1926-02-11

REPRESENTATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10 to amend the Representation Act, 1924. (Boundaries of certain constituencies).
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to make certain slight changes in the boundaries between the districts of Nipissing, South Timiskaming, North Timis-kaming, East Algoma, West Algoma and Port Arthur, without in any way interfering with the general descriptions of the ridings.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
CORRESPONDENCE TABLED On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the House some correspondence between the Prime Minister and myself, asked for yesterday by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon).



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
ASI-I WEDNESDAY ADJOURNMENT On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government whether, next Wednesday being Ash Wednesday, the House will adjourn?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Leader of the House):: Mr. Speaker, we hope the Address
will be disposed of before next Wednesday. If not, we shall follow the usual custom, I imagine-that is, adjourn.
ALBERTA COAI^-TRANSPORTATION
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the government, through the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), to the serious fuel situation in Ontario, as set forth in a letter to me from the United Farmers Co-operative Company Limited. This organization, as the minister knows, is working in conjunction with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other bodies in an effort to solve the acute coal situation in Ontario. The company object to the fact that only another 25,000 tons of coal is to be moved, and they say:
This in our estimation would be a calamity. There is an emergency throughout Ontario to be met im-


Alberta Coal
mediately on the fuel situation. During the past two weeks we have been in communication by long distance telephone to points throughout all parts of the province, and have made it our business to inquire of our people as to the fuel situation in their district, and we find that coal at almost every point is very scarce.
We find that coal dealers who have been counting on receiving supplies of coke and Pocohontas coal are disappointed in this. Deliveries of this have not come forward as expected. Coke, as we all know, is practically off the market at the present time, and will likely be very scarce until spring. Deliveries of Poco-hontas Coal are slow, and unless an adequate tonnage of Alberta coal is secured for immediate delivery, the situation will create hardship in many localities.
I bring this to the attention of the government in the hope that the minister will be able to assure the House that every possible effort will be made in accordance with the proper procedure to induce the railway companies to consider the hauling of this coal.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker,
may I point out for the benefit of the House that each province has a fuel commissioner? In the cas9 of Ontario, this official is Mr. Ellis. He is directly in touch, so far as I know, with every district of his province, and is well aware of the local requirements. He has power to direct coal shipments to any point he deems desirable and to take such other measures as he sees fit to relieve any fuel shortage. The federal government is always glad to co-operate in relieving any emergency, but Mr. Ellis and the coal operators of Alberta have been dealing directly with Sir Henry Thornton and his board of management. As my hon. friend is aware, there is no movement of this coal over the Canadian Pacific railway; it is all confined to the Canadian National railways. I want it to be distinctly understood that Sir Henry Thornton announced specifically that he was hauling this coal at seven dollars a ton as an emergency measure. I have no doubt that so long as the emergency exists he will continue to bring in Alberta coal.



CAYUGA INDIANS-UNITED STATES AWARD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Cayuga tribe of Indians, which is a branch of the Six Nations confederacy, has been awarded a considerable sum of money by the United States government in settlement of certain longstanding claims against that country. Will the minister inform the House if the members of this tribe residing in the reservation near Brantford are to rfiare in the award? Also, is the department looking after their interests?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend at the moment all the information necessary to answer his question, but I will 'secure it for him to-morrow.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 10, 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. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, when at six o'clock yesterday I moved the adjournment of the debate I was discussing railway construction in the several provinces from 1907 to 1920, and the increased railway mileage then built. During this period the increase in railway mileage constructed in Saskatchewan was 4,200; Ontario, 3,363; Alberta, 3,181; British Columbia, 2,639; Quebec, 1,425; Manitoba, 1,329; New Brunswick, 310; Nova Scotia, 109; Prince Edward Island, 12.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Might I suggest that hon. members should not carry on too many conversations? I have to strain my ears to understand what the hon. gentleman is saying.


Thomas Cantley: These figures, Sir, show
that the percentage increase in railway mileage within each of the provinces for the same period was as follows:
Alberta, 238; Saskatchewan, 208; British Columbia, 155; Ontario, 57; Manitoba, 43; Quebec, 40; New Brunswick, 21; Nova Scotia, 8; Prince Edward Island,
ih-
Then consider the amount of Dominion aid given to each of the provinces by way of subsidies, construction of the National Transcontinental railway, the purchase of the Canadian Northern railway, the practical assumption of the liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the aid given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. These payments or contributions by provinces are as follows-* and I am giving the figures in round millions:
Ontario, 288; Quebec, 158; British Columbia, 167; Manitoba, 138; Alberta, 128; Saskatchewan, 163; New Brunswick, 28; Nova Scotia, 21; Prince Edward
Island, 8.
For canal construction and enlargement from 1867 to 1925, the capital expenditure in round figures was 225 millions, of which about 20 millions was spent prior to confederation
The Address-Mr. Cantley

To the balance of, say, 200 millions, expended since 1867, is to be added the estimated approximate cost of completing the Welland ship canal, about 54 millions, and this in addition to about 61 millions already expended! on this new work up to the end of the last fiscal year; or, a grand total since 1867 of 280 millions, when the Welland ship canal work now in progress is completed. Of this great sum about $650,000, or less than three-eighths of one per cent was spent on the half mile St. Peter's canal in Cape Breton.
Now Scotia has nearly twenty per cent of the whole population of Ontario, and more than twenty-five per cent of the rural population of that province, but Ontario received nearly $1,400 for every dollar Nova Scotia received by way of railway expenditure, and up to the clos'e of 1923 more than $150 for every dollar expended in Nova Scotia by the federal government on canals. Nova Scotia in 1920 had twenty-four per cent more population than Alberta, while that province received as milway aid from the Dominion more than six times as much as Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan, with practically the same population got 163 odd millions, against 21 millions for Nova Scotia, or nearly eight times as much. British Columbia fared even better, for while the population of Nova Scotia was twenty per cent greater, she got but slightly over one-eighth as much Dominion railway expenditure. Manitoba received nearly seven times as much as Nova Scotia, and Quebec more than seven times as much. We have not forgotten that a few miles of privately-owned branch lines were taken over in Nova Scotia, and several such railways in New Brunswick, but at much below the cost of construction, and in ail the expenditure did not amount to five per cent of that spent in any one of the western provinces.
The province of Nova Scotia gave in land grants to Nova Scotia railways now comprised in the Canadian National Railways,
160,000	acres. The province's proportion of the lands given in grants to other railways, also now merged in the Canadian National system, aggregate 1,770,000 acres. As a partner in confederation Nova. Scotia bad, and by right still has, a substantial interest in these lands and in the benefit derived from this or other such exploitation, though made chiefly in the prairie provinces for railway development there.
Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba were all allowed to extend their boundaries into the territories abutting on these provinces, and so added immense areas-some of great mineral value-to their respective domains. No such advantages came to Nova Scotia, and no com-

pensation has yet been made to Nova Scotia for those portions of the territory so alienated from the Dominion and given to these other provinces. Nova Scotia's interests as one of the four original partners who acquired and paid for these lands is being ignored. I repeat, Sir, Nova Scotia as one of the original partners in confederation has contributed! in proportion to her population to all the national expenditure of the Dominion, and should have realized a proportionate advantage with the other provinces. Neither in railway mileage, railway expenditure, canal construction, nor the free traffic thereon, has she received back a proportion more than, trifling. No share of the prairie public domain has been given her or any compensation for her proportion given to other provinces.
The cost of transportation on the Intercolonial railway has been- doubled, and in many important oases more than doubled, thus virtually cancelling the only commercial consideration promised at confederation. Our basic products are practically dftty free today, and1 we are left not only without protection, but the canal system, to the building of which we have contributed our share, supplies free transportation not only to Quebec, Ontario and the central western provinces, but also to our foreign competitors, who pushed three million tons of soft coal and a considerable tonnage of iron and steel through these waterways into Canada during the season 1923-4.
These Unfavourable conditions, Mr. Speaker, which make it impossible for Nova Scotia to do any volume of profitable business with her sister provinces west of the ancient city of Quebec, are as depressing as they are powerful in effect. Appreciation of the situation is reflected in the building programme of the Dominion for the past year, which in the Contractors Journal is forecast at eighty million dollars. Of this amount it is said that five-eighiths, or thirty millions, will be spent in Ontario, and but one million in the three Maritime provinces. In other words, it is expected that the Maritimes, with a population of one-fifth of that of Ontario, will thus spend on new construction this year only one-fiftieth of the amount to be spent in Ontario. I ask: Why?
A few days ago before I left home to come to Ottawa I saw eighteen expert artisans leave New Glasgow for the United States. These artisans, some of the best mechanics we have in this country, followed nearly three thousand others, most of them equally expert, who have left either New Glasgow or within a radius of five miles of that town within the last two years. Why did they leave? Why were we not able to provide employment in

The Address-Mr. Cantley
this country for those skilled artisans? Why is it necessary for them to leave the Maritime provinces and go to Detroit, Boston, and other points in the United States to get employment? Mr. Speaker, we used to talk some years ago, and I have heard a good deal of that talk myself sitting in the gallery here in past years, about remittance men, but I want to tell the House that we have to-day a large number of remittance men, not in Canada, but in the United States- Canadians who have been forced to go over there, and who, after paying for their board and living expenses, are remitting from week to week and month to month what they can save to maintain their families in Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces.
Any serious attempt to investigate the two questions to which I have referred will bring to light the realization of a deep-seated and widespread situation where, due to unfair territorial treatment, tariff inequalities and disappointing traffic conditions, the natural development of the Maritime resources is restricted and the opportunities for employment similarly affected.
I have made little or no reference to the question of protection for our Maritime industries. During each of the months of June and July last there was imported into this country from the United States about
55,000	tons of steel; I do not know what the total tonnage imported in August, September and October was, but for the month of November last we imported into this country from the United States 68,000 tons of steel, seven-eighths of which could have been produced equally well in Canada. Only a few days before I left home, I was in Stellarton, three miles distant from the town of New Glasgow where I live, and there the Public Works department are building a post office. In the construction of that building some structural steel is being used, and what did I find? I looked at the steel and I found rolled into it the name of the Carnegie Steel Company of the United States. The same material could have been bought and was in store at the works at New Glasgow, within four miles of where that building was being erected. There was in store at the works at New Glasgow 6,000 tons of it, 560 different sections of various shapes and sizes, all available for that work. Why was that not used? Why do we bring in, why are we allowed to bring in, American material for use in the construction of public buildings when within four miles of that construction there is ample material available for the purpose, when Canadian steel is stored and
remains uncalled for and unsold so near that construction? That is a condition of affairs, Mr. Speaker, which is not creditable to this country, and it is a condition of affairs that bears hardly upon the province from which I come. During recent years between
600,000	and 700,000 tons of foreign steel has annually come into the Dominion of Canada, and I repeat, 90' per cent of that steel could have been and should have been manufactured within the Dominion of Canada. I do not intend to delay the House much longer in dealing with this phase, but I expect to refer to this question of protection for our iron and steel and coal industries at some later date.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Would the hon. member tell us what is the difference between the American price and the Canadian price for that structural steel? Could it be bought cheaper in the United States?


Thomas Cantley: In reply to the hon.
member, I am not selling steel for the Carnegie Steel Company, and I do not know what their price was.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, the S.O.S. voiceless operators of the derelict government, of which nearly half the officers and fully half the crew are missing, but who, for the time being, are the trustees of the people of this country, the owners of the Canadian National railway system, and as such trustees appoint the board of directors, the president and general manager of that road. They are the masters of the men whom they have appointed, just as the shareholders of any corporation are the masters of the board of directors, the general manager and the other executive officers of that concern. These same trustees for the people of Canada, the owners of the road, did during the last week refuse to the coal miners of Nova Scotia, and of Cape Breton particularly, railway rates on the product of their labour. The rate asked for was in no wise more onerous to the railway than the rate accorded on the movement of coal from Alberta to Ontario. The rate asked for was on a much higher per ton basis than that at which food products are carried from Montreal to Atlantic ports for export overseas, which food products are worth many times the value per ton of coal. I do not care who is going to pay the difference in freight; that is not the point. The point is this:	The railway carried coal for the
western province of Alberta last year, and we ask, we demand, the same consideration in regard to a much smaller quantity of our coal at the present time. Hundreds of miners are to-day idle at Sydney Mines. They
The Address-Mr. Cantley

could be put to work, and would be put to work, if we were given the same advantage in the matter of the movement of a small tonnage of coal as has been accorded our western friends. As I have already said, I have no objection whatever to the movement of that coal from Alberta. I am very glad it has been moved, and so far as I can judge, the railway has not shown or made any attempt to show that a loss was incurred on the movement of that coal.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) gave some of us on this side of the House a couple of weeks or more ago what we understood to be a distinct assurance, indeed a definite promise, that the rate of $3.25, which we had asked on that small movement of coal from Sydney Mines to Montreal, would be put in force, and at once. That was not done although day by day from before the closing of the House on Monday evening, January 25, until Friday of last week, the Minister of the Interior on repeated occasions intimated that he would arrange the matter "to-morrow." Mr. Speaker, the greatest minister who ever held the portfolio of Minister of the Interior in this country was at one time referred to by the Indians of the Northwest as "Old To-morrow." Had they known the present Minister of the Interior, who I am sorry is not in his seat, had they had the experience which we have had with him in the last couple of weeks, would have dubbed him "Big Old Day After To-morrow." May I tell him and the other ministers opposite that the members from Nova Scotia will continue this agitation until the rate is granted and justice is done in this matter. It may be in the memory of some of the older members of this House that a great many years ago the late Hon. Peter Mitchell, the man who as minister organized the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the inauguration of confederation in 1867, for several successive years brought up in this House the question of justice to widow O'Leary, whose cow had been killed on the Intercolonial in 1878. For five years he continued to press the claims of widow O'Leary, and he kept the House in their seats one whole night until eight o'clock next morning when finally he obtained $40 as remuneration for the cow that had been [DOT] killed five years before. I want to tell the minister and hon. gentlemen opposite that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have determined to follow the Hon. Mr. Mitchell's course, and all the resources open to hon. members of this House will be availed

of to the end that justice shall be done us in this matter of coal rates.
The railway construction from the Pacific to the Atlantic determined on in Canada in 1904 has cost practically two thousand millions of dollars. Of this great sum the Maritime provinces have contributed, or equally with the other provinces borne the burden of, one-tenth or more. Hansard supplies evidence that when parliament authorized and ordered this vast railway project, definite promises were made by prominent ministers of the crown that the carrying trade of the Dominion should pass east and west and through Canadian ports, and not south through or to United States ports. As to that there can be no dispute, and in the absence of such envisaged traffic for our St. Lawrence-Maritime ports the project of 1904 could not and would not have been carried through parliament. True there were doubters as to this result, and opposition to the project. Hon. A. G. Blair, then a cabinet minister for New Brunswick, asserted that the outcome would be disappointing to the Maritime ports and people, inasmuch as Canadian freight would be diverted to Portland and other American ports. Was he right? Why did he leave the government? Why did he quarrel with his chief? Because he was convinced that the construction of that road would be followed by the very condition which prevails to-day. I fancy, Mr. Speaker, that every member of the House has seen day after day, during several past wTeeks, statements as to the volume of trade passing through Fort William and Port Arthur en route for Europe and I shall not now tire the House with quoting those tonnage figures though under my hand. During November last, Great Britain bought 24,095,814 bushels of Canadian grain. Of this quantity 18,610,104 bushels went via United States ports, and only 5,845,710 bushels through Canadian ports. During the four months, August to November last, 63,632,830 bushels of our wheat went out through United States ports and but 17,144,207 bushels through Canadian ports. The great bulk of Canadian grain exported was carried by United States railways, and shipped through United 'States ports, to their great profit and our corresponding loss. Why wns such an enormous expenditure incurred in connection with the Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific railways? Why deprive Canadian railway men and Canadian ocean port workers of the handling of Canadian products shipped abroad? Why continue to build up Portland and starve the Intercolonial railway and our Maritime ports? Why build elevators at Halifax and make no use of them? Why have railway officials


The Address-Mr. Cantley
write as to the pending disposal of the Portland Grand Trunk terminals when an election is in prospect' and progress, and continue to expend money on and route grain through those terminals when the election is over; and now when winter is here suggest that pel haps a beggarly half million bushels may be shipped from Halifax some time, when nearly six millions went through Portland last month? Truly the people of the Mari-times are long suffering and slow to wrath. Such conditions breed disorder, and disaster will follow unless promises made to, and accepted in good faith by the Maritime people are redeemed, and that soon. Canadian products must be carried over Canadian railways and shipped through Canadian ports if Canadian confederation is to continue. Persistence iu the present policy of routing Canadian traffic will destroy the Dominion of Canada and that without very much delay.
As to the royal commission promised in the Speech from the Throne, we have seen many royal commissions appointed by the government of the party opposite. These have settled few if any difficulties. The Maritime provinces have commissioned twenty-four representatives, all natives of those provinces, all acquainted with the difficulties that confront their people, to deal with their interests. They are the commissioners appointed by the people of the Maritimes to speak for them and to inform this honourable House as to the disabilities from which the Maritime provinces suffer. May we suggest to those who now propose a royal commission that we know the smell of red herring, and that scent will not now lead any of us astray.
As to the Intercolonial railway, the leaders of both political parties in Canada publicly stated, during the election campaign of 1921, that they would restore the control and management of the Intercolonial railway to Moncton, with the further understanding that the road would be maintained and operated in the interests of the Maritimes and under the direction of Maritime officials. That promise, Mr. Speaker, must be carried out and the Intercolonial railway separated from the central and western portions of the Canadian National system. In that Intercolonial system must be included the Prince Edward Island railway and all the lines and mileage between Sydney, Halifax, St. John and the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, and access must be given to and adequate terminal facilities provided at Montreal. The Intercolonial as thus defined must be operated and managed from Moncton at traffic rates and with facilities such as will make possible trade between the Maritime provinces and 14011-57
the other provinces of the Dominion. That is my demand so far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned, and to that demand I intend to adhere while I am in this House.
May I, Sir, thank you for your patient courtesy and also the House for the considerate hearing accorded me. Two sentences will suffice to express all I now wish to add. We are asked, and have been asked repeatedly, "What do the Maritimes want?" Well, we have informed the House of some of our disabilities; we have referred to the conditions of the union as expressed and understood by our people prior to 1867-conditions and understandings not implemented. We have called your attention to the causes of [DOT]our dissatisfaction. May not we of the eastern provinces, cajoled into union, suggest, and that without any wish to appear sarcastic, that those sections of the Dominion whose cities have grown in population, wealth and influence, who are the chief beneficiaries of confederation, and who sometimes reproach the Maritimes with being slow and unprogressive, that they should propose and provide a practical and effective remedy for the ills of the Maritime provinces? We wait their reply, and on that answer our future action as members of the confederation will depend.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I
feel somewhat handicapped, in fact very much handicapped, in having to address the House from this seat, because I am aware that whatever poor simple rustic remarks I may make will be over-shadowed, and always will be, by the eloquence, the ability and the diction of my deskmate the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). It is appropriate that we should sit together, having both been elected on an independent ticket, and in some respects our ideas are in accord. In others they are distinctly not but I think we can agree to differ, and I hope we will learn from each other by our proximity. I hope the hon. member for Labelle will give me an opportunity of learning something of the charm, the beauty and the gracefulness of his native language, while I on my part will endeavour, at least by ocular demonstration, to impress upon him the benefit of an upbringing consisting mostly of porridge and the shorter catechism, both sound material for body and mind.
Of the various motions and anti-motions, amendments and sub-amendments which have come before the House during the last month or so, which have engaged our attention and for the most part wasted our time, there was none on which I thought it was necessary for me to speak, as coming from British Colum-

The Address-Mr. Neill

bia, or the district I represent, until we came to the amendment now more particularly under consideration. With regard to the earlier motions, I think they can be disposed of more easily. Many of the arguments upon which they were based have -been more or less tacitly, in some cases actually, admitted to be unsound by hon. members opposite. For instance, take the argument advanced that this government had no right to call parliament together. It has been admitted by members on the opposite side of the House that they had an absolute right to call parliament. Precedent all the way down the line shows that if they had only been successful in winning ten seats they still had a right to call parliament and be defeated in the House. All that could be asked, was a speedy calling of the House. That argument is no longer advanced, even by those who made use of it perhaps for partisan purposes.
Then again the question of the matter of plurality of votes has been much dealt with. That is that the Conservative party had gained a majority of the total votes in Canada. Even if that were so-and it is a debatable subject, because on account of having three parties in the field it is always possible for the two parties to combat the suggestion that the other party had a plurality-but even if that were so, it again is an utterly untenable argument that for that reason they were entitled to form the government, because we have only to look at British history, and I think possibly at Canadian history, to see where the government has been carried on successfully with a substantial majority in the House, when it did not possess a plurality of the votes of the country. Again, if that argument is tenable- and hon. members opposite advanced it at great length and very frequently-why are they not willing to extend its application to an individual member; that is to say, that a man shall not represent less than fifty per cent of his electors in the House. But they have gone on record solidly against the transferable vote I do not know the exact position in this House, because we have not the full details, but we know that in the last House there was a considerable number of members who did not represent fifty per cent of their electors, and yet the argument was never used against them that they had not obtained a plurality of votes in their constituencies. It is well known to any student of British and Canadian history that neither the King of England nor the Governor General in Canada has recognized anything but majorities in parliament. Eurther than 
that, he has no right to go below the surface, to question that majority, or to pay any attention to what that majority consists of, whether it is one, solid, united party or made up of half a dozen parties.
A good deal of argument was advanced along that line, and we went back as far, I think, as the reign of Queen Elizabeth to get precedents, which is a long time to go back for precedents. I am surprised no hon. member on either side of the House presented a precedent that occurred in Canadian history not very long ago, and with the permission of the House I will mention it. Some twenty-five years ago in British Columbia a similar condition existed in the local legislature. The government had got down to a majority of one, and by and by one member on the government side turned his vote and the government were defeated. There were only two parties. That happened one afternoon, somewhere about this hour of the day. During the evening negotiations took place, and next morning the premier went to the lieutenant governor, and assured him that he was now in a position to say that he had a majority behind him to carry on the business of the country. The lieutenant governor refused to accept his assurance and insisted on his resignation. He did not resign at the moment, but went back to the House which sat that afternoon, and a resolution of confidence in the government of the day was passed by a -majority of either eight or nine, which was a substantial majority in a house of that size. The members voted confidence in the government as then constituted, and I wish to -point out that this majority was not obtained by the adherence of members of a third group, but it was obtained from the opposite side of the House. They arranged to support the government. The premier went back fortified with this resolution of the House and told the lieutenant governor he was now not only able to obtain the support of the House, but he had been supported by a vote of confidence of eight or nine, whereas he had only been defeated by one vote the day before. The lieutenant governor refused to accept that assurance and insisted on his resignation. The lieutenant governor then sent for another member of the House, who eou-ld not command a majority, and the House was prorogued-not dissolved-without having carried on the business of the country. Naturally representations were made to Ottawa and the lieutenant governor was advised that his action was unconstitutional, and that he should have accepted the advice of his minis-

The Address-Mr. Neill
ter when he said he had a sufficient majority to carry on and should pay no attention to suggestions as to how he had obtained that majority. He was further advised that, in view of the circumstances, he should insist that the member whom he had called on to form a government should either call parliament together again or immediately have a general election. The lieutenant governor was so advised but he did not compel the new premier to do either. The premier went on under what was practically a dictatorship of the country for four or five months. Then an election was held and his party was snowed under. He came back with five or so of a following. In view of those circumstances, the lieutenant governor was asked for his resignation. It was held that he had acted unconstitutionally, and when his attention was called to it he had paid no attention.
I might mention the lieutenant-governor of the province and the government at Ottawa were of the same political persuasion, so it was not a case of party politics. I think that is abundant proof that a premier who can command a majority of the House, as the present government is able to do, is entitled to go on without reference to the other questions as to whether he should or should not have resigned before parliament met, and so on. So much for the constitutional amendments which have taken up so much of our time and which, I submit, were more or less for party advantage. Of course, I do not object to that, because that is the right of hon. members, but the time has come when we should take it as read and go on with the business of the country.
We come next to the amendment which reads:
We desire respectfully to express regret that the Speech from the Throne gives no indication of policy designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada. And so on-
Perhaps I am wrong; I am only expressing my opinion; but to my mind that is clearly intended to do what is known as catching the labour vote in this House. That is to say, the labour members are supposed to vote in favour of it because it is an appeal along the line of employment. It has the same appeal to me, whatever value it possesses, because, although I was not elected directly as a labour member, the same as my hon. friends to my right, I got the support very largely, indeed almost entirely of labour in the last contest, and I propose to give labour such support as I can in this House in return, not solely to support class labour legislation, because I was not so elected, but to give labour my 14011-57J	.
support, in recognition of the fact that labour has as much right to representation in this House as any other class; that, numerically, it is very poorly represented, and that it has some rights which have been due to it for some time past. Therefore, the merits of that appeal as regards employment would arouse my sympathy as well as that of my hon. friends to my right. Somebody said: Surely in vain is the net spread in sight of the bird. History tells us that it can be spread again and again in sight of the bird, and the bird or the sucker, as the case may be, does bite a certain percentage of times but not always.
I do not, however, think the percentage of suckers in this House is any greater than it is in the country at large. In this case the-trap is a vote of want of confidence against the government. That is carefully concealed! by the bait spread like a thin sheet of white paper on top of the snow. We are told that-by voting for this amendment we shall further the cause of employment in Canada. It is unfortunate that the present position of this House is such that one cannot give what one might call a sympathetic vote in a matter of this kind without following it through to the ultimate result. In this case, it means that anyone who votes in the spirit of sympathy with the idea so expressed, has to vote for want of confidence in and to defeat the government. It is unfortunate that that condition exists, but it doe3 exist. As to the assertion that the Speech from the Throne does not make any provision in regard to employment, the language of the amendment is this:
No indication of policy designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada, etc.
There are in the Speech from the Throne several things which, I think, could be held as producing employment, but I will quote only one sentence and it is this:
My government propose to submit provisions for the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay railway.
If that does not suggest an immediate and large volume of employment, I do not know what it means. Incidentally, I do not agree with the building of that'railway, but that is beside the point. A proposition calling for an expenditure of from $3,000,000, according to the brightest optimists, to $50,000,000, according to the more sombre ones, must largely promote employment in this country. Therefore, I would suggest that the amendment is hardly applicable in strict terms to the Speech from the Throne in that regard at least.
To those in my constituency and in British Columbia generally who wish employment in the way of requiring it or those, such as trades-
The Address-Mr. Neill

men and producers who, so to speak, live by the workers' business, it is of far greater importance that such questions should be settled as old age pensions, suitable restrictions for Japanese immigration and questions connected with changes in the criminal code and some other matters, than as to who should govern Canada. I do not know about other parts of Canada, but in British Columbia we are getting rapidly into a condition of almost apathy as to who does govern Canada. We only look to see what legislation will be enacted by either party, and the question of which party is in power is indifferent to us provided that legislation is enacted for the benefit of the people. As regards the measures which I have mentioned, we have a distinct statement by the government that legislation along these lines will be introduced at this session. I am sure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will not consider my statement excessive if I say that against that we have from him only the somewhat vague expression, as regards old age pensions and these other matters, that they will be looked into and, I think, he said that they would receive his sympathy. He did not, however, go any further than that. I have to ask myself this question-and I would almos*' leave it to the fair-mindedness of the right hon. gentleman himself: Was I not right, on that occasion at least, in supporting the government, in grasping the substance rather than accepting the shadowy hope held out by my right hon. friend opposite? Another point which is of vital importance to us in that regard is this. When the government says, "We will do this and so," we have a very reasonable belief they will carry it out because, if they do not, they may lose support. But if we accept merely the assurances of hon. gentlemen opposite and they come into power, we have no assurance that they will carry out even any pledges they make, because they can always appeal to the country. That is n point of view which must appeal to men anxious for certain specific legislation.
In Comox-Alberni and indeed in British Columbia generally,, the employment situation, while not as good as we would like to have it-it very seldom is-is not as bad as it might be and as it was for years past. These are the government returns issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce and, as far as I know, they are correct. They have been carried on since 1920 and they began taking 100 as a basis for the people who were employed in the various industries on the first of January, 1920. In September, 1925, the index figure for British Columbia was 114.2,

the largest ever since these returns were commenced and larger than the figure for any other province of the Dominion. That is an increase of 14.2 per cent over the figure for 1920. I am naturally speaking about British Columbia only. At the end of December last, while conditions were not so favourable, because, as the House knows, British Columbia is a country largely of seasonal employment and in the winter time many operations like canneries shut down, but even with that handicap the index stood at 100.5 or higher than it had been for December 31 since 1920. That shows that employment is certainly not getting worse in British Columbia and in the district that I represent.
Speaking more particularly now for the district of Comox-Alberni. I may say that much of this enhanced employment is 4 p.m. due to two causes, one being the Australian treaty and the other the reduction of duty put through by the government at the last session on sawmill machinery. This reduction in duty encouraged the establishment of sawmills in British Columbia and more particularly in my constituency, whereas before the people used simply to export the logs.
During the election an army, I might call it, because their numbers were almost as the sands of the sea, of election workers pobred into Comox-Alberni, and as they swept through the district like a horde of hungry locusts, not seeking whom they might devour, but devouring everything they could, one of their contentions was: Look at the exportation of our bright young blood to the United States 1 They said, " Look how we have been depopulated" and they rang the changes on that in every possible direction. Well the only answer I could make was to ask them this simple question, "Are they taking their houses with them?" I noticed years ago in this town and that, that there were streets of empty houses and to-day they are all filled up. If therefore, the people are going away they must be taking their houses with them, and that is an argument they could not very well meet. They then said, " Oh, but it is not the married people who are going, but the younger ones, the future generation, our boys and girls." Well, in answer to that I suggested that they look at the election lists. Where there were 19 names on the list at one polling station in 1921, there are now one hundred and thirty-four voters who actually cast their ballots in the last election. And again in several places where a polling station never existed before, there is now one with from 75 to 200 names on the list. In many other places, also, the population has in-

The Address-Mr. Neill
creased. We did not get the exact figures until after the election bbt I know that the net result showed great increase of population in my district, and tbeise people could not have .oomie by way of the stork, because they were odd enough to vote on that occasion.
I hope, however, that there will be a large addition later on through that means. It may be said by some hon. member desiring to trip me up that the total vote in our district in the last election was less than it was in 1921. I may explain that it was several hun-red less inasmuch as a portion of the district had been cut off which contained 2,000 voters. So that although there were some 600 voters less in the district as now constituted the figures showed a large and substantial increase in population in the last four years. I think therefore that the fact that employment has actually increased in my district in these four years, as shown by these statistics, and the fact that we had this promise of labour legislation before us, justified me on that particular occasion at any rate, in opposing the motion put forward by the Conservative party, especially in view of the fact that it was tied up with a want of confidence vote. I 'believe that in the interests of my constituents I was justified then in voting against the amendment of the opposition.
Now we come to the motion for the adjournment of the House for six weeks. I am afraid that I must regard the opposition to, and amendment to this motion also as designed, if not for obstructive purposes at least for party advantage, although there is no particular objection to the latter. The suggestion has been made again and again in support of the contention that the House should not adjourn that this country is in a horrible condition for want of legislation and that it is imperative that the House should proceed to pass that legislation. Before I deal with the amount of legislation which wie are likely to put through in this House if we continue at the rate we are going at present, I want to point out that in 1922 the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne was not passed until March 23, a week later than we should meet on the present occasion if we took the proposed adjournment. And in 1924 the Address was adopted on Mlarch 18, three days later than parliament would reassenible after this adjournment. In 1925 'the Address was passed earlier having been adopted on February 12. The fact is however, that on the average we should not be behindhand in the business of the House if we adjourned now after passing the Address in Reply and proceeded with legislation after coming back on March 15.
It has been suggested that in the event of no' adjournment we might spend a great deal of time making stump speeches. I think the leader of the opposition (M|r. Meighen) refuted that idea and said that we had a perfect, right to speak in this House with a view to influencing the Voters in any particular district in which a by-election was being 'held. That is perfectly true on the face of it; that is our right. Burt there is hardly ever a right which is so closely safeguarded that it could not be abused, and in this case abuse would inevitably follow. Instead of making speeches intended to further legislation in parliament for the benefit of the country we would infallibly on both sides of the House engage in campaign speeches in the hope of swaying the electors in the particular constituency in which a by-election happened to be imminent at the moment.
I hope the House will excuse me for returning to British Columbia by way of illustration, but I do not know of any better province to which I could refer for this or any other purpose, and in this connection I would point out that the same condition obtained once out there. The government had a small majority and there was a by-election pending that might have upset it. It was proposed by the government that the House should take an adjournment of two weeks and I, as a supporter of the administration of the time, opposed the idea. I was of the opinion that if we adjourned we should lose all that time and the view of those who opposed the adjournment prevailed. We did not adjourn and I regretted the fact afterwards for we sat for two weeks during which time we did not pass one iota of useful legislation nor did we contribute in any constructive way to the public business at all. We simply made stump speeches for the benefit of the electors in the by-election and this demonstrated quite clearly to my mind that it would have been better had we taken the adjournment. Tt would have saved a good deal of expense and obviated the annoyance and ill feeling which was created between the two parties.
There i3 another aspect of the question that suggests itself to me and which, I think, has not been so far touched upon. Suppose that the government had been defeated upon the motion for the adjournment by the opposition. The cry was that the country was impatient for legislation and that parliament should proceed with the public business. Well, as I say, suppose the government had been defeated upon that occasion. Would it not have been absolutely necessary for the leader
The Address-Mr. Neill

of the opposition in all decency to demand and receive an adjournment of at least six or eight weeks in order to enable him to form his government? What difference then does it make whether we adjourn for six weeks to allow the government to reorganize or adjourn to let an opposition do the same thing? In either case the legislation would not be advanced any more rapidly. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have become the members of the government of course, but that fact does not weigh heavily with me.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good government.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, that would have to be demonstrated. Personally I should be put to considerable expense in going home for I live further away from Ottawa than any other member in this House, and it would cost me two or three hundred dollars, but I realize that an adjournment is imperative and that it is in the best interests of the country and I really cannot see why it should be opposed.
We now come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) wherein he expresses regret at the operation of the Australian treaty. The amendment evidently is aimed primarily if not entirely at that treaty in its relation to the dairy industry of Canada and particularly of butter. The vote so far as this amendment is concerned has occasioned more doubt in my mind than any of the previous amendments, not because of any consideration as to the respective virtues of one party or the other but because of the fact that there are conflicting interests affected in the district I represent. The suggestion has been made time and again that the competition of butter sent from Australia would hurt our dairy producers in this country and that means particularly so far as I am concerned, the dairy pioducers of British Columbia. Now I ask myself in this connection three important questions: (1) Will that competition hurt the dairy producers in my district as well as in the province of British Columbia generally- because I must necessarily consider more than the interests of my own constituency alone; (2) Will the injury if there is any injury as a result of the operation of the treaty, be .offset by the advantages which it is admitted 'will accrue, are accruing and have already accrued to the fishing, the lumber and the pulp industries of British Columbia and of any district particularly. There are other advantages that would enure >to eastern Canada in the way of the manufacturing of cars and goloshes, and corsets and so on, but I am not particularly concerned with that at the moment. And (3) Will there be any indirect

benefits to the dairying industry which will offset any losses that may ensue? The indirect [DOT] benefits, it has been suggested, might be larger and better local home markets.
Let me deal in the first place with the actual competition as it exists. I want to set right a misapprehension that seems to be in the minds of some hon. members, and which was obscurely hinted at on one occasion that the Australian government was subsidizing Australian butter to enable that product to compete in our markets. The fact is not so. The reference is to what is called the Pattersen scheme-and this is not associated with the government. This scheme is purely voluntary, not being supported by the government. It depends for its success upon every creamery in Australia joining on a voluntary basis, much as in the case of the wheat pool, the plan being to levy two cents per pound on all butter manufactured and out of this to give a bounty of six cents per pound on the one-third of the total production which is estimated will be exported. It is claimed that this would have the effect of increasing the price of the product consumed at home to the extent of four cents per pound. The scheme is not yet in operation and there is considerable doubt whether it can be carried out. It would not make it easier to ship Australian butter into Canada because the bounty would be paid on all butter exported, not only to Canada but elsewhere as well, and Australian butter will not come here when the seller can get more money for it in the world market.
Something has been said about a strike which occurred in Australia and New Zealand. I will not be positive about this because I have no personal, precise knowledge of the dates. We do know that a strike occurred among the seamen of Australia and New Zealand and it tied up the export of butter in the ordinary way to Great Britain. That helped to create a temporary demand for our butter in Great Britain and we sold considerable quantities there at the time. As soon as the strike was settled, naturally this butter that was kept in cold storage where it'did not improve was immediately rushed to the markets of the Old Country, and that fact accounts for the large quantity of Australian butter that hag been brought here recently. That would not prevail under ordinary conditions. The cost of transporting butter from Australia to Liverpool is substantially the same as from Australia to Vancouver, and if that is correct or nearly correct the tendency must be to ship not to British Columbia but direct by all water route to Liverpool. We

The Address-Mr. Neill
all know that a world commodity must be governed in the matter of price by the rate fixed in the world's markets and which in turn fixes the price that will prevail in any particular locality. My attention has recently been called to an announcement that a large shipment of butter from Australia or New Zealand had been consigned by British purchasers to New York and that on its arrival there, although there is a heavier duty in the United States than we have, it was discovered that it would be more profitable to ship a certain portion of it to the Old Country, keeping a part of the shipment in the United States, and to ship a large proportion to Canada. In this case we should suffer from a very unfair competition inasmuch as the British dealers would use this country as a dumping ground. They could ship the butter from Australia or New Zealand to New York and then it could be diverted wherever it would be most profitable to be disposed of. This is the contention. But there is no danger to be anticipated in that regard because the wording of the Australian act, section 5, I think it is, provides that the product must be consigned on a through bill of lading. I do not know whether this is the exact phraseology of the act, but I do know that it is necessary that the product should be shipped direct. Shipping goods from New Zealand via New York on a direct bill of lading to Montreal would be all right, but when the article is shipped to New York and is there diverted into separate sections it does not come under the Australian treaty and therefore pays the old duty. So that this particular matter is of no great consequence to us.
An hon. member opposite whose name I have forgotten made some attempt in this connection to stampede the Progressives. Owing to imperfect eyesight hon members opposite all look alike to me, and they al!
- look good to me; they have the appearance of super-gods, with the exception of one member who, I might say, looks to me like a beautiful young goddess. That hon. gentleman, endeavoured in a manner hardly compatible with the description I have given of him, to stampede the Progressives by the [DOT] suggestion that anyone who had voted last year for the Australian treaty came back to this House no more. Well, it would be equally tenable for him to say that he had found, as no doubt he could find, that people with names beginning with certain initials had been more unlucky than others in coming back to the House. The fact is that there is nothing at all in the suggestion; it has nothing to do with the Australian treaty and
the hon. member's figures were not right even when handled as they were. He said that no member of the Progressive party who had voted for the treaty had been returned. That is not correct. One out of five came back, not a large proportion it is true, but we must remember that quite a number of the Progressives were left at home in any case. And then he added that nineteen or twenty of the twenty-four or so Progressives now in the House who had voted against the treaty came back, and the inference evidently was that they came back because they had so voted.
I have the figures and I find that it was sixteen to sixteen. Now the Progressives are not the type of people who are easily stampeded and certainly they will be affected not bv fancy but by facts. I recall that last year I was on a committee of twelve that looked into the question of old age pensions, and only two members of that committee besides myself have been returned to this House. Has that any significance? Am I to assume that there is something ominous in having been associated with old age pensions in the past and that anyone who had anything to do with that subject would necessarily be extinguished? Is it not just a question of chance? To suggest that the Progressives were defeated because they had voted for the Australian treaty is absurd.
Naturally a discussion of butter leads up to the subject of oleomargarine. Members of the last parliament will remember that I took a decided stand in that matter. I wanted to protect the dairy farmer as well as the workingman against the sale of oleomargarine because I considered it just as bad to buy the stuff as to compete against it. I wanted to protect the working people against this injurious product, as well as the farmer, and where did I get support on that occasion? If I remember rightly seven members of the Conservative party voted against the introduction of oleomargarine and fifteen for it. So that only seven members of the Conservative party supported me on that occasion in trying to protect the farmer and the workingman. So I am glad to find that there are now some hon. members opposite who are showing a healthier interest in the welfare of the farmer.
So much for the disadvantages of butter importations from Australia. Now let us turn to a consideration of the advantages. In the district I represent there were prior to the last election five paper or pulp mills. One was prosperous, two were bankrupt and the other two were closed being also nearly bankrupt. In the redistribution three were cut off from my constituency and two were

The Address-Mr. Neill
left. The one which was bankrupt and in the hands of the receiver has now been fortified by an introduction of young and stronger blood and an addition of capital. It is now operating again in enlarged form and I have no doubt it will be successful. This mill is located at Port Alice. There are only about 250 people living there now but at Powell River which is now outside my district, there is a population of 3,000, and there is no reason in the world why in the next five years, under the stimulus given by the Australian treaty, Port Alice should not have as large a population. The other mill in my district which was at Beaver Cove was shut during the war, the creditors being unpaid. They have since been paid in full and a new management having taken over the business it will be run to the full limit. I have here a wire from Powell River Paper Company, and while we might discount a good many of the statements made by people when we know that these statements are in their own interests, designed to impress me with the necessity for voting against the amendment, I think it only right at the same time that I should put before the House the facts contained in this communication:
We are expending-
On the strength of the treaty
-some e:glit million dollars in plant extension hoping to get a share of the Australian business and the abrogation of the treaty would be manifestly unfair particularly without a fair trial.
While I have no personal information as to the financial extent of the expansion in this business I do know that the plant has been extended at great expense and that the total investment runs to many millions. I know also that it is in a prosperous condition employing a large number of people.
I hold no particular brief for the organization as such, having crossed swords with them in the past, but I certainly have use for the men whom they employ, and I do not want to see that thriving town of 3,000 retarded in its progress. I hope further to see Beaver Cove and Port Alice attain the same measure of success. I have a telegram from another paper mill firm although it is not in my district and I would point out one remark they make They say that "criticism at this time will do a great deal of harm in Australia and Canada," and there is much truth in that. Powell River is about twenty miles from the fertile valley of Comox, where they have a very prosperous creamery, and also engage in ordinary farm production. Of late years, and of late months particularly, it has become the recognized 
system for this creamery association to spread out. They handle practically all farm products, ice cream even, strawberries, potatoes, lamb, and mutton, and the market for all these products is confined almost entirely to Powell River, because it is close at hand, with only a short haul, and best of all, a home market. That creamery is never going to be hurt by Australian competition because its products are always fresh and go by a short water haul to Powell River, where it has an excellent local market.
In addition, a number of saw mills have sprung up in the district I represent, a number of small ones, and also some large. I could point to at least four large ones which employ a large number of men. I am glad to say that nearly all of them, especially the later ones, are starting on the principle of all white labour, even in the cook house. The one at Englewood will employ 700 men. This uuie last year there was not one man there, but now 700 are employed, or soon will be. They will furnish a market for the neighbouring farm districts, not only for butter, but beef, potatoes, and so on.
I should like to quote a few items in connection with this treaty as it was introduced last year, just to show the trend of popular feeling at that time, and I do not think there has been any particular reason to change since then. Here is a letter from the Montreal Board of Trade, representing the interests I presume popularly known as "St. James Street," endeared to the heart of the former member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Mr. Marler. I shall not read the "whereas-es," but here is the pith of it:
That the council of the Board of Trade of Montreal, recognizing in the Australian agreement a means for extending Canadian trade, of reducing unemployment and of cementing empire union, hereby urges upon the Dominion government the desirability of an immediate submission of the agreement to parliament, and upon the members of parliament the paramount necessity of voting for its ratification.
Here is another one from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association-of course, looking after their own interests. I pay no great attention to what they say, except this statement :
The loss of export trade in this industry alone is upwards of $10,000 a day.
Probably they are exaggerating somewhat. Here is a telegram from the Canned Salmon section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association of British Columbia, and I may say that one-third of my district are interested in the fishing industry:
Information received here to-day is to the effect that bill ratifying the Australian treaty has been

The Address-Mr. Neill
withdrawn. Substantial business interests consider ratification essential, and that if bill fails serious resentment inevitable. Please wire if you will use best efforts have bill reintroduced and support same.
The treaty certainly has been of very great benefit to the salmon industry of British Columbia. The product has been sold in advance as never before, and it has brought in a class of fish that was rather a drug on the market before the treaty. There is little doubt that if our canners have any judgment, they will capture the whole Australian trade which formerly went to the United States, and the benefits of that will seep through to every fisherman in British Columbia.
Here is a telegram from the British Columbia Loggers' Association which says in part:
It directly affects the pulpwood resources and the welfare of the timber industries of the province. Trust your support will enable passing of measure.
Here is a news item from an Ottawa paper at that time. It simply says that there are some thirty-seven mills in Canada, of which a number are in British Columbia, and that the treaty will result in the opening up in Australia of a market of between four and five million dollars annually.
I think that is understated, because I have a clipping from one of our local papers, the Comox Argus, where Mr. Navey writes to the paper drawing attention to the fact that there has recently been placed in British Columbia by Australia a newsprint order for 12,000 tons. Making a rough estimate, at $75 a ton the order would amount to about $1,000,000, and you can imagine the work that would make in British Columbia.
I have an item here, it is really a repeat, from the Vancouver Province, and I do not think any of the British Columbia members would suggest that the Vancouver Province is anything but a Conservative paper; it is the biggest paper, has the largest circulation, and I believe ie one of the fairest and soundest papers in British Columbia; it does not take the bitter, partisan, one-sided1 view that too many of our papers do take. Writing before the election, it isays:
There seems no doubt that the principal advantages which will accrue to Canada as a result of the treaty will be enjoyed in British Columbia, since this province wii] produce practically all the paper and salmon that will enter Australia under the new arrangement. But the industrial east will enjoy advantages too, by reason of the larger market for its automobiles and machinery; and what benefits British Columbia and the east must, it goes without saying, benefit Canada as a whole.
When Mr. Meighen expresses the opinion that the Canadian farmer will suffer under the treaty, he is theorizing.
Here is another cutting from the Vancouver Province a week or two before the election,
and shortly after the Prime Minister had been out speaking in Vancouver. I quote only one paragraph:
Mr King's defence of the Australian treaty, one of the real achievements of his government, was most timely-
This is from a strong Conservative paper, one of the strongest and most influential papers in British Columbia. It goes on:
There has been some criticism of the agreement, even here, where its beneficial effects will be most strongly felt, and Mr. King did his best to cut away the foundation of this. It was not to be expected, as he pointed out, that a one-sided treaty could be negotiated. There had to be concessions on both sides. But Canada's concessions were not great, they would cost no one more than a trifle, they would endanger none of the country's industries, and they would have the effect, not only of increasing business but of promoting trade within the empire and of solidifying the friendship of the Dominion and the Commonwealth.
I say, "hear, hear," to the Vancouver-Conservative-Province. Here is another one from the Vancouver Sun. I have heard arguments as to the politics of the Vancouver Sun. Some say it is a virulent paper on the one side, and some say on the other. I only know it did not support me; it boosted my opponent. This is what it says in its issue of February 1, 1926:
Canada's exports to Australia for the past three months as compared to the corresponding three months in 1924 are as follows:
1024	1925
$1,180,573	
October	
$1,610,2411,472,949	November	
1,818.2321,195,704	December	
1,899,497
Thus, this trade treaty has not only stimulated a steady incline1 upward in Canada's Australian business, but has produced a mass increase over these parallel periods of $1,472,744.
This result is all the more striking since Canada's exports to Australia, prior to this agreement, showed a sharp tendency to decline.
The exports from Canada to Australia had been going down by leaps and bounds. The Vancouver Sun goes on:
In 1924, those exports amounted to an aggregate of $19,923,997. In 1925, even with the rising final three months, this had declined to $12,037,203.
So you can see how much less it would have been if it had not been for the big revival in the last three months. Our trade was dropping off to the disappearing point, but in the three months' operation of the treaty-and it takes longer than that for the full effects of a treaty to be felt-our trade has increased to the extent of nearly $1,500,000. It goes on:
This treaty was a haphazard affair made more according to political expediency than on the basis of a thorough economic survey. But if a careless and haphazard treaty like this con get immediate results, what a great mine of mutual profits lie for each other in
The Address-Mr. Neill

Canada and Australia, once the economic situation is comprehensively canvassed and agreements framed accordingly.
I might quote the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), but he is not in his seat. I think he regards, and I know he spoke in Vancouver to the effect that this treaty would be to the advantage of Canada; I have a clipping to that effect. I think my friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) will also agree that he spoke in favour of the treaty as pertaining to British Columbia as a whole. He did not vote on the treaty, but was paired-a sessional pair, I presume.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I might explain that what f did say was that I favoured the building up of our export trade, but I took strong exception to sacrificing the dairy industry and agriculture generally for the purpose of doing that.


Alan Webster Neill: I think my hon. friend's
language was a little stronger than that in regard to the treaty. I quote from Hansard:
If we look over the treaty as we have it before us, it is quite apparent that as regards British Columbia and other parts of Canada, it will be very beneficial in certain respects. I refer particularly to the export of fish and also of timber products-
Then he goes on to make a long speech; I shall not read it all. He states quite plainly, as he says, that the dairy industry is going to be handicapped; he says that quite plainly.


Mr. CHABOT:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say that he did not; I only said that he spoke in a general way of the advantage to British Columbia. Then he uses the following language:
In a treaty of this kind, which has something good in it and a good deal that is bad, it is rather difficult to know how to decide. But in this instance, speaking as a private member, I see no other course to pursue than to be guided by the demands of my constituency and also by the requirements of the province from which I come. I
I think he did quite right and as far as that goes I am not finding any fault with his attitude, I am only pointing out that if the hon. member values his reputation for consistency he will be handicapped if he votes for the amendment now before the House.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: My hon. friend has been discussing the Australian treaty. The amendment, however, has relation to the dairy industry. The recent trade agreements made by the government apply to New Zealand, Australia and France. Does my hon. friend think it is necessary to sacrifice the dairy industry in order to get some advantages for the paper industry?


Alan Webster Neill: I was wondering which was going to be the speech and which the question of my hon. friend. However, I know the hon. gentleman and I did not expect anything else. My hon. friend) is quite right. The amendment does not mention the Australian treaty by name, but I defy him or any other hon. member to say that that is not the subject that has been talked of during this whole debate. I believe, and I hold firmly to that belief, that the word "Australian" was omitted from the amendment in order that hon. gentlemen in days to come may say "We were not discussing the Australian treaty".


Donald Sutherland: Does it not apply more to New Zealand than it does to Australia? Did the government not make a trade arrangement with New Zealand after the Australian trade treaty had been passed by this House?


Alan Webster Neill: No. What they did was to pass an order in council-that is my understanding but of course I am not an expert in these technical matters-providing that New Zealand had to come under the provisions of the Australian treaty on account of what is known as "the favoured nation clause".


Donald Sutherland: As the result of a clause in the Australian treaty.


Alan Webster Neill: I believe there was another reason which led the government to take that action. They might have held out for a quid pro quo. It appears that New Zealand has given us for many years a preference on certain articles which is very important to us; but it also appears we have been buying very little from them, and they intimated that they did not care for our trade at all. They propdsed to wipe out the preference, and therefore, perhaps, it was a good idea to give them something in the way of advantages in this treaty.


Donald Sutherland: The Minister of Agriculture -was asked the other day why this arrangement had been entered into but he could not give the information. I am sure the House will be glad to know the reason from the hon. member for Comox-Albemi although the minister himself did not know.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I suggest that the next time the hon. member wants to know something he should ask the member for Comox-Alberni again! I would not for a moment think of putting myself in a position to speak either for the government or for the Minister of Agriculture, but I do consider myself on

The Address-'Mr. Neill
an equal footing with the hon. member for South Oxford. I should like now to quote a few of the remarks of another British Columbia member when this discussion on the Australian treaty was going on:
This Australian agreement is a matter of momentous importance to the province of British Columbia in some of its basic industries.
Further on he says:
This is a matter of real importance to the industrial life of Canada and particularly that of British Columbia as it relates to several of our basic industries. The opportunity is afforded by this treaty to extend that trade and I maintain so far as the agricultural advantages are concerned-and these must relate only to reductions in tariff-I cannot see how we shall be seriously affected. But my best calculations, taken from advice of people who are supposed to know and from trade reports, convince me that if we weigh on the one side the disadvantages as regards agriculture and canned fruit and on the other the advantages to our paper business, our canned and fresh fish business, and our businesses which are ancillary-
That is a nice word-
-and incidental to those, I have no doubt the Australian treaty provides distinct advantages to Canada, it lays the ground work for further development of the trade which is bound to grow between these two countries. This trade treaty furthers the idea which has been near and dear to the members of this party-
He was speaking of the members of the Conservative party-
-namely, the development of imperial trade and of bringing the empire into closer relationship, based as far as possible upon economic unity as well as upon sentimental unity.
These were the views of the Conservative party on June 23, 1925, as expressed by a member from British Columbia.
I should like also to quote a few remarks from the speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion. This is what he said:
I would ask the committee to regard this treatv as one of the measures designed to promote an interim penal point of view:
We have heard comments on the Prime Minister's attitude on imperial matters. Here we find him trying to (promote initer-im-perial trade.
Surely there is something to be said for seeking to develop trade between the different parts of the empire. For twenty years this country has been seeking to make an arrangement with Australia. We have made a beginning, it is only a beginning. If it does not work out satisfactorily, if it works to the injury of any interest concerned, two courses are possible. In the first place, the government may at a subsequent session alter the tariff.
And then he goes on to say that there is another way-the government could cancel
the treaty altogether by giving six months' notice.
The hon. member for South Oxford was kind enough to allude to other treaties and to say that I was concentrating too much on the one treaty. Well, let us talk a little
about the West Indies treaty. That is a treaty recently entered into by the government. An hon. member opposite the other night suggested that it was almost indecent for the government to mention this treaty because it had not yet been brought before the House. I think that in the case of a treaty which was published on July 11, in a government paper called the Commercial Intelligence Journal and is described as "Agreement made this 6th day of July" in the so and so year "of our Lord" between the government and certain inlands of the West Indies it is certainly not necessary to lower one's voice and to go behind doors in order to refer to it. We gave the West Indies certain concessions on products we do not produce such as limes, arrowroot, bread fruit, grape fruit, and so on, tropical products such as rum which I am sure will be appreciated by hon. members on both sides.


An hon. MEMBER:: On all sides.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes on all sides, and by every party. We gave them concessions on things which will not hurt us because we do not produce them, we only use them in this country. On the other hand they gave us substantial concessions that no agricultural representative need be ashamed to talk about before his constituents. The islands of the West Indies which are parties to the treaty are divided into groups. In the western group which consists of Jamacia, the Bahamas, British Honduras, we were given concessions of not less than 50 per cent on butter, cheese, condensed milk, meats, all kinds of fish, apples, potatoes and so on. In another division concessions are given on beef, apples, boards, boots and shoes, and so on. The reductions are very substantial ones and will be primarily, and I presume almost entirely, in the interest of the Maritime provinces. This treaty certainly holds no advantages for British Columbia. But there is a quid pro quo for the Maritime provinces against the advantages that British Columbia has obtained under the Australian treaty. Of course it may be said that the treaty has not been ratified by this House, but* there is no reason, as far as I know, why it should not be ratified. Under these circumstances, and in view of the statement by the Prime Minister that he was prepared to modify the treaty and there was ample machinery for doing so if it were found necessary in the course of time; also in view of the fact that the treaty has only been in operation for a few months, and in view of the increased industry and labour which have already been provided in British Columbia, the increased markets which have been
90S
The Address-Mr. Neill

created in Canada, and the increase which has been brought about in the general trade, I think a short time should be given to demonstrate whether the treaty is a success -that at least one season or one year might be allowed to see how it will operate.
The consideration of these various matters lead me to the conclusion that I am justified, representing the district I do in the province from which I come, in voting against the want of confidence motion in connection with the Australian treaty. Well, I will not say Australian treaty; I will just say the treaties, in order not to hurt the feelings of my hon. friends.
While the item is not mentioned in the amendment-and I am surprised it is not- I should like to say a few words on the treaty in regard to the question of eggs. A short time ago the egg market in Canada was glutted with eggs, and naturally people began to look for some remedy, and they argued the point that it was due to the Australian treaty and the importation of Australian eggs. The returns have since shown-I have them here-that no Australian, or Australasian eggs, which takes in New Zealand-had come in at all during the last year. An hon. member opposite-I will not mention his name-made a most extraordinary argument on that question. He said that he admitted that no Australian eggs had come in but he said that if they had come in the government would have lost $53,000 on the customs duties. That statement can be found in Hansard. He said that, based on the eggs that came in, the reduction of duty would have cost us in revenue $53,000. But the eggs did not come in from Australia and New Zealand and how could that affect it? He used arguments based on what did not happen and could not happen. It was thought the Australian eggs were the cause of the glut. It was discovered it was not the Australian eggs. Then it was suggested that it was the United States eggs. It was found then that the returns showed that the United States importations had also been dropping off considerably. They dropped from six million to something under two million dozen per year, which shows that danger is not getting greater. But personally I think it is extremely unjust and one-sided that we should have to compete with an eight cents per dozen duty on eggs going into the United States from Canada, when eggs coming into Canada from the United States pay a duty of only three cents a dozen. If we have protection I want to see it provided all around and not to have it centred on a few industries

in Ontario. I want to see it applied to British Columbia. I promised my constituents, and I repeat the pledge here-that I would vote for an increase in the duty on eggs coming from the United States. I attached a proviso to it, and some people thought I was trying to evade my promise, but I do not intend to evade it. The first proviso was that it should not be wrapped up with a vote of want of confidence, and the second was that it was not to be wrapped up with other large increases in the tariff. By that I mean that the tariff on eggs is so much a dozen, but if it were translated into an ad valorem duty it would mean a duty not exceeding eight per cent. The duty on boots and shoes and motor cars runs up to 35 per cent. If any government came in with a proposition to increase the duty on eggs from the United States by five per cent, and to increase the duty on other articles by ten per cent, I would not feel justified in voting for it. That I would consider wrapping it up in a measure which would hurt my constituents more than the increase in the egg duty would help them. It would be quite possible to increase the duty on eggs from eight per cent to sixteen per cent, and there would still be no need to increase the 35 per cent duty on other articles. So that if the proposition is made as a clear, separate issue, to increase the duty-on United States eggs, I am quite prepared to vote in favour of it, no matter what party it comes from. I should like to read one or two communications I have had in connection with the egg business. The first is a resolution by the Courtenay-Comox Board of Trade, a concern not as big as the Montreal Board of Trade, but equally potent. They sent me a resolution and I will read it, leaving out the "whereases":
Be it resolved that' this board considers that the question of an increased duty on foreign eggs is the most important which it has lately had to deal with, and that the secretary shall again communicate w'ith our federal member, urging upon him the importance of this question.
I received that communication. I could easily have politely acknowledged receipt and filed it, and that would have been the end of it. But I wrote back to them and suggested that they should put it in the form of a petition to this House, where it might influence other members, and I added a postscript to my letter where I said:
I would put it more definitely and ask for an increased duty on foreign eggs entering Canada.
The original resolution stated that I should only consider the other proposition. Then

The Address-Mr. Neill
they drew up a petition and I presented it to this House, and it appears on the records of che House.
Here is another petition which is of equal value. It is firom Cortez Island. It asks for-
(1)	The raising of the tariff on eggs from the United States from three cents to eight cents a dozen.
(2)	The equalizing of the freight rates on wheat for domestic use and for export.
And ask Mr. Neill to support legislation to this [DOT] effect.
I am heartily in favour of both of these requests.
I have another communication from the Cowichan Creamery Association, which is not in my district. They held a mass meeting of the poultrymen in British Columbia, and they sent me a copy of the resolutions which read:
Be it therefore resolved:
That the federal government be requested, as an act of justice to Canadian poultrymen, to raise the tariff on United States eggs coming into Canada to an equality with the tariff imposed on Canadian eggs going into the United States.
I have done that privately with the government and I now do it publicly. The second recommendation reads:
That the federal government be requested to make the Eggs Marks Act of British Columbia applicable to the Dommion of Canada as a whole.
I put a resolution on the order paper to that effect, and if we ever reach the resolution it will be discussed. The next resolution is dealing with Australian eggs and reads:
Be it therefore resolved: That the federal government be requested to add to the present definition of the word "fresh" the length of time during which eggs intended for sale as "fresh" in Canada may be held when in transit at a temperature of 35 Fahrenheit or less.
That is to prevent Australian eggs being sold as fresh eggs in Canada. They wanted to put in some clause that the eggs cannot be held in such a low temperature and then be sold as fresh. They would have to be kept at such a temperature going through the tropics. I am also prepared to support that resolution. The final resolution was:
Be in resolved: That the federal government be requested to make no alteration in the present regulations-
That is egg grading regulations-
-beyond the amendment asked for in resolution No. 2.
I have already taken that matter up with the government and have received the assurance that there will be no substantial changes in the egg grading resolution. I think that is all the 'communications I have had in that connection. . I have had one. or two
private letters on the subject as well, but iu none of these do I find any mandate from the people generally-asking me to vote want of confidence in the government of the day.
There are other matters in the Address I would like to deal with but I will do so on a future occasion when the various matters come up.
There is another matter I would like to refer to and I wish I could use unparliamentary language to describe the rate discrimination between the wheat shipped from the prairie for export and that shipped for domestic use. The rate has gone up to a differential of S4.10 a ton, and in no other part of Canada is there such a large discrimination, especially as under the circumstances no water traffic is involved. Railway traffic from the prairies to Vancouver does not compete with any water route, but I will deal with that when it comes up.
There is also in my constituency the burning question of the revaluation of soldier settlers' lands in some districts. I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a suggestion in connection with its immigration policy, that for the first time since I have come to live in Canada, the government are going to give the people who are here, an even deal with the immigrant from some foreign country. They are going to let the man who came out here at his own expense, perhaps now in a town, or the broken soldier who is on some land for which he, perhaps, paid too much, the same chance as a man from Czecho-Slovakia or some other portion of Europe. I think that is an excellent idea.
I hope there will be no further amendments to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think, in all fairness to the opposition, they have had their innings. They have expressed themselves ably and well. They have had their chance to overthrow the government at this time, but apparently they have not been able to achieve that end and we might as well go on now with the business.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Which business?


Alan Webster Neill: The business of the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How? By
adjourning?


Alan Webster Neill: I will tell the hon. gentleman that in a minute. Let me read something which I cut out of a newspaper which expresses the idea better than I can. It says:
The sentiment of the Canadian people for party is ebbing very low. What they want is not party triumphs, but action, action that will increase the earning power of the Dominion.
The Address-Mr. Neill

I think the longer we delay here, the less prestige will accrue to either party. The people did not send us here to squabble about finely drawn points of order. They do not applaud when we see such childish triumphs as we saw the other day of a large number of reputable members applauding a trivial incident in the mistake of the Clerk in announcing on a division that the government had fewer votes than they really had. They can get other people for less than $4,000 a year to do that sort of thing. As a protest against any further delay, I propose to vote against any future amendments, no matter what they are, to this particular motion, because I cannot regard them as anything but more or less calculated obstruction. My reason is that I want to get the legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne put through by parliament. I will answer the ex-Minister of Finance who asks: What business and when can we do it? What he means, I presume, is: Why cannot we sit on here? If I awaken my hired man in the morning and say to him: "It is time you got-to work", and if he goes out in his pyjamas, without boots, without his breakfast, and without an axe, at the end of the day, at what rate would I figure his intellect, his ability, and the results of his labour? I want the hired men, the government, to come here prepared for work, to have their programme ready, and then we will go on. I believe an adjournment is necessary to enable them to get their breakfast and their boots on, so to speak. When they do that and their measures are brought down, I intend to vote on each one of them entirely and separately on its merits.
Mr. 0. B. PRICE (Westmorland):	Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the constituency of Westmorland in the province of New Brunswick in which is situated the city of Moncton, the hub of the Maritime provinces -and the former headquarters of the old Intercolonial railway. Conditions in industrial lines are not what they should be in that portion of eastern Canada, and aside from the employment situation as it exists at the present time, the farming industry is suffering. In that portion of New Brunswick we have a late season, a late spring and a very early fall, leaving a short season for our farmers, and any handicaps which may be placed in their path in the way of competition from outside in connection with dairy products or anything of that nature affecting the farming industry, would have a fatal result. The farmers in my constituency are

hard-working men. They have not the opportunities that farmers in other portions of Canada have. They have not 5 p.m. the freight rates and they have not the encouragement which others have in getting produce to markets where they can sell their goods at a profit. They have these difficulties to contend with, and in addition a great number of our young . men in the Maritime provinces have left for the United States to seek employment. While the employment bureaux throughout Canada may report that the employment situation is improving, if you will carefully examine the reports of the nearest United States Consul you will find out why those reports are forthcoming from the employment bureaux. The United States consuls are kept busy; they are working overtime making out passports for the young men and women of our country, the best we have, who are leaving to seek employment in the country to the south of us.
Freight rates have been very much in opposition to the progress of our farming industry. Our farmers find that they cannot pay the freights and look for a profit. For instance, from Charlottetown to Boston the distance is 770 miles and the freight on potatoes is 54 cents per 100 pounds. From Guelph to Boston, which is about the same distance-7G0 miles-the freight is only 47 cents per 100 pounds. As regards freight rates in connection with the lumbering industry, in which a great many of our farmers participate during the winter months, the same condition applies. Freight rates have increased so much that they cannot ship their lumber to the local markets which they formerly had accessible to them.
I am going to mention some of the obstacles which confront us in the Maritime provinces. The Maritime provinces are served largely by the Canadian National railways and more particularly by that part of it formerly known as the Intercolonial, which was built as part of the price of our entry into confederation, to enable us to market our products in central Canada. When this railroad was built the Maritime provinces formed a much larger proportion of the Dominion than they do today, and we consequently paid a much larger share of the cost of construction than is generally recognized. We have also borne a much larger share of federal expenditures on western railroads, central Canadian canals, harbours and other public works, from which the Maritime provinces derive little if any benefit. Among the several reasons which almost obliterated the Liberal party in the

The Address-Mr. Price
Maritime provinces, the railway situation was not the least. The revival of the Crowsnest pass rate and the Prime Minister's interference aroused our people to demand that like treatment be given the east, and his statement of October 29, 1924, at Vancouver, where, according to press reports, he said:
I shall! have to tell the people of the east that they will have rto wait until the west is satisfied.
caused considerable consternation amongst our people. When the Meighen government left office in 1921 the amalgamation of the various lines of railway now going to make up what is known as the Canadian National railway system had not been completed. During the election campaign of 1921 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), then Prime Minister, in a speech delivered in Moncton, gave considerable attention to the railway problem. He stated in the clearest terms the policy of his government and the policy of the board of management as then constituted. That policy was that on completion of the amalgamation the Canadian National railways should be composed of three grand divisions, one for the east, to be managed from Moncton, and the other two to be known as the central and western divisions. The eastern division, the present leader of the opposition said, should comprise the Intercolonial railway and all that part of the Grand Trunk system east of Montreal. Supporters of the Liberal party, as led by Mr. King, sought in every way to discredit my right hon. leader's policy as applied to the eastern division. They said that the Intercolonial railway should be divorced from the Canadian National system, and managed from Moncton, entirely free from outside dictation. They declared this would be done if the Liberal party, led by Mr. King was returned to power, and that the few officials sent to Toronto would be returned to Moncton. Moncton would then be the Chicago of the east. There was also to be a readjustment of freight rates to afford our manufacturing concerns and our farmers opportunity to compete in central Canadian markets as intended by the fathers of confederation. Theirs was to be a great policy for the old Intercolonial railway and the Maritime provinces.
What has since been done is a matter of record. When Mr. King became Prime Minister the old board of management, with Mr. Hanna at the head, was dismissed, and a new board created with Sir Henry Thornton as president. The amalgamation was completed largely along the lines laid down by the Hanna board and the Meighen government,
but with this difference:	Instead of three
grand divisions there are but two grand divisions, designated as "regions," and one inferior division or region. The system as constituted by the King government and the Thornton management is made up as follows: Atlantic region-lines east of Riviere du Loup on the old Intercolonial and .east of Monk on the Transcontinental railway operated from Moncton, comprising about 2,800 miles; central region-lines west of Riviere du Loup on the old Intercolonial railway and west of Monk on the Transcontinental to Port Arthur and Armstrong, with 'Grand Trunk western lines and the line to Portland, Maine, operated from Toronto, total 8,670 miles; western region-lines west of Port Arthur and Armstrong to the Pacific coast, operated from Winnipeg, total mileage, 10,400. Under the Hanna board and the Meighen government the Moncton management extended all over the Intercolonial railway to Montreal and over the Transcontinental from Moncton to Armstrong in Ontario. Under the. Hanna-Meighen control the authority of the Moncton management extended to over 4,100 miles; under the Thornton-King control it extends over a distance of only 2,800 miles. The mileage taken from Moncton by Thornton and King is approximately as follows: Riviere du Loup to Montreal, 278 miles; Monk to Armstrong, Transcontinental, 1,050 -total mileage cut from Moncton control, 1,328 miles. The old Intercolonial railway from Riviere du Loup to Montreal is equal to the total mileage of the main line from St. John to Halifax. The line from Riviere du Loup to Montreal enjoys a large suburban freight and passenger business from the cities of Quebec and Montreal, the grades are easy, and it is one of the best paying sections of the old Intercolonial. The effect of cutting it off has not only been to degrade the Atlantic division from an operating standpoint but to discredit it in the matter of earnings. The officials have not been brought back to Moncton, but the staff of one of the largest offices has been removed to Montreal where the general management of the entire system is located. There is one exception- the Grand Trunk western lines, whose headquarters remain at Detroit, and I understand that owing to a ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission this section will not be included in the system. This, in brief, is the record of the two parties in connection with the Canadian National.
No greater injustice was ever done Moncton and the Maritime provinces than that done by the board appointed by the King govern-

The Address-Mr. Price
ment in the regional division of the Canadian National. And yet Premier King comes to the Maritime provinces and says he does not know what Maritime rights are! On October 29, 1925, the people of the Maritime provinces did not repeat the mistake they made in 1921; they returned 23 of their 29 members to oppose the King administration.
Now, Sir, this reduction of the mileage managed from Moncton, the hub of the Mari-times, did not occur without protest. The provincial government protested, and leading Liberals protested. The president of the Moncton Board of Trade wired to their representative, an ex-minister of state, either to do something or come home. A Maritime delegation visited Ottawa, met Premier King, and returned home disappointed.
Under the Hanna management the audit department had been satisfactorily conducted at Moncton, including audit work on all lines west to Winnipeg, while the headquarters of the directors were located at Toronto. With the management moved to Montreal by Sir Henry Thornton, 300 miles nearer to Moncton, the Liberal party thought the change of offices unnecessary and resented it. A reduction in staff affecting 115 families in one department followed, as well as a reduction in pay, except that of officials, who received a substantial increase.
During the forty-seven years from confederation to the end of 1915, when the Intercolonial railway began to be consolidated with the other roads that now form the Canadian National Railway system, the expenditure on the Intercolonial, together with that on the Prince Edward Island railway and all the branches of both lines, was $117,622,410. The total operating deficits for all those forty-seven years were $11,869,762. Since then very little has been spent on the Maritime roads, but over a billion dollars has been spent on the Canadian National system in central and western Oanada, to which the Maritime provinces have contributed their proportionate amount. During 1924 the total expenditure on the Canadian National Railway system amounted to $320,123,579, which was about one and a half million more than the total expenditure of the Dominion government, including interest on the national debt. During that year the total earnings of the Canadian National Railways were $201,224,493, and the total net deficit was $118,899,186, which is about $1,200,000 more than all the money that has been spent on the Intercolonial railway from confederation to the end of 1915. In 1923 the net deficit of the Canadian National Railways was $116,033,186. During these two

years the total mileage owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways was not increased; in fact there was a noticeable decrease in this item during these two years. At the beginning of 1923 the total mileage owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways was 20,314, and at the end of 1924 it was 20,267. Nor does the earning power of the road seem to be improved by the continued expenditure of these large amounts annually, for the deficit continues to grow, at least in so far as all returns to date show.
Just let us look at this gigantic annual expenditure for a few moments. Had all other Canadian railways spent a proportionate amount, the per capita expenditure for railway services in Canada during 1924 would have been nearly $75. The per capita expenditure of all - railroads in Canada during that year was $64.30, which is about twice as high as it should be. The per capita cost in South Africa for the same year, where they have nearly twice the mileage proportionate to population-one mile per 130 of the white population, whereas Canada has one mile for 219-it was $42.50. In Australia, where there is also a greater mileage proportionate to population-one mile per every 203-the per capita cost was $37.80. In New Zealand, it was $23.65 during the same year.
In the annual statement of the Canadian National Railways for 1924 there is some evidence of attempts to curtail expenditures, but it is interesting to see where these occur. The outlay on trainmen during that year was cut by $1,124,965, as compared with the previous year. The outlay on train engineers was decreased by $1,021,607 as compared with the previous year. Also the item under station employees was reduced by $448,280, but the item of superintendents was increased by $286,815 and the item of salaries and expenses of general officers was increased by $35,615.
The average hourly rate of the poorest paid class of employees was reduced from 32.1 cent per hour in 1923 to 27.2 cents per hour in 1924, while the class with an average hourly rate of $1.26.2 per hour in 1923 was increased to $1.33.5 in 1924. I have especially referred to these details for two purposes:	first, to
point out that they show quite a tinge of selfishness and a strong disposition to work along the lines of least resistance, which you will agree is not indicative of the highest type of executive. And I refer to it for the purpose of correcting an impression that it is the wage earner in the railroad business who is getting the plums. Unskilled help in the employ of the Canadian National Railways in my constituency is very poorly paid and the semi-

The Address-Mr. Price
skilled help together with our skilled mechanics have been obliged to accept a reduction per hour since 1922.
The Maritime provinces contain little more than one-ninth of the population of Canada and hence are contributing about $13,000,000 a year to the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, which is nearly $2,000,000 a year more than the total amount of the operating deficits of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways for the forty-seven years previous to 1915.
It is difficult to ascertain how much of these high annual expenditures of the Canadian National Railways is being spent in the Maritime provinces. The most we can do is to form a general idea from an examination of a few items, and one of the best is that iabelled "Industrial and Immigration Bureau." The expenditure under this heading is made to bring in settlers and to encourage and assist in the creation of new industries and the development of the country's natural resources.
In 1919 the total amount spent by the Canadian National Railway system under this heading was $101,430.64, of which $912.12 was spent in the interest of the Intercolonial. In 1920, $153,979.18 was spent on this item of which $3,479.47 waj spent on the Intercolonial. Out of a total of $156,475.37 spent on this item in 1921, $6,294.77 was spent on the Intercolonial. In 1922 the total spent was $127,937.99, of which the Intercolonial received $10,334.71. In
1923	the total spent was $284,618.24 and in
1924	it amounted to $728,157.04, but in the report for these two years the expenditures are not separated so there is no way of ascertaining how much was spent in the interests of immigration and industrial development in the Maritime provinces. Unlike the Canadian Pacific Railway no attempt has been made through colonization to create traffic through a country capable of development.
There has not been enough attention given to this important matter. The money contributed for these and like purposes by our people has been spent on other parts of Canada.
But there is another more important factor that we have overlooked. The Intercolonial railway was built to enable the people of the Maritime provinces to reach the markets of central Canada at a transportation cost that would enable them to compete with goods produced in Quebec and Ontario.' Prior to ten years ago we were able to do this fairly well. But since the absorption of the Intercolonial with the Canadian National system the whole rate structure has been changed. The central 14011-58
Canada markets are no longer within our reach. In fact the eastbound freight rates, classifications and conditions are so much in favour of eastbound freight as compared with that going west that we are finding it difficult and in many cases impossible to hold our own interprovincial trade against the competition of goods from central and western Canada. The local freight rates of less than carload lots between Maritime points is in many cases higher than the through rates on the same class of commodity from Ontario and western points.
There is still another important point that has been overlooked. We are annually contributing millions to the support of the Canadian National Railways which are regularly and deliberately carrying large quantities of Canadian tonnage for export to the port of Portland, Maine, to the detriment of our Maritime ports. The Canadian National Railways, have an agreement with the White Star line to deliver as much tonnage as possible to its boats at that port. Some facts concerning this agreement are to be found in the evidence given by Mr. D. O. Wood of the freight department of the Canadian National Railways before a select committee of the United States Shipping Board and Emergency Fleet Corporation, exhibits of testimony, part A, pages 432-434. I mention this report to show that the port of Portland has been built up by Canadian traffic. I think it is the duty of this government to remedy this situation, and to bring this freight which at present is being exchanged between the White Star-Dominion lines and the Grand Trunk at Portland, Maine, over Canadian railways, to St. John and Halifax.
The examination of Mr. D. O. Wood, general foreign agent, Grand Trunk Railway, follows:
Commissioner Thompson:	What is your official
capacity, Mr. Wood?
Mr. Wood:	General foreign freight agent of the
Grand Trunk Railway.
Commissioner Thompson:	Proceed, Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood:	Mr. Commissioner and gentlemen:	We
only have one agreement at the present time at Portland, Me., and that is with the White Star Dominion line. This agreement or contract is a survival of a very ancient one, possibly 30 years old. The present agreement is dated August, 1913, and may be terminated on six months' notice, said notice to be given prior to the March 1st of the calendar year.
I think, sir, that I had better give a little history of this service, because it is very pertinent to the question under consideration. In the first place, the service at Portland we have with the White Star Dominion line, is simply a continuation of a service which applies to the port of Montreal in summer time. Portland, as you are aware, is the only winter port so far as trans-Atlantic service is concerned. In the early days of the Grand Trunk Railway it was almost impossible to have any steamship in the

The Address-Mr. Price

* Atlantic service come to that port, by reason of the fact that it was the one port in the United States to which it was difficult to send traffic. If you will note the situation, there is only the one line that can initiate traffic and send it to Portland, and that is the Grand Trunk Railway. The Boston & Maine Railroad is in Portland, but they are on the other side, not at the docks, and I understand that their interests will be Boston.
The traffic which comes through the port of Portland is, I should say, without going into exact figures, possibly 80 or 90 per cent of Canadian origin.


Mr. KAY:: I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. member's speech anything to do with the amendment before the House?


Hewitt Bostock: I have already desired hon. members to adhere in their speeches to the question at issue. In the present instance the amendment has reference to the dairy industry and as far as possible hon. members must connect their statements with that subject. On the other hand, I am bound to remind the House that new members are usually given some latitude, particularly in two debates, the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the budget. Hon. members who speak to the amendment at present before the House might not have an opportunity to discuss the Address itself inasmuch as if the amendment were adopted the nature of the Address would be affected. I think, therefore, that some latitude might be afforded hon. members. However, I would ask hon. gentlemen not to forget that there is an amendment before the House, and if they speak on the Address they must relate their remarks to the amendment.


Mr. PRICE:: The report goes on:
The large amount of tonnage which you have noted in your records as having been put through Portland in 1920 consisted chiefly of grain, of which some four hundred and odd thousand tons was taken up by tramp steamers-no regular line. Of course, the regular lines received a certain amount; all lines do take a certain amount of grain, but the chief commodity shipped through Portland is grain, and that grain is almost entirely of Canadian origin.
Commissioner Thompson: You don't mean combination passenger-and-cargo liners?
Mr. Wood: I mean liners, whether combination or regular freighters, as long as they are in the regular line. The grain, as I have said, is almost entirely of Canadian origin. It may happen in some steamship companies when there will be a big crop of American corn, that there might be some corn coming through Portland, but not to any great extent.
Now, the port of Portland has been practically built up by the Grand Trunk railway, and largely from Canadian traffic. There are other lines coming to Portland, of course, besides the White Star Dominion, but we have no contract, with them; they come there because we were instrumental in the early days in having them come there by trying to help them fill their ships as far as we could. We have now worked up a trade which enables them to come there with limited service. We have at the present time at Portland

arranged at this season for three lines, all of which are using United States Shipping Board vessels. The Rogers and Webb line-at least Rogers and Webb are the agents, having certain vessels assigned them-are using the port for service to Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg. The Sprague line, so-called agents, will use the port for Scandinavian service. We have another line, the Northern and Western Steamship Co.-and this may seem rather peculiar-operating Shipping Board boats who take traffic through the Panama canal to the western coast of the United States, so that we have a United States Shipping Board line helping us to reduce our transcontinental rates by rail.


Mr.   POTJTJOT@Translation: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member instead of referring to his notes is reading the text itself of his speech which, moreover, has no connection with the subject under discussion. I raise the point of order simply because the hon. member is not allowed, under the rules of the House, to read his speech,


Hewitt Bostock: It is true that members may not read their speeches; that is contrary to the usage of parliament. The hon. gentleman who has the floor must not read his speech, but should simply refer to his notes. I have followed the hon. member since he began his remarks this afternoon, and I have thought he was only referring to his notes. Besides, hon. members who have sat longer in the House must be indulgent towards the new members who are just, as it were, breaking the ice. Now, as regards relevancy, Redlich's Parliamentary Procedure, volume II, page 59, confirms what I have already said:
The general political character of the king's speech leads to the result that the course of the debate upon it is untrammelled as to subject-matter, a circumstance to which the modern adoption of the principle that general debates should be as much as possible avoided has given great importance. General criticism of the government from all imaginable points of view, demands for redress of grievances, the statement of aspirations and proposals of all kinds, are rendered possible.
So, as one can see, in the debate on the Address and in the budget debate members are not confined to speaking strictly to the question, though they must not wander too far away from it. Free scope is given to hon. members in order that they may bring to the attention of parliament any grievances which may exist throughout the country. I think I am justified in applying to the present case this principle which is laid down by Redlich, one of the greatest authorities on parliamentary procedure.


Otto Baird Price: This matter to which I have directed attention is entirely in the hands of the government. We have taken over this Grand Trunk railway, and even its officials, and the White Star line could be asked to make St. John or Halifax their port, and the

The Address-Mr. Price
Canadian National railway carry on through our own Canadian ports, exchanging cargoes at our own wharves. This would answer the cry for a return cargo, which is one of the many objections which are raised.
It may be pointed out in this connection that the cars carrying a great deal of the grain which is shipped through American ports come back light, as there is no traffic offering in the opposite direction. In 1889, when the Canadian Pacific railway completed its Transcontinental system between Vancouver and the port of St. John, and when energetic efforts were entered upon to renew and enlarge the development of the port of St. John, the Canadian Pacific Railway showed a very kindly feeling and co-operated closely with the business men of St. John. For many years the winter port traffic of Canada had been going through Portland and other United States Atlantic ports. The federal government had been rendering assistance by granting subsidies to steamship lines carrying Canadian goods through the port of Portland. The people of St. John made a strong appeal for the utilization of the port of St. John for Canada's winter port traffic, and they demanded that the subsidy contracts that were being granted to the steamers from Portland, Maine, should cease. The withdrawal of these subsidies was decided upon in 1896, and on December 3, 1895, the Lake Superior docked at the Canadian Pacific Railway's Sand Point wharf. This was the turning of the tide, and a little later the $25,000 subsidy was withdrawn from Portland and given to St. John, as well as $325,000 for harbour improvements. St. John, let it be said, has contributed over $2,000,000 of its own money for harbour and dock improvements. Now if the contract of 1896 could be cancelled by the Dominion government, as I have pointed out was done, in order to transfer the subsidy from an American port to a Canadian port, it is my opinion that the Dominion government could to-day bring about a change in the agreement between the Grand Trunk and the Dominion White Star line.
I wish now to submit a comparative statement regarding the transportation of grain from Port Arthur to St. John, and Port Arthur to Portland. It has already been stated that to move 50,000,000 bushels the difference in favour of Portland represents approximately $197,000. For the sake of argument we may say that the difference is $200,000, in favour of Portland. To move this amount of grain will require approximately 1,250 trains, or ten trains per day for four months. These trains, each containing 40000 bushels, will require the labour of 100
train men per day on one subdivision alone of the Canadian National railway, and at the average -rates of pay will represent $500 per day. The coal used on these trains will cost $600 per day. So that we have a total of
2,000	train. miles per day at an approximate cost of $8,000 per day, or $180,000 per month. The difference in train miles in carrying this amount of grain as between St. John or Portland would be approximately 900 train miles in the United States to 9,000 in Canada per day, giving the greater advantage of labour, supplies, coal and so on to the Canadian divisions of the National railway. Hon. gentlemen will readily understand the great benefit to be derived by our Canadian train employees by the movement of ten trains per day in and out of St. John over the Transcontinental railway, besides the incidental advantages to the merchants of St. John. To this statement should be added the salaries of elevator employees and the wages of dock yard hands, to say nothing of the money spent in connection with the visit of steamers to the city of St. John during the transportation of this grain. While the advantages already enumerated in favour of Portland over St. John may seem large, they are nothing in comparison to the gains to be made by St. John, by the employees of the Canadian National railways and by other branches of labour, in connection with the shipment of this grain, to say nothing of the far-reaching advantages to the merchants, shippers and citizens of the whole province.
From a casual glance at the map it might be thought that Portland lies in a more direct route to the European and other world markets than do the ports of St. John, Halifax and Sydney. But from a study of railway methods it will be found that routing does not depend so much upon this factor as it does upon the existence of a healthy interest on the part of the management and representatives. A few days ago a oar of maple sugar was sold by a Montreal merchant to Denver, Colorado. He asked for railway quotations and received a rate of S1.95J per hundred via Chicago, and $1,791 per hundred via Boston and Newport News. He accepted the lower rate and consequently, his goods were carried to Boston, transferred from the oar to the boat which took them to Newport News, again transferred from the boat to the car, and taken across the continent to Denver, Colorado. It is surprising the amount of Canadian freight that is being routed in a manner calculated to give the lion's share to American roads. This is due to the keen interest which the management of American roads and American
The Address-Mr. Price

shipping display. On the other hand I cannot see that there is much of this spirit shown on the part of any person in the interests of the Maritime railways and ports.
There is another matter which I am sure will surprise many people in this country, namely, the agreement which the Canadian National Railways has made within the last few weeks for the shipping of Canadian wheat via the port of Norfolk, Virginia. In this connection I wish to read from the Halifax Herald, of January 7, 1926, an item concerning the new agreement which Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors have entered into for the shipping of Canadian wheat within the last few weeks:
Baltimore will welcome new grain trade of great benefit to port. Large shipments of wheat from Canada's producing centres expected, says official.
An arrangement is expected to be completed in the near future between the Western Maryland Railway and the Canadian National Railways for the routing of Canadian grain destined for European shipment through Baltimore, it was announced last night by Maxwell C. Byers, president of the Western Maryland.
The traffic division of the Western has been working with the Canadian railroad on arrangements for some time. Mr. Byers said. It is probable that the project will go through within two weeks, he added, and shipment of grain via the Baltimore route would be started at once. Mr. Byers pointed out that the new arrangement would be beneficial to this port and many vessels probably would come here to load grain for European ports.
The Western Maryland has adequate facilities for handling the grain at its elevators and terminals at Port Covington, he declared, and large shipments could be handled here. He said a large part of the grain would consist of wheat. In the past the Western Maryland has had no such arrangement for routing Canadian grain through Baltimore, Mr. Byers explained. Much of the products has been exported via Canadian ports and New York, with a smaller quantity going through Philadelphia.
The arrangement for bringing the grain to Baltimore probably will be permanent, it was said.
Mr Byers pointed out that the Great Lakes are frozen at present and all grain must be shipped to ports by land routes. He declared the new arrangement would not damage the trade of Canadian summer ports, but would be a good thing for Canadian shippers. Wheat to this port will come from virtually all large wheat-producing sections of Canada, he said.
Arrangements with a number of American railroads :are necessary to bring the grain from the Canadian National Railways to the Western Maryland lines, Mr. Byers explained.
Now, Sir, if this government permits this agreement to be carried out it will be flying pretty strongly in the face of public opinion. We have been told that it is too long a haul to route grain from the west to the ports of Halifax and St. John. Very well; let us look into this question of mileage for a few-moments. In this connection I offer the following comparisons.

Railway Mileage	Miles
Winnipeg to St. John, C.P.R	 1,884
Winnipeg to St. John, C.N.R. via McGivney.. 1,862 Winnipeg to St. John, C.N.R. via Moncton.. 1,906
Winnipeg to Moncton	 1,816
Winnipeg to Halifax (Transcontinental)	 2,001
Winnipeg to Baltimore, Md. (Western Maryland Railway)	 1,901.3
Winnipeg to Norfolk (U.S.A.) (Western Maryland Railway)	 2,166.4
Ocean Distance	Miles
Norfolk, U.S.A., to Liverpool, nautical miles. 3,233
Baltimore, U.S.A., to Liverpool	 3,375
St. John, N.B., to Liverpool	 2,700
Halifax to Liverpool	 2,431
Now, Sir, it will be noticed that the shipment by rail from Winnipeg to- Liverpool via the Norfolk route is much longer than it is by the all Canadian route. That will be seen by reference to the following tables:
Miles
Rail route Winnipeg to Norfolk, Va	 2,166.4
Ocean route Norfolk to Liverpool	 3,235
Total	5,401.4
Winnipeg to Liverpool via Norfolk, Va	 5,401.4
Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.P.R. via St. John,
N.B	 4,584
Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)
via McGivney, St. John, N.B	 4,562
Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)
via Moncton and St. John, N.B	 4,606
Winnipeg to Liverpool, C.N.R. (Transcontinental)
via Halifax	 4,432
.The Norfolk, Virginia route from Winnipeg to Liverpool is 969.4 miles longer than from Winnipeg to Liverpool via the Transcontinental through the port of Halifax; in other words the all-Canadian route is practically 1,006 miles shorter. From Winnipeg to Liverpool via Baltimore the distance is 844.3 miles greater than the all-Canadian route through the port of Halifax and 714 miles greater than via St. John. Yet Canada, with its Transcontinental line which cost $170,000,000, built specially for the purpose of transporting traffic through Canadian territory to Canadian ports, permits the carrying of grain over a thousand miles longer haul through United States territory to United States ports on to Liverpool, with a loss of $20,000,000 in wages and transportation charges which should rightly go to our own army of unemployed and mechanics and trainmen who are idle in Oanada. There are permanent employees of our railways today paying into a Provident Fund, and losing time most valuable to their superannuation allowance if they are to participate in the benefits of that fund.
Let us show to the Canadian people, and to our neighbours to the south, that there is one policy at least upon which we can all agree, an east and west policy, a policy providing for the transportation of Canadian

The Address-Mr. Price
products at rates which will bring the eastern and western sections into contact with our central provinces, creating an internal development which Canada has long required. If we are to progress as the Fathers of Confederation intended, there must be harmony and contentedness among our people. The Maritimes are entitled to traffic and commercial union with central Canada. They will never consent to company control of that portion of the Canadian National Railways known as the Intercolonial railway from Montreal east through the Maritimes.
Another matter which I would like to bring before the House is in connection with the taxes which arc paid by the Canadian National Railways. I wish to show that the Maritime provinces do not get a fair deal. For the year ending December 31, 1924, the provincial and municipal taxes paid by the Canadian National Railways were as follows:
Provincial Taxes Municipal Taxes
Nova Scotia	.. 6,092	25	16	25New Brunswick.. ..	45	70Quebec	.. 1,350	00	419,370	97Ontario	.. 371.042	65	940,089	65Manitoba	.. 523,692	00	32,730	37Saskatchewan	.. 76,212	00	10,126	00Alberta	.. 16,239	82	108,583	19British Columbia..	.. 46,417	00	102,731	60United States	.. 103,590	00	78,290	33$1,245,806	08	$1,691,984	06
Of the $2,937,790.14 in taxes, municipal and provincial, received by the Canadian provinces and the United States of America, the Maritimes get $6,154.20. of which New Brunswick get $45.70. With headquarters, immense shops and offices located at Moncton, and with the large equpiment that goes with the Railway department, it seems that our city should get something in taxes. The total provincial and municipal taxes paid by the Canadian National Railways in 1924 was $2,937,790. Of this amount the Maritime provinces, proportionate to population, contributed $325,000, but the Maritime provinces only received $6,154.20, while the othei provinces and the United States received the balance of $2,931,625.94, including the $319,000 contributed by the Maritime provinces, which on any equitable basis, would have gone to the Maritime provinces. This gives some idea of what the Maritimes contribute and what they receive.
The King government, while promising to complete the Hudson Bay railway at once and at any cost, puts off the Maritimes with the promise of investigation by a royal commission. But why a royal commission? Maritime rights were written into the statutes
of the country at confederation, when the Intercolonial railway was built, and again when the Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental railways were projected. Premier King and his colleagues cannot be ignorant of these facts. A royal commission could learn nothing new and could not suggest anything that could not be brought about by the government and parliament without delay. A royal commission is just a way of putting off the day of reckoning. Is the patronizing of American ports not an acknowledgment on our part of our inability to make use of our well equipped railways, including the Transcontinental? If we were waiting for the construction or the completion of a railway through our own country to sea ports on our own coast, then there would have been an excuse for the use of American lines, but having built particularly the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton at an enormous expense to the country for the express purpose of carrying freight-over Canadian lines to Canadian ports, it does seem that our own means of transportation should be put to work, and if facilities at our Atlantic ports are inadequate for the handling of grain, the construction of any additional requirements should be started forthwith.
The sympathy and help of our Canadian people will not be withheld from any province in this Dominion whose population is struggling with embarrassments and disabilities which can be remedied by the enforcement of legislation already on our statutes. What we want is our rights in the premises; we want justice; we want the Maritimes to function as an active part of the whole Dominion; we want to share the pulse beat of Canadian expansion and advancement. We want the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Maritime ports made use of in accordance with the express provisions under which it was constructed. We want the pledge that its construction would mean the transportation of freight originating in Canada over an all Canadian line to the Atlantic seaboard carried out in every particular. Had we the hundredth part of that spirit of foresightedness, aggressiveness and determination possessed by the Fathers of Confederation, we would not require months to solve our present day problems. If we are going toi become an independent country in due course of time, we must approach these questions in a spirit of determination and sane judgment to find a solution for our disabilities.
Consider the case of the Maritime provinces. They did not seek the union. Mr. The Address-Mr. Price

Tilley, afterwards Sir Leonard' Tilley, made that clear at the Quebec conference in 1864, when he said, "Delegates from the Maritime provinces are not seeking this union", and the people of New Brunswick confirmed it in 1865 when they voted almost solidly against confederation, while Prince Edward Island withdrew from the negotiations and did not come in until later. It is true that New Brunswick reversed its position in 1866, after its governor had been recalled to London and returned a convert to the union and most urgent appeals were made to the loyalty of a people whose loyalty to the flag has been a tradition ever since the close of the American revolution. The people of Nova Scotia did not get a chance to vote on the question until after the union had been consummated, but they overwhelmed its authors in the first federal election thereafter. However, the Maritimes came in and took up their struggle against great odds, with what result? They are unable to compete industrially with the central provinces unless they are permitted to share in the special concessions granted other provinces in the matter of getting their natural products to market. The Maritimes want a fair deal; they want justice, but they are net getting it.
What is the situation b>day? We present to the outside world a country wealthy in natural resources, the greatest wheat exporting country in the world, a country possessing a railway from our wheat fields, with four-tenths of one per cent grades built over a finely graded roadbed throughout Canada to Canada's own ports, the nearest ports to the word's largest markets on the North American continent. And what occurs? The largest percentage of many million bushels of grain exported finds its way to United States ports. It does not pass over our own lines to Canadian ports, but is Shipped to Boston, New York, New London, Buffalo, Philadelphia and as far south as Baltimore and Norfolk, West Virginia, the two latter being a longer haul than to the port of St. John. What of the millions paid over to United States railways to build up their ports and give employment to an army of trainmen, shopmen, longshoremen and wharf hands generally, while in Canada a magnificent railway built at an expenditure to the people of $170,000,000, constructed especially for the very purpose of handling this traffic, is allowed to rust, and our own trainmen, enginemen, machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, carpenters and painters, either remain idle or seek employment in the United States?
What is true of our railway situation is also true of our mining conditions. Millions of ton?
IMr. Price.]
of coal are imported from the United States, while the mines of Alberta and the Maritime provinces could well supply the Canadian market if given an opportunity. We want the Transcontinental put to work.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches recently delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mothenvell) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) dealing with the treaties -French, Australian and New Zealand-I am more convinced than ever that all these trade agreements are in opposition to the best interests of Canadian agriculture. If from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture you take the material prepared by the dairy commissioner in support of the government's position, and the bluff and bluster of the minister himself, you have very little left. Let me quote briefly from the speech, taking that part where the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) interjected a question:
Mr. Meighen: What about the French Treaty?
Mr. Motherwell: I was not aware that that affected the daily industry very substantially.
Mr. Meighen: The hon. member is not aware that it raised the duty against us on condensed milk by 50 per cent?
Mr. Motherwell: The effect has been so infinitesimal that even with the aid of powerful X-rays the dairymen have not been able to discover it yet.
Mr. Meighen: It killed the condensed milk trade with F ranee.
Mr. Motherwell: That is too bad.
Let us see what that treaty really did to our condensed milk trade with France. The following statement shows the condition at a glance:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Branch Exports of Canadian Condensed Milk from Canada to
France
Pounds	Dollars
1922	
4,367,900	568,1931923	
60	231924	
956,800	119,4051925	
88,900	7,140
Note: The Franco-Canadian Trade Treaty was entered into on the 15th of December, 1922, but did not come into force until the 5th of September, 1923.
I have before me a statement prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, sent to me by Mr. Warne under cover of the following letter:
In compliance with request from Mr. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am mailing you herewith statement showing imports under treaty tariffs, of foodstuffs that compete with Canadian farm products, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925: showing (a) total imports under treaty tariffs; and (b) imports from France under French Treaty; also total fish imported under said treaty.

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
I do not wish to burden the House by reading the whole statement; I will simply take certain portions of it and ask the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, to place the full statement on Hansard, in order that hon. members may realize this significant fact, that the tariff concessions granted to France are automatically extended to twelve other countries. Those countries have been sending their farm products into Canada to an extent that to my mind is alarming. Take, for instance, bakery products and prepared foods: the total value [DOT]of our imports from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands under the French treaty amounted to $43,714; from France, $19,220. From Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands we also received canned fruits to the amount of 127,638 pounds; from France, 102,585 pounds.
Of cheese there came from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands under the treaty 483,952 pounds, and from France 136,149 pounds. Of canned goods there came from Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands 3,100,364 pounds and from France 607,705 pounds. Coming into Canada in 1925 under the French treaty there was an aggregate of $1,223,906 worth of farm products which could all have been produced in Canada.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What did these imports consist of?


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 
Charles Edward Bothwell: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he was quoting from statistics prepared up to March 31, 1925, or has he given importations since the treaty came into effect?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: 
Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Less than that.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The Minister of Public Works says, less than that.


John Warwick King: The minister's estimate was less than that.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: He gave the figure of 4,000,000 pounds, but we will take it at less than that if the Minister of Public Works says so. But what assurance has the Minister of Public Works that not more than 4,000,000 pounds will come into this country during the present year?


John Warwick King: I have the same assurance that you have; you are just prophesying.

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I am not prophesying; I am quoting the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is worse.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does not the hon. member think that the fact of having only 10,000,000 pounds instead of 22,000,000 pounds in this country on the 1st of December is the cause of this foreign butter coming in.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Is that a good argument to put forward in support of opening the door? Is that the kind of policy the hon. gentleman would advocate to encourage the farming industry of Canada? No, Mr. Speaker, he would not dare to go home and advocate that kind of policy in his own constituency. But let me get through with the question from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). What guarantee has he that only three or four million pounds will come into Canada this year? The minister must appreciate the fact that Australia is in a position to send twice 4,000,000 pounds into Canada under present conditions; there is not a question or a doubt about it. Oh, but the Minister of Agriculture says, that little bit of butter will not hurt you. That is the same cry this government has been using for years in connection with practically every industry in Canada with which they have interfered. Oh, they say, the little bit of tariff we are taking off will not hurt you. It is that policy, Mr. Speaker, that helped to close two thousand factories in Canada last year; it is that policy that will help to close hundreds more factories in Canada if hon. gentlemen are allowed to carry on their tariff-tinkering policy. That is the policy that has driven six hundred thousand of our people to the United States, to a protected country. That policy is the club that hon. gentlemen opposite are holding over the industries of Canada to-day, and let me tell them that they have interfered with the dairy industry of this country to a greater extent than they realize at the present time. That is the policy that drives capital out of this country. Who would invest a dollar in Canada to-day in an industry that could be affected by the tariff? This tinkering and tampering with the tariff has got to stop.


John Warwick King: May I interject that within ten miles of Ottawa, up the Gatineau, 118,000,000 is now being invested in the pulp and paper industry?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The minister quotes one industry, an industry that hon. gentlemen opposite supported in these
treaty arrangements at the expense of the farmers of Canada; there is not a question or a doubt about it. Every industry in Canada to-day that is affected by tariffs is in jeopardy so long as this government remains in power. They do not know the day or the hour when they may have their industry wiped out. We need to-day stability of tariffs in this country, or we can never forge ahead.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in his speech in this debate, the other day, referring to the Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Asociation and the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association, said:
I have here a memorandum which was prepared by the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner. From it I read the following:
"The Dairymen's Association of eastern Ontario met in convention in Kingston on January 6 and 7."
Apparently the turmoil had not reached there; there was no one there to fan the blase.
"The Dairymen's Association of western Ontario met in convention at London on January 13 and 14. Both these organizations represent producers. At neither convention was the question of the Australian treaty discussed and no resolutions were passed."
I wish the Minister of Agriculture were in his seat, because I would like to emphasize that that statement is a most misleading one. I have positive proof under my hand that the officials of his department refused to submit the question to the convention, stating that it was a political matter and one not to be touched by the association. But the Minister of Agriculture would try to take advantage of that situation; he would lead this House to believe that the Eastern Ontraio Dairymen's convention and the Western Ontario Dairymen's convention did not mention this treaty at all. I have positive proof that at both of these conventions numbers of men were most anxious to bring this question up and denounce this government in the strongest possible terms.


John Warwick King: I can believe that.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The
minister may well believe it, because he realizes that the dairy industry has been seriously undermined by the treaties which this government have entered into. Let me quote from a statement by one of the largest creamery men in western Ontario:
The dumping of Australian butter on Canadian markets, made possible through the Australian trade pact, which reduced the duty on butter by 75 per cent, from four to one cent per pound, will give the Canadian dairymen "a slap in the face" from which it will be difficult to recover, according to Chas. Johnston, of the Ontario Creamery Company. The effect on the winter dairy industry in the Dominion will be far-reaching and it may take several years for the dairymen to recover from this ''body blow."
922	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
"This blow comes at' a particularly bad time for the dairy industry," Mr. Johnston declared. "Just when the dairymen have become accustomed to overcoming the conditions caused by our Canadian winters and have been keeping dairy production up to the required limit, the government lowers the bars to Australian and New Zealand butter. Reducing the duty on this butter to one cent per pound has made it possible for the Australian farmers to ship butter here in competition with our own dairymen
Because of the mild climate Australian butter can be produced cheaper at this time of the year than it can be produced under Canadian winter conditions. The government at Ottawa should have given some consideration to the position of the Canadian dairymen before they passed the trade pact. Canadian dairymen have been producing sufficient butter to supply the Canadian markets even during the winter months.
Is that not a sufficient answer to the hon. gentleman who interrupted with the observation that the 10,000,000 pounds was in his estimation much too small a quantity to form a reserve in Canada?
There was no reason to bring Australian butter here at all. Everyone recognizes the fact that our farming and dairy industries are most important to the development of the Dominion, and anything which affects these will produce a corresponding effect on the whole Dominion. The question was threshed out at the convention of the Canadian Creamerymen's Association, held in Toronto a month or so ago, and a resolution was passed asking the government to consult with the dairymens' organizations before taking any steps to have Australian butter brought here.
Mr. Johnston said further, "The attention of the government was called to the disastrous effects the lowering of the duty on butter would have, but they paid no attention to this." Mr. Johnston stated that 17,000 boxes of butter are already on the way to Canada, or about 850,000 pounds. This butter can be sold wholesale at 40 cents per pound, while Canadian butter is selling at 46 cents wholesale. It cannot be produced under Canadian winter conditions to sell for less than the present prevailing price, it was stated. The importation of the Australian product will have a tendency to kill the dairy industry in Canada, Mr. Johnston feared.
Now let us consider for a moment whether or not the treaties with France and other countries have been of very great benefit to Canada. The following figures give the imports from France into Canada and the exports from this country to France in the last three or four years:
Imports from	France	Year	Amount
		1923	J14.000.000
		1924	$17,000,000
		1925	$18,000,000
Exports to	France	Year	Amount
		1923	$17,000,000
		1924	$12,000,000
		1925	$11,000,000
Now let us examine the figures of trade between Italy and Canada, which will show that a similar condition exists.

Imports from	Italy	Year	Amount
		1923	$1,814,000
		1924	$1,814,000
		1925	$2,435,000
Exports to	Italy	Year	Amount
		1923	$18,000,000
		1924	$14,000,000
		1925	$10,000,000
This goes to show that the treaties we have entered into with foreign countries have not been productive of very great benefit to this Dominion. On the contrary the very opposite has been the case.
Now, let me occupy a few minutes in placing before the House some of the statements made by the Minister of Finance, who is apparently hiding behind the dairy commissioner. The statements in question are to be found at page 828 of Hansard:
Mr. Tolmie: May I ask my hon. friend a question? With the seasons opposite in Australia as compared with Canada, does imy hon. friend think it is fair to have grass butter produced south of the equator coming into competition with butter produced in western Canada, in the middle of the winter?
Mr. Robb:	I do not like to get into a controversy with my hon. friend, who is an expert agriculturist, but I am willing to take the judgment of the dairy commissioner of Canada who at one time was dairy commissioner of New Zealand. The judgment of that gentleman is that the quality of Canadian butter will be improved in the world's markets if, instead of storing up our butter, we ship it to the markets of the world in good fresh condition. The result of that policy is evident in the fact that during this year Canada won several prizes in the London, England, show competing against the products of New Zealand and Australia. Canada's butter now ranks high in that market, and Canada's butter will be able to compete there.
I fancy that the 250,000 dairymen in Canada will most severely criticize and denounce that statement by the dairy commissioner as one that is not in the best interests of the industry with which they are identified.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Does the hon. member know that the price of butter has been higher during the past eight months than in any corresponding period for six years? Also how much would he like the consumer of this country to have to pay for butter, the present price being from 45 to 50 cents a pound?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: In answer to the hon. gentleman I can only say that the dairy industry is only one industry in this country that should be protected. If it and the other industries in the Dominion were properly protected the labour men would have plenty of work and plenty of money wherewith to buy butter. That is my answer. A few cents is nothing to the man who is at work and in receipt of good wages. It is a very different thing when he is out of employment, and walking the streets with empty pockets. Why should the dairymen of Can-

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
ada, who have to feed their cattle at this season of the year and are exposed to most trying conditions in attempting to carry on, be placed in a position where they are compelled to compete with Australian butter produced under much more favourable conditions? If the statement read by the Minister of Finance correctly expresses the views of the dairy commissioner I would suggest that the latter had better go back to New Zealand and carry on there. The time has come when we as a people must take a definite stand, and see to it that the agricultural products of Canada are properly protected. If hon. gentlemen opposite will not support this stand, our agricultural friends will see to it when they again appeal to the country that they are not returned, and they will have merited their defeat. The hon. member who interrupted comes from the province of Quebec I believe?


Willis Keith Baldwin: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Has the hon. member ever heard representatives from Quebec get up here and denounce these treaties? Why not? The province of Quebec is the second greatest dairy province in Canada, yet when its interests are threatened the members from that province keep their seats or indulge in carping questions. There never was a time, in my opinion, when the dairymen of the province of Quebec should be more thoroughly alive to what is going on.


Willis Keith Baldwin: They are satisfied.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Oh, my hon. friend cannot make me believe they are satisfied. They cannot be satisfied under present conditions and the hon. gentleman knows it.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Nothing of the kind.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: It was a pitiful sight to see the Minister of Finance pleading for the pulp and paper barons of Canada while the agricultural industry was being undermined. At this time the Australian government placed a bonus of $15 a ton against our paper manufacturers. "We had to do something," was his cry. What did he do? He sacrificed the dairy industries to satisfy the paper manufacturers, and the Minister of Finance, using the same terms as the Minister of Agriculture, said, "It will not hurt the farmer." I cannot help thinking that the Australian statesmen put one over our government at that time. I wonder if hon. members opposite realize that the people of Canada through the federal government are spending practically six million dollars
per annum in helping to develop the farming industry of this country, and that the provincial governments are spending a like amount for the same purpose. It is to be remembered that when it is summer in Australia it is winter in Canada, and that these goods, the product of Australasia, move to our country under low ocean rates, while our goods are subject to high railway rates.
Let us look for a moment at this Australian treaty. I have here a report of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, issued every Saturday. I refer to the issue dated Ottawa, January 30. On page 48, I find the following notes:
Commercial Notes From New South Wales Commercial Agent, B. Millin Record Australian Sugar Crop Expected
Sydney, Australia, December 17, 1925.-Most of the sugar crop of Australia, all of which is grown on the east' coast, comes from the state of Queensland, the balance being derived from the northern part of the state of New South Wales. The Queensland production of sugar cane for 1925 is expected to be
3.753.000	tons, which will constitute a record crop. As regards sugar it is estimated that the total yield of the Commonwealth will be 519,000 tons of which
484.000	tons will be produced in Queensland. A considerable quantity of this yield will be available for export and, in view of the preferential tariff now in force, it might be worth the consideration of Canadian importers.
Since 1920 the area under cane has increased from 162,619 acres to 253,519 acres, while the number of growers has made the proportionately large increase from 4,000 to 6,000 during the same period.
Now let us see what this means to the sugar beet industry in Canada. A number of us in this House come from western Ontario, where there are located two large sugar refineries, built at a cost, with equipment and connections, of about five million dollars. It is estimated that at least fifty thousand of the people are dependent to a large extent on the production of sugar beets and the handling of this product at the factory. What happened to this sugar beet industry, and what will happen when we take into consideration the treaty which this government has entered into with Australia? I have here a letter from Mr. Watson, Chief Appraiser of Customs and Excise, dated Februay 8, in which he says:
Referring to yo-ur telephone inquiry this a.m. as to the date on which the rate of duty on raw 6Ugar imported from New Zealand and Australia was reduced and also the amount of such sugar imported from these countries.
The maximum rate of duty on Australian and New Zealand raw sugar, not above No. 16 Dutch standard in colour and imported direct into Canada from any British country, was reduced to 46.50 cents per 100 pounds on May 12, 1923. This tariff change is contained in Departmental memo. No. 32 (revised), a copy of which is encllosed herewith for your information.
During the fiscal year


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member referred a moment ago to a bounty being paid to the growers. By whom is it paid?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I do not think I mentioned the question of a bounty in connection with this matter. A bonus?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I explained that fully. That is well understood by the sugar beet growers in that part of the country. Let me carry this just a little further. This excise tax was abolished under the budget on May 11, 1923, and the duties on imports were reduced by forty cents on raws and fifty cents on refined to the following:
General tariff Preferential tariff
Raws	
1.29	.45Refined	
1.89	1.09
Immedliately following the reduction in the duty the price of sugar beets in Canada declined1 to a corresponding amount, so that farmers, who are paid for their beets according to the price of sugar, suffered a loss of fifty cents per ton on their product. This is clearly shown in the partial table given below which sets forth the price the manufacturers contract to pay the farmers for beets at the various price levels of sugar. Thus a grower delivering sixteen per cent beets at the $7 price of sugar would receive $8 per ton, whereas at the $6.50 price of sugar he would receive but $7.50 per ton for the same beets. I have compiled a statement in regard to the wholesale selling price of sugar, and I would like to have it placed on Hansard. The statement is as follows:
Net wholesale selling price of sugar
Sugar in Beet.. ..	$5 00	$6 50	$7 00	$8 00
per cent	Price per ton of beets			
13	5 50	6 00	6 50	7 5014	5 50	6 50	7 00	8 0015	5 50	7 00	7 50	8 5016	6 00	7 50	8 00	9 0017	6 50	8 00	8 50	9 5013	7 00	8 50	9 00	10 0019	7 50	9 00	9 50	10 5020	8 00	9 50	10 00	11 00
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
This difference would not have been so important to the farmer during the period of very high prices for sugar beets, but it makes a tremendous difference now that the price of sugar has returned to almost pre-war levels or thereabouts. On October first, 1920, the grower would not have been seriously concerned with a fifty cent reduction in duty, as the price of sugar was S18.50. In 1923, the price of sugar was 810.16, and to-day, with sugar selling net at Montreal at $6.13, this is a very serious matter to the farmer. Farmers who haul their sugar beets directly to the factories get $10 per ton in round figures; but when they haul them to a railway siding in a riding such as the one I have the honour to represent, they get only about $6.50. The sugar beet industry is surely a basic industry of this country, and you would think those engaged in it would receive the best of treatment at the hands of this government. We should remember that only ten per cent of the sugar used in Canada is produced in Canada. Prior to 1923 this was a flourishing industry and the farmers were going extensively into the raising of sugar beets. But how could you expect, under treatment such as I have outlined, that the farmers would be encouraged to carry on to a much greater extent? It must also be remembered that a farmer can grow only a few acres of sugar beets owing to the work entailed in connection therewith.
As I have already stated, this tax was reduced, after a tremendous struggle, by one-half cent per pound on sugar manufactured from sugar beets. Let me call the attention of the ministers present to the fact that the estimated quantity of sugar beets produced under present conditidns in that part of the country for home consumption and for export amounts to about 600,000 tons. This would mean a direct loss to the farmers of $300,000 per annum, and three years of that would mean a loss of $900,000. What encouragement is there to carry on and develop an industry such as that to which I have referred? And this reduction came like a bolt from the blue; there was no warning from the government that they were going to remove the duty.
Let me further remind the ministers that in 1922 the sugar beet growers in their organization decided that they would build a sugar refinery in the town of Petrolia.
9 p.m. A short history of what happened to that sugar refinery will not be out of place. The men in the enterprise solicited subscriptions and proceeded to build a refinery in that town. The town council granted a large block of land for the purpose, built a long siding, and helped in every way they could to bring that factory there. The money was subscribed and the building committee went on to develop that industry. They have already spent over $200,000, and there the building stands because it is impossible to get money to carry on and complete that industry under present conditions. That building and everything in connection with it was under way before the government made the present change in the tariff, but it is practically impossible to get a dollar to put into the industry, and the $200,000 that was to a large extent subscribed for the purpose by farmers in that part of the country is lost under present circumstances. The buildings stand there as a monument to the folly, if you like, of the present government as far as its action in this respect is concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend aware that a new factory was moved this year from the United States to Lethbridge and is now established there and doing well, and that the farmers engaged in this industry are prosperous? They started to manufacture this year.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: They evidently did not hear about what this government did a few years ago.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend's friends took care of that.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The hon. gentleman is apparently not in a position to guarantee them the duty that they now receive. If our good Progressive friends to my left will carry out the plank in their platform as regards free food, how can one expect financial men to put money into an industry such as that?


Charles A. Stewart: They seem to be doing it.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: That is the same old story-" these little reductions in the tariff will never hurt you." But I have shown to the Minister of the Interior what a serious injury this reduction has been to the farmers in my part of the country.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member is doing the thinking. Let him go on.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: This is the hon. gentleman who spoke of the " death knell " of protection. I wonder what those gentlemen who have invested their money in the sugar beet industry in Raymond, Alberta, think of that statement.
926	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)


Charles A. Stewart: May I tell
the hon. gentleman it has been all done since the famous announcement by the minister that is quoted so often?
Mr. MEIGHE1N: They did not believe him.


Charles A. Stewart: They are
like my hon. friends.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Evidently they did not believe what the minister said.


Charles A. Stewart: That is as
good an excuse as any.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I should like to tell the Minister of the Interior about several other factories in my riding that have been undermined and have had to close their doors since this government came into office. The men interested in those factories are looking forward to the day when a Conservative government will take office and give reasonable protection to those industries. We had a wagon factory established in our town over twenty years ago. It employed two hundred hands, supporting two hundred homes in Petrolia, and they and their dependents helped to consume the products that make a home market for the farmer. What happened? In July 1920, the Petrolia Wagon Works was taken over by the Adams Wagon Works of Brantford, owned and controlled by the Cockshutt Plow Company. At that time Mr. Cockshutt -now Lieutenant Governor of Ontario- stated:
I want to see men working in every corner of your factory. You cannot produce too much. We can sell * more than you can make for the next five years.
What happened? Premier King promised the Progressives that if elected to office he would take the duty off all instruments of production used by the farmers. This immediately created a want of confidence not only among manufacturers but also among the farmers, or the buying public of these products, and business slumped until it was known what King would do. The budget was brought down, and the protection on farm wagons and sleighs was reduced from 17J per cent to 10 per cent. Immediately wagons and sleighs from the south began to come into the we3t largely through catalogue or mail order houses, at prices about on a par with our costs. Those catalogue houses have no warehouses, carry no repair parts, have no selling organization-nothing but cut rate prices, here today, gone tomorrow.
Unable to get sufficient volume of business to operate the two factories the Adams Wagon Company has been forced to close down the factory at Petrolia entirely, and to run the

factory at Brantford on short time and with a greatly reduced force. Where have the men gone who formerly worked in that factory? Go to our town and you will see the homes of dozens of them that have crossed the line. How much cheaper are our farmers getting their wagons to-day than they did when this wagon factory was running? They are paying over double to-day what they did previous to the war when this factory was running full speed ahead. That may not be of very great interest to some of our friends from the west, but they should remember that our home market is worth a great deal to the farmers who live in old Ontario and Quebec. I wish to remind my good western friends of something else, and I shall do so in the kindest possible spirit. According tp statistics the people of old Ontario are paying 43 per cent and the people of Quebec 35 per cent of the cost of running the Dominion to-day. I do not want to go into details as to what the other provinces are paying, but surely these older provinces have a right to demand that their home market should be cared for to a reasonable extent- that their industries should be protected.


Mr. EVANS:: Am I to understand the
hon. gentleman to say that the1 price of farm wagons has doubled since 1920?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Since
1912; I said previous to the war.


John Warwick King: Most things
have.


John Evans: Not doubled, though.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: That is
all right. But let me get back to what I was discussing with regard to the older provinces. I had the honour of sitting in this House for a number of years previous to 1921, and I know that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in building railways to help the development of the western country. I know the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on our canals. What for? To help old Ontario and Quebec? Not very much. This huge expenditure was made to help the west get its products to the markets of the world at the cheapest possible rates.


John Evans: Which canals?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: All of
them pratetically. Take the Soo canal, for instance-how much of Ontario's products go through it? Take the Welland ship canal- how much of Ontario's products go through it? Right now we are spending $72,000,000 in deepening and widening that canal. Old

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
Ontario is paying 43 per cent of that and of the expenses of running this country. Now our good Progressive friends say: We are going to hold up this government and compel them to build the Hudson Bay railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear,'hear.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: "Hear,
hear," they say.
Aa hon. MEMBER:	They will never get
it.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What
does that mean under present conditions when the people of Canada are demanding economy all along the line? At this very time we find these gentlemen demanding expenditures to the extent of at least $50,000,000. Because what is the good of completing the Hudson Bay railway unless you also build terminals, docks and piers and put dredges there to dredge the harbour every year; unless you build special boats to take the western grain out through the straits to the markets of the world; and unless you build enormous elevators to store the grain for one year?


Mr. SPENCER:: Does not the same argument apply to the Welland canal?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: No, no
such argument could possibly apply to the Welland canal. What about the expenditure on that canal? What is it being deepened and widened for? In order that the larger boats which bring down the pioducts of the western farms can proceed into lake Ontario and save the western farmers from 3 to 5 cents a bushel. Those were the arguments placed before the government prior to their undertaking that expenditure.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Who by?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: By the
western farmers. The strongest kind of arguments that could be brought to bear in support of the deepening and widening of the Welland ship canal came practically solely from the western farmers.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What farmers?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Good
farmers, live farmers, men who realized that unless they could get their products to the markets of the world at the lowest possible cost they could not compete successfully with their rivals.


John Evans: Can the honourable gentleman name one farmers' organization in the west that ever asked for the Welland ship canal?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The
Minister of Railways-


John Evans: You cannot do it.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I say to
the hon. gentleman that there is no doubt whatever in my mind on the point. I had the privilege of being chairman of the railway committee of this House for five years previous to 1921, and I know something about what was going on in .the department of the Minister of Railways, and I am positive of 'the position I am taking in this regard.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: May I ask the
hon. gentleman if he approves of the expenditures on the Hudson Bay railway made hy the government which he supported; and if he approves of the policy of his leader for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway under certain conditions?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The hon. gentleman knows quite well that the government went forward with that railway at a time when money was plentiful.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It was during the war,


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: They did all they possibly could in the construction of the railway at that time and my leader says he is prepared to proceed with it, but we do not say that we would go on under present conditions and build terminals, docks and wharves, and that we would provide boats and put up elevators and do all the other things necessary to carry the grain immediately. Hon. gentlemen would not support a proposition of that kind under the present financial conditions of the country.


Malcolm McLean: My question was whether the hon. member approved of that expenditure and of the further expenditure that would be involved.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I cannot prevent the hon member interrupting me, but I am anxious to proceed with my remarks.
Now, there are other industries in which the people of my constituency are interested and to which I wish to refer. I have the honour to represent a riding that comprises eighteen municipalities. It is a purely rural riding and I am proud of it, and I want to tell the House that the people whom I represent are protectionists. They believe firmly in the necessity for a protective tariff in this country and I will give you some of the reasons for that belief. In the northern part of the constituency there are tens of thousands of acres of the choicest fruit lands that
928	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
are to be found anywhere in Canada. Last year, in the town of Forest, a co-operative society shipped 37,000 barrels of apples while other smaller co-operative societies shipped from 10,000 to 15,000 barrels, and individuals from 3,000 to 5,000 barrels. All varieties of fruit are grown in the district and there are also canning factories in and around that part of the country. I have the figures for the imports of fruit and vegetables during the past eight months, and it will surprise the House to know that from January 1 to August 1, 1925, there came into Canada 103,370 barrels of apples valued at $759,000 upon which duty was paid to the amount of $111,000. And I can go all down the list of peaches, pears, plums, strawberries and vegetables of various descriptions, showing the importations into Canada. For example, there came into this country in that period $51,000 worth of tomatoes, besides the $759,000 worth of apples I have already mentioned. The Minister of Agriculture of Ontario entered into an arrangement last year for the purchase of 25,000 barrels of apples which he had shipped out of Canada with the object of relieving the market to that extent. The motive was a worthy one, but what is the good of shipping out 25,000 barrels and allowing 123,000 barrels to enter the country in a period of eight months? Do hon. gentlemen think that the fruit growing industry of Canada is going to be benefited under such conditions? Is that a state of affairs which they are prepared to support? I am sure that if they lived in western Ontario they would recognize the need for protection to the fruit growers of Canada. AH through western Ontario and in the southern part of the province, and in the province of British Columbia, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well, there are vast areas which could be given over to the growing of fruit, and instead of our importing into Canada hundreds of thousands lof dollars' worth of fruit we could, if we had a proper tariff, encourage the home industry and develop it to a considerable extent. But our fruit growers have no encouragement as things are, for they do not know the moment hon. gentlemen opposite will lower the tariff on these products or wipe it out altogether.
In the canning industry I have shown that enormous quantities of importations come from foreign countries into Canada to the very serious detriment of our business at home. We have millions of acres in Ontario that could be devoted entirely, if necessary, to the raising of crops for canning purposes. I might mention one particular industry in
	.
my town. We have there a canning factory which was put up and equipped at a cost of $150,000 and that cannery is capable of producing at least 150,000 cases per annum, but the market has gradually dwindled until, during the past year, they turned out [DOT] nly
50,000	boxes of peas and corn. They spent $50,000 in and around the town when they might just as well have spent $150,000, as they could have done if we had shut out the enormous supplies of canned goods which came into Canada from the countries I have named. Take another industry in my riding: we have hundreds of acres given over to the growing of celery while there are thousands of acres not developed at all. These lands are of the same kind of soil and the conditions generally are the same. Last year we shipped out 250 carloads of celery from the district but the shippers found, when they tried to get into the United States market, that they were shut out by an embargo which has been in force against the celery growers of Canada during the past few years. The result was that they had to ship their product to the cold storage houses in Toronto and Montreal and dispose of it as best they could. If hon. gentlemen will read the telegrams which are received every week by the dairy branch of the Department of Agriculture they will see that hundreds of carloads of celery are coming into this country every year to the disadvantage of the home producers, who cannot get a particle of their product into the United States. And the same thing is true of all other industries which are trying to develop in Canada.


Willis Keith Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Yes.


Willis Keith Baldwin: About 1885-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. 'BALDWIN: Does the hon. member
know that a beet sugar factory was built in my county and that it was closed within two years of completion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for East Lambton allows a question?	,


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I have no objection to a simple question.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member (Mr. Baldwin) may ask a question but he may not make a statement.

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)


Willis Keith Baldwin: Does my hon. friend know that in the country of Stanstead a beet sugar factory was built-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman is an old and respected member of this House and I am sure he has no desire to contravene the rules. The hon. member for East Lambton has given him permission to ask a question, but it must be a question and not a speech.


Willis Keith Baldwin: The hon. member knows that-


Hewitt Bostock: That is not a question. It must be in the interrogative form.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I think
I can anticipate what the hon. gentleman was going to say, that some years ago the sugar 'beet industry was developed in his part of the country and proved a failure. I do not know what caused it to be a failure, but if the hon. gentleman would come up into our part of the country he would find that our farmers are ready to put their money, or were ready a few years ago, into the further development of the sugar beet industry, knowing, as they do, that they have been producing sugar beets successfully for the last twenty-five years, and that the industry was developing by leaps and1 bounds until the present government-


Willis Keith Baldwin: I buy Wallaceburg sugar.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I have no doubt the Wallaceburg sugar is good sugar, for it is Largely home grown sugar. That merely goes to show what can be done in the way of developing our agricultural industries in this country if we will only get behind them and help.
Let us look for a moment at the value of this home market we talk so much about. For the year 1923 the figures are as follows:
Amount
Amount	Consumed
Exported	in Canada
Beef	
22,000,000	lbs.	640,000,000	lbs.Pork	
58,000,000	lbs.	740,000,000	lbs.Eanib	
356,000	lbs.	78,000,000	lbs.Butter	
13,000,000	libs.	251,000,000	lbs.Poultry	
569,000	lbs.	67,000,000	lbs.Eggs..'	
2,900,000 doz.	230,000,000 doz.
I am firmly convinced that the interests of our farming communities would be greatly benefited if the products of the soil were given adequate protection.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: How would the hon. member protect the wheat farmer of western Canada along the lines he is Suggesting in his whole speech?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, looks upon 'that as a very clever question. Surely he knows that we are assisting the western wheat farmer mightily in this parliament year after year. He knows just as surely as he is sifting there that the western farmer gets a low freight rate on his wheat crop that comes down here to compete with ours. Is that not helping the wheat farmer?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Certainly, but at no loss to Canada.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: That
wheat is carried down here practically at a loss.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: There is no question that our rates are very low as compared with the rates charged in the Unitpd States. In the United States the rate is mine cents a bushel more, as the hon. gentleman knows. I have just been telling the hon. gentleman how the older provinces have been trying to help develop that western country, but surely he would not expect that we should help the west in every conceivable way and spend out in the west all the profits that come to the people in the east. Surely a little bit of that can be spent in the older provinces. IIow many millions of dollars have been spent in these older provinces to assist agriculture as compared with what has been expended on the western plains? Hon. gentlemen know how the comparison stands.
Mr. STEM'ART (Edmonton): We shall be very blad to have my hon. friend give us the comparison.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I am
merely stating the fact, and! the minister knows it full well.


Charles A. Stewart: I should be delighted to have the comparative figures.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Take
cattle, for instance, they are shipped from Edmonton, say, into old Ontario at a very low rate.


Mr. DARKE:: At a profitable rate for the railways.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: If the rate is profitable to the railways, there is no reason why Alberta coal should not be brought down into Ontario. Does the hon. gentleman know that a carload of cattle can be brought from the western plains down, say, to London Ontario, and fed and watered half a dozen

930	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
times, at about half the rate that it costs to bring coal from Alberta to London? These are some of the things that ought to be squared away, and it is for hon. members to stay here and help to square them away; that is what we are asking.
Mr. EVAN'S: At how much loss to the railways are cattle and wheat carried?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: If the
hon. gentleman wants me to go into details-


John Evans: Prove your words.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The hon. gentleman can easily find that out. Let him compare the rates charged in this country with those charged in the United States. I am not complaining. As a representative from the province of Ontario I say that we have been only too glad to help develop that western country, but we do ask for fair treatment for the agricultural interests of old Ontario.
I was dealing with the home market, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why it is that practically every country in the world except Canada has raised its tariff since the war. Are all these other countries wrong, and is only 'Canada right?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I do not think it was the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) who said yes, but a new member sitting near him. After he has had a few more years experience, I do not think he will take that position. The people of this country in the last election took a definite position in regard to that question. In the last House we had 65 Progressives, and one of the planks of their platform demanded free food products. To-day this group has only 24 members supporting that policy, and I predict that their numbers will be less when the people who voted for that policy understand what free food means to the farming industry of Canada.
Let us look at the Australian treaty for a few minutes. To my mind the Australian government recognizes that they have got the best of the bargain. In the Australian Parliamentary Debates of September 26, 1924, at page 4846, I find this:
Mr. Pratten (Minister of Trade and Commerce): On the other hand, Canada is looking for a more extensive market for her secondary products, as her trade with Australia consists almost wholly of manufactured goods. We can readily imagine that the concessions proposed by Canada on primary products, of which she is a large producer, will lead to criticism by representatives of Canadian primary producers on the ground that their interests are being sacrificed to Canada's need for markets for manufactured goods.

Mr. Pratten struck the nail on the head. Canadian primary producers are being sacrificed to Canada's need for markets for manufactured goods under this government.
Now let us look at some of the statements made by wholesale brokers in this part of the country in connection with the Australian tieaty. I have here a statement from H. G. Moore & Company:
Just a word on the butter market and Toronto conditions as we see them.
You all know that storage stocks of butter are away down, and according to figures we should all be getting 50 to 55 cents for butter according to stocks.
But no! The reason is this: Everyone has butter and doing all they can to get out from under before this foreign butter arrives which is costing from 37$ to 43$ cents f.o.b. Toronto. It will get worse for you before it will get better because the wholesalers here are filled up with butter, and with foreign butter coming in they will not buy fresh butter.
Then J. M. Ham makes this statement:
We are approaching the time when foreign butter will be on the market. A shipment of New Zealands is due here about January 20, and is being offered at 41 cents duty paid. Also, considerable Australian butter, which was purchased by dealers earlier in the season, will be arriving towards the latter part of the month, and undoubtedly prices here will have to react to a point in line with import costs.
Then I have another letter from Mr. Ham bearing date January 15:
Our butter market is lower. Fresh creamery firsts are offering to-day from western Canada at 40 to 40$ cents, and seconds at from 39 to 39$ cents delivered Toronto. Buying at the lower level, however, is still on a limited scale. The lower prices have been caused through heavy arrivals of Australian and New Zealand butter on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which has resulted in pressure to sell from western creameries, and just how far prices will have to decline here to keep western offerings moving, is difficult to say, but it will depend largely on the foreign situation.
Then there is another letter from H. G. Moore & Company to the following effect:
Australian butter will arrive in Toronto and Montreal this week, or the first part of next. Falling prices cause depression in business, and rising prices hopefulness and activity.
Mr. Ham in another letter dated January 13, says:
It is indeed unfortunate that our duty on butter was lowered. In my opinion it should have been raised. At the moment there are about eighteen cars of Australian butter rolling to the Toronto market from the Pacific coast, and more arrivals due on the Atlantic. This reduction of duty simply means that three cents pound is being taken out of the farmers of Canada.
I have here an advertisement taken from the Montreal Gazette of January 28 extolling the virtues of New Zealand butter. The representatives of New Zealand in Canada know how to advertise, as will be apparent when I read the advertisement. It is as follows:

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
Ankoria Butter
Fresh From Auckland, New Zealand "It's different and it's better"
Flavor. It is fresh full grass; the cows are in the pastures now in a country where it is always springtime. The flavor is delicious and distinctive, due to the unusually rich blue grass pasture. The very high percentage of pure ibutterfat gives it a rich creamy taste. Salting. It is very delicately salted so that there is never any briny taste: people can and do eat more of it.
Texture:	It is of a fine silky texture absolutely
uniform throughout. There are never any drops of water visible when it is cut.
Color. The color is just the natural early spring shade; no artificial color whatever is used.
Price. The price is only a little higher than last summer's Canadian butter now held in storage.
Ask your dealer.
Do hon. gentlemen opposite think that they were looking after the interests of the Canadian dairy farmer when they were allowing these products to come into Canada under the treaties that I have already named? Surely not. Now let me read the following from the Western Canadian, published at Manitou, Manitoba, in its issue of January 14, 1926. After commenting upon the benefit to the dairy industry through the shutting out of oleomargarine, the article concludes:
If our tariff were the same on butter as that of the United States against ours, you farm wives who manufacture butter by hand-churning would be enjoying a lot more ready money. But, sad to relate, this winter butter os cheaper than formerly. Why? Because Canadians are buying Australian farm-wives' butter instead of Canadian farm-wives' butter. The Australian treaty, consummated by the old government, backed up by the Progressives and the government of Australia, came into effect just recently, and the first result of allowing the Australians to send into the Canadian market their butter free was the importation this fall and winter of millions of pounds of dairy butter. The outside competition of Australia, where the dairy season is now at its height, has knocked your winter market for butter into a cooked hat. This is further evidence that farm products can be protected in a way that will benefit the farmer and his wife. Surelly no person is so politically stupid and party-blind that he cannot see that a wise tariff, that equalizes market conditions, is a great advantage to ourselves. Think it over, and the next time you have an opportunity to protect yourselves vote for that protection. Self-preservation and self-respect demand it.


Malcolm McLean: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that millions of pounds of dairy butter came into Canada from Australia?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I was reading an article.


Malcolm McLean: I am not sure that I heard the hon. gentleman correctly? Did I understand him to say that millions of pounds of Australian dairy butter had come into'Canada recently?
14011-59J


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Not dairy butter. I know better than that surely. May I tell my hon. friend that I have had the honour-


Malcolm McLean: It was for information I asked the question, Sir, not for any other reason.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The Minister of Agriculture made the statement, and the Minister of Finance supported it, that over a million pounds of butter had already arrived and that more was coming.


Malcolm McLean: It was the word "dairy" that I thought I caught, but perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I suppose the hon. gentleman thought I was not acquainted with the butter industry.


Malcolm McLean: Ob, no.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that twenty-five years ago another resident of my town and your humble servant established a creamery in the town of Petrolia called the Lambton Creamery Company, miles away from any creamery or cheese factory. I have had the honour of being president of that company for the last twenty years. Last year we produced over
600,000	pounds of creamery butter, and we handled over $35,000 worth of poultry and eggs. I merely make the statement to show the hon. gentlemen that I appreciate the fact that the dairy industry needs protection. There is no use quibbling about dairy butter or asking catch questions. Let us get down to facts and deal with this matter on a purely business basis. To do so you will realize that the time has come for the dairymen of Canada to take action. The 250,000 dairymen of this country should be alive to their own interest, and hon. gentlemen opposite should be alive to the importance of those interests also. I am not here quibbling or attempting to make statements that I cannot back up.
Now let us for a few minutes consider the condition of the egg industry in this country, because our people are vitally affected iby the duty on eggs. Let me refer to the statement for December, 1925, of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. On page 378 we find a table summarizing the estimated number and value of eggs produced on farms in Canada during each of the years 1921 to 1925-the production and value of farm eggs in Canada. It gives the statement, for these years of the number of egg producing hens on the farm, the average production, the total number of
032	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
eggs produced, the average value per dozen and the total value of the production. I would like to have this statement placed on Hansard
because I think it is of value to hon. members of the House. The statement is as follows:



PRODUCTION AND VALUE OF FARM EGGS IN CANADA, 1921-1925

[Stage Direction]
Year	Egg- producing hens on farms	Average production per hen	Total eggs produced	Average value per dozen	Total value of eggs producedNo.	No.	dozen	cents	$1921	25,755,356	78	168,049,154	25	40,968,8411922	29,945,484	78	194,058,468	25	48,490,5781923	31,064,992	78	202,186,508	24	48,770,7801924	32,220,057	79	212,648,685	24	50,322,4391925	32,837,040	82	224,778,867	26	57,950,340
Noth.-The Indian Reserves are included for the years 1923 to 1925, but not for 1921 and 1922.
Why not protect this industry?
I have here a statement with respect to Alberta creamery butter. I can well remember when we were shipping carloads of butter, poultry and eggs from old Ontario to the western provinces and British Columbia. But what do we find now? We find the western butter coming down into old Ontario and helping to take care of the home market in that province, and western eggs and western poultry doing the Same thing. For instance, I remember purchasing cars of turkeys a couple of years ago, and a few days before Christmas we received a telegram from the west stating that dozens of carloads of turkeys were coming down. Immediately the price dropped 12 to 15 cents a pound in old Ontario. I am not saying these things to create the impression that I object to what the west is doing, but I ask hon. members to be fair and reasonable in regard to this matter and to remember that the farmers of old Ontario and Quebec have a right to expect reasonable treatment at the hands of the men from the west. Let us see what happened in 1925. I refer to Hansard March 30, 1925, page 1642, where I find that the hon, member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) asked certain questions with regard to eggs. The questions and answers follow:
Mr. McQuarrie:
1.	Is the government aware that large shipments of American and Chinese eggs have recently arrived in Canada and have appreciably decreased the price of Eggs in Canada, as reported in the Vancouver Province of March 8, 1925?
2.	Have any representations been received by the government, as to the unfair competition confronting Canadian poultrymen by reason of the fact that the duty on eggs entering the United States from Canada is 8 cents, and the duty on eggs entering Canada from the United States is only 3 cents per dozen ?
3.	If so, from whom haVe such representations been received ?

4.	Does the government contemplate any, and what action, to effectively meet the situation complained of?
5.	Have any representations been received by the government, as to the necessity for a proper system of egg marking to distinguish Canadian from American and Chinese eggs, when same are placed on the Canadian market ?
6.	If so, from whom have such representations been received ?
7.	Does the government contemplate any, and what action, to effectively meet the situation complained of?
Hon. Mr. Motherwell:
1.	Yes, but such imports are decreasing as is evidenced by the figures given below:
Fiscal year United States
1923	8,256,168	dozen1924	6,454,313	dozen*1925	2,429,655	dozen
Chinese
nil
nil
**75,000 dozen
* April 1, 1924, March 23, 1925.
**Two other cars (30,000 dozens) of Chinese eggs arrived but failed to pass inspection and were refused entry.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Surrey Farmers' Institute, Cloverdale, B.C., and the Record of Performance Poultry Breeders' Association of Ontario.
4. The question of meeting this situation from a tariff standpoint has not been discussed. Regulations are at present in force respecting the marking and grading of eggs under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, and Clauses 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, of these regulations cover foreign eggs imported into Canada.
5.	Yes.
6.	The Surrey Farmers' Institute Cloverdale, B.C.
7.	Identification of foreign eggs entering Canada is provided for in Clauses 27 and 29 of the regulations referred to in answer No. 4. Action, other than the policy embodied in these two sections has not been contemplated.
This merely goes to show what, enormous quantities of these eggs come in to help to undermine the egg market in Canada. Do hon. members really believe that the farmers pf Canada have no right to that egg market, have they not just as much right to it as our manufacturers have to the home market for their manufactured products? The farmers

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lamhton)
of Canada will do well to see to it that they get the whole of that home market for themselves, but they cannot get it unless they are protected against foreign countries dumping their butter, cheese and other farm products into Canada. The time has come for the farmers of Canada to take a definite stand on this question, and I hope hon.
members opposite will take that stand and take it soon.
I have here a statement compiled from figures of the Trade and Commerce department with respect to imports into Canada from the United 'States during the first eight months of 1925, showing quantities, value and duty .paid.
[Stage Direction]
Ffuit:-
Apples	
Wild berries	
Cherries	
Currants	
Grapes	
Melons	
Peaches	
Pears	
Plums	
Strawberries	
Other green fruit	
Vegetables:-*
Cabbage	
Onions	
Potatoes, n.o.p	
Tomatoes	
Vegetables, n.o.p	
Hay	
Butter	
Eggs in the shell	
Eggs, n.o.p	
Unit	Quantity	Value	DutyBrls.	123,370	$759,100	$111,033.00s	8,593	Freelb.	500,603	81,033	10,012.06lb.	217	38	4.34lb.	978,513	93,311	19,522.66No.	3,294,270	370,689	98,828.10lb.	7,677,872	336,429	76,778.72lb.	6,219,391	349,453	31,487.54Bush.	107,275	321,460	32,182.50lb.	3,208,093	619,752	64,161.86$	33,713	7,959.33$	190,768	57,218.70$	312,561	84,020.70lb.	33,712,821	553,865	117,994.59Bush.	317,002	1,071,230	319,472.40$	1,809,901	482,098.19Ton	6,367	99,400	12,734.00lb.	40,817	14,724	1,498.28Doz.	2,603,176	909,355	78,095.68lb.	952,414	152,345	26,660.06
Here is a comparison of the duties imposed by the United States and the Canadian tariffs on some of
these articles.
U.S. Customs Duty
$4.00 per ton___
35%	
50c. per 100 lbs..
8c. lb	
5c. lb	
be. doz	
Canadian Customs Duty
Hay	 $2.00 per tor..
Fruits	 25%
Potatoes	 35c. per 100 lbs.
.Butter	 4e. lb.
Cheese	 3c. lb.
Eggs	 3c. doz.
Do the men who represent the farming interests of this country believe that that is conducive to the general welfare of that industry to allow these eggs and other farm products to come in from the United States? And they are pouring in not only from the United States, China and Japan but from other countries. That return was for only eight months.
With reference to the Australian treaty, J would like to put on record a memorandum of the protective duties charged Canada in shipping to the United States and Australia and U.S. shipping to Canada. If hon. members will allow it to go on Hansard I will very much appreciate it.
Canada	Canada	Australia	United StatesProtective Duties Charged by	to Australia	to U.S.	to Canada	to CanadaEggs, per doz	
Free	3c.	18c.	8c.Cheese, per lb	3c.	6c.	5c.Butter, per lb	4c.	6c.	8c.Honey, per lb	3c.	4c.	3c.Beeswax	10%	3c. per lb.	25%Fresh meat, per lb	
ic.	3c.	5c.	2*c. to 4c.Canned meats	
15%	m%	40%	20%Canned poultry	
15%	27|%	40%	35%Canned soups	
15%	27*%	oc. per lb.	15c. per lb.Lard, per lb	2c.	4c.	lc.Tallow	
10%	20%	lc. per lb.	Jc. per lb.Canned vegetables, corn and beans	
Free	He. per lb.	30c. to $2.10	* 35%Dried apples and other fruits	
10%	25%	8c. per lb.	35%Fresh quinces, per 100 lbs	
25c.	50c.	*1.50	35%Fresh pears and apricots, per 100 lbs	
25c.	50c.	$1.50	50c. per lb.Canned fruits	2*c. per lb.	30c. to $2.10f 35%	
*Per dozen cans, according to size, i pint to 4 pints each. tPer dozen cans, according to size.
934	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Lambton)
The last few years we have witnessed a very gratifying progress in the dairy industry in Canada, especially in the prairie provinces where the establishment of agricultural industries other than wheat growing is a generally recognized necessity. In 1925 the daily industry returned the largest revenue in its history. Dairy cattle made strong prices at public sales, and the prices for butter and cheese were excellent. The increased output of daily products has been most marked as regards creamery butter, the quantity of which for all Canada has grown from 152,501,900 pounds in 1920 to 278,074,849 pounds in 1924, an increase of about 80 per cent. Factory cheese has remained more nearly stationary, the production having increased during the four years 1920 to 1924 by only 506,674 pounds or from 149,201,856 pounds to 149,707,530 pounds. In the three prairie provinces the production of creamery butter has increased from 34,877,815 pounds in 1920 to 48,515,672 pounds in 1924, an increase of 13,637,857 pounds, or 38 per cent.
Another indication of progress is the increase in the exports of butter. Thus for the calendar year ended December 31, 1921, exports of butter from Canada amounted to 9,132,926 pounds, whilst in 1924 they were 22,343,939 pounds. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925, they were 24j501,981 pounds as against 13,648,968 pounds in 1924. And exports of butter are now being made successfully from the prairie provinces to the United Kingdom, the United States, the Wesit Indies and to oriental and other countries. That western Canada is building up a reputation for excellence of quality in dairy products is shown by the fact that in the colonial sedtion of the London Dairy Show last October, Alberta butter gained the first prize and gold medal. At this show Canada Won four out of the six prizes offered for Empire-wide competition and western Canada won four out of the six. There are very gratifying indications of progress in dairying, ivhich possesses great possibilities of future development. in western Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need for this treaty under these conditions. Let us develop the dairy industry in western Canada and in eastern Canada as well. Let us stand true to that industry and let us see to it that proper legislation is brought down and put through in the interest of that great industry. As a citizen of this Dominion- and I am proud to be one-I shall be only too glad to support any measure, let it be for the expenditure of money or otherwise, that will have for its aim the development not

only of the dairy industry but of the whole of the agricultural industry of this Dominion.
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Australian treaty I want to point to a few other matters which tend to retard the farming, fruit growing, dairying and poultry industries of Canada. But before proceeding, I should like to add my felicitations to those offered by others, knowing that you keenly appreciate having been the unanimous choice of the members of this House for a position of such great honour.
This discussion, it seems to me, has brought out several differences of opinions as to jusf what was the issue in the recent campaign. I should like to preface a few remarks with the very emphatic statement that in West Kootenay the issue was protection, and the people there voiced, with no uncertainty, their absolute lack of confidence in the King government. They were not in accord with the mixed variety of protection suggested by the Prime Minister in the different parts of Canada in which he happened to -be speaking. But they were in accord with the National Policy of protection as declared for by the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Meighen)-protection for industry, fur the wage earners, for the consumer and for the farmer. They declared emphatically for protection, the basic principle of which was the creation of Canadian payrolls, and protection which reserves to the Canadian farmer the benefits of his home market.
The campaign which returned a Conservative candidate from West Kootenay, British Columbia, was in striking contrast to the utterances and expressed sentiments of the Prime Minister in his opening speech at Richmond Hill when he stressed the statement that he did not want to be hampered, or harassed, or embarrassed, or dictated to, or dominated by a Progressive group, and that unless he had a good working majority of Liberals he would resign. We have not yet had any indications of a resignation. We also had a recent speech of the Prime Minister in Vancouver, just on the eve of the campaign when he said:
The great problems facing Canada cannot be solved by a government without a strong following.
That was no later than last September. So the situation is this, that we have a national problem for the protection of the farmer and this government is not in a position to solve it. The Prime Minister's utterances at Richmond Hill were made on the 5th day of September, and they cannot be accepted as having been made with any degree cf sincerity

The Address-Mr. Esling
because only a few days later the Prime Minister himself appeared in my constituency and there he urged the electors to give their generous support to my opponent who was designated as a Farmer-Labour-Progressive-Independent. Just imagine the Prime Minister, after his utterances at Richmond Hill not more than two or three weeks before, swallowing that mouthful as if it were maple syrup! Any name looked good to him at that time but Tory. He did not even permit a Liberal candidate to enter the field. He and h.s campaign advisers told the old-line Liberals in West Kootenay that they could not have a Liberal candidate, and they were practically deprived of their right of franchise. They were simply told to take the Farmer-Labour-Progressive-Independent or leave him. The lack of consistency might apply
10 p.m. to the utterances of the Prime Minister, through the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) to our Independent friends on the left of the Speaker. He tells them that they have always been good friends; that their principles are practically alike; that all they need to get along nicely is a little co-operation or co-ordination. He tells them that they are good friends; in fact he says:	"I love you like a
brother; just stay with me.'' But the Prime Minister does not talk in that way to the Independent out in Prince Albert.
There was polled in the constituency of West Kootenay in the 1921 election a majority vote of 2,000 against the Conservative candidate. In 1925, that majority was reversed plus 941. I put it to hon. members of the House if that is not another very emphatic evidence of lack of confidence on the part of the people in the King government.
I want to refer for just a moment to a matter other than that of agriculture, because it is a fact worthy of note that the Speech from the Throne contains absolutely no reference by way of recognition of the vast natural wealth of British Columbia, the development of which would very largely solve, first of all, the immigration problem, certainly, the unemployment problem, and, lastly, the problem of the exodus of Canadians to the United States. British Columbia has added to the national wealth of this country by its production of coal and coke no less than $260,000,000, and notwithstanding interruptions it yields $10,000,000 per annum. Our fisheries yield $25,000,000, our agriculture, $45,000.000, our industrial revenue, $155,000,000, our forest products, $100,000,000, and our mines $66,000,000. In other words, we add practically $500,000,000 annually to the credit of British Columbia, and this is tending to
build up what is destined to be, not only the greatest city in Canada, but certainly the most important port on the Pacific coast-the city of Vancouver.
Now, I think this discussion also brings out the supposition that the prairie provinces are bearing a very large share of the burdens of Canada to-day-perhaps to them they appear to be more than their share. But I think it would materially advance our national interests, certainly it would enlarge the information of hon. members, regardless of their political affiliations, if they would simply take time between sessions to cover different portions of the Dominion, and I would add- particularly the province of British Columbia. Our chief interests in my district are mining and farming, especially fruit growing. If you come to the historic mining camp of Rossland you could go underground through a concrete shaft for a distance of half a mile and ride in electric cars for thirty miles, and be lost through workings and tunnelings extending over eighty miles, every mile of which has produced one million dollars in wealth. Those eighty million dollars have created a Canadian payroll for three thousand men for the last twenty-five years. And Mr. Speaker, what we need to-day chiefly are Canadian payrolls. You can go down the mountain from our little town six miles and come to the greatest and most modern smelter on the continent, wffiere is produced gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, antimony and other by-products, 99.99 per cent pure. You can go out to the adjoining district, represented by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), and there you will find the richest mine on the North American continent. You can go to the coast and find the Britannia mine, which at one time was considered a white elephant. Its mineral resources are immense. But in the early days science had not advanced to the point where it could make a commercial possibility of that vast body of ore. However, science has since accomplished this. Then, too, you will find the Premier mine, which has paid dividends aggregating $7,000,000 since 1921.
But the point I want to drive home is that while to-day. the mineral development of British Columbia is on the upgrade, and people arc keenly interested in it, yet there is necessary greater action on the part of the government for field and research work. It is the research work, carried on chiefly by private companies, which to-day has resulted in the greatest achievement in metallurgical science. Hon. members will understand the importance of the achievement when I remind them. Sir, that by reason of this research
The Address-Mr. Baling

The invasion of American eggs lias started earlier than anticipated this year and the local market is flooded with American storage eggs, purchased last summer, at 12 to 15 cents per dozen. As a consequence, the demand for our local new laid eggs is nil.
And I have innumerable letters and some telegrams in connection with the effect of the Australian treaty. Before I go further I will refer to a statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) yesterday with reference to Australian eggs.


James Alexander Robb: Will the hon. member tell us what change has been effected in the duty on eggs coming in from the United States to Canada in the last twenty years?


William Kemble Esling: I do not know anything
about that; I am talking about the responsibility of this government. The government have been in power for four years now and have not heeded the complaints that have been made. They have had every opportunity of remedying these grievances, but they have not done so.
The Minister of Finance yesterday went on to say that we could not expect any injurious effects from the importation of Australian eggs, because even if the eggs were shipped on the day they were taken from the hen, and then put on a fast train at Vancouver and expressed to Montreal and Toronto, the people would not eat them because they are not accustomed to eating eggs of that kind.


James Alexander Robb: From West Australia.


William Kemble Esling: From West Australia or
any other place. These eggs are imported, and they come in competition with our own eggs, and neither the Minister of Finance nor any other member of the government nor any member of parliament knows -what he is eating when he eats an egg these days, because in the eight months from April 1, 1925, eggs have been imported into this country from China in the shell to the amount of
28,000	dozen. You might say you would know a Chinese egg when you saw one, but you do not when they come in frozen, in bulk, in barrels and cans, as they do. They have come in, in bulk, to the extent of 917,000 pounds since the 1st of April, 1925. You do not know -what you are getting when you go into a restaurant these days and order scrambled eggs; they may be eggs from China, Australia or any other place; they all fill the bill, and you cannot tell where they come from when they come in frozen. They are used by this great chain of bakeries and by cheap restaurants in the large cities, and they come in direct competition with the eggs produced in Canada. More than that,
[Mr. Esling.)
just in order that the Minister of Finance may be a little careful for the next week or two, let me say that I am credibly informed that up to the last three weeks there have been in cold storage in the city of Montreal no less than seventeen carloads of Chinese eggs.


John Evans: I would like to ask when the Dumping Act was removed so that it did not apply to apples. It was only put on in 1922 by this government to cover natural products.


William Kemble Esling: The Dumping Act was
removed by this government, and a subterfuge, camouflage amendment was made to the Customs Act to fool the people; and that is what is going on.to-day.
I want now to say a word to the hon. members from Saskatchewan particularly in connection with the Australian treaty. I have here a clipping from the Canadian press dated Regina, February 6, 1926, referring to the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creameries, Limited. This company did a business of $68,000 last year, and according to this despatch the directors in their annual report called attention to 'The impending peril to the dairy interests of western Canada created by the Australian trade treaty." I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this large co-operative creamery corporation in Saskatchewan voices the sentiments of the dairy interests of Saskatchewan, and here we have it calling attention to the impending peril to the dairy interests of western Canada created by this treaty. The despatch further goes on to say that the company will be represented by a delegation of the Western Dairy Association which will shortly wait upon the federal government in this connection. That would be a very interesting interview to attend for those members from Saskatchewan who are favouring this Australian treaty.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Does the hon. member
know that the Co-operative Creamery made a profit for the first time last year?


William Kemble Esling: I know that the Australian
treaty only came into effect on the 1st of October last, and this organization in Saskatchewan is evidently anxious about the effects it is going to have on the dairy interests of western Canada.
There are various other matters which the Speech from the Throne does not mention. I might say a word on a subject which was discussed in the campaign in my district. I think it is a matter for regret that absolutely no mention is made in the Speech from the Throne as to the necessity of looking after the welfare of the returned soldiers. We must

The Address-Mr. Eshng
presume that the government has practically no concern about the returned men. I say that is a national problem. It is one of the problems with which the Prime Minister of this country said he could not deal unless he had a strong following. This government is better informed than anybody else as to the physical condition of the returned men, and particularly the amputation and tubercular cases, and my contention is that this government should see to it that every man in either of those classes is given the opportunity to work. The returned men are not asking for any more than they asked for before they gave their services to this country. They were able to make a living then, and all they ask is an opportunity to make it now. The hon, member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) read an advertisment the other day in which this government guarantees to give immigrants to this country five years' employment. Why, we have returned men in our country who would thank God for five days' employment a month; we have good settlers who have cleared the land and tilled the soil and who would be thankful to get five days' employment a month; and yet we are offering to give newcomers to this country five years' employment. Does not the irony of it strike you, Mr. Speaker?
There is another omission in the Speech from the Throne that is noticeable because it was included in the Prime Minister's manifesto, and that is Senate reform. I had an opponent who was going to abolish the Senate entirely; he was going one better than the Prime Minister. This talk of Senate reform takes us back to the time when Senate reform was a live subject in this House, and the Prime Minister then, to appease all sides, said:	We will have a conference of the
premiers of all the provinces and see what we can do about the Senate. Well, a lot of water has gone over the wheel since that time. At that time there was not one single Conservative premier in the Dominion of Canada, but to-day things are different. There is no use calling a conference of premiers if they are Conservatives, as they are now, and so the Prime Minister has conveniently forgotten about reforming the Senate through a conference of provincial premiers, and now says he will reform it from within. It is remarkable there should be no mention made of Senate reform in the Speech from the Throne. It was a subject that was discussed on every platform in this Dominion, and one would naturally have thought it would be a part of the legislative programme of this government.
There is one other omission in the Speech from the Throne, and I mention it because in my district they were particularly keen to have an old age pension scheme. They feel that people who have come and settled in Canada, tilled the soil and raised their families here should be taken care of in their old age.
I do not believe there is any piece of legislation this government could bring down which would be of so much general importance to the whole of Canada as legislation on old age pensions. It is not a matter of local interest, it is not a matter relating to the Hudson Bay railway or the construction of any other public work or canal which perhaps benefits a particular section. It is a matter of interest to the whole Dominion; yet this government absolutely ignores it and does not even mention it in the Speech from the Throne. It i3 true that according to the concensus of opinion there were attempts-I will not put, it that way, because you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that references to bribes or purchases are not parliamentary-but I would say that the sympathies of the government were enlisted in this direction perhaps as an expedient for bolding on to power. And so when the acting leader of the government was asked the other day if it was their intention to bring down old age pension legislation, he replied that it was. I should like to ask if .the proposed conference off premiers to deal with the question of old age pensions has taken plaice since last session, because that was the excuse then for not bringing this legislation down.
We have one other matter which interests
the people of Canada to-day and that is the question of taxation. I say, without fear or hesitation that upon this question rests the creation and maintenance of the payrolls of Canada, because those who have .money to invest in the development of our natural resources, and are inclined to do so, are naturally going to stop and inquire what the effect of the present taxation upon their plans is going to be. And so taxation., whether applied to incomes or to industries, has a very important bearing on the development of this country. If by reason of good fortune you happen to have an income of $3,000 a year in Canada you pay a tax of $40. In the United States on the same income you only pay $7.50, a very marked difference. Again, on an income of $5,000 in Canada you pay $120 in taxation as against $37.50 collected on the same amount in the United States. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen, iif men with money to invest-the manufacturer or the
wo
The Address-Mr. Esling

capitalist wishing to come in here and develop our natural resources and to create Canadian payrolls-are not going to stop and seriously ponder on the effects of the taxation in force in this country.
Now, just for a moment I want to refer once more to the irony of this provision of five years' employment for new settlers. I want to show you, Sir, that this government since the year 1921 has spent, to be exact, .$10,367,000 on immigration, and I do not believe I am making an extravagant statement when I say they have not one solitary settler to their credit for that very large expenditure-not one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: The statement may be
humorous, but it is true. According to the figures compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics 571,000 immigrants came to Canada. I am not going to detail the arrivals by years, but the details are here as furnished by the federal department. On the one hand you have 571,000 arrivals, and then you have the United States Bureau of Statistics showing that during the same period 536,000 persons entered that country from Canada. So that by the expenditure of $10,000,000 the government persuaded 571,000 people to come to this country and during the same period no less than 536,000 persons entered the United States from Canada. In other words the government have 35,000 arrivals to their credit for the expenditure of $10,000,000. But actually they do not even have that number, because there is not a member of this House who cannot say that some relative, or some family connection, has not found it impossible to earn a living in Canada and has therefore been obliged to emigrate to the United States. And if those seeking admission to the United States could not get into that countiy by reason of the quota having been exceeded, they were bootlegged in. Consequently the government have nothing to their credit by reason of the so-called increase of 35,000 settlers. The Washington Labour Bureau will tell you, and so will any immigration officer on the other side, that half the number who entered the States legitimately were also bootlegged-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: Hon. gentlemen opposite
may laugh, but if they had studied these figures as long as I have they would also be in danger of making a slip. What I mean to say is that the number bootlegged into the United States was equal to one half the
[Mr. Esling. 1
number entered legitimately. The fact remains that the government have spent $10,000,000 and have only 35,000 to their credit, even if it can be established that that number remained in Canada-and it is safe to assert that they have not done so.
. In conclusion I want to say that the greatest immigration agencj'' any country can ever have is the payroll. It is the Canadian payroll that is going to build up Canada, and when hon. gentlemen opposite try to confuse the issues they are only fooling themselves. You do not see American immigration agents in Canada endeavouring to induce Canadians to locate in the country to the south. Not at all. Their immigration policy, their immigration agent, is the payroll, and it is because the payrolls are there that our young men and women are leaving Canada and going to the United States faster than we can pay them to come to this country. So I say there must be a reduction of taxation which will invite capital to engage in the development of our natural resources, create Canadian payrolls, and bring about- such conditions in this country as will secure, first of all, the return of the five hundred and some odd thousand Canadians who have gone from Canada to the United States. Then you have a basis upon which to start a real immigration policy.


Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is too early to suggest the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Oh yes, it is too early.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
Mr. LAPOINTE- I think we might go on until eleven o'clock at least.


William Anderson Black: