1926-12-14

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANTS

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I desire to lay on the table a statement of the Auditor General as to governor general's warrants issued since last session, and expenditures thereunder; also a statement of the Auditor General as to treasury board overrulings of his decision. Hon. members of the House will be interested to know that the Auditor General says in his report that there have been no treasury board over-rulings of his decisions since last session.



INDIAN LANDS

Hon. J. H. KING (for the Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of the Interior I beg to report that there were no remissions on sales of Indian lands during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1926. I desire also on his behalf to give notice to the House that no irrigation regulations have been enacted under the provisions of chapter 61, section 57, of the revised statutes. The Minister of the Interior also desires to give notice to the House that no orders in council relative to water in the railway belt have been passed under the provisions of the statutes of 1913, chapter 45, section 4.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, respecting the Civil Service. He said:
Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to abolish the Civil Service Commission as it exists to-day, in order to simply replace it by a board of examiners who will judge of the .qualifications of the candidates applying for positions in the civil service and of those who are in line for promotions.
This bill in effect does away with the complex nature of the present act, while relieving the budget of some few hundred thousand dollars per year.
r I am of the opinion that the present system has not in any way bettered the service and that it is a heavy burden, useless to the state.
This bill, it seems to me, has therefore its usefulness.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Cahan.l
PELEE ISLAND CABLE On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I desire to inquire from the Minister of Public Works if the repair work on Pelee island cable has been abandoned for the season, and if so is there a possibility of connecting the island with the mainland for the winter months? I wish also to inquire as to how far the work has progressed?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I will be very glad indeed to make
inquiries and ascertain the exact position of the work referred to by my hon. friend and give him the information he desires.
ATHABASKA ELECTION On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Will the Prime Minister inform us if we can have the report of the Minister of Justice in connection with the inquiry held1 into the Athabaska election in 1925 tabled within the next few days?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	I cannot say offhand
whether the report is in the Department of Justice, but if it is I will undertake to say that it will be laid on the table of the House.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday December 13 consideration of the motion of IMr. L. Auger for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) :: Mf. Speaker, at the outset of the
remarks which I wish to make I think I may say, on behalf of all members on this side of the House, that we concur most cordially in the welcome which has been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), to His Excellency the Governor General and Lady Willingdon. I have no doubt that their sojourn in this country of ours will prove both a pleasure to them, a profit to us and a service to the crown which His Excellency represents. I do not imagine, Sir, despite the report of the Imperial conference committee and the remarks which have been made thereon by the Prime Minister, that His Excellency will find the duties of the office of Governor General in Canada very much increased or very much diminished by the alleged changes mentioned in the report of that committee. The Governor General as a representative of

The Address-Mr. Cahan
the crown is the representative of the king, and as the representative of the king he has not, hitherto, so far as I am aware of his administrative acts, been the agent of any department of the British government or of the British government itself. I think the status, so far as His Excellency is concerned, is the status expressed in the British North America Act and not otherwise. It will be convenient, I think, when this report of the Imperial conference committee comes up for further discussion, that the Prime Minister lay on the table of the House a copy of the commission and instructions to His Excellency, in order that we may ascertain more definitely whether there has been any change in his duties and responsibilities as expressed in those two official documents.
I might say also, on behalf of the Conservative members of this House, that we appreciate more than we can express the consideration which the hon. leader of the opposition has shown to our unanimous request in caucus that he should undertake the onerous and responsible duties of leading the Conservative opposition in this House during the present session, assuming those duties and responsibilities at a great sacrifice to himself personally, I believe, in order that he might give the best of his services to the party who support him in the House and to the House as a whole. I can assure him also, I think, on behalf of the Conservative members of this House, that they will give him a loyal and consistent support in the performance of his duties and in assuming the responsibility of his official position.
I may also express, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Conservative members of the House, our appreciation of the fact that, despite the fatigue of the enormous and extended campaign that the present Prime Minister carried on during the recent election, despite the onerous duties imposed upon him at his assumption of office, he did, from a sense of duty I believe, and from a sense of responsibility to this parliament and to the country, lay aside the home duties of his office and take his place as the Prime Minister of this country, with his colleague associated with him, at the recent Imperial conference at London. I may say that in these days of tumult and turmoil, when our social and political life and traditions are being adjudged and weighed in the balance as never before, I am disposed for one to give to every office of authority, and chiefly to the leader of this House and Prime Minister of the government of this country, every support which is necessary, in or.der
that he may have, as a representative of this country, either in the councils of the empire or in dealing, so far as it is his function to do so, with foreign states, the full support of the parliament of the country, so far as we can consistently extend it to him. Whatever may be our dissensions and differences with regard to our domestic affairs, I believe it is our high duty to uphold the office of Prime Minister and to support the incumbent in carrying out the high duties and responsibilities of that office so far as we may, consistently with our own conscientious judgment of the political necessities of our common country. But to that remark I may add that I do not agree with the Prime Minister, under the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day, with this report of the Imperial conference before us, that any attempt on our part to elucidate clearly the real meaning of the paragraphs of that report constitutes a personal criticism of him, or a personal criticism of the Prime Minister of Great Britain or the prime ministers of the dominions represented at that conference. In the latter part of his address he stated the true position I believe, that that report will be placed before parliament for the consideration of every member of this House, and that it is our duty as individual members on either side to give it our most careful attention, and if we shall find discrepancies or inconsistencies therein, or verbiage which is not clear to our intelligence or to our judgment, to exercise our right to make such omments as may be necessary in order to elucidate the real position in which that report places the country at large.
Now, Sir, in dealing with the debate on the address the Prime Minister-and I may speak of it in this connection-referred to the fact that, after his resignation as prime minister was accepted in June last, certain expenditures were made by the incoming government by warrants of the Governor General, and if I apprehended the meaning and intent of his remarks, they were to the effect that, in his judgment and in the judgment of his colleagues on the government benches, the expenditures so made were unconstitutional and illegal in view of the circumstances in which they were made. I differ entirely from that opinion, and I say to the Prime Minister and to this House that rather than have that opinion go forth to the country as being based upon the facts and upon the law-based it was in part upon the fact that a resolution in the latter hectic days of June passed this House by a majority of one, which was not

The Address-Mr. Cahan

a majority in fact, and that therefore the House had pronounced the position of the new government to be unconstitutional and illegal-a judgment of a divided House which I think does not appeal either to the legal or the constitutional views of the great majority of the members in this House, or of the people in the country; I say if there is any doubt, when we come to pass the supplementary estimates, let the Prime Minister leave aside any single expenditure made by the late government which he deems as an exemplification of the view which he has expressed, and let him go to the courts of this country to procure a decision of that issue. In recent years we have had in this House many expressions of opinion from the opposite side, and even I think from the Prime Minister himself, that in legal matters there should be a judicial decision and not a political decision by the members of this House. I therefore ask him to assert the same dictum now. Let him take any item he may please and have the courts of this country decide whether the Bight Hon. Arthur Meighen and his colleagues acted illegally and unconstitutionally in the expenditures they made during their term of office.
But if I may make one other passing reference to the hectic days of last June, I do think that the Prime Minister might have still further elucidated his own position in this House at the time that he went to the office of His Excellency the Governor General and asked for a dissolution without consulting parliament, and, when a dissolution was refused, resigning the high office which he then filled and leaving this country for the time being without governmental authority. I do not know what truth there is in the report, but I have noticed it in the press, and in view of its having been made and circulated I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is his bounden duty, in order that the facts may be known at no late date, to bring down to this House his own correspondence with His Excellency in the matter of his resignation when it was made in June last, because the report has been circulated from one end of the country to the other, and it is believed by many, that the Prime Minister on that occasion advised, and even urged, the Governor General to seek instructions from the colonial office as to his duty, and then His Excellency is reported to have replied to his prime minister of that day that in Canada he represented the king and the crown, and that he would make no such appeal to the colonial office. If such an event did take place, then I say the Prime Minister in June last assumed a position entirely inconsistent
	,
with that which lie assumes to-day on his return from the Imperial conference at London.
Now, with regard to the address of His Excellency the Governor General and the motion which we have before us with respect to an address in reply, I find in the speech from the throne one or two matters on which I may make some comment. First, with respect to the Hudson Bay railway which interests so large a section of the country, and which is supported and approved by such a large body of the members of this House. In the address it is stated that:
It has been decided to submit the study of conditions at the port of Nelson-
-to the careful examination of an outstanding British authority on tidal and estuarial conditions affecting harbours.
I wish that that statement had been somewhat enlarged. I think it is absolutely necessary in order that public opinion throughout the length and breadth of this country may be fully informed that we should have expert reports not only upon the navigability of Port Nelson, but the navigability at all seasons of the year or during any considerable time of the year of the Hudson straits and bay. Certain hon. gentlemen seem to think, and judging from the reports of some of the political speeches which I read during the last election campaign the idea was prevalent in the west, that for selfish commercial reasons the east was opposed to the opening up of the Hudson bay to the commerce of the world. That I do not think is correct. We who were born and bred in seaport towns and villages can count among our acquaintances not only mariners of steamships but mariners of sailing ships who during the last fifty or sixty years have made more or less frequent visits through Hudson straits to Hudson bay, and the current opinion in the east is due largely to our personal intercourse and communication with such men who have been upon the spot and have seen something of the conditions which prevail in that region. I myself have made one trip, not through the Hudson straits but in its proximity up along the northern Labrador coast, and it gave me certain pessimistic impressions. Possibly not being an expert I may be told those impressions were erroneous. This I do say, that if it can be established clearly and definitely that Hudson strait and Hudson bay are navigable for any considerable period of time during consecutive months of the year; if it can be shown with a degree of reasonable definiteness that that port may be opened up to afford cheaper freight rates

The Address-Mr. Cahan
for the products of the west to Europe and for the products of Europe to the middle west; then many of the objections which prevail in the east would be entirely removed. The attitude of the east is not one of hostility to the west. We know that our prosperity, such as it is, depends to a certain extent upon the west being prosperous, and any new route that may be opened, any improved conditions of transportation that may be found which will open up the west and give the people there swifter and cheaper transportation to the markets of the world, will, I am sure, receive a large measure of approval in the eastern sections of this country.
With regard to the ordinary business of parliament, the same bills will be introduced which were discussed last year, and with regard to these I have no comment to make at present. Regarding one'other matter which is not mentioned, but which is of very considerable interest to a large proportion of the electorate, namely, the constitutionality of the Alberta Act of 1905 which is to be referred to the courts for a clear decision, all I suggest is that when that reference is made it should be made as comprehensive as possible so as not only to elicit a judicial determination of the meaning and intent of the clauses of the Alberta Act of 1905 dealing with school funds, but also to secure a definite opinion from the courts as to the meaning and intent of the Dominion Lands Act of 1908, and as to how far the enactment of that measure, after the passage of the Alberta Act of 1905, affected the powers of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan in respect of the distribution of those school funds. I do not pretend to represent a large body of opinion in this country, but so far as I am acquainted with the opinion which does prevail the desire of those who are most interested in the Alberta school question is this, and this only, that under the guise of transferring natural resources of Alberta to the Alberta government, no new rights should be created either for the Protestant minority or for the Catholic minority. They are equally anxious that the old rights which are assured to them by particular clauses of the Alberta Act of 1905, and by similar clauses in the Saskatchewan Act of 1905, should not be abrogated nor diminished indirectly under the guise of transferring the natural resources to either of those provinces. These minorities wish to remain as they are and they are quite willing that the courts should determine what, if any, minority rights subsist to-day, with a view to having those rights preserved and not increased, and with
32649-4J
this further object in view, that if the existing minority rights are to be prejudiced or limited or abrogated, it should be done by direct action on the part of parliament so that there may be a full and clear discussion as to the merits of the case.
There is also in the speech from the throne a reference to the report of the so called Duncan commission. I do not intend to enter at length upon any discussion of that report. I regard it as a mere incident in the assertion by the maritime provinces of certain rights and interests which they think and believe appertain to them. The real problem, the real matter for discussion, will come up when the legislation promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is brought down for consideration in this House. Then and then only, when that legislation is laid before the House, may we determine whether the agitation leading to and the work of the Duncan commission have been successful or not. Eor my own part, therefore, I reserve decision until the proper measures are brought down. But having been born and bred in one of those provinces by the sea I do believe that all parties in this House including, I hope, some hon. gentlemen who are living now in western Canada and who received their education and training in the maritimes, will consider with sympathetic minds whether that irritating sore which does exist in those provinces should not be healed, however great the price, if that price is within the reasonable limits of the competency of this parliament. I do not agree with some who think that the highest political destiny of the maritime provinces was not bound up with that of the other provinces of Canada. If I were again living there and the matter were to come up anew I would say to the people of the maritimes: "Your highest and best political destiny is to be worked out in association, and only in association, with the other provinces of this great country."	.
I came of a family whose modest way of living was equal to that of any other family in our surroundings, and I may say that the standard of living in that day was not as high as the standard of living in Nova Scotia at the present time. There is more of comfort and well-being in Nova Scotia to-day than there was in the sixties or seventies. But those provinces have not made an advance commensurate with the progress achieved by the other older provinces, and especially by the western provinces to which the maritimes gave so much, and for the development of which, I repeat-I hope the expression is not an unpleasant one-they
The Address-Mr. Cahan

made so many sacrifices in the early days. It sometimes seems to me that one of the greatest gifts from the maritimes to their fellow-Canadians is that men trained in the legal, engineering and other professions, or even as farm labourers, have left those communities for tfie west and assisted those coming from the old oountry to our Canadian west in establishing those three great prairie provinces on a basis of sound constitutional government and respect for English law and English institutions; they have given of their best endeavours to build up the west. Scotland has done the same thing; her sons have been dispersed throughout the whole British Empire.
Then there is another cause. I remember from my boyhood days that the county of Yarmouth, in which I was born, owned more shipping per capita sailing the seven seas than did any other part of the world. But with the coming of steamships that shipping has disappeared, and there has been no other industry to take its place. There have been many things detrimental to the progress and prosperity of these provinces, but I do believe that this parliament as a whole will give its most careful and favourable consideration to any measures of relief which may be brought before it in the hope of mitigating some of the grievances to which these provinces are subject.
With respect to the Imperial conference, one cannot understand the real position without reflecting somewhat upon the conditions which have prevailed in recent years, dealing with not only inter-imperial relations but also with the relations between the dominions of the empire and foreign states. The British Empire consists on the one hand of Great Britain with her vast aggregation of colonies and possessions which are directly under the supervision, the direction and in a large measure the control of the British government. Then there is India, which is only partially autonomous, for which in recent years the Morley-Minto scheme, the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme, and finally in 1919 the Government of India Act, have provided for a certain measure of self-government for that country, possibly placing it in a position leading to ultimate complete selfgovernment. Then we have the six dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, and South Africa, all of which with the exception of Newfoundland are members of the League of Nations. The constitutional developments *of recent years have tended more and more to distinguish between these six dominions and the dependencies of the British Crown to

which I have referred, and in my own opinion -and I think in the opinion of all-the survival of the British Empire depends upon the continuous co-operation of all the parts in carrying out the common ideals which constitute the standard of possible attainment. These common ideals have not yet fully developed; they have not yet been fully proved, and it is possible that the basis of cordial co-operation has not yet been fully attained. So it must remain the duty and responsibility of this generation of Canadians, and of every succeeding generation, to make its contribution, however meagre, to the living growth of our national life, and to the slow but sure development of our political institutions.
There has been in recent years a more constant development in the direction of a more direct and extended consultation between Great Britain and the dominions. This is no novel method. As far back as the days before the declaration of the independence of the United States, Edmund Burke was for years the agent in London of the state of New York, in direct communication with the British government, while from time to time the state of Pennsylvania sent Benjamin Franklin to London as a special commissioner to adjust matters with the British government. Our older British colonies did the same thing, and were so represented at intervals. In 1880 we sent a high commissioner to London for the first time to provide a source of information between this country and the British government, and although it is sometimes said that our successive high commissioners at London have been somewhat estranged from the ideals of this country, and that in the atmosphere of London they did not clearly apprehend the views of the people they represented, yet I think it is the opinion in this country that without exception our high commissioners have represented Canada in a manner that merits approval for themselves, and in such a way as to facilitate the development of a better feeling of goodwill between this Canada of ours and the mother country in which they were our representatives. I think on the whole they have faithfully and efficiently performed their duties.
Then we have had the development of the Imperial conference, and, as the leader of the opposition stated, we have had this development through various phases during the war down to the recent conferences of 1923 and 1926. But it is clear that in recent years there has not been any overt attempt on the part of the British government to restrain or restrict in any particular the absolute authority of the several dominions in the administration of their domestic affairs. It is

The Address-Mr. Cahan
suggested in the press-I do not know whether the Prime Minister himself would suggest it-that the result of the deliberations of the latest Imperial conference is to proclaim a new Magna Charta for the British Empire, but I think the circumstances under which the original Magna Charta was granted were so entirely different that the use of the term tends to a complete misunderstanding of the atmosphere of the recent conference. The Magna Charta of King John was a demand for the head of the sovereign, unless the concessions demanded should be made. There has been no strife between these dominions and the British Crown or the British government; they have ungrudgingly and graciously acceded from year to year to almost every suggestion made by the representatives of the dominions. For several years, however, two divergent tendencies have been manifest in the direction and control of our relations with foreign states, that is, the direction and control of the relations of this dominion in reference to foreign states. Gradually in commercial negotiations, beginning as far back as when Sir John A. Macdonald represented Canada at the Washington treaty; later w'hen Sir Charles Tupper represented Canada at Washington in the negotiation of the Fisheries treaty, and more recently when Mr. Fielding represented Canada in the negotiation of the commercial treaty with France, we have requested and have been granted the authority to deal in commercial matters and with respect to commercial treaties with all foreign states. But in respect of foreign policy there is still a marked divergence. Claims hitherto made to consultation in matters of common interest have asserted for the Dominion a measure of equality, but only a measure of equality with respect to Great Britain; and such consultation, which is largely dependent upon continued good will can certainly be promoted, to a very large extent, by careful and timely extension or development of the existing machinery of what I may call well-lubricated intercourse and communication. As to this there have been really no wide differences of opinion between the successive governments of Canada and the government of Great Britain. But dominion claims to independent action in foreign affairs imply a demand for equality of status with independent foreign states. That concession is not one for Great Britain to make, and it is one which up to this time no foreign state has ever made. I do not need to go into the particulars but even France, and more recently the United States, -have shown very great reluctance indeed to concede to us, as
a dominion, equality of status in dealing with them as independent foreign states. The implications of this tendency of the dominions to assert independent political action were recognized in Lord Ripon's despatch of 1895, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. He then stated the implications which I think continue down to this day. He said:
A foreign power, can only be approached through Her Majesty's representative, and any agreement entered into with it, affecting any part of Her Majesty's dominions, is an agreement between Her Majesty and the sovereign of the foreign state, and it is through Her Majesty's government that the foreign state would apply, in case of any question arising under it.
To give to the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's government would be to give them au international status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the empire into a number of independent states.
I am reading from the Parliamentary Papers of 1895, C. 7824. And again, particularly in the London conferences of 1907 and 1911, the view has been emphatically expressec by many representatives of the dominions, aw well as by representatives of the British government, that the empire must, be one from the point of view of its political treaty relations with all foreign states. We all remember Mr. Balfour's dictum, I think it was at the conference in 1911, that Great Britain could not share with the dominions the. direction and control of foreign policy; and even to-day Great Britain, with her far-flung empire-dealing if you will and restricting the application of your words to her possessions, her colonies, outside of the dominions- touches a foreign state at every point of the seven seas, and she must have and exercise a large power of direction and control in dealing with all foreign countries whose interests are adverse to hers or to the empire of which she forms a part.
The imperial resolutions of 1923, which were submitted by the Prime Minister to this House for confirmation, contemplated two types of international agreement in some of which only one part and in others more than one part of the empire is concerned, and the procedure in detail was prescribed for the negotiation of these two types of treaties. That procedure was formally ratified by this House. But it is significant, I think, of the incompleteness of the work of successive Imperial conferences that the conference of 1926 has, in my opinion, apparently modified
The Address-Mr. Cahan

referred the questioner to the unanimous approval of the Locarno treaty by the Imperial conference.
The questioner declared that the resolution passed by the Imperial conference on the recommendation of the Premiers' committee on Inter-imperial relations had no solid meaning, and he asked if Colonel Amery had made any representations to Sir Austen Chamberlain. Foreign Secretary, to the effect that Great Britain should not be left isolated in this way.
Colonel Amery replied that he thought the resolution of the Imperial conference expressing satisfaction with the foreign policy of His Majesty's government was a solid contribution.
Leaving the matter there, I invite at a later date an expression of opinion from the leader of the government as to what is the extent and nature of that solid contribution *which we are to give in respect to the Locarno treaty, which has never yet been submitted to this House for ratification or approval.
Now, furthermore, the report of the Imperial relations committee of this latest Imperial conference, speaking in regard to the negotiation of treaties states:
When a government has received information of the intention of any other government to conduct negotiations it is incumbent upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude. So long as the initiating government receives no adverse comments, and so long as its policy involves no active obligations on the part of other governments, it may proceed on the assumption that its policy is generally acceptable. It must, however, before taking any steps which might involve other governments in any aetive obligations, obtain their definite assent.
And then it proceeds:
Where by the nature of a treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the governments of the empire the initiating government may assume that the government which has had full opportunity o'f indicating its attitude, and has made no adverse comments, will concur in the ratification of the treaty.
Applying this declaration to the negotiation of treaties by the government of Great Britain, then when the government of Canada has received notice of the intention of the government of Great Britain to conduct negotiations with Germany or France, or with any other foreign state, though the treaty to be consummated many affect the rights and interests of British citizens wherever domiciled, or British shipping or other property, belonging to Canadian citizens, wherever located, the government of Great Britain, in the absence of adverse comments from the Canadian government, may assume that its policy is acceptable to Canada, and that the government of Canada, having made no adverse comments, is morally and in good faith bound to concur in the ratification of the treaty so negotiated.

Such treaties may involve the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in any part of the world, outside the British Empire. We as Canadian citizens have rights guaranteed to us by the British constitution in every part of the world to which we go, as citizens of the British Empire, rights which guarantee to us certain respectful treatment under the Union Jack wherever it flies throughout the British Empire, or wherever it flies on the seven seas, or on the coasts of any foreign state. Those rights and privileges which we enjoy as British citizens throughout the world should not be easily sacrificed, and should not be compromised readily without very clear and careful consideration as to the effects involved. We recall the declaration of the Prime Minister at the last session of parliament that hereafter no British treaty is to be binding upon Canada, unless it received the ratification of the Canadian government, and we by express resolution of parliament declared that no consent or approval or ratification should be expressed by the Canadian government, except upon the authority of parliament itself; yet we find in this new document the possibility that some default, on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs of Canada, in making adverse comments on any treaty, may result in imposing that treaty upon us, we being morally bound to accept it, simply because one department of this government, through inadvertance or otherwise, fails in the performance of its duty. I find it impossible to reconcile that with the resolution passed by this House last session. Then we have this statement:
Every governing member of the empire is master of its destiny.
I can accept that with modification and restriction. As a platitude for the public platform it is well enough. But as a statement of constitutional right it requires many modifications and restrictions in its application. In a restricted sense Canada is mistress of her own political destiny; but the very existence of Canada as a political entity depends upon keeping inviolate the understandings and conventions embodied in our own constitution with respect to the rights and interests of certain racial and religious minorities, with respect to the rights of certain provinces, such as the provinces by the sea, which have a representation in the Senate that is valuable for the preservation of their specific interests, and with respect to other matters. Those understandings and conventions must be maintained in order that we preserve the political entity and political unity of this country.

The Address-Mr. Cahan
Therefore I am driven back to the assumption that when the Prime Minister was giving countenance to that broad statement, it was not his intention thereby to abrogate the provisions of the British North America Act, which is a statute of the Imperial parliament defining the minority and other provincial rights to which we had agreed by convention and arrangement upon the organization of the provinces of Canada into one great confederation. If there is equality of status, perhaps I may add another term to the definition which was given by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). Equality of status may mean that the Canadian parliament cannot of its own volition override acts of the Imperial parliament; and it may mean, just as it has meant since confederation was formed, that in the last analysis the Imperial parliament has a deciding voice in respect to the nature and extent of the amendments to the British North America Act which are sought by the Canadian parliament or by the provinces of Canada. If in order to achieve our national destiny we wish to abolish the rights of any province, or if we wish otherwise to modify our own constitution, I think we will be driven back upon the old procedure of asking the Imperial parliament to ratify a new agreement, concurred in not only by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, but concurred in also by the provincial legislatures of Canada in so far as their special rights and interests might be affected.
Now, the definition of the office of Governor General and of his status does not give validity to one contention of the Prime Minister advanced during the recent elections. I understood, without quoting his exact words, that not only in this Hou?e in the last days of June, but throughout this country on the platform, he expressed the contention that the life and independence of this very parliament in which we sit may be determined, by the sole and arbitrary will of the prime minister in the exercise of his sole and arbitrary discretion, by the advice which he shall give on each and every occasion and under each and every condition to His Excellency respecting the dissolution of parliament. That I understand to be the new constitutional principle which he announced on the eve of the last election, and on which he sought the verdict of the people. All I can say to that is this. We do not wish, I think, to create a new master; we do not wish that a prime minister representing either party should be invested with such arbitrary power that, whenever his policy meets with the disapprobation of parliament, he can
thereupon destroy its very life and hold possible dissolution, at his discretion, as a weapon of blackmail over the heads of the independent members of this House of Commons. If that new principle is to be introduced into the constitution of this country, it should not be introduced by mere platform utterances or in the confusion of a general election; but first, at least, it should be introduced as a rule and principle to guide His Excellency in the matter of dissolution, a rule and principle that should be submitted to parliament itself, and first be approved of by the members of parliament. I do not think that either the House or the country will vest the prime minister with an arbitrary power that has never existed in English history since the days of Cromwell.
I will not take any more time, Mr. Speaker, but there are other very important matters which the members of the Imperial conference, in their wise discretion, have left for further consideration by committees of the Imperial conference and, I suppose, by their respective governments. These are:
1.	The details of methods and forms of communication and consultation between the British government and the governments of the dominions;
2.	The scope and application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act;
3.	The right of each dominion to legislate with extra-territorial effect, or to give extraterritorial operation to its existing legislation;
4.	The scope and application of Imperial Shipping Acts to Canadian shipping and Canadian seamen;
5.	The status of Canadian shipping and Canadian seamen and citizens in the event of Great Britain being involved in foreign wars in which Canada may refuse actively to participate;
6.	The restriction of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in criminal as well as civil matters;
7.	The confusion that may arise by reason of conventions or treaties made by His Majesty on behalf of two or more parts of the empire, which are more or less inconsistent in their terms;
And this is very important:
8.	The responsibility of Great Britain with respect to the enforcement of treaties made by His Majesty on behalf of a dominion government, which the foreign state may repudiate or refuse to carry out;
9.	The obligations, moral or otherwise, of the dominions as members of the League of Nations, with respect to the treaty of Locarno.
These are not defined.
10.	The reservation of dominion legislation.
All these, thank Providence, are left for further consideration and discussion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we may express our grateful appreciation of the services of the Prime Minister in London, and
The Address-Mr. Cahan

particularly our appreciation of the fact that the great body of these intricate questions have been left, as they have been left ever since Canada was formed, to the consideration of the governments of the respective dominions when particular events arise demanding discussion and decision. And I think, in spite of the concession of this "great charter," we will go on and preserve the unity ' of the empire chiefly by dealing with events only as they arise, after consultation, with goodwill, being ever anxious to conciliate and adopt so far as we can the views of other sister dominions and of Great Britain herself, all to the end of preserving the unity of the British Empire, upon which the peace of this world for years to come must so largely depend.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Before I discuss the speech from the throne I desire to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on being re-elected to the chair. I am quite sure that with your past experience you will be able to perform your duties with dignity and impartiality, and I have no doubt that all hon. gentlemen will join in wishing you every success in your office. I desire also to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on the position to which he has been elevated. We realize, of course, that he now holds a very important position and an onerous one. I listened to him yesterday with a good deal of satisfaction in that his address was most modest in its tone, and because of that fact he is perhaps an improvement upon leaders recently occupying the position in this House. I had not the privilege of hearing the mover and seconder of the address and so I am unable at the moment to compliment them upon their efforts, but I trust that I shall have ample time to read the report of their remarks and later on to congratulate them personally. I have been told that they made splendid presentations and I shall certainly take occasion in due course to offer them congratulations.
Two of the most important addresses in this House have concerned themselves more particularly with the conference recently held in London. I understand that time will be afforded the House to discuss later on the results of that conference, and therefore I do not propose to inflict upon hon. members at this time any remarks in that regard except to observe incidentally that I trust, as no doubt other hon. members do, that the efforts of our delegates representing Canada and this House at the conference have been successful.

It has been customary since I have been a member of this House to discuss election results on the meeting of a new parliament. For some peculiar reason nothing has been said up to the present moment in regard to the recent election. Everyone remembers no doubt the situation that developed during the last session. A special committee was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Department of Customs and Excise. This committee divulged certain facts which were taken into consideration by the House, and our Conservative friends when parliament dissolved felt they had a sure election cry. They expected to come back in sufficient numbers to control the government. This has not happened. Why? We cannot for a moment suppose that the people of Canada did not take into account the revelations that were made by the committee; we cannot help assuming that these disclosures were considered. There must therefore have been something besides the report of the Customs committee which the people took into consideration when they cast their ballots at the last general election. I have discussed the question with many people in many walks of life, and I can say quite emphatically that, generally speaking, the people were influenced more by the legislative program of the last session and by the budget which was brought down than they were by the results of the Customs inquiry. That program and that budget had, in my opinion, more to do with the outcome of the election than had the inquiry. On many occasions I have listened to members of this House referring to the great leaders of the two old parties in the past. We have all heard hon. gentlemen declaring their acceptance of the principles laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as the case might be. I have often been astonished that men with any intelligence should speak in that manner of the political leaders of the two old parties in decades gone by. No doubt these were great men and they had great problems to face. But let us remember that those problems were incident to that day and the problems of that time are not the problems of our generation. Consequently any government that wishes to remain in power in this country for any length of time will have to apply itself to present problems rather than lean upon its predecessors.
Coming t'o the speech from the throne, it seems to me that in some particulars it is very indefinite; I will mention the points as I go along. However, taking it as a whole, I may .congratulate the government upon the general content of the speech. We view with a great deal of pleasure the fact that the gov-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
eminent intends to introduce the measures that were passed last session but which did not become law, which measures I feel will naturally go through without any great discussion or any waste of time. The most important measures passed last session, in which we are more particularly interested, include rural credits, which is a matter of great urgency. We regret the circumstances which have kept this legislation in abeyance, and we hope that it will eventually become law and so prove of great benefit to the agricultural sections of the country. There is also the legislation dealing with the revaluation of soldier settlers' lands. This is an important piece of legislation and it is absolutely essential that it be pressed through the House as soon as possible in order to afford relief to those men who fought so valiantly for us but who find themselves to-day in a condition so onerous that it is almost impossible for them to stay on the land.
Another important measure is the old age pensions bill which I am glad to see the government proposes reintroducing. True, this particular measure is not of great magnitude; it only begins to touch the question. But to the extent that the government are making an effort to deal with the matter, we should give them our support. I notice also in the speech that the government purpose reestablishing the special committee for the revision of the rules of the House. Those of us who have been members of parliament for any length of time realize that the rules must be amended in some particulars to allow the business of the House to be carried on more expeditiously. When there were only two parties the rules were probably adequate, but with the advent of several parties and groups the situation has altogether changed and consequently the rules should be revised and brought up to date to meet present conditions and to facilitate the passage of legislation.
One of the items in the speech which I consider very indefinite and in respect of which I purpose reserving judgment is that dealing with the coking of Canadian coal. We have no intimation as to how far the government propose to go in this direction. Possibly they have in mind the coal situation in Nova Scotia, but I would remind the House that for decades past, industries in that province have received bounties and subsidies by the million, which bounties and subsidies have only made millionaires of a few people while they have impoverished the many. We therefore reserve our judgment in that regard, waiting with patience for the proposals of the government.
Dealing with the situation which this brings to our minds, that is, the maritime situation, there is one thought which I would like to impress upon this House. Before we start to tamper with this great problem, let us first of all be sure of our ground, and then let us be sure that whatever action we may take will be all-sufficient to meet the conditions as they exist in the maritime provinces. I do not believe wre should deal with this problem in a piecemeal manner; we should do it thoroughly, and it will be more effective. When the report of the Duncan commission comes before the House I trust that we will be in a position to offer some constructive suggestions in that regard.
I also notice that the government propose to make some amendments to the Canada Grain Act. These amendments are not set out in the speech from the throne, of course, but I presume that one amendment likely to be brought forward will deal with the property rights of the farmer in respect to the routing and the destination of his grain. Hon. members will remember that two years ago we passed a new Canada Grain Act in which certain amendments were included which deprived the farmer of his property rights in routing the grain to a terminal of his own choosing. I opposed that amendment when the bill was before the House, and I oppose the situation as it is to-day. You cannot deprive any large class, such as the agricultural class, of their property rights without at the same time opening the door for the demand that other classes be deprived of such rights also, and therefore it is very important that the property rights of farmers in the routing of their grain should be restored at the earliest possible moment. If that right is not restored, we will hiave the situation in Canada of one class being deprived of certain rights while other classes are not so deprived.
There is still another matter touching the grain situation which is very important, and I must confess that we are looking for some way out of the difficulty. Under the Grain Act it is determined how our grain shall be graded, and the certificates of the inspection department are very important. In recent years we have enlarged our inspection system through the creation of new inspection points, and as a result we find that with the larger number of points where grain is inspected, the dissatisfaction of -the farmer in regard to the grading has increased to a large extent. It seems unfortunate that such should be the case, but most farmers to-day feel that they can get a better grade for their grain by allowing it to go through Winnipeg and be inspected at that point. The point I desire
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

more particularly to emphasize, however, has regard to the moisture 'content of the grain. This is a very important matter, and it has become very important to western farmers particularly during the last two years, because of weather conditions. If the House will bear with me for a few moments I will explain the situation. Grain may be given a straight grade provided it does not contain too much moisture. We have nothing in the Canada Grain Act; we have no order in council and no regulation of the Board of Grain Commissioners which determines the percentage of moisture which is allowed in straight grade grain. We have always understood that fourteen per cent was supposed to be the maximum moisture content for straight grade grain, but we found on examination and inquiry that there was no regulation or order in council in force which stipulated that particular percentage. During the last session of parliament we had several interviews with the Board of Grain Commissioners, and when we inquired of them as to how they determined whether or not grain was straight grade in so far as the moisture content was concerned, the chief inspector and the chairman of the appeal board stated that it was determined merely by the inspector feeling the grain, and if in his opinion the grain was fit for warehousing, it went as straight grade. If on the other hand he determined that the grain was not fit for warehousing, it would be graded as rejected, and consequently there would be quite a difference in the price paid. We also received the information from the commissioners that in some years the natural moisture content of grain was much higher than in others; the chairman of the appeal board went so far as to say that in some years the average moisture content ran close to fifteen per cent, and yet that grain would go as straight grade and consequently would be fit for warehousing. The situation to-day seems to be that it is almost impossible for us to set a definite percentage of moisture content for straight grade grain, because of the varying climatic conditions from year to year. Some remedy must be found in order to satisfy the producers of this grain. I noticed a press report some time ago wherein the Board of Grain Commissioners stated that when grain was tested for its moisture content 'by the appliances at their disposal, anything over 14.4 per cent would go as damp or rejected, yet in the same despatch I noticed that the Board of Grain Commissioners stated that any grain with less than 15 per cent moisture content would be put into storage. Naturally we want to know the reason for the difference.

If it is possible for the Board of Grain Commissioners or the elevator companies to store grain with a moisture content of less than 15 per cent that grain should evidently go as straight grade. The only remark I wish to make in that connection is that when the Board of Grain Commissioners hand out these rulings, it would be well for them to explain the reasons for them, so that the farmer who produces the grain will know the intentions of the board in that regard. The information. they give out is so meagre that the suspicions of the farmer are immediately aroused, and consequently he feels that he is not receiving fair treatment. I hope, however, that the government will give us an opportunity to make representations to them when the question of these amendments comes up.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the question of railways. The first point I wish to discuss in regard to the railway situation is with reference to the Hudson Bay railway. We note with a good deal of pleasure that it is the intention of the government to finish the construction of this line, so I hope that at no far distant date steel will be laid to the bay. We believe that this railway, even if it serves only for colonization purposes and to tap the ore fields in northern Manitoba, will be a success. When we come to the question of the development of the port, however, we enter into another phase of the situation altogether; and I feel that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has probably done the right thing in securing expert advice before proceeding further. Nevertheless, I trust it is not intended to postpone the time when this port will be equipped with the necessary-facilities. We receive many contradictory reports as to the feasibility of the Hudson bay-route. Personally I think it is feasible, but if there is any doubt about the matter, allow me to suggest to the Minister of Railways what may provide a possible solution. We have in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine many vessels that are now being held' for sale, that is to say vessels that are of no value to the marine service. Some of these vessels have been sold already at a very low-price, or at a price which is insignificant when compared with what they cost the country.. Would it not be possible for the government to take one of these ships and send it up into-Hudson strait, the point where it is important there should be an investigation, run the vessel each summer for a certain period, and' find out the exact situation in regard to ice flowing through this strait. By adopting such: a plan as that we can get some authentic information, and I trust it will be of a nature-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
that will assist this House in determining to what extent it would be desirable to spend the country's money in the development of the harbour of Port Nelson.
Coming now to our National Railway system I believe that we all desire to congratulate the president and his officers upon the splendid financial showing made by that system last year. They have succeeded, to a wonderful degree, in reducing the deficits which have burdened the system from year to year. We hope that that increased prosperity will be maintained, more particularly in the western sections of the Dominion, and that the time will not be far distant when the Canadian National Railways will be able to meet their obligations in full.
I note in the speech from the throne the statement that the government purposes bringing in a three-year branch line programme. I think that those of us who have followed developments in that regard will admit that the last three-year programme has been a success, and it is our belief that it is a good method of carrying out new construction in so far as the National lines are concerned. But there is one point I should like to impress upon the Minister of Railways and it is this: There are many branch lines on the National system, more particularly in western Canada, that are only partly completed. These branch lines are intended to serve well populated districts in the west, and we believe that every effort should be made to complete them. Those of us who have followed the situation know very well that no railway system can make a success of branch lines that are only partially completed. For one thing they are operated under a heavier expense than they would be if the lines were finished. There is no doubt that the completion of branch lines already under way should be the first objective of the National Railway system.
The speech from the throne also intimates that it is proposed to make some arrangement with the debenture holders of the old Grand Trunk system. These debentures, I understand, were issued in perpetuity. I do not know exactly what the government's proposal is, but I can assure them that we will give it the closest possible examination. Any proposals of this character should be fair to all parties concerned, and we hope the government will be successful in adjusting the matter to the satisfaction of the House and the people of Canada as a whole.
Hon. members who sat in this House during the last four or five years will recall that we have had before us what is known as
the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not believe it is necessary for me to enter at this time into any detailed explanation of that agreement. I feel that all I need say is that it was entered into in 1897 between the then government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Under the agreement certain subsidies were granted to the latter corporation in return for which they consented to a maximum rate as regards grain and grain products and certain commodities coming from eastern Canada. At that time grain rates were much lower than the maximum fixed by the agreement but the Great war brought about abnormal conditions resulting in a gradual increase of those rates until they reached the maximum agreed upon. Later on the agreement was suspended by act of parliament. In the year 1922, under another statute, it was restored in part with respect to grain and grain products originating in western Canada and going to Port Arthur and Fort William. I believe, too, that that portion of the agreement affecting commodities coming from eastern Canada was once more brought into force. Subsequently we discovered certain discrepancies as regards the rates applicable to western Canada under that agreement. That is to say certain points at a similar distance from Fort William or Port Arthur were being charged a higher rate than were points at an equal distance on the main line of the Canadian Pacific. The government of the day recognized the disability from which those producers were suffering who were paying higher rates than they should pay, and in 1925 brought in amending legislation. In such legislation that part of the Crowsnest pass agreement which dealt with maximum rates on certain commodities originating east of Fort William was abrogated. It was anticipated that when the amending legislation was passed, the railway companies would naturally apply the rates as parliament expected them to be applied, that is with fairness, and that there would be no discrimination in the application of the rates to points at a similar distance from Fort William and Port Arthur. Soon after this legislation became effective, and it went into force on the 27th of June, 1925, the Board of Railway Commissioners asked the railway companies to file a schedule of tariffs consistent with it. Up to the present time the railway companies have never filed that schedule of tariffs. They have sheltered behind this claim:	They say that the rates in
force are, in their judgment, neither unjust nor discriminatory, and consequently they should remain in force. The situation is
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

this, Mr. Speaker. On the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway these rates are in force, but on railway lines south and on railway lines north of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, higher rates have to be paid for a similar distance from Fort William, running from one to five cents per hundred pounds higher, and thus discriminating against those people who live on these other lines as compared with those who live on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway.
In 1904 this parliament by legislation created the Board of Railway Commissioners. The chief function of the Board of Railway Commissioners was to administer the Railway Act, and to see that railway rates were equitable. That was the desire of parliament, but what do we find? We find that when the Board of Railway Commissioners ask the railway companies to file a schedule of rates in conformity with the legislation passed in 1925, the railway companies ignore that order. It was on the 8th day of July, 1925, that general order No. 420 was passed by the railway board, requiring the railway companies to file their schedules, but as I stated before, they have never laid their schedules before the board.	The situation, then, is
simply this: Our railway companies are flouting the Board of Railway Commissioners. They go even beyond that; they are flouting the authority of this parliament. We have always understood and believed that this parliament was supreme, that when it passed legislation to remedy any disabilities, its order would be supreme and be given heed to, but here we have two large railway companies practically saying to this parliament, and to the board that was created by this parliament to have jurisdiction over them: We take no notice of what you do; we shall do just as we please. I would ask this House, are we going to allow that state of affairs to continue? Is it not time that something was done to make these railway companies recognize the fact that this parliament is supreme, and that when it passes legislation, its legislation must be lived up to? We cannot for one moment admit that any large corporation in Canada can at its own sweet will do just exactly as it likes and pay no heed whatever to the legislation passed by this parliament. Therefore, I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues that this situation should in some manner be remedied, and that these two railway companies should be made to understand that when this parliament passes legislation,

that legislation must be lived up to by them just as much as by anybody else in this country.
There is another matter in regard - to the railways that I should like to bring to the attention of the House. I have stated previously in my remarks that this House created the Board of Railway Commissioners by legislation in 1904. The membership of the board is six. Recently there has arisen a very peculiar situation on the board, which might have been anticipated because of the even number of its membership. On several important questions that have come before the board, when a decision had to be reached, we have found that the board split three tc three, with the unfortunate consequence that no action could be taken on these important matters where there was no majority decision by the board. We submit that that is not a proper state of things to continue, and that the board should consist of an odd number of members, whether it be five or seven.
Furthermore, we believe that western Canada is not adequately represented upon that board. In view of the fact that the three western provinces and British Columbia are very important factors in providing traffic for our railways, we submit that these four provinces should be more fully represented on the board than they are at the present time.
There is another question on which I wish to speak, which is not mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that is the income tax. The reason why I bring this matter to the attention of the House is because of a pamphlet that I hold in my hand, called The Retail Trade Review, issued by the Retail Trade Bureau of Canada. This is a national organization, and I understand that this pamphlet has been distributed from one end of Canada to the other. The article in this pamphlet is headed:	The Vigorous
and Aggressive Campaign Undertaken by the Retail Trade Bureau of Canada Against the Dominion Income Tax to be Continued Until the Tax is Entirely Abolished. That seems to be the purpose of this organization, the abolition of the income tax, through persuasion, or ways and means best known to themselves. Now the basic principle of all taxation has been accepted as being the ability of the person to pay, and we submit that the income tax carries out that principle fairly. The income tax takes more, of course, from those who have the greater ability to pay, and therefore we maintain that it is a fair tax.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Another reason why we support the income tax is because it is a direct tax. We believe that direct taxation is far better than indirect taxation. We believe that if we had more direct taxation the people of Canada would take more interest in public affairs in this country, would watch more closely the expenditures of their various legislative bodies, and consequently we believe that this tax has a beneficial effect all round. I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to the following paragraph in this pamphlet:
In presenting our claims to tile government a large and influential delegation waited upon the members of the cabinet on March 12, 1926, and presented a memorial setting forth our reasons for the necessity of abolishing the Dominion income tax, and we are more than pleased that the government recognized the injustice of the application of this tax and saw fit to substantially reduce it.
What I would like to ask the government is this:	Is that a fair interpretation of the attitude of the government on that occasion? We realize, of course, that it is quite possible for delegations such as this to read something into the attitude of the government which the government never intended, but we would like to know from the government very definitely whether that is their attitude and whether it is their intention to gradually abolish this tax. We quite recognize the possibility of there being some inequalities in this tax, and so far as possible these inequalities should be removed. As far as the tax itself is concerned we contend the present percentage schedule should1 be maintained, because it is in the best interests of all concerned. In reading this particular pamphlet, I find that they stress very strongly the fact that in their opinion this income tax prevents more capital from coming into Canada. I am not satisfied for one moment that that is the case. For instance, I believe you will find that the protective tariff is more instrumental in preventing new capital coming to this country than the income tax, because the protective tariff is a tax upon new capital coming to this country. In order to demonstrate that, we must examine how capital comes into this country. In the first instance, of course, it comes in by way of a bank credit, but in the final analysis the bank credit must be followed by goods. In the final analysis the goods that are required for the purposes of production are capital and every high tariff placed on goods coming into this country is just so much of a tax on new capital coming in. I would like to refer hon. members back to the time when we had that great era of prosperity that is often spoken about,
say from 1900 to 1912. That has been looked upon as the time when we had the greatest prosperity in this country, but how was that prosperity arrived at? It was arrived at because new capital was coming into Canada in the form of mortgages which were being placed upon lands which were being abandoned by the settlers.


Mr. BENNETT:: And railway construction.


Robert Gardiner: Yes, we had railway
construction it is true. But if you look up the trade returns of that period you will find our imports were always greater than our exports and that substantiates the argument I advance, that when new capital comes into the country it must come in the form of goods. Therefore, I trust the government will not under any consideration think that by reducing the income tax they are going to get more new capital into the country. If the government on the other hand would reduce the tariff, more particularly on those articles which bear high protective duties, they would do more in that way to bring new capital into the country than by tampering with the income tax.
There is another circumstance I would like to draw to the attention of the House in this regard. Last year provision was made for a tariff advisory board. Many applications have come before this board, more particularly for higher protective tariffs. Judging from some reports that have appeared in the press, I understand that the board, when hearing these applications, have gone fully into the question of capitalization, and the overhead that that capitalization means to the particular business concerned. It has been reported that when the business of these particular concerns has been investigated they have invariably stated that their plants were too large for the business available, and the size of their plants has necessitated a larger overhead than otherwise would be necessary. This merely shows that in so far as the manufacturing industries are concerned, we are not very much in need of new capital, but in so far as other industries are concerned, more particularly in regard to those industries which develop our natural resources, there is a possibility that we could do with a good deal of new capital in this country. But after all that may be said about this particular question, I trust hon. members will remember that our protective tariff is a greater barrier to the inflow of new capital to the natural industries than the incidence of the income tax.
During the last session of parliament a motion was placed on the order paper dealing
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

with the transfer of the natural resources to the province of Alberta. For various reasons, or more particularly for one reason, this was not gone on with. It is quite true this covenant had been entered into between the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta. They were both parties to the agreement and signed it. Since the last session of parliament the government has referred the question of the validity of section 17 of the Alberta Autonomy bill of 1905 to the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether the particular clause in this section dealing with the question of denominational schools is valid or otherwise. We submit, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to Alberta, that, in view of the fact that this matter will be decided by the Privy Council, there is no need to further withhold the natural resources from the province of Alberta, and that the natural resources should be transferred to the province, without any reference whatsoever to the school question. In all fairness to the pro-vince we 'believe that is the attitude the government should take. We maintain of course that by the act of 1905 the natural resources should have been transferred to the provinces at that time, but for certain considerations or for certain reasons it was not done. The sooner the natural resources are returend to the province the more expeditiously will those resources be developed. We have recognized that fact, and it has been our experience that long range administration is not very effective. Let me give you one instance, for example. All hon. members are all aware of course that certain developments are proceeding in Alberta in regard to oil. We are all aware that in certain portions of Alberta we have a large natural gas field. Arrangements have been made with certain companies to supply gas to the people of several cities in the province of Alberta. During the development for the securing of oil many gas fields have been tapped, and today millions of feet of gas are going to waste, yet in the city of Calgary, for instance, the people are paying 45 cents per 1,000 feet for gas. That situation should not be allowed to continue for any great length of time. We cannot waste a natural resource in that manner and still feel that we are looking after the interests not only of ourselves but of posterity. I am a firm believer in taking from our natural resources all that we require for our present day needs, but I am also just as firm a believer in preserving the balance for posterity, because after all we have that duty thrust upon us whether we like it or not. Taking these various factors into consideration, then, I submit that in all fairness

the province of Alberta should have transferred to it these natural resources without reference to the difference of opinion with respect to the educational clauses of the act of 1905.
There is one other matter I wish to refer to and it is of importance to the province of Alberta. After the Panama canal was completed trial shipments of grain were made from our Pacific port of Vancouver. We found it to be quite feasible to ship grain by that route. Vancouver is certainly much nearer to the province of Alberta than either Fort William or Port Arthur, and naturally we desire to ship our grain by the cheapest possible route. The government of the day took into consideration the development of this port, and by legislation created a harbour commission composed of three members, charged with the responsibility of providing such appliances as are required to facilitate the passage of goods through the port. The largest single commodity going through that port at the present time is grain, and most of it is produced in the province of Alberta. In view of the situation we submit to the government that the wheat producers of Alberta should receive representation when the present vacancy on that board is filled. We would not like to see such a representative appointed as would look only after the interests of those producers and would discriminate against the interests of other shippers; but on the other hand we maintain that there is always a tendency for a commission of this description to place a higher cost upon the grain going through the port than should rightfully be levied against that commodity. Therefore we urge that it is not only in the interests of Alberta but also in the interests of Vancouver city and port that the wheat producers of Alberta who are providing the largest volume of the business going through that port should have representation on the board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only one other word to say. You will remember that when you were nominated for the position of Speaker I stated that we had created many precedents at the last session of parliament, and that it was very likely we would create some further precedents at this session. I find that I am in accord with most of what is contained in the speech from the throne, but I would not care to sanction some of the items until information with respect to them is available. Now, so far as I am concerned I purpose to create another precedent. If there is a division on the speech from the throne I intend to support the government, with the understanding that the items which are now so indefinite I will be free to discuss

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
and even to vote against if I deem it desirable. It is an unfortunate circumstance in our parliamentary procedure that when the speech from the throne or the budget is before the House we must vote either for or against it as a whole. We all know that in either the speech from the throne or the budget there are some items that every member of the House can support, and it places such members in a very unpleasant position when they find that they must either vote in support of or against the budget or the speech from the throne, as the case may be, as a whole. We give warning to the House that we are going to take a different course. If we find there is more good than evil in the speech from the throne or in the budget, then we will support either, reserving to ourselves the right to speak or vote against anything therein contained which we think is wTrong. That is the attitude we purpose to take, and I trust the House will accept this declaration in the same spirit in which it is made.


Mr. J. S. WTOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
yesterday referred to the endorsation the government had received in the recent elections. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that our little group here in this corner can boast what no other group can, that we came back fifty per cent stronger-we have one member more.
Last session, owing to the fact that this side of the House was very much crowded, we took our places on the government side, stating to the House that there was no particular political significance in our change, but that there we could hear and be heard to greater advantage. This session, since there are no cross benches and there is more room on this side of the House, we are back on what is termed the "opposition" side with a number of the farmer members, with whom during the past five years we have found ourselves working in very close co-operation. But let me say that we, like the hon. members around us, do not regard ourselves as necessarily being opposed to the government; we rather would emphasize the fact that we are trying as best we may under the existing rules of the House to maintain an independent position. We are thinking in terms of legislation rather than in terms of party. We propose to support to the best of our ability good legislation from whatever source it comes, but we do not propose to give unqualified allegiance to any party irrespective of their legislative programme or of their administrative efficiency.
The desire has been expressed that we ought to expedite the business of the House, anti we in our comer here have every disposition to do so. However, I feel we have a perfect right, even during the few days we are here, to discuss various matters which come before us in the speech from the throne. I might call attention to the fact that two whole days were devoted to formal functions. Surely two or three days may be devoted to a discussion of the business of the country. There is indeed some little danger that we in Ottawa may forget the real business for which we come here. I notice the newspapers announce that we are in for a brilliant social season. In connection with the coming of the Governor General the newspapers of the country sent out a despatch to the effect that Ottawa society was agog over the prospects of a social season of luncheons, dinners, teas and dances. That may be all very well for a few members here, but I would suggest that it does not particularly appeal to the large mass of the electors, our fellow citizens, who sent us here and who are living in the industrial areas or on the prairies of the west.
Our group may be small, but I venture to say that it represents a very considerable proportion of the people across the country who otherwise are not vocal. The point of view of the Labour party is somewhat different from that of the older groups and even from that of the farmers with whom we co-operate. It is true, I know, that some of the members of the older parties claim to represent labour, inasmuch as there are labour people in their constituencies. I do not at all object to their efforts to represent labour, but it is not very frequently that they press what are essentially the principles of organized labour. There are in my constituency in Winnipeg North Centre bankers who probably would agree with me in the statement that I have not during the past five years tried to represent in the House their special point of view. In the same way there are a great many members here in whose constituencies there are labour men and who represent in a general way the views current in their different communities. But these members do not come to give distinct expression to the view-point of labour in their constituencies. It is therefore our peculiar task and duty to attempt to represent labour as best we may. Sometimes I fancy it must be quite pleasant to represent a constituency composed very largely of bankers or wholesalers or manufacturers. In such a case even I might wax eloquent over the "increased prosperity of the country" and indulge in other phrases of that character. However, some of us, if we are to be true to the people who sent

66	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
us here and to the platforms on which we were elected, are forced to try to preserve the point of view of certain sections of the public that feel very differently from that section that receives the greatest publicity in our leading newspapers.
We are very glad to note that there is to be reintroduced the legislation we passed last year. In some of that legislation we have a particular interest and we would give the government full credit for having done its best during the past session to put these measures on the statute book. I would point out, however, that as a matter of fact the legislation which was of special interest to labour went by the board, as did a good deal of other legislation. It is not the law of the land. I know there was a sudden dissolution which abruptly terminated the business of the House, but I would point out that the old age pensions, amendments to the Criminal Code, and amendments to the Immigration Act actually passed the House but were rejected by the Senate. The same conditions, on the whole prevail at the present time, and I would submit very respectfully to the government that if they propose simply to reintroduce this legislation without taking some steps to ensure that it shall become the law of the land, they cannot very well hope to receive the continued support of the country. In this connection I would venture to call attention to a resolution which I have placed on the order paper and which I would commend to the attention of the government, namely, that we be permitted this year to have a special parliamentary committee to consider what changes might be made in the British North America Act, which,
*

while conserving the principles of confederation, would enable us more adequately to cope w-ith the complicated problems which now confront Canada.
It would seem to me that if the government are really in earnest-and I have no reason to believe they are not-in having old age pensions and other social legislation placed on the statute books they should not allow the second chamber to continue to have powers which enable it effectually to nullify the will of the people.
The speech, using the customary phrases, expresses gratitude for a bountiful harvest. I should like to ask what this means in terms of the enjoyment of the good things of life by the ordinary Canadian citizen. Speaking particularly for the west I would call attention to the fact that that section of Canada enjoys only a little over half of the good things it produces. A very interesting study was made a few years ago by the Department of Trade and Commerce and
JMr. Woodsworth.]
published by the Bureau of Statistics with regard to the economic position of the Canadian prairie provinces. The latest figures are for the year 1923 and I presume the proportions will be fairly the same to-day. In fact, if there is a more bountiful harvest at the present time, if there is a greater production on the prairies, it is quite possible that a larger proportion will be sent out of the country instead of being retained in the prairie areas. Owing to certain factors into which I need not enter to-day, it is exceedingly difficult for the statistical department to make a study of this character for the whole of Canada, but in view of our inland position on the prairies it has been possible to make a detailed investigation. Let me quote from the pamphlet:
Perhaps the outstanding result of the investigation is that it shows net exports from the prairie provinces amounting to approximately $270,000,000, whilst imports into this area were approximately $115,000,000. The "favourable" trade balance of this section of Canada was, therefore, in the neighbourhood of $125,000,000.
Now, we may have had a bountiful harvest in the west, but the point to which I would call attention is that the greater part of that harvest or its money equivalent goes out of the country altogether and that we are left in the west to enjoy only a part of the fruits of our labour. Let me ask, where does this $125,000,000 go? That is what is known as the "favourable" balance, though indeed I do not know why it should be a favourable thing for us to send more out than we get in. I have never been able to understand that point of view.


Mr. COOTE:: It is more blessed to give
than to receive.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly; but we
do not generally conduct business on that basis. I suppose we can find the explanation in what is known to economists as invisible exports. As the pamphlet itself says:
Some of the items, for example, which must be included in a complete statement of the "invisible" exports from the prairie provinces of Canada would include (1) payments of interest and sinking fund sent outside the area: (2) payments of dividends on securities of prairie companies to persons resident outside the prairie region: (3) remittances of cash by immigrant residents; (i) expenditures of travellers; students, etc., ordinarily resident in and deriving their income from the prairie provinces, made outside the prairie district;
(5)	payments to outside insurance companies;
(6)	the export of capital accompanying emigration; (7) capital sent away from the prairies for investment; (8) charges for transient labour recruited mainly from eastern Canada (harvesters' excursions).

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
That may indicate, perhaps, the great outstanding fact that the extent to which we are truly grateful for a bountiful harvest will possibly be dependent upon the proportion of that harvest which we are allowed to enjoy. Let me go on to say that in all parts of. Canada a very large proportion of the production is eaten up by our inequitable system of distribution, and in this connection I would like to quote, not a radical writer, but rather a few sentences from an interview with the late W. J. Hanna at the time he was food controller, when he found himself faced with the necessity of doing something if possible to eliminate some of the profits which went to the middleman. Mr. Hanna at that time referred to:
The supernumerary, unnecessary and inefficient middleman, whose presence in the community is one of the most serious economic wastes of the day,-
And later he goes on to say:
That there have long been too many city people and too few farmers in this Dominion is common knowledge, but it is not so well known that among our city people there are too many mere distributors, too many shippers, packers, carriers, wholesalers, retailers, advertisers, printers, salesmen, brokers, sub-brokers, deputy brokers, assistant-sub-deputy-brokers, and the whole army of people in the services and professions that wait upon the middleman.
Later, in speaking of this inflated staff of non-producers, he says it-
-was and still is dependent for its wages upon' the movement of farm goods to the city and city goods to the farm, and all the over-specialized, over-elaborated processes which a luxurious civilization imagines are necessary to its happiness-
Here again may I emphasize that we have perhaps in this very House a large number who more nearly represent that great class of middlemen, and it is not much wonder that perhaps they rejoice in the bountiful harvest because they are able to secure a very considerable proportion of that harvest. I am reminded of a saying of Mr. Bernard Shaw's, to the effect that man is the only animal that counts himself rich according to the number and voracity of his parasites.
Let me pass on in considering this bountiful harvest to the question of some of the people who actually help take it off; I mean the harvesters. I happened to come down on the train with a number of these men who were returning to the east; some of them were riding in the regular coaches, while some had been riding on box cars. On that very trip one poor fellow had apparently fallen between the cars. In conversation with a number of the men who had been out through the west for the harvest, I found that owing to the rain 32649-5$
which came during harvest time, a very large number of these men were unable to obtain very much as the result of the weeks they spent in the west. I would like to commend to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a suggestion that we might very well make provision for some kind of insurance for those who harvest the western crop. It is undoubtedly a question of national importance that the wheat harvest should be safely garnered in, but we often find that owing to an early frost in one particular region, a hail storm in another region, or an early snowfall in still another, hundreds of men are thrown out of work. It would seem reasonable that the great burden of a disaster of that kind should not be borne by the few individual harvest hands who happen to be located in that particular district. The west is accustomed to insurance against hail and other suoh contingencies, and it would not seem an unreasonable thing that the Agriculture department or the Immigration department, recognizing the importance of the task, and also recognizing that no group of individuals in one neighbourhood or no one district could handle this situation, should bring forward some sort of insurance scheme. The details of this would need to be carefully worked out. The end to be attained is that those men who go from the east or from overseas to harvest the crops of the west may be sure of coming back with at least decent wages for the time they have spent in this very essential work.
Further in this connection might I point out that the ordinary industrial worker in the cities has by no means profited to the extent he should profit by the bountiful harvest, and the added production which has characterized the last year in this country. Let me give a statement from a recent investigator of wages on this continent:
The recent researches of Paul H. Douglas show that the gain in real wages in the United States from 1890 to 1919 did not average one-half of one per cent a year.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions are very similar in Canada, although we have not had a careful research carried on in this country. If during the past 20 years the industrial worker in the United States has gained only something like one-half of one per cent a year in real wages, it would seem to me that it might very well be that we should devote a little more time to asking what this bountiful harvest means to the ordinary man in industry or on the farm.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, before the House took recess I had been trying to explain that in connection with the speech we are attempting, as far as we can, to present the special viewpoints of the Labour group that we represent. I had been dwelling upon the question of the bountiful harvest, and suggesting that although there have been greatly increased production and increased trade that that did not necessarily mean that the rank and file, either of the agricultural or the industrial workers, had very largely benefited thereby; that very frequently a considerable portion of production was already mortgaged; that very often our system of distribution was such as to permit only a small percentage to remain in the hands of the actual producers.
I should like now to pass to what might be considered almost as a part of the unfinished business of the last House. The members of last year will recall that a parliamentary committee was appointed to consider the question of the minimum living wage. Near the close of last session the committee brought in a report containing certain recommendations, and this report was unanimously adopted by the House. The question itself, however, has not been very fully discussed, and so far as the speech from the throne is concerned there is no indication that legislation with respect to it is to be brought down. May I say that the principle of the minimum wage has been very clearly recognized by the government of Canada for some time past. As far back as 1918 we had a declaration of war labour policy by the Dominion government. I quote from it section 9:
That all workers, including common labourers, shall be entitled to a wage ample to enable them with thrift to maintain themselves and families in decency and comfort, and to make reasonable provision for old age.
Again in section 15, where there is a reference to what is known as " fair wage " provisions, the words used are:
Always mindful however, of the necessity of payment of living wages.
After the war was over this question of decent standards of living was considered not merely by the Canadian government but by the governments of all the allied nations, and in the Peace treaty of Versailles certain general principles with regard to labour were incorporated. I should like to read a few phrases which, perhaps, may bring before the members of this House the broad scope of the agreements which were solemnly entered into at that time:

The high contracting parties, recognising that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed,-
And so on. We have clause 1, which sets forth the guiding principle that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce. And again clause 3, which declares in favour of-
The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
I do not think it is necessary to remind the House that this treaty was signed and the conventions were ratified later on by Canada.
The next step with reference to these matters was taken by the government in 1919 when a royal commission on industrial relations was appointed. On this commission there were not only representatives of labour but also representatives of the employers. The following well known gentlemen were on the commission: Hon. Chief Justice Mathers, of Manitoba, Chairman; Hon. Smeaton White, Mr. Carl Riordon and Mr. F. Pauze. At the opening session, the chairman with the approval of the other members made a statement, and I quote simply one paragraph of it so as to give some idea of the expressed attitude of those who were interested in industrial affairs at that time:
In July, 1917, the British government appointed a commission of inquiry into the problem of industrial unrest, and in conclusion I do not think that I can do better than quote from its report:
"What is wanted is a new spirit-a more human spirit, one in which economic and business considerations will be influenced and corrected, and it is hoped will eventually be controlled, . by human and ethical considerations. The main cause of unrest lies deeper than any material considerations. The problem is fundamentally a human and not an economic problem. A new spirit of partnership is therefore essential."
This declaration and the recommendations of the commission were followed uip by a National Industrial conference held also in 1919. I may say, however, that practically nothing was done at that conference that resulted in anything of any concrete advantage to the workers. If I might allude to a phrase used by the Prime Minister yesterday, it is quite possible that the status of labour was readily accorded, but labour has not risen in stature sufficiently to be able to take any very great advantage of the status that was so readily conceded in 1919.
Our committee last year brought in a report which has been placed, I think, in the hands of all the members. From this I should like to quote one or two brief sentences. One

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
witness, Doctor MacMillan, of the minimum wage board of the province of Ontario, said: There seems to be no reason why if this principle is good for women's wages, it should not be applied at least to some classes of men's wages.
Further the report states:
The evidence also showed that some workers in Canada are receiving less than will enable them to adequately maintain this standard.
I think that is putting it very mildly indeed, but that was the unanimous statement of the committee after examination of all the evidence placed before them. It was stated by the Deputy Minister of Justice that minimum wage legislation was primarily, under the British North America Act, a matter for provincial legislation. But he also quoted section 132 of the British North America Act: The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
Commenting on this he said:
There can be no doubt that where Canada has entered into an obligation by treaty-and in that connection I mean an association with the empire, of course

within the meaning of section 132, which I have just read, I do not think there is any doubt but that parliament has power to legislate for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the treaty.
That is a most important statement, and I think perhaps warrants the further statement of the committee itself:
This opinion goes to show that the British North America Act by no means contemplates industrial problems of the kind and scope to which Canadians to-day must adjust themselves.
The committee recommended, among other things:
That a conference of provincial and Dominion representatives intimately in touch with labour conditions throughout Canada be held in the near future to consult as to the best means to be employed of giving effect to the labour provisions of the Treaties of Peace.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who unfortunately is not in his seat, but to whom this message will undoubtedly be delivered, whether the government will not consider the calling of this conference at a very early date. Further than that, to this conference there might possibly be also committed the carrying out of the other provisions of the Versailles peace treaty. Anyone who has read anything of the proceedings of the League of Nations must understand that Canada is not by any means in a foremost position as regards labour legislation, and it seems to me that in ordinary decency, and having regard to the premier position which we occupy
among the British dominions, we ought not to lag behind in social legislation of this character.
Let me say that the evidence given before the committee showed the budget that was necessary in order to maintain a minimum standard of health and decency. There are a great many people living much below the standard, but the most careful social workers prepared for us an estimate which goes to show that in order to maintain a family properly, to clothe and feed them properly, and provide proper shelter, edtication, a moderate amount of recreation and other things of that kind, it is necessary to-day, according to the prices now prevailing, to spend in the neighbourhood of $2,200 per annum. That you will find in the evidence of the committee.
Now, on the other hand, I ask what are the actual wages paid in Canada. I find, according to the Year Book of 1925, the latest figures that we have, the average yearly earnings of wage earners in manufacturing industries in Canada, as shown at page 429, amount to only $959. That is less than half the amount that is considered necessary to maintain a family in health and decency, according to the figures prepared by some of the most careful investigators. It may be quite true that this average figure of $959 includes the wages paid to unmarried men and to girls, but I submit that that does not make it any easier for the married man who has the responsibility of the family, for in the case of girls at least, they are paid very little more than what is necessary, according to the government's own standards, and as enforced by the minimum wage regulations of the various provinces. We had a concrete instance given us, which may help to make the subject very definite to all in this chamber.
In one manufacturing town in Ontario, and I think it is a fairly representative town, in a cotton industry the girls were receiving $10 a week, and the men, many of them married, were receiving only $15 a week. The $10 had to be paid under the minimum wage laws of the province of Ontario. There was no legislative provision whatever as to the payment to married men, which simply meant that whereas, under the most rigid investigations, it had been found necessary to give $10 a week to keep an unmarried girl, the men were getting only $5 a week more. They were supposed to be able to keep a wife and family on that additional $5. I ask anyone can it be done? If so at what cost?
I do not think I am going too far afield, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the fine phrases about the increasing prosperity of this country, about the bountiful harvest, about the greatly in-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
creased production, if I call your attention and the attention of the House to the fact that very large numbers of our fellow-citizens are living below the standard that is necessary to maintain health and decency. I do not know that our own employees, the civil servants, are very much better off. Let me read from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of January, 1926:
In the session of parliament, 1922, Mr. Me-Quarrie, in answer to a question, received the information that 19,467 employees of the Dominion government received less than $960 per annum.
That is, government employees were receiving only about what is the average wage in the manufacturing industries, and which is only about half what is necessary, according to government and other investigators, to maintain a decent standard of living in Canada. In that same editorial the Citizen goes on to comment on this state of affairs. It says:
Political and economic leaders are accustomed to lay great stress upon perfection in the production of material commodities of all kinds. Appropriations and statistics in parliament are largely confined to the increase of material-wealth and the pursuit of gainful occupations for profit- that is, for the almighty dollar. The development of our natural material resources is no doubt of great importance. It may well be asked what is the ratio between the importance attaching to the development of material wealth and the care and cultivation necessary for the improvement of the human existence.	While our economic system is
grinding out wealth, how fares the great mass of struggling humanity during the process?
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, since it requires, according to the figures presented to the committee, something like $2,200 to maintain an average sized family in decency, and the average wage paid in this country is only $959, how is the difference made up? Because the majority of the families do manage to get along on less. They sometimes save on food, and we generally pay the bills through contributions we are making to the hospitals and other institutions. They may save on houses, and we have the overcrowding that exists in so many of our larger cities, which again leads to deterioration in the life of the family, and we very often have to pay again through our hospitals and other institutions. Very often the difference is made up by the earnings of the husband and father being supplemented by the earnings of the wife and children; the effect is to mortgage the next generation, and we have another generation coming up with very little education, fit only for blind-alley occupations and very inadequately equipped
[Mr. Woodsworth.3
to meet the strenuous conditions of modern life. I submit the time has come when this parliament will have to fall in line with the parliaments of other great nations, especially with the parliament of the mother country and with some of the colonies, for instance with New Zealand and Australia, and give a little more attention to matters of this kind.
I would commend to the attention of the House a resolution that has been placed on the order paper by my hon. friend for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Committee on Industrial and International Relations be instructed to investigate and report on the establishment of a system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
The speech goes on to state:
It is gratifying to note that during the year immigration has substantially increased.
We have discussed the question of immigration in this House again and again and it is not my intention to go into this matter to any great length, but since the railroads and the boards of trade are on every hand emphasizing the need for increased immigration, I would like once again to utter my protest against increasing immigration without taking greater care of the incoming immigrant and the men already here. It is very easy to permit immigration to be used simply to overcrowd the labour market, as to supply fares for the railroads and a sale for the lands of the west. I am glad to find that the departments are beginning to talk about colonization instead of immigration. It is a move in the right direction, but we will have to go a great deal further in practical provisions before the situation is at all satisfactory. It is a disgrace to civilization to have brought before us the pathetic stories that fill the papers in nearly all our cities about this time of year. We have appeals not only for a Christmas dinner, but at the same time we have little glimpses into the wretched conditions under which a considerable part of the population must live. I do not need to go outside of Ottawa. Here is a newspaper clipping of a date no later than December 2, a statement by the Social Service Commissioner of Ottawa, who says:
We are told repeatedly that Canada needs immigrants. The transportation companies have a large interest in stating that our prosperity will be increased in proportion to the number of new citizens who come to our shores. It seems a reasonable assumption that the further importation of men would aggravate the present situation. If we need further labour during the summer months, it might be feasible to import men in the spring and send them home again in the fall.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
And again-
The quality of our citizenship is not improved by the presence in our city of thousands of under-nourished little children, hundreds of cold and cheerless homes, many families forced into the streets because the rent cannot be paid.
Are those statements correct? If they are not I think it is the duty of the government to correct them. If they are correct, it is the duty of the government to introduce such legislation as will make it impossible that those conditions should continue.
Again the speech from the throne goes on to state:
It is gratifying to note that during the year the foreign trade of Canada has shown further marked improvement.
I am sure we all rejoice in that statement, because as a whole we have taken it that trade returns indicate a substantial betterment in general conditions. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder why to are so solicitous about our foreign trade. I sometimes wonder why we do not spend a great deal more attention in developing the home trade. We cannot do that unless we increase the buying power of the masses of the people. There it seems to me is one of the solutions of the economic problem which faces not only this country but all the countries of the world to-day. In this connection, just to show that a good many people outside the labour movement are thinking along these lines, I should like to quote a paragraph from one of the papeirs of my own city, the Winnipeg Tribune. I might say this paper was a supporter of the Conservative party during the last election so that I cannot be accused of quoting from any organ that is particularly favourable to my own position. The editorial reads:
Home Markets Heeded
The American Federation of Labour is getting down to economic fundamentals, when it asserts that "the best interests of_ the whole social group are served .... by high wage standards which assume sustained purchasing power to the workers, and, therefore, higher national standards. In other words, the more money the masses of the workers have to spend, the greater will be the home market for the goods which they produce."
Again it says:
It is curious that nations should fight for foreign markets and should spend vast sums of money in building up semi-civilized people to the point where they will become customers, while they have right within their own borders masses of people in real need of the things they have so much difficulty in selling. It should not be difficult for an economist to show that what the over-industrialized countries should do to find a market for their "surplus"
production is, as the American Federation ^ of Labour suggests, to increase the purchasing power of the masses at home.
That particular phase of the economic question has of course been given a considerable amount of emphasis in magazine articles, and the experimental work of Mr. Henry Ford has perhaps served to draw popular attention to the possibilities. I commend that suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is quite possible to stimulate prosperity in this country by developing our home markets.
Reference is made to adequate provision for the civil service. We all want to look after the civil service, but may I ask why we do not begin some of our economies right at home. I should not like to suggest the abolition of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon); he is too genial a man. I would, however, like to suggest the abolition of his office, as was suggested a year or so ago. I do not know why it is that the government seems to have settled back again and to be apparently determined to take no action along these lines. Again and again it has been suggested that we might have various consolidations of departments. All of us, I suppose, hive considered ways in which this might be done. I mention the consolidation of the Public Works department with the Department of Railways and Canals. Half a dozen other consolidations will readily occur to almost any member. Why should we persist in a very considerable measure of extravagance with regard to higher officials when we are constantly talking about the necessity of exercising economy across the country?
May I venture to suggest one or two things that have occurred to me-and I am sure to many others-in connection with the recent elections? Why should not the suggestion of the Chief Electoral Officer be carried out in legislation this session, and electoral officials be appointed for a considerable period of time? So far as I am concerned, I should like to take the electoral machinery out of party politics altogether. We had a struggle last session between the two major parties partly at least because each was determined to get hold of the electoral machinery. Why? It may have been that each was not intending to use that machinery illegitimately; but each party was decidedly afraid the other would. There we have the situation. Why not take the electoral machinery out of party politics altogether?
There is another inquiry I should like to make of the Prime Minister, but again I note
72	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
that he is nor in his seat. Last session before the dissolution of parliament it was decided with respect to the inquiry into the Department of Customs and Excise that a commissioner should be appointed by a judge of the Exchequer court. That was done, and Mr. Justice Lemieux was appointed. I have never yet ascertained-it may have been announced m the newspapers-just why it was that the government when it came into power proceeded to make an appointment of its own, leading apparently to the resignation of Mr. Justice Lemieux and the appointment of another judge to take his place. It would seem to me, and I think to anyone who sat through last session, that the idea in having the commissioner appointed by a judge of the Exchequer court was that there should be no suspicion or partisanship in the appointment. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that one amendment was that each o-f the larger parties might nom-.nate a judge to form the commission of inquiry, but it was felt that that of itself might lead to partisanship, and so a judge of the Exchequer court was asked to make the appointment. I think it is due to this House that at some early opportunity the government should tell us why the change was made.
Another matter that I would like to call to the attention of the government is in connection with the Tariff Advisory Board. As I understand it, this is a fact-finding body. Then why should not the reports with a summary of the evidence be given to the public? If I am correctly informed, at present these reports are turned in to the Minister of Finance, and I have no doubt they will be of great advantage to him in determining the policy of the government with respect to tariff matters; but if the reports do not consist of recommendations, but rather a digest of a mass of evidence, it does seem to me that it would be a very great advantage to parliament and to the people generally that the facts in connection with tariff matters should be given the widest possible publicity.
Before I leave these miscellaneous matters, might I venture to suggest further that when the government brings in its measure providing for a change of the rules of this House some provision should be made by which the estimates, instead of being discussed in committee of the whole, might at least be first referred to an appropriate committee? This is done to a limited extent in the case of the railway estimates, and has met with very general approval. I am sure that any of the older members must have realized the immense loss of time involved

in attempting to discuss the details of estimates in a large assembly of this kind. It would seem to me that by this method the interests of the country could be very well safeguarded, and yet the business of the House be greatly expedited, especially when as at present members' speeches are being recorded for Hansard.
The speech from the throne makes reference to the Imperial conference, and already considerable time has been devoted by previous speakers to a consideration of some of the matters arising therefrom. There is not the slightest doubt that the Prime Minister has brought back some very excellent phrases. Wie must all admit that. I hope we will be able to use those phrases to very good advantage. But as one examines the reports that have been submitted to us in the newspapers, I am afraid that some of the subsequent paragraphs do not altogether bear out the full meaning of the phrases which are crowded into the front of the report. We are told:
The dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.
Now, as far as I am concerned, that is very highly satisfactory, and yet I read on in the report-I might say that I have only the newspaper despatches to go on, as the House has not yet been supplied with printed copies of the report itself-I read1:
That the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function.
I have read that sentence again and again, and confess that I do not know what it means. I think a man would need to take a post-graduate course in metaphysics to know just what it does mean. Let me read it again, for possibly some subsequent speaker may be able to enlighten me.
The principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function.
Again, we are told that we are equal in status to the motherland, and yet later on with regard to foreign relations we find this:
Their delegates have recognized that in this sphere .... the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with His Majesty's government in Great Britain.
British diplomacy, it is suggested, can only commit the dominions to passive, not to active obligations.
Again, I confess that I am absolutely mystified. What are "passive" obligations as distinguished from "active" obligations? Further, we are told that:

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
The British Empire depends essentially, if not formally, upon positive ideals. Free institutions are its lifeblood, free co-operation is its instrument.
May I point out what has been noted by some old country papers, that of the 450,000,000 of the empire's inhabitants over 350,000,000 know nothing whatever of free institutions. The Daily Herald has this to say:
Not a mention of India, not of Malaya, of Nigeria, of Kenya, of the Sudan, of all those colonies and protectorates and dependencies and mandated areas which have no "free institutions" and know nothing of "free co-operation". Not a mention of all the subject peoples, of the empire.
It does seem to me that at least those of us who have anything of an international point of view cannot very well rest satisfied that the Imperial conference should have taken such slight account of the great majority of those who are sheltered under the British flag.
We are to be given a summary of the proceedings of the conference. I should like to know just how much of those proceedings we may expect to have divulged. Here again, it strikes me, there has been altogether too much secrecy about the conference, a condition which is far removed indeed from the ideal of open diplomacy which is pretty well worldwide at the present time. I would ask the government, what about secret commitments, what about implied guarantees? So far we know nothing about these things. Let me quote a news item which appeared on November 15, 1926:
After witnessing the maneouvres of aircraft at Croydon, the Atlantic fleet off Portland and Saturday's demonstration by army tanks, motor artillery and mechanical transportation the Dominion delegates are expected to express their views on motions to maintain the defence of empire.
What are these views? We have a right to know. Are they in harmony with that resolution published with regard to Locarno, reference to which was made this afternoon? In his Armistice day speech at Kansas City President Coolidge said:
It is more and more becoming the conviction of students of adequate defence that in time of national peril the government should be clothed with authority to call into its service all of its man power and all of its property under such terms and conditions that it may completely avoid making a sacrifice of one and a profiteer of another.
That will meet with the approval of many hon. gentlemen in all parts of the House, but I suggest that the government should take the very earliest opportunity to bring forward a
policy along these lines. If we are in any sense of the word to be committed, either actively or passively, to participation in another great war we ought to know at the earliest possible moment just what obligations we are undertaking, and adequate provision should be made in that direction, Let the government bring down its legislation. In this connection I would review briefly some figures given last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his presentation of the budget. The minister stated that the expenditures directly attributable to the war amounted to 47.83 per cent of our entire income, and then he went on to enumerate certain other items which brought the total up to fully 50 per cent. I cannot imagine that the people of this country can be generally aware of the fact that of all taxation that is gathered together in Canada by means of income tax and levies in various other forms, not to mention the tariS, fully 50 per cent goes to pay the interest on the debt incurred through the last war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself later on in the same debate if I remember rightly, stated that not a dollar of the principal in connection with that debt had yet been paid. Inasmuch as it is practically impossible for us to form any adequate idea of the meaning of figures running into the millions, I would put the matter this way: the total spent by the Canadian government on public health amounts to .19 per cent of our income; the total on scientific institutions, merely .29 per cent; and the total on labour .36 per cent. Here are three very important phases of our public life-health, scientific institutions, and the matter of industrial relations-to which a total of .84, or less than one per cent, of the revenues of the country is devoted, while 50 per cent of that revenue goes to pay for the last war. I would venture to offer a suggestion to the Minister of Finance. If we seriously contemplate another war why not adopt ordinary business principles and set aside a sum sufficient, say $50,000,000 a year, as a contingent fund? Not only have we to pay for the last war but apparently we are contemplating another war, and this being the case we may as well prepare for it. Any business conducted on sound principles sets aside certain reserves against contingencies; and this is not a mere contingency, for according to our experts it is dead certainty. I suggest therefore that the minister set aside $50,000,000 a year for a contingent fund. This, I submit, would be a much more effective preparation than summer camps for militia. And still more important, it would

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
enable us to pay for our own folly instead of shouldering the burden on our children's children.
This is not a mere personal matter with me, although I feel strongly on it. Only a few days ago there was sent to me through the mails by the Secretary of the Farmers' Union of Canada a resolution which, after enumerating some of the evils of the last war, declares:
Be it resolved that we urge on our representatives in parliament to take action to ensure that Canada lead the world now by being the first country in the world to adopt complete disarmament; and with that end in view;
1. That our standing army, our navy and militia be abolished.
(2) That all cadet training in schools be discontinued and that appropriations thus saved be expended in helping to provide;
(1)	Adequate pensions to disabled war veterans.
(2)	A system of state insurance against financial difficulties incident to sickness, old age, and death, including a pension to all indigent widows and orphans and pensions to all aged people in want, so that, on reaching the age of sixty-five years, every man and woman in Canada would be in receipt of a dollar a day for life.
Personally I have hardly the courage to suggest that every one should receive that much, and yet it would take an infinitesimal part of our annual revenue. Instead, not only do we go on year after year paying SO per cent of our revenue towards the cost of the last war, but apparently we are actually entering into certain obligations that may precipitate another conflict.
Before closing let me make this observation. During the war social legislation was very largely suspended or postponed. Between 1921 and 1925 the government did comparatively little in this direction. In 1925 I remember distinctly charging the government with having done practically nothing for labour-at any rate, nothing of a constructive character, during the preceding four years. Last year they made a good beginning in introducing old age pensions and other measures that would have helped a large proportion of the ordinary people of the country. But it is only a beginning. Social legislation is sadly in arrears. I submit that at present the government has a wonderful opportunity; it has not only a majority of its own followers, but it has in this quarter of the House members belonging to other groups who are prepared to support it if it goes forward with a progressive policy. I might, however, utter a word of warning. I want to state very frankly that if the government fails to carry oult a constructive program then the government will soon find that the people of

Canada did not put them into power in order merely to hold office, but rather to get things done. The west at least, and I think, the country at large, expects action. So far as we in this corner of the House are concerned, we Shall do our utmost to co-operate in pressing forward such action.


Mr. WILLIAM GORDON ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the hon. members who have preceded me in conveying my congratulations to you, Sir, upon your re-election to the office of Speaker; also to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and to His Excellency the Governor General and Viscountess Willingdon upon the appointment of Lord Willingdon as Governor General of this Dominion. From a purely personal standpoint I also wish to convey to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) my congratulations on his appointment as a minister of the crown. I happened to be associated with him and to serve under him, in an enterprise perhaps more hazardous than the present one; I have been associated with him in civilian life as well, and I only hope that he will continue to fill his office with distinction until the next general election.
As the first Nova Scotian to speak, Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to convey to this House the keen sense of personal loss which we all feel on the death of the late member for Antigonish-Guysborough, Mr. J. C. Douglas. We appreciated the kind and sympathetic words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), but perhaps we knew him best, and we feel his loss most keenly. I need only say that his passing leaves a genuine sorrow in thousands of Nova Scotian hearts.
My main purpose in arising this evening is to draw to the attention of the House what I believe to be one of the most monentous documents tabled here since confederation; I refer to the report of the Duncan commission upon maritime rights. Before I pass to that, however, I want to say just one or two words with reference to another matter mentioned in the speech from the throne; I refer now to the Imperial conference. I do not profess to be a great constitutional lawyer, but if I am not mistaken, when that conference convened there were gathered around the council table representatives of one sovereign country and of six dominions. In international law at least the attributes of sovereignty and those appertaining to a dominion are decidedly different; for instance, the sovereign country alone can make peace

The Address-Mr. Ernst
or declare war. I need not quote the other attributes, but amongst them is this, that a sovereign country can legislate for its subjects *whether they be within her own domain or whether they be in other countries; a sovereign country can legislate for its ships whether they be on the high seas or in their home ports. There was one such country represented at the council table, and that country was Great Britain; the rest were dominions. If we are to believe the report which was tabled in this House, something has happened; each is equal to the other, and none is subordinate in any respect. One thing or the other must have happened; either Great Britain has ceased to be a sovereign country and has descended to the level of a dominion, or each dominion has become a sovereign country. I dismiss the first proposition as absurd; I believe this House would consider it absurd that Great Britain should descend to the level of a dominion. If on the other hand Canada has become a sovereign country, I am going to put to hon. members opposite just one plain proposition in order to test that out. If Canada is a sovereign country she can legislate for her subjects whether they be within or without her borders; she can legislate for her ships whether they be on the high seas or in their home ports. If I mistake not, the right hon. Prime Minister, during the hectic last days of the last session and during the resulting campaign, stated that it was the desire of his government, or his party, to suppress the smuggling traffic in this dominion. If that desire was genuine, Mr. Speaker, and if that report means anything, then the Prime Minister has his opportunity. Those interested in the enforcement of the law say the reason why smuggling is so difficult to suppress is that they cannot go outside the three mile limit to seize and search ships. If this report means anything then I shall expect the government, in order to test it out, to introduce legislation enabling them to seize Canadian ships whether they be inside or outside the three mile limit. If they do not do so, there are only two conclusions one can draw. The first is that the government was not sincere in its statement that it desired to suppress smuggling; the other is that it has not the power and Canada is not a sovereign country. As a matter of fact, I believe that if they did pass such a law-and I present my opinion for what it is worth-it would be held ultra vires by every court of competent jurisdiction in this country. Further, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the report, in so far as that statement is concerned, is nothing but an empty platitude. Canada acquired her status, not through the efforts of
her politicians, but through the efforts of the 500,000 men who went overseas between the years 1914 and 1918. Fifty thousand of them sleep on foreign soil, and he who says that Canada's status is due to the efforts of her politicians is trying to filch honour from the dead.
I pass now to the subject on which I propose to dwell during most of the time I hope to occupy the attention of the House; that is, the question of maritime rights. The campaign started in 1920, in the province of Nova Scotia, and bore its first fruits when the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) was elected in the by-election of 1923. In the course of his remarks yesterday, the Prime Minister sought to take unto his government credit for the fact that it was his government which had appointed the commission headed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. May I point out that the senior member for Halifax was the first to mention the question of maritime rights in this House. At that time Nova Scotia was represented by fifteen Liberal members, and each of these members said that the statements of the senior member for Halifax were absurd, and had no truth in them. May I further point out that in the general elections of 1925 the maritime provinces, out of a total representation of thirty, returned twenty-four members pledged to the cause of maritime rights. The speech from the throne, it is true, contained a reference to the appointment of 'the commission, but I venture to say that it was not any deshe on the part of the Prime Minister to have the subject investigated, but rather the voice of the people of the maritime provinces which compelled him to do so. Further, when he states that the maritime members opposed the appointment of the commission, he overlooks the fact that the maritime members stated that they knew what was wrong with the maritime provinces, and had come here to get legislation to remedy those wrongs. He refused to believe them; he stated they did not know, and asked, "What are your maritime rights?" He appointed that commission; he has his answer, and that answer is a complete vindication of those members who sat here last year representing the mari,times.
I purpose dealing briefly with some of the main provisions of that report. The hon. leader of the United Farmers of Alberta (Mr. Gardiner) in the course of his remarks this afternoon said that before we legislated for the maritimes we ought to be sure that we knew what we were doing, and then do all that needed to be done at once. May I point
The Address-Mr. Ernst

out to him that the gentleman who headed that commission was referred to by no less a person than the Prime Minister of this country as a second Lord Durham? May I also point out to him that if he wants to know what is wrong with the maritimes all he has to do is to read that report with care. Then if he wishes to know how to provide a remedy all he need do is to support legislation to enact the provisions of that report, not partially but in their entirety.
But let me take up the provisions of the report one by one. The first deals with the question of subsidies. It recommends that Nova Scotia be granted an increase of subsidy amounting to $875,000 a year; New Brunswick an increase of subsidy amounting to $600,000; and Prince Edward Island an increase amounting to $125,000. I have heard it argued that this recommendation does not mean an increase, but represents the total subsidy which should be paid. May I draw the attention of hon. members to the statement in the report of the commission to be found on page 19, which reads as.follows:
We do not feel, however, that it would be right or wise that the Maritime provinces, in their present state of grave necessity with deficits accumulating against them in their ordinary revenue and expenditure, should be left in suspense until a re-assessment is made by the Dominion government, and accordingly we recommend that immediate interim lump-sum increases should be made in the payments to the three Maritime provinces as follows:-
May I point out further that a few lines later on in the report appear these words:
In suggesting the foregoing sums we have fixed what we believe to be the minimum addition that the three Maritime provinces should have in any such revision

And then if any doubt remains as to whether, in relation to the three maritime provinces, the sums named are increases or total subsidies to be paid, let me refer hon. members to the figures for Prince Edward Island which, in the report, are $125,000 in so far as the increase is concerned, whereas the subsidy paid to-day to the province of Prince Edward Island is something over $180,000. The figures leave no doubt that the amounts recommended are to be in addition to the amounts which are being paid to-day. I know there are some hon. members who will say this is a raid on the Dominion treasury. If they make the statement and let it go at that they are overlooking the facts of history. When Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces entered confederation they handed over to the Dominion government the chief sources from which they raised their revenue; they handed over the collection of customs, they handed 
over the railways which they themselves had built and they obtained no credit for these in the statement of their public indebtedness. In addition they had as provinces of Canada at the time of confederation a proprietary interest in the western lands which belonged to the Dominion. Those lands were apportioned and the proceeds given to the western provinces. Nova Scotia received nothing in return, whereas Quebec and Ontario received large accessions of territory in addition to the area which they had at the time of confederation. Need any further justification be urged for the increased subsidy which is recommended?
I pass on to the question of railways. To put the matter briefly the commission recommends first that a reduction of twenty per cent be made on all railway rates pertaining to the Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railways, to apply equally to traffic which originates in the maritime provinces and is destined to points outside, and to local traffic which both originates and terminates within the division. There was a further recommendation. The maritime province members had asked for special freight rates for their basic commodities, for their coal, steel and lumber. This question is left wide open by the commission. They say it should be dealt with by the railway board; that if the board has not that power to-day it should be empowered to deal with the question and deal with it effectively for the benefit of those interested. It will be said that if this twenty per cent reduction is made it will be statutory legislation. May I draw attention to the fact that it will not be the first time that statutory legislation has been invoked in so far as railway rates are concerned? In the second place it will be pointed out that the Atlantic division of the Canadian National railway is to-day operating at a loss, and that this reduction will mean a further raid on the Dominion treasury. May I point out to hon. members, in the first place, that the Atlantic <division of the Canadian National railway was not built primarily for commercial purposes, but was built for military reasons to connect these maritime provinces with central Canada and in order that the latter might have an outlet in the winter months. In carrying out that policy the railway was made two hundred and fifty miles longer than it need have been had its construction been carried out for commercial purposes. In the second place may I point out that, as was said by an hon. gentleman yesterday, unless each and every part of this Dominion is prosperous and contented the Dominion as a whole cannot be prosperous

The Address-Mr. Ernst
and contented. I believe that one of the Austinian theories of law is that that law is best which is best for the greatest number of individuals. So it is with a country: that policy is best which is best for the greatest number of its people. From confederation down to the present time that policy has been consistently the policy of protection. But there are certain parts of Canada which do not derive benefit in equal proportion to other parts. Some industries in the Maritime provinces do not derive an equal benefit in comparison with others. We say that the whole should help the part, and we shall be helping by making these contributions from the Dominion treasury. In that way a part of Canada may be rendered contented and prosperous and the reaction will be for the benefit of the whole Dominion.
I pass on now to the third recommendation of the report, namely the recommendation for port development. The port of Montreal has for years had a Board of Harbour Commissioners. The ports of Halifax and St. John, which should be the main winter ports for the traffic of this country on the Atlantic seaboard, have no such board of harbour commissioners. The Duncan commission recommends, and recommends explicitly, that a board of harbour commissioners should be appointed at once for both ports of Halifax and St. John. In this connection, however, may I say that even when the board is appointed there will be one or two matters which will need attention if the ports are going to be able to handle the business of the country. The first is referred to in the report. It is that better grain-handling facilities must be placed in these ports. Secondly it is recommended that adequate cold storage plants be built so as to help the agricultural industry and aid the fishing industry of the provinces.
I pass on now to the question of trade. The first recommendation made by the commission in this regard is that a bonus, or rather a bounty, be paid in connection with the manufacturing of steel. The matter is complicated but it is easy to understand once it is looked into. The commission recommends that a bounty or bonus on steel should be paid when that steel is manufactured from Canadian coal, and that the amount of the bounty or bonus should be equal to the drawback given on the duty on coal where steel is manufactured from foreign coal. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it takes four tons of coal to manufacture a ton of steel. The duty per ton is fifty cents, the drawback amounts to 99 per cent; and I may
tell hon. members on the government benches that we are looking for a bounty or bonus of $2 a ton on steel in connection with that trade as a result of the report of the commission.
There was another matter to which the commission referred and that was the question of a tariff. In this connection something most unfortunate has happened. As a result of that unfortunate happening we have not a recommendation but what merely amounts to a suggestion. When the commission was appointed, the terms of its appointment gave it an absolutely free hand to examine into conditions in the maritime provinces and to make specific recommendations. It was fettered by nothing. The Prime Minister himself wrote to the chairman of the commission saying that the commission had an absolutely free hand, and he wanted the chairman to consider so, and to look into every phase of maritime conditions. Yet in spite of that fact, the chairman of the Tariff Advisory Board saw fit to intimate to the chairman of the Duncan commission that that commission had to keep its hands off the tariff and make no recommendations in relation thereto. If I may refer the House to page 37 of the report, paragraph 25 says:
In respect of this matter, we do not conceive it to be our duty to express any opinion, since the question is, as we were informed by the chairman of the Tariff Advisory Board, who met us at our request, at the present moment under the consideration of that board.
But they say further:
But we do regard it as our duty to record that the significance of this industry to the Maritime provinces was forcibly brought home to us, not only in the manufacturing towns we visited in the Maritimes, but also throughout the agricultural districts of the Maritimes. We record this in order to emphasize the need for prompt action.
That is in relation to steel. Here is what the commission says in regard to coal:
Several features of the customs tariff in its relation to coal were brought to our attention, both by the government of Nova Scotia and by the operators of the coal mines. These we feel ourselves precluded from dealing with, since they are a matter properly to be considered by the Tariff Advisory Board; but we may be permitted to say that we are impressed with the need for reconsideration of the customs tariff in its relation to coal, anthracite and coke, and we recommend that the Tariff Advisory Board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the subject.
When the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country was touring the maritimes in his election campaign, he stated publicly that any recommendations or suggestions of the commission would receive the sympathetic
The Address-Mr. Ernst

consideration of his government were he returned to power. May I point out to him that here there is a definite suggestion that the duty on coal and steel is too low, that the duty ought to be raised for the benefit of those industries, and we demand that this House act upon that suggestion. There is no need to refer the question to the Tariff Advisory Board if the government is going to be governed by its own precedents, for in the case of the automobile industry, the government considered itself justified in lowering the duties on automobiles without having any investigation of any kind whatsoever. In this case we have the specific suggestion of a royal commission, and surely if the government saw fit to act in the case of the automobile industry without any recommendation or investigation of any kind whatsoever, it ought to act, and act quickly, on the report of the Duncan commission, and give us increased duties on both coal and steel during this present session.
In relation to trade, there is another specific recommendation in the report, and that is for the establishment of coking plants. I do not intend to deal with that at any length, because I notice in the speech from the throne it is intimated that the government will make special provision for carrying out the recommendation of the commission.
I pass on to the last matter with which I purpose to deal in so far as the report of the royal commission is concerned, and that is in relation to the fish trade. That is a matter in which I myself am particularly interested because I represent what is, so far as deep sea fishing is concerned, the biggest fishing community in Canada, and it is also vitally interested in the fresh fish trade. The problems of the two are very, very different, and I purpose dealing first with the fresh fish trade.
There is a recommendation that the government proceed, if possible, to make a trade treaty with the United States in order to have the Fordney-McCumber tariff done away with, a tariff which is burdensome to the shore fishermen of the maritime provinces. May I say that that proposition has our approval provided that the interests of the country as a whole do not have to be sacrificed in order to attain the objective. But there are several things which can be done even if that cannot be done, and the first of those is that fast refrigerator trains should be established to carry fish from Nova Scotia into the markets of central Canada. Secondly, the Dominion government can aid the provincial governments of the maritime provinces in a campaign to popularize the eating of fish throughout central

Canada, and if I may make one personal observation, I would say that there is a fertile field.
I pass on to the question of the salt fish trade. There is very little that can be done in this connection in so far as the question of maritime rights is concerned, but there is one matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the government. The salt fish trade is one that thrives in competition with the world. Our chief competitors are Norway and Newfoundland, and the chief market difficulty to-day is that Norway appears to be marketing a superior quality of fish, due to the fact that Norwegian fish are caught nearer home and do not have to be so heavily salted, and consequently can be better cured. I would suggest that a research bureau be established by the government to investigate with a view to finding improved methods of curing and packing fish, and to see if the market for salt fish cannot be extended.
I want to make one other reference in connection with this matter. From Lunenburg there go forth every year 100 vessels, and 3,000 men who earn their living on the deep. Last year during the storm in the month of August, two schooners, the Sadie Knickle and the Sylvia Mosher, were lying off Sable island when the storm came up, and they were caught and wrecked on the sand bars, and their crews of fifty men went to destruction. Why? Because there was no effective method of giving them warning that the storm was coming. If they had received warning, they could have obtained sea-room and escaped. After the election I wrote to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), and suggested that warning could be given if the government saw fit to establish radio-telegraphic communication. If the weather reports could be broadcast in plain English so that they could be picked up with a radio receiving set at a certain hour each day, disasters such as happened to the Sadie Knickle and the Sylvia Mosher need not happen in the future. I am happy to say that I received a most courteous reply from the minister, assuring me that the matter was being attended to, and that the Marconi station at Louisburg would be equipped for the purpose. I wish to impress upon the minister the fact that if it is to be of any use in the coming year, it will be necessary that some definite assurance be given that the service will be in operation by the month of March because at that time the fleet leaves for the sea. I would further suggest to the minister that the service be extended in this way: In the United States the Westing-house stations every Saturday night broadcast messages to the men of the Royal Northwest

The Address-Mr. Ernst
Mounted Police in the far north. These Lunenburg fishermen are on the banks two or three months at a time earning their living, during which they have no means of communication with the people at home; so I would suggest that the same station, Louis-burg, broadcast, say every Saturday night, messages from relatives to members of the fleet, which could be picked up by the latter on their radio receiving sets. If this is done I can assure the government that it would bring an added sense of security to many homes in my constituency.
Before I sit down I want to draw the attention of hon. members on the other side of the House to the fact that so far as this report is concerned the people of Nova Scotia are in deadly earnest. They started six years ago to struggle for what they deemed their rights. They struggled to have their disabilities removed. The conditions in the Maritime provinces, despite all that has been said to the contrary, demand a remedy and demand a remedy at once, and the remedy that has been suggested and demanded has been placed in concrete form by the commission. The right hon. Prime Minister, while in the Maritimes, gave the impression that the recommendations and suggestions of the commission would be carried out to the letter. Speaking at Windsor, in the county of Hants, on the evening of Monday, August 30, 1926, he said, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle:
It was anticipated that the commission would make its report in the near future. Mr. King desired to say that when the report is made out the Liberal administration would see to it that its recommendations are sympathetically received. It will be observed that the commission had been directed to make specific recommendations. This was in order that the government might have concrete measures which it could present to Parliament. He had no hesitancy in saying that he felt sure that the Liberals of western Canada would join with the Liberals of the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario in seeking to give effect to any legislative proposals based upon the findings of the commission, as he knew it was the desire of the Liberal party in other parts of Canada to have the Maritime provinces feel that the rest of Canada appreciated their problems and was prepared to join in finding the satisfactory solution.
"In my opinion" said Mr. King, "the report of Sir Andrew Duncan's commission will afford a historical parallel to the late Lord Durham report which in the late thirties did so much by way of concrete recommendation and suggestion to remove the grievances of which Upper and Lower Canada were suffering at that time. Sir Andrew Duncan is a second Lord Durham and any recommendation from his pen will be sure to carry great weight in the parliament of Canada."
May I say to the right hon. Prime Minister that the people of Nova Scotia are looking
to him to make good that pledge in letter and in spirit. What they demand is the full measure outlined in the report of the Duncan commission. They desire legislation to carry it out in full, and not simply any part or parcel thereof. Nova Scotia to-day is in a precarious position, and I speak particularly for my own province because I know it better than the other provinces. Nova Scotia to-day is in the same position as an under-nourished man. She has been fed by the government on smelling salts so long that they are now useless for the purposes of nourishment and she must have something better. Unfortunately we have had cause for misgiving. We have had fears that the attitude assumed by the Prime Minister during the last election was as expressed by one of the finance ministers of this country some time ago, something on which to get into power. That impression has been strengthened somewhat by the fact that the speech from the throne is very vague indeed. As to the remedies the government proiposes for the purposes of alleviating conditions in the maritime provinces and carrying out the recommendations of the Duncan commission, the speech simply states that certain legislation will be introduced. And may I say that the impression is not helped in any respect by the attitude the party of the Prime Minister took consistently up to the time the commission was actually functioning. Members from Nova Scotia stated in this House last year that there was nothing wrong with the province. I repeat that Nova Scotia demands the full measure of justice. I wish to say- and I do not make the statement as a threat, because there is no person more loyal to Canada than I am-that as an under-nourished man is susceptible to disease, so the province of Nova Scotia is susceptible to the germs of disease and there are within the party led by the right hon. the Prime Minister men who are trying to drive Nova Scotia from confederation, and we want him to help us to thwart them in their purpose. Only last election we had a man running in the county of Ptiotou who was an avowed secessionist and he was the official candidate of the Liberal party. One of the planks in his platform was secession. Furthermore, there is on the government side of the House a member representing a Nova Scotia constituency who six short years ago was an avowed secessionist, and the two chief Liberal organs of the province of Nova Scotia are owned by a man who is reputed to have as his purpose the breaking of the ties of confederation. We do not want anyone to succeed in any such purpose. We want to help Canada, because
The Address-Mr. Evans

we believe the destiny of Nova Scotia is linked with that of Canada, and I can assure the right hon. Prime Minister that if he gives us the full measure of the Duncan report- nothing less-the province which gave to this country Howe, Tupper, Fielding, Borden and Thompson, will go on to play her part as she has in the past and will be a contented and integral part of the great dominion that is to be.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, there is still a remnant of the Progressive party in this part of the House- that is even if you do not include under that name those who have been elected as an economic group and now bear the name of the United Farmers of Alberta. After the capitulation of a number who were elected in Manitoba who used to sit with us, and another member in Saskatchewan who was similarly situated, we certainly have been reduced in number, and occupy now a fourth place in this chamber, but a party nevertheless. Last year, under this name, we supported this government on a programme of legislation. We intend doing the same thing this year, and while we are sorry that a number of our former Progressives have now taken their seats on the Liberal side of the House I want to say that the spirit of Progressivism in western Canada is as strong as it ever was. The word stability no doubt had something to do with the division of our group this time, but I wish to say a word regarding stability. We must realize that stability cannot be maintained unless all classes together have found -i common ground for stability. Before stability can be attained in government there must at least be equality of opportunity among the different sections of the country and the different classes that exist, even if we may differ as to policies of the administration. The member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech this afternoon mentioned some of the chief of those discriminations which mostly affect us in western Canada.
I was indeed very much interested in listening to the speaker who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Ernst) in his description of the maritime provinces and what he considers their rights. The Duncan report is now before the House. After thirty-five years in western Canada, trying to make a living under the same conditions as the people of the maritime provinces, I think I know something of the needs of that part of the country. The class discrimination and class privilege are responsible for the most of it, and any subsidies or bonuses that may be given are not going to remedy the situation. What the maritime provinces need to-day is exactly what western Canada needs-a chance to
(Mr. Ernst.]
make their own living. That is what we must have. A cut of 20 per cent in railway rates is advised. Who is to bear that 20 per cent? Will the maritime provinces themselves benefit by it? They may for a time, but only for a time, and very little at that. Again, I wonder if the maritime provinces are willing to be reduced to the status of paupers in this Dominion and become wards of this nation? I do not think self-respecting men are willing to be reduced to that status, and I am sure that western Canada will never submit to such a status. What we want is a chance to make our own living.
Now, evidently the hon. member who has just sat down id labouring under a false impression regarding the statutory regulations of freight rates. No doubt he referred to the Crowsnest pass agreement. That agreement was an attempt on the part of the Laurier government to remove the terrible discrimination in freight rates which the west since confederation has laboured under. But even the Crowsnest pass agreement has only partially removed that discrimination, and even when the agreement was operating to its full extent on commodities hauled west we were paying higher freight rates on similar commodities over similar distances in western Canada than were being paid anywhere in eastern Canada; and although the government two or three sessions ago put through a bill for the equalization of freight rates, no attempt has yet been made to put its provisions into force, and some of the grossest discriminations in freight rates still exist in western Canada. Neither bonuses nor bounties will do any good either to wheat raising or to the production of steel. What we want, I repeat, is a chance to make our own living.
I intend to deal with the speech from the throne for a very short time. It is pleasing to me to see that the legislation which failed last session to be placed on the statute books will be reintroduced this session. That legislation failed to become law last session because of the undignified and, I might say, the disorderly break-up of parliament.
The Canada Grain Act is to again come up for amendment. As far as the act itself is concerned, western Canada hopes, in fact expects, that the government will remove every obstacle to the co-operative effort of the farmers to market their grain in their own way. We have started a co-operative movement there with the purpose of trying to retain in our own hands a part of what the speculators used to take. We want every discrimination removed, but we found last year that those who have had the privilege

The Address-Mr. Evans
of deteriorating our export grain and taking the profit of the difference in price between that and the cream of the crop-our prices are always based on the export grain-are going to fight this bill to the last ditch. We are the only class in Canada to-day who are not privileged to market our own products in our own way. That is one of the tremendous class discriminations which must be removed.
The revaluation of soldier settlers' land is a measure long overdue.
Now, the government has seen fit to include in the speech from the throne a reference to the fuel problem. We are offered reciprocity with the United States in coal, in fact complete free trade in coal. That to my mind would be the best solution for the marketing of our own products and the securing of our own fuel. If the government intends to subsidize any private company to construct a coking plant in any city solely for the purpose of private gain and exploiting our citizens, it will find this group utterly opposed to the scheme. But if any municipality or any of the consumers of this country would like co-operatively to organize themselves for the production of their own fuel in as cheap a manner as possible and in adequate quantities, then I think we would be quite agreeable that the government should give some help. But we shall be utterly opposed to the government giving any private company the hard earned money of the taxpayers of this country.
Regarding the Hudson Bay railway, I might tell the government that a good deal of suspicion exists to-day in western Canada because of the action of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in securing an engineer from abroad to pass on the merits of the two ports. Now, Port Nelson after two or more investigations was decided on as the terminus of the railway. Plans were made and a large part of the work has been done, costing I think some $6,000,000. Only a fraction of that amount is needed to put the port into a condition whereby the whole scheme may be tried out. Time has shown that no great difficulty as to the elements has to be overcome to make Port Nelson a trade harbour. We are pleased, however, to know that the railway is to be completed with all possible despatch. Western Canada is confident that within a few short years it will be shown that the fears of many regarding the navigability of the waters of Hudson bay and strait are utterly unfounded. In the meantime I am sure the railway will be needed to develop industry in that part of the Dominion.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Another feature of the speech from the throne is the reference to our foreign trade. It is gratifying to know that a marked improvement has been shown. Let me say again that this has been due mostly to the two great crops in western Canada during 1925 and 1926. All industry in this country depends still upon agriculture, and agri culture is preyed upon by other industries to an extent which perhaps is not generally realized. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the class privileges which certain manufacturers and others enjoy are a direct charge upon agriculture; they charge the home consumer such a price as will ensure them a profit on all their export trade. If they can compete in foreign countries with the cheap labour which is to be had there, then why is a tariff needed in Canada? Some of the government statistics to-day will show that the tariff is being used to ensure the manufacturers a profit over the whole of their export trade. Let us take the finshed article from the produce raised on the land by the farmer. We ourselves are consuming wheat and oats, the finished article being produced in western Canada, and we are paying just a little more to-day in Saskatchewan for the ninety-eight pound sack of flour than the people in Liverpool are obliged to pay, although wheat is anywhere from thirty-eight to fifty-four cents dearer in Liverpool than it is in Winnipeg. These are things that should not be, and it is for these reasons that I foresee in western Canada a condition similar to that which now prevails in the maritime provinces. I fear we are being reduced to the same state in which the people in that part of the country find themselves. We are moving at express speed in that direction and neither subsidies nor bonuses nor cuts in freight rates will do us any good while such a condition exists.
Let me ask hon. gentlemen this question: Wlhat will Ontario or Quebec care how much taxes they pay to effect a cut in railway rates so long as they can pass it on in the form of the price they charge for the goods which they compel us and the maritimes to purchase? It does not matter how large the cut may be, the fact is we are going round in the same old circle. We are merely making it wider, putting off the evil day a little longer. I repeat: What western Canada and the maritimes need is a chance to make their own living.
It should be particularly gratifying to members of. the government to-day to find that those industries on which the tariff has been reduced are making the greatest improvements. There is only one thing in the whole

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Evans
[Stage Direction]
Dominion that hinders production, and that is the high cost of living. That is what is preventing production of agricultural commodities in western Canada to-day. That is why we are year after year voting millions for an immigration policy for the purpose of bringing in more dupes to take our places in western Canada as we are squeezed off the land. These are the conditions that face us out there; this is the evil the government is expected to confront and to remove at this time. It is to be hoped that the government, with the encouragement it has had in the matter of tariff reduction, will now lose no time in removing some of the unjust taxes which are at present levied particularly on those things most needed for the maintenance of health and vigor in this rigorous climate, namely, food and clothing. With increases in many lines of production, with exports and imports showing improvements, surely a cut in taxation is due. I would urge the government to maintain the income tax as it stands to-day; it is the fairest means of raising revenue we have ever found. We should remove the import penalties and the sales tax from the necessaries of life most needed by the workers of the nation. These things must be reduced.
Perhaps one of the greatest injustices which the people have ever had heaped upon them we had to face last summer in western Canada, particularly in that area that grows less of fresh fruit and1 vegetables than any other part of the Dominion, at least for a shorter period of the year. The Minister of Customs last summer saw fit to impose upon tomatoes, peaches and pears such a valuation as increased the duty from 100 to 180 per cent. There are about 1,000 crates of tomatoes in a carload. We used to pay some fifteen cents per crate on these tomatoes, making $150 a carload. Reading some of the Liberal party's own election propaganda, I saw that the valuation was so increased as to result in a duty not of $150 but of $355 per carload on tomatoes, while peaches and pears were increased proportionately. I cannot understand how any government or any man would so trade on the rights of the people, particularly those on whom the burden bears heaviest, as to make their food so much more expensive. Why is it done? One gentleman in the United States a little while ago said that the tariff was always a dicker between the politician and the man who thought he would like to be protected. What does that imply? It implies that this is done for a consideration. The Minister of Customs last summer increased the duty to the extent I have mentioned-for whose benefit? Who got the benefit of that increase? The

raiser, the producer? No. It is entirely a distributor's measure from beginning to end, and I say from my place in this House tonight that it passes my comprehension how any man or any government can trade on the rights of citizens in this way without a consideration of some sort, either in the way of campaign funds or otherwise. Such is the tariff and such it will always be, bringing our public men under suspicion year after year until the name of politician has come to be something to be suspected. These are evils we want removed.
Two of the greatest evils we have to face are the tariff and liquor. Smuggling has gone on to such an extent that we are trying the friendship of the country to the south, which has always been at peace with us. It seems to me that unless the people take the thing in hand the liquor traffic will ultimately control the Dominion, as indeed it is very largely controlling it now, so much so that the new Minister of Customs this last summer was appealed to to do things which otherwise I am sure he would not have done. Even the sacks used in connection with the liquor traffic were allowed to go free of duty just so that bootlegging might be facilitated, and for the convenience of the bootlegger himself. Not only did the Minister of Customs break the law of the land in doing so, but he also violated the spirit of a treaty we entered into with the United States. These things ought not to be.
Then let me deal with another discrimination, the grading of grain in western Canada. The seasons of 1925 and 1926 were unique in the history of Canada for fickle weather, and a tremendous quantity of damp grain has been coming forward. In 1925 we found that the grain commission was not equipped to deal with the situation as it then existed. The government, or the grain commission, I do not know who was responsible, denuded the laboratory in Winnipeg of its equipment and staff and left the chief in that city without even a charwoman to look after his office. When this damp grain came forward in such volumes there were no moisture testing machines or experienced men to deal with it, with the result that dissatisfaction exists today all over western Canada. This is only another way in which the west is being bled, we are losing thousands and thousands of dollars in every community because of improper grading.
I have just one further word, and this time it is dealing with the word " status "; I am not confusing this with the word " stature A good deal has been said regarding our status in the empire. I am not so particular about

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
the status which we enjoy as a part of the great British commonwealth, or the British Empire; what I am more concerned with is that each part of this Dominion should have an equal status. Is it right that Ontario and Quebec, because of a heavier representation in this House, should pass legislation and wield the big stick over the provinces which have not that representation? If we are going to be a successful country and confederation, all parts must enjoy the same freedom before contentment will result. I think we have the finest country on God's earth; no other people in the world are so blessed with natural resources as we are in Canada. We have nearly everything we want; living should be cheaper in Canada than in any other country of the world; production should be cheaper as well, but to-day we find the cost of living in Canada the highest, I think, in the world. This should not be. Every province must have equality, and every class must have equal opportunity. I think this is the great task of statesmen in Canada to-day. Confederation presents a challenge to the people of this country; different parts of Canada are talking secession, because we are not equal; we are discriminated against; discrimination exists as between the rights of one citizen and another. This can be remedied by the government, and no other government since confederation has had the opportunity which is before this government to-day. Let them remove some of these inequalities. This is the test of statesmanship to-day, and we wonder whether they will rise to the status of statesmen or continue to wallow in the slough of expediency.
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my fondest wish at the present time is that my voice could be as great as the province from which I come, and that my eloquence might be as lofty as the mountains which skirt the western part of that province. I could then voice the sentiments of the inhabitants of that fair province in a manner befitting its greatness and the important part it is bound to play in the affairs of Canada. Being a new member, however, and never having run the gauntlet of Liberal and Conservative criticism, I feel that I am taking a chance of being heeded or even given a favourable hearing. I feel, however, that I am speaking as a citizen of a great country, to whom has been given the honour of representing one of its constituencies, and as such I hope this, my maiden speech, will be the beginning of a truer Canadian citizenship, a citizenship which I hope to impart to the people in my constituency, especially to those whose origin was 32649-6i
in a foreign country. As it happens, I do not belong to a group commanding a very large membership, but that will in no waj prevent me from doing my duty as a good citizen; on the contrary, I believe that only in this group can I do my duty conscientiously and faithfully.
During the past three days I have noticed that there are different stages to the debates in this House. There is the jollicose stage; then we have the bellicose stage, and finally the comatose stage. I saw evidences of the comatose stage this afternoon, when in looking at the other side of the House I saw and heard two or three hon. members vociferously snoring. We are now dangerously near bedtime, and I do not wish to speak at any great length; in other words, I do not wish to put any hon. member into the comatose stage.
In the speech from the throne there was brief mention of a substantial increase in immigration. The views of individual men are different on this subject. As a matter of fact, one hon. member has said that it is useless to spend a million dollars bringing settlers to the farms when that money could be spent more advantageously otherwise, but no matter in what light we view this subject, immigration is always before us, and it has been a policy of every government in Canada since confederation. I understand further that immigration from northern and central Europe has been urged, or at least looked upon with favour in certain quarters. In my constituency there are many immigrants of Scandinavian and Slavic descent, and I can vouch for the success attained by those men. They have, under the most trying circumstances, made good, and are now from every point of view first class citizens. I do not mean to say that I advocate bringing in immigrants only from Scandinavian countries and from countries of eastern Europe. There certainly must be a leaven of British in this country so that we can retain our institutions and our ideals as we have always had them in Canada. Individuals, however, differ very much as to the merits of an immigration and colonization scheme. Some would like to follow the United States in her "partly-closed policy", and stem the tide of agricultural people from eastern and central Europe. Apprehension is being felt for the safety of this country if this influx is not stemmed. It is based on a fear that the foreign stock resident in Canada would soon be out of a safe proportion to the native stock; that the Canadian farmer would be menaced with an agricultural over-production. These conditions really do not exist in Canada and in view of our present state of under-development,

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
therefore, such an apprehension is absurd. The United States followed for a century the open door policy. Her population now is actually over the hundred million mark, and she is thus in a position where she can quite readily overtake human wastage from natural increase. In such a case a limited immigration is quite justified. But to Canada, in her undeveloped condition, the same argument cannot be applied.
A few weeks ago I met a man on the train coming down from Alberta to Winnipeg and he asked me why it was that so much of the comparatively poor land in Alberta was occupied by the peasant class, by Ukrainians. He thought that some of the farms would be the last place he would settle on. This friend of mine unconsciously gives us the keynote to the whole situation. About one third of the arable land of Canada is alienated and occupied. It is almost safe to presume that most of this area of arable land already occupied comprises the best land. The remaining area of unalienated arable land would be either medium or inferior. Here we have our problem. It is these medium and inferior lands that we must try to colonize successfully. How are we going to do it? These lands can only be reclaimed by intense human labour, and this involves clearing, the digging out of stones, drainage, and breaking. It involves years of patient industry, self sacrifice and self denial. No one but a pioneer of great sturdiness and endurance could successfully create for himself a home on such land. That type, I believe, can be found in the central European peasant. He has shown us in the past that he is quite capable of surmounting the difficulties incidental to pioneer farming, and that he possesses all the virtues and qualifications essential to such a task. Of course it is quite understandable why an influx of settlers from European countries should be a cause for alarm from a patriotic standpoint. British sentiment, ideals and institutions might be endangered. I do not think so. Take the United States for instance. For a hundred years immigrants have been coming into the republic from every European country, but her institutions are just as strong to-day as they ever were. It is a very significant fact that the children and grandchildren of those immigrants are just as loyal to the country of their adoption as the native born are. Our problem will not be helped at all by discrimination, or by making the foreigner the goat of all our social unrest. To discriminate means to alienate, and alienism only leads to a worse problem. What is needed primarily i3 clear and sane thinking. I do

not see what we have to fear in the peasant. It is true that when these people first came here thirty years ago they were somewhat unobtrusive so far as taking part in civic affairs is concerned. They did not seek to exercise a directing influence in the affairs of this country because they were too busy establishing homes for themselves. But to-day, after the lapse of all those years I can safely say that they are beginning to make an intelligent contribution both to our social and political life. Aa evidence of this we have hundreds of their children in the professions, and some are serving a political representative capacity. Measured by all standards they are quite susceptible to Canadian ideals and influences. As far as they are concerned the question of citizenship is bound to arise, but it will come best if allowed to come in a natural manner. That course has been followed successfully in the United States, and there is no reason why the same success should not be encountered in Canada. The process of amalgamation is, I think, inevitable.
In dealing with this question I am reminded of the remark of an Irish politician, who, in speaking of immigration, said: "Don't worry about the foreigner. In about ten years he will get out of the skinned class into the skinners, and he will then be as patriotic as any of us."
Some day it is hoped our province will get control of its natural resources. At the present time Canada is very much underpopulated Here again we differ from the United States The latter country has sufficient area and resources for its people and enough people for the development of its resources. In Canada our resources are plentiful but the population is insufficient for their development. There is in Canada, also, another peculiar condition. Our agriculture and manufacturing production, our railway mileage and commerce, and all our other industrial enterprises are far out of proportion to our population, as compared with most other countries. I believe that by bringing in immigrants animated with a genuine pioneer spirit this condition could be amended.
I notice also in the speech from the throne that those government measures which passed the House last session, but which failed to become law, will be reintroduced. For one thing it is sincerely to be hoped that the Canada Grain Act amendment will be brought in again. In the next place legislation on rural credits if enacted will not only be of assistance to farmers and workers already

The Address-Mr. Church
located here but will be of material benefit in connection with an immigration policy.
There is also .the question of railroads. A country that produces the world's best wheat and oats, such as the Peace River district, must offer unrivalled opportunities for settlement. It is a region of marvellous productive ability, with many thousands of acres of cheap land awaiting the settler's plough. A great immigration movement could be started in that direction. The only thing necessary to bring that about is an announcement that the Peace River district will be given an outlet to the Pacific coart; without delay.
Another railway which would be heralded with great joy by settlers in northern Alberta south of the Saskatchewan river, is the new railway which the Canadian Pacific is building from Out Knife, Saskatchewan. The influence of the government in speeding up construction on this line would be greatly appreciated in that part of the west. As it is now many of the settlers there, and the district is very well settled, have to haul grain as many as forty or forty-five miles to the nearest point of transportation.
It is also to be hoped that the government will not discontinue grants to B-circuit fairs. Such fairs are of immense educational value to the communities in which they are held. A discontinuance of such grants would kill all interest in such fairs, as the committees in charge depend largely on these grants to finance their undertakings. It is said by some that it would be better to give grants to fairs in cities like Toronto. I think that even cities like' Toronto get most of their exhibits from small country places as Vegreville and other towns of its size.
This morning I received a resolution from the Town Council of the town of Tofield, which reads as follows:
Resolved, that whereas Cooking lake forest reserve contains much arable land and land suitable for the raising of live stock, and while it is at present being used by the Blackfoot Stock Association to some extent for the ranging and pasturing of cattle, this town council is of the belief that this land could be best utilized, and would become of the greatest use to the greatest number if it were thrown open for settlement and homestead entry.
We therefore suggest to the hon. Minister of the Interior, for his consideration,' that that portion of the Cooking lake forest reserve lying south of the Edmonton-Mundare highway be thrown open for homestead entry with the right of pre-emption, or purchase at a reasonable figure, of a further quarter-section.
I happen to know this Cooking lake reserve. It contains about 66 sections of land, and if it were settled on the basis of one settler for each half section, about 130 settlers could be
placed on it. I think it would be a far better scheme to place these settlers on the reserve than to have the reserve used as it is now by the Blackfoot Stock Association for the ranging and pasturing of cattle. I think it would be of greater advantage not only to that community itself but to Canada as a whole if this land were thrown open to settlers. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will take cognizance of the remarks I have made.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: As one of the members from the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words to-night on this debate. I very much regret that in the speech from the throne the government have given no indication that they are going to take any active steps to solve the economic ills of the country. There is the problem, for instance, of unemployment. Unemployment to-day in the larger centres of population is very acute. I might refer to the unemployment in the large manufacturing city from which I come. I know the conditions there, and I know that in the past few days very rapid preparations have been made by the social and charitable institutions and public bodies of various kinds in the city to try and cope with the unemployment situation with which we shall be faced this coming winter. I regret, I say, that the government in the speech from the throne has announced no definite policy for taking care of the economic ills in the larger centres of population in this country. They have no practical solution of these problems to bring before the House and the country at the present time.
One of the essential features of a speech from the throne is to give the representatives of the people in parliament the opportunity of bringing before the House and the country the economic problems that are facing the country, with a view to applying a remedy to the disease, if there is any, that affects the country. Looking over the speech from the throne I find that it deals very largely in platitudes. It says something about the coal question. Well, Mr. Speaker, for five successive sessions the question of a national coal policy has been before this House, and what has the government done? Has it done anything to bring Nova Scotia coal to central Canada? Has it done anything to bring Alberta coal to central Canada? No. The government has simply made a political football of the question for the past five sessions. This question of a national fuel supply was to be referred on the 7th of March last to the railway commission. How did they treat the
The Address-Mr. Church

question? They have not yet had a hearing upon it, and I notice in the press of to-day that representatives of the government of Alberta are coming to interview the government of Ontario with a view to getting this question before the railway commission. What is the railway commission for if it is not to take up urgent national questions such as this, which mean so much to the working classes of this country? Yet no hearing has as yet been given by a commission paid and sworn to act promptly.
I support protection, Mr. Speaker, as a principle, not as a privilege. I believe that the proper application of the doctrine of protection will solve all the economic ills of every province in Canada from Vancouver to Halifax. It will solve the problems not only of the great manufacturing industries in this country, but of the agricultural industry, the great wheat-growing industry in the west, and it will solve the economic ills we have in central Canada and in the maritime provinces. I am not ashamed to declare myself a national policy Conservative. I believe that the protectionist principles of the national policy can alone draw together the varied interests of the Canadian people so that we shall become one great economic unit. These principles can join the mines of Alberta and Nova Scotia to the markets of Ontario and Quebec. Despite what Sir Henry Thornton has said, despite his sneers at the lunch-counter idea of reducing freight rates, I say here and now that Canada may just as well run a system of lunch-counter freight rates if that will mean keeping the Canadian workers employed at home instead of having to go to the United States to look for a job; we might just as well have this lunch-counter system of freight rates and employ Canadian workers as to increase freight rates and add to the number of dollars of Sir Henry Thornton's salary and the number of private cars in his service.
With a proper application of the national policy, the ideal of protection is the one true antd enduring foundation for the future prosperity of this country. The national policy, rightly understood and wisely applied, recognizes no difference between the problems of war and the problems of peace. There is the principle of protection in war. All the resources of a country are mobilized in war time for the country's defence. We can apply the weapon of the tariff in times of peace to solve the economic ills of the country. When in war time we are invaded by a foreign enemy, our resources in men and money are mobilized and concentrated at a point where the invader

can be beaten back. In peace time we are invaded by unemployment, stagnation, and other economic ills, and it is then that the country's money and thinking power should be concentrated at the point of danger.
I am proud to serve in this House as a representative of one of the divisions of Toronto, and we are just as much interested in Toronto in the economic ills of the west and of the maritime provinces as we are in our own. I am as much interested in the ills of the maritime provinces and the ills of the western provinces as I am in the ills of York county. I support the building of the Hudson Bay railway on the protectionist principle. It is advocated1 by hon. gentlemen to my left who are free traders where other people are concerned, but protectionists where their own interests are concerned-free traders so far as eastern Canada is concerned, but protectionists where their own interests are concerned, and the Hudson Bay railway is one of them. I, Mr. Speaker, am a consistent protectionist. I support protection as a principle, and not as a privilege. The people of the west are content to leave it to the law of supply and demand to provide markets for eastern industry, but they are not content to leave it to the law of supply and demand to provide railways for western agriculture. I have been giving some thought to this question, and I am for the national policy, iMr. Speaker, even if the protectionist principle of the national policy requires the building of the Hudson Bay railway for the protection of the agricultural industry in the west from its competitor to the south, and to protect the farmer from loss of profit in marketing his product.
In addition, I am for the national policy of protection to the hilt as applied to the problems of the far distant maritime provinces. I believe that with a proper application of the doctrine of protection we shall be able to solve the economic problems of the maritime provinces. It was the free trade policy of the Liberal party that landed the maritime provinces in the condition in which they find themselves to-day. Tor forty years the Liberal premiers in the maritime provinces treated the resources of those provinces-the products of the sea, of the soil, the forest and the mine, the timber wealth of those provinces, their water powers, and their great basic industries-on the free trade principle. To this favourite a timber limit would be granted, to another favorite a coal mine, to another a water power, with the result that the Liberal party gave away the resources of the maritime provinces under free trade. They were like Santa Claus taking down presents from a Christmas tree. I believe that a proper

The Address-Mr. Church
application of the doctrine of protection will solve all the economic ills of the maritime provinces, and as one of the members of Ontario I will support the general principles of the Duncan report.
I believe that the people of central Canada, especially Ontario-and no province is suffering so much to-day from economic ills-will support active aid to the maritimes as a necessity. We certainly need a ginger group in this House for Ontario, to dwell on Ontario's economic ills also, which are acute. The people of the province of Ontario believe in the confederation doctrine of all for each and each for all. That is the doctrine which should rule this country in any modern confederation. I may say that if confederation cannot be made a commercial success in the maritime provinces, the people of the maritime provinces must be in a very bad condition. The people of the maritimes for more than forty years put their trust in the idol of free trade and in the interests of Montreal1 greed. The maritime provinces allowed the incompetence of free trade rulers at Ottawa from 1896 to 1911 and the incompetence of corporationist free traders in at Halifax 1882 to 1924 to fritter away their opportunities for growth and prosperity and give away their public assets. The incompetence of private ownership greed in Montreal with some assistance from the same forces in Toronto butchered the great possibilities of the maritime provinces in the production of coal, iron and steel and in the production of power. I believe it is the duty and the mission of the Conservative party to revive and extend the good old national policy and apply those ideals as the hydro Conservatives of Ontario applied those ideals. The principles -of the national policy forbid us to come here to serve the local needs of the sections where we live. The principles of the national policy require us to come here and think and vote in the spirit of the old Cornish battle cry, "Each for all and all for each." That is the battle cry of the national policy breed of protectionist as opposed to the battle cry of the hon. member for Brandon his leader and his followers, whose policy has emptied nearly five hundred thousand Canadians out of their own country since 1921, the semi-free traders who fight under the banner of a tariff uncertainty that is worse than free trade, the star-spangled music of the war cry, the United States for Canada and Canada for the United States. That is the kind of protection I would apply to the various provinces of confederation. We have no jobs to keep our own Canadian born at home. The greatest problem of the
immigration policy is to devise a scheme to stop the emigration t,o the United States, which has amounted to nearly half a million Canadians since 1921.
That is the first comer stone in the immigration policy. Instead of forcing our own Canadian bom citizens to go to the United States we should supply them with jobs in our own country. This can be done by developing our natural resources and our raw materials, thus preventing nearly half a million of our citizens leaving for the States every year. We are losing all those wages which now go to the people of the United States. If we had a proper system of protection we would have enough work in our own country for our own unemployed, not only on the farms but in the urban districts.
Another phase of the immigration policy is the bringing of immigrants from the British Isles. Why should we bring immigrants from England to Canada if we have no jobs for them? Because we have not even jobs for the Canadian born worker. At the present time Canadian money is going to the United States at the rate of nearly $500,000,000 a year. These workers are now living under the Stars and Stripes when they should be in Canada serving under the Union Jack. The policy of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is a policy for the suppression of opportunity for employment of Canadians in their own country and the employment of British workers in Canada. The hon. gentleman has done little or nothing in the matter of an immigration policy. Fancy this country having a free trader as a commissioner on immigration. How can there be any immigration under free trade? How can we furnish jobs for our working men under a policy of free trade? If we cannot supply jobs for the half million men who have gone to the United States, how in the name of heaven can we supply jobs for immigrants who come here under our policy of free trade.
I said -that the policy of the right hon. Prime Minister and of the Minister of Immigration was a policy of enmity to the production of jobs for Canadians. I take back that statement, in part. The policy of these gentlemen has made Ottawa the seat of a great industry, an industry that manufactures jobs for broken down politicians. The workings of that policy have made Canada a nation-yea, a nation of ambassadors.
This government have stated that they have nothing to do with unemployment; -that under the British North America Act unemployment is for the provinces and municipalities. We say to the government to-night that unemployment is a matter for the federal government
The Address-Mr. Churcn

under section 91 of the British North America Act. They are in charge of the tariff, the banking laws, the transportation laws, the immigration laws and are responsible for the exodus of Canadians from Canada; and the blame for the present condition of unemployment rests on the federal government. Instead of the government dealing with this problem, they say nothing about it in the speech from the throne. They are not ready to go as far as they did years ago when they were prepared to pay one-third of the cost of unemployment relief, the provinces and municipalities to pay the rest of the cost. It is all very well for them to make a football out of it. The responsibility is with the Dominion government of the day to see that the people of Canada do not suffer, to see that some remedial legislation is introduced into the House. I regret to observe, however, that no such amendment for the benefit of the worker has been mentioned in the speech. Parliament has legislated for the benefit of the trusts and combines, the bankers' association, the railways and others, but when it comes down to a question of doing something for the unemployed in the urban centres of population, the government is content with a policy of drift, and will do nothing to try to remove the burden from the working classes of this country. The first duty of a government is to look after the health and condition of its people.
It was charged in this House last session and the session before that the Conservative party was the servant of the big interests in Canada. I have some speeches of the Prime Minister made in the country to this effect. I say that the Conservative party serve no big interests in this country, I can speak for myself. Personally I do not serve any big interest, and some of us have suffered in the battle against the big interests and .are prepared to suffer again in defence of public rights against these same interests. The speech from the throne should1 have announced some social legislation to redress the grievances of the people who are suffering from the terrible disease of unemployment. In England the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, although a Conservative, is an advanced radical regarding the solution of this unemployment question and also regarding the solution of other social questions. He has been content to apply a measure of protection to help the coal and great shipbuilding and steel industries weather the storm, by subsidies, subventions and protection, and in that way to' help the working classes. But to-day unemployment in this country is a political football in the hands

of the government. It is all very well to send an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Washington. I like and have the utmost regard and respect for the hon. gentleman personally and wish him well, but I will oppose on principle the granting of one dollar for the opening of an office in Washington while thousands of Canadians have to go to the United States as ambassadors to try to get a living there that they are denied in the country for which they fought. Apparently all the government can do to relieve unemployment is to give a lot [DOT]of politicians Jobs as ambassadors in Berlin, in Pekin, in Constantinople and in all the other capitals of the countries washed by the seven seas. A modern Shakespearian quotation would read:
Regions Caesar never knew
Kings' ambassadors shall know,
Where his Eagles never flew.
A few favorite Canadians are to be appointed ambassadors at the public expense, while other Canadians have to go as ambassadors at their own expense to search in a foreign land for the jobs that they cannot find in their own country. Many of them returned men who fought for Canada in the Great war, at the hazard of their lives.
The great industrial system of the United States was built up on the principle of protection and solved unemployment. Nero never fiddled while Rome burned the way this government is fiddling in appointing a tariff commission to solve the economic problems of this country. The tariff is not a party question, it is a matter of economics that concerns our farmers and toilers in the various centres of population. But instead of announcing in the speech from the throne some measure of protection and safeguarding legislation that would solve our economic ills, nothing is being done by the government to relieve our unemployed who are asking for a job that they may get bread. Many industries are closed up altogether, others are working only SO per cent, and even the great agricultural industry of the west is suffering.
If one industry in this country should be protected it is the grain growing industry. It is not a north and south industry; it is an east and west industry and an oversea industry to the markets of Britain and Europe.
I can tell the Minister of Immigration that his ideas of filling up the W'est are all wrong. As a specialist in filling up the United States the minister can point *with pride to the result his policy has achieved in driving Canadians away from their own country to seek jobs in a foreign land. As a would-be

The Address-Mr. Church
specialist in building up Canada the hon. the Minister of Immigration does not know what he is talking about. The minister cannot build up a great prosperous life on the western prairies by pumping wheat growers and still more wheat growers into the provinces between the boundaries of western Ontario and the Rockies. Feed the needs of the west on that sort of free trade diet and wheat will become so abundant the crop will not be worth 75 cents a bushel and the wheat growers of western Canada will be where the cotton growers of the United States are to-day, doomed to grow and sell wheat at less than the cost of production.
That will be the result of the policy of the hon. member for Brandon and his followers, and of the hon. gentlemen to my left who call themselves, U.F.A's, U.F.B's, U.F.O's and all the way down the alphabet, but in my opinion they are all Liberals. I notice that the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail), a young lady for whom I have the utmost regard and respect, has been deliberating on what side of the House she will sit. Nine hundred to a thousand Conservative voters voted for that splendid young lady under the belief that she was an independent and would exercise her independence in parliament for the benefit of the country generally, but on looking over the records I find that except in one instance she has always voted for the Liberal party in the past two parliaments. My experience in the last three parliaments is that the U.F.A's, the U.F.B's, the U.F.O's and the other letters of the alphabet, are Liberals first, last and all the time. There is really no necessity for any of our Progressive friends to hesitate as to where they Will sit. In fact I am sorry that the other side of the House has not sufficient benches to seat the overflow of Progressive members on that side, where they all politically belong.
This United States first policy of " tariff uncertainty," dooms other Canadians to appoint themselves ambassadors at their own expense to search in a foreign land for the jobs that they cannot find in their own country. The great industrial system of the United States was built up on the principle of protection. In the early days of Horace Greeley the opportunities for employment in the United States were threatened by imports from Europe as the opportunities for employment in Canada are to-day threatened by imports from the United States. The Americans asked their rulers for the bread of employment. These rulers did not offer their countrymen the stone of free trade theory. No, and these rulers did not require the founders of American industry to go before
a minstrel show of a tariff commission and persuade the interlocutor, the tambo and the bones who call themselves commissioners, that the tariff should be changed in favour of industries that would employ Americans in their own country instead of driving these Americans as Canadians are being driven to seek employment in a foreign country.
This parliament was summoned to Ottawa to consider proposals for the improvement of conditions in this country. The 432.000 Canadians who have been driven from their native land since 1921 are only part of the story. The other part is the work of that other "Excellency," Right Hon. P. C. Larkin and his anti-emigration officials at London. Until we have a pro-dmmigration policy of protection at Ottawa, we can have no jobs to keep our own Canadian-born workers at home, we can have no jobs to attract other British-bom workers to these shores, The big part of immigration problem is a problem of stopping emigration to the United States with jobs for Canadians in their own country. The other part of the .immigration problem is the problem of starting immigration from the British Isles with jobs. How can we have immigration without jobs to employ the native-born Canadians who would like to stay here and the British-born workers who would like to come here? How can we have jobs when Canadian money goes to the United States at the rate of five hundred millions in wages to workers under the Stars and Stripes when that money should be kept in Canada to pay workers under the Union Jack? The whole policy of the hon. the member for Brandon's leader is a policy for the suppression of opportunity for employment of Canadians in their own country and the employment of British workers in Canada. The natives of this land that have given some wealth to the hon. member for Brandon, the natives of the isles that gave birth 'to the same hon. member never had a woree enemy than the hon. member for Brandon and his leader. The policy of these hon. members has proved itself a foe to the creation of jobs for our own people who vainly seek employment that would keep them in Canada or jobs that would bring them to Canada from the British Isles.
I said that the policy of the Prime Minister and the policy of the Minister of Immigration was a policy of enmity to the production of jobs for Canadians. I take back that statement, in part. The policy of these gentlemen has made Ottawa the seat of a great industry; that industry manufactures jobs for broken down politicians; the workings of that policy have made Canada a nation,, yea, a nation of

The Address-Mr. Church
ambassadors. The Gaul of Caesar's Commentaries was divided into three parts; the gall of Canada's present rulers is so great as to be indivisible. That gall cannot be divided, especially the gall that asks this parliament to authorize the ambassador-oure for unemployment.
The policy of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) can be summed up under two heads: First, that nothing that can be bought in the United States shall be made in Canada, especially in eastern Canada; and second, that everything that cannot be bought in the United States shall be imported from overseas, preferably from continental Europe- including Germany. The departmental stores in Toronto to-day, owing to the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), for whom I have the greatest respect, in not providing a tariff dumping clause, are filled with cheap, shoddy German goods which are being offered to Christmas buyers while our own industries suffer and many are closed.
I have consistently advocated in this House the doctrine of protection in order to promote the manufacture of our own raw materials and some twenty minerals exported in a crude and semi-crude state, and to prevent their export to the United States in such large quantities as are being shipped out at the present time. The proper application of protection would mean a saving to the people of Canada of an enormous amount of money which ito-day is going to enrich the country to the souith of us. Ninety per cent of our imports from the United States could be manufactured in Canada, thus affording employment to our own workers and in that way providing a market for our home products to the mixed farmer and market gardener. According to the figures brought down as to July 31 of this year, our early imports of United States bituminous coal totalled 13,373,204 tons valued at $28,781,711. In addition to this our early imports of United States anthracite coal, amounting to some 3,362,631 tons represented a total of $27,256,806. So that we have a total for bituminous and anthracite coal of some $56,000,000, all of which money is going to swell the pay envelopes of some 70,000 miners in the United States. In other words, the people of Canada are contributing to the upkeep of United States communities to the extent quoted, notwithstanding that thi3 money could be used in Alberta and in the maritime provinces to the advantage of 70,000 Canadian miners. This is the sort of thing which the Minister of Immigration and his followers are preaching. The free trade serpent is coiling itself about the whole body of our industrial activities.

Let me refer for a moment to the automobile industry. I have given the imports of coal and I will now mention those of automobiles and automobile parts to show what a huge sum is now going to the United States from Canada in this direction to supply wages to thousands of workmen across the border instead of being spent at home. I find that 97 per cent of the patents in connection with automobile parts are owned by aliens, many having to do with engines, doors, and so forth I would have all these parts manufactured in Canada and I would also see to it that motor trucks as well were made here. After the cars were manufactured I would apply the principle of protection; I would give 100 per cent protection. I would at the same time protect the consumer in this way: I would have an officer of the Finance department decide upon a fair market value in. Canada, allowing for wages, overhead and so on; and after that I would allow a profit of 10, 15 or 18 per cent as the case might be, the balance to go into the treasury of Canada. In that way the automobile purchaser and the user of motor trucks would be protected.
With the free trade policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, we are sending out of Canada at the present time $38,906,337 in payment for American motor cars and parts. If this money were devoted to the manufacture of automobiles in Canada we could provide pay envelopes for -a very considerable number of workers and we could maintain from eight to ten Oshawas instead of one. But free trade as we have it in the preaching of the hon. member for Brandon results in the employment of 150,000 workers in the United States, all of them kept busy manufacturing cars for use in Canada. There is no reason why we should not keep this money at home and employ our own workmen. The hon. member for Brandon will indeed be fortunate in his career as Minister of Immigration if he can do as much to fill up Canada in the future as he has done to send people to the United: States in the past.
The policy of the Minister of Immigration and his followers begins with a job for His Excellency, the Right Honourable Vincent Massey. I believe I speak for my constituents, and I am sure I speak for myself, when I say that I am ashamed that the Conservative party can be justly charged with responsibility for the creation of the Canadian embassy at Washington. The Conservative party has to count its many blessings when the followers of that party remember all they owe to Union government and the joint leadership of Sir Robert Borden and Hon. Wesley Rowell. Had I been in parliament when Sir

The Address-Mr. Church
Robert Borden submitted the proposal to separate the representation of Canada at Washington from the representation of Great Britain and the other British nations I would have voted against that triumph of iniquity of separating them, even though I had voted alone. So long as I am in parliament I will voice my protest and record my vote against the appropriation of one dollar of Canadian money to maintain the embassy at Washington. I am a Conservative after the fashion of Sir John A. Macdonald's principle:	A
British subject I was born and a British subject I will die. I have always been opposed to the doctrine of separatism. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has brought home from the old country a portrait of Sir Robert Borden, painted by that great artist Orpen-not Abe Orpen the Canadian,-but Orpen tihe artist in the old land. Now while a staunch Conservative I am an independent Conservative as well and am proud to be such, and I will appose the Conservative party through thick and thin in any tendency it may at any time show towards separation. When I read that this portrait had been presented to the Prime Minister it occurred to me that he ought to hang it in Laurier House, for I know of no one who has done more for the Liberal party than did Sir Robert Borden, Hon. Wesley Rowell, and his Union government. I am sure that if this separation matter had been made an issue in the last election many hon. gentlemen now occupying seats in this House would not be here. If they had taken a stand before the election such as the Prime Minister has taken in regard to our relations with the rest of the empire I have no doubt that many hon. gentlemen would have been defeated. This matter came up for discussion on 21st June last when there was introduced a motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which at the time I construed as a straight separatist proposal. The motion was introduced by the Prime Minister on June 21 in this House and was debated by the hon. member for 'Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), myself and others. Some of those on this side of the House agree with Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Rowell. I was never a follower of the Union government; I voted for it because I had no option, but the Union government put the Conservative party in the cemetery. I have always opposed separatism and will continue to oppose it in this House so long as I am a member. I would like to repeat a part of the speech I made last June in this connection:
Five hundred thousand soldiers who went to the front and fought for civilization in France and Flanders were satisfied with Canada's status. Fifty thousand of those gallant men lie buried in those countries; they were content to fight even unto death under Canada's status. They fought for Canada's status but did not ask that any change should be made in it; they did not ask for any increased status for Canada. Such being the case I think the civilians who stayed at home should also be satisfied with the status of this Dominion.
Of the links that used to bind Canada to the motherland what links remain to-day? First there is our allegiance to the British crown; secondly there is the right of appeal to the Privy Council; thirdly any treaties into which we enter must have the sanction of the mother of parliaments.
As I said then, we are not an independent nation; we are not a nation at all, but a link m the chain of commonwealths making up the British Empire. There is no feeling in favour of annexation to the United States, and there is no desire to be an independent people. We cannot be independent; we could never stand against the nation to our south. A foreign fleet might sail up the St. Lawrence with not even a rowboat opposing it, while our toy navy is locked up in a garage in Halifax. We should be satisfied to meet with New Zealand and Australia and try to solve the economic problems of the different countries.
I do not believe the people of Canada are at all satisfied1 With the results of the last conference; nothing practical has resulted from it. It is all very well to talk about the status of Canada, but after all that is a mere academic question. It seems that some people would rather discuss an academic question of that kind than try to solve some of the inter-imperial trade and economic problems concerning this country. I am not at all content with what was done at the conference; if all the results obtained are set out in the speech from the throne, I think the delegates might as well have stayed at home. Where was Mr. Larkin and Canada House when this conference was going on? The representatives of New Zealand' and Australia had a brief in a book containing all the economic troubles of their countries. What brief did the representatives of Canada have or work up? None. I would like to see it produced and laid on the table of this House. What material had all those experts of Canada House, London, concerning the economic ills of Canada? In my opinion the High Commissioner's office was not prepared to offer any constructive program "to our sister dominions. At the conference Canada preferred to talk about our status and academic questions of that kind, and to sponge on the old country for our maritime freedom

The Address-Mr. Church
when England is bearing the burden of taxation resulting from the war. We should be helping to carry the burden of that magnificent fleet which protects our shores both in times of war and in times of peace.
If we are a nation, ready made we must have a fleet. If we have attained this wonderful status; if we are independent, although we have sent half a million people to the United States to look for jobs, then we must have a fleet. Are we to wait until some foreign fleet sails up the St. Lawrence and blows up some of our great buildings? Under this new status, are we to issue Canadian passports instead of accepting British passports? I have never had an opportunity of going to the old country, but I know that if I ever do go I will want a British passport; I will not want a scrap of paper called a Canadian passport under our new autonomy and status as an independent nation under separatism.
In this connection I would like to quote an article which appeared in the Toronto Saturday Night a short time ago:
Saturday Night is occasionally accused of being too British in its sympathies by those "little Canadians" who secretly or openly advocate anything which may assist the severance of the British connection. This journal believes that those who advocate this course are not fully cognizant of the extent and importance of the benefits that Canada derives from its membership in the British Commonwealth.
The truth is that if, as we are told, it is more blessed to give than to receive, Great Britain has a better claim than Canada to a place in the Heavenly Kingdom. British taxpayers are now, and have been for many years, annually providing immense sums of money that would have to be raised here in Canada if British support were withdrawn. Consider, for example, the matter of naval defence. This is surely as relatively important to Canada with its Pacific coast just across the street, as it were, from the teeming millions of China and Japan, whose most urgent need is room for expansion, as it is to Great Britain herself. Canada would not survive many decades without adequate protection. Furthermore, sea-power is obviously needed to protect Canada's ever-gowing overseas trade.
And who now pays the cost of this protection? Figures published by the Federation of British Industries show that the estimated expenditure by Great Britain on naval defence of the Empire, during the fiscal year 1925-26, was approximately $302,500,000, by Canada $1,500,000, by Australia $19,605,725, plus a special appropriation of $5,000,000, by New Zealand $2,691,625, and by South Africa $699,465. The payment per capita of population in Great Britain was approximately $6.69, in Canada 16 cents, in Australia $3.16, in New Zealand $1.92, and in South Africa 42 cents. Thus it is obvious that the overwhelming proportion of the cost of the naval defence of the British Commonwealths is borne by Great Britain.
The total for Great Britain and northern Ireland was $2,730,000,000, with a per capita 
cost of $61.98; for Canada $145,000,000, per capita $16.72; for Australia $165,000,000, per capita $30.42; for South Africa $15,000,000, per capita $9.82; and for New Zealand $30,000,000, per capita $25.42. These figures clearly show the striking disproportion between the burdens borne by the British and dominions taxpayers.
In many respects other than national defence Canada benefits enormously by her partnership in the empire. For example, she is given the full use of Britain's world-wide diplomatic and consular facilities and pays therefor not one penny. The conception that many Canadians have of Great Britain as a tottering old lady depending for support on her stalwart sons is. of course, very far removed from actuality. Without the dominions of India, Great Britain would still be one of the world's mightiest powers, with dominion over 3,800,000 square miles and one hundred millions of people. J. L. Garvin, editor of the London Observer, wrote recently in this connection:
It is hard, and sometimes seems hopeless, to make the self-governing dominions understand that Great Britain, though never dreaming of keeping any kind of restrictions upon them in its own interest, is a mighty nation on its own basis; so that if-which heaven forbid-every single self-governing dominion were to secede to-morrow, Great Britain's remaining dependencies and protectorates would still cover millions of square miles, still constituting in productive area the largest and best and most valuable colonial system in the world.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, we are still prepared, under this policy, to sponge on the mother country, maritime freedom instead of taking a leaf out of the books of Australia and New Zealand at the last Imperial conference and doing something on a worthy scale in the interest of the empire and for maritime freedom.
There is a subject on which I should like to get some information from the government. I have noticed in the press within the last few days a despatch from Detroit and Washington that some ten thousand Canadians who live in Windsor and now working in Detroit are running the risk of losing their jobs in Detroit on January 1st and being deprived of their bread and butter. I think the government should look into this matter. Under this new doctrine of separatism, under this new brilliant status idea originated by the present government, Canada is going to resemble one of the many Latin republics of South America, and as a consequence although the city of Ottawa is known to-day as "the Washington, of the North", this country will be stigmatized now as "the Mexico of the North". We may talk in vain about any solution of the problem of the diversion of water by Chicago. Under separatism we may say good bye to any hope of getting anywhere in the settlement of this question. In the treaty made between Great Britain and United States, Canada has not

The Address-Mr. Church
been mentioned. This issue, which is of such consequence to Canada, is being treated as a football by the government and people of the country to the south. Instead of Canada calling upon the British government to enforce the treaty in question in our behalf we have only sent a representative to watch the proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States, although the American courts have no more jurisdiction in connection with the Boundary Waterways treaty than has the Court of Revision in the city of Ottawa. I believe the people of Canada are thoroughly opposed to the principle of separatism involved in the government's policy as outlined at the Imperial conference. Personally I am entirely at variance with this principle as announced in the Speech from the Throne. The government talks about celebrating Canada's diamond jubilee, the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. Thousands of Canadians now working in United States-a half million-will not celebrate our diamond jubilee. They will be celebrating the Declaration of Independence and participating in the next Fourth of July festivities. What do they now care about the status of Canada and the diamond jubilee of confederation? It would be far better, instead of celebrating the diamond jubilee of Canada, to try and settle the economic problems of the Dominion, and thus repatriate the thousands of Canadians in United States, many of whom are returned soldiers who have crossed the international boundary in the hope of getting a job. We are told that confederation has been a shining success. That success would have been heightened immeasurably had we done something of a practical nature to solve Canadian economic problems and applied the principles of protection to our economic ills. Of course the people of Canada will gladly welcome the heir apparent, the Prince of Wales. He will be received with open arms from coast to coast. He will be greeted as Britain's greatest ambassador the world over. I am sorry that when the Prince of Wales does come he will see that so much has been left undone in the solution of the economic problems that confront this country. Had these questions been approached in the right spirit there would have been a more universal rejoicing over the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. But the government has failed absolutely to deal with any of these problems in an adequate way.
We hear a lot about tax reduction and the Robb budget, the latter named after the popular Minister of Finance. We have had a reduction in the postage and a reduction in
income tax, but let me say the Dominion government invaded the municipal field when they imposed income taxes. I advocated by resolutions in this House on three or four occasions-in 1923 and 1926-the reduction of what are called "nuisance" taxes. Last session I was asked to withdraw my tax reduction motions on this subject and was told that if I did so it would be incorporated in the budget. It was incorporated in the budget, but only in a modified form of income, sales tax, stamp tax, postage reductions.
The Conservative party in Canada is not discouraged even though it has met with a reverse.	It stands before the people of
Canada to-day as the constructive party, the cohesive party, the party that built up this country, the party that established the national policy in Canada and made a success of it, the party that preached the gospel of protection in all the provinces of Canada, the party that is supporting the maritime provinces to-day in its rights, the party that has all along been in favour of protection and advanced social legislation for the workers in this country. While it has met with a temporary reverse I believe that party has very strong support among the working class in Canada. New conditions will arise; new leaders will arise. The Conservative party to-day is the working man's party in this country. The trades and labour movement in the United States is a protectionist movement. The late Mr. Samuel Gompers was the greatest protectionist this continent ever produced. Great Britain is coming round to protection in connection with the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Every session of parliament over there witnesses advances along these lines. They are introducing into the British House social legislation for the benefit of the toilers which is in reality a protectionist movement. The Conservative party to-day stands for a protective policy brought up to date, which will benefit all the provinces. The hydro-electric policy established in Ontario by Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck was a form of protection. These great men preached the gospel of preserving the water powers of Ontario for the benefit of the people. They fought the battle in Ontario of the masses against the classes.
Talk about the Labour party in this country! We have two gentlemen from Winnipeg. I do not see them in their seats tonight, but I have respect for their views: I believe they are sincere in their views, but they are not the Labour party, and simply
The Deputy Minister

calling themselves the Labour party does not make them the Labour party. They do not represent the Labour people, for instance, of the industrial district from which I come. The trades' union movement, Mr. Speaker, is a protectionist movement. Mr. Gompers did not believe in a Labour party. He believed in a trades' union movement in the United States working within the two old political parties there, the Democratic and the Republican parties, with the result that the American Federation of Labour has been a force throughout the United States for the past twenty-five years, and has been an influence within the Democratic and Republican parties. So I say that to be a proper supporter of Labour you have to be a protectionist, because only by that gospel of protection can the working classes in this country preserve a job for themselves, so that they will not have to seek a living in the United States.
I very much regret that the government has not seen fit to announce in the speech from the throne some economic measure that will safeguard the industries of this country, and provide a dumping clause to protect our industries, to protect as well the great graingrowing industry in this country, and the market gardener and the .mixed farmer in Ontario. The failure of the government to incorporate such a policy in the speech has been a disappointment to many of the manufacturers and the farmers and to struggling industries in this country, who were expecting that after we got a settled government we would have stability of tariff, instead of constantly nibbling at the tariff here and there. I regret very much that the government has not announced in the speech from the throne an adequate measure to protect the industries of this country, to ensure employment in this country, and make provision for those who are now out of work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Robb, it was ordered that the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the House as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, rule 13 of the House provides that at the commencement of every parliament, as soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to His

Excellency's speech, a chairman of committees of the whole House shall be elected who shall serve as Deputy Speaker.
I desire to propose as Chairman of Committees Mr. J. Fred Johnston, member for the electoral district of Long Lake. Mr. Johnston has been a member of this House continuously for nine years past. He is a member of the last three parliaments and, as hon. members who have sat with him well know, he possesses many qualifications which eminently fit him to serve in the important position of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. On frequent occasions he has acted for the Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker, and in the discharge of the important duties of this joint office he will bring a knowledge of the rules required by careful observation and study, and in no small measure by practical experience.
I believe he may be expected to be both fearless and impartial in the exercise of an authority which, in its character, is essentially judicial.
I have, therefore, much pleasure in moving, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That Mr. John Frederick Johnston, member for the electoral district of Long Lake, be appointed Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: As hon. gentlemen know, the estimates that have been presented this session are identically the same estimates that were presented at the last session, and most of them were passed at the last session. Tomorrow is pay day in the public service, and it is important that we should make provision as early as possible so that the public service not only in Ottawa but throughout Canada may get their cheques; for their families, like our own, want to be provided for over Christmas. As these estimates were fully considered at the last session I am not going to ask hon. gentlemen to go through them all again. If the House is unanimous, we can expedite the matter. I now move:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $64,590,350.74, being a proportion of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, laid before the House of Com-

Supply Bill
mons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is merely the unvoted portion of the general estimates?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Before this resolution
is carried, would the Minister of Finance explain whether there will' be any other opportunity of discussing these estimates, or will the committee, by passing these estimates now in block, be precluded- from discussing various items in the estimates in the future?


James Alexander Robb: I think it will be quite reasonable for the chairman -to allow very wide latitude in the discussion of these estimates when the main estimates for the fiscal year 1927-1928 are before the House. I might add that there are also supplementary estimates, which I am not going to ask the House to rush through at this time. I simply want -to get this resolution through to provide for the public service to-morrow. As I explained before, -most of these estimates have already been voted, but they did not receive the royal assent. I think we will allow full latitude in discussing the estimates when the supple-mentaries and the main estimates come up later.


Robert Gardiner: I would call to the
minister's attention that some very important items in the main estimates did not receive the consideration of this House at the last session. I do not think many members expected the House to go into committee tonight, and I would therefore suggest to the minister that he move that the committee rise and report progress, and let us go into the estimates to-morrow, in order to give those members who are particularly interested in certain items an opportunity to secure the information they desire from the government. I think that is a fair request, and I trust the minister will be able to acquiesce in it.


James Alexander Robb: I have no wish to rush the
matter. All I want to make plain to the House is that if the public service is not paid to-morrow, the fault will not be mine. May I suggest to my hon. friend that we advance .this resolution through its various stages up to the bill, and then allow a very wide discussion on the bill when it comes up. That will enable us to get along and have the Deputy Governor General come to the Senate and give royal assent -to the bill; for of course we cannot pay out this money until the bill has received the royal assent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can reserve our
rights under -the bill.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend can reserve
all his rights under the bill, if that is agreeable.


Robert Gardiner: I understand this vote
is to pay the salaries. That is practically all it involves. I would remind the Minister of Finance that it would hardly be opportune when the bill is before the House to discuss the important items that some of the members, I believe, desire to discuss, and I think *it is asking a little too much of the House that, after concluding the debate on the speech from the throne to-night we should be asked to vote this large sum of money. We desire to help on the business of the session to the best of our ability, but at the same time I suggest the minister is not quite reasonable in this regard.


James Alexander Robb: I have no desire to be
unreasonable and if my hon. friend wishes it to stand over I will not press it, but I repeat that most of these items have already been voted by the House -and did not receive the royal assent. It is impossible, as my hon. friend understands, to pick out the salaries, and I want to make it clear to the public service that I am doing my best to provide for them. Three months' estimates have already been voted by the House and the money has been paid. If my hon. friend can give me the assurance that this will go through early to-morrow, so that we can get royal assent within a reasonable time during the day to issue the cheques for the payments I will not press it to-night. But I would not like it to appear -that I had in any way kept the service from being paid to-morrow. I know that to-day messages have come to me from Quebec and Halifax asking when the cheques were to be issued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend
from Acadia misunderstands the situation. If the House adopts the resolution to-night, and it is distinctly understood that on the second reading of the bill he may discuss any items of the estimates as though the House were in committee, then we will have advanced -the supply at least a day, and will have enabled the House to rise a day sooner than we otherwise would.


James Alexander Robb: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Another factor that will have a bearing on the matter is that three months' supply of this past year was voted by the House and the money is spent. Another four or five months' supply
Supply Bill

has been paid but under governor general's warrants. All the government is now asking for is permission to have voted the balance required to complete the year. If it is understood, as has been mentioned by my hon. friend opposite, that when the bill comes up to-morrow there will be opportunity for discussion on any point my hon. friend wishes to bring up, would that not meet the purpose he has in view?


Robert Gardiner: I fully appreciate what my hon. friend says, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that if the supply is advanced it can only make a difference of twenty-four hours in payment of the staff. I can quite realize that is a consideration so far as the staff is concerned. In reply to my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) I would point out to him this important difference between discussing the estimates on the second reading of the bill and discussing them in committee; that it is impossible on the second reading of a bill to secure information from the minister that possibly some member of .the House might desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says he
will provide it.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The bill has to go into
committee.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister says he will procure the information, all right.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I will endeavour to
secure all the information I can.


Robert Gardiner: All right.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1927, the sum of $64,590,350.74 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, for granting to His

Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1927.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time and considered in committee.
Progress reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the assumption that
we conclude the business to-morrow, I give notice that to-morrow I will move that when the House adjourns it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, 8th February, 1927.


Hugh Guthrie: That is only a notice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By consent that notice
is given.


ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER:: May I inform new members that every Wednesday the House sits at two o'clock according to the rules.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, December 15, 1926