1926-01-20

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 4, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff.

Relief to War Pensioners
Bill No. 5, respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Parent.
RELIEF TO WAR PENSIONERS On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Questions have been asked by two
or three hon. members concerning regulations of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment with regard to unemployment relief paid to certain war pensioners. I have secured from the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment this statement which I desire to read in order to answer those questions:
The situation regarding unemployment relief to pensioners may be summarized as follows:-
In previous years all pensioners, whatever the rating of their war disability, were receiving unemployment relief from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, whether their war disability was or was not responsible for their failure to obtain employment.
In view of the early distribution of the canteen funds' moneys as provided by the statute of last session, it had been found advisable to confine the unemployment relief to those pensioners having a rating of twenty per cent and over, or to those cases where the disability is less,-when the war disability precluded the pensioner from engaging in emplojTnent.
It is, however, found that on account of the delay on the part of the different provincial governments in appointing boards of trustees, the moneys of the canteen funds have not as yet been distributed to the different provinces. The situation has brought to the knowledge of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment the existence of several cases of hardship among low rating pensioners, and new instructions have been sent to-day to the different units providing that the regulations in force last winter shall continue to prevail during this winter.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston City):: What connection has the canteen fund with this matter of unemployment relief?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it was assumed
that part of th^t money would be employed in relieving unemployment amongst the soldiers.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think it unfortunate if that is the understanding because, as far as I am aware, it is not the case.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be wrong. I would not like to give a definite answer in that regard, but I will communicate with the minister.


Arthur Edward Ross: And bring
down another answer?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know. I think this should be sufficient for the present because the regulations of last winter will continue to prevail during this winter.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Was it not the case that the amount received from the canteen fund was to go for educational purposes under the direction of the boards appointed in the several provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: I will also submit this question of my hon. friend to the minister.
NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Might I inquire from the Minister of Justice whether or not we may have a copy of the agreement made with the province of Alberta with regard to the return of the natural resources?


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to lay the agreement on the table.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 19 consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr,
Speaker, it is, perhaps, scarcely fitting that one with my brief parliamentary experience and limited powers of expression should impose upon the patience of yourself and hon. members assembled here. I have listened with interest and delight to the polished eloquence, the persuasive oratory, of members on both sides of this House, and I have at the same time shrunk from the very thought of tiring or distressing you with my more or less clumsy and halting statements. This is the first and only parliament that I have ever been in; I crave the indulgence of hon. members and I promise to curtail my remarks as much as possible. I would fain have remained in my seat, but being not unlike the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) I also am head and heart and tail of my party so far as Manitoba is concerned; and as an Englishspeaking representative coming from the old French Canadian city of St. Boniface and being at the same time the only Liberal member from the province of Manitoba I felt that I should not be fulfilling my duty if I failed to take an active interest in the present debate and support the policies upon which I was elected.
Before I go any further I beg to add my tribute of appreciation of the able, courteous and dignified way in which you, Mr, Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Howden

have directed the deliberations of this House. Your dignity and ability have made a very pleasing impression on my mind which will not fade with the years. I desire also to congratulate the mover of the Address (Mr. Elliott) on the very able and comprehensive manner in which he dealt with the matters outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and at the same time to congratulate the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) on the easy eloquence and the euphonious delivery of his speech, which though it was not understood in its entirety by many must I am sure have been appreciated by all of us as a very charming piece of oratory.
In the remarks of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, West Edmonton), when he was exposed to sundry interrogations from hon. members opposite, the question was interjected, " How about Manitoba?" I do not know what significance this question was intended to convey but I take it that it had some reference to the implied suggestion that notwithstanding that the platforms of the Progressive and Liberal parties had much in common, the members of these two groups had on several occasions opposed each other in the same constituency where they were instrumental in each other's defeat. Being the only member from Manitoba I felt it incumbent upon me at the time of these interruptions to intervene and say something, but discretion prevailed over valour and I decided to let the matter stand until I was better informed. It does not seem out of place however to refer to the election returns of the province from which we come, and if I may be permitted to do so I should like to discuss those returns just for a moment. There were returned from Manitoba seven Conservatives. seven Progressives, two Labourites and one Liberal. The Conservative party received some 70,300 votes, the Progressive and Labour parties together some 65,300, and the Liberal party about 34,500. There were six seats which were not contested by the Liberals but in all the constituencies in the province opposition was put up by representatives of the other two political factions. Taking the Progressive and the Labour votes with the Liberal votes polled as opposed to the Conservative votes, we have 99,800 as against 70,331. This, if majorities mean anything would seem to indicate beyond any cavil what the sentiment of that province is. Hon. gentlemen opposite me may ask what right I have to couple the Progressive and the Labour votes with the votes polled by the Liberals. Well, I think it will be conceded even by Liberal members in this House that the last 
political campaign was fought on the tariff, and if that be so I have every right to couple the Progressive and the Labour votes with those obtained by the Liberal party.


Mr. MANION:: What about the protectionists from Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: That is an old story.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is not the hon. gentleman aware that the Labour party expressed the view distinctly that the tariff so far as it was concerned wa3 not the issue of the election?


John Power Howden: I shall try to answer that question in a moment or two. Surely it must be very well known indeed that whether or not it is the intention of the Conservative party in Canada to increase the tariff, the Liberal and Progressive parties have no such desire. And this is not the only evidence of similarity between the views of these two parties. If I am not incorrectly informed, the Progressive and Labour members in this House during the last session of parliament consistently supported the Liberal government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the hon. gentleman read Hansard?


John Power Howden: Probably I have not read the particular issues of Hansard which the hon. member has in mind and it is possible that I may have been misinformed on this point. If so I humbly beg the hon. member's pardon. Six of the constituencies in Manitoba, as I say, were contested in a straight fight between Progressives and Conservatives and in these six Progressives were elected with but one exception: in the constituency of Portage la Prairie the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was returned. And not only is this the case; in four of the constituencies which were contested by all three parties the Progressive and Liberal candidates were undoubtedly instrumental in defeating each other, much to the satisfaction and doubtless to the amusement of the Conservatives. This brings me directly to the subject of the transferable vote, and I want to state forthwith that I am personally in favour of the transferable vote.
I venture to state furthermore that if such a system of voting had been in effect in the last election the electorate of Manitoba would have had a better and freer mode of expressing their wishes and that at the present time there would be in consequence more Progressive and Labour members and fewer Conservatives in this House.
Let me now refer briefly to the tariff. It has been said in this House that the tariff

2S3
The Address-Mr. Howden
has very little effect on the farmer inasmuch as he buys a binder only once in ten years and a mower and other agricultural implements in corresponding intervals. But let us remember that agricultural implements are not the only things that are protected by the tariff; the farmer requires clothing, boots and shoes and what not, and to a greater degree than any of these does he need repairs for his machinery from year to year. I have little hesitation in saying that the average western farmer pays out a great deal of money every summer in repair parts for machinery, and since these are all covered by a duty, or most of them, the incidence of the tariff undoubtedly has some effect upon his purchases.
There is another consideration, however, which affects the farmer; and in this regard I assert with confidence that the source of all wealth in this or any other country is the soil. If I may be permitted to suggest a rather far-fetched hypothesis it would be this. Suppose that over night or in the course of a few days our manufacturers from end to end of the Dominion closed their doors, I wonder what the effect of their action would be on the country. Would we have to shut down? Would we have to move out? I am willing to admit that the country would receive a very rude jolt, and that commerce generally would be badly embarrassed for a time, but eventually conditions would readjust themselves. The farmer would probably continue producing crops every year and selling them in the world's markets, within a certain period of time the population directly affected by the action of the manufacturers would either settle on the land or find other occupation, the country would recover from the shock, and in the long run I imagine we would not be so very much worse off. Now, let us put the shoe on the other foot, and suppose that in the course of a season, or a few short weeks, or indeed over night, if you like, the primary producers in this country should suspend operations, that our farmers ceased raising agricultural products, what would happen to the manufacturers, how long could they hope to continue functioning? Not only so, Sir, but if our agriculturists suddenly ceased their activities from one end of the country to the other, what would happen to our cities and towns? Where would the city of Winnipeg be, or the city of Brandon, or the city of Calgary if our primary producers in the prairie provinces ceased to function? I think we would find that in a few years, five at the longest, those cities would be but a sad semblance of their present greatness.
Now, I think it is generally admitted that our urban population is greater than our rural, it may be in the ratio of one to two, or of one to one and a half, I cannot say, but at all events accepting the correctness of the statement that the source of all wealth is the soil, we have our rural population producing the wealth that supports those who live in the urban centres. Just how does that react for instance, on the farmer? The purpose of a tariff will be admitted to be twofold: to protect, on the one hand, the producer- pre-eminently the manufacturer; and on the other hand, to supplement the national revenue. It is evident that it .cannot serve both purposes at the same time in the same instance. If the consumer in this country prefers to buy a foreign product, the national revenue benefits directly by the transaction. If, on the other hand-and this I believe is the general rale-the consumer is offered the domestic product at a lower rate than that at which he can import the corresponding foreign product, usually he will buy the home made article, and then of course whatever margin of profit there may be on the transaction goes to the manufacturer. That there can be no doubt about this is demonstrated by the fact that Henry Ford and other United States automobile manufacturers have erected factories on this side of the line, and now instead of the differences in car prices current in the two countries accruing to our national revenue it goes directly into the pockets of our manufacturers.
Undoubtedly there are some advantages in having manufacturers locate here, for they require men to run their plants, and of course these men would to some extent help bear the burden of taxation. This raises a serious question which confronts us in the west; I do not know how it applies here. The average labourer with a family of three or four children pays probably from 1100 to $150 a year in taxation. In the west it costs every year about $60 to educate a child. Therefore if the parent of three or four children pays taxes to the extent of only $100 or $150, the municipality is going to be pretty far behind with respect to that taxation.
Now, I would point out that if the farmer, the original producer, is primarily the producer of all wealth, then all taxation must in the end bear on him and come out of his pocket. The farmer would not mind this if he was making money in a large way, but unfortunately this is not the case. In our country a farmer in the most successful years makes only a reasonable degree of profit; in ordinary years if he breaks even he is doing pretty
The Address-Mr. Howden

well; but if he gets only half a crop or has a total crop failure, he gets behind that much further. After all his anxiety and weariness of toil-he works from morning till night-he gains as a rule but a bare living, while we in the cities are able to do very much better on the proceeds of his toil. For this reason I am of the opinion that the primary producer of this country, the farmer, should be dealt with as leniently as possible so far as taxation is concerned.
As to protecting him from foreign competition in farm products, and what not, I would point out that we are not very able to effect this so far as wheat is concerned, for the simple reason that we produce about seven times more wheat than we need, and since the price of commodities is determined by the surplus exportation, we are not very likely to require a duty on wheat to protect our grain growers. The same applies to butter and, to a large extent, to eggs, meats and live stock.
Now, I presume the right hon. leader of the opposition when he moved his amendment calling for more protection for the products of the soil, the primary products, had in mind fresh fruits and early vegetables. I am not familiar with conditions in the east, but throughout western Canada our farmers do not- raise any early vegetables, neither do they cultivate fruits. In the province of British Columbia, undoubtedly vegetables are largely produced along with fruit, but the first fruits and early vegetables which we get in western Canada are considerably ahead of anything that can be grown on this side of the line. If an import tax were added to the price which we already pay for these commodities the price resulting would be prohibitive. That price is well-nigh prohibitive as it is, and if anything were added to it we would not be able to have these products at all. By the time the British Columbia produce is on the market these other articles are withdrawn and there is no serious competition with the fruits and early vegetables produced in British Columbia.
With regard to coal and iron, I am sorry to say I know very little about them. But I do say that if the coal and iron industries of the Maritime provinces and British Columbia are suffering for want of protection, then give them protection. There is no question about it that these provinces-and particularly the older provinces-should not be disregarded by the rest of the Dominion if their industries require protection. If it is a tariff they require let the remedy be along those lines. The idea occurred to me, however, that possibly the difficulty lay in the transportation cost, and that the reason they were not able to compete fairly with foreign material was because of the excessive charges due to a long rail haul. I have wondered why coal could not

be mined in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island just as cheaply as it can be mined in Pennsylvania. I am absolutely ignorant on the subject, but it occurs to me that the cost of mining in Canada should not be greatly in excess of that in the United States. If by any chance the comparative costs should be about the same, then the coal mined in Nova Scotia should be able to compete in the general market with American coal.
This brings us to the railroad question which is adversely affecting these provinces at the present time, and I would like to state my position in that matter quite freely. If the Maritime provinces can be benefited by a reduced rate over the Intercolonial railway and if we can find a winter port for exporting our grain, by all means give it to them. I was greatly interested in and amused by the observations of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) yesterday. I was quite impressed by his remarks about soil robbing, and since I spent some four season's riding on the circle wagon of the Bar-U ranch I am not entirely ignorant of those conditions. What he stated in this regard is absolutely correct. The farmers-grangers, as we used to call them.-in those days went into southern Alberta, the finest cattle ranching country in the world, perhaps, and destroyed the soil, tore it up and left it nothing better than a barren waste, fit neither for cattle nor agriculture. I have seen a great many of his sowless and cowless farms also, and I am inclined to believe that a large number of the failures on our western plains have been due to the fact that the farmer has had to go to town to buy his bacon, his eggs, his milk and everything he required. I believe if the policy adopted by our forefathers in the east had been followed by farmers in the west, namely, that of going slowly at first and keeping what they needed at home, we would be able to make a better report to-day. I also agree with what the hon. member stated about tractors. A Yankee farmer said to me not long ago that the quickest and easiest way for a man to go broke was for him to try and cultivate with a tractor. It is a simple problem in dynamics, because where the tractor wheels spin in the soft soil, the hooves of a horse take a firm, hold. But there are one or two points in which I cannot entirely agree with what the hon. member said. He does not seem to favour a Chicago market for cattle, and I am not just sure as to his reason.


Mr. MULLINS:: May I correct my hon.
friend? That is not an accurate statement; that is not what I said. I do not agree to the shipping of immature steers out of

The Address-Mr. Howden
western Canada to the Chicago market. For the bigger, matured cattle give us any market, Chicago or any other.


John Power Howden: I was just going to refer
to that very point. The remarks of my hon. friend in that connection appear on page 241 of Hansard and read as follows:
Western Canada does not want to ship young, light, immature steers into the United States, for feeders there to make a profit on them. We want to bring the animal up to about 1,200 pounds, and then have an avenue open to a profitable market, and the British market is the best market of all.
The hon. member may not want to ship those immature, ungrown animals to the Chicago market. He himself, I believe, is something of a feeder. His business is in feeding and finishing cattle and I believe it would be to his interests to buy these cattle as cheaply as he can. There is a ready market for such cattle on the Chicago stock exchange, and I dare say that, because they are prohibited from those stock yards, the Canadian feeder is able to buy ungrown animals for nearly his own price.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I correct the hon.
gentleman? The stock yards are in his constituency, and he should know that is not the case. There is a competitive market in eastern Canada to which buyers come from all sources, and it would not be possible to buy at my own price when there is such a market.


John Power Howden: Well, Mr. Speaker, from
the little experience I have had in the cattle trade, it seems to make very little difference whether you buy the animal direct from the farmer or whether you buy it in the stockyards. You do not pay any more for it than you have to, and as the market is flooded with these immature young animals-I live beside the stock yards and I know what I am talking about-they bring only a very low price on the Winnipeg stock yards.
There is another point on which I wish to take issue with the hon. member for Marquette, and that is with regard to the pledge which was made at the Imperial conference in 1917 for the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. If the pledge was made in 1917, I wonder why it took five years to have the embargo on our cattle removed.


Henry Alfred Mullins: For your information-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


John Power Howden: Mr. Speaker, I have sat
attentively in my seat and listened with courteous attention to all the members who have addressed the House, and I would bespeak equal courtesy for myself.
I would like to refer for a moment to the Canadian National railway. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) in his remarks in connection with that road. We all know the road is over-capitalized and that it can never make a showing under its present capitalization. There is only one thing for the government to do, if it wants to be fair to the Canadian National railway, and that is to write off the excessive capitalization and thereby give the road a chance to live and to make some returns.
I would like to say also that we are going to have the Hudson Bay railway, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Brandon in what he says with regard to its completion. Away back in the early eighties a land subsidy was granted by the federal government of that day. Those lands have to a large extent been sold, and a great deal of money has been collected from that source. The road is now all but completed, and some $6,000,000 has been spent on a harbour at the bay. Most favourable reports have been received with regard to the feasibility of the outlet, and now all that is required, as it were, is the last nail. We in western Canada are going to have the Hudson Bay railway. If this parliament does not give it to us, if it is not completed by this parliament, we are going to have it anyway. We are not going to let the project remain in its present condition after so much money has been spent upon it. I do not wish to delay the House too long, but I should like to give very briefly the history of the road in support of my claim that we deserve its completion.
In 1877-and this information will all be found in the pamphlet on the Hudson Bay railway, of which I presume every member has a copy-western Canada got its first recognition as a great wheat-producing country through a carload of wheat that was shipped in that year to Glasgow. That wheat had to find its way along the Red river down to the American railroads, and it reached the Old Country by that route. But that shipment gave the people living along the Red river the idea that they were able to produce the best wheat in the world, because it was the best that had been produced, and they saw the necessity of an easy outlet to the markets of the world. In 1880 and 1881 bills were introduced into the House of Commons for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. In .1883-I say this for the benefit of the Progressive party, one of whose members in speaking the other day said he believed that their experience with the road dated back some twenty-five years-in 1883 a delegation of farmers' unions meeting in the city, of Winnipeg drew up and presented to the federal government a declaration of rights, and the last but not the least item of that declaration urged
The Address

Mr. Howden

the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway. In 1884 Sir John A. Macdonald introduced into this House this resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to make a free grant of not more than 6,400 acres per mile in Manitoba and 12,800 acres per mile in the Northwest Territories to aid in the construction of a railway from Manitoba to Hudson bay.
And he added:
It is clear that the legislature and the government have made up their minds to have this road.
In 1887 or thereabouts the project received a quietus for the time being on account of the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the tapping of Manitoba by the Northern Pacific. But about the year 1905. when Mackenzie and Mann were extending their roads through the west and building out to Dauphin and subsequently to Prince Albert, arrangements were made with the federal government for the building of the Hudson Bay railway. The subsequent history I need not repeat. We all know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had succeeded only in building a bridge when there was a change of government, and under Sir Robert Borden the road was projected up to Port Nelson. I may say for the benefit of those who do not know-and there can scarcely be very many-that the grading has been done over the entire distance and steel has been laid for the entire distance with the exception of some ninety miles. I believe much of the steel and ties and other necessary material are on hand to complete the road. It has been estimated that from three to five million dollars will be required for its completion. May I transgress very briefly upon the patience of the House to quote from a pamphlet which expresses the feeling of western Canada very much better than I could hope to do:
Lord Selkirk's recognition of the potential advantages of Hudson bay over eastern ports can be properly classed as discovery, and in utilizing this route for the transportation of the first settlers into western Canada, he established beyond any possible doubt its importance and practicability.
For trade between the Maritime provinces and western Canada, and as an international highway permitting the free flow of traffic from Europe to the Orient, or from the northern states to Europe, the Hudson Bay route stands pre-eminent.
I shall not tire the House by quoting further. I believe hon. members have this little pamphlet before them, and 1 recommend it to their serious consideration.
With regard to rural credits, that is a matter that requires very careful consideration. The history of farm loans in western Canada does not inspire much faith in the successful extension of a rural credits system. There is no doubt that there are instances where a little

bit of money would be the saving of a western farmer, and some provision ought to be made whereby these individual farmers could obtain relief. But it is always easier to borrow money than to pay it back. The whole matter requires to be considered with a very great deal of care and any system of the kind which may >be devised should be hedged around with safeguards that will prevent its abuse.
I shall not detain the House any longer except to say this:	I am a western Canadian
and, as all western Canadians do, I feel that we have in Canada a great nation. We have abundant natural resources in our mines and in our forests; we have vast plains and imposing mountains, and we have men and women of the right type to make of this Dominion a great nation. Therefore it is up to us from all parts of this country to work together in unity and sincerity in an effort to convert Canada into the finest nation on the face of the globe.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing the House for a good many years-I think twelve-although I was a member of it until 1917. But for eight years as the representative of Canada, I lived in London, at the very heart of the empire, and while there my wife and I received much courtesy and made a great many friends whom we can never forget. We are happy, however, to be back in Canada once more and among our own people.
If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I desire to do is to congratulate Your Honour on your re-election as presiding officer of this House. The position is one for which you are eminently fitted by reason of your personal dignity, your manifest fairness, and your complete command of both languages. If I may be allowed to say so, it is an honour not only to yourself but to every member of the House to have you presiding over us as Speaker.
I welcome this opportunity of joining with my fellow members in lamenting the loss of the late Queen Mother, Queen Alexandra. Her Majesty was always willing and ready to devote her time and her energy to the relief of suffering and the furtherance of any plan for helping the people of her adopted country. For a great many years there has been in London a day in June known as Rose Day, when collections have been taken up on the streets and personal subscriptions made for the purpose of helping the hospitals of that great city. The organization responsible for this movement was proud to have the Queen Mother as its head and patroness,

The Address-Sir George Perley
and on that day each year Her Majesty was in the 'habit of driving in state through the streets of London for the purpose of giving her countenance and support to the scheme. On those occasions great masses of people assembled along the way and welcomed and cheered her. Then, during the war, Queen Alexandra was anxious and willing to assist in every good work for the benefit and comfort of our soldiers. At the opening of one of the huts for soldiers on the Strand Queen Alexandra herself was there and poured out the tea for the soldiers. Two or three of us had the honour of passing the tea along to the men, all of whom naturally wanted to have a cup poured by the Queen's own hand. I think I am safe in saying that on the day the Danish princess arrived in London, a young and charming girl, to be the bride of Edward, then Prince of Wales, the hearts of the people of England went out to her; and from that day to the termination of her long and useful life she retained the complete and sincere affection and respect of the English people.
I am happy to observe that a sentence has been incorporated in the Speech from the Throne commenting upon the selection of Hon. Senator Dandurand as president of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations, and I quite concur in the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who said that this was no mean honour. As a matter of fact it was a great honour. No man could be president of the assembly of the League of Nations who is not fully conversant with both the French and the English languages, the two official languages of the league, and who is not recognized for his urbanity and courtesy, because at the meetings of the league delegates come together from all parts of the world and it is necessary that the duties of presiding officer should be carried out with grace and courtesy. I am sure that Senator .Dandurand filled the bill perfectly. I think it was a great honour to Canada as well as to himself personally that he should 4 p.m. have been chosen for the position, and I am happy to learn that he has carried out his duties to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.
I listened, Mr. Speaker, with great interest yesterday to the oration of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and I was surprised to know that he was worried, evidently much worried, because our right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) had not submitted a longer amendment. I should like to refer the minister to the speech made by the right hon. leader of the opposition on Monday, when he set forth his programme in great detail.
I am sure if the minister would go over that speech carefully and annex it to the amendment in question, we should find him voting for it when the House comes to divide on this issue. As a matter of fact, however, we all know that you cannot incorporate in an amendment everything that a person has been saying in the House and in the country. To my mind the amendment we are considering is perfectly in order. The right hon. leader of the opposition, spoke on Monday at his very best, and if he has not carried conviction to the mind of the Minister of Agriculture I am afraid the fault lies in that hon, gentleman himself.
The only thing I wish to refer to in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture is his allusion to the Petersen contract-an unfortunate reference for him. The hon. gentleman spoke of what he called " the fangs of the combine "; but all of us on this side knew that the contract entered into with Sir William Petersen would not relieve the situation complained of, would not bring that relief which the gentlemen responsible for it were looking for. Fortunately the contract was held up in this House. It was referred by hon. gentlemen opposite to a committee of the House, who decided the proposal was not a wise one and thus saved the people of Canada a good bit of money. In this connection I would draw the attention of the House to a despatch in the Gazette of January 1, 1926, referring to a meeting of the London-Ameri-can Maritime Trading Company, from which I will read certain extracts. It says.
Some interesting disclosures of how far the Canadian government had gone with the Petersen ship subsidy proposal before "premature discussion" gave rise to the agitation which prevented its final consummation, was made by the Earl of Wemyss at to-day's annual meeting of the London-American Maritime Trading Company.
At the corresponding meeting a year ago Sir William Petersen suggested that the company would likely be in a much better position than others, and should be independent of the freight market.
Why would1 it be independent of the freight market? Because they thought this contract which Sir William Petersen was making with the government would be put through, and they knew it was going to be greatly to their advantage.
Further on in this despatch Lord Wemyss says-and I may say that I have the pleasure of knowing him ipersonally:
We had no direct interest in that agreement. It was a purely private undertaking of Sir William Petersen's, but in return for certain assistance-
Mark this.
-we were able to give him, he undertook to employ the Thompson Company steamers, giving them the benefit of the subsidy and ultimately to take over

The Address-Sir George Perley
these steamers on terms which would have made our shares considerably above par.
That, to my mind, is evidence no one can refute that the contract which this government attempted to ,put through last session, and which was fortunately blocked by the opiposition and the committee appointed by the House-I will give the committee credit for bringing in a report to the effect that it was not wise to go on with the proposed contract-would have meant a great deal of money for these people on the other side of the Atlantic.
I listened attentively to what the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) said, and I have no comment or criticism to make except that I want to take issue with him on the point he made with regard to the bringing into this country of early fruits from the United States. If I heard the hon. gentleman aright, he said that the early fruits which came in here from the United States were considerably better than those which we raised in Canada.


John Power Howden: I did not make that
remark. I said that they were considerably earlier than any we raise in Canada.


George Halsey Perley: We all agree with that. That is where the trouble lies. Strawberries, for instance, which are brought into this country in March or April are not nearly as good as our own which come later, but if we eat them freely at that time our appetite for strawberries is satiated, so that when our own come in there is not the demand for them that there would be if the United States fruit were not admitted. How the hon. gentleman, therefore, can make any objection to a stiff duty on all fruit and vegetables imported from the United States, I cannot understand.
In the Speech from the Throne the government announces its intention to have a tariff advisory board-something which has been talked of for a long time. Perhaps the government mean actually to do it, but it seems to me as if they are proposing this solution for the purpose of postponing a definite decision on matters regarding the tariff, about which there is evidently a wide difference of opinion between protectionists from the province of Quebec and supporters of the government, whether Liberals or Progressives, from the prairie provinces. Everyone knows where the Conservative party stands on this issue. Our right hon. leader has made that plain on many occasions, and no one in Canada can make a point plainer that he can when he rises to debate or to explain it. The

trouble is that we do not know where hon. gentlemen opposite stand. I heard the Minister of Justice state in this chamber that he was in favour of a low tariff policy and that the province of Quebec was not protectionist. I know a little, at all events, about the constituency of Argenteuil, and in my opinion it is protectionist, as I believe is the province of Quebec as a whole. As for the constituency of Argenteuil, I challenge the hon. gentleman to go down there and to preach low tariff. He will not get a very good reception there if he does or mueh sympathy, either.


Ernest Lapointe: Do not be too sure.


George Halsey Perley: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) had some experience with the province of Quebec, the constituency of Argenteuil, on the subject of protection. Reference has been made in this House over and over again to those words the "death knell of protection," which I am sure the minister wishes many a time he had never uttered. He referred in that way to the slight reduction which was made in the duty on agricultural implements. What was the result in that constituency which he then represented-because he was permitted to take a seat in Argenteuil, Quebec, although he came from Alberta, where he was unable to obtain one. After his comment about the "death knell of protection," a very largely signed petition was passed through the constituency of Argenteuil criticizing him for his remarks and asking him to resign. I certainly spoke about protection everywhere in my election campaign; I was in favour of protection, and I believe that fact had a great deal to do with my success in the election.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of a tariff on general manufactured goods, how is it possible for any hon. member to refuse to vote for an alteration of the tariff so as to protect our farmers? What harm is that going to do to anybody? The amendment calls for protection in respect of agricultural products, and it is, it seems to me, a most pertinent amendment. Curiously enough, the Minister of Justice, when replying to the leader of the opposition, made no reference to the amendment, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) hardly mentioned it yesterday. This did not surprise me very much because I did not see how either of them could say anything against it. We should have this protection for farm products. This question is of special interest to the people of the constituency that I represent and to other people in the neighbouring constituencies w'ho supply vegetables and fruits

The Address-Sir George Perley
for the city of Montreal. The same would also be the case with regard to the people living on the outskirts of any city or town of any size. As I say, I spoke on the tariff on every platform during my election campaign. Did my opponent take issue with me? Did he find fault with my argument? Not at all. He avoided the issue; he proceeded to speak about some other point of campaign interest, and then he forgot all about the question of a tariff on agricultural products. Whatever we grow in this favoured land is, I take it, the finest that can be grown anywhere, and as far as we can do so we should protect our growers of agricultural produce by using as much as possible of it in our own country, thus preserving our market for them and keeping our money at home. The only way in which this object can be accomplished is to raise the tariff on our agricultural products to the same level as it is in the United States. I do not propose to go over all the items, but I would ask how hon. gentlemen can justify the admission of butter into this country at a rate of four cents per pound when we have to pay eight cents to get our butter into the United States. In the House the other day a press report was read regarding butter coming from across the Pacific. That of course raises the question of the Australian tariff, which is even lower. I would refer hon. gentlemen, however, to the state of things in the United States, and I certainly think that our tariff on similar goods should be equal to theirs. In the matter of eggs it was shown conclusively yesterday or the day before how unfair and unworkable the present tariff is. Eggs are something in which the farmer's wife is particularly interested; she often gets her pin money from the sale of this article. But while Americans can send their eggs into this country over a tariff wall .of only three cents a dozen, the farmer's wife in Canada when she wants to return the compliment must pay eight cents a dozen on her eggs before they can enter the United States. What possible argument can there be to justify this? On Monday in reply to a question the Minister of Agriculture read a statement that had been prepared in his department on the subject of eggs, and he quite properly said that this year the crop was larger than it usually is in winter. That is interesting certainly, but it has nothing whatever to do with the question we are discussing. The minister concluded his statement as follows:
If the situation, however, develops more acutely in the next few days, as some anticipate, the officers of my department keeping in close touch with the situa-14011-19
tion, we will then be in a better position to discuss possible remedial measures if thought warranted.
Such a nice statement 1 But how ineffective; the thing cannot be done. The only means of rectifying this matter is to have the duty on eggs coming from the United States into Canada raised to the same level as the duty that is imposed against our eggs going into that country.


Mr. ROBB:: Would the hon. member favour increasing the tariff on wool to the United States level?


George Halsey Perley: Speaking offhand,
I can only say that as I have not studied that particular question I should not care to give my hon. friend an answer. Let me refer now to the canned fruit business. I say without any hesitation that there is no place in the world where any kind of fruit which we are able to grow in Canada is produced that is as good as our product. But what do we find? When at the Chateau Laurier I called for canned peaches yesterday I got an article described in these words:
Canned Peaches: Libby, McNeil & Libby, Chicago. Libby's California Fruit packed by Libby's California Fruit Cannery.
Could anything be more extraordinary than that, when we know that we raise in this country better peaches than they do in California? Here, in a hotel belonging to the people of Canada, we find guests provided with canned fruit that comes from the other side of the line. I object to this because in the first place the peaches are not half as good as those grown in Ontario, and also because money is being sent out of the country that should go to the farmers and the fruit growers of this country. Some people asked during my election campaign why this state of affairs was not rectified when the Conservatives were in power, and I explained to them, as I do not need to explain to the House, that the condition did not become acute until the Fordney tariff of 1921 went into effect, when every effort was made by the government of the United States to shut out our Canadian products.
The Minister of Justice the other day made the statement, with which I agree, that he believed in "sane Canadianism." Well we are all sane; gentlemen on the other side have not a monopoly of normality. As I say sometimes, we believe in Canada for the Canadians, which is about the same thing. And I would call the minister's attention to an important fact now that we are speaking of a sound Canadian citizenship. I have spoken of the products of Canada being the

The Address-Sir George Perley
at a lower rate every time. Not only that, but we have had the soldiers' civil re-establishment cost, which naturally gets smaller from year to year; so as a matter of fact, the ordinary expenditure for administration services has not altered very much. To make myself quite plain my position is this: we have in the Public Accounts the money which has been advanced directly to the railways as included in our debt, but on page 15 we have a schedule of guarantees by the government for the Canadian National Railways which are not included in our debt at all. Oh, no! Those guarantees are merely nominal, I suppose. But some day they will have to be paid. Nor have they included or said anything about the ordinary debenture debt of the Canadian National Railways which has practically been assumed by this country. That is as much a debt as any other part of the money we owe. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the government ought to be made in such a way that an ordinary person looking over the Public Accounts will know exactly where we stand. If we increase the debt of the Canadian National Railways from year to year, in the same breath the government should not issue a statement that we have reduced our debt. Such statements give wrong impressions. I could use a stronger word, but they certainly do not tell the people the facts of the case.
If the Canadian National Railways want to borrow money they cannot do it themselves; no one would lend it to them. The Canadian government has to 'guarantee the loan and endorse the notes and we, the people of Canada, have to pay, the same as though we had given direct debentures. I would like to ask any hon. friend who is leading this House at the present time, and those sitting behind him, this question:	Suppose
the members of the government were in a company by themselves, each member prosperous, and this company was borrowing a good deal of money, and they all had to endorse the notes-would they go back to their offices and say: "I am worth so much; I made something last year. This money the company has lost is nothing to me although I endorsed the notes." I tell you*, Mr. Speaker, they would find themselves in a very difficult position in a few years if they continued on that basis.
I notice in the Speech from the Throne we are going to have more simplified forms of account. I beg of the Finance Minister and government generally, when they are considering these simplified forms of account, to give us the real facts with regard to this

expenditure in a way that the people of this country can readily understand. In the Speech from the Throne the government has also promised that they will reduce expenditures, but will they do so? They have promised to do that many times. We certainly need in this country a Finance Minister with his back to the wall, one who will not allow any money to be spent except for absolute essentials. I do not think we ought to have any more votes for elevators in Prince Rupert, where there is no grain to be stored. Nor should we have votes for increased storage facilities in the city of Quebec when to date they have been unable to make full use of present facilities. If the city of Quebec can get enough grain to fill the elevators they now have, let us give them more, but not before they are needed. In other words, strict economy should be our watchword. It makes me think, Mr. Speaker, of the old days which lumbermen such as myself had to pass through, when we had lots of timber but very little money. Sometimes they would go home and talk about getting another suit of clothes, but in the end would make up their minds to keep the old suit six months longer. If I may be allowed to refer to it, there was a common story around the streets of this city in those days -it would ill become me to vouch for it- that when one of those lumbermen had to get more money from the bank and went to see the manager for that purpose, he used to sprinkle sawdust on his shoulders to Show that he was working.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the case now?


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend
has put an unfortunate question. Just at the present moment things are pretty bad in the lumber business. I am not in that business at the present moment, but I can tell my hon. friend that if his theory is that everything is going along very smoothly, his theory is not quite correct.
The right hon. gentleman who leads this government is going to Prince Albert to find a seat. I do not know whether he is going to have a hot time or not; I see it was thirty below zero there this morning. For my part, I do not understand why he did not go to Bagot. That would seem to be the natural place for him. It certainly would have been more dignified, and more in keeping with the position of Prime Minister and with what is due the House of Commons, if he had been in his seat when the House met I know that he criticised our leader for the steps he took in 1921 to find a seat, but I think our leader

The Address-Mr. Sanderson
was right. I think there should be some way in which a seat in this House can be vacated before the Speaker is elected; but leaving that aside, Providence had provided Mr. King with a vacancy. He did not have to seek a seat; there was one provided for him in the very province that had overwhelmingly voted in his favour, and it seems to me it would have been more in order for him to have gone there and found a seat in that province. I do not know why he did not, but it has been suggested to me that he was afraid. Surely that cannot be the case. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that the relations between Mr. King and myself have always been most friendly. He has always been courteous to me, but all the same I am sorry to say that in his public capacity I have not much confidence in him, nor do I think the House has, notwithstanding the vote of last week. My main reason for saying this is that he has not kept his public promises. We all know how, four years ago, he talked about reducing the cost of living and reducing the public debt, and that he has done nothing of the sort. One hon. member of this House has criticized the right hon. gentleman for showing an utter lack of gratitude and graciousness, and said that she had absolutely no confidence in the King government nor faith in their promises of future action. It also seems to me that the case made out by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) in regard to the unfulfilled promises of the Prime Minister and his government to put through legislation providing for the alternative or transferable vote is altogether unanswerable, nor has anyone on the other side of the House even attempted to explain why Mr. King did not keep his promise in that respect. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, how can this House have confidence in the right hon. gentleman's promises, or that he will implement the latest promises that are now made in the Speech from the Throne?
But there is more than that. The present Prime Minister last year hesitated a long time whether or not he should appeal to the country. Eventually he made up his mind, chose his own fighting ground, and at Richmond Hill, on the 6th of September, he delivered a carefully prepared appeal to his electors. In that speech, among other things, he said:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers, and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope?
Mark those words, Mr. Speaker. To my mind that was a definite promise on the part of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King that he would resign unless he came back after the election with a larger following than he had before. I do not see how a public man could promise more definitely that unless he was supported with a larger number of followers he would not continue in the government of this country.
Some of the Prime Minister's followers this session have been fulsome in regard to the right hon. gentleman's qualities, and especially as to his refined and exalted sense of honour and propriety, to use the worus of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). May I say that the right hon. gentleman's followers do protest too much. It is never necessary for us to get up on this side of the House and say that our right hon. leader keeps his promises, because everybody knows he does, everybody in this House and outside. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister lived up to this high standard that has been claimed for him and showed a refined and exalted sense of honour when he broke his promise to the Progressives regarding the alternative vote, or when he failed to implement the intent and meaning of his address at Richmond Hill, delivered on the 6th of September last. May I say also, in passing, that it seems to me the right hon. gentleman made a political blunder at that time which will be resented by the people of this country.
On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, when I speak here for the first time in many years, I have little more to say. I shall conclude by saying that we have in this House of Commons the spectacle of a government hanging on to office, and hoping that their leader may be returned and have a seat in this House. That may turn out to be the case, but at all events this government is in a position of unstable equilibrium, as we call it in mechanics, and cannot stay there very long.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have finished. For the reasons I have tried to explain, and for others as well, I support the amendment of our right hon. leader and trust that his arguments will appeal to hon. members of this House.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I crave that indulgence on the part of my fellow members which I know is always extended to a new and inexperienced member. Let me say at the outset that I am a Liberal representative from the province of Ontario. There are not very many of us here, but though few in numbers we are united.

The Address-Mr. Sanderson
May I, Sir, be permitted to extend to you my congratulations on your re-election to the high and honourable position of Speaker in a second parliament? It is always a great privilege and a great distinction to be elected as Speaker of the House; it is a much greater honour to be so recognized a second time. I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne upon the able manner in which they discharged the duty assigned to them.
I have, Sir, another very pleasing duty to perform, and I consider that if I did not do so at the very earliest opportunity I should not be doing my duty to the riding of South Perth which I have the honour to represent. 1 want to pay a sincere tribute to the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am in the unique position of having known the right hon. gentleman perhaps longer than any other member of this chamber. We were both born in South Perth, we were both educated and brought up as boys in the town of St. Marys where I reside; and despite the fact that I cannot follow the right hon. gentleman politically I have the highest regard for his honour, his integrity, and his industry. I sincerely believe that in all the positions he has held in this Dominion, from that of Prime Minister down, he has in carrying out the responsiblities of office acted conscientiously and in accordance with the light as he saw it. I am going to add-this is not an unkind remark, and I should not wish it to be so construed-that the worst I can hope for him is that he will continue to be the right hon. leader of the opposition for three or four years longer if at all possible.


Mr. STEVENS:: Three or four weeks at
most.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, as to that time will tell.
Coming now to a consideration of the Speech from the Throne, may I preface my remarks by saying that I have sat here for the last seven or eight days and the proceedings have been an education to me. I have heard hon. gentlemen from all sections of Canada express their views on various subjects, and it has been a source of much enlighten-
5 p.m. ment to me. I have come to the conclusion, Sir, that despite the abundant argument and controversy that takes place at election time the representatives of ihe different groups in this chamber are not .-o very far apart after all. In trying to digest the Speech from the Throne and to assimilate the various subjects dealt with

there I have noted that a great many of these questions were embodied as planks in the Liberal platform some years ago, a fact which the right hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out. On the other hand the Minister of Justice, the leader of the House, has also pointed out very clearly that the same planks figured in the platform of the Conservative party in former years; and a number of them as I understand, appear as planks in the Progressive platform. So that on many questions I do not think we are very far apart, unless it be in regard to the tariff. As to the tariff I shall in a few moments, if the House will bear with me, express my views just as I expressed them consistently at meetings in my constituency and throughout my canvass during the recent election.
Reference has been made to the necessity for extending relief to the Maritime provinces. I am sure that every hon. member, no matter from what province he comes, will consider it his duty, consistent with regard for the interests of Canada as a whole, to do his best to help in the solution of the problems of that part of the country. Speaking personally I shall try to be sympathetic to the needs of every province in the Dominon having due regard to what is right and proper for the country as a whole and with every desire to avoid mere sectional legislation. Towards the question of the return of its natural resources to the province of Alberta, I shall be sympathetic, just as I should be with respect to the grievance of any other province. Reduction of taxation is an issue which must appeal to every hon. member, regardless of the party to which he belongs. The same may be said of a strong immigration policy.
Dealing now with the question of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, I should like to offer a few remarks about the present railway situation in this country. I am free to confess that I think very grave mistakes have been made by both the Liberal and the Conservative party in dealing with our transportation problems during the last twenty-five or thirty years. That will be admitted I am sure by all fair-minded people; though I am convinced that hon. gentlemen opposite have been greater sinners in this respect than hon. members on this side. But the records of the two old-time parties is not very creditable to either of them in this regard. We have subsidized railways; we have loaned railway corporations vast sums of money and given them immense land grants; we bolstered them up and carried them along until eventually the country was forced to take them over as bankrupt roads. I shall not dwell on this
JANUARY 20, 1926	j
The Address-Mr. Sanderson
subject further except to say that I consider the question of transportation, the question of our railways, to be of vital importance to the people of Canada to-day. Therefore I approach with an open mind the matter of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. If it can be proved that it is to the advantage of the western country that this road be completed, that it can be [DOT]financed within reasonable means without a vast outlay of money and that it is for the general benfit of the whole Dominion of Canada, I would be inclined to support it. I want to obtain all the information I can on this question; I want to study it as thoroughly as I can, so that I shall be able to give an intelligent vote upon it, when it comes before the House.	*
Several other paragraphs appear in the Speech from the Throne, but other hon. members know more about them than I do. They have been fairly threshed out in the debate so far, and I am not going to dwell on them further except to discuss the question of the tariff. In Ontario, especially in the western part from which I come, the main issue of the last election was the tariff. In my observations of politics, politicians, candidates, members of parliament and governments, I have come to the conclusion that the tariff has been more or less of a political football between the two old parties for a good many years. I have always thought and I still believe the basic industry of the Dominion of Canada is agriculture, and the products of the mines, the forests, and the fisheries. Build up your agricultural industry; introduce legislation to benefit the farmers, and the manufacturers will not have to wait very long for increased business. If you increase your exports of natural products to other countries, as we are increasing them and as, I hope, they will continue to increase, automatically the manufacturers, and indeed the whole country, will benefit.
The matter of an advisory tariff board was an issue in my constituency during the recent election, and I took the stand on all occasions that I was in favour of such a board. As far as possible the tariff should be taken out of politics and administered by a board of experts, men trained along that line. Some hon. member mentioned during this debate that he thought an advisory tariff board should scientifically adjust the tariff. I do not like that word "scientifically." The tariff, if it is to be adjusted, should be adjusted in a fair, equitable, honest way, not for one particular class or section, but for the benefit of the masses of the people of Canada. The
trouble in Ontario was that the cities and towns were stampeded by the tariff issue.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: And the
country also.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not all the country.
Let me answer my hon. friend's question as far as my constituency was concerned. Out of six townships I got a majority of five the rural vote. The cities and towns of Ontario largely went for what they called a high tariff, but not so the rural vote. The tariff and the tariff only was the issue in Ontario.


James Dew Chaplin: You have got
a good answer.


Frederick George Sanderson: I thank the hon.
member for the compliment and his courtesy to a new member. I want to tell my hon. friend who asked the question and made the retort that if the propaganda of the Conservative party in Ontario had been fair and square, the result would have been different despite the tariff question. I did not intend to refer to this, but my hon. friend has drawn it out of me. When you find canvassers going from house to house in Ontario telling the women voters when the men are working in the factories: "If you vote for the Liberal candidate and he is returned, your husband will be out of a job in a week," I say that is unfair propaganda.
Coming back to the point that I was at before I was interrupted by my hon. friend opposite, let me say that if we are to have a united Canada from coast to coast there must be some compromise, some give and take on this tariff question. I am not a low, low tariff man, or a high, high tariff man. There are very extreme views on this tariff question. You could not satisfy some of the manufacturers of Ontario if you raised the tariff as high as the tower that surmounts this building. There are possibly some extreme views in the west and in some of the other provinces on the tariff, and if we are to unite all the provinces of this Dominion, there must be a compromise, a middle course between these divergent views. An advisory tariff board would at least bring this matter down to a sane, common sense basis. I contend that the average candidate for parliament and the average member of parliament does not know very much about the ramifications of the tariff other than those which pertain to the particular business in which he may be engaged. I doubt very much-and this is not in any way a reflection on any department-whether some departmental officials at times know very much

The Address-Mr. Sanderson
about the ramifications of the tariff. Therefore an advisory board of capable men would undoubtedly make for an intelligent study of the whole question.
One thing I regret since coming to this House is my inability to understand and to speak the French language, but I have listened to some hon. members from the province of Quebec speaking in English who have assured us, as I have no doubt with perfect honesty and sincerity, that all they desire in this Dominion is such legislation as will work to the advantage, not of their own province, but of the Dominion at large. Such legislation they are prepared to support. I was delighted also with the speech last night of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), who leads the Progressive party. He too told us that he was prepared to support any legislation which he considered! advantageous to the whole of the Dominion. In my judgment we are more apt to get, under existing conditions in this House, such legislation as will satisfy all groups than we should be able to obtain if either of the old parties had come back to parliament with a majority of 40 or 50 or 60. If the legislation which this government will bring down is supported by a sufficient majority from the different groups in this House I have no doubt it will be legislation into which very careful thought has been put, legislation that will be aimed at practical results for the benefit of the entire country. And although we have in parliament just now a situation that amounts almost to a political deadlock, I think that I can discern a trace of a silver lining behind the cloud. Having studied the situation rather closely I am inclined to think that with the co-operation of the other groups in this House the government will be able during the present session, and for three or four more sessions, to pass legislation that will prove of considerable benefit to the whole Dominion. Certainly I do not think that the electors of Canada, at any rate the majority of them, now that the position of the government has been vindicated for the time being, dtesire anything else but that every member of this House should exert his best efforts to expedite the business of the country. I do not think that the majority of the people in the country, whatever political party they may belong to,' want to have a general election in the near future.
I would refer for a moment or two to the remarks of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), to whom I listened with a great deal of pleasure and as attentively as I could. The hon. member spoke about eat-

ing American canned peaches and strawberries at the Chateau Laurier. I must confess that I do not know very much about the delicacies served in that establishment; I do not live at the Chateau Laurier for I cannot afford to do so. I rather think however that if the hon. gentleman saw American canned peaches on the bill of fare and ordered them, he was eating Canadian canned peaches just the same. It may be that this is a phase of the propaganda which was carried on throughout Ontario in the last election, although I do not charge the leader of the opposition with this. Certainly I charge some of his lieutenants with having travelled up and down the province of Ontario with what was practically the cry that Canada is not a fit country to live in. Those gentlemen virtually said to the people of the province, " Why don't you go to the United States, the land of promise?" Probably this is one of the reasons for our canned peaches being put on the menu at the Chateau Laurier as American peaches. And this to my mind was one of the saddest things about the whole campaign. I am a Canadian first, last and always, and my mind goes back to the election of 1911 when the Conservatives declared that Canada should have no truck or trade with the Yankees; they did not want to have anything whatever to do with those people. And in 1925 they as much as told our young men and women in Ontario that if they wanted to do well they had better go to the United States because Canada was practically bankrupt and was going to the dogs.
The hon. member also referred to the Prime Minister's position. Four or five days ago every speaker on the opposite side referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was temporarily without a seat in this House; they said that he should have obtained a seat before calling parliament together. Well that is a debatable question which I do not intend to discuss just now. But after the Prime Minister does make arrangements for running in a certain constituency hon. gentlemen opposite turn round and say, why did he not run somewhere else? The Prime Minister does not seem to be able to satisfy my hon. friends no matter what he does, but I doubt very much whether he consulted the Conservatives as to where he should stand for election. However, those of us on this side of the House expect to see the Prime Minister return in the next three or four weeks to lead this House.
I do not suppose that there is an hon. member here who is not anxious to see Canada one

The Address-Mr. Doucet
great united country. We all are. We have the most wonderful country on the face of the globe; Providence has been kind to us, kinder indeed, I believe, than to any other country. We have a great deal to be thankful for and it is our duty as members of parliament to get down to business without unnecessary delay. Times are better-despite the fact that the government has been returned to power. There is an improvement which will continue and in which I am sure we shall all participate.
I say therefore in conclusion to hon. members in every part of the House, let us get down to the business in hand and try as far as we possibly can through co-operation to take advantage of our opportunities and to pass such measures as will satisfy the people and help the Dominion to come into her own.


Mr. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty this afternoon is one which also affords me much pleasure; it is to offer you, Sir, my heartiest congratulations on your appointment to the Speakership of this House of parliament. During many days, following the opening of this session, we debated the various British precedents in respect to the constitutional law of this country. If we strayed somewhat from precedents in this present case, it is because your courtesy, impartiality and tact, while presiding over this House, was such that all members, on both sides of the House, unanimously elected you again to fill this worthy post. It would also be appropriate to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General. Although I cannot agree on all points with the arguments they have put forth in order to congratulate the government who again assumed power on Friday last, I shall nevertheless congratulate the new member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) on the able manner in which was couched his address on his firrt speech in this House.
In the course of the electoral campaign which ended on October 29, last, many of our old colleagues were left on the battlefield, and among them I am sorry for one, my intimate friend-except on political questions-the ex-member for Restigouche and Madawaska. It seems to me, that after the years of service that this worthy representative had given to the Liberal party in this House and to his country, when the question arose of appointing to the upper chamber a representative for one electoral division of New Brunswick, the government should have given it a second thought and chosen the hon.
member mentioned to represent that northwestern part of New Brunswick, instead of
appointing the ex-Secretary of State as the fifth senator hailing from the county of Westmorland ii| said province.
I stated, Sir, that there were many who had disappeared. I must, however, draw your attention, as a humble representative of the French .Canadians on this side of the House, to the fact that we have increased our number by two. We have at present three French Canadian representatives, and, moreover what is not to be despised or forgotten, the three French Canadian members who sit on your left, Sir, and support the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen as leader of the opposition are three members who were fearless in speaking of Meighen in all the counties of their respective provinces where they discussed political questions.
After these few remarks, you will allow me, Sir, to continue in English, as I think I shall be able to conclude my speech before six o'clock.
In my opening remarks in my own language, Mr. Speaker, I tendered the usual and necessary congratulations to those deserving of them, and I need not repeat what I then said. Since the debate opened on the amendment moved by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have spoken of what they choose to call the "Maritime group," and have expressed the opinion that our leader would have some difficulty with this group. The Solicitor iGeneral (Mr. Cannon) in his speech on January 11, also referred to this matter. It is well to know that the Maritime group has increased rapidly since the general election of 1921. Of course, that that is not very pleasing to my friends opposite I must admit, and I am sure the House will agree with me. Since my desk-mate and I were elected in 1923, in season and out of season we have complained of the treatment that the Maritime provinces were receiving at the hands of this government, although it had gained the support in 1921 of 25 out of the 31 members returned by those provinces, and we said that when the Prime Minister gave them the opportunity the independent electors there would send men to this House who would not be afraid to fight for their rights. But let me say, Sir, that while we appealed to our electorate for justice and fair play for the Maritime provinces, we also appealed to them on the question of tariff, and undoubtedly a large number of our representatives were elected on a policy of tariff stability and adequate protection for all industries-for agriculture
The Address-Mr. Doucet

and mining no less than for manufacturing. To convince this House, if need be, that my statement is in keeping with the campaign in my section of the province;, I would read briefly a description of the^ platform upon which one of the candidates appealed to his electorate:
In reiterating his stand for Maritime rights, he stated the Maritimes had plenty of coal and the necessary products and manufactories to produce fuel and steel for the whole country, but these were not being utilized while the country was paying out huge sums to import the same materials from the United States, all because of the meddling and tinkering with the tariff by the Mackenzie King group.
In reference to the coming federal campaign, he said all the petty canvasses would be swept aside by the big issues, which will be the development of our own natural resources for our own people, the supplying of necessary raw materials for our manufactures, traffic for our transportation systems, employment for our own people and markets for our own agriculturists.
Those were the salient points upon which we appealed to the electorate-and you have the results. In 1921 Nova Scotia sent what was known as "the solid sixteen" to support the government; New Brunswick sent five Liberals, five Conservatives and one Progressive; Prince Edward Island sent their "solid four" to support the administration. In the last election the "solid sixteen" dwindled to three; and let me say, Mr. Speaker, en passant, that there might have been another cabinet casualty had the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) taken the plunge in his own county of Pictou. But as discretion is always the better part of valour, he left Pictou behind and ran in the comparatively safe constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough. New Brunswick returned ten Conservatives to one Liberal, and even the lone Progressive who was the potato champion of the last parliament, camouflaged as a Liberal-Progressive candidate in Victoria-Carleton, failed to secure election. I am sure that he must feel sorry for ever allying himself with the Liberals in that county. In Prince Edward Island we made an even split -fifty-fifty. What was the reason for this decisive change in the opinion of the electorate of the Maritime provinces? It has been so fully discussed by my hon. friend for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and my colleague for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) that I need not dwell upon that question further.
In connection with the Maritime provinces the leader of this government, speaking at Kentville, Nova Scotia, during the last campaign said that he knew not what Maritime rights were; he knew not what the grievances of the Maritime provinces were. He asked someone to tell him what their rights were so that he could fight for them. In answer we said we gave him twenty-five 
out of thirty-one members in 1921 and that they must have been as dumb as oysters ii they had not enlightened him. We sent somebody to tell him. In formulating the scheme of confederation it was recognized that the geographical disadvantage oif the Dominion could only be overcome by the federal government as a national undertaking. The Intercolonial railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway were all constructed with federal assistance, with the intention of overcoming this geographical disadvantage. But the intent and spirit of confederation has been lost sight of and Canadian traffic has been diverted to foreign channels, which diversion is detrimental to the best interests of Canada and the empire and is sorely felt by the people of the Maritime provinces. Those representing the provinces near the Atlantic come here and appeal to this House again, as they have appealed during the last four years without effect. But we have this much to say: our own leader, instead of duplicating the action of Mr. Mackenzie King in telling 'he people of Nova Scotia that he knew not what Maritime rights were, -admitted that he knew what they were and was prepared to consider them if elected.
We believe that the natural resources of our provinces-no more in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than in the province of Alberta- should foe developed. The bituminous coal deposits of the Maritime provinces and those in Alberta should be exploited to create an all-Canadian fuel policy Which would not leave us at the mercy of anthracite coal strikes in the United States. We say that when you expend $119y000,000 of good Canadian money in importing bituminous coal from the United States you are not giving a fair show to the coal areas of Alberta and the Maritimes. In developing the natural resources and in wiping out that huge freight rate existing between Winnipeg and Moncton, in giving the transcontinental railways a Chance to transport our products from the western prairies to the port of Quebec in summer months and the ports of St. John and Halifax during the closed season, you will fulfil -a part of the obligation undertaken by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. We sacrificed at that time our natural market; we sacrificed a natural outlet in order to develop a bigger and broader Canada. We expected to create in this northern hemisphere a united Canada over whioh the British flag would fly, reaching from ocean to ocean and from the Arctic to the southern boundary. But we find to-day, possibly owing to political

The Address-Mr. Doucet
exigencies, that we are divided into three different sections. We have the Maritimes in the east, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario towards the centre, and the prairie provinces in the west. Why can we not have a policy of equalization off conditions, giving fair play to every portion of the Dominion and rectifying some of the errors made in the past?
I have just mentioned the province of Quebec, and I know hon. members opposite will say: "We have no one in the province of Quebec to support the policy of your right hon. leader." They will try to convey the impression throughout this broad land that Quebec does need protection. It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, if you could get together, say, in Le 'Monument National, Montreal, the electors of the constituencies of St-Denis, Ste-Marie, St-Jaoques, Maisonneuve and St-Henri and have there discussed the fiscal questions of to-day by the leaders of the political groups. If you could there take a referendum upon the advisability of putting into effect a protective tariff you would find 95 per cent of those constituents voting for such a system. But evidently the great question of protection is overshadowed by other petty matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the result of the last election after all, is not so discouraging to my right hon. leader. In the provincte of Quebec the Liberals in 1921 polled 554,000 votes while the Conservatives polled 144,000. In the last election the Liberals polled 469,000 votes, and the Conservatives 273,000, a reduction of 84,861 to the Liberal party and a gain of 129,743 to the Conservative party. My hon. friends will say "You have not much to show for it." I quite agree. We have only been Successful in detaching four from the solid bloc of 65, but mind you, there were determined efforts made in several constituencies which prevented us from getting more. I do not want my French-speaking friends from Quebec to rise to-morrow and say that I have slandered their fair province, for I am of the same blood. I respect their traditions as I want them to respect mine. I have in my hand this evening evidence showing the unfair and partial manner in which my right hon. leader was treated by some of the newspapers of that province. My leader spoke the other afternoon when moving his resolution, and in the evening the acting leader of the government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in reply to my leader, said:
My right hon. friend is, I think, beginning to be a good loser and he certainly needs to cultivate that spirit in the years to come. He seems to have acquired that quality mentioned by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) the other day, that is, a sportsmanlike attitude towards defeat, and he does not seem to bear any grudge against the House on account of the vote of Thursday last.
Those words of the hon. Minister of Justice were to my mind, courteous and complimentary to my leader, but, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand yesterday's edition of Le Canada, a paper printed in the city of Montreal, and to which the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinifret) is not altogether a stranger, and in the first column of the first page I find this-
I shall translate it as best I can.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it in French
first.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I will read it in- French
first, for the benefit of my hon. friends. It is as follows:
M. Meighen a la bouche pleine d'amertume. On pourrait lui demander, "comment tant de fiel entre-t-il dans l'ame d'un tory". II souleve ses partisans par ses attaques violentes, ses citations de textes tronques, se3 conclusions souvent hors de proportion avec les premises. M. Meighen ne s'occupe pas. II parle et s'ex-cite a mesure qu'il developpe son attaque.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon. friends may applaud that if they wish, but that was not the opinion expressed iby the acting leader of the government on Monday evening last. He did not speak of "a mouthful of bitterness."
M. GERVAIS:	C'est une exception, pour
une fois. [DOT]
, Mr. DOUCET: I will now translate it:
You might ask how it is that so much venom enters the soul of a Tory. He rallies his partisans by violent attacks, citing distorted texts, and his conclusions are often out of proportion to his premises, but Mr. Meighen does not care. He attacks, and gets excited as he develops his attack.
That was printed on the first page of Le Canada, but if you will turn to the full report of the proceedings of the House, printed on page 7 of that same issue, you will find that the last paragraph contains the courteous words of the acting leader of the government which I quoted a moment ago. Then you will no doubt ask why my leader should be so calumniated in this old province of ours. I could quote extract after extract from speeches made by members of the government and by candidates of the Liberal party in the last campaign, and extracts from papers printed in that province, showing that they would do everything and anything to defeat my leader, anything but attempt to create a greater Canada. I think it little becomes my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) to talk of canvasses being made from door to door in
The Address-Mr. Doucet

connection with the closing of factories. I have too much respect for the province of Quebec to think that such tactics would change one vote, but at the same time the attempt was made. House to house canvasses were carried on, and circulars distributed in direct contravention of the Elections Act, because they did not have printed on the bottom the name of the printer, which the present law requires, and then hon. gentlemen opposite come here and tell us that the only question discussed in the province of Quebec was protection and the tariff.
I have spoken of the coal situation, and some hon. members of this House may wonder why, in the last parliament the very large delegation representing the Maritime provinces and supporting the government did not support a national coal policy. On the 16th of March, 1925, a resolution was moved in this House by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) which read in part as follows:
-that no part of Canada should be left dependent upon the United States for such (coal) supply. . . That a duty should be placed on coal from the United States to ensure an all-British supply for Canada and thus afford adequate protection.
That resolution was discussed for some time, but shortly after ten o'clock in the evening a representative from the Maritime provinces moved an adjournment of the debate, well knowing that that meant placing the motion at the bottom of the list of private members' resolutions, and that if parliament had sat for fifteen months the resolution would then never be reached again. We demanded a vote upon it, and practically every member from the Maritime provinces supporting the government voted closure on the coal question, voted to prevent hon. members of this House from expressing an opinion as to the advisability of developing a national policy on coal for this Dominion. But, Mr. Speaker, those members on the other side of the House who so vbted contrary to their own interests and the interests of the part of the country they represented, were found among the fallen on the battlefield, and we have now with us a new contingent of men, who are prepared to discuss and do their utmost to forward the rights of the Maritime provinces, at the same time not overlooking the interests of the other provinces of this Dominion.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, January 21, 1926