1926-02-12

REPORT TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925.-Hon. Mr. Stewart (West Edmonton).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to a telegram which I received late last evening, the contents of which I communicated this morning to the minister. The telegram is from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and reads as follows:
I have wired Chief Electoral Officer to-day as follows: As official agent for D. L. Burgess, M.C., in this Prince Albert by-election I make protest on the manner in which this election is being conducted. The men nominated on February first were together with their additions as shown on their respective nomination papers, William Lyon Mackenzie King, P.C., and David Luther Burgess, M.C., of MacDowell, Saskatchewan. The proclamation show's as follows: David Luther Burgess of MacDowell, Saskatchewan. The M.C. is missing. The other candidate is shown as follows: Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King of Ottawa, Prime Minister of Canada. The ballot deprives Burgess of M.C. addition and Saskatchewan, while the name Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King is shown on ballot as on proclamation. Note removal of P.C. as addition

Prince Albert By-election
changed to prefix Right Hon., and the name William Lyon contracted to W.L. These changes from the nomination papers as on the day nominated have been persisted in in spite of the warning given by myself to the returning officer. The ballots have been very loosely handled in the printing office and were readily accessible to the public who might enter that office 3t any time. In the interests of the proper administration of this election and of British fair play I would ask that you take steps, Sir, for a check-up, not alone on the ballot situation but for the safeguard of the electorate and the candidates in this contest. If necessary to lay charge based upon information I have given you, advise me section and procedure.
T. D. Agnew,
Official agent for D. L. Burgess, M.C.
The provisions of the Elections Act, Sir, and of the instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer are very clear upon this point. Paragraph 43 of the instructions read, in part, as follows:
Finally the printing of the ballots should be put in hand not later than the afternoon of nomination day. The names of the candidates will be arranged alphabetically according to the initial letter of their surnames, unless they otherwise specially agree before three o'clock on nomination day, and the names, addresses and occupations will appear on the ballots in exactly the same form as on the nomination papers.
Those are merely the instructions of the Chief Electoral Officer. But section 50 of the Dominion Elections Act is equally specific:
The ballots of each voter shall be a printed paper, in this act called a ballot paper, on which the names of the candidates, alphabetically arranged in the order of their surnames, shall be printed exactly-
The word "exactly" appears in the statute.
-as they are set out in the nomination papers.
It is clear from the telegram that I have read-which was sent to the Chief Electoral Officer-and from the instructions that there has been a departure from the provisions of the statute, knowingly and wilfully made by the returning officer, whose attention was directed to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to the
question. I will move the adjournment of this House, if that is what is wanted1. Mr. Speaker, no matter can be more vital to the dignity and welfare of this House than that the ballot papers should not be manipulated. There should be no possibility of ballots falling into unauthorized hands through loose methods of printing being followed. That i3 a trifling, commonplace observation to make.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to confine himself to the question,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: lam.


Hewitt Bostock: -because before the orders of the day are called no speeches are allowed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mir. PARENT:: When is the question coming?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. gentleman ask a question? He will get an answer if he does.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Mr. Speaker, I imust say first that my learned and hon. friend kindly communicated to me a copy of this telegram that has been sent by the agent of one of the candidates at the present 'by-election in the county of Prince Albert. Let me say at once that under the law the elections are not carried on by the government or under the government. They are carried on under an officer of this parliament called the Chief Electoral Officer, who is appointed by this parliament, is responsible to this parliament, and reports only to' you, Mr. Speaker, and not to any member of the government. I have no doubt that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is looking after all that is necessary for the proper carrying on of the election in Prince Albert.
If my hon. friend desires to learn what the Chief Electoral Officer has done or the answer he has made to this telegram, there is a section of the electoral law which gives my hon. friend or myself or anybody else the right to go and inspect all the returns, communications and correspondence, to-dlay, to-
Unemployment Relief

morrow or at any other time. Moreover, as the Chief Electoral Officer is reporting to you, Mr. Speaker, I might suggest just in order that it may not be necessarj' for myself or mv hon. friend to go and inspect these documents, that you, immediately ask the Chief Electoral Officer to report to you and send you a copy of all that he has done in this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: If it be the pleasure of the House, I shall communicate immediately to the Chief Electoral1 Officer the remarks made bjr the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and await, not his pleasure, but his answer.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Miay I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in that connection that you direct his special attention to the evidently loose manner in which the ballots are being printed, which seems to me to be more prolific of possible danger later than any other feature of the message.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to direct the attention of the government to a matter of urgent public importance, as set out in a resolution passed by the city council of the city of Winnipeg reading as follows:
Whereas it has been necessary for the city of Winnipeg to assist a large number of its residents, destitute due to unemployment during the last three winters, and to give similar relief during the present winter, in which action it has been and is being assisted by the government of the province of Manitoba;
And whereas such destitute persons have found themselves in this condition due to unemployment through national problems beyond power of local control or correction, some of which causes are summarized as follows :
1.	Winnipeg, due to its geographical situation, is the focal point to which the unemployed of western Canada are attracted.
2.	Coming to Wmn'peg of ex-service men who have been settled on farms by the Soldiers' Settlement Board which they have found necessary to abandon.
3.	Persons settling in Winnipeg who w'ere brought to Canada through the activities of the federal, government for agricultural purposes, but who proved unfit for farm life.
4.	Ex-service men, engaged in farming before the war, who became so unsettled by army life that they did not return to agricultural pursuits after demobilization ;
For the foregoing and other reasons these persons should be considered as "Dominion citizens at large" and the re-establishing of them should be considered as a federal problem and the cost of their maintenance a federal government charge.

And whereas conventions have been held at Ottawa in 1922 and again in 1924, at the invitation of the federal government, which conventions unanimously adopted resolutions agreeing that unemployment relief expenditure should be met in part by the federal government;
Be it therefore resolved:
That the city council of the city of Winnipeg, hereby requests the federal government to assist the city of Winnipeg in dealing with unemployment relief during the present winter by agreeing to bear a percentage of the cost, and further to appoint a federal government representative or, representatives to review the expenditure incurred by the city of Winnipeg during the three winters just passed, with a view to arriving, on an equitable basis, at the amount of the expenditures the federal government will reimburse the city for.
And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the federal government, members of parliament for the city of Winnipeg, the leader of the opposition of the House of Commons, and the leader of the Pro-giessive party of the House of Commons, respectfully urging compliance with this request.
And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba.


Ernest Lapointe: A copy of this resolution has been
sent to the government, and I received it this morning. The matter will engage the attention of the government and probably it will be necessary to communicate with the legislature of Manitoba; but whatever decision is reached will be communicated to the House.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN WALKERVILLE-ENSENADA WHISKY SHIPMENT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: In the early part of the session of
1924, on May 5 of that year, I put a question on the order paper, which was passed as an order for a return, requesting the correspondence and other documents relating to a shipment of whiskey from Walkerville, Ontario, to a man named Watson, Ensenada, Mexico. I asked for those papers and also for the reasons for the cancellation of the bond. I would now ask the government whether they think any more time is necessary in order to prepare this return, and if it is possible for me to get it this year.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the rules correctly, orders for return are carried over from session to session during the life of the same parliament, and an order for a return, if it is not laid on the table of the House in one session, should be laid on the table during the next session. This is a new parliament, and therefore since I entered the Department of Customs I have not looked up the orders for returns that were passed by the House and were not brought down; but as this matter has been particularly

Cayuga Indians
brought to my attention by my hon. friend I shall see that the papers are secured. If he will place a notice of motion upon the order paper, I think I can assure him now that the papers will be ready for production and ibe laid on the table of the House the moment the order is reached.



ADJOURNMENT-SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: In the absence of the hon. member for Yancouver South (Mr. Ladner), I desire to renew the inquiry he made on the 1st day of February, and to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) replied. He asked the government as to its intention regarding the suspension of salaries of the members of the staff of the House during the recess which has now been decided upon, and the reply was made at that time that the Internal Economy Commission of the House had the matter in hand. They have now had a. good many days to consider the matter, and I would like to know whether or not a decision has been reached.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to see that my hon.
friend the chief whip of the opposition (Mr. Boys) is willing to accede to the wish of the House and see to it that there is a recess. In reply to his question, this matter has been considered by the Internal Economy Commission, and I understand that they have reached the decision that the same conditions and terms shall apply as in former adjournments of the House, that is, that those who do not work will receive half pay.


Hewitt Bostock: As chairman of the Internal Economy Commission I may be allowed to supplement what has already been said:	If there should be a recess a certain
number of the employees will remain for the convenience of members who may be staying in the city. As to the remainder, the larger number, we decided to follow the precedent set in 1917 and to cut their salaries in two.


Arthur Meighen: Could the government,
in that connection, have an estimate made and advise us, say by the first of the week, what the saving would be per week by the cutting in two of the salaries of the balance of the officers of the House?


Ernest Lapointe: We will ask the commission to do that.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the minister representing the Department of Railways and Canals. I have a communication to the effect that the Dominion government are bringing in 150,000 cedar ties from the state of Minnesota for use on the Hudson Bay railway. I wish to inquire whether that is correct?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it is
correct because I do not believe the work has yet started on the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. HANSON:: Prince Albert election.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: May I ask
the government a question in regard to the following:	On February 10, a deputation
representing Canada, and other parties, made a protest to the President at Washington against the diversion of water from the Great Lakes. Was this government represented on that deputation, and if so by whom?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: No, the government was not
represented on that deputation. I understand the deputation went from the convention of the Great Lakes shippers and bodies representative of the shipping interests, not of government interests.



CAYUGA INDIANS-UNITED STATES AWARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: May I give a reply to the
question asked by the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) with reference to the claim of the Cayuga Indians?
The claim before the British and American arbitration tribunal on behalf of the Cayuga Indians resident in Canada was for arrears of annuity under treaties made with the state of New York in 1795. The full text of the award with reasons for judgment has not been received, but the decision was in favour of the [DOT] Indians, and they were awarded $100,000 representing "just share in payments of annuity from eighteen hundred and forty-nine" and "capital sum which at five per cent interest would yield half of amount of annuity for future." As the total annuity was $2,300, half the amount of the annuity is $1,150, which will require a capitalization of $23,000.



The Address-Mr. Black (Halifax)
The award pertains solely to the Cayuga nation in Canada, and is not divisible with the Six Nations Indians as a whole or with any American Cayugas. The case has been conducted by the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs, and therefore the government has all along considered the interests of the Cayuga Indians and will continue to do so.


Mr. SENN:: Is it the intention of the department to assume control of the funds?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Speaker, the members at this end of the chamber cannot hear the questions or the replies.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland (South Oxford).
Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: 
Mr. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: In reference to the last few words of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Black, Halifax), I saw the article in question, the writer of which I know to be a gentleman who is seen around these corridors by the name of Bishop, and the subject of that article is merely propaganda. We came here at a good deal of inconvenience at this time of year, many members on this side of the House as well as others opposite, prepared to do business. We are here now ready to proceed with the business of the country and there need be no delay whatever. The cost of staying here will not be one cent more than the cost of going on holiday. What is the government going to do about it? Members of the government want a holiday to enable them to repair their bridges and their fences. Well, their business is to repair those bridges and1 those fences right here; let them hold
their by-elections in the ordinary course just as any other government would do. This government came here prepared ostensibly to function and it received the votes of members on the strength of its profession to be a government, and now we find that it is not. It is no government at all, for admittedly it cannot carry on. The government cannot function and hon. gentlemen opposite know it. Never will it function, so why do hon. gentlemen not get out? I see my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) opposite. Oh! if only I could command the language which he used a few years ago; I think this government would run out of the door.


Mr. CAHILL:: The other one did.


James Dew Chaplin: This one has
not its running shoes with it, but it will have them before long. And it will not run; it will be pushed out.
I intended, Mr. Speaker to offer a few observations on the speech of the Mim=cer of Finance (Mr. Robb) but I regret that he is not in his place. Probably before I get through he will be here. The minister in his address gave us an interesting account of the negotiations that led up to the Australian treaty, but he left out a few things, and I propose, for the benefit of some of the new members of this House, to fill up the vacancies, the voids and the spaces. I would point out, what has already been called attention to, the fact that the treaty with Australia was arrived at in the fall of the year and it reached the Australian parliament during that fall. Naturally therefore the members of this House expected that when parliament met we should have the treaty presented to us. Indeed, we frequently and repeatedly asked for the treaty but never got it. In October we saw certain telegrams and 4 p.m. cablegrams coming through to the New York papers giving a description of the treaty and some inkling as to what it involved. This government, I must say, did vouchsafe to give some information to us in a journal published by the authority of the Department of Trade and Commerce. What was that information which we received on the 6th day of October, 1924? All that was presented to this House and to the people of Canada at that time was one side of the treaty, showing just exactly what Australia was conceding to Canada; but there rvas not one solitary word as to what Canada was giving to Australia. I must qualify that statement; there was one word: they did tell us that we were giving the Australians free raisins. The government
950	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
did not omit to give that particular piece of information, but there was not a single word in this intimation, published on October 6, 1924, by the Department of Trade and Commerce as to what concessions generally Canada was making. We had to learn what the other side of the treaty was from New York papers, so that we never knew until we came to this House the inside of that arrangement.
The truth of the matter is that when the minister went to Australia there was agreed upon a treaty which was not the same arrangement that had been submitted to this House. They made there a treaty which was based upon the proposition that we [DOT] in Canada intended to raise the general rate on all agricultural items which had been contemplated originally in the treaty. But when the gentlemen wrho had the treaty in hand came to this House and presented the document to their own followers and their allies, that part of the treaty was rejected. It was not supported, and I tell my hon. friends to the left now that if their ranks are decimated, if their appearance at the present time is diminutive as compared with what it was a year ago, that action of theirs in respect of that treaty is responsible for their present reduced position. And what is more, that very same treaty will cause decimation in the ranks of members on the other side of the House. The treaty will never stand so far :as Canada is concerned, for it will beat any government that attempts to put it into effect. I think I hear' some minister opposite asking, "Would you abrogate the treaty? What would you do with it?" Well, I would not abrogate it at all, but I would go back and re-make it upon precisely the same principles as we advocated from this side of the House and which the minister practically agreed to. I say that anyone who supports that treaty and continues to support it is bound to meet with the disapproval of the people of this country; it cannot be otherwise.
In regard to this treaty I ba/ve always admitted frankly and freely that there were some parts of the arrangements which I considered satisfactory; there is no doubt whatever about that. But I did not expect that the government, in order to make some business for a few manufacturers in Canada, would think for a moment of disrupting the whole fabric of oiur dairy industry. And not only the dairy industry, but the fruit and other industries in Canada are affected as well. While I am on this phase of the treaty I want to show to the House a sample of the cynicism of some members of the government and of some of their campaign supporters in this

. matter. I have in my hand here a Liberal handbook; there is no mistaking its source, for a picture of the Right Hon. Mlackenzie King appears on its cover. Let me read in respect of the Australian treaty just a sentence from this handbook which bears the date September, 1925. Under the heading "dairy fanning" there appears the following:
The Canadian dairy farmer is told that he needs a higher tariff to keep out Australian butter. No ill effects as yet Ibave flowed from the Australian treaty.
Who wrote that, I should like to know? No ill effects from the Australian treaty! And that book was written in September whereas the treaty never came into effect until October 1. If ever there was a ranker piece of cynicism and .hypocrisy put over on the people of any country it would be interesting to know about it. I am sure that this example cannot be beaten, and if you cannot beat it I should like you to match it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I intend to spend a few minutes! discussing a speech made in this House a few days ago by the Minister of Finance. I am glad, indeed that he is now in his seat. At page 822 of Hansard I notice these words:
Mr. Kobb:	He has consistently oppcsed all treaties
*tha-t this government has brought before parliament, notwithstanding the fact that most of the treaties we have brought in have given greater preference to the dairying industry and the agricultural industry than they have to any of the other industries of Canada.
He was looking at my leader (Mr. Meighen) when he thus expressed himself. Let us examine his statement. As far as I know the only treaties that the right hon. leader of the opposition, and his followers have opposed are the French and Australian treaties. We opposed the French treaty on a certain principle. When the Netherlands treaty andl the Belgian treaty were brought down we said: Well, we might as well give those people the same advantages as we have given France; we cannot be in any worse position. Belgium is even a better customer of ours than France; so are the Netherlands. If we give something to France, we should give it also to those other countries. Consequently we did not oppose those treaties.
In reference to the minister's claim as to these treaties having been in the interests! of agriculture, let me briefly show what has happened in the case of the French treaty, for instance. The other day the Minister of Finance told us that during the last fiscal year we had 'shipped over 750,OOp pounds of butter to Belgium, and that that was a considerable increase over our 'butter exports to that country for the previous fiscal year. That is true, and I am glad to know it. But what

The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
has the minister to say about the eight months of the present fiscal year? Has he examined the returns? He has gone back to a year ago; let us bring him up to date. Here is his own book, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, under the authority of the Hon. James A. Robb, Acting Mlinister-acting for a gentleman who cannot be here, another of the defeated ministers! During the eight months do you know, Sir, how much butter we have shipped to Belgium? Only 5,000 pounds! The minister was bragging about that the other day. That shows how much the treaty does for agriculture! He said that last year we shipped them some hundred thousand pounds of bptter. Well, this year during the eight months from the beginning of our fiscal year to November last, we shipped Belgium 5,000 pounds.
What did we do with France? There is a treaty that, as he says, was negotiated especially for the benefit of our agriculturists. The trade with France stands about this way: three years ago we sold her $17,000,000 worth; to-day we are selling her 111,000,000 worth. Three years ago we bought from France $12,000,000 worth; to-day we are buying $18,000,000 worth. That is what I predicted would happen when the treaty was brought before this House. That is what has happened. If there is any doubt about the returns, I wish to present the figures to the House for the twelve months ending December, 1925, with comparative figures for the twelve months ending December, 1924 and 1923 respectively. This statement also is prepared under the authority of the Hon. James A. Robb; they are hi3 own figures. We bought from France $18,573,000 worth this year; we sold her $11,-
707.000	worth.	In other words, the balance of
trade was pretty nearly even when this treaty became operative, and to-day we have lost our business-just as I predicted, for the reason that the minimum duty that France puts on our goods will not allow us to ship any. That is all there is to it. Any schoolboy could have told him so, let alone a businessman. What do we sell them? Nothing but wheat and a few raw materials. Where is the boasted business in butter? Gone, not a pound to France, during the whole year. How much condensed1 milk have we sold them? Not one dollar in the whole year. How much in the way of cattle, meats, bacon, or any other agricultural product you like to mention? Not a dollar's worth-except $2,000 worth of lard. That covers the whole of the business. And yet the minister says that this treaty was made in favour of our agriculturists. By the way, Belgium did not give us any advantage in butter. Under the treaty we are just
where we stood before, wo do not get any advantage at all. We simply get the minimum tariff. But when my leader discussed the matter with me, I took the position that we might as well give to Belgium what we had already given to France, because we had given the whole ship to her anyway.
Now, in the course of his remarks the Minister of Finance, dealing with the butter business, said:
Mr. Robb: I have not the figures before me.
Mr. Meighen: Did it make any change?
He was speaking of the treaty.
The Minister of Finance evaded the question. He said:
Under the Belgian treaty we obtained the most favoured nation treatment.
Mr. Meighen: It made no change.
Still the minister made no reply. But the truth is we get no advantage whatever that we did not have before. He then changed the subject. He did not want to discuss this commodity any longer. He continued:
Hon. members have been loud in their statements that by our adoption of the Belgian treaty we ruined the glass industry in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that there was not a farthing's change in the tariff as it affected glass.
Now the minister is in his seat I ask him this question:	Does he persist in that statement to-day, does he say there was no change in the duty on glass?


Mr. ROBB:: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: He does? Well, let me refer to Hansard, page-


James Alexander Robb: If my -hon. friend wishes to
be correct, let him quote the customs tariff.


Arthur Meighen: He is quoting the minister's speech.


James Dew Chaplin: I am taking
the minister's own statement when the Belgian treaty was being discussed in this House. The minister told the House then that the Belgian treaty in respect to glass took a certain class the same as the French treaty by which there was a reduction of 10 per cent of the duty; he so stated in the House, as will be found on page 4209 of Hansard of July 9, 1924:
Sir Henry Drayton:	Will my hon. friend give our
own duty on glass?
Mr. Robb: The duty on common window, and colourless window glass is, intermediate, 12.}. general, 12}; so the duty is exactly the same, but there will be 10 per cent discount under the treaty.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me. what I wished to make clear to the House at that time, and what I wish to make clear to-day, is that the intermediate column, which
952	.	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
we then gave to Belgium under that treaty, and the general column were exactly the same.


James Dew Chaplin: 
James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has asked me a fair question, and deserves an answer. He asks what beat us? It was the man who wrote Rule Britannia, and the gentlemen who were then singing Rule Britannia are to-day opposing inter-imperial trade.


James Dew Chaplin: Now I want to make some comment on the minister's propaganda in the last clause of his remarks which I have just quoted. He said:
But when Canada rejected a proposal which would have allowed her to send butter into the markets of the United States without one cent of duty, the United States revised their tariff, .put up the duty on butter, and put milk and cream on a basis where they could buy it.
That statement I have heard before, but that statement is not correct, and the minister knows it is absolutely without any foundation whatever; he knows better than that. He was asked the question by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) from his seat, "When was the duty changed?" But he passed that by in silence, as he knows so well how to do. Now let us look at the facts; let us get down to brass tacks. At the time of the reciprocity treaty in 1911 the United 'States was under the Payne tariff. What happened after the reciprocity treaty was rejected? Was there a revision upwards of the United States tariff, as the minister says? I ask him now to reconsider and say whether there was a revision or not. I declare now there never was. What happened was this: As everyone knows, the Under-

The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
wood tariff came in in 1913. Was that a raising of the United States tariff? I guess not, because I have a speech of Mr. Fordney's on my desk which I could quote if it would not detain the House, wherein he said that, the Underwood tariff was the lowest tariff the United States ever had, and yet the Minister of Finance tried to make the House and the country believe that because the reciprocity treaty had been rejected by Canada, the United States had immediately raised their tariff. They did not do anything of the kind. They lowered their tariff right along the line. More than that, milk and cream, which the minister talks about, were made free under that very tariff, the Underwood tariff, whereas formerly they bora a duty.


James Alexander Robb: What about the duty on
butter? r


James Dew Chaplin: I will give it
to the minister, I have it here. Under the Underwood tariff the duty on butter was 2i cents a pound, and it had been 6 cents. Under the Payne tariff it was 6 cents a pound, and under the Underwood tariff it was 2i cents a pound. That was two years after reciprocity was beaten. Now what else happened? The minister said there were upward revisions of the tariff. That is not true either. What happened was this: After the Underwood tariff came the war tariff, what was known as the emergency tariff, adopted after the war started. Then came the Fordney tariff and hon. gentleman opposite, speaking throughout the country, said, "Oh, put us into power. We are better able to make a treaty with the United States than anyone else. They are more in sympathy with us, and we are more in sympathy with the policy that will allow their products to come into Canada. We will make a treaty with them if you will give us the chance." Yet in the face of those gentlemen the Fordney tariff was put into operation. A year after they came into power the Fordney tariff was brought into, effect. Yet the minister has the hardihood1 to come here and say that because of the rejection of the reciprocity treaty the United States put up their tariff. Well, he knew better. I give the minister credit for knowing a great deal better than that, but it was good stuff to put forward.


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to interrupt
the trend of my hon. friend's argument, but since he has given these changes in the duty and apparently has them before him-I admit that cream in that period was put on the free list-will he tell us of the gradual jacking up that took place on milk and cream?


James Dew Chaplin: I will give the minister any information he wants, I have it all here. What year would my hon. friend like to have?


James Alexander Robb: The changes.


James Dew Chaplin: Well under the Payne tariff-that was before the reciprocity proposition-milk wTas 2 cents a gallon and fresh cream 5 cents a gallon. Under the reciprocity proposition it would have been free, and under the Underwood tariff it was free without any reciprocity. As I said before in the emergency tariff it was put up 2 cents a gallon, and in the Fordney tariff cream was put up from 5 to 10 cents according to its strength. The Fordney tariff was enforced after hon. gentlemen came into office. I have a copy of that tariff here; it is dated 1922. Why did hon. gentlemen opposite not get busy and obtain for Canada what they said they would? The truth of the matter is that nobody can convince the United .States what they shall do as far as protection is concerned. The words of Calvin E. Coolidge expresses pretty well what is in the minds of the people of the United States:
We 'have built agriculture squarely into the structure of our protective system, and the American farmer must not be undersold at home by New Zealand mutton, Argentine beef, Canadian wheat, Danish butter, Bulgarian tobacco, Chinese eggs, or Cuban sugar.
I should like to see any of my hon. friends opposite making any headway with that bunch over there. They are looking after their own .people, and that is all we are asking this government to do-look after our own people too.
Now, I have a couple more references to make to the Minister of Finance. I notice that in his speech, as reported, at page 823 of unrevised Hansard he asked the right hon. leader of the opposition three times in as many sentences as to the importation of fresh eggs from Australia. The minister ridiculed the idea of fresh eggs coming in from Australia, and I will take the trouble to quote to the House what he said1:
My right hon. friend may not have been correctly reported, but I recall having read some of his speeches during (the election campaign when he asserted that by the Australian treaty this government had ruined the fresh egg and butter industry of Canada. If my right hon. friend was correctly reported that was not a very great credit to his intelligence. I would give him credit for greater intelligence than to believe that Canada will ever buy fresh eggs from Australia.
Five times in as many sentences he used the words "fresh eggs." I should like to ask the minister now if the words "fresh eggs" appear in the treaty? No, the word
954	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
employed is "eggs" not "fresh eggs." Whoever said anything about "fresh" eggs? I have the tariff here and is there anything in it about "fresh" eggs? Not a word.


An hon. MEMBER:: Break them gently.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, break them gently. I do not care whether these eggs are fresh or not. If they come into this country and are consumed here they displace Canadian eggs. The minister says "Oh, what is the use of talking about Chinese eggs. They never come into this country. They will not come in because people will not use them."


James Alexander Robb: No.


James Dew Chaplin: I beg the minister's pardon.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend wants to be
fair, I did not say "Chinese eggs."


James Dew Chaplin: No, you did
not, you said Australian eggs. You said that Australian eggs could not come into this market because of the long voyage. Is not the same remark true of Chinese eggs? Whether it is Chinese eggs or Australian eggs it is only a matter of the duration of the voyage. But the minister said "You cannot sell Australian eggs here, they will be stale before they get to Canada." But the facts are that some Chinese eggs did come to this country and not in small quantities either. Hon. gentlemen will be surprised to know that during the last eight months 755,000 pounds of Chinese eggs that were broken and frozen were brought in and consumed by the people who use eggs of that kind for baking. I say that every one of those eggs displaced one of our own eggs. That is one reason why a duty should be imposed upon these products that will protect the home market for our own people.
I have one or two more comments to make on the speech of the minister. As reported at page 823 of Hansard he tells us "The number of eggs and the amount of butter coming in from Australia will not hurt us; it will not do us any harm; only a million pounds came in in one month." It took us a whole year to ship 700,000 pounds to Belgium and we boasted a lot about it. On the other hand we imported a million pounds from Australia in one. month and the government do not say very much about that. "It is not going to hurt us very much; it is only coming in in the winter time," they say. Let me tell the minister that the importations of butter are coming in when we should have the highest price possible for the Canadian article.


Charles A. Stewart: Will
the hon. gentleman permit a question. Has he looked at to-day's quotations for Canadian butter in Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: No, I have not seen to-day's quotations.


Charles A. Stewart: In
spite of all the complaints hon. gentlemen opposite have been making, the price of butter is higher to-day in Canada than in any of the competing countries.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the hon.
gentleman tell me what the price is?


James Alexander Robb: I will quote from the Montreal Gazette of February 12; it is my authority for the statement. It quoted No. 1 pasteurized butter at 44| cents a pound, and it gave the price in New York for the same quality of butter at 44 cents; so that it was half a cent higher in Montreal than in New Yrork.


James Dew Chaplin: I am very glad to hear that because I was going to say that 1 heard the minister say something about that, and he gave the date as January 13.


James Alexander Robb: I will pass this over to my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: I have more than I want now.


Arthur Meighen: Just wait.


James Dew Chaplin: On January 13, the minister told this House the same thing. I took the trouble to look up the Montreal Trade Bulletin, which paper, I am led to believe, amongst the trade, is an authority on prices. I examined the issues of that paper covering a period of seven weeks in the library here. The minister said that the price of Canadian butter was approximately as low in New York as it was in Montreal. Let me quote the figures which I found in this journal which anybody can read. On December 24 the price in New York for their second grade of butter, not their extra grade creamery, ibut the grade of butter that scores 92 under their method, was 48 to 48J cents a pound. In Montreal No. 1 pasteurized creamery butter, which I am told by the head of the Dairy and Cold Storage branch of the Department of Agriculture grades higher than the butter which I am quoting in New York, is 41^ to 42 cents. On December 31, the next week-this is a weekly paper-the same class of New York butter is quoted at 49 and 50 cents, and in Montreal it is quoted at 41| to 42. On January 8, the price in New York for that

The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
same butter that I have described was 47} to 48, and in Montreal 42} to 42}. On January 15, only two days from the date the minister refers to, the price in New York was 441 to 45, and in Montreal 42} to 421. On January 22 the price was 44 to 44} in New York, and 42} to 42} in Montreal. On January 29 the price in New York was 46} to 47 and in Montreal 43} to 43}. On February 5 the price in New Yrork was 47} to 48 and in Montreal 45 to 45}. More than that I took the trouble to go through the Montreal Gazette, which I understand is also an authority, to get its prices. I went through it each day for the whole month of January and I could not find one day in which the same quality of butter sold as cheaply in New York as it did in Montreal. The minister says he has given me one instance today. I am very glad to get it, because it will certainly be a treat to see it.


James Alexander Robb: I accept that invitation and I pass it over, and in doing so may I remark that, according to my hon. friend's own argument, the importation of Australian and New Zealand 'butter has increased the price of butter in Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: No. I did not say anything of the kind. In reply to his assertion I will read him a statement which appears in the same Trade Bulletin, and this will show whether there is a fluctuation in price. This is taken from the Alontreal Trade Bulletin of February 5, and reads:
Sales of odd small lots of western No. 1 pasteurized were made yesterday at 44 cents, to arrive, while New Zealand No. 1 [pasteurized near at hand sold at 44$ and a lot for shipment-
That is for future delivery.
-of New Zealand pasteurized butter was placed at 41$ cents.
Does that look as if it were increasing the price of Canadian butter? It just depends upon whether or not there is a shipment close. There was a good sized shipment on the way. It was reducing the price because it was near at hand and ready to be delivered, and anybody who says that with a consignment of a million pounds of butter a month coming into the common market the price is going to be forced up wants to have his head read.


Charles A. Stewart: Your argument is that it was forced down.


James Dew Chaplin: My argument is that it takes away a good1 profit that the people of this country should have for the manufacture of butter in an off-time of the year when it costs them more money to produce it.
Now, Mir. Speaker, in reference to the working out of the French treaty I want to miake a little further comparison. We had no treaty with Germany. I hope otir government will not try its hand at that. Every time they have tried to make a treaty we have been a little worse off.


Arthur Meighen: Hear,.hear.


James Dew Chaplin: Always for the Same reason-the blighting hands of the government are laid upon the business of the country with disastrous results. These hon. gentlemen made a treaty with France and children really could make a better treaty. We got the worst of it in the treaty with Belgium. That was natural, because having given it to one we must give it to the other. In making the French treaty we opened the door to ten other countries and' gave them the same; terms. This government reduced the duty upon a long line of luxuries which cculd well afford to pay. They reduced the duties on those luxuries and allowed them to enter into this country, with a loss of millions of dollars of revenue, and that was all done in the interests of the poor agriculturists; the treaty was made for the farmers particularly.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the difference between our trade with Germany and our trade with France. We have no treaty with Germany. Three years ago we sold to Germany for the twelve months ending December 23, in round figures thirteen million dollars worth of commodities. We are selling them to-day without a treaty thirty-one million dollars' worth. We bought from them four million dollars' worth in 1923 and we are now purchasing nine millions, so that we have a balance of trade of over twenty-two million in our favour, whereas owing to our treaty with France to-day this is the result. We started out in 1923 with a trade balance in our favour, and now we have a trade balance against us of seven million dollars. That justifies me in saying that when this government makes a treaty the effect is like a blight on a tree.
Now we come to the Netherlands. I hope the minister will not claim anything for his treaty with that country. We made a treaty with the Netherlands, but I am afraid the blight will get there too, because they are mighty good customers. Here is the position of the Netherlands' business to-day. Three years ago we sold them eight million dollars worth, and1 now we are selling them twenty-two million dollars worth and this business is goit practically without a treaty. We buy from them about five or six million dollars worth and we have a fine balance of
956	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Chaplin (Lincoln)
trade. We have made a treaty with them, and heaven forbid that it should tjurn out anything like the other treaties. The returns I am reading from, as I said before, are published by the Department of Trade andi Commerce.
The minister further read us a few testimonials from different papers and he read something to show us that everything was all right in Denmark and going fine. The minister has in his possession some petitions from the west. Unfortunately, I do not have copies of these, but I see from the Regina Leader of the 6th February that the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creameries, Limited, have sent a very strongly worded resolution, passed by their board of directors, expressing the wish that the government would rescind this treaty. The government also have in their hands a resolution and notes of minutes from another corporation out there, the Saskatchewan Dairy Association, endorsing the action of this other corporation and asking for the same thing. It would be a good idea if the minister would table those in the House so that we might see what value is placed upon this treaty by these people in the west. Of course, the minister says that the United States have a duty of eight cents per pound on butter and that it does not get them anywhere; that it does not raise the price of butter. Is that the usual free trade argument that a duty of eight cents per pound in the United States does not raise the price of butter there? I think not. My friends to my left will agree with me that any time you put a duty on an article, you are going to hit the consumer by the amount of the duty, and then some, because the fellow that produces gets something too. I think I can prove all that from the Farmers' book which I took the trouble to bring here. I think I can prove it to them right out of their own book, and yet we find the minister saying that if you put a duty on butter, you will not raise the price. My idea is to put a duty on butter and raise the price by keeping out the other stuff.


Mr. EVANS:: What book is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


James Dew Chaplin: It is a favourite book of mine-the Farmers' platform. This [DOT]was drafted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and it was adopted by the United Farmers of Alberta, so my hon. friends are all in it-the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association and the United Farmers of Ontario. It is published by the Canadian Council of Agriculture That is a pretty safe book.


John Evans: May I suggest that the hon.
gentleman turn to the page on the plunder of boots and shoes? He will find the principle very well set forth there.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


James Dew Chaplin: One at a time.
I was going to answer the other one. Why did the hon. member not ask that question of the government? Why ask it of me?


John Evans: The government never challenged the statement.


James Dew Chaplin: Neither did I,
so far as that is concerned. I said that I could prove certain things from this book. The hon. gentleman asked about boots and shoes. I w'ould like him to ask that question of someone on the other side of the House. I am in favour of protection on boots and shoes. How many hon. members who live by the boot and shoe industry are ready to say the same thing? How many of them have made appeals on that ground and are now afraid to admit the fact? I will now answer the question of my hon. friend.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Was my hon. friend so keen about the interests of the dairy farmers in 1923 when he voted for oleomargarine, although there was a strong recommendation from the National Dairy Council against oleomargarine ?


James Dew Chaplin: If I voted for
oleomargarine, I did so because I believed a I, that time it was in the interest of my people to have it brought into this country. It was war time. We had that measure on the statute book as a war measure. Why did this government, I will ask the hon. gentleman, keep it on the statute book for two years after they came into power? I voted on that proposition in the same wTay as my hon. friend's late leader, Mr. Fielding.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I mentioned just 1923. The war was over then.


James Dew Chaplin: The war was
over in 1923; but who kept this measure on the statute book during 1921, 1922, 1923? It was a war measure; but the Liberal government kept it going and they could not get rid of it. It was not got rid of in a frank-open manner; it was got rid of only by a subterfuge in the House, by the government chucking it over to a private member to do the work. The government were scared to take hold of the thing and do it themselves.

The Address-Mr. Foster
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House,
I feel very much in the position of the hon. member for LabeJle (Mr. Bourassa), who after an absence of eighteen years, told us the other day that his reappearance here was more ghost-like than real. I am glad that you have allowed some latitude in debate, because I want to avail myself of that privilege and the courtesy of the House. While I may not cover as many subjects as did the hon. member for La'belle, I can assure the House that I have one regret, namely, that whereas hon. members were repaid on that occasion with an eloquence as brilliant as any ever heard in this chamber, they will have to forego that pleasure in any remarks which I may make.
During the last ten years I have had the privilege of viewing such progress as Canada has made from a vantage point outside of the Dominion itself, working all that time, I may say, in the upbuilding of a greater Canada and devoting myself to those things which would make for the progress and advancement of this Dominion. I find many changes here in the last ten years, some of them very much for the better. This pile, magnificent in beauty and symmetry, has been erected on the old site of the House of Commons where you, Sir, and I sat some ten years ago, and erected I may-observe under the supervision of the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) who at that time was Minister of Public Works. I take this opportunity of congratulating that hon. gentleman and the committee who worked with him on that occasion on the building of such a splendid structure. I would add by the wav that in the interior of this structure a much needed improvement might be effected, and I would suggest that the committee of the House having charge of the matter might investigate one of the new things that have been devised for the comfort of mankind, in order to facilitate the transaction of business here. In particular I would mention a material called celotex made from the waste product of sugar cane known as bagasse, which is used for the purpose of deadening sound and thus increasing in a very material degree the acoustic properties of buildings of such vastness as this chamber. Having acted for twelve or fourteen months as publicity counsel for the manufacturers of this article I came more or less in contact with the great work they were doing in the United States and I know that there are many public buildings there, some as large as this, which are now equipped with this device. I do not
wish by any means to give them a free advertisement in this House but I have, at least, a desire to improve the speaking facilities of the chamber and I can assure the government that such an improvement could be brought about with great benefit to all of us.
Speaking of the old building, I am naturally reminded of things that create in me some feelings of sadness. In the burning of that building I barely escaped with my own life, while one of the hon. members of this House at that time, a representative from the province of Nova Scotia, in the person of the late Mr. B. B. Daw, was less fortunate. I wish even at this late day, inasmuch as I had not at the time an opportunity to extend my sympathy to his family, to place on record my feelings of sorrow and at the same time my appreciation of the services which that gentleman had always rendered to his country. I desire also to sympathize with those of his family who have remained. I recall also another fellow member of that time who passed into the great beyond while in the service oi the country. I am sure that hon. gentlemen who pass in and out of this chamber must have a kindly thought, tinged though it may be with the sadness of recollection, of the services rendered by the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Baker, at one time the member for Brome. I want to place myself on Hansard in appreciation of this House in its tribute paid to that gallant gentleman, a tribute which will stand for years and years to come.
I am reminded, w-hile speaking of days gone by, that when I first entered the House as a young man I was impressed with the personality of many men and among those who impressed me then none did so to a greater degree than did the then leader of the opposition who has since passed on, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In those years, inexperienced as I was in business and struggling with problems in which it requires a long probation in a young man's life to bring him to an adequate knowledge of human nature, I had many times a kindly word from that right hon. gentleman who led the government of this Dominion for fifteen years from 1896 to 1911 and who thereafter served as leader of the opposition. I was impressed with the dignified and stately way in which he rose on all occasions during my time in this House to present the views of His Majesty's loyal opposition, and I am sure, Sir, that the public life of Canada is the poorer for his having passed.
The Address-Mr. Foster

I venture now to offer to yourself, Mr. Speaker, a word of congratulation upon your re-election to the high and hon-5 p.m. ourable office you now hold. I have a pleasant recollection of your eloquence in those years when first I came to parliament, and while it is a matter for regret that the House should so seldom be inspired by that eloquence it is a compensation that hon. members, the younger members of parliament particularly, should have the benefit of your kindly and invaluable guidance as Speaker of this House. I desire also to compliment the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on the victory he has won. Appealing to this country, as he did, at the head of a group of fifty members, he was returned with such a measure of confidence as is seldom seen in any democratic country in the world. It speaks something for the character and the ability of a young man that, by studious application to work and by the faithful pursuit of his principles and ideals, he should endear himself and his followers in the hearts of the people and so commend himself to the strong common sense and the genius of the Canadian public as to come back to parliament with such a strengthened fallowing as the right hon. the leader of the opposition has behind him in the House to-day, and of whom the present speaker is one of the most humble.
Before touching on the matters related to the amendment to the Address, I desire to say a word or two apropos of the debate which has just taken place between my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). It seemed to me that the hon. member thoroughly repudiated the suggestion put forward in this House in regard to prices obtaining in the United States and in Canada respectively of various commodities, but I took the Minister of Finance at his word when he said that the price of butter in New York was 42 cents and in Canada 421 cents. When he made this statement however I wondered, assuming it to be true, what became of the argument which we have heard all over the country from east to west that protection will raise the price to the consumer. I thought surely the Minister of Finance had not that argument in mind when he made that statement. Now having lived some time on the other side of the line, where I enjoyed the benefits of protective tariff, a tariff higher than any which this country has ever had, I have no hesitation in saying that the cost of living in that protected country is not a bit higher than it is in the Dominion of Canada where the tariff is less than half as high as it is in the United States.

Any hon. gentleman who spends any time in the United States can verify that fact for himself.
What does happen with regard to the price of butter and of agricultural products generally under protection on the other side of the line? This thing, a very important thing: under protection they have a more stable and a more uniform price for the things they have to sell. We talk about the wonderful markets there and we forget the peculiar conditions that exist in the United States as in other countries. We talk about sending across the border our products such as potatoes, fruit and' so forth. Well, let me tell hon. gentlemen who talk that way that if we want to send our produce over there we have to go over not only a tariff wall but something else as well. And I would invite the attention of the House to that something else. It is this: in the great centres of the republic to the south of us, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there are trade organizations of all descriptions, dealers' associations, and so on, and you will find that the market is preserved to their own people, and preserved at a uniform level. That is a tremendous advantage to the home market and the fact is that in Canada the home market takes care of almost 90 per cent of our production. If it were not for the home market in the United States there would be chaos and the farmers of that country know it. They are all convinced of this fact with the exception of a few odd ones here and there in the farmers' organizations who. are ambitious to become president or secretary of their particular organization, to attain office and probably run for Congress or the Senate. These people set up the usual argument in order to get into the limelight and to win for themselves positions in the public life of the country. But the solid common sense of the farmers of the United States is in keeping with the New England common sense as exemplified by Calvin Coolidge, which the farmers of that country will endorse for some years to come. They are satisfied to continue on that basis.
I desire to make a few observations with regard to the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address, to which the amendment before the House has been moved. I am a little more familiar with the language of the mover than with that of the seconder, but, Sir, I hope some time within the next twenty-five years to have the privilege of availing myself of a knowledge of that language-a language which I love second to none on earth, the tongue native to yourself, Sir, and to your compatriots of the province of Quebec. Having

The Address-Mr. Foster
worked with my French-Canadian brothers and knowing something of them, I appreciate why they show such a keen regard for their mother tongue.
The mover of the Address in the course of his speech made a few statements to which I desire to direot the attention of the House. He said that in the early part of 1922, when the present administration took control, they realized that if a country with a population of nine million and a debt of $2,400,090,000 were to make progress there must be reductions in the public debt and a policy of rigid economy. We have had in the Speech from the Throne somewhat similar sentiments. Well, I thought, it was too bad that the mover of the Address had to speak before the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), for if he could have had the benefit of listening to that hon. gentleman he wrould have discovered how in the past four years that policy of economy had been put into effect. At page 246 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture is reported as speaking of the many great public undertakings that his government had carried out, such as the Welland canal, the Toronto viaduct, the bridge at Montreal, the harbour improvements at Quebec. I say, Sir, there was " economy " with a vengeance 1 On the other side of the line the greatest question confronting the United States government was the necessity for rigid economy and they have carried out such a thorough policy of retrenchment that to-day their income tax is reduced, their stamp tax has been abolished, as well as several other taxes, and they are more strongly entrenched in power than ever because of having carried out the policy on which they were elected. By contrast with the policy of our neighbours I thought of the costly undertakings which the Minister of Agriculture enumerated a few days ago. According to the figures given to this House $572,000,000 has been expended on the national railways during the last five years, the major portion of it by this government. A consideration of this and other facts gives us some idea of what real economy means as practised by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am aware that the $572,000,000 was challenged by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and I shall deal with this point in a moment or two.
According to the figures in the public accounts, the public debt of Canada when this government came into office was $2,340,000,000. If we take the proportion of the railway expenditure and the $77,000,000 which was added to the public debt according to the records, we find tot-day that our commitments are close to $2,750,000,000. Now, where is there
any reduction in the public debt? Is it to be argued that if you give yoMr note and get money on it, or the equivalent, that you do not go into debt? Well, if that is so it is a new system, and we hope we may be able to avail ourselves of it during the next three or four years. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) laboured for some time to show that a reduction in the public debt had been made, but the further he went the more apparent it became that his government had greatly increased our national obligations. He said that the total disbursements for the year just passed-I suppose he meant for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925.-were $339,000,000 odd. Buit I find in looking over the ptu'blic accounts that another $17,000,000 must be added to capital expenditure, and approximately $118,000,000, according to their own figures, was spent on Canadian National Railways account. These give us a total of $474,000,000. This divided by nine million, the population figure used by the hon. member, gives us a per capita expenditure for that year of $52.80 instead of $37 as claimed by him. Well, instead of the reduction of $14 per capita that he gives his government credit for having effected as against the expenditure under the preceding administration, we have actually an increase of $7.40 per capita, according to his own method of computation. I am not particularly struck with his method, but I follow it simply to make my comparison intelligible.
The hon. gentleman also gave the House some comparative figures on the cost of agricultural implements to the consumer. I should like some hon. member who knows all the facts to give this House the exact reductions-if there have been any-that have been passed on to the farmers of western and eastern Canada by virtue of any tariff reductions, because then we would be able to place alongside those reductions the fact that industries in Ontario have been put out of business by virtue of those tariff changes. The best information I have been able to obtain is very dissimilar to that which has been presented to the House, and I desire to mention some of the prices quoted by my hon. friend. I hold in my hand two price lists of the Massey-Harris Company, one for 1925 and the other for 1921. In 1921 the hon. member told us that the cost of a binder was $335, whereas in 1925 it had been reduced to $268.50. I cannot vouch for my 1925 Massey-Harris catalogue being the latest edition issued by that company, but it is the most recent one I have been able to obtain. I find that for 1925 the price was
The Address-Mr. Foster



U011-61

[Stage Direction]
Now I come to the point I mentioned a moment ago, the rise in the market price of industrial and bank stocks, which the cabinet ministers and private members of this House have quoted. I am led, and I fancy the House is led, to ask: What significance, after all, is there in the rise of those stocks? It is true that certain bank stocks in this country-and1 goodness knows that if it were not true that some stocks in this country were of value we would be in a bad way indeed-have increased in price, but every hon. gentleman that I have listened to in this House seems to me to have confused the terms "market price" and "value." There is a mighty difference between the two. They do not mean the same thing at all, and the fact that we have some two or three or four or five stocks in this country rising in value is no indication at all that the country is prosperous. The *market price of a certain railway stock in the United States went up once to over $600. but the actual value of that stock based on .the earning power of the railway was only slightly over par. What then is the reason for the rise in the price 'of certain bank and leading industrial stocks in this country? Demand upon the part of the public is the reason for that increase in price, and why the demand? The answer to that is the word fear, fear on the part of capital to invest in that large body of Canadian industrial stocks because the risk was too excessive. That is the reason you have the demand for these bank stocks throughout the country. It is no evidence of prosperity. Hon. gentlemen in this House quote the speeches made by leaders of business in this country to their board of directors, but if you will examine those speeches you will find little else than this, that those leading business men express the hope that we have reached the bottom, that with the magnificent crop which has put gome millions of dollars into circulation we are on the up grade. But I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you are at the very bottom of the pit and make the first step up, although you may legitimately say that you are on the up grade, you may still be a very long way from the top. Every business man in this country, everyone who has been concerned with the flotation of a new industry, knows how difficult it has been to secure capital in the last four or five years, even for re-financing businesses where the risk was far below normal. So while a rise in half a dozen stocks indicates confidence in them, it is by no means a conclusive evidence of prosperity, and in Canada, as I said before, it is no evi-
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Foster
[Stage Direction]
denoe at all. The same argument applies also to bonds, although there is a slight difference between the two. In the case of bonds, which are usually a mortgage on the enterprise, the risk is much less than in the case of stocks, but any increase in the market price of bonds may be accounted for by several reasons, the least of which may be the general prosperity of the industrial life of the country. During prosperous times, bonds are usually paid off rather than floated.
The Speech from the Throne, in paragraph 4, has this to say upon the subject, of prosperity:
Further evidence of industrial progress is reflected in the greatly .improved earnings of the railways.
I desire to point out that if hon. gentlemen opposite are relying upon the figures in that regard for the last five years as a barometer for testing the prosperity of the country they are resting on what will prove to be a broken reed. In this connection I should like to submit a statement prepared by Mr. J. L. Payne, who is probably as able a railway statistician as we have in this country. An hon. gentleman sitting near me dissents from that opinion. Well, my hon. friend, perhaps, has known Mr. Payne longer than I have, but with all due deference to the hon. gentleman's views, if we deal with Mr. Payne's facts and leave out his conclusions we may act upon the information which he has compiled. In any case what does he say? That the gross earnings of the railways of Canada for the past six years were as follows'
Year	Amount
1920		$492,101,104
1921		  458,000,000
1922		 440,000,000
1923		 478,000,000
1924		 445,000,000
1925	(estimated for the twelve months)..	460,000,000
Let us examine these figures for a moment. If the argument of my hon. friends opposite were sound, namely that railway earnings indicate prosperity, then, Sir, the year of 1920 was the year of greatest prosperity in the last dozen years, since railway earnings in Canada in that year were only eight millions short of half a billion dollars, and thirty-two million dollars more than 1925 just closed. True, gross earnings declined in 1921, but in 1922 the first year hon. gentlemen opposite were in office the decline was over $50,000,000. In 1923 Providence smiled on us and gave us magnificent crops, and again the railway earnings rose to $478,338,447. But, Sir, all this time our industrial production had been steadily declining, and business stagnated. Confidence in the government was steadily waning, and in 1924 the gross earnings dropped 
again to $445,000,000 odd or $47,000,000 below that of 1920, while during the first six months of 1925 the conditions in the country were so bad that capital was seeking safety elsewhere and a feeling of grave alarm was again seizing the entire business and banking centres of this country. Fortunately Providence again came to our relief, and the last six months of the year showed a considerable improvement, increasing gradually as evidence of good crops grew stronger. But the gross earnings in 1925 were $460,000,000, or only $2,000,000 more than they were in 1921, when the amount was $458,000,000, and still $32,000,000 less than they were in 1920, the year my right hon. leader was Prime Minister of this country.
Hon. gentlemen opposite also speak of a $30,000,000 surplus on Canadian National railways during the past year. How wTas this accomplished? The major part of it was accomplished by a reduction in operating cost, and the dismissal of thousands of employees.
An hon. MEMBER:: Whoa!


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Mr. FOSTER:: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the significance of that echo, and I may say to you that I have listened to the braying of an ass many times in my life, and I recognize the animal. I ask this House how the result referred to was accomplished? It was accomplished, as I said, by the laying off of hundreds of employees, perhaps thousands. I ask the very important question: Where have these men gone who have been laid off by the railway companies? Have they been absorbed into the industrial life of this country? The answer is no. When you go to the consular offices of the United States you find that they are being kept busy every day issuing passports to our Canadian people to permit them to cross to the country to the south and enter the industrial life of that nation.
Some hon. members talk about having Canada a cheap country where people can buy their products and the necessities of life cheaply. I ask hon. gentlemen to think of any country in the world that is a so-called cheap country where there is any progress. I think it will puzzle any hon. member to find one. I ask, what good is it to the people who are out of work if they can get their woollen socks, their shirts or other necessities a few cents cheaper? What we want for the people of this country is the opportunity to work, and I submit that a place in which to work at a living wage or better is a far more important thing than a place in which to live. If you have a place in which to work you can always get a place in which to live.

The Address-Mr. Foster
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) as reported at page 448 of Hansard says:
I do say that-
Speaking of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming).
-no hon. member should come here and try to make out that these railways have gone to the bad to the extent of $572,000,000 in the last five years. What are the real facts?
He then proceeds to give the figures for the last six years as $674,975,272.45 and for the first year of 'the six-year period as $102,149,778. By subtracting the one from the other we get $572,000,000, the exact figure used by the Deputy Minister of Railways and quoted by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. May I point out that the figures for 1925 have not been added'. On two or three occasions I endeavoured to obtain from the Department of Railways and Canals a statement of that amount but up to the time I arrived here for this session I was unable to obtain it. In saying that I have no desire to find any fault with the Railway department; the fault was very largely my own. I found no disposition there not to give me the information, but up to the moment it had not arrived. What the figures are for 1925 we do not know, but it is safe to assume that they are in the neighbourhood of another hundred million dollars, which will bring the amount in the last seven years up to 775 or 800 million dollars. It has been pointed out that half of that amoimt was spent under the previous administration and probably a little better than half by hon. members opposite.
' I submit there may be much in that contention, but I want to point out to the House and to those in the country who may be privileged to read my remarks, plus the interjection, that the 340 million dollars that was spent by the preceding administration on the amalgamation was a necessary expenditure; and secondly, that it was not only necessary but was wisely expended. Now who says so? Not the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), although I would accept his word1; not an hon. member on this side of the House, but the man who made an inspection of the Canadian National Railways in 1922 directly after assuming charge of the road, 'Sir Henry Thornton. He took with him the beSt experts in the country and made a minute examination from the standpoint of operation and of construction and1 of keeping the railway up to the standard So that it would be prepared to go ahead and do business. I refer to the very firht report he made to this government, who, by the way, employed him;
[DOT] and who certainly are as he is, the servant of 14011-611
the Dominion of Canada, the people of this country.
I submit to this House that if one mentions the president of the Canadian National Railways above his breath he is criticized, because forsooth we are supposed not to say anything regarding this man. But if any question is raised here about him, he is privileged to go to the four corners of the country and say " The hunting season has commenced." The House of Commons has opened, and hon. members in pursuance of their duties in this House are making some inquiries into what has been done with the people's money. They are examining into the situation, and their interest in the matter is characterized as the "opening of the hunting season," when the Canadian National Railway is being hunted by members of this House. I submit that a little more hunting would not be amiss in a certain quarter but I want to read what the president of the Canadian National Railways said after making that extensive examination of the railway:
The report of the previous board of directors for the year 1921 was in the nature of a three-year survey of the operations and development of these lines as a government-owned system. The year 1922 completes the four-year period of united management of the former Canadian Government railways and the Canadian Northern railway system.
And I may say that the amalgamation was for the purpose of administration. The report continues:
The operations of the Grand Trunk Pacific, while only under complete coordination since October, 1920, or two and a quarter years, have been included for the full period for comparative purposes.


Mr. POULIOT:: Will the hon. member tell me what relation, exists between the Canadian National railways and the Australian treaty?


George Eulas Foster: I will leave that to the
intelligence of my hon. friend. I believe he has more intelligence than his question would indicate to the House. The report continues:
During the period the government has provided large sums of money for the physical improvement of these properties, for coordination facilities for additional rolling stock and for branch line construction.
On behalf of the board, I would like to state that after inspection of the main artenes of the system, we find that the work undertaken has been well performed, and that the expenditures on a system of such extent in a growing country, as the former board stated, are never ending, yet it may be said that the three groups of lines, until recently the Canadian National railways, enter the consolidation in excellent physical condition and operating at a high mark of efficiency as regards actual performance or movement of traffic and other factors controllable bv management.
I submit there is justification out of the mouth of the servant of this corporation the
The Address-Mr. Foster

Canadian National Railway and the servant of the people for the expenditure which this country was called1 upon to make during that time. I shall be pleased to see submitted to this House a report justifying in the same degree the expenditures which have been made since. I am of the opinion, and I believe the country shares in that opinion, that at least some of the items in the report will be smoothed over or left out altogether.
I desire to refer to another item in the Speech from the Throne which says:
In the opinion of my miimilsters tlie improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. We are discussing an amendment proposed1 by an hon. member which has reference to the Australian treaty. What my hon. friend says has no relation to that subject, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to decide the point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I gave a ruling last night on the very same point and I maintain that ruling now. The hon. member may proceed with his remarks.


George Eulas Foster: In that connection we had some discussion in this House as to reduction of the sales tax and increase of the sales tax. As I was interested in that subject I went to the records and I found the following:	The
Conservatives collected sales tax as follows:
1920-	1021	
$38,131,448	201921-	1922	
61,518,731	13Total	
$99,650,199	33
Or an average of $49,825,099.66 per year, whereas the Liberals collected sales tax as follows:
1922- 1923	$ 91,262,254 13
1923-	1924	
100,990,076	801924-	1925	
66,707,369	96Total	$258,959,700	89
Or an average of $S6,319,900.29. Since everybody knows that the total sales for the three years above mentioned have been far below normal, the whole figures prove conclusively that the sales tax of about per cent introduced by the Conservatives was raised to six per cent and subsequently reduced to about five per cent. Had there been any serious attempt during the past years at economy, as I pointed out in the early part of my speech, the taxation in the country would not have had to be raised. The sales tax-instead of being increased to six per cent, double what it was under the last government, and then reduced to five per cent, so that hon. gentlemen could go to the

country and say: We reduced taxation, pointing to that as a great achievement-could have been wiped out altogether with proper economy. With it could have gone the revenue stamps on many items; and the postage rate, which was necessarily increased during the war, could have been reduced from three cents to two, as was done in the United States.
But the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), in whose remarks I was interested, said in the course of his speech that, after all, certain portions of the Speech from the Throne were only a gesture on the part of the government. I think those were the words he used; I do not desire to misquote him. In view of the Speech from the Throne; in view of a supplementary speech which was addressed to the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), and in view of a still further supplementary speech which was addressed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I think that deep down in his heart the hon. member for Red Deer believes the present government will not go very far along the lines of economy if, forsooth, they remain in power any considerable length of time.
The leader of the Progressive party says he does not believe we will get economy, yet that was a plank-one of the main planks, I understand-in his platform. Why then does he support hon. gentlemen who at present occupy the treasury benches?


Robert Rogers: He can always be depended upon to do that.


George Eulas Foster: I believe that is true. I
am reminded of a conversation which I had with an hon. gentleman high in the councils of the other side of the House-he is not in the House at the moment. In the course of a casual conversation, which I do not regard as private at all, he made the remark that the leader of the Progressive party had been a good Liberal before he was a Progressive. Whether or not that is true I do not know; but I have strong suspicions that he might have leaned that way. He says he does not think we shall get any edonomy -from this government, so we may expect at any rate that the economy plank will be dropped from their party platform when they next appeal to the country.
But we have a very important piece of legislation foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne. A very important speech on the subject of rural credits was made in this parliament-and I include both houses-by an hon. member of the Senate away back in

The Address-Mr. Foster
1911, who put his finger upon the weak spot of our banking system as regards rural communities and suggested certain broad lines of remedy. I take up the question of rural credits very briefly with some hesitation, because I have under my hand an attempt made by the government of hon. gentlemen opposite in the last session of this House to translate this matter into legislation by Bill No. 237, an act to authorize advances to assist agriculture by providing long term farm loans. I do not intend to discuss that measure other than to point out that if I recollect aright, it was the government leader of the Senate, the Hon. Mr. Dandurand, who refused to allow its consideration in the Senate last session- if anyone may be said to have refused it consideration-and not the Conservative party, as the country was given to understand in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a few days ago. If a full cabinet of hon. gentlemen opposite were able to produce such a sample of rural credits as this Bill No. 237, I ask hon. gentlemen to my left: What can they expect from half a government now? Is half greater than the whole? But in this regard I understand the government has abrogated its functions and has passed over to hon. gentlemen to my left the responsibility of framing this very important piece of legislation. If that be so-and I hope it is, for the benefit of the country at least-from my association with hon. gentlemen to my left, I believe I can say this much for them, that they will bring to the consideration of that problem studious care and some ability, because I recognize the fact that there is great ability in that group to the left of hon. members on this side of the House. I shall await with a great deal more pleasure any rural credits bill which may emanate from hon. gentlemen to my left. From this standpoint at least I could' not find it possible to have any confidence at all in a rural credits measure that would be the product of half a government in the face of Bill No. 237 the product of a full government sitting in council. I am in favour of rural credits, but I want rural credits for not only the farmer but the fisherman, the fruit grower and the lumberman as well. To get a rural credits bill that will include all those without doing serious damage to the financial structure of this country and without undermining our great industrial institutions, not only close study but great ability will be required of hon. members of this House.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: When the House rose at
six o'clock I was about to direct attention to the following paragraph in the Speech from the Throne:
With a view to affording such remedies as may appear to be practical and appropriate, the government also propose to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims that the rights of the Maritime provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial Itailway have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially, in their position under confederation.
I shall not attempt to deal with all the phases contained in the four comers of that paragraph, but shall content myself on the present occasion with just a few observations generally on what it implies. Reading it, it appeared to me that whoever in the present government, or what is left of the government, was responsible for this particular paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, it certainly could not have been the Minister of National Defence, the member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald). Had he 'been in the cabinet, or that portion of the cabinet which was responsible for the Speech, there would have been indeed a lively time, for no one knows better than that hon. gentleman the temper of the people of the Maritime provinces and especially df the province of Nova Scotia. In a very peculiar way, known to this House and to the Maritime provinces, the hon. gentleman had occasion to test the temper of those people on the subject of their grievances under confederation and I am sure he realizes that they will no longer be put off with royal commissions or commissions of any other kind.
We have had a great many commissions, royal and otherwise, one of which a year or two ago investigated the fishing industry of the Dominion. I have under my hand a copy of the report of that commission which travelled all over the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific and which consisted of the following members:	William Duff, Chairman, the hon.
member for Queens-Lunenburg; C. H. Dickie; L. H. Martel!, now a judge; W. G. Mc-Quarrie; A. W. Neill, and Alfred Stork. I do not propose to go into the details of that report but I would ask this simple question: What if anything has been done in the interests of this Dominion as a result of the labours of that commission? Has there been any important development in the fishing industry as a result of the expenditure of time and money in this particular inquiry? What
The Address-Mr. Foster



OOMMONS

[Stage Direction]
was the object of it? If I understand it rightly, the object was to impress upon the country the necessity for at least a Deputy Minister of Fisheries apart from the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, possibly looking at the same time to the establishment of a separate ministry in charge of the Canadian fisheries. I shall not offer any comment at the present time on the desirability or otherwise of such a departure, although- perhaps :t might be a good thing in view of the fact that the industry has been neglected. But the report having been brought down, have we any minister of fisheries apart from the minister in charge of the combined branches of Marine and Fisheries? If we have we do not know anything about it. Rumour has it that a portfolio has been promised the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), but whether it will be the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries or simply Fisheries, or whether another portfolio is to be carved out for the hon. gentleman, this House hgs not been advised. There is I admit, a good deal of pleasant reading in the report, and some noteworthy facts are brought out; but nothing has been done. Inactivity marks the result of the investigation made by that commission.
A session or two ago also a committee of this House was appointed to look into the coal situation with a view to formulating some sort of national fuel policy. Where is that policy? Was the country advised of it in the last campaign? Has the government in mind at present any solid fundamentals upon which a national fuel policy could be framed? If so, why is it not presented to the House and to the country? Moreover, only a diort time ago a royal commission sat in Nova Scotia to examine into the coal industry, and the eminent men composing that commission brought in a report, which I understand both the miners and the company seem disposed to accept. Now, what is the major point in their finding? It is that the coal industry of Nova Scotia cannot possibly exist unless it is granted greater protection. Well, in what position are hon. gentlemen opposite to carry out that finding? Why, they pledge themselves in the Speech from the Throne not to raise t'he tariff, and they are sustained in office by hon. gentlemen to my left, whose policy is "No increase in the tariff. If any changes are made in the tariff they must be downward."
Mr. HEAPS:: Would the hon. gentleman inform the House in what particular paragraph of their report the royal commission he refers to found that increased protection is required for the coal industry of Nova Scotia?
IMr. Foster.]


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody says that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to have the specific passage.


George Eulas Foster: As usual, my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is right technically, because in the report itself increased protection, being regarded as a political question, is not dealt with; but I would refer him to the addendum to that report, which was what I had in mind. I venture to say that both gentlemen who sat on the commission with Mr. Hume Cronyn concurred in his view that increased protection was the only remedy, because, it seems to me, it is only the common sense viewpoint and therefore natural to concur in it. But apart from technicalities, this House as constituted-assuming that the government can continue to command a majority-will not be able to deal with the problem in the only practical manner possible, because as everybody from the Maritime provinces believes who has given the subject consideration, we must have increased protection on our coal and on our iron and steel products. I doubt even if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) will proclaim himself in opposition to an increased tariff on coal, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned.
Now, let us look at the situation. We are going to appoint another royal commission. Let us assume that that commission brings in a report to the effect that our coal industry can exist only by the imposition of increased protection, whether by way of an ad valorem or a specific duty. In what position is the government to carry out such a finding? Hon. gentlemen to my left are opposed to increased duties. They say that the solution of the coal problem in the Maritime provinces is to be found in a proper adjustment of freight rates. I am perfectly prepared to agree that in a very large sense transportation does enter into the solution. And, Mr. Speaker, after an absence of ten years from the House I am surprised to find that the genius of our people, as represented on both sides of this House, has not yet found a solution for our fuel difficulties, including rates on coal. It is no use for me to say that there is no ability on the other side of the House, Sir. There is ability there-not so much as there was before October 29-let us not be carried away by partisanship and deny that there is any ability among our friends opposite. I repeat, there is ability, but there seems to be lacking that determination to do something to solve any of the great problems that confront this country, particularly the fuel problem.

The Address-Mr. Foster
I have not a specific cure to offer the House, Sir, but I sometimes think-I hate to make the suggestion because I know it will be misconstrued-but I think that one party is afraid and the other dares not tackle this problem as the people have good reason to expect them to do. What is there about it that should frighten any party or any member? We are in control of the resources of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific-if we are not we ought to be. If we could do nothing else we could at least say to the one railway company that we own and control-for the board of management of the Canadian National Railways are the 'servants of this parliament, as we are the servants of the people-and we could say to that board: We require you to keep accurate accounts of the absolute cost of transporting coal from the Maritimes and from Alberta to the central markets of the Dominion. That is requirement number one. Then we could say to the premiers of the several provinces interested-and I submit that this would be a far better subject upon which to ask those premiers to confer with us than several other matters that I might mention; for instance, Senate reform; that can wait; we are in no great rush about that except that some of us are rushing to get into that chamber-we could say to those gentlemen: Coal is something that the people must have, whether we mine it ourselves or whether we import it from the United States, and therefore our fuel supply is of national importance. Now, let us divide the central provinces into three or four sections, ascertain the freight rate from the Maritimes and from Alberta to given points in those sections, and there set up municipal distribution centres, if you will, in co-operation with the provincial and federal authorities. Then let parliament, or whatever body has the power, say:	We will
impose an ad valorem duty on coal sufficient to exclude the United States product, but the price of our coal to the Canadian people shall be so much and no more, that price to include a profit for the retailer, for the wholesaler and for everyone else who handles it- even for the producer. Hon. members may say to me: That is a fantastic doctrine. I do not care if it is. We have a national problem to solve, and this is a suggestion towards its solution. I would sooner hear a man make a foolish suggestion than remain silent.
I was speaking of the proposed royal commission. Suppose it inquires into this subject in Nova Scotia and finds that the transportation costs are too high; then what are we
to do? Day after day in this House we have seen the Minister of the {Interior (Mr. Stewart), whose department deals with manes, rise in his place and say:	All freight rate
problems are settled by Sir Henry Thornton and his associates, and this government can do nothing to help you; you must go to them. Suppose the royal commission makes its report to this House, and these problems are presented to us; what is the government going to do then? Are they going to say: You must go to the railway under Sir Henry Thornton. We go there and he says:	We
cannot carry this coal any cheaper; I am put here as the president of this road to show a profit, not to carry on in the interests of the people whom I was appointed to serve; I am here to show a profit rather than a loss, and I cannot lower those rates. Then how much further are we towards a solution of our problems in Nova Scotia?-assuming that the royal commission reports on this matter, and it is one of the things it cannot escape from reporting on.
While on the subject of coal, let me say this: We had a debate in this House this session lasting practically an entire day-I mention this in passing because it is of vital interest-and we debated the situation, and finally the government made certain suggestions. But what do we find? That between the government and the railway there is a snag of some kind existing, a hurdle which nobody seems to be able to get over. Besco, we are told, is willing to mine 15,000 tons of coal and bring it up to Montreal notwithstanding the fact that there is more coal banked there than they can use, and although they will lose one or two dollars a ton on this freshly mined coal; yet they are willing to absorb that loss, and all they ask the railway to do is to give them the same haulage rate as was given by the railway, at the instance of this government, on the haulage of coal from the west to the central provinces. That is all that Besco is asking. What is the .counter proposition? The counter proposition the railway makes to Besco is this: We are not satisfied to do our part; we are not satisfied that you should absorb a loss of $2 or S2.25 per ton, which you are willing to do; we ask you to bank this coal down at North Sydney, and we will take it off your hands as banked coal next summer. Then what is the situation? Besco finds, in the first place, that it will lose 50 cents a ton on banked coal. In the second place, with their facilities for banking they find it will cost from three to five dollars a ton more to bank that coal, with the cost of handling, and so
90S
The Address-Mr. Foster

forth. Therefore, they say, and very properly: While we are prepared to absorb a loss of $2 or $2.25 a ton if the railway will reduce its rate, we do not feel we ought to go all the way and take care of this charity proposition, because, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is; it is a charity proposition. All we are asking the people of Canada for is this:	Eigh-t or
ten or fifteen thousand dollars. Why, this jHouse only a short time ago entered into an arrangement, over the heads of the Railway Commission altogether, whereby carrying charges on certain products in this country were reduced by $20,000,000, and we in Nova Scotia cannot get $10,000 to keep our people in the eastern part of the province from starving.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the major portion of the ills of the province of Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces generally is simply an excellent way of sliding over the difficulties and putting the whole thing into a pigeon hole. It is just getting by a serious situation, instead of tackling the problem as it exists to-day man-fashion.
I had some doubts in my mind, having been away for ten years, as to what the feelings of the central provinces and the rest of Canada was towards the difficulties in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and towards the difficulties in the Maritime provinces, and I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been absolutely amazed, and delighted at the same time, to find the representatives of the people from the rest of Canada who sit on this side of the House not only willing to consider the problems of the Maritime provinces and of the west, but anxious to help in affording a remedy when a remedy is proposed along sound, businesslike, common sense lines; and so, whereas there might have been a necessity a couple of months ago to get some of the men from the central provinces to come down into the province of Nova Scotia to look into our problems and difficulties, I find that with the delegation we have here from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, making their position clear in this House, there is not a man sitting cn this side of the House who is not willing to give his attention and his earnest consideration and assistance towards the solution of our problems-and that is a very happy thing.
I was not very much concerned as to the question of leadership until I began to examine into the situation, I may say frankly I am here as a supporter of the right hon. the leader of the opposition, not because I am so keen about the results that have accrued to the

Maritime provinces by virtue of confederation, for in my humble judgment we have contributed, and are still contributing year after year, far more than we have received; but how can you have a great united Canada unless there is a disposition to bear each others burdens. The problem is to find out how much of a contribution is necessary. Are we contributing more than our proper share? Is a royal commission going to find that out? Why, that is already on the records of Hansard here, and hon. gentlemen opposite have helped to put it there in the last fifteen or twenty years. We need no royal commission for that purpose, for the House is perfectly aware of these contributions and receipts. I am a follower of the right hon. leader of the opposition because he came to Nova Scotia and instead of asking, "What are your difficulties here, what are the Maritime rights so-called?" he recognized our problems, and went as far as he could to commit the party which he led to a sane solution of our problems, or some of them at least; and so I had no alternative but to support him. I was amazed in my home town of Kentville to find the Prime Minister of this country, if he gets a seat, making the statements that he did, surrounded as he was on that occasion by men I have known, some of them, for a considerable number of years. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are not without ability; but they did not seem to be able to impress upon the Prime Minister what the problems of the Maritime provinces were, notwithstanding the fact that every supporter of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, after he had left the Maritime provinces, was at great pains to tell the people how the solid sixteen from Nova Scotia session after session at every opportune time had placed before parliament and the Prime Minister the rights of the Maritime provinces. I was driven to the conclusion that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, must have been a thickheaded fellow indeed, but I confess to you I think that was an erroneous conclusion. I do not know him very well, but he must have had some ability to get to be leader of the great Liberal party, or what is left of it; nevertheless I was amazed that he should appear in the Maritime provinces and make the statements that he did. A great many of the men from Nova iScotia in the solid sixteen were elected in 1921 on the platform of a redress of the grievances of the province of Nova Scotia; there is no question about that; and seeing that the Liberal party had only a majority of one in this House, any one of the solid sixteen, or any two of them, had more power in this House for bringing about

The Address-Mr. Foster
a redress of Maritime grievances than any of the great men or any of the minor men who have ever come here from the Maritime provinces and had a seat in this House, had they chosen to use it. They had only to make a serious request to the government of the day, as hon. gentlemen in this House are doing today, for certain legislation in the interests of certain parts of this country. I say they had only to make that request, and the government would at least have hastened to examine into the situation.
But what is the position of hon. gentlemen to-day? Notwithstanding all that has been Said in the press of this country about Maritime rights based on grievances arising out of their geographical position m respect of the rest of Canada ; notwithstanding all that sixteen Liberal members from Nova Scotia said to their Prime Minister when they were here-and I assume that they must have said something to him about it; notwithstanding the fact that the ex-Liberal premier and a delegation of members of boards of trade from the province of Nova Scotia waited on Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and his cabinet in December, 1924, and notwithstanding the fact that a delegation of all the boards of trade of Canada waited on the same gentleman and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) only a few weeks before this House opened-notwithstanding all these attempts, hon. gentlemen opposite to-day are unacquainted with what Maritime rights are and propose to appoint a commission to go and find' out. It seems amusing to me; I cannot conceive of anything which is separated to a greater degree from common sense-and after all, common sense should be the basis of the solution of these problems. In days gone by, hon. gentlemen opposite have taunted members on this side with being Bourbons. Surely we have a right to conclude that Bourbon stupidity could not be better exemplified than in the present proposal to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this matter.
I should like to point out to the House that in December, 1924, the Hon. E. H. Armstrong, then Premier of Nova Scotia, introduced a delegation of Nova Scotians to the government at Ottawa presided over by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. The delegation was composed of representatives of Nova Scotia boards of trade, and they asked for protective duties on coal and steel that would be sufficient to preserve those industries and give the workers engaged in them a square deal in the matter of employment and wages. On January 6, 1925, after the delegation bad gone home, Hon. Mr. Armstrong
followed up their visit here by writing the following letter to the Prime Minister.
Province of Nova Scotia,
Office of the Premier,
Halifax, January 8, 1925.
Ht. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., LL.D., M.P., Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Hon. and dear Sir,
I have the honour to submit herewith, for the information of the members of your cabinet and yourself, a brief summary of the various suggestions and views submitted to you iby the members of the delegation and myself on 2nd December last.
May I be permitted, on behalf of the delegation, to express our hearty appreciation of your personal courtesy and that of your respective colleagues in according to the delegation such an ample opportunity to express our views so fully.
Let me emphasize that, in case some hon. members may not have fully grasped it; he says that the Prime Minister gave them ample opportunity to present fully the views of the province of Nova Scotia.
Those who constituted the delegation represented the various cities, towns and sections, as well as the boards of trade, that are directly concerned in the coal and steel industry in Nova Scotia. Among the delegates was one of the steel workers of Sydney. You will note, therefore, that the delegation was thoroughly representative. Let me further assure you and personally impress upon you the idea that none of those who constituted the delegation were so actuated by any other desire than to lay before your government and yourself the existence of facts that in the opinion of the delegation are very disturbing and alarming, and who genuinely believe that conditions exist that not only require a remedy but can be remedied.
May I be permitted also to add my personal en-dorsation to the views expressed by the delegation, and to reiterate them and to urge upon you such relief as may be afforded at the earliest possible moment.
Let me again thank you and the members of your cabinet for the cordial reception which was so manifest at the time, in the earnest hope, coupled with the feeling of confidence, that the proposals submitted, of which the attached memorandum is a complete summary, will be accorded very careful, early and sympathetic consideration.
Again thanking you,
I have to Honour to be,
Yours very truly,
E. H. Armstrong,
Premier.
Well, Sir, could t'he government put on a royal commission anybody who would know the situation in Nova Scotia better than Mr. Armstrong so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned? I have some idea that they would not be quite willing, perhaps, to accept the assurances of the present premier of that province; but here is a gentleman of their own political faith, the head of the province at that time, bringing a delegation to Ottawa, and here is the reception that was given to that delegation.
The Address-Mr. Foster

Now what did the delegates ask for? I might answer the question by quoting a few excerpts from the statement which they presented. The memorandum to which Mr. Armstrong referred contained the following:
The allied coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia have been for some years in a depressed condition. The prospect for the future is that there may be even more serious depression and resultant poverty. The province of Nova Scotia is largely dependent upon these industries which are the main, and in some instances the sole support of the population in important centres. This will be easily understood when it is considered that from 20,000 to 25,000 men are employed in the mining of coal and its associated industries; and that directly dependent on these there are not less than 100,00 to 125,000 people, or more than one-fifth of the population of the province.
The delegation asked the King government for adequate tariff protection to prevent foreign coal and steel products from flooding Canada's markets; to stabilize and promote the coal end steel industries in Nova Scotria; and give the working men engaged m them steady and remunerative employment.
I pause for a moment to.say that with a majority of one in this House, and with members on this side pledged to protection, the government of to-day could have granted that relief as well as not.
The steel industry of Nova Scotia is the only portion of the general steel industry of Canada which is in any real sense seUf-contained or able to produce manufactured material of genuinely Canadian origin.
It is >the one industry of its kind in Canada the output of which is the result of the expenditure of practically its total cost in the form of wages paid to Canadian or other British workmen.
The coal used is mined by Canadians, the ore by Canadians assisted by their neighbour Britishers in Newfoundland, while all the work of smelting and refining is done in Canada by Canadians, many of whom have given years to the acquisition of their art, which is now a valuable asset that is in danger of being lost to their native country. In the other steel plants in Canada both coal and ore for making pig iron and refining it to steel are imported from the United States, and should that source of raw materials for any reason become unavailable, iron and steel manufacture and the fabrication of iron and steel into finished goods would necessarily cease. For this reason the steel industry of Nova Scotia deserves especial consideration. It is the only possible native source of the primary material of the iron and steel arts, and for national preservation, and to avoid complete dependence upon the outside for iron and steel supplies, requires to be kept in existence.
The tariff was, the deputation believes, designed to assist in building up a self-contained steel industry in Canada, but omission to revise the schedules has resulted in a discrimination against semi-finished steel which is proving disastrous to the steel plants of Nova Scotia.
Continued increase of imports of semi-finished steel, occurring simultaneously with decline of blast furnace and steel mill plants in Canada, are shown by the statistics contained in this memorandum to be the outstanding features of the general industry.
This tendency is killing iron and steel works in Nova Scotia, and is the reason for the appearance before the government of the deputation to plead the cause of unemployment workers. It would seem likely to be equally disastrous and to be bound up with far

reaching dangerous consequences if, by continuation of the discrimination against the production of the primary forms of iron and steed, the Nova Scotia plants are forced out of existence in favour of the United States as a source of supply of these indispensable materials.
The deputation, to summarize their representations, can only repeat that the condition of the allied coal and steed industries in Nova Scotia, and the varied interests that are dependent thereon, is truly desperate and they can see no hope of relief from present difficulties, nor any hope of permanent prosperity in Nova Scotia unless remedies are applied by the government, which alone has the ,power to take the necessary action.
American coal is still pouring into Canada, even into Nova Scotia, and the same condition exists with regard to American steel products. Every year $140,000,000 worth of steel products come into this country from the United States. A large part of this could be made at Sydney and Trenton, and a IaTge part should be manufactured in the central province of Canada. We in the Maritime provinces are quite prepared to support a policy which will enable the steel mills of this country to again operate in the interests of this country and to provide employment for the thousands o-f people who have gone elsewhere to find it.
Well, Sir, these extracts which I have read to you come not from a political opponent, but from a political friend of the government, backed by the business men of the boards of trade throughout the province. If you have a royal commission go down there and investigate the situation, who is to be called before it? These self-same business men, these same people, will be called upon to give the views which they have already presented, views which have been placed before the government. I submit that the government knows or ought to know what the findings of this royal commission would be before it is appointed, so far as these particulars are concerned at any rate.
But if they did not find sufficient in the information before them to enable them to move in this regard in preparing the Speech from the Throne and subsequent legislation, they might have had recourse to the addendum to the report prepared by Mr. Hume Cronyn. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) in a very excellent speech placed that matter before the House, and I shall not go into it on this particular occasion. But I will remind the House that so far as examining into agricultural conditions in the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, there is to-day a commission composed of local members of the legislature sitting at various places in the province; in fact, they have completed their sittings and met the local House on the ninth of this month. Another volume of information will therefore be available, obtained from the same agricultural and business men throughout the province-the identical men who would have to

The Address-Mr. Foster
be called by any royal commission to furnish the commission with the facts. So I ask, why should we in this House support the proposal outlined in the Speech from the Throne for a royal commission to investigate conditions in the Maritime provinces? The only reason, Mr. Speaker, that I can see for asking support of such a proposal is this: The government has no legislation prepared on this point, they have nothing to submit to parliament, and having nothing to submit to parliament they can get over it for the time being by summoning to their aid a royal commission.
The other night in this House a member asked: "What are Maritime rights?" I submit that after the exhaustive speech of the member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) in this House a day or two ago-a speech as replete with information as any speech on this subject delivered in this House-hon. members need have no doubt as to some of the things that were regarded in that portion of the Dominion as being Maritime rights. But I place them in order more or less in this way-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was I not right in asking the question, in order to obtain the information which I did obtain?
Mr. FOSTER. I think the hon. member for Provencher was quite right, and I greatly appreciate his interest in the matter. I did not mean in my reply-if my tone insinuated it-to say that he ought not to have asked the question. I am delighted to have the question asked, because I want hon. members to my left, in the other corner of the House, to be as much interested in the problems of the Maritimes as I am interested in the problems of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Having travelled over the western country for six or seven months at one time, and at various times for a number of years, and having intimate relations with that part of Canada, I desire to make the suggestion that at some time during this session, if it continues with hon. members opposite in power-although I have no hope my suggestion will be adopted-I would like to bring in a bill or take some other means whereby one or two hundred dollars of the people's money would be placed at the disposal of members of parliament for expenses in order that every member might travel over the Dominion from one end to the other. You will never get people together, as a rule, unless you have something to drive them. I say the greatest thing which we could do in the parliament of Canada would be to
get our members from one section of the country to go and visit the other sections, and find out what their problems are. We would thus place ourselves in a better position to examiue these problems, and would have far less difference of opinion in regard to them.
The first and most important of the rights of the Maritimes is the restoration of the Intercolonial to its original status. I am not going to cover the ground traversed by the hon. member for Pictou further than to say this:	I am not a constitutional lawyer
or a lawyer of any kind:. In fact I know some men in the legal profession who would be a lot better outside, and in this connection I once heard a story which I will repeat to the House. A minister stated that he was called in a (dream and in the dream he saw the letters "G.F.C.," and he said that he knew he was called to preach because he interpreted the letters, "Go preach Christ". But one gentleman of common sense who listened to him said to him, "Oh you have misinterpreted those letters they meant, 'Go plant corn' There are many men in the legal profession who should be planting corn. To us members of the province of Nova Scotia it does not make any particular difference how the situation of the Intercolonial railway came about, so far as the divorcement of the management and control from ourselves is concerned1; it does not make very much difference to the Maritime provinces who put the Intercolonial into the amalgamation. The question is, who is going to bring it out, and how soon? We understand that the Act of
1919	was enabling legislation. In 1919 and
1920	the financial accounts of all those different railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern and I think the Transcontinental, were all kept separate, but for the purposes of administration they were combined under one president, one board of managers and one set of officials. In the broader sense that may have been the proper thing to do at that time; but in the light of years a feeling was engendred amongst the people of the eastern provinces that- it was a mistake to take the managment of the railway away from the city of Moncton where it had been practically since confederation, of course under the supervision of the Minister of Railways; and a demand has arisen that the Intercolonial be restored to the Maritime provinces. We know perfectly well that the enabling legislation of 1919 provided a way whereby the Intercolonial could be put into the amalgamation, if that were thought desir-
The Address-Mr. Foster

able; but it was not until 1923 that an order in council was passed in that regard, and I think if the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg will examine the matter more closely, he will find that that order in council is responsible for the situation as we have it to-day. If I said1 that myself and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg said the opposite, the people in the country might be disposed to accept his word as against mine. I do not know whether they would or not, and it would not make much difference, so I will call to the assistance of the point I am making a statement made by the present Minister of Railways and Canals. I confess I hardly know how to designate some of the ministers of the government at the present time, whether they axe real or acting; but I refer to the Hon. Mr. Graham, and perhaps I can mention his name as he is not in the House. What did he say? Speaking at Kingsville, Ontario, on September 11th, as reported in the Toronto Globe, he said:
Up till 1921 when Mr. Meighen retired from office not a step had been taken to bring in the Grand Trunk system, the inclusion of which he had provided for, so that this government (the King government) found a statute barren of results, and the two great railway systems still operated by two separate boards, one with headquarters in Montreal, and the other with headquarters in Toronto. . . . The Intercolonial was not yet subjected to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners in regard to rates. It was out of the combine.
Rut, the government of my right hon. friend put it in. We in the Maritime provinces are not going to quibble as to who put it into the amalgamation. The burning question with us is: How soon is if going to be restored to the Maritime provinces?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Just what have the
Maritimes to gain by separating the Intercolonial from the National railways?


George Eulas Foster: I think we would be able to get at least a chance to put some of our products into the central markets of Canada and we would be able to get lower freight rates, which are what my hon. friends have been fighting for for years and which this parliament gave them only a year or so ago. I am sure the people of the Maritime provinces feel that they have just as much right for consideration in that regard, particularly as their right is founded upon an implied contract under the terms of confederation.


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon. gentleman advocate that the fixing of freight rates be removed from the jurisdiction of the railway commission?


George Eulas Foster: I am only too happy to answer my hon. friend that I would. I am glad that he has raised that point. I regard the railway commission as a great idea of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid1 Laurier, as I have heard it spoken of as being a monument to him. I agree with that. There is no doubt the creation of the railway commission was a great idea and we have had some very able men on it; but what that commission lacks, according to my humble judgment, is a sufficient number of men who are able to understand railway auditing and traffic conditions combined. I would be delighted if hon. gentlemen would examine into the formation of that commission and find out how large is that particular department of it and whether it is functioning in that regard. What makes me aSk that question? The fact is that in the last five to ten years, we have had increases in freight rates in this country of ten per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifteen per cent, and forty per cent. Does any hon. gentleman think that one man, however able he may be, can sit on the Board of Railway Commissioners and., by looking up into the skies, say that an increase of forty per cent in freight rates in all sections of this country is a proper thing to stimulate industry and to enable people to carry on and make a living? When you go into the realm of experts, the experts who lay the foundation of freight structures are so expert that the average man does not know what freight structures are nor how to interpret them. I hope I have not said anything that reflects upon the able men on the railway commission; but I repeat that if we are to remain in the amalgamation with ten per cent, fifteen per cent, twenty-five percent and forty per cent increases in rates on our products in the Maritime provinces under the aegis of the Board of Railway Commissioners, then I unhesitatingly say: Take the Intercolonial railway out of the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners and we shall have a chance to reduce our rates in the Maritime provinces.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman would suggest that the fixing of rates be taken from the railway commission, what plan would he adopt? To whom would he entrust the fixing or making of rates?


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will induce those sitting alongside of him to resign their portfolios and to hand the reins of government over to this side of the House, I shall be glad to sit on the fringes of this party to which I give my allegiance and to contribute whatever I may be able to do, and I will not ask anybody to give me a portfolio.

The Address-Mr. Foster


William Daum Euler: That is not an answer to the question.


George Eulas Foster: It is a difficult thing to make a speech and, at the same time, to provide a programme for the government, badly as they may need it. I thought I had made it clear that there was a weakness in the Board of Railway Commis-9 p.m. sioners. I am sure I made it clear that I was finding no fault with the personnel of the heads of that commission, or with the chief operating officer, Mr. Spencer. I think he knows his business, but the men who come before that commission are the men who make the rates and they represent the rate departments of the two great railways of this country. I know some of these men. They are experts in their business, and the ordinary or extraordinary lawyer, no matter how great a reputation he may have before the bar, or the bench, or the Privy Council, is in a new field which he must learn from the bottom up in order that he may become proficient in handling that particular question. When those men from those railways come before the Botard of Railway Commissioners, they come with a set programme asking for an increase of rates- they do not have to ask for decreases; they can decrease the rates themselvesi-and the railway commission says: You shall go this high and no higher. We have had rates going as high as 138 per cent, if the statements are correct that are made by some of the attorneys who have represented clients from the province of Nova Scotia before the railway commission. I have cited four increases of ten per cent, twenty-five per cent, fifteen per cent and fbrty per cent. I do not for a minute believe all the freight rate experts in this country are tied up to the two railways. If they are, and we want to go abroad for a precedent, let us get a few experts from the United States and examine the situation there as well. I think I have answered the question asked by the hon. member except as regards the policy that should be adopted. Possibly in the next twenty-five or thirty years you might be able to arrive at a policy.
The second point of interest to the Maritime provinces is "Canadian trade through Canadian ports and a complete recognition of the statutes and commitments of the parliament of Canada guaranteeing this Canadian policy." This country was asked to vote hundreds of millions of dollars for the building of a transcontinental railway to move the products of the east and the west, and we have had some discussion in this House as to the amount of grain that goes through the United States
and the quantity that passes through Canadian ports. Now I am glad that some grain finds its way through Montreal and Quebec and I should like to see a still larger proportion go through these ports. At the same time however I am anxious to see a good proportion pass through the ports of St. John and Halifax in winter. And that is more than a pious wish; it is only fair that it should] be done.
Another thing I want to see in the interests of the province of Quebec and of the Maritime provinces is the establishment of branches of the milling industry at tidewater. One of the most important things in this country to-day is the development of the milling business in relation to the live stock industry, and there is no reason why .mills should not be built for the milling of flour at tidewater. Some may suggest that this cannot be done. Why? Simply because the milling industry have made up their minds to erect their mills elsewhere. Well, the milling interests have come to this House in the past for legislation in one direction or another and I suspect that they will come here again. I do not suppose that I shall have any influence on this side of the House so long as hon. gentlemen maintain the position they take at present, but if the milling people of Canada ever come to this House for legislation, and I am here, where my vote is a factor, the one thing that I shall demand will be that they come to the ports and establish branches of their industry there.
We have in the Maritime provinces and in Quebec acres upon acres of land which will raise cattle and other live stock, but we cannot obtain the necessary feed from the by-products of flour. We subsidize the carrying of grain overseas and we have our milling done in the central part of the continent, but our freight rate on the railways is so prohibitive that the farmers of eastern Canada cannot afford to get the necessary amount of flour by-products, bran and middlings, to feed their stock. In the province I come from and particularly in the two counties I represent, we could do a splendid business in live stock with the Old Country now that the embargo has been removed, and instead of the Dominion shipping 110,00 head of cattle a year to Great Britain the province of Nova Scotia alone could export that number under proper conditions. Transportation is one of our difficulties, and the fact that branches of the milling industry are not operating at tidewater is another; and these two things must be looked into by more than a royal commis-sion^ Parliament itself must make up its
The Address-Mr. Foster

mind to act in the matter and to provide effective remedies in the interests of the people of Canada.
I have some figures relating to the question of the carriage of grain, and I find that the figures which were given to the House by my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) were substantially correct. I had no doubt ht the time of their accuracy although they were questioned by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, and having looked into the matter I can now verify them. The figures show that whereas in 1920-21 we carried through Canadian ports 61,000,000 bushels as against 42,000,000 bushels shipped through American ports, in 1923, 1924 and 1925 the average was 71,000,000 bushels shipped via Canadian ports and 148,000,000 through American ports. But the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says, "Let us take no action in this regard because, if you do,
40,000,000 or 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain will cease to pass through our Canadian ports." Having been faMy close to the transportation business in the United States for a number of years, I tell you that you can make up your minds that not one bushel of that American grain would travel over Canadian roads or through Canadian exits to the ocean if the United States could handle it themselves. There is a movement on foot on the other side of the line at the present time to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to create a great canal system to take their grain to Atlantic ports and thus relieve the congestion in the bottle neck of the New England railways from Buffalo on to New York and Boston. Now, we (provide them with a convenience by allowing the freight to come through over our rails, and while it is true that they pay for it we can depend upon it that not one solitary bushel would pass through our gateway if they could handle it themselves in the United States at that season of the year. I am interested not only in the grain coming through from the west and the east; I am also interested in some of it going through the ports of Halifax and St. John. There is no reason why we could not mill flour in Halifax and ship it across the ocean. The rate on grain coming to Halifax is sufficiently low to allow the grain to move overseas, and if you can mill grain in Upper Canada at the head of the lakes or on the western portion of the lakes, taking it out as flour and letting it proceed at the same freight rate, why could you not mill some of that flour in Nova Scotia and ship the finished product from there?

This question of by-products naturally brings me to the subject matter of the amendment. I apologize to the House if I have pursued the course of the best afterdinner speakers, who drop their subject soon after beginning and never come back to it until they conclude. But the fact is that dairy products are of vital interest to the province of Nova Scotia. Importations of eggs and butter into the local markets of that province are of very serious consequence to the farmers of the constituency I represent. A certain dairy company failed, and the farmers were importuned to put their money into the business to revive it under a farmers' co-operative organization. They went to the banks, to the old stockings and the old iron chest and brought out their money which they invested in the resuscitated concern, and now it is in the hands of the receiver and they cannot sell their products. Hon. gentlemen have spoken about eggs coming into Canada from Australia. Well, they do not all come from Australia, for whole carloads have come in from the western part of the United States, over a three-cent fence, a surplus production from the storehouses of the middle and the central west of the United States and have undersold the eggs produced in our own province. Yet hon. gentlemen talk about the prosperity of the Dominion at large.
In the very county I represent, not only are our farmers threatened, not only is the poultry business menaced, but in the face of this situation we are maintaining expensive experimental farms to teach the people to do this, that and the other thing in farming, at the same time cutting off the very thing they need most, namely, their local market. The thing they need primarily is that market, and you cannot get away from that. Why, Sir, we have in the counties that I represent a magnificent fruit area, the finest in the world, not even excepting any in the central provinces. But what do I find? A supporter of my opponent in the late election stating privately that the fruit growers and farmers were in such a difficult position financially that the local loan companies had exhausted their resources and were sending to England for funds to make further loans to them. And yet hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the prosperity wave that struck those people I We need in those counties a canning industry, we need the by-products of the mill, we need opportunity in our local markets-both there and here-to sell certain of our products, and we can only get them under protection and

The Address-Mr. Foster
low rates. I wish I had the time to discuss what can be sold even here in the central provinces. I am aware that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, being in the fish business, will tell me that we cannot sell anything up here. But I would remind him that in his own line trade with the central provinces has grown not by the hundreds of thousands but by the millions of dollars because of the business ability placed behind the distribution of that particular product. Our Nova Scotia apples, for instance, can be sold in Montreal in competition with apples from any other part of the world. Ontario apples come in there of course, and also Oregon apples. The only requisites are quality and attractive packing; given those, the people will buy any product. We ask to be given a freight rate to enable us to get our products in there. No argument can stand against our success under anything like reasonable conditions. All of these things are vital in the interests of my native province in general and particularly of the part from which I come.
There are three or four other points which I shall not now take the time of the House to deal with, but on some future occasion I propose to place before parliament and the country further important items in the bill of Maritime rights. But while I am on this particular point of transportation-and all these things that I have mentioned are inextricably bound up with it and with the tariff as well-I want to say to my friends to my left that I have something in my hand which I think will interest them. On June 2, of last year the right hon. leader of the opposition moved in the House a resolution. I am not going to read it, but I may direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to clause 4, which I would ask them to give very close study and consideration. It has to do with the preference system. I should like the House not to be carried away by any suggestions that may come from hon. gentlemen opposite that we are against imperial trade. I am interested in the development of the British Empire as a whole. There is no question about that. I am interested in the development of the people in every constituent part of the emtpire. But I am more interested in the development of the people of this Dominion; I am still more interested in how the people of Nova Scotia are going to stay in confederation and make a living. I am mere interested in that than I am in the welfare of constituent portions of the British Empire. They have to take their position
in turn, so far as I am concerned. This is the paragraph I desire to read:
While every effort should be directed toward the establishment of a system of preference for preference within the Empire, no preference should be given at the expense of the Canadian worker, and all preference should be conditional on the use of Canadian ports.
Without attempting to examine that fully to-night, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in iGreat Britain today there is a very marked change of opinion with regard to preference. This applies not only to apples, which is an export of my own constituency, but also to grain. Hon. gentlemen to my left, of course, have maintained their position on the basis of the argument that you cannot ask the consumer in the United Kingdom to tax himself in order that he may eat our wheat. I submit to you, Mr. iSpeaker that he taxes hinjself to-day, and in support of this I desire to read for the information of the House the following;
There has been much in your columns lately on the development of Empire trade. The Self-Supporting Empire League, Polebrook House, Golden-square, London, W. 1, has just been formed for this purpose. Well-known people are on the committee, including Admiral of the Fleet Lord Jellicoe, Field-Marshal Sir William Bird wood, Lord Willingdon, the Right Hon. J. B. Seely, Sir Archibald Weigall, and Sir George McLaren Brown. The league asks its members to inquire invariably for Empire goods, and if they are as good and as cheap as the foreign product to give our own people preference; if they cannot get them, to report to their local office or, failing one, to the head office.
During the last four years-
And this is the point to which I would direct the attention of my hon. friends:
During the last four years 60 per cent of the wheat imported here came from foreign countries at the rate of 3s. per cwt. more than we pay for the same produce of our own Empire.
>
In other words, 35 cents a bushel more has been paid by the British consumer for foreign wheat than for wheat grown within the empire.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will my hon. friend
tell me where he gets those figures. They are rather astonishing.


George Eulas Foster: What I am reading is
taken from the London Times. I thought it bore a date, but apparently it has been clipped off. I will be glad to get this information and give it to my hon. friend. The article continues that the loss in these four years was thirty million pounds-close to $150,000,000. I ask hon. gentlemen if it is not a proper time, if we are going to have a royal commission at all, to have it sit with
The Address-Mr. Foster

some of those people in. Great Britain and see if we cannot find in the resolution which I have just read common ground upon which We can get together along preference lines, and so have 400,000,000 bushels of our wheat go into the British market at 35 cents more per bushel, or at the same price that the British public are now paying for foreign wheat. You do not have to ask the Britisher to tax himself in your interest; he is doing that already.


Mr. FORKE:: Could the hon. gentleman
inform me why 35 cents a bushel more was paid for foreign wheat than for wheat imported from the dominions?


George Eulas Foster: I am very sorry, Sir, but
on account of the defective acoustic properties of this chamber, of which I complained at the outset of my address, I was not able to Bear what my hon. friend said. Will he kindly repeat his question?


Robert Forke: Can the hon. member explain why 35 cents per bushel more is paid for foreign wheat than for wheat grown within the empire?


George Eulas Foster: I frankly tell my hon.
friend that the thing is so startling to me that any explanation I would attempt to give would be simply along general lines, but I submit, and I think the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will agree with me, that it is worthy of every possible investigation. We can communicate with the men whose names I have read to you, and who may be responsible for this statement.


Milton Neil Campbell: In my opinion those
figures are not correct. If you will examine the figures day by day and the wheat prices in the old country, you will see no such disparity as that.


George Eulas Foster: There is the whole difficulty; the wheat prices do not show the situation at all. We do not say it; it is the Englishmen who say that sixty per cent of the wheat brought into the United Kingdom is brought from foreign sources on which they pay three shillings a hundredweight more than on wheat produced within the empire. They can do that if they want to. You may say it is not good business, but the Englishman has been doing business much longer than we have, and when we think he is through he bobs up, arranges for his debts, and carries on all over the world.
Just one other thought in that connection. There is to-day a movement in the old country to inaugurate a policy which would have for its object new duties imposed upon

the importation from foreign countries of certain commodities which the empire itself can produce in great quantities; for example, canned fruits, apples and canned salmon. I say to my friends to my left, I will be delighted to go with you on the question of wheat, if you will come with me on the question of apples, canned fruits and canned salmon, because these are the things we handle in the eastern part of Canada. If you want to get into that market, which is your market as it is our market, if there is within the four comers of that policy something upon which we can get together, I ask you gentlemen now if you do not think it is worth while for 35 cents a bushel on 400,000,000 bushels, or $140,000,000, to scrap any political ideas Adam Smith may have had years and years ago.
I have already detained the House, Mr. Speaker, far too long. I appreciate your courtesy and the courtesy of the House on this my first serious effort to place before you important matters which touch vitally the life of that portion of Canada from which I am proud ito come. I have not been able to touch them all, but phases of them have already been ably dealt with in the speeches of other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, and other phases will be taken up by those who are to follow. I can assure the House of this, that we have in Canadh the task to develop our industrial as well as our agricultural facilities and1 resources, and upon those two things will depend the maximum progress and the maximum development of this country and the happiness of our people. What is more, it is the remedy for keeping our people at home with us, and) will be the means of bringing to our country others who will settle among us and become happy and prosperous Canadians.
*


Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, for the last five weeks I have been watching the relationship between the government benches and my Progressive friends to the left, and that observation has recalled to my mind the instructions given by a certain man for the drawing of his will. He instructed his solicitor, gave him all the details, and after the executors were named he desired that his pall-bearers should also be named in the will. He named six bankers as pallbearers. The solicitor naturally wondered why he should name six bankers as pall-bearers, and the answer came back, "They have carried me so far; let them finish their work." Mr. Speaker, could we as Conservatives afford to sit down and allow that process to go on? I say not, if we are to preserve our honour with the people of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Stinson
We have on this side of the House 116 members, and every one who has spoken so far has said that he was elected to this House on a protective platform; that the tariff, and the tariff alone, was the main and the supreme issue in hiis constituency. That being the case, and with 116 members who received a popular majority of the votes to the extent of over 200,000 on the 29th of October, if that vote can be interpreted by members on this side of the House it is a mandate to push the King government from power in the same way that that government was pushed by popular sentiment to the polls on the 29th of October last.
As time goes on, it becomes more apparent every day and in every way to every member of this House how hopelssly incompetent and helpless the present administration is. It was claimed a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that we were obstructing the government. Is not that in itself an admission of weakness? If the government have a mandate from the people of this Dominion and from this House to carry on the government and put a certain definite policy into operation, then why not put that policy into operation? Why not bring down their legislation? Why pussyfoot about it? Why not bring it down and let us judge it on its merits? If the government is incapable, then it should do the same as the individual who is incapable, give way to someone else who is capable. Six weeks at home will not advance the business of the country or help to stabilize the dairy industry that we have heard so much about in the last few days. Business men have maintained for the last four years that business has been crippled by government instability, that there has been certain tinkering with the tariff policy from time to time so that things generally are in a state of uncertainty in which nothing is certain but the uncertainty. Stagnation has followed; business after business has gone out of existence; thousands of our population have left and gone to the United States; we cannot possibly continue along those lines. The minister who declared in this House a few years ago that the death knell had been rung of protection in Canada is still on the treasury benches, and that in itself leaves industry without the confidence that it should have. In these circumstances there is one thing left for us to do, and that is to carry out the mandate of the electors and drive to resignation a government that has lost the confidence of the people. If we sit down on oui job, we would be remiss in our duty to the people of Canada, because this country needs stability. Instability comes from preach-14011-62
ing one doctrine and practising another. If there is merit in free trade, then why not put it into operation and let us experience some of those wonderful benefits whidh our Progressive friends to the left speak so much about? I challenge the government to come cut and fight on that one issue of the tariff in Canada, and let us settle it once and for all.
A country cannot have a lopsided development. We must develop industry and agriculture side by side; one is complementary to the other. The farmers of Ontario are beginning to realize as never before that their best market is the home market, and they are anxious to see that market developed in Canada. If a man can sell his produce at his own door, without shipping it some three thousand miles away, and thus escape transportation, exchange, and all the other difficult problems that enter into a world transaction, is he not much better off? To whom does the farmer sell in the foreign market? He sells to the man living in the distant city, town or village, who is engaged in an industrial operation of some kind, earning a wage by which he can pay for the farmer's produce which is shipped to his home 3,000 or 4,000 miles distant, as the case may be, from the point of production. Now, would it not be a lot better if instead of shipping that grain and produce
3,000	miles we could transplant that man his industry to Canada and let him buy from the farmer here while we could purchase the products of his industry in our own country and not have to import manufactured articles from foreign lands to the detriment of our own artisans?
This afternoon the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) gave a quotation from President Coolidge with respect to agricultural iproducts. Let me finish that quotation by citing other remarks by the president touching the industrial end. On that point President Coolidge said:
Two very important poilicies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of the utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff, whdch enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, at any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen.
That is what we want to do in Canada. As early as 1876 the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared himself a protectionist, admitting that protection was a matter of necessity for a young nation in order that it might attain to the full development of its own resources. We are protectionists on this side of the House

The Address-Mr. Stinson

for what reason? Because the only real development in Canada has been accomplished under a protective policy. Let us see what that policy has done for Canada. In 1879 the aggregate trade of the Dominion was [DOT] $149,488,188. This under a protective policy had grown in 1922 to $1,501,731,341. In 1900 the value of our field crops was $194,953,421. In 1921 this had increased to $931,862,670. The average value of occupied land in Canada increased from $38 per acre in 1910 to $48 per acre in 1920. The value of our live stock increased from $268,651,026 in 1901 to $766,720,000 in 1921. Our wheat production increased almost 3,000 per cent. Whereas in
1880	it amounted to 32,350,269 bushels, in 1922 it had increased to 399,786,400 bushels. The value of dairy products, which in 1901 amounted to $29,131,922, had grown to $104,972,046 in 1922. In 1922 the agricultural wealth of Canada was $6,773,942,000, and the agricultural revenue $1,419,937,000.
Take the growth of the lumbering industry. The value of the raw products in 1881 was $39,540,570. In 1921 this had increased to $140,381,584. The value of pulpwood increased from $7,732,055 in 1908 to $52,900,872 in 1921. Paper production increased in value from $58,750,341 in 1917	to	$132,022,767 in
1920. The following statistics showing industrial growth will be found interesting:
Money invested in the lumber industry in 1923
Capital invested	 $189,622,000
Annual production	 179,099,000
Number of employees	No.	57,233Wages paid during that	year..	..	50,857,719
Take the paper industry, a new industry which has been fostered in Canada by the tariff, which compels the most of our pulp-wood to be manufactured in this country. The following figures are noteworthy:
Capital invested in 1922	 $381,006,000
Production	 148,123,000
Employees	No.	25,830
Wages	 32,918,000
This brings us to the growth of manufacturing, which is indicated by the following figures:
Year Employees	Salaries Capital Production
1881	.. 254,894 $ 59,401,702 $ 164,957,423 $ 309,731,867 1921 .. 517,141 $581,402,385 $3,210,709,288 $2,747,926,675
Our exports in 1S81 were valued at $83,944,701; in	1921 they had increased	to
$1,189,163,701. These figures bear silent and sure testimony to the increase of prosperity in Canada under a system of protection. No branch of our life has failed to share in increased wealth; manufactures have not excessively prospered at the expense of other phases of activity. The fact that the average number of employees in a Canadian factory

is less than twenty shows that protection cannot, as is so often charged, have fostered monopolies and trusts to any appreciable degree, if at all. Furthermore, the tariff has been far from hampering the export of our primary sources of wealth, especially in agriculture, which cannot be entirely absorbed here.
At the present time some 41,000 factories employ nearly 600,000 workers, upon whom directly depend nearly 2,000,000 people. In 1921 the manufactures of Canada had a capital investment of $3,210,707,288 and paid out in wages $581,402,385. These factories produced goods valued at $2,747,926,675 and contributed nearly 40 per cent of the nation's exports. Can Canada afford to jeopardize the fate of these people and reduce her capital investments and' national trade? It is a condition, not a theory, which confronts us, and the ardent free trader would do well to ponder over these figures.
I want to deal for a moment with the cost of farm machinery. I picked up a little item a few days ago which was rather an eye-opener to me on this question. It reads: Cost of Farm Machinery.
The division of Illustration Stations, Dominion Experimental Farms, recently concluded a survey covering the efficient use of farm machinery and its cost per acre. Allowing for interest on average investment, replacement and repairs, it was found that the cost of machinery on farms ranging from 20 to 50 acres was $3.37 per acre, 50 to 100 acres, $2.59, 100 to 150 acres $1.65, 150 to 200 acres $1.25, and on those from 200 to 500 acres $1.17 per acre. The average cost at the stations in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and British Columbia amounted to $2.16 per acre, while for Alberta and Saskatchewan it was $1.25 per acre.
If you take that cost and compare it with that applicable to any other business in the Dominion of Canada, you will find it is very much less. Our agricultural wealth in 1922 was $6,773,942,000; our total agricultural revenue was $1,419,937,000. In 1922 there were under cultivation 57,189,681 acres and, multiplying that by the average as between $2.16 and $1.25 per acre, for cost of agricultural implements used in the cultivation of that acreage, we have $1.70 per acre, or a total of $97,222,457. Deducting that total cost incurred in connection with agricultural implements from the total revenue of $1,419,937,000 we have a net total revenue of $1,322,714,543, and I do not think there is any other business which will show so low a cost as that.
I want to touch for a moment on the Hudson Bay railway, simply for the purpose of bringing out the necessary information in that connection in order that we may all be seized with the necessary facts when the time

The Address-Mr. Stinson
arrives. I am deeply interested in the development of western Canada, and I want to assist that part of Canada in every way I can. But 'before we go on with this project the people of Canada must be given some definite information by the government as to what is intended in the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Mr. McLachlan, the resident engineer of the Hudson Bay railway since 1913, reported to the Department of Railways and Canals under date of February 6, 1923, to the effect that the dredging, the docks, the elevators and the completion of the road would cost $27,071,000; that the ties had to be relaid on some 322 miles of the road at a cost of $1,112,000; that 50 locomotives and 1,200 cars would be required, and that it would cost in the neighbourhood of $16,000,000 to handle not more than 400,000 bushels per da\' uip to a total of 24,500,000 bushels for the season. To the above must be added the cost of ships and aids to navigation, to the extent of $20,250,000, making a total outlay of $48,443,000. He places the open navigation season as from 20th August to 20th October and fixes the number of bushels that can be handled in any one year at 24,-500,000 bushels. The gross receipts for eaStbound traffic on 24,500,000 bushels at the rate now paid from, Saskatoon to Fort William would equal $1,661,041. Westbound traffic is estimated at $67,200, making a total of $1,728,241. On page 48 of the return Mr. McLachlan says that from the above figures it appears that grain can be delivered to a ship in Montreal more cheaply than to a ship at Port Nelson after the Welland canal is finished. The cost of operation, if you take the interest on $48,000,000 at four per cent, means $1,917,212; the maintenance $825,952 per year and the operating expenses in the neighbourhood of $8,000,000. The loss on the road without reducing freight rates would be $8,000,000 including fixed charges. The handling of 24,500,000 bushels out of a crop of
400,385,000	bushels such as they had in 1925 is too small a matter to be of any benefit to the western farmer. A further report made by the resident engineer to W. A. Bowden, dated 17th September, 1917, concludes as follows:
I have no longer any hesitation in saying the Hudson Bay railway is doomed to certain failure. There may be fish in Hudson bay, but there is no fishing season. There may be minerals on the east coast but they are as accessible from Halifax as from Port Nelson. There is nothing for the Hudson bay north of the Huronian rock outcrops south of Split lake so long as the St. Lawrence river route i3 available, and as for agricultural possibilities north of the same point there are none.


Mr. BIRD:: Has the hon. member investigated these statements?



H011-62J

Thomas Hubert Stinson: Mr. McLachlan has been resident engineer since 1913, and I assume he is in a much better position to give a report than the hon. member or myself.


Thomas William Bird: Does the hon. member think he is qualified to give a report on agricultural conditions?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: A man who has lived in
that area since 1913 ought to be in a position to give a report of some kind. I am putting these facts before the House simply that we may give the matter our serious consideration.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member quotes Mr. McLachlan as saying that a certain amount of expenditure will be required on cars and locomotives to carry grain to Port Nelson.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: Does the hon. gentleman not
think those cars and locomotives will be required to carry that grain just the same whether the Hudson Bay railway is built or not?


Thomas Hubert Stinson: If we are now carrying
the grain with our present railway equipment, unless you greatly increase your production in the west we shall still be able to carry it as we are doing to-day. While you may have another outlet at Hudson bay, you will only be taking a certain quantity of freight ,away from the two railways which are at present carrying it. I am not discussing this matter in a controversial way at all; I am simply discussing it in order that it may be given the serious consideration to which it is entitled, because at the present time we have railway problems on our hands and we do not want to take a leap in the dark and spend another fifty million dollars unless that expenditure is going to give the people of the west the benefit they claim it wall give them.
Another matter that I would like to touch on for a few moments is the question of rural credits. As a fundamental principle I do not think any government should1 be in the lending business. During the last few years a feeling has grown up that paternal legislation is a panacea for all the ills of the nation. At the present time we have insurance companies, loan companies and trust companies who are carrying on this business, and who have both before and since confederation supplied mortgage credits to the people of Canada. They have been a large factor in the development of this country, and they have helped the farmer to cultivate his land, the artisan to acquire his home,
The Address-Mr. Stinson

and the business man to develop his business. These companies, which have for investment hundreds of millions of dollars made up of ithe savings and insurance premiums which the people of Canada have entrusted to them for safe keeping, should be allowed to present their case to a committee of this House and to give us the benefit of their experience in the lending business, an experience which would be of great use to this House and to the people of Canada at large.
Denmark and Holland get the cheapest money -for agricultural purposes in western Europe at the present time. In Denmark the lending is done through credit associations. A borrower, on becoming a member, pays an initial premium of one and one-half per cent to the association. He then executes in favour of the association a mortgage bearing interest at five per cent, and the association, instead of paying him cash for the amount of his loan, delievers to him bonds of the association. These bonds are now issued bearing interest at 4| per cent, although when money was cheaper they were issued at a lower rate. The borrower has to sell his ,4i per cent bonds in the open market and they fluctuate in price the same as any other securities. These bonds were quoted in Denmark on the 21st of January, 1926, at from 85 to 87 cents on the dollar. It would therefore appear that a borrower in Denmark in the third week of January, who borrowed
11,000	on a mortgage on which he agreed to pay interest at the rate of five per cent, would receive from $850 to $870 in cash. This substantial discount would have to be borne by him over the period of his loan, consequently he is paying considerably more than five per cent on his mortgage. During the middle of last summer these Danish bonds were selling at from 78 to 80, so that the rate to the farmer wras higher at that time than it was on the 21st of January of the present year.
In 1916 in the United States the cry of cheap money was raised as being a cure for all the ills of the farmer in the middle west. In less than ten years the Farm Loans board of the United States has invested $1,500,000,000 m mortgage credits. Still the farmer of the middle west has found that that has not been a panacea for all his ills, and he is now making further demands upon the government along other lines. The money of the Farm Loans board of the United States was obtained by the issue of tax free bonds. These bonds were largely bought by wealthy individuals who escaped the income tax, and there has been a serious loss to the treasury of that

country by the issue of those tax free bonds for that purpose.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have also entered upon schemes of rural credits, Manitoba, according to the premier, expects a loss in the neighbourhood of $650,000 to $700,000 on an issue of $3,000,000. Saskatchewan has large arreas and has had to advance considerable sums to its borrowers for seed grain, taxes, hail insurance premiums, et cetera. In 1922, 1923, and 1924, only $91,000 was collected by Alberta under the Live Stock Encouragement Act, while during the same period the Alberta government, which guaranteed the advances to the banks, had to pay the banks $497,000. The government therefore had to make good losses to the extent of $406,000; and this came from the pockets of the people generally. If these provinces have found it difficult to collect, would not the federal government find it even more so, with the centre from which the lending was made transferred from the west to Ottawa?
In Canada there is no lack of money for lending on mortgages at present, and competition will force a reduction in the rates. When the war broke out, money was being lent in the west in approved districts at seven per cent, and during the war period the government of Ontario paid as high as six per cent for money. The average loan in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta per quarter section of land is $1,500. Supposing you get a saving of from one to two per cent in your rate of interest, that would mean a saving of $15 to $30 per annum, and surely such a saving is not a matter of life and death as some parties who are sponsoring the system claim. Western agriculturists have pointed out that by a careful selection of seed and better rotation of crops, there can be obtained a higher yield of five bushels to the acre of wheat, ten bushels to the acre of oats, seven to eight bushels to the acre of barley and rye. This increased yield at present prices woidd amount to between $300 and $400. To the owner of a quarter section who has 100 acres under cultivation, this is infinitely more important than a saving of $15 to $30 in interest charges.
The mortgage business in Canada as a whole has been fairly carried on. There have been some cases of hardship, but not many. The mortgage lending companies have played a fair and a large part in the development of Canada and we must treat them fairly. The rates which they have been charging have been determined by the rates that they have had to pay for their money, plus a reasonable charge for administration. None of the

Prince Albert By-election
companies has made excessive profits, and you must take into account the risks run and the inevitable losses which are bound to occur in any mortgage business. Before we embark on the uncertain sea of money-lending, let us hear all the evidence in a true, understanding manner, out of which there may grow a spirit of co-operation in the interest of all, so that we may be able to help the dairyman the farmer and the manufacturer.
So far as the rate of money in western Canada is concerned, borrowing has been curtailed and the rate increased as a result of some of the provincial legislation that has been passed in those provinces. Both in Saskatchewan and in Alberta certain claims by way of legislation have been made to take rank over first mortgages, and in Alberta there are ten or eleven such charges that now take priority of the mortgage. In the effort to assist the people of those provinces this policy has curtailed lending and has increased the rate of interest chargeable in that section of Canada.
What we require to-day in Canada is stability in the tariff, with protection for the farmer, the labourer and the manufacturer. We require economy in the administration of government; we require a government capable of putting into operation its own policies and not a government in the hands of a few men outside who dictate those policies. We require the utilization of all our resources for the benefit of the people of Canada, and last but not least we require a reduction in taxation generally as well as the abolition of a number of small and annoying taxes now imposed on business and which have been hampering activities in the last few years.
If given an opportunity, we are prepared to work out with our Progressive friends a clearer understanding on such matters as they are pressing for, and at the same time we want them to have a clearer appreciation of our aims and objects. If we could arrive at a co-operative arrangement on this basis I believe it would be very much in the interests of the people of Canada. Stability is the main thing in the development of Canada at this period, and in order to attain that stability in business we must have it first of all in the highest place of business: we must have stability in parliament. All business is being hampered in consequence of the present situation in parliament. Nothing is certain in connection with our fiscal policy; nothing is certain in our trade policy. Nbthing is certain but uncertainty, and until the air is cleared the progress of this Dominion is going to be retarded as it is just now.
On motion of Mr. Anderson (Halton) the debate was adjourned.



PRINCE ALBERT BY-ELECTION COMPLAINT REGARDING PRINTING OF BALLOTS

Hewitt Bostock: Before the adjournment
oi the House is moved I desire to make a statement. In conformity with a request made this afternoon on the orders of the, day, I communicated with the chief electoral officer and have now received his reply. For the information and the convenience of hon. members I suggest that it be incorporated in tomorrow's Votes and Proceedings. It is not bulky, so that it can easily be done. This of course is by leave of the House, inasmuch as it is irregular.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It is perfectly
all right.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
Monday, February 15, 1926