1926-02-26

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I desire to lay on the table a report in duplicate of branch line construction expenditure as follows:
Summary of work done and actual expenditure to end of year 1925, also during the calendar year 1925, on the various branch lines of the Canadian National Railways, authorized to be constructed under chapters 14-32 inclusive of 14-15 George V, and chapters 5 and 7, of 15-16 George V.
Also detail of expenditures incurred and work done, as well as estimate of expenditure proposed during 1926. This statement is intended to replace the provisional report, with estimated expenditure, previously made by the management in order to comply with the requirement of the act as to return to parliament, which Teport was brought down Tuesday, February 16th, by Mr. Lapointe.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Does my hon.
friend include in that report expenditures on the Rouyn railway?


James Alexander Robb: I have not read the report.
It came over from the department and I tabled it.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the National Gallery of
Canada for the year 1925.-Hon. Mr. King.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Can the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) tell me when the correspondence relating to the Locarno treaty will be laid before the House?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Correspondence with the British
government is still being exchanged. We are asking permission to rhake the whole correspondence public but we have not yet been able to secure it. We are still communicating.
FORT ALEXANDER INDIAN RESERVE On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yesterday the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hay) asked a question with reference to the sale or lease of the Fort Alexander Indian reserve to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company. I find that on the 30th day of January, 1923, the Fort Alexander band surrendered an area of 520 acres in the extreme southeastern portion of the reserve, for lease to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company, Limited. The lease subsequently issued for a period of ninety-nine years, at an annual rental of SI,040. On the 23rd day of January this year the band surrendered for sale to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company, Limited, an area of 390 acres, in the same part of the reserve, at a price mutually agreed upon of $40 per acre, cash. Of this area 304 acres are embraced in the portion previously surrendered for leasing. This land was originally leased and later sold to the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Company, Limited, as a mill site in connection with the extensive operations which this company proposes to carry on in that section of the province of Manitoba. All financial transactions in connection with this matter have been promptly carried out as agreed to. Both surrenders referred to above were approved by a majority of the voting members of the Fort Alexander band.
EMBARGO ON GRAIN SHIPMENT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
desire to ask the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Robb) a question arising out of a letter which I received from the secretary of the village of. Kelvington, Saskatchewan, dated February, 22, 1926. Kelvington is a village on the Canadian National railway in northern Saskatchewan. For a couple of months past there has been an embargo on the loading of grain and shipments out of this point have been at a standstill, with a few exceptions where carload lots have been shipped out on a permit. He further complains that at Rose
Australian Treaty

Valley, their nearest competitive point, the Canadian Pacific Railway have been handling grain right along, resulting in many farmers who would normally haul to Kelvington going to Rose Valley. There has been shipment of grain on the Canadian Pacific railway while there has been.an embargo on shipment by the Canadian National railway. He further points out that all the grain shipped via the Canadian Pacific railway is routed through Quebec, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway have put into effect a reduced rate to the city of Quebec. My informant wishes to know if the government have any information to give us on this matter, and if they are in a position to say why it is the Canadian National Railways are not permitted to ship grain to the city of Quebec as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway, and why there is this discrimination. Has the minister any information?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend knows as well as
I do, and as all hon. members in this House interested in the grain trade know, that due to the congestion in the elevators there has been an embargo on the shipment of grain both to the Pacific coast and to the Atlantic coast. I am not sure that a very great quantity of grain is en route to Quebec, because the last reports I had of the elevator in Quebec just after the close of navigation was that very little space was available. I shall, however, direct the attention of the operators of the Canadian National Railways to the matter and try to get my hon. friend a more definite reply on Monday.


Milton Neil Campbell: A great deal of the
grain in that particular section of the country is damp and tough, and if it is delayed very much longer in transit to the port, very serious loss will ensue to the farmer.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has brought
up a new question, that of damp grain. That feature of it was brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Commerce some time ago by the grain commission who stated that the yards at Fort William were congested with damp grain and that unless some method was adopted of drying that grain before the weather began to get warm, there was danger of damage to the grain. I immediately communicated with Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific and Sir Henry Thornton of the Canadian National asking them to co-operate with a view to drying the grain at Fort William and I understand that they are now doing so.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: In regard to that, may I suggest to the minister that the drying of grain at Fort William depends on the facilities there for drying it, that is, on the number of hospital elevators that exist there and there might be a shortage of the facilities if a great flow came.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I ask the Minister of Finance how many departments he is acting minister of now?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS INVERNESS RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon.   S@: May I ask my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Robb) if he would be so kind as to table the correspondence in connection with the Inverness railway.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of
Railways):	If there is any correspondence I
shall be glad to table it.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I know the Minister of Finance
is a very busy man, but I should like to ask him if any reply has been received from the government of Australia regarding the bonus on butter to which I directed his attention yesterday. If not, would the minister place before the House the nature of the communication sent by this government to the government of Australia?


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend must have misunderstood me as I never said that we had communicated with the government of Australia. We communicated with our trade commissioner at Melbourne, Australia, and I gave my hon. friend the information yesterday. I notice Hansard got the wrong interpretation to the answer.


Donald Sutherland: I
would like to direct the minister's attention to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Monday last that he understood the Minister of Finance was in communication with the government of Australia in regard to the matter.


James Alexander Robb: With Australia. We have a
commissioner there who acts for Canada.

The Address-Mr. MacNutt



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: " That this question be now put."
Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this House for the first time with no small degree of diffidence. Due, however, to your charm of manner, your dignity and the courtesy that you have shown to other new members who have preceded me, my task is made very much lighter. May I too, even at this late date in common with many other hon. members, convey to you my sincere felicitations on your elevation to the honourable and exalted position of chief commoner in this the fifteenth parliament of Canada?
Having listened with a great deal of pleasure throughout this debate to hon. gentlemen from all parts of this vast Dominion who have discussed questions of paramount importance to this country, I have observed that many new members have taken the opportunity of giving some of the impressions they have gained since coming into this House. May I be permitted to refer to a matter that impressed me perhaps more than any other, and in doing so, I wish it to be distinctly understood that it is not my intention to cast any reflections upon any party in this House nor to read a lecture to any hon. members. May I refer to what I think is altogether too common in this House and that is the too frequent interruption of hon. members who are addressing this assembly? In my judgment the dignity and prestige of parliament is very much impaired by this practice. It is unfair to the hon. gentleman who is addressing the Chair. It is unfair oft-times to the hon. member who makes the interruption which is not infrequently of a kind intended rather to embarrass the speaker than to edify the House. It is unfair to you Sir, as the Speaker, whose duty it is to endeavour at all times to maintain the dignity of the House. We have come here from different portions of Canada to try to solve problems of tremendous gravity which confront us today, and I do not believe the Canadian people have sent us here to practise what I may be permitted to term sledge-hammer politics. This, the first and highest court in this country, is a good place in which to practise the golden rule and it should be the endeavour of every hon. member to maintain as far as possible the dignity of this House.
During the past week the Australian treaty has been debated at great length in this chamber. The county of Colchester, Nova Scotia, which I have the honour to represent, is largely interested in the dairy business and I may be permitted to make a few observations concerning this treaty, which is of considerable importance to that county. Since coming here some weeks ago I have received very many letters from my constituents with reference to butter that has been coming into the province of Nova Scotia and forcing down the price of local butter to the farmers in the county at a time of year when it costs them more than at any other period to produce this commodity. These letters are not all from Conservatives, many of them coming from Liberals, and this will show that the question is not one of party. It is a matter of bread and butter to the farmers of that province. If the valorization scheme which has been proposed in Australia becomes law the dairy business in my province will be immediately ruined. The Pattersen scheme, which seems to be receiving a great deal of support in Australia, is not unlike the valorization plan in certain features, a plan which has worked to the advantage of the Brazilian coffee growers. It is proposed to levy a tax of 2 cents per pound on butter made in the creameries of Australia and to use the proceeds of that tax to pay a bonus of 6 cents per pound on each pound of butter exported from the country. How the Australian consumers will view this proposal we are not told though we can easily imagine what their attitude will be towards it. What concerns us in Canada is the fact that the Pattersen scheme makes it possible to lay down Australian butter in this country at 6 cents per pound less than its actual market value. In other words, a bonus of 6 cents per pound is provided to enable the Australian dairyman to undersell his Canadian cousin right in his own Canadian market. In the interests of the automobile business and of other manufacturers who are building up a good trade in Australia, it might have been necessary for our government to offer that country some inducements. But what were our farmer members doing to allow their interests to be sacrificed in such a manner? Is it more important to retain a party in power, or to preserve the interests of so very important a business as dairying in Canada? A few days ago when I expected to address the House on the Australian treaty I found that by agreement between the whips I was unable to take part then, and in the meantime I have taken the trouble to wire to one of my friends in the town of Truro, which is the county seat of Colchester, for
The Address-Mr. MacNutt

information regarding the imported butter which was coming into that town. I am going to read to the House the information I got on the subject. I have the telegram here and as it is rather lengthy I have condensed it in order to make it more understandable. Now the freight rate on butter from Australia to Halifax is $1.75 per hundred pounds, while the rail freight from Halifax to Truro, a distance of 62 miles, is 41 cents per hundred pounds. The total cost of delivering Australian butter from that country to Truro is 2.16 or less than 2i cents per pound. Let us see what the farmers in that province are paying for the transportation of their products. My information is that it costs 20 cents per can for the railway transportation of 25 pounds of cream from Brookfield to the Truro creamery, a distance of eight miles, and the average test of this cream being 27 per cent butter fat, this can would give 6| pounds of butter, thus making the transportation charges to the farmer over a distance of eight miles approximately 3 cents per bound for his butter, while as I have said butter can be shipped from Australia to Truro at 2i cents per pound. The government should endeavour to stop the importation of butter from Australia and New Zealand at the present time because this butter is forcing the price of the local product down to a figure which returns no profit to the farmers. One good feature of the treaty, as I understand it, is that upon six months' notice from the government it may be cancelled.- Well, surely enough has been shown in this debate to prove that the treaty is most injurious to the farmers of the country, and there should be no hesitation about cancelling it.
I have observed throughout this debate that bon. members from all parts of Canada have invariably discussed the questions which most interest them in their individual constituencies in their own provinces. Now I have the pleasure this afternoon of following the hon. member for Oape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) who addressed the House last night in connection with Maritime rights, and I do not offer any apology for considering, for a time at least, this important question which transcends every other question not only in the province of Nova Scotia but in the Maritime provinces generally. Before proceeding however I want to offer my thanks to and express my very great appreciation of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) whc gave us such a splendid address a short time ago, for the compliment he paid me in reading to this House a manifesto issued by myself to the electors of Colchester county on September 26, 1925. I deem this a great honour,

an honour which I believe no other gentleman in this House has thus far enjoyed this session. Let me state here on the floor of this House for the benefit of the hon. member that I stand here prepared to fulfil every pledge that I made to my constituents during that contest. The hon. member read portions of that manifesto, which is as follows:
In accepting this nomination I wish to make it plain that if I am elected I will not be a political partisan.
Surely that is preferable to being a died in the wool partisan. Again:
I will stand four square for the rights of Nova Scotia and the rights of the Maritime provinces.
Does my hon. friend see anything very wrong in that?
And again:	[DOT]
I will stand four square for the rights of Nova Scotia and the rights of the Maritime provinces, and if the time should ever arrive when I must choose between the interests of my party and the interests of my native province, I pledge my word to the electors of Colchester and the people of Nova Scotia that the interests of my native province will always come first.
That was the platform I presented to the people of Colchester on October 29; that is the platform upon which I stand on February 26. I may go further and say that we have 23 members from the Maritime provinces on this side of the House who have subscribed to the same manifesto, and until our honoured leader refuses to implement the promises be made to the Maritime provinces, we intend to support him.
I think it was my good friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) who stated recently that Maritime rights were nothing more than Tory propaganda. I hold in my hand the manifesto issued by my opponent in the county of Colchester. I wish the House to remember that he is a very clever barrister. The manifesto is very long and I shall detain the House with only a few extracts. He tells the people of Colchester:
It is generally recognized that business conditions in Nova Scotia have been particularly unsatisfactory because of 'the great burdens placed upon our people and upon the natural industries of the province by the customs tariff devised by previous Conservative governments and since maintained in varying degrees by succeeding administrations.
Just grievances also exist in railway matters created by previous Conservative governments and in justice to our people and the province such grievances must be righted.
The farmer, lumberman and fisherman have been sacrificed, indeed every person other than half a dozen factory owners, specially privileged and subsidized by the customs tariff are feeling the pinch and finding it difficult to make ends week.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


George Taylor MacNutt: An hon. member opposite says, " Hear, hear." In the course of my re-

The Address-Mr. MacNutl
marks I shall deal with the half dozen " privileged factories " in my county to which the manifesto refers.
The young people are being forced by conditions in Nova Scotia to go to other parts of Canada and to the States in search of a livelihood.
I appeal for your support on a platform of Nova Scotia rights-
Nova Scotia rights, not Maritime rights.
-and a customs tariff suited to the peculiar needs of the province.
Those are the essential parts of the manifesto issued by my opponent to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.
Now let us for a moment look at the results of that manifesto. In 1921 the county of Colchester was represented in this House by a Liberal. In the October election-
I do not wish to speak in any boastful spirit -my Liberal opponent, a good friend of mine, a very Olever lawyer and a young man of unimpeachable character and great promise, barely saved his deposit; sixty-six per cent of the votes were polled for me. I think the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) gave the House particulars of the votes polled in the Maritime provinces last October. I wish, Sir, to give hon. members the figures for Nova Scotia. The Conservatives polled 125,656 votes; the Liberals, 92,737; Labour, 3,617", or a majority for the Conservatives of
30.000	over all other parties in the province.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Is the hon. gentleman including in the Conservative total the votes east for himself?


George Taylor MacNutt: No. The figures I have given show approximately a majority of
30.000	for the Conservatives over the other two parties.


Jean George Robichaud: My bon. friend does not understand my question. Is he including in the Conservative total the votes cast for himself in the Colchester election?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


Jean George Robichaud: I thought he said he was not a Conservative candidate.


Mr. EDWARDS:: You only thought you thought.


George Taylor MacNutt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the acoustic properties of this chamber are so bad that I could not hear the hon. gentleman clearly. If he has any doubt as to where he will find me, I may tell him that he will not have long to wait. For the first time since confederation the number of Liberals elected in Nova Scotia was below the double figure. The Liberal party in that
province was then annihilated and brought to the lowest depths in its history. I do not think any stronger evidence can be found of the great discontent prevailing in Nova Scotia against the Liberal party than is disclosed in the election returns which I have just given the House.
During the contest the leaders of the two great national parties visited the province. They both brought messages to us, and the vote recorded on October 29 tells how the people were impressed by those messages. The leader of the opposition had a message of hope and cheer for the Maritimes. He recognized the rights of those provinces in confederation. He sympathized with them in their handicaps and trials, and he bad concrete proposals to make, enunciating a Canada first policy in connection with all that enters into the life of the country. Mr. Meighen assured1 the people of the Maritimes that he is with them in all their just demands, and he pointed out at Halifax and elsewhere, that the whole of Canada must share the geographical disadvantages under which we labour. A few days later the Prime Minister came to those provinces and delivered, if I remember correctly, three addresses. I had the privilege of hearing him at one of those meetings ask the now famous question:	"What are Maritime rights? Tell us, so that we can deal with them." This, Mr. Speaker, only a few short months after a delegation, 220 strong, consisting of Liberals and Conservatives, had visited Ottawa at their own expense-at enormous expense on the whole-to impress on the government the rights demanded by those provinces. Following the visit of those two leaders, and the definite pronouncements which were made by them, the people voted, and upon that issue alone was the vote polled in that province. It is pleasing indeed, Mr. Speaker, to know that after five years of agitation with other provinces of the Dominion we are receiving sympathy and the expression of a willingness to help us, as has been shown by the addresses here of many hon. members since the House opened. Since coming to this House I have been told by an eminent lawyer that no contractual rights the Maritime provinces enjoyed have been taken away from them. A strict reading of section 145 of the British North America Act might possibly afford some ground for that contention. But while it may be argued that the building of the Intercolonial railway may have been in accordance with the strict letter of the confederation pact it cannot be disputed that it was not in accordance with the spirit of that pact. Now, since some hon. members during the past week have stated
The Address-Mr. MacNutt



OOMMlONS

[Stage Direction]
that they were still endeavouring to ascertain the Maritime viewpoint I wish to be permitted to enlarge a little on the question of the confederation pact which was so ably dealt with by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), and other hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces. I ask therefore to be permitted to read again section 145 of the British North America Act which is thus worded:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration the construction of the Intercolonial railway is essential to the consolidation of the union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the government of Canada:
Therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the government and parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within six months after the union, of a railway connecting the river St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.
That is the letter of the confederation pact. Does any hon. gentleman here believe that those great Maritime province men who figured among the Fathers of Confederation would have agreed to enter into that pact with the mere promise that two streaks of steel should be laid from Halifax to the St. Lawrence river, through some five hundred miles of wilderness between Moncton and Quebec?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to demonstrate the spirit of that confederation pact, and I want to read a few of the pledges which were given at the time of confederation. They have not previously been given to this House. The hon. member for Cumberland referred to one speech of Sir George Etienne Cartier. I wish to give a quotation from another of that statesman's speeches. Sir George, who was the leading delegate from Quebec at the conference which decided the union of the provinces of British North America in 1864, and which later resulted in the formation of this Dominion, made a speech at Halifax on September 12, 1864, on the necessity of having Nova Scotia in the union. I want hon. gentlemen to mark that without the consent of Nova Scotia at that time there would have been no confederation to-day. This is what he said, speaking for all the delegates:
I have heard since I have been in Halifax, the objection thrown out that you will be absorbed. It will be very easy for me to dispel such fears. I answer them by a question. Have you any objection to being absorbed in commerce? Halifax through the Intercolonial railway, will be the recipient of trade which now benefits Portland, Boston and New York.
If you are unwilling to do all in your power to bring to a satisfactory consummation this great question, you will force us to send all this trade which you 
ought to have, through American channels. Will the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick be better off because they are not absorbed by commerce or prosperity? It is as evident as the sun shines at noon that when the Intercolonial is built-and, it must necessarily be built if the confederation takes place,-the consequences will be that between Halifax and Liverpool, there will be steamers almost daily, leaving and arriving at the former. In fact it will be a ferry between Halifax and Liverpool. Let me assure you the promises we make in sincerity and good faith- in urging union upon you-we are doing that which will be for your happiness and prosperity.
That, Mr. Speaker, will be found in Whelan's account of the conference, at page 26; the volume is in the library of this building. That speech was sanctioned by all the members of the conference and1 was officially repeated in all the important cities of the four provinces. Is that not a binding condition of confederation? Is that not a compelling statement?
May I go further and refer to the Speech made by the Hon. George Brown, who spoke at that same conference as follows:
But far in advance of all other advantages would be this, that union of all the provinces would break down all trade barriers between us, and throw open at once to all a combined market of four millions of people. You in the east would send us your fish and your coals and your West India produce, while we would send you in return the flour and the grain and the meats you now buy in Boston and New York.
That will be found in Whelan's account of the conference, at page 36. There, Mr. Speaker, you have a definite pledge that Ontario and Quebec would take our fish and our coal. As I sat in my seat a short time ago listening to hon. members representing colliery towns of Cape Breton asking this government to bring from the province of Nova Scotia three or four carloads of coal per day for the next sixty days, in order to relieve the suffering in those colliery towns,
I could not but think of those great men of other days and what they would have thought if they had been sitting in the gallery of this House and had heard the government refuse to carry that coal from Nova Scotia at a rate which another portion of this great Dominion is now enjoying. We have honoured those great men by erecting monuments to their memory, and they stand outside of this House to-day as silent witnesses of those promises made at the time of confederation. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has repeatedly told this House that the government is powerless to lift a hand in order to allow that coal to be moved from Nova Scotia, that the government cannot say a word to the management of the Canadian National railways. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that position is a tenable one? I ask the members of this House,

The Address-Mr. MacNutt
comprising 245 business men from all parts of this Dominion, would any one of you employ a manager to manage your business and you not be permitted to have some say regarding the managing of that business? Again, Sir Leonard Tilley at that same conference said:
The delegates of the lower provinces are not seeking this union.
You will find that at page 84 of Whelan's account of the conference. Sir George Etienne Cartier at a banquet given in 1864 to the conference enlarged on his Halifax speech as follows:
Canada has population and territory sufficient to make a great nation in course of time. But she wants what the Lower Provinces possess-an outlet to the sea. As the Lower Provinces now stand, they are comparatively weak and powerless-and the wealth, labour, and industry which Canada possesses, go, in a great measure to enrich such cities as New York, Boston and Portland. This must continue to be the case until the intercolonial railway, of which we have ever been an advocate, shall be built; and as soon as the Colonies are confederated, the construction of that work will undoubtedly commence.
Later, at Montreal on October the 28th of the same year, at a banquet, he said:
I must repeat to you what I stated while in the Lower Provinces, that while we possessed the personal and the territorial elements which go to constitute a nation, we were wanting in the maritime element. During six months of the year we had to knock at the door of our neighbour in order to carry on our trade. This cannot be tolerated. This confederation must be carried out.
Again:
With OUT prosperity we are enriching the American states, whereas we ought to be enriching our own states. We ought to be enriching such harbours as St. John and Halifax.
He said that what Canada wanted1 was an outlet to the sea, which the Maritimes possess. We all know that one of the greatest problems which had to be settled after the conclusion of the Great war was that all the hinterland countries of Europe were demanding corridors to the sea.
I would also like to refer to what Mr. John A., afterwards Sir John A. Macdonald, speaking at Halifax at the same time, said:
I don't hesitate to say that with respect to the Intercolonial railway, it is understood by the people of Canada-
That was Quebec and OnJtario:
-that it can only be built as a means of political union for the Colonies. It cannot be denied that the railway, as a commercial enterprise, would be of comparatively little commercial advantage to the people of Canada. Whilst we have the St. Lawrence in summer, and the American ports in time of peace, we have all that is requisite for our purposes. We recognize, however the fact that peace may not always exist, and that we must have some other means of outlet if we do not
wish to be cut off from the ocean for some months in the year. We wish to feel greater security-to know that we can have assistance readily in the hour of danger. In the case of a union, this railway must be a national work, and Canada will cheerfully contribute to the utmost extent m order to make that important link without which no political connection can be complete.
That will be found at page 45 of Whelan's account of the conference. I have many other references to what took place in those days, but I shall not weary the House with them. I have quoted enough to show that it was not the laying of two streaks of steel between Halifax and the St. Lawrence river that persuaded those great Maritime men to en-4 pan. ter the union. It was those commitments, those sacred pledges, that persuaded them to enter. Those pledges could not be embodied in the British North America Act, but they form a part of the compact just the same. We in the province of Nova Scotia, if we have one thing more than another to boast about, and that we are always boasting about, it is the brainy men we have produced. We have given to this parliament three prime ministers. We have produced more college professors than any other place of its size on the North American continent; in fact, the only thing we are exporting to-day is brains. If these brainy men of 'the Maritimes of that day drove a hard bargain in regard to having the traffic of this country routed east and west, we must accept it. But we are told that in taking over the Grand Trunk Railway we have taken over their terminals at Portland and elsewhere. In my judgment Canada should not own and operate railways in a foreign country. Its lines in that foreign country should be disposed of, and our own railways made use of, according to the terms of the confederation pact.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), at very great length, endeavoured to show this House that all our railway ills were brought upon us by the Conservative government. We do not care which government was responsible, but we do know that this Intercolonial, which was dear to the hearts of the Maritime people, has been obliterated; by an order in council passed by this government on the 4th October, 1922, it was taken away from us, attached to a take-over corporation, given another name, and its ratefixing given to a commission. I submit that no government has the power to change the name of that railway and destroy its identity without our consent or without seeking permission to have the British North America Act repealed. I have searched the records since coming here, and I have been unable
The Address-Mr. MacNutt
[Stage Direction]
to find that any such petition has been presented to the Imperial throne.
If the British North America Act can be changed by order in council at the will of this government, then we ask that an order in council be issued forthwith restoring to Nova Scotia the twenty-one members we had at the time of confederation. We have fourteen members now, and at the rate we are losing them it will not be very long before we shall have a baker's half dozen. Has the British North America Act, the rock upon which this vast Dominion stands, become a mere scrap of paper? The greatest war this world has ever seen-and we hope the greatest war that we may ever see-was over what was considered a mere scrap of paper. Coming to this House a short time ago I was very much impressed with an inscription over the front entrance of this magnificent building. You have all seen it; it reads:
The wholesome sea is at her Gates,
Her Gates both East and West.
Does that inscription, carved deep into those massive stones over the entrance to this building, mean anything, or does it not? Is that province by the sea in the east, that province that is called the long wharf of Canada, to be used only in time of war and forgotten in time of peace? We have never : shirked our share of the Canadian burden and never withheld our support from natione.l enterprise. It was loyalty to British traditions and the desire to weld together the separate provinces of the British Dominion that made us eventually subscribe to confederation. When we find that confederation has strengthened the position of other provinces and weakened our own, does true patriotism demand that we should applaud? True patriotism begins at home. We cannot be patriotic Canadians without first being patriotic Nova Scotians. We cannot be patriotic Nova Scotians and not first seek to promote the welfare and the interests of our province. Rather, should we not insist that our provinces receive the benefits from confederation commensurate with those obtained by others? We cannot be expected to love the idea of unity better than our own hearth stones. Nova Scotia is our home. It is the land we love, the land of our fathers, and what a glorious heritage we have as Nova Scotians: wealth of sea, of forest, of mine, of fertile lands, and, better than all, a spiritual heritage from our fathers-God-fearing, thrifty, courageous pioneers. We in turn have accepted the responsibilities of the development which they began, but we are not developing. We are no longer thrifty. That once pro3-

perous part of Canada, we regret to inform the House, is withering up. Many hon. gentlemen who preceded me have shown this House what a happy, contented and prosperous people we were when we became a partner in confederation. After the signing of the pact of 1867-and I do not believe this fact has been presented to this House yet-a petition bearing the signatures of 30,000 Nova Scotians was presented at the foot of the throne, praying that our province be not included in the confederation. Those great men who at that time took the petition to England were asked to return; we were advised to try it, and if it did not work satisfactorily to come back with our grievances. It has not worked out satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker, but we have never gone back. It is now up to this parliament, representing the people of Canada, to say whether we shall go back or not. We know what our rights are, and we may go to the highest authority in the empire to obtain them if necessary.
Is it possible that a question so vital to a portion of the Dominion is to be placed in the hands of a commission, as proposed in the Speech from the Throne? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) has well said that where a canker exists in any portion of the Dominion it affects the whole Dominion, and it is the duty of the government to seek a remedy. During the sessions of 1924 and 1925 the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) warned the government what was going to happen down by the sea if no attention was paid to these warnings. History tells us that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. In the Speech from the Throne we are promised a commission to investigate rights that are already known. Conditions are too serious in those provinces to-day to have such matters as that hung up indefinitely in the hands of a commission. We do not want a commission, we want clear-cut, definite action. We want the repeal of the act which took away from us the Intercolonial railway, we care not what government passed it. The Intercolonial must be restored to its original status and used for the purpose for which it was built. We want to know if the Maritime provinces are partners in confederation or not. No longer are we going to tolerate the spectacle of empty harbours, idle elevators and rusting rails, while the immense trade of Canada is diverted over the territory and through the ports of a foreign country.
The constituency which I have the honoui to represent is a railway centre, and hundreds of railwaymen have been driven out of that county on account of the policy inaugurated

The Address-Mr. MacNutt
during the past few years by this government. Many men who were formerly conductors are now working as brakesmen, engineers have been put back as firemen, and these in turn have driven others out of the service, due to this policy of north and south instead of east and west.
We are told to-day by many that our geographical position is against us, but our geography is the same to-day as it was at the time those sacred commitments were made. We are pleased indeed-and I referred to this before-to hear so many expressions of sympathy from all portions of this House. We have already been invited by the Progressive group to join them in caucus and we have done so in order that they may be able better to understand our difficulties. I believe also we shall have the support of hon. members from that great province of Quebec, separated as we are by an invisible line, and knowing that what will benefit us will in like measure benefit them. I was pleased to hear the kind words expressed by you, Sir, in reference to Maritime matters a few days ago at a luncheon given by you, which I had the honour and privilege of attending. I can assure you that Maritime men who were present on that occasion were deeply moved by the sympathetic words expressed by you, and I for one wish that your voice could be heard to-day on the other side of this House.
At a meeting recently held in the city of Montreal, of the Shoe Manufacturers' Association, the Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Premier of Quebec, spoke as follows:
''I believe," says Premier Taschereau, "every Canadian, whether he be in British Columbia, or Quebec, or Ontario, should join with the Martime provinces to give them what is necessary for them to live and thrive. They need cheap transportation. That perhaps was not the letter of the confederation pact, but it certainly was the spirit when the Intercolonial railway was built. Speaking as a Canadian, as a citizen of the province of Quebec, I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of those who govern Canada today to see that this important part of Canada (the Maritimes) is looked after and is satisfied."
Premier Taschereau thus gives a straightforward endorsement of the principal Maritime claims. He presents the issue to the Dominion government as one calling for action, thus seconding with all the weight attaching to his position, the decision of the Winnipeg conference, which called upon Ottawa to take whatever measures are necessary to place the Maritimes on all fours with the other provinces as regards opportunity for advancement, and a fair share of the benefits flowing from national policies and membership in the Canadian family.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) some days ago endeavoured to
show that the Conservative party between 1911 and 1921 had done nothing for the Maritimes and that all that had been done was done by the Liberals. It seems very strange that with the record of the two parties before the people in the recent election, the Liberal party should have been annihilated. The people of those provinces are not easily hoodwinked by false propaganda. I also wish to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the Intercolonial railway was made a part of the Canadian National Railways on January 29, 1923, by an order in council passed on the fourth day of October, 1922. This order in council reads as follows:
That the Canadian National Railway Company has been brought into existence by virtue of an order in council passed the fourth day of October, 1922, whereby certain persons were nominated directors of the company.
Note the date-October 4, 1922.
That it is expedient to terminate the authority of said persons to act as general manager of the Canadian National Railways and to trust in lieu thereof the management and operation of the said railways to the company.
That is the record of how the Intercolonial railway as a unit of the Canadian National Railways was placed in the Canadian National Railway Company. That is the manner in which the King government by formal action alienated the control of the Intercolonial from the people of the Maritimes and placed that control in the hands of the Canadian National corporation, the president and directors of which dismembered the Intercolonial and gave the most profitable part of it over to the central region which they formed. When the King government came into power in 1921, the Canadian Government Railways, including the Intercolonial, were subject to the control of the responsible department. The Board of Railway Commissioners at that time had actually no power to fix rates on the Intercolonial,-but in January, 1923, the King government made the Intercolonial a portion of the Canadian National railway system under the control of the corporation of which it was made a part. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg complains that the Conservative party was the originator of all our railway wrongs which appear to trouble him. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that that were admitted; what about the King government condoning those wrongs for four long years? Why did not some member of that eminent body of Nova Scotians known as the "solid sixteen" stand up for Nova Scotia rights in 1923 and tell the Prime Minister, when his order in council was in the making -"it shall not pass."
The Address-Mr. MacNutt
[Stage Direction]
The hon. senior member for Halifax has referred to the statement of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that the talk about Maritime rights was nothing but Tory propaganda. I think it was the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit) who asked the question: If it was Tory propaganda, why was the appointment of a royal commission mentioned in the Speech from the Throne? I do not think the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, if I remember correctly, answered that question. If this is Tory propaganda, so-called, I want briefly to refer to a manifesto issued to the electors of Nova Scotia prior to the provincial election in that province in June, 1925. This manifesto was issued by Premier Armstrong, then Liberal premier of that province, on the 6th day of June, 1925. Let me read that portion having reference to Maritime rights. He said:
The government is pledged and determined to have the grievances of our province in its relation to the Dominion, removed, and all its just claims conceded- ascertained by adequate inquiry, as prepared and presented. I shall be able to secure favourable consideration for it from the present government and parliament of Canada.
Again on the 25th day of June, the morning of the election, there appeared the following in heavy type in the Morning Chronicle:
So I appeal to Nova Scotians to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue of supreme importance and to join with me in demanding from the federal government and parliament, prompt and adequate redress of wrongs that have far too long been endured.
And so on. If the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg calls Maritime rights Tory propaganda, what, may I say, does he call this manifesto issued by the Premier of Nova [DOT] Scotia during that contest in June last?
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg also referred to a Tory senator having moved a woollen mill from Amherst to Truro. I knew the statement was incorrect at the time but I do not approve of interrupting any member who has the floor. However I have a thorough knowledge of every factory and business firm in the town of Truro and I knew that no such thing happened. The Stanfields acquired the woollen mills at Amherst and ran them successfully for a number of years until the Liberal government came into power in 1921 and began tinkering with the tariff. At that time the company employed 200 men while to-day there are two employed, a night and a day watchman. This statement can be verified by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), and the fact is known to everyone from the Maritime provinces If the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg wishes to try his future at making cloth I can

guarantee him that he will be able to buy this plant at a very low figure. The great firm of Stanfields' is a household word throughout Canada from the Yukon to Sydney and it appears in practically every wardrobe in this country. That industry during the last year has been running four days a .week, the first time in its history that this has been necessary; and not only has it been operating four days a week but it has been employing from 150 to 200 hands fewer than in former years.
Some hon. member made the statement in this House the other day that we from the Maritime provinces were not here as suppliants asking for alms. That is well put; we do not ask for anything to which we are not entitled. We ask, nay we demand, a fulfilment of the pledges of confederation, the promises which constitute the unwritten terms of the British North America Act, promises which form an integral and essential part of the pact, whether they were embodied in the act or not. I have been asked by some of my friends, what do the Maritime provinces want? I answer that we want to be able to sell our products to the people to whom under confederation we should be able to sell, the central provinces of Canada. I think it was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who a few evenings ago said that he was endeavouring to get the Maritime point of view. He said:
I have been honestly anxious to get the Maritime point of view. ... I would like to concede to them a right for which the members at present representing the Maritime provinces seem to have made no demand, namely, the right to trade more freely with the world.
I think if they would recognize that right and assert it, we in the west would be willing to concede it, to them, and that would go a very long way towards solving their difficulties.
The hon. member for Lisgar is very magnanimous; he is ready to supply us with a remedy for a grievance which he thinks we ought to have, in addition to those we have already stated to the House and the country.
Let it be understood that we in Nova Scotia have no objection to better trading terms with the rest of the world. But in view of the fact that all other nations practically have raised their tariff against us, how in the name of common sense can we, lowering ours still further, trade with the rest of the world? The hon. gentleman must remember that a solid sixteen from Nova Scotia were sent here on Maritime rights in 1921 and the result of their four years' effort was merely to raise the cry suggested by the hon. member for Lisgar. It is bard to understand his willingness to offer us something our people turned down when they defeated all but three of the solid sixteen from Nova Scotia.

There are in my judgment two fundamental requirements to meet the Maritime situation: first, Quebec and Ontario should be a market for our coal, steel, fish and other products which we can sell in those provinces; and secondly, the export and import trade of Canada should be made to flow east and west on the Canadian side of the line. It is not many years ago since the people of Vancouver decided that their claim should be recognized for a port there for the shipping of grain. Many members no doubt recall the great difficulty which the people of that city had in securing for the port of Vancouver the necessary terminal facilities for the handling of grain. When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) finally succeeded in getting the first modern grain elevator constructed there, it was christened "Stevens' Folly". Railway officials said that grain bottoms would never go to Vancouver for wheat. But within one year from the construction of "Stevens' Folly" the people there had the happy experience of seeing from twenty-five to thirty ships waiting in the harbour to load up at the elevator. That is only a few years ago and millions of bushels are now pouring through that port. I was informed the other day that in one year 51,000,000 bushels had been shipped through that elevator, and the result is that the city is forging ahead by leaps and bounds and its people are enjoying an era of great prosperity. The same result can be accomplished in Halifax. Within three years we can have millions of bushels pour in through that port every month and Halifax harbour can be made the terminus of a great shipping fleet plying between this port and Great Britain. There is to-day a great and widespread national sympathy with the claims of Maritime Canada. This portion of the Dominion has broken down the walls of its isolation and has emerged as a partner in confederation. On the floor of the Winnipeg conference Maritime rights was the greatest topic of discussion; the Maritimes held the centre of the national stage. Such Dominionwide recognition as this has put heart into our leaders in the Maritime provinces.
Canada has invested something like two billion dollars in railways running east and west. These were built to keep Canadian traffic in Canada, to develop trade with the empire and to build up the seaports of Canada. Deficits of from fifty to seventy millions a year is the price being paid for that idea. Yet here we have the stark fact that notwithstanding this colossal investment, Canadian traffic is not being kept in Canada.
The Address-Mr. MacNult
The traffic that should be going over our own railways, helping to build up our own ports, is prospering ports under a foreign flag.
In 1918 the old elevator at Halifax handled 4,700,000 bushels of grain; in 1919, 3,825,000. The new one could easily handle from eight to ten million bushels in the next few months.
I wish to give the government credit for that magnificent elevator. If you tell us that the facilities there are not sufficient to handle more than one steamer at a time, we say: Give us better facilities. We have one of the finest harbours in the world. We are two days nearer Europe than the American ports. We can carry grain from that port-and the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) will bear me out-at two cents per bushel less than from Portland and other American ports. The parliament and government of Canada and the Canadian National Railway authorities are bound by the statutes of the country to route Canadian traffic over our own territory and through our own ports.
Five years ago, four years ago, to mention Maritime rights was to provoke a storm of disapproval throughout the country. Maritime rights were thought to be merely a sectional agitation, and people in other parts of the Dominion said so. But that is all changed to-day. The Dominion is built upon the national policy of east and west traffic and trade.	To reverse that policy and
abandon that principle would lead to the disintegration of confederation. That policy, Mr. Speaker, is being reversed. The east and west principle is being abandoned. If this reversal and abandonment is persisted in it will surely force the Maritimes away from the rest of the Dominion. That is as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow.
The Maritime movement is not a secession movement; it is the very antithesis. It is a great movement, having for its object the betterment of Maritime conditions and therefore closer union of all parts of the Dominion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that so far as our ports are concerned and the recovery of traffic now so largely diverted to American channels, this parliament is bound to recognize that this is a national rather than merely a Maritime province issue. East and west there is a strong and growing sentiment-immensely stronger the past few months, and I am afraid much stronger since we left the Maritimes some seven weeks ago -demanding the keeping of the pledges given and, indeed, the contracts made when the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern were built. We are in earnest in endeavouring to lay these
The Address-Mr. Boys
[Stage Direction]
matters before parliament. The bon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) last night tried to bring home to the House the gravity of the conditions in Nova Scotia, to contradict the assertion that the voicing of Maritime grievances is not Tory propaganda. We are striving to convince hon. members of the seriousness of the situation, and we hope the House will not entrust this matter to a royal commission. We want parliamentary action.
I say in all seriousness, Sir, and with all the emphasis at my command, that if the unwritten letter of the confederation pact cannot *be carried out-which would make us a prosperous partner of the Dominion-then no objection can be raised to permitting us to deal with whoever we can, relieved of the restrictions which now surround us in this regard.
Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I claim the indulgence of the House for but a few moments and for two definite purposes? It is not my intention to take part, at this juncture at all events, in the discussion of the general topics which have been engaging the attention of the House for some time, but to deal in the first place with an article which appeared in the Toronto Star this week; and in the second place to have a word or two to say regarding the question of so-called obstruction in the House by this party.
It perhaps is usual for whips to be seen and not heard, and having not infrequently to restrain utterances on both sides of the House, it is well that they should not themselves be loquacious, but I feel the matters I am about to deal with warrant the breaking of that rule so far as I am concerned. On Saturday last an article appeared in the Toronto Star intimating that from fifteen to twenty members of this party in the province of Ontario were ready for open revolt. I saw the article, but, like many other things I see in the Toronto Star, I felt it was unworthy of attention. But when last Tuesday I found upon the front page in glaring headlines and occupying about three columns of that paper a repetition of the thought in exaggerated form, I felt as whip of the party, knowing something of its membership and of the feeling of its members in the House of Commons, that I should not let the article go unchallenged. I do not intend for one moment, Mr. Speaker, to weary the House by reading the article in full. I shall content myself with a few quotations, and in regard to these I shall have a few observations to make. The article is headed:

Prominent Tories fan the flames of revolt against party leader.
Many Ontario members would desert Meighen if another leader was seen.
Talk of corridors.
Then comes the article:
Special to the Star by a staff reporter.
Ottawa, February 23.-There is many a rift in the Conservative lute at Ottawa. . . .
It may soon be that those who are unflinchingly loyal to Mr. Meighen's leadership will be no more than a corporal's guard. This grave disaffection in the Conservative ranks is the talk of the corridors. The advent of Mr. Dunning is like the arrival of Blucher at Waterloo, and many Conservatives, chagrined at seeing their mirage of victory recede, do not hesitate to grumble openly. One anti-Meighen man said yesterday: "There are at least twenty-five Ontario members who would "rat" from Meighen at a moment's notice if they had anybody to "rat" to. Two prominent Conservative members went down to Toronto the other day to fan the flames of revolt."
I observe that the article comes from the pen of a " staff reporter I think I know who he is, Mr. Speaker, and if my information is correct, I want at once to say that he is not a member of the press gallery. My knowledge of the members of the press gallery would lead me to -the conclusion that there is not one of them who would be guilty of the scurrilous and malicious article containing the references which I have quoted. And I think I may say, Sir, that there is not a member of the House on the Liberal side or in the Progressive ranks who would subscribe to one item or one tittle of what I have just quoted.
I give a flat denial to these two particular statements: That one member said, "At least twenty-five Ontario members would 'rat' Meighen." No Conservative nor in my opinion any other member ever made such a statement. I give an equally flat denial to the statement that two members of this party went to the city of Toronto, there to fan the flames of revolt against our leader. I say again, Sir, that as whip of this party and mingling with the members in the present House as in the last, there is not the slightest doubt but that there is absolute unity and solidarity in that party behind our leader. This is no flattery. This admiration, this esteem, is born of the indomitable courage, the indefatigable efforts, the outstanding and conspicuous ability displayed by the right hon. gentleman ever since he became our leader. The article in question can only be characterized as absolutely malicious, scurrilous and slanderous, and without the slightest foundation and this is known to every member of the House regardless of party. Hon. gentlemen who sit opposite may not agree with our leader, they may not agree with the policies he advocates, but I venture to say there is not

The Address-Mr. Boys
one- of them who does not know full well from what he has seen in this House that we on this side are absolutely behind him.
Sir, concluding what I have to say on this point, I desire to make one or two other observations. Those of us who were in the last parliament recall the severe defeat that our party suffered at the general election in 1921, when we assembled here, a small group of fifty. We remember the conspicuous efforts and ability and the unvarying courage displayed by our leader during the four years which followed; and when we recall those experiences and reflect on what took place on October 29 last, we see the vindication of the efforts of our leader during those years. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, dilating with the greatest ease upon the acknowledged capacity of our leader, but I do not think repetition will make the case any stronger. I can only say that everything 1 have said I believe to be the truth; and I am convinced that the opinion I have expressed here, so far as our loyalty to our leader is concerned, is shared by every fair-minded member of the House.
We have heard something about obstruction. I should like, Sir, to put the position of this party in that connection as definitely and clearly as I can before this House and the country. Some members of the government seem to think they are offering to the country some excuse for the utter helplessness of their position by attributing it to what they call obstruction on the part of the opposition. A moment's thought will make obvious the absurdity of such a claim. Surely there cannot be obstruction unless something is being obstructed. What then is being obstructed? What is there requiring the attention of the House at the present time? Nothing in the world except the completion of the existing debate, and the thought of an adjournment with a holiday.
As plainly stated in an interview given by the leader of the opposition on the 18th instant, this party is continuing the present debate for two purposes. First, in order that the House may be in session to support and make effective the very important work of the committee investigating customs charges and, second, to enable discussion, which must in any event take place at some time, to be disposed of. As an instance I might mention the presentation of the case for the Maritime provinces, which has been so ably put forward by the member who has just taken his seat (Mr. MacNutt) and by other members from those provinces on this side of the House. It is idle and useless to try to persuade the people of Canada, and especially those of the
Maritimes, that this work is not better than wasting our time on a holiday.
Just as soon as the government demonstrate that they are ready to proceed with business, we are ready to proceed as well. As indicated in the speech delivered by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) as long ago as the 17th instant, we are not anxious to delay, but rather anxious to proceed, to deal with any business the government can propose. Let the government abandon the fatuous idea of an adjournment to which they have not now and never had any right, and they will find us prepared to proceed at once from this debate to other business of more importance. In that way we will stand by and strengthen with the arm of parliament the committee of investigation which is carrying now so large a share of the work of this House, and in that way as well we will show the country that we mean to work, and do not mean to be drawing our indemnities when merely marking time. The government therefore have the solution in their own hands.
To that, Sir, I should like to add another observation or two. :If the Prime Minister had been particularly anxious to secure a seat and to take his place in this House, I think he could have done so long ago. We are led to believe that he may be here next week. I do not know myself when he will be entitled to take his seat; I have heard next Wednesday or next Thursday. I want to say that as far as we are concerned we propose to continue the discussion in connection with this debate until the Prime Minister takes his seat in the House and gives hon. members some business to do on behalf of the country. We will not ask him to do that the first day he arrives; we will give him one, two or three days if he wants to make up his mind and bring down his legislation. If at the end of that time he has no legislation to offer the House for its attention we are prepared then, upon receiving that admission, to consent to an adjournment.


Ernest Lapointe: Some statesmanship.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address a few remarks to the House I would be remiss in my duty, perhaps, if I did not say something to you, Sir, commendatory of the great example you have set to the younger members. First of all, in order to make the Liberal party understand that the rank and file of our party-in fact its entire membership-want to get down to business I will just add the word "amen" to all the tributes that have been paid to you, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. Harris

With regard to the tribute paid to our leader by the whip of this party some few moments ago, let me say that in the opinion of the people of the constituency from which I come Arthur Meighen stands on a pedestal which will never be reached by anyone else in our day and generation. On every platform in the city of Toronto and throughout the province of Ontario where it was my pleasure to address an audience, one of my first remarks, Sir, was that at the head of the Conservative party we had leadership of which we were mighty proud, and whenever I expressed that sentiment, at all my meetings, ranging from little groups of a dozen to one that I recall on convention night numbering some 1,200, I heard from all quarters of the hall a mighty hurrah and hear, hear, for the leadership of the Right Hon.'Arthur Meighen. But, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to that, let me draw the attention of the House just for a moment to what happened down in my constituency when the name of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was mentioned to an audience. Not quite so good. Mr. Speaker, my constituents have no confidence in the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. My constituents have no confidence in this Liberal administration, they demonstrated that not very long ago, and the degree to which it was demonstrated might be reviewed for just a moment.
I will ask the members of this assembly to go with me back to the days of 1921, when the Conservative party were not just as strongly in favour with the people of Canada as they are to-day. I had a very large constituency then known as East York, a constituency which gave to this Dominion some years ago a Liberal Prime Minister in Alexander Mackenze, a constituency which in 1921 gave .to me the largest Conservative majority in Canada, and that majority only 6,500. But, Mr. Speaker, after four years of administration by the Liberal party, after four years of observation of their actions in this House of Commons and of their want of public policy, that constituency although it had been annihilated by redistribution, still had a remnant left in about its centre which I contested in the last election, and that remnant which was changed in name, changed in boundary, and reduced in numbers to perhaps about one-half, gave to me a majority of 14,500. I do not say that in any bragging sense, because I am not a politician, I hope; I am just an ordinary kind of business man, but I want to say that if the boundary line of East York constituency had been left where it was in 1921, instead of having a majority of 14,500, I might have had 20,000, and if you

go to the country this June I will have 30;000. The reason for that jump is that not far away from where I live, at Richmond Hill, there was a speech made on the 6th of September last, wherein William Lyon Mackenzie King, the hon. Prime Minister of this country, said:	"We possess the confidence of
this country to a degree greater than when we took office." He got an answer on October 29th, but not being satisfied with that answer he suggested that we who also got our answer on the 29th of October should come here and decide what then should be done. If, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party had come to this House of Commons and had enunciated in the Speech from the Throne what they enunciated throughout the length and breadth of this country as their policy- with the exception of the war with Turkey; I do not think that should be in the Speech from the Throne-if that policy as outlined in the Speech from the Throne had been in accordance with what they enunciated during the campaign to the people of Canada, instead of being, as it is, a handout to the Progressive party, the probability is that I for one would not have taken any of the time of this assembly on this particular occasion. But as it is, Sir, I am justified in saying a few words, in explanation perhaps to my constituency, which will let me out, as it were, for expressing my viewpoint on this occasion.
The government has brought down a Speech from the Throne in which are mentioned matters which were being asked for by the membership of the Progressive party. Then in a subsequent amendment to 5 p.m. the Speech from the Throne the government made certain concessions to those members of this House who are known as Independents, those members who usually sit on the cross-benches-and I wish they were in their seats because I have something to say to them. I remember the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) saying to me the first session I was here, when we were talking about mankind in general and certain men in particular, "Beware of any man that wears a No. 6 hat." He said, "If you will examine into humanity of all kinds, you will find and phrenologists will tell you that the man who wears a No. 6 hat has probably got his brain a little warped." I am not suggesting that the members who sit along the cross-benches over there are warped in their brains at all, but I sometimes think their judgment is badly warped, and when I see in this chamber the statesmanlike look of that hon. gentleman from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), when I behold him strutting up and down this hall, I do not know for

The Address-Mr. Harris
whose edification unless it be for the edification of the Fourth Estate, represented by the press gallery, and perhaps the Fifth Estate, the public galleries in this House. And when I think of his attitudes and his meanderings around this chamber I often think our friends of the Fourth and Fifth Estates in the galleries here must be glad that there are guards on the door in the event of our all taking to that kind of foxlike movement around the chamber. But I have got away, Mr. Speaker, from what was on my mind.
This Liberal party which was condemned at the polls told the people of Canada that they were going to meet parliament; and had they met parliament fairly and honestly they would have got their decision. But when it came to getting a straight want of confidence motion before this House by our leader, the words were so twisted by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) to make our friends of the Progressive party believe that it was not a want of confidence motion at all, that in the final analysis we found them using that excuse to keep this remnant of a government in power. To my mind, Sir, that is a straight case of this Liberal administration flouting the will of parliament. First, they flouted the will of the people when they did not resign on October 29th, or shortly thereafter, and now in their Speech from the Throne they have flouted the will of parliament.
Our friends the Progressives, by reason ol the fact that in their constitutional platform they want some of these handouts which are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, find themselves unable to be honest with themselves, unable to be conscientious, but, thinking of their constituents, and considering the possibilities of coming back here again, they think they had better accept the lesser of the two evils and keep this party in power. We were told by the Prime Minister in that speech of September 6th, or whatever the date was, that with a majority of one they could not carry on and could not solve the great national problems which are to-day waiting for solution in this country. I say to these hon. gentlemen: How are you going to do it with a minority of fifteen? You are fifteen times worse off to-day than you were at that time, and you do not know it. But you are going to wake up some of these days; when public opinion gets roused to a certain pitch, you will find you can no longer remain in the seats which you now occupy and then you will realize that it is time to get out, but you ought to know it 14011-87$
now. If the Liberal party want to remain as a party in my lifetime, and to again come into power, the best thing they can do now is to square themselves with the people and resign. That is my opinion and the opinion of a great number of people in Canada. If with a majority of one and a bloc of sixty-odd to help them when they needed assistance, they could not perform the executive or legislative duties demanded of them by the country in the four years gone by, much less can they do it now, in my opinion.
The Speech from the Throne has been enlarged upon by several members of the government and that is the reason why I wish to say a few words in regard to it. It has been enlarged upon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and I am glad he is here. I am going to say something nice about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) in a few moments and I hope he will come into the chamber. The Minister of Agriculture discussed the Speech from the Throne. He spoke about railways, and if I remember correctly he said, "Sure we gave Quebec five million for a harbour, gave Montreal a large sum for a fine bridge, gave the city of Toronto a viaduct, and we are going to give it a Canadian National Railways building at the comer of King and Yonge streets. Now come on you chaps and be fair with us; give us the Hudson Bay railway." That is the idea of the Minister of Agriculture-give them public works. The Minister of Public Works was not so very far behind when he spoke about the gift of potato houses down in St. John.
I am going to give a few of the reasons why I am satisfied1 that the lack, on the part of the Liberal administration, of a policy for the solution of the problems which are pressing on the people of Canada to-day, accounts in a large measure for the present condition of the government. I will also give a few reasons why any policy that they may enunciate will not prove a success, but will result in failure and will be of no benefit to the country. I take for my cue in that connection words which, one or two evenings ago, fqll from the lips of the Minister of Public Works. He said " Why, the Tory party are becoming greatly enamoured of the people of the United 'States." I hesitate to compare our people with the people of the United States. I hesitate to laud the people of the United States, because I feel that on the whole we have a far better race of people on this side of the boundary line than they have on the other side. I feel that we have better opportunities in practically every field of activity in Canada than they have in the States. But he says
The Address-Mr. Harris

the Tory party is becoming enamoured of the people of the United States. Perhaps they have pretty good reason to be, if we look back over the last thirty-five years, and take notice of all the Canadians who have gathered together their flocks and herds and everything belonging to them and gone over to the States. We will probably find as many Canadians in the United States to-day as we have in Canada, and that fact is worrying the people in the constituency from which I come. Why is that the case? One reason why such a condition exists is that God did not make all men alike. All of us do not want to go to Saskatchewan to work in the wheat fields; some of us desire to engage in other vocations than that of farming. There are many of us who do not w-ant to grow wheat or other grain, and there are those of us who do not want to go into the bowels of the earth to bring forth ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Some of us want to attend a technical school perhaps, to- obtain an education such as we can get in Canada-thanks to our excellent educational institutions-so that we may be fitted to earn a livelihood. But under the policy enunciated by the liberal party, we find we have to go into the field of larger activity in the country to -the south of us, to find our vocation, and that has been the history of Canada since confederation under liberal administration. There is one feature which appeals to me when I read the policy of the Conservative party and that is that that policy is calculated to make work for the miners, the labourers, farmers and people of all the different classes.
With regard to -the imports and exports of Canada, the Minister of Public Works said, " Some people would say it was unhealthy to have a favourable trade balance ". That is not correct. A favourable trade -balance is a very healthy sign, but that trade balance must not be the result of the exportation from this country of raw materials, which do not embody -the handicraft of the artisans of our country. If we -have a favourable trade balance from the export of manufacturers, I would say that that was a healthy condition for Canada. But Mr. Speaker, take the records of the last few years and see whait they disclose. Take one commodity by which, in the preceding generation, -the trade of the country was measured, the commodity of iron. I have here the figures of the importations into- this country of iron in the raw state; that is iron ore and metals which constitute the raw material with which the men ant-women of Canada work to produce manufactured goods. We find the importations of the raw materials were 39 per cent of the total im-

ports for the calendar year 1923; 33 per cent for 1924, and then in 1925 they dropped to 29 per cent. The exact figures are as follows:
Imported into Canada for Consumption
Twelve months ended December
Commodities	1923	1924	1925Iron, total .	$	173,720,299	137,979,471	156,573,076Ore .. ..	1,972,094	912,740	1,037,225$	5,765,413	2,345.038	2,015,580Pigs, ingots,	etc. . .$	2,450,605	1,969,661	1,551,783Rolling mill	products	n.o.p	50 ,S66,319	36,391,019	38,006,810Tuibes, pipes and	fittings ..	4.146,738	2 624.013	3,142,701Wire	4,061.777	2,843,726	2,648,40367,290,852	46,173,457	47,365,277Raw material	imported	39%	33i%	28%
There is a drop in the importation of raw material. But what have we to say about the Liberal policy, and what is happening to imports and exports in this country when we come to the manufactured goods? Of manufactured goods, engines, boilers and so on, our importations were:
Imported into Canada for Consumption
Twelve months ended December
Commodities	1923	1924	1925Engines and boilers	..i	8,137,435	7,440,989	11,603,174Farm implements..	11,893,646	6,585.750	11,234,839Hardware and cutlery. $	3.876,183	3,262.944	3,369,937Machinery	28,724,664	25,470,872	30,158,936Tools	1,916,229	1,664.065	1,912,204Vehicles, total.. ..	29,535,104	26,606,764	36,416,906Autos, freight .. ..	No.	1,355	957	1,146$	1,879,574	1,438,666	1,693,369Autos, passenger ..	.No	10,467	8,344	13,486$	10,447,045	8.202,643	12,855,940Auto parts	15,047,633	15,173,108	20,690,989
These importations represent work done by foreign artisans, and I make a plea this afternoon for the 60,000 people in my riding who have found work in the shops and factories of the city of Toronto close by. I see a few -of the Saskatchewan members in their seats, and I ask them to bear with me when I put to them fairly and frankly this question: Is it not far better that importations of engines and boilers, which in 1923 amounted to $8,000,000 worth, should drop to $4,000,000 rather than rise to $12,000,000 as they have done in the last three years? Does not the difference between those two items mean work for the people of Canada? We are willing ,to do something for Saskatchewan; we are willing to do something for Nova Scotia; we are willing to do something for any of those people who are asking for free trade; but let them give us a fair deal. We want work for our people. Let me tell the members from Saskatchewan something and particularly the Prime Minister who is about to represent the constituency of Prince Albert. It is not many years ago when single men were very much in the majority in Saskatchewan; but

The Address-Mr. Harris
now you are becoming a little more civilized or up-to-date; you have got a wife; before you are much older, you will have a family and before a generation passes you will find, as I said before, that God did not make everybody alike. You will find some of your children wanting not to grow wheat, but to start some kind of a factory in order to make something for the rest of the people unless they migrate to the United States or some other country where these g^oods are made for them. It is not very many years ago when Ontario had a population of only 750,000, but the people did not pay all their attention to growing wheat, although they can grow as fine wheat as can be grown out in the west; they diverted their attention to other lines of activity. If you want a uniform, united race of people on this northern hemisphere, one
way to bring that about is to establish factories, not only in Ontario and Quebec, but out in the west. If you do not establish them, you are going to have a great deal of trouble building up a united race of people working in all kinds of occupations throughout the whole of Canada.
From 1923 to 1925, importations of machinery jumped from $28,000,000 to $30,000,000 and automobile parts from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 worth. That is taking work away from our people and it is not a healthy condition for Canada. This condition of affairs does not exist merely in regard to the ferrous metals; the same situation prevails in regard to the non-ferrous metal group. For the information of hon. members, I should like to place on Hansard this table showing the importations of raw materials:
Importations of raw materials (Non-ferrous metals)
Aluminum	
Brass	
Copper	
Lead	
Nickel bars, ingots	
Silver bars, ingots, sheets, platinum	
Zinc	
Tin	
Totals.
1920	1921
$ 2.105,979	$ 2.566,015
227,317	663,468
8,16S,955	8,961,014
765 086	2,080,243
240,565	257,043
5,119,812	2,284.311
783,241	489,281
3,143,048	2,869.732
$20,554,003	$20,171,107
1922	1923
5 863,291	$ 1,978.583
144.142	256.206
2.509,978	5.928,247
99,754	212 410
90,935	318,293
1.277,257	1,318,205
353,457	406.583
1.267,812	1,787,840
$6,606,626	$12,206,367
1924	1925
$ 2,731.442	$ 2,913,948
183 489	299,017
7.648,486	5,540,611
144,615	83.892
230,399	175,546
1,596,179	1,654,996
396.145	357,512
2,129,243	2,546.318
$15,059,998	$13,571,840
These are raw materials used by our artisans to make into finished products for the people of Canada, and this shows that they are being imported in a lesser degree as one year succeeds another while this administration stays in power. Hon. gentlemen may be surprised to learn that we have to import wood in the raw state, but there are some grades of wood which we have to import. I will ask hon. members to put side by side, wood manufactured and wood in the raw state coming into this country and they will find that while the grand total is about the same, the condition as regards dollars and cents is reversed.
Commodities imported into Canada
Twelve months ended December 1923	1924	1925Wood, unmfd., total.. $11,850,818 $9,954,608 $9,751,676 Wood, mfd., total.. .	7,756,688	7,795,353	8,448,319
This means that every time the United States or any other country imports an increased quantity of raw material, it imports an increased quantity of man power to manufacture that raw material into finished goods.
Mr. EVAiNS:	Would the hon. member
be in favour of placing a duty on raw material that can be produced in this country and abolishing the drawback?


Joseph Henry Harris: If the hon. gentleman
would put that into two questions, I wouid answer them. I do not know why. the string of the drawback should be attached to the other question, but I know if an export duty on raw material would provide work for more people in this country, I would be the first one to be in favour of it.
I should like to discuss the export side of this picture. I have shown that while imports of raw materials have decreased, imports of finished goods have increased, although the grand total is about the same. Imports of that material which means work for our people have decreased and imports of that material which drives our people out of employment have increased. On the other side of the picture we find that in 1925 exports of goods manufactured of iron are about the same as in 1923, but exports of some manufactured goods have decreased considerably. When I look at this government, although there is not much to look at just now, it always seems to be a sort of treatymaking government. The treaty-making portion of it is not in the House at the present time.
I was interested to hear the Minister of Public Works say something about New Zea-
The Address-Mr. Harris

land extending a very substantial preference on many important Canadian products. Among them he mentioned wrought iron tubing with a preference of 20 per cent, wire with a preference of 10 per cent and so on. Jn conjunction with that, it is interesting to note that the policy which is being pursued by the Liberal party has had this effect on the industry which makes tubing pipe and wire. Whereas an amount of $2,000,000 worth of tubing and pipe was exported in 1923, that has dropped to $1,400,000 in two short years. In the case of wire, the exports in 1923 amounted to $2,117,000, and in spite of this great New Zealand preference that we are getting the exports have dropped to $1,041,000. So much for exports of iron in the manufactured state. We have had a great increase in exports in some other lines, and in almost every instance a study of the situation will reveal that the increase in exports is the product of those workers who go down into the bowels of the earth and bring to the surface our wealth in nickel, gold, silver, copper and the other non-ferrous metals. It >s nice to have these people in Canada to make more consumers for our foodstuffs, but hon.
gentlemen from the northern part of this country will proably bear me out when I say that if you go down into the mines you will find the majority of those people not speaking our native language and not Anglo-Saxons. I suppose if we consider them as so much milk put into the churn, seme day they will come out as cheese, but it is not good Canadian cheese. They are not just the people we want to have in this country. We need to have*them to consume what we produce, but we want others besides. We want to provide work in this country for the artisans who are waiting to take hold of the raw material that is produced from the earth and to convert that raw material into the finished product. Now the exports have increased and we are glad to note this fact, /but the increase has been largely in raw material. I have some figures here which I shall ask the permission of the House to put on Hansard without my going to the trouble to read them, so that they will be available to any hon. member who is interested in these statistics. I know they are interesting to my constituents, and it is just as well for us t->
have these figures on record.
Exports of raw materials (Non-ferrous metals)
1920	192!	1922	1923	1921	1925Aluminum	
$ 5,680,871	$ 4,417,999	$ 1,188,808	$ 2,506,182	$ 3,225,479	5 5,135,368Copper	
12.973.464	12,748.082	5,853,819	7,328.574	11.204,615	12.095,478Lead	1,19!,Ill	525 65*	1.718.967	2 366,467	3,961.202	10.468.138Nickel	
9,039,221	5,405,29',	2,889,70:	8,880,641	9,388,511	10,174,245Gold silver	
20,539,005	14,548,566	11.526.593	17,111,982	29,304,937	41,536,736Zinc	
940,082	963.962	2,448.741	2,136,885	2,553,733	5,344.060Total	$50,375,787	$42,609,556	$25,426,631	$40,330,738	$59,638,484	$84,654,015
For the business year ending March 31, 1920, our exports in lead amounted to $1,193,000 and by 1925 they had jumped to $10,368,130. That is excellent; but the workmanship that brought that raw material to the surface was not supplied by the artisans of the constituency from which I come. The work was not done by that class of our citizens who, when this country finds itself in international difficulties, are ready to come to its help. As the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) pointed out last night, on one short street in Toronto there are to be found twenty odd war widows who, had their husbands been saved to them, would now be taken care of through the work which these men could be engaged in in our factories where this raw material, if this government would only do the right thing, would be manufactured. That is the class of people on whose behalf I am making this appeal this afternoon. They are the people who when the empire is in danger are ready to march shoulder to shoulder with good Canadians from the west and east to the defence of our liberties. Now that we are
Mr. Harris.1
enjoying peace why can we not give work to these men to enable them to maintain their families? This country owes them that much, and the only way this duty can be discharged is for the Dominion to adopt the policy which has been enunciated by the leader of this party from time to time.
Cf nickel in 1922 we exported $2,689,000 worth, and that had increased to $10,000,009 odd in 1925. Gold and silver jumped from $14,000,000 in 1921 to $41,000,000 in 1925. Zinc, which was $950,000 in 1920 and $963,000 in 1921, had increased to $5,344,000 odd by 1925. In short, the grand total of our exports of the raw material which a kind Providence has placed at our disposal had increased under this administration from $42,000,000 in 1921 to $84,000,000 in 1925, just double. I have no fault to find with this except the one that I emphasized a few moments ago. I can picture one engineer directing the efforts of thirty or forty gang bosses, and thirty or forty gang bosses individually directing the efforts of one hundred or more men each, men of the type who live on sauerkraut, macaroni, onions, gar-

The Address-Mr. Harris
lie and rye bread. But what about the engineering type? Are we to have only one engineer to a thousand of the other sort? Not necessarily, if you go one step further and take that raw material as it comes from the bowels of the earth and put it through all the various stages of manufacture at the hands of our artisans who are waiting for work in this country.
We have also in. Canada a wonderful wealth in wood of all kinds, but in this direction too we are rapidly slipping behind. Our exports of raw wood and wood products for the business year 1921 amounted to 61 per cent of the total of $116,000,000 and in 1925 they had jumped to 71 per cent of the total of $109,000,000. I want to put on Hansard now a table of the exports of wood and *wood pro-1 ducts:
Exports of Wood, Wood Products
1921	1924	1925
Raw	 1116,200,591 5126,946,062 $109,093,950
Manufactured.. ..	75,256,371	48,551,833	43,543,234$191,516,962 $175,497,895 $152,637,184 Pulp	
71,552,037	46,173,796	41,565,241
I wish it were possible for my voice to carry to the man who looks after the lead pencil factories, as he sits in his easy chair-I refer to the Prime Minister of this country. If my voice could reach him now I would tell him that in Newmarket to-day these very people are anxious of this fact, that whereas in 1921, 39 per cent of the grand total of our exports of wood and wood products manufactured1, totalled $75,000,000, to-day the exports in wood and wood products manufactured have dropped to 29 per cent. The employment figures in relation to these exports have declined from $75,000,000 in 1921 to $43,000,000 at the present time. Now that is a condition which will not be remedied so long as we have in power a party that cannot enunciate a definite policy. The leader of that party declared before the election that with a majority of one in the House his government was just able to drift, and now with a minority of fifteen one wonders what they expect to do. Nevertheless they are remaining in office. I ask in the name of the people of Canada that this administration have the common decency to resign and get out and allow another party to take over the reins of government. I say this not merely because we are Conservatives and want to get the sweets of office; not at all. I can tell hon. gentlemen that it is a softer job being in
opposition, if they only knew it, so far as the individual members are concerned. That is not the. reason why there should be a change of government. The young people of Canada are emigrating because they cannot find work in this country and I can think of some of my friends in Pittsburgh at this very moment. There are thousands of these young people in the United States to-day who are saying to us, " When in heaven's name will you give us a change of government?" I know that if this government got out it would be the greatest boost this country ever had. The younger generation in Canada are full of enterprise and enthusiasm, but this enterprise and enthusiasm are being repressed, and the people are being prevented from taking hold of this young country to bring about that period of prosperity which we should have in Canada.
I have spoken of the ferrous and nonferrous metal group, and while I do not want to weary the House with figures I desire to refer briefly to a group which was mentioned the other day, the non-metalldc materials. Let me consider for a moment one in particular which has been discussed a good many times in this House; I refer to asbestos. Asbestos exportations in the raw state have been going on to an alarming degree, between $7,000,000 and $9,000,000 worth of this product a year having left the country; and these exportations keep up that pace. Now if a real progressive policy were put into force-I am using the word progressive in, the true sense-a policy which would tend to encourage the manufacture of that material at home, instead of the figures being what I am about to quote-and hon.. gentlemen may obtain them from the journals of the House if they care to look into the matter-they would be altogether the other way. Away back in 1920-not very long ago- $232,000 worth of manufactured asbestos was exported. The period I am dealing with, as hon. gentlemen who have had any business experience well know, was a period of business depression and readjustment in Canada, and many people lost a lot of money. In 1921 it climbed to $321,694, but in 1922 it dropped to $153,000; in 1923 to $81,000; in 1924 to $64,000; in 1925 to $47,000. Down, down, down, and out, is what is happening to this particular line of Canadian industry. In order that hon. members may have the convenience of consulting these figures in tabular form, I ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to put this short statement on Hansard:
Exports (Non-metallic Minerals)
1820	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925Asbestos	
9,000,172	12,955,083	4,787,030	7,188,933	8,742,626	7,790,088Manufactured	
232,316	321,694	153,830	81,507	64,462	47,349
The Address-Mr. Harris

I ask hon. members to consider seriously where we are heading. I ask it in all sincerity because I am going to give them now a grand summary of the whole situation in percentages which can be readily grasped. I ask hon. members to consider where we are heading under an administration which glories in the fact that our exports are a good deal above our imports, that even with the United States for the first time for a long while there is a change in our business dealings. I hesitate to again say anything about the United States, but I am using that country in this analysis for the reason that its people are mostly Anglo-Saxon like ourselves and have the same traditions behind them. They are not very far away from us-as I said before many of our boys and girls are over there. In a word, we are very much alike. And we are neighbours. There is only an invisible line separating us-very much invisible at the present time under the customs administration. That does not seem to reach my hon. friends opposite. I repeat, the line between Canada and the United States at the present time is
very much invisible under this administration. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) in the course of his speech the other day attempted to put us in the position of saying that it was an unhealthy state to have the trade balance with the United States in our favour. Let me say, Sir, that I am not criticizing the fact that the balance of trade is in our favour. I admit it is a healthy state; but it is only so when our exports show within themselves the handicraft of the Canadian people. We resemble the United States in many respects, but we have not exhausted our raw materials as they have. We have not as yet expended ourselves in the exportation of raw materials to a degree which might be termed as the riotous exportation of the substance of this great country which divine Providence has put in our charge. But if our friends opposite continue in office, I am afraid it will not be very long before they will have such a charge laid at their door.
Now, Sir, I will ask the permission of the House to put this table on Hansard:
Raw Materials	Partly Manufactured	Fully ManufacturedImports	Exports	Imports	Exports	Imports	Exports	Can.	U.S.	Can.	U.S.	Can.	U.S.	Can.	U.S.	Can.	U.S.	Can.	U.S.1922.. ..	28.9	46.4	44.5	39.1	9.6	15.6	14.5	11.1	61.5	38.0	41.0	49.81923.. ..	28.4	48.3	44.7	36.3	9.7	18.8	16.2	12.5	61.9	32.9	39.1	51.21924.. ..	28.4	44.6	43.4	35.7	11.2	18.5	16.8	14.1	60:4	36.9	39.8	50.21925.. ..	27.7	49.2	44.7	39.3	10.8	18.3	15.1	13.5	61.5	32.5	40.2	47.2
It will be seen that in proportion to the grand total our imports of raw materials in 1922 were 28.9 per cent, while those of the United States-and I ask hon. members to note this .particularly-were 46.4, or nearly one-half their total importations, whereas ours were but one-quarter of our total. At once the comment naturally arises, it is our duty as soon as w.e possibly can to get to the position where our importations of raw materials will steadily arise and our importations of manufactured goods as steadily decline. But what has happened in the four years of this administration? This brings us right to January 1, 1926. We have slipped, it will be observed, 12 points, from 28.9 in 1922 to 27.7 in 1925. Has our sister country to the south of us slipped to the same extent? No. She has a protective policy which invigorates and gives new life to industry and encourages it to manufacture raw materials of all kinds into finished products. She has risen from the position of 46.4 in 1922 to the enviable position of 49.2 in 1925. She has imported more raw materials and less manufactured goods, with the result that not only are more and more of her people finding work, but many of our own people have been 
forced during the last four years to go to the United States for a livelihood.
Hon. members will note with interest the comparative figures in regard to partly manufactured imports and exports for the four years as between this country and the United States. They will notice with regret that while our position is virtually stagnant the United States has jumped from 15.6 to 18.3.
Doming to the figures for fully manufactured goods, do we find that the United States is importing more and more of the workmanship of southern Europe, of Switzerland, of Belgium, of France, of Great Britain? No. We find that its imports of 38 per cent in 1922 have dropped to 32.5 in the course of four short years, while we find1 ourselves importing to the tune of 61.5 per cent.
What is the significance of these figures, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, it is that our artisans, if this condition continues, will have to go elsewhere for a livelihood, I say it is time to call a halt, it is time for us to take hold of ourselves and apply a definite, fixed, determined policy that will stop the efflux not only of our raw materials but of that other still more valuable material-our trained young men from such great institutions as

The Address-Mr. Harris
the Toronto technical school which is a stone's throw from where I live. The men trained in these schools are in effect being exported every time we allow this condition to get out of balance, and it is getting more and more out of balance as one year succeeds another. I should like to say this to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps): If he is sincere in his desire that the artisans of this country, shall have the fullest opportunity to make a living in this country I do not see how he can sit on that side and support such an outfit as we on this side see in front of us, an outfit whose only virtue- no, it is not a virtue; far from it-is to cling
to office and let the public be

hon.
gentlemen know what I mean. Mr. Speaker, commercial travellers are continually crossing the international boundary line between Canada and the United States. They bring theii goods to us, they come to our offices; we do not know the difference between them and some of the travellers for our own concerns. But the time is coming when, if our own industrial concerns are to stay in buisness, the protective feature of the customs tariff must be strengthened in order that they may be able to withstand the competition from which they are now suffering.
I notice that the Minister of Public Works is now in his seat. I have already paid some attention to the remarks he made on a former occasion during this debate, but I should like him to take notice of the points I am about to stress. The people on the western prairies are not all Doukhobors going around in their bare feet, as we were once led to believe by newspaper stories and caricatures. Such Doukhobors as are left in the west, as well as the people of other nationalities there, are becoming more and more Canadianized and are anxious to act as true Canadians should. That being the case I for one expect them to support a policy which will provide employment for every class of wage earner in this country. I would also inform the Minister of Public Works, who the other night had so much to say about the exodus from this country, that I have here a publication issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce in which there is a very significant statement. But before bringing that statement to the attention of the House I should like to say to the people of Saskatchewan, through their representatives in parliament:	You want to
be a little careful about putting all your eggs in one basket. Do not think too much in terms of wheat. You may find in some of your families those who will want to engage in some other occupation.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is the hon. gentleman
aware of the fact that we are producing more butter per farmer to-day in the prairie provinces than is being produced in Ontario?


Joseph Henry Harris: I am very glad to hear that, but I would suggest to the hon. member that if this treaty-making government is kept in power much longer they will soon be out of the butter business.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the price of butter in Canada to-day is higher than it has been since 1921?


Joseph Henry Harris: I am aware of the fact, but I was not talking about butter, I was talking about bread for our people. If I remember correctly, on a previous occasion during this debate the butter minister rose in his place and read a document-


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Order.


Joseph Henry Harris: He rose in his place and
read a little document which our friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) does not think very much of. It has to do with the dumping clause which he is going to put into effect. Now, I was saying, when my attention was diverted, that the people of Saskatchewan should not think too much in terms of wheat. Let me make the quotation from the government blue book to which I referred a few minutes ago. It is as follows:
If the average export price of wheat in 1925 had been the same as in 1924. the total value of Canadian exports would have shown a decrease instead of an increase.
I should also like to say to our Saskatchewan friends that we all rejoice at the fact that in the west they have had three fairly abundant harvests. But they should bear this important point in mind:	If they retain all their
eggs in one basket they will not be in very good condition when a bad season comes. Now, what will happen if a season of scarcity or famine should overtake our land?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. Minister of the
Interior laughs; I shall have to have something to say to him later. When I used the word "famine" I used' it in a figurative sense. The possibility of a crop failure must always be borne in mind; therefore I say to our friends in Saskatchewan that they should not keep all their eggs in one basket.
I ask hon. members to consider seriously the policy which will stimulate industry in this country and give our workingmen a chance to live. We should all do our best to help industry along. There is one industry in
The Address-Mr. Harris

Winnipeg with which I am associated to a certain extent. A million dollars have been spent upon it in the last two years. We should all be glad to see industries spring up; I should like to see them established throughout the length and breadth of the west. If there is an industrial development of that character, then in the event of a failure in one line of activity the people can turn their attention to another. The fiscal policy of this country should be so framed as to give employment to our people and make them satisfied and contented.
I am glad the Minister of the Interior is in his seat and I hope he will stay here. I wish he had been here in 1912 when they were talking about a tariff board. I shall have something to say on that this evening, if you will now call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Henry Harris: At six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out where we were heading in our national affairs, particularly if we continued in the direction in which we have been going during the last three years. We are asked by the so-called administration at this ume to consider the Speech from the Throne, which they would like the country to believe is going to solve some of the difficulties under which we are labouring at the present time. True, we are making progress, because Providence has seen fit to place in every one of our provinces resources of one kind or another, the use and development of which will enable us to live and to make progress.
It is suggested that we are going to deal with the situation which I had in mind previous to six o'clock by giving Canada a tariff board. The expression "tariff board" sounds very well coming from the Liberal party. The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill on September 6 stated that he was not going to protect the industries of Canada. What is he going to do? He is going to "safeguard" them. To use his own words, "the safeguarding of our established industries against conditions elsewhere which may be prejudicial to their well-being and development." That is a sort of hair-splitting between protection and safeguarding, in my opinion. But the Prime Minister does not stand alone in this proposition. At page 247 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture said:
Why, there is hardly the splitting of a hair between an advisory tariff board and the tariff commission that my hon. friends opposite are agreeable to.

Thirteen years ago, on February 6, 1912, the Conservative party introduced a resolution to give Canada a tariff commission. I imagine I can see the Minister of Agriculture making a great ado about the Liberal party giving Canada a tariff board to safeguard our industries, although, commenting on the difference between an advisory board as proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite and the tariff commission proposed by the Tory government, he says it hardly amounts to the splitting of a hair. But out in the prairie provinces he will take credit to the government for its course in this respect. I am glad he is in his seat now, because it fills up the vacant space along the front row.
I should like to go over a few of the features of this tariff board, and at the same time I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if he can remember thirteen years ago. Of course that is not very long for a young man such as the minister. I suppose he can remember that on February 8, 1912, he voted against the creation of a tariff commission. Does he carry in his mind the words falling from the lips of his deskmate for the time being over there, as reported on page 247 of Hansard, that there was not the splitting of a hair's difference between a tariff commission and an advisory board? I am quite sure the Minister of Justice will consider, along with the Prime Minister, that the safeguarding of the boot and shoe industry would be a pretty good thing for Canada at the present time. If someone would prompt his memory a little and tell him we have a boot and shoe industrj' in Canada, it might do some good.
Another feature of the tariff board which the minister stressed was that it must function as soon as possible. That prompts the suggestion that the government should withdraw the motion to adjourn until the 15th March and go ahead with business of the country. We are ready to do business. If the government want to function, why do they not start and do it? Discussing the tariff commission or tariff board the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill said that the Tories were going to set up in Ottawa another board that would cost this country a good deal and they were going to shift the responsibility over to the tariff commission, while the Liberal party wanted to accept parliamentary responsibility in the administration of our tariff affairs. The Prime Minister is n'ot alone in this; he has with him the Minister of Agriculture, who the other night told the House that this proposed tariff board would have tremendous responsibility. In this connection I want my hon. friends from Quebec

The Address-Mr. Harris
to note what I am saying, because in a moment or two I am going to say something that refers particularly to them. I am emphasizing now the responsibility of this proposed tariff board. The Minister of Agriculture said:
Nevertheless I think we can find men to act on such a board who will do their duty regardless of consequences.
Big men are wanted, mighty men are wanted, men who will asume some responsibility so that this government can hide behind that tariff board every time they want to give tariff concessions to some of their friends in this country. The idea is not that this government will assume the responsibility, but that they want to shift the responsibility on to what the Minister of Agriculture is wont to call big men. Why, he says, I think I would rather have a seat in this government than a seat on that board. I wonder why?
Perhaps there is another reason why the Minister of Agriculture would rather sit in this government than be on that board. He knows in his heart of hearts-and he gave expression to this the other evening-that forty per cent of our goods are on the free list. He says a little further down:
We have a large free list and a great many people are wondering why many of the articles it covers should not bear a certain measure of taxation.
Why is he not a little more honest; why does he not say "a certain measure of safeguard"? Why does he not go a little further and say "a certain measure of protection," and then go a little further and stand up on the platform at Regina and say what he says in this House of Commons? W'hen the Saskatchewan members, that fine looking group of men led down here by the Minister of Agriculture, review his statements with regard to this tariff board, I think that attitude will be one that they will hesitate to follow.
The Minister of Agriculture is not alone in this. This many-sided minister, the Minister of the Australian treaty, Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and so on, was in this House in 1912 and he voted against this tariff commission. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), who has been conspicuous by his absence a good deal lately, was in the House at that time and he voted against the tariff commission. I mentioned the province of Quebec a little while ago. We all have a great deal of admiration and respect for the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I ask my hon. friends from Quebec-and I am glad there are at least half a dozen of them here- to consider what that great chieftain had to
say about a tariff board, because when he discussed that matter in the House of Commons in 1912-and the Speaker himself will recall that he too voted against it, although I would not like to charge him with that- instead of calling it a tariff commission in accordance with the heading of the bill as it was introduced in this House, he called it a tariff board throughout almost the whole of his remarks. Like the Minister of Agriculture he knew what it was. A few of his remarks in this connection might be interesting. As reported at page 2874 of Hansard of 1912 the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier made this statement:
There is such a thing as an act and an ulterior motive to that act not to be found within the four corners of the act itself.
Has the Minister of Justice an ulterior motive in his mind? Is it the question of boots and shoes in Quebec that is behind this tariff commission? If it is not, before thi3 adjournment is granted we might get a little explanation. I do not want to be misunderstood as regards my position in this matter. I am firmly convinced, and the longer I stay here and have an opportunity of glancing now and again at the record of what is going on in this country, the more convinced I am that it is absolutely necessary, if we are to reach our destiny and hold ourselves together as a great people in this part of the northern hemisphere, that we should have protection in this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said a little further on:
The more we proceed with this tariff board-
Not tariff commission.
-the more it becomes apparent that we are moving in a vicious cirole.
I wonder what kind of circle the present government are moving in? They are not getting anywhere. If they want things to go ahead a little in this country, I would advise them to quit moving altogether unless they move across the floor of this House, because that is the only movement that will be of any use to Canada at the present time. This board of 1926 is one that is going to advise the ministry, that is what is left of it. I suppose it will be the ministry that will have the gaps filled up during the next few weeks, but we shall have to wait until those gaps are filled. This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said about the 1912 board:
To say that under such circumstances the commission should be simply under the jurisdiction of tha minister is not in accordance with the conception of the feature of the commission which would give it its greatest usefulness.
In other words, if it is going to have a usefulness, it cannot be under the minister. Yet
The Address-Mr. Harris

the board which Sir Wilfrid1 Laurier condemned in 1912 is to-day being adopted by the Liberal party. I want my hon. friends from Quebec to understand that there is no bigotry on the part of the people of Ontario with regard to them. On every platform on which it was my privilege to say a word, I was careful-and I did not need to be careful because I did it spontaneously-to say that in Canada to-day we have a fair province known as Quebec inhabited by people who were Canadians long before some of the rest of us were here, and their views and expressions of opinion should be taken into consideration in connection with everything of a national character and of interest to any of the people of Canada. That is the extent of the bigotry in that part of Toronto from which I come, which is known as Toronto-Scarborough. In every Orange hall in my riding where I have been asked to speak as a guest I have said that in the province of Quebec there were Canadians who anteceded by many generations the membership of some of these institutions. But I have yet to discover within the confines of any of these institutions or clubs any bigotry towards the province of Quebec. I say that in passing just to assure hon. gentlemen from that province that I have not been criticizing them. I am not criticizing them when I repeat the words of their late chieftain and urge the members from Quebec to be consistent in this House. I can imagine hearing some of the followers of Sir Wilfrid Laurier shouting, "Vive the Laurier policy", and I would ask them to read what their chieftain had to say in his day and generation and to act accordingly. I want to assure hon. members from that province that in the part of the country from which I come we have a great regard for the people of Quebec. We know that their ancestors were here before ours and hon. gentlemen will be here when some of us have gone to the United States to find jobs because they make it impossible for us to get them here.
Hon. gentlemen from Quebec realize that no other country will afford them the same freedom to observe their traditions, and we realize that growing up side by side with us are also our friends from Saskatchewan who no doubt are all true Canadians. We are all building up a strong race of people in this country and it is just as well for us to realize this. But I wonder how the people of Saskatchewan feel about the tariff board? Are there any disciples here of " Red Michael " from Red Deer? If there are, have they read the statesmanlike speeches that fell once from the lips of Red Michael Clark? It was not my pleasure to know that gentleman person-

ally but in my mind's eye I can see him in this House at the present time instructing one of these young sprouts from Saskatchewan. Well, Red Michael said in his day that it was the business of parliament to get at the facts for itself. Imagine, said Red Michael, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Law, Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Asquith being told that they should appoint a commission to do those things which it was essentially the function of the government to do. I know one thing, and that is that when our friends from Saskatchewan come to talk in Regina in the course of the next few weeks there will be very little said1 about the tariff board, for I understand that tariffs are an abomination to the prairie provinces.
The tariff board proposal of 1912 was defeated not by the party that introduced it in the House of Commons, but by a Liberal majority in the Senate, and I wqluld ask the members from Saskatchewan and other remnants of the Liberal party to listen to what their chieftain of that day had to say when the proposal was finally rejected. This is what he said:
For my part I shall be glad to share the responsibility with the Senate of killing this bill. If the result of this motion is that the bill is to be killed I say to any honourable friend that it would not be an unmixed misfortune; on the contrary, in my judgment, it would be an unmixed blessing.
These were the word's of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to>-day we find the man on whose shoulders his mantle has fallen going in the opposite direction.
We had some issues in the last election apart from the tariff question: we had the questions of transportation and- immigration and the proposal for Senate reform. And in the Speech from the Throne, while there is not a great deal said about transportation, there is reference to the Hudson Bay railway. I do not know how far that undertaking can be considered a national one or how much policy there is behind it, but the government is dealing with the Hudson Bay railway in the same way as it deals with everything else. Instead of announcing a public policy they are giving the people public works in order to remain in power. This is a public works government rather than a ptublic policy government; that is the conclusion to which I have come after watching the manoeuvres of hon. gentlemen opposite during the last four years and more particularly in the course of the last four, five or six weeks. Having failed throughout the past four years to give our Progressive friends what they wanted, the government now find themselves unable to remain in office without making some conces-

The Address-Mr. Harris
sions, and so they have had to hand a few apples to the representatives from the prairies. Somebody spoke of it as berries the other night, but I prefer to say apples; there are not many apples on the prairies. They are Obliged to give the Progressives what they want.
I should like to read two verses which have been composed under the title Perspicacity. They explain what I might call the per-spi'caciousness of this particular administration; and when I read them my friends from the west will see their significance. During the last four years they have been inhaling the perfume from the lilac bush and have been wondering how the apples they had in mind would grow on that shrub. Here are the verses:
Willie King and Robert Forke,
After four years of stormy weather,
Said Willie King to Robert Forke,
"Let us go to the people together."
And Robert drew back in great surprise, "You're a stranger, Sir," said he,
"And I will give you our support When apples grow on a lilac tree."
After that there was an election; the second verse follows:
And Willie felt very sad at heart,
The Progs were the only one,
And Robert felt quite remorseful At the terrible wrong he had done.
So bright and early after election morn,
Robert was quite surprised to see Willie King's wrecked cabinet Tying apples on a lilac tree!
Here on this sheet I hold in my hand, (Mr. Speaker, you can see a picture of a boy tying apples on the lilac tree. That, to m,v mind, illustrates the perspicaciousness of this government, and I think I might well call them the perspicacious government
Besides the Hudson Bay railway the government are going to do other things; they are going to appoint a royal commission to take care of the Maritime provinces. From my own observation during the last ten years I would say that the Maritime provinces have been bedevilled with royal commissions. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, I have sometimes thought that we should change their name and call them, the royal commission provinces? No wonder the people of the Maritime provinces rose in their might at the last general election and sent to this House such a fine body of men to firmly entrench themselves behind the right hon. leader of this party. I had no idea there were such outstanding men in the Maritimes until I saw them in this chamber.
The problems of the Maritime provinces cannot be solved by appointing a royal commission. We have arrived at the stage where
prompt action is necessary to handle the situation. Perhaps one of their biggest problems is transportation. If this government could bestir itself in connection with the Rouyn railway, should it not be able to do something for our friends in the Maritime provinces? Coal is one of the principal industries of the Maritimes, and I am given to understand that one-fifth of the people are dependent on it, while twelve per cent of the revenues of Nova Scotia are derived from coal mining royalties.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) last night refer to the Duncan report. Let me tell my hon. friends from Nova Scotia that a majority of the people of Ontario with whom I have come in contact are ready to endorse the views set forth in the addendum to that report by Mr. Hume Cronyn. We in Ontario are anxious to do everything we possibly can to help our friends in the Maritime provinces. Not because Stanfields woollen industry operates down there, not because they are such a find lot of people in the Maritimes. When I was down there last January I was very well pleased with the people I met. When I remember them and the raven-haired, bright-eyed lassies I saw m Charlottetown, Pictou and other towns, I am very much disquieted to read in the newspapers that the businessmen of the Maritimes are discussing the possibilities of breaking away from the Dominion. This can point to only one thing-something is radically wrong down there. Unhappily for this country, the government is not big enough to grapple with the situation, and while they are wasting time doing nothing something of grave consequence to confederation may happen. The hon. member who preceded me this afternoon said this is a government that fiddles with royal commissions while the businessmen of the Maritimes talk secession.
Undoubtedly the time demands action. One compelling reason for the government to be alive to its responsibilities is the serious decline in the coal industry of the Maritimes. In 1913 out of a coal production of 7.000,000 tons, 2,000,000 tons was consumed in St. Lawrence ports; in 1923 this quantity had shrunk to 1,500.000 tons; in 1925 the production was cut in half, with a consumption in those ports of only 807,505 tons. The people of the Maritimes won this market for their fuel, and should be protected against the coal of West Virginia, which is mined more easily, due to the absence of gas, the natural drainage of their mines and the absence of submarine workings. The coal operators of Virginia
The Address-Mr. Harris

have the further advantage of being able to transport their product into the St. Lawrence ports at a very cheap rate. We must resist this invasion of the Nova Scotia coal market and help our people by taking requisite tariff measures. I am convinced that if the industry is allowed to decline much more it will be completely prostrated. Something definite must be done. Now, Nova Scotia coal is a pretty good article. Records were kept of tests made in 1914 and 1915 of 1,750,000 tons of coal and it was found that 8,480 pounds of Nova Scotia coal would do the same unit of work as 9,680 pounds of West Virginia coal. In other words, the Nova Scotia product was 14 per cent better than its foreign rival.
How are we to help out the situation? The Conservative party is determined that there shall be no interference with the railway commission, whatever may be the inclination of our friends across the way. Those of us in the Conservative party, if we find it necessary to help out the situation in the Maritimes or in any other part of the Dominion by giving assistance on long-haul freight costs, are willing to go ahead boldy and take the people into our confidence, and I believe they will be solidly behind us. We are also courageous enough to be prepared to take the same course if it is necessary to revise the import duties on soft coal in order that this great industry shall not be irretrievably ruined by ruthless foreign competition. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not in his seat, for I am sure I should like to hear his views on this subject. In any event I think the people of Nova Scotia have more faith in the Conservative party than they have in our friends opposite to relieve them of the serious disabilities they are now labouring under. Where is the resolution moved by the Minister of the Interior last session for the launching of a coking scheme to supply central Canada with domestic coke to be produced from Nova Scotia coal? We have never heard anything more about it. In my humble opinion it was nothing else but a political gesture in an effort to avert the indignation of the people of Nova Scotia. If this government was really serious in putting forward that proposal why are they not now giving the people where I come from the benefit of such legislation? We want joke or coal to keep us from freezing. I say ihis in all sincerity. Last Saturday night, although I happen to be the director of a coal company that distributes 15,000 tons a year, I did not have a pound of anthracite coal left in my cellar, and I was obliged to burn coke. That is the situation generally in Toronto. I

am glad to be able to get coke to keep my furnace going, and I wish Nova Scotia coke was available in greater quantities, for I would be very glad to have it. That same night I happened to be in the home of the president of that company and I heard him tell his manager over the telephone : "If any of your neighbours are in need or distress, send your men into my cellar where there are ten or eleven tons of anthracite coal. Take it bag by bag and let these families have it to keep them from freezing. I hope by next week we shall be able to get a further supply into our yard.'' That illustrates the condition with respect to fuel in the city from which I come. That is why I make an appeal-not so much on account of Nova Scotia, although I sympathize with that province in every way-for the adoption of such a policy as will ensure a proper fuel supply within the confines of this country. I appreciate the necessities of Nova Scotia, but I say to my hon. friends from that province that Alberta is farther away from the market of central Canada than they are. I can understand the criticisms which have been indulged in in regard to the amount of expenditure upon the canals of Ontario, but I say to my hon. friends that before very long they will rally to our aid and help us to secure the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. When that project is an accomplished fact our canal system will be able to transport barges carrying 10,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal. That is what we are going to see in the next twenty-five years. But my hon. friends will have to lend their assistance in getting the canal system improved. When that time comes we in Ontario are going to use Nova Scotia coal for coking purposes and the resultant coke for domestic heating. That is what I hope to see accomplished as soon as we oust this government and replace them by men who are animated by the desire to develop Canadian industries.
But, Mr. Speaker, the coking scheme that we heard so much about at one time has fallen by the way, and it is not the only scheme which has met that fate. I remember hearing the Minister of the Interior state last year that the government hoped to have a shipment of Alberta coal in May or June, when there would be plenty of rolling stock available and larger cars might be had. for the purpose of making a real test of the actual cost of transportation of this fuel. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not in his seat so that I might inquire of him what has become of that policy. Is there any record of its having been carried out? No, we have sat here this session and heard the

77ie Address-Mr. Harris
Minister of the Interior answering questions with respect to Alberta coal, and you will find that he has passed on to the province of Alberta the onus of taking that action which the situation calls for. Later on he proposed that the matter be left to the Alberta government, but some hon. members interjected, "no." Afterwards the Minister of the Interior gave this advice to Alberta: "Go down to the railway commission and present your case to them. They are the people to tell you what the actual cost is of hauling Alberta coal to the central provinces in Canada." That is a beautiful example, to use the language employed on the hustings, of "passing the buck." That is what the present government are doing to ascertain the cost of hauling Alberta coal to Ontario.
We should like to be able to burn coal from Alberta in the province from which I come. The province of Alberta is ready to produce 14,000,000 tons of coal yearly. I am not saying that all this coal should be brought to Ontario, but I do desire to emphasize a statement which I made this afternoon: if a proper policy was adopted in this country it ought to be feasible for some of our industries to establish themselves in the vicinity of Edmonton where their power wants could be supplied from the adjacent coal fields and where they could engage in manufacturing without being subjected to undue expense in the matter of fuel. It is not so long since the city of Winnipeg was using American anthracite coal altogether. Now it is consuming large quantities of Alberta coal. One hon. member from Saskatchewan the other evening-I think he is occupjdng his seat now, but I was sorry to observe the brand of Canadian patriotism he displayed-said that one ton of American anthracite was worth two tons of the Alberta fuel that they were burning. Suppose that is the case, is it not far better to burn two tons of Alberta coal than to bring in one ton of American anthracite? That money would go to help the people who are now engaged in the coal mining industry in this country and vastly to increase the number so employed. The Dominion government, as I understand. receive a royalty from the working of the Alberta mines, and they ought to be the very first to encourage the mining industry in this country.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Did I not hear my hon. friend a few moments ago bewailing the fact that there was no anthracite coal in his own cellar?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes I was bewailing the fact, and I will indulge in further bewailing if it will do my hon. friend any good. My reason
for that bewailing is that this inert, inefficient government have not seen fit to tackle in a proper way the question of a national fuel supply. Had this government risen to the necessities of the situation they would have given the necessary assistance, when it became apparent that there would be a scarcity of fuel, so that Alberta coal could have competed successfully with imported American anthracite. Then there would have been no shortage of coal in the central provinces of Canada this year. I am satisfied if that had been done, Alberta would have shipped the coal we needed to us and thus met all our requirements. We use only seven per cent of the total amount of American anthracite coal which is mined. We are dependent upon the American supply, 75 per cent of which is furnished by line companies and 25 per cent by independent companies. These independent brokers of the companies, sitting at Buffalo, are anxious that we shall continue buying supplies of anthracite coal, so that they can clear a profit of from ten to fifteen cents a ton commission on every ton they sell, and that 15 cents commission is being collected by brokers living in the city of Buffalo, not in the city of Edmonton. Let us shift, that over from Buffalo to Edmonton; let us shift it on to Canadian soil.
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party were sincere in their desire for an adjournment, they had the means at their hands to force an adjournment; they could have put on closure if they were sincere and wanted to proceed with the business of the House, or they could have withdrawn the adjournment motion and gone ahead with public business. We on this side are willing to go ahead and do business. If they want to fill up all these vacant portfolios in the government, they should listen to the words which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill on September 6th, when he said: It is not a question of ability; we have lots of ability in the rank and file of the Liberal party. If that is the case, why do you not fill up our front row with men sitting around you, from your own ranks? Is there not enough ability among the 101 members who fill the treasury benches without having to go outside for ministers? When I was a boy we used to say of anything petty, it is small potatoes. With all respect to the hon. ministers of the crown I say that, in the eyes of the Canadian people, more and more each day they are being regarded as very, very small potatoes. As I sat here and saw the government properly peeled by the member from Calgary, properly baked by the members from Nova Scotia within
13S0
The Address-Mr. Hams

the last day or two, French-fried by the hon. member for Kent, N.B., hash-browned by the members from Montreal, scalloped by the members from British Columbia, boiled and parboiled by the members from Toronto, mashed by the member for Fort William, creamed a little bit by the members of the Progressive party and the Independent and Labour groups, and finally put through the mincer by the right hon. leader oif this party, as I saw ail this I could not help thinking that this group of small potatoes opposite who pretend to call themselves the government of Canada to-day are one indigestible mess whom the people of Canada consigned to the incinerator on October the 29th last. I ask them, therefore, in all sincerity to have the common decency to resign and let others take their place who are ready to carry on and to give Canada stable government.
The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill said:
Next to be considered is the question of ability of the government.
Mr. Speaker, look at our front row, I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, where is the ability of this House?


John Warwick King: Over here.


Joseph Henry Harris: Have another dream,
brother, and wake up. If, Mr. Speaker, the ability of this House is over there, why do they have to go outside their own ranks to find someone with ability enough to fill the vacant seats in the government? I say, Mr. Speaker, that any one of the 116 men on this side of the House, with the exception of myself, has ability enough to fill a seat on the treasury benches.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?


Joseph Henry Harris: Most of them are here tonight. You never saw finer looking specimens of men in your life. Analyse the achievements of these hon. gentlemen; that is all you need to do to find out where the ability is in this House. The Prime Minister drew from among his own ranks a Minister of Immi-9 p.m. gration and Colonization, Mr Gordon, before the last election. I wonder where he is now? Away back in a snowbank in Peterborough. He also drew from the ranks of his own party the Hon. Mr. Mar-ler. Where is he now? Is he here? He also drew from the ranks of his own party the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). Then he drew from the ranks of the big interests the Hon. Vincent Massey. Where is he today? Like "Massa," he is in the cold, cold ground. The people of Canada saw to it that

he did not get into the government ranks, and in my opinion he never will.
The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill, on September the 6th last said:
As far as the country is concerned. I believe we possess its confidence to-day to a greater degree than at any time during the last four years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada did not believe it. They do not believe it yet, and the longer hon. gentlemen opposite sit on the treasury benches the worse it will be for their party when the people are appealed to again. Can there be any doubt that the federal administration is steadily declining in public confidence? The government's majority of one in the last parliament has slid down to a minority of fifteen. The Prime Minister said at Richmond Hill that lie could not accomplish reforms without a majority. Now that his party has lost its majority of one and is now in a minority of fifteen, how are we ever going to get any legislative reforms of any kind so long as hon. gentlemen opposite stay in power, just [DOT] sit tight and draw their salaries? Yet the government through the mouth of the Prime Minister has said that Canada needs to-day firm, constructive government in order to carry forward great reforms. Mr. Speaker, you cannot carry forward great reforms with a minority group.
In conclusion, I say that this government, being unable to move forward as the requirements of a young, strong and virile country like Canada demand, a government which, ;n addition, does not command the confidence of the people-I say that in making any attempt to move at all, and in moving without the people of Canada, they, in the words of Emerson, are marching out into the night.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate let me add my congratulations to those already offered you on your re-election by this House as its presiding officer. I congratulate you, Sir, not only on again being elected Speaker, but on being thus relieved from taking any active personal part in the performance now being put on in this House by the government, which, in view of the lofty sentiments which we hear voiced by you, Sir, at times from your position of neutrality, could' not fail, I take it, to meet with your disapproval and which I am convinced your good judgment would have advised against. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government, in associating itself with the majority of the members of this House in again selecting you as Speaker, has performed the only commendable act to its credit during this session-indeed, one of the

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
few creditable performances throughout its whole career. I venture to say that in your long experience as a member of this House- as a private member, as a cabinet minister and as first commoner-you have never witnessed such a spectacle as the one which now confronts the House of Commons and the people of Canada, the spectacle of a government defeated at the polls clinging to office for the spoils and emoluments of office. That is the only reason for its existence at the present time. The government admits, through its leader, that it can do nothing but draw salaries and annex emolumients, but notwithstanding that admission it pursues its course of hanging on to office for what is in it, namely the emoluments of office.
A government in such dire straits is truly a pitiable spectacle to the electors of this country. Does anyone challenge that statement? Do the government deny that that is their purpose in holding office? They do not and cannot deny it, because it has been proclaimed by their leader. Mr. King admitted it in his election manifesto last fall, wherein he set out the government's position before the electors of this country. He made it quite clear that his government for the past four years had failed to function to the advantage of Canada. His exact words have been quoted in this House on more than one occasion, but it seems to me that what was said by the leader of the government at that time in putting the government's case before the people is too important to be lost sight of for one moment in considering the situation which confronts the people of Canada to-day. He did not make this statement only once; he repeated it a number of times. He referred to the impossibility of carrying on under the circumstances. At Kentville, Nova Scotia, on September 18, he predicted that the opposition could not expect to elect any members in that province, and from that time on, at different places throughout the country, he predicted victory for himself. He was so confident that he gave up all dependence on the group that had kept him in office during the preceding four years. He burned his bridges behind him; he had no further use for the support which he had received during that period. What is he quoted as saying on September 9, at Erindale, Ontario, as reported in the Mail and Empire of that date? I read:
If Premier King at the coming election is not returned with a stronger majority than he has had during the past four years he will not hesitate to ask again for a dissolution of parliament. This was his statement at the Parker Picnic here this afternoon. "You can never get the big problems solved unless you have a majority strong enough to allow you to 14011-88
act without fear or favour. If I were faced with the situation of the past four years I should ask for dissolution again."
I wonder if he is able to act now without fear or favour? Is his government able to function without favour from any other group? Again at Regina on the 29th of September he is reported in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald as saying:
His government had the difficulty of financing and also of carrying on a government without a majority in the House. It had been a government by compromise. It had been necessary to go gingerly and not as far as he would have liked in some directions.
The government would be remembered as a government of large majorities as the records of the votes in the House would show.
He was convinced that a government without a large majority in the House could not govern Canada with all its problems.
I should like to know where his large majority in the House is to-night.
If the government had possessed a large majority it would not have been necessary to appeal to the country and an election would not have been held until 1927. Realizing that the country was faced with problems which could be solved only by a government with a majority in the House of Commons, decision had been made to appeal to the people.
I do not think those problems have been settled, and he has not a government with a majority in the House. The government's position has not been improved; it has been made infinitely worse. The all-important pronouncement and definition of policy was made by the Prime Minister in his opening speech to the electors on September 6, when he said: As a government we can carry on until 1927, if we so desire. As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we have all along had in the House of Commons at another session, but shall we be able to do more than that. That is the question I put to everyone of my colleagues in the government and to not a few of the members. It is a question I now put to you who have honoured me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electors of this country. Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office when great national questions press for solution, which for want of adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope with.
What is his position to-night? What is the government's position to-day in this House? Are they satisfied to remain in office and draw their salaries? What more can they do? I think I am justified in the statement I made in my opening remarks that this government's sole function here is to draw salaries. They have nothing else in sight. The Prime Minister in his election manifesto admitted he had been able to do nothing in the four years, and his situation to-day is infinitely worse;



The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
his position weaker than it was then. The quotation continues:
All-sufficient as these reasons may be for not attempting another session of parliament before a general election, there are other reasons of even greater weight. I refer now to all important national problems that are pressing for solution and which cannot be solved in a parliament constituted in the manner of the parliament elected in 1921 or by any government which does not commanl a substantial majority in the House of Commons.
I wonder if he calls a majority of one a substantial majority?
Let me recall what I said a moment ago-as a government we can continue to hold office; we could I believe so arrange our sessional programme as to continue to command in the House of Commons a support equal to that we have had during the last four years, but I doubt if we could do more than that-almost we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's affairs at which to mark time. It is a time to march forward.
The government has done a lot of marching forward since September last.
He cited four reasons why he considered there should be an appeal to the polls. The necessity of dealing with problems of transportation, immigration, fiscal questions and Senate reform. These were questions, the Premier argued, which ought to be handled only by a House of Commons fresh from the people and with a mandate to carry out their will. I do not believe, he added, that any one of the four can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons.
In view of that pronouncement by the leader of the government, the Prime Minister of this country, what excuse has the government for continuing in office? The excuse was removed by the election. The Prime Minister admitted that the government's position was untenable and impossible, and he was right in that statement. The position was impossible then; it is impossible to-day. It is impossible to do anything but mark time and draw salaries, and apparently this government is quite content to do that. When the Prime Minister admitted that his position was impossible, what was the complexion of the House, a House with 235 members? There were 120 Liberals, 65 Progressives and 50 Conservatives. In other words, there were 185 supporters of the government and 50 opponents, and yet according to the Prime Minister's admission, the government's position was impossible. There is no use in quibbling over names and saying that 120 were Liberals and 65, Progressives. I say without fear of contradiction there were 185 supporters of the Prime Minister and his government. There is no need to call these members Progressives-" a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The government had a majority of 134 in the House not including the Speaker, and yet they could not carry on,
I Mr. George Black.]	[DOT]
could not solve the problems awaiting solution. Those majorities of from 130 to 135 were composed of two parties whose platforms were identical. Those were the days when the Prime Minister thought a good deal of the Progressive party. I should like to quote from a speech delivered by him at Brandon on the 7th October, 1924, to an audience which consisted largely of his Progressive allies and in which was the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). The Prime Minister was on his way east from a by-election in the constituency of Yale, B.C., in the fall of 1924 and at that time he thought a good deal of his Progressive friends. He had a session of parliament coming on and it was up to him to be good to the Progressives. This is what he said:
"If," he said, "the forces of those who think Liberally and Progressively are united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is going to be a long term of Liberal-Progressive administration."
That is the keynote-a lofig term of office just as it is to-day.
"But if divided, we come to face the forces of high protection which are never divided when the need arises, then we may have an even longer period to regret the mistake, we have made. Division in our forces is likely to mean victory for the party of Arthur Meighen." "We are told," added the Premier, "that what has been done by this government in the way of tariff reduction has been done under pressure of western Progressives. That is not true. It was done because we are seeking to carry out honourable promises we made to the people of Canada and to put into practice the Liberal platform of 1919.
Which not so long before he had described as merely a chart. The ink was scarcely dry on the report of that speech at Brandon when we had the Prime Minister down at Massey Hall, Toronto, announcing that the time had come to pause in tariff cutting. He was addressing an industrial constituency in Toronto, and free trade, Liberal-Progressive ideas, were not so popular in Toronto as they were in Brandon. Those were the Prime Minister's sentiments in the fall of 1924, when he needed the support of the Progressives.
But with that session over and a general election on, how the sentiments of the government towards the Progressives changed! What did Mr. King say during the election campaign? At Kentville, N.S., on September 18, 1925, the Prime Minister stated:
Premier King . declared -he did not in the least doubt the government would get a majority in the next parliament. The Progressive party had practically disappeared. In Ontario it had left the field: in the west Mr. Crerar, former leader of the Progressive party, had said that so far as the Progressive movement in western Canada was concerned it only meant forming a group that is standing in the way of the interests of the west itself.
No need for the existence of a Progressive party. That is very different from what he
13S3

The Address-Mr. Black {Yukon)
said in Brandon just a year before. He goes along to Moose Jaw, where on the 30th of September he is reported as saying:
He spoke of Robert Forke, Progressive leader, as with Scotch determination, holding aloft the flickering torch, hanging on to the last gasp-
I wonder who is hanging on now to the last gasp-and the last gasp is pretty nearly here.
-but what advantage could there be to the west in the return of a small group of Progressives?
Most insignificant persons.
It would have to operate very differently from the way it had operated in the past, he sharply added, if it was to have any influence. "You will not be able to find a man by the name of Progressive in 1930" said the Prime Minister.
He is going to exterminate them altogether. That was on the 30th September and a couple of days later out in Calgary the Prime Minister made this statement:
"Whatever unsefulness the Progressives might have had," Mr. King stated "that usefulness was at an end." He admitted their motives might have been right, but their methods were wrong. They adopted too much the "holier than thou" attitude.
Kind words for his allies. That was October 2, and three days later he said at Edmonton:
The Prime Minister spoke of his majority of one in the last parliament. "Why," he said, "if I went out for dinner, m}' majority would be gone."
This shows his true estimate of his friends of the Progressive party, what sort of people he thinks they are, of what worth they are, what principles they hold.
When he formed his administration, however, he had felt he would get sufficient assistance from the other side of the House to enable him to carry on. "There is an indemnity of $4,000" he had thought "and they would think twice before voting us out."
That indemnity of $4,000 was going to keep those Progressives supporting Mr. King. That is what he said, not what I say. He continued:
The reason for the Progressive movement is gone, so far as federal politics were concerned.
I wonder if the government think the reason for the existence of the Progressives on earth to-night is gone. I rather think they are pretty thankful to have the Progressives here and helping them on a number of occasions as they have done since the beginning of this session. On the 6th of October the Prime Minister is quoted in the Edmonton Journal as saying:
The Prime Minister reviewed the action of the government in going to the country at this time stating that the need for a bigger majority in the House was the prime factor in reaching that decision. He. appealed t? the west to refuse allegiance to Progressive members whom he described as the "holier than thou" group which would get no sympathy or consideration for western problems from the rest of the House of Commons.
14011-88^
That, is the Prime Minister's estimation of his allies, the Progressives. It is wonderful what some people will stand. That was the 6th of October. The next night at Saskatoon he made almost equally contemptuous references to them. He was interrupted by a statement that the Progressives had kept the King government in power. This is where he reached the depth of ingratitude:
"No Sir, and they never did," Mr. King shouted back.
I wonder what he would shout back tonight. He did not say "they never will". That was the night of October 7. At Melville, Saskatchewan, the next night, October 8, Mr. King's contempt for the Progressives was even greater; he spoke of them as being in the nature of outlaws in parliament, that they included the Ginger group. They-would not stay put. He said:
They are simply helping to make the west ridiculous.
Who are they making ridiculous to-night, I wonder? These were Mr. King's sentiments in regard to the Progressive party during the election campaign just over, but he was not at that time contemplating a long period of Liberal-Progressive administration. He was through with the Progressive party, having thrown them overboard. But the government does not talk that way to-day of their allies; as a matter of fact the government is begging the Progressive party for its life. The government is down on its knees to the Progressives: what for? For the good of the. country? No, but so that members of the government may reap the benefits and spoils of office. The leader of the government admitted on going to the country that this was virtually all that he had been able to do in the past four years, and he made it plain that without a substantial majority this was all he could hope to do in the future. And now hon. gentlemen opposite are begging the Progressive party to allow them to live in order that they may continue, as he said, to enjoy the spoils of office.
This government cares no more for any group or party, except the Liberal party, than it cared for the Progressive party last fall when the election was on and when the Prime Minister told the country what he truly thought about them. This government will use any group or member for its own purposes and then cast off that group or member like an old shoe when its purpose has been served. That is not too strong a statement to make. Is it not a fair description of what the Prime Minister himself did last fall to the Progressives? Did he not kick them
1384	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
out? I have just read to you what he said about them; they were outlaws, a holier than thou group:	"They are simply helping to
make the west ridiculous." Could anyone be more severe or more contemptuous than that? And then imagine a government whose leader gave voice to such sentiments being now beholden to those very same people about whom these words were used, beholden to them for its very existence and for its salary-for that is what it amounts to. They are willing to draw their money in that way.
When the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill used the words I have quoted he could then command a majority of between 130 and 135 in this House, and even then he pronounced his position hopeless. Well, if it was hopeless then what is it to-day? What was the result of the election When the government was seeking a mandate from the electors it had far greater support than it has now; it has many less Liberals and Progressives now, if we are to make a distinction between the two parties, than it had at that time. To-day there are in this House fewer Liberal-Progressives and fewer Progressive-Liberals while there are far fewer out and out Liberals including cabinet ministers. But to-day we have in this House a great many more Conservatives than there were in the last parliament; we have over 100 per cent more than we had at that time, when the leader of the Liberal party declared that party's position to be hopeless. I ask again, if it was impossible for him and his colleagues then to do more than draw their salaries and enjoy the sweets and emoluments of office, what can they do to-day under the circumstances in which they find themselves? Instead of 235 members there are now 245 in parliament. And what is the situation? There are 116 Conservatives, 101 Liberals, 24 Progressives, 2 Independents and 2 members calling themselves representatives of Labour; and the government instead of having a support of 185 members has only 129 all told. It lost 56 members as a result of the contest. From a majority of 135, which the Liberal leader before the election considered hopeless, it has dropped to a possible majority of 13 at most including the Speaker. That is, if anything, more than hopeless.
Was the Prime Minister dissembling when he made it appear that to remain in office only to draw salary and indemnity was something distasteful to him and to his colleagues? Well,
I may be pardoned for saying that actions speak louder than words. How can hon. gentlemen hope to accomplish more than they were able to do in the last parliament? Was the Prime Minister sincere or was he merely TMr. George Black.]
bluffing when he took that high moral ground? What must one infer from his course since the election? About the only line of support which the government failed to lose in the election was the so-called Independent support. The Independents in this House are no more independent than they were in the last, and if possible less so. But they have moved over to the government side so as to be with as well as of the government.
The King government was defeated at th polls on October 29 as everyone knows; Mr King knows it and so do his supporters. Yei he and the remnant of his cabinet continue tc cling to office for the sake of their salaries and emoluments. If I am not stating the case correctly I want to be contradicted; I want some member of the government or some supporter thereof to give to the House some reason why the government should hold on to office except for what is in it for them personally. And at that, it is not my own diagnosis of the case; it is that of the Prime Minister of the country. That is what he said about himself and his government; he declared before the election that they could do nothing else with the majority they had then. And that is why they had an election- otherwise there would have been no l ecessity for an election until 1927. The Prime Minister could have remained in office and continued to enjoy the emoluments of the position but in effect he said that he was ashamed to do so especially in face of the problems of magnitude that were before the Canadian people for settlement, He did not have the nerve to stay longer in office and take the money he was drawing. He threw the Progressives into the discard and went to the country for a clear majority of Liberals. And you know where he landed.
If anything further than the count of ballots were required to convince hon. gentlemen opposite of their defeat, then what has occurred in this chamber since the beginning of the session is surely enough to convince those who are most reluctant to admit it that the King government is defeated. Parliament has been in session now practically two months, and what has been done by the government? They have done nothing but draw salary. That is the whole head and front, first and last, of the government's existence. The House has been in session two months and they have simply drawn salary.


John Warwick King: And got majority votes.


George Black: Would the Minister of Public Works call any one of them an adequate majority such as his leader de-

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
dared was necessary if his government was to function,-a majority without which he would be ashamed to remain in office? I should think the government would be positively ashamed to refer to that majority vote, considering where they got it.


John Warwick King: If I may interrupt my hon. friend-I do not feel the government should be ashamed. It was a vote of the people's representatives in this House.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I wonder what the hon. member means when he says, "considering where we got it?"


George Black: As the Minister of Agriculture is at last taking an interest in what I am saying, I will tell him where he got his majority. He got it from the "outlaws" in parliament.


John Warwick King: I object to that term.


George Black: Mr. Speaker, that is not my description of the Progressive party; it was given to them by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture asked me where they got their majority. I reply, they got it from the people whom the Prime Minister described as outlaws, as the "holier than thou" group

a group that "was simply helping to make the west ridiculous."


William Richard Motherwell: That is from some Tory rag.	.


George Black: That is typical parliamentary language from the Minister of Agriculture. I once heard him describe a bill that he had introduced in this House- as he waved it over his read-as a "rotten old bill." I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that in referring to any members of or any parties in this House I would not use the language employed by the Prime Minister on the hustings when referring to the Progressives. But they are the party that gave the government its majority. And he having so described its members, I think it is not unreasonable for me to say that the government ought to be ashamed to accept a majority at their hands.
The government is really asking too much of hon. members in expecting them to support this address and then go home in order that it may have a respite until March 15. I admit that a member's personal convenience should be the last thing to be considered where the public interest is concerned. But this request of the government is not to further the public interest, it is simply an attempt to secure a political advantage so that it may renew its rapidly waning strength.

Before the report reached Dawson City that parliament would meet on December 10 I had intended to wait until travel became more comfortable and the risks were a little less, but when I found that that was the date set for the opening of the session, I came out to the coast as fast as I could, at great personal inconvenience and some risk not attending the journeys of other members to Ottawa, only to find on reaching Vancouver that parliament would not meet until January 7. We have been in session for nearly two months, and with absolutely nothing done we are asked by the government to pass the Address and go home again. What for? That the government may pull off some by-elections that it should have had out of the way before the House met; no doubt about that at all. If the Speech from the Throne which the government brought down soon after the opening of parliament really originated at the throne we might be constrained to give some heed to it, but when we realize that it is only the speech of this government placed in the hands of His Excellency, it does not make a very deep impression on most of us, particularly those who have listened to four speeches from the throne written by the same hand in the past four years. What did those four speeches amount to? Political humbug. That is an expression which I think the Minister of Agriculture might approve of. They were mere effusions of words, followed by nothing in the way of legislation or policy that has been of any benefit to the country.
I ask members of the House and of the government to go back with me over those four speeches from the throne and see if they can recall any national good that has emanated from them. Let me direct the attention of the House to some of those nostrums of former days. The first cure-all for the country's ills was a wheat pool. Most of us remember how the government heralded that as a masterpiece of statesmanship. The leader of this party and his supporters warned the government and the Progressive allies that the legislation would be abortive. As a matter of fact it was quite unnecessary to warn the government, for its members knew just as well as did the opposition that the legislation would be futile. The government did not intend by that legislation to control the price or the marketing of wheat; it intended to control certain votes in this House, and to this extent the proposal served the government's purpose for the time being-to fool the Progressives and keep the administration in office. That legislation was laughed out of

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
court. But the government had survived the session of 1922, and the salaries and indemnities were safe. The next bid in the Speech from the Throne for the support of the Progressives was a promise to introduce legislation to control freight rates on the Great Lakes. That legislation was so abortive that another session over and another indemnity annexed, the government did not wait to have the legislation wiped out by the courts. It proved so disastrous to Canadian business that the government had to invite foreign shipping to ignore it, even to promise them indemnity from prosecution for violating its terms. Those are two fair samples of the statesmanship of this government.
Looking over those speeches from the throne, we find running through some of them the question of immigration. Usually they are going to embark on an aggressive policy to bring more people into this country. Immigration is one of the four great problems that the Prime Minister told his audience at Richmond Hill required an adequate majority to deal with. What was the government's proposal in regard to immigration in the Speech from the Throne of 1922? Let me quote the paragraph dealing with it:
Now that the blessing of peace is with us a renewal of efforts to bring in new settlers must be made. My government are fully alive to the importance of this question, and will use every reasonable endeavour to attract to our country people of the most desirable class, with particular regard to settlement on our undeveloped lands.
They promised action in 1922. We will see how far they progressed. In 1923, a year later they told the House:
The matter of securing an increasing flow of desirable settlers to develop the large areas still available for cultivation in Canada has had the serious consideration of my advisers. Additional advertising and general publicity campaigns have been launched in Great Britain and in the United States and. as opportunity offers, will be extended to other lands from which a suitable class of settlers may be attracted. In other particulars, the activities of the Department of Immigration and Colonization are being expanded.
That was in 1922 and 1923. But if you go to the Speech from the Throne of 1924 you will find the government has given up the question of immigration altogether. It did not give it a line that year, and if you look at the Speech from the Throne in 1925 you will find the same state of affairs; the government has nothing to report to parliament, nothing to report to the public, as to its progress in inducing desirable settlers to come to this country. And it is not to be wondered at when statistics inform us that from 1921 to 1925, the population of this country, if anything, notwithstanding the number of im-

migrants that had been brought in, was almost at a standstill. We have lost almost all of them one by one. And in the Speech from the Throne this session the government, having dropped the subject for two years, has the temerity to tell the House this:
With the improvement of conditions throughout the country-
I wonder what the improvement of conditions was. Is this an allusion to the government's majority now?
With the improvement of conditions throughout the country the government have formulated and put into operation a comprehensive immigration plan.
That would lead to the opinion that the government had been acting in the matter. If that comprehensive immigration plan was working during the years 1924 and' 1925, the government overlooked any mention of it in the Speech from the Throne:
My ministers desire it to be known that the Dominion welcomes settlers of the classes which can be absorbed into our population. Regulations have been simplified, transportation rates greatly reduced, anid the care of settlers to destination and during early settlement given every attention. Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population-
I wonder how the government is going to do that-
-to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on crown lands.
That is a pretty picture-a very desirable state of affairs. But instead of the government going home for a rest until March 15, it would be much more interesting for the members of this House if it would declare what that immigration policy is, how far it has progressed, and how successful it has been. The government would have us believe that that policy has already been inaugurated, and is now bringing in settlers. One has only to refer to the various speeches from the throne inspired by this government to realize how futile it is to expect anything tangible from the present administration, no matter what may be contained in such speeches.
In 1923 the government heralded its proposal of Great Lakes freight rate control. We know what happened to that. The government promised in that speech:
A bill will be submitted to you to safeguard the interests of consumers and producers from undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade by combines, monopolies, trusts, or mergers.
What has become of that promise? I wonder how many "combines, monopolies, trusts, or mergers" have 'been brought to book by that legislation of the government? That
13S7

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
is an achievement that was starred in the Speech from the Throne in 1923. Now, what is the next item in that Speech:
It 'having been represented that an amalgamation of interests of shipping companies and vessel owners upon the Great Lakes has operated to control freight rates and insurance upon grain shipments in a manner which has deprived agriculturists of much of the benefit to which they were entitled, as well as led to discrimination against Canadian ports and harbours, a royal commission has been appointed to Investigate and report upon this alleged combine.
The government investigated all right, but the investigation cost this country a lot of money and was productive of no good; none whatever. In the same year the government forecast its French and Italian treaties, the results of which have been depicted to this House. It managed to make treaties with both of the countries referred to, with the result that there was a lessening of Canadian business.
In 1924 the government announced in. the Speech from the Throne a policy of rigid economy-rigid economy to the extent of being able to reduce taxation, rigid economy to the extent of postponing the construction of public works until a reduction in taxation had been effected. That was in 1924. There was no election on that year. In 1925 t'he government came back with an admission that rigid economy would not suffice. It had to cast economy to the wind' because an election was coming on, and the constituencies looking to the election had to be satisfied. A glance at the estimates for that year shows that the government had given up its policy of rigid economy.
And then there was in 1925 a wonderful gesture against the North Atlantic steamship conference. I will not delay the House by making any detailed reference to that subject, but the government's performance in connection with the North Atlantic steamship conference was a fair sample of all that has been emitted in various statements and speeches from the throne.
In 1925 the government made an enormous grant for the purpose of making more effective its precautions against smuggling, and what do we find has happened? The government has banished the 'best inspector from the biggest port in the country, and has taken the mounted police away from the Quebec border. That is a sample of the government's precautions against smuggling.
In 1925 the government went to the extent of putting in the Speech from the Throne a very significant gesture against the Senate of Canada. It was going to amend the
British North America Act; it was going to call a conference of representatives of the provinces and arrive at legislation to reform the Senate by way of amending t'he British North America Act. That again was only a gesture. Just before the election came on the government was driven to admitting that it was not going to do anything of the kind. It was simply going to wait its time, and when vacancies occurred in the Senate it would replace Conservative senators by Liberal senators. That represents the government's wonderful reform of the Senate. If the truth were known I, think the government's retreat from its position in regard to Senate reform was due to saner counsels which came from its supporters in the great province of Quebec. Those supporters were not going to stand for any interference with the constitution of this country and the powers of the Senate. The Prime Minister had to make himself very plain on that matter before election day.
The legislation foreshadowed in those speeches from the throne and in government pronouncements wdiich was designed to obtain support included, for instance, legislation for the extermination of combines, legislation for rural credits, Senate reform, and the alternative vote. Now what became of all those gestures? Just such results as they were intended to produce, and that was nothing in the way of reform or advancement. Those gestures were intended just to make a noise to distract public attention from the fact that members of this innocuous government were getting away with their salaries and giving the taxpayer nothing in return except the necessity of paying more taxes. That is the only reason these items were included in these speeches from the throne; they served their purpose to distract public attention, and to get votes in this House. Why should members of this House at this time seize upon this Speech from the Throne as an excuse for bolstering up an expiring government-no, not an expiring government, but an expired government. You, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, if my memory serves me right, advised a member who had not been over-complimentary in his reference to the government to speak gently. I suppose your advice was given on the old principle that we should speak no ill of the dead.
Probably the government gesture on the alternative vote was the best of the lot. In 1924, the government went so far as to announce as its considered policy the introduction of legislation putting into effect the alternative vote in single-member constituencies. That was to become the law of the

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
land; it was announced as the considered policy of the government. That decision was arrived at by a government composed of men of mature years, and led by a premier who must have formed his opinions after careful consideration. But what do we find? After going so far as to put it in the Speech from the Throne, which the government would have the country and the members of this House to-day take as a reason for giving the government support, what did the Prime Minister say in Saskatoon on the 7th of October last, when asked by a person in the audience, "What about the alternative vote?" Less than a year had elapsed since the Prime Minister included the alternative vote in his Speech from the Throne, and in reply to the question he said, "I am coming to see more clearly that the alternative vote will help to perpetuate the group system, and I believe the group system of government bad." I wonder what had come over him to change his opinion in regard to the alternative vote? He thought enough of it to put it in 'his Speech from the Throne less than a year before; he regarded it then as legislation necessary for this country, but now he admits that he considers it bad. If he considered it bad during that election campaign, I say it is only fair to believe that he considered it bad at the time he put it in the Speech from the Throne, and therefore it must have been put there for some ulterior motive.
There is no more reason to suppose that this Speech from the Throne will crystallize into legislation of benefit to Canada than the preceding Speeches of this government. Why should members of this House seize upon the visionary promises of this government as contained in the Speech from the Throne as an excuse for helping this government to prolong its existence?
One thing this session has developed is what some newspapers have described as a pinch hitter-a pinch hitter in the person of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). If an air of self-assurance, positive statement, and finality of dictum indicated strength, then this government would be easily victorious, but no one knows better than the Minister of Customs that he is vainly trying to sustain and revive a lost cause. Probably that is saying too much; I will take it back. It is not a lost cause; this government never had a cause. This government is and never has been anything but an aggregation of office holders. It has no principles and no policy;
it exists merely for the purpose
10 p.m. of holding office. In the words of its leader, it is able only to mark time and draw its salaries. Those are

the words of the leader of the government, not mine. Some of those who heard the performance of the Minister of Customs will not soon forget how, when he thought the hour was at hand when he and his colleagues could no longer cling to office, he came to this chamber, probably after an interview with his invisible leader and with his real commander, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), and solemnly announced to this House that a vote of want of confidence was not a vote of want of confidence, and that a want of confidence motion was not a want of confidence motion, and that if the opposition amendment were defeated, the government would not consider the vote as a vote of confidence in the government. And so he furnished a nominal excuse, a poor excuse I admit, for some members of this House who had already expressed want of confidence in the government for voting confidence in it; for that is what it amounted to.
Just to show how circumstances alter cases, the Minister of Customs, representing the government pronounced that that motion was not a motion of want of confidence, and therefore, if the amendment had carried, he would have pronounced it to be not a vote of want of confidence. Contrast that with what took place at Saskatoon on October the 7th, when someone in Mr. King's audience wanted to know if the Progressives had ever been given an opportunity to vote for an appropriation for completion of the Hudson Bay railway. "Yes," said Mr. King, and he went on to say:
A Progressive motion for completion of the road had been submitted to the House as an amendment to Supply, which was a non-confidence motion. As a result the motion was voted down. To have voted for it would have meant voting for the defeat of the government.
Well, in what respect did that motion differ from the amendment of a few days ago, except that the latter was an amendment to the Address? In what respect did it differ from the motion which Mr. King property referred to as a motion of want of confidence? Was the pledge of the Minister of Customs kept? It was not kept for five minutes. *It was never intended to be kept. Why do I say that? What is Mr. King quoted as saying, immediately after the vote was announced, on being asked for a statement of 'his views? "No statement by me is necessary," he said, "Parliament has spoken." How, then, did he regard the vote? Did he not [DOT]regard it as a vote of confidence? What is the meaning of those words:	"Parliament
has spoken?" In effect the Prime Minister says:	Parliament has expressed its confidence in my government, and my colleagues

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
and I are justified in clinging to office for our salaries, notwithstanding our defeat at the polls. By the grace of that majority of three the ministers are continuing to draw their salaries and the taxpayers are putting up the money. Parliament has spoken, and the ministers here to-night have said they are not ashamed of that majority. Parliament did not speak very loudly; it spoke in hardly more than a whisper. None of the ministers would go so far as to say that parliament spoke with no uncertain sound. I wonder if it spoke loudly enough to quiet the consciences of those members of the House who, although expressing no confidence in the government, voted confidence in it? For that is what it amounted to. Why vote confidence where members have no confidence?
If it was not for the purpose of securing a vote of confidence from parliament, why did the government call parliament to meet on January 7? For nothing else has been attempted by the government, and now, on the termination of this debate, we are asked to adjourn to the 15th of March. Why was parliament summoned? Surely not to ascertain whether the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) was desirous of continuing the King government in office! If that were all- and that is all that has been done-it was a great waste of time and money. The government can always be sure of the support of the hon. member for Brandon, although perhaps after the unkind and ungrateful remarks made by the premier about the Progressives during the election campaign, it was necessary for the hon. member for Brandon to come down and show the public that he could not be driven out of the ranks of the -Liberal party or away from their support, no matter what might be said about him or his colleagues.
The situation is incomprehensible. If the conduct of the government were courageous we could admire it. I do not think it is courage, it is just nerve. To use a slang expression, it is "crust", and if it were parliamentary I would say it was gall. I admire the government's gall for hanging on to office under the circumstances. Its supporters early in the session quoted what they said were precedents for the proposal to adjourn- instances were where new governments had been given time to organize. This is not a new government; it is an old, dilapidated government. If this is a new government, then the defeat of the old government must be admitted. If it was not defeated, what became of it? It is still here. Then it is not a new government and it has no right or fair claim to ask this House for time to
organize. It is simply carrying on. The government denies its defeat. The leader of the government has a resolution on the order paper to-day declaring the government undefeated and entitled to carry on. At the same time he says, "Pass the Address and let us adjourn till the fifteenth of March. Why? Because we are unable to carry on and want to organize"-truly an incomprehensible state of affairs. The government wants to go into dry dock for repairs, as a matter of fact, to patch itself up, to gain strength. What for? The better to fight its political battles, the better to oppose us on this side of the House; and yet it complains because we decline to be a party to that performance.
The government seems to have lost all sense of propriety, if it ever had any, and it never showed much evidence of it. In asking the House to support the Address and requesting hon. members to go home till the fifteenth of March, the government did not realize that it could no longer apply the steam-roller tactics of former sessions, when the Prime Minister and the member for Brandon, with a majority of 100 or more, could put through any absurd proposition they chose to introduce. In the language of the comic papers "them days are gone forever" when the government had a majority of 135; now they can succeed only in drawing down their salaries and indemnities, and this they apparently propose to continue to do to the exclusion of all else.
The government was beginning to promulgate through the hon. member for Brandon the idea that we might as well adjourn and go home till the fifteenth of March because we had nothing to do. That was the burden of the song of the hon. member for Brandon. But that idea was suddenly and very effectively dispelled by the startling speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), disclosing as it did the shocking state of affairs in government cirbles. Since that speech was made no one can say that there is no business to be done by parliament or no work for parliament to do between now and the fifteenth of March. If parliament does nothing else but stand by and strengthen the hand and * lengthen the reach of that committee investigating the Customs department the members of this House will have done their duty. This is no time to go home; it is a time to stay here and attend to the country's business.
Although I am fully convinced that the government has in some members of the Progressive party staunch and firm supporters, I must say I was surprised when a member of that group went so far as to move the previous question, the effect of which


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
quite twenty-five minutes after ten and my hon. friend has plenty of time to go, on.


Robert James Manion: With the permission of the House I would point out that a number of gentlemen who desire to hear the hon. member would like to catch the trains to Montreal and Toronto at eleven o'clock and I suggest that the minister move the adjournment, The hon, member would speak only for half an hour longer in any case.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Monday, March 1, 1926