1926-01-28

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of National Defence for the year ended March 31, 1925.- Hon. Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough).
Report of the Department of National Defence respecting the naval service for the year ended March 31, 1925.-Hon. Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7 to amend the Criminal Code-holding of public games for charitable objects.
He said: This bill is introduced at the request of municipalities and church, charitable and patriotic bodies. It makes legal certain public games, such as euchre, cribbage, whist and five hundred in rooms or places to which admission is charged, and provides that such rooms or places shall not be deemed to be common gaming houses as they now are. The privilege is frequently sought to raise funds for relief work by social, church, charitable and patriotic organizations and mayors and wardens have been granting permits to raise funds for these worthy objects. This form of permit was not allowed when the code was drafted thirty years ago, and the object of the amendment is to make it legal now for these charitable objects. The privilege when granted will be under the direct control of the civil and local authorities. The city council of Toronto on December 16, 1924, passed a resolution that the necessary steps be taken to apply to the Dominion parliament for this amendment. The petition was sent to Ottawa in January, 1925, asking that this proposed amendment become law, and the matter, I am told, has also been passed upon by the municipal unions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
OLD AGE PENSIONS On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct the attention of the government to a paragraph in this morning's press to the effect that there is a rumour that a bill providing for a system of old age pensions is likely to be included in the programme of this session by the government. As that is a very 
important matter indeed, and one that I have consistently pressed on the government for years, I would be very much gratified, as I am sure would many other hon. members, if the government could confirm that rumour. I desire to ask further, is it the intention of the government in the proposed legislation to follow the lines recommended by the report of the special committee of the House which sat in the last two sessions in connection with this matter? That committee, of which I was the British Columbia representative made two reports, one dated the 1st of July, 1924, and the other the 16th of June, 1925.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the
House):	It is the intention of the government to submit to the House a bill respecting old age pensions, and I am pleased to tell my hon. friend that it will be based on the recommendation of the committee of the House which sat in 1924.



ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Intimations have
appeared in the press for some time, and discussions among members have naturally followed, that the government proposed to make a motion to adjourn for some unstated period of time, following the disposal of the Address, or at some time very close to that period. The consequence of the intimations has been that members of this House have not been able to make their arrangements for the session, or the bringing down of members of their families who intend to be here should the session be continued. There has been a constant disarrangement of the programme of very many hon. members of parliament, I think the government should intimate now-in fact it should have done so sooner-(whether it proposes to ask for an adjournment of the House for any considerable period of time; if so for what period, and when.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: I am glad that my right hon.
friend has asked this question, because I intended to speak to him privately on this matter to-day. It is just as well it should be done publicly. It is the intention of the government as soon as the vote on the Address is given-carried I hope-to ask the House for an adjournment of six weeks for the purpose of reorganizing the government in some way and dealing with the matters which have to be dealt with on account of the session having been called at such an early period and owing to the parliamentary

situation resulting from the election. I intend to place the notice on the order paper that I will make a formal motion to that effect when the vote on the Address is given.


Arthur Meighen: Will the House be
informed as to what the proposed reorganization is at the time the adjournment is asked for, or are we to remain here in ignorance as to the proposals of the government relative to its constitution and personnel?


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
does not expect to get the details of the reorganization before it is made?


Arthur Meighen: One certainly does, not
expect the government to say what its proposals are as to its own personnel. The completion cannot be until re-election. Are we not to know until they are re-elected? If so I fear we will not know very much about it.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not
serious surely? The Prime Minister will confer with the men he intends to ask to join the government and will confer with the Governor General, and all these matters will have to be attended to before the information is given. Every time a government is formed and new ministers are added to the government, the information is given after it is done and not before.


Arthur Meighen: The House is entitled
to know what is the proposed constitution of the ministry and what ministers there will be. Certainly the names of the ministers cannot be given until the names are decided, but the House should have known before this what course was planned. There never was a case of parliament being conducted in this way.


Ernest Lapointe: The names of the ministers?


Arthur Meighen: How many ministers is
Ontario to have? How many ministers is Manitoba to have, or New Brunswick? Does the government not know or is it intended that we should continue with something in the nature of a truncated ministry, or as the Minister of the Interior described it, a ministry "in due course?"



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: It was intimated the other
day by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), that the government was prepared 14011-32
Nova Scotia Miners
to give some relief in the matter of the (Unemployment in Nova Scotia. There has been a great deal of unemployment in the past few years, and especially in some of our western cities. Very strong representations have been made with regard to the urgency of the case. I should like to know whether the government proposes to do something to make provision for this special need, and whether it is possible for the government to give relief as was done in previous years.


Ernest Lapointe: The policy of the government was
fairly set forth by my colleague the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), I believe, on Monday night. This question of unemployment relief is a difficult one in this country, owing to the fact that we have division of powers between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities. It has been felt that the problem is primarily one of local responsibility; but the government is willing, in case of serious emergency when a grave situation exists, to co-operate with the provincial and local authorities and to bear a share of relief work or other relief measures which have to be adopted to meet a serious situation of that character, and we shall ask parliament to give us authority to that effect.



NOVA SCOTIA COAL MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: On Monday last when the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) moved the adjournment of the House to consider the Cape Breton coal situation, after considerable discussion the resolution was withdrawn on the understanding that the situation there was ito be dealt with and adjusted. This has been partially done. I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to confine himself to a question, because on the orders of the day only questions can be put, not speeches delivered.


William Anderson Black: I would ask the
Minister of the Interior whether or not the situation in Cape Breton has been adjusted in accordance with the understanding which we had when the resolution of the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria was withdrawn.	i


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I do not know anything about
an understanding when the motion was withdrawn, but as regards the large order, that is settled. There is still under advisement the

[DOT]498
Auditor General's Report

matter of the shipment of the 15,000 tons. I have the matter up with the Railway department, and I hope to be able to give hon. gentlemen who are interested and the House generally a definite answer to-morrow.



CORRECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if I am jn order, I
wish to draw your attention to what appears to me to be an omission from Hansard. During the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) yesterday afternoon, as appears in the House of Commons Debates near the foot of the first column on page 493, I asked this question of the hon. member:
Do you believe in a .policy of absolute free trade for Canada ?
The hon. member answered Recording to the import of the words that follow. But as the answer did not appear to me to be a direct reply to my question, I then rose and pressed for an answer, and if my memory serves me correctly he replied:
I am in favour of a policy of free trade for Canada.
The question as pressed by me does not so appear in Hansard. I have taken the pains to check the notes of the reporter who was on the floor at that time, and I have found that my question as pressed appears in his notes, but does not appear in Hansard report. I would ask that the correction be made accordingly.	.


Hewitt Bostock: I distinctly heard the
question put by the hon. member yesterday afternoon, and the fact that he has drawn the attention of the House to the omission will be sufficient for the officers of the House to make the necessary correction in Hansard.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I wonder if I could get from the Minister of Finance a statement as to when the Auditor General's report will be tabled.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: The Auditor General gave me an assurance yesterday that he and his staff were working at high pressure trying to get the report out as soon as possible. I will again urge upon him the importance of tabling his report before the proposed adjournment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not suppose my hon. friend can to-day define when "as soon as possible" will be, but I will ask 
him in the near future when it will arrive. We shall at any rate expect it before any motion for adjournment is put.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I am going to make a protest against these private conversations taking place across the floor of the House. A few of us at this end of the chamber are interested in public affairs and we would like to know something about what is going on.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for West
York inquired as to when the Auditor General's report would be tabled, and I said to him that the Auditor General was working at high pressure trying to get the report out. I will again urge upon him the importance of having it presented before the proposed adjournment. I just want to remind the hon. member for West York that the Auditor General is the servant of parliament, and we are all equally interested with my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister undertake that no adjournment of this House will be asked for until the report is tabled?


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend knows
that I never undertake anything if I can avoid doing so.


Arthur Meighen: I respectfully suggest that the minister do not undertake to ask the House for an adjournment until he has the report.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 27, 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.
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: (Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), after repeated solicitations from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), took the plunge and declared himself in favour of free trade for Canada. I ventured to say that in that regard the hon. member occupied a position of isolation and I am still of the same opinion. I would be very much interested to know if any other Progressives in the House are ready to place themselves on record in the same way as the hon. member for Rosetown did yesterday. I take it for granted that none of them is rushing to do so. I would like to know if the leader of the Progressive

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontemc)
party, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), will declare that he is in favour of free trade for Canada.


Robert Forke: I would suggest that the hon. member go on with his speech.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to assure the hon. gentleman that that is precisely what I intend to do. But you will notice how we have manifested the characteristics of the two races represented respectively by the hon,. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the one speaking as an impulsive Welshman and the other as a canny, cautious Scot. Now the hon. member for Rosetown had a good deal to say about the manufacturers of this country, whom he described by some pretty harsh names; I believe the epithets parasites and bloodsuckers or words of the same significance were used. At all events one would readily conclude from his remarks that the hon. member had not very much love for the manufacturers. According to that hon. gentleman the heads of industries :n this country are bleeding the public and especially the farmers through the exorbitant profits that they are making. The hon. member for Rosetown is a shining light of the Progressive party, a follower of such a man as Hon. Thomas A. Crerar who was at one time leader of that party and who holds the position of president of the United Grain Growers' Company. I desire to call the attention of the House and the attention particularly of my hon. friend from Rosetown and gentlemen from the west to a few figures I have here which indicate the attitude of the company, of which the hon. member's former leader is the president, towards exorbitant profits. According to evidence given in this very building and which I have under my hand, Mr. Rice Jones, who occupied the position of manager of the United Grain Growers' Company, informed the public that the president of that company was drawing a salary of $15,000 per annum, the manager $13,000, the assistant manager $11,000, the western manager $5,200 and the secretary $5,000. That is to say, five officials were drawing a salary of $49,200 per year. The same gentleman informed us further that the profits of that company in 1916-17 amounted to $S44,401, or 44.92 per cent; that the profits in 1915-16 were $855,288, or 62.2 per cent; and that in 1917-18. when they had less grain to handle, the profits amounted to $441,769, or 19.7 per cent. In other words, their profits in three years amounted to $2,141,458, or an average of 42.41 per cent each year.
14011-32j
Mr. Rice Jones told us also in his evidence that the subsidiary company, the New York Export Company, on a capitalization of $100,000 had profits in one year amounting to $530,000 or 530 per cent. In five years the shortages in handling grain amounted to 3,S00 bushels, not a very large amount; but in order to cover these shortages they underweighed the grain of the farmers so that they had overages to the extent of 357,000 bushels. In other words, they secured themselves by taking 100 bushels of grain out of the farmers in order to cover a loss of one bushel. They sold these overages, this extra grain, for $418,000 and put the money into the treasury.
Mr. Rice Jones further stated that this company was engaged not only in handling grain but in handling, as well, farm machinery, binder twine, flour, coal and so on, and that they made handsome profits on each of these articles. It is well for the House to understand that in each of their elevators, of which they have hundreds, there is a man employed to handle the grain, who also acts as agent for the company. If a farmer sends in word that he wants a mower, all the agent has to do is to write a letter to the company and ask them to send on the mower. There 'S an outlay on the part of the company of three cents for postage of the letter, while another three cents may be spent on a letter to the farmer notifying him of the arrival of the machine. The farmer comes to get that piece of machinery and he knows before he leaves home that he has to have the cash in his pocket to pay for it because, as Mr. Rice Jones said, all of this business is done on a strictly cash basis. They were taking no chances whatever with bad accounts. So that all told they were out of pocket only eight or nine cents in postage in doing this business for the farmer.
Now what I want to impress upon the House is this. The president of the United Grain Growers' Company occupied a prominent position in this House and in the political life of Canada for many years, and on many occasions from his place in parliament very strongly denounced protection, condemning for instance the duty of 12J per cent on binders and mowers as taking money out of the pockets of the farmers; and one would naturally think that such a company, handling machinery as they were, running no risks in the matter of bad accounts, and incurring an outlay of only a few cents on each transaction, would have sold the machinery to the farmers without trying to get extra money out of them. But what do we find? In 1921. under the Conservative government, the tariff on binders and mowers was I2i per cent,
500	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
which on a binder, at the price of binders at that time, would represent $22.80. But when the binder was sold by the Unitedi Grain Growers' Company they took out of the pockets of the farmer $38.30. The same is true of their attitude in regard to everything else on the list of the machinery which they handle. I have in my hand a list of sixteen principal farm implements used in the west and elsewhere in the country by the farmers. These implements are: mower, binder, horse-rake, hay-loader, manure-spreader, seed-drill. farm wagon, farm roller, fanning mill, wind mill, disk harrow, spring-tooth cultivator, harrow, scufller, traction engine and ditching machine. I find that the tariff in force in 1911 under a Liberal government was higher in every case in respect of these sixteen implements than was the tariff in force under the Conservative government in 1921. That is the first point 1 wish to make. I find that the average tariff on these sixteen implements under the Liberal government in 1911 was 21.25 per cent, while the average tariff on the same sixteen implements under the proposed reciprocity agreement of 1911 was 17.6 per cent. I call special attention to the latter statement inasmuch as both Liberals and Progressives are advocating a
renewed effort to secure the reciprocity pact of 1911. I find further that the average rate of tariff on these sixteen implements was, under the Conservatives in 1921, 14.5 per cent. Again, I find that the profits of the United Grain Growers' Grain Company on these sixteen implements, according to the sworn evidence of Mr. Rice Jones, was 21.06 per cent. Stated in dollars and cents the amount of duty collected on these sixteen implements under the Liberal tariff would be $191.29, while under the reciprocity agreement it would be $161.40. Under the Conservative tariff of 1921, on the other hand, that duty would amount to $146. And the profits on the same implements squeezed out of the farmers by the United Grain Growers' Company would amount to $193.63. I call attention to this for the reason that the hon. member for Rosetown, who is not alone in this regard, has expressed himself in very strong language in denunciation of the manufacturers as parasites who extort undue profits from the people and especially from the farmers. The Liberal and Conservative tariffs, the amounts of duty collected under them and the profits of the United Grain Growers' Grain Company are set out in the following table:
Farm Implement
Binder	
Mower	
Horserake	
Hay Loader	
Manure Spreader	
Seed Drill	
Farm Wagon	
Farm Roller	
Fanning Mill	
Wind Mill	
Disc Harrow	
Springtooth Cultivator Spike Tooth Harrow...
Scuffler	
Traction Engine	
Ditching Machine....
Average Rate....
Amount of Duty...
Liberal Tariff Rate and Amount of Duty 1911	Reciprocity Rate and Amount of Duty 1911	Conservative Rate and Amount of Duty 1921	Profits of United Grain Growers Grain Company174%	$31.92	15%	$27.36	124%	$22.80	$38.30174%	10.99	15%	9.42	124%	7.85	13.1820%	7.00	15%	5.25	15%	5.25	8.8225%	22.62	20%	18.10	20%	18.10	19.0020%	25.00	20%	25.00	15%	18.75	26.2520%	15.46	15%	11.60	15%	11.60	16.2425%	16.00	224%	14.40	20%	12.80	13.4425%	17.31	20%	13.85	20%	13.85	14.5425%	5.37	20%	4.30	20%	4.30	4.5120%	11.42	20%	11.42	174%	10.00	12.0020%	8.00	15%	6.00	15%	6.00	8.4020%	12.80	15%	9.60	15%	9.60	13.4420%	4.40	15%	3.30	15%	3.30	4.6225%	3.00	20%	1.80	20%	1.80	1.8920%	15%	20%	20%	21-06%
21-25%		. 17-6%		14-5%		21-06%
						
	$191.29		$161.40		$146.00	$194 AS
						Profits of
						U.G.G.
The facts are here to prove what I say, that the most unscrupulous and cold-blooded profiteering monopoly that ever existed in this or any other country is represented by the United Grain Growers' Grain Company, the heads of which company laid down the plat-
form of the Progressive party in this House and in the country.


Mr. EVANS:: Would the hon. gentleman
allow me to make a short explanation of those transactions?

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)


John Wesley Edwards: I will not; and for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, the hon. gentleman has had an opportunity to speak once, and I do not propose to be his proxy for another speech. In the second place, he might say something and afterwards have it deleted from Hansard.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. I strongly resent that charge. I think the reporters will bear me out that I did not delete that question from Hansard.


Mr. BOYS:: Who did it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


John Evans: I desire a withdrawal of that charge, Sir.


John Wesley Edwards: What does the hon. gentleman want me to withdraw? I did not say he had deleted it; I said he might say something and might have it deleted. However, I will at once accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he had nothing to do with the leaving out of anything from Hansard. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to quarrel over a little thing like that.
But, Mr. Speaker, what is the position of the hon. member for Rosetown? He comes into this House and from the mountain tops of his own self-esteem he looks down through the fogs and mists which he has himself created and regards with disdain the members of the two old parties, who, whatever their faults, have done all that has been done to make this country progress. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that neither he nor the leader of his party can point to one single thing that their party has done in the direction of national progress. As to the fallacious free trade theories' that the hon. member still clings to with, I might say, tenacity, I will discuss them in a general way with respect not only to the country from which he came but also with respect to our relations with the United States.
I am pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that several hon. gentlemen, whom I knew very well as humble members like myself when I was here four years ago, have been promoted to the seats of the mighty. I refer first to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), who is now Minister of Customs. Honours have come to that gentleman before. After the election of 1917, during which he denounced the Borden government and all its works in most vigorous language, he was not averse
to accepting an honourable position under that government and was Deputy Speaker from 1919 to 1921. Rumour also was rife at the time that he would not require to be urged very strongly to accept a cabinet position. However, rumours, like newspaper reports, may be misleading. At all events, the hon. gentleman now is Minister of Customs, and whatever temptations may have assailed him in the past, of this I am quite certain, that he will be true and loyal to the Liberal party-at least, so long as that party remains in power.
Now, the hon. Minister of Customs paid a very warm tribute to ex-Premier King. He referred to his fine, his delicate sense of honour. I recall that Mr. King pledged his word of honour to a certain platform adopted by the Liberal party in 1919, and later he exhibited his fine sense of political honour by referring to that platform on the floor of this House as nothing but a "chart." Then we had his Richmond Hill speech, in which he gave a very distinct pledge to the people, and has since repudiated it. We have also his reference to the Progressives and the sessional indemnity-another exhibition of that delicate sense of honour which, I have no doubt, will be duly appreciated by all the members of that party. Then we have him preparing a speech for His Excellency, and giving out that speech to the press before the Governor General had a chance to read it in the Senate. No other prime minister in the history of Canada has ever possessed such a fine, such a delicate sense of honour as that.
Then we have a still further exhibition of that fine sense of honour. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) moved an amendment to the Address. That amendment, according to all precedent, is a motion of want of confidence in the government. There was consternation in the Liberal camp, because a number of Progressives had declared themselves as having no confidence in this government. Mr. King was sent for, there was a consultation, and he informed his followers that he possessed a certain precious box of ointment that he used as balm for wounded political consciences, an ointment that he had applied with considerable success on many occasions. This box of conscience ointment was sent over to the Progressive camp, where some eighteen members were gathered, and finally it was decided by sixteen or seventeen of that number that they did not stand in need of any conscience balm, since they did not have any consciences to balm. So they generously said,
502	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
"Take this box of ointment and hand it over to that member who spent a night of agony over this question, and divide it between that member and the hon. member for Rosetown; let them have it all." I am doubtful, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Customs is or can be regarded as competent to judge as to what constitutes political honour. I take that view because of the speech delivered by that hon. gentleman in Montreal, in which he said all that had been discussed at Ottawa was whether a Governor General from England -or if we are to accept his correction, His Excellency, referring to the same person-should decide, or whether the people should choose. He followed that statement by a further remark in which the inference is quite clear. He said that the government would consider itself beaten only by an adverse decision of the people in a general election. "If they, the Progressives, persist in running too fast, we shall not ask for their help any more, and it will be the duty of Premier King to ask for a dissolution of parliament."


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt. The Minister of Customs is not now in his seat, but in fairness to him does not my hon. friend recall that the Minister of Customs, from his place in parliament, said that he had been mis-reported and made a correction in regard to that speech?


John Wesley Edwards: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman did not catch exactly what I said. The Minister of Customs did correct himself, and said that instead of using the words "Governor General from England" he had used the words "His Excellency." I mentioned that when I gave his words. My hon. friend did' not catch what I said. But the Minister of Customs made no correction whatever of the second quotation which I gave. It is true that he has endeavoured to make some explanation with regard to the matter, but to quote the words of the Hon. Edward Blake, it seems to me that he has aggravated his offence by the hypocritical character of his denial. There is no doubt of what is meant by the hon. Minister of Customs. His words contain a double threat, or an intimation amounting to a threat to members of this House that if things are not done as the government wish, there will be a dissolution. It amounts to a threat in another way as well. It is clearly a threat, by plain inference from the words, to His Excellency the Governor General, that unless he does what the remnant of this government says should be done, they are ready to raise the cry of 
autonomy, I suppose, or something along that line. I do not think members of this House are going to submit to threats, and it strikes me that the last man on the face of the earth at the present time who could possibly be intimidated against pursuing the course dictated by honour would be Byng of Vimy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another hon. member of this House, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), whose undeveloped mind naturally seeks expression in nursery rhymes. He asked the question as to who killed Cock Robin-Cock Robin, of course, being the government. That is not a very difficult question to answer, it was not a case of assassination at all, but mainly one of political suicide. Cock Robin killed himself, although it is quite true that the Conservative party assisted very materially. After the battle of October 29 was over, the Big .Chief and eight of his lesser chiefs were amongst the slain, and the tom-toms were beating outside many a Grit wigwam for the warrior who had been sent to the happy hunting grounds. The Conservative party did play a large part in bringing about that defeat. They did lift some scalps, if I may use the language of the hon. member for Quebec South, but they waged war against the chiefs, and made no war against the papooses of the tribe, so the hon. member for Quebec South was perfectly safe. The hon. member has credited me with the desire to carry the scalp Of the government at my belt back to the lodge. .1 want to assure the hon. gentleman that we decorate the walls of our lodge rooms with emblems which we regard as sacred because of their associations and memories. Notwithstanding that this government has been claiming the divine right to rule with or without the consent of the people, I have not come to the point where I recognize the sacredness of their claim. At all events I want to assure the hon. member for Quebec South that I would' not decorate the walls of an outbuilding with a scalp covering a mind of such narrow dimensions as his.
There were certain outstanding features, Mr. Speaker, of the last election which I desire to call to the attention of the House. The election of 1921 resulted in the return to this House of 51 Conservatives with a definite and clear-cut policy; the election of 117 Liberals, each with a policy of his own and with only one plank in common, namely, their desire for office; and the election of 65 Grits who called themselves Progressives, and whose idea of progress was to stand still or walk backward. The election of 101 Liberals on October 29 last, Mr. Speaker, is the full measure of the

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
public confidence in the King government. The election of 144 members to this House representing other parties is the measure of the public's want of confidence in that government. In the election of 1921 ithere were 117 Liberals elected, less than a majority of the House, and they only had 41.5 per cent of the popular vote. The members elected representing other parties carried 58.5 per cent of the popular vote in that election. In the 1925 election the Conservatives polled 46.5 per cent of the popular vote, and Liberals, Progressives and Independents combined, 53.5 per cent. If my right hon. leader in 1921 had chosen the same course which Mr. King has pursued, he could have held on to office, and would have been more justified' according to the vote polled than Mr. King is justified in doing to-day. I wish to point out this: In the last election Independent and Labour members doubled their representation in this House, and increased their share of the popular vote by 56,610 votes. I submit that we can only take that as an indication that Independent and Labour members were gaining in popular favour. I hear no dissent from Independent and Labour members to that statement, and therefore I presume they will endorse my second statement, that the election of 116 Conservatives, an increase in their representation in this House from 51 to 116, and their increased share in the popular vote by 496.000, must also be taken as an indication that they were in popular favour. If those statements are correct, these others are manifestly correct also; the fact that the Liberal party decreased its representation in this House to 101 from 117 members, and decreased its share of the popular vote by over 30,000 votes, is an indication that they were not in popular favour; the fact also that the Progressives have decreased their representation to 24 from 65, and their share of the popular vote by 486,788, must clearly be taken as an indication that so far as the Progressives were concerned the	tide i of
popular opinion was against them. And yet with these figures before us, dearly indicating the trend of public opinion against the government, against the Liberal party and against the Progressive party, we find these two parties by a sort of coalition or method of co-operation attempting to carry on the business of Canada in defiance of the will of the people. In my mail the other day I received a letter from a lady who is apparently taking some interest in public affairs. She expresses her view in regard to the general situation in a few verses, which I shall place
on Hansard, as a matter of diversion anyway:
Still King
I have a song I want to sing About a little man named King,
Who had a great and lofty aim To write upon the book of fame,
In letters big and black, his name.
In politics he found his place;
And won in an election race.
To Ottawa this hero came.
"Ah, now", said he, "I can acclaim I am not only King in name."
In Ottawa he tried his brain But all his efforts were in vain.
Four years passed by. (I tell with shame)
The country seemed to have gone lame.
The King in King was all in name.
Said he "It is not hard to see I need more men if I would be A King". And so election came.
The Meighen forces took good aim And left King shorn of all but name.
But did this squelch the little King?
Oh no. He saw the Baron Byng,
And promised, with no thought of shame,
To still pursue his lofty aim By doing nothing just the same.


Mr. FAFARD:: May I ask the name of the lady?


John Wesley Edwards: 
Robert Forke: Will the hon. member quote my exact words in that connection?


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenao-Addington):: I have the hon. gentleman's speech under my hand but I have not marked the exact words. I do not wish to misrepresent him, but I certainly understood 'him to take the ground that he and his followers were the representatives in a special sense of the farmers of this country.


Robert Forke: Perhaps that will do.


Alexander McKay Edwards: We will let it go at that. Now there are and have been in parliament, ever since I have had anything to do with public affairs, gentlemen who have come as representatives of the people and as tillers of the soil themselves, and excellent representatives they have made. But I submit that, valuable an education as it is to be a practical and experienced farmer, education alone was not what made these gentlemen useful to this House; and I assert that we have had in this parliament from all parties men who, while they were not actually engaged in farming, were nevertheless most stalwart champions on the farmers' interests on this floor. In his remarks the other day the hon. member for Brandon made the following statement, to use his precise words this time:
Strange to say, Saskatchewan is the greatest dairy province in the Dominion. I want the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) to note that.
I do not know where in the world the hon. gentleman got his information for that statement. I was very much surprised to read it inasmuch as it came from a gentleman who I believe is a farmer himself and who is the leader in this House of the Progressive party. Because of his position in parliament he should post himself on these things and get reliable information before undertaking to make a statement of that kind, for it is very, very wide of the mark. I have here figures to prove what I am going to say and I shall take the trouble to enlighten the hon. gentleman so that in future he will not make the same mistake. We will forgive him here, but he might make this mistake outside and make himself ridiculous in the eyes of someone better posted. As to the relative importance of the dairy industry in the various provinces, I submit that we can judge only by the number of milch cows, by the factories, by the capital invested, by the people employed, and by the dairy production. That seems to me to be a fair test. Now I find in the first instance, in regard to the number of milch cows, that
508	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
Ontario is first, Quebec second, Alberta third and Saskatchewan fourth. In the number of dairy factories Quebec is first with 1,752, Ontario second with 1,056 and Saskatchewan and Alberta tie for third place with 60 each. In regard to capital invested, Ontario stands first with $19,500,000, Quebec second with $7,500,000, Alberta third with $2,73-4,1.00 and Saskatchewan fourth with $2,663,000. In the number of employees, Ontario is first, Quebec second, Manitoba third, Alberta fourth, and Saskatchewan fifth. In the quantity and value of creamery butter produced in all factories, Quebec is first with 57,000,000 pounds, Ontario second with 51,000,000 pounds, Alberta third with 15,000,000 pounds, Manitoba fourth with 10,000,000 pounds, and Saskatchewan fifth with nearly 9,000,000 pounds.


Mr. McLEAN:: Will the hon. gentleman
give the amount of creamery butter manufactured in Saskatchewan in 1925?


John Wesley Edwards: In 1922-


John McLean: No,


John Wesley Edwards: Just a minute, I will give my hon. friend more if he wants it. My figures are for 1922 and are taken from the Live Stock and Animal Products Statistics for that year; I have later figures. But may I be permitted to deal with the production of cheese and then return to my hon. friend's question? In the amount of factory cheese produced in 1922 Ontario wa3 first with 92,000,000 pounds, Quebec second with 38,000,000 pounds, Prince Edward Island third with 1,700,000 pounds, Alberta fourth with 931,000 pounds, New Brunswick fifth with
926.000	pounds, British Columbia sixth with
433.000	pounds, Manitoba seventh with 102,000 pounds, Nova Scotia eighth with 31,000 pounds, ,and Saskatchewan ninth with 12,448 pounds- about as much as one of our factories produces. Coming back to the question asked by my hon. friend, the production of creamery butter in 1924-


John McLean: 1925.


John Wesley Edwards: The figures are not yet available for 1925. These are from the Dairy and Cold Storage branch of the federal Department of Agriculture. In production of creamery butter in 1924 Quebec was first with 65,596,627 pounds, Ontario second with 59,000,000 pounds, Alberta .third with 21,500,000 pounds, Saskatchewan fourth with 13,583,902 pound's, Manitoba fifth with 12,632,714 pounds; and the other provinces in order of production are, Nova Scotia, 	: ' i )
Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I have also the figures from 1900 right down to 1924, and will be very glad indeed to hand them to my hon. friend.


John McLean: You have not the figures for 1925?


John Wesley Edwards: No. I asked for them but they are not available. In the course of his speech the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), discussing this question, said:
What are our farmers afraid of?
And he answered his question in these words:
By invoking protection they are going to close up a market where they sold two and a half million dollars' worth of butter in 1924 in order to exclude the comparatively small importation of $57,000 worth.
He was referring to the United States. In other words, the hon. gentleman takes the ground that if the United States sees fit to place a duty of eight cents a pound against our butter, while our duty against their butter is only four cents a pound, we should not do anything about it, because if we raise our duty to eight cents a pound, why, they are likely to increase their duty still higher and shut out our two and a half million dollars' worth of butter. Well, Mr. Speaker, Canada has an exportable surplus of from twenty to twenty-five million pounds of butter a year. We ship that butter to twenty-five or thirty different countries. In fact, we practically grease the globe with Canadian butter in our efforts tc get rid of our surplus. But does the hon gentleman forget that we have a home market? If we place a value upon foreign markets, we should not overlook the best market ol all-the home market, because while we export from twenty to twenty-five million pounds of butter a year, we consume at home over
250,000,000 pounds annually.


Robert Forke: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me a question? If he cannot see the futility of his argument right in his own statement, I think we will leave it at that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman having delivered himself of that, he will no doubt now proceed to ask his question, if he has one to ask.


Robert Forke: I made a statement.


John Wesley Edwards: Think it over and ask it later on.

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)


Robert Forke: I do not want to get into
any controversy with my hon. friend, nor do I want to have any ill-feeling, but-


John Wesley Edwards: There is no ill-feeling so far as I am concerned.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: Well, if hon. gentlemen are not going to listen to me I will sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Wesley Edwards: Go ahead. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman rose to ask a question. It seems to me that I was the one whose consent was asked. I gave my consent, and I repeat it now, no matter what anyone else says.


Robert Forke: I am not finding fault with the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to impress on the House the value of our home market, for I think its importance should be emphasized. I happen to represent in this House perhaps one of the most strictly rural ridings, if not the most strictly rural in the Dominion-a constituency which does not contain one single town; surely that is about as strictly rural as you can get any riding. My constituents are deeply and vitally interested in the marketing of farm products, and particularly dairy products. I repeat, we should not lose sight of the importance of our home market, and I assert, Sir, that the members of this parliament, no matter to what party they belong, have a duty devolving upon them to give the farmers of Canada a square deal at home. And they are not getting that to-day under present conditions. For instance, take 1923: Our home consumption of butter was over
251.000.	000 pounds; our total exports, a little over 21,000,000 pounds; our exports to the United States, 2,400,000 pounds. Our home consumption of cheese was 28,500,000 pounds; our total exports, 114,000,000; less than six million went to the United States. Our home consumption of eggs was 230,900,000 dozen; our total exports, 3,613,000 dozen. Our home consumption of poultry was 67,000,000 pounds, while our exports were only 735,000 pounds. Our home consumption of beef was 640,700,000 pounds, while our exports were 29,000,000 pounds. Our home consumption of pork was
740.000.	000 pounds, while our exports were
108.000.	000 pounds. Our home consumption
of mutton and lamb was 708,000,000 pounds, while our exports were 3,600,000 pounds. These figures indicate the tremendous importance of our home market. If it is worth while to go out and get after foreign markets for our products-and I will agree with that at once-to my mind it is of infinitely more importance to play the game squarely in conserving our home markets for the farmers of this country.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he any figures to show how much butter was imported into Canada?


John Wesley Edwards: I have not the figures before me. For what year?


Edward James Young: For 1924.


John Wesley Edwards: I have not the figures for 1924 as to that, but I have the importation from the United States from 1907 down to 1925. We imported from the United States
1,523,000	pounds in 1923, 165,000 pounds in 1924, and only 23,800 pounds in 1925. I do not know what our importations from Great Britain and other countries were in those years. But our importation of butter has not been heavy in recent years; I will admit that at once, and there are very good reasons for that. But while that has been true up to a few months ago, it is not the case to-day. Under this Australian treaty, the privileges of which have been extended by this government to New Zealand, in the last few weeks over 4,000,000 pounds of butter have been loaded on this country. Much of that butter has come from Australia where, when a pound of butter is sent out, it is bonused by the government to the extent of six cents per pound. In the face of that fact this government has entered into a treaty with Australia allowing their butter to come into Canada at one cent a pound, and I am told and believe it to be true, that butter can be sent from Australia to Vancouver at less cost than it can be sent from Calgary to Vancouver. Can anyone imagine anything more unfair, more unjust? Australia is following a policy of encouraging its farmers, giving a bonus on every carcass of beef shipped out of the country, as well as a bonus of six cents on every pound of butter exported, and this government meets that situation by letting Australia and New Zealand butter come in here under a duty of one cent per pound to compete with our home product. It has been said that following the arrival of that butter
510	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
from Australia and New Zealand, the price of butter dropped three or four cents at once, and the consumer got the benefit. That is very well, but there is an answer to that argument. I know that in regulating the tariff you should take into consideration both consumer and producer. But, Sir, I submit that when our farmers and dairymen can show that they have an exportable surplus of
25.000.	000 or 30,000,000 pounds of butter a year, that very fact is a guarantee to the consumer that he will not be asked to pay more than he should pay for Canadian butter.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: May I ask the hon. member a question? I presume the figures he has given are from reliable sources. Would he care to state where he got the figure of 4,000,000 pounds?


John Wesley Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman mean in regard to the butter imported from Australia and New Zealand?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Manifestly I did not get it from any governmental publication; I could not. There is only one source from which I could get the figures, a source which is open to my hon. friend, namely, press reports from all over the country. May I ask if the hon. gentleman questions the correctness of that statement?


John Gordon Ross: I do.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well; the statistics will disclose the correct figures. I do not care, Mr. Speaker, whether it was a matter of
4.000.	000 pounds or four pounds; I say that the government has shown its complete inability to size up this question from the standpoint of what constitutes fair play to the farmers of this country. We have a surplus production of butter far in excess of that needed to supply home demands, and I say that under these conditions the consumer cannot possibly be forced to pay more than he should pay for that article. The producer of butter in Canada is, as a matter of principle, entitled to a guarantee-so far as we can guarantee it by tariff-to a protection which will assure him that Canadian butter will be used on Canadian tables. The same thing applies to meats and other farm products.


Mr. WARD:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he any figures to show what percentage of Canada's total consumption is made up of imports?


John Wesley Edwards: I have not the figures to show the percentage of consumption composed of imports or the exports, but I can tell the hon. gentleman in regard to the matter I am discussing that our home consumption of butter amounts to over 85 per cent of the total production of butter in this country. You can get it by figuring it out as I did.


William John Ward: That has not answered the
question.


John Wesley Edwards: That is as near as I can get it. In the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 Canada imported 11,404,557 pounds of butter, for which we paid $3,795,873:	In the matter of eggs, in
the same three years our imports amounted to 24,469,000 dozen, for which the Canadian people sent $7,722,000 out of this country. On those two items, in the three years mentioned, $11,518,564 of Canadian money went into the pockets of foreigners for butter and eggs. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that that money should have gone into the pockets of Canadian farmers for those products. The hon. member for Brandon said that the farmers of the United States have been calling for high protection and that the doctrine taught over there for the past three or four years has been one of high protection. This, they were led to believe, would effectively bar out competition. The hon. member further said that although complaints may be made about farming conditions in Canada to-day we are in a much better condition than farmers in the middle United States. I will agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect, and now I want to tell him why we are in a better position than they are in some parts of the United States. I shall give figures which I think will convince him and the House of the folly of this policy of the Progressives of free trade, or free imports.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me before he goes on with that, there was some dispute a moment ago as to the quantity of butter that came in from Australia. It so happens that I have here the official figures of the imports from Australia and New Zealand since the first of January and1 up to the 21st of January. In that period, 414,400 pounds of Australian butter came in, and 206,408 pounds of New Zealand butter. Since the first of December we have also imported from England, in addition to the Australian and New Zealand butter, Canadian butter that had been shipped to England and that was brought back because of a shortage in this market.

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontemc)


John Wesley Edwards: I cannot see where the shortage would be in this market except a temporary shortage in certain localities, but, of course, I accept at once the official figures given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). They refer, however, only to the butter actually landed in thi3 country, and from Australia and New Zealand the total importation, according to the minister's figures, was around 600,000 pounds.


James Alexander Robb: The combined importations
from Australia and New Zealand amounted to 620,808 pounds, and in addition to that something over 400,000 pounds of Canadian butter was returned to this country from Englnd.


John Wesley Edwards: In regard to the 600,000 pounds, I say that is 600,000 pounds too much, in view of the conditions under which it is brought here, conditions under which it is subsidized in Australia-I do not know whether it is in New Zealand or not-and is allowed to enter this countiy under a tariff of one cent a pound. But if we had a surplus of butter and wanted to market it in Australia, our butter would be subject to a duty of six cents a pound, under the treaty arrangement that was made.


Mr. YALLANCE:: I have in my hand here
a paper-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Does the hon.
member who has the floor allow the interruption?


John Wesley Edwards: I think I have shown, Mr. Speaker, that I am not averse to hon. gentlemen asking questions, but when a gentleman gets up and wants to make a statement as a preamble to his question, I think I can justly object.


John Vallance: I just wished to ask a question.


John Wesley Edwards: With regard to the United States, it contains, as you, Sir, know, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia, I took the trouble to examine the census statistics of the United States for several years back, for 1920 and 1910 in particular, and I found that twenty-four states out of the forty-eight showed a decrease in 1920 as compared with 1910 of 191,073 in the number of farms and a decrease in improved farm acreage of 3,726,527 acres. Each of these twenty-four states showed an increase in mortgage indebtedness in relation to land value. That was the situation in twenty-four of the forty-eight
states in 1920 as compared with 1910. The twenty-four other states showed an increase in the number of farms, an increase in the improved farm acreage, and a decrease in the mortgage indebtedness. Those figures indicate to me that farming conditions were not satisfactory in twenty-four of the states, and that farming was going along very nicely in the other twenty-four states.
What did I find further? I found that the twenty-four states which showed a decrease in the number of farms and in improved farm acreage are nearly all northern or middle states, with a climate about the same as we have in Canada. I think I would be near right in saying that those twenty-four states contain between 75 and 80 per cent of the total population of the United States, and therefore they have an advantage in having a market in the urban centres. But the farmers in those states are at this disadvantage; they have to compete with the farmers of the southern states, and of California, and so on, where the climate is mild, where the stock can run out the year round, and where the farmers do not have to invest large sums of money in barns and stables, where also they can produce two or three crops a year to one in the northern states or in Canada. What resulted from this state of affairs? The farmers of these twenty-four states practically all of them north of the 40th parallel, presented a message to congress. They said: "We are forced to compete with the farm products of the states which have a mild climate. Of course, we must submit to that, because we are a part of the same country, but we want to tell you that it places us at a disadvantage, and we do protest against being forced to submit also to competition from Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other countries of the world." And it was on the demand of the organized farmers in these northern states that the Fordney-McCumber tariff was passed for the express purpose of giving them protection against the products of other countries. Among the states which I have mentioned as showing a decrease in the number 5 p.m. of farms and in improved farm acreage I note New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, all states containing large centres of population, which would naturally give the farmers there a certain advantage as to markets.
It may be said by some that the competition from these Southern states does not amount to much. One man said:	All we
would have to compete with would be peanuts; that is all these southern states would send up north. That is not at all correct.
512	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
The competition, is keen. Texas, for instance, has more cattle than any other state in the union, over 6,000,000 head. Texas and Oklahoma together have almost as many cattle as the whole of Canada. The Carolinas, Georgia and California also run into the millions, between four and five million head. Texas is also first in the number cf sheep, with California second. In swine, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida have over 5,000,000, while Texas and Oklahoma have over 2.500,000 head. In poultry, Texas and Oklahoma have over
30,000,000, and the Carolinas 21,000,000. The dairy products of these same states amounted in 1920 to the value of 8114,000,000. Their production of butter alone in 1920 was) in excess of 141,000,000 pounds, and their egg production over 185,000,000 dozen. They are also competitions in the matter of raising wheat and other grain. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is all right enough for men to present their free trade theories, dating away back fifty or sixty years, but in practice we cannot avoid in this country the consideration of climatic conditions in framing our tariff. Canada's tariff must be framed with a view to our great [DOT]neighbour to the south. We must have regard to that country and to its production. You would think, to hear some people talk, that the United States consisted of people living in cities and that there were no farmers. That is not the ease by any means. As a matter of fact, the United States has about twelve people on the land to every one on the land in Canada. They are farming about ten acres to our one, and if we may judge by the figures given between 191C and 1920, a long time will still elapse before the United States will be dependent upon the outside world for food supply. Between 1910 and 1920 the United States increased its wheat acreage 65.1 per cent and its production 38.3 per cent; its acreage of oats 8.1 per cent and production 4.8 per cent; the acreage of rye increased 2419.8 per cent end production 157 per cent; while the acreage of hay was increased 6.7 per cent and and production 3.6 per cent. The total value of the farm products harvested in 1920 shows 182 per cent of an increase over 1910. The increases in value in 1920 as compared with 1910 were: wheat 215 per cent, oats) 106 per cent, corn 143 per cent, other cereals 226 per cent, hay and forage 180 per cent, notatoes 284 per cent and other vegetables 148 per cent.
I have had placed in my hands a letter which, in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance I desire to read. It is dated Vancouver, B.C., November 14, 1925, addressed to the Central Creameries Limited and reads:

We beg to advise the quantity of butter just landed from the New Zealand boat amounted to only 500 boxes for Vancouver. This was made up of three different grades, Anchor, which is their super-fine, Acorn, which is their first, and Pacific. This latter brand is a new one and put up in a much cheaper box, so evidently this latter grade is No. 2 stock. The different importers were: F. R. Stewart, 75 boxes of Pacific, 150 boxes Anchor and 125 boxes of Acorn, and A. P. Slade 150 boxes of Acorn. This was every box left off in Vancouver. How many were left off in Victoria we do not know, with the exception of a shipment of 200 boxes for P. Bums and Company there. It has been reported that there was 1,200 boxes in all on this boat, so probably the balance of the shipment has been placed in bond. If it is not satisfactory for U3 to send you a sample of each of these grades, would appreciate your advising us this coming Monday, as we have arranged, subject to not hearing from you Monday morning, to get a sample of each of these boxes through one of the retailers. This we will express to you on Monday or Tuesday evening.
Yours truly,
'	Central Creameries Limited,
(Signed) Mark E. Hill, Manager
I have been handed also a telegram, which reads as follows:
January seventh eleven thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight fifty six pound boxes arrived Vancouver distributed as follows: 1,000 boxes for Victoria 6,000 for eastern Canada and balance for Vancouver. Writing.
I am also indebted to my hon. friend the member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis), for the following telegram addressed to him dated January 19, 1926:
Have advice this morning there are some three million pounds of butter, New Zealand and Australia, arriving at Atlantic and Pacific coast between now and February 6, with more following.
Petes Pau-isen.
Central Creameries, Alberta.
This is information which the Minister of Finance apparently did not have, or he would have given it to the House.


James Alexander Robb: I quoted my hon. friend the
figures of the importations landed. He is now quoting rumours of stuff that is afloat.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend cannot find any better words than "rumours" in reply to statements which have been apparently substantiated from, the most reliable sources-


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will look
at the official organ of the Conservative party -I do not know whether it is the Patenaude or the Meighen organ-he will find that butter is yesterday quoted at li cents a pound advance on the Montreal market.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not concerned as to what particular person gives information to the House from the Conservative party, or what my hon. friend chooses to call those persons. My hon. friend, I might say, occupying the

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frcmtenac)
position he does in 'a government, or what is left of a government, the kind that it is, should be very slow in speaking about Patenaude forces or Meighen forces in the country. My hon. friend is one of the leading forces of a party consisting of 101 persons with 101 different policies,, with only one plank in common. When it suits their purpose they say they are free traders. When it suits their purpose they are protectionist-Liberals. But there is one thing certain, that they are all the time 100 per cent hangers-on to office-anything to hang on to office, no matter what happens to Canada.
With regard to this matter of the importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand, I know it weighs heavily upon the government at the present time, and the government must realize that they made a tremendous blunder when they put through that Australian treaty, and that they aggravated that blunder when they brought New Zealand in. We have already sufficient figures to show that the importations of Australian and New Zealand butter are going to strike, and are striking, a serious blow to the greatest industry in this country, the dairy industry, because, Mr. Speaker, if we take into consideration the capital invested in the dairy industry, the number of people employed, or directly or indirectly interested in the industry and in its production, it will be conceded that this is the greatest single industry we have in Canada and is entitled to every possible consideration. It has made wonderful progress in the prairie west and especially in the province of Alberta. I repeat that it would be better, in the interests if the western provinces, for the farmers to go into mixed farming. That is my opinion, at all events. Here is a butter industry in Alberta which has gone ahead by leaps and bounds and has received the highest praise in the Old Country.	In point of quality,
Alberta butter ranks first in every province in Canada. The extension of the Australian treaty to New Zealand is going to prove a severe blow to that industry in Alberta and I say it is not a fair deal. In order to emphasize my position let me quote words uttered in this House by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) in June last. He said:
The schedule which is the most unjust of the whole tariff schedules of Canada is that relating to farm products. The first tariff schedule that should be raised in this country is the farm products schedule. The farmer in this country to-day is competing with his fellow farmer in other countries under conditions of absolute unfairness. Goods similar to those he produces are brought into this country under a relatively low tariff 14011-33
or none at all while he is forbidden access to other countries save over a tariff that he simply cannot escape.
That is the position of the Conservative party in regard to the tariff on farm, garden and dairy products. May I read you, Sir, the position of the President of the United States in this regard. President Coolidge used these words:
Two very important policies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff which enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, at any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen.
On another occasion he said:
We have built agriculture squarely into the structure of our protective system, and the American farmer must not be undersold at home by New Zealand mutton, Argentine beef, Canadian wheat, Danish butter, Bulgarian tobacco, Chinese eggs or Cuban sugar.
That is the attitude of the President of the United States and also of the United, States Congress, and those words represent the attitude of the party to which I have the honour to belong. I believe I am voicing the opinion of the farmers generally in every part of Canada when I say that Canadian farm, garden and dairy products should be used on Canadian tables instead of cheaply growD articles from foreign countries, and that the farmers of this country are entitled to protection in that regard. The Conservative parly has a policy embodied in the words "Canada first." The government now carrying on or pretending or trying to carry on have a different kind of policy. Their policy, as regards our competition with Australia and New Zealand, is Australia and New Zealand first and Canada second. Examining the Fordney tariff and comparing it with our own, we find that their policy is United States farmers first and Canadian farmers second. I do not hesitate to say that on this side of the House we take exactly the opposite ground. We say that our tariff should be so arranged as to give the preference in our own home market to our Canadian people; that our farmers, gardeners and dairymen should have protection in this country for their products, and that Canadian industries should have a reasonable and fair amount of protection in order that diversified employment may be given to our young men and women that they may remain in their own country to build up Canada rather than cross over to the other side of the line.
As regards industries closing, many of them in Canada have closed under the policy of this

514	COMMON'S
The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
government; but one industry is working full time, yes, and overtime, and that is the offices of American consuls in Canada making out passports for young Canadians who are trying to get out of this country in order to cross over to the other side of the line for the purpose of finding something to do. Does that fact convey no lesson to the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party? We claim that these young Canadians are leaving this country because our industries are closing down owing to the senile policy of the government opposite. Where are they going? If they were seeking employment according to the logic and reasoning of gentlemen on the other side who have spoken, they should ibe hunting a free trade country to go to. But they cannot find one, because this is the only country in the world which has lowered its tariff since the war. All other countries have raised theirs. We find our young men leaving Canada because they cannot get work and crossing the lije to the most highly protected country on the face of the globe where they can get work. Does that convey no lesson to hon. gentlemen opposite? If it does not, I must regard them as being absolutely hopeless.
Take the matter of our imports from and our exports to the United States under the tariff as it exists to-day. The farmers of the United States in 1924 sold an average of S12.58 worth of American farm products to every man, woman and child in Canada. That is what our nine million people bought of them. What did the 110,000,000 people from the United States buy from our farmers? ,An average of 96 cents per capita. That is the situation existing under the policy followed by the party opposite, and that is a condi-.tioen which should be rectified at the earliest possible moment. The way to rectify it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to play the game, acknowledge their defeat, acknowledge that the country does not want them on the government benches, and resign and get out.
The other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke of inducing our Canadians to return and go on the land, and he added the remark that immigration and repatriation .could not be successful unless supplemented by other policies which would aid in keeping Canadian farmers on the land. With that sentiment I am in entire agreement; but how have the hon. gentleman and his party supplemented .those policies? What steps have they taken to endeavour to make it worth while for our ,Canadian boys to stay on the farm? By opening our doors to Australian and New Zealand1 products; Iby keeping the tariff so 
low that it allows the farm products of other .countries to step over easily and enter Canada in competition with our own. I can come to oo other conclusion than that the policy followed! by this government and evidently supported by members of the Progressive party is one which tells the farmers of Canada in plain words: "You do not amount to anything so far as this country is concerned." We propose a policy of fair-play to the farmers of Canada, a policy which will make them feel that they have behind them a government which will guarantee to them, so far as legislation can, the first place for their products in the home market. That is fair. Anything less than that is not fair. I cannot understand the attitude of those who sometimes talk about free trade as their policy. That is a misnomer, because free trade presupposes a free exchange between two countries. But the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite and of the Progressives, as expressed on the platform and called free trade, is a policy, not of free trade, but of free imports, a policy which says: "We propose to open the doors of Canada to the surplus production of the world so far as the farmers are concerned, while all other countries have their doors closed against our farm products." That is their policy, and against that policy, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, I enter my strongest and most vigorous protest.
lion. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure): In common with other members of the House, it affords me very much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to extend to you my hearty congratulations upon an honour which has been conferred only once since confederation on a Speaker of this House, the first Speaker after confederation, the Hon. James Cocbburn, having been given a second term. The manner in which you, Sir, discharged the duties of your office in the last parliament indicated to us who were in the House at that time that the choice was a wise one. Your courtesy and polite manner, your long experience of parliamentary life, and the impartiality which you have always brought to the discharge of your duties, allow a former Speaker of this House to offer you his hearty congratulations and to hope that you may be spared to fill the high office to which you have been called.
It is my pleasure to extend congratulations also to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliot) and the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), the mover and seconder respectively of the Address, upon the excellent speeches they delivered, speeches full of fact and of wisdom and in every respect worthy of the traditions of this House.

The Address-Mr. Marcil
As I mention the mover and seconder of the present Address I am reminded that, in about eight or ten days' time, twenty-five years will have elapsed since I was called upon to second the Address which was moved in 1901 by the hon. member for South Wellington (Air. Guthrie). As I glance over the House on the present occasion I see besides yourself, Air. Speaker, two gentlemen opposite, the father of the House in the person of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. member for South Wellington, and on this side, three members, my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon. friend from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tobin), and the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Delisle), who are all that remain of the parliament that met in 1901. A regiment and more of members of parliament have passed through this House after giving their service to the country; some have gone to a better world and others to different fields of occupation, leaving in Hansard the record of their doings-because without Hansard their eloquence would be lost.
I am glad to be able to say a few words before six o'clock in support of the policy enunciated in the Speech from the Throne, not that it needs very much support on my part, for it speaks for itself. But before I discuss the subject I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Fontenac-Addington (Air. Edwards), who like myself has matured with years in the manner of his delivery and has given us a calm speech that deserves careful consideration. In striking contrast with former speeches of his own, in other days when like myself he was more fiery and rather more combative, he has nevertheless expounded very clearly the policy of the Conservative party, with which I am bound to say at the outset I cannot at all agree. Apart from a few of his personal allusions to some members of the House, the rest of his speech is worthy of him and of the great constituency which he represents and which in the past has been represented in this House by some distinguished men.
As I look into the Speech from the Throne which I had the honour to discuss in seconding the Address which was moved by the hon. member for South Wellington on February 11, 1901, I find by reference to Hansard of that day that the hon. gentleman, then as now one of the most gifted speakers in parliament, outlined very briefly but concisely the position of the Conservative party. Previous to 1896 the Conservative party, as he described it, was a government battling against adversity, whereas after 1806 it was an opposition battling against prosperity. That, I think, compares to some extent with the present 14011-33i
situation. We have a very combative opposition to-day, an opposition more numerous by far than we had in the last parliament; and as it is the meaning and intent of British constitutional government that the only means by which proper and sound government may be obtained is to have a sound, strong, healthy opposition, I do not object to the number of hon. gentlemen who compose the present opposition. Like ourselves, they are representatives of the people. But while they have doubled their numbers in the last election and have returned to parliament with greatly enhanced strength, they do not constitute the majority of the House. The Prime Minister was therefore well advised in asking His Excellency to consult parliament, which is a high court, as to who should carry on the affairs of the country. The mere fact that a party obtains a majority in the country means nothing; it is the number of members elected to parliament who speak for the people at large. Many members sit here representing a minority of the electors, while other members represent overwhelming majorities. But once they are elected to parliament they represent not only their respective constituencies but the whole country, because the tradition of parliament is that a member of parliament, having taken his seat in the House, is no longer the representative of his riding and his riding alone but is the representative at the same time of every constituency in the land1. For that reason I am glad to see in this new parliament so large [DOT] a number of young men on both sides, men who have come here intent on doing their duty and serving their country as best they can. And that is one of the great obligations that rest upon us. Many years ago, when I was a much younger man than I am to-day, the province of Ontario was represented in this parliament by men of outstanding ability. I need not mention their names; for they are familiar to every resident of Ontario. But during a long interim men of the best talents seemed to have given up politics as a vocation and to have gone into other callings. For various reasons a large number of very able -men drifted into the learned professions or into business or other callings and were thus prevented from coming 'into parliament. The country to-day however is glad, I am Sure, to know that we have in this parliament again men of marked ability in all walks of life,-business men, professional men and men from the land. And when I speak of the representatives of agriculture I must say that conditions to-day are different from those that obtained twenty-five
The Address-Mr. Marcil

years ago. At that time we iiad no groups in parliament and the Department of Agriculture was administered not particularly by men who were well versed in the science of agriculture but sometimes by lawyers or doctors. Now, however, we have with us the educated farmer, the farmer who has made a special study of his particular science and who is able to give us the information we need in the interests of agriculture.
Canada is such a large country that it is almost impossible for one to become familiar with all the conditions that call for legislative action in this House. I have had the honour for a quarter of a century of representing a constituency by the Atlantic and 10 my shame I must admit that I have never been west of Winnipeg; 1 have never been across the Rocky Mountains or on the prairies. The reason is that, having spent the winter in Ottawa, I generally find it imperative that I should go to the Atlantic coast in the summer to recuperate if I hope to begin another session when the winter comes again. But although I have never been west I have met from the west, *as indeed from Ontario and other parts of the country, men who have done a real service to Canada, and I hope in this parliament, be sts duration long or short, that we shall have a courteous debate at all times. After all, our first duty is to our country, and although we may enjoy vigorous debate, so long as it is carried1 on in parliamentary language I think Canada will not suffer.
To show the progress that the Dominion has made, I may be permitted to refer to the Speedh from the Throne in 1901, which among other things mentioned the return of our contingent from South Africa, the coming visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, the display made by Canada in the cold storage section of the Paris exhibition, the development of the St. Lawrence, and the favourable increase in our trade. Twenty-five years have elapsed, and some of those subjects are still under discussion. At that time we discussed free trade and protection, moderate .tariff and high tariff, the condition of agriculture and so on, and I suppose we shall continue to discuss those subjects for many years to come. In 1901 the member for South Wellington, in his speech on the Address-which of course was a eulogy of the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-said that the McKinley tariff, which had then been brought into effect, was in some respects a blessing to Canada, an that it had put our people on their mettle and had brought us to realize that a high tariff in the United States was

not altogether an unfortunate thing for Canada. We had always deplored the high tariff of our neighbours, yet during the fifteen years of the Laurier regime-which to-day stands as the golden era of our prosperity- the McKinley tariff did not prevent this country from being prosperous. The member for South Wellington gave as a reason that our natural resources placed Canada at all times in a more favourable position than any other country in the world. I think he was right.
On that occasion Mr. Robert Borden-now Sir Robert Borden-made his debut as leader of the Conservative party in the House. Having been chosen only the night before as leader, he could not be expected to expound the .policy of his party, but he gave as a reason for our prosperity the fact that favourable .conditions were world-wide. Of course, that was true then, and is true now. When the world is prosperous Canada must necessarily be favourably affected; when the world is not prosperous naturally Canada will be more or less adversely affected. Canada has emerged from the war in a much better condition than any other belligerent country, and I believe every conscientious member will admit the correctness of my statement.
When in August, 1914, we were called here, at a few days' notice, to declare whether Canada should enter the war, I had no mandate from my constituency; the question had not been discussed at the general election in 1911. On that occasion we had discussed reciprocity and the naval question. As I say, we had no mandate to declare war in 1914, but it must be said to the credit of the parliament of that day that every member agreed that the moment war was declared upon Great Britain it was the duty of Canada to join the Mother Country, and we went voluntarily to her assistance without a single dissenting voice. That will always stand to the credit of Canada. To-day we are mourning the loss of Cardinal Merrier. During the war no man played a greater part or gave a more inspiring example of devotion to God and country than did the heroic cardinal of Belgium. I had .the honour shortly after the war of meeting him at the city hall in Montreal, when the city greeted him on his way to the United States. I informed him that Canada had raised, equipped and sent overseas 600,000 men, and had incurred a war debt of nearly a billion dollars. His Eminence was dumbfounded at the extent of our participation in the war, and almost with tears in his eyes he thanked those who were present

The Address-Mr. Marcil
for Canada's assistance to Belgium in her glorious struggle against her invaders.
The war period was a trying one to Canada, but it brought a transient prosperity- trade boomed and everybody sold his products at a very high price. In my own constituency farm produce sold at whatever prices the owner cared to fix. But during the war several eminent authorities, more especially Sir George Foster, warned us repeatedly that there would be a period of deflation after the war and that we should be prepared for that financial stringency and commercial depression. It came after the signing of the Armistice and was at its worst, perhaps, in 1921. We have not got over its effect yet, but we are gradually emerging into a better position, and gooner than anyone expected. I have read somewhere that after Waterloo it took twenty years for Europe to right itself economically. If we get through in half that time I think we will be doing well. I see that the total trade of Canada in 1920 was $2,639,726,135; in 1921 it dropped to $1,616,172,764; in 1922 there was a slight increase, $1,660,587,106; in 1923 there was a still further increase, $1,911,559,638; in 1924 it dropped slightly, $1,878,756,189, and in 1925 it made a splendid recovery, $2,171,366,141. This shows that Canada at the present time is fairly prosperous. Our balance of trade is $400,000,000 to the good, and it is increasing steadily. Of course, there will be complaints from some quarters-from the manufacturers and from the farmers. Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to say that if we had no troubles in this world we would not need governments, for governments existed to right troubles. When complaints do not come from Cape Breton, they come from British Columbia. In the old days many and many a night have I spent in this chamber listening to debates on the oriental question; that no longer troubles us at it did in those days. Latterly we have been giving more attention to western affairs. The great leader of the Conservative party at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was completed said the west was destined to become the granary of the world. And after all, the west is the great hope of this country. Canada will never occupy the position she should in relation to her neighbour .to the south unless we fill up our vast western spaces. But- a small portion of the west is settled at the present time, and if we are to solve our difficulties and, as mentioned in the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), provide employment for our industrial population, we must
develop the enormous agricultural resources of the west, because agriculture is the basis pf everything.
What was the outstanding feature of the success of the Laurier policy for fifteen years? It was the immigration policy put into effect by Clifford Sifton, a western man, by which he brought to the west over a million people, making a million nevi customers for Canada, a million people to duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate the orders sent to manufacturers in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, and other manufacturing centres. These manufacturers worked night and day at that time, and I hope the time is not far distant when that condition will again prevail. All those who know the present state of affairs know that Canada is now on a fair way to prosperity. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington read an extract from a speech by Sir Herbert Holt, president of the Royal Bank. If you listened to those words, you will remember that Sir Herbert Holt concluded by saying that to come to the relief of industry in Canada there must be a scientific study of the tariff. That is what the present administration proposes to do, among other things. The Speech from the Throne deals with various other matters which have been before us for a long time. One of these I will mention, the consolidation of departments. The Canadian taxpayer is immensely interested in the income tax and other taxes which he has to pay. Our taxation here has not been reduced as has that of the United States and England. We are still paying a very high rate. The cost of government-it is the fault of confederation, if you like-to the people of Canada is very high. Apart from our federal government we have nine provincial governments and a thousand municipal governments. We 'have in our administration a number of departments which should have disappeared a long time ago; many of them should be merged because they do similar work. I am glad to know that the government is going to take up the matter of merging some of these departments in order that the cost of government may be reduced.
A simplified form of accounting is also proposed. It has always been a great drawback to the Canadian student of our system of government to be confronted with these huge blue books, appearing twelve months after the fiscal year has ended, the French translations of which sometimes do not appear for another twelve months. Very often the ordinary Canadian is not familiar with t'he cost of government and with the economic conditions under which he lives, and if the
The Address-Mr. Marcil

government can bring about a simplified system of making this information ipublie they will have rendered valuable service, because the salvation of a country depends upon the public interest taken in its government. Nations have the government they deserve, a wise man has said. We know that in every general election, sometimes half the voters do not even go to the polls. Since the female suffrage has been added things have been made worse, probably because in our province at least we had not been accustomed to it. The legislature of Quebec rejected it, believing that the French-Canadian mother, with a reputation for raising ten or twelve children, was busily enough engaged in home duties without going into the streets to discuss politics. But although Quebec rejected that measure, it has been imposed upon us by a majority vote of parliament; it is now tihe law of the land and must be respected. In a mixed constituency a large number of the English women go to the polls and vote-they were accustomed to doing so during the war; but in our French municipalities the women do not go to the polls in such large numbers. Be sides, the granting of the vote to women has not been looked upon with favour in Quebec. However it exists, and if the government can foster public interest and provide every voter in Canada, male or female, with the opportunity of becoming better acquainted with our system of government and with the cost of government, it will be doing a great work. We would then have a barometer by which we could gauge public opinion. If we can have the figures plainly set forth showing the cost of government in a manner easily understood, we will go far towards arousing public opinion. You know that when a man's pocket is affected he becomes more interested.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
T>'e House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MARCIL:: Mr. Speaker, there is a
paragraph in the Speech from the Throne to which I wish to allude in particular, as it is of great importance to the province of Quebec. It is the one relating to repatriation and reads as follows:	(
Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population, to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers *possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on Crown Lands.
[Mr. Marcil.3
As far back as I can remember the flow of immigration to and from the United States has been chronic. When we consider that there are between two and three million Canadians in the United States, it is evident that this movement has been going on for many years. I remember many years ago attending a banquet of the Canadian Club in Boston, at which Curtis Guild, the Governor of Massachusetts, told us he was of the opinion that there were in Boston enough Canadians and descendants of Canadians, especially from the Maritime provinces, to elect the mayor. That state of affairs has always existed and always will exist in some degree; for individuals will go from one country to the other according to the advantages the respective countries offer. There was a time without a doubt in the United States after the war when that country offered great opportunities, and many Canadians took advantage of that state o*f affairs and crossed the line. Though many .of them have since returned, I hope that a sincere effort will be made by the government to bring back as many Canadians as possible, and more especially to bring back to the land; for that is the salvation of the country. In order to do that, the country must be made more attractive. The provinces are doing their fair share in this respect, and the Dominion parliament some years ago voted considerable sums of money to that end.
To make the country attractive you must have, first, good roads. You must have good communications, easy access to the city and to the markets. Then you must have such other facilities as the provinces can afford; and in that regard the Dominion dhould try to assist as far as possible. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) can do a very important work in this respect. In our province he is -working hand in hand with the provincial government to further agriculture in Quebec.
I was glad to learn from the figures quoted this afternoon by the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington that Quebec leads the Dominion in the quantity of butter and cheese manufactured. The butter factory has become a regular institution in each of our parishes. The farmers get together, take in their milk, and go in for butter making. Quite a number of them have gone in for cheese making as well, but butter seems to be the chief production of the rural parts. It sells readily, brings ready cash, and refrigeration facilities are always available. Transportation facilities are provided by the Intercolonial and other railways, and a consider-

The Address-Mr. Marcil
able sum of money has come to the fanners in this way. But other means must be taken to try and keep our farmers on the land.
I see that one paragraph in the Speech from the Throne announces that:
With a view to affording such remedies as may appear to be practical and appropriate, the government also propose to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims that the rights of the Maritime provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial Railway have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration, and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially, in their position under confederation.
This investigation should not be limited to the Maritime provinces, but should extend to the eastern part of Quebec, the maritime part of Quebec and the Gaspe Peninsula, which you, Mr. Speaker, and I have had the honour to represent in this House for many years. We have a large and growing population, and the problem is to keep the boys at home. Give them remunerative work at home, work on the land; provide them with easy access to markets, and that will be the solution of many of our difficulties. If we can keep them on the land and secure markets for them, we shall have made immense progress. Important as immigration from outside may be,
I have no doubt that a Canadian would be preferred to one of any other nationality, because he is to the manner born; he is a native of the country and has the traditions of his native land at heart. We have had very few immigrants from Europe, France and Belgium, since the war, though these countries had previously been sending a good many people to our shores. We are getting some from the British Isles. The government has entered into an arrangement with the British government and the Canadian railways in reference to bringing immigrants to Canada, and the result should be a desirable increase of our population. Hon. members must never forget that if we can increase the trade of the country and secure immigration, Canada will be on the high road to prosperity. Anything that will tend in that direction will be furthered by the government. In the appointment of the commission which has been suggested they have taken a forward step and the matter will be fully considered.
The right hon. leader of the opposition made a statement of interest to the farmer when he said that if he came into office he would endeavour to equalize the American and Canadian tariffs on agricultural production. There is no doubt that on some articles the American tariff appears to be much higher than ours, but it is difficult for a layman to express an opinion offhand as to exactly what should be done; only those who are experts
can deal properly with the situation. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington seems to be of the opinion that the farmer should be given a preference wherever it is possible to give it to him-not only the farmer, but the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian people in general. Well, we have had that policy for years. Tariffs are not unchangeable; they are subject to alteration from time to time. We may have a high tariff against a certain article for a time, but it may be changed in a year or two. If a foreign country can give you something that you consider worth having, you may have to alter your tariff. Tariffs may be changed according to the situation and policies of other countries. I believe in the stability of tariffs, because when men invest their money in an enterprise they want to feel assured that they will receive a fair return for their investment.
There are other matters dealt with in the Speech from the Throne to which I do not wish to refer at any length, but I think there are one or two paragraphs which should not be passed over.	[DOT]
I will refer now to the clause relating to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
I have had the advantage of hearing this matter discussed ever since it was brought up in parliament many years ago. The idea at that time was to set aside a part of the prairies, sell the lands, and with the pt.meeds of the sale to construct the railway. I am not in a position to say whether the proceeds would be enough to cover the expenditure, but the amount of money which has been expended on that enterprise has been so great that I think we are bound to complete it. I am convinced, therefore, that the government is taking the right course in the matter, and probably my hon. friends opposite would do the same if they were in power. The farmer in western Canada is a long distance from the seaboard; he is entitled to all the help and assistance we can give him, and he should be afforded an outlet for his products. In the old days we had only Montreal as an outlet. Now we have Vancouver, and later on we will have the Hudson Bay railway, for whatever it is worth.
The problem of preventing the diversion of grain through American channels has been a subject of discussion for many years, and it still remains unsolved. The construction of the Transcontinental railway in northern Ontario and Quebec was taken up in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's time, the idea being to develop the northern part of the country; to give the country a greater width, so to speak; to develop the immense resources of
The Address-Mr. Marcil

northern Ontario and Quebec, and finally to give an outlet to the west. It seems unfortunate that a railway constructed at such tremendous cost and connecting the west with such a fine port as the city of Quebec is not utilized more than it is. The government would be well advised if they took this matter up in earnest with a view to enabling Quebec and the other provinces to take advantage of the facilities afforded by this great railway. I have a great deal of sympathy for the western farmer. He labours hard; he places his crop in the ground and he has to contend with many obstacles. If he sells locally a portion of his crop and exports the remainder of it, he comes in competition with the market of other countries, and the prices are fixed there and not here. He is entitled, I say, to all the country can give him; and in this scheme of immigration and repatriation, if the government is able to offer inducements to bring people into this country, the result will be more conducive to the success of the farmer than anyone else. It is all right to advertise to bring people out to western Canada, but you must be sure they will be able to make a living. In the old days, when Sir Clifford Sifton was a member of the government, we were giving away free homesteads near the railway and offering other attractions, but many of those advantages cannot be had to-day. I think Canada should be prepared to make a sacrifice, even in respect to the Canadian National Railways, in order to further the opening of the west.
The present government are entitled to credit for the way they have handled the Canadian National Railways. At the opening of the last parliament public opinion w^ much divided on that question. Many people from Quebec were opposed to the public ownership of the railway; others from Ontario and Quebec were in favour of it, but we effected a compromise-that was the only basis on which the matter could be arranged. Being a confederation, we called upon everybody to compromise. We all said, "Let us give the Canadian National Railways a fair trial. Let us select an efficient man who can take hold of it and make it a success." Sir Henry Thornton has made good under the trying circumstances in which he has been placed. I cannot resist the temptation of paying my tribute in this connection to the father of the House, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who in the olden days was the lone voice in the desert in his advocacy of public ownership, day in and

day out. He advocated public ownership of the hydro-electric proposition in Ontario; and I think we should congratulate the Ontario government on the success of their operations in that respect.
The country is now passing through a trying ordeal, but it will come through successfully. People are looking to the west. The right hon. leader of the government went west to secure a seat. He went there as a connecting link, as a messenger of peace between the east and the west. One thing that would be fatal to this country would be a division between the east and the west. The prosperity of western Canada will inure tc the prosperity of Ontario and all the other eastern provinces, so that we must bring about a closer understanding. I am glad, therefore, that the Prime Minister has decided to ask the electors of Prince Albert to return him to this House, so that he may be in a position to give the west in his own person a perfect guarantee that he is prepared to take up and solve their problems; because without doubt it is in the western part of Canada that the greatest of our problems lies at the present time.
I do not wish to delay the House at any greater length, and I will close by referring to the first two paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne. In one, allusion is made to the election of a Canadian to be president of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations. At a moment when the United States has practically decided to enter the League of Nations, the fact that a Canadian-a citizen of the province of Quebec, I am glad to say; a man who has given long and faithful sendee in the Senate of Canada-should be found worthy of occupying that high position is an incentive to all Canadians to put forth efforts to show the world that Canadians are qualified to fill any position that presents itself.
In the Speech from the Throne of twenty-five years ago, the Address in reply to which was moved by the hon. member for South Wellington and seconded by myself, the first paragraph was an allusion to the death of Queen Victoria, probably the greatest woman who ever occupied the throne of Great Britain. It was during her reign that responsible government was established in Canada. In the first paragraph of the present Speech from the Throne we are called upon to-day to mourn the death of another distinguished woman, the widow of Edward VII, the peacemaker, the man who created the entente eordi-ale between France and England. Foreseeing what might happen some day, he brought

The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
about a better understanding between those two great nations. The understanding had its effect in Canada; and a better feeling has prevailed in this country since English and French soldiers fought and bled side by side on the battlefields of France and Flanders in defence of civilization and humanity. In this the beginning of a new parliament we should do all we can to bring about a better understanding among our Canadian people, to cause them to become better acquainted with each other, to destroy provincial barriers so far as possible, and thus to bring about the advancement and prosperity of this great Dominion.


Mr. S. G. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, relying upon the patience and indulgence traditionally accorded to new members in this House of Commons, I wish for a few moments to deal with the motion before the Chair. At the outset I desire to concur in the many expressions of confidence and pleasure in your appointment to the high position that you now hold. It is indeed a pleasure to me to congratulate you, Sir, at this time.
I also wish, as is customary, to pay my tribute to the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I find that the mover of the motion has connections in our part of the country. He told us that he has farming connections in Alberta, and in fact near my own constituency. I am glad to know this, and I hope other hon. gentlemen will likewise come west and, if they cannot live there, establish some connections whereby they can learn more about the ways of the west-how easy it is to make and to lose money there, and' all those other things that go to make up western Canadian life. In emphasis of that, I notice that Lady Byng, in a speech delivered before a large audience recently, stated1 that people could not speak authoritatively of Canadian conditions unless they visited the western part of this Dominion. She was very generous in that respect. She pointed out that the cost of travel was great, but she went on to say that many people took extended trips to other parts of the world before visiting our own western provinces. It is desirable that people of other parts of the country should visit western Canada, because it is difficult for those who live only in the eastern provinces to know much of the west, and vice versa. I am not criticizing those who have not been there; I am giving simply the general view that it is desirable that we should know more about other provinces than the one in which we happen to live.
I should like to refer to all the excellent speeches that have been delivered during this debate, but that would be impossible. I wish, however, to congratulate the leaders of the different groups on their addresses, all differing in many ways, but all of some virtue. The members of the opposition, if they have not ability in building up a policy, have ability in debate, and we have heard some excellent speeches from members of the Progressive group who seem to be at home and able to think on their feet. I understood last night that I was going to follow an old parliamentarian in this House, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and I listened very attentively to his address. As he went on I thought he was almost qualified to come over to this side of the House. With many of his remarks I agree in a measure, such as those he made respecting small banks and so on; they were at least worth debating. But he spoiled his argument at one stage when he brought forward wThat I presume to be the policy of hon. members on that side of the House, namely, the amalgamation of the Canadian Pacific with the Canadian National Railways-there we parted company. I do not think that can ever take place.
To-day I looked forward to the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), because one of the great pleasures of a new member in this House is this: He has read or probably should have read reports of speeches of members, but he wishes to see how the performances of those who have represented the people in this House for many years compares with the reports of the speeches we read in the newspapers and Hansard. My impression of the hon. gentleman was that he was a warrior, so to speak; but to-day as I listened to his speech his words were almost mellow, like ointment. They were almost the opposite of what I expected, and I wondered when he spoke if he had been disciplined by members of the opposition and warned that he should not, at this session and in future sessions, speak as of yore. He quoted a beautiful piece of poetry which he said was composed by one of his talented daughters, and I came to the conclusion that as that was probably the best part of his speech, his whole speech had been made up by her. After that I lost all interest in his remarks, although in saying that I do not mean to offer any disparagement of his talented daughter, for whom I wish every success.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). Nova Scotia is my native province and my father and
522	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
other relatives still live there. The hon. member and myself were good friends for many, years, and I listened with much interest to his speech. He has a good grasp of the politics and different events in Nova Scotia; but it is difficult for me to understand many things that happen in that province. I lived there until I was about thirty years of age, and I cannot get myself to believe or conceive that the people of that province have sent those eleven disciples who get up one after the other and express themselves as Simon-pure followers of the Conservative party. I cannot understand Nova Scotia as it exists to-day if that is the case. I can remember the province on the sea where we traded with the West Indies, South America and all the other ports, and I cannot understand the people of that province believing-if they do believe

in this " brick for brick " retaliation policy of the opposition. I hope that I shall become more intimately acquainted with my friends from Nova Scotia and get to appreciate their point of view more fully, for I certainly cannot understand how the people of that province can possibly find any pleasure in hearing themselves represented as pure and unadulterated Conservatives. I rather think that those writers who tell us of the state of feeling down there have exaggerated, and no doubt after the people have had an opportunity to read the speech of the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Duff) they will get a fairer idea of things.
I have no desire to touch upon any matters of controversy but I recall that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in defining his position made the statement that his policy had been endorsed throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. Living as I do in the province of Alberta, I cannot accept that opinion. The province of Alberta, together with Saskatchewan and Manitoba, comprises a great width and an equally great breadth; that area extends for about a thousand miles east and west and about a thousand miles north and south. The right hon. gentleman can hardly suggest therefore that in that extensive territory his policy has received any very wide support. Let us take an analysis of the vote in the last election as the criterion. In Manitoba the Conservatives had 70,264 as against a total vote of 98,732 cast in favour of the other parties, Liberal, Progressive, Labour and Independant; in Saskatchewan the Conservatives received 57,512 as against 146,987 given in favour of the rest; and in Alberta the Conservatives got 51,114 while the others combined received 109,995.
[Mr. S. G. Tobin.J


An hon. MEMBER:: What about further
west?


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: I shall come to that in a moment. So that the Conservatives received in those three provinces a total of 178,890 as against 355,714 votes which the other parties combined received. Added together the votes cast for the Conservatives and for the other parties total 534,604, the Conservatives' share of 178,890 votes being 33 per cent of the whole vote. Now if the Conservative vote in these three provinces represents only 33 per cent of the total, I cannot see how the 'right hon. gentleman can very well claim that his policy was fully endorsed in that great district. And we must recognize that the territory that can produce some 400,000,000 bushels of wheat is a section of Canada that must be reckoned with. Someone suggests that I go further west. I did not intend analysing the vote given in the west but I may be allowed offhand to make a comparison in regard to the constituency of my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). In 1921 he had a majority over all others of 3,089, while in the election of 1925 there was a plurality against him, so that the vote was not as strong for the Conservative party in that instance as it was in 1921. I mention -this fact merely because someone suggested that I draw comparison further west.


Mr. STEVENS:: In justice and in order to be quite accurate my hon. friend might state the full facts regarding British .Columbia. There are ten Conservatives from that province now instead of seven.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: As I say, I referred to the hon. member's constituency simply on a suggestion. I find also that in 1921 the total Conservative vote in that province was greater than all other votes while in the last election it was smaller. These are the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon, friend is wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Nova
Scotia?


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: Nova Scotia I have already referred to; and in any case there are things I have heard in regard to that province that are past my understanding. Nova Scotia is my native province, and much as I should like to discuss it I must proceed just now.
In considering the Address a number of hon. gentlemen have taken the occasion to refer to their own constituencies, and as mine is one of the new ridings of Alberta perhaps I may be allowed to mention it briefly. In the first place I want to locate it so that hon. gentlemen may know exactly where it

is. Everyone is of course acquainted with the city of Edmonton. The district of AVetaskiwin begins at the city limits of Edmonton and extends south some seventy-five miles and east and west about seventy-five miles, covering an area of about 5,625 square miles. The railroad from Edmonton to Calgary passes through the district, and we have a service of from six to eight trains a day on the Calgary and Edmonton railway, a branch of the Canadian Pacific. The district is well served by railways to the east but the service westward is bad. There is a new railway in course of construction from Lacombe in a northwesterly direction over a circuitous route. It is being built by the provincial government and an additional twenty miles is now being built. It has always been my hope that one or other of the great transcontinental lines would take over the project, complete it, and carry it on as a part of its system. In this constituency, of which I am proud to be the representative, there are a number of thrifty towns along the line of the Calgary and Edmonton railway and we have one of the finest mixed farming countries in the Dominion. We have also a number of excellent lakes, among the finest in western Canada, the Sylvian, Gull and Pigeon lakes. Those who are fond of angling will find it a delight to visit the district, and I can welcome any Nimrod who is not afraid to face a moose, any number of which may be found in the western part of the constituency. AVe have also a fine experimental farm at Lacombe, a branch of the Dominion experimental farm, wdiich is doing splendid work. It served an eminently useful purpose when the newcomers were there and it did excellent work in the transition period between grain growing and mixed farming. At the present time all varieties of experiments are carried out on the farm.
The following is a list of the number of plots on which field records were kept during the season of 1925:
Cereals:
First generation selections.. .. 770 Second generation selections.. .. 150
New introductions	145
Variety tests, large plot*s.. .. 138 Variety tests, rod	row plots.. 528	1731
Field Husbandry:
Cultural experiments	475
Rotation experiments	50	plots in 15
rotations. 531
Forage Crops:
Annual hays	 17
MUlets	 13
Grasses	 48
Legumes	130
Sunflower selections varieties.. 140
Corn	  132
Roots	 276	761
The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskivnn)
Miscellaneous:
Smut control experiments.. .. 24 Influence of environment.. ..	9
Rust control experiment.. .. 47 Potatoes	 72	152
I also noticed the number of varieties of field crops. These were:
Varieties
Wheat	 107
Oats	 86
Barley	  42
Peas	 37
Flax	 3
Buckwheat	 2
Winter wheat	 5
Rye, winter & spring	 2
Rye Grass	 2
Brome	  1
Timothy	 3
Blue grass	 1
Aifalfa	* ..	9
Sweet clover	 5
Alsike	 1
White clover	 5
Red clover	 12
Corn	 30
Sunflowers	 9
Sugar beets	 8
Carrots	 11
Turnips	 20
Mangolds	 32
Potatoes	 35
Millets	 9
Out of these selections they were experimenting on 1,022. I merely mention this to show the amount of work that is going on there and to indicate to what extent advice is available to the farmers. AYhen last I visited the farm I was informed that there were 475 different methods of soil cultivation under test, as well as 15 varieties of rotation crops. There is absolutely no question about the value and extent of the information which the settlers get from this farm, either in the form of the annual reports, seasonal pamphlets or correspondence. The superintendent showed me that in 1925 he had received about 6.000 letters and sent out 7.000. and that about ten farmers a day on the average visited the farm. In addition the staff often give lectures at country places and farmers' meetings.
I wish to refer for a moment to an important subject mentioned in the Speech from the Throne-transportation. Although I may appear to be speaking more particularly of western conditions, I hope to demonstrate to the House before I have finished my remarks on this subject that I am considering the whole Dominion. For a long time, as hon. members know, the west stood still. Although the Pacific ocean is only 750 miles from our door, no grain was moving westward, and we began to wonder, Sir. whether the country was wrong or. whether fundamentals were
524	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
wrong. We are still satisfied that the country is all that it is supposed to be, but we have come to the conclusion that the fundamentals in some respects were wrong. What was wrong? The high cost of transportation to and from the Pacific coast. In 1922, and again in 1923, when freight rates were reduced, grain began to flow to the Pacific seaboard, and to-day a different condition prevails in the west. The farmers there are regaining their courage. Not that they wish all their grain to go westward. There will always be a dividing line, on one side of which the grain will flow west and on the other side east. This line will be changing as a consequence of crop or trade conditions, as for instance congestion at one terminal or the other.
We are enjoying fairly good freight rates now on grain and grain products westward. From Edmonton or Calgary to the Pacific coast the rate on wheat is 21 cents per 100 pounds; from the same points to Fort William it is 26 cents per 100 pounds. If the rate structure were on an absolutely just basis the former rate should be 20 cents, but we are not finding fault so long as we as making progress. But after we get to Fort William all is chaos with respect to rates. From Edmonton to Fort William, a distance of 1,250 milles, the rate, as I have said, is 26 cents per 100 pounds; thence to Montreal, about 1,020 miles, it is 34 cents per 100 pounds. Hon. members have been discussing whether grain should go to Quebec or to Montreal. Well, if our rate over the Transcontinental section of the Canadian National is to continue to be prohibitive, how can we expect grain to flow to either of those ports? If we want grain to go over that line we must give it a chance- the rate must be reasonable. We could not send gTain to the Pacific coast when the rates were too high; there was no more chance of sending it westward than if we had no railway at all. How can we expect grain to go over the Transcontinental on a rate of 34 cents for a little over a thousand miles as against the rate of 26 cents for the 1,250 miles separating Edmonton from Fort William? If we really want our grain to go eastward over our own lines to Canadian ports a reasonable rate must be struck, otherwise it will find a cheaper outlet.
It would be very improper for me to make any comparison between Montreal and Quebec, but as I see it the better of the two ports would be Quebec, because on the eastward haul Quebec is 60 miles shorter on the Transcontinental haul and is 170 miles nearer the Atlantic. Once we get our grain to either of those ports

we must depend for ocean transportation on liners or tramp steamers. When imports were greater than exports the liner came in with a cargo and returned with another cargo of mixed freight. To-day she sometimes looks for grain. If one of these liners is not available we have to rely on the tramp steamer, and if she is looking for a one-way cargo naturally she will prefer to get a cargo in Quebec or along the coast and thus save the 170-mile trip to Montreal. Therefore we must very seriously consider the whole subject of transportation if we are to send our grain eastward over an all-Canadian route. If the advantage is in favour of Portland and other Atlantic ports of the United States then it will certainly flow that way. I find in the 1923 report of the Department of Commerce of the United States that in that year New York got 63,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat; Philadelphia, 23,000,000; Baltimore, 15,000,000; Norfolk. 12,500,000; Portland, 7,750,000; Boston, 7,000,000.
I contend, Sir, that we are entitled to an equalization of freight rates east as well as west, and then the farmer's grain will be sent over whichever route is the more economical. Our railways were built to serve the people, not. to exploit them. I have no fault to find with the management of the Canadian National Railway's or of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but first and foremost they are railway men, and naturally they view the question of freight rates purely from the point of railwaying rather than from the wider point of view of their effect on the national w'elfare. Therefore in our desire to build up a united Canada we are, as legislators, I submit, properly functioning in advising the railways how they should operate their roads in the best general interests of the public. I care not what government was in power when the railway was built from Winnipeg to Quebec. What I am concerned with is that this line was built primarily for the purpose of carrying the grain of the western prairies to the eastern seabord by the most direct route, with the best levels; and we have these conditions in this north line of the Transcontinental. But if we build railways and then make rates prohibitive we are not going to use them as they were meant to be used. In the line under consideration we want the minimum rate, not the maximum. I notice in looking at the rates on grain that the average rate per bushel from Fort William to Buffalo is 2.88 cents and the average rate to Port Colbome, a Canadian port, 3.46 cents. These places are

The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
just a stone's throw apart as compared with the total distance. The figures I gave were the average rates for 1924, and can be found in the report of The Grain Trade of Canada, 1924, at page 158, table 113. That looks verj much like a preference in favour of Americai ports, if I read it aright. I believe that before a committee of this House some two years ago Mr. Symington stated that grain was carried on the North Transcontinental line to Quebec or Montreal at the rate of six cents per bushel, and that the railways did not suffer a loss. To-day the rate is over three times that amount. Rates have been lowered elsewhere, but not there. I have tables here showing the rates to St. John, the United Kingdom and continental Europe, with which I shall not trouble the House. You will find that sometimes the rate for long distance is less than that for a shorter distance, depending on the trade conditions. There are many peculiar things in connection with the grain trade. If we send a carload of grain from Alberta to the coast the rate is twenty-one cents per 100 pounds, if the grain is for export. If it is for use in Vancouver or somewhere on the coast, the rate is nearly twice as great. It is .argued-and argued correctly- that you can send grain to Japan or China at a cheaper rate than you can send it for home consumption to the province of British Columbia. No doubt that is the ride on all railways, but why should there be such a wide spread? Why should not the people of British Columbia, where there is a large potential market for poultry feed, not be able to buy grain from the prairie provinces at a reasonable rate? The freight on a box of apples from British Columbia, bought on the prairies, costs as high as 125 per cent more than the freight on a similar box of apples shipped a similar distance in the eastern provinces. We do not understand why this should be, but those are the facts. But in spite of all this, western Canada is succeeding; and I want to see the freight rates equalized mile for mile.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I mean to speak very briefly of some of the matters dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. Reference is made to our growing prosperity. Hon. gentlemen opposite criticize this statement, but let me refer to conditions in the years 1913 and 1914. Conditions later were not comparable because of the war, but from 1921 on I believe we can truly say that there has been growing prosperity. I would refer to the speech made during the budget 9 p.m. debate of that year by the then Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I will just give his words as he outlined the situation, reading from page 3121
of Hansard. It sounds almost like the '"'whisper of death." The hon. gentleman said:
We in Canada have a great task before us. The world is sadly out of tune. May we help in restoring harmony? Trust and confidence are sadly lackring. Class interests are advanced with selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellow-men is weakened. Doubt of the future is often voiced. And what is t-he trouble? The sun still shrines-the rivers still sparkle-our lands are as great and fruitful as ever-our resources just a3 vast.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a real picture of conditions in 1921. The sun was shining, the rivers continued to flow and the lands were as fertile and vast as ever. Everything was moving, except the Conservative party and it was standing still. But what has happened since 1921? Read the reports of financial institutions, financial papers, life insurance companies, and so on, and you will find that we are in prosperous times to-day. The Canadian dollar is at par; stocks are buoyant; bonds are sought where they were not sought in 1821, and at better prices; the balance of trade is in our favour, and step by step since 1921 a favourable balance has been growing. I mean by that that the exports each year have increased over the imports in steady gradations. But, Sir, if you go back to the years 1911, 1912 and 1913, I say without hesitation and without fear of contradiction that during those years the trade balances against Canada were the worst in the history of the Dominion. You may search the records from confederation on and you will find that at no other time similar conditions prevailed. I will refer to these figures briefly, using as my authority the reports of the Department of Customs and Excise. In 1911 the total exports were $297,196,365, the imports $461,951,318, and the adverse balance $164,000,000, in round figures. In 1912 the total exports were $315,317,250 and the imports $547,482,190, with an adverse balance of about $232,000,000. In 1913 the exports amounted to $393,232,057, and the imports $675,517,045, with an adverse balance of about $282,000,000. I say again that in all the records I can find those are the worst years in the history of Canada in respect to trade. What ha3 happened since 1921? It has gone the other way, as I have already said. Hon. friends opposite tell us this is an accident or is due to Providence. Well, if Providence favours the Liberal party to that extent, let us not deny it. It may be that a government which looks after all classes of our people finds favour with Providence.
The Speech from the Throne also refers to the growth of agriculture and other basic industries. I find, Sir, that for the eight months

The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
ending November 25th of this year the agricultural exports amounted to $511,717,000, or 60 per cent of the total exports of the Dominion. That is an impressive fact; it shows clearly where agriculture stands in the economic structure of our Dominion. This will be of interest to the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). I remember the hon. gentleman stating that he did not care about the amount of exports but wanted to know what they were made up of. If 60 per cent of our exports is composed of agricultural products and animals and animal products, surely that should be a good answer; he cannot find fault with that. All groups in this House therefore must surely come to the conclusion that agriculture is a dominant force in our national progress, although to hear some hon. members speak, one would hardly think so.
Two hon. members have referred to the price of agricultural implements, and one compared prices in 1913 with those of 1925. Surely this is not fair reasoning. I do not need to *argue the point. One hon. gentleman said that when you lowered the duty the price went up. Then I suppose if we lowered it further, prices would go still higher.
Our manufactures and related industries have experienced a development not equalled in many years, as I am glad to note from the reports. If I could only make hon. gentlemen in all groups see that when the west is .economically sound the east is industrially busy, I should be satisfied to have accomplished that one thing. Tell us the number of bushels of grain that western Canada will produce, and the price per bushel, and we can predict with approximate accuracy just how much goods will be produced and sold in eastern Canada as a consequence. I have no quarrel with the manufacturers, but I do wish they could see that as the west develops so will they prosper; and it should be the duty of everyone to help the west get into its stride. What are the conditions out in the west? Go into the homes and you will find they have not all the comforts. There are lots of rooms in nearly all the homes that could do with more furniture, and more comforts generally. Three meals a day and a place to sleep does not make up the whole of life. Once western Canada prospers your troubles jn the east will be lessened, and lessened considerably. We need to bring more acreage under the plough in western Canada, because as yet the ground has only been scratched. First start to help the basic industries, and once they prosper the manufacturing industries will also prosper.

I am glad to see that our railways are showing increased earnings. In 1921 the Canadian National railway was referred to as a joke and a jest, but to-day it is one of the greatest railway systems on the American continent, closely approaching in efficiency and measuring up in every way to the Canadian Pacific railway-probably the greatest system in the world. Is not that something worth mentioning in this House? In 1921 the stock of the Canadian National railway was worthless, but to-day that road is one of the greatest railway systems on this continent. In the part of the country where I live we have more than a sentimental interest in the Canadian National railway. That part Of Alberta north of Red Deer could not exist as it does at the present time were it not for the Canadian National railway. We could not without it have the large number of towns west of Edmonton all along the line. Although we have deficits on the road we must remember the service it is rendering.
I am glad also to note that the Hudson Bay railway will foe completed. It is partly constructed now, and should be finished. It will help develop that part of the country, and be a help to the grain trade.
The Peace river country should also have an outlet. At present they have to bring their grain to Edmonton, and when it gets there it is just about as far from its natural market as when it left. An outlet should be provided to the Pacific coast. I would also like to see the Lacombe and Northwestern railway completed, and one of our large railway systems take it over.
I am glad to note that there has been a considerable reduction in expenditure and in taxation, and that there are to be further reductions. I believe in reductions in expenditure, but sometimes reductions are not economic; isometimes if carried too far they result in loss. The country demands services. I am going to ask for greater expenditure in my constituency of Wetaskiwin. We need more rural mail routes established there, and I hope the government will be able to deal in a fairly generous manner with us in that respect.
Reference has been made to a comprehensive immigration plan. I agree with those who say we should keep on the land those who are already there. I know this has been said before, but sometimes repetition is good, because it gets into the minds of the people what we are getting a.t. I believe that the Libera] policy as outlined in the Speech from the Throne is the best way of accomplishing what we desire in the matter of immigration. The Liberal policy of lower taxation and a

The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
lower tariff will do more to encourage people to stay on the land .than anything else that can be mentioned at the present time. Efforts should also be made to try and repatriate Canadians who have settled in other countries. Of course, it is difficult to bring back people who have established themselves in other lands, but some effort should be made along that line. I hope that if immigrants are brought into western Canada or into any part of Canada where there is agricultural land they will be real agriculturists, people who have followed agriculture and have the agricultural bent. If you bring on the land people who are used to getting pay cheque^ they will not make good on the farms. If we are going to bring people from other countries let us know that they are real agriculturists who understand farming, who believe in farming and who love the land. We have around the riding of Wetaskiwin a cosmopolitan people. We have a great many from Nova Scotia and other provinces, as well as many from the United States and other parts of the world. We have immigrants from Norway, from Sweden, from Germany, from Ukrainia, we have French-Canadians, and all are making a success in that part of the country. Those who are agriculturists, who come from foreign countries where they lived a rural life, will be satisfied if they find that the land in Canada will produce more than the land they left, .and they will stay in the country. But the man who knows nothing about agriculture will fail. The farmers here may say, "Why should you bring agriculturists to this country to compete with us?" But if an agriculturist comes here he is working in Canada and he is competing with other countries. Let them come here and work on the land rather than work on the soil in some foreign country. We have settlements in different parts of my riding where people who were agriculturists and took an interest in their work made a success, but those who were not agriculturists were not successful and did not stay with it. All the farmer asks on the land is an even chance. He asks for no tariff wall to be put up for him, and asks no drawbacks. He says, "I will compete with the world." That is the kind of agriculturist we want. We want the man who will say, "I can raise grain and I ask that no tariff wall be put up against me. Do not over-tax me; give us a chance in the world's market and we will succeed."
One of the hindrances to immigration- and we heard it to-day in this House-is the speeches made by public men, men in high places, telling the world that the people are
leaving Canada, that industries are going to pieces and that all is wrong in this country. That is one of the greatest drawbacks to immigration. When men like the right hon. leader of the opposition make statements in this House they go to all parts of the world, and when the man in a foreign Land reads the statement that the people are leaving our country and the factories are closing down, how can you expect him to emigrate to Canada.
I am glad to notice that there is a reference to rural credits in the Speech from the Throne. I believe something can be done in this line which will be of real assistance to the agriculturist. An agriculturist cannot start without money. When he goes to the bank and asks for credit, they ask him, "How much have you got? What are your assets?" When he tells them he has none they refuse him credit and he cannot make a commencement. If a man fails one year the bank will not carry him a second year. I say to-day the farmers of western Canada-in fact in any other part of Canada-must have a longer term financial service than the people who follow any other calling. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) in his speech was rather inclined to throw cold water on rural credits. He did not just say so, but he pointed out the things that happened in Alberta and Saskatchewan and stated that if the Conservative party had been in power in those provinces such things could not possibly have happened. I do not think the hon. gentleman quite knows the history of the Conservative party in Alberta. They had a fair representation in the Alberta legislature in 1905, but their numbers diminished year by year until in 1921 there was only one Conservative, and he ran and was elected as an independent. I say that the Progressives ought to he careful in that province as well as here, because the Conservatives will take advantage of any division that may exist. I advise hon. members to be careful and1 not to be led away by any offer made to them by hon. gentlemen to their right. I have heard Progressives say that in some cases a competitive business will come along and give you something cheap in order to put the other fellow out of business. In 1921 the Conservatives supported the Progressives in Alberta, largely because they wanted to create a condition whereby they, the Conservatives, could come back. But under present conditions they say: "Now that our opponents are divided into Liberals and Progressives we will put men into the field, and we may have a chance." They were not in the field in 1921,
528	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
but now they are acting on the principle of "divide and conquer."
I understand there is going to be a tariff advisory board; it has been promised in the Speech. There should be ample scope for a board of this kind to function for the benefit and general advantage of the Dominion. The major part of the tariff burden is borne by the agriculturist, and in selecting the personnel of the board this should be significantly kept in mind. I heard the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) telling us to keep things dear. I wonder how hon. gentlemen from Toronto can get up in this House and make such statements. We understand he wants things to be dear, but there are very few in this Dominion, surely, who want that.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Would the hon. member like to see bread dear? He does not answer.
M'r. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):	Some other
hon. member kindly answered it for me.


Peter McGibbon: No answer was given.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: 530	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tobin (Wetaskiwin)
section 107, were not clear and that they should be defined so as to make them easily understood by all who have to do with them, farmers, country buyers, the inspectors and the trade generally. As an example, take the definition of No. 1 northern wheat, which reads as follows: "No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat should be sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of 60 per cent of hard Red Fife wheat.". What is "sound" wheat? Is bran frosted wheat sound? Is slightly bleached wheat sound? Is wheat that has just started to sprout sound? And so the questions might be multiplied. Sound should be clearly defined for the purpose of the Act. And again, what is the meaning of "well cleaned"? How clean shall wheat be to be "well cleaned"? Does it mean that it shall be free from all admixtures of whatever kind, and fit to go to the rolls in the mill? Or is it to be only commercially clean, and. if so, what degree of cleanness shall it be? Or does well cleaned mean that it shall be free or nearly free from other grains such as barley, rye and oats? And what may the 40 per cent other than the 60 per cent of hard Red Fife wheat consist of? May it be soft wheats, white wheats, other varieties of wheats, durum wheats, or what must it be? And what degree of moisture may it contaiin to be fit for warehousing?
*The same complaint is made in regard to the other grades. This may be rather tedious to listen to, but I want to show how difficult it is to grade Wheat with any reasonable degree of satisfaction to the farmers. The report goes on to say:
The actual work of grading was complained against. The feeling was expressed quite commonly that the grading was done to favour some one other than the producers of the grain. It was felt that the grading was too severe, especially on bleached, sprouted and otherwise slightly damaged wheat. It was not easy for the producer to understand why certain causes should produce deterioration, and the grading officials were the ones who had to take the blame. There was no charge of dishonesty, but the thought expressed was that their proximity to the grain exchange, and their remoteness from the producer affected their judgment, to the advantage of the buyers of grain.
The moisture content of grain was a subject that brought forth a good deal of criticism, especially in the northern part of the grain belt, in connection with both wheat and oats. It was felt that the moisture limitations were too low and too rigid, and some lack of confidence in the testing for moisture was expressed. Emphasis was laid upon the matter of having this and other questions in respect to the condition and milling qualities of grain made the subjects of thorough scientific. investigation, in order to enable those in charge to establish, if possible, a system of grading, that will more nearly meet the conditions of grain production and marketing over so large an area as the three prairie provinces. Protein content and quality of gluten, moisture determination and moisture content for safe warehousing bleached wheat and wheat damaged by disease and frost were specially mentioned subjects for investigation. . . . Evidence showed that country elevator operators grade high and dock heavy, or grade low and dock light according as they require to use these devices for winning the favour of a customer.
I shall not quote further from the report, but I would ask hon. gentlemen to study Bulletin No. 97 issued by the Department of Agriculture, Cereal division, entitled "Re-
"V*-. S. G. Tobin.]
searches in Regard1 to ijlieat, Flour and Bread, by Charles E, Saunders, B.A., Ph.D., LL.D., Dominion Cerealist, assisted by the late Captain R. W. Nichols, F.C.S., and by P. Russell Cowan, B.S.A.
In this bulletin various subjects are treated, such as the method of milling, baking apparatus and method, giving a description and details, a description of the way in which baking strengths are arrived at, how many tests are made from each sample of flour, and so forth. The bulletin also goes into the matter of strong and weak flour, the variations that occur in the method of making baking tests and the handling of dough, and other equally interesting subjects. Now I come to the part I want to bring to your attention particularly. I desire to show how the grain is handled. There is a belief that dampness destroys the value of the grain, and it will be interesting to follow the experiments that are here outlined. They took five samples. One was the original sample, one was a sample that had been wet for five minutes, another had been damp for ten days, another for twenty days, and the fifth sample had been damp for twenty-seven days. These samples were made into bread, and this is the result of the tests. The effect of the moisture in destroying the brightness and richness	of
colour of the wheat was very marked, the samples kept damp for the longer times, when dried again, having almost the appearance of soft wheats. They did not, however, show any noteworthy decrease in the proportion of bread flour obtained from them. The action of the moisture caused a decided lowering of the weight per bushel in all cases. Allow me to quote further from the bulletin issued by our Department of Agriculture:
The later samples showed less water absorption in making dough, though the difference in this respect is trivial until No. 249 is reached.
That is the sample that was damp for twenty days.
In regard to volume, shape and texture, the bread made from the damp wheats was better the longer they had been exposed to the (supposed) adverse conditions until No. 249 was reached:	After this there
was a falling-off. The figures for baking strength (which are an attempt to express under one head the average conduct of the flour in all respects) show an unmistakable improvement up to No. 249. This sample, though slightly musty when very damp, showed no mustincss in the bread. Indeed the bread produced from it was distinctly the most attractive except that it had perhaps a somewhat less rich flavour than the bread made from the previous samples. No. 24S was distinctly superior to the original sample and No 247 slightly so.

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
No. 248 was the sample that had been damp for ten days, and No. 247 was the sample that had been wet for only five minutes. The bulletin continues:
The conclusion which must be drawn from this series of experiments is that dampness in wheat, although very injurious to its appearance, does not necessarily injure, but under some conditions actually improves the intrinsic value to the baker of the straight grade flour produced from it. Injurious action of the moisture would no doubt commence earlier at higher temperature than it did in this series of trials, but on the other hand it should be remembered that the amount of moisture present in the wheat in these tests was greater than that usually found in "damp" oi "tough" wheat.
Referring to the second and third series of tests, I find the following:
The second and third series of experiments with damp wheat were designed to ascertain the effects produced by repeated wetting and drying such as might occur when wheat is in stook for several weeks and is exposed to occasional showers.
This should be important to hon. gentlemen. The experiments demonstrated that wheat exposed to the atmosphere did not suffer any loss in bread-making value. We know the tremendous cuts in price that are made in the farmer's grain when it is supposed to be damp or tough, but here we have experiments carried on from year to year that go to show that the deterioration is not altogether what had been supposed, although it may take place in a certain measure. I will not at this time say anything further.
It is a great pleasure, Sir, to a western man, or indeed to any Canadian, to read the Speech from the Throne. It points to true progress. It is in every sense of the word a Liberal platform. It has not been challenged by anyone, not even by the right hon. leader of the opposition in his amendment. I believe that the legislative programme it forecasts will help the people generally of this country. True some hon. members are of opinion that there should be a duty on agricultural products. To support their argument they instance our imports from the United States of butter, cheese and flour; but these imports were so insignificant compared to our immense exports of the same products to our neighbours across the line that I am at a loss to understand their desire to forego this profitable business.
I submit, Sir, that if Canada is to progress and become the great country that we believe is her destiny we must put aside sectionalism and present a united front. The west and the east must cease their petty quarreling and compose their differences, and in a spirit of harmony work together for a united Canada. I recognize-we all recognize-that the western prairies are a dominant force in the pro-14011-341
gress of this Dominion. In a measure, Sir, the wheat markets of the world are conditioned by the prairies of western Canada. But we do not forget that not so many years ago no wheat was raised west of the Red river, and it is only by a measure of co-operation that we have reached our present stage of development. Therefore I say it is essential to our national greatness that we establish those points of contact which will enable all sections to co-operate with every other section in helping forward the development of the country. I repeat, Sir, that I am very pleased to endorse the Speech from the Throne and I believe that it contains one of the most encouraging legislative programmes that has been submitted to parliament in many years.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the Speech from the Throne is not much better or much worse than many other such speeches that have been presented to this House from time to time, but it will be a good speech if it is translated into legislation.
Notwithstanding the fact that some important problems are promised attention in the Speech from the Throne, one at least that I am very much interested in is not mentioned. We have heard a good deal about our "growing prosperity." I believe there is in Canada to-day a growing prosperity. In my intercourse with the farmers of my constituency during the last few months I found a feeling of hope and faith that was absent some eighteen months or two years ago. However, I should not like any hon. member to think that we feel the time is now come when we are ready for lavish extravagance. But I do think we are on the Upgrade.
Whether we like to call this a growing or a coming prosperity, I believe its causes are various. I think some recent legislation has helped to bring about the present condition of affairs. I am quite satisfied, for instance, that the re-establishing of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain and flour in 1922 helped us to some extent. I am also satisfied that the extension of those rates to the northern portions of Alberta in the amendment to the Railway Act last session was a further help. If I remember correctly, in the northern portion of the Peace River constituency the saving in freight rates amounts to 6 cents per 100 pounds on grain. There was also a judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners, given in connection with the westbound grain movement from the province of Alberta to the Pacific coast, which accounted for a further reduction of about one or one and a half cents per 100 pounds. These
532	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
are things which have helped. But I want to say that the biggest thing in connection with the growing prosperity of Canada is the people of Canada themselves-the people who, in spite of difficult times, bent their backs and applied their hands and heads to the difficult and sometimes dirty work of our nation; who have faced the duty of planting the crop witho'ut knowing whether there would be a profit or a loss or any Teturn at all. In my judgment the faith of our people and their willingness to work against discouraging conditions has been the chief factor in the growing prosperity which we have to-day.
Then we have in western Canada especially- I am not so familiar with the east, although I understand it is being used here also-co-operative marketing, another thing for which the initiative of the people was mainly responsible. I am not at all disputing the fact that we have had assistance from governments, and from individuals who were far-seeing enough to know that the prosperity of the farmers and other primary producers would be in the best interests of everybody concerned. But I maintain that the chief factor in connection with the pools of western Canada-the wheat pool and the new cattle, poultry and dairy pools- was and will be the faith and initiative of the farmers themselves. We should not fail to give thanks to Providence for a bountiful harvest. Without the rain and the sunshine our best efforts would absolutely fail to produce anything. We have just had one of the best Crops in the history of the country-the second best wheat yield. I find in the Ottawa Citizen on January 26 that the final report of the wonderful crop of 1925 gives the figure as 416,849,000 bushels. The value of the crop this year is in excess of a billion dollars, the only year since 1920 when that figure has been reached. I would like to read an editorial from the Montreal Gazette which expresses my thought possibly better than I can myself. It is an editorial in connection with the annual report of the Bank of Commerce, and it says:
The important position held by the Bank of Commerce, and Sir John Aird's high personal repate as a banker, lend authority to his pronouncements and add significance to the note of optimism which, in this instance, is the most noteworthy feature of his address. His views will go far in confirming the general impression that business conditions in Canada are in the way of betterment, and his expressions of confidence will, at the same time, tend to strengthen and accelerate the improvement. He attributes the upward movement to its true cause, a bountiful harvest and good market prices for the products of the farm. The advantages now in prospect, and partly realized, are the result of the fertility of the country and the industry of its people, coupled with a world condition governing the prices paid for the fruits of the soil, in the production of which this country so greatly excels.
fMr. D. M. Kennedy.]
We have a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the question of immigration. I believe that for the first time since 1921 the constituency which I represent is in a favourable position to receive immigrants on a basis under which they can reasonably hope to establish themselves without too much discouragement. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that in all our immigration literature we are very anxious to bring farmers to this country. I notice that we are not applying for certain other classes of people, and I believe the reason is that the farmers constitute the class in Canada most nearly operating under free trade conditions, and the furthest away from artificial stimulant. To the extent they rely on themselves, they are a real asset to the Dominion. It is very difficult for me to pee that an industry which can never learn to stand .on its own feet is much 10 p.m. other than a liability to Canada.
I am not very well satisfied with an immigration (policy over fifty per cent of the working out of which is handed over to organizations other than the government. We have the government immigration policy and we have the two railways each with its own immigration policy. I believe that all immigration to Canada should be under the direct supervision of the Dominion government, co-operating with the provincial governments vvherever they wish to take part. There is no doubt about the fact that unemployment and immigration are very closely linked together, and where you have settlers who come to Canada and do not make good, they fall back on the municipalities and provinces. I have never yet heard of a railway company-or the British Empire Steel Corporation, for instance-making any special grant to help the unemployed, who are dependent upon our cities or villages during the winter months. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought jt a rather ludicrous situation when we had the Deputy Minister of Immigration, if I remember correctly, employed at a higher salary to head the immigration department of the Canadian National Railways. I think the Minister of Immigration and his deputy should be the officials in authority and in control of this matter, so far as the Dominion is concerned. The Dominion government and the provincial governments have a direct responsibility with regard to immigrants who come to this country. They must see that the immigrants get reasonable treatment, and if they do fail the government will undoubtedly have .to take care of them in some manner, regardless of what agency brought them to this country. I am not in accord, Mr. Speaker,

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
with those who think that the only possibility of increased production in Canada, so far as agricultural products are concerned,'depends on an increase in the number of farmers. There is no doubt that, other things being equal, an additional number of farmers will mean increased production. Increased production in this country depends on a reasonable profit being secured as a result of that production. If wheat will remain at the present price for a period of years, other products will also remain fairly steady and we will have an increase in production if the farming population of Canada does not increase by so much as a single soul in the next five years. After all, with horses as cheap as they are to-day, with agricultural machinery plentiful, and with cheap land, it is not a hard thing to increase production. The question of taking off the crop in the fall, so far as grain is concerned, is not so much a question of obtaining extra farm help as a question of how long the threshing machines will run. In a short crop year ft may be ten days; a big crop may take thirty days; it is largely a question of keeping the power employed.
In the Speech fiom the Throne we find reference to keeping people on the land. After all, why do people leave the land? Why, it is for the simple reason that on the farm we have long hours, hard work, and often dirty work, and low rates of pay. I believe it takes as much brains and good judgment to run an ordinary farm as any other ordinary business or profession. In view of the returns we get from our farms we cannot afford to pay more than fifty or sixty dollars a month for help, and yet to run the farms successfully we need men at that business who, with no larger expenditure of body or of brain, can get in other lines of work anywhere from one to three hundred dollars a month. I do not know of any way to remedy that as long as we keep fostering other industries at the expense of agriculture. There may be some way of bringing the farmer up to the level of the others and I hope it can be done, but that is one of the difficulties. I repeat, one of the reasons why people leave the fawn is because of the long hours, the hard work, and often dirty work, and the small pay.
I wish to say something about the position of this group in this House in relation to the two parties. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I am as free as anyone in this House so far as my constituency is concerned. I notice that one of the papers the other day suggested that the great theme in this debate was: How I
won my constituency. I might change that theme for this:	How I nearly lost my constituency. I was elected by seventeen over my Conservative opponent and by forty-one over my Liberal opponent. The leader of the opposition the other day told us what the Prime Minister had said about us during the campaign. I have been informed that in the city of Edmonton he advised the people there, if they could not vote Liberal, to vote Conservative. I do not know whether that is true or not. But, after all, our Conservative friends were not so very considerate in what .they said about us. I think possibly the honours are just about even. In the Edmonton Journal, for instance, of October 21, 1925, in an advertisement signed by the Conservative Campaign Committee, I find this:
The Progressive party had its origin in the after-the-war period. The future historians of Canada will probably refer to this period as a time when a great many men lost their heads but not their hats, through which they did most of their talking. The Progressive party can get nowhere with its policy and is recognized as a failure. If the farmers of Alberta desire to have a voice in the framing of a national policy based on the principle of protecting every industry in Canada, the farmers of this country will be well advised to support the Conservative candidates,
And so on. After all, Mr. Speaker, I do not think ,the country is going to pay us $4,000 a session to come here and worry about the little slams we took at each other during the campaign, and if the Prime Minister did say that he could not get along with us, and that we were not any use, possibly it is something of a triumph to see that, after all, he does require us, and that we may get some legislation that is in the interests of the country. If we can demonstrate during this session that if we co-qperate with these people across the way-


Arthur Meighen: You did that in the last parliament.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -that we are not a hindrance to them, but rather a driving force, that will be just about as good an answer as possible to anything the Prime Minister may have said during the campaign. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) says that we did co-operate with the government in the last parliament, but the votes of this House will show that my right hon. friend and his supporters voted with the government, almost en bloc, oftener than we did.


Arthur Meighen: That is almost true, and the hon. member knows why, because the government abandoned their policy and came to ours.
534	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not going to say a word to that, except that it was perhaps rather ungrateful of the Prime Minister not to acknowledge that Conservative support during the campaign.
I was rather disappointed in the right hon. leader of the opposition when I heard him speak the other day. On the 2nd of June, 1925, he introduced into this House, by way of amendment to a motion to go into Supply a resolution, one paragraph of which I am rather interested in. It reads as follows:
That a tariff commission should be appointed representative of the three great classes of Canadian industry, agriculture, manufacturing and labour, and be entrusted with the duty of studying Canadian tariff problems in their every bearing and of making from time to time such recommendations to the government as it deems in the general public interest, with the reasons therefor, and with power also-
And this is what I am particularly interested in:
-where it finds unfair advantage is being taken of protective duties of making recommendations to be given effect to,
And so forth. What is taking unfair advantage of a protective tariff? If there is a rise in price when the protection is put on or is increased, is that taking an unfair advantage of a protective tariff? If prices are due for a drop and an increase in protection prevents that drop, is that taking unfair advantage? And could that be taken care of by a tariff commission? If the quality of the goods is lowered as a result of keeping out competition, is that taking advantage of a protective tariff? Would a tariff commission be able to consider, for instance, the efficiency of the management and the question of overcapitalization of an industry, or would it balk at such questions, pretty much as the railway commission had to when it was challenged with the condition of unnecessary or surplus railways in Canada? I think that is a real question, and I was very much disappointed that the leader of the opposition, instead of taking an hour and a half to explain to us that the Speech from the Throne could not mean very much after all because previous Speeches had not meant very much, did not take a quarter or half an hour, or even the whole hour and a half, to explain how a tariff commission can prevent a protected industry from taking advantage of the consumers of this country. Because if it can be done, I believe there is a possibility of reconciling the free trade sentiment with the high protectionist sentiment in this country.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that as the government intend to block their own Address

for a day or sc longer, they might do that. They are appointing a tariff commission also.


Charles A. Stewart: Not for the purpose my hon. friend suggests.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
Mr. BOURASSA:: We had better have a
trembling government.


An hon. MEMBER:: An independent government.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not going to discuss the question of unemployment in Ontario further than to say that according to the report of this commission unemployment became really acute about the middle of 1913. Taking 1913 as a year when there was very little unemployment, and accepting it as representing 100 per cent employment, in 1914 there was 11 per cent unemployment in the Dominion. According to the same report trade depression in Great Britain seldom causes more than 5 per cent. This commission was composed of some very good Conservatives. They did not say much on the question of increases in the tariff, possibly because they were reporting for the provincial government, but they recommended a proportional national development-a development where we would put money into industries that would give us quick returns rather than embark on heavy capital expenditures for railways and industral plants. The commission pointed out that we had ample labour, plenty of capital and an industrial plant that was $200,000,000 in excess of what Canada required, and possibly sufficient railways to serve three times the population. Yet in spite of plenty of capital and plenty of equipment we had bad conditions. So they said that we require:
Proportional national development; improved economic adjustment, and a more efficient industrial organization; regularization of staff of workers; work planned in advance by governments-federal, provincial and municipal; unemployment insurance; dovetailing of seasonal occupations; community and assisted land settlement, with a taxation system that would eliminate speculation in land and make it easier for urban workers to own their homes; controlling, guiding and stimulating immigration; generous recognition of working ability;
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon, members who were in the last parliament would be very much disappointed if I should fail to mention something about railways. The Speech from the Throne promises completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I am interested in that road, but not particularly so. I am, however, interested in another railway-the Peace River outlet-and while it is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, I want to keep it before the House and before the government. Had it not been for the promise of the right hon. leader of the opposition that he would support this railway, I believe that the election in my constituency would have turned out differently.

I may say that his candidate in the Peace River riding was very emphatic about this question. It is interesting to contrast some of the statements made by the Prime Minister with those made by the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to this subject. I am sorry the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) is not in his seat to listen to this quotation from a speech delivered by him at Edmonton on October 1, 1925. This is taken from a pamphlet issued by the Conservative candidiate in the Peace River constituency:
I will never regard election to power as a mandate to amalgamate the C.N.R. with the C.P.R. I would never think of such a step without a direct mandate from the .people of Canada. I pledge myself that if elected to .power I will leave to the directors the task of directing the road. There will be no interference of a political nature as far as direction is concerned, but there will be no waste of money in enterprises that are ahead of their times such as the King government has indulged in. In this category I do not class essential lines such as the west urgently needs.
I have always urged that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as the Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated that he was going to give railway relief to the north country and nothing has 'been done. This great question has been sidetracked by Senate reform, which subject has been discussed for forty years.
Then follows an extract from Mackenzie King's speech, taken from The Calgary Albertan, the Official Liberal organ:
I think (he pursued) that we should have regard to the condition of the country where railways arc already constructed and try to encourage setitfemeid where there are railroads. But every government most have an objective, some point which can be pointed to as a spearhead of the rest. We are turning to the Peace River as the spearhead. We hope, as we develop that vast area of the Peace River, to work out a suitable outlet for its products to the Pac lie coast.
Now then, side by side with these quotations I wish to place the paragraph of the Speech from the Throne. It will be found on page 2 of Hansard of 1925:
To aid in an increase of production, through the development of our vast natural resources, every effort is being made to attract the right class of immigrants to Canada, and .to secure their settlement in the undeveloped areas served by our great transportation systems. In due course steps will be taken to further colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as those of Peace River.
The paragraph from the letter of the right hon. leader of the opposition to Mr. Forke dealing with this matter is as follows:
Peace River Outlet. Without doubt there will have to be .provided a western outlet for the Peace River territory. It should be provided as soon as possible, 'because until it is that .territory cannot develop as so splendid a district should develop because of the very long haul freight rates, which now are necessary.

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
At the same time I stated frankly in our interview that I could not undertake an immediate outlay for this purpose. Undoubtedly the cost would run into a very large sum, and we should be in a better position to take care of the responsibilities entailed by railways already constructed before we venture on any new large enterprises. The sooner we are in a position, however, to go on with this the better I will be pleased, as we must all have the very greatest sympathy with people who have gone into that district.
I wish the House to notice the similarity between the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, which has been so thoroughly ridiculed by the leader of the opposition, and his own statement. The Speech from the Throne says:
To secure their (immigrants) settlement in ithe undeveloped areas served by our great transportation systems, in due course steps will be taken to further colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as those of Peace River.
We should be in a better position to take care of the responsibilities entailed by railways already constructed before we venture on any new large enterprises. The sooner we are in a position, however, to go on with this the better I will be pleased as we must have the very greatest sympathy with people who have gone into that district.
It would take a higher critic to tell the statements apart.
I wish to come back to an analysis of the two statements. Cn October first, 1925, at Edmonton, the right hon. leader of the opposition said:
I have always urged that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated that he was going to give railway relief to the north country, and nothing has been done.
Railway relief must refer to railway construction, if it has any meaning at all. It cannot refer to rates, for instance, because they have been reduced. It must refer to the coast outlet, and was so interpreted by the Conservative candidate and the Conservative supporters throughout the Peace river country. The Speech from the Throne was delivered on February 5, 1925, and nothing had been done, according to the right hon. leader of the opposition, up to October 1, 1925-nine months of inaction. The promise of the right hon. leader of the opposition, who was urging railway relief for the north, was made on October 1, 1925. He has come to this parliament and said nothing could be done this session; or surely that is the meaning of his speech. That means nine months or more of inaction, and Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition who ridiculed the leader of the government because of nine months of inaction is now in the position of ridiculing his own position in the same way. Yet we are asked to
believe that on the one hand we have a leader weak and vacillating-and we have seen a good deal of that in the last four years-and on the other hand a leader and a party whose every promise is fulfilled as faithfully as the promise of Jehovah to the children of Israel. One cannot look closely at the two statements and take the facts into consideration without coming to the conclusion that we have here an illustration of the brotherhood of man as between the outside leader of the inside party and the inside leader of the outside party, and that it is an erring brotherhood at that. I sometimes think of the Scotch poet, who said:
O wad some power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.
On motion of Mr. Kennedy (Peace River) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, January 29, 1926