reasonable concessions in order to promote national unity and to realize that vision which the fathers of confederation had of this country; a government prepared to put into force such a policy as is advocated by the Conservative party, as we on this side of the House understand that policy, would in a short time find a solution for ithe various problems with which this country is faced at the present time and which the government of to-day has failed Utterly to find during the past four years.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: In
the early days of this sesion there was cited to the House an authority for the proposition that a ministry must have this quality at least that it can exercise effectual control over the proceedings of the House of Commons; and yet, Mr. Speaker, we hear from time to time

from hon. members opposite that we on this side are obstructing the business of the House and of the country. If that be so, and we have a government that can govern and control, why does not that government stop what it calls obstruction? It has the means to its hand but it has as yet shown no inclination whatever to screw up its courage to the required point, even in spite of the rather disastrous defection of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
There is no obstruction here; the blame must rest upon the shoulders of the government. It is the government that initiates legislation; it is the government that prepares and brings down for consideration the programme of legislation. We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that this government was engaged as long ago as in November last in the preparation of the Speech from the Throne, three long months ago, and yet at this moment we have no indication whatsoever that any legislation has been prepared, and there is no readiness apparent on the part of the government to implement the promises that have been made in that Speech. Surely therefore we must assume that if there is any obstruction it is due to the utter inability of the government, or its refusal to prepare and submit to parliament any such legislation. We are faced now at this stage with the motion which we have under consideration and which has been submitted to this House by arrangement between the government and the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke). I had almost expected1, following the repudiations which we heard the other day, that the government would again repudiate the fact that it had by arrangement with the Progressive party introduced this resolution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who is leading this House accepts my proposition. I should have thought it was the case, because my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird), although he denied having any direct connection with the arrangement, did thrust himself and his party into an analogy with the Robin Hood myth-himself the Little John of the piece, and, sitting so close by him, Friar Tuck and Robin Hood from Brandon, not forgetting Maid Marian. They were summoned to some sort of conclave, so he led us to believe, in which the hon. member for Nelson indicated that there was a distressful maiden to be helped-the government of this country. Rather rudely, I thought, the hon. member referred to it as the "under dog." Here, he said, is this distressful maiden; let us to her succour, let us resuce her from the

The Address-Mr. Geary
cruel oppression of the High Sheriff of Nottingham; moreover, my merry men all, said he, if we don't do something of that sort we shall be faced with the necessity of voting either confidence -or no confidence in the present government, and that is going to be very awkward.
If the government accepts the position I have indicated, we have once again the spectacle of the larger part of the animal being wagged by the tail, and that is probably a very pleasant motion when one becomes accustomed to it, something apparently in this case in the nature of a soporific. The person who is watching these proceedings can sympathize very largely with the government because after all it is in a difficult position. I can imagine the leader of the government saying, "It is very nice, this being in power, very pleasant and very profitable and we like very much sitting here. But, dear me, we have to do a great deal; we have so many people to placate, so many arrangements must be made from time to time, that it is enough to try the patience of any man. There are my allies, the Progressives, who are showing signs of independence. I don't believe I can trust their leaders; I don't believe those leaders can control all the Progressives, for a bit of that sturdy independence declared in this House seems to be manifesting itself just now. They insist on running the whole show. That is one of my troubles. And looking further down the chamber I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). There is an active, live person, a man who insists on being attended1 to.
Bright and early on the morning of the first day he sat down and wrote two letters, one to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and one to the Prime Minister, asking for certain concessions. He got, direct and forthright by return mail, a square and fair answer from the leader of the opposition. He got no letter from the Prime Minister. Well, something had to be done. The first vote was coming on and he called upon the Prime Minister; and whatever the result of that interview was it was satisfactory for the purpose, for it enabled him to cast his vote as was desired. But there was a second vote coming and still the letter had not come, and in my mind's eye I can see the course that was taken by the hon. gentleman. I can see him walk up to the door of the Prime Minister's sanctum, I can see him ushered in, and I can hear the Prime Minister say to him "What can we do for you to-day?" His visitor answers, "What

I want is a reply to that little letter which you promised me so long ago and which has not been forthcoming. We are getting just on the eve of another vote, and I must have that letter." This was on January 28. The Prime Minister says; "Just take a chair and we will attend to that right away." So it is attended to, and I can see the Prime Minister ushering the hon. gentleman out of the room while he says, "Well, will that be all for you to-day? Shall I send it or will you take it with you?" The door once shut and the Prime Minister left alone, his countenance takes on another cast, and I can imagine him saying to himself:
YoncT Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
But the letter is there, the letter with the five items set out in detail. I cannot give them all to the House, but one is an amendment to the Criminal Code. The hon. gentleman has the letter. On the 29th, the vote is about to be taken. He rises in his place, and to make assurance doubly sure places the letter on Hansard, and when the time comes he votes "like a little man." No wonder the hon. gentleman todk his seat with a smile of satisfied accomplishment. I wish he were here because I would ask him if he remembers a certain picture that appears before me at the moment-the picture of a pleased looking cat with a great grin from ear to ear, licking its lips and supposed to be saying, "I have eaten the canary."
"That is another of my troubles" says the leader of the government. "But then I have to consider still another gentleman, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Of course one knows that he is a man of gestures, and I am not particularly concerned when he makes a gesture towards the Conservative party. But one never can tell, so vehement a gesture may he make some day that he will overbalance himself and topple head foremost into the Conservative lobby. That man is not any great comfort to me either. Then I have the protectionists in my own ranks, the free traders and others. Coodness knows I have troubles enough of my own." Then he looks back to those stirring days of September last when he and his party were going forth to battle, and he recalls all the high and noble things that they set forth in their manifesto, all those great questions that would be dealt with by the government whose party was then breaking a lance with the opposition. "Those were high resolves." I can hear him say, "and we determined to do many things. We were going to implement those resolves

The Address-Mr. Geary
by action, we were going to be strong for the people. But see the position we are in. We have got to think this thing over. Perhaps we were a bit rash. We need a little more time for consideration. We are not in as easy circumstances as we had hoped to be." And so the desire to do something great and noble gradually passes by.
And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
Mr. Speaker, His Majesty's loyal opposition has another view of this matter. We are not disposed (to take the lead of inaction which has been given to us by the leader of the government. We are disposed to go on and discuss the business of the country, the questions that should come before this House. The words of the Prime Minister echo still in one's ears, that one of the great problems facing this country and awaiting discussion in the House was the problem of our railways. It is a very important -problem because the people at the moment are staggering under a load of taxation which is built u-p largely of deficits in the operation of the National Railways. We have turned over the operation of the system to a company, which, periodically turns in -its statement of operating income and outgo. But this House has reserved to itself, Sir, one important function in regard to the financing of the system. It does not propose to interfere

it h-as not interfered, so we are told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) -with the -actual operation and management of the road; but this House does propose to interfere, has interfered, and will continue, I believe, to interfere with the expenditure of money on capital account. One of the most prolific sources of discussion during the last two sessions, and probably before, has been whether or not this House will vote money to build branch lines, whether it will guarantee the -bonds to foe issued for the construction of such branch lines. Bac-h line, big or small, has had its own special act, and around that act h-as centered discussion on the merits or demerits of the proposition. I know of no branch line that has been built of recent years at all events, in fact I know of no branch line which has been built otherwise than after the fullest and freest discussion by this House of its merits or demerits.
Well, the right hon. Prime Minister, we recall, was speaking at Richmond Hill on September 5 and uttering these lofty sentiments about the conduct by parliament of the business of the country. But at that
very moment he was on the eve of perpetrating by order in council the most outrageous violation of the rights and privileges of parliament. It had been suggested to him or to his government that a branch line might be built -from a point in Rouyn township to the National Transcontinental. I must not detain the House with details of the geography of the district. Suffice to say that Rou-yn is in the northern part Pf Quebec and is well known to all members of this House. There runs at a distance forty-five miles north of it and from the west eastward to its terminus in the city of Quebec the National Transcontinental. To the west of it running from North Bay in a northerly direction and then bending to the west is the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, which ultimately finds its destination at a junction called Cochrane on the National Transcontinental railway. West of Rouyn some fifty-five miles runs this Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway and, if you drew a line directly west from Rouyn you would intersect the latter railroad at a point called Swastika. From Swastika a road has been built under a Dominion charter eastward over part of the intervening fifty-five milea until it strikes the boundary between Ontario and Quebec at a point just twenty-three -miles short of Rouyn. So if that road were to be extended -that distance it would reach Rouyn; whereas the present proposition is (to build a new road forty-five miles in length from the Transcontinental railway down to Rouyn.
Now it is said-it was said by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Armstrong) last night in his very interesting and instructive address on the north country -that this Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway is equipped for the purpose of developing the mining industry in that north country; it has a frequent and perfectly satisfactory service. The Canadian National road in its course westward from the city of Montreal takes that route north from North Bay to Cochrane, and there is a service, passenger and freight, with every facility for handling the mining output of that country. This is not the time, Mr. Speaker, nor is it the place to discuss the merits of the proposed branch line from Rouyn up to the Transcontinental railroad at O'Brien. That is a matter, and of this we complain very bitterly on this side that, due to the action of the present government we have not been permitted to discuss. No opportunity has been given, as there would have been if there had been a particular bill introduced, to discuss this proposed construction in the House and in the committees
The Address-Mr. Geary

of the House, or to put questions in regard to the building of this line, or to discuss whether an issue of bonds to the amount of some $5,000,000 should be authorized and would be proper to be added to the outstanding charges of the National railway system. That, as I say, is a matter we have been given no opportunity to discuss at all, and this, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss, but it is well within the range of possibility that one would find varying opinions in this House on the one side and on the other as to whether this country should go to the extent of a capital expenditure of $5,000,000 on account of this branch line. I do not attempt to be a judge of that question; I might be influenced one way or the other by the discussion of the matter in this House, but the difficulty is that discussion of it has been entirely closed to us by the action that was taken by the government.
Now how was this Rouyn railway arranged for? The government was asked if it would build the line. Who were active in the proposal I am not in a position to say, but it is fair to say that the government of the province of Quebec was very deeply interested. It is fair to say, I think, that the Noranda mines were interested, and whoever else I do not know, but the course of affairs afterwards shows plainly enough that no matter who were the persons interested in the proposal to build this road, at all events they were not parties to whom the present goverment were unfriendly. The government acceded to the request, and I have no particular objection to that, nor could anybody have, if he felt it was a proper request. But did they take the straightforward, the usual and the legal method of putting into effect the building of that line? Did the government incorporate the matter in a bill and bring it to this House for decision, as had been done in every other case within my knowledge? Not at all. The government entered on a course of evasion. It promoted a scheme to get around the law and to deprive this House of its privilege and right of free discussion in the matter. It entered into a scheme to take advantage of a technicality which would enable it to do something by order in council which it well knew it had no business on earth doing at all. This government, Mr. Speaker, lent itself to the promotion of a dummy company. It lent itself to the wiles and arts of the expert corporation lawyer. It lent itself to all the rigmarole of subsidiary companies and figurehead directors. It lent itself to the device of not letting your left hand know what your right hand doeth. It entered into that scheme, 	(	II
that solemn mummery where a board of directors who do not direct, and never intend to direct, and could not direct, were called upon in meeting and solemnly acquainted with the fact that it was expected if this road was built it could be leased and operated by .somebody else-that is to say, if those directors ever took the trouble to read the prepared minute that was laid on the table before them they might have become acquainted with that fact. This board swallowed at one gulp, in a hurried sitting-a long, intricate, involved agreement covering four or five pages of Hansard, probably five or six thousand words .in length, and just put its name on the dotted line.
I shall deal, if it is at all necessary, later on, with the method which this government undertook to pursue to accomplish its object. It is sufficient to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of my further point, that it is clear beyond peradventure that this government-through the Canadian National Railway-is actually by its own organization constructing a branch line of railroad 45 miles in length from Rouyn to the National Transcontinental railway. That is my premise.
Now' why did not the government come to this House in the ordinary way? Because it wanted to build this road for purposes best known to itself. It knew it had not the legal right to build this road, and it determined to build this road without legal authority in any way that it could devise, and because it thought that by laying out and following this devious path of corporation trickery it could circumvent the law and bring itself into the shelter of an act of this Dominion parliament passed in 1915, but which, as a matter of sober fact, I shall be able to show plainly to this House has nothing to do with the case at all. The very words of the agreement which has been placed before us 'by my hon. friend for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), and is on Hansard, indicate that it was prepared, drafted and finally put into form for one purpose only-I mean outside the purpose of construction-and that was to try and bring itself within the provisions of this act of 1915 to which I have referred. And so it becomes necessary for me, without any particular technicalities, without any particularly fine discussion of points of law, because I do not intend to go into that, to refer to what the government now presumes has been its authority for acting in this matter by order in council as opposed to the usual course invariably followed of submitting branch lines for discussion and decision to this House.

The Address-Mr. Geary
Before 1915 there were government railways. They were governed by an act called the Canadian Government Railways Act. All I have referred to that for is for the purpose of showing that a government railway was defined in that act to be a railroad "under the management and direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals.1" Then in 1915 the matter of the bill referred to came up in this House. The party then in power in this House was the Conservative party, with the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden leading the government, and the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of lamented memory, leading the opposition. The Conservative party had had as a plank in the election this, that all lines privately-owned attached to the Intercolonial railway should be purchased and added to the Intercolonial railway. It had introduced a bill for that purpose, but it had been defeated, and the matter came up in the House again in 1915. [Mark this, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, that that was a well-known and established! situation. Everybody interested in the Intercolonial railway knew of every branch line that was in existence at that moment. A bill was introduced. The hon. member for West York adverted to it in his speech the other diay, and I do not intend to go into the matter by way of repetition, except to emphasize one or two' points. After introducing the bill the then Minister of Railways pointed to the fact that these independent lines exist in conjunction with the government line subjecting the shipper or passenger to a local rate, so to speak, whereas they might have been on a continuous line getting a through rate, and so on. These were reasons that appealed very strongly to gentlemen on the other side, and were acceded to by them as being sound and substantial reasons. When the question came up Mr. Macdonald-as he was then, but now the Minister of National Defence-took part in the discussion. My hon. friend said in effect: Yes, fotut this applies to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island roads only. How about the situation if the government takes over the Transcontinental railway line? It was generally admitted1 that that would create a different situation, and it was finally, definitely and unanimously agreed, and so appears on Hansard, that the legislation of 1915 applied exclusively and only to the Intercolonial railway and the Prince EdL ward Island railway. One cannot get away from that, and it is important to recall Hansard because the discussion of that time has a distinct bearing on the whole question. Later on the Transcontinental railway did become a government railway, and later on was added to the Canadian National railway system. But my present point is this-that that act of 1915 was passed definitely and exclusively in regard only to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways. That is the point that is established, and that point I wish to have borne in mind. Where would the other view lead us? Suppose that in 1916, one year after the act was passed, the Transcontinental line had become a government railway; and suppose that the Holise was met then with the situation that faces us today, and that the Rouyn railway was suddenly approved by order in council under this provision, supposedly, of the act of the year before, the act of 1915? Can any hon. member of this House suppose for one moment that the House could be hoodwinked by any action taken under the act of 1915? Of course it could not. I can See Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Macdonald rising in righteous indignation and describing such action as an outrageous breach of faith, as indeed it would have been. This is 1926, ten years later. Can it be any less an outrageous breach of faith to try and put this thing through in .the manner it has been put through to-day, than it would have been under the same act ten years ago? Statutes do not improve or grow, or change with age. It is the same statute to-day as it was then; and it is plainly to be seen that it can not permit to-day what it did not permit in 1915. The Minister of National Defence, at least, was fully aware of all the circumstances of the passing of that act in 1915; and I am perfectly safe in saying that knowledge of the circumstances of 1915 is within the minds of many of the members of the government and hon. gentlemen sitting around them.
Let me look at the matter in another way. The act of 1915 provided for acquisition in two ways. The government might buy or lease a railroad up to the limit of 200 miles in length, and it was quite safe to entrust to the government the buying or leasing of lines up to that limit because everybody in the House knew what those lines were; they were all then in existence and present to the minds of members who were passing the legislation. Another clause which was allowed to be incorporated in the act was to permit the building of new lines but with the limitation that the road yet to be constructed should not exceed twenty-five miles in length. Now let us look at the matter in this way, bearing in mind these two provisions-that the 200 mile railroad was evidently and very plainly-can any member think otherwise?-a road already in exist-
The Address-Mr. Geary

that the stenographers were all employees of the Canadian National, and the incorporation was done by that railway. It was a dummy company, because it never had any function. It came into existence purely and simply as part of a lawyer's scheme to enable this government to get over the provisions of the act. That is why it is a dummy company. It was incorporated, 'held its solemn little meeting, and somebody prepared an agreement which it dutifully accepted.
The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has gone into that agreement in such detail that it is not necessary for me to go through it again, but the only tiling about it that at all resembles a lease is that the parties are described as the lessor and the lessee. It is an agreement to build a road. There is nothing else to it. This dummy company-and my hon. friend objects to its being called a dummy company-has never had and will never have a single thing to do with building the road. What happens is just this:	My Progressive
friends do not like the wiles of corporation lawyers; they perhaps do not like lawyers at all; but surely they will be interested1 in knowing that even the government of Canada does not mind stooping low enough to take advantage of every device and bit of trickery that 'can be employed in order to get through something which it wants to get through and which it cannot get through in a legitimate way. All that this agreement provides is that a payment is fixed which covers interest and sinking fund. In other words, the government pays for the road and pays all the taxes and all other possible outgoes. It maintains the road, and the agreement is so carefully drawn that in case there should be a charge of $100 or $200 for preparing the annual statement and nobody knows how it is going to be paid, the government says: We will pay that so long as you keep it down to a thousand dollars. Therefore, there was never an outgo which the dummy company had to make on its own responsibility. It did not even have to be the source of communication in regard to payment of interest on the bonds or the so-called rental because the agreement very nicely provides: Once the contract is signed, we will pay the trustee for the bondholders everything so that you will not have even any trouble in handling the price.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, objects to a supposed statement that because stenographers incorporated this company it is a dummy company; he says: "The directors of the company are 'capitalists' and I will
fMr. Geary.]
prove to you that some of these gentlemen have money." I am sorry for my hon. friend because he was face to face with something that was very hard to explain. It had been mentioned in this House that the road was to be built by capitalists. If so, these capitalists apparently are going into this project just for the fun of the thing. They are not getting a cent; they are not handling a cent; they are not handling a contract; they are not even writing their names on a piece of paper; they are doing nothing, and even the expense of the solicitor in preparing the annual statement is paid by the government. At the conclusion of thirty years when the bonds are paid, the road is simply turned over to the Canadian National Railways and again the Rouyn Railway Company disappears from our ken. It is not a lease; it is just an arrangement to build a railway, in the name of some one else. Putting your property in your wife's name is a difficult matter compared with this, because the government continued in full enjoyment of all its functions, went ahead with its own gang and constructed and is constructing the road. The other day an hon. member asked a question as to whom the railway would belong when finished. Of course, it belongs to the government when it is built. The whole idea is for the government to build and own this railway in spite of the law. A certain portion of the North American people, particularly in the United States of America, are thrilled by, interested in and enjoy thoroughly literature such as that which appears in a book called Get Rich Quick Wallingford and plays such as one called Within thei Law. In other words, smart and clever devices thrill a certain portion of the people, but the gentlemen who are responsible for that output of literature and drama have not found anything in the way of devices or smartness equal to what is done, not by Get Rich Quick Wallingford, but by the government of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: The hon. gentleman has
evidently given considerable thought to the act of 1915. That was not a mandatory, but a permissive act. The government of Canada at that time took over a number of branch lines in the east and many others it discriminated against and left out. What applied then, I suppose, will apply now.


George Reginald Geary: I am sorry I did not make
myself quite clear, and I am glad of the opportunity of making this point as clear as I can. The act of 1915 took care of two in-

The Address-Mr. Geary
dependent lines which the government had then in mind to take over.


Mr. MARICIL:: There were several lines- a dozen.


George Reginald Geary: There were. That was the
point I was trying to make and I am obliged to the hon. member for calling it to my attention once more. All the lines attached to the Intercolonial railway when that act was under discussion were well known to the members of the House who were discussing them. That is why the members of the House were willing to entrust to the government the privilege of buying or leasing any of those lines up to 200 miles in length on condition only of reporting their action to this House. But the House was equally determined that the government railway should not enter into any new construction exceeding twenty-five miles in length and that it should do so to the extent of twenty-five miles only if this House was called upon to pass the money for that construction.
Mr. MAR'CIL:	They were not all taken
over. Some lines two hundred miles in length were left out altogether. The Gaspe railway, which is two hundred miles long, was left out.


George Reginald Geary: As the hon. member says,
the act was permissive. I understand that since 1915 none of those lines has been taken over, but I do not know anything about that. It was quite within the option of the government to take over those lines existing in 1915 touching the Intercolonial or the Prince Edward Island railway in the four provinces, namely, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; that is, while the roads were under the management of the government as government railways being operated under the Government Railways Act.


Mr. CAHILL:: Does my hon. friend contend that the Rouyn railway should not have been built?


George Reginald Geary: I am not discussing that.


Frank S. Cahill: Does he contend that the
road is to cost more under this scheme than it would under any other scheme of construction?


George Reginald Geary: I am not discussing that phase.


Frank S. Cahill: Then what is the complaint?


George Reginald Geary: I have tried designedly to
avoid any discussion as to the merits or demerits of the road as a road. I am taking 14011-80
up only the question of the government by order in council doing something which it had no authority whatever to do.


Frank S. Cahill: A question of morals.


George Reginald Geary: As to the chronology of the matter, in some way this became noised abroad and a question was asked in March of last year. In reply to that question tin Minister of Railways said that the Canadian National Railways had suggested to capitalists that if they would build this road it might be leased. We know nothing further of it than that. The capitalists did not appear. Certain capitalists, so-called, representing bond-holders, have taken the place of directors, so we are told, on the Rouyn Railway Company board; but as construction men, railroad men, they do not exist. They are used only for convenience as representing the money that has gone into the railway and these people representing the bondholders or trustees for the bondholders are no more capitalists constructing the road than any other purchasers of bonds issued by the Dominion government in respect of construction. That was in March and things were then pretty well under way. Hon. members may draw their own inferences from the state of fact which is disclosed by the chronology of the matter. There is the reply made by the minister. On April 3, 1925, shortly after the minister had spoken, the Rouyn Railway Company was incorporated by the legislature of the province of Quebec. There must have been a great deal of discussion before thalt; the matter must have been pretty well completed and ready for crystallization if it was not already crystallized. This House was then in session, it sat luntil June 27, and on April 3 the railway company had got its incorporation. The minister had considered the proposal to build the road and everything was in train to bring the matter before the House for discussion if there was such a great hurry about it. There was sufficient time to have it taken up in the House if the government deemed it so urgent. On June 9 it was reported to the Canadian National Railways that negotiations had taken place with the Quebec government as to its grant of free lands and money guarantee and as to the guarantee with other parties of $20,000 per month. So that the whole thing was ready for consummation and it could have been brought before the House if it had been the intention to deal with it in the normal, legal way, and to have it incorporated in a bill which could be subjected to discussion. Other branch lines

The Address-Mr. Geary

were discussed during last session and this one could have been discussed also. But that was not done; the thing was allowed to drag through the summer until the election came on. The election had been in the air and on September 5 the Prime Minister was talking about railways on a 'high plane while aft the same time he knew that he was on the eve of putting through this order in council. And will hon. members recall how busy the government wag at that time. Although the MSnidter of Customs (Mr. Boivin) had been appointed some weeks before that, he did not find it possible even to enter his Office, and as a matter of fact he did not do so until the first of November. Yet there was time to put this through. On September 14 there began a series of meetings and' there was a great rush. The Rouyn Railway held1 its famous little meeting at which it was said! that such and such might be the case. "Here is a form of lease", they were told, "and if you approve an arrangement can be entered into". And so on. On the 21st the Canadian National Railways met and accepted the proposition and on September 26 the cabinet met and presumably discussed this important matter in its different phases andl passed the necessary order in council. That was the time, between September 14 and September 26, when this government was so immersed in political business and election affairs that if could not attend to the ordinary business of the country. So busy were they that the Minister of Customs was unable to enter his office. Still there was *time to hold these various meet-5 p.m. ings, to call the Privy Council together, and to issue a solemn order in council providing that this railway, so much desired by someone, should be put through, dfenying in this way the right of parliament to discuss the matter on its merits. The general election was little more than a month in the future. Is it not reasonable to suppose that that fact entered largely into consideration?
It is a matter which perhaps it is difficult to bring clearly to the attention of the House. I have endeavoured to assure my hon. friends opposite that I am finding no fault with the acquisition of railways in the four provinces contemplated by the act of 1915; nor am I here finding fault, although there may be room for discussion, with the building of the Rouyn railway. I might or I might not agree with it; I am not given an opportunity to consider the matter. I am simply directing the attention of the House fo this one point, that this government which, in season and out of season, has been so indignant over the 
procedure of the Conservative party on former occasions in issuing certain orders in council, has now had uncovered one of its deeds wherein, to the extent of $5,000,000, it has allowed public money to be spent without giving parliament an opportunity to discuss the advisability of that expenditure; and this, not because there was any hurry, but solely and for reasons best known to itself, with a view to depriving this House of its proper opportunity for discussion. The rights and privileges of the House of Commons were flouted in that transaction as they have never been flouted before. I submit this to the judgment of the House with a good deal of confidence; I submit it to my friends to the left, who are interested in branch lines and who can see for themselves how these things can be done by this government when it suits their convenience. The thing isi not only wrong in itself; it indicates what this government will do and must do in the circumstances in which it finds itself. It has existed for four years by barter and compromise and is determined to go through any number of weeks and months by means of subterfuge and barter and compromise once again. The government in justice to itself, to redeem by one grand act all the faults of which it has been guilty, should resign. That would be the one redeeming feature of its career. It has not the confidence of the House; it has not the confidence of its supporters. And surely it has no moral Strength or character, for it is prepared to go to any length to retain the place it now occupies.
One looks across at the scattered remnants of the contingent from Saskatchewan and pictures those gentlemen, like the song of the nine little niggers, one disappearing every day. I can see those hon. gentlemen coming to their seats each one looking at his desk-mate and wondering, are you the next? This government has decided to use the fine province oif Saskatchewan as a borrow-pit from which it can draw material to shore up up its tottering structure. It is reduced to all sorts of expedients. In the course to which it is condemned it cannot function nor govern. I repeat, it has not the confidence of the House and hon. members by their votes should declare that it has lost also the confidence of the people and should resign from office.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: In rising to say a few words in this debate it is not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the questions generally before the House but to confine myself almost exclusively to the subject which has just been

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
considered by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary), the matter of the Rouyn railway. And at the outset may I say that I have no intention of discussing the advisability or otherwise of building that railway from O'Brien on the Transcontinental to the township of Rouyn. I do not intend to deal with the question whether there should be a railway from that part of the country or whether railway connections should be secured in some other way, because I look on that aspect of the subject as one that is particularly of interest to the province of Quebec, and I have no right and no desire to suggest what they shall do in the matter of providing railway facilities through their own province. The aspect of the subject with which I wish to deal is the relationship of the government of Canada and of the Canadian National Railways to this whole proposition.
My hon. friend from South Toronto, referring to the opinion which the government secured as to whether this railway should 'be built or not, told us that the Minister of Finance had made the statement in the House the other evening that they had obtained the views of counsel on this matter. In looking through the papers that have been made available I have not been able to find any such opinion. The opinion of counsel may have been asked as to the merits of the question and as to whether the construction of this railway by the Canadian National Railways would be a good thing or not. But I have some doubt on that point. Until I see the documents themselves I will not conclude that the general counsel for the Canadian National Railways gave his opinion in that regard. My view is that the documents in connection with the case, set forth in Hansard, were submitted to him and that he, good lawyer as he is, going into the matter carefully, gave to the government his opinion that perhaps by this circuitous method they might be able to d'o something that otherwise they could not do and keep within the law. That is about as far as the general counsel for the system would go or could be expected to go in the matter-simply to deal with the legal aspects.
But coming to the position of the government in relation to the case, let us for a moment observe what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said in his effort to explain and defend the attitude of the government.
Han. members will recall that away back in 1922, 1923 and 1924, there were reports of great mineral development in the northern part of Quebec. In 1923 and 1924 particularly, reports came to us of rich finds in that .part of the country, and representations were made, not only to the Canadian National Railways, but to other railways, that they should extend a line * 14011-80J
into that district. In 1924, Mr. Timmins of the Hol-linger Mines approached the President of the Canadian National Railways urging him to build a line into that section of the country. A survey was made of it and the railway directors and the president were not satisfied that the building of a road in there would be a profitable venture.
That was after the matter had been before the government and the country during 1922, 1923 and 1924, and again in 1925. Then we find him saying a little further on:
Shortly afterwards another discovery was made of the Noranda mines and again they were approached to build a road. Representations were such that engineers were sent there to make a very careful survey of the possiblities of that section of country. It was diiscovered that there were very rich mineral deposits and there was a rush not only of miners, but of railways to get into that district. It is well known that an Ontario railway that has been made very profitable to the province at large by going into the mining country was anxious to build a line.
Now, at this point may I just ask why the government of Canada should have been interested in that at all. It was not a matter for this government, it was not a matter for this parliament. It was a matter between the Canadian National Railways and the government of Quebec. Those who followed the press reports during the discussion of the question will recall that the Premier of Quebec declared the readiness of his government to do what was their right and arrange railway communication for themselves.
But passing from that altogether, let us assume, if we may, that it would have been wise for the Canadian National Railways to have had a branch line into Rouyn district. First, let me say that it was for the parliament of Canada to determine that, having all the facts before it. I am not going into the legal aspects at all, more than to say that before a branch line is built by the Canadian National Railways or for them, creating an obligation on the Canadian people, parliament is the one and only body to decide what shall be done in the premises. But taking the whole scheme as we now have it, and, let me say again, assuming that there was justification for building that railway, let us see what method is followed in providing the means, and so try if we can to get at what the government may term its justification for the course it took. I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I read a few of the extracts that have already been put on Hansard.	I do so for the purpose of connecting
what I wish to say in regard to this. The first is:
Extract from minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors of Rouyn Mine3 Railway Company, duly held in the city of Montreal, on Monday, the fourteen day of September, 1925.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
There is just one thing wrong with that. The title should be 'The Campaign Funds Company of 1025," not the Rouyn Mines Railway Company; because, Sir, as is disclosed here, and as has been tacitly admitted by the only minister who has so far ventured to offer any reasons whatever for the action of the government, it never was the intention that this company should build or own the railway; the intention was that it should be a branch line of the Canadian National Railways. Then why incorporate this dummy company at all? Simply because in September there was evidently a conviction that a railway must be built at once, and funds must be provided at once, notwithstanding the fact, as the minister has already said, that the whole question had been before the government, before the country and before parliament since 1922. Let me continue this extract from the minutes:
The meeting was informed that arrangements can, it is expected, be made for the lease to His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada, herein called the government, of the line of railway intended to be constructed by the company,
And so on. Then 1 find in the draft lease submitted at that meeting the following recital:
Whereas the lessor was incorporated by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec, being chapter 110 of the acts passed in the year 1925, with power to construct and operate the line of railway hereinafter mentioned, and to make the issue of bonds.
And so on. Then follows this recital:
And whereas the Minister of Railways and Canals (hereinafter called the minister) is of the opinion that the said line of railway is a line of railway which can more conveniently and usefully be operated as a part of the Government Railways system and one which may be deemed necessary or desirable for the more efficient operation of the said system.
Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, if it was the opinion of the Minister of Railways and Canals that the railway could be more efficiently operated as a branch of the Canadian National Railways, why did he not come to parliament last session, submit all the facts and ask for authority to build the railway in the manner in which any branch line of the Canadian National Railways should be built? Then follows this recital:
And whereas the lessor pursuant to section 8 of the Act incorporating the lessor proposes to create an issue of not exceeding $5,000,000 of thirty year 4J per cent first mortgage bonds.
My hon. friend the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) addressed a question to the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) as to whether this railway was going to cost more built under the present method than if it had been built by the Canadian National

Railways in the regular way. Well, I propose to show that the whole purpose of the plan set out in these amazing documents was to provide a means to mulct the country of 15,000,000 to do something that in the end is worth only $2,250,000 and no more. Here is the initial step in the course that the government intended to follow in the name of the Canadian National Railways. Let me read the recital again:
And whereas the lessor pursuant to section 8 of the act incorporating the lessor proposes to create an issue of not exceeding $5,000,000 of thirty year 4i per cent first mortgage bonds.
What for? What did they want this $5,000,000 of bonds for? Well, in the very next phrase of the same paragraph of the agreement itself, it is set out that they are going to build a railway that they themselves estimate will cost $3,500,000. Yet they are going to issue $5,000,000 of thirty year 4i per cent bonds which the people of Canada are going to guarantee, and, mark you, we guarantee to pay not only a rental for that railway, interest and sinking fund, all expenses in connection with the flotation of the bonds, the creation of the trust, and so forth, but as well we must absolutely retire t'he bonds in thirty years. Now what is that other $1,500,000 for? What was this dummy company going to do with it? It is set out clearly: We are going to guarantee $5,000,000 of bonds to construct a line that the Rouyn Railway Company says is going to cost only $3,500,000. Let us see what the Minister of Finance has to say in this regard. Let me say in all fairness to him that in speaking on this question he frankly stated on the floor of the House that he had1 never even read the lease, and did not know what it contained; he knew practically nothing about it. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat, but I am sure that every man in the House will agree with me when I say that we absolutely accept what the Minister of Finance said, for we have the utmost confidence in his personal integrity, but where the Minister of Finance and every other member of the government is responsible is that they allowed an agreement of this character to receive the approval of the government by way of order in council without apparently knowing what the document contained.


Mr. STEWART (West Edmonton):: I did
not follow clearly just where the hon. gentleman gets that estimate of $3,500,000.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is the statement of the so-called Rouyn Mines Railway Company.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Charles A. Stewart: Is it embodied in the document?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, and here is just
another evidence, Mr. Speaker, that we have on the floor of the House this afternoon another member of the government responsible for passing this order in council when he did not know what the agreement contained.


Charles A. Stewart: I do
not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, for I do not believe in interruptions, but my hon. friend well knows that many documents pass the government of Canadh the full details of which are not in the minds of the ministers who have to take the responsibility. I am not wishing to shirk one iota of responsibility; I asked my question simply with a view to information, as the hon. member had mentioned the point.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will give my hon.
friend the information. Here it is:
And whereas the lessor pursuant to section 8 of the act incorporating the lessor proposes to create an issue of not exceeding $5,000,000 of thirty year per cent first mortgage bonds (hereinafter called the said bonds) of which it is expected that approximately $3,500,000 will be required to provide for the cost of construction of the said line of railway-
That is the declaration of this so-called company, that they are going to build a railway which they say is likely to cost $3,500,000, and yet they are going to ask the government to provide $5,000,000 with which to do it. The Minister of Finance said that in his judgment the road would cost $2,655,000. I say to the House, assuming the Rouyn railway is a proper line that Should be a branch of the Canadian National railway for them to build and operate, the very outside figure the line should cost, if constructed under proper conditions, would be $50,000 a mile, or $2,225,000 in all, because in the construction of that branch line, what is necessary, viewing fhe matter from the standpoint of practical railway operation? Nothing more or less than the roadbed, with tracks for 45 miles of railway, and a turn-around terminal in the township of Rouyn. The Canadian National have their terminal at O'Brien and all the equipment and everything else that is necessary to operate this road, and all that is required is the roadbed itself of an ordinarily constructed branch line railway capable of taking care of light power and the ordinary freight traffic that will pass over the road. That is the whole story, and when you put the construction cost at $50,000 a mile, or a total of $2,225,000, you have gone the extreme limit.
I pass on. Without labouring the question or boring the House with any more extracts
from the lease, if you will look now at page 1184 of Hansard-


Charles A. Stewart: Does my hon. friend not intend to deal with the provisions against excess cost of construction?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: There is no such provision by the government.


Charles A. Stewart: By the company. If my hon. friend does not propose to deal with that, I ask him if it is not a fact that the engineers of the Canadian National railways will inspect and pass upon every mile of the construction cost.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have no knowledge what the facts are as to-[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: I am asking my hon. friend if it is not a fact that such a provision is contained in the document from which he is reading.


George Brecken Nicholson: What the engineer of the Canadian National railway does has no bearing on this at all. The rental for this railway is not based on what the railway is going to cost. If there was a provision in this contract by which this dummy company would build a railway under the supervision of the Canadian National railway engineers, and the Canadian National railway or the Canadian government would pay an annual rental that would retire the bonds necessary to build the railway, that would be an entirely different thing. But it is not a question of what the railway is going to cost at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend, instead of arguing around the question, deny that there is a provision that the construction of the line by the company shall be supervised as to cost by the engineers of the Canadian National railway?


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me say again, there is.


Charles A. Stewart: That is all I wanted to get.


George Brecken Nicholson: There is a provision that the trustee for the bondholders shall have inspections made to see that the funds provided by the trustee for the bondholders shall be properly expended, but there is nothing in this agreement, until it gets to $5,000,000, that protects the Canadian National railways. It is simply a case of the Canadian government giving a blank cheque for $5,000,000 to a dummy company to build a branch line for the Canadian National railway which the dummy company says is going to cost $3,500,000, which the Finance minister
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

says should not cost more than $2,655,000, and which I say any practical railway man will tell you will not cost, if properly constructed, more than $2,225,000. There is the point. The rental is not based on the cost of the railway at all. The rental is based purely on this-I will read the paragraph for my hon. friend and then he will know for himself.


Charles A. Stewart: Reading a paragraph without giving the context and sequence may give a wrong impression.


George Brecken Nicholson: Paragraph (a) of the agreement reads:
During the first and every subsequent year of the said term such sum as shall be sufficient (in accordance with the terms and provisions of the deed of trust or mortgage securing the said bonds) to pay the interest and sinking funds upon the said bonds for the time being issued and outstanding, and all other monies lawfully payable under such deed of trust or mortgage, including accrued interest on bonds purchased or drawn for redemption under the sinking fund provisions thereof.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite correct, but imy hon. friend is forgetting it is all hinged on the question of cost.


Arthur Meighen: No, no. Read it.


Charles A. Stewart: It all hinges on the question of cost.


Arthur Meighen: Read it.


Charles A. Stewart: I was listening while the hon. gentleman was reading it.


Arthur Meighen: Not that part. He has
not read that part at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: If my hon. friend wants me to do it I will read the whole agreement.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not going to say anything more. Go ahead.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Charles A. Stewart: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend; I want him to make his speech. But he is harping on the fact that because $5,000,000 is mentioned the cost must of necessity be $5,000,000.


George Brecken Nicholson: What I say is that
this agreement provides that the rental shall be paid. There is no question in this agreement as to what the railway is going to cost, the amount of money it is going to get. There is a distinct undertaking as to the rental that is going to be paid, and such rental is to be sufficient to pay the annual

interest and sinking fund on $5,000,000. There is not one single word in the agreement, from A to Z, that provides for anything else.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will endeavour to
get through before six o'clock, and I hope the minister will take the floor at eight o'clock and undertake to explain this transaction.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not able, so far as I can see now, to go on after eight o'clock to discuss the railway question, but possibly I may see my way clear to do so. I will make a point of studying it, and giving a version later on as to the proper interpretation to be placed on the contract and upon everything else in connection with it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am delighted to know the minister is at last going to intake a study of this contract. I will only say to him that having regard to the financial position of this country it would have been very much better if the minister and the other members of the government had studied it before it was entered into. Now, may I continue. As I said-	.


Arthur Meighen: Is there anything in
the lease which prevents the directors of the dummy company issuing foondb for more than the 'actual cost?


George Brecken Nicholson: There as nothing anywhere within the four corners of this document.


Charles A. Stewart: If I
may be permitted, that is a very adroit question, but it will not work.


Arthur Meighen: Tell us what the trouble is.


Charles A. Stewart: In plain English-my right hon. friend knows it better than anyone else in this House-that provision is made for the construction cost.


Arthur Meighen: What ds the difference
in the provision?


Charles A. Stewart: 
Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? I know there is provision for supervising the construction cost, but of what value is it unless you hold the directors down against the issue of bonds for more than that amount?

The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Frank S. Cahill: I rise to a point of order.
Is the hon. member for East Algoma making a speech, or is it a debate across the floor? Let the hon. member continue his speech.


Hewitt Bostock: An hon. member may
not be interrupted except with 'his consent.


Arthur Meighen: Had the hon. member
(Mr. Cahill) not better sit down?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member who
has the floor has the right to refuse to answer questions if he so chooses.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not finding any
fault whatever with the Minister of the Interior injecting himself into the discussion, because I submit that the further inquiry is made the more clearly it will be shown that the government, or at least some members of it, knew nothing whatever as to the character of the agreement into which they were entering, and that is the whole point.
The Minister of Finance, following my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) the other night said that he had never even read the lease. I say you can read the lease from beginning to end and you cannot find anything in it except this provision-that the Canadian National Railways will pay the rental, and will redeem $5,000,000 worth of bonds.
Now, I will give another aspect of that in a few moments. The Minister of Finance stated in reply to the hon. member for West York that the total amount of money that had been spent on this railway up to January 31, 1926 was $130,000. But if you look at the document you will find this:
Extract from minutes of meeting of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company.
Held in the Company's offices in the city of Montreal, on Monday the 21st day of September, 1925.
The meeting was informed that the Rouyn Mines Railway Company-
Otherwise "The 1925 Campaign Funds Company,;-
-has been negotiating for a loan-


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the hon. gentleman? I take exception to a statement of that kind. I do not think that any hon. member has a right to make such a statement and get away with it without some exception being taken. Will the (hon. gentleman inform the House where he Obtained the information that campaign funds came out of this company?


George Brecken Nicholson: If my hon. friend will bear with me for just a very few minutes I will state all the facts and then he can draw his own conclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: Drawing a conclusion is quite a different thing from making an alleged statement of fact. I take very serious exception to a statement of that character coming from the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what rule prevents the hon. gentleman from describing the dummy company in any language he likes, unless members of the House are members of the company.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Arthur Meighen: They had the government guarantee.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes. I am coming
to that in a moment, and I will show the position the government took in relation to it. Now we come to a meeting held on September 26, 1925 in the office of the Privy Council in Ottawa:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 25th September, 1925, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister-
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to note this. The report is not from the Minister of Railways at all; it is from the Prime Minister acting for the Minister of Railways. And then is set out the whole of the terms of this lease, and a copy of what was presented to
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

this other meeting in the city of Montreal by this railway company, so-called, on 14th September, 1925. And what do we find in connection with that? The Mines Railway proposed to create an issue not exceeding $5,000,000 worth of bonds, and so on; and the position is recited again by which the government of Canada, not the Canadian National Railways, will pay the interest and sinking fund on these bonds. It goes on further to say:
That the guarantee by the Canadian National Railway Company of the loan to the Mines Railway has been agreed upon in the general form hereto attached marked "F".
I submit to my hon. friend thalt he should review these circumstances. Here is a railway proposition which has been before the people of this country, and particularly before the government of the province of Quebec, since 1922, for (the construction of a railway from a point on the Canadian National railway or the Transcontinental railway into the township of Rouyn; a railway that the government of the province of Quebec had a perfect right to construct at any time they desired. The whole matter before the government of Quebec was one of negotiation, as every hon. member who has been following the public affaire of this country knows, between the government of the province of Quebec and the officers of the Canadian National from 1922 onwards. The House of Commons was in session until some time in June last year. These matters were still under consideration, but on the 14th of September a condition of urgency apparently was reached. What was it that happened in the township of Rouyn or in any other part of that north country in September last to make iit So urgent that this railway had to be built at once? Does anybody who knows anything about that north country know of anything special that took place? There was nothing more than has been happening from day Ito day since the mineral discovery was made in northern Quebec; nothing whatever. There was nothing exceptional in connection with the controversy over the question whether the Nipis-sing Central Railway should (build! in there, or whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Should build. But all at once it became so urgent that a company had to be formed. What was the company going to do? Let me repeat: they were going to build a railway which they themselves said was to cost about $3,500,000. They had bonds guaranteed by this government for $5,000,000, under a lease passed by the order in council on September 26. So urgent was the case that on September 26 they had to do something.

Again let me say (they could not wait until they put their bonds on the New York market, could not wait for the trust deed to be completed, bht had to go to the Canadian National Railway and get a short term guarantee for a loan of $2,000,000. What were they going to do with it? Wotk that the Minister of Railways stated in the House the other evening required! the expenditure of $130,000 up to the end of January last. Will any reasonable man who knows anything about the borrowing or lending of money believe that the five directors, with a guarantee of $5,000,000 of bonds in their pockets, could not get $130,000 from any bank in Canadia, without the necessity of a guarantee from the Canadian National to enable them to borrow $2,000,000 in New York? I will name the five directors mentioned by the hon. Minister of Finance in bis speech. They were:
Robert Adair of Montreal; Charles M. Hart of Montreal ; Mr. Donat Raymond of Montreal, proprietor of the tV mdsor Hotel:	Mr. Harold Fowler and Mr. C.ifton M. Miller, of New York City.
There is no explanation of why this circuitous method was adopted. If the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway felt that it was a good thing thait that branch line railway should be constructed and had come to parliament and! submitted the matter to us, I for one would have been prepared to examine into the facts and to endorse the proposal if it appealed to my judgment; because I am not one of those who think that the Canadian National Railway should not be permitted to build branch lines. They must build them wherever they are necessary to serve the country and to act as feeders to the National railway. Blut if they had done that, and if parliament had given them the sanction that i)t will give in every case where it is necessary, and they had undertaken the construction, what course would they have followed? Is it not a fact that they would have called for tender for the construction of the railway. But what happens under this arrangement? Are any tendlers called for by the company?
The next step is that this company is incorporated. It matters not who constitutes the company; it is a dummy from first to last. The whole scheme from begining to end is just a plan to flout this parliament in the first instance. But what happens? The company goes ahead1 and builds the railway. No one knows anything about it. Then they proceed to the the approving of the trustees and bondholders, and all the vouchers for the work that is to be done are made out here. In other words, this means the turning over

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
of the construction of the forty-five miles to whoever the dummy company might choose as their contractor without competition. It is provided in this agreement-


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend know who the contractors are?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, I have no knowledge of the contractors. I am not in the secrets of the dummy company. Neither am I in the secrets of the government, if they know who the contractors are. But let me say that under the provisions of this agreement all these people have to do is to go ahead and build the railway themselves, and to do as has been done from one end of Canada to the other-fleece this country by building the railway and constructing works which cost two or three times what they should. Some day we may have an opportunity of going into that phase of it.
Then I deal with another point. It is being paraded as a protection for the National railways that the government of the province of Quebec is going to provide $50,000 a year; and certain guarantors, who I believe are the officers and directors of the Noranda mine, are going to guarantee $20,000 a year to provide for any possible deficit there might be in the operation of the Rouyn railway. That I think is a fair statement. It is thought that perhaps under normal conditions, and operated as a railway usually should be operated, there might be a deficit, and to provide against that the government of Quebec agrees to contribute $50,000 a year and the Noranda mine agrees to contribute $20,000 a year. But what precaution was taken to make it certain that the guarantors would never be called upon to put up a cent? There is a provision in regard to revenue from freight or traffic. It matters not where it originates, whether in British Columbia, in the Maritime provinces, or any other place, that one-third of the total revenue for transporting freight or traffic from any point on the Canadian National to any point on the Rouyn railway shall be credited to the cost of the Rouyn railway; and vice versa, on traffic originating on the Rouyn railway and destined for points on the Canadian National, one-third of the revenue will be credited to the Rouyn railway. How does it work out? It is impossible to take the whole of the Canadian National railway system station by station and determine what that means. But let us take the city of Montreal as a common distributing centre, and I will refer to three single items to show you just exactly what is meant. Take a carload of sugar shipped
from the city of Montreal to the end of the Rouyn railway; the total freight at present rates for a full car loaded to capacity would be $576. The haul of the Canadian National is approximately 700 miles. The portion the Canadian National proper would secure would be $387 and the Rouyn railway $189. The car mileage rate on the Canadian National railway would be 55 cents and the car mileage rate on the Rouyn railway would be $4.20. It is reasonable to suppose a lot of machinery will be shipped into that country if the country develops as we all hope it will. On a carload of machinery shipped from the same shipping centre, Montreal, a distance of 700 miles, the gross charges will be $544. The Canadian National Railways will receive as their share, $362.67, and the Rouyn Mines railway will receive for its forty-five miles, if we assume that the carload is shipped to the end of the line, $181.33. In that case the Canadian National Railways gets fifty-one cents per car mile and the Rouyn railway, $4.03 per car mile. On a carload of groceries shipped from the same centre or an equal distance, the gross charges will be $720. The Canadian. National Railways will receive as their share, $480, and the Rouyn railway, $240; or sixty-eight cents per car mile for the Canadian National Railways and $5.44 per car mile for the Rouyn railway.
Let me say in conclusion in regard to that: When you operate a branch line railway connected with any trunk line system, you take into account, first, what the branch line provides and, second, what the trunk line system provides. The trunk line system provides the terminals as the Canadian National Railways have already done at O'Brien. They provide the shops, the supervision, the management, the superintendence, trainmasters, train despatchers and everything else of that kind. The branch line, as I said a moment ago, provides simply the road, passing tracks, and possibly a turning point in the township of Rouyn. In face of that, if you go over the whole list of goods and take for example goods shipped from Toronto, Hamilton, Galt or any of the other manufacturing centres of Ontario; or if you take a carload of coal shipped from Alberta where the -haul will probably be two thousand miles; or if you take coal shipped from Nova Scotia-and there will certainly be large shipments of coal into the Rouyn district if it is to be developed, because you cannot carry on a smelting business without coal and coke-what do you find? In every single case the Rouyn railway gets more than eight times
1262	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
per ear mile what the Canadian National railway gets, making quite certain from the start that in the construction of this railway neither of the guarantors will ever be called upon to put up a single nickel of the guarantee; they have seen to it that no such thing as a deficit can ever occur, even though only one or two cars of freight move each way each day of the year. Just stop and consider what that means. It will cost $181.33 for moving a carload of machinery; $189 for moving a carload of sugar, and $240 for moving a carload of groceries forty-five miles. Examine the whole document from A to Z; do what you will with it, and you will find it is nothing more or less than a crudely constructed or drawn together camouflage in an effort to delude the people of this country and to secure what the government had in mind, simply the incorporation of .what I said a moment ago, not a dummy railway company, but a campaign fund company for the campaign in the city of Montreal in September last.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr.  J. G. BOSS@Moose Jaw: Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to add a word of congratulation to you on your re-election to the position which you so graciously and impartially fill and to congratulate also the mover and the seconder of the Address on their splendid effort in putting before us the government's policy, which has been acclaimed with so much satisfaction throughout this whole Dominion and in western Canada particularly.
I would also congratulate the Conservative party on its choice of leader (Mr. Meighen). It had never been my privilege to listen to the right hon. gentleman before coming to this House. I must say that as a debater he has, I believe, few peers; his sallies are delightfully refreshing. And as for advocating the policy of his party in the country, I do not believe that anyone could do it better than he. But that policy was so unpopular in the province which I have the great honour to represent-I am the first person born within its borders to be elected to this House -that not one of the right hon. gentleman's followers was returned. The leader of the opposition scolds the members from Saskatchewan because of their attitude towards the tariff. Let me say that we from that province are here to put before parliament the views of the people of Saskatchewan, and if hon.

gentlemen will take the trouble to look into the record of the election of members to parliament from Saskatchewan since it became a province of the Dominion they will find that the people there have elected only two Conservatives to the House of Commons, one in 1908, defeated in the next election, and another in 1911, also defeated in the ensuing election. The next election after 1911 was held in 1917 and neither Conservatives nor Liberals were returned to parliament from the province of Saskatchewan, all the members being Unionists. In 1921 not a Conservative was returned, and again in 1925 not a Conservative. With 21 seats in the last election 16 Liberals were elected, the number being now 17, soon to be increased to 18.
As regards the tariff in Saskatchewan, our people are predominantly against any increase in customs duties. They sell all they produce in the open markets of the world in open competition and the tariff can do them no good whatever. That is the provincial view. But the people of Saskatchewan are first of all Canadians of the highest type, which they proved beyond the shadow of a doubt in. the great national and international tragedy of the last decade. They are Canadians and therefore they will make some sacrifice and concede a tariff to the Dominion so long as that tariff is just and in the interests of the country as a whole. We must use a little common sense in relation to the tariff. When anyone comes to the government and asks to have a duty put on a certain article because he cannot produce that article on such a basis as to be able to sell it in competition with similar goods imported into the country, he thereby admits that he cannot produce it in Canada to sell in any other country. So that when a tariff is given to protect that article in order that it may be sold in Canada to any great extent we must look after the home consumer, who is the only one that can buy that article. Several members of the opposition have said that a lower tariff is driving our young people from the farms to the United States. My view is that on account of too high protection they are leaving the farms because they cannot make a decent living; they are driven to our cities, and when they cannot find employment there they go to the United States. The reason is not too low a tariff; it is too high a tariff.
The right hon. leader of the opposition and his followers have said a great deal about a tariff on butter. If we look at that from a common sense standpoint what do we find? Montreal contains one-eighth of the population of the Dominion, not one of whom makes

The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
any butter, but all of whom eat it. Now, as a farmer and rancher, 1 claim that I have no right to be given a special privilege to charge the people of that city or of any other urban centre in the Dominion more money for what they have to eat.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that the press of Saskatchewan is all Liberal. The reason is not that the press of that province has been bought up by big interests; it is that the policy of the right hon. gentleman is not looked on with favour there, and t,he papers that supported his policy lost their subscribers in such numbers that naturally they died for lack of circulation. In this conneotion I should like to read a clipping from the Kingston Whig of February 17, 1926:
Politicians and Newspapers
Mr. C. R. McIntosh of North Battleford performed a service for every newspaper when he stood up in his place in the House of Commons on Monday and interrupted Hon. S. F. Tolmie, of Victoria, who stated -that Mr. Dunning controlled the newspapers in Saskatchewan, Mr. McIntosh, who owns two newspapers in Saskatchewan, promptly told Dr. Tolmie that no government controlled his papers. It's a habit politicians have-both Conservatives and Liberals-this talking about "controlled" newspapers. We heard a lot about it during Union government days. It's all a mytn. The day of the politically controlled organ is gone, never to return. Most newspaper men value their independence as much as a member of parliament does his.
Already this session we have heard a great deal about Maritime rights. The only thing I have been able to gather since I have been in the House respecting Maritime rights is that certain people from the Maritime provinces want a special rate on coal; I have not heard that they want anything else; I think that is their trouble. Just a little common sense there, too, at the present time will help us to fully appreciate the situation. The other day I ascertained that anthracite coal in the city of Montreal was worth to the consumer $26 per ton, while coke was worth $17 per ton. The all rail freight rate, I believe, is $4.50 from the Maritime provinces to Montreal. If the mine operators of the Maritimes cannot pay the freight rate with the prices for coal and coke now prevailing in Montreal, a lowering of that rate will never do them any good.
We have also heard a good deal regarding coal from our Alberta friends. Alberta coal is good coal; no doubt about that. But as a man born and brought up in Saskatchewan, and having lived there most of my life, I can say that in order to keep warm during the winter we have to burn quite a lot of coal. What has been our experience? We buy what is known as Pennsylvania hard coalwhen we can get it-at double the price of Alberta coal. I do not think that the people of Saskatchewan have been foolish for thirty years in using Pennsylvania coal by preference. I think Pennsylvania anthracite is usually worth double the Alberta product; and if the coal operators of Alberta are given a special freight rate on coal to Ontario I cannot see that they will ever be able to sell their coal there at an even price with Pennsylvania coal, which they would have to do if they got such a rate.
We have no right, as I see it, to force the railways to grant a special rate on coal.
I do not see why the people of the Dominion should pay part of Ontario's coal bill. The suggestion has been made by the government of Ontario, I believe, that a third of the cost over and above the $7 rate be paid by Ontario, a third by Alberta, and the remaining third by the Dominion government. If we start to put a special rate on Alberta coal or on Maritime coal transported to the centre of Canada, then, it seems to me, everybody in the Dominion has the same right to have the coal rates lowered. Not only so, but I have as much right to ask that apples be shipped from Ontario, or lumber from British Columbia or fish from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan at a special rate as the coal man has to seek a special rate on coal.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What about Wheat?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Wheat is being
shipped on a rate set by statute, which neither you nor I have any right to discuss.


Peter McGibbon: The loss is $6,000,000
a year.


John Gordon Ross: If that is the
case, and you will project the wheat rate on the same basis from Fort William to Toronto, it will bring your coal rate to $10.50 a ton.
Just a word respecting our freight rates today. Everybody seems to take great delight in jumping on the railways, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. It will no doubt interest hon. members to know that our freight rates are lower than those in any other country in the world. The freight rate in Great Britain per ton mile is equal to 2.84 cents; in Switzerland to 6.20; in Norway, 4.47 cents. In Australia it ranges from 2.8 in the commonwealth to 3.20 in South Australia, 3.94 in West Australia and 2.79 in New South Wales; in United States 1.116; in Canada 1.019. The Canadian National is .968 cents-the lowest freight rate in the world. And still we ask to have the freight rates reduced here. Hon. gentlemen
1264	COMMONS
The Address

Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
opposite are always endeavouring to bolster up industry in order to keep people employed in this country. I would like to give them a figure or two regarding the railways. The assets of the Canadian Pacific railway alone in this country are worth more than the national debt of Canada. The payroll on all Canadian railways in the year 1924 was $231,517,863; there was in addition expended in Canada on materials, supplies for the railways, and other expenses, $146,077,729, or a total spent by the railways in Canada in wages and the buying of supplies of $377,595,592. That I claim is an industry that should be looked after by the people of Canada.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and his followers went from one end of this country to the other in the last campaign, and they have been talking the same way in this House since they came here, saying that the trade of the country was declining, industry was at a standstill, people were leaving the country, business was not good at all, and yet Sir Henry Thornton picked out that kind of a year to show a surplus of some $32,000,000 in revenue over operating expenditure on the lowest freight rate in the world. Either the right hon. leader of the opposition and his followers were misrepresenting business conditions in Canada, or Sir Henry Thornton must be little less than an angel in their estimation at the present time.
I do not wish to take up much time jr this debate, but before taking my seat I wish to say a word or two in regard to what is going on in this House at the present time. The system of government we have in Canada is what we call representative government. Members are elected to this House to represent and voice the will of the people. The people of Canada, through their duly elected representatives, have said that this House should adjourn so that cabinet ministers might be elected to the government chosen by the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. Every member of this House will have an opportunity to speak to all the measures mentioned in the Speech from tihe Throne when they are brought down to this House. Then why do the opposition delay? They delay because they are afraid to face the issues in the Speech from the Throne. They will go to any length, moving amendment after amendment, in an endeavour to beat this government so that the measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne shall not become law. They know there are men within their own party who dare not vote against certain measures in the Speech from
I Mr. J. G. Ross.]
the Throne, and I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. leader of the opposition that he who for political advantage endeavours to make impotent the parliament of Canada and flouts the will of the people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives in this House of parliament, will pay, and pay dearly, when the people of Canada have a chance to deal with him.


Mr. BAKER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He said it was the high tariff of Canada which was driving people from this country to the United States. If that is the case how is it that the tariff of the United States, which is twice as high os ours, is not driving people from that country to this?


John Gordon Ross: If the United
States have a much higher tariff than we have, at all events they sell their goods much cheaper, and they can sell their goods in this country much cheaper than olur own manufacturers do.


Richard Langton Baker: Because they have a higher tariff.


John Gordon Ross: Just to give you an instance, the other evening when the former member for Regina, Mr. Darke, was speaking of the Ford car, he was questioned by an hon. gentleman opposite. Now our tariff on the parts that go into a Ford car is around 25 per cent, and I believe the total amount collected on the parts of a Ford car entering this country would amount to about $25. But the extra cost to us of a complete Ford car in this country is $150. In Saskatchewan we have to pay $150 more for a Ford car than they pay right across the line to the south of us. If the people who want tariff protection in this country would ask only for the tariff protection they need, you would find that that extra $125 paid by the people of Canada for that Ford car would be spent in buying other articles made in this Dominion, thereby helping other industries.


Mr. E. A. PECK (West Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to address myself to the motion and amendment before the House although I realize that you, Sir, will accord to me the same kindly consideration which you are in the habit of extending to all new members of this House. One may be accustomed to address local audiences, but I realize that now I am a member of and addressing myself ito the supreme assembly of this country, an (assembly composed of members resident for the most part in the ridings which they represent, assembled

The Address-Mr. Peck
here from all parts of the Dominion to deliberate on matters affecting the welfare of the whole of Canada, and, if necessary, to crystallize their view into the form of legislation. It is only natural to expect that a gathering such as this, representing all the various sections of Canada and gathered here from sea ito sea, as the scroll over the entrance to this building states, will have divergent views. They represent different interests, different occupations, and necessarily there will be divergencies of opinion. It is our duty when we meet here to discuss fully all the questions which may possibly affect Canada, and to do so there must be the fullest freedom of debate.
The debate on the Address has been a feature of our proceedings ever since parliament was established. It answers a hseful purpose. It gives us an opportunity of stating our views and of hearing the views of those who do not, perhaps, agree with us. There should be no limitation of that debate unless limitation becomes really necessary. It has been suggested that by carrying on this discussion we are obstructing, but we are in no way preventing the carrying on of public business. The government has expressly stated that it does not intend to bring down any more business until (March 15; and so if we wish to continue exchanging our views we are in no way preventing the carrying on of the business of the country. In that connection I regret to. See introduced the amendment calling for the previous question to be put. Under the circumstances it answens no useful purpose. If important measures were being held up by reason of this debate there would be some reason for checking discussion. But no such condition exists; and it is unfortunate that, by reason of that amendment, a suggestion should go forth from this assembly that there should be any restriction of the fullest discussion of public matters.
We have an unusual condition in the present interesting parliament-the fact that the government which is endeavouring to carry on is a minority in the House. In the former House the Prime Minister had a following, I believe, of 125. He expressly stated that he had not a sufficient following to enable him to put into effect the policies which he wished to have adopted. Having gone to the country he comes back with a far less number of supporters-to be precise, only 101-and seeks to carry on. His only salvation is to turn to the members of the Progressive party for support. As has been stated in the House, he has had1 several interviews with some of the members of that party, and after some discussion a very loose agreement has been arrived at-in fact it is scarcely to be called an agreement at all.
As I understand that agreement, it contains three parts. It starts off with the statement on the part of the Progressive party that it has no confidence in Mr. King's government, and that any support the Progressives see fit to give to the government is not to be construed as an expression of confidence in it. And then, as I gather, another feature of the agreement is this:	It is not intended there
should be a departure in any respect from the principles to which the Progressive party are wedded. In no way is it to mean an abandonment of the views which the Progressive party have expressed in the House; if any party is to give way it must be the Liberal party. In the third place there is this understanding, I believe, with the Progressive party: It will only support the government as long as the measures introduced are satisfactory to it. That is a very loose agreement. It must be very unsatisfactory to the Prime Minister that he can secure no better treatment from the Progressive party than that which I have indicated. Well might the Prime Minister, as time goes on, say in the words of the psalmist:
" I am in jeopardy every hour. Every night I make my bed and water my couch with my tears."
Now, Mr. Speaker, where does this lead us to? It leads us to the conclusion that when the House reassembles on March 15, Progressive measures are to be considered first. The government is to continue to ride in the government car, but the man at the wheel is to be the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke); he is to direct the course which the car will take. Now, I am not going to say that will necessarily be a bad thing. I do not know altogether the views of the Progressive party. Part of my constituency, which was taken out of the former riding of East Peterborough, was represented in the last parliament by a Progressive member, and there are several Progressives now in the present riding, many of whom gave me their support. So far as the Progressive party is concerned I have come to parliament with a fairly open mind. My experience tells me that there are generally two sides to every question; and when I find that the Progressive party was composed in the last parliament of sixty-five members-many of whom had broken away from former political affiliations to assist in forming that group-I cannot but come to the conclusion that there must be something in the Progressive movement. Therefore, speaking personally, I am prepared1 to give fair consideration to any of the measures that
The Address-Mr. Peck

may be introduced on behalf of the Progressive party, without giving any assurance that I will accept them and' support them.
But there is this to be borne in mind: the Progressive party does not pretend to represent the whole of Canada. With two exceptions the Progressive members in the present House all come from the western provinces and naturally represent western views. But they are only twenty-four in number, a trifle under one-tenth of the representation in this House, and presumably they only represent about that percentage of the people of this country. It may be said by them that they are endeavouring to represent all the people of this country engaged in agricultural pursuits. Admitting that for the sake of argument, it still follows that they only represent about thirty-four per cent of the Canadian people. Now I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the other 66 per cent, composed1 to a very great extent of persons engaged in manual work, persons who are dependent upon industrial employment to enable them to earn the wages necessary to support themselves and their families. I come from a riding which is about two-thirds ufiban, and one-third rural, and I desire to speak for a few minutes on the subject of protection, which has been discussed so much in this chamber since we met last month.
I wonder if I might venture to say a word or two about the conditions in the city of Peterborough at the time of the election and for some time previously. There was considerable depression in the city, and to be truthful I must say there were depressed conditions not only in the' city of Peterborough but in all other urban centres in Canada, I believe, with one or two exceptions. Yet I realize that these conditions can be improved by the adoption of a better protective system than the one now in vogue in this country. There are several factories in the city of Peterborough which require protection. They are exposed at the present time to undue and unfair competition with foreign goods imported into the country and manufactured under conditions which no respectable workman in this country should be subjected to. The depression at any rate exists, and prior to the election some of those factories found it necessary partly to close down and in some cases to work half time. Many men were out of work and times were very hard in Peterborough. Frequently I would meet a man and he would ask me: "For heaven's sake, can you get me a job?" There was no job to be had for him. I am sorry to say.

In connection with and as a result of that condition, many of the people of the city of Peterborough found it desirable to go to the United States and take their families with them. I could give many instances during the few months preceding my election when my attention was particularly directed to that sort of thing. There was one man in whom I was particularly interested, a man I had known for many years, who was born in the county, brought up there, married, with three or four children, a strong, able-bodied middle aged man, able and willing to work. He hunted round for six months but could not get a job. Finally he went to the States, came back to Canada, reported that he had a job for himself and one for his eldest boy. He sold the little house which he had been given time to pay for; he went away, and probably will never return. I met another man the other day and asked him about his boys. "Oh," he said: "My four boys are all gone and I am left alone." I asked him. "How are they getting on?" He said: "They are over in the States and doing pretty well." There are many cases of that kind. The matter became serious, and as the election approached people became aroused and awakened to the condition of things, realizing that the failure to put up a proper customs tariff against the importation of goods which we were capable of manufacturing in Peterborough was causing the trouble in that city. There was no undue or unfair propaganda, as was suggested by the hon. Minister of Public Works OMr. King) in this House the other evening. The facts were plain, and the people realized them. There were men out of employment and there were many cases of people going to the States. It was not necessary to appeal to the people; they appreciated the seriousness of the situation. They appealed to me, I may say, to run in the election and to carry their burdens and present them to this House. What happened? The case was very ably presented for the Liberal side by the then member, a man of great ability and1 force, a man very well known to this House, I dare say, because in the last parliament he was Deputy Speaker. He had been returned for that riding in 1921 with a majority of over 2,000, and he was defeated at the last election by nearly the same figure. He presented all the stock arguments of the Liberal party. He pointed to the fact that the Canadian dollar was worth a whole dollar in New York. He dwelt upon the favourable balance of trade between Canada and foreign countries. He asserted with some force that the government

The Address-Mr. Peck
had reduced the taxation of the people. But somehow or other all those assertions did not seem to influence the result; the people were against him. It just shows the folly of endeavouring to prove such and such a thing to be true by statistics. The statistics were there, and his case looked all right on paper, but the machine would not work. The statistics alone did not bring employment to the working people.
And it was not merely in Peterborough that the protectionist principle was adopted by the people. The rural portion of the population in West Peterborough is not particularly antagonistic to the protectionist principle. Nearly half the agriculturists in the rural portion of the riding voted for the Conservative candidate. Not merely West Peterborough, but almost every other riding in Ontario seemed to adopt that protectionist principle and returned Conservative candidates by large majorities. You know, Mr. Speaker, that out of 83 members for the province of Ontario 69 are seated on this side of the House. The same thing happened in other provinces. The maritimes were very strong for the protectionist principle; Manitoba came back into line; British Columbia gave us ten out of fourteen, and Quebec is coming back coyly. That province is Conservative at heart and protectionist, and it will be only a matter of time before Ontario and Quebec are ranged side by side fighting for protection.
I think I have made a case for the consideration of this question of protection. I am not going into details, but particular instances in which protection is needed have been detailed by other hon. members. I wish to point out, however, that apparently the attention of the government is beginning to be directed to the necessity for doing something in connection with this protective principle. During the four years that the present government was in power prior to 1925, the speeches from the throne failed to refer in any way to the tariff question. Now, in view of the discussion and the expression of opinion by the people on that subject, the Speech from the Throne undertakes to deal with the matter in some way, and this particular portion of it begins as follows:
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.
If that is supposed to indicate that we on this side of the House are in favour of a general increase in the customs tariff, I for one do not propose to accept it. Speaking
for myself, I do not know that a general increase in the customs tariff is required. There are in this country certain industries the nature of which is such that they do not require to be protected by a customs tariff, but there are others which should be protected, and I wish to urge that upon the House. The Speech continues:
They believe-
That is, the ministers.
-that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes.
This uncertainty with reference to tariff changes is profoundly affecting the country. There is a feeling on the part of people engaged in or proposing to engage in industry that some tariff changes may take place which will be prejudicial to the industries which they are carrying on or propose to carry on. We have all heard the views of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, who, I believe, is about to take his place in this House as Minister of Railways and Canals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not yet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


Edward Armour Peck: He must be elected, of course. I presume if he is not elected in the constituency which has been set aside for him by Mr. Darke, he will keep on until he finds some place in which he can take shelter. Wc all know his views, because he came to Ontario during the last election and gave expression to them. He has the satisfaction of knowing that wherever he spoke a Conservative candidate was elected. He expressed the view that there should be a reduction in the tariff and a similar idea was given expression to by the Hon. Vincent Massey-a great friend of the Prime Minister-who, it is suggested, is also going to endeavour to obtain a seat in this House. There is fhus the element of uncertainty and there will be continued uncertainty until /this policy of protection is fully adopted by the House and steps are taken to put the tariff on a sound footing.
Then this portion of the Speech concludes:
A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith. This board will be expected to make a careful study of the customs tariff, the revenue to be derived therefrom and the effect of the tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture.
That, if the expression is not unparliamentary, is simply passing the buck. The matter is to be referred to a commission and everything will consequently be postponed for another year, or possibly longer. I do not think it is the wish of the people that action upon this tariff question should be postponed;
The Address-Mr. Peck

I believe the people want the adjustment of the tariff to be taken up and dealt with immediately. I do not see any reason why a special tariff commission should be appointed. There are in this House members who are capable of serving on committees and making their own investigations, and I have very strong objection to the appointment of a commission by any party if that can possibly be avoided. Hon. members who are here representing the people are an intelligent set of men, and I am quite sure a committee could be selected from members on all sides of this House who would give this matter fair and impartial consideration and within a reasonable time recommend such changes in the tariff as would give effect to the wishes of the people.
In the Speech from the Throne there are many other matters with which I might deal, but I do not wish to do so now because I do not want to get away from the question of protection; for it is important that that matter should be considered in the interest of the people. I have therefore risen to-night to express in a general way my views in this regard and1 my hope that a matter of such importance to many people in this country will not 'be side-tracked even for measures of interest and value to the Progressive party.


Mr. MILLAR:: Considering that during the years 1914, 1915, 1916 and until March, 1917, the United States were reaping hundreds of millions of dollars of profit by manufacturing munitions for the Allies and had not a man in the field, while during the same period Canada was paying out hundreds of millions of dollars and had hundreds of thousands of men in the field, is it not a little unfair to point to the fact that conditions just after the war was over were better in the United States than in Canada?


Edward Armour Peck: I do not remember making
any comparison between the United States and Canada. I recognize the fact that the United States by reason of their keeping out af the war so long are in a much better position financially than Canada. We must try to overcome that, but we cannot do so by continuing to buy United States or European goods manufactured by cheap labour. The increase in the value of manufactured goods coming into this country was shown in a recent article in the Financial Post. That article pointed out that although Canada was apparently improving in some respects, the quantity of manufactured goods, imported goods, which we could well make in this country, was increasing. If we could arrange to

manufacture in Canada the goods which we require for use by our people, this trouble about lack of employment and all the troubles incident thereto would be avoided.


John Millar: Was there not in the hon.
member's remarks the implication that conditions were better in the United States than in Canada and for that reason our people were going to the United States to seek employment?


Edward Armour Peck: There is no question that the United States, which is a tariff country, is prospering.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I presume that as a young member of this honourable body, possessing the average degree of cordiality and fellowship, I should be actuated by a spirit of appreci-9 p.m. ation to offer to you my congratulations on having again been extended the high honour of the speakership. It is a source of personal gratification when one observes a gentleman so competent and possessing such a high degree of dignity acting in a capacity where grace, fairness and despatch are the outstanding characteristics of a successful term of office. I trust that at the end of the session my expression towards you, Sir, may be equally commendatory. I take this my first opportunity of extending to you and through you to the loved ones who share your distinction my sincere congratulations upon the honour that has been conferred upon you by this parliament, the highest honour within its gift. However envious one might be of your personal capacity, I can assure you, Sir, that there is little of this weakness and no animosity, in my makeup and I trust that any breach of the rules of which I may be guilty you will regard as an innocent offence and not as an intentional violation of parliamentary practice.
I trust further that as the session proceeds our mutual relations, if I may venture to say so, will strengthen into something like friendship; and I am sure that, whatever happens, the present parliamentary term will be successful at least so far as a strictly impartial guiding of its deliberations is concerned.
I fully appreciate the privilege and the honour which I have, as a result of the last election, of representing in this House one of the most progressive constituencies in Canada. My first desire in representing that constituency in this the fifteenth parliament of the Dominion is to correct certain statements that have come from sources unreliable and incredible, and in doing so I accept as an invitation the remark of the hon. gentleman

The Address-Mr. Gott
who leads the remnant of a shattered and discredited government, if it may be called a government, in the person of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to the effect that lavish expenditures had been made for political purposes in the last election. The wail of a defeated party, it has been said, is always audible and to these lamentations there seems to be no end. I am compelled to conclude that it is not in the interests of the party opposite that their inner activities in the last campaign, their expenditures at any rate, should be revealed at this particular time. Even the Prime Minister-I beg your pardon, I mean the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King-made the charge that financial interests were against him in Prince Albert. But taking a casual glance at the result in that by-election one would wonder just how many financial interests had really been at work there. I believe that the Independent candidate has as much reason to make that charge as Mr. Mackenzie King had. Certainly the Independent candidate did not prove to be much of a politician so far as vote-getting was concerned, but he has the credit of being a better soldier; at least military report would lead the average person to think so. I wonder whether I should be ruled out of order if I offered the Liberal party my congratulations on the marvellous victory it obtained on Monday last, a victory which, according to the newspapers, had the effect of bringing even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to life, to lead a demonstration in celebration of the event.
The press of western Ontario a short time ago oarried an article which, according to the reports, emanated from Dr. C. C. Ross of Hyde Park, Ontario, on January 10, appearing in the Border Cities Star in its issue of January 11 under the heading:
Charges American gold beat Graham: Dr. Ross bitter at London over defeat of Railway Minister.
"American gold" defeated both Premier King and Right Hon. George P. Graham, in their respective ridings, according to an address by Dr. Cecil C. Ross at the convention of East Middlesex Liberals, held in Hyman hall, London. At the meeting, Dr. Ross was nominated as Liberal candidate for the riding, in prospect of another federal election.
To this I say that the vote in South Essex was not purchasable; the vote in South Essex is not purchasable; and the vote in South Essex never will be purchasable. And if the vote in South Essex were purchasable I can assure you that it is the huimtole opinion of my constituents, particularly my workers, that I, like poor Burgess, would have lost my deposit. South Essex was not won in a day or a week or a month; it was won by the cooperation of the loyal support of fifty or-14011-81
ganizations. On January 27 I took occasion to write to Dr. Ross as follows:
Dr. C. C. Ross.
Hyde Park, Ontario.
Dear Dr. Ross,
Have you been correctly reported by the press when they say that you say I defeated the Right Hon. George P. Graham by the use of American gold?
Very cordially yours,
Eccles J. Gott, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
To this I received no reply; Dr. Ross did not even extend to me that courtesy. Hence I must describe his chatter as leather-lunged political hypocrisy. Now a Detroit newspaper early in February reported Mr. Charles Tuson, a very prominent, highly respected and prosperous business man of Windsor, as having made the statement that money had been expended to defeat Mr. Graham, and I wrote this gentleman under date February 9 as follows:
Mr. Charles Tuson,
Windsor, Ontario.
My dear Mr. Tuson:
It has been reported to me that you made the statement in public that much money had been expended by the Conservatives in South Essex to defeat the Right Hon. George P. Graham-down Amherst-burg way.
Is this so?
Very cordially yours,
Eccles J. Gott.
In reply I received the following:
I was surprised to receive the above lines, as you know that I took no part in the last federal elections, here or elsewhere, had not the faintest idea what was going on. I do not know of any moneys being spent by either parties or their agents. I did not make the above statements, and am sorry that any reports that in any way might get into print are not true. I did hear that you worked very hard. This is of course to your credit. We all know that elections cost money for legitimate purposes. We spend too much in Essex county in this way.
That is the difference between writing to a man of ability, capacity and sincerity and writing to what I have termed a political hypocrite.
Now I hold in my hand a copy of the famous Australian treaty which has been discussed at considerable length in this House. I do not intend to go into the details of this treaty but I may observe that it was discussed on several platforms in the south riding of Essex, and on one in particular to which I shall refer in a moment. I hold in my hand a list of comparative duties between Australia and Canada, and they seem to me to be absurd in that they are conducive to making our farmers pay the very highest prices for what they buy and accept the very

The Address-Mr. Gott

lowest prices for what they sell. I believe the farmer works longer hours and receives less money for his toil than any other man who labours.
Three weeks prior to the election my worthy opponent asked that there should be no last minute appeals. I am going to submit to the House one such appeal that was issued by him at 6.30 o'clock on the night of October 28, when printing houses in small towns are closed. There is no date to this, but I think hon. members will take my word that it was issued on the 28th.
To Brunner Mond workers:-
Brunner Mond is an alkali concern in the town of Amherstburg, and this appeal was issued particularly to its employees.
The Brunner Mond makes soda ash. Soda ash enters largely into the manufacture of paper. Under the treaty which Mr. Graham and his colleagues concluded with Australia, millions of tons of paper will be sold to Australia, and every ton of that paper sold is just so much work for the Brunner Mond and Amherstburg. Mr. Meighen and his candidates have roundly abused this treaty, while the "outside man," Mr. Graham, has been quietly working for the welfare of his constituency.
Think it over-vote for Graham.
Amherstburg Liberal Association.
Hear about it, Liberty Theatre, Wednesday night.
That was Mr. Graham's last-minute appeal, although three weeks prior he had requested that do such appeal should be made. The people who went to hear the issues discussed at the Liberty Theatre did hear Mr. Graham remark, "We have sacrificed' the farmers and their interests in this country for the paper manufacturers." I issued a circular shortly after in this form:
To Brunner Mond workers, fellow electors.
The Brunner Mond makes soda ash. Soda ash is used in the manufacture of glass. Glass factories have closed under the King government. Glass contains 30 per cent soda ash. The Brunner Mond needs protection. What protection they have was obtained from the Liberal-Conservative party. If they desire more protection they are entitled to it. Tariff on glass is essential. Think it over. Don't be hoodwinked. Vote for Gott-a South Essex man for a South Essex seat.
That was the last that the electors of South Essex heard from Mr. Graham. They heard from me the following day as follows:
Amherstburg, Ontario, October 30, 1925.
My dear friend:
It is difficult to convey in words my heartfelt appreciation of your honest efforts and loyal work that did so much to accomplish our brilliant victory yesterday. You have a great deal to be proud of, for in retiring my opponent from South Essex politics, you decisively and convincingly defeated a man who was considered the most prominent and outstanding figure in the Liberal party in our Dominion.
During my incumbency of the office with which the electors of South Essex have honoured me, I expect to enjoy the same hearty co-operation with you that marked our campaign efforts, and to serve your interests

in parliament as well and faithfully as you have served mine. I hope to meet you often personally during the next four years, and shall do my utmost at all times to work constructively for your welfare and to show myse'.f worthy of the confidence you have placed in me by an active, honest and faithful representation of the electorate.
With a hearty "thank you"
Now, the electors of South Essex have even heard from me since. On December 21, 1925, I addressed them as follows:
My dear Friends:
As member-elect of the House of Commons for the South riding of Essex, I desire to extend to you my sincere Yuletide greetings, and at the same time thank my friends for the fine endeavour made by them on October 29. True, I may not have been your candidate, but I am your member, and only by conciliation with the powers that be and co-operation with the member-elect can we obtain for a progressive constituency the things we are justly entitled to. Hence I ask your co-operation during my incumbency of the office with which the electors of South Essex have honoured me, as I have no grind to make with those who opposed me, and forgive those who adapt themselves to tactics ill-timed and unbecoming Christian intuition.
I have 6.851 supporters whom I desire to thank for their loyal support, and I expect to enjoy the same hearty co-operation from them that marked our campaign efforts, and to serve their interests in parliament as well and faithfully as they served mine in the campaign.
I hope to meet all the electors personally during the next four years, and shall do my utmost at all times to work constructively for their welfare, and to show myself worthy of increased confidence in the future by active, honest and faithful representation of all sections and classes, regardless of colour, creed or political affiliation.
In thanking you for your valuable assistance, and in kindly expression to those who opposed me, as well as to the 4.000 voters who failed to express themselves by ballot, I would call to your attention the fact that when Premier King dissolved parliament he gave as his reason for not being able to properly conduct Canada's business, that in a House of 235 members there were only 117 Liberal members. In appealing for a more definite mandate, he clearly intimated that unless given more Liberal supporters he and his government would retire from office.
The election resulted in the return of 118 Conservatives, 100 Liberals, 23 Progressives, 2 Labour and 1 Independent. Premier King and nine of his cabinet ministers were defeated. Of the 26 Progressive, Independent and Labour candidates elected. 18 of them denounced the record of the King administration and defeated its candidates, and the Conservative party polled over 200,000 more votes than the Liberal party. Yet all this means nothing to Mr. King, who clings to office in defiance of the verdict of the people and in contempt of the popular will. If, as Mr. King himself declared, he could not carry on the business of Canada with 117 supporters and a full cabinet, how can he hope to carry on efficiently with only 100 Liberals and he and half of his cabinet without seats? The good-thinking Liberals have advised Mr. King to admit defeat, while others advised him to hold on at any cost, which brings a spectacle of shameless usurpation of power, a spectacle the like of which has never been witnessed in any other civilized country in the world.
If another election with its enormous expense is forced upon the people of Canada, do not fail to impress upon the people that Mr. King, and he alone,

The Address-Mr. Gott
is responsible. In such event I ask the electors of South Essex to demonstrate their sense of fain play and political honour and decency by registering their emphatic protest against the unconstitutional and high-handed methods employed by Mr. King. By so doing you will at least have done your part in preserving the good name of Canada.
For your convenience and in grateful appreciation of your valued assistance, and in anticipation of the full confidence of all the electors of South Essex, I am appending a statement on the back of this missive of the votes polled in the recent federal election, in the constituency of South Essex.
With a hearty "Thank you" for the fine manner in which I was received throughout the constituency, and with the wish that the Almighty in his wonderful providence may permit-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Mr. GOTT:: Anything of a Christian origin seems to provoke laughter in this House, Mr. Speaker.
-you to enjoy a bountiful Christmas season, with a flow of yuletide blessings, and bring you peace now and forever, is the earnest wish of your representative in my Christmas message of thanks and good cheer, in which I sincerely extend to all a Merry Christinas and a Bright, and Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Mr. Speaker, the Australian treaty, along with many other issues and reasons, was the cause of Mr. Graham's defeat. He did not purpose, not for one moment, that the Civil Service Commission would function to the disadvantage of his political standing in the riding. In giving a few details in connection with only one of several cases in South Essex where he was dictator, I desire to submit <v letter from C. R. McCallum, of Kingsville. Ontario, and some detail regarding his shortlived connection with the customs service in Essex county.
Having been officially appointed by the Civil Service Commission, before he could be sworn in he was relieved of his appointment through the advice and dictation of Mr. Graham. In other cases, and in not simply a few, Mr. Graham's interference with the Civil Service Commission was as brazen as in this case. These I shall not mention other than to say that in them he showed a defiance of any regulations that might govern the Civil Service Commission. Mr. McCallum is a returned man of excellent standing, fine executive capacity, qualified in every way for the position, and slightly indisposed at times due to war service. I was the recipient of a letter from Mr. McCallum, under date of February 5, in which he states:
Re-Kingsville Customs Appointment
This is a rather complicated affair and quite difficult to explain by letter.
I am forwarding herewith two official documents, the result of marks obtained on the examination, also the appointment, both signed by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
14011-81 i
I carried out instructions on appointment, and on presentation of same was informed that my duties would not begin until authorization from Minister of the Department at Ottawa had arrived.
Through some reason, the news of my appointment became known, and our friends here became active, by wire, with the result that although I was appointed on June 30th, headed the examination, served approximately three years in France, was rejected on account of a charge by some political henchmen of this district, but the enclosed letters will explain all I think to your satisfaction.
This appointment did not follow the usual procedure, and instead of going through the commission, came from the department by wire, in due time being passed through the usual channels.
Pressing the commission personally for a reason, also the department through the Windsor G.W.V.A., will enclose herewith the letters which are self-explanatory, the charge against me by the department (manufactured for the instance), and also letters from the C.N. and C.P. Telegraph Companies, whose agent I was here. These letters are from the inspectors who personally checked my office at the time I resigned.
You can easily see what becomes of the charges of the department, against the name of a man who had served his country in the time of need; charges that had not the slightest foundation, nothing more or less than a political dodge from beginning to end.
When we fellows enlisted they did not stop to ask what our politics were.
The defeated representative of South Essex, Mr. Graham, with whom I had several interviews, the first one the day that I had been informed that the appointment was made definitely. Mr. Graham said that the Civil Service Commission was absolutely and entirely supreme. The commission and the department usually met and decided on the appointment, but if the commission made the appointment, recommendations or anything else from the department would take no effect.
I immediately produced the result of my marks, also the .appointment, and said: "In view of the facts already stated by you with these official documents in your hand, how do you account for another mar. receiving the appointment?"
Mr. Graham: "Well, the Customs Department have got busy, Mac."
Mr. McCallum:	"You have just finished telling me
that this could not possibly be done."
Mr. Graham:	"But, of course, you understand this
is not my department?"
Mr. McCallum: "This may not be in your department, but this is your constituency, and are you aware of the fact that there are hundreds of returned soldiers in South Essex?"
Mr. Graham then promised that he would get in touch with the department, and the Civil Service Commission, and see what could be done.
The next interview I had with Mr. Graham was the day that he was endorsed as Liberal candidate in South Essex.
A fateful day:
He admitted before Lafferty, President of the Windsor G.W.\.A., and others, that according to the evidence produced from Lafferty's files, part of which I herewith enclose, there was no doubt I had been done an injustice, and on arriving at Ottawa he would immediately get in touch with the Minister of Customs and see if he could not have my name cleared of these charges. As usual his actions were conspicuous by their absence.
This was a fine endeavour-quite characteristic of him, though-to try to clear a man.
The Address-Mr. Gott

of a charge which was manufactured by his opponents. What manner of man is he who can so gracefully clear a man of charges of which he was innocent when these were only in the preferred class and manufactured for the occasion?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the documents in connection with this case, and they show an absolute disregard of the Civil Service Commission as instituted by my worthy opponent, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, and his former colleagues. I have first the time table calling attention to the examination to qualify for permanent appointment to the position of sub-collector of customs and excise at Kingsville, Ontario:
Time Table
Examination to qualify for permanent appointment to the position of sub-collector of customs and excise, at Kingsville, Ontario.
Date: May 29, 1925.
Subjects	Time
General questions	9.00 a.m.-3 hours
Place of examination:
Enquire	A. W. Massey, Esq., B.A.,
Principal, High School, Kingsville, Ontario.
Civil Service Commission Examination Branch May 22, 1925.
Next I have the instructions issued by the Civil Service Commission, all of which were lived up to. Then I have the result of the examination:
Statement of marks obtained by candidate 137 at an examination held on May 29, 1925, in order to qualify for permanent appointment as sub-collector Department of Customs and Excise, at Kingsville, Ontario.
Now taking the different subjects: on general questions the candidate received 72 marks out a maximum of 100. On education and experience he received 85. In the oral examination he received 88, or a percentage of 80.7. He was pronounced to have passed the examination successfully and to have ranked first.
Under date of June 25 I have his official appointment by order of the Civil Service Commission as received by Mr. McCallum in Kingsville on June 26, which says:
Civil Service Commission of Canada Notification of Report for Duty
Name-Charles R. McCallum.
Address-Kingsville, Ontario.
Department-Customs and Excise.
Branch-Kingsville, Ontario.
Title of position-Sub-collector of Customs and Excise, outport, Kingsville, Ontario.
Duties-As specified in the official definition, and such other related work as may be required.
You have been selected for appointment on probation as shown above, subject to your ability to furnish the commission with satisfactory evidence as

to your citizenship, age, physical condition, character and habits. Report for duty at the time and place indicated below, and present this notice to the officer named. Also please note the extracts from the law quoted before.
Place to report-Amherstburg, Ontario.
Person to whom to report-By letter to the Collector of Customs and Excise.
Date to report-Immediately.
The appointment was closed. A few days later Mr. McCallum learned that another appointment had been made. He went to Amherstburg and presented himself to the Collector of Customs to be sworn in, but that official did not have any authorization from the department to do so, consequently he could not swear him in. A few days later, under date of June 13, Mr. McCallum wired to the Civil Service Commission, and they wrote to him under date July 16, 1925, as follows:
Dear Sir:
In reply to your telegram of the 13th inst. I am instructed to inform you that the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise has notified the commission that your services will not be acceptable to that department, and the commission has therefore made another assignment to the position of sub-collector of Customs and Excise in the person of Mr. Allan Dorland Peareall, who qualified for permanent appointment at the same time as yourself. Mr. Pearsall did not serve overseas during the late war, but you were the only successful candidate who did so. Mr. Pearsall was regularly assigned to this position on the 3rd instant.
Yours truly,
C. H. Bland,
Assistant Secretary.
The Great War Veterans' Association in Windsor pressing the Civil Service Commission for an explanation, the latter communicated with the Customs department, which department, under date of August I, wrote to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission as follows:
I am in receipt of your letters of the 21st and 27th ultimo respecting the appointment of a customs excise examiner at Kingsville, Ontario, and the rejection of Mr. McCallum one of the candidates.
You are advised in reply that it was reported to the department that Mr. McCallum was discharged from the service of the Canadian Pacific Telegraph Company for cause, and the department is therefore not prepared to recommend his appointment to a position in its service.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
R. R. Farrow,
Deputy Minister.
Naturally they had to find some excuse. I may say that the G.W.V.A. of Windsor took the matter up on behalf of Mr. McCallum and have proved -that the charges were baseless and without the slightest foundation. I present a letter from the Canadian National Telegraphs sent to Mr. L. J. Lafferty, Pres-

The Address-Mr. Gott
ident of the Great War Veterans' Association, Windsor, Ontario, under date August 15. 1925:
Dear Sir:	Further to my letter of recent date in
connection with former agent C. R. McCallum.
Kindly be advised that Mr. McCallum was not discharged from the service but resigned of his own free will, not wishing to assume further responsibility as he was not acquainted with the wire work.
Under the circumstances consider he acted very wisely as our system is quite complicated which made him dependent for information from his operator.
Yours truly,
G. R. Kerby, Inspector.
I have a further letter to Mr. McCallum from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under date of London, Ontario, September 2, 1925, as follows
Dear Sir :	With regard to your inquiry I am glad
to confirm the fact that you resigned the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's telegraph agency at Kingsville of your own free will, and with the object of securing a more lucrative position.
Wishing you future success.
P. G. Galbraith, Telegraph Inspector.
Now it is shown definitely, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling of the commission was overridden by Mr. Graham. It is very easy to make up reports about men. If I were guilty of the things that were said about me in the campaign, some	of which have evidently
been carried to Ottawa, I would not be worthy of a seat in this honourable body. McCallum was persecuted for political purposes, and for political purposes only, and I think it is the duty of the Civil Service Commission, and also of the Department of Customs and Excise, if they prize honour and virtue in their operations, to rectify the error so grossly made in the heat of a political contest. I trust the Department of Customs and Excise and the Civil Service Commission will note my remarks and take' immediate steps to correct the error to the committing of which they contributed thereby preventing the proper functioning of their own express regulations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was not elected to parliament on promises. I told the electors of South Essex that if I had to tell one lie, or make one promise, or purchase one vote, I had no desire to sit in the House of Commons. I said that the only promise I could conscientiously make was that if I were elected I would put forth my best endeavours at all times in the interests of my constituents regardless of colour, creed, or political affiliations; for I believe that a person who has one spark of prejudice in his make-up has no right to aspire to the highest honours within
the gift of the people. We have had many promises in our riding from public men in the past. My worthy opponent, Mr. Graham, in the 1921 campaign, promised the onion and early vegetable growers of Leamington and Mersea township protection on their products. Then when a delegation of fanners waited on Mr. Fielding and Mr. Graham at the Prince Edward hotel in Windsor on the 22nd May, Mr. Fielding turned to Mr. Graham and said, "George that is not our policy". I say to this House and I say to the people of this country at large that this is our policy, and when our party comes into power, whenever that may	be,	legislation	will be	enactedwhereby	the	necessary	tariff can	be	implemented, and it will not be necessary for a delegation	to go to see	my leader or	the
representative of their constituency, if I am sitting member.
I have no apologies to make for the defeat of my worthy opponent. I classed him in the campaign, as I do now as the leading man in the ranks of the Liberal party in the whole Dominion of Canada. I think he stood head and shoulders over the Prime Minister,	not	only in	stature	but	in
capacity and ability, a man worthy of any man's steel, a good all round fellow, with sportsman-like qualities. When he was defeated he wanted to retire. Why should he not do so? I have been connected all my life with those lines of sport by means of which we put on the map our county and the town in which I was born and raised and in which I live-Amherstburg, Ontario. In other words, we have known how to be good winners and good losers. We organized and instituted an amateur county league system of baseball and we tried to instil into our boys a realization of the fact that a dishonest victory was less to be prized than an honourable defeat. Had the Right Hon. Mackenzie King been a member of our league he would have had the same teaching and the people from coast to coast in Canada to-day would not be saying that Mackenzie King was not even a good sport.
My worthy opponent possessed sportsmanlike qualities. In addition to that he was straightforward and outspoken, especially when I was not present. He is the possessor of a genial disposition; his character is unsullied; and on the whole he has the qualities which make him a lovable chap-the term I believe which has been applied to him by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Mr. Graham was a part of the sporting fraternity in our county, but he was
The Address-Mr. Gott

in the county so little that he grew away from the people and they grew away from him. If I am any judge, his absence from this House is conspicuous. I had the unique experience of meeting a lady who was a personal friend both of the Minister of Railways and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and she whined because I had defeated Mr. Graham and pined that it was not the Minister of National Defence who had been defeated.
Now I desire to say a word or two about the part of the country I come from, the constituency I have the honour to represent, and the town of my birth. I was born in the town of Amherstburg, Ontario, the oldest town in Canada, how many years ago I shall not say unless requested. Amherstburg is an historic place, being situated eighteen miles south of Detroit, at the foot of the Detroit river where the river enters into lake Erie. It was known over a century ago, in the war of 1812, as Fort Malden, and the block house used by the Canadian soldiers in that war still stands on Bois Blanc island. The very trenches used by the Canadian artillery to repulse the attack of the Americans in that war still hold their grassy mounds at the north end of the town, and in the town there has been preserved on the property now owned by Mr. John Fraser the very stone from which Tecumseh, the great Indian chief, made his last address to his soldiers before he took the Indian trail north of the town on his retreat to Moraviantown, where he was slain. Being historic we still maintain traditions in some sense, for we have to-day a mayor occupying the red chair for the sixteenth year. He is not an old man and may be good for half a century yet, in which event he may occupy that office until the Master calls.
We produce in the town of Amherstburg soda ash; we have the only alkali manufacturing establishment in Canada. We have a 15,000,000 plant which employs 300 men, known as the Brunner Mond Canada, Limited. The employees of this firm are one happy and contented family of devoted wage earners. The plant was constructed during the war and when ready to operate, the government of Sir Robert Borden, with Sir Thomas White as Finance minister, had not placed a tariff on soda ash as promised and 600 men who were then engaged in construction were laid off. Soon a tariff of 124 per cent was placed on soda ash; the men resumed work and that factory has operated from then until now. It is the bulwark of sustenance for scores of homes in the community, and offers the sur-
IMr. Gott.]
rounding farmers a ready market for all produce.
Just recently officials of the Brunner Mond went into eastern Canada to ascertain why certain institutions were not using Brunner Mond products, and the only reason given was that the Michigan Alkali people were underselling our Canadian firm by the smallest kind of margin, due to the fact that the Michigan firm turns out ten tons to every ton manufactured by the Brunner Mond. I am not asking for or suggesting, nor has the Brunner Mond Company done so, a raise in tariff, which would be conducive in my humble opinion to materially increasing their output, giving employment to more men and supplying the Canadian market exclusively with Canadian products, manufactured in Canada, the output of Canadian brain and labour; but what the Brunner Mond Company needs is protection on glass.
The people of Amherstburg are interested in the manufacture of soda ash, which is an indispensable product in the manufacture of glass. Glass contains thirty per cent soda ash. Canadian glass factories are unable to withstand the importation of American glass at a low duty, and are closing, or rather have closed their doors, for the lack of profitable business. Across the river two huge factories employ thousands of men manufacturing glass that is shipped to us for consumption, while our own factories employ but a few men because our government allows the market for its product to be choked by the product of our competitors.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the hon. member think that a 35 per cent duty on glass is not sufficient?


Eccles James Gott: I have noticed a disposition on the part of Jion. members to my left to interfere with younger members who are making their first speeches. The hon. member who spoke before me was not interrupted; I have not yet interrupted a speaker in this House, and if my hon. friend desires an answer to any question I shall be willing tomorrow to sit down with him and go into the question in an intelligent manner.
This was one of the issues-one of the many issues-that was discussed in Amherstburg during the campaign. Mr. Graham carried the town of Amherstibuirg, a small town of less than 3,000 souls, in 1921 by a majority of 325. But after the visit of Mr. Duncan Marshall to Amherstburg the town flopped to the tune of 295 the other way. I do not know whether or no-t the term "flopped" is unparliamentary. Mr. Marshall sought to impress

The Address-Mr. Gott
upon the people that the woollen factories of Canada were working night and day, whereas the official report that had the day before been placed in the hands of residents of the town disclosed the fact that twelve woollen factories had closed their doors in Canada during 1924; that hundreds of men had been thrown out of work due to their failure to operate, and that the twelve failures had resulted in a loss to the operators of $1,463,000, whereas others failed without actually going into liquidation and the woollen business of Canada was not in the healthy state in which Mr. Marshall said it was.
My first remark in connection with the railways of this country is that if any one of the 245 members of this parliament is not vitally interested and concerned in the government-owned system, he is not a loyal Canadian. During the campaign I sent out a circular letter dealing exclusively with railways, asking for an understanding on the question, and to-day I say to the nation at large: Let us understand one another on the railway question. At various times I have criticized the waste, the useless expenditures, the pledging of credit and the promise of railway lines where the traffic would not justify extensions. To-day I am opposed to the building of t'he Hudson Bay railway or any other line while our backs are breaking with a railway debt of $2,056,181,517.70, with the 1925 addition still to be made. It is too late in public life in Canada to place the blame on any party or person. It is not a political question; it is a national problem, the biggest problem facing the Canadian people to-day, and we must grapple with it in a genuine business-like manner or we shall be heading straight towards national disaster. The Conservatives blame the Liberals; the Liberals blame the Conservatives. In one of the thirty-one paragraphs of that circular letter I placed the blame on the shoulders of the Right Hon. George P. Graham, who, when he was Minister of Railways and1 Canals in the Laurier government, overbuilt this country with railways in anticipation of an immediate influx of immigrants swelling our population, so that to-day we have the railways capable of handling the population but unfortunately we have not the population. I hold in my hand the circular letter to which I refer. It comprises thirty-one paragraphs, but I am going to read just this one:
The Hon. George P. Graham is one of those rare optimists that the returning annual deficit cannot for a moment disturb. You will recall, many of you, that he was preaching optimism when the Canadian Northern lines were being built and the Grand Trunk Pacific was under construction. He has that same optimism. He boasted of it and he ridiculed those
business men who counselled caution in those enormous expenditures. The Grand Trunk Pacific, you must recall, was built in part during Mr. Graham's earlier years as Minister of Railways and Canals, under the old Laurier administration. Even in those days Mr. Graham was a successful builder of deficits with the old Intercolonial railroad which ran from Montreal to Halifax. In those days, however, he had not attained the success that he now has achieved as a deficit builder. Three or four million dollars of a deficit per year was his crowning achievement. To-day, he never bats an eyelash with a deficit of $35,000,000 or $40,000,000. And even this amount is modest for there have been expenditures incurred for the Canadian National lines that have not been charged to the railroads, but that are charged to the government as general expenditures.
Still, this deficit builder has been until Saturday hanging on to the reins of office as Minister of Railways after having been swamped in South Essex. The people said: We want no more of your administration; and the voice of our section of the Dominion of Canada spoke very audibly. Four years ago the three seats in this section were held by three cabinet ministers by enormous majorities, namely, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, the Hon. James Murdock and the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy. Since then another seat has been added, and it must be painful- yes, it must even be mournful to the officeholding government, to discern on this side of the House four Conservatives, all with proud majorities. Strange as it may seem, with full faith and confidence they sent an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Scotchman and an Irishman to conduct their business in this parliament. I might add that so far the Irishman has not been out of bounds except on one occasion, and that owing to the fact that he has been seated in this House between two Scotchmen. I took occasion to turn to one of the Scotchmen and I asked him if he knew the difference between a Scotchman and a cocoanut. He advised me that he did not, and I told him that he could get a drink out of a cocoanut. I turned to the Scotchman on my left and I asked him if he knew the difference between a Scotchman and a canoe. He told me that he did not, and I had to tell him that a canoe tipped-sometimes.
A great deal has been said about keeping the railroads out of politics and I believe even this House could agree unanimously on that. There are in my riding five newspapers, three Liberal and two Independent, supposedly and during the campaign they carried advertisements headed: "Keeps the railways out of politics." Naturally I thought some' interested citizen had been prompted by independent motives to take the initiative and to write the article; but when I was speaking to the owner of one of the news-

sor-and this is the only port of entry I use as an illustration because it is a stone's throw from my riding-there were admitted to Canada-and they were not all Canadians-by way of ferry boat 47, by way of trains 26, or a total of 73. When we make the comparison that I am about to place before the House showing the absolute disparity that exists, those who are responsible for the policy that causes it say we are crying blue ruin, that we are calamity howlers, pessimists. I am not a calamity howler, nor am I a pessimist. I am just optimistic enough to think that a roadster can carry six passengers if they are well enough acquainted. Hence when I tell you, Sir, that for the first fifteen days of this year there were regularly admitted at Detroit from the Dominion 1,375 permanent residents-and the American officers think they do well if they get two out of three- the disparity is patent. During the same period we lost at the port of Windsor emigrants over immigrants 1,302 citizens that there are records of, and how many more crossed over never will be known. But those who assert that our boys are returning in large numbers know little, yea, very little of which they speak. It is not a pleasure for me to cite these conditions; it is rather painful. I think they are disgraceful. Let me quote a paragraph from the Border Cities Star of January 2, 1926:
Detroit Is Mecca For Canadians
The exodus of Canadians to the United States continues with the new year, according to a report by H. F. Hawley, United States consul at Windsor. Applications by bona fide Canadian citizens for legal entry into the United States are piling up rapidly, the consul said. That appointments with prospective immigrants have provided for every minute of his staff's time until February 26. The majority of those who propose departure from Canada by way of Windsor desire to settle in Detroit or vicinity, according to the records.
Now, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what this means to Canada, losing the flower of her population? And yet we have a government in power that does not even know this is taking place! As to how many Canadians we will lose for the first quarter of 1928 from the port of Windsor -alone no person can make even a conservative estimate. Those who left during the first fifteen days of January paid $13,750 to get passports, and the head tax aggregated $11,000 or a total expenditure of approximately, $24,750 of good Canadian rn-oney for the mere purpose of our fellow countrymen entering the States to reside there permanently. This is assisting to solve unemployment in Canada! I admit it, Mr. Speaker. It is helping as well our exports. All of these people are heads of

families, and their dependents will follow later. Taking their furniture and so forth, their settlers' effects, and averaging them at $500 each, we are losing in wealth $687,500-a mere trifle. I claim this is the greatest challenge to any government or even a professed government that has ever -been made. I ask what is being done t-o meet it.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Jenkins) recently said:
I have noticed in the speeches that have already been delivered in this debate that not a great deal has been said by hon. members regarding the particular constituencies they represent.
I did not regard his own statements as being very specific with respect to his constituency. I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to represent the most southerly section of Canada. I have the honour too of representing Jack Miner, the leading bird naturalist of the world-also Jack Miner's birds. Jack Miner is a good Christian soul, kind hearted and with a very charitable disposition. Through his sanctuary he protects annually more birds than all the paid officials of all the governments of Canada combined.


Mr. JACOBS:: He believes in protection.


Eccles James Gott: Apparently. After the hon.
member for Queens made that statement I prepared a memorandum of the agricultural situation of my county. Essex county is the southern limit of Canada and together with parts of Lambton and Kent constitutes the northern limit of a prehistoric sea which once covered what is now known as the Mississippi valley, extending northwestward through Indiana and central and northwestern Ohio, and submerging the extremity of southern Ontario known now to Canadians as the "Garden of Canada." All the soils in this extensive region are roughly similar in physical properties. They are all composed of an alluvial deposit, ranging from light sand to heavy clay, but generally of a black silty loamy character and very highly productive. In Essex county there is a wide range of soil. Along the lake Erie shore it is generally of a sharp nature, ranging from sand to gravel. This formation extends northwestward to Ruthven as a narrow gravel ridge to Essex. In Mersea and Gosfield North, the light soil extends in irregular areas northward as far as Albuna and Blytheswood. The soil in this area of south Essex consists generally of yellow sand with only a small percentage of dark coloured sand. From the Canard river to Ojibway, along the Detroit river and extending backward a relatively short distance from the river, there is a very productive black sand area. Similarly in North Essex,

The Address-Mr. Gott
along lake St. Clair and extending from Tecumseh to the Kent boundary, there is a general area of sand deposits, irregular in outline and blending with clay, loam and muck in a confusing manner, which consists mainly of dark sand with yellow sand showing in some restricted areas. This is the one outstanding radish belt of the world, and Petite Cote radishes are known all over the continent of North America.
The remainder of the soil, apart from the marsh land reclaimed and otherwise in the Leamington, Canard and lake St. Clair regions, is mainly of a dark loam nature, blending in but few cases into a hard clay foundation. Thus every constituency in Essex county has one of these three types of soil-sand, clay and muck-and every successful project to increase values and improve conditions will benefit everyone. Because of the level land of Essex county, its southern location and the influence of surrounding bodies of water, a climatic condition, and hence, a range of crops, exists which is unparalleled in any other district in Canada. The presence of good roads, of numerous steam and electric railroads and of large consuming centres within a reasonable carrying distance makes this theoretical crop range a practical business opportunity.
With the single exception of Virginia type tobacco, the dark coloured sands of the county will produce exactly the same crops and as profitably, as the lighter coloured sands. The Virginia tobacco industry will therefore remain centred in the lake Erie sand areas, although to some degree there may be possibilities of some development in the lake St. Clair region, particularly in Tilbury North. Burley tobacco may be grown with excellent success on the black sands, gravels and lighter loams, where these soil formations exist, in every part of the county. All our sand soils, properly drained, can grow early tomatoes ten days earlier than the Niagara district and from two to three weeks earlier than the state of Michigan lying directly opposite. Hence Essex country, has this climatic monopoly which will always remain.
Cabbages, spinach, beets, outdoor lettuce, onions, carrots, early potatoes, sweet potatoes, in fact, all early outdoor vegetable crops, can be grown because of this climatic factor to greatest advantage in Essex county. Orchard and small fruits are not so important as they were. Tobacco and early vegetables have proven more profitable and have been gradually supplanting them. However, the sand and gravel soils in the county are excellently adapted for their production and we still have over 5,000 acres of orchards-apples, peaches,
plums, pears, cherries and apricots-and over
1,000	acres of small fruits. These are distributed throughout the country, but are concentrated mostly in the riding that I have the honour to represent, the most southerly section of our great Dominion, the progressive constituency of Essex South.
Much of the lighter soils in South Essex are already being intensively farmed, particularly adjacent to Leamington, Kingsville and Harrow. Virginia type tobacco and early tomatoes are the chief crops at present, but smaller areas of all early vegetables are produced. In West Essex, the most intensive cultivation anywhere in the county takes place, bordering the river from the Canard to La Salle. Several crops a year are taken from the soil. Both early and late vegetables are grown, and radishes are shipped in carload lots to the consuming centres. In North Essex very little of the sand land has been used for specialized production of high-producing, profitable vegetable crops for human consumption. No tobacco at all is being grown. All signs point to a development reasonably rapid in this district.
Despite the intensive development of land of this type, there is in Essex county a great deal of land adapted to these highly specialized crops not at present being put to so profitable a use. This is due partly to the fact that the occupiers of the land in certain localities have not developed this type of farming, and it is partly due to the fact that the very high American tariff tends to shut out these commodities from Detroit, the greatest natural market, while a low Canadian tariff on American produce invites unfair competition of southern grown products in our Canadian markets, and this fine industry is blighted materially by unfair and unreasonable competition from American producers. The very existence of the farmers of my constituency depends on a protective policy placing them on a basis of equality.
The organization of the unspecialized districts, to the end that they become specialized producing centres of the most profitable crops for which they are naturally adapted, is quite clearly called for, but in order to provide a continually expanding and profitable market, it is just as clear that tariff revisions must be made concurrently with, if not before, this development. Such a programme would greatly increase production, revenue and land values, and would permit of smaller farms and more inhabitants, thus reducing individual taxation and increasing business generally in all our county urban centres. It would also provide splendid business opportunities for those who held the at present cheap undevel-
The Address-Mr. Gott

oped land. The winter vegetable industry is entirely a matter of greenhouse production, but is carried on in practically every case in the sand and gravel areas already described. It is concentrated in the Leamington area and extends along the lake Erie front through Kingsville to Harrow. It has been established on a much smaller scale both in the La Salle and the Belle river districts. No section of Canada offers such natural advantages for this industry, and no district in Canada has so developed it on an extensive scale. Our mild and open winters, relatively short period of cold weather, and our ratio of sunshine, are unequalled. Already there are over 300.000 square feet of glass in Essex county, employing some 400 workers, and with a total capitalization of over $300,000. The chief crops grown are tomatoes, both for the Christmas and the Easter markets, cucumbers, lettuce, radishes, and flowers, both cut and potted. This business is decidedly one for the specialist, and in any ease should develop slowly enough to ensure stability. But the greatest hindrance to progress is the tariff situation, as referred to in connection with early summer vegetable crops. As the greenhouses must be heated with coal, upon which a tariff is paid, and as greenhouse operation is too expensive at best to compete against southern crops grown outside and by cheap negro and Mexican labour, the situation in regard to tariff regulations is more unfortunate than in the ease of early crops; and in both cases, the benefits arising from the importation of American produce are shared neither by the Southern grower nor by the Canadian consumer, but are secured by brokers, jobbers and distributors, many of them foreigners, while the situation at the same time, constitutes the great disability of the Canadian growers of these crops.
The principal crop now being grown on reclaimed marsh lands is late onions, both in the Leamington and Tilbury North districts. This crop also suffers seriously because of the tariff discrimination. Celery, which might be grown to perfection on this soil, is grown hardly at all, largely because of celery importations from Michigan. While there is an embargo on Ontario celery, together with cut flowers and several vegetables, entering United States ports because of the European corn borer, there is no such embargo on American celery entering Canada, despite the fact that ten American states, including Michigan, were excluded from showing corn at the Chicago International Grain and Hay Show in December, 1925, because of their infestation by the European com borer, exactly as was Ontario. Late potatoes have not been grown largely on our marsh land, but could be produced very 
profitably if the American tariff had not been made prohibitory for this crop. The eventual development of these crops, together with the reclamation of thousands of acres still lying waste, depends to a considerable extent upon tariff readjustment. The application of laboursaving machinery and the establishment of suitable storage facilities are also important practical factors affecting the matter.
Loam and clay soils constitute at least three-quarters of the soils of the county, and consequently represent rather more than 300,009 acres. The county has the same climatic, geographic and topographic advantages over the remainder of Ontario that it has in the matter of sand and gravel soils. All cereal and grass crops that can be grown anywhere else in the temperate zone, such as wheat, oats, barley, alfalfa, and all the clovers, are produced very successfully. In addition, four great kinds of cash crops are produced which make Essex county distinct from the rest of the province, with the exception of Kent.
Corn has been the chief cereal crop, some
100.000	acres having been normally produced both for feed and as a cash crop. This crop has been recognized as the most valuable cereal produced in America. The yield per acre of concentrated feed is roughly about one ton more than in the case of any other cereal, while a secondary fodder crop is secured almost equal in feeding value to the corn grain yield. As a result, corn land is the highest in price, of any cereal producing land. The Mississippi valley is the great area of corn production, in the United States because of its water-land soil and its peculiar climate, and Essex County and four townships of Kent County constitute the only portion of the great North American corn belt located in Canada. The whole basis of agriculture, both as to field crop husbandry and animal husbandry in this vast area, has rested on the corn crop, and in consequence the whole scheme of farming is very different in many particulars from that developed in other crop regions.
Tobacco has been the second most important field crop of Essex County and is rapidly becoming of first importance. There are three types of tobacco-not varieties, for several varieties are included in each general type-which can be grown in Essex to perfection. Since each one thrives best on a different type of soil, tobacco can, therefore, be grown successfully on every kind of Essex soil with the single exception of our relatively small acreages of marsh and hard white clay. Even by soil treatment, the marsh land might produce a fair quality of tobacco. Hen^e our production of this highly valuable crop de-

The Address-Mr. Gott
pends on our markets and the skill of our growers, and not on soil limitations. Virginia type tobacco must above all, be of high quality. The proper colour and character of leaf can be secured only on a sand light both in color and in physical properties. Only in South Essex, and perhaps on a small scale in North Essex, can this crop be grown. While there is a good deal of undeveloped Virginia leaf land in South Essex, there is much land too heavy in character upon which this type is now being grown. Thus our total county production will not probably greatly increase, because as new land is developed, some of the heavier soils will be discarded for the production of this type. Burley type tobacco gives the best ratio of quality to quantity on heavy lands, gravel, black sands and very light loams. Much of it is also grown on soils too heavy to yield the best results. If the present acreage were distributed throughout South, North and West Essex on the soils most adapted to it, better results would be *obtained. Dark, or Green river type tobacco gives the best results on loam soils, ideal corn land being also ideal dark tobacco land. Hence, it can be grown with splendid success in all parts of the county.
Practically all the Virginia and Burley types are consumed by the Canadian markets. We produce in Ontario about all the Burley required, but not nearly enough Virginia, particularly of the higher grades. There is a tremendous market in Britain for the Virginia type, and a relatively small one for Burley. Our total production of Virginia type probably cannot be greatly increased in Essex, although by soil changes, the quantity of high grade tobacco can be greatly increased. Elgin and Norfolk can produce this type on their light sands, however, sufficient to .meet eventual market demands. Burley can be increased largely, both as to quantity and quality, in Essex and Kent, and perhaps in Lambton, as fast as an export market is developed. The British preferential tariff is at present causing this development.
The dark type tobaoco is in a class by itself. Three years ago, none of this was grown, while in 1924 over 3,000,000 pounds were produced. This type is produced entirely for the British market, the development of which was caused by the British preferential tariff, and this year was the most in demand of any type in the county. The British market absorbs 40,000,000 pounds annually. As it can be grown in all parts of the county on good corn land, it offers the greatest chance of development of all types. The great advantages in producing tobacco in Essex
county are our superior soil and climate for this crop, the fact that both home and foreign markets are already established, and the fact that the industry is already concentrated in this county. The chief disabilities are two. The first one is practical, and involves the great skill and considerable investment required to make a start in growing tobacco. The second one is again a matter of tariff discrimination. The American tariff is so high as to absolutely bar our tobacco from the States. Canada has no tariff on American tobacco, but the excise is 60 cents a pound on American tobaccos, whereas it is 20 cents on Canadian, thus in effect giving a 40 cent tariff on the American product. This is of course ridiculous, compared to the American schedule. Moreover, it is impossible to discover just what we do import from the United States. There are some varieties which must be imported, because we cannot grow them, and a low tariff on these kinds is perhaps justifiable. But with proper encouragement we can grow all the Burley and Virginia leaf in Ontario and all the cigar tobaccos in Quebec that our home markets can absorb. And we must take adequate precautions that no dark type or other kinds are shipped in from the States to be reshipped to Europe, thus weakening our growers' export market.
Hence, the total quantity of tobacco imported into Canada is really of less importance than the kind imported. But our Customs department has never tabulated varieties. To-day, no one knows or can find out, except the inspectors involved, what kinds of tobacco or in what quantities Canada imports. Not even the Federal Tobacco division has been able to get this information. It is absolutely essential that the Customs department be instructed to do this. The only way to prevent abuse is to have a direct tariff on tobacco graded according to whether we grow that kind of tobacco, to be paid when the imports are cleared. And there must also be compiled with this an analysis of our imports. The schedule of tariffs must depend to quite an extent upon such an analysis.
The third class of important cash crops grown in this county is canning crops. They are grown largely on typical loam corn land. Essex county is, perhaps, superior to any part of Ontario in producing tomatoes. The Dominion Canners have six factories canning this crop alone. The Heinz and Clark people each have their Canadian branches in Essex county. The Quality Oanners have four factories in Essex. In addition, tomatoes, sweet corn, peas, pumpkins, string beans, cauliflowers and some minor crops are canned. There are
The Address-Mr. Gott

at least 5,000 acres of canning crops in this county. Some of these products are exported but the bulk are used in the home trade. This industry is profitable for the farmer- more so than corn growing-and it is established in each of the three Essex constituencies. Discriminatory freight rates are the chief obstacles at present to a very great development of this industry. This whole matter is now being dealt with by the Board of Railway Commissioners.
I wish to deal now with the development of animal husbandry. The most important department of animal husbandry in Essex has been the production of hogs. This is true of all corn belts and hog feeding in Essex was directly connected with corn growing. The feeding of beef animals was an important secondary interest. Hog feeding is now likely to decline, while beef feeding has been steadily declining since 1920. Dairy farming has made a steady advance during the last few years. Skilful dairy farming is not so dependent upon the corn crop, is economically more advantageous than any other kind of live stock farming on high priced land, and will probably increase as the other branches of live stock husbandry wane. Poultry raising has especial advantages in Essex county and is steadily advancing in importance.
No county in Ontario has made more rapid development than Essex, thus proving that these natural advantages are being practically developed, as the following figures will show:
Relative Standing in Ontario re other
Essex county	counties
Acres of assessed land	 419,271, rank 28th
Per cent land cleared	 88.39. rank 3rd
Assessed total value of land.. .. $38,934,857, rank 3rd Assessed value of bare land per acre	 92.86, rank 1st
Now, Mr. Speaker, under date of February 15, 1926, I received a letter from Granby, Quebec which reads:
Mr. E. J. Gott,
Room 581, House of Parliament.
Dear Sir,-The delegation of cigar manufacturers who waited upon Messrs Robb and Boivin, February 3, 1926, asked for the following changes.
	Present rates	Proposed rates
Raw Leaf unstemmed ..	40c. per lb.	30c. per lb.Raw Leaf stemmed ..	60c. per lb.	45c. per lb.Cigars under $40 per M.	$ 3 50	$ 1 75Cigars under $110 per M.	6 00	3 00Cigars under $150 per M.	10 00	6 00Cigars under $200 per M.	13 00	10 00Cigars over $200 .. ..	16 00	12 00Surcharges on packages	less than 10	1 00	Nil.
Their pretensions are that this will reduce the cost of the cigars to the retailer, will improve the quality to the consumer, thus induce greater consumption, consequently more revenue. Back of all this means a 
greater importation of foreign leaf. In my opinion it would be more to their credit if they devoted their talents to the improvement of the native leaf. My proposition is that the customs duty on foreign leaf be raised to 50 cents for unstemmed and 70 cents for stemmed.
That the excise duty on all cigars be $1 flat, no surtax.
That the excise on manufactured tobaccos be reduced to 10 cents now 20 cents.
That an excise duty of 10 cents be imposed on all domestic leaf consumed in a raw state, or, the duty be at least equal to the excise duty on manufactured, because leaf now consumed in a raw state brings no bread to labor or revenue to the government.
That domestic leaf be admitted free into all licensed factories. For twenty years I have been working for Canadian tobaccos. I was the only individual in the British Empire who exhibited at Wembley native tobaccos and cigars made therefrom, all other exhibits being by governments. I have predicted, that within ten years Canada will be exporting fifty million pounds, to the United Kingdom, because of the increased preference. To attain this we must produce more Flue cured in Elgin, Norfolk, Essex and Kent Counties, where the soil is right- and the climate and season propitious.
We must hurry the coming five years. I am sending similar letters to M.P.s for Norfolk. Kent, Prince Edward. Northumberland, Wellington, North and South and Mr. G. Stirling of Okanagan, urging upon all of them to study this matter in the interests of their constituents and of Canada.
Please get them together and talk it over.
Yours truly,
J. Bruce Payne.
Under date of February 17, I wrote Mr. Payne as follows:
Ottawa, February 17, 1926.
Mr. J. Bruce Bayne,
Cigar Manufacturer,
Granby, Quebec.
Dear Sir :
I have your favour of 15th instant re delegation of cigar manufacturers who waited upon the Honourable Messrs. Robb and Boivin on February 3, asking for change in tariff on cigars and raw leaf, stemmed and unstemmed tobacco.
The position you have outlined to me contains views far from those held by myself personally and assuredly by my constituents.
Coming as I do from the leading tobacco producing constituency in Canada it is only natural to expect that I desire all possible encouragement for the industry.
We are endeavouring at the present time to encourage the growth of different grades of tobacco in Canada, the kind which these people in my estimation require most.
If the duties or excise is cut it will be in contravention to the desires and interests of my constituents in whose behalf I propose a change in tariff and excise on all grades.
I am grateful to you for your letter and in return solicit your determination and co-operation in the interests of the tobacco growers of the Dominion of Canada.
Yours very truly.
The tobacco situation directly affects a larger number of people than the vegetable business and is bound to grow increasingly important. There are two distinct phases of

Chicago Drainage Canal
the industry in a business sense, one, the domestic market, and two, the export market. For the domestic market, there are two types grown, principally the Burley type and the Virginia type. Canada now produces just about enough Burley for domestic purposes, but not nearly enough Virginia for domestic purposes. For the export market some Burley is required, much fine Virginia and some 40,000,000 pounds annually of the Green river black type.
Due to the increased British preference, Canadian tobacco or tobacco shipped from Canada as Canadian tobacco has a great advantage over American tobacco. By an adequate system of tariffs, Canada can supply all her tobacco for the domestic trade except a few grades, and can become a successful rival of the United States for the British export trade. But Canada is seriously handicapped because of a tariff not properly balanced with that of the United States. In the first place, the American tariff on stripped and stemmed leaf-the commercial grade-is $2.75 per pound, while the Canadian tariff on a similar grade is 60 cents per pound. To make matters worse, Canadian manufacturers can import this tobacco into their warehouses in bond without paying any duty at all until it is manufactured. Moreover, it can apparently lie in this warehouse as unmanufactured tobacco for a long time. In this way it is possible for Canadian manufacturers to lay in a stock of similar grades of American tobacco, which because of the British preference should be cheaper in the field than Canadian tobacco, and hold it as a club to depress the prices of the Canadian product both for the home and the foreign trade. In this way the great advantage of the British preference can be annulled so far as the grower is concerned, and in fact has been so annulled, as the growers' price has not shown the increase justified by the preferential tariff. And this is in face of the fact that already two companies which formerly operated in Kentucky have removed their buying activities from that state to the county of Essex. In short, the only way for the grower to reap the full benefit of the British preference is to have all tobacco imported from the United States subject to a tariff equal to that of the United States.
It is absolutely essential at the present time that every possible encouragement be given the Essex county growers. It is apparent that in order to control the European com borer, crop substitutes for some 60,000 acres of high-priced land hitherto devoted
to the production of corn, must be found. Unless these substitutes are as profitable as corn, farm revenues will be lowered and a very serious depreciation of land values will occur. Vegetables and tobacco are two of the most profitable and logical substitutes affected. The matter, therefore, is one of vital interest; it is, in fact, the most vital question facing agriculture in Essex to-day. Thus Essex county, while relatively a small county and coming but twenty-eighth in point of assessed acres of land, is first in value of land per acre, third in assessed value of total acreage, third in percentage of land cleared, ninth in value of both buildings and implements, fourteenth in value of live stock, and fifth in total assessed values of these various items. Essex county has another wonderful asset in density of population. There are nearly seven thousand occupiers of land and Essex is one of the few counties in which the agricultural population has increased in the last decennial period. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Has my hon. friend any
further extended remarks to make? I will not object to his moving the adjournment of the debate if he so wishes.


Eccles James Gott: Does the hon. member desire that I proceed?


Ernest Lapointe: Not if he has further extended remarks to make.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT- WEDNESDAY SITTING

Ernest Lapointe: If the House agrees unanimously, I beg to move:
That when this House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, February 24, 1926