1926-01-21

PRIVILEGE-MR. HEAPS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: In
the course of my speech on Tuesday evening I was asked by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) whether certain figures that I had presented as the average wages earned in Canada by those employed in the manufacturing industries included salaries. On the spur of the moment I replied in the affirmative, but on going over the figures again I find that I should have answered in the negative. I want to take this opportunity of correcting that statement in fairness to all concerned.



REPORTED STATEMENT OF HON. MR. BOIVIN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster):: I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) to a report which appeared in this morning's Citizen, as well as in other newspapers, of a speech which is alleged to have been made by him in Montreal yesterday. The minister, according to the report, made the statement that he did not think that the people wanted an election, and he proceeded to say that all that had been discussed at Ottawa was whether a Governor General from England would decide or whether the people should choose. May I ask the minister whether that report is correct or not? If it is, then the statement would seem to me to be a most injudicious one.


Hon. G. H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):: I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to the question asked by my hon. friend. It is true that I spoke in Montreal last night before the members of the Young Men's Association at the Montreal Reform Club. I hope that those who do me the honour of reading the press reports of my speech will not attribute the misleading headings to myself. The headings as everyone knows are the work of the editors of the respective newspapers in which the report appears and were not inspired by me. As regards the specific statement that has been brought to my attention by the hon. gentle-

The Address-Mr. Doucet
man, the exact translation of the words which I used in the French language would be as follows: The question that has been decided at Ottawa was whether or not the leader of the government should be chosen by the people of Canada through their elected representatives or by His Excellency the Governor General upon the advice of one who was described by the opposition as a defeated Prime Minister. I am sorry that the words "His Excellency " were not used in the translation; they should have been there, as also the words "upon the advice of one who was described by the opposition as a defeated Prime Minister."


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understand the hon
member to deny having used the phrase, "Governor General from England"?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There seem to be several hon. members who are maltreated by the press now.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION IN UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the government whether it is its intention to appoint an envoy to Washington this session, or does it intend to wait until after the next general election?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: The suggestion of my hon. friend
will certainly be taken into serious consideration, and I will give him some information later.


Mr.   M ANTON@: Which suggestion?



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. ALEXANDER J. DOUOET (Kent, N.B.): Mr. Speaker, when the House rose last evening I was discussing the platforms upon which the last election was contested throughout the Dominion. I had reached that stage where I had demonstrated-conclusively, I believe-that in the Maritime provinces, instead of being elected as a Maritime group ready to oppose our right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) we were returned on the policies of
a protective tariff and consideration of our transportation problem as dealt with by my right hon. leader in his speech of June 2 last.
Now I come to the province of Ontario. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) said that the tariff was the real issue in that province. But I ask this House, what was the issue in the seventeen Ontario ridings where the government had no candidates? Certainly it was a most extraordinary thing that in the last election 31 out of the 245 seats were not contested by the government; in other words, in 12i per cent of the federal seats, or one-eight of the whole representation, the government could not find candidates willing to sacrifice themselves to their political convictions. If the tariff was the real issue in the province of Ontario, unquestionably the great majority of the electors in that province decided emphatically in favour of the programme offered by my right hon. leader.
Next let me deal with the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) said that the issue in the west was transportation. But in Manitoba I find the government failed to contest six constituencies. In Saskatchewan they allowed two to go by default-Long Lake and Qu'Appelle. I think we see before us this afternoon the reason why Long Lake was not contested by the government. In Alberta the government also allowed two seats to go by default. If transportation was the primary question in the prairie provinces, then most assuredly the Conservative vote in the last election compared with that polled in 1921 shows that the people out there have faith in the proposition put forward by our party to make it possible to transport the products of the east and the west to the central provinces, and if need be, let the whole country shoulder the burden.
Now I come to a discussion of the campaign in the old province of Quebec. This is the more important, Sir, because 60 per cent of the hon. members sitting on your right were returned by that province; that is, out of an available 99 votes, 60 are from Quebec. In that I am not including the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I purpose to show that some of the propaganda used and some of the speeches delivered in that province on behalf of the government were entirely aside from the real issue-the tariff. Throughout the campaign in that province our friends discussed in the majority of the constituencies every other issue but the tariff, and to confirm my statement I need quote only from Le Soleil, the chief Liberal organ in the province
The Address-Mr. Doucet
[Stage Direction]
of Quebec. In its editorial columns of October 15 last I find the following:
A bas T imperial! isme!
Nos adversaires ont cherch6 a distraire 1'esprdt du peuple de la question vitale de Ja presente campagne, en aveuglant l'electorat de chiffres et de th6ories pro-tectionnistes. La question supreme, celle qui domine toutes les autres, c'est Timp^rialisme.
I do not want to vouch for the translation, but to me that quotation would read something like this:
Down With Imperialism
Our opponents have tried to divert public opinion from the important question of this campaign by blindfolding the electors with statistics and protectionist theories. The supreme question, that which overshadows all others, is imperialism.
Now, Sir, I think I shall be able to establish by further quotations that in some sections of that good province the campaign was carried on as a campaign of hatred and prejudice by the chief Liberal organs of the province, by some of the most outstanding' speakers of the province, and even by some of the ministers of the crown.
Mr. GERVAIS (Translation):: Will the
hon. member allow me to ask him a question? In order to make it clear to the House, would he tell us what were the views of the leader who had charge of the opposition campaign in the province of Quebec?


Mr. PARENT (Translation):: With reference to Imperialism.


Mr. DOUCET:: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Of Canada.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I have no hesitation in
using that phrase-the grand old man of Canada-speaking August 19, 1914, in this House said:
The gravity of the occasion which has called us together makes it incumbent upon us even to disregard the formalities and conventionailities which in ordinary times the rules of the House, written and unwritten, enjoin as a wise safeguard against precipitate action, but which, on such an occasion as this, might impede us in dealing with the momentous question before us. This session has been called for the purpose of giving the authority of parliament and the sanction of law to such measures as have already been taken by the government, and any further measures that may be needed, to insure the defence of Canada and to give what aid may be in our power to the Mother Country in the stupendous struggle which now confronts her. Speaking for those who sit around me-
He occupied the seat which my right hon. leader occupies at the moment.
-speaking for the wide constituencies which we represent in this House, I hasten to say that to all these measures we are prepared to give immediate assent.
Not only in the beginning, but later on during the debate he used these words:
But to-day the spectre of civil ifrar has vanished from Ireland; all Irishmen are united, ready to fight for king and country. The volunteers of the north and the volunteers of the south, forgetting their past differences, stand shoulder to shoulder ready to shed thedr blood for the common cause. And, Sir, may I not say that the hope is not vain that in that baptism of blood may be washed away, and forever washed away, the distrust of one another which has been the curse of Ireland in ages past.
But it is not only in Ireland that you find this union of hearts. In the two other united kingdoms the voice of faction has been silenced. Even those who on principle do not believe in war admit that this was a just war and that it had to be fought. That union of hearts which exists in the United Kingdom exists also in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand. Yea, even in South Africa-South Africa, rent by war less than twenty years ago, but now united under the blessing of British institutions, with all, British and Dutch together, standing ready to shed their blood for the common cause. Sir, there is in this the inspiration and the hope that from this painful war the British Empire may emerge with a new bond of union, the pride of ail its citizens, and a living light to afll other nations.
That bond, sir, you cannot maintain, that tie you cannot cement, by political campaigns begun and carried on in such a spirit as the editorial I have just read to the House exemplifies.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend state
whether, when the words he has just quoted were pronounced, conscription existed in Ireland, Australia or New Zealand, or in any other British dominion except Canada?


Arthur Meighen: It did not exist in
Canada.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am not a student of
history, and I do not happen to have under my hand at the present moment the information which my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) seeks, but what I do know is this, that in 1898, there were no provisions in the Militia Act whereby soldiers could be sent from Canada to participate in a war overseas. I know this further, that the party of the hon. gentleman seem to blame the Tories of this Dominion for everything done since confederation in connection with Canada's part in overseas wars, but I want to point out that it was the amendments that were made to the Militia Act in 1908 by my hon. friend's own party that made it possible for Canadians to be sent overseas to fight.
The leader of the Liberal party of that day expressed his views on the question of Canada's participation in the war on the floor of this House, and those of you who wish to read it will find reported on page seven of Le Soleil of Friday, September 25, 1914, that speaking before a convention of Methodists in Ottawa at that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier used these words:
Adressant la parole a un convention de methodistes, k Ottawa, sir Wilfrid Laurier dedlara, en parlant de la guerre, que "nous devions etre fiers de ne pas etre les agresseurs dans le present conflit. Nous devons etre fiers," dit-il "malgre toute la repugnance que nous avons pour la guerre, de participer a cette guerre pares que *nous combattons pour la cause de la justice et de la sincerity. L'histoire fait voir que '.orsque 1'empire britannique entra en guerre, c'Stait parce que la paix ne pouvait pas etre honorablement maintenue. Notre devoir en Canada est d'aider la mere patrie jusqu'k la contribution de notre dernier dollar, et la participation de notre dernier soldat, si necessaire.
Nearly all the members of this House must have read the statement published in the papers, and repeated by hon. members opposite, that the right hon. leader of the opposition was the man who first said that this country was in the war to the last man and the last dollar. Now, I will translate the passage I have just quoted from Le Soleil of September 25, 1914:
Addressing a Methodist convention Held in Ottawa, Sir W'ilfrid Laurier said, speaking of the war: "We ought to be proud not to be the aggressors in the present conflict. We ought to be proud in spite of our disgust for war to participate in the present struggle, because we are fighting for the cause of justice and sincerity. History teaches us that when the British Empire took part in a war it was because peace could not honourably be maintained. It is our duty as Canadians to aid the Mother Country, even by contributing our last dollar and our last man, if necessary.
The Address-Mr. Doucet

Those were the words of the then great chieftain of the Liberal party, and we have to-day unmistakable evidence-evidence that cannot be contradicted-that those who follow him in this country, and who pretend to recall the spirit of that grand old man to the electors of their province, have at the same time practically accused him of disloyalty by pretending that he was opposed to any participation by Canada in empire ware, and they lay the whole blame for Canada's participation in the war, if blame it be, on the leader of the opposition.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend say
whether he took any part in the election in the province of Quebec in 1925?


Mr. BOYS:: What has that to do with
it?


Lucien Cannon: I am addressing my hon. friend from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet).


Mr. STEVENS:: The question is irrelevant.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Never mind the interruptions; I rather invite them. Once you get under a man's skin, he generally squirms. I was not hesitating to give my hon. friend the Solicitor General an answer; I only waited for him to resume his seat. I took no part in the general elections in Quebec in 1925, but I did take part in the by-election in the county of Rimouski in 1924, and I want to say this for the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), that, in his own by-election of 1924, I do not believe he was guilty of using any of the stuff that was used in the last general election.
SIR EUGENE FISET: Will you kindly tell me if in that by-election of 1924 you and your-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind
hon. members, first, that interruptions can take place only with the consent of the hon. gentleman who has the floor; secondly, that when an hon. member addresses the House he must address himself to the Chair. Otherwise, we cannot have orderly debate.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: As a general rule I have
no objection whatever to interruptions.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: You have quoted from Le Soleil and have drawn conclusions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. gentlemen not to interrupt. It is not conducive to order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I have so far been allowed to quote only from Le Soleil. I can, however, assure hon. gentlemen opposite that if they will give me time, and I assure them they will lose nothing by waiting, I shall quote from other sources. I did not know that hon. gentlemen opposite had so much "repugnance" to Le Soleil. I qualified my assertions at the outset by stating that this had occurred in some of the counties of the province of Quebec, but I think before I take my seat I shall be able to show that this sort of campaign was carried on in most of the counties in Quebec during the last election, and not only in the province of Quebec, for Le Soleil was distributed to every house in my own constituency, and house to house canvasses were made and the people told that if Doucet was elected we would have a war with Turkey within thirty days.
In that same editorial from which I have just quoted I find this:
Huit annees nous separent de l'nnnSe terrible, eelle de la conscription. C'est beaucoup dans la vie d'un in-dividu. En huit ans, des memoires, surtout parmi lea peisonnes a peine arrivees 4 la majorite, ont le temps d'oublier. Mais la Providence, qui veille sur lea des-tinees de3 peoples, a suscite, au cours de ces dernieres annees, un incident qui a ravive le souvenir de la grande tragedie de 1917 et reveille les justes coleres. Bile a rendu 4 la question de participation forcee toute son actuality.
I translate as follows for the edification of hon. members:
Eight years stand between us and the terrible year, the conscription year. This is quite a stretch in the life of an individual. In the course of eight years, memories fade, particularly in the case of persons who barely reached their majority. But Providence which keeps a watchful vigil on the destinies of people, has brought forth in the course of the last few years an incident which revived the memory of the great tragedy of 1917 and aroused righteous anger. It has restored to the question of compulsory participation its fullest actuality.
Further on the same editorial says:
Ready, aye ready we are!


Lucien Cannon: Hear, hear.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon. friend the Solicitor
General says "Ecoutez, ecoutez."


Lucien Cannon: Sans doute.
Ready, Aye, ready we are! Paroles providenfciella* qui sauveront le Canada du gouffre imperialiste 1 Grftce k elles, 1 indignation populaire s'abattera de nouveau sur le faeatique qui les pronongat.
Ready, Aye, ready, we are! Providential words which will save Canada from the chasm of imperialism. Thanks to them, popular indignation will once more fall upon the fanatic who uttered them.
And it concludes:
Done, Arthur Meighen met le Canada en danger.
Or:
Therefore, Arthur Meighen puts Canada in danger.

The Address-Mr. Doucet
That is part of the campaign literature which was distributed throughout Quebec and parts of New Brunswick during the campaign, and yet certain hon. members from the province of Quebec and ministers of the crown claim the campaign was fought on the issue of protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman did
not make clear his assertion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I simply want to ask my
hon. friend a question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask it and do not make a speech.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman has not made good his assertion that it was claimed that if Mr. Meighen were returned to power war would be declared with Turkey at once. From what paper or what editorial can he quote anything of the kind?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I did not make that assertion and Hansard will bear me out but the insinuations throughout the editorial would certainly lead one to believe it. What I stated was that in my constituency eanvassers, on behalf of the Liberal government, went from house to house and declared that if Doucet were elected we would have war with Turkey immediately. Until that time I had no knowledge of my importance as a factor in imperial politics. To show that this editorial "down with imperialism" was found to be very acceptable to its subscribers and was thought to be doing good work throughout the province it was reprinted in Le Soleil of October 28, 1925, just on the eve of the election. We must conclude that those responsible for it thought it had produced an effect and that by reprinting it the editorial might do better work yet. I quote from the editorial in question the following:
En cas de conflit, on salt ce que ferait Arthur Meighen. II recommencerait les orgies de 1914 et pous-serait la logique de son fanatisme jusqu'k la conscription et a l'abolition presque complete de notre souve* rained parlementaire.
Est-ce que le peuple se laissera entminer h tel point en de vaines considerations protectionnistes qu il en oublie la grande question nationale par excellence: l'autonomie du Canada et la lutte a un impSrialisme desastreux.
I translate this as follows:
In the event of a conflict we know what Arthur Meighen would do. He would repeat the orgies of 1914, and would carry the logic of his fanaticism to conscription and to the almost complete abolition of our parliamentary sovereignty. Will the people allow themselves to be led to such a degree by vain protectionist considerations, that they will forget the 14011-20
great and outstanding national issue of the autonomy of Canada and the fight against a disastrous imperialism?
Apparently the fiscal policy of Canada, party programmes, and so on were not the questions at issue. The real issue was autonomy for Canada and a fight against imperialism. The editorial concludes as follows:
L'eleetorat devra bientot choisir en ces deux chefs.
II lui appartient de decider s'il consent a risquer de renouveler I'aventure de 1914 a 1918.
Translated it reads:
The electorate must soon make a choice between these two leaders. It behooves it to decide whether it is willing to risk a renewal of the adventure of 1914 to 1918.
Now, Mr. Speaker, sometimes cartoons are very instructive, and when one has not very much to do they serve to while the time away.
I have a cartoon here issued by Le Soleil on October 24, 1925. In the French inscription Mr. Meighen is made to say:
Jusqu'au dernier sou, jusqu'au dernier homme pour l'empire.
The last dollar, the last man for the empire.
You have here the leader of the opposition and standing in the background Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Patenaude. On the other side you have Mackenzie King in the foreground and close by I see the smiling countenances of my hon. friends Messrs. Lapointe, Cardin and Cannon. Mr. King says:
Pas un sou ne sera depense, pas un homme ne sera mobilise pour l'empire.
The translation of the French inscription attached to the cartoon in which Mr. King and his colleagues appear is:
Not a dollar will be expended, not a man will be mobilized for the empire.


Mr. HOCKEN:: That is King's idea?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Yes, that is King's idea.
This cartoon was distributed through the medium of the chief Liberal organ of the province of Quebec. One hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec felt somewhat cross because I included the representatives of the entire province in this category. I made it clear, however, that what I was giving were quotations from some of the Liberal organs. I have now to give a quotation from a speech made by the Solicitor General at Trois Rivieres.


Lucien Cannon: I never spoke there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Read the quotation and let us see where he did speak.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I shall quote from Le
Soleil of October 15. The despatch is dated

The Address-Mr. Doucet

"Trois Rivieres, October 15, from our special correspondent." I see the meeting was at Grand'Mere. That does not matter very much; it could not have been very far from Trois Rivieres when a correspondent sent his information from that town. The despatch says that the meeting was held at the city hall of Grand'Mere which was packed! to the doors. I do not think the Solicitor General will deny that fact.


Lucien Cannon: I spoke at Grandi'Mere. I did not speak at Three Rivers.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: This report says speaking of my right hon. leader:
II est l'auiteur de la loi de conscription, ill est l'au-teur de ces ordre3 en conseil pour autoriser la poflice k venir chercher les consents dans vos campagnes et meme k se servir de chiens policiere. Etes-vous en fa-veur de 1'avoir?
The English translation of that statement is:
He is the author of the Conscription Act, he is the author of the orders in council authorizing the police to hunt the conscripts in our rural districts and even to make use of police dogs. Do you favor his election?


Arthur Meighen: Low tariff!


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If that were printed by
some paper not recognized as the chief organ of the party, or spoken at some meeting by some would-be political campaigners who have no responsibility in this House, or who may never acquire that responsibility, we might ignore it, but that comes from a minister of the crown-a member of the government. He was speaking to a meeting of electors in the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice.


Lucien Cannon: In order to shorten my hon. friend's remarks, I may tell him that I do not take back one word of what I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where does that come in the tariff?


Lucien Cannon: I will show my hon. friend later.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) will have ample opportunity to show wherein he stands and how he can connect that with one of the planks of the platform of 1919 which I have before me and which reads:
Resolution on National Unity
Recognizing that the crown of Six Wilfrid Laurier's life work and the dearest wish of his heart was the establishment of racial concord and national unity throughout the Dominion, the Liberal party of Canada in national convention assembled emphatically condemns all attempts to create racial discord and national disunion and would hold up as a lasting example to the Canadian people the inspiring ideal of that great Canadian-a united Canada in which all Canadian!
fMr. Doucet.]
shall be on an equal footing, all working together in harmony and concord for the upbuilding and aggrandizement of their common country.
Those are very eloquent words, and I wonder not that they are applauded by hon. members opposite, but, Sir, I say that the old adage, "Example is better than precept" should be applied. And rather than applaud the reading of the paragraph, they should practice what they preach.
Now, Sir, the same minister of the crown, speaking at St-Malachie, is reported as follows:
L'honorable M. Cannon fait alors remarquer que si la guerre est finie elle peut recommencer. II im-porte done de prtivenir les coups et de ne pas mettre k la tete du gouvernement un homme 'toujours pret k lancer le Canada dans un nouveau conflit comme si le grand derangement de 1914-18 n'avait pas fait couler assez de larmes dans nos foyers, (appl.)
Translated:
The Hon. Mr. Cannon observed that if the war was over it might break out again.
That is the low tariff campaign.
It is therefore imperative that a recurrence of such happenings be prevented by not placing at the head of the government a man who is ever ready to throw Canada into a fresh conflict as if the great disturbance of 1914-1918 had not caused enough tears to be shed in our homes. (Applause.)
Those were the words of the Solicitor General himself.


Mr. CLARK:: Promoting unity.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Promoting unity-national unity. It would be interesting to have just at this moment a copy of the Toronto Globe of the following morning-I was going to say the morning after the night before-the morning following the evening on which my hon.
friend spoke in Toronto, and to
4 p.m. compare those words with the words used! at GrandtMere and the other places I have mentioned. But he is not the only one, there are others in the same class and in the same boat. They often say they are misquoted, but the Hon. L. A. Tasehereau, Premier of the province of Quebec-


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not here.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: No, he is not here, but
he spoke of those who were not present when he was speaking at Chateau Richer, and L'Evenement of October 34, 1925, reports him as saying:
"Combien de jeunes gens", dit 1'honorable M. Tasehereau, "sont alors venus nous demander de les faire exempter du service militaire! Mais la loi Borden-Meighen 6tait inexorable. II fallait partir pour Valcartier. Soixante mille des notres sont tomb^s sur lo champ de bataille europ^en."

The Address-Mr. Doucet
The translation reads:
"How many young men", said the Hon. Mr. Tas-chereau, "came to us and asked us to have them exempted from military service? But the Meighen-Borden law was inexorable. They had to leave for Valcartier. Sixty thousand of our sons fell on European battle-fields."
If that be true, what would have been the situation if the law o.f 1908 had been applied without any provision for exemption? The most that can fee charged against those who were responsible for the administration of affairs in those days was that they applied compulsory service; but they took the means by which those who had the right to be exempted could be exempted, and not drawn by lot, as they would have been under the law of 1908, prepared by the Liberal government. I admit, Sir, that that was correct, and my hon. friend the member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) who was Deputy Minister of Militia at the time, and who undoubtedly had charge of the administration of that part of the act, knows full well that it was true.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The hon. member
knows that I did not administer that act.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon. friend will have
an opportunity to correct any statements in regard to which he thinks I may be wrong, but I should like to proceed now without interruption. But there were others too. The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), who is not altogether a [DOT] stranger to that Liberal organ from which I have been quoting all afternoon, held a meeting at St. Augustine in his constituency, and although he himself did not make any statements out of the ordinary,-at least no such statements were attributed to him in that paper-he had with him a young man by the name of Jean Marie Fortin of Le Soleil, who said:
On ne peut oublier des gens qui nous ont claqufl dans le dos, mais s'il en est parmi vous qui veulent encore des jobs h $1.10 par jour, pour s'en aller pour-rir dans les tranchees ils n'ont qu 'h voter pour Meighen et Patenaude.
We cannot forget those who formerly knifed us in the back, but if there are any who are still looking for jobs at a dollar ten a day to go an rot in the trenches all they have to do is to vote for Meighen and Patenaude.
The reporter Says that there was applause and I suppose that the hon. member for Quebec West applauded with the rest of them. I have here a little pamphlet, the sort of thing we call a dodger in business, and although it is one of the requirements of our election law that the name of the printer shall appear at the bottom of every pamphlet or piece of printed matter circulated in connection with any election, I notice that this 14011-20J
particular pamphlet does not comply with the act in this respect. It declares:
Un vote pour Davidson est un vote assur6 pour Meighen, le pere de la Conscription.
Si vous voulez que vos fils aillent & la guerre, votez pour Davidson.
A vote for Davidson is a sure vote for Meighen the father of conscription. If you want your sons to go to war vote for Davidson.
There was another member of the provincial government of Quebec who took part in that campaign, the Hon. J. E. Perreault, Minister of Mines and Colonization, who spoke at Victoriaville in the county of Drummond-Arthabaska. This gentleman, who has not so far denied it, is reported as having said:
Vous savez comme moi que M. Meighen est l'auteur de toutes les iniquit^s du regime bleu, qu'il est II'auteur de la fameuse loi de conscription et qu'il s'en vante. Vous vous rappedez, jeunes gems de Victoriaville, les tristes jours que nous avons v6cu pendant que Meighen etait au pouvoir. Vous vous rap.pelez que merae apres la guerre, alors que tous les pays avaient pardonnS aux conscrits qui ne s'6taient pas rapport^s, M. Meighen les pourchassait quand meme et faisait remplir par ses agents da prison d'Arthabaska.
You are aware as well as I am that Mr. Meighen is the author of all the iniquities of the bleu regime- that is, the Tory regime. He is the author of the famous Conscription Act and he boasts about it. Young men of Victoriaville, you recall the sad days we lived through while Meighen was m power. You recall that even after the war, when all countries had pardoned the draftees who had not reported for military service, Mr. Meighen still kept on their trail and had his agents filling the Arthabaska jail.


An hon. MEMBER:: What paper is the hon. member quoting from and of what date is it?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I	am	quoting from Le
Soleil of October 13, 1925, from a report of its special correspondent bearing date Victoriaville, October 12. Now the Hon. J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture of that province, also took part in the campaign. He spoke at Levis at a meeting in the drill hall at which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was present, and in concluding his speech, as reported in L'Evenement of October 6 he said:
Pour terminer 1'orateur s'attaqua a M. Patenaude et a M. Meighen. II insista sur le souvenir de 3a loi de conscription en montrant un nouveau fleau possible causS par la guerre greco-bulgare.
In conclusion the speaker launched an attack on Mr Meighen and Mr. Patenaude. He stressed the memory of the Conscription Act and pointed to the possibility of a new call resulting from the Greco-Bulgarian war.
Hon. members will recall with interest that the Minister of Justice who was present at Levis when these words were spoken made the statement in this House the other day that the question at issue in Quebec was protection versus low tariff. I have here a circular or cartoon which I understand was distributed in that district by hundreds of thousands and I
The Address-Mr. Doucet


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow
me a question? Is he aware that the Premier of the province of Quebec denied this report?


Arthur Meighen: He did not deny it.


Lucien Cannon: I am talking to the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet), not to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: The rules apply to everybody in this House, and I should like the Speaker to enforce them.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: You cannot get away from it.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has stated his question. This is my answer. It is a question of veracity between the Premier oif the province of Quebec and the correspondent of Le Canada, represented in this House by the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). But on my own responsibility as a member of this House I have no hesitation in stating that in view of the general tone of the campaign throughout Quebec and the other provinces where such tactics might benefit the Liberal party, I think it is altogether probable that he might have uttered those words. I have another poster. This was printed on behalf of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Now, a little while ago the member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin) took objection to my including the whole province, and I then stated that there may have been some counties where this campaign of misrepresentation was not resorted to, but I am including the great majority of the counties of that province in my argument. On behalf of the Liberal candidate for the county of Sherbrooke this poster says:
Votez pour C. B. Howard, le eandidat du peuple.
Un vote pour Worthington est un vote pour Meighen, l'auteur de la conscription, du fanatisme et de tous les scnndales de la guerre.
Vote for C. B. Howard, the people's candidate.
He lias no platform. He is not the Liberal candidate, he is the people's candidate.
A vote for Worthington is a vote for Meighen, the author of conscription, fanaticism and all the war scandals.
That was the campaign of moderate or low tariff as carried on in the protectionist town of Sherbrooke! Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the House-

The Address-Mr. Doucet


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on, take your
time.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: -but I want to be fair to every hon. member, 1 do not want to neglect any of them. I have here a four-page circular to the electors of the county of Matane- that is getting rather near home in my case- a circular which, by the way, does not contain any imprimatur, no one seems to be responsible for it; but I am certain that neither Meighen's nor Patenaude's followers in that county were responsible for it. It says:
II fut le -principal instigateur de la conscription, qu revoltait tons les instincts de notre nationality.
He-
Of course that is Meighen.
-was the chief instigator of conscription, which was revolting to all the instincts of our nationality.
II traqua notre jeunesses sur toutes les places publi-ques et j usque dans leurs foyers.
He hounded our young men in all public places, and even in their homes.
II provoqua dans la ville de Quebec des 6meutes qu'il fallut reprimer dans le sang.
He provoked in the city of Quebec riots that had to be quelled in blood.
II laissa insudter toute notre race par ses journaux et par un pitre du nom de Harry J^auder.
He allowed all his newspapers and a clown known by the name of Harry Lauder to insult our race.
II n'eut pas un seul ministre canadien-fran^ais 61u dans son cabinet.
He did not have in his cabinet a single elected French Canadian minister.
The province of Quebec did not give him any material, so how could you blame him? Nor did the province give him material in the last election.


Lucien Cannon: They might take the hon. gentleman in. -


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: pate in it? Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the first man in this capital city of Ottawa to say that we should carry on this war to the last man and the last dollar? During all the years from 1914 to 1917 he supported every measure introduced for the purpose of carrying on that war overseas, and every follower of his-and there are some within my hearing this afternoon-voted for every war budget passed at every session of that parliament. I say, Sir, that it little becomes my French-Canadian friends opposite, though they constitute 60 per cent of those sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to my compatriots of their province and other provinces on the question of conscription. Since Mackenzie King came into power in 1921 he has handsomely rewarded those who left Sir Wilfrid Laurier and crossed the floor to put the Conscription Act upon the statutes of this Dominion. I do not have to cite any names; we have them on the bench; we have them on the public commissions of this country, and we have scores of them in the upper chamber where they are to be taken care of for the rest of their natural lives. By whom? By William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of this Dominion, and by the men sitting behind him who have approved of every measure of that nature. And they, Sir, come to us and display before the whole French-Canadian population of this Dominion that campaign of race hatred, religious prejudice and anger, for their own personal gain and political self aggrandizement.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it is not a pleasant task to perform, but I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that they are a minority group in this House, that they count only 101 members providing the Prime Minister himself can be re-elected in Prince Albert, and if they expect to carry on the government of this country upon the lines of the last campaign in the province of Quebec, they are sadly mistaken, because the rank and file of this House and the people of this country generally are not going to be dragged into a turmoil of that nature again.
I shall conclude by saying this: Let my hon. friends opposite take a lesson from this afternoon's sitting. Since 1917 we have not had men in this House representing the Conservative party who could plead for the rights of the French-Canadian minorities in the other provinces, and hon. gentlemen opposite have had it in their minds that for their own interests they could stir up racial hatreds and political prejudices in this Dominion; but let them beware; the time has arrived when we must unite in a greater bond of national friend-
ship and national unity, and work for the greater grandeur of our whole country.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members of the House, speaking for the first time, I trust that I shall be able to make myself understood. Allow me, first of all, Sir, to compliment you upon your re-election to the high office which you now hold. As a new member I am especially glad that we have in the chair such a fair-minded gentleman, and one who is willing to be patient with those who are here for the first time and overlook any of their shortcomings in parliamentary procedure.
I also wish to compliment the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address. I realize that it is very difficult indeed to know just what to say and how to say it, but both hon. gentlemen acquitted themselves nobly and well.
With references to the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Doucet), I may say that down in our province we take some Ontario papers, mostly of the Conservative leaning, and during the election campaign, as well as before and after, I read these Conservative papers a great deal. I have no doubt, therefore, that I too could compile a dictionary, or encyclopedia, or whatever my hon. friend may choose to call it, containing references which have appeared in these Ontario papers equally uncomplimentary to my leader the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and to the party sitting on this side of the House. But I shall not take time to go into the field that he has covered, except to say that the less we have of this stuff-to use his own word-from any side of the House, the better I think for all concerned.
I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that great latitude is allowed hon. members in this debate, because most of us on this side of the House at least are not legal men, and it is very hard for some of us to confine ourselves strictly to one particular subject. Speaking as a business man, I have this to say: First of all, I think we need co-operation on the part of all the provinces. I have noticed in the speeches that have already been delivered in this debate that not a great dteal has been said by hon. members regarding the particular constituency which they represent. I believe with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) that what we need in this country is "diversity in unity;" or perhaps we might say, unity in diversity.
I was reading an editorial the other day which took my eye, and which I think

expresses very clearly my sentiments in this regard. It says:
Co-operation is the word on Parliament Hill. The path out from political confusion, instability, and ineffectiveness is seen to be along the lines of cooperation between groups of opinion that can work together. There may still be a considerable minority who believe that party interests come first, before the nation's interests, but the great majority of Canadian people want to see this Parliament rise above party politics for the greater cause of national unity and prosperity. The Maritime Rights group-
I have the honour to belong to that group.
-unless they are wedded to partyism, could profitably co-operate with other groups to carry on government, to the general advantage of Canada, as well as of the Maritime provinces. They need only get together with members from western Canada, to find how much they have in common, and how much the interests of producers and consumers can be advanced in every part of the Dominion by mutual aid.
Until the Conservative and Maritime province groups are ready to co-operate, the others can go ahead at least to the extent of forming the first co-operative administration. Readiness to co-operate has been expressed by Liberal, Progressive, Labour and Independent members. No time should be lost in promoting this desirable forward movement.
Better times are coming in Canada. The business outlook is encouraging. All the signs point to healthy progress. Parliament can surely help, by co-operation in deed as well as in word.
The situation is such that party government on the old fashioned plan cannot give Canada political stability. People in this eastern part of the Dominion might as well recognize that an adjustment has to be made in the direction of western views, whether they are termed progressive, liberal or radical.
Many people in the Canadian east are, indeed, ready to move forward to meet the west. No one party or group can accomplish that readjustment. It must be by co-operation. The most feasible co-operation in this parliament should be between Liberals, Progressives, Labour and Independent members, representing the majority of people in the country.
We sometimes find fault with the people in the republic to the south of us because, we say, they know more about the geography of their own country than they do of places outside. I think that is a very good fault, if fault it can be termed. The trouble with us as Canadians-and this has been very forcibly brought to our attention recently by the highest lady of the land-is that we do not know our own country. Only yesterday a gentleman speaking in this House-I forget just who it was at the moment-referred to the mining of coal in Prince Edward Island. I have the honour to represent that province, and I may say that there is no coal mining in Prince Edward Island. I only cite this as an illustration of the fact that we are not very well acquainted with each other. Only the other day I had an inquiry from a friend of mine regarding the Peace river district and when I came to think over it, I found that I knew nothing (whatever about that particular district. Had I been familiar with
The Address-Mr. Jenkins
the geography of Canada I should have known something about the Peace river country, but in order to learn what the conditions were there I had to ascertain the facts from the member representing that constituency. I am free to confess that is not a very edifying state of affairs. I am afraid that we Canadians, or at least a good many of us, know more about conditions in other countries than we do about conditions in this Dominion, and that should not be the Case. So I say to our western friends, in fact to all hon. members in this House, that we who represent the Maritimes here are willing to shake hands with you, are willing to study your problems and to help you out of your difficulties, and I trust that you are willing to act in the same way towards us. Because it must be remembered that co-operation should not be one-sided. Some folks are only willing to co-operate when things are going their way, but we should not follow that principle here.
As to the present condition of the country, Canada is going ahead; there is no doubt whatever about it. During the election campaign in our province we laid emphasis on that fact. We showed that prosperity was once more returning to this Dominion, and I notice in MacLean's Magazine of January I, 1926, an article by J. Herbert Hodgins along the same line. I crave the indulgence of the House while I read a few extracts from that article. He says:
When all is said and done, in the main, 1925 was good to Canada, "good", that is, in the economic sense, by reason of a tremendous crop with stimulating revenue possibilities, by reason of an accelerated and far-flung international commerce, and by reason of momentous development of those natural resources for which we have long counted Canada potentially great.
Then the writer goes on to give the opinions of well-known Canadian public men in the same tenor, and deals with the revenues from all Canadian industries for 1925 as compared with 1924, showing that the receipts last year were several hundred million dollars to the good. I might go on and mention many facts indicating the great improvement which has taken place in business conditions throughout Canada, and showing that the opinion of all those connected with banking and other financial institutions is that Canada is going ahead. I shall simply content myself however, with quoting this further paragraph on the development of the tourist business in the Dominion:
Then there is our rapidly developing tourist business which may be considered to have assumed a dependable basis of return. It was estimated a year ago that Canada's tourist trade was	to Jihis
country "new wealth" to an amount of $143,000,000 per annum. Certain it is then that with the stimu-
The Address-Mr. Jenkins

lated tourist traffic of the past season any previous figures must have been exceeded.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the constituency of Queens, Prince Edward Island, and I find that a great many people, even in this parliament, know very little about conditions there. The other day the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) painted a very dark picture of conditions in Nova Scotia. He said: "There may be prosperity in some parts of this great Dominion but in my part of the country there is none -in fact the condition is the reverse of prosperous." That statement recalled to my mind the fact that not long ago we had in Nova Scotia a Liberal government which had been in power a long time, and the cry was raised in certain sections of the Maritime provinces that if that government were only overturned, a greater measure of prosperity would result. I am not finding any fault with the present Conservative administration in that province, because it has its own troubles; but we were told by the newspapers that the moment the Conservatives came into power in Nova Scotia they settled practically everything, including the coal strike. Under the circumstances I am sorry to see my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) painting such a gloomy picture. If the present leader of the provincial government had only taken him to one side and coached him a little before he came to Ottawa, we should not have heard such a pessimistic story from the hon. gentlemen.
The outlook, Mr. Speaker, is not dark in our section of the Maritime provinces. Furthermore, I understand that so far as Nova Scotia is concerned her fruit crop was pretty good last year and that times are fairly prosperous in the "valley," as they term it there.
I have also been informed by hon. gentlemen representing some of the counties in Nova Scotia that the fishing was good in 1925.
I know that last June I went through the steel plant at Sydney and I found that it was running in splendid shape. I am afraid the hon. member for Cumberland must be looking at matters through blue glasses.
Speaking for Prince Edward Island, I think I am safe in saying that conditions were never better. I wired the provincial Department of Agriculture the other day for the purpose of ascertaining the details of the crop yield for 1925. I will ask the indulgence of the House while I read some of the facts imparted to me, and make my comments as I go along. The value of the yield of wheat was $79S,000 and of oats $2,468,000. The yield of barley was valued at $110,000, buckwheat $52,000, potatoes $6,758,000. I noticed in a. report of 
the president of the Board of Trade of Charlottetown the other day that he places the value of the potato crop at over $7,000,000. It is very difficult to fix the actual value of that crop. The value of the yield of turnips was over $1,000,000; mixed grains, $438,000; hay and clover, $3,755,000; fisheries, $1,519,000. I might remark parenthetically that we ought to be able to help the fishermen down there by government assistance. The fishermen, as well as the agriculturists, deserve every consideration, and this government should do whatever lies in its power to aid not only the farmers but the fishermen as well. It is estimated that the products of the fox farms have a value of $2,509,000; in fact, a member of the Live Stock branch of the Department of Agriculture expresses the belief that the actual value will be over $3,000000. The value of the dairy products was $1,150,000, and of eggs, $1,250,000.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: What was the
value of the total?


Robert Harold Jenkins: About $23,000,000. I am not speaking about exports; I am referring only to production. We have of course a large exportable surplus, and I shall probably speak of that later on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have possibly heard some talk of secession in the Maritimes. So far as our province is concerned, nothing is heard along that line. We have no patience with the people who are endeavouring to break the bonds of confederation. We are not only loyal subjects of Canada but loyal citizens of our own province, and when people in the Maritimes commence talking secession, we in Prince Edward Island have no part with them. Let me make myself thoroughly understood. In the recent election quite a number of local matters were discussed, but the main question I think was the tariff. It was very difficult to make some of our people understand just what we were talking about when we spoke about the tariff, but we made the statement- and I would not like to say that it was one hundred per cent correct-in order to clarify the situation and make it clear to the people, that the tariff was a tax and you could not get away from it. That was the statement made during the election, at any rate, and I think it is correct.
I was rather amused-in fact I was almost astounded-when I read the speech of the Aon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) His remarks appeared so much like election campaign material that I am going to quote from them. Speaking of binders and so on, he said:

The Address-Mr. Jenkins
I honestly believe the price of all those commodities will come down. I would not be here behind my leader one minute if I thought the tariff would bear heavilly upon the man struggling out in the west. If the manufacturer hides behind the tariff and raises the price of commodities my right hon. leader will see to it that that price is reduced. Knowing my man, I am convinced that in such a case the price will be reduced.
I wonder if the hon. member thinks we *believe such a statement as that. Personally I do not. Why does the manufacturer ask to have the tariff increased if he does not intend to take advantage of it?


Mr. MANION:: He holds the market for
himself.


Robert Harold Jenkins: Does the hon. member
mean to say that if we have a 25 per cent increase on agricultural machinery for instance, the manufacturer in Ontario will not charge the people of the Maritimes a higher price for the machinery?


Robert James Manion: He does not necessarily
require to charge any more at all. The advantage to the manufacturer is that he holds his own market for himself, as they do in other countries.


Robert Harold Jenkins: Let me say to the hon.
member and other members of the House that I would like to see a picture of a manufacturer who would not take advantage of every increase in the tariff. I doubt very much if any member of this House would refuse to do it. If I were in the manufacturing business and1 there was an increase in the tariff of 25 per cent, I would take advantage of it, and I think other hon. members of this House would do the same. The manufacturer is human as we all are. The tariff in the Maritime provinces affects our people, as we are very largely an agricultural community. I have the honour to represent many of the farmers of our province, although my constituency 5 p.m. includes the city of Charlottetown, which has a population of 12,000. Our constituency is largely agricultural. Although I am in business, I am intensely interested in everything pertaining to agriculture. I believe we should protect the man who is on the farm and do everything we can to assist him.
There have been forecast in the Speech from the Throne a great many things which I can do no more than touch upon. In regard to the question of tax reduction, I do not know what form it will take, but personally I should be very grateful for any reduction in taxes, and I believe every hon. member in this House holds the same view.
I know very little about rural credits. We have a prosperous province and our farmers do not as a rule borrow much money. I assure hon. members, however, that I will stand behind anything that will tend to put the agricultural life of our community in better shape, and any measure introduced for that purpose will receive my earnest support.
Our province is situated in the gulf of St. Lawrence. It is 134 miles long and from 9 to 34 miles in width. I make this explanation because many of my friends ask me questions about Prince Edward Island. As I have suggested, a great many of the members have said nothing about the constituencies from which they come. How can we get acquainted with each other and know each other's problems if we do not learn something about the places from which other hon. members come? We are situated about nine miles from the mainland at the nearest point, and there is a car ferry operating between our province and the mainland all the year round. We have other means of getting away from the island in the summer time, but not in the winter. The car ferry is practically the only solution of our problem. We are very .grateful for that car ferry, because it is doing excellent work. Some days it will make only one trip, and some days several, depending on the amount of ice encountered on the trip. We are in a rather dangerous position down there, however, on account of the fact that we have just the one car ferry in operation. The ferry is a splendid one, in charge of a good captain and an efficient crew, but if anything happened to it we would be in great danger; I could hardly say what the effect might be upon the life of the community. A second car ferry is an imperative necessity in order to supplement the work done by the present one. I know that the hon. members who represent the different constituencies in this country would be willing to assist us and to see that we are protected in this way. We have a tourist business which gives us a good income down there. We have more and more tourists every year. I presume this is no place for advertising, but if any hon. members desire to spend a very pleasant holiday they cannot do better than come to Prince Edward Island, We will look after you in good shape. We have a tourist association which is doing good work, and it is officered by splendid men. We have also a disease-free area, and I believe that oan be said of only one or two other sections of Canada. The president of the Board of Trade spoke of this disease-free area as follows:
The Address-Mr. Jenkins

It will be remembered that at a meeting of this board, the Hon. D. A. MacKinnon, introduced, through correspondence, a proposition in which he had been much interested, namely the establishment of an area free from bovine tuberculosis. Mr. J. E. Sinclair who was present asked for the co-operation of the board in promoting this movement, a request acceded to with much pleasure. It is now a matter of satisfaction to report that Prince Edward Island in this matter, as in a good many others, leads the Dominion in having become, as a whole province a disease free area.
The result of this splendid movement has been of course to promote a greatly increased demand for cattle from this area, a demand which we are not yet able adequately to meet. It is hoped that within a reasonable time our people will be able to realize on this demand and thus have established another permanent and profitable market for an important part of our product.	*
It is estimated that we have about one hundred thousand cattle in P. E. I. About 55,000 of these are milkers, the others young and beef cattle. Naturally in view of the favourable condition in which we are now placed these figures will tend to show an increase in the immediately following years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked, what are Maritime rights? We hear a good deal about them. Maritime rights, boiled down, in essence are simply justice, fair play to all, equal rights and privileges such as should be given to all Canadian citizens, irrespective of colour, class or creed. In other words, Maritime rights are partnership rights, and we the people of Prince Edward Island expect we shall receive fair play as partners in the business of ruling this country. That is all we ask. We have our local difficulties, one of the chief of which is of course transportation, and in many respects a government favourably disposed to the province can help us. I have no doubt that when these difficulties are brought to the attention of the government in an adequate way they will be dealt with satisfactorily. But what we need above everything else, as I intimated before, is a second car ferry, and I emphasize this fact. It will take some time to get that car ferry in operation and the sooner its construction is taken in hand the better it will be for the province. I would therefore plead for special consideration in this regard.
Let me say a word or two now with regard to the amendment. The amendment has been carefully worded, and having gone into it rather closely I find that there is nothing much on the face of it although in one sense it is rather dangerous. It asks:
That the following words be added to the address:
. . . the Speech from the Throne gives no indication of policy designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada.
Now in the Speech from the Throne itself the following statement is made:

Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population, to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on crown lands.
The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) the other night expressed an opinion that appealed to me. He said that if you had a satisfied agricultural population and if things were all right on the land there would not foe much trouble about unemployment. I think this is sound, and inasmuch as we have outlined in the Speech from the Throne a proposal that would make for such a condition I do not think that the1 amendment should commend itself to the House. But for another reason I find myself unable to vote for the amendment; the situation in regard to coal is one that calls for serious consideration. I Should like to help our friends in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as far as possible, but I doubt very much whether I could favour a duty on coal, as we have no coal in our own province, and a duty would only mean an increase in price to the consumer. I think however that there should be a subsidy bearing equally on the shoulders of all. The amendment goes on to say:
-to enilarge the volume of employment in Canada and particularly to give to the producers of farm products, coal and other primary products the advantage they are, under present world conditions, entitled to enjoy in rtihe markets of this country.
I could not vote for such an amendment. Throughout the campaign we were told time and time again that we of this party were free traders, and I denied that suggestion; I said that we did not want to legislate exclusively in the interests of any class but that we wanted to use common sense. An hon. member the other night said that what we wanted was horse sense, and I think that is about right. I told my friends on the platform and in the press as well that if elected I would not have my hands tied in the matter of the tariff; I would not have a tariff that could not be changed but rather an adjustable schedule which, if it were too high in any direction, could; be sufficiently reduced, or which on the other hand could be increased where a reasonable increase might stimulate industry without injury to the interests of the country at large. The province from which I come is an agricultural country and it is necessary that, in whatever legislation its representatives support, the interests of the farmers should be consulted. For this reason I hope that the tariff board will be appointed, and

The Address-Mr. Rogers
on that board I should think that there should be men representing all phases of activity in the Dominion who would make a study of tariff conditions and would be able to recommend just where a particular situation demanded an increase or where a reduction was necessary. If for example it were felt that the duty on eggs coming from the United States into Canada should be increased I would support any recommendation the board might make in that regard after it had1 had an opportunity to look into the situation thoroughly. I am not going to have my hands tied in the matter of the tariff but I shall use my best judgment as to what is best for the country. I believe that the tariff board would be one of the best institutions we could have in Canada. There is a tariff commission in the United States but it has not worked satisfactorily; it reports not to congress but direct to the president. Now I certainly would not favour a tariff board in his country with absolute control over the tariff and not responsible to parliament. I read the other day a significant statement in a New York paper, that certain manufacturers had appeared before the tariff commission with a request for an increase in the duty on certain manufactured articles. They already enjoyed a tariff of 75 per cent and they wanted an increase of 50 per cent. The commission recommended favourably to the president but he returned the recommendation with the comment that he would not allow the people to be bled any further by the manufacturers in this particular line. So that even in the United States they are beginning to realize that high protection is not always the panacea for all the ills which our friends opposite claim it to be.
I am not going to take up much more time, seeing that other members from the Maritime provinces will deal with conditions in that part of the county. I would urge however that the question of transportation, especially as it affects the province of Prince Edward Island, be given the -most serious consideration. Railway rates are in some cases entirely too high while freight and passenger traffic is not looked after as well as it might be in some respects, although so far as officials are concerned we receive good treatment at their hands. But these are matters that can be rectified through the various departments, and speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that since coming to Ottawa I have received from the heads of the departments the greatest consideration. They have shown me every courtesy and every question that I have brought to their attention has been dealt
with in a fair and proper way. I believe that as Canadians we ought to be able to get together and, through co-operation, pass such measures as would meet the requirements of the country at large. I stand first of course for my native province, which is one of the best little spots on earth. I am loyal to it first; but I am also loyal to the Maritime provinces. I do not agree with all the views of some of the members; I do not join in their wailings. It is true we have our disabilities and our hardships but I believe that if we came together around a table and talked things over reasonably we could find some solution for our troubles. I believe, as I say, jn my own province and I believe in the (Dominion of Canada as a whole. But more than that, I am loyal to the British commonwealth of nations, of which my own province as well as the Dominion of Canada itself forms a part, the greatest empire on which the sun has ever shone.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, may I
take this my first opportunity to extend to you my warm and hearty congratulations upon your unanimous election to fill the office which you have so long held not only with dignity to yourself but with benefit to the House of Commons. I well remember the long years during which we sat opposite each other in the old chamber. Those were pleasant times and I for one enjoyed them very much. On my return to this parliament I find some changes. During my career as a public servant extending over seventeen years, whether in the legislature of the province from which I come or in this parliament, I never before sat to the left of the Speaker. However, it is a change only for the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: A precedent.


Robert Rogers: Merely a temporary change. The change that strikes me as being the most ludicrous is to find the leader of tihe House confined to the outer wings prompting the House of Commons from a distance. The hon. gentlemen inside of this House who follow their vanquished leader away back into the wings, have been calling loudly to him from the first moment that this parliament opened, urging him to dance and sidestep quickly, because they ate frightened of the power and strength of the opposition. But still more loudly do they call because they realize that the withering contempt of public opinion which comes from all the provinces of our Dominion, is insistently
The Address-Mr. Rogers

demanding the immediate resignation of the Right Honourable Mackenzie King and his colleagues.
All Canada knows that the Prime Minister asked for a dissolution of parliament by reason of the fact, as he stated at the outset of the campaign, that it was impossible for him to carry on with the majority that he then had. In the last parliament the government had twenty more supporters on your right, Sir, than they have to-day. They had as well support, and generous support, from 65 Progressives. This gave the right hon. gentleman a very substantial majority, and yet he asked for a dissolution because he claimed that he did not have sufficient support in this House to carry on the business of the country. All Canada knows to-day that the election which followed, instead' of increasing the majority of the government, wiped it out absolutely. We have only to survey the vacant seats opposite to realize that there are twenty less in the Liberal ranks to-day than when the Prime Minister claimed that the government was unable to carry on without proper support in this chamber. Ret me add what is also common knowledge, that the popular vote as between the two parties stands at 200,000 and more in favour of the party that my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) leads on this side of the House. In addition to the losses among the rank and file, the Prime Minister himself and eight of his colleagues were ignominiously defeated. In face of all this who can deny that on October 29 last the voice of the people was clear and distinct? They served notice that the members of the King government were to be presented with portmanteaus not with portfolios.
Now, the most casual observer must be conscious of the fact that outside of war conditions this fifteenth parliament finds itself faced to-day with the most serious conditions that has confronted a Canadian parliament. The remedy for this condition, a condition brought about by the inefficiency of the King government, is to return to Conservative direction in our national affairs, which wil bring to Canada the maximum of stability and inspire the people with renewed confidence in our parliamentary institutions. As a western man, coming from that great expansive territory for which the English language has no name, "The prairies," I would fail in what may be expected from me if I did not during the course of my remarks deal with some of the conditions prevailing in western Canada and also with some of the 
conditions prevailing throughout the Dominion generally. Let me say, Sir, that Canada can only hope to rest upon safe and sound ground when the people of eastern Canada have a better conception of conditions in western Canada. In like manner, the people of western Canada must have a better conception of conditions in eastern Canada. We all know that it is absolutely necessary to have a better feeling of unity among our family of provinces than prevails to-day. But what else could we expect after what has been cited by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) so forcibly and so ably-the campaign tactics resorted to in my old native province of Quebec by the Liberal party, tactics that to my mind should discredit a political party in any country. There should be no good reason why a better feeling of confidence and security should not exist between east and west, confidence and security which can be restored the moment honest, private enterprises can feel assured that in future their legitimate efforts to assist in the upbuilding of their country will no longer be made the target of attack through illegitimate, unwise and unncessary taxation. Who can deny that the only success which the King government may have achieved in this country has been success gained to the detriment of our great Dominion, has been success on the *wrong side of Canada's ledger, success leading towards narrowness and insincerity, towards impaired stability in all walks of our Canadian life-and above all, success leading towards that destruction of confidence and security Which has done more to retard the progress and the development of our Dominion than anything else which has ever happened during our existence as a Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have before us what is commonly called the Speech from the Throne. If I might say so, Sir, I think that Speech bears all the earmarks of having been born of political fright and contradiction. For example we are told that a measure of economy is at hand and indeed, that the wonderful plan to bring about this measure of economy is to be found in the fact that several government departments are to be amalgamated. As the House and the country well understand, the truth is that this measure of economy is entirely due to the Tact that the government is frightened and dares not attempt to undertake to elect nine representatives to fill these departments in any constituencies of this Dominion. It is the same old story:	When
the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be; when the devil was well, the devil a saint was he.

The Address-Mr. Rogers
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in respect to that all-important question of immigration, and in view of the fact that when I first came into the government of Canada I held the position of Minister of Immigration, I should know something about this subject. There is much that I might say, but I can well say that no government which has ever existed in this Dominion has been responsible for a greater and more serious loss to Canada in respect of their immigration policy than have the King government. It is only necessary for me to point out what the facts are. During the reign of the King government hundreds of thousands of people left Canada in excess of the number that came in under their immigration policy. How different is the record of the Conservative party from 1911 until the outbreak of the war, a period of three years. Under the policy pursued by that government, in that short period of three years we added to the population of this Dominion 1,140,000 souls. Place that record side by side with the three-year record of hon. gentlemen opposite. They have not been able to bring in more than 300,000 people, and they allowed 500,000 people to escape from Canada to other parts. And let me say further: During the three-year period under Conservative direction we brought about this immigration policy and accomplished all the work incident to that policy at a cost two-thirds less, than it cost the country to lose 200,000 people more than we gained under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite. Those are the figures as I have taken them from the public records, and I am prepared to say that they are correct.
Apart from the records of the two parties on the great question of immigration, let me say this, that we have in all the provinces of our Dominion abundant opportunities for desirable immigrants. We want more people in this country. In our prairie provinces we have but 35,000,000 acres now under cultivation. and we have still over 200,000,000 acres of virgin wheat lands which are as prolific as the finest wheat lands to be found anywhere under the sun, and which constitute far and away the most extensive and richest food-producing area left to the white man to transform into new and happy homesteads. What we must realize, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to plant before we can reap. We must put men on the soil before we can plant. We possess in Canada the most attractive magnet for migrating people that has appeared anywhere in the civilized world, and the question I put to this House and to this country is: Why is it that that magnet would not work
under the administration of the King government? Mv answer is that that magnet would not work because of the instability of that administration. That magnet will only work when we have stability of government in this country, and that is one of the principal reasons w'hy hon. gentlemen opposite, for the sake of their country, should at once hand in their resignations, and allow this country to be built up and cared for by an additional population.
We all know that the great cure for our National railway situation is immigration, that unless we can get additional immigrants we can never hope to cure the conditions incident to our great National railway system. When Canada belted this Dominion with three transcontinental railways, we were not calculating then upon feeding those three transcontinental lines with a stationary population of eight or eight and a half millions of people. We were counting upon having a large influx of papulation. But, Sir, we did not count on having between the years 1922 and 1926 a government that was so incapable of coping with the great question of immigration, of bringing additional settlers into our Dominion of Canada. Fifteen millions of people would carry lightly the burden that weighs so heavily to-day upon the Canadian population, who see no hope for success, no hope for advancement, and no hope for development, under the reign of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I would like to say a few words on the tariff, but my right hon. friend the leader of our party so completely covered that subject the other day that there is little left for anyone to say; but this much may I point out? The great leader of the Conservative party, the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald bequeathed a rich inheritance to our Canadian people in the National Policy, and throughout the reign of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, during all the long years of public service which he gave to this Dominion, he at all times and under all circumstances maintained and preserved that great inheritance, passed on to the Canadian people by his predecessor, Sir John A. Macdonald. But, sir, it is very different today. The King government have trifled with that inheritance-they have trifled with it-and the people know what their trifling has cost the country during the last three years. Who is there in Canada worthy of being called a good citizen that will acknowledge he has been satisfied with the trifling on the part of the King government during that period of three years, in which they have permitted our raw products to cross

The Address-Mr. Rogers

the borders, to be .poured into the United States in large quantities? Who is the individual in this country that will say he is satisfied to have seen our best young men and young women following those raw products across the border, there to find employment and share in the prosperity of that great country? Who will say that he is satisfied to have seen the finished articles made out of those raw products being poured1 back into Canada and exacting from the people of this Dominion enormous profits, all of which go to assist in building up the great republic to the south of us, instead of building up our own country? Canada can only hope to grow and prosper when the Canadian people undertake to exercise their inherent right to regulate the fiscal policy of their own country according to its needs and requirements. We must never overlook the fact that we are living in an age of tariff wars. Almost every country in the world is trying how best it can, by the agreement with its neighbour, or by protection of its own industries, get the easiest possible access to the markets of its neighbours. Now what position will Canada find herself in if she enters upon that competition without the use of the same weapons that those we are contending against all over the world are using? That is exactly what is happening to our country today, because our friends opposite have departed from that great policy that was followed so religiously by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier during their long period of public service in Canada.
Who is there, I ask again, that does not know that the policy followed by the King government has brought great disaster to this Dominion? Sir, this is no fault of our country. We have a truly great country, Mr. Speaker, a country that is well worthy of our best efforts. No country has ever been endowed with greater possibilities and1 opportunities than this Dominion of ours, and the question that I put to this parliament and to this country is: Are we going to realize the seriousness of our position in view of our great opportunities? We have in territorial extent a country quite as large as the great republic to the south of us; we have the greatest railway mileage and the best railway service of an}' similarly situated people in any part of the civilized world; we have the greatest possible opportunity for agricultural development. Abundant opportunities for development exist in all the provinces of our Dominion. Our great navigable rivers and streams teem with the best fish to be found anywhere. We have a wealth of
*
minerals that is virtually priceless to the human race. All this wealth belongs to us as Canadians, and w'e are responsible for its sound progressive development and management. That is the great work which the Conservative party have undertaken to carry out for the benefit of the people as a whole.
We have been told in. the Speech from the Throne that we must see to it and eliminate the element of uncertainty in the administration of public affairs. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite if the Liberal party in carrying on the government of this country have ever eliminated any element of uncertainty or anything else that would interfere with their own political manipulations? Was Mr. King eliminating the element of uncertainty when he went to his constituency of North York and there met the president of the Liberal Association who was up in arms because of the tariff policy followed by Mr. King and his ministers? This gentleman, the president of the Liberal Association in North York, happened to be a pencil manufacturer. His business was practically closed up because of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in allowing Canada to become the dumping ground for all other countries in the world and to be flooded with the products of those countries-paid for in wages of debased currency-thus driving our own people out of employment. And, Sir, what did Mr. King do when he was confronted with such a situation in his own constituency? Hon. gentlemen well know he took such action as brought relief to his stricken friend the president of the Liberal Association. An order was accordingly issued and it went to every customs office in this Dominion and every dealer in pencils was prohibited from removing a pencil from any one of these customs offices until the duty on those pencils should be raised from SI.50 to S3 per gross.


Arthur Meighen: Low tariff.


Robert Rogers: This was the low tariff we hear so much about from hon. gentlemen opposite. Sir, that is the condition to-day and some of the dealers in pencils have not been able to get their pencils out of the customs office until this day. Sir, there you find the element of uncertainty we hear so much about, and it is mainly responsible for the trouble that we have in Canada at the present time.
We are now told that we are to have a tariff commission. Whenever the government get themselves into trouble they always hide behind a commission. They are very careful in the selection of their commissions. They

The Address-Mr. Rogers
are very careful with respect to the individuals (they appoint to these commissions because they like to have a back door through which they themselves when it suits can arrange the regulation of what the commission's mind1 will be. Who will deny that a sample of that existed in the case of the recent individual appointed to fill a position on the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada? Surely, ,Mr. Speaker, every member of this House knows that he had directions to do and give decisions concerning cases. I do not propose to deal with that now, but I will deal with it at a later period.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me? Is he referring to any member of the railway commission having received directions from this government-
'Mr. ROGERS: To the chairman of the railway commission.


Ernest Lapointe: -as to his decision?


Robert Rogers: To the chairman of the railway commission.


Ernest Lapointe: It is rather a serious
charge.


Robert Rogers: It is a serious charge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Worse than that.


Robert Rogers: We are not responsible for *that. If we are to bring back to normal conditions the people of this country we must have stability, and we must have a common sense government who will stand behind stability in the carrying on of the public services of Canada. We must restore confidence and security in all parts of the Dominion. And let me say that there is no class of people in Canada to whom confidence and security will *mean more than to the farming classes of western Canada. Agriculture in its widest and broadest sense is Canada's great field for enterprise and for development.
Now, Sir, I want to say something with regard to the policy of rural credits, as announced in the House a few days ago, but as it is now six o'clock I will defer my remarks until after recess.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Rogers: When the House took recess at six o'clock I was about to say a few words in respect to rural credits. As far as I know,
there is a desire and a willingness on the part of hon. members on this side of the House to do anything they possibly can to assist the western provinces by way of rural credits. But in all fairness the members of this House should know at all events some of the reasons why it is necessary that we Should be called] upon at this time to assist in the matter of rural credits for the prairie provinces. The difficulty in our western provinces, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, is largely due to the fact that we have the misfortune in Saskatchewan and in Alberta of having had Liberal governments for many long years. In fact the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have never yet had an opportunity to know and to understand the real value of Conservative government. The prairie provinces were formed twenty-one years ago, and now that they have become of age I hope that they will exercise better judgment and be more careful in the guardianship of their great resources. I believe they are improving to some extent; but the improvement up to the present is not very marked; otherwise they would not be appealing to this parliament for assistance by way of rural credits. I wish to present a few examples of what I mean when I say that these provinces have suffered a great deal as a result of maladministration.
In 1917, just before the provincial election, the legislature of Alberta hurriedly passed certain legislation. First of all they passed an act entitled The Alberta Co-Operative Credit Act. Then they passed the Alberta Farm Loan Act; then the Live Stock Encouragement Act, and a fourth was the Seed Grain Act. I desire to point out the effect and purpose of the Alberta Co-Operative Act. This legislation provided for the formation of co-operative societies which might borrow money from the banks or any other source. It was intended to supply the needs of the farmers for short term loans. The municipalities within which the societies operate under this act may guarantee such loans up to one-half the subscribed capital, and the province may also give a guarantee up to one-half. The farmers generally have not availed themselves of the provisions of this act. I understand that the total amount borrowed by these societies in the whole province since 1917 amounts to about $935,000. The cost of the administration' of the act was borne entirely by the government of Alberta.
The Alberta Farm Loan Act, which was chapter 10 of the statutes of 1917, was in-
The Address-Mr. Rogers

tended to meet the needs of t'he farmers for long term loans. First of all, as hon. members will observe, they had an act for short term loans. Then, just before the election, they concluded that an act for long term loans might be popular, so they passed this act. It provided for boards which would issue bonds guaranteed by the .province, and1 the proceeds of the sale of those bonds was to be loaned to the farmers. Although passed in 1917 and widely used in that election campaign as an appeal to the farmers, the act was never brought into operation; no board was ever appointed, nor were any steps ever taken to put the act into effect. In 1924 the present government of Alberta repealed this act and introduced another one. This is chapter 4 of the statutes of 1924 and it creates a farm 'oan board which may be authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to issue bonds for the raising of money for farm loan purposes. These funds may be loaned to farmers direct over a period of thirty years or thereabouts. I understand that (he farm loan board had been appointed by the present government but the bonds have not yet been issued. In respect to the Live Stock Encouragement Act, popularly known as Duncan Marshall's Cow Bill-hon,. gentlemen are no doubt familiar with the name- the object was to loan money to settlers and homesteaders who were in poor circumstances and who were desirous of buying cows. The settlers formed themselves into groups of five and each man borrowed 1500 dollars, but each of the group was responsible for the total loan of $2,500 to that group, the aggregate loan to be about $1,500,000. No advances have been made since January, 1922, most of the advances having been made at a much earlier date. There is still outstanding unpaid nearly $1,000,000 and it may safely be said that the whole of this amount will be a total loss to the province of Alberta.
Under these conditions, it seems to me that if this House undertakes to pass the rural credits bill now before parliament it must very carefully consider "that legislation in order that it may not be possible for the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba to undertake by some circuitous route to use the credit they obtain from this parliament to be applied to debts that have arisen out of legislation passed by their own legislature. If we are to take up the question of rural credits in this parliament we want to take it up with the view of assisting the farmers of to-day in those provinces where assistance is necessary.
TMr. Rogers.]
There are many other conditions similar to those I have recounted but I shall confine my remarks to the province of Alberta. I have the record of the legislation passed in the three prairie provinces on matters of this kind, and while I do not want to delay the House with too many quotations I desire to read briefly from a memorandum of statutory encumbrances on land and crops in Alberta. There does not seem to be any complete statement of the taxation imposed on rural lands there but such figures as I have I shall give. In 1923 the following amounts were collected in municipal districts in Alberta:
Muniiciipal taxation	 $3,000,000
School taxes	 2,000,000
Dainage taxes	 2,000,000
Provincial taxes	 1,500,000
Seed grain relief	 500,000
These figures, given in round numbers, come to a total of some $9,000,000 odd, and there is still due to the province over $3,500,000 on these loans.
Under the heading of municipal taxation there are periodically added other charges all down the line. They have a rate of $6, $8 and $10 an acre, and a surtax for indemnity is payable. There are collectable telephone taxes, noxious weed taxes, taxes in connection with the destruction of agricultural pests, drainage taxes and various other forms of taxation. Then there is the co-operative society lien tax, which is rather an onerous one. In 1921 the provision charging growing and future crops was inserted in section 6 and 7, and early in 1924, in the case of the North of Scotland versus Bartawson Credit Society, it was decided that the wording of the act was ineffective to give the lien on crops the priority which was intended. We must bear in mind that various charges under these acts so passed were given priority through the legislature against loans and mortgages on the farms in different parts of the province, and complaint is made in this regard.
In 1924 a portion of the act relating to priority was amended and made retroactive so that the effect was negatived as regards not only future but past transactions. Now when a legislature undertakes to pass such a law it is surely wise on the part of this parliament to exercise some care in arriving at the proper course to follow in the matter of making the grants proposed under this rural credits scheme. Having made these observations, I am satisfied that this parliament will look carefully into the subject and see to it that we shall not lose any of the money of the Canadian people in assisting the local legislatures of those provinces that have passed legislation which is

The Address-Mr. Rogers
unwise and undesirable even in the interests of their own people.
The only real assistance that our prairie provinces ever had was secured through Conservative channels. Even before the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed, the province from which I come passed railway legislation which was put into force, and a short time afterwards made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway for a fixed and definite rate. The province of Manitoba exacted in that contract an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific that that rate should extend to every city and town in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the reduction that we so exacted amounted on wheat to two cents per 100 pounds from every point in Saskatchewan. That arrangement lasted from October 7, 1903 to 1918. In confirmation of my statement may I be permitted to quote a portion of the report made foy Hon. A. K. Maclean as chairman of a committee of this House which considered the subject of transportation costs in western Canada:
In respect to this very -important matter, in 1899, I think i-t was, the effect of this agreement was reflected in the grain and flour rates which came into effect in the autumn of that year; I think if was in the autumn of 1899 that the ful'l effect of the Crowsmest agreement was seen.
Now I would direct the attention of the House particularly to what follows:
In 1903, however, an agreement was made between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern railway, or what afterwards became the Canadian Northern railway, providing for a control of freight rates within the province of Manitoba. This had its effect upon freight rates upon grain throughout the whole of the prairie country. In 1903 the grain rate in the west was considerably below the Crowsnest rate and that rate, that is the lower rate, prevailed until March, 1918.
Will my friends from Saskatchewan and Alberta kindly note that through this legislation, passed in the legislature of which I was b, member they reaped that benefit for the iong period between 1903 and 1918? And it was a very handsome benefit, for it represented ten million dollars a year to the people of those provinces. I should like my friends to refer me to any legislation passed by a Liberal government that ever gave such substantia! advantages to the people of the west.
The Speech from the Throne promises completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Well, for many long years the people of western Canada have been veiy anxious to secure completion of this line. ' The Hudson Bay railway was promised by both parties. The Liberals when in power were always promising to undertake its construction, and before the election in 1911 they did a little work on a bridge at Le 14011-21
Pas. The then Minister of Railways was presented with a shovel and turned the first sod.
Mr. (MEIGHEN: And the last.


Robert Rogers: Yes. The Conservative
party was pledged to the construction of that railway, and when we came into power in 1911 we proceeded in due course to redeem that pledge. To-day every mile of that railway is graded, all the bridges have been built, and there remain only about ninety miles of steel to be laid. I understand from the department that there is on hand sufficient steel to lay an additional twenty miles of track. So all that is necessary is to lay the balance of seventy odd miles and the Hudson Bay railway will be completed to Port Nelson. That is the proposal before parliament. I would lemind hon. members from eastern Canada that the railway has been well and economically built, and a large sum of money being already tied up in the undertaking, in our judgment we have a right to ask from this parliament for such further assistance as will be necessary to complete the road. I believe thait the additional expenditure is warranted even if the Hudson Bay railway served no other purpose than that of supplying the local needs of the country through which it passes; but undoubtedly -the development of _ the lumber and fishing industries in that territory will provide an enormous volume of traffic. And there is a further reason for completing *the undertaking. The railway for some distance runs alongside the Nelson river. In that river we have the greatest potential power development to be found anywhere in the Dominion. The prairie .provinces have to look to the Nelson river for their hydro-electric requirements. This development will be impossible without those transportation facilities which the completion and operation of the Hudson Bay railway will provide. For these reasons, Sir, I hope and trust that the House will give this proposal fair and just consideration, and if hon. members approach it in -that spirit I am confident that they will never have any reason to regret their action in agreeing to an expenditure that will mean so much for the development and prosperity not only of the country to be served by the Hudson Bay railway but of the prairie provinces generally.
Transfer to the province of Alberta ot its natural resources is also referred to in the Speech from the Throne. I do not think there will be much difficulty about this. Before 1911 the Conservative party was pledged, to turn over to the prairie

The Address-Mr. Rogers


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I ask what
paper my hon. friend is reading from?


Robert Rogers: That is from the Winnipeg Tribune.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a good
deal of that which is correct and there is a good deal which is incorrect.

The Address-Mr. Rogers


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sounds too natural, that.


Robert Rogers: So much for the relations
between the Liberal and Progressive parties in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberal party have been advancing remedies to help the farmers of western Canada. I know western Canada, I know the conditions there, and I say that if we will only give the farmer of western Canada a market for that which his indefatigable energy produces, he will neither ,ask nor accept remedies born of political fright such as are presented in the Address we are now considering. The Conservative party today stand where they have ever stood. They stand to-day, as ever, for national development, for national unity between the family of provinces making up our Dominion, and above all they stand for national economy in the administration of the business affairs of this country. Call these things what you like; are they not the three fundamentals of our country's requirements to-day? Who will say that we do not need national unity, after the evidence presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (|Mr. Doucet)? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time 'has come to inaugurate a campaign for national unity among all the provinces. There was a time in the history of our country when we had the spirit of national unity. We had it in days that are past and gone. But come with me, if you will, to my old native province of Quebec, to the capital city of that province, and I will show you there a monument erected to the memory of two great generals, Wolfe and Montcalm. Both of them fought for their respective kings, both died at the same time, but they sealed with their blood a union between the English-speaking and the Frenchspeaking races of our country. That union has continued and never was disturbed until the recent events that have taken place in my old native province of Quebec, events for which I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is now indeed heartily sorry.
For six months, Mr. Speaker, we have had practically no government in Canada. What else but misfortune and disaster could have been expected when, during the past six months, this country has been run by the civil service? I say six months because Mr. King was engaged prior to and during his campaign for that length of time, in visiting every city and town almost in Canada, endeavouring to add additional ministers to his cobweb cabinet. But of all the serio-comic incidents of the Mackenzie King campaign the most ludicrous was the elevation of Vincent Massey to his cobweb cabinet. A year pre-14011-211
viously the lamentations of Vincent Massey resounded through the lobbies of this House of Commons. His jeremiad would have drawn tears from the eyes of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), and from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). But suddenly a change came over the spirit of his dreams, and I am told that a couple of Mr. JCing^s bodyguards, after listening to Mr. Massey's lamentations, appealed to Mr. King to help the stricken one. He was a rich young man, a liberal spender, and they thought it might be disastrous to let him escape into .the Tory camp. I am told that Mr. Massey is rather insinuating and persuading when he is not playing the part of Jeremiah, and that he was able to lead the right hon. gentleman who leads this government into a cul-de-sac and kept him there until he had agreed to let the Massey-Harris Company import all their paints, parts and accessories from the United States free of duty. This accomplished, Mr. Vincent Massey's wails and groans were no longer heard in the corridors of the House of Commons. But, Mr. Speaker, one hundred or more different workshops and foundries in Canada which formerly supplied the Massey-Harris Company with their parts and accessories were put out of business, and some thousands of Canadians left without employment. That is what Mr. Mackenzie King calls, in the Speech from the Throne, " the elimination of any element of uncertainty in respect to tariff changes." The only possible result that could follow such an arrangement was that the Massey-Harris Company's profits would be swollen by huge sums of money, but that no reduction would be made in the price of their implements to the farmers of western .Canada.
I do not wish to detain the House longer. In closing, I just wish to appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to consider well the block that they constitute in the progress of our country. I appeal to them with all sincerity and in all earnestness to consult together and endeavour to give, for once in their lives, some assistance in the upbuilding and development .and progress of their own country. I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. I regard him as a fair-minded man, and I hope, indeed, I trust and believe, that he will at least be fair enough to consider well the manner in which the public business of this country has been obstructed for such a long period1 of time as the result of inefficiency, and as the result of the government being unable to function and carry on the business of our common country. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. McMillan


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, may I also, in opening congratulate you on your re-election to the high position you occupied in the last parliament? I can assure you that I cherish very pleasant memories of our mettings together in years gone by. I remember your cordial greeting and your hearty handshake when we used to meet and sit in council with our great 'leader of former days and listen to his words of wisdom and advice as to our duties and responsibilities as Canadian citizens. Sir, words fail to express my pleasure that during this parliament you are again to fill with dignity and grace the office of the speakership, with myself as a humble member.
As a new member, and one who is quite inexperienced in parliamentary life, may I crave the indulgence of the House with respect to whatever I shall have to say to-night? In studying the returns of the recent general election, in which none of the recognized political parties had a clear majority in the House, and in view of the fact that the issue of protection was the leading issue before the country, I feel that the right hon. Prime Minister took high and safe ground in his decision to carry on, summon parliament at the earliest possible day, and in the meantime to refrain from making any appointments to office or committing the government to any course of action. The sane judgment of any man should teach him that under the circumstances, under our system of responsible government, the sensible course was to remain in office and carry on until the representatives of the people should meet and register their decision. That decision has already been recorded, and as one who fairly understands the viewpoint of our western people, and as well the agricultural interests of Canada, I can testify that the decision of our western friends has not been lightly taken. No class of representatives could have regarded their responsibilities more clearly. None could have given the matter more constant or more careful consideration; none could have realized more fully the consequences of their action, and I commend their decision. I do not believe the country wants another election immediately if it is possible for the business of government to be carried on. If ever there was a time when it is the first duty of the representatives of the people to get down to business and to put country before party, to act regardless of political leaning, that time is now. Every student of Canadian conditions knows that Canada, with its wealth of natural resources and the unfolding * of those resources going on apace, stands at the threshold of a wonderful development; and 
to the people's representatives in this House for the time being the torch has been thrown to guide that development aright.
Sir, much has been said regarding the record of this government, and after reading the public utterances of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) throughout the country I was really amused at the gentle, dove-like amendment to the Address which he proposed the other night. It reminded me of my boyhood days when our teacher used to train us in the art of writing motions. He would proceed in this wise:	One, write a
motion which might seem much but mean little; and two, write a motion which might seem little but mean much. The amendment of my right hon. friend belongs to the latter class, and it can only be interpreted in the light of his many utterances throughout the length and breadth of this country.
In view of this contention we might well ask what is the present national situation under a Liberal government. The Liberal government, under a policy of tariff primarily for revenue purposes but still carrying too much protection; facing uncontrollable expenditures off from two hundred to three hundred million dollars per annum; facing also a most serious handicap in the control and management of the civil service, and an annual loss of almost eighteen millions in revenue due to the issue of non-taxable bonds by previous governments, has been able in four years to reduce the annual expenditure by $114,000,000. It lightened the tax burden of the people by nearly $75,000,000 per annum below that of 1921, and at the same time, without taking the National Hallways into account, it has been able to reduce the national debt, as at the end of the last financial year, by some $3,000,000. Considering the most difficult financial situation which this government had to face on assuming office-I am not going into it, because every student of the political life of this country knows it-this is a record of which any government might be proud.
I have mentioned the Canadian National Railways. Much has been said in the House regarding this subject, and while it is our duty to discuss the condition of the National Railways, yet, Sir, I believe it is a mistake in parliamentary discussion to mix up the business of the National Railways with the general public business of the country. If this parliament will simply let the present management of the National Railways alone, stick to its own special work and give to this the world's greatest experiment in public ownership a fair chance to make good, as parlia-

The Address-Mr. McMillan
ment agreed to do, the management under Sir .Henry Thornton will no douibt work out its own salvation.
The figures I have given show that the tax burdens of the people are already becoming lighter. Under this government times are improving. I thought that we had heard the last in this House of the wail of distress respecting the condition of the country, but it has started again to-day. I say conditions are improving. The Canadian dollar has risen in value. It is now worth almost as much as, if not more than, its face value in any other country in the world. It was not always so. In 1921, when the Meighen government was in power, the Canadian dollar was only worth from 85 to 87 cents on the New York exchange. But times have changed and the dollar is at par to-day. Why is that so? Because in the aggregate the Canadian people are prospering. They are selling more goods than they are buying, and , thus financially they are becoming better off. Their credit is good. Canada's national credit is good, because the Canadian people are selling or exporting more goods than they are buying, and they are also encouraging international trade. It was not always so. In 1921, under the former government, we were importing or buying more goods than we were selling, and our unfavourable trade balance amounted to over $29,000,000. Our trade records are growing and expanding in the right direction. While for the financial year 1921-1922 our aggregate foreign trade amounted to some $1,501,000,000, yet for the financial year ending March 31, 1925, it had grown to over $1,878,000,000, with a favourable trade balance of over $284,000,000. And if you take the figures for twelve months ending October 31, 1925, you will find it has grown to over $2,063,000,000, with a favourable trade balance of over $331,000,000. This phenomenal trade record shows that this country is prospering.
Then again turn to the Canadian stock market, which is regarded (by business men as a reliable business barometer. When trade prospects are good and underlying conditions are sound the market price of leading bank and industrial stocks goes up. I have before me the quotations for a number of well-known Canadian companies showing the prices of their stocks in the open market as of September 15, 1921, and September 15, 1925. As it would be unintelligible, Mr. Speaker, if I were simply to go over all these quotations, I ask that this table be inserted in Hansard in order that every member may have the privilege of studying and verifying the figures
-which go to show that our business and industrial life is in a healthy condition. This table is as follows:
September September
	15, 1921		15, 1925	
Bank of Montreal	5205	00	$259	00Royal Bank of Canada	196	00	238	00Bank of Commerce	184	00	213	00Canada Cement Company	54	00	106	00National Trust Company	199	00	225	00Toronto General Trust Corpora-	tion	198	00	215	00Consolidated Mining & Smelting	Company	15	00	117	75Hollinger Consolidated Gold	Mines	7	35	14	95International Nickel Company.	13	75	34	50Dominion Textile Company.. ..	137	25	265	50Penmans Limited	95	00	159	00Canadian Cottons Limited.. ..	72	00	119	00Canada Salt Company	22	00	152	00Dominion Camners	27	00	134	00Dominion Glass Company	55	00	107	00Steel Company of Canada.. ..	55	00	91	00Spanish River Pulp & Paper	Company	54	00	100	00Sherwin Williams Company.. ..	90	00	125	00
I could stand here for hours and give the House figures to show that the industrial life of this country is prosperous, but we have now arrived at the time when, as our former great leader who has now passed used to say, we do not need to quote figures to show that this country is prosperous. Canada is a good country in which to live. Canadian savings per head of its population rank among the highest in the world, and our wealth is I believe mpre widely diffused among the people than it is in any other country in the world. Consider the life insurance carried in Canada-that also is a good business barometer. There was held by Canadians in Canadian life insurance companies in 1924, insurance to the amount of $3,764,000,000, an increase of $829,000,000 over that of 1921. In 1924 we paid over $130,000,000 in annual life insurancg premiums, an increase of over $31,000,000 as compared with 1921. During 1924, it will be interesting to note, life insurance increased by over $500,000,000, and according to the latest returns for the past year, 1925, it increased still further by some $800,000,000. This is indisputable evidence that the people are prospering. And over and above this $130,000,000 of savings in the form of insurance premiums, and large amounts otherwise invested, we find, in the form of deposits in the chartered banks of Canada, nearly $170,000,000 more than in the twelve months previous. This information all goes to show a favourable trend of business, tremendous expansion in Canada's trade. Now this is not the result of accident; it is a condition that has been aided by means of a well-defined

The Address-Mr. McMillan
Liberal policy which has (1) enforced, so far as it could, the most rigid economy consistent with efficient public service; (2) reduced the tariff and consequently the cost of many of the requirements of home and family; (3) reduced the duties on implements of production required in the development of natural resources; and (4) obtained more favourable marketing conditions abroad. This government realizes that Canada can no longer continue to live to itself and that through the medium of international trade and commerce we have become citizens of the world. And in the course of this Dominion's progress Canadians have been finding markets for tlheir goods in almost every country on the globe.
In connection with the fat cattle trade, it may be interesting to observe that when I sent my own cattle to Glasgow in 1921 it cost me no less than $45 a head in freight rates, and when I landed them in the Glasgow market there were no suitable conditions for taking care of these cattle, and it was necessary to slaughter them within ten days of their arrival. The hon, member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) rather amused one the other day when he suggested that this government deserved no credit for the removal of the embargo. I was wondering whether he had ever heard the story of the three frogs. Two old Scotchmen were talking outside the hotel when one of them said to the other, "Tell me, Sandy, if you saw three frogs on that log out there and one of them took a notion to jump off, how many would be left?" Sandy of course said there would be two. But he was wrong, according to his friend. "There would be three still", he said, "they only took the notion to jump off". That is the way with our friends opposite; they only took the notion to get the embargo removed and they nursed that idea for thirty years. The only difference is that through the wise diplomacy of the Hon. P. C. Larkin, an appointee of this government, in co-operation with the officers of the Department of Agriculture. the present government not only took the notion to jump off but did actually jump off and do the trick.


Mr. MULLINS:: Had . not the embargo
been removed before the Hon. Mr. Larkin went to London?


Thomas McMillan: No.


Henry Alfred Mullins: You are misinformed.


Thomas McMillan: Not at all; I think I know as much about the embargo and just as much about shipping cattle to the Old Country as does my hon. friend. I learned the business 
as a boy and I have followed the trend of the British markets for over twenty years. I ought therefore to know something about the subject. Now notwithstanding the fact that the freight rate on cattle has been reduced from $45 to $20 a head, considering that in years gone by we did have a rate as low as $7.50, it must be admitted that the present rate is still far too high. My hon. friends across the way amuse me immensely. You know, a great deal depends upon whether people know just when to jump off the log. Right after the election the leader of the opposition and a good many of his friends jumped off and thought that they could persuade the' members of the government to do likewise. But the government said, "We were off the dog and we have got back on again and this is no time to repeat the performance. If there is any more jumping-off to be done it is the representatives of the people in this parliament duly constituted who will instruct us whether to jump off or not." When I look around this House and see my Progressive friends-


An hon. MEMBER:: Brothers.


Thomas McMillan: Yes, and I am proud to call them brothers; they are brother representatives of the agricultural interests of the west. When I see these gentlemen and hon. members in other parts of the House, who represent not only the agricultural life of Canada but other interests as well, all supporting the government, I do not think that members on this side need pay very much attention to the cries of hon. gentlemen of the opposition to jump off the log. My hon. friends on the government benches may rest, I think, in peace.


An hon. MEMBER:: That would bury
them.


Thomas McMillan: I know that if the representatives from the city of Toronto and neighbourhood could bury them they would have been buried long ago; but Toronto does not represent the whole province of Ontario.
Mr. McQUARRlE:	What about British
Columbia?


Thomas McMillan: What do you want to
know' about British Columbia. This government realizes that in order to find markets and encourage trade with the people of other nations, that trade must be reciprocal. We must follow sound economics. If we are going to encourage trade with other nations we must be ready to accept their trade in return.
I heard some of our hon. friends opposite tell us the other day that all these treaties and

The Address-Mr. McMillan
trade arrangements had been a nuisance, yet, Sir, I believe that not only are they a benefit to-day but they will continue to be a benefit to the people of the countries concerned in years to come. Now, my hon. friend wants to know about British Columbia, and no doubt he is referring to the Australian treaty.
I have the facts regarding that treaty and the importation of butter that my hon. friends opposite have been talking about. The only place where they could get any records was in the newspapers-and newspapers will never refuse ink. I have the returns here from the Bureau of Statistics. For the three months up to the end of November not one pound of butter came from Australia.


John Arthur Clark: When did the Australian
treaty come into force?
Mr. McMillan : On October 1. I understand. From New Zealand we imported 38,700 pounds of butter.


Mr. BENNETT:: The hon. gentlemen must be misinformed; four million pounds came in last week.
Mr. McMlLLAN:	I am saying as far as
our records go, and they are up to the end of November. But even if some butter is coming in and is selling at a lower price, who is it going to benefit?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not the farmer.
Mr. McMlLLAN: Is it not going to benefit the working people, who would rather buy a second-class article at a lower price?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about oleomargarine ?
Mr. McMlLLAN:	I guarantee that if the
hon. gentleman wrho is talking can get fresh Canadian butter he will not buy Australian butter that has come through the tropics and has been in transit for six weeks. Every wideawake farmer in the dairy business realizes where his markets are and is always looking to those markets. When we can meet the butter of Australia and New Zealand in the British market, and beat it, if we cannot meet it in our home market where we have the advantage of a cent and a half in freight and one cent per pound duty on the imported article we are not worthy the name of dairy farmers. If my hon. friends can find no better objection than that, undoubtedly they are hard-driven for an argument.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will not the same
argument apply to the manufacturers?
Mr. McMlLLAN:	In so far as our manufacturers are concerned, we want a healthy
spirit of competition under fair conditions, and that is what the Liberal party has always tried to give them. We do not want any of the high protection that is being advocated at the present time in some quarters, and possibly before I get through I shall be able to deal with that subject.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask a question?
Mr. McMlLLAN:	Certainly.


William Garland McQuarrie: How does the hon.
gentleman justify the provision in the Australian treaty whereby if Canadians desire to send eggs to Australia they have to pay a duty of 18 cents a dozen whereas Australians can send eggs into Canada duty free?
Mr. McMlLLAN:	It will be a long day
in this country before we will think of shipping eggs to Australia. There is a far better market near by. It does not make any difference to our farmers how much duty the Australian government puts on eggs; that is not a world market for the egg production of this country.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind hon.
members that while the hon. gentleman who has the floor may allow questions, yet the Speaker may interfere to prevent interruptions, because when these become too frequent they are not conducive to the decorum of the House and tend to retard debate. It is in fairness to new members especially that I appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides to exercise due restraint.
Mr. McMlLLAN:	Canada has become
a world-trading nation. With her nearest neighbour, the United States, for the twelve months ending October 31, 1925, she did over $1,020,000,000 worth of business-more than her entire trade with all the world twelve years ago. The story of the wonderful expansion of Canada's foreign trade is one of the marvels of the businesg world. With only some nine million people we stand sixth among the great commercial nations of the world; and if you take our trade per capita, we stand first with $224.28; the old Mother- Country with $194 comes second; that high protective country to the south, the United States, is away down the list with $72.08. What I have already said is sufficient to show that under the guidance of a Liberal government Canada has been placed upon the path which is leading to another great tide of national prosperity. Why is this? Because, so far as opportunity and conditions will permit, this government has been trying to do justice and give a chance in life to the common, hardworking people of this country, to the men

The Address-Mr. McMillan
and women who are labouring at the very foundation of our national prosperity -to the farmer, the miner, the lumberman, the fisherman, and all others who are busily engaged in the development of our natural resources. And of all these industries the very greatest is agriculture. Take up the issues of our public press from day to day and glance over the statements of the heads of our railways, our great financial institutions and our business concerns, and notice how their eyes are constantly fixed upon the condition of agriculture. They know that in Canada agriculture is the great barometer of trade, and just as agriculture and the other natural resources develop and succeed, that success will encourage and set in operation the other great industries which hinge and depend upon them. One of my hon. friends across the floor told us the other day that if town life and city life was prosperous the farmers would be prosperous. His only mistake was that he put the cart before the horse. iNow, Sir, that is what this government is trying to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: What, put the cart before the horse?
. Mr. McMILLAN:	No, to develop the
natural resources of this country and to encourage and build up the industries depending on those resources. Is that not the right viewpoint, for any Canadian government to take, and the outlook which ought to be encouraged by the representatives of the people here assembled? But our friends are not satisfied. They tell us, as the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) told us to-day, that they were not satisfied with the raw materials being shipped across the line and the manufactured products coming back. What are the facts? I have the figures here. In 1921-22 the exports of principal manufactured goods from Canada to the United States amounted to fl07,000,000. In 1924-25, the last financial year, they amounted to over $155,000,000. Take the principal manufactured goods imported from the United States to Canada. In 1921-22 they amounted to $105,000,000, but in 4924-25 they were reduced by nearly $14,000,000. And yet, Sir, with this healthy trade, with the manufactured products of our own country going to the United States and the reduced volume of manufactured goods coming into Canada, our friends are not satisfied.
Then they tell us that our people are all going to the United States. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George perley) told us yesterday, basing his statements largely

on the returns of United States immigration agents, that many of our people were going across and making homes in the United States. That reminds me of the reports which were turned in by the same officials between 1910 and 1920. They recorded that during those ten years over 742,000 Canadians went across the border to make their homes in the United States. But when official census of 1920 was taken it revealed the fact that there were over 78,000 fewer Canadians across the border than there were ten years previously. Then my hon. friend for South Winnipeg told us that we should go back and see what the great leader of the Conservative party did years ago. We can remember that in 1878 we heard the same cry from friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. They told the people of that day that if they would only give them an opportunity to put into operation the national policy of protection it would not only hold in Canada all immigrants arriving here but it would keep our Canadian people here as well, and the people of that day took them at their word. With what result? After that policy had been in force for twelve years and the census of 1891 was taken, the fact was revealed that while during the ten years the number of immigrants had been 886,000, only 36,000 remained, and over and above that over 980,000 Canadians had left the country. When these facts were appreciated by the people of that day, they dismissed the government, lock, stock and barrel, at the earliest possible moment. The fact is that there has always been a migration back and forth between these two countries, and probably there always will be. During the last ten years of the Laurier administration 235,516 Canadians crossed the border, but during the ten year period of the Borden-Meighen administration that number was increased to 757.672.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) also told us at Guelph on October 24 that in order to keep workers in this country, wages must approximate those paid in the United States, and that the only way in which that could be done was by the establishment of a system of higher protection in this country. What are the facts? For years the American people had a high tariff system, but in September, 1922, the United States government adopted the highest tariff duties ever enacted. Their argument for so doing was that it would give more employment and higher wages to the artisans of the United States. The cotton and woollen industries of that country were given the

The Address-Mr. McMillan
benefit of the highest tariff duties in existence, with what result? While in 1923, the year following the adoption of these duties, there was a revival of business, in 1924 business fell off, and over 2,000,000 American work people were thrown out of employment. Between June and October, 1924, the number of employees in American industrial establishments decreased 12 per cent. The American Woollen Company of Massachusetts, the highest protected industry in the United States, with thirty-six of the largest mills in the country, cut wages by ten per cent. The official despatch from Washington in September reveals the situation. It is as follows:
The labour troubles of New England are crystallizing into a demand for tariff reduction. This will be resisted by the Coolidge administration, which desires to postpone all tariff legislation until after the congressional election of 1926. The cut of 10 per cent in wages by the American Woollen Company has for the first time arrayed organized labour on the side of tariff reduction. The situation was summed up recently by President Green of the American Federation of Labour when he said: Wages, employment and working conditions in textile manufacturing industries are such as to bring the blush of shame not only to those who own and operate the textile mills but to members of congress who have aided them." Although protected by practically a prohibitive tariff, the textile manufacturing interests have unceasingly tried to force down the living standards of their employees to a mere existence level. While these and other textile concerns are complaining of reduced earnings it is interesting and important to bear in mind that the American Woollen Company has largely increased its capitalization in recent years. Its common stock is $40,000,000, an increase from $20,000,000 in 1920. In that year also it authorized an increase in its cumulative 7 per cent preferred stock from $40,000,000 to $60,000,000. Regular dividends are paid quarterly on that cumulative preferred stock.
There is the situation, Mr. Speaker. It shows that in the United States, as in every other high protection country, protection has the effect of enriching the few at the expense of the many. It encourages monopoly and impoverishes the great body of the people. What has high protection done for the farmers of the United States? Has it made them rich? The Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1920 was to make the American farmer wealthy, but the subsequent deflation in farm values and in wheat prices brought about a panic in the western states which smashed hundreds of thousands of farmers and 552 banks Which held their notes and mortgages. Between the first of January and the 14th of February 1924, in those six weeks when the panic was at its height, seven national and ninety-five state banks had to close their doors. Senator Borah speaking in Congress upon this subject last session, said that in the northwestern states the taxes on improved land had risen to $2.50
per acre and in some counties in the state of Washington as high as 13.80 per acre, and that in 1923-1924 over 630,000 farmers, embracing one-fourth of the wheat growers in seventeen states, were bankrupt.
Here is a statement from the St. Paul Pioneer of December 23, 1925. I may say that I was in the western states in the month of December last during the holding of that great conference at Des Moines, Iowa, representing one million farmers. The extract reads:
Representatives of a million western farmers issued their manifesto at the closing session to-day of the conference of the com belt committee and the executive committee of the American Council of Agriculture.
They repudiated the President's speech 'before the American Farm Bureau Federation convention at Chicago.
They assailed the Fordney-McCumber tariff.
They made an overture to the agriculture of the south for union with that of the west for a common effort for a common end.
They authorized the organization of an agricultural statistical department to be situated at Des Moines, comparable in efficiency to those maintained by railroads and other great interests.
The conference asks, if the tariff is of so great benefit to farming as the President said, "how can the fact be explained that although this tariff has been in operation for five years agriculture is at this hour staggering on the brink of complete collapse?"
At a meeting of the Reconstruction League at Washington, D.C., held on December 28, 1925, Dr. Edninster, of the National Institute of Economics, in opening his address on the cattle industry, said:
The "protection" now accorded the cattle industry through the duties on cattle and beef is not only futile from the standpoint of the industry, but imposes, and will increasingly impose, both upon the industry itself and upon the consuming public, burdens which far outweigh any possible gains. The production of range cattle will decrease rather than increase in the United States, and the American cattle grower will not be injured by placing cattle and beef on the free list.
At the some meeting President McMahon, of the International Textile Workers, said that the average wage in cotton mills was $15 per week, and could not be lower even under free trade. The report continues:
The trend of speeches and comment by delegates evidenced a generally hostile sentiment against the Fordney-McCumber tariff. Herbert F. Baker, President of the League, declared the tariff duties against Canadian wheat and other agricultural products were merely "bunk".
Do we, Mr. Speaker, want to bring about in this country conditions such as these by the establishment of higher protective duties? On October 27, 1925, the leader of the opposition in this House, speaking at Kitchener, said: "There is only one path to tread. Give no preference, even to Great Britain, without

The Address-Mr. McMillan
a preference in return." Mr. Speaker, he would do away with the present British preference, and yet he comes before this House and presents this dovelike amendment regarding higher duties on farm products. That of itself is bad enough, but do you think if the people of Canada gave him and his party the opportunity, they would ever stop at that? No, Sir, he cannot, he dare not; so we may just as well tear the screen off that dovelike amendment and walk into the camp. He dare not, I say, stop at this simple amendment, because he is tied hand and foot, shackled to those ramparts of gold of which he was formerly wont to speak. We might well ask, where are those ramparts of gold to-day? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that has been said, that those ramparts of gold are more the cause of the small representation of Liberals from the province of Ontario in this House to-day than any other one cause. The hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall) tells me that he saw its streak in every comer of his riding. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) tells me the same thing, and the same is true of North Bruce and Lambton counties. All over my own riding, Mr. Speaker, I could see men who, I knew right well, would never put one foot ahead of the other unless they were getting some return, keep going for weeks, and I can assure you that I am here to-day not as a result of any meagre efforts of my own, but because the good and true men, and more particularly the good women, of the south riding of Huron stood by their principles and elected me as their humble representative in this House. And, Sir, when I heard the statement hurled across the floor the other day that the noble women of the province of Quebec were not so well informed as other women in this country, I took that expressly to heart. Because I have a considerable number of the same good Canadians in my own constituency who stood 'by me almost solidly just as they did in days gone by. When I say this I am sorry the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not here. Those people stood by me in the last election just as they did in 1917 all through the period of the selective conscription and its mate the War-Time Elections Act. I can tell you that if it had not been for the fact that Major Hazlewood was despatched from London, had his headquarters there for two weeks before the election of 1917, and sent out messages all over western Ontario to the effect that the farmers' sons would be relieved from conscription, I would have been in this House at that time. Not only is that the case, but
[Mr. McMillan.!
eighty-nine of the good citizens in my constituency had their names removed from the voter's list during the operation of the War.-Time Elections Act and they have never forgotten it. Whilst those very same people are Canadians of German descent, I can tell you it was a pride to me to know when I went amongst them that a large percentage were good mothers who had their sons at the front fighting for freedom and civilization, and when I called upon them they would say "Do not spend your time here, we are going to vote for you. Go where you can do some good.'' I consider, Mr. Speaker, that too much has been said on the subject of conscription-


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. McMjlLLAN: -in this House during the present session; and when 1 heard the eulogies by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), of the utterances of the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) I wondered if he had forgotten that paper will never refuse ink.
Sir, I say that if the leader of the opposition and his friends were in power to-morrow they could not stop at this amendment. In fact the right hon. gentleman himself has told us that he will not stop there, that he will do away with the British preference. What does that mean?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to rise to a point of order. It is this: The hon. gentleman has twice stated, in the absence of my right hon. leader, that he has declared that he will do away with the British preference. Now, my hon. friend knows, I think, that he is in error-*	[DOT]


Thomas McMillan: Possibly the statement may be denied, as others have been, but let my hon. friend wait a moment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like the hon. gentleman, if he will, to permit me to state my point of order. The position taken by my right hon. loader is that there should be a preference given in return for a preference given by Canada whether to Britain or any other country; but he has never declared, to my knowledge, that he would do away with the British preference without any qualifying statement. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not competent for an hon. gentleman in the absence of the hon. gentleman to whom the reference is made to misstate his position, epeoially that of an hon. gentleman bolding the important office of leader of the opposition.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see that any point of order is involved here. If the right hon. leader of the opposition denied making any

The Address-Mr. McMillan
such statement, has denial must be accepted by the House. However, from the statement of the hon. member for South Huron as I heard it, I do not see where any point of order arises.


Thomas McMillan: Possibly I might have
made an error, but I am within the judgment of the Speaker and the House when I say that my statement was that the right hon. gentleman had said he would give no preference to Great Britain without a return.
Mr. STEV'ENS: Yes, that is right.


Thomas McMillan: That is the statement which I made. The right hon. gentleman has told us that he would give no preference to Great Britain without return.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the statement you made just now'.


Thomas McMillan: That is the statement I made when I referred to the subject at first. What does that mean? It means that for the twelve months ending October 31 Great Britain, w'as our very best customer, taking over $458,000,000 worth of ou-r goods absolutely free of duty, whereas on the other hand the Canadians charged the British people over $29,000,000 in duty upon $159,000,000 worth of British goods coming into this country. And yet, Sir, the right hon. leader of the opposition is not satisfied. He also said in reference to the tariff, particularly referring to farm products, that he would make it just as hard for the American farmer to get his products into Canada as it is for Canadians to get their products into the United States. In other words if this House will give him the opportunity he will enter upon a tariff war with our American neighbours just at a time when the troubles in the New England states and all over the Union are crystallizing into a demand for a, low'er tariff policy in that country which will result in giving the Canadian people, and more particularly the Canadian farmer, freer access into the United States market, the world's best market right at our owm doors. Sir, I should like to ask the members from the Maritime provinces if their people would not like to get better tariff privileges with respect to the entry of their products into the easem states? Let hon. gentlemen bear this in mind, that on November 4th, 1925, Senator Hale and Representative Hersey, both of Maine, pleaded with President Coolidge to remove the American duty upon Canadian potatoes. Would wTe not like to have that benefit? Sir, I have been in the Maritime provinces and I know that the farmers there would be proud to get access to the markets of the eastern states for the
greater part of their agricultural products. And what about our Canadian west? When I was in Minnesota about two or three weeks ago I found that Canadian potatoes were coming down by the carload, paying the American duty, and enjoying the market there at a fair margin of profit. What are the facts? I have the returns showing the shipment of .potatoes for the last three months. A return which came from the Bureau of Statistics to-day shows that for the three months of October, November and December, 1925, we shipped to the United States $2,436,591 worth of potatoes, paying fifty cents per hundredweight, and finding a market for those articles in that country. Would it not be of benefit to our western people to have free access or freer access into that great market for our cattle? We would then be in sight of the best market in the world. In Ontario, during the last four years, when we had free access for our cattle to the market, I was able to get, right on my own farm, within fifty cents per hundredweight of the highest quotations on the Chicago market. It would mean all the difference between success and failure in the live stock and fat cattle trade of Canada, and the live stock business is, as every farmer knows, the very right arm of a permanently successful agriculture. If hon. members of this House would give my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition the opportunity, he would begin at once to raise the tariff.
With such an object lesson right at our door, with the condition of unrest among the American farmers on account of high protection, why should our government not encourage trade between the two countries? They should not neglect this market. They should cultivate the friendship of the American people and try to obtain the benefits of that market. Is that trade between the two countries, in the face of the two tariff walls built up by each government against the products of the people, not at once a tribute to the power of natural trade laws and an indication of the only rational policy? Yet, in the face of those two tariff walls, for the last tw'elve months ending 31st October, 1925, over $1,020,000,000 of goods jumped over the two tariff walls back and forth between the two countries. That gives you an idea of what the people think, namely that trade is not a national matter. It is a matter between individuals. If a Canadian wants to buy anything across the border he does so for only one reason. He thinks he can get better value for his money there than any other place in the world. If an American

The Address-Mr. McMillan
does business here it is for the same reason. The citizens of the two countries think this international trade is so mutually beneficial that almost one-half of our entire foreign trade is conducted with the United States. These are not petty, partisan matters, but great problems of government which appeal for solution to the sense and judgment of every member of this House regardless of political* leanings. Therefore I solicit the support of all hon. members,-not as Liberals, not as Conservatives, not as Progressives or Independents, but as Canadian citizens, with the true interests of this country at heart-in order that together we may strengthen the hands of the present government so that they may carry to further fruition the policies they have put in operation.
A great deal hits been said respecting the Prime Minister, in his absence, which ought not to have been said. I have known the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King for many years. There is no man in this House or out of it more scrupulously eager to uphold and preserve the high traditions of parliamentary practice; and, Sir, his course on this momentous occasion has been such that in years to come, when this generation shall have passed away, other men representing the Canadian people will recall with pride the most exemplary conduct of the Prime Minister of Canada on this occasion.
I can assure this House that in the hands of our brilliant leader Liberalism is not a decadent force in this country. Liberalism in his hands and through the medium of his policies, is a vital, living, active, progressive force in our political life, and a force which is always striving to make the achievements of to-day simply the base of operations for the progress and advancement of to-morrow. Away ^ with this little petty partisan spirit of Gritism or Toryism, or any other "ism," which can never look past its own doorstep but is always wondering what will give us this sectional advantage, or that personal or party favour, regardless of the true interests of the country. Away with such a spirit. If we as members of this House look upon ourselves merely as the creatures of a day, then, Sir, it makes little difference what we do, or whether we rob and despoil this rich heritage which we possess. On the other hand if we as true representatives of the people will look upon humanity as a seif-perpetuating race and upon ourselves as trustees for those who come after us, endeavouring to maintain the present good conditions and to make them even better, that those who Come after us may have a 
fairer dwelling place and more congenial living conditions than we enjoy-if that is our spirit then it is our duty to strengthen the hands of the brilliant leader of this government who in the space of one parliament has demonstrated his capacity most efficiently to represent Canada both at home and abroad, and W'hose government has already shown its ability to correct abuses, check monopoly, restore efficiency, reduce expenditures, lighten our tax burden, open up new and favourable markets, foster trade, and withal encourage and build up a spirit of unity and co-operation among all sections of this country and among all classes of our Canadian people.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: In rising to offer a few observations on the subject matter before the House, I purpose at least to be brief and to keep as closely as possible to the point. But before referring to this subject matter, may I make some comments upon the attitude of a portion of the press, upon the editorial attitude in particular. We in this House know, and the country knows, that we have gone through during the past few days, a very difficult situation arising out of the peculiar complexion of the House, and during that time it has been natural, it has been inevitable, that much discussion should take place. I for one as a member of this House resent the imputation that all public men and all parties are rotten and corrupt. I take this view, that in thus attempting to impress the people of the country with the idea that parliament as an institution is not worthy of respect and that public men must of necessity be actuated by sordid and base motives, they have gone far, if these imputations are accepted by the people, not only to undermine confidence in public men but to forfeit the respect of the people for all law. For once people in this country are of the opinion that men on all sides of the House, that all political parties, that all public men are evil and corrupt, and that laws are passed under such an influence, what respect can there be for law and order? And if following that there comes an orgy of law-breaking, a carnival of crime, then I say that amongst those responsible will be the editorial writers who have fostered such an impression. Speaking for myself, I must confess that when I came into this House four years ago I came with a low opinion of politics; I am afraid that the people who sent me here had rather formed that opinion too. But I am happy to say that during my service here in the past parliament, having had an opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with gentlemen on all sides, I have found that the average standard

The Address-Mr. Speakman
of morality is high among all parties in the House and that members of parliament have usually endeavoured to do the right thing. And I have verified my view in this respect.
We find in the Speech from the Throne a number of things that are undoubtedly beneficial, things that not only meet with the approval of western people but which have been endorsed by every member in this House. As a passing thought I may observe that I was pleased to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) make the statement the other day that in his opinion principles were greater than parties and policies than leaders. I heartily endorse that statement; and if such be the case and we glance over the Speech from the Throne, then I say, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of our depleted numbers it is evident that in the legislative policies of the government the principles of the Progressive force are coming to the front.
I shall pass over the somewhat vague expressions which are usually incorporated in the Speech from the Throne, for the purpose, I was almost going to say, of cluttering it up. There is for instance the customary reference to the prosperous state of the country. I believe the country is getting more prosperous but I have found that same expression in all Speeches from the Throne. And the intimation that this prosperity has been brought about largely through governmental action we can, I think, safely pass over. Then there is the somewhat vague talk about rural life being encouraged and conditions in the country being improved. That is a very fine sentiment no doubt, but after all it is not sentiments expressed in the Speech from the Throne that will improve conditions but the embodiment of those sentiments in adequate legislation. And until that adequate legislation comes before the House, is discussed, and is passed, the Speech from the Throne is merely an indication of intention and nothing more.
The first item in the Speech, which is of some interest to us from Alberta particularly, has reference to the transfer of the natural resources to that province. Naturally as an Albertan I rejoice that the long period of contention in this regard is at last being brought to a close. I understand that the agreement is one that is satisfactory to both governments concerned, and if that is the case it will certainly meet with my approval. I will say nothing further about that because we can judge of the agreement only when we see it.
Next we come to what in my opinion is one of the most vital pieces of suggested
legislation of which we can at present conceive, namely, the subject of rural credits.
I do not propose to discuss that question in detail at all. In my opinion the proper time to discuss such matters at length is when the actual legislation is before us. May I say, and say it very frankly, that we have had suggestions as to rural credits before but these suggestions have failed to become embodied in the form of practical legislation. So to speak, they have just remained astral bodies and no more. For four years the Progressives in this House have endeavoured to impress the government with the necessity for such a measure. In that endeavour they found sympathetic assistance from some few members on both sides, notably-and I am glad to say this-from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on this side. And we appreciate all the assistance given. But we have found also that in our effort to get something done we have met with apathy from the major portion of both parties, and with active hostility on the part of some on either side. Now there is a change, and that which was formerly a forlorn hope has become if not a reality at least a principle that is accepted by everyone. I think that Canada ought to be congratulated on that result.
I listened with some interest when the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) made his references to this subject. I was unable to follow him in the entirety of his speech as I sit at some distance from him, but I seemed to gather from his remarks that the need for rural credits in Alberta and Saskatchewan was due solely to the fact that Conservative governments were not in power there, while in Manitoba, where a greater degree of good sense had been shown by the people, the need was not so pressing. I wondered if that could be the case and I recalled two facts out of past history. In the first place the need for rural credits was not so much the result of provincial activity or inactivity as it was the result of certain federal policies. It came as the result of a pronounced determination on the part of the government of that time, a determination with which I can find no fault, to encourage the output of farm products to the limit. It was impressed upon every farmer throughout the west that his patriotic duty demanded that he produce and produce to the uttermost, and as a result of the impetus thus given and the high prices then prevailing every farmer who was in a position to do so extended his production to the limit. And because of that extended activity the farmer
33!

The Address-Mr. Speakman
became financially embarrassed. Now we have the aftermath. I wish to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that it was not under the regime of a Liberal government in Ottawa that this matter first came to the front. I am not saying that it was because of Conservative policies in the capital that we needed rural credit; nor am I suggesting that it was because of Liberal policies carried out in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It was simply due to the fact that every business in the country required then, as it requires now, financing along proper lines suitable to its particular activities. However, I will reserve the discussion of the actual legislation until the actual legislation is submitted to us, when I shall pronounce upon it.
The next point is one which is of interest chiefly to the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan; I refer to the Hudson Bay railway. I am not going to discuss this question inasmuch as it is not a matter of vital interest to all the people of Alberta. We support it not because it will bring direct benefits to ourselves but because it is fair and just to the nation. Time was when we looked in that direction for relief, but things have changed and our eyes are now turning westward. To us the development of the western port of Vancouver and the framing of proper freight regulations governing that traffic are of infinitely greater importance. But for that reason, are we to take the view that a project which appealed to us as sound at one time when we felt the need of it ceases to be sound when we as individuals no longer require it? That would be the acme of selfishness, and we are therefore supporting it to the utmost. We do not know, and I am not persuaded, that the ocean route is feasible. I have remained in the House session after session when this matter was under discussion. I have found apparently expert opinion stating with authority and emphasis that the ocean route was absolutely feasible anywhere from five to nine months in the year. On the other side, I have found opinion, speaking with equal authority, to the effect that the route could never be so utilized. I do not know which opinion to accept. But this I do know, that under present conditions', in view of the large expenditure that has already been made, it is proper to complete the laying of steel and so open up what we believe to be a fine mineralized country in the Hudson bay territory. Having placed ourselves in that position, we can trust to future traffic to show whether the ocean route itself is feasible. That is the only way in my opinion in which the feasibility or otherwise of that route can be demonstrated. To that extent and! with

those motives, I can assure the House that we from Alberta are prepared to stand side by side with our brother members from the other provinces in seeking completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
But may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is another transportation problem which has not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne? We in Alberta not only have our transportation problem as a provincial problem but as part of a great national problem. I refer to the opening up of that vast empire to the north-the Peace river country. We strongly hope that this matter will yet be given most serious and earnest consideration in all parts of the House. I shall leave it to the hon. member representing that district, who understands the conditions far better than I do and can speak with much greater authority, to deal with that problem, merely adding that I wish the House to bear in mind that we have not forgotten it.
It is proposed to appoint a royal commission to investigate what are commonly known as Maritime rights. I do not know the Maritime provinces very well. I am a Nova Scotian only by marriage, but my dearest possession having come from that province, I have taken a very deep interest in Maritime affairs ever since, and I have grasped every opportunity to study questions affecting the Maritime provinces because I realize that a cancer spot in any part of this country is a source of weakness to the body politic as a whole. I do not know exactly what is needed. I do appreciate, however, that there are perhaps no two parts of Canada whose interests are more comparable than those of my native province of Alberta and of the Maritime provinces. I know that our problems are largely similar. We have a great coal area, and our difficulty is to convey the coal to the central markets of Canada. I understand that transportation is also one of the great problems of the Maritime provinces. Together they form a national problem of major importance, and I believe that by honest co-operation in the study of this and other problems affecting the east and the west we shall be able to settle upon a policy which will be beneficial to both. In this way we shall be rendering a great national service.
I am anxious to discuss with the representatives from the Maritime provinces their peculiar problems.
Speaking of coal, two suggestions have been made: One, to place a tariff on coal; the other, a low freight rate. Now, as to a tariff upon coal I am not so sure. I am a free trader, it is true, but I am a common sense trader, and I Should like to apply free trade principles

The Address-Mr. Speakman
in a common sense manner. However, I am dubious of the value of a tariff on coal, for two reasons. In the first place, our climatic conditions necessitate large quantities of fuel every winter, and I doubt the soundness of any policy which might materially increase the cost of fuel to our people. Secondly, I doubt the efficacy of such a method. We who have studied the industrial life of this country know that in many parts we are just on the dividing line as to the source of motive power. Electricity is more and more coming into use, and displacing coal, oil also is being more generally used in many places, and I fear that any policy which would materially increase the cost of fuel for power purposes would tend to still further contract the market for coal in favour of other sources of power. I am not taking a dogmatic view, but I appreciate the danger and difficulty of following such a course. I also appreciate that transportation is another great problem-the ability to carry coal or any other product from the far-flung portions of this Dominion to the great markets in the central provinces.
Now, what policy can be evolved that will best meet the situation? First, we must have a basis of .policy, that is, we must have knowledge. We have reached the conclusion, and we believe it is sound, that the first step to be taken before a satisfactory coal policy can be established is to ascertain beyond doubt what is the actual cost of transportation. We endeavoured to do that two years ago when a measure passed this House placing certain sums of money at the disposal of the government to recoup the National Railways for any loss it might incur by transporting coal from Alberta to Ontario at a cost of $7 a ton. The railway was to keep cost accounts and to be reimbursed the difference between that rate and the actual cost of transportation. On account of strikes in the Alberta coal field at that time the experiment was not made. Next session a sum of money was voted by the Dominion House and also by the legislature of Alberta with the same object in view, the granting of a flat rate of $7 per ton, the railway to keep accurate cost accounts and to be reimbursed any loss on operation that such accounts might show. But unfortunately Sir Henry Thornton, as head of the National Railways, preferred to carry the coal at a flat rate of 17 a ton rather than incur the expense of keeping strict cost accounts. In order to solve the problem, I believe that the first step this House should take should be to insist on an examination by competent persons, independently of the
railway officials, of transportation costs. With the information which would thus be available we would know whether it is economically possible to transport coal from Alberta and the Maritimes to the central provinces at a rate that will make the business commercially practicable, and we shall be able to take whatever steps may be necessary to put into effect a sound policy. I am prepared to work with any man or any body of men in this House to obtain that knowledge and bring about such a policy.
There are a number of other items which I do not intend to discuss at any length. The hour is late and I wish to come to a somewhat important part-or what is now suggested to be a part-of the Speech from the Throne, the amendment before the House. I believe it is unnecessary to discuss further the legislation embodied in the Speech from the Throne -and why? Because it has been proposed by the government, endorsed by the leader of the opposition, approved by the Progressives, accepted by the Labour group, already passed upon and approved by the Senate, and apparently no one has any difference of opinion. Therefore why discuss it? But the amendment itself might possibly be more controversial. In effect, what does the amendment say? It calls upon us to express by our votes regret that the Speech from the Throne does not give any indication of policy designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada, and particularly to give to the producers of farm products, coal and other primary products, the advantage they are, under present world conditions, entitled to enjoy in the markets of this country. I have heard this amendment described as an adroit work. Possibly that is so. I believe the mover of the amendment capable of working anything adroitly, but knowing the right hon. gentleman, I believe he has the courage and the honesty of his convictions and that never, of set purpose, would he so word an amendment as to give the impression that it means anything different from what it does mean. I shall give my interpretation as I see it. I am sorry the right hon. gentleman is not in the House, because I should have asked him to correct me if my interpretation is inaccurate. I interpret it in this way; that we are called upon to express regret that the principle of protection has not been more adequately maintained and extended in the Speech from the Throne, particularly as applied to those products mentioned. I think there is no doubt as to the meaning. As the right hon. gentleman is not here, either by silence to give consent or to correct me if I am inaccurate, I can only proceed on that a*-

The Address-Mr. Speakman
sumption. But I am working on that assumption, basing it not only on the amendment itself, but upon the known and pronounced policies of the Conservative party, to which the right hon. gentleman has the firm and unwavering allegiance of his entire party. I think I can proceed safely upon that assumption with very little danger of being mistaken, and upon that assumption I shall express my opinion. Those who have been in this House for the past four years, as my colleagues on this side of the House, have no doubt as to my opinions on this matter. I may have been mistaken in my opinions; I claim no infallibility, but at least I believe that I have expressed those opinions so clearly, so unmistakably and so consistently that no one here having heard me before can have any doubt as to where I stand. I do not propose to express regret that the protective policy has not been further extended and expanded in the Speech from the Throne. For three years I have opposed the budget introduced by the party now sitting opposite in the throne of power because that budget, in my opinion, did not carry out the tariff principles of that party and did not meet with the approval of low tariff men. No one can say that there is any doubt as to my position, and in view of that position there is only one attitude which I may consistently take. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a wise or sound policy, even as regards the products of the farms, the coal and other primary products, to enhance the duty to any height. And why? As I have indicated, this is a country where the climatic conditions force upon us the necessity of abundant food, abundant fuel and warm clothing, and these necessities should be purchased as cheaply as possble. As a farmer representing farmers, I say that I would not wish to impose upon the consumers of this country as a whole greatly enhanced prices, even though they might partly redound to my own profit. It is not sound from a national point of view. So that holding these opinions and basing them as I do upon my interpretation of this amendment, I shall certainly oppose it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what else can we say? We can say this. I have referred to the unfair attitude of the press regarding one aspect of affairs here, but I am going to refer to a very fair opinion as it is directed towards another aspect. As I have indicated', every member of this House is apparently in favour of certain legislation embodied in the Speech from the Throne. We present this ludicrous spectacle to gods and men, that believing those things sound, we cannot get together to 
put them in the form of legislation. If ever the people of this country-and some of whom have had grave cause to doubt the efficiency of the party system-need an object lesson on the fallacies into which the party system may lead men, it will be found here, when men will not get together to do what all agree should be done. Co-operation is a wonderful word, a word which has been sometimes done to death, but I really believe there is room for some cooperation here. The Olympian deities might well laugh at human faults and frailties when they find 244 men and one lady all agreed as to what should be done, and incapable of getting together long enough to do it.
We have talked of co-operation, and may I say this:	Some of those people who affect
at least to disparage that word have failed to grasp the significance of what is happening in Canada to-day, the significance of the greatest co-operative movement which ever took place in this world, the co-operative marketing movement in western Canada. They have failed to grasp what that means. And what does it mean? It means that men have learned, through bitter experience, that in order to succeed they must sacrifice some of their own personal rights and opinions and work together. Because of that another force has come into play which will have a direct and powerful influence upon the political life of this country. For many years we have not studied international relationships as they should have been studied, and market condition as they affect world trade. But when farmers themselves get together and by their own agents sell their own goods in the markets of the world, the study of these conditions is forced upon them. Through that co-operative marketing is coming into existence a tremendous force of public opinion which will find its reflex in our political life. Side by side, commercially and politically, the movement will go on-in separate organizations, it is true but all working towards the same end.
I am speaking of this for one moment, late though it is, because it appears to me as the greatest and most significant phase of public life in this country to-day. We formed the pools for two objects: first, to bring about a parity of exchange values with our products and those of other producers in this country, and secondly, to bring together producer and consumer and eliminate the barriers which separated them. Forced by the nature of our commodity into world trade, what did we find? We found that tariffs were among those barriers, and the very reasons which led us to form these pools will lead us to fight

Alberta Coal
against trade restrictions. The two work together hand in hand, embody the same spirit, are different expressions of the same ideal, and although Progressive members may come and go and political bodies disappear, that co-operative movement will go on and that ideal will grow. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the time will come when, not only in western Canada but in eastern Canada, that co-operative movement in commerce, yes and in politics, will dominate this country.
Some people think, and I have heard them say, that some of the members in this corner of the House are impossible idealists. Well,
I	rather like being an idealist. I like to have some ideal of better things towards
__t__________x._*	- i . [DOT][DOT] [DOT]	-ii.i
II	iiiou a. oau OU1IU, UUU It 13 puoaiuic IU LfC Uil
idealist and at the same time to be a practical idealist, to have an ideal of what is right and sound, and to take practical means to realize that ideal. We trust that in our business and in politics we are learning practical methods.
We do not propose, may I repeat, because of the peculiar position which we occupy in this House to-day, to do other than support a national programme. It has been suggested that we, as the price of support to one group or another, due to the peculiarity of our position, will exact our last drop of blood and the last ounce of flesh. That is not our intention. We hope, through the position forced upon parliament, that a co-operative spirit will be forced into this body, even against its will. We hope to take part in that co-operative action, to join with men from all over Canada, with representatives of industry, farming, and labour, to work together and help each other. W7e are anxious to meet with members from all the different parts of this country, on whichever side of the House they may sit, to exchange views and discuss our problems with each other. We would particularly like to meet the members from the Maritime provinces whose problems so closely approximate our own, to see if we cannot together solve the problem which has baffled us singly. That, Mr. Speaker, is our object here, to do what we can to see that agriculture gets a fair deal-yes, and as representatives of the greatest industry in this country we shall do our part in parliament, as our industry is doing its part in the country, to help build up a united nation.
On motion of Mr. Rinfret the debate was adj oumed.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Friday, January 22, 1926