1926-02-01

CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
' Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8 to amend The Canada Grain Act (Warehouse receipts).
Mr. ROBB:: Explain.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The purpose of the bill is to restore to the farmer the right which he enjoyed under the old Canada Grain Act of determining the destination of his grain when it was shipped through a local elevator. The bill which was put through this House at the last session and which was given its first reading on May 11, 1925, retained, in its original form, that right to the farmer, but an amendment was afterwards carried abrogating it. Under the law as it stands therefore the farmer has no say in the destination of his grain when it passes through any local elevator and, as I say, the object of this bill is to restore that right to him.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9 to amend the Criminal Code.
He said:	This is a bill to strike out subparagraph 4 of paragraph (a) of section 1140 of the Criminal Code. The sub-paragraph which it is desired to strike out limits to three years the time within which action may be commenced forany offence relating to or arising out of the location of land which was paid for in whole or in part by scrip or was granted upon certificates issued to half-breeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) tell us how soon we may expect the Auditor General's report? We have now been sitting three weeks and the report is overdue. I would also ask him whether what one hears is correct, namely, that the report is completed with the exception of the introductory chapter. I may tell the minister that so far as the House is concerned the report would be quite acceptable at the present time without that introductory chapter, which the Auditor General could submit subsequently.


James Alexander Robb: Replying to the last part of my hon. friend's question, I have no knowledge that the report is ready, except volume I, but I shall inquire.
I have from the Auditor General a memorandum under date January 28 pointing out that the delay has been due largely to work necessitated by the general election. The Auditor General says:
There are engaged on 'these accounts, in addition to temporary clerks, some forty of the permanent staff. These permanent clerks have been obliged to give a considerable portion of the day's work to the audit and payment of election accounts, resulting in a diversion from their regular work and in a delay in the preparation of the report.
I fancy there is something in that. I know that I have had complaints, as I suppose every hon. member has had, in regard to delays in making of payment to officers employed in the election. The Auditor General concludes his memorandum thus:
I am making every effort to complete the report this week. The greater portion of it is now in print ready for binding.
I was a bit curious to find out how far the Auditor General was in default and I had a record made of the dates on which the Auditor General's report has been submitted to parliament from the year 1907 on. I notice that in 1907 Mr. Fielding, in presenting volume III, said that there were two other volumes which he hoped to bring down very soon but as that volume was ready he would present it at the earliest possible moment. The House met in that year on November 28 and the first volume was presented on December 2. In 1911 the House met on November 16 and the report was tabled on January 10, 1912. In 1912 the House met on November 21 and the report was tabled on January 14, 1913. In the next year the House met on January 15, 1914, and the report was tabled on January 19 and January 28. In 1916 the House met on January 13 and the report was tabled1 on February 7, February 10 and February 14. In 1917 the House met on January 19 and the report was tabled on April 19. In 1919 the House met on February 20 and the last volume of the report was tabled on April 22. The different volumes were tabled respectively in that year on March 10, March 26, March 28 and April 22. In 1920 the House met on February 26 and the last volume of the report was tabled on May 14. In 1921 the House met on February 14 and the last volume was tabled on April 4. My hon. friend! was then in office and I appreciate why he is crowding me. In 1922 the House met on March 9 and the report was tabled on March 13. In 1923 the House met on January 31
Locarno Treaty

and the report was tabled on February 1. In 1924 the House met on February 28 and the report was tabled on March 3, and in 1925 the House met on February 5 and the report was tabled on February 16.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will no doubt recognize, Mr. Speaker, that during some of the years he refers to returns had to come in from overseas.


James Alexander Robb: I appreciate that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That ran along for some time after the war. I should be sorry indeed to see the last reform set by his illustrious predecessor disregarded. The right Hon. Mr. Fielding was very, very strong upon the point that the report ought to be tabled immediately the House assembled.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I shall telephone the Auditor General and find out the reason for the delay.



RELEASE OF ALCOHOL FROM DISTILLERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) if he will have laid on the table all orders in council issued during the past two years for the release of alcohol from distilleries within a shorter period of time than that set forth in the Inland Revenue Act. I understand that such orders in council are not laid on the table under the rules of the House, but if the minister will be good enough to accede to my request I shall appreciate his courtesy.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): I shall have copies of the orders in council referred to prepared and laid on the table just as soon as it is possible to do so, Mr. Speaker.
LOCARNO TREATY On the Orders of the Day:


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the government-I mean the acting leader -prepared yet to divulge to the House whether the government intends to recommend to parliament our adhesion to the Locarno treaty?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) the other day asked that the correspondence relating to the Locarno treaty should be laid on the table of the House. As I promised at the time, we communicated with 	.	'	. >
,
the British government for the purpose of obtaining leave to do so. We have had a telegram from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs saying that as soon as he has ascertained the views of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he will communicate further with us. I suppose it is better for us to wait until this little formality is completed before I give my right hon. friend our views on the treaty.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot see what relation that has to the decision of the government whether ihey will recommend adhesion or not. The minister stated when the matter was up before that the government had decided. Why should not parliament know what the decision i-S?


Ernest Lapointe: We will give the views of the government when the time comes.


Arthur Meighen: When will the time come? It has come now.


Ernest Lapointe: After that formality is
attended to.


Arthur Meighen: Parliament is entitled
to know what the government's decisions are when they are made.


Ernest Lapointe: Theie is no urgency in the matter. My right hon. friend knows, no one better than he, that we are not bound by the treaty; we are just as well off as we were six months or a year ago.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question.


Mr.   LAPOLMTE@: That is the question.
Nothing suffers by reason of the fact that we are not giving to my right hon. friend our views concerning the treaty. Canada will not be bound by the treaty until parliament ratifies it.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain why the information should be withheld from parliament, seeing that the government has come to a decision?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think I have
anything to add to what I have told my right hon. friend.



ARSENICAL FRUIT SPRAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. deWITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the hon. Minister of Agricultural (Mr. Motherwell) has been advised of a very serious state of affairs in London and in the various other centres in Europe respecting arsenic poisoning -from the consumption of certain fruits? I understand that apples from the northwestern states of
<X50

The Address-Mr. McPhee
the United States 'have been more or less banned, and this has very seriously affected the overseas sale of apples from Nova Scotia. Has the minister anything to report on the matter?
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The question raised by the hon. member for Hants-King (Mr. Foster) has already occasioned a good deal of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Because of its importance, Mr. Speaker, I have had prepared a short memorandum, which I will read with the permission of the House:
Advice was recently received from the High Commissioner's office to the effect that prominence was being given in the British press to prosecutions of certain dealers for selling American apples containing arsenic, due to spraying in order to counteract the codling moth. The High Commissioner was advised that although Canada was compelled to use arsenical sprays in orchards, practical experience and chemical analyses amply demonstrated the harmlessness of this practice. While no particular experiments in this regard had at that time been carried on by the Canadian department, with the exception of a small experiment in 1891, results obtained at American institutions where tests had been made showed that spraying did not have any injurious effects, while in reporting on the 1891 experiment, the Dominion Chemist said:
The insoluble character of this poison, precluding its assimilation by the apple if such were possible, the infinitesimal part of paris green that can remain on the apple, the frequent rains subsequent to the spraying, and the fact that apples are pared before using, all go to substantiate the argument that there is not the slightest danger of poisoning in using sprayed apples."
It was decided, however, to conduct another experiment in order to further clear up this point, and as a result the Dominion Entomologist has procured, for analysis by the Division of Chemistry, samples of apples from sprayed orchards in the several provinces. These apples are to be analyzed by the Dominion Chemist and a statement made as to any possible traces of arsenic found thereon. This work has not as yet been completed.
I have to thank my hon. friend for notifying me of his intention to ask this question because it is somewhat technical and the information in relation to it should be exact.


Mr. FOSTER:: May I ask that in view
of the seriousness of the situation the minister wild take some steps, through the High Commissioner in London, to acquaint the English public that these examinations and analyses have been made in Canada, with the results just stated; and that he will, if necessary, place an advertisement in some of the English papers circulating in centres where our apples are being distributed so that our growers may get the benefit of this publicity?


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid that
analyses made thirty-five years ago, while good for that day, would not throw very much light on conditions at the present time. Our western orchards were not very much developed then.



ADJOURNMENT-SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, will the government announce whether or not it intends to suspend the salaries of the staff of this House during the period of adjournment? Many of the staff come from a considerable distance and are under somewhat heavy financial obligations during their presence here. They are needed by many hon. gentlemen for parliamentary work, and it is only just that they should receive their full salary during the adjournment.


Ernest Lapointe: The question is 'being considered
by the Internal Economy Commission of the House. I understand they met this morning, but we have not yet had their report.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 2P. 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. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, at adjournment Friday evening I was starting to discuss some of the statements made by our stalwart Conservative friends in this House. I wish now to refer briefly to the statement made with reference to my own province by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers). Speaking on January 21 last, he said:
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 reasoms 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 thl real value of Conservative government.
To what kind of Conservative government, may I ask, does the hon. member for South Winnipeg refer? To the kind of government that existed in Manitoba previous to 1914? If so, let me recall to the hon. member's mind the 'inquiry regarding the erection of public buildings in Manitoba known as the Agricultural College and parliament buildings investigation. The evidence therein disclosed
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McPhee
stands as a monument to record to this and to succeeding generations the colossal extravagance and incompeteney of a Conservative . government in the province of Manitoba, with the political history of which my hon. friend is quite familiar. It was a political reign of terror, during which men were thrown into gaol whose only offence was that during election time they had worked on behalf of the Liberal party. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that Saskatchewan has added to its political litany a supplication that it may never witness within its borders an era of public life such as cursed the province of Manitoba in that period of its history known as the Rob-lin regime. That supplication has had the result that in this House there is not a Conservative member from Saskatchewan and in the legislature of that province, composed of sixty-three members, there are only three Conservatives, notwithstanding the fact that the leader of the present Conservative party there was taken from a school inspectorate to organize and resurrect a party whose political future in that province is as dark as the "hush'd silence of the grave."
Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Reference has been made to the province of Manitoba; would my hon. friend put on the records now the representation from that province in the present parliament, along with that from Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Mr. McPHEE:: I will let my hon. friend
do that if he so desires. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), though not so old in political faith as those to whom I have previously referred, but equally old in conviction, said that fifty years ago the torch of protection was lighted in Canada. If that is the beginning of traditional Conservatism in Canada, traditional Liberalism antedates it by half a century. Traditional Liberalism in Canada had its inception in the long struggle for responsible government against :he old Tory family compact, a struggle simi-.ar to the one the Liberals are now waging for economic freedom in this country. That was a period when, in order to prevent free speech, printing presses were dumped into lake Ontario and Halifax harbour. The culmination of that struggle was the rebellion of 1837, and Canada will never forget the part then played by William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Papineau. I stand here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, a disciple of that traditional Liberalism, and pay my eomplimehts to the grandson of Louis Papineau in the person of the talented member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and I express my gratification and

that of every Liberal in this House and in Canada that the mantle of the late revered leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, fell upon the shoulders of the member-elect for Prince Albert, the grandson of the old rebel patriot William Lyon Mackenzie-
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has been the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite to agriculturists in this country, and particularly those of western Canada? Let me go back to the period previous to the election of 1911, to which I have already referred. In volume IV of the Debates of the Session of 1910-11, at page 7134, I find these words uttered by a gentleman afterwards a member of the Conservative government:
Why, Sir, you would actually think it was this gang of leaders; -
By the way he was referring to the delegation of one thousand farmers who came down from western Canada to interview the government in regard to legislation which the reciprocity treaty would have given them.
-this grain growers association from the northwest that came down here, the same sort of fellow we find popping up in blacksmith-shop statesmanship. Everyone of them a Grit organizer and heeler; not the rank and file of the farmers of Canada, but the men who try to push themselves to the front and whose wives are at home wearing long boots and cleaning out the cow stables and the horse stables, while these fellows are hanging around the blacksmith shops spouting statesmanship for the world over.
That is Toryism with a vengeance. I was going to say it was almost on a par with those statements made in this House a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), quoting from an address delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in which he referred to the good ladies of the province of Quebec. Poor, common, ordinary individuals must not even approach these barons of special privilege without being slandered in the manner which I have just indicated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the doleful remarks of our Conservative friends are in keeping with the statements appearing in the Conservative press previous to the election on October 29 last. Let me quote just one or two. First I will read from that stalwart journal of Conservatism, the Montreal Star.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear. hear.


George Washington McPhee: Let my hon. friends say "hear, hear" after they hear the editorials. From the editorial pages of the Montreal Star of October 6, 1925, I read the following:
It may perhaps be as well to say a word about Quebec's alleged narrow-mindedness in thinking of what may be the effect upon its most essential industries and its most cherished institutions if Mr. FEBRUARY 1, 1926	587
The Address-Mr. McPhee
King is given enough supporters in parliament to enable him to sell out to the Progressives.
All we are doing is trying to shake this province awake to the fact that its very life is in danger and that it must come out of the past and vote with reference to pending political issues. That is why we ask Quebec to put only loyal Quebecers on guard, men who will stand with Patenaude in preventing the government- of this Dominion from being handed over holus bolus to the dangerously sincere spokesmen of the west, whose political vision never penetrates east of the fogs of lake Superior.
Again on October 26, from the editorial pages of the same paper, I gather the following:
What, then, will a Progressive triumph cost Quebec? The Progressives will demand the death of protection; they will either get their pound of flesh at once or they will get a big installment with promises of more to come immediately. This will mean either that the industries of Quebec will be decapitated forthwith or will be frightened into a swift decline. We have seen during the last four years what the constant tariff reduction can do. Practically every industry in the province, except that of the American consuls forwarding Canadian emigrants into the United States, has shrivelled, laid off men, reduced hours of work, kept down its pay-roll and spread hard times through the area it once fed. No Quebec manufacturer dared to think of investing new capital or enlarging his plant while a government sat in Ottawa which was always expected to take another slash at the tariff. A govern-mmt dependent upon Progressive votes must carve away at the tariff yearly or the Progressive voters on the prairies would compel their henchmen to turn it out of office. It would no longer be a mere threat, it would be a succession of definite decapitations. Our Quebec industries would stand shivering like the unhappy prisoners of the French revolution, wondering which would be the next to climb the steps of the guillotine. This would turn the flow of the exodus into a torrential rapid. Our boys are now holding on hoping that the tide will turn and that there will be more work next year. A Progressive victory would put an end to that hope. Everyone well knows that capital, always timid, will be far more badly frightened during the reign of the downright Forke than it was during the reign of the trimmer King.
This editorial, Mr. Speaker, must be amusing to my hon. friends th~ Progressives and especially the leader of their party, after having listened to the seductive words of our Conservative friends during the debate which featured the first week of this parliament. What a different picture is painted by the same newspaper in its news items after the election! I have taken a few items from the news pages of the same journal, to show something of the political hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have culled these news items from the Montreal Star, and they relate to business conditions from one end of Canada to the other:
1.	November 26, 1925. Bank report shows trade is getting better.
2.	November 16, 1925. Sherwin earned 8.79 per cent, outlook bright.
3.	November 17, 1925. Declares Canada land of promise.
4. November 10, 1925. Granby Smelting Company reports better year.	_
5.	November 26, 1925. Upward trend in business is shown. Signs of improved business continue to appear in the reports published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Out of six indicators of basic conditions recently published, five show upward trend.
6. November 26, 1925. October coke output established record.
7.	November 26, 1925. Dividends from Canadian mines show big gain.
8.	November 26, 1925. Boat loadings break record.
9.	November 23, 1925. Pulp and paper export figures up in October.
10.	November 14, 1925. Improvement shown in hardware trade.
11.	November 13, 1925. Will make plans for Quebec mill. New construction near Beaupre will cost $5,000,000.
12.	November 25, 1925. Salt bonds all sold. It was announced by Royal Securities Corporation at noon that the entire issue of $1,200,000 Canadian Salt Company 1st mortgage six per cents, public offering of which vras made this morning, has been subscribed for. Distribution has been made from coast to coast.
13.	November 24, 1925. Cheese exports show substantial gain.
14.	November 13, 1925. Six hundred employed on Quebec mill. International paper plant, Chelsea, to employ 4,000 by spring.
15.	November 26, 1925. Wheat prices soar.
16.	November 24, 1925. Many nations send immigrants.
17.	November 23, 1925. Increase is shown in border trade.
18.	November 13, 1925. Heavy Manitoba butter exports. Shipped to Britain so far more than entire season of 1916.
Mr. Speaker, what do these news items convey to us? They convey the fact that Canada is prosperous, our Conservative peddlers of gloom to the contrary notwithstanding. Let me call a few more witnesses, and these are all in addition to the quotations that have already been made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House; I am not repeating any of their citations. Let me quote first from the address of Sir Vincent Meredith, president of the Bank of Montreal:
There is no question but that the trend of business is slowly but surely upward. As an evidence of this, car loadings are the largest on record, while wholesale and retail business show's a fair degree of increased activity. Textile industries are well employed, and there is more demand in the leather and allied trades. Improvement is also shown in other lines of business, although profits are curtailed in the grocery trade. There is little improvement in the lumber market in eastern Canada, but western shipments by w'ay of the Panama canal have substantially increased.
The prosperity of the country largely depends on the outcome of agriculture, and this year the crop has been a very large one, and at present prices w'ould prove profitable to the farmer. The marketing of the crop would bring at least $500,000,000 of new money into Canada and would undoubtedly effect a liquidation in fanners' liabilities. This new money would flow onto all channels of trade, and be reflected in improved conditions generally throughout the country.
I will now quote the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) himself, as re-
5SS

The Address-Mr. McPhee
ported in a press despatch appearing in the Mail and Empire shortly after the new year:
Although a quarter of a century has passed without 'too great (progress, there is still ample time for the fulfilment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's prophesy that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. In two decades we should double our present population.
The next quotation is from Hon. Mr. Crerar, a former cabinet minister, and the president of the United Grain Growers:
Western Canada has had the most successful year in its history. This, following two previous years of satisfactory progress, is putting western Canada on a sound financial basis.
Next I quote from Sir Henry Thornton:
The Dominion with its present population of 9,000,000 has a greater export trade than the United States had with 76,000,000, its population in 1899. For the twelve months ending last August the per capita export trade of Canada was $125, as compared with $37 for the United States.
The last quotation is from Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway:
For the past .two or three years we have been erecting a new and sounder foundation for our future economic growth. We have learned some of those economic lessons that adverse conditions have forced on our attention, and, finally, aided by a bountiful crop and the slow but sure betterment of the overseas markets for our products, have come to a position where we await an impetus to revivify our domestic trade.
These quotations, Mr. Speaker, substantiate the statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1895, when, after listening to Sir George Foster read from a long list of statistics to prove that Canada was prosperous said:
If the party which I lead comes into power in this country it vyudd not be necessary for any man to read from statistics to prove the country is prosperous. I will simply ask every farmer and every artisan in the country to put his hands in his pockets, and there he will find the evidence of bis prosperity.
Prosperity and Liberalism, Mi. Speaker, are synonymous terms. They tell a story of Sir Robert Borden and the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the great Quebec bridge fell a few years ago, Sir Robert Burden was in the vicinity and delivered an address near one of the terminals. His presence, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the bridge falling, it was just his luck to be present on that occasion a id to have made a speech at that particular time. Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out west on a tour shortly afterwards, and visited the city of Moose Jaw They had had no rain there for several weeks, and the people were praying for rain. The morning after Sir Wilfrid Laurier landed there, the rain came down in torrents. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had nothing to do with the coming of the rain, but it was his good fortune to be present at Moose Jaw when it happened. He went on

to the city cf Prince Rupert, where conditions were just the reverse. It had been raining there for weeks, and the people were beginning to despair of ever seeing the sun again.
But the morning after Sir Wilfrid landed, the sun came out in all its glory. Sir Wilfrid had nothing to do with the sun shining on that day, but it iwas just his good fortune to be present when the sun did come out on that occasion. Our friends opposite say that we do noc give any credit to Providence for what happens in this country, but let me tell them, whether it is a matter of luck or a matter of judgment, the people of this country want a government upon whose work the rains from heaven fall, and upon whose administration a wise and beneficent Providence causes the sun of prosperity to shine.
Our Conservative friends opposite, who keep on telling us that Canada is not prosperous, continually harp on protection as the only salvation for the country. Let me quote from the speech of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) as reported at page 361 of Hansard:
Protection is very far from being dead. Coming from the west, I venture to say that protection is more alive than it has been for a long time. There is general recognition throughout the country, even throughout the west, that protection is necessary for the welfare of the Dominion as a whole.
And the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir Geo. Perley) said, as reported at page 289 of Hansard:
We should protect our growers of agricultural produce by using as much as possible of it in our own country, thus preserving our market for them and keeping our money at home. The only way in which this object can be accomplished is to raise the tariff on our agriculture .produots to the same levels it is in the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MePHEE:	I am glad to hear that
"hear, hear" from hon. gentlemen opposite. Again the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), as reported at page 465 of Hansard, stated that:
Fifty years ago the torch of protection was lighted by the Conservative party, and faithfully and loyally it has been handed down from one to another until to-day it shines as a beacon light, a guide, to the people of Canada, burning as strongly as ever.
If the hon. gentlemen are correct in their panacea for our political ills-the ills which they have built up in their own imagination as far as Canada is concerned-why are the Maritime provinces not prosperous? By the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, the agricultural products there were practically confined to the home markets of Sydney, Halifax and St. John. Now, according to hon. gentlemen

The Address-Mr. McPhee
opposite, they should be prosperous. But if the contention of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) is correct, then the hon. gentleman whom I have quoted, and the Tory party are wrong in their policy.
If protection is necessary to this country, as these hon. gentlemen state, would it not necessarily follow that industries which exist without any protection should automatically go out of business? What are the facts? Under the Fielding tariff during the Laurier regime, binder twine, barbed wire and cream separators Were in 1906 placed on the free list. If there is anything in the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite, then the firms which manufacture these articles should long ago have gone out of business. But here are the facts as given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In 1924 five concerns in Canada reported the manufacture of binder twine. It is understood that another concern is being opened in Brantford. In 1924 five firms in Canada manufactured cream separators to the number of 11,155, and in the same year eight firms in Canada manufactured barbed wire to the amount of 19,707,000 pounds.
The point I wish to make is that if these manufacturers can thrive without protection, why is it necessary to increase the duty on agricultural implements as suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Now, let me quote from the Grain Growers' Guide.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


George Washington McPhee: I am glad to hear that expression of approval, I hope it means that I have converted one hon. gentleman opposite by my argument. The Grain Growers' Guide in its issue of October 7th, 1925,. published an article under the caption of "Ramparts of Gold". This article contained the following statement:
We want particularly to call the attention of the readers of the Guide to the very positive statement of Mr. Meighen as to what he would do to the duties on agricultural implements if by some unfortunate turn of events he should be returned to power in this election. He would raise the duties; he would put them back to what they were, when he, to paraphrase a remark of ex-President W. H. Taft, retired from the premiership with the full consent of the Canadian people. That means that he would make the following increases: Mowers, reapers and binders, from 0 to 12J per cent; cultivators, harrows, horse-rakes, seed drills and manure spreaders, from 7i to 15 per cent; plows and threshing machines, from 10 to 17J per cent; wagons, from 10 to 20 per cent; shovels and spades, from 20 to 32J per cent; hay loaders, grain crushers, potato diggers and other implements, from 10 to 20 per cent. Put in another way, Mr. Meighen, if returned to power, will double the duties on farm implements.
Mr. Meighen knows the implement manufacturers do not stand in need of this tender solicitude for their
welfare. He knew it as far back as 1911. He told the House of Commons all about it on January 18th, 1911. He told the government of that day that the duties on agricultural implements was "protection run rampant," and they were continued because the government had "become the slaves of those who helped them into power," and who maintained them there "behind ramparts of gold".
The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that any increase in the tariff means a corresponding increase in price to the purchaser of the commodity without any advantage to anyone save the selfish protected industries. In support of that let me quote from the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition as reported in volume 1 of Hansard of 1910-11, page 1931:
Now, Sir, what are the manufacturers of agricultural implements enabled to do? They are able under this tariff to exact a higher price than they could exact if the tariff were lower. I do not say that a reduction will to any very enormous extent affect the price; I believe it will materially, and I think it will render some relief to particularly the farmers of the west, many of whom notwithstanding any statements that have been made here, are struggling between success and failure avery hour.
To show you how the tariff affects prices, let me quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 3, 1925:
A Theory Bowled Over by the Facts
Persons who listened during the late election campaign to the argument that a higher tariff would not mean an increase in the cost of living in Canada will be interested in what took place at the meeting of the Winnipeg city council held last Monday night. If they came out of the federal election campaign with an idea that the argument advanced by Mr. Meighen and his friends was well founded they might put the theory up against the facts as they came out in an actual business transaction. The Swedish company which tendered on three generators for the city of Winnipeg's hydro plant offered to supply them at a price that was $15,000 lower than the tender of a Canadian firm. Sweden, of course, is a long way from Canada. Before it can get its generators into Canada the Swedish firm will have to pay duty to the Canadian government at the rate of 27 per cent, or a total in this case of about $30,000. The Swedish firm will also have to pay transportation on the ocean from Sweden to Canada and on a Canadian railway from the port of entry to Winnipeg. The firm is to do all these and yet is able to effect a saving of $15,000 to the people of Winnipeg.
Was there any doubt in this case about the benefit of outside competition? By buying this particular machinery outside of Canada at the price quoted the people of Winnipeg are saved $15,000, the Canadian government gets $30,000 duty to help in tax reduction and the railways get the benefit of the long haul from the port to Winnipeg. Faced with these facts, one of the aldermen, a supporter of Mr. Meighen, too, said that he could not vote to keep the contract in Canada under the circumstances. To bar foreign competition, he said, would be to leave the city in the hands of the Canadian manufacturer.
A tariff that would bar foreign competition would cost every Canadian citizen more money to live just as in this case the barring of foreign competition would have cost the city of Winnipeg an extra $15,000.



S90 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McPhee
Mr. STINSON:: Does the hon. gentleman know that the hydraulic machinery to which he refers was manufactured in Canada and not in Sweden?


George Washington McPhee: I am only quoting from the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which has not been contradicted.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: That machinery was manufactured in the town of Lindsay, by the Boving Hydraulic & Engineering Company Limited, not by any firm in Sweden.


George Washington McPhee: Does my hon. friend undertake to contradict the editorial?


Mr. PRESTON:: Free Press wrong again.


George Washington McPhee: Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the objection to the appointment of a tariff advisory board as suggested in the Speech from the Throne? I find that on February 8th, 1912, the right hon. leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 2692, volume II, of Hansard:
What is the next objection to the tariff commission. It is that we could get the same information from officials in the department and that if rnstead of taking officers immediately under ithe wing of the minister we choose to appoint a commission we are thereby raising a barrier between the people and the government. Well I can see no difference in principle between the gathering of information by a commission specially appointed for that purpose and obtaining it from officers directly under the control of the minister. But I can see a great difference in .the practicability and the thoroughness of the one method as compared with the other. In the one case we have a body of men specially appointed for the purpose of investigation and specially qualified and divorced in proper measure from the control of the minister in charge. These men are appointed to the specific work and are responsible for the quality of the work they do. I should think, therefore, that we could obtain much better results from the work of a commission of that kind than from officials in the Customs department who could neither be specially trained for that .purpose nor have the same facilities for doing the work.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne contains many planks of vital interest to those of us in western Canada. In fact it may be termed western Canada's Bill of Rights-rural credits, widening of markets, immigration, tariff reduction and last but not least by any means the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. MANION:: What clause refers to tariff reduction?


George Washington McPhee: I should have said tariff
readjustment. I should like to read a telegram I received from the Yorkton board of trade, Saskatchewan. It is as follows:
Yorkton, Sask., January 9, 1928.
T. George McPhee, M.P.,
Ottawa.
The Yorkton board of trade much appreciate statement in Speech from Throne that Hudson Bay railway

will be completed in 1926. This will give a new lease of life to western Canada.
I wish to answer a question asked, I think, by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) a few days ago, when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was speaking, as to how the Hudson Bay railway was going to pay the interest on the money invested in it. The investment on the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, Mr. Speaker, will be the carrying out of the solemn obligation made by both political parties to that great body of people living in the three western provinces. In answering my hon. friend's question, let me ask him another: What interest will the investment of the millions of dollars spent by the Conservative government from 1912 to 1918 pay, if the road is not finished and is left in its 4 pun. present shape? In closing may I express the hope that the people of the east and the people of the west will all work together for the common good of our common country. I shall never forget the closing remarks or the parting words of the revered leader of the Liberal party to the people of the west in 1917. He said':
If I am elected I will not be elated; if I am defeated I will not be cast down, I am prepared whether in victory or in defeat, to serve either as a lieutenant or as a private in the grand army of freedom.
Let those of us in this House of Liberal1, Progressive, and Independent thought, adopt the sentiment so eloquently expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; let us stand shoulder to shoulder, pushing on from victory to victory, serving or willing to serve, either as lieutenants or privates, in the grand army for Canadian fiscal and . economic freedom.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: In
rising to make a few remarks on the programme of the government, I intend to follow my usual practice of being very brief. Some few years ago I said that I would always limit my remarks to a half hour, and I intend to do so to-day.
Firdt, may I offer my congratulations to you, Sir, on being selected as the first commoner in this parliament. I offer those congratulations sincerely, but I also offer my congratulations on the good judgment of every member of this House in having elected you to that position. Although circumstances over which I have no control have increased! the distance from rny chair to the Speaker's chair, still my esteemed regard for your dignity and fairness in your position is as strong as it was when I was sitting closer to you.

The Address-Mr. Beaubien
I intend to take up certain clauses of the Speech from the Throne and make a few observations. One of the first which I intend to discuss is the clause which says:
In the o-pdiniion of my ministers the imiproved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in (taxation.
That is a very good clause, and I agree with a good deal that the hon. member for Labe'lle (Mr. Bourassa) said the other day. He said: If taxes are going to be reduced, let the reduction be in favour of those who are the least able to pay; let it relieve the burden from the masses of the people.
Another paragraph which I intend to offer some observations upon is that which says:
With the improvement of conditions throughout the country the government have formulated and ipuit i&to operation a comprehensive immigraition plan.
I would like to strike out that word immigration and insert "colonization" instead. One ,of the great faults of our immigration policy has been that we have brought ,people here and let them shift for themselves, and a great many of them have drifted to the south. I come from one of the finest portions of the Dominion of Canada, a riding with a history, and it came very nearly creating new history by leaving me at home. I have in my district a lot of people who came from central Europe-in fact from all over Europe. They are good, thrifty settlers and will make a success where many of Canadian born would fail. But there are certain improvements required in my district, and right here I would like to get the ear of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) because I wish to make a plea to him, and I am sure he will appreciate my position. In the district where these people who came from Europe live there is a river called the Roseau and a creek called Pine creek. Some people may say that I am trying to be sectional and speaking for my riding only, but I think when I am through they will appreciate that this creek and river have a wide significance. The state of Minnesota, which borders my riding, has spent a great deal of money and drained water from the swamp lands into this creek and river with the result that in the spring, when the flow of water comes, the river which runs through to the Canadian side is unable to carry it away. Last year thousands of acres were flooded, and in a good many parts settlers had to leave their farms because there was no dry place for an animal to lie down. This condition will prevail every year until the Canadian government remedies the situation. I have taken the matter up with the provincial and the federal governments but so far I have had very little satisfaction. I
say to the government that instead of spending millions of dollars in an effort to bring new settlers into the country they should devote some of that money to the urgent task of keeping at home those whom we already have with us. These people were brought here some twenty years ago and they have worked hard and tried to make homes for themselves in Canada, but owing to the drainage in the state of Minnesota to which I have referred, causing an extra flow uf water, it is impossible for them to exist. What are they going to do? They have established their homes, and everything they value is rooted to that spot. There is only one thing that I can see for us to do, and I am sure that the Minister of Public Works will favourably consider the request I have made and give the necessary relief to these people. It is absolutely essential that steps be taken immediately to improve matters. I contend that the question is not purely a local one; it seems to me that it is one that should form the subject of negotiations between the state of Minnesota and the Canadian government, and the two working in conjunction should certainly formulate some plan to relieve the situation Now I mention this matter not for the purpose of trying to catch votes, because I do not expect that we shall have an election for some time to come. I refer to it merely because it is my practice always to keep in touch with my electors. That is why I am here. I know the conditions as they exist and I tell the government that a thorough investigation is absolutely necessary.
Another clause in the Speech assures us that a measure will be introduced to afford facilities for rural credits. Some people in eastern Canada, especially in my native province, try to convey the impression that rural credits are intended to benefit western Canada alone; but I believe, from a personal contact with a good many of them, that the people of Quebec are just as much in need of this form of assistance as are the people of the west. The agricultural industry will not survive unless the Canadian farmer is able to obtain cheaper money on longer terms. 1 hope that the government, in framing this legislation, will give careful consideration to all the necessities of the case. This is an important measure and I have no doubt that the bankers and frenzied financiers in Canada will try their best to put as many spokes in the wheel as they can in order to prevent the legislation going through. I suggest to the government however that they make a thorough study of the subject before bringing in the bill in its final form; I am sure that

The Address-Mr. Beaubien
in doing so, they will be able to give effective relief where it is most needed. They need have no fear, from the standpoint of support, so far as the members in this corner are concerned or indeed, for that matter, from any member of this House who has the welfare of the country at heart.
I want now to say a few words in regard to the proposed tariff advisory board. I do not know how this will work out, but if I had anything to say to the board I would advise them to look very carefully into the financing of our industries in Canada and to find out how much water they have in their stock. I would also thoroughly investigate the financing of what I might call our artificial industries. If we are to pay off our national debt or to reduce it to any substantial extent we must rely on the development of our natural resources. When we favour, with a duty of 25 or 30 or even 35 per cent, an industry whose existence depends upon imported raw materials, an industry that uses none of our natural products, then indeed we are putting a very heavy tax upon the mass of the people to support something that is altogether artificial so far as Canada is concerned. These industries import their raw material, whereas we should endeavour to stimulate the development of the resources that are indigenous to our own country.
The Speech goes on to say that the government proposes to submit provisions for the immediate completion of the Hudson Bay railway. This is long overdue and I am glad to see that action is going to be taken in the matter. We hear a great deal of talk in Canada about the desirability of having a united country; all our public men are earnestly pleading for a united Canada. Well, there is only one way in which we can unite Canada: we must keep our pledged word. Let me assure the House that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway has so far cost nobody one penny outside of the three western provinces; and when we hear people talking about the attempt to bankrupt the country and to get the east to pay for the completion of this railway we know that they are simply ignorant of the facts. On May 25, 1925, a question was asked by Mr. Hudson, at that time the member for South Winnipeg: What was the total area of land disposed of as preemptions under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in the year 1908?
The answer to this was:
12.763,040 acres, approximately, including entries since cancelled.
Some people might say that Hon. Frank Oliver when Minister of the Interior did not

specify in the act that these preemptions were to be utilized in constructing the Hudson Bay railway. But there is no doubt that this was the intention, and even if it was not we are just as much entitled in western Canada to our natural resources as are the people of Quebec or Ontario or any other province in the Dominion. Mr. Hudson asked the further question:
2.	What was ithe total price for which these lands were sold?
3.	What amount has actually been reecived in respect of the sale of these lands?
And the answer appears:
2.	$38,289,120, approximately.
3.	To 31st March, 1925, $16,312,959.95.
Then another question:
What is the total expenditure to date (a) for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, (b) for the harbour works at Port Nelson?
The answer was:
The expenditure to March 31, 1925, for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway was $14,902,571.17.
So that in constructing the Hudson Bay railway the government by the sale of these lands has collected almost $2,000,000 more than it has expended.
Is it then unfair for the people of the west to demand the completion of that road? Rather, is it not far more unfair for the people of the east to object to it? I hope the government is sincere in this matter and will carry out the programme and have the road completed. If the Hudson Bay railway is completed it will do more to cement western and eastern Canada together than anything that I can think of.
I am wholly in accord with the proposal of the government to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims of the Maritime provinces. Last year I had the pleasure of visiting the Maritime provinces. The people there are the most hospitable in the world, and I enjoyed myself very much. They live up to the best traditions. Unfortunately they are working under considerable difficulties. But let this commission be absolutely independent. Do not let us have any political old-timer appointed; let us appoint men of open mind, men who will not have to cater to Conservatives, Liberals or Progressives. Let them gather all the facts and then present a report to this House based on those facts. I would say to the people of the Maritime provinces and to their representatives in this House that my sole ambition as a member of parliament is to try to do justice to all parts of Canada, and in forming my opinion on public questions I have done my best to visit every part of the Dominion in order to find out the

The Address-Mr. Bettez
local needs. I can assure the Maritime people that, so far as this group is concerned, we will give their views every consideration; and if there is anything that the federal government can do to help relieve the depression of the Maritime provinces it will get my hearty support.
My half hour is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, I need only add that I am going to vote against the amendment and' for the legislative programme presented by the government. I shall vote against the amendment for the reason that it does not coincide with the principles which I was elected to support. I think that is one of the most logical reasons I can advance. My people sent me here to uphold certain principles, and I must be true to those principles. I am going to vote for the programme, believing that the lesson given the government in the last electoral campaign was one of the most salutary that any political party could learn, and therefore I believe the government will be sincere and endeavour to put their programme into legislation. If they do that they will have my hearty co-operation.
Last session a committee was appointed to reyise the rules of this House, and you, Sir, I believe, presided over that committee. When its report was presented the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested to the government that it should be laid aside until the new parliament assembled. The report recommended some very drastic reforms in the rules. I believe, Sir, that we need such reforms. The people did not send us here at $4,000 a year just to talk; they sent us here to act. Unless the rules are revised-and that revision woidd mean very much shortened speeches-I do not think we are going to transact our business very expeditiously. Consequently I hope the government will take up that report this session and try to put some of its suggestions into effect.
In closing, Sir, I have one suggestion to offer to the House. If we want to promote national unity, if we want to do justice to all sections of our country, we must know our country thoroughly. That is essential. Let us know what Canada means to Canadians. Let us know what Canada really is. There is only one way to accomplish this-every member should make it his or her duty to survey all sections of the Dominion, not from the back of an observation car but by frequent stop-offs and a personal investigation of local conditions. I think the government should take the initiative in arranging for such personal visits so that we may come back here and vote intelligently on the different measures that are put forward to deal with conditions obtaining 14011-38
in the various provinces. That is very essential, Mr. Speaker, to our national unity.
I hope my fellow members will take my suggestion into consideration, for I know that wherever they go they shall be well received and amply repaid for the little time and expense incurred.
Mr. ARTHUR BETTEZ (Three Rivers-St.
Maurice): Mr. Speaker, being a newcomer to this House, I was rather inclined to listen and study than to criticize or make suggestions, but so many unfriendly and untruthful assertions have been made against our good old province of Quebec concerning the last general election that I deem it my imperative duty to protest and deny those assertions, and at the same time to state to the House on what platform the last electoral contest was waged in my province. And. as I desire to be understood by every member, I shall endeavour, Sir, to speak in a tongue that is not my own.
But before I endeavour to discharge this imperative duty I desire, Mr. Speaker, to compliment you. on your re-election to the very important and delicate position the duties of which you have fulfilled with so much tact, dignity and ability. It also affords me great pleasure to compliment the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. My congratulations are also tendered to the distinguished acting leader of the government who has so ably filled that very important and difficult position in the temporary absence of our distinguished chief, which absence, I am convinced, will be of short duration.
As to the platform on which the last electoral contest was waged in my province, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we very carefully avoided any discussion of conscription; we dealt with that subject only when provoked "by our opponents. For the information of the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Doucet), let me say that the first mention of the word "conscription" was made at a mass meeting held in the drill hall of my city by the Conservatives on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Patenaude and his friends-commonly termed by our people at the time, "the Patenaude Circus". It was at this meeting that Mr. Patenaude and his friends accused the Liberals of being responsible for conscription, by reason of the fact that they had voted against the Barette amendment. It was on this occasion that Mr. Patenaude declared that he was no more for Meighen than for King. I may be permitted to quote from Le Nouvelliste, a Conservative journal, published in Three

The Address-Mr. Bettez

Rivers. It contained the following advertisement :
The Hon. Mackenzie King, conscripfciomst.
Voters of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, whom do you want as Prime Minister-Mackenzie King, the con-scriptioniat, ox Patenaude, the man who left the Conservative (ministry on the question of conscription?
This, as I have said, is from a Conservative paper. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if my Conservative opponent in the last election had not given the people the impression that Patenaude had absolutely nothing to do with the leader of the opposition, he would have lost his deposit as did my other opponent. As it was, he succeeded in saving it by a few hundred votes only.
In-regard to the assertions of the hon. member for Kent, N.B., with respect to the character of the campaign carried on by the Liberals of Quebec, I must say that there is in this House no member capable of making such false and unfriendly assertions other than the hon. member himself. Knowing the sentiments of the people of Quebec, I am sure that such assertions would be refuted by them. It is not my intention to go into the matter to the extent of doing that, but I will say that the hon. member is more to be pitied than blamed. I may say that hon. gentlemen opposite who so generously applauded the remarks of the hon. member for Kent, N. B. have continued on the floor of this House the tactics used during the last electoral campaign. But we assure them, that so long as they follow this course they will never receive the support and confidence of the Quebec electorate, who prefer to judge political parties by their deeds rather than by their words. They believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and having been so often deceived by our friends of the Conservative party, we cannot blame them.
The Conservatives have been trving verv hard to use this tariff question as a blanket to hide all the misdeeds of their former administrations, but without success in our province. Do they for a moment think that Canada will soon forget the extravagant purchase
:Le Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway at many times their value, just to suit their political friends? A party which perpetrated such a contemptible deed should at least be decent enough not to ask their successors to pay in four years what it will probably take a century to pay. By this, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to sav that I was against the purchase of these railways at normal prices, but the Conservatives are certainly not justified to-day in blaming a government which is doing its best to make

ends meet so far as the railways are concerned. The least they could do would be to help, and- not hinder. I think the government should be praised for the improvement made to these railways in such a short period. I notice, for instance, that the earnings for the week ending January 31 were 84.210,880, as against those for a similar period a year ago of $3,781,673-an increase of $429,207:
While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the people of my district are wondering what the reason is which prevents the government from extending the line of the Canadian Northern railway to Three Rivers, the distance from the nearest point being only about fifteen miles. The same thing applies to the Grand Trunk railway, which might reach our city with a ferry bv means of a new wharf-the one we have now at Doucets Landing is a disgrace. As Mayor of Three Rivers I may tell you frankly that it is far from an advertisement for the government to have a wharf in such a deplorable condition, especially in a place where the traffic is so heavy and the number of passengers landing is So large. Last session the government voted some millions of money for Montreal and $5,000,000 for Quebec, but their generosity did not extend to Three Rivers. Our city is progressing very rapidly and contributing to the progress of the Dominion. If the lines of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk railways are extended to our district we will not only get justice, but at the same time the Canadian National Railways will get its share of the very heavy traffic now carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway to and from our city, the value of which amounts to eight or ten million dollars yearly. This would not only be a good investment, but would prevent the people from saying that the Canadian Pacific interests rule at Ottawa. So far as I am concerned I have no obiection to other parts of the Dominion receiving what they need, but it is high time we received our share. I would like to remind hon. members that Three Rivers is now the third city of importance in our province. It has a population of 32,000, which is likely to be increased to 50,000 inside of five years if we have the cooperation of the government in the granting of our just request.
As to the tariff, I would like to say that the Liberal policy embraces a spirit of national unity; it is a policy of give and take, giving every province and class of people what they are entitled to receive. The policy of the Conservative party consists chiefly of the high tariff, which favours only one class to the

The Address-Mr. Better,
detriment of all others. Having been elected in my constituency as a Liberal candidate by one of the biggest majorities ever given- notwithstanding the fact that I had another Liberal and a Patenaude candidate as op-ponents-I must say that' my constituency seems entirely satisfied with the present tariff. The proof of that statement is in the fact that during the last few years we have more than doubled our population. Last year alone our population increased by nearly 5,000. Our paper manufacturers have been constantly enlarging and are still enlarging their plants, and the}'' have reached the point where to-day Three Rivers is considered the greatest paper manufacturing centre in America. The yearly output is in the neighbourhood of 400,000 tons, the value of which is from $27,000,000 to $30,000,000. We have also a large number of other industries, such as cotton manufacturing, foundries, and so on, and they all seem satisfied with the present tariff.
The cause of the Liberal success in Quebec has been the insincerity of Conservatives in that province. Our people prefer to give their confidence to a party with only one policy for the whole Dominion, and especially with only one chief and one group. The Conservatives appear to have two chiefs and two groupSs that is to say, Patenaude in Quebec, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) elsewhere. Conservatives claim that they have a majority in the country, but I do not think they have the courage, after what I have just read, to claim as theirs the Patenaude vote in Quebec. During the election, Conservative speakers in Quebec all claimed that Mr. Patenaude was to be the next prime minister, and that a vote for Patenaude was not a vote for the right hon. leader of the opposition. Under these conditions t do not understand how the Conservatives can claim these votes. The actual position is that the Liberal party has a majority over the Conservatives of 72,000 votes. According to the Gazette of December 29 last, each Liberal member represents 12,539 voters; each Conservative 12,535, and each Progressive 11,304.
The government now proposes to appoint a tariff advisory board. I know that in this world nothing is perfect, but from the goodwill shown by the government we are confident that if there is something which should be adjusted it will be remedied after due consideration. Many manufacturers, including the glove manufacturers in my constituency, are complaining of the dumping clause in the tariff, and I hope the new Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). will give this matter his attention. I have been told that in many 14011-381
cases German and other foreign goods are entering this country under the preferential tariff, marked with English labels. We must be very careful to prevent the importation of these goods under the preferential tariff, and if the government will provide against that, I think the manufacturers of this Dominion will be satisfied with the present tariff.
I would ask the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) to do his utmost to repatriate as many as possible of the Canadians who have gone to the United States. The government have demonstrated their good will in the matter of immigration in the past, and I trust that steps will be taken to perfect our present immigration law.
As to railways, I would like the government, and especially the Minister of Railways, if possible to grant our request. I understand that the Canadian National is travelling across a countiy where there is no traffic. We have a branch of that line only fifteen miles from Three Rivers, and the improvement we are asking for would make money for the railway, I believe, as well as serve us. At present we are at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for that is the only line that serves our town.
I must congratulate the government for the improvement they have made in the income tax law, but I would ask that the law be modified, if possible, in such a manner that the wealthy man will pay the tax rather than the salaried man, as has been the case in the past. I am informed that to collect this tax takes pretty nearly half of the whole income tax revenue. One of the things I blame the Conservative party for is the exemptions from taxation that they allowed, and this applies particularly to war profiteers. Tax-exempt bonds were issued by the Conservative government. I believe the people of this country are loyal enough to pay taxes on their bonds, and that is one thing I must blame the Conservative party for. I understand that some of the big companies are making additions to their mills all over the country in order to avoid paying income tax. I would ask the government to see that the tax is not evaded in this way.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I would ask the government to do their utmost to relieve the unemployment that exists at the present time, and also to bring in an old age pension scheme as soon as possible.
I would also suggest a better control of the paid up capital of large companies. I have been told that very often companies have
The Address-Mr. Bettez

watered stock to the extent of two or three times the amount invested, on which they pay dividends, and at the same time exempt themselves from paying a large income tax. Generally, I would ask that the taxation law be improved so that those who are best able to pay will be made to pay, rather than the small salaried man.
It has always been the habit of the Conservative party to contract large unjustifiable debts, and the duty of the Liberal party has always been to find ways and means of paying them. Our opponents have taken advantage of the absence of our esteemed leader from the House to criticize him strongly for the stand he took in holding the reins of power until parliament, or the majority of the elected representatives of the people, should decide who should rule this country. If the majority is to govern in this country of ours, our leader took the only position he could take in the circumstances, in fairness to himself, to his party and to the country at large, and the first vote taken in this House proved that he had the majority behind him in support of his action. Our friends to your left, Mr. Speaker, may pretend that there was no precedent for his action, but are we not here to create precedents? The party that is not able to cope with precedents is not fit to cope with the needs of the country. Now that the electoral fight is over, let us fight the battle for justice, fair play and prosperity for our dear Canada, which we all cherish; and that battle will be fought here on the floor of this House, not on the battlefields of Europe.
I would not like to take my seat before complimenting the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) upon, his very long but interesting address, which was delivered with much less bitterness than characterized his utterances in previous parliaments. I presume that in his case, as with all mortals, time has cured him of that disease, which was so detrimental to the good feeling that should prevail in this chamber.
During the last campaign our opponents went all through our province, and I presume they did the same in other provinces, crying that the country was bankrupt. I think it was disloyal for them to say such a thing of our country, especially when they were responsible for the creation of our public debt. A very great number of Canadians have migrated from this country to the United States largely on account of what has been said by the Conservative party. I trust that the government will endeavour to repatriate as many as possible of these Canadians.

I have before me a copy of the Canadian Economist, published by Mr. Beaubien, of Montreal. Every member of this House knows which political party Mr. Beaubien supports, and instead of lamenting conditions in this country, Mr. Beaubien claims that last year was a banner year. The article is too long for me to read, but I shall be glad to hand it to any hon. member opposite who cares to see what one of the supporters of his own party says. Evidently he does not share his party's views with regard to business conditions in this country.
Before taking my seat I wish to thank hon. members for their very kind attention, and I would ask them to be indulgent in respect to any short-comings in what I may call my maiden speech in this House, delivered in a language that is not my mother tongue. I shall try to do better in any future addresses I may make to the House.


Mr. A. MacGILLIVRAY YOUNG (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those that have already been offered you on your re-election as Speaker of this House? I have been in this House only a very short time, but having witnessed your very able conduct of debate and your eminent fairness, I have come to the conclusion that no mistake was made in your election. I might add that it is the only thing upon which we have had perfect unanimity in this chamber since I became a member of it.
I wish to congratulate also the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address. I was very glad indeed to know that a lawyer in Ontario had had at one time the opportunity of knowing something about the luxury of farming in western Canada, and I am very glad that he kept at that work for a sufficient length of time to discover that western Canada, in recent years, can produce some returns for what one puts in the ground.
I should like also to congratulate the seconder of the Address. Although I was quite unable to understand all the hon. member said at the time, I have had the opportunity since of reading his remarks and they impress me very favourably. I may say that we in western Canada feel very grateful indeed to the members from the province of Quebec. We have always found them fair in every way, always found them willing to co-operate with other sections of Canada; and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing more than another which we require at the present time in this great Dominion, it is co-operation between the people of all sections of it.
May I also include in my laudatory remarks the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe).

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
Under very trying and difficult circumstances he has conducted the business of the House with great fairness, courtesy, and uncommon tact. We feel very proud indeed that in the absence of the Prime Minister we have as leader a statesman so sagacious and so skilful.
There is a matter which concerns us in western Canada, particularly the people of Saskatchewan, and even more especially those of northern Saskatchewan, which I desire to bring before the House for a few minutes. I refer to the Crowsnest pass agreement. At the outset let me say that the legislation creating the railway commission was, in my opinion, one of the best laws ever placed on the statute books of Canada. I believe the raihvay commission has done a great amount of good, not only for western Canada but for all the other parts of this Dominion, and I do not wish anything I may say in connection with this matter to be construed as reflecting in any way upon the members of the commission. It is far from my intention to make any disparaging remarks whatever with respect to any member of that august body; I believe they are all men of ability, of undoubted honesty, and of great integrity. When the Crowsnest pass agreement was suspended for a certain length of time, we paid thirty-three and a half cents per hundred pounds of grain and flour from the city of Saskatoon, to Fort William. When the Crowsnest pass agreement was re-instituted, that rate dropped to twenty-four cents per hundred pounds. Now it is a fact that the agreement in question originally applied to the railway mileage then existing. In 1897 the total mileage in western Canada was approximately 3,000 miles. Today the total mileage from Fort William and Armstrong to points west is approximately 21,000 miles. There was an enlargement of the area affected by the agreement, although some say it amounted to a constriction, with regard to certain commodities. However, a difficulty arose. We find that in northern Saskatchewan -and I think it practically applies to all that portion of the railway there not under the original Crowsnest agreement-while the rates were reduced remarkably, they were not the same on the mileage to which they applied in north Saskatchewan as they were under the old Crowsnest pass agreement. In other words, a situation has arisen under which we have a discrimination against northern Saskatchewan of two cents per hundred pounds on grain and flour moving eastward'. As a member of the executive of the Saskatoon Board of Trade, and therefore in a position to speak as to its activities, I can say that the matter
was taken up with the railway commission, and was also discussed with the provincial government. An expert from Winnipeg was called in to assist us and the question was investigated very thoroughly. As a result we made representations to the railway commission, but I am sorry to say that up to the present time there has been no hearing of our case. In order to make the matter thoroughly clear to hon. gentlemen I may perhaps be permitted to read a few paragraphs from the order reinstituting the Crowsnest pass agreement, or rather instituting a wider application of it. Among other things it declares:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained rates on grain and flour shall on and from the date of the passing of this act be governed by the provisions of the agreement made pursuant to chapter five of the Statutes of Canada, 1897, but such rates shall apply to all such traffic moving from all points on all lines of raihvay west of Fort William to Fort William or Port Arthur over all lines now or hereafter constructed by any company subject to the jurisdiction of parliament.
"(6) The board shall not excuse any charge of unjust discrimination, whether practised against shippers, consignees, or localities, or of undue or unreasonable preference, respecting rates on grain and flour, governed by the provisions of chapter five of the statutes of Canada, 1897, and by the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, within the territory in the immediately preceding subsection referred to, on the ground that such discrimination or preference is justified or required by the said act or by the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto."
I took the trouble to write to the Board of Railway Commissioners to find out whether it was not possible to get relief for that portion of the province concerned so that the discrimination complained of might be removed, and I wish, at this point, to quote some paragraphs from the letter leceived from the board; I will not quote the entire communication, it is probably too long:
Subsection 6 provides that a charge of unjust discrimination shall not be excused by the board eve& as regards the Crowsnest rates on the ground that, such discrimination is justified or required by th$ act or the agreement.
If the board were not at the time, it became by this subsection empowered to compel the railways to cease unjustly to discriminate against shippers, consignees or localities, if any unjust discrimination were satisfactorily established before the board.
In answer to question No. 3, I may state that these schedules do not show that the rates are equal at all railway points equidistant from Fort William. They show the contrary, and as you are aware, the board issued its general order No. 420 of July 18th, 1925, directing the railway companies to file such tariffs as were necessary to implement the provisions of section 325 of the Railway Act 1919, as amended by 15-16 Geo. V., chapter 52. The railway companies are on record as stating that their tariffs are in compliance with the legislation.
This matter was to have been spoken to at sittings of the board at Ottawa, September 29th, 1925, but, for the reasons mentioned at pages 1983 et s. of vol. 444 of the record, it was agreed not to go on with the complaint, pending the production by the rail-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
not think it is better public policy that strawberries, for example, which come two or three weeks earlier from the United States, should, if possible, be kept out or prohibited by a protective duty, in order that we may maintain the strawberry industry later on? In other words, for the sake of having these strawberries three weeks in advance, should we destroy an industry that maintains a great many people in this country?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This situation
has existed for some time and I would ask the House whether the strawberry industry in Canada has been ruined.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Very largely.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Very largely
nothing. And the masses of the people of Canada can afford to eat strawberries only when they get a little cheaper; otherwise they have to do without them.
Now there is another matter on which I want to say a word or two and that is the question we have heard discussed in this House on several occasions during the present session. I refer to the insinuations that have been made in regard to alleged bribes or bids or whatever one may choose to call them. I was very much astounded when I read in the press the speech of the leader of the opposition which he made at Portage la Prairie during the campaign. That speech was reported in the Saskatoon Phoenix, from which I quote the following:
Later he qualified Premier King's pronouncement to the west on the Hudson Bay railway as the promise of a "bribe."
A bribe to me is something more or less serious, and I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the undertaking to build the Hudson Bay railway is nothing peculiar to the Liberal party, and that it has been promised by the Conservatives as well. It is not a new project. I was quite pleased indeed to hear the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) in his speech the other night frankly admit that all parties had been committed to the scheme away back, so long ago that I have forgotten the origin of it. Both the Liberal party and the Conservative party have all along taken the view that the railway must be built, and in 1910 the Liberal party actually started the work of constructing the Hudson Bay road. But it
600	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
did not stop there. The Conservative party carried it on, although it was suspended for a time; and the Prime Minister of this country, after rehabilitating the shattered finances of Canada as he found them when he came into office, felt that, the tariff having been reduced, the time had come when we might again take up the building of this railway. I heard the leader of the opposition make the statement that in this regard the prime Minister was asking for Liberal support. Well, Jet me read from the Saskatoon Phoenix of September 29 what the Prime Minister said on the subject:
"I think," he went on, "that the time has come when that completion should be carried out. I think the time has come when that road should be completed to the bay."
Now that is a matter of policy and it was stated openly on the public platform not only in that part of the country but throughout the Dominion. And when has it become a crime for a Prime Minister to declare in public the policy for which he and his party stand? Later on in this House we had a good deal of discussion, the suggestion being made that the matter was embodied in the Speech from the Throne as a bribe to the Progressive party opposite. Again I ask, since when has it been a crime for a policv to be stated on any platform in the country and to be outlined in the Speech from the Throne, foreshadowing legislation?


Mr. BURY:: Has the hon. member the rest of the Prime Minister's statement at Saskatoon in which he declared that he would support the building of the Hudson Bay railwav if the west gave him an adequate Liberal support?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have some more of the Prime Minister's speech and I will read it for the information of the hon. gentleman:
Mr. King turned more particularly to the west. He observed that at the last elections the prairie provinces had returned only two Liberals and one Independent-Liberal-or two and a half Liberals. From the Great Lakes to the Pacific coast -the government had only six followers returned. He spoke of Conservatives as the natural enemies of Liberals, of Progressives as the natural friends oif Liberals. "I am not going to antagonize our friends," he declared. "I am going to try to bring Liberals and Progressives together on things ithey have in common, in order that the common enemy may not take charge of the administration of this country.
That is the way in which he referred to the matter out there. The Prime Minister was trying to get those who thought alike on many things to co-operate in supporting the policies which he was enunciating at the time. f.Mr. A. M. Young.]


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the hon. member what construction he would put upon the statement, made to the Progressives who wanted the Hudson Bay railway, that the Prime Minister would carry it through if he were given Liberal support?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Perhaps I had better quote some more:
"I think," he went on, ''.that (the time has come when that completion should be carried out. I think the time has come when the road should be completed to the bay, and I am prepared to say this, that if I get the necessary support-
The word Liberal is not there.
-in -the way of followers from western Canada to enable me jto carry out Liberal policies generally that will be one of (them. But I am not going to promise to t-he west that I will carry out only one particular policy that is of concern to ithis part of the west primarily unless I can see my way clear -to make good that promise. I can see my way to do it if I can get the following I need in the House of Commons to bring it about.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the member who has the floor.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I do not mind the interruptions of my hon. friend (Mr. Bury), although I remember he told us the other night that he believed in a policy of retaliation. That seems to me to savour of the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which was condemned in Christian countries about two thousand years ago. I am not surprised therefore that the hon. member should seek to imply that the Prime Minister had said more than is reported here. The Prime Minister was reported very clearly in western Canada, and while it may be taken for granted that he was more anxious to have Liberals than any other group support him, hon. gentlemen should take his words as they are fairly reported. I was present and heard his speech and I know that there was no bribe offered, nor was there any word which the Prime Minister uttered on the platform in that splendid gathering which could possibly be construed as a bribe or anything of the sort. But in this House the other day we had an offer submitted to hon. gentlemen, which offer will be found at page 97 of Hansard. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr Guthrie) is reported as follows:
I submit that no member of this House should look beyond the question in the resolution; but if we are tempted to go beyond it, if we are tempted to consider ulterior results,-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in order

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
for an hon. gentleman to quote from a speech delivered in a previous debate in the same session.


Hewitt Bostock: I was not aware that the hon. member was quoting the actual words of a speech delivered during the present session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member was quoting from a speech delivered by the member for South Wellington in the debate preceding this one.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, it is not within the rules for an hon. member to quote from a speech delivered in a previous debate in the same session, but reference may be made indirectly to such a speech without its being actually cited from Hansard.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Accepting your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not read further from the hon. member's remarks, but I take the liberty of summarizing what he said. Speaking about ulterior motives, he made the statement, on the authority of his leader, that if his party received support it could carry on for two or three sessions.


Hewitt Bostock: In support of my ruling I would refer the House to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Practice, paragraph 234, where in treating of rule 19, the following will be found:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a)	refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion; nor
(b)	refer to any debate in the Senate, but he may refer to the official printed records of the Upper House, though they have not been formally communicated to the Lower House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is precisely my point.


Ernest Lapointe: You are right sometimes.


Mr. McMILLAN:: You do not want to hear it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not that at all. It is simply to have the ordinary rules of debate followed. My hon. friend is entirely wrong in his interjection.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Speaker, if we are precluded from giving quotations from a former debate, I should just like to add this. My only conclusion was that instead of remarks of that kind, it would have been better for any party to have placed before this House the policy on which they were asking support. Had that policy been placed before us, we might have had some opportunity of knowing what we were being asked to support. But, Sir, in connection with this
matter perhaps I may be permitted to quote something that was not said in this House. In another way we may get an idea how things are sometimes done in Tory circles. I had the pleasure, not so very long ago, of running an election in Saskatoon, in the course of which my Conservative opponent, Mr. F. R. MacMillan, discussed the Hudson Bay railway. Before that time he had said:
I am not saying that the Hudson Bay railway is not feasible but it is silly nonsense to proceed with that project when the country is already staggering under a heavy load of debt. Even 'to prove the feasibility of the Hudson bay Toute will involve the expenditure of, not ten millions of dollars, but more probably fifty millions. The fact, in my opinion, is that Winnipeg is boosting the On-to-tlie-Bay movement because if equalization of rates becomes effective, Winnipeg would then occupy the peak position in freight rates for the country, the position of Saskatoon today. In other words, the On-to-the-Bay cry is a red herring introduced by Winnipeg to draw attention away from the remedy that is the obvious one to apply at the present time.
The Hudson Bay railway was conceived as a political football, and has been carried along as such ever since, and will continue on as long as the people permit thetn-selves to be hoodwinked.	.
Is that the policy of my hon. friends of the Conservative party to-day?


Mr. ROGERS:: What paper is my hon.
friend quoting from?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: 
Mr. W. A. HALL (South Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of variety may I be palrdoned if I forego the customary congratulations to Your Honour as well as to the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address. The congratulations are perhaps becoming somewhat monotonous, and doubtless you are weary of hearing them.
Being a new member of the House I make with hesitation and diffidence this first attempt at addressing hon. members. However, the new members will doubtless sympathize with me; nay, more, the older members will doubtless be as indulgent as they have been with previous speakers.
I wish first to make reference to some of the things that have been said. In the first part of this session a good deal was said about the manner in which the general election was conducted. We have not heard so much of that from Ontario members; it has been more particularly from Quebec. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) gave a very lucid description of the Patenaude campaign as carried on in the province of Quebec, where millions of dollars were spent in support of a certain railway policy looking to the amalgamation of the two systems with the Canadian Pacific railway in control, thus effecting a huge railway monopoly the evil effects of which no one can imagine. Coming from Ontario I can assure hon. members of this House that the same sordid means used in the province of Quebec were practised in the province of Ontario.
Some hon. members opposite have tried to make us believe that the defeat of so many of the Liberal candidates in Ontario was due to two things: first, the bad effects of the Australian treaty; and second, the lack of a sufficiently high protective tariff, especially for the farmers. But such was not the case. An enormous amount of campaign funds was expended by our political opponents in Ontario, abundant evidence of which was seen in almost every constituency in the province. Together with this, a most scurrilous campaign was carried on by some of the Tory papers in Ontario, especially the Toronto Telegram. These no doubt are the Tory tactics which have always been practised. We had another example of it in the first debate this session, but it was a somewhat different case. To hear speakers on the Conservative side talk about constitutional practice and time-honoured precedent being ruthlessly violated by the Liberals would almost make one unacquainted with the political history

The Address-Mr. Hall
of Canada believe that they were the only body of one hundred per cent pure patriots. But what did this same body of constitution worshippers care for our constitutional practice and time-honoured precedents when they robbed hundreds of thousands of the people of Canada of their constitutional rights in 1917, deprived myriads of Canadian citizens of their votes, gave votes to people who had neither moral nor legal right to them, used the votes of soldiers in Europe to elect themselves in constituencies which would otherwise have rejected them, and then unblushingly stayed in power without a mandate from the electors of Canada to do so?
Still another example of these same constitution worshippers casting constitutional practice and time-honoured precedent to the four winds was the passing of the Conscription Act of 1917, more properly called the Selective Conscription Act of 1917. The latter name more accurately describes the intention and purposes of the act, namely, selection and exemption. Hence, I need not elaborate it; the name is self-explanatory, but the memory of that act will remain as a dark spot in the history of our country. May I add parenthetically, that a book which the whole world could not contain might be written on these two words "selection" and "exemption" as applied to this act of 1917. It should have been indiscriminate conscription, not selective conscription. Wealth should have been conscripted as well as men. and lastly I would add that the Militia Act of 1904, ns amended, should have been used instead of the Conscription Act of 1917.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the many flagrant examples of the total disregard of constitutional practice and time-honoured l>recedent by the Conservative party. Many more might be cited, but these will suffice to show that in this respect they are lacking in loyalty and patriotism to their country, notwithstanding their loud and emphatic protests to the contrary, especially before every election. Many of you will remember the reciprocity election of 1911. You remember how they waved the flag and shouted their slogan, "No truck or trade with the Yankees!'' Needless to say this won the election, to the everlasting disgrace of the Canadian people.
Now turning our attention to what the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) stated, that the King government had not reduced expenditure, had not lowered taxation, had not decreased the national debt, and had not increased trade, what are the facts? Before making a comparison may I state that, to be fair, we must omit a consideration of
the railroads during the Liberal administration, as in the comparison they are not included during the Tory administration. Let me give some figures in this connection:
Expenditure
1921-	1922	
$464,000,0001922-	1923	
434,000,0001923- 1924	370,000,0001924-	1925	
350,000,000
So during the time of the Liberal administration the expenditure was reduced in four 3rears by $114,000,000; in other words, the Liberal government last year spent $3 for every $4 that was spent in 1921-22.
Now let me deal with the question of the reduction of taxation. In 1920-21 the total amount of taxation was $369,000,000. In. 192425 it amounted to $294,000,000. This shows a decrease in taxation of $75,000,000. In other words, in 1920-21 the taxation amounted to $41.99 per head; in 1924-25 it was reduced to $31.38 per head, a decrease of over $10 per capita. How was this reduction in taxation accomplished? It was accomplished by reducing the tariff, especially on agricultural implements and on other implements of production; and by lessening the sales tax or by wiping it out entirely as was done on many household articles, as well as articles of food.
I wish now to deal with the national debt. In the last year of the Tory administration, 1921-22, the national debt amounted to $2,422,000,000. On 31st December, 1925, the total national debt was $2,381,000,000, a reduction of over $40,000,000.
Now I come to a consideration of the trade situation. During 1920-21, the last whole year of the Conservative government, the entire foreign trade in Canada totalled $1,450,000,000 with an unfavourable trade balance of $29,000,000. But under Liberal rule conditions were greatly changed. In the twelve months ending December 31, 1925, the entire foreign trade was $2,161,000,000 with a favourable trade balance of almost $393,000,000. Does not this show a phenomenal growth of trade? How otherwise should we characterize a growth of $711,000,000 in five years and an increase of $422,000,000 of exports over imports for the same time?
Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), we notice that he is very solicitous about the welfare of the farmer and apparently shows no concern for his friends, the manufacturers. Doubtless this is a blind. This promise of building a tariff wall brick for brick with that of the American tariff wall, to protect the fanmer, will doubtless be followed by a like structure to protect the
The Address-Mr. Hall

manufacturer. Has there not been a tacit understanding between the right hon. leader of the Tories and the manufacturers to this effect? Why? Did not the latter contribute large sums to the campaign funds to secure for the Tories the government of this country? But, alas! they failed.
When I read of the right hon. leader of the opposition going over this country telling the farmer that he would build up a high tariff wall around this country and thus benefit the agriculturist in the general price of farm products, I often wonder what he thinks the Canadian farmer is. It reminds me of the expression of Thomas Carlyle regarding the com laws of England, in his work entitled Past and Present, when he said:
Impartial persons have to say with a sigh, that for so long hack, they heard no argument for it, but such as might make the angels, and almost the jackasses weep.	[DOT]
But, Mr. Speaker, I shall in a few minutes refer in some detail to various arguments used by the right hon. leader of the Conservative party in his pre-election speeches, arguments that possibly might make the very crocodiles shed tears. I may say that about seventy-five per cent 'of many of the farm products such as wheat, live stock, dairy products, and so on, are exported and sold in the open world markets where the price is fixed for the domestic market. So that no tariff, however high, can increase the domestic price of a product when there is a large exportable surplus of that product. In regard to the fruits and vegetables that come into this country in early spring, much has been said by our Tory friends about this injuring the farmer, but we must remember that these commodities are subject to a tariff of 30 per cent. That I think is sufficiently high.
Now let me say a word or two with respect to the trade treaties. These treaties, although only recently made, with several countries, have already shown beneficial effects on our foreign trade, and this trade has greatly increased. For the twelve months ending December 31, 1925, it was no less than $2,161,000,000. Our exports to many of these countries have also increased very much more than our imports from the same countries. I give these figures to illustrate the increase which has occurred:
To New Zealand exports increased in two
years over	$ 4,000,000
To Belgium exports increased in two years
about	 8,000,000
To Netherlands exports increased in two
years about	 12,000,000
To Russia exports increased in two years
about	 12,000,000

The trade treaty with the West Indies will be mutually advantageous. The West Indies need the products of Canada-such as wheat, flour, dairy products-as well as Canada needs the products of the West Indies, including tropical fruits, and so on. This treaty will also have the effect of increasing trade through Canadian ports and the business of Canadian railways. I expect the right bon. leader of the opposition will say with respect to this treaty what he has said about the other treaties negotiated by the present government -that it is a disaster to Canada.
And here let me pause to consider what the right hon. gentleman said on his general election tour last autumn. In his many speeches delivered during his trip over Canada, he made a very strenuous effort to convince the farmer that he should have protection, as well as that he was being seriously injured by the shrinkage in the home market caused 'by the exodus to the south. These two points were largely emphasized. Indeed, they were the central thoughts df the right hon. gentleman in every speech, and he practically made the one speech, using the same illustrations and figures. In his speech at Wingbam, Ontario, on September 9, the opening speech of his campaign, the right hon. gentleman said:
When 200,000 people leave Canada, about $100,000,000 of market is lost to the farm producers of Canada.
Speaking at Chatham, Ont., three days later, he said that:
Two hundred thousand people had left Canada for the United States, and this number was consuming $100,000,000 worth of produce. This money thej' were now spending on United States farm products.
Some days later at Charlottetown, P.E.I., he said, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian:
When Nova Scotia loses 40,000 people that loss means a loss of $20,000,000 of products, part of which we lose in the sale of farm products. Now the American farmer sells them instead.
Notice that he modifies his statement, but maintains the same ratio between the number of people and their purchasing power.
At Calgary, on October 10th, the Albertan reports the right hon. gentleman as having said:
While we don't know how many Canadians slipped over the border, we know that the United States Department of Immigration reports 200,000 Canadians as entering the borders of our southern neighbours during the last year. Not only did we lose this tremendous population; we lost that which they took with them, a purchasing power of $100,000,000 which is being spent on the eggs, butter, honey and other products of the farmers on the other side of the line.
What does the right hon. leader of the Conservative party mean when he tells the farmers of this country that they lost

The Address-Mr. Hall
a $100,000,000 market last year? Why, he simply means that every Canadian consumes farm products at the rate of $500 a year, or almost $10 a week. In other words a family of six would require $3,000 to keep them in dairy products, flour, meat and vegetables, not including groceries, such as, tea, coffee, rice, sago, and so forth, or manufactured goods, such as clothing.
Let us analyse this further, Mr. Speaker. The net value of everything produced in Canada in 1922, according to the Canada Year Book, 1924, page 184, was $2,950 millions, say $3,000 millions for ease of calculation. On the basis of the calculation of the right hon. leader of the Conservative party, the 9,000,000 people of Canada ate $4,500,000,000 of farm products, in 1922, or $1,500,000,000 more in value than was produced by all the industries in Canada engaged in farming, manufacturing, lumbering, fishing, hunting, trapping-everything. But in 1922 the agricultural products amounted to less than $1,500,000,000; so that there would be a deficit of $3,000,000,000. In other words there would be $3,000,000,000 worth of farm products less than were required for home consumption-a very melancholy condition indeed. The Conservative leader must now realize from this analysis, though dreadful to relate, that the Canadian people consumed all the products produced in Canada and had to import twice as much from other countries. Now what about the poor? The sad tragedy of it all is that the Conservative policy of sky-high protection would so boost the price of farm products that the poor among the labouring classes, amounting to many thousands, mud die of starvation, and this would cause a further shrinkage in the home market. Where would it end? What a vicious circle would thus be established! W'hat a mournful, doleful tale!


Mr. MACDONALD (Glengarry):: What are the crocodiles doing?


Walter Allan Hall: Sir, they are shedding tears.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Walter Allan Hall: Before recess I had concluded my analysis of the statements which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) had made in his campaign speeches. From the analysis of those statements one would infer that the Conservative leader had established the fact that protection to the farmers of Canada would be of immense value to them, seeing that
Canada had to import twice as much as she raised of farm products. This would place the Canadian fanner in the same position as the manufacturers, with a monopoly of the home market. Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the opposition realize that this is not so? And by the way is this the man of his word, the man of veracity, the man of high purpose? And then did he mean to mislead the farmers at Wingham, at Chatham, at Charlottetown, and at Calgary? Was it to make them believe that Canada had no exportable surplus of farm products and, if so, that they would then acquire a monopoly of the domestic market if they were protected by the high tariff wall which he promised them in the event of his being returned' to power? Surely the right hon. gentleman knows that this is not the case. I need scarcely repeat here that 75 per cent of many of our farm products, such as wheat, live stock, and so on, are exported and sold in the world markets where the domestic price on these products is fixed. For example, last year we raised in Canada 422,000,000 bushels of wheat, of which it would require 54,000,000 bushels to feed the Canadian population of 9,000,000, and this would leave an exportable surplus of 368,000,000 bushels. Add to this all the foodstuffs represented in our exports of live stock and dairy products such as eggs, butter and cheese, besides many other articles, and it would take all the people of Canada all their time, day and] night, all the year, to consume these supplies. So that when the farmers come to realize that the Conservative leader's statement in his campaign speeches in regard to the shrinkage in the home market was, to say the least, very misleading-and that is a mild term'-doubtless they will marvel at some of the eulogies pronounced upon him by some of the members of this House. And mark you, this gentleman is one of the leaders of the Once great Conservative party.


Archibald John Macdonald: Who are the other leaders?


Walter Allan Hall: Why, Sir, do you not know?- Mr. Patenaude of Quebec, and possibly, I may add, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). But please do not let the right hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) know this.
Now a word in regard to the tariff board. In my opinion this board should, as its name indicates, simply give advice on tariff matters after a diligent search for information and a careful study of the problem of taxation in its relation to industry and revenue, but it should in no wise exercise authority nor express any
eos
The Address-Mr. Hall

final judgment. It should function only as the servant of the ministry or government, the Finance minister being fully responsible for all the board's acts. In this way the board would be responsible to parliament.
Before concluding I want to say a few words on the proposal to complete the Hudson Bay railway. As this proposal implies, it is not for the construction of a new railroad but rather for the completion of a road that is now almost completed. This road nms from The Pas to Hudson bay , a distance of 424 miles. The steel is laid on 332 miles and the whole distance of the road graded, the bridges being all built. So that all that has to 'be done now is to lay the steel on 92 miles. Apparently there are steel rails enough to cover about one quarter of this distance, so that there is no reason why the cost should stand in the way of the completion of the road. From all' reports it seems to me that now is not the time to cease construction; to use an Irishism, that time was before construction began, not after the expenditure of about $21,000,000. This route seems feasible, and if perchance it cannot be utilized in connecting the western prairies with the European markets, why, then, the money for its completion has not been squandered, because this road will open up thd country west of Hudson bay, a country highly mineralized especially with iron, not to speak of the wealth that will accrue from the fisheries of Hudson bay. Besides, the money for this project has been provided by the sale of crown lands in the west. So it seems to me that parliament will be fully justified in completing the road.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. gentleman
consider that, it would be desirable to build terminal facilities at Port Nelson? And are such facilities included in the phrase, "completion forthwith?"


Walter Allan Hall: I understand that a good
deal of the terminal work has already been constructed. I understand also that a company has offered to build an elevator of sufficient capacity to make a trial of whether the port would be really successful or not as an outlet for grain.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does the hon. member
know that a committee of this parliament advocated the scrapping of those terminals?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.


Walter Allan Hall: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,
let me contrast a period of Tory rule with a like period of Liberal rule-or a period of high protection with a like period of moderate tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: Free trade?


Walter Allan Hall: If I meant free trade I would
say so. A great deal has been said about immigration and emigration by hon. members on the opposite side. I may say at the outset that it ill becomes anyone living in a glass house to throw stones. Do hon. gentlemen opposite not know that the policy of high protection is no new experiment in Canada? This was the fiscal policy of the Conservative party from 1879 to 1896. Do the same gentlemen not know that during that time the trade and commerce of Canada was at a low ebb? None of our industries was thriving, not even manufacturing, although this high protective tariff was to be a panacea for all ills, more especially those of our manufacturing industries. The increase of population, probably the best barometer of the prosperity of the country., was the lowest from 1881 to 1901, being only 11.44 per cent. This is the smallest increase of any like period in the history of panada under British rule. What about immigration and emigration during this period? The answer is, only 11.44 per cent increase of population. Mark you, this was under Tory rule with a high protective fiscal policy. Indeed, several of the then leading Conservatives confessed in parliament that high protection had not accomplished what it was intended to do-in other words, it had failed. This period of Tory rule, of depression, of lack of development, of lack of prosperity, of lack of increase of popidation was followed by a period of the greatest development, of the greatest prosperity, of the greatest increase of population that has ever taken place in Canadian history-a percentage of 34.17. This was achieved under Laurier with a moderate tariff for revenue only. This same policy is the fiscal policy of the King government. Look ahead for increased development, for increased prosperity, for increased growth of population, and for increased national unity!


Mr. ROBICIIAUD (Gloucester) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few
comments upon the subject matter, at present under consideration, in the language understood by all the members of this House; however, before broaching the subject, may I be allowed to offer you, in our mother tongue, the expression of my heartiest congratulations on the occasion of your re-election to the Speakership of the Canadian parliament. In the discharge of your duties, in the course of the last parliament-duties in the discharge of which the spirit of fairness, the dignity and sense of duty of the public man are constantly tasked to the extreme-

The Address-Mr. Robichaud
you have the more strengthened yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the confidence, the esteem and even the affection of all Canadians. I feel certain that especially your Acadian friends of Gaspe, who are also mine, and who for ever so long have placed their faith in you, a faith both revered and unshaken, are proud of their eminent representative.
I must also give full vent to my thoughts and follow the traditions of this House in expressing my highest appreciation for the able and loyal manner in which the mover and seconder fulfilled their respective tasks. The mover, with the force of conviction and trusted fairness which characterize the people of Anglo-Saxon stock in the beautiful province of Ontario, has certainly done justice to 'both the traditions and soundness of the political party to which he has lent allegiance, while upholding energetically the common and indisputable rights of the whole nation. The seconder of the Address, a worthy offspring of the Franco-Latin race, in America, by uniting to a perfect diction an eloquence both persuasive and fascinating, showed us to >
a greater extent what the beautiful province of Quebec has in store for us in respect to public men of the first order. These two hon. members, Mr. Speaker, are valuable recruits to the parliamentary life of Canada, and we cannot too strongly urge them, at the outset of their career, to take strong resolutions of perseverance, zeal and activity, resolutions which, I have no doubt, would assure to the country the advantage of the great knowledge they have given us proof of.
A great deal, Mr. Speaker, has been told the House about the campaign methods of the two main parties in various sections of the country during the recent general election. From what I saw of the Tory campaign in my own constituency, I have come to the conclusion that it was one of underground, rubber-gloved manoeuvres in an attempt to undermine the electorate by the most unscrupulous agencies. Those agencies were active throughout the whole province Of New Brunswick. Money was flowing so freely that at one time I wondered if I would be submerged and if the time-honoured reputation of my constituency as a Liberal stronghold would be destroyed by my opponents. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that so far as my electors are concerned, my hon. friends opposite have been served with a most emphatic notice that they will not allow themselves to be misled by these campaign expedients. Three attempts have been made during the past twelve months, and three times my hon, friends opposite have been 14011-39
taught the lesson that the intelligent electors of Gloucester would not allow themselves to be caught by Conservative expedients. I need not tell the hon. member for Kent N.B. (Mr. Doucet) what sort of campaign was witnessed the opening of last year in the constituency of Gloucester. He knows all about it; he was almost in full charge of the war chariot in the first attack against that Liberal fortress. I leave it to my hon. friend to judge for himself if this was not a campaign of prejudice, and everything of that kind.


Mr. HANSON:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he referring to Mr. Rand's by-election?


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I am referring to the Rand by-election in the constituency of Gloucester, when the campaign was opened by my hon. friend from Kent, N.B., and where a campaign of prejudice was carried on, in spite of which Mr. Rand was elected with a plurality of some 1,600. I need not dwell on this subject. A campaign of this sort is as detrimental to our welfare as it is disagreeable. I will content myself with reminding hon. members that no wardrobe is considered clean and sanitary unless all the linen has received a thorough cleaning. The hon. member for Kent should not take too seriously the utterances made by campaigners in the course of an election. Our party workers are sometimes rather ingenious in inventing some of these statements which are spread around in most of our constituencies.
My hon. friend told this House the other day that had the right hon. leader of the opposition been returned to power in the last election, thirty days later Canada would have been at war with Turkey. That' reminds me of a little controversy I overheard in my own constituency. One of my workers was arguing with one of the workers of the opposite party, and his reasoning was something like this: Had there been an election in August, 1922, and had the right hon. leader of the opposition been returned to power, when a telegram was received from Downing street in England, Canada would have sent troops to Turkey, and we would have been at war with Turkey. That was one way of reasoning it out, and after all it is not the fault of our friends that it is reasoned m this way. The declaration of the right hon. leader of the opposition at Toronto, before a meeting of Conservative ladies of that city, called for this way of thinking on the part of our electors. My hon. friend the member for Kent should pass by such petty political campaign utterances when used by election workers.



The Address-Mr. Robichaud
I have listened with no little astonishment to the efforts of the hon. member for Kent to belittle our compatriots of the province of Quebec. Although I feel like offering to this House, in the name of my French Acadian compatriots, some sort of apology for the attitude taken by the hon. member, yet I have absolutely no apology to offer for the campaign expedients put into practice by the Liberal party machine in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has defended his province and its people in this respect, and it is needless for any ether member on this side of the House to dwell further on the subject.
A great deal has also been said since the opening of parliament about the popular vote registered during the last election. Around this subject has pivoted to a great extent the claim, of the right hon. leader of the opposition of the right to carry on the business of this country. I have not the least doubt that the 116 members on the other side of this House elected in support of the Conservative policy have all pledged loyal support to their leader and his policy. It would not be logical to think otherwise. But the contrast between the pledges of the hon. members before their election and the engagements they appear to be making following their election is perhaps worthy of passing notice. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt), for example, during his campaign issued a manifesto in the form of an election card which I believe should be construed as the platform upon which some eleven members were elected from the province of Nova Scotia. The campaign in that province was based on the question of the so-called "Maritime rights," and it was on that question that they profess to have been elected. I believe that if I should read to this House a part of that election card, I would give a fair idea of the platform upon which the eleven Conservative supporters were elected in that province. The hon. member for Colchester published in the Halifax Herald of September 26, 1925 what I construe to be his election card. Among other declarations he said the following:
In accepting this nomination, I wish to make it plain that if I am elected, I will not be a political partisan.
I will stand four-square for the rights of Nova Scotia and the rights of the Maritime provinces. And if the time should ever arrive when I must choose between the interests of my party and the interests of my native province I pledge my word to the electors of Colchester and the people of Nova Scotia that the interests of my native province will always come first.
This is very plain, Mr. Speaker. It is an appeal for Maritime rights and nothing else, TMr. Robichaud.]
and I will show my hon. friends opposite that they cannot and never will secure the recognition of what they regard as Maritime rights so long as they adhere to that fossil-iferous galaxy of men from Toronto and Montreal who occupy the front row. Further on the hon. member for Colchester said:
The Prime Minister, at Kentville, asked for a definition of Maritime rights. If he does not know the meaning of the term then he is about the only person in Canada who does not know.
That was a fine thing to say of the Prime Minister of Canada 1
I will tell him some of the things we stand for in these provinces, some of the things we demand as our rights in confederation.
I have before me the speech delivered to this House by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who was elected on the same policy and pledges as all his colleagues from the province of Nova Scotia, because, if I mistake not, he has just applauded those statements of the hon. member for Colchester Let us compare the declarations of the hon. member for Cumberland after the election with those of the hon. member for Colchester before the election, in order that we may see how hon. gentlemen can stand on the same ground and adhere to the policies of the Conservative party in this country, and still claim for the Maritime provinces what they term "Maritime rights." In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Cumberland, alluding to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) and the speech he delivered, said:
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we are Maritime righters; It is true that we place country before party, as all loyal citizens should, and especially all parliamentarians, but the Solicitor General omitted to say that we were of one mind on two main, outstanding and salient points; namely, first, strict adherence to the policies of the Liberal-Conservative party as enunciated time and time again inside and outside this House by the right hon. leader of the opposition; and second, unswerving loyalty to the leader of the Conservative party.
The electors of this country heretofore have given unswerving adherence to the policies of the Conservative party, but have we in the Maritime provinces benefited from those policies? Speakers in my constituency, as well as speakers in other constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, have proclaimed the right hon. leader of the opposition as a modern Sir John Macdonald, the sponsor of a new national policy. Well, we have had a national policy in Canada from the early seventies up to the year 1896, and what have been the results? Have we benefited by that policy? Have we not lost the market to the south of us for the products of the farm and

The Address-Mr. Robichaud
of the sea? Have we not laboured and laboured, yes, have we not crawled along, under the burden of that national policy in the Maritime provinces for half a century? Yet to-day speakers opposite proclaim the right hon. leader of the opposition as a modern Sir John Macdonald, the sponsor of a new national policy. If the leader of the opposition is to be regarded as a second Sir John Macdonald, we might well say that while his father chastised the Maritime provinces with a whip, he would chastise them with a scorpion.
What we in the Maritime provinces need is a world-wide market; we need the markets of the world. This has been proven time and time again, but unless we have the required facilities to ship the products of the farm and of the sea across the ocean, to the West Indies, and to the country to the south of us, we cannot hope to progress in the Maritime provinces. Are the policies of the right hon. leader of the opposition in accord with the needs of the Maritime provinces in this respect? I cannot see how they can be. If we are to legislate for the big interests of Toronto and Montreal, as represented by that galaxy we see on the front benches opposite, how can we expect to legislate in the interests of the Maritime provinces? The Maritime provinces must have the markets they had under Liberal rule, under the Laurier regime, under Liberal policies. We must open up trade with the West Indies, with Australia and the Mother Country, with Italy, France, Germany and the central powers of Europe. There is in those countries an almost unlimited market for our fish in a preserved condition, and unless we adhere to the policies of the Liberal party, policies enunciated time and again, whereby we can open up new avenues of trade for the products of our farms and of the sea, we cannot hope to prosper.
In order still further to show that those 'who profess to stand for Maritime rights cannot really stand for them by adhering also to the policy of the leader of the Conservative party, I might quote the view of the Halifax Chronicle, in an editorial published on the 21st of January last. I shall not read the whole editorial, as it is rather long and would only cumber up Hansard, but in part it says, speaking of the " Maritime-righterS," so-called, who have been elected in the province of Nova Scotia:
They should be ashamed to squeal at the consequences. Had they even taken the precaution to safeguard themselves and their local interests, as the Progressives of the west did, by organizing an independent and distinct partisan group, they might have 14011-39i
accomplished something useful. But while shouting "Maritime rights" they bound themselves hard and fast to the Meighenite chariot wheels. Those w'heela are now sunk deep in political mud, and the "Maritime righters" with them.
Our elected Tory representatives have the additional, but apparently gladly accepted, humiliation of seeing a much smaller group from the west holding the balance of power and virtually being conceded all that they ask, while there are less than half a dozen representatives from the three Maritime provinces to speak a word for this section of the Dominion.
I believe this truly represents the position of those members who have been elected from the Maritime provinces in opposition to the present government. We have had experience in the past of the effect of Conservative policies in Canada. As I stated before, a Conservative government administered public affairs in the Dominion from the early seventies until the month of June, 1896. Were conditions in the country favourable during that time? Did not the Canadian people labour under extreme hardships, and was there not considerable depression under what is called the National Policy? Again, from 1911 to 1921 the Conservatives were in power. Were conditions any better in the Maritime provinces? Were the good people of that part of Canada better satisfied? Did it indicate satisfaction with the Conservative administration that a solid representation of sixteen members was elected in Nova Scotia in 1921? In regard to the railway employees, to whom so much reference has been made by hon. members from New Brunswick, were those men satisfied when the hon member for Westmorland, who was the candidate in 1921, was defeated by an adverse majority of some 7,500 votes? No, the people were not satisfied. Times were hard, unemployment was rife throughout the Maritime provinces, and yet there was a Conservative government in power from 1911 to 1921.
During the last election campaign it was stated in the Maritime provinces that the right hott: leader of the opposition had a new policy to offer. Well, if that policy is going to benefit the Maritimes, I should like to know how. If an increase in the tariff is going to benefit the Maritime provinces I should like to know it. If an extra tax upon fishermen of the counties of Gloucester, Resti-gouche and Kent is going to help those good people, I should like to know it. How can those hardworking fishermen support the burden of an extra tax, of a high duty on all those articles of production which under a Liberal government are admitted into Canada free of duty? I ask, how can our fishermen subsist under a policy such as hon. gentlemen opposite enunciate?

The Address-Mr. Robichaud
During the past two or three years hon-gentlemen opposite have presented a solid front in opposition to any expenditures intended to relieve our fishermen in their trying situation. Only recently-I think it was during the last session of parliament-money was voted for that purpose. Hon. gentlemen opposite from New Brunswick know that our fishermen cannot get along without some aid of this kind, but what has their conduct been? Those hon. members pledged themselves at a meeting of the maritime representatives held during the session of 1923 to support any measure that would be beneficial to the Maritime provinces, and yet only eight days afterwards the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones), the then hon. member for what was the constituency of St. John city and counties of St. John and Albert, Mr. Baxter, who now occupies the high position of Premier of New Brunswick, rose in their places and said that this government should not spend another dollar to help the Maritime province fishermen.
A great deal has been said about the question of freight rates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the hon. member leaves the question of the fishermen, would he be good enough to say if he approves of the policy of this government in sending the mounted police into the counties of Kent and Gloucester to enforce the fishery regulations?


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I was quite amused
when the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Dou-cet) made his first appearance in the county of Gloucester. What doctrine did he preach there? He stated that the government had announced that it intended to stop illegal fishing in the Maritime provinces, and my hon. friend announced that it was bad pdlicy to do so. He argued that it was bad policy to stop poaching and other illegal practices. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the fisheries in the Maritime provinces need some protection, but instead of co-operating with this government in doing that hon. gentlemen apposite tried to throw slurs in the faces of their opponents and endeavoured to make the people down there believe that poaching should be allowed, that the fisheries are practically inexhaustible and that no restriction should be enforced. Why, Mr. Speaker, our effort has been to make our fisheries more productive, and to perpetuate them for all time, if we can. In that connection I mention especially the lobster fisheries.
My hon. friend made a reference to the mounted police. It ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to make such an allusion in

view of the prosecutions to which the good fishermen of the county of Gloucester were subjected by the Conservatives between 1911 and 1921. For what purpose did the hon. member for Kent indulge in this denunciation of the mounted police during the campaign? For no other reason than to secure his election to this House and at the expense of one of our most precious industries.
While I am on the subject of fisheries, I think I should explain to the House the great advantage that my people in the constituency of Gloucester have derived from this industry. We have in Gloucester one of the finest, if not the finest, fishing fleet in the . Dominion of Canada. I believe that in intelligence and in capacity of every description the French Acadian fishermen excel almost any other class that I know of. The French Acadian fisherman is the pioneer of the fishing industry in this country. Long before the creation of this Dominion, fishermen from Normandy, on the other side of the ocean, fished on the great banks of Newfoundland, Mowing the example of the Norwegians and other fishermen from the northern parts of Europe. The French fishermen from Normandy migrated from the coast of Newfoundland and 'have settled, for "the first time in history, in my constituency of Gloucester, in my own native parish. To give to the House a further evidence that the fishing industry was introduced at an early date in my constituency of Gloucester, I may say that the first business man who came across the ocean to engage in the fisheries of the Maritime provinces was an English gentleman by the name of Robin. He came from the Old Country, opened up fishing posts on the shores of Baie de Chaleur, and later on his firm settled at Shippegan and now occupy the very fishing plant which these people possessed some two hundred years ago. When my friends opposite carried on a contest in the constituency of Gloucester and described the representative of that constituency as a traitor to his fishermen friends, I say that they were not loyal, nor were they fair to the fishermen and to myself. I serve notice on my hon. friends from the province of New Brunswick that when they visit my constituency for the purpose of campaigning, they must be careful what words or phrases they use.
A great deal has been said about freight rates. It has been pointed out in New Brunswick that this parliament should legislate in regard 'to freight rates. Members from the province of Nova Scotia have taken the same ground. It has been demonstrated time and time again on the floor of .this House that this

The Address-Mr. Robichaud
government was not doing its duty because it was not legislating with a view of reducing the freight rates on shipments to and from the Maritime provinces. I wonder if this is in accord with the belief of most hon. members of this House. Is it in accord with the position taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition when he opened his campaign in Nova Scotia, when he most em-9 p.m. phatically declared that this parliament should not, could not and ought not to legislate in regard to freight rates; that that should be left to the railway commission? I have before me the very words of the right hon. leader of the opposition in this respect. They are as follows:
I believe in the integrity of the railway commission. The judicial status of that authority must be maintained, and it is the proper body to fix rates. Parliament should not be permitted to interfere with the commission's jurisdiction because of the demands of any one section of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. leader of the opposition bad obtained a majority on the 29th of October last, my hon. friends from Nova Scotia would have demanded that he enact certain legislation in order to fix freight rates for the Maritime provinces, and my Tight hon. friend would have said, "I cannot do this, I cannot do that, because I made a solemn declaration that this parliament should not interfere with freight rates."
A little further on he Stated that the railways of this country should be subsidized. If the business interests of the country had approached the government and obtained subsidies for the railway service, and thereby obtained reduced cost of transportation, I say the country would then be embarking on a very dangerous precedent. If we were to legislate in this manner for the Maritime provinces, then the province of Quebec, with its extensive territories covering the large peninsula of Ungava; Ontario, with its immense tract of land to the north; Saskatchewan and Alberta, with their large areas of land, and British Columbia, which extends away up north to the region of Alaska, would demand the same rights; and where would we find ourselves? There would be no limit to the drain that would foe made on the treasury of this country.
The problems and the conditions in the Maritime provinces would not be so bad, after all, were it not for the wailing in regard to hard times by these pseudo-Maritime righters; and I believe that conditions would be much better, much nearer normal, in that section of the country. Business is increasing by leaps and bounds. Much has been said about the business which passes through the ports
of St. John and Halifax, and it has been suggested that these ports have not been getting the business which should have gone to them. But let us see, for the sake of comparison, what the port of Halifax is receiving to-day and what it was receiving under the Conservative regime in 1913, the year before the war commenced. I have before me an extract from an editorial in the Regina Leader of January 1st, 1926 which deals with an article published by a newspaper in Halifax, referring to a report of Mr. E. A. Saunders, Secretary of the Halifax board of trade. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that these words, the utterances of the Halifax board of trade, should be considered as authentic. They should be considered as disclosing the conditions as they exist in Halifax. According to this gentleman, the business of the port has increased considerably since 1913. Let me quote from the editorial in question:
The 'business of the port for the past year, in comparison with that of earlier years, is reviewed. In 1913 the shipping tonnage of the port was 4,000,000 tons, in 1925 it was 11,000,000 tons. During last year the port had 213 calls from ships of over 10,000 tons, and from thirty-five to forty of the largest steamship lines operating on the North Atlantic use the port. The inward and outward tonnage of freight has increased enormously over any previous year except those in which munitions and war supplies were being carried. Halifax, too, as a city, does a greater business than ever before. Her bank clearings increased from 96 millions in 1910 to 154 millions in 1925. The exports and imports of Halifax were 28 millions in 1917 and were last year 64 millions. The customs receipts of the port were 2J millions in 1913 and well over 3 millions last year.
This goes to show that business is after all not so bad in that part of the Maritime provinces as hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe. And as regards New Brunswick, is there anything the matter with that province except perhaps the fact that a Conservative government is in power? Hon. gentlemen opposite profess to have Maritime rights very much at heart, and yet. they sent down from this House the Hon. Mr. Baxter, a man whom I admit I admire for his capacity and intelligence, to defeat one of the most progressive and capable governments which the province of New Brunswick has ever had.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, oh.


Jean George Robichaud: My hon. friend laughs, but he cannot deny that in the Foster-Veniot administration New Brunswick had one of the most progressive, one of the most successful and one of the most honest governments it ever had.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the hon. gentleman read the provincial financial statement published on Saturday last?

The Address-Mr. Robichaud


Jean George Robichaud: I have not read the last financial statement but I still profess to know a little about the finances of New Brunswick. If I may be pardoned for so doing, I may remind the hon. gentleman that I was a member of that government for seven years, and I can assure him that during the Foster-Veniot administration the province of New Brunswick had a sound, a progressive and an honest government, and that every ddllar that was responsible for the increase of the provincial debt during that time was devoted to the improvement of conditions in order to place the province on an equal footing with any other province or state in North America. Neither my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) nor the leader of the opposition can refute that statement. But what happened? A galaxy of gentlemen came down from Ontario right into my own constituency and held a conference with the industrialists of the province. My hon. friends opposite will not deny that. That conference took place and the Hon. Mr. Baxter, the present Premier of New Brunswick, assured1 the lumber lords that he would do certain things if they would support him. They promised to do so and he told them he would endeavour to carry out his undertakings. But he went further. The province was ready to embark upon one of the greatest enterprises which it could possibly have undertaken, an enterprise of greater importance than any that it has gone into since confederation. We in New Brunswick wanted to keep pace with the rest of the worid, we wanted to develop our water power; and Mr. Baxter promised the lumber lords that if returned to power he would put a stop to such development. Strangely enough, however, he turned round and promised the electors of New Brunswick that in the event of his attaining office he would see that this development should continue. It appears, therefore, that my hon. friends from New Brunswick are between the deep sea and that gentleman whose name I should not care to mention in this House. Mr. Baxter, as I say, promised the lumber lords that he would put : stop to hydro enterprise in New Brunswick while at the same time assuring the electors that in the event of his being returned to power he would continue along the lines advocated by the Foster-Veniot government. And this is one of the facts that accounts for the little hardship which is now being experienced in New Brunswick among the lumbermen. Another promise was made:	the Conservatives declared that if
the Liberal government in the province were defeated the lumbermen would receive an

enhanced remuneration for their labours. Well, that government was defeated and today our poor lumbermen in New Brunswick are receiving scarcely a dollar per day while the bushmen in the province of Quebec are getting anywhere from $75 to $90 and $100 a month. Is this depression in the lumber industry in New Brunswick due to the mismanagement of a Liberal administration, or is it due to the fact that the lumber lords have put a stop to hydro development in the province in order to prevent competition from outside? Clearly the explanation for the present condition is to be found in the latter fact. The lumber lords want to monopolize the industry there, and where there is monopoly there is hardship to the common people. This is the situation in New Brunswick to-day and hon. gentlemen from that province cannot deny it. Nor can they deny that the lumber industry is the only one in the province that has been badly hit, for the fishermen during the past year have witnessed the best times since confederation. My hon. friends know that the farmers too are doing well. In spite of all this however they come here and paint a very gloomy picture of conditions in New Brunswick.
I desire once more to appeal to the House on behalf of my fishermen friends of New Brunswick and more especially in the interests of my fishermen supporters and the fishermen electors generally of the constituency of Gloucester. It is true that the finances of the country will not permit the expenditure of large sums of money, but that industry, which flourishes to-day in the Maritime provinces, must be maintained. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe that they are anxious to see the Maritime provinces attain to the level of other parts of Canada. Well, I tell them that unless we can make for improved conditions among the fishermen of the Maritime provinces we need not hope to make any great headway in that direction. During the past year particularly the Maritime provinces have been visited repeatedly with storms which have devastated such relief and accommodation as were temporarily afforded not by my hon. friends opposite, but by the parliament of Canada when the Liberal party was in power; for I cannot point to anything that the Conservative party ever did for the fishermen of my constituency. This may sound rather harsh, but it is true. Our fishermen need a share of the public funds in order that they may be provided with the necessary harbour facilities and transportation service to enable them to carry on their industry successfully as in the

The Address-Mr. Bothwell
past. I therefore hope .that this government will do all in its power to meet the requirements of the Maritime provinces in this respect, and I sincerely hope than in place of the lack of unity which was so sadly apparent in the last parliament among members on either side of the House representing Maritime constituencies, we shall see hon. members from New Brunswick, from Prince Edward Island and from Nova Scotia, whether they sit to your left, Sir, or to your right, joining hand in hand to obtain for the Maritime provinces a just share of the public expenditure necessary to alleviate the burdens that always press so heavily on the shoulders of our fishermen.
Appeals have repeatedly been made for national unity, but judging by the good spirit that prevails throughout the Dominion we must admit that there is no occasion for such appeals. National unity does exist to-day; it is implanted in the very heart of the nation. But unfortunately attempts have too frequently been made to undermine that unity which is so essential to our existence as a nation. How can we expect real national unity; how can we expect all classes and all sections of the country, to work together harmoniously for the promotion of our diversified interests, if our legislation is dominated by Montreal and Toronto to the great detriment of the country generally? The more I study the situation, Mr. Speaker, the more I am convinced of the vital importance of our adhering to the Liberal policy until such time at least as Canada shall have completely emerged from the chaos into which it was precipitated by the deflation and consequent depression following the war. By so doing the nation will accomplish a duty towards itself and towards the coming generations for whom we are paving the way. It is my confident hope, Sir, that by following Liberal traditions we shall go down to posterity as having accomplished something for Canada- something far greater than I can describe.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members I wish to pay my respects to you and to join with those who have preceded me in congratulating you upon your appointment to the position you now occupy.
During the debate I have been much interested in the figures quoted by some hon. members of the votes polled in the last election and the deductions they have drawn therefrom. If I followed a similar course of reasoning I should have to come to the conclusion that in the particular constituency
which I have the honour to represent there are no supporters of the official opposition. During the campaign my opponent and myself apparently stood for exactly the same platform. We were agreed on what the tariff arrangements should be; we were agreed practically on immigration; we were agreed also on branch line railway construction; in fact I do not know of any question on which we disagreed. However, we were brought before the people by two different conventions, and it was a matter of the electors deciding as to who should represent them in this House.
There is one paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that has not yet been touched upon; it is this:
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.
Several hon. members have dealt with the question of immigration. I intend for a few minutes to deal with one of the causes of people leaving the land-the settlers we already have there and whom we want to retain. After the war hon. members will recollect that legislation was passed providing for the establishment of a Soldier Settlement Board, and also for settling soldiers on the lands of western Canada. The first act, as a matter of fact, was passed in 1917, followed by the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919, under which the board that was constituted was authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire land; ito reserve crown lands for soldier settlement; to make grants to soldier settlers up to 160 acres. That act was amended from time to time in 1920, 1922 and 1925. The provisions of the original act provided either for payment of all cash, or ten per cent cash and the balance in twenty-five equal annual instalments with interest at five per cent. The board was also authorized to sell stock and equipment on the terms that it might be paid for all cash or in four equal annual instalments, commencing not later than three years from date of sale, with interest at five per cent. In 1920 the terms of payment on live stock and equipment were extended to six payments. In 1922 the indebtedness was consolidated and made payable in twenty-five or fewer instalments, the principal bearing no interest from the date of consolidation for two, three or four years, according to whether the advances were made within twelve months prior to October 1, 1921, 1920 or 1919 respectively. In 1925 an amendment was passed by

The Address-Mr. Bothwell
parliament providing that in case the settler had not repaid his indebtedness, and his agreement with the board had not been terminated, the board should credit his account with an amount in reduction of his indebtedness determined as follows: 40 per cent of the purchase price of live stock advanced to the settler and purchased prior to October 1, 1920; 20 per cent of the purchase price of live stock advanced to the settler and purchased on or after October 1, 1920 and prior to October 1, 1921. All the amendments to that act were made in the interests of the soldier settlers, and the soldier settlers of western Canada appreciate the attempt of the government to help them. They also appreciate the leniency extended to them by the amendments made from year to year. But a number of them in scattered districts of western Canada are not able to live up to the terms provided in the act. In many cases land was bought at too high a price, even as land was valued at that time. In many of the districts where land was purchased and turned over to the soldier settlers crop conditions have been extremely bad, and the settlers found themselves with a big indebtedness and with no crops to meet the payments. Complaints have been made from time to time and letters are continually being received from soldier settlers in scattered parts of the country. I am speaking now more particularly of the district which I represent, because as hon. members may know, during war years and the years immediately succeeding the war that particular part of Canada was not producing paying crops. The people there, although they lost on crops at that time, have learned a lesson. Necessity is the mother of invention, and these people learned that they must conserve their resources and develop a method of marketing their products which would bring the highest prices. What they learned during those years is now standing them in good stead. Referring to the soldier settlers, however, I have in my hand a letter received from one of them, from which I will read a paragraph:
I took up the land in 1919 and now see the hard results of same action. At that time the country generally did jts best to returned men, but owing to war reaction it seems to me everything was at a high price; land according to now, 1926, from $7 to $10 too much per acre; horses and implements away too high-and in my own individual case take notice our sul pervisors paid and passed bills for seed whest grain $2 2o per bushel. Personally, being beginners in life after war, can we honestly repay such debts?
He adds:
In closing my quarter section cost me close to $4,000. To-day, with arrears, etc., so far as I can make out 
on their slip and up to date bookkeeping, I owe them close to $7,000.
Another soldier settler from a different district writes as follows:
Owing to the scattered locations of the soldier settlers it is hard to gather material respecting their various problems, but it is safe to say that every settler who purchased land in 1918, 1919 or 1920 has an over-capitalized farm, a great enough hardship without the usual risks of the farm. Some are located in districts where the best yields on summer fallow have only been ten or twelve bushels to the acre for years, some buying raw crown lands at a price greater than is asked to-day for improved farms with buildings, etc., and with large fields ready for crop. Others in the north find they are unable to clear and break land fast enough to meet even the payments to the board. I have met men of the finest type from that country recently who are buying government lands and who are this year unable to meet their store bills, and these are mostly native-born sons of Canada. What then of the new Canadians, who are unacquainted with climatic and working conditions. I will but briefly state my own case. I owed the board at the start $7,300. On a quarter section of school land with but 100 acres of arable land, the remain8er being alkali and unfit for cultivation, but for which the board paid $22 an acre from the Department of the Interior. I am endeavouring to pay for a similar quarter from the department with the same proportion of inarable, at the same price, allowing the usual third each year for summer fallow. What hope have I from the balance, of suitably providing for my family, meeting my increased payments to the board, and my overdue payments to the Department of the Interior from a farm which is penalized with a valuation three times its worth to-day? I will gladly welcome investigation by the opponents of the revaluation plan which has already been before the House, but was sidetracked in 1924.
I have another letter from which I will read an extract.
Upon my return from overseas, after serving four and a half years with the Canadian forces, I decided to take up farming and purchased land through the Soldier Settlement Board. The quarter section I purchased was valued at $6,000 by the board's inspectors. During my five years farming I had two fair crops and three poor crops, consequently I dropped behind in my payments. At the present time this land which I purchased at $6,000 is valued at $3,000. To prove this, the adjoining land was recently sold at $16 per acre.
Now the position is this: We who live in western Canada know that many of the western soldiers acquired land through the Soldier Settlement Board at prices which were too high even with conditions as they then existed. There may have been collusion in some places between soldier settlers and vendors of land; I do not know. We have heard that suggested, but in any event the neighbours of these soidier settlers will tell you that the land was sold at too high prices. We know that during the years subsequent to these lands being allotted, other farmers who were in fairiy good financial circumstances, with a full equipment of stock and machinery, found it almost impossible to weather conditions, and some of those well equipped

The Address-Mr. BothweU
farmers are finding it extremely difficult to carry on. I think the whole tone of the addresses made during this debate shows that hon. members believe that the agricultural industry is the greatest basic industry of Canada; that it should be fostered; that we want to get as many settlers on the land as we possibly can and that we want to retain those already there. If this is so, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have to do something for these soldier settlers in order to keep them on the land. All we can do is to revalue, in some way, all the lands allotted to them. I do not want to suggest any radical or drastic action along that line. I do not believe that we would be justified in revaluing all soldier settlers' lands, because many other persons in this country purchased land at the same time from the School Lands Branch at high prices, and they have found it impossible to pay for them. Others have purchased land and have been able to pay for it. A number of the soldiers have also been able to pay for their land and do not need a revaluation.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington); Does the hon. gentleman suggest, or would he care to suggest, a percentage of reduction in valuation on the lands of soldier settlers?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No. I think it would
be a mistake to suggest any percentage of
reduction. I believe each individual case will have to be dealt with on its merits. The facts, so far as soldier settlers are concerned, are these:	A total of 30,804 returned soldiers
were established under the Soldier Settlement Act. Of that number 24,148 were granted loans aggregating $103,150,098. Of these 727 have repaid their loans; 5,203, or 21.5 per cent, have abandoned their land altogether; 1,863 farms have been turned over to other settlers. The position is this: In addition to that 21 per cent who have abandoned their farms, unless we make some adjustment for numbers of these returned soldiers, we are going to have possibly another 21 per cent of abandonment, When that land is abandoned, it means that the board will resell i.t to other settlers at the price obtainable to-day. Now those soldiers who have done everything they could, not only during the war but since, to try to re-establish themselves should not be penalized to any greater extent than a new settler coming into the country now would be. If they abandon the land they drift into the city, and in some cases possibly become a charge there. If the Soldier Settlement Board, then are going to resell the llands which are taken over from the settlers at to-day's prices, surely it should be possible for us to devise
means whereby an adjustment can be made and the soldier allowed to retain his land. I am suggesting that enabling legislation be passed vesting discretion in the Soldier Settlement Board in revaluing individual parcels of land, and that they use their discretion the same as any other owner of land in western Canada has to do and compromise on the price at which the land shall be sold. We know of many cases in western Canada where men during a time of -high prices have sold land at a high price, and who in recent years have had to compromise at possibly half that sale price in order to retain the man on the land. Surely we can do the same thing for the soldier settler. I cannot do any better, in closing this subject, than to read the words of the mover of the resolution on this subject adopted in the Saskatchewan House:
I make this motion in the interests of the men who served the nation well, and who have made an effort to come back with some contribution in the days of peace. I make it in the interests of the fanners of the country, whose induslry will suffer to the extent in which these men fail. I make it in the interests of our municipalities, vitally affected by every gap made by an abandoned farm. I make it in the interests of the Dominion, the best asset of which is a contented and happy people, and I make it remembering 1914-1918. "Lest We Forget."
There is another matter in regard to which I wish to make a correction. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), speaking in this debate on the question of rural credits, said:
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 impression may have been left on the House by that statement that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta particularly are in dire stress. I do not believe that rural credits are needed any more in those two provinces than in any other part of Canada. I believe that a rural credit scheme is in the interests of Canada as a whole, and will be of benefit to other parts of Canada as! well as the provinces referred to. In comparing the province of Saskatchewan with that of Manitoba I would draw the hon. member's attention to this fact, that although Saskatchewan has never had the benefit of Conservative rule, it is in a much better position financially than Manitoba. In the budget address delivered in the Saskatchewan legislature in 1924 a comparative estimate was made of the
The Address-Mr. Bothwell

indebtedness of the different provinces in Canada, as follows:
' Gross per capita Net per capita debt	ddbt
Manitoba	
9114	$53Saskatchewan....	66	33
The Canada Year Book of 1924, also comparing the two provinces, shows the total principal assets of the province to be:
Principal Assets	Liabilities
Manitoba	
$64,795,506	$78,900,821Saskatchewan	..	..	62,521,001	51,448,807
These figures show clearly the comparative financial position of the two provincea The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in discussing the Speech from the Throne, referred to an address made by Sir Herbert Holt, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and quoted a portion of his address. But here is a portion that he did not quote, and I shall read it in order to put the House right on that matter. Sir Herbert Holt says:
The national problems that confront ns are complex, but inter-related. They are accentuated by the contiguity of the wealthiest country in the world. The physical geography of our country and the sparsity of population tend to a regional rather than a national outlook, and while both easterner and westerner are alike in their loyalty to the Dominion and to British traditions, the more immediate political dangers seem to lie in the intensification of provincialism, with its separate outlook and local economic interest. Our interests throughout Canada keep this question constantly before us. The Royal Bank has its roots in the Maritime provinces, where our business was inaugurated; it owes a good measure of its prosperity to the development of the central portion of Canada, and in the western provinces our business to-day is extremely important. Our contact with affairs in the various provinces has served to impress on us very deeply the close relation between the prosperity of one section and the prosperity of the others. Fundamentally, the interests of the different sections are identical, and our problems can be solved if only we bring to the discussion of them a friendly spirit of give and take. What is needed is a united Canada, closer cooperation between east and west in a national programme that will promote national development.
In describing general conditions in Canada, he takes the whole country from west to east and explains that conditions have been and are improving.
Other questions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne-the tariff, the Hudson Bay railway, immigration-have already been dealt with at some length by various speakers. I merely wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the people of western Canada, according to the figures that were quoted to the House to-day, are in favour of a lower tariff; in fact the great majority of them, if it were not for the interests of other parts of Canada, would favour free trade absolutely. They cannot see that there 
is anything to be gained by a tariff at all so far as they are concerned. To them the tariff means that they are paying to Ontario and Quebec millions of dollars each year and deriving no benefit therefrom, because the price of everything they have to sell is fixed in the world's market. From the expressions of opinion so far advanced here, we seem to be all agreed that it is impossible for us at the present time to have free trade; but if we in western Canada are contributing some millions of dollars yearly to the manufacturing districts of eastern Canada we believe we are entitled to reductions in the commodities that we require as great as can be obtained. We believe it is only fair that Something should be done towards completing the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; and we appreciate the legislation along that line announced in the Speech from the Throne. If the position assumed by us is correct, surely the people of the east are willing to concede to us the amount of money necessary to the completion of that railroad as a colonization project. Apparently all governments for years past have been in favour of this enterprise; and it was with considerable interest and gratification that the members from the west learned the intention of the government to bring down legislation this session towards that end.
I do not intend to deal with the other questions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but I do wish to offer a word or two on the subject of immigration. I do not believe that we are going to benefit to any material extent by a great influx of foreigners into western Canada. First of all we must place conditions on a sound basis. We must develop our agricultural industry in the west to^such an extent and in such a way that the settlers now on the land will become happy and contented. Therefore the problem before us is hardly one of immigration, it is rather one of colonization. We need a contented people in the west, and to contribute to that happy result we want branch railway lines. When you consider that there are districts in the west that were settled as long ago as 1883, and that the settlers in those districts are still hauling grain to market from points thirty-five to forty miles away, you can realize that they are not very well satisfied with conditions as they are. They are not at all contented when they consider that people in the eastern parts of Canada have rural mail delivery whereas they cannot get it. We in the west feel that we need colonization legislation; and if the government will only give to the people out there some of those things that are

The Address-Mr. Howard
being enjoyed by the farming communities of the east, contentment will come to our people and there will be no difficulty in attracting immigrants to our shores. I Dotice that Australia is spending some eleven million pounds in colonization projects along the same line. This money is being spent under the emigration agreement entered into between the Australian Commonwealth and the British government upon railways^ highways, water supplies and other schemes for settling and developing the land. Were we only to spend some money in similar ways I believe we should make a great advance in the settlement of our immigration problems.
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, on the occasion
of my rising in this House, as the representative of one of the most interesting counties of the eastern province of Quebec, it. behooves me to pay a just homage to my French Canadian electors, by first expressing myself in their native tongue. However, having an intimate knowledge of the generous disposition and the spirit of fairness which animates the population of the county of Sherbrooke, by having been honoured by them, and knowing that the English language is more familiar to the majority of the Canadian representatives in the nation's parliament, I deem it advisable to proceed in the English language.
As a new member, making my first speech in the House of Commons, I wish to couple my words with those who have spoken before me in congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment for a second term. I had long heard and read of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, but I never realized, Sir, how well you were fitted to fulfil the duties of the speakership until I saw you presiding with such dignity over the proceedings of this House.
I wish also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am sure from the ability both these hon. gentlemen displayed that they will be decided acquisitions to the debating talent of this House.
I was going to refer in my own words to a matter which gave me a great deal of pleasure, but the other morning I picked up the Montreal Gazette, whose politics we all know, and I found there an editorial which expresses, in better language than I could employ, the sentiments of this House with respect to a fact which all of us must have noticed. The Gazette says:
Several of them-
Referring to our French-Canadian friends.
-have shown that they are well able to sustain the handicap of speaking in a language with which they are
less familiar than their own. The Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, for example, has made this session his first important effort in English, and old parliamentarians predict that he will take his place among the first debaters in this House. Hon. George Boivin must henceforth be regarded as one of the most formidable speakers on the Liberal side. The Solicitor General, Hon. Lucien Cannon, is thriving on his new responsibilities and giving a good account of himself. Fernand Rinfret and J. J. Denis of Joliette have earned the admiration of all the parties by their able contributions.
If the French members cared to exercise their privilege they could employ their own language, but as Mr. Rinfret observed at the commencement of his speech the other day, they prefer to speak in the tongue that will be understood by everybody. Mr. Bourassa sometimes addresses brief remarks to the chair in his native tongue, but for the most part the debate is entirely in English.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to me to return a compliment that has been paid to this House by our French-Canadian fellow-citizens by delivering my address in. Franch, but I must refrain from doing so because my remarks would not foe as well understood.
I had not intended to take part in this debate, and perhaps would not have spoken had not certain remarks about the county of Sherbrooke been hurled across the floor. When the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) delivered his notable speech, in which he made accusations against the entire province of Quebec, mentioning specially the county which I have the honour to represent, I could not resist the temptation of indulging in a reply.
I could not let those accusations pass without telling the House the history of the last campaign in Sherbrooke, and1 what is true of Sherbrooke is true of practically every seat in the province of Quebec. If there is one province in this great Dominion that is more generous than another, if there is one province that is more considerate of minorities or that is less fanatic than another, it is the province of Quebec, and to have such statements made as were made by the hon. member for Kent is simply to heap insult upon my electors. I stand here, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the generosity of the province of Quebec: I am an English-speaking Protestant, elected in a county in which two-thirds of the electorate are French Canadian Catholics. I was chosen in a properly called convention of Liberals, where my French-Canadian fellow citizens were in a majority of four to one-a straight Liberal candidate, a supporter of the government of Mr. Mackenzie King. My predecessor, the first Liberal ever elected in the county of Sherbrooke, gave fourteen years of splendid service to this House, but when the electors of Sherbrooke knew that he dis-
The Address-Mr. Howard

agreed with the government on the tariff issue and on the budget, they refused to give him the convention. Again, the members who have been sent from Sherbrooke in the past- only two-should prove to this House that prejudice does not exist in that county. I only came into the election the night before nomination. It was a three-cornered fight, with an independent Liberal-protectionist, a Patenaude candidate, and myself as a straight Liberal, in the running. I discussed at every meeting, including the first one on nomination day, the four great policies of our great national leader as expressed in his speech at Richmond Hill. Never in my presence, was the conscription issue mentioned, except at one meeting, and that was at Rock Forest, when my Patenaude opponent tried to injure me by accusing me of having been in favour of [DOT]conscription in 1917. Does that not sound a little different from the words quoted by the hon. member for Kent? Instead of the Liberals raising the question of conscription in Sherbrooke, my opponents resorted to that issue to beat me, the Liberal candidate. The hon. member for Kent did not come to Sherbrooke during the election, and if he knows as little about the rest of the province as he does about Sherbrooke, you know how to value his statements. I do not intend to quote circulars and newspaper clippings to prove that the statements made by the hon. member for Kent were ridiculous. The
10 p.m. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) has ably refuted his statements and shown to this House that the campaign in Quebec was just as clean as, if not cleaner than, the campaign in Ontario or any other province.
At the opening of the session, in the first week of the debate, our party was accused of usurping power, but by its vote of confidence this House pronounced definitely that, our leader had followed the right course and that decision was reached more on the basis of common sense judgment than of precedent. At the commencement of the debate I regretted very much that different members of this House referred in belittling terms to the indemnity paid to members. I want to state that I am proud to draw $4,000 from this country as my indemnity, and if I am able I intend to render a service the value of which will be far in excess of the amount of the indemnity.
Returning to the Speech from the Throne, I am not surprised that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) proposed an amendment of only eight lines. There is no doubt that it would be very difficult for any

party to criticize such a Speech from the Throne as has been brought down to this fifteenth parliament of the Dominion. Certain figures have been already quoted in the House, but I cannot help repeating them. To show the difference between the conditions prevailing when this party took over the reins of power in 1921 and those which exist to-day, I call attention to the fact that Bank of Montreal stock was quoted in 1921 at $215 a share; in to-day's market it is quoted at $262, and last week was quoted at $271. Royal Bank stock in 1921 was quoted at $205 and to-day it is $255. Bank of Commerce stock was quoted in 1921 at $184, and to-day it is listed at $224. We will turn now to industrials:	Canada Cement was
quoted in 1921 at $67 a share; to-day it is selling at $106, six dollars above par. Canadian Pacific Railway in 1921 was quoted at $125; to-day it is quoted at $150. Perhaps some hon. members would say that these figures are not conclusive, but if they take them in connection with the progress of Canada during the Liberal regime since 1896 they are conclusive. Those who are older than I can easily remember-I myself can recall the days when I was on the farm, ten years old-when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, and none of us will ever forget those fifteen years of prosperity from 1896 to 1911. In 1911, when our honoured chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier decided to negotiate, in the interests of the common people and the farmers of this country, the greatest trade agreement the country had ever known- reciprocity-our opponents went through the country, waved the flag and told the people of Canada that this would be the thin end of the wedge; that if we accepted the finest trade agreement ever made with the United States we would soon become annexed to that country. Our people were afraid; they turned down the agreement, and they have been paying the bill ever since. When you look at the ten years from 1911 to 1921, when our debt increased from $500,000,000 to $2,500,000,000, or $2,000,000,000 in ten years under Conservative regime, you can easily realize the joy of the people of Canada when our party came back to power in 1921. It took two years for our leader to get hold of the reins and get started; the Liberal party had only two years of administration before the election of 29th October last. But in those two years what did they do? The operating deficit on our Canadian National Railways came down from over $80,000,000 to $30,000,000. Throughout this country one of our

great newspapers published that wonderful propaganda which has come to be known as the Whisper of Death, probably the most injurious piece of advertising that has ever been given any country in the world, to the detriment Of this Dominion. And inside of three years, indeed, inside of two years, they have had to take it all back for the simple reason that this newspaper and the press generally are daily publishing the most extraordinary reports of progress which any country could possibly dhow to the world at large. The "whisper of death" has been changed to a "shout of triumph." During my campaign in Sherbrooke my adversaries, the Patemaude interests-I do mot blame the Conservatives-stated to the electorate that if they did not put this government out of power the country would be ruined. But the electors of Sherbrooke did not fall in the trap, nor did they help those who wanted to put this government out of power. During the time that these views were being expressed in my home town of Sherbrooke one of our industries, which employed 190 men in the period of depression after the war, had in its employ, on October 25 last, four days before I was elected, 425 hands. Eighteen months ago an industry in Sherbrooke which was then absolutely at zero, comprising one man and the office boy, was employing, on October 25, four days before my election, 78 hands, while to-day it is putting up a building in Sherbrooke 197 feet long by 94 feet in width, 3 storeys high. Another company which lost $187,000 three years ago and $85,000 two years ago came out square last year, and this year will make their first profits since the Liberal government came into power. And at date October 25 they were employing 900 hands day and night and Simdays occasionally.


Mr. BOYS:: Has that industry got any protection, and if so what is the rate?


Mr. HOWARD:: I will come to that in a minute.


William Alves Boys: This would be an opportune time to give us that information.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Another industry in Sherbrooke which has a protection of 25 per cent is putting up a 5-storey building, doubling the size of its plant and doubling the number of its employees, who to-day total! 425. That industry is making silk stockings to ship to England.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member think that the progress of that industry is due to the low tariff policy of the Liberal government?
The Address-Mr. Howard


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Very well, applaud this:
The government, with an unexampled hardihood, -has bought the support of the shrunken Progressive group and has thereby assured itself of a narrow parliamentary majority; and the purchase price is a legislative programme devised for no other purpose than that of restoring the Liberal-Progressive death knell alliance.
I absolutely take exception to these statements. I stand here as a Canadian, backed by a Canadian party, the Liberal party, and I declare that we are not running this country for the advantage of either the province of
The Address-Mr. Howard

Quebec or the province of Ontario, but that it is our intention to give such a government as is just and right to the common people, to the middle classes and to the big interests of the country alike, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In view of the figures that I have quoted, does any hon. gentleman seriously suggest that we had to buy the Progressives? No, most assuredly we did not; and all honour to them when I add that it would be im-i possible to buy them. They are not the kind that sell.
When hon. gentlemen opposite read the Speech from the Throne I ask them, do they object to the building of the Hudson Bay railway?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Well, we do not. The
head of one of the biggest financial institutions in the world to-day, addressing his shareholders made this statement:
I am convinced-
This man is speaking in Montreal, where the head office of his company is.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't tell us his name.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You will recognize it from what he says.
I am convinced that the consolidation of our two great railway systems for the purposes of administration and operation on a basis that would not penalize , the past efficiency and economy on the part of the privately-owned railway is the only practical means of eliminating the present enormous loss.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Hear, hear.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that someone on the other side says, "hear, hear." I do not speak for the government, but I want to tell the House that I think the great majority of hon. members are opposed to the consolidation of our railway with any other railway. I will go further and say that fifteen years from now, looking back on the speeches that have been delivered in this House and on what has appeared in our newspapers, we will wonder if the people were crazy even to discuss consolidation. I am satisfied that the Canadian National railway to-day is one of the best investments that Canada ever made. When we remember that that railway is hauling wheat to the coast to help our Progressive friends at from seven to nine cents a bushel less than American farmers have to pay, we must realize that our railway is doing something for Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much is it
losing?


Charles Benjamin Howard: It lost thirty million dollars last year, but it will not lose much this year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifty million.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It was a hundred million when you had control. Now, I am not going into details of how this country came to acquire the Canadian National railway system, because I might advance a theory which has not yet been heard in this House -possibly some of the men who financed the campaign for the other party in the city of Montreal had something to do with it.
But another reason Why we should not consolidate these railways is that we are recognized the world over as being, per capita, the leading exporting country, and we are proud of it. It is also recognized that we have 'the finest transportation company in the world-the Canadian Pacific Railway. If you should put those two railways together you would destroy the element of competition that makes every employee of the Canadian Pacific and every employee of the Canadian National boost for his own railway. When you take the train from here to Montreal, the conductor does not come along and say, "Tickets, please!" but he says, "Tickets, if you please?" Our Canadian National Railway is rendering a service to the country. The day will come when the deficits will give place to profits, and we will be proud that we own the system.
I am not speaking for the government, as I said a minute ago, but I want to touch on the tariff. The question has been asked three times by some hon. member; now I will answer him. I am a believer in protection, but I am absolutely opposed to protection that allows any manufacturer to sell his goods to the Canadian purchaser at a higher price than he ought to ask. I will give you some figures to show what I mean, Sir, but first let me say this by way of preface. A few years ago the automobile was a great luxury which only a few people could afford; now it is an absolute necessity. Those of us who go through our northwest and find, as was mentioned by the hon, member who preceded me (Mr. Bothwell), hundreds of our farmers located twenty to fifty miles from a railway, we realize 'that automobiles are to them an absolute necessity. They must have a smallsized truck in order to get their products to the railway-and save the building of branch lines. Now I come down to particulars, and

The Address-Mr. Howard
I want hon. gentlemen to take these figures seriously, because I am very much interested in this phase of protection. The price of a certain sedan car in the United States is $1,195; this car is also made in Oshawa and sold to the Canadian public at $1,925-60 per cent increase over the United States price. I am against -that. (No company, no group of men, have any right to bleed -the Canadian purchaser for any more than the actual difference of cost of manufacture over the American cost. A coach of the same make of car- that is the new one the people are all buying -sells in the United States at $1,095; for getting it made in Canada we have to pay $1,775. Now, Sir, the time will come, and very soon, when our friends of the official opposition will look back and try to claim that they favoured a -tariff board. They did not, Mr. Speaker. But a tariff board will solve this problem. The members of -that board, if they are -business -men, will sit around a table with the heads of industries, and when the facts are -presented as I have stated them to the House-that those industries are holding up the Canadian purchaser for sixty -per cent more than the American price, although the Canadian cost of production, including cost of selling, does not exceed fifteen per cent increase on the American cost-the board will -tell them where -they get off at and say, "You will either put your price down to the right basis or off comes the duty."


Mr. KAISER:: Would the hon. gentleman give me the names of the cars -he mentioned? I should like to have the information.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, I prefer -to give that information privately.
Some -hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am not joking. I procured the particulars from the Saturday Evening Post of last week.
Mr. ROBIlNSON:	Is the hon. member
taking into consideration that Canadian prices include taxes that the United States consumer does not have to pay?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, Sir. The duty on
automobiles is only 35 per cent, but our manufacturer adds to that and we pay a difference of 60 per cent.
Mr. -KAISER: May I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman has a perfect right to demand the name if he wants it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have just two more questions to discuss. First, our immigration policy,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which one?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The last one. We have
heard a lot about keeping Canadians at home. I do not think there is a single member who does not want to keep every Canadian at home. But there is only one way to do this- to make this country so attractive and business so good that our people will prefer to stay at home; and hon. -members will note that the figures I have quoted are proof of what we are doing to this end. In many election campaigns, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this remark:	"We would rather have
one Canadian than all the immigrants that could be brought in." I take exception to that statement. We are proud that we are Canadians and Canadian-born, but I say that you have only to look -back a few years to the time when our forefathers came f-rom the Old Land, travelled up the St. Lawrence and through hundreds of miles of forest, cutting down the trees to build the houses which you and I are enjoying and did not pay for. Surely it is evident that every immigrant we put into Canada is an asset which we cannot value. If we had a million more men in our Canadian northwest next year, we would have a crop worth $800,000,000 instead of $400,000,000 and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not be able to haul the traffic; it would have to go over the Hudson bay route.	.
I am going to make two suggestions which do not bear upon the question we are considering, and then I shall have finished. I want to pay a tribute to a suggested law, the old age pension -measure. I am pleased that this government has almost decided to bring in a bill providing -for old age pensions. It is in the best interests of this country that any person who has lived in Canada and spent his money-who has not hoarded it up the way some of us do-should be taken care of when he has passed the age of seventy years, and I stand for that measure. Then there is the question of rural credits. Possibly this measure would not have been necessary had we not our present Canadian -banking system, but under the circumstances there is nothing else to do. Consequently a bill will be brought down covering this -matter of -rural credits.
One further thing I would like to see is a recommendation from the Board of Railway Commissioners that the government take over

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
its fair share of the cost of getting rid of level crossings on state highways. When this country was in its infancy-in* fact up until a few years ago-we had ordinary farm crossings on country roads, and over these crossings people passed with their teams from ten to fifteen times a day. But our governments have built beautiful highways, especially in the province of Quebec, from thirty to fifty feet wide, over which from two to three thousand automobiles pass per day. Every year these crossings take their toll of human lives. The trouble in the past has been that the municipalities, already taxed to the limit, have found it hard to keep going. They say, and rightly so, that they can get along with these crossings, so why build an overhead or underground crossing for the automobiles which use the roads? I have consulted with one or two members of the Quebec government and I know that government will do its share. I suggest that we divide the cost among the provincial government, the federal government and the railways themselves. We should do a few every year, where state roads exist, and eliminate this risk.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, while I must congratulate you on being reelected to the Speaker's chair, I feel more inclined to congratulate this House on having among its members one so eminently qualified to fill that high office, and while I congratulate our distinguished fellow citizen, Senator Dandurand, on being eleoted president of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations, I feel more inclined to congratulate Canada on having produced a son whom all the world considers worthy of that high honour. After listening, Mr. Speaker, to the many men of your race who have so ably and so courteously acquitted themselves in the debates in this House, I feel that every one will agree with me that we must all take off our hats to our French-Canadian fellow citizens. They show not only ability in debate and a masterly grasp of affairs, but also a fine courtesy, a breadth of sympathy and loyalty to the highest ideals of Canadian citizenship which we would all do well to emulate.
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on his skill in debate, and on the keen, trenchant manner in which he deals with every subject which arises. I never hear him debate without reflecting that he must have been a splendid lawyer. But though he may be a splendid lawyer I am afraid he would make a very poor doctor. I am afraid he would be something like a doctor I once heard of, who was called in to see a sick man.

The patient said: " Doctor, I don't feel well; I feel rather weak. Can you give me anything to help me?" The doctor replied " To be sure I can; what kind of medicine would you like?" That has been the attitude of the right hon. leader of the opposition in connection with our Canadian manufacturers, and that is his attitude toward our Maritime righters. The manufacturers have come to him and said, " Mr. Meighen, we don't feel very strong; can you give us something to help us?" He has replied, " To be sure I can; what would you like?" and they have replied, "We would like protection in larger doses." " To be sure," he has said, " you can have it." Our Maritime righters have come to him and said, "Mr. Meighen, we don't feel very strong; can you give us something to help us?" He has said, "To be sure I can; what would you like?" They have said, "A little more protection mixed with a large dose of western wheat." He replies: "To be sure you can have it; I will get it for you if you put me into power." Has it never occurred to the right hon. gentleman that the first thing to do before prescribing a remedy is to diagnose the disease, or that the first step in solving a problem is to clearly state the problem?
Now, what is the problem confronting our Canadian manufacturers to-day? It is the same problem which confronts our farmers, namely, how to produce their wares and put them on the market at a price that will enable them to compete with all comers. That is the problem in a nutshell, and you will never solve it by a tariff which would make this a dear country to produce in; you will never solve it under a tariff which would make this a dear country to live in; you will never solve it under a protective tariff.
I have a message which one of my constituents asked me to deliver to our Canadian manufacturers when I came to Ottawa. This gentleman is engaged in the hardware business, and this is the message he sends: " Tell our eastern manufacturers that if they could reduce their prices fifteen per cent we in the west could easily double our sales. Every day people come into our store and want to buy something, but when they hear the price they say: 'we cannot afford it; we will have to do without it It might be only a dish-pan; it might be a kitchen range, but the answer is the same in every case; they simply cannot afford it and have to do without it.
What is the problem confronting our Maritime provinces to-day? The problem of the Maritimes, summed up in a word, is markets. When the Maritime provinces entered confederation they surrendered the control of their fiscal affairs to the federal government,

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
and in so doing sacrificed their natural market in the New England states in the interests of confederation. To compensate them for that sacrifice the statesmen of that day said: " We will build down into the Maritime provinces a railway, and put into effect on that railway rates which will enable you to ship your products into central Canada, where we hope you will find a market equally as good as the one you are sacrificing." They did it; they built the railway; they put the low rates into effect. But when the good people of the Maritimes shipped their products up here into central Canada, what did they find? The very things they had to sell were produced in even greater volume in Ontario and Quebec, and to ship their products here in the hope of selling them was like sending coals to Newcastle.
When in 1911 the Liberal government introduced a measure into this House to give back to the people of the Maritimes the market they had lost, it was hon. gentlemen opposite, the Conservative party, who were instrumental in defeating that measure. It was the Conservative party that denied the people of the Maritime provinces access to their natural market, and from that day to this the Maritime provinces have been languishing. But such are the vagaries of human nature, Mr. Speaker, that I have seen men stand up in this House from those same provinces and fight for the very system that has deprived their people of their markets. They are waging war for their chains, fighting for the system that has enslaved them. They are asking that this system of narrow markets and high protection be not only continued but even extended. Truly, Mr. Speaker, a protective tariff is like a narcotic drug. It does not cure the patient; it merely dulls his senses and creates an appetite for itself.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. .Smith) speaking the other night in this debate, asked that the duty on coal and iron be increased because, he said, he would have us protect our home industries in coal and iron from the unfair competition of countries whose currency was debased. But it is British coal and iron, and American coal and iron, that has invaded our market, and will any hon. gentleman say that British currency is debased, or that American currency is debased? I am afradd they will have to find a sounder argument than that before they persuade this government to change its tariff policy.
We all know from our boyhod experience that no lie can stand alone; that if you tell one lie to-day you have to tell another tomorrow to bolster it up. The same is true of any false policy, of any unsound course. When the Conservative party in 1911 went out and fought reciprocity and defeated it they adopted a false course, an unsound policy, and to-day, standing amid the ruin they have wrought, seeing the disaster they have brought on the Maritime provinces, and lacking the moral courage to say, "We were wrong; we made a mistake," instead of trying to retrace their steps, they propose other unsound policies in the hope, I suppose, that the one evil will neutralize the other. What do they propose now? By artificial means to force the traffic of western Canada through the Maritime ports. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) the other night said that successive governments in Canada had built railroads down into the Maritime provinces for the express purpose of trying to divert western traffic to those ports. That is true, showing clearly that different governments in this country have tried their level best to live up to the spirit of the bargain of confederation. They have done everything they honestly could to help the Maritimes, as it was intended they should be helped; and yet the traffic does not flow that way. They have done their best to make the stream flow up hill, but it will not. It would look as though nature intended to have her way in spite of us, and what is the course for any rational beings to pursue? Is it not this, that we should find out what nature's intentions are, what her laws are, and put ourselves in conformity with them? As .long as we try to fly in the face of nature, we are bound to come to grief. If we persist in trying to force our trade through artificial channels, it will not go, and we will only bring trouble on ourselves. I would ask some of our protectionist friends this question: At what point geographically speaking does it cease to be profitable for a country to carry on trade across its borders? Or to put the question another way: What is the largest geographical area that can carry on a profitable trade with its neighbours? Here is the situation:	Our
friends over the way tell us that the prosperity of the Maritimes depends on promoting trade between them and their neighbours the other provinces. They also tell us that if Canada carries on trade over her borders she will be ruined by it. The only possible inference is that a country the size of Canada is too big to carry on a profitable trade with its neighbours, but that the Maritime provinces are not too big to carry on a profitable trade with their neighbours in the other provinces. Will they tell us how big a

626	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
country would have to grow before the profit which it was making on its foreign trade would be turned into a loss?
I would like to say just a word in regard to the coal situation. As I understand it, here in central Canada, in what is called the industrial area there is a market for something like $100,00,000 worth of coal each year. In the past that market has been supplied from the American coal fields just across the lake. At present an agitation has arisen to supply this market from the mines of Nova Scotia and Alberta, particularly from rhe mines of Alberta. Our patriotic citizens of Toronto and the surrounding country believe it to be their patriotic duty to burn Canadian coal. Of course, they admit it will cost more to get that coal down here, but they think they have done their patriotic duty when they have consented to bum the coal, and the rest of Canada should pay the freight on it. The arguments they advance in favour of this policy are two:	first, they say it would
make us independent of any labour troubles in the American fields. That is true. Labour troubles in the United States would not affect us at all if we got our coal from Canadian mines, but how about labour troubles in Canadian mines? Do Alberta miners never go on strike? We who live in the west and depend on Alberta mines for our coal always have an eye on the labour situation, and it is quite a common practice among the farmers of the west, among those who can afford to do so, to put in a supply for six months or a year ahead just for fear of a strike. So if you relieve yourself from American labour troubles you have no guarantee that you will not have Canadian labour troubles.
The other argument advanced in favour of this policy is that it will promote the development of Canadian industry; that is to say, it will develop the mining of coal in the west and in the east, and develop the manufacturing industries in central Canada. Very true; we will admit it would, so long as the people pay the freight, of course. Here is the situation:	You have all these factories
and industrial establishments located here in central Canada. Has this particular part of the country any special advantages to offer to that kind of industry? I believe it has several: first, it has accessibility to market. Again, it has unequalled transportation facilities, both by water and by laud. It has also cheap water power. These three advantages the factories here in central Canada have over any other part of the Dominion. One advantage they lack, and that is they have

no coal of their own here at their door. Now they propose to ask the government to pay the freight on coal, bring it here from the east and west and put it dowm at their doors just as cheaply as they can get American coal. But there are some people in Alberta who would like to see a little industrial development in their country. It is true they have not as many advantages as the people of Ontario have; they have not the cheap water power, or the unequalled transportation facilities; they are not as *'[DOT]lose to their market. But they have this one advantage, the only one they have: they have coal right under their feet, and under those circumstances and with that object in view they have conceived the idea cf trying to build up some factories in their own country. But our patriotic manufacturers here in the east-


Mr. PRICE:: I should just like to call
the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact-


Hewitt Bostock: Order, order.


Otto Baird Price: -that the distance from
Sydney to Montreal-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Otto Baird Price: I am answering a question
the hon. member asked.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
no right to interrupt except by leave of the hon. member who has the floor.


Edward James Young: As I was saying-


Otto Baird Price: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with
the hon. gentleman's permission I may ask a question.


Edward James Young: Ask me a question if you want to.


Otto Baird Price: I should just like to straighten my hon. friend out a little.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must remind
the hon. member that a question is not a statement. He must content himself with, putting a question.


Edward James Young: Well then, Mr. Speaker, the argument is this: that the industrialists of central Canada are asking the people of other parts of the country-including, mind you, the man in Alberta who would like to start some kind of industrial business of his own-to pay the freight on coal to bring it down here to furnish these competitors with cheap fuel in order to outbid him in the market. That is the argument. If that policy were put into effect it would retard industrial development in every part

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
cf Canada except right here in the central districts. It would keep Nova Scotia, Alberta, and all the outlying portions of the country for ever paying tribute to the centre.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? because I want to get the facts correctly. Is he, as a member of the Liberal party, putting himself on record as being opposed to bringing Alberta coal and Nova Scotia coal into the markets of central Canada? Will the hon. gentleman kindly answer that question?


Edward James Young: I am opposed
to any man asking another man to pay his freight for him.


Otto Baird Price: With the permission of Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I wish to extend
some protection to a new member, on whichever side of the House he sits. The hon. member must be allowed to deliver his address without interruption, unless there is justification for it.


Edward James Young: To find a
parallel to that case, Mr. Speaker, we will kave to go back to the old Book, with which hon. gentlemen opposite no doubt are familiar, where the story is told of the man who had a ewe lamb, only one, whilst his wealthy neighbour had a whole flock. But the wealthy neighbour coveting the ewe lamb of the poor man conceived the idea of putting the poor man out of the way and stealing his lamb. It is not exactly a parallel case, Mr. Speaker, because when King David stole Uriah's wife he was at least willing to take her home at his own expense.
The right hon. leader of the opposition in his speech the other night referred to the general election in Saskatchewan, but in that he did not speak by the book. I may say he is not well informed of what went on in our province. It is true that the promise to construct the Hudson Bay railway was a factor in winning the election for the Liberal party out there, but it was not a dominant factor. I will tell you the argument that turned the scale in Saskatchewan. This is what we told the people: we pointed out that the Progressive party had only seventy candidates in the field, and there was no possibility of their being called upon to form a government. We pointed out that the next government at Ottawa would be either Liberal or Conservative; that the Liberal party would probably lose some seats in the east, and unless we, the Liberals, gained enough seats in the west to offset our losses in the east
14011-401	2.;
we would have a Tory government. That is the argument that turned the trick. The people out there knew what a Conservative government would mean, and we did not let them forget it. We quoted the speeches of the right hon. leader of the opposition. We quoted that speech in which he said there was only one issue and that was the tariff. We quoted the speech in which he said that if he were returned to power he would raise the tariff fifty per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman please tell me where he found that
speech?


Edward James Young: In the newspapers of the day.


Arthur Meighen: In what paper?


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, misquoted again!


Edward James Young: In all the newspapers of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I will tell the hon. gentleman he never found it in any newspaper. It is all in his imagination.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us the name of your paper.


Edward James Young: I cannot give
the exact date, Mr. Speaker, but I read that statement in the Regina Leader, and if I have misquoted the right hon. gentleman I am sorry.


Ernest Lapointe: You are not the only
one.


Edward James Young: I am sorry that I have dropped into the universal error of misquoting him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are in bad company.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
not quoting me at all. That is what I am asking him to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting the newspaper itself.


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. member is not.


Edward James Young: The newspapers reported that he said it; everyone in the west believed that he said it.


Arthur Meighen: Bring the paper.


Edward James Young: His own followers did not deny that he said it.


Arthur Meighen: Produce your paper.
C2S	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)


Edward James Young: He had the
name of saying it, and you might as well hang a dog as give him a bad name. I will make further quotations which perhaps the right hon. gentleman will not deny. I do not think he will deny this, because I have heard him repeat it since, in this House-that he would begin by raising the duty or imposing a duty on agricultural products.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Edward James Young: The right hon.
gentleman does not deny that. We explained that to the people in the west. We told them that they were to be protected against the cheap wheat, cattle and hogs of the United States.	They laughed at that and they
laughed most uproariously. The right hon. gentleman also mentioned fruit. He has told us how our appetites are satiated with American fruit before the Canadian fruit comes on the market. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) enlarging on that argument, mentioned strawberries as an example. I might tell the hon. gentleman that we anticipated his argument. We took strawberries as a concrete example of how the proposed duties would work out. This is how it would work. Strawberries come on our market generally about the first of June. At that time they come from the southern states. They remain on the market about two weeks, and then the southern crop is exhausted. Still we cam buy strawberries, and now they are coming from ,the western states. The western berries remain on the market about two weeks and that crap is exhausted. Still we can buy strawberries; now they come from British Columbia. The British Columbia berries remain on the market about two weeks. Then that crop is exhausted and the strawberry season is over. Now what have you had? You have had fresh strawberries on your market every day for six continuous weeks. But the right hon. gentleman says, "Put me in power and I will stop all that; you shall have no strawberries until the Canadian berries are ripe, and if anything should happen to the Canadian crop, as did a year or two ago, you shall have no strawberries at all." He proposes to supply the Canadian market of 9,000,000 people with the Canadian strawberry only and he would deny our Canadian strawberries access to a market of 110,000,000 people just across the line. The Canadian fruit grower, like the Canadian grain grower and the Canadian producer of cattle, has nothing to fear from American competition. He has a superior article and he knows it, and he is not asking for protection in his own market. What he

is asking is access to other markets. The Canadian farms, the Canadian forest, the Canadian mines, the Canadian fisheries, and in many cases the Canadian factories, are producing on such a scale that the Canadian market could not begin to absorb all their product. We must have access to wider markets if we would expand.
A great ado has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite	over some 4,000,000
pounds of New Zealand butter which were imported into this country-I am not sure whether that is the exact figure. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said it was, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber-) said! it was only 2,000,000; then he said if it was not 2,000,000 it would be at some future time. They argued that that importation had been responsible for the drop of three cents a pound on butter in Canada. They repeat that argument, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) pointed out that as butter is on an export basis the amount of butter imported into Canada could not possibly affect the market. Mr. Speaker, we use butter to catch mice. We bait the trap with the butter and the mice walk in. Some hon. members opposite seem to think they can catch the farmers in the same way. If their argument were true that these importations had depressed the price of butter three cents a pound, it would not move us one hair's breadth from the position we take. We are opposed to the protective tariff on principle, and we have no intention of selling our principles for three cents a pound.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the stand that we should adopt a retaliatory tariff and put up a high tariff wall against our neighbours, because they put one up against us; that because our neighbours are trying to injure us-and they are doing us a certain amount of injuiy-we should turn around and injure ourselves with the tariff. That reminds one of the ancient Chinese custom of wreaking vengeance upon one's enemy by committing suicide on his doorstep. Then we have the proposal to impose an import duty on wheat. That is another retaliatory measiure. The Uniteid States government impose an import duty of 42 cents a bushel on all the wheat we ship across the line, and now our patriotic millers ask that the Canadian government impose an export duty of another 42 cents on the same wheat. My constituency runs down to the Montana line, and I know how

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
it will work out. I have constituents there who live forty miles from a Canadian marketing point and only six miles from an American marketing point. They haul their wheat over to the United States and dispose of it; then the American government, through their customs officer; collect from the farmer 42 cents for every bushel he sells. Now our patriotic millers ask the Canadian government to take another 42 cents out of him to get even with the United 11 p.m. States. Yes, they are asking our government to be a party to taking from the Canadian farmer 84 cents for every bushel of wheat he sells in the United States.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are greatly
alarmed about the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods we buy abroad. It is true we buy every year hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods abroad, but it is also true that we sell hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods abroad, and if we sell abroad and refuse to buy abroad, how in creation are we going to get paid for the goods we sell? Will hon. members say we should accept, in exchange for the goods we sell, the depreciated currencies of other countries? Would they have us accept the I.O.U.'s of people who might never be able to pay? What shall we accept? We shall have to accept goods in exchange, and the more we buy the more we shall be able to sell, and the more we sell the more we shall be able to buy.
Speaking of the Hudson Bay railway, there is a feeling prevailing in the west, whether well founded or not I do not know, that the eastern interests are opposed to the Hudson Bay railway because they are afraid it would divert traffic from the port of Montreal and the Maritimes. If they happen to be of that opinion, I would ask them this question: When Peter the Great of Russia opened the port of St. Petersburg, did it have an injurious effect upon Russia's Black Sea ports? Not at all. When the port of Liverpool was developed, did it have an injurious effect upon the port of London? Not at all. In fact, it made more work for all the ports. When *the Hudson bay route is opened it will develop business and bring trade to all the ports; and the problem will not be how to get business for the ports but how to handle the business that is offering. It will give us another point of contact with the outer world, and the more points of contact we have with the outer world the broader and the fuller will be our civilization.
To sum up, I would say that Canada's greatest needs to-day are cheaper production, improved transportation and wider markets.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is now on the main motion.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather
protracted discussion from the government benches, I desire to make a few observations on the motion now before the House; but as the hour is late I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debase adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.35 .p.m.
Tuesday, February 2, 1926