1926-01-29

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 28, 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. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my address to the House last night, I made a reference to the Australian treaty and its effect on the price of butter and, I believe, on the price of cream. I wired the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta on Wednesday, asking him how the price of cream to the farmers in the fall of 1925 compared with prices in the same months of the previous year. I did not receive his reply in time to quote it yesterday and I, therefore, take this opportunity of doing so. This is his reply:
Cream prices during October, November, December, 1925, approximate 20 per cent higher than for corresponding period of 1924. Prices of butter this month six cents lower than in October. Unable to say exact cause controlling world condition.
Georgh Hoadley.
I quote that to illustrate further my contention of last night that it is exceedingly difficult to prove that a protective tariff or
540	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
the lack of one is responsible for a certain movement upward or downward in connection with the price of a commodity, and that many other factors must be taken into consideration.
Last night I referred to certain statements made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in regard to the need for the construction of a coast outlet for the Peace river country. We in the Peace river country are indeed1 gratified that our leading citizens have come to realize the need for that outlet and have expressed themselves so definitely regarding that need and the advisability of doing something, as we hope in the near future. As I have already said, the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and leading officials of the two great railway systems of Canada are committed to that proposal. The Liberal and Conservative candidates in the last federal election were also very enthusiastic regarding the proposal. I said last night, the attitude taken by those candidates was one of the factors in my nearly losing my constituency, and therefore I wish to read, especially for the benefit of the leader of the opposition, the position taken by the Conservative candidate in the Peace River constituency, because I should like to show him what the people of the Peace river country were led to believe he and his policy stood for in relation to the railway needs of that district. I quoted last night a statement of the leader of the opposition in a speech which he made at Edmonton in regard to this matter, and I will read part of it again because he was not here when I quoted this statement last night. He said:
I have always urged that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as the Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated that he was going to give railway relief to the north country and nothing has been done. This great question has been sidetracked by Senate reform, which subject has been discussed for forty years.
Then there is a quotation of a statement made by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King at Calgary, and this pamphlet continues:
Compare the statements of the two leaders. Mr. King criticizes Mr. Meighen for amalgamating two bankrupt roads, the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Mr. King states he is going to colonize the north country; he is going to make it a spear head. I wonder why he did not do this during the last four years with all the Progressive party behind him. He further states that the people of the north will get their coast outlet when they have tonnage and population to warrant same, which is the same old argument you have heard from every politician wishing to evade the real issue of the north.
Mr. King has disregarded the Throne Speech of this

year which contained railway relief for the north, and on the eve of the election he does not even go as far as he did in the Speech from the Throne, but he tells you that as soon as the north country is settled up and has sufficient tonnage, his government will then consider giving you a coast outlet for your products, but for the present the land should be colonised along the lines already built. This means-no coast outlet.
Mr. Meighen states that he will never amalgamate the Canadian National railway with the Canadian Pacific railway without the people of Canada, through
their ballots, instructing him to do so; that he will permit the directors of the Canadian National railway to run the railway and do the directing; that he will support the building of essential branch lines which the west urgently needs, which means, if Meighen is returned to power this puts your entire railway question in Sir Henry Thornton's hands as far as the government is concerned.
Mr. Meighen was the first man on the floor of the House to support the claim of the north for railway relief.
In connection with this pamphlet there are three charts. Chart No. 1 shows the railway service that is given to the three prairie provinces between Winnipeg and Edmonton.
In western Canada from Prince Albert south to the American border, and from Winnipeg west to Edmonton, there is 14,000 miles of railway, or one mile of railway for every seventeen square miles of country. If this mileage ran in straight lines it would start along the American border and cross a distance equal to that from Winnipeg to Edmonton seventeen times, and the line be only twenty odd miles apart, and the last line would be north of Prince Albert.
Let me now quote from the second chart. This chart shows:
The result of the McArthur-Liberal railway administration and four years of Progressive rule.
It indicates that in 65,000 square miles of territory in the Peace River riding north of Edson, only 500 miles of railway have been constructed under the McArthur regime and under four years of Progressive and Liberal administration. And chart No. 3 shows:
That if you had received the same railway development as other portions of western Canada you would have a coast outlet through the Pine pass on the north side of the Peace; you could have a connection to this outlet from Spirit river; you could have the Grand Prairie cut off to Brule, and still have enough mileage left to cross the province of Alberta east and west twelve times, as illustrated by the twelve parallel lines.
The pamphlet goes on to say:
This language is not election language, it is not political tin-horning; it is altogether too mild to represent the true facts of the case, and I challenge any man in the Peace River riding to refute the facts of the neglect and robbery of the north.
Do not get carried away by oratory or platitudes, or rainbow policies of either of the three parties on what Canada needs in the shape of remedial legislation. You confine your thoughts principally to your own riding and think of what the great Peace River riding requires in the way of help, and you vote for the man whom you think is best fitted to intelligently lay your problems before the House at Ottawa.
JANUARY 29. 1926	Ml
* The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
I pledge myself if elected to use my best endeavours, first, to secure a coast outlet for the north immediately; secondly, to secure branch lines to feed the coast outlet; thirdly, to secure railway relief for the settlers in the district lying west of the Pembina river and for settlers in the McLeod river and Shining Bank districts, and for the riding generally which I consider shamefully neglected, as shown by my charts.
In another circular letter the Conservative candidate had this to say:
As I pointed out in my railroad pamphlet, you have only one-seventh of the railroad mileage to which you are entitled as compared with the mileage which other parts of western Canada are enjoying. Yet Premier King pledges himself to spend $30,000,000 to complete the useless Hudson Bay railway and apparently did not even think about your railway needs. He did not give you any encouragement for a coast outlet nor for the 'building of a railroad through the Mosside Belvedere and Fort Assiniboine district, both of which problems will be given my personal consideration.
Another letter deals with the question of the Edmonton, Dunvegan railway and claims that it should be taken over by one of the two great railway ss'stems, the Canadian National being the preference of the writer. Let me quote. This was the programme:
Five million dollars at least must be spent on betterment work on the Dunvegan system when it is taken over by either the C.P.R. or C.N.R. Would taking out the crooked steel and laying new steel increase the payroll? Would giving the whole line a two-foot life of ballast from Edmonton north take any man ofF the spare-board or give them back their rights? Would the construction of a proper telegraph line, up-to-date in every respect, advance and better the position of linemen, operators, etc., and would men be employed in constructing this? Would the necessary alteration of the entire water system be of any importance to McLennan? Would the construction of proper engine-houses, trainmen's quarters, enginemen's quarters, sanitary living quarters for operators, all of which railway employees through America enjoy except the Dunvegan, be of any importance to McLennan? Would the construction of 2.500 miles of new railway anywhere in the north country be of any interest to the railway crews of McLennan and to their wives and families and to every man, woman and child in the north country?
Now I was not ready to compete in promises of that kind with the candidate of the Conservative party. I took the ground that we required one outlet, the best that we could possibly find, and I still believe that the construction of that outlet in the near future is sound from the point of view of the Dominion as a who-le. The Peace river district is a proven country, a country capable of large development, and it is a country of rich soil and splendid climate where mixed farming is making rapid strides and where the people are producing the best grain as well. In 1923 we raised and shipped out of the country about 3,000,000 bushels of wheat and other grain. The years 1924 and 1925 were not quite so good owing to the dry weather that prevailed. In 1924 we shipped over 5,000 head of cattle
and 10,000 hogs from the Grand Prairie district alone. The total shipments of all stock north of Edmonton ran close to 3,400 carloads. In five Alberta creameries operating or tributary to the Dunvegan system the provincial dairy commissioner computed the production at 763,723 pounds being an increase of 68 per cent over the production of the previous year, while the factory value was estimated at 30.7 cents per pound. Including Pouce Coupe and the 'Canadian National lines there was 8427,800 worth of creamery butter produced north of Edmonton last year. Dairy butter and home consumption would run this well over the half million mark. We have in this country a class of settlers who went 300 miles from a railway to establish themselves. They faced the difficulties inseparable from the hauling in of supplies that distance from railway communication, and they endured hardships for a good many years. They fought against a freight rate disadvantage of almost 50 cents a bushel on grain but they were able to establish themselves and to hang on until railway construction came closer to them, so that the whole Peace river country in Alberta is, for a new district, fairly well supplied for the time being. But right across in the province of British Columbia there is a large area that is not supplied at all with railways having to depend upon the road running through Alberta. We have half a system, which runs northwest for a distance of about 500 miles, but we need the other half running southwest to the Canadian National in order to develop the province of British Columbia and give a good railway service to the people there especially in Pouce Coupe and the district lying west of that in the Peace river block. I understand that the whole project can be completed for approximately ten or fifteen million dollars. There is a difficulty in the way, of course, in the ownership and operation of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, but I believe that in the near future this difficulty will be cleaned up, and in my opinion the best interests of all will be served by the operation of that system in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways.
Now, the right hon. leader of the opposition in his amendment states that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne-
-designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is. Last night I tried to show what railway construction meant in employment and general prosperity so far as the ordinary people were concerned from 1900 to 1913; I tried to
542	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
show later how the cutting down of that programme-which of course was necessary to at least some extent-was one of the great factors in the unemployment which prevailed during the latter part of 1913 and the following year. Completion of the Hudson Bay railway means something in enlarging the volume of employment. Surely the fact that steel will be required for that purpose will have something to do with improving the condition of our steel industry. I submit that the policy which we have been following for the last few years is altogether too drastic in relation to the needs of the settlement of the northwest. Last night I showed that we spent about 1800,000 a day in capital undertakings of this kind up until about 1913, when apparently we got frightened and said, "We won't spend any more." It may be that the programme of 1913 was too ambitious, but the abrupt cutting down of development along that line was a little too drastic. Then of course the war came and we had another period of free expenditure, followed by another sudden cessation. It seems to me, Sir, that from the standpoint of the employment needs of the Dominion a reasonably steady programme of construction of new lines of railway that may reasonably be expected to be succesful undertakings from the economic standpoint is something that is not only in the interest of the Peace river country but of the Dominion as a whole.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Would the hon. member allow me a question? What interest does he think the Hudson Bay railway would return on the capital investment?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I invite the hon. gentleman to ask some of the members from Saskatchewan, who are more familiar with that subject than I am. I will say this to the hon. gentleman, however, that we hear a great deal about the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway being a losing proposition, but though that railway is not paying as a unit, I would remind the House that the long haul traffic originating on it is estimated to be worth about a million dollars a year to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I wish to refer again to the report of the Ontario Commission on Unemployment. In section 2 of their report I find the following: In the opinion of your commissioners, it is desirable that Dominion, provincial and municipal authorities should co-operate in dealing with the unemployment which develops in all periods of general business depression.
Such periods occur with considerable regularity. During the last half century, no ten consecutive years 
have passed without one or more years of general depression. No proposal for meeting unemployment is complete unless based on a frank recognition that these cycles of trade stagnation will recur.
To plan necessary public works and expenditures, for such periods, in order that public employment may compensate as far as possible for a lessened private demand for labour, is, in the judgment of your commissioners, one of the most effective methods of dealing with the problem of periodic unemployment.
It is not proposed that unnecessary expenditures should be undertaken; but your commissioners are of the opinion that the public works and other requirements of several years should be planned in advance as a programme, and this should be carried out, when and in proportion as the returns of unemployment show a subnormal demand for labour.
I would commend to the government the desirability of keeping before them this question of a direct outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast. While I am not pleading now that the government should bring down a bill authorizing an expenditure of ten million dollars, I am arguing that if there is anything in the contention of the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to unemployment conditions in Canada, and of our being unable to absorb newcomers to this country, that here is a means by which at least we can do something to enable immigrants to establish themselves in a country where settlers can be expected to make good if they can make good in any part of the world. I believe that the Peace river outlet to the Pacific coast is a sound proposition, because of the proven merit of that country for raising high class farm products; because of the possibilities of development in farming, lumbering and mining; because of the need of a wider home market for our manufactured products, which wider market would be offered by the settlement of the Peace river territory to a greater extent, perhaps, than is possible anywhere else in the Dominion; because of the bearing such a project will have on unemployment, and consequently on immigration, for undoubtedly the opening up of the Peace river country would help the success of any scheme of immigration.
I wish to offer a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the coal problem, but I shall not attempt to deal with it at any length as I understand that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is taking steps to bring it before the House, and I believe he is more conversant with the subject than I am. I may say that at every coal mine in my constituency where I spoke during the election I opposed the interpretation, given by his supporters, of the proposals of the right hon. leader of the opposition to encourage the coal industry of this country. That interpretation was that he would impose a duty

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
of three dollars a ton on coal coming into Canada. Now, I do not believe that that proposal is sound, and even if it were put into effect that it would be permanent, because I do not believe you can impose such a duty without sending up the price of coal, and it is extremely doubtful if the people of Ontario and Quebec would be willing to bear that burden for any length of time for the sake of the coal mines of Alberta and Nova Scotia. I believe that the solution of this problem must be approached from the standpoint of transportation-unless it be possible for the right lion, gentleman to guarantee that the price would not rise with the imposition of the proposed duty, something which I asked him to explain last night. A few years ago we voted about two hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of making experimental shipments of Alberta and Nova Scotia coal to the central provinces, but so far we have not been able to demonstrate what is the actual cost of transportation of coal in trainload lots from the ivest and from the east to Ontario and Quebec. The right hon. leader of the opposition said something about not taking the National Railway directors by the scruff of the neck when he was discussing the other day the coal situation in Nova Scotia, but I believe that if there is no other way of doing it the government may have to take the directors of both railways by the scruff of the neck and find out what are the actual transportation costs. It may be possible to ascertain this through the Board of Railway Commissioners. If it requires a vote of two or three hundred thousand dollars to demonstrate this, I would be willing to support it. I cannot see why such a vote would not be justified just as well as a vote of a million dollars or more to increase agricultural production. But I believe that the very basis of our policy must be a searching inquiry into the actual cost of transportation and of the proper mining of coal. It would be unfair of course to ask the railways to pay the whole shot in connection with the proposal, and I believe if we are going to foster the industry we will have to do it in connection not only with the railways, but in co-operation with the mines, employees and the employers.
There are several other questions dealt with in the Speech from the Throne upon which I have not touched, but I think I have occupied the time of the House long enough. I have offered these suggestions to the government and to the party known as the official opposition, in the hope that my suggestions may be of some value, and that the government and the opposition will seriously consider some of these proposals, and will be able to work out a solution that will be in the interests of my constituency and the Dominion of Canada as a whole.


Mr. BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before taking into consideration the Speech from the Throne and the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), I briefly wish to say a few words, in our own tongue,-one of the official languages of this country-with reference to a short paragraph in the Speech from the Throne:
Canada has been signally honoured by the selection of a member of its Government as President of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations.
We all agree, I presume, in recognizing that the selection of Hon. Mr. Dandurand, as President, not of the League of Nations -as it is said sometimes, possibly for the sake of brevity-but of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations, redounds assuredly to the credit of Canada and does us all honour. I shall, nevertheless, suggest to the present administration. and to any that may replace it. not to allow themselves to be too much dazzled by the pomp of our international relations and to pay a little more attention to our national problems than what has been done in the past. It is very fine, indeed, for us, to have ministers who travel about and take part in numerous imperial or international congresses; however, I think, especially in the present circumstances, after the thinning out which took place last autumn, that we need all our ministers at home to do household work and keep everything clean and tidy.
I wish to take up the Speech from the Throne and the amendment proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the most orderly manner, were it only to correct the impression created by my previous ramblings, and to show that I may have some of that "practical touch" that the hon. member for South We'ington (Mr. Guthrie) has accused me of lacking. I do not propose, however, to acquire that kind of practical touch which consists of getting the best of all parties alternately.
Now, let us take up the programme of the government as put in the mouth of His Excellency, beginning with those paragraphs which deal with "practical" matters The first announces "substantial reductions in taxation" and so on. This is very alluring, but in the actual situation of Canada, with its increased debts and fixed charges, can any government

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
really make good the promise that taxation will be reduced in the near future in any substantial manner? Frankly and humbly, without posing at all as a financier, I do not believe it, and I will immediately give warning to this government, or to any government that may succeed, that it would be a great mistake, in order to win easy favour with the people, to reduce taxation and increase the debt of Canada. But I think what could be and must be accomplished, is a readjustment of our whole fiscal system. This will come with the budget. For the time being, in the name of those who have sent me here, I humbly suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that, in the preparation of his budget and the readjustment of taxation, he ought to think first of the fate of those ratepayers who are fathers of families. Whether we look upon it from the point of view of population, or from the point of view of economics, I claim that the best Canadian citizen, the most substantial ratepayer, the individual upon whom the future of Canada rests principally, is the one who rears a family, who shoulders the primary responsibility of giving us new citizens and increasing the basic population of our country. Therefore I suggest that in fixing the amount of the income tax, the exemption in favour of fathers of families be increased so as to apply to dependent children up to the age of twenty-one years.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I hope the hon. member will address his remark to the Prime Minister.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Mr. EULER:: The exemption is raised to
five hundred dollars.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, but limited to
eighteen years of age. Secondly, I call the attention of the House to a point which was first brought out, I think, in a journal of which I have the honour to be a director; that according to the interpretation of the income tax laws by the Department of Finance, married couples, under the regime of community of property, are under an injustice as compared with those who have separate property. As the lawyers in this House know, the basic law of the province of Quebec is the old French law, under which married couples without a previous contract of marriage are by law common as to property; whilst in the English provinces, they are separate as to property. What are the results? All over English Canada, and in the province of Quebec as regards those who have made marriage contracts, married couples enjoy two margins of exemption, while the mass of people in the province of Quebec, married under the basic law of the province, are entitled to only one margin of exemption. ,1 claim that this is an injustice, an unfair disposition of the law, and that it ought to be corrected at once.
It may be said that these two suggestions, if acted upon, would mean a decrease in the income tax receipts. May be. I have already spoken of readjustment. That decrease could be amply covered by an increased taxation of the profits and revenues arising out of the investment of capital, as compared with fixed salaries. Again, this is an injustice and an unsocial principle contained in our income tax law. It is unfair, it is unjust; I claim it is absurd to consider the earned salary of an employee, of a functionary, from the same point of view as the perpetual revenue produced from invested capital. I think both in England and France, and in the United States as well, they have made a difference between these two classes of income. I know they have in England, and I think it is a sensible distinction to make. Take, as a concrete example, an employee with a salary of three or four thousand dollars, a man raising a family. He is taxed upon that so-called income. He will pay his taxation this year, but next year he may fall ill, or his salary may be reduced; in either of those contingencies the state will not recoup him for the amount of taxation he paid the year previous. On the other hand, here is another man drawing from invested capital a revenue equivalent in amount to the salary of the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
former ratepayer. His revenue goes on accumulating year by year. That "rentier," as the French say, will be treated by the Department of Finance in exactly the same manner as the ratepayer whose earning capacity is taxed year by year, irrespective of the future, irrespective of the risks of life, illness, unemployment, and so forth.
Second, I claim that the dividends drawn by individuals from investments in various companies should form part of their taxable revenue, irrespective of the tax that is taken from the profits of the company. It may be said that this is duplication of taxation; but we have not hesitated, either in this parliament or in the local legislatures, or even in some of the municipal bodies, to duplicate and even triplicate some forms of taxation. If a company derives profits high enough to be reached by the income tax law, and if after that the shareholders of that company draw dividends which increase their revenue, why should not those individual profits be taxed in the same manner as the salaries of employees of those companies are taxed year by year, irrespective of the profits or losses of the company?
Third, I claim it is immoral as well as unjust that the profits arising from stock exchange operations should go untaxed. It may be said that this is a haphazard sort of thing; you lose one day and win the next. Well, what do you do with regard to other sources of revenue? What do you do with regard to the salary of the employee that is reached by the income tax? Do you stop at the idea of collecting his tax this year because he may in poverty next year? Will you, next year, if he is stricken with illness and thrown on the street, reimburse him for the amount of taxation he paid the year previous? I claim, Sir, that if one source of profit should be taxed, and heavily taxed, it is that immense organization, I was going to say of theft, known as the stock exchange. Such operations should be reached by the Finance Minister in the most effective and strongest manner that he can devise, without going beyond the point where the tax gatherer loses all power, because of fraud. With only those three sources of increase, you could amply cover those reductions which I have mentioned, and which natural law and the best interests of the country command this government and this parliament to offer to the honest ratepayers who pay honest taxation to the state, and who, besides, work hard to raise honest families to make the country greater, more populous and more enduring.
I pass to the second paragraph: reduction of expenditure. Well and good. I heard of that at almost every session when I was here before, and I find records of similar declarations in the Hansard of previous parliaments. All governments, especially those who are in a difficult situation, make virtuous professions of economy and honesty. I stand in favour of reductions in expenditure; but again, may I humbly suggest to the Minister of Finance, that-in what I was going to call the Caesarean operation he is preparing to perform on the budget of Canada-there should be intelligent discrimination? A small expenditure may involve a loss of money utterly unjustifiable; a large expenditure may be commanded by the best interests of the country, and may' be a remunerative investment, both for the state and for the people. It my excellent friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) were here, I would be tempted to refer him to a good British precedent. When Mr. Gladstone, that great man whom so many Liberals on both sides of the water have renounced, but to whom I have remained faithful, perhaps because I have renounced Liberalism-when Mr. Gladstone was first appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, his first action was to conduct a very searching inquiry into the use made of note paper, pencils, pens and so forth, in the various departments of the state and in the Houses of parliament themselves. Naturally he was laughed at by great statesmen. His first budget was called the pen-and-pencil budget; but Gladstone was not disturbed. He saved, I do not remember how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, as it would be expressed in our currency, during the first year of that small economy; but what was much more important, he had the concrete fact to show that in matters of public expenditure, as well as in the governing of a corporate budget or the humblest family budget, small economies accumulated one after the other result in real economy. You can empty a barrel or a tank by a large number of small holes just as quickly and efficiently as by taking out a stave or by breaking the wall.
Another point of view has to be considered. Discrimination must be made between useless and useful expenditure. In the past, and not very' distant past, a great deal of money has been squandered on post offices in towns of various sizes or on drill sheds that are of no more use to the militia of Canada than they are to anybody else. I know that in Montreal the drill shed is mainly used for motor shows; in Quebec, it is of utility in permitting the pontiffs of the various parties of Canada to

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

come once in a while with a great display of oratory, with much applause, sometimes with votes and sometimes with none; but I do not think it is absolutely necessary to keep up a budget of that nature whilst that money could be put to much better use in the construction of such enterprises as the one which was so ably defended a moment ago by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).
Take railway matters. Without exercising any undue pressure upon the board that has been constituted to manage our railways, I think it could be suggested to both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway that they had better spend a little less money on luxurious cars, and try to solve the problem of transportation by cheapening the rates on the necessary commodities of the people of Canada and thereby in fostering trade exchanges between the various provinces. '


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And perhaps in cutting out duplication.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.
Now. I pass to the third paragraph, "simplified forms of account." Well, that is quite inoffensive. Perhaps, under the circumstances, His Excellency the Governor General might have been spared the task of giving a neat little lesson on book-keeping to the officials of the Finance department.
But the following paragraph, which deals with immigration and repatriation, is a very important one. Sir, in that respect may I say that, from my humble point of view, the only satisfactory declaration I heard on that subject was the very sensible argument made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), leader of the Progressive party. I may tell him right at once that the argument he made the other day with regard to emigration and immigration, and the means to be taken to counteract, if possible, the terrible leakage to which our population has been subject for some years past, is entirely coincident with the view prevailing in my native province- not as expressed through party organs, but as developing in the minds of all true and disinterested observers of things. The population problem of Canada will be solved by making the economic and social conditions of this country-as much as a parliament can do; parliament is not omnipotent-by making the conditions of this country to the masses, especially to the farming community, such that they will find themselves happy here. It is not by any change in the tariff, one way or the other; it is not by any huge expenditure of money on this enterprise or the other, that

you are going to convince the millions of the people of Canada that they are happy and prosperous. Neither is it by a large scheme -an organization of so-called repatriation agents-that you are going to bring back to Canada the hundreds of thousands of people who have quitted the national soil during the last ten years to go and work for a better living in the United States. I have visited the French-Canadian centres of New England almost yearly during the last forty years. I know those Franco-Americans just as well as I know my own fellow-citizens of this Dominion. One might just as well tell the truth. The idea that you can bring back to Canada any number of those French-Can-adians who have gone to the United States rests on a fallacious basis. Of course, there are a certain number who go to and fro every year; we have had that movement ever since the two countries have been alongside of each other. I well remember Sir Wilfrid Laurier telling me once of his maiden speech, when he entered the legislature of Quebec in 1872, a Conservative government being in power there and a Conservative government in power here. That first speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on the subject of emigration. It practically contained the gist of the argument made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), and all his candidates in the last election, against the present Liberal government. But I repeat; if you follow the line indicated so sensibly by the hon. member for Brandon; if you demonstrate-not by speeches, not by so-called missions to the east and west of the United States, but in fact-that conditions in Canada are such that if those departed Canadians return to this country, their condition will be improved, very well. Likewise I refer to such emigration from Europe as may be desirable and possible to get.
Now, Sir, I go one step further and the hon. member for Brandon indicated the point in a slight manner. He reminded the House that Canada had been at war. Other hon. members have reminded the House that the financial situation of Canada, as compared to that of the United States, operates tremendously against the keeping of our population and against the repatriation of such Canadians as may desire to come back. Let us view that aspect of the situation in its true light. Beyond and above the small formulas and parrow recipes for governing this country, let us declare for a bold policy of nationalism, a policy meant to keep Canada for the Canadians, and also to keep the Canadians at home. No more imperial ventures. No more undertaking to send our sons to shed their blood

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
on all the battlefields of the world. No more spending of billions of dollars in time of war to depopulate this country, and then other billions of dollars in time of peace to bring foreigners in to take the places of native sons, sent to be killed on the battlefields of Europe, to enable one set of grabbing nations to get the better of another set of equally grabbing nations. No more "Ready, aye ready" speeches. Likewise, no more so-called Liberal circulars distributed through the country to disguise the members of a so-called Liberal government as a troop of imperial masqueraders. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition having given the impression that he was looking at the other aspect of things, that the experience of the war had .opened his eyes, the other party thought it necessary to imitate his imperialistic tendencies and to raise their hands in horror at the idea that should .Mr. Meighen come to power Canada would be absent from the next imperial war.
I do not want to dwell at length upon that. Some occasion will arise during this session, I hope, for the discussion of this whole question of imperial relationship, of the participation of Canada in wars foreign to her interests, to her duty, and to her future as well as to her past; in wars that have not for their motive and object the defence of truth, but the simulated truth to disguise the sordid ambitions of war-mongers in Europe or Asia. We should have a sound and1 dear declaration that we want to bring back the .happy condition of things which existed1, socially, politically, and economically, some years ago, when Conservatives as well as Liberals stood by Canada before they stood by any other country and were not afraid to proclaim that in order to make Canada safe, solid' and prosperous from an economic as well as from a political point of view, they were prepared to run the risk of breaking British ties. That was good, old, sound Conservative doctrine fifty years ago, but I have not heard it for some time past in any declaration of principle emanating from the other side of the House. .Neither have I found on this side of the House the same courage to stand by the principles of Liberalism in Canada or England as against the encroachment of Toryism and imperialism in the ranks of popular opinion.
With regard to population, there is no use denying the fact that the neighbourhood of the United 'States is a standing factor which will always operate against a quick development of Canada and also against the preservation of our population in this regard. I would zommendi to members of the House the read-14011-35J
ing of a short article which appeared in the latest issue of the Saturday Review of London, signed by a Conservative member of the British parliament, Captain Victor Cazalet.,-a French name, but a thorough Englishman.-regarding the causes of the slow development of Canadb. It is childish to deny the fact that geographical and climatic conditions are against us. The country to the south of us has a territory extending from near the northern hemisphere well into the regions of the tropic. It has every variety of agricultural production. It possesses all the mineral resources which you see scattered throughout the rest of the world. But Americans have something more. They are the masters of their destiny and of their policy. I will go further. Every Britisher, every true Englishman, Scotchman or Welshman, who abandons the Old Land, attached as he may be to the British flag, prefers going into a country where he will find under a new nationality the same power of public influence and public vote that he has left at home; while the Englishman, Scotchman or Welshman who comes into Canada knows that he will have a right to vote and thereby control the internal policy of this country, but that as a British subject he loses his imperial citizenship; that he has not the chance, every second or fourth year, to vote for or against Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in approval or disapproval of those great policies which may throw the kingdom or the empire into war or may keep them at peace. The eight million people of Canada have less say in the destinies of the empire, less say in the framing of such imperial policies, which our forefathers had the wisdom to avoid, but into which we have thrown ourselves up to the neck since the South African war, than the humblest sweeper in the streets of Liverpool or the poorest cattle drover on the roads of Scotland. After wars are over, the Britishers at home go and cast their votes in approval or disapproval of the policy which has brought their country into war, or which has kept their country at peace. But we, the citizens of this so-called nation, have no more right in framing those policies, for which we have stood an expense of about $2,000,000,000, for which we have enlisted 500,000 men, 60,000 of whom lie dfead on the battlefields of France, than the negroes of the protected possesions of the empire in Africa. I reserve for another occasion the development of this aspect of our situation; but I want to impress immediately upon the thoughtful minds of those who are not carried away by formulas of broad and undefined imperial
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

policy, the fact that this is in itself a deterrent to the development of Canada. It is also a deterrent to the development of that virile sentiment which you find in the citizens of any free country, whether they be English, French, German, Italian, or even Swiss, Dutch or Belgian. Go to the smallest, the humblest country, even to one of those that are excused from those great paraphernalia of so-called international policy, and you will find they have a more dignified sense of citizenship and national rights than we, self-willed vassals of a foreign power, have in the framing of policies for which we have crippled for many generations to come the economic development and1 the moral unity of this country.
In connection with the problem of immigration and emigration, I think can be considered the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne relating to co-operation of railway companies. May I in this respect humbly advise the members of the government not to look too much for co-operation from the railway companies, but to think rather of cooperation with the provincial governments in order to frame up a comprehensive policy of colonization applicable to all parts of Canada, and to see to it that no agent of the federal government will think it necessary, as others have done in the past, to think only of the settlement of the three prairie provinces under the pretence that in those provinces crown lands belong to the federal government, and to speak in disparagement of the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, because they consider they have no business to encourage settlement there? It seems to me that something much more fruitful of results than the co-operation of the federal government and the railway companies would come out of a round-table conference between the federal government and the various provincial governments in ordter to find out the areas that are capable of settlement in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario as well as the western provinces, and to direct the immigrants, not according to the arbitrary decision of an agent of the Department of the Interior, but according to the needs, temperaments and habits of newcomers to this country.
Last fall I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting in friendly intercourse the delegates from the Scottish Weekly Press who visited this country. I advised them strongly not to take a through train to Winnipeg and the coast and then return and go on board ship. I told them there was a little province down by the sea, the mother of parliamentary institutions in .this country, the jealous pre-

server of noble traditions and of the spirit of tolerance and social amity. I advised them to go to Nova Scotia where perhaps they would find still some spots on which Scotsmen of the Old Country could come and settle among their kith and kin, some of whom still sneak the Gaelic tongue. I shall wait for the proper occasion to develop this idea of a rural colonization policy framed and put into operation, necessarily through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments; for, given the conditions under which the public lands of this country 'are disposed of, there must be co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities.
Now I come to rural credits, and here I find myself quite at home. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when I mention his name you will instantly recall that humble servant of the House of some thirty years ago to whom my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has referred as a philanthropist and whom I may describe as one of the best informed economists of America, Mr. Alphonse Desjardins. He had put himself in communication with some of the most eminent cooperative economists of the world: Luzzatt-i, the saviour of Italy through means of rural banks; Raiffeisen, the author of those magnificent popular co-operative banks which were the means of rescuing Germany from the follies of the imperial war of 1870; H. W. Wolff in England and Sir Horace Plunkett in Ireland; from all of whom he had1 acquired invaluable information. After years of very careful study devoted to a mastering of his subject, Mr. Desjardins submitted to the authorities in this country his proposition with regard to rural credits. All through tho.se years I had worked with him, having myself also endeavoured to master the subject as well as I could; and I may say that I was instrumental in bringing him in contact with our then Governor General, Lord Grey, who at that time showed considerable interest in these matters. But what came of it all? A special committee of the House was appointed, and naturally all the pontiffs of high finance came to deride the project. They skilfully made use of the fact that Desjardins was a French-Canadian of Quebec. What good could come from Nazareth, in matters of finance? They spoke of the scheme as threatening the financial fabric of Canada; if we allowed peasants, ignorant individuals, to manipulate our money there was no telling what would happen. In the minds of some people there are only a few institutions, self-ordained, I was going to

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
say ordained of divine right, that are fit to dictate our financial policies, individuals who take as much as they can and give back as little as possible to the people. And it was these institutions who succeeded in 'blocking that proposed legislation, session after session, until finally Mr. Desjardins had to turn to the provincial government of Quebec to have his scheme looked into and put into effect. It was by means of provincial legislation that he was enabled to establish his rural banks. Now, after years of experience, on a small scale it is true, those banks, I dare to affirm before this House, have proved not only from the standpoint of honesty and good management, but even in point of efficiency in the employment of their funds, that they are in a position to teach many valuable lessons to the Bankers' Association of Canada. And the few of those banks that have failed have not wrought one-tenth of the damage to Canadian credit and to Canadian honour which many of our chartered banks, under the aegis of the Bankers' Association, have been responsible for within the last fifteen years alone. I say therefore to my hon. friends to the right that if they want to make sure that this legislation will pass and be effective, and that these sources of rural credit shall not be dried up, they had better beware of the politicians and especially of the Bankers' Association.
Now a word as to the tariff advisory board. This is excellent in itself but it seems to me that the government would have been better advised had they gone a step further and proposed the establishment of a 'fiscal' advisory board. It is obvious that through a tariff advisory board you will get only partial information; you cannot hope for any comprehensive study of the whole field of taxation if you instruct a few technicians of long experience along one line of inquiry to study only one form of taxation in use in the country. If by a readjustment of taxation generally we want to accomplish something, not only at election time but permanently, something that will endure from year to year and serve the interests of all classes in the country; if we want to press on towards that goal which we all desire to reach:-a sound economic balance in Canada as between producer and consumer, as between rural and industrial producers, as between capital and labour- it is not sufficient to study the operation of the customs tariff alone but to study the whole question of taxation in all its intricacies. We must ascertain whether we can derive more or less revenue through customs,
more or less revenue from income, more or less revenue from excise, and so on. To inquire into these matters is the business of the British exchequer. There they have officials of long experience who have seen ministry after ministry go down to defeat and who still keep on investigating these things. I admit of course that they are imbued with certain narrow and conservative ideas and very often they are apt to think themselves infallible, which of course is no more true of them than it is of any other body of men. Nevertheless these officials are of invaluable service to passing chancellors of the exchequer, because, with a lofty sense of their duty, with the assurance that they can express freely their opinion to every transitory ministry, whether it be supported or defeated by popular favour, they are able to make proposals which otherwise they would not venture to suggest, leaving it to the full responsibility of the government to accept or to reject their views in toto or in part. They therefore form a tremendous basis of safety, not only for the public but for private and corporate finance as well. I would therefore suggest to the government that they enlarge the scope of the board, making it a true bureau of information which shall be charged with the study of various forms of taxation to which the country is or might be subject. The government, I think, should always have regard to something more than the raising of money. In their relations with such a board as this, they should carefully consider whatever views are brought forward, modifying the opinions of the board when perhaps it is too coldly technical in its findings. They should have regard to what I mentioned a moment ago, to the fate of the families of this country, to the fate of those taxpayers, who are the best contributors to the increase of our population; also, they should always have regard to that elementary truth, so ably put before the House by the member for Brandon, but so easily forgotten by politicians of all shades in spite of their professions of faith, that the basic industry of this country is and must remain agriculture. The great error which both parties have committed, for the last fifty years, is to have always an eye upon the money monger, upon the industrialist. I should not like to narrow too much the scope of this debate; but there is no doubt that one of the reasons explaining the influence of that class of men is that they are easily brought together; they are in a position to present their interests; and also for
The Address-Mr. Bourassci

the further reason, that in times of dire electoral contests they are very generous subscribers to the funds of both parties-an eye-opener to party leaders.
As regards industries proper, I would humbly suggest to both parties that a national policy does not consist in favouring the development of all sorts of industries regardless of the raw materials they make use of, or regardless of their capitalization. I have always considered that any national policy should not bear that name unless it had for its sole object the industrial development of the raw materials that can be found in Canada, not the development of artificial industries that have to go outside the Dominion for their raw product. I simply mention a couple of those raw materials, so far as the soil is concerned. Wood, of course. I think the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc), if the press is right, will give us, before this session is over, occasion to discuss the question of how we can make the best use possible, in the interests of Canadian capital, Canadian labour, and even Canadian farming, of the wood which is exported in such large quantities to the United States. Next, nickel. This is renewing an old subject. I well remember in this House-not in this chamber, of course, but in the one that was burned-having raised that subject close on twenty years ago, and pointed out that Canada possessing, according to the testimony of all the mining authorities of the world, 85 per cent of the world's nickel production, had allowed foreign capital to come here, extract the mineral and send it to the United States, to be there made into the various forms to which nickel is adapted.


William Findlay Maclean: And to England.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not only to England, too, if my hon. friend will allow me. I should not like to open up that vista upon our so-called imperial policies, but I suppose my hon. friend knows that not a German war ship could have been finished, not a German cannon could have been hardened to the point of usefulness, had it not been for the Canadian nickel controlled by the international company-


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.
M,r. BOURASSA: -in which Vickers-Maxim and Armstrong's-two of the great armament firms of England-in partnership with the Krupps of Germany, the Schneiders of France and the great steel industries of Italy and Austria, participated in the profits; so that every German cannon which was hardened with Canadian nickel and loaded with shells similarly hardened, which helped to kill sixty

thousand of our sons, brought tremendous dividends to the numerous bishops, lords and members of parliament of England, who drew their dividends from the German weapons as well as the Germans did from the English weapons.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him there, because I will not have a chance otherwise. I desire to say that, from a fairly intimate knowledge of the matter of the export of our nickel and its control, the hon. gentleman has been grossly misinformed.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to develop this theme at too great length now, as I hope to have occasion to do so at a later date. I may say, however, that all my information was secured in London from high officials of the Naval department, from gentlemen connected with the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and fiom people who have traced the capitalization of the armour trust under which all those companies drew their dividends. Of course it was done in a very apt way. The company which imported our nickel was an American organization; but its shareholders were all individuals representing those various armament firms of England, France, Italy, Germany and Austria, and their dividends were distributed to the members of those allied companies. I am sorry to say to the right hon. gentleman that I think my information is much more complete than any which he may have. Now that he has gone to his reward-brave Britisher and grand old seaman as he was- I may add to the written testimony which I gathered in London the absolute and unequivocal declaration of Lord Charles Beres-ford, who confirmed every one of the facts that I have adduced to-day; he confirmed them in his own house in London in the month of June, 1914, one month before war was declared.


Arthur Meighen: How could the hon. and gallant gentleman in June, 1914, confirm facts which have transpired since?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They go back far before that.


Arthur Meighen: May be so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Far before that date
I am not speaking of the amount of nickel which was exported from Canada after the war was in progress, I am Speaking of the nickel which had been exported year after year, and which, to the knowledge of all people concerned, found its way to those various manufacturers of armaments, to those

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
various shipbuilding industries, and the profits of which were distributed amongst the various warmongers of those countries.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. gentleman did not give that impression.


An hon. MEMBER:: He gave the opposite impression.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The opposite impression?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman
means that a certain proportion of it went to the United States during the war, I am ready to admit that I think a small proportion did; but a large proportion of the nickel which had gone to the United States before the war was shipped to Germany and other countries before the United States entered the war. But a fact which cannot be denied is that Canada controlled the world's nickel supply for twenty years before the war; and at the very time we were told' that we must of necessity rush to the succour of England by building battleships five years before war was commenced. If we had all taken the trouble to inform ourselves, as I informed myself-not only in 1914; that was the latest proof, as I have said to my right hon. friend, but for three of four years previous-entirely through British agencies of information-I say, if we had taken that trouble, we would have known that at the time we were speaking of the necessity of building dreadnaughts to save England, the sole object of that policy, so far as the shipbuilders of England were concerned, was to continue partaking of the profits of the Krupp patents with the Germans as well as with the Italians and the French armament firms.


Mr. KAISER:: Did the hon. member know that Germany was going to declare war on Great Britain?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, no more than I
knew then that France had planned to declare war in 1912, as has been proved by the secret correspondence between M. Poincarre, in Paris, and M. Tsvolsky, in Petersburg. Perhaps the hon. member has not read these letters. I read them in England. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that if they wish to get a true sense of British policy, let them be a little more British, and go to the true British sources, and they will be in a position to be British in the right sense of the word.


Peter McGibbon: Did I understand the
hon. member to say that France and Great Britain were preparing to declare war on Germany in 1912?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: More than that; I am
prepared to say to the hon. member that as early as the second Moroccan incident France refused to declare war at the beck of England. When we speak of France and England, it means only a few men who are in the secret.
I quite admit that the masses of the people in England, in France and in Germany, did not want war in 1905, in 1912 or in 1914.


Peter McGibbon: If they were preparing
for war, why was England so poorly prepared?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Because she was blinded. The politicians who were in favour of war were afraid to declare war. The hon. member should learn that fact also from British sources. Only five members of the British cabinet had prepared the terms on which England and France were preparing to go to war, and were so much afraid to let the news fall into the hands of the public that they concealed the facts from the House of Commons and the people. They concealed them also from two-thirds of the cabinet. This is a matter of history. I do not read British history in the yankeefied Toronto edition, but I get it from the most reliable sources.
To come back to the basis of my argument, I say that a national policy should have as its primary object, first the acquiring of population, and second the development of national resources and undertakings. I claim that we have gone astray very much in the last twenty-five or thirty years from the basis of policy which was defined and offered to the country by that great man whom I revere as one of the greatest statesmen and most patriotic Canadians, Sir John A. Macdonald. His conception of a national policy was far different from that which has been prevailing and increasing in later years under the sway of- ,1 shall not say of the right hon. gentleman, but under the sway of that faint policy that I call imperialism and Toryism. When they accused the great Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper of endangering the British connection for the sake of building up Canadian industries, they contented themselves with replying, "So much the worse for British connection." These statements to-day may be forgotten. I think there would be a great many explanations in the Toronto Mail and Empire if the right hon. gentleman would dare to-day to stand up for the principle of the national policy as it was defined by Sir John A. Macdonald and upheld for twenty years. I admit that much can be said in favour of protection. I have an open mind on this question. I cannot convince myself that protection is a religion or free trade a creed. To me both are mere matters of economic policy
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

that should be applied according to the conditions of each country and according to the times. The right hon. gentleman has claimed for his party consistency and unanimity on this question. I am forced to say that I 'have yet to find the evidence of that consistency and unanimity.
I will not weary the House with many quotations. I will just refer to two. One is an extract from a letter written by my excellent friend, the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), a few days after that famous by-election in St. Antoine where the Conservative candidate, Mr. Birks, was defeated, in which election protection was the sole issue. Here is what the member for St. Lawrence-St. George had to say, as a Conservative :
I was especially impressed during the last election contest in St. Antoine division by the number of former supporters of a protective tariff who expressed reluctance to vote for Mr. Birks. They recognized the personal moral worth and the commercial and industrial standing of the Conservative candidate; but they were not quite satisfied with that kind of protection which Mr. Meighen seemed to advocate.
More or less casual conversations with my fellow electors at the clubs and on the street have clearly convinced me that the electors have now begun to discriminate between the general policy of protection and the incidents of the existing customs tariff; between the existing high customs duties which unduly favoured certadn industries, and the existing low customs duties which tend to drive other industries out of existence. When invited to vote for a protective policy, they instinctively inquired: "Protection to which industry, and to whom?"
Conservatives, mind you.
In those conversations several industries were frequently referred to which, in the course of years, by corporate consolidations effected under the law or by commercial agreements formed within the law, had become infant prodigies and practical monopolies, which, by taking full advantage of the existing tariff, were thereby enabled to deal harshly with the consumers.
It is evident that the high cost of living, the imposition of income taxes and the existing precarious conditions of employment, have led thousands of voters to discriminate between that kind of protection which would enable Canadian industries to withstand foreign competition and to create local employment, and that other kind of protection which would continue-
Mind you, continue-
-to enable a monopoly to oppress the local consumers.
I am satisfied that this reaction is widespread; and that effective means must be devised for impartial inquiry and report from time to time upon the incidents of the tariff, and for such corresponding readjustment as will protect the great body of consumers against undue exactions. The people still desire to maintain a protective tariff; but they demand the establishment of a permanent organization which will investigate existing conditions and prevent unjust discrimination, as the railway commission is empowered to regulate freight rates.
I think this expresses the real view, not the electoral view, not the view presented to the

Manufacturers' Association on the eve of elections in order to soften their hearts, but the view felt by the majority of businessmen in the vicinity of Montreal, most of whom are of the Conservative faith. That is their inside view-their view as business men.
Let us go now to the seaboard. I will quote the expression of opinion of a Conservative leader, one who was a member of the administration of which the right hon. leader of the opposition was also a member, and a polleague, I believe, although I am not quite sure, of the hon. member for South Winnipeg ,(Mr. Rogers). At any rate he is one of the ,best known Conservatives in Nova Scotia. I refer to the Hon. Mr. McCurdy, who last year wrote several letters, and delivered lectures which I found interesting reading, not from a political point of view, but from the .point of view [DOT] of the economic situation in the Maritime provinces. Here is what Mr. McCurdy wrote in a letter published in the Halifax Herald, and which was reproduced jn pamphlet form and distributed broadcast:
First let me speak of the "National" Policy, or system of protection, under and by virtue of which it is certainly true that the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec have fattened and grown rich, even although they are now passing through a lean period. But in what measure has this system of protection to industries alone helped us? It compels Canadians, east and west, to buy the manufactured goods of Ontario and Quebec, but it still permits them to use American ports of entry and export for their goods, if so be they can wring a further profit thereby-and we who live in the provinces by the sea must watch with what philosophy we can command the edifying sight of Canadian imports and exports being carried through a foreign country, which refuses to trade with us unless in a one-sided manner whereby all profit accrues to them, while our own unequalled harbours are left empty and idle,, our longshoremen go unemployed, and our transportation interests languish.
We who live in Nova Scotia must pay the tribute to Ontario and Quebec exacted by the so-called "National" policy, but when it comes to a question of protecting our interests and our ports, that, we are told, is another matter; our protests go unheeded, and we are left to watch the growth and development of a great system of transportation, which indeed had its beginning in pre-confederation days, but which is only now being recognized in all its menacing features, when the recent acquisition of the Grand Trunk and its operation by the government of Canada to its terminals in the United States is seen to favour and enrich them to the neglect of our own ocean ports.
Is this truly a "National" policy? Is this a policy to recommend itself to the people of the Maritime provinces, or to content them?
The mass production at the large industrial centres has driven to the wall the modest manufacturing establishments of this province, whose failure was the signal for the mass producers to raise their prices to the utmost limit permitted by the tariff. The system has brought to Canada in twenty-five years the branches of seven hundred American factories, of which, however, the first has yet to be located in these (the Maritime) provinces. It protects an automobile industry that can export 60,000 motor cars in a year to foreign lands in competition with the States, while

The Address-Mr. Bourossa
soaking consumers in this province (Nova Scotia) and elsewhere in Canada from 50 to 60 per cent more than duplicate cars sell at retail in the United States- very fine, perhaps, for the Windsor and Oshawa districts where cars are made, but economic death to the people who pay.
Sir, this is not Progressive rambling; this is not the vapourings of a man without a "practical touch." This is the opinion of one of the most successful business men in Nova Scotia, a Conservative and a protectionist of long standing, joining handls, though in a different domain of the same question, with his old fellow-citizen of the same province, the present member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Mr. McCurdy tells us that protection, as it has worked for many years, under Conservative as well as Liberal administrations, may have done well by the large industries centred in Montreal and Toronto, but that it has killed the industries of Nova Scotia. Therefore I ask, cannot a layman claim with the shrewd farmers of the west that protection is not the solution, that protection is not even the means of enabling the industrial life of this country to recuperate its forces, what is more, to send the blood of prosperity through all the veins and limbs of the body of the nation instead of centering it in the heart or the head, which as everybody knows, means sudden death or paralysis.
There is just one other point to which I wish to refer in connection with the economic situation and policy of this country. I am surprised to find that in this debate there has been no special mention from either side, unless I have missed some reference to it, of the operation of the British preference on our industry. The right hon. leader of the opposition has claimed that all the members of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, differing as they may with him in regard to leadership or other matters of policy, were a unit with the Conservative party on matters of tariff. Surely the right hon. gentleman has not read the reports of speeches made all through the campaign in that province, I will not say by Mr. Patenaude and his so-called Independent candidates, but by the one Conservative candidate who remained absolutely faithful to the right hon. gentleman. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Monty, who was for a very short time his colleague in the administration of 1921, and who ran as a candidate in the Montreal division where I happen to live, Laurier-Outremont. From the first to the last of his declarations in Quebec, Mr. Monty denounced the British preference as the main cause of
industrial suffering in the province of Quebec, and pledged himself in the most solemn manner, if the Conservative party were returned to power, to have that preference removed. Is that the unanimous policy of the Conservative party? My views on that are very clear. I voted for the first British preference introduced in 1897, but when it received its so-called imperialist stamp in 1900 or 1901, my British blood boiled. I said then and I say now: it is nonsensical in matters of that nature to be more sentimental than the British are. From year to year, we are told: Wait a little while; the British are going to give us a preference on our wheat and on several other articles of production. But that preference never came, texcept that at a certain moment it was trumpeted that we were going to get a preference on dried pears. Well, it came and went, and up to now the solid and sensible people of Great Britain have refused to mix up matters of sentiment and matters of business. During the same period of time I have held, and still hold, that in these matters we should stand by the principle of the National Policy as enunciated by Sir John Macdonald twenty-five years ago and say: Let the British look after their interests and let us look after ours.
I am not opposed to every form of preference; but I claim it should be framed, it should operate, and it should be modified, according to the conditions of trade and industry in Canada, and according to the needs of the people of Canada. I have had occasion to talk of this matter with men in business in Toronto and Montreal, supporters of the right hon. gentleman and his party and their candidates; and every one of them that I met told me-I am referring now especially to the woollen industry and boot and shoe manufacturing, which as everybody knows, are so important to the province of Quebec-: "It is not of the general tariff we have to complain; it is the British preference as it operates now that hurts us; because, since the war, British brokers go to France, Belgium and Germany, and there have goods manufactured and stamped as British made goods, manufactured in countries with a depreciated currency, and then shipped to England, and re-shipped to Canada as so-called British made goods."
Let the British preference be repealed, or let us at least have the common sense to do what the Australians did, exact a bona-fide value of at least seventy-five per cent of British capital and British workmanship, excluding the cost of transportation and brokerage. Let the British preference apply
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

to British-made goods, but not to goods made in Germany or Belgium or France and falsely stamped as British-made goods. This is the view of all those manufacturers in the province of Quebec whom I have had the occasion to meet for the last five years, who voted most of them for the candidates of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), but who are certainly much more concerned about the effect, as it operates now, of that so-called British preference, which, under a veil of hypocrisy, gives a premium to English brokers to supply these goods to that part of the empire where gullible colonials imagine they have to swallow everything marked with a stamp "Made in England."
I have said enough on this to explain that the paragraph which tells of our trade with the other portions of the empire should be governed by the same principle. Of course, Mr. Speaker, so long as Canada finds it an advantage to trade with England, or to trade with other British possessions, very well. But surely we have not so degenerated from the British spirit of independence, of enterprise, and practical politics as to neglect all chance we may have of trading with every nation with whom it may be advantageous for us to trade. Do we really want to win the respect of the true British statesman and the true business man in England? Then let us show ourselves as practical and as keen in the maintenance of our interests as Canadians as they are in the preservation of their own. Sir, when we qualified our so-called British preference with all those dythyrambic speeches about trading within the empire for the love of the flag, we made this country the laughingstock of the true Britisher all over the empire. I met in London an Australian who asked me how it was "that in Canada where you have only fifty per cent of people of British origin you appear, or you pose as being, much -more British than we are in Australia, where we are altogether British?" "Well," I said, "a good many French-Canadians imagine they are obliged to bow down because they are French, and a good many English-Canadians imagine that they are obliged to be more loyal to the king in order to set a good example to the French." The result is we have been erecting a structure of hypocrisy which is threatening to destroy all sense of nationhood in this country.
With regard to Canadian ports, Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition if he has been correctly reported; I am getting to be very timid with regard to quotations from the right hon.

gentleman's speeches. As my excellent-may I say excellent?-friend the chief editor of the Montreal Gazette is here, I suppose he can vouch for this report of the right hon. gentleman's speech in St. John's during the election, when he said, as reported in the Gazette of the 24th of September, 1925, page 9, column 2:
I would make the whole British preference apply cnly to goods coming into Canadian ports, Mr. Meighen said. He was positive in his assertion that British goods were entitled to no preference unless they moved through Canadian ports.
Now, Sir, I hope those words are correct for two reasons: first, it proves that the work in which we have been engaged for the last ten years, endeavouring to convert people, has not been altogether in vain. If we can make a Nationalist adept out of the right hon. leader of the opposition it may have ii great deal of influence upon the future destinies of this country; and the second reason is that I advocated the same thing in almost exactly the same terms-oh, Mr. Speaker, how old it makes us!-exactly twenty-five years ago this spring in the budget debate. That same year, Mr. Fielding went to London and announced to the British that unless they revised their view, unless they were prepared to grant us some equivalent for the preference we granted them, well, Canada would rise in her dignity and declare to the British that she would stand by her own guns. Indeed, we rose in our dignity, but we remained there, without doing anything for twenty-five years.
I am not going to dwell at length upon the question of making use of Canadian ports. T leave it to people who know. I merely suggest that if Canadian products can be transported by Canadian routes, rail or water, to Canadian ports, it ought to be done. May I suggest what I heard from a keen business man in regard to coal, for example?-that it might be possible to make use of these long trains hauling grain from the west-I do not think many have run for some years to Nova Scotia ports-to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick ports and to carry back, behind empty grain cars, cars loaded with coal from eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. It might thereby be possible to reduce rates and enable Maritime province coal to be sold at a better price in Montreal and Toronto. I do not know whether that is feasible; I leave the suggestion to those who do know.
But with regard to the carrying of grain by rail, I was much interested in hearing the hon. member for Brandon the other day say that he felt sure he could not explain how it

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
was that grain had not yet been carried by rail from the western provinces to the sea. Again, that observation makes me either very old or very young. When the Grand Trunk Pacific contract was discussed here, one of the main arguments advanced by the supporters of that policy before parliament and before the Railway committee was, that by spending enough money on the construction of the National Transcontinental, by reducing the grades and the curves, it would not only be feasible but advantageous to the railway to bring grain right through from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the ports of Montreal, Quebec. St. John and Halifax. It *was one of the arguments used to justify the building of the otherwise unjustifiable duplication from Levis to Moncton. An expert in the matter, Mr. J. G. Scott, of Quebec, wrote letter after letter to the papers, giving data to establish beyond doubt that the National Transcontinental would be one of the great grain carriers of the world. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) said the other day with regard to the immigration policy *"Where are the immigrants?" I ask now, with the hon. member for Brandon, "Where are the cars carrying grain from the west?" What is the reason why all this testimony-not from laymen but from experts-all these assurances from the members of the government of that day, beginning with the Minister of Railways, all these opinions of experts given before the Railway committee, should have come to naught? What has been the influence, political or economic, that has prevented the experiment at least being made of carrying grain from the west to Canadian ports, to Quebec in summer and to the Maritime provinces in winter? If it is impossible, then let it be said and proven; and we shall have one more proof that all the reasons given by so-called experts in favour of large enterprises are not perhaps always so well founded in fact or in economies as we are led to believe, we innocent ignorant laymen.
Now, we come to the paragraph relating to the Hudson Bay railway. I heard and learned much of it when I was a member of the House; but especially some twelve years ago when I visited, for the third time, I think, the western provinces. It seems to me it is just as well that we should lay the whole truth before the House and the people of Canada. The proposal of finishing the Hudson Bay railway to the coast of Hudson bay is not and cannot be a basis of policy. The object in view has always been to open a new avenue of trade for the export of wheat to England at the time of harvest and before
navigation closes, and thereby to alleviate the congestion of the Great Lakes route. That was the reason twenty-five years ago; that was the reason twelve years ago, and that would be the reason to-day if we were not afraid to let the people know that we are embarking upon an enterprise, the cost of which has not yet been determined, but which will most likely run into $50,0(10,000. I understand navigation of the bay, according to all the testimony that I have read and gathered during the last twenty years, is relatively easy. Navigation through the strait is the whole problem. If it is clearly proven that three months' navigation is feasible through the strait, so that before the close of navigation in the St. Lawrence the farmers of the west could put on the European market, let us say simply as an example, 100,000,000 bushels of grain which have now to wait for half a year in order to bring their full price to the raisers or the grain growers' associations or the various wheat pools, let us be bold! enough to say that we will stand the expense. Let us say that it is worth while to make the people of those provinces feel that their interests are looked after by the people of the east, not in order to protect them but rather to help them in developing Canada; to make them feel that their efforts to overcome the obstacles of nature, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) said the other day, are met with a broad view and courageous action on the part of the people of the east. Let us not conceal that policy under a small nightcap-the idea of building a railway line of some one hundred miles to bring settlers to the borders of Hudson and James bay which are not habitable even by savages. I know something of conditions there. I have been intimate with missionaries who have frequented those regions for twenty-five years, and all are agreed-factors of the Hudson Bay Company, missionaries, Indian agents-that those regions cannot be colonized. Of course the northern portion of Manitoba and that portion of Keewatin which has been annexed to Manitoba can be colonized, but the shores about Hudson bay and James bay cannot. There is no need to push the railway there and build up a port unless we place boldly before the people of Canada the necessity of completing the water route as well as the railway. May I, therefore, suggest to the government the necessity of gathering Some data which, to my great surprise, I have never been able to find anywhere? A year ago, I was in Winnipeg talking to business men, farmers, representatives of the Progressive party, also Conservatives and Liberals, and I
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

told them: "You have here representatives of one company-or you could reach its head office in London-that has been navigating the waters of the Hudson bay for over two hundred years. Surely the Hudson's Bay Company must have marine records. It should be possible to find out from year to year when navigation opened; when it was closed in midsummer by packed ice coming from the east or going out from the west; when it was reopened again. All this data could be compiled for a period of fifteen or twenty years with the possibility of an exception in the case of an odd! year when navigation would be stopped. But on the whole we can get facts to demonstrate whether or not that water route can be used for carrying the grain of the west." I was unable to find one man who had seen those records of the Hudson's Bay Company. Surely the government could secure them before they present their legislation.
But if we are to conceal the policy respecting the larger project under the guise of a proposal to build some one hundred miles of railway in order to assist colonization, the government is up against this other problem. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) quite properly pleaded this afternoon the case of the region which he represents. My hon. friends the jmemfoer for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc) and the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Sylvestre) not only will have full right, but it will be their imperative duty to demonstrate to this House that the building of a circular railway along the shores of lake St. John is absolutely necessary for the development of colonization and the maintenance of a rural population in that region. Likewise it will be my duty to demonstrate to this House that the piece of railway between Montreal and Mont Laurier should be extended northward so as to give homes to thousands of Canadian families who are now going to the United States because they have no free lands at their disposal. In other words, if you do not consider the Hudson Bay railway proposal as a great enterprise for the shipment of wheat by water to the other side of the Atlantic, you must consider it as part and parcel of a railway development policy to assist the settlement of lands, not only in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but throughout the whole of Canada.
I leave it to the conscience, the judgment of the government, to decide which is which and to choose what is the best for Canada as a whole. I, of course, reserve my right to consider their policy on its merits when it comes down.

I will not speak of Maritime rights to-night. I merely make the observation that I do not think the mention of a royal commission sounds very well. Perhaps it is because we have a King-headed government; but it seems to me it would be at once more practical, more speedy and more economical to have an inquiry by parliament. What could prevent the appointment of a special committee of this House to go into the matter, composed partly of gentlemen from the Maritime provinces and partly of representatives of the other provinces? Surely any problem which is dear to Nova 'Scotia cannot but be dear to us. They are Canadians just as we are. Their land is just as dear to us as Quebec or British Columbia are dear to the inhabitants of those provinces. Their problem is part of the national problem. From my heart I want to know their grievances; and while I will not parade with a royal commission, I am prepared to follow the findings of a committee of the House. Let that committee bring from the Maritime provinces representatives of the^ fishing industry, representatives of those industries that have been destroyed, according to the testimony of Mr. McCurdy,' by the protective policy; representatives of labour, farmers, apple growers in that province, I think thereby their objects would be accomplished in a much more practical manner, in a manner much more illuminating to us as representatives of the people, and in a manner which would enable us to present to our various constituencies in Quebec, British Columbia and elsewhere the national aspect of the problems of Nova Scotia. For my part I am prepared to present to my constituents the national aspect of the problems which have grown up in those fertile regions of eastern Canada, as well as the problems of the west.
As regards the last paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, "natural resources of Alberta," I put to the government this question, to which they need not reply to-day. Why Alberta alone? Why not Manitoba and Saskatchewan? The same principle, the same policy, apply there. The right hon. gentleman stated the other day that it had been a great mistake not to hand those natural resources to the provinces of the west when they were formed. This opens up a very complex aspect of the question. I am not going to dwell upon it to-night; but I am in duty bound to tell the members of the government that when, in 1905, the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan received their provincial charters at the hands of this parliament, exercising the constitutional jurisdiction with

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
which it had been vested by the Imperial parliament, when these territories were acquired from the Hudson's Bay Company, the matter was discussed at length in private as well as in public. I stand here, with one exception, I think, the only living witness of one of those conferences in which it was agreed that these natural resources should remain in the hands of the federal government for various reasons, one of which was that they should serve as a guarantee of the maintenance of what remained of the school rights of the Catholic and French minorities of those provinces. I do not want to take the House by surprise, nor do I relish the idea of having to resuscitate these old questions in the House. But, Sir, I should be remiss in my duty, I dhould be disregarding the honour of my solemn word pledged at the time, that if any change was ever made in the material terms of the contract, I would stand as a witness to that contract-I say, I should fail in my duty if I did not on this occasion demand that the moral obligations then undertaken be strictly fulfilled. Indeed, I will not see a shred of those promises broken without stating what I know to be the truth of the matter and indicating what part I myself played in the undertaking, and with what object. Before this question is settled, there must be a frank, a clear and an honest understanding as to what shall be done in respect of the solemn moral obligations entered into when that reservation was made. I shall let it go at that for the present.
With regard to the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), I do not think that I have much to add to what I have already said. I may however be allowed to remark, without desiring in any way to disparage the right hon. gentleman's motion, that I considered it surprisingly restrained after the campaign which had been waged in the country for the last two or three months, and in the light of the speeches delivered previously, not only in this House but outside as well. For three months, the country saw a vast mountain of argument labouring in favour of high protection. In the province of Quebec especially, there was a volcano of vituperation against the King government because of its abdication into the hands of the Progressive party, to the detriment of the industries in the province of Quebec. Well, as I read the amendment, it struck me that, after its titanic pregnancy, the mountain had brought forth but a short-tailed puny mouse. But there may be something good in it and for my part I want to see, if I can, just what it is.
The right hon. gentleman speaks of increasing the "volume of employment" in the country; but neither he nor any hon. gentleman who sat in this House from 1914 to 1917, aud between 1917 and 1921, must overlook the fact that the main cause of unemployment in Canada has been the extent to which we carried out war policy. Thousands of young men were enlisted, freely or by conscription, while thousands of others were dragged from the country to the cities and towns to work in munition factories, with the result that we are now experiencing a plague of urbanism, due directly to the operation of that policy. It ,is the experience of the world at large that once you have uprooted the rural dweller from the land and brought him into the city it is difficult to induce him to resume his former condition. He has changed his mode of 'life; and while he has not altogether adapted himself to the city he has lost some of the basic qualities of his former existence; so that too frequently he has acquired the vices as well as the superficial habits of the city dweller and has not the power, socially or intellectually, to resikt the influence of city life. It is therefore a very difficult thing to deal with, especially in a country like ours. In the light of my own experience and the study that has been made of this problem in various countries, I am of the opinion that no law, no policy, can deal effectively with the situation we have on our hands. I believe that all we can do is to try to readjust the economic conditions in Canada so as to obtain what the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) so well depicted the other day, the re-creation in the poinds of rural people of the conviction that it is worth while to remain on, or to go back to, the land.
With regard to protection on farm products, hon. gentlemen have gone into this subject in greater detail than I can hope to do; but I want to refer briefly to an argument advanced by the leader of the opposition in regard to the protection afforded fruit growers and gardeners. He said that we allowed foreign products to enter free into this country during three months or so, and then, when the consumers were "satiated," the fruit grower of Canada had no chance. I do not know just what the physical constitution of my right hon. friend's stomach is like; but speaking for myself and the people of my province, I can say that we are never satiated with vegetables and fruits, for we eat them the whole year round. Now, it is all very well to think of the producer in these matters but we must not forget the consumer. By an artificial policy of industrialism we have turned the farming
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

community of Canada largely into an industrial population; so that there are as many people dwelling in the cities as on the farms. Are we then, in order to stimulate the cultivation of fruits and vegetables, to force the labourers and people of moderate means in the cities to pay very high prices for these things when they cannot be got out of Canadian soil? No; that is against the laws of nature, it is against the laws of social justice. Once the Canadian soil, allowing for differences in climate and other contingencies, is able to supply the Canadian consumer with native fruits and vegetables at prices accessible to poor people in the cities and villages, we need not be afraid of the competition of California pears or the imports of Florida oranges.
Again, with regard to coal, a large problem with which I am less familiar than I am with the preceding subject. In this regard I must once more urge that we think of the consumer as well as of the producer. While we think of the coal producer let us remember the labourer employed in the mines. Think of the capital invested in mining; but please do not forget the consumer of coal, and do not forget either the geography of Canada. I am always surprised at the way those "practical" men forget the most essential realities of things. Now, in the strip of country between Montreal and Toronto, or let us say, broadly, in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, more than half the population of Canada is separated from the richest coal fields of North America-I am speaking of anthracite now- by a sheet of water over which that coal can be brought to Montreal and Toronto at a much cheaper price than any coal can be brought from Nova Scotia and Alberta. All we can do to help the collieries of Nova Scotia and Alberta I am prepared to stand by; but I am not prepared to advocate the imposition of a policy through which the labourer and other people of moderate means in Ontario and Quebec or elsewhere should pay more for their fuel; because, in a country like Canada, fuel is one of the essentials of life, especially to the poor people. But something that could be developed, I think, along that line would be to make use, as I mentioned a moment ago, of the empty trains returning from the east to bring us back some of the soft coal of Nova Scotia. What can be done along the same line in regard to Alberta coal I do not know, for there the proposition is reversed-trains are coming east full, and they go back empty. I think the same remedy could not be applied there with regard to soft coal. In regard to anthracite, could we not make better use of the ships going to Great
[Mr. BourassaJ
Britain loaded with our wheat to bring back a larger quantity of Scotch and Welsh anthracite, which, in the Montreal market at least, is gradually displacing-not displacing, no, but which is making inroads at the expense of American anthracite? That is another matter that will have to be looked into in solving the problem of transportation. On the whole, I think the Welsh and Scotch anthracite give more satisfaction than the Pennsylvania.
I sum this up by saying that it is dangerous and futile for any parliament to attempt to go too far in the way of changing the laws of nature and replacing them by laws of parliament. Let us do what is practical, let us do what is possible, let us try to establish among the various portions of Canada the most harmonious and the most constant intercommunication in trade; but not to the point of saying, as was said on a certain occasion, "no truck or trade with the Yankees!" No! To build up Canada we need trade with the United States. To preserve Canada as a British country we must pot frame a policy that will develop in the minds of many Canadians the thought that if they were Americans they would be better off than by remaining Canadians and British.
For all these reasons it seems to me that the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman is insufficient and unsatisfactory. It is either too small or too vague. It certainly does not coincide with all that I have heard for many years past as being the great constructive policy of the Conservative party. But with that I am not concerned. To my mind it certainly offers but a very puny and imperfect solution of all those problems that have been so ably described by gentlemen on the other side. There is much to be taken from what they have said outside parliament; but I am afraid there is very little to be taken from the concrete form and shape which it has assumed in this House. For that reason, Sir. I am going to cast my vote against the amendment. Naturally, I am going to give my vote for the programme of the government. It is not a bad programme-thanks to those Progressive gentlemen. I am not one of those who were scandalized because the strong voice and the stout arm of the west made themselves felt in the somewhat narrow and stuffy atmosphere of the Privy Council of Canada, before they came here. Thanks to the Progressives, the programme of the government is enlarged. Let the whole of Canada express its gratitude for what they have done, but let us also gird our loins to see that the programme does not remain on paper-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -to see that the programme is followed with execution, to see that every article of that programme is translated into legislation, not in any future so distant that perhaps-perhaps, it is in the minds of some of them-another general election will come and reduce the power of those who have helped in making a programme pretty good for the country. No! Let us join hands together, all of us who are neither Liberal or Conservative, who are prepared- I say it without blush or shame-to maintain this government in power, or throw it down to-morrow to place those other gentlemen in their place, should thereby one single law be added or one single measure taken for the ' general advantage of Canada. I repeat, Sir, what I said before my good old electors of Labelle: every atom of party spirit is dead in me; but at the same time I think I take a broader view of the capabilities of both parties.
I am going to vote against the amendment and for the programme. But, Sir, I repeat to my good friends on this side of the House that I reserve to myself full liberty to vote against any of the measures mentioned in that programme if in its terms, if in its objects, if in its practical application, anticipated or immediate, it does not respond to what I consider to be the aspirations of the Canadian nation at large at the present time; that is. to rebuild the national soul within a solid body of provinces, hand in hand together working for the future destiny of Canada, looking to the betterment of all classes in this country, putting aside those racial animosities and those imperial ambitions which have disturbed our minds, in order to resurrect in a real sense a Canadian nationhood inspired by high ideals and imbued with a practical sense of the realities of this country, of its needs both present and future.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in thinking
back over the very many excellent speeches which have been delivered in this debate it is perhaps somewhat invidious to pick out any one for special mention, but I should like to express my personal appreciation of the speech which has just been delivered by the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa); also, of a speech delivered a day or two ago by the member for South York (Mr. Maclean). It is a delightfully anomalous situation that a Quebec Nationalist and a Toronto Tory should be in the forefront in stressing the need for the social viewpoint in dealing with our great
national problems. I have no intention of entering upon some of the questions which have been raised by the hon. member for Labelle, but I was interested in noticing that one of the members opposite raised the question whether or not Great Britain was prepared for the Great war, and the hon. member for Labelle suggested that there should be some reading of English history. There occurred to me two or three paragraphs which I can hardly avoid reading at this time. In the History of Modem Europe, 1878-1919, by G. P. Gooch, I find this paragraph:
As far back as 1905 on his appointment to office the first sea lord, in a written memorandum, predicted an Anglo-German war in August 1914.
That appears in the Memoirs, page 64. It continues:
And on March 14, 1908, he wrote to King Edward, "That we have eventually to fight Germany is just as sure as anything can be". Early in 1908 he writes, "I had a long secret conversation with the king, in which I urged that we should Copenhagen the German fleet at Kiel, a la Nelson, and I lamented that we possessed neither a Pitt nor a Bismarck to give the order".
Then I quote from a book recently published by Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, 1911-1914. In his preface to The World Crisis, volume 1, he says:
I had certain main ideas of what I was going to do and what indeed, I was sent to the Admiralty to do. I intended to prepare for an attack by Germany as if it might come next day. I intended to raise the fleet to the highest possible strength and secure that all that strength was immediately ready. I was pledged to create a war staff. I was resolved to have all arrangements made at once in the closest concert with the military to provide for the transportation of a British army to France should war come. I had strong support from the War office and the Foreign office. I had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at my back.
Further I quote an extract from The Official History of The War, Naval Operations (Longman and Company), as follows:
Amongst the many false impressions that prevailed when after the lapse of a century we found ourselves involved in a great war, not the least erroneous is the 'belief that we were not prepared for it. Whether the scale on which we prepared was as large as the signs of the times called for, whether we did right to cling to our long-tried system of a small army and large navy, a.re questions that will long be debated; but, given the scale which we deliberately chose to adopt, there is no doubt that the machinery for setting our forces in action had reached an ordered completeness, in detail that has no parallel in our history. The power of armies they (the Germans) could calculate to a nicety-of the power of the sea they had no experience. All that was plain was that Great Britain was as ready as ever to play the old game, and had set the board with all the old skill.
I have read these extracts simply because I believe that a very large number of our Canadian citizens have absolutely no idea of the revelations which have come to us

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
from authoritative sources within the last few years. It was a crime to discuss the origin of the war while it was on. Now that we are struggling under the enormous loads entailed by the war, and now that we are told by our military authorities that we must prepare for another war, it is time for someone to say what is really involved, and I am glad the hon. member for Labelle has begun along this line.
Now with regard to this debate, when the former amendment was before the House I think the position of our Labour party was fairly clearly defined. We took the ground that the government had a perfect right to meet parliament. Further than that we thought it would be a serious mistake if the precedent would be established that the largest group, even if it were a minority, had the right to form a government. I believe the vote on the first amendment was a decided victory for minorities in this country. We stated at that time that we would wait until the legislative proposals were brought down. These are now before us and I must confess that the Speech from the Throne gives us little indication that the government has been preparing to give very much attention to the needs of industrial workers. I think my colleague, in his speech the other evening, stated very clearly the feeling we have in this matter. However, in the last few days the government has made certain important announcements with regard to policies directly affecting a great many people whom we represent that we feel that our position has to foe decidedly modified. I think perhaps the general attitude of Labour with regard to the Speech from the Throne might very well be indicated by an extract from an editorial which appears in the current number of the Congress Journal, which reads:
This premise of a particularly healthy financial condition should have enabled the government to forecast relief to the thousands of aged needy persons by 'the introduction of an old age pension measure. Great increases in our population are promised by the comprehensive immigration, plans which are forecast. It is announced that regulations have been simplified, transportation rates greatly reduced and other steps taken which will open the flood gates of immigration once more. No mention is found in the Speech from the Throne of the thousands of unemployed who have had to be (taken care of even during (the summer months by municipalities and private charities, and if the finances of the country are such "as to warrant further substantial reductions in taxation" it would again app>ear that some measure of relief to the unemployed might have been fofrecast iby the .promise of the introduction of "unemployed insurance" legislation. This is all the more important as the likelihood of the accentuation

of unemployment seems more than . probable if the threatened rampage of immigration is allowed to develop unchecked.
We have been pressing during the past four years for a number of measures that would to some extent meet the needs of Labour. Among all these there were two very urgent measures that we kept dinning into the ears of this parliament, in season and out of season. One was old age pensions and the other was relief for the unemployed. Some of the papers have characterized us as Labour communists. Well, if it is anything very bad to desire to look after the old people and to care for the unemployed, we are quite willing to be placed in that class. When we came to this parliament, even before the Speech from the Throne was read, my colleague and I decided to find out what the attitude of the various parties was with regard to these measures. We wrote the following letter to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, on the 7th of January:
Dear Mr. King :
As representatives of Labour in the House of Commons, may we ask whether it is your intention to introduce at this session legislation with regard to (a) Provision for the unemployed;	(b) Old Age
Pensions.
We are venturing to send a similar inquiry to the leader of the opposition.
Yours sincerely,
J. S. Woodsworth, A. A. Heaps.
We sent a similar letter to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and to the leader of the Progressives. Mir. Mackenzie King was good enough to give us the opportunity to present our case in detail, and to-day I received from him the following letter, which I should like to place on Hansard:
Ottawa, January 28, 1926.
J. S. Woodsworth, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with regard to (a) provision for the unemployed, and (b) Old Age Pensions, I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed , to .the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself, and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect (to emergency relief the practice adopted in co-operation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. Lapointe further intimated that at wa3 the .intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to Old Age Pensions.
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the .intimation which

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act, (b) the Naturalization Act, and (c) the Criminal Cede, which were referred to att the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned,
I feel I aan in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie Kino.
Since this particular method of finding out what the various parties think with regard to proposed legislation is perhaps somewhat novel in this House, I would like also to place on the record the reply received from the leader of the opposition. It reads:
Ottawa, January 9, 1926.
Dear Mr. Woodsworth :
Answering letter of yourself and Mr. Heaps of the 7th, if you iwill observe my remarks in the House of Commons in the first session of the last parliament you will find my views clearly expressed on the subject of relief for unemployment. The thing to do for the unemployed is to get them work, and I have Ibeen often very disappointed that I have never been able to secure your co-operation in the least degree in an effort to extend the area of employment in this country. Certainly, if after all efforts are made there should occur, owing to special circumstances, such a volume ot unemployment at a particular place as could not be taken care of locally, then the federal government should help. We did so in the past and would be prepared in similar circumstances to do so again.
As to old age pensions, I stated my views to you on the date your letter was written. May I add that in a matter of this kind I would consult most carefully and in a spirit of the utmost sympathy with Labour representatives and those most interested in labour questions. Senator Robertson, for example, has given this subject more attention than any single man I know of, and I would certainly receive most favourably any suggestion he would make thereon. As stated to you personally, while I feel there are other subjects demanding attention iin more pressing foam at the present time. I realize .that this is one of importance and will alwaj'B be regarded by me as such.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Meighen.
J. S. Woodsworth, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
I also received word from my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forkc) expressing the interest of the Progressive group in these questions-I think perhaps I need not read his reply-and subsequently a meeting with the Progressive members confirmed us in the impression that they were very Sympathetic with this class of legislation.
It seems to me that we must be very grateful indeed that the peculiar combination of circumstances which we find existing in the House at this time has seemingly made it possible to place upon the statute books long 14011-36
over-due legislation in the interests of some of the most needy but least influential elements of our population. With the views which have been expressed from all sides of this House before us, I feel it ought hot to be very difficult to place this legislation on the statute books this year.
In view of the measures that have been proposed what is our position? It would seem as if this legislation merits our support; I could put it even more strongly- commands our support. We have said that we would deal with legislation as it came to us, and the government is evidently prepared to meet our views along this line. I would also like to state, much along the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that we hold ourselves at liberty to discuss freely the legislation as it is brought down. W'e feel that as Independent members we must be true to our constituents and true to our highest conceptions of what is best for Canada. So long as the government is prepared to bring down legislation which commends itself to our judgment we must continue to support it, and this attitude will therefore determine our action on the amendment now before the House and on the vote which must subsequently be taken.
With regard to old age pensions, I would say just a word. I have no idea of discussing this matter at any length, but I know from communications I have received during the past four years that even to-day, when this announcement is made, there will be a great many happy old folks, happy already in the anticipation that they may be relieved somewhat from the distressing circumstances in which they find themselves. From that humanitarian standpoint I am very, very glad indeed to find that the government has seen its rvay clear to take this action.
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker,
several weeks ago I threw out the suggestion that the presence of a large number of groups and independent members in this House might point tp the desirability of some fundamental changes in the character of our government, and there has been a good deal of talk about the possibilities of co-operation. As an ideal, I had suggested that we ought to do here what any board of directors does, elect an executive, and that executive would prepare the details of legislation. However,



The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
I know that is regarded as impossible at the present time, so it would seem as though the only thing we can hope for is to unite on some sort of legislative programme; and we in our little group here, as I believe also the progressive group, are endeavouring as far as possible to put the measures first and not to pay very much attention to the parties. However, there are some phases of cooperative government which cannot be overlooked in an arrangement of this kind. Authority is still entirely with the party in power, and within a very short time, I presume, that party if sustained will be making certain appointments.
I should then like to take advantage of this opportunity to urge that there might be a certain measure of change, if not cooperation, in the way in which appointments are made. Within a few days after I was first elected to this House I was rather surprised, almost startled, when I was solicited to use my influence with whoever should be appointed Minister of Justice in the new cabinet on behalf of an aspirant to a vacant judgeship. Now, as I had no particular influence this request did not worry me a great deal; but it does seem a very strange thing that we are still living in the time when our judges, who above all ought to be nonpartisan in their viewpoints, are chosen very largely because of their partisan activities. Surely the time has come when there should be some method of nomination-I do not know whether the lawyers, or the bench itself could make the nomination-and some confirmation, not by one group or party but by parliament. The same thing is true with regard to the Senate. If I understand anything of the original purpose of the Senate it was that we were to have there men who were above party, men who were above being easily swayed by party cries and by popular currents. And yet, as the results have shown, we have as members there men who are partisans of the partisans, men who are appointed very largely because of political service. The little group which I represent is pledged to do everything in its power toward the abolition of the Senate; but failing that I would suggest that the least that could be done would bewto appoint to that body men of eminence in the business, the professional, and perhaps I might add, the industrial world to-day. And why not? Why not have some method of appointment by which men of various parties, or men of no party, might find their place there, and not make party loyalty and party service the

greatest qualification for a place in the Senate?
One of the measures which the government announces it will introduce at this time is a provision for unemployment. It is recognized that before very long there must be some comprehensive scheme for social insurance. Canada is far behind a great many of the European countries in this regard-far behind the Mother Country, to which -a great many of our patriots direct our attention when it is convenient for their purposes. We would like to follow the Mother Country in this respect and make provision for all classes of the needy. I would not urge provision in the way, either of temporary work or of relief for the unemployed did I not believe that this would be the very surest way in which we might secure some more thorough-going method in dealing with this great question. I wish I could get away from this unemployment question. I should like to deal with something else that is more agreeable; but since I have been sent here to represent people who are adversely affected by unemployment I feel that I must be true to them. H I recall1! aright, it was one of the classical writers-I am not sure whether or not it was Horace-who gave us a picture of what would happen when hard labour was done away with, when mechanical contrivances would more or less take the place of manual labour. He referred to the water-wheel, and the water spirits, as it were, turning the wheel while the man who formerly had done this heavy work could sit. in ,the shade and watch the work go on. That is a beautiful way of looking at the situation; but the curious thing is that whilst mechanical contrivances and inventions have multiplied at a tremendous rate, the labourer is not permitted to sit in idleness watching the machine go round; or if he sits in idleness, it is enforced idleness because somebody else owns the machine and, owning the machine, is able to secure the benefits of the new invention. That is the situation which we find to-day, and whilst I note that the terms of the proposal which the government makes has reference to extraordinary unemployment, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that unemployment the world over has become something of a permanent evil. We must recognize that fact. It seems to be almost inherent in the very organization of our modem industrial life. Practically every new invention throws many men out of work. It is true that a certain number of them are absorbed in other types of work, but a very considerable

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
number of them are, as it were, thrown on the scrap heap, and relatively a smaller and ever smaller number of people are required to keep the machinery of the world moving. What is to be done with the people who are thereby released? If we had a thoroughgoing organization we might very well decrease the hours of labour and thus relieve some of those who are already overburdened. Instead of that, we keep forcing the pace, as it were, urging men to greater production on the one side, and then on the other side we create standing armies of the unemployed and distressed.
Perhaps the general situation is somewhat aggravated in western Canada. My own city in particular is more or 'less the dumping ground for immigrants to western Canada. Very few of the Old Country people know the names even of our little prairie places, and so they book through to a well known place such as Winnipeg. Some of them remain there; some of them take a little time before they can be placed outside, and that causes a considerable amount of congestion at such a centre. Further than that, we ha/ve the seasonal problem to confront us. A considerable number of harvest hands are required for a short time. These are frequently brought from eastern Ontario, sometimes from the United States and sometimes from Great Britain. They go out to the farms in the west, work there for a short time, and then a number of them drift back into the cities. When the farmers are through with them they can hardly keep them on for the winter and, in fact, some of the men are not fitted for winter work. When the harvest is over and the freeze-up comes, these men drift to the cities. We must very frankly face the fact of the seasonal character of much of the work in this northern country of ours. The individual is helpless. A remedy can be found only by general action on the part of the community and the governments. Possibly I might be permitted to give some statistics as to the extent of the relief required in my own city of Winnipeg. The expenditure on emergency unemployment relief for the past four years is as follows:	The city of Winnipeg contributed $647.957.08; the provincial government, $291,717.23, and the Dominion government, under the scheme which was in operation for several years but which was for a time discontinued, contributed $130,783.47, or a total of $1,070,457.78. That is a very heavy expenditure for a period of foujr years for extraordinary unemployment relief. It must be remembered that we have ordinary 14011-36i
cases of distress-elderly people, deserted women and so on-and these ordinary cases are not included in the figures I have given. It is this situation which we have tried to press home on the government, and anyone who has been at all closely in touch with the actual conditions must recognize that some action had to be taken.
With regard to the harvest hands that have come west, I might also give the following figures. Last year the 'Canadian Pacific brought out 25,000 men and returned 23,165, and the Canadian National brought out 20,672 and returned 14,983, or a total brought in of 45,672 and a total returned of 38,148. This shows that 7,524 or 16i per cent of those who came remained in the west. No doubt a good proportion of this number have come to Winnipeg, the natural centre to which men who are out of employment drift. It is likely that a number of these men went back to farm and bush work, but this still leaves a number for Winnipeg to look after. Winnipeg is by no means the only city affected. For example the following is a very significant statement:
Vancouver city council decided to broadcast notices all over the prairie provinces warning workers to keep away from here when the harvest was over, as no unemployment relief would be given.
On October 6-
That is, 1925.
-relief officer Ireland reported to the city council that two men had ibeen sent to cover the prairie provinces with these notices, and that the total cost to the city would be within $600.
The curious situation is that you have these western cities doing their utmost to secure immigrants and to add to their population, and at the same time warning people to keep away, that there is no work for them.
This is a paragraph from a letter which came to me a few days ago from Edmonton:
A resolution has been passed by the Edmonton Central council of unemployed, demanding the same privilege as that accorded to the emigrants coming to this country, namely that the unemployed be allowed to take up farming under the land settlement scheme.
I would respectfully pass this suggestion over to the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart). I cannot see why, if men are unemployed in Canada, they should not be permitted to take up land under at least as favourable conditions as are enjoyed by those who are being induced to come to this country directly from t.he Old Land.
I had occasion only to-day to write to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) w;th regard to certain men who were arrested the other day. Perhaps I cannot do better than to quote the letter which the Calgary Central

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
Trades and Labour Council sent to the Minister of Justice:
January 23, 1926
Dear Sir,
The Calgary Trades and Labour Council desire to draw your attention to the case of the forty-six men who have been recently convicted and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment for obtaining meals at the restaurant in the city, and not paying for same.
This council is of the opinion that these men were without work or funds to enable them to pay for the meal they ordered; further, as the statistics of the government employment bureaus will show, there was absolutely no chance for them to obtain employment.
We would therefore respectfully request you give this matter your earnest consideration, with a view that the men be immediately released.
I do not personally know the circumstances of the case, but if the facts are as represented in this letter it does seem a desperate situation that men should be forced to steal in order to live. In this they are simply exhibiting a primary instinct and one surelly can hardly blame them under the circumstances.
An hon. (MEMBER: Why not vote for a different government?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that these men would fare very differently under a different government.


Edward Joseph Garland: How did they fare in 1013-14 under another government?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, we all know that throughout the west they were very badly up against it at that time in all the cities. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of unemployment relief, the war was a godsend, for many men of this class were carried eft overseas thus relieving the situation.


Mr. ROGERS:: The hon. member cannot say that there was any necessity for assistance in 1912 and 1913.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I happened to be closely in touch with the unemployment situation at that time and II know what conditions were like in Winnipeg.


Robert Rogers: I live in the city of Winnipeg and I never heard of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the hon. member lives in the opposite section of the town, the residential district. I happened to be living in the northern portion of Winnipeg and my colleague (Mr. Heaps) will bear me out when I say that the condition was very serious then. Indeed, I recall a parade oi about 12,000 people just about that time who were seeking relief. The hon. member's admission that he was unaware of the true state of affairs that existed at that time only proves

how necessary it is that the facts should be fully stated. The vast majority of people who are fairly well circumstanced do not realize how the other half of the world manages to exist. It is all very well for us to advocate great trade policies and to squabble over our party differences, but some of us at least must speak for those who are thus shamefully neglected, the people who heretofore have had very slight representation in this House. The facts in regard to unemployment in Canada are receiving publicity not only in this country but in England as well, because a very large number of the poor people here are comparatively recent arrivals and they are constantly writing to their friends in the Old Country. I have here, for example, a clipping from the Hamilton Spectator of a communication which was sent to the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, M.P., by a worker belonging to the International Association of Machinists. This letter appeared in the Labour Press in Great Britain, being published in scores of newspapers there, and this sort of thing will very effectively nullify the efforts that are being put forward by the government to secure immigrants. But I can come closer home. I read only the other day a very stirring appeal by Brigadier 'General G. E. McCuaig, Chairman of the Emergency Unemployment Relief Committee of Montreal, in which he stated:
We have spent our last cent and after Wednesday over 900 children, from babes a few weeks old to school children of fifteen, will be without food and warmth unless we receive your speedy and generous assistance.
This appeal is dated January 16; and in the Montreal Star of January 21 we find an account of a meeting of the Society for the Protection of iWomen and Children at which the objection was taken that whilst the federal government brings immigrants into the country on its own responsibility no provision is made, at least in that district, for the care of such immigrants as have become public charges after the period suggested by the department. The newspaper report goes on to give some very distressing cases. As the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said earlier in the debate, confirming what was said by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), we ought to direct our attention not so much to inducing more immigrants to come in as to caring for the people who are already here. If that is done more ' immigrants will find their way to Canada.
Let me now read an extract from a letter from an embittered miner in Nova Scotia He says:

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
There are some 2,000 men around Glace Bay who are getting from one to two day's work a week. I suppose you know what that means, and after the five months' strike there has developed a situation that requires immediate relief. The stomachs of the men, women and children demand prompt action and I thought the government might help along the lines we suggest.
There again is the cry for practical help. If any hon. gentleman is at all doubtful as to the prevalence of distress in many of our Canadian cities all he has to do is to question any of the social service workers in those places. I do not know that one could find any better illustration of the distressing conditions that exist than the urgent appeal that is made at Christmas time to the well-to-do citizens to give even a Christmas dinner to those people who cannot obtain food and clothing. After an appealing story of that kind the Toronto Star winds up an article thus:
This is a 'typical situation for one of the families on the list of the Star Santa Claus Fund. It is not an isolated case; quite the contrary. There are thousands like it.
So that in all our cities are many people of this character. I may say, as one who has been pretty closely in touch with social work in a number of our cities during the last twenty years, that a very considerable number of the worst cases occur among those who have been driven into the city from the country, people who have failed to make good! on the land and who have been forced to vacate their farms and turn to city life.
I was very glad the other day to hear the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) say that he hoped the time was coming when more attention would be paid to colonization than to what had heretofore been termed immigration. That is distinctly a move in the right direction. I have been quoting some of the figures in regard to city life. May I give a little picture as it was given to me by one of my friends in Saskatchewan within the last few days. I had been describing something of the life at Ottawa and he wrote to tell about the life where he was living:
A log shack at the end of steel, about 80 miles north of the Battlefords, the land was homesteaded 20 years ago by a young man who cleared, and took off the rocks, and it is now producing. There is a baby carriage in the living room, and at the table a woman with warm brown eyes is peeling potatoes. She has seen many places besides this "neck of the woods", including the Riviera and Paris with her former employers. For three years she has had nothing but hard work and no ready money, and complete isolation, apart from trips to the "town", a frame erection of twenty or so houses and stores.
But in common with her husband she has "backbone" and in spite of hard times they are going to stand by the homestead. Crop failures because they were practically frozen out the summer before last,
hay shortage last winter when it was pretty nearly impossible to get hay shipped in to that country then, and the price was far more than they could pay, stock losses through accident in the pastures, all find her uncomplaining, but not satisfied, of course. Asked what made them stay there, she probably voiced her husband's feelings when she said, "Well, the place is our own, and then he has put so much work into it . . . but it is so difficult to ship things out from here. He thinks thtt the Hudson Bay railway would probably help us, and the linking up of the St. Paul de Metis and St. Walburg, and the finishing of the Turtleford-Hafford line. ... I don't know much about it, because since Elsie came I haven't had much time to read the papers, and then we really cannot afford one every day. It is a quarter a week that should be spent on necessities, and the train only comes up from Battleford three times a week anyway. Oh, I do wish that something could be done for us.
It's dreadful to be so cut off from everything. What are we going to do about Elsie? I don't want her to grow up like a little wild animal, but if only there were better facilities I could keep in touch with the world and read a little and try not to be so behind the times. When he-
That is, the husband.
-homesteaded here they told him that this was the "coming country" and that there would be a railway through in a short time. When we do send out anything the freight just eats up all we might have got, and it honestly is not worth trying to raise stock and go in for mixed farming instead of depending on the grain alone, because what are we going to do with the animals when we raise them?
I wish they would do something in Ottawa. It would make things a bit easier for us, and what is the use of having these people elected if they will persist in paying attention to party differences and thinking up ways to confound one another in the House instead of doing something for the people they represent?
Perhaps it is just as well for us occasionally to get glimpses of how tens of thousands of people in this country are living and to know something of what they really expect us to. do for them.
This leads me very naturally to a questioi upon which I should like to dwell for a few moments-the high cost of living. You say that that is an old, old question. Yes, it is, but it is facing us very squarely at this time, as it has for a good many years. We were told after the war that this evil would soon disappear, and for a time it seemed as if the cost of living was decreasing, but it has gone up again. We did have a commission that tried to get at a solution of the trouble, but it was a dismal failure and the prices, if anything, went up still more. I ask in all seriousness, is this no concern of parliament, of the representatives of the people? Let me read an item that I picked out the other day from the Calgary Albertan of January 16: Bread in Calgary is sold at 10 cents for a 201 ounce loaf, while 32 ounces oould be bought for 10 cents in England. That is, the standard loaf of 20J ounces sold .for 10 cents in Calgary and could be bought for a little more than 6 cents in England.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
The British loaf, which has recently been raised in price from nine pence halfpenny to ten pence contains four pounds, and is sold for only 63 per cent of what it would cost in Calgary.
There we have this startling discrepancy between the price of bread in London, England, and the price in Cailgary or anywhere else in the west-the price rigjfct at the source of production being well-nigh double what it is overseas. Decidedly there is something wrong. We have a registrar of combines, we have legislation which we were told would help us in this matter. Why cannot we secure some results? In that connection we have perhaps some indication of the difficulties when we read that in the United States just now they are beginning to experience the effect of an immense bread trust. According to a recent issue of The Nation:
The latest move is a $400,000,000 combination, which is to be known as the General Baking Corporation. It will be made up of three other large consolidations, each of which was rolled up from combinations of small local bakeries. One of these, the Continental Baking Corporation, operates 104 bakeries in 82 cities in the United States and Canada. It earned $4,000,000 last year, and is expected to earn $7,000,000 this year.
That is, we have a huge American trust, which, octopus-like, haa stretched its tentacles over the border and is already affecting us in Canada. Is this no concern of ours? In an article in the Locomotive Engineers' Journal for November, 1925, Mr. Basil M. Manley, speaking of this great bread trust, says:
The General Baking Corporation has been created with a Maryland charter to absorb the old Continental, Ward and General Baking Companies. It has ten million shares of watered stock. It is also to acquire flour mills, condensed milk factories, and other plants, so it will have a complete grip on the industry.
The article goes on to show the difference between bread prices in England and in America:
Consider this fact: Last year when the American worker was paying 9 cents a pound for this 'bread, the British worker was paying 5 cents a pound.
I should like to suggest to my protectionist friend's, that one of the reasons why we find it difficult to sell our manufactured products is that our costs are so high. The article continues:
He paid this for bread, made largely of American wheat, with all the extra charges for ocean freight, insurance and handling. At the great British cooperatives he paid a little less, but of that we will talk later. Five cents a pound, however, was practically the top price in the British Isles-four cents less than the American worker was paying for bread made of wheat grown almost under his very eyes.
But what is four cents to an American workingman? Let's see: At five cents a pound, the six billion loaves American workers ate last' year would have cost only $300,000,000 instead of $540,000,000, the price they actually had to pay. Here is a saving of 
$240,000,000. Could the American workers find any use for an extra quarter of a billion dollars?
Here is another paragraph from the same article:
What does this mean to the American people? What interest have they in this water? It means simply this, that after they have paid profits on preferred stock bonds and other securities representing actual investment, they must still pay millions of dollars every year in excessive prices for bread to yield profits on this $200,000,000 of water. It means that this $200,000,000 of common stock represents absolutely nothing except the power to squeeze profits out of American men, women and children who must eat bread.
Now, these are some of the things that are felt particularly by tJhe workers in this country. My hon. friend from South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) I know is not worrying a great deal as to whetlher bread costs nine cents or five cents, but I do know that some of our people are.
Let me turn to another aspect of this case. My attention was called to this by a short article published in the Labour World. We are often told that one of the difficulties that prevent our industries working at a profit is high wages. Let us ask how much there is in that contention in view of the facts disclosed in the following statement:
The Financial Times reports that the market value of the common shares of 63 representative companies on October 12, 1925, was $1,058,644,357, compared with $850,302,115 on December 31, 1924, an appreciation of $208,342,242, or 24.48 per cent in less than a year. The list of companies shows 40 industrials, 15 utilities and 8 banks. The common stock of the 40 industrials, largely representing water, moved up from $193,856,596 to $280,079,226, an increase of $86,220,000.
It is said there is no inflation in this, but the article continues:
If as the financial authorities affirm, the appreciatior of the common stock of the 63 representative companies has been a normal movement, then these companies during the year have increased their rate of profit by 20 per cent. While in dividends this would only mean an increase of from, say, 5 to 6 per cent, still it means that the 63 companies alone have increased their net profits by over $10,000,000.
Few Wage Increases.
Yet, in few if any cases, have representative Canadian companies granted wage increases during the year. In fact, the Financial Times suggests that the absence of any tendency to the inflation of labour costs and the existence of a surplus supply of labour are favourable factors in the situation from the point of view of capital investment.
The point of view of capital investment is certainly not the point of view of labour, and I take it that to no small extent the policies of Canada in the past have been largely dominated by the interests of capital investment.
Just in this connection perhaps I might pause for a moment to call the attention of the House to a very interesting address which was given recently by W. J. Ripley.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
Professor of Political Economy of Harvard University before the Academy of Political Science of New York, in which Professor Ripley outlined a noteworthy development in the conduct of corporations. The chief point embodied in this new phase is that the actual control or responsibility is now divorced from the ownership of securities. The Financial Post summarizes the conclusions, from which it somewhat differs. Anyone who is interested in following this may find an article along similar lines by Professor Ripley in the current number of Atlantic Monthly. A paragraph from the Post reads:
The net consequences of both changes is the assump-1ion of an absolute control by intermediaries, most jommonly bankers who it is said do not actually own the controlling interest, who take only a negative risk (they invest only the profits) yet they share largely in future profits.
Again I say, has parliament nothing to say with regard to these modern developments which so vitally affect the common people of the country? In the past we have had laws on our statute books which protected the public more or less from petty theft, but we have few laws on our statute book which protect the public from theft on a large scale. The fact is we have hardly developed a public conscience with regard to those newer methods by which comparatively few people manage to filch large sums from the great body of the people of this country. Again I say that in some way the government of this country ought to give close study to this matter, and I would suggest that year by year, as we meet together in parliament, we should have brought before us legislation initiated by the government which would deal with some of the new problems which so vitally affect the public.
I turn now for a short time to the question of immigration. The policy of the government is not yet before us, and we have had to glean that policy very largely from the representations which have appeared in the press. From these reports we should judge that the railways are to be given almost a free hand in inducing immigrants to come to this country. In an address at the Board of Trade dinner in Edmonton on September 18. we have Mr. E. W. Beatty making the following statement with regard to the new agreements which have been entered into between the Canadian railways and the government which he said he hoped would very materially stimulate the movement of desirable immigrants to Canada. His statement reads:
Under this agreement the two companies, through their colonisation departments, have been given a free
hand to select, transport and distribute all colonists who can be properly assimilated in Canada with the further privilege of issuing the neoessary permits for their admission subject to the requirements of the statute and to the mental and physical fitness of the applicant.
I urge that if this statement is at all in harmony with the facts we face a very serious situation indeed. So far as immigration is concerned the government has practically abdicated. It has given over one of its most important functions to two corporations, and these corporations apparently have it in their power to select immigrants, to select those we are to have in this country; and I suppose they would) also naturally have it in their power to reject immigrants-that is, they can keep out whom they please and bring in whom they please. I urge that that is too important a matter to be left in any private handls. Mr. Beatty, in an interview about the same time, September 14, 1925, given at the Royal Alexandra hotel, Winnipeg, in discussing immigration and the part played therein by the Canadian Pacific Railway, made the announcement that the railway had since its inception spent no less than seventy million dollars in encouraging new settlers to come to Canada, which was even a greater sum than the federal government had spent along these lines. And in still later interviews he suggested that it would be a good thing if the "Diomiilion government would spend something like fifty million dollars over a period of five years in encouraging immigrants to come to this country. That is an astonishingly " nervy " proposition, shall I say, to come from the president of one of the great railway corporations. Who is to benefit by the 'bringing in of these people?


Edward Joseph Garland: The United States.


James Shaver Woodsworth: To no small extent the United States, but in the first instance the transportation companies. The Dominion government may do the work and may spend the money, but the private corporations largely reap the profits, and I would submit that that is to no small extent true even of the money spent by the Canadian National Railways. We have few steamships plying on the Atlantic, and so the propaganda literature that is spread abroad by the Canadian National Railway colonization agents and the lectures which are delivered urging people to come to Canada, have the effect of stimulating trade for the Canadian Pacific Railway steamships. What benefit do we get? These are questions, it seems to me, which ought to be kept constantly in view. In this connection I think it

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
might be well for me to read what the Old Country papers are saying just at the present time. We have a despatch from England in which the Daily News of London is credited with saying:
What guarantee if any can the Canadian government give that permanent employment will be found for those who may risk everything by leaving these shores with their wives and their families to take up an entirely new life in a distant land? Moreover it is surely worth inquiring whether it is good business to encourage the departure in large numbers of the very men who are most urgently needed in our own countryside to-day.
A little bit further on in the article, we read:
In much of the facile talk about sending out Englishmen or people to vacant public spaces there is little sense of reality because there is no adequate appreciation of the extent to which the Englishman has become a creature of towns.
There is something of real sense in that remark. Whilst we say we want agricultural immigrants, the fact is, as I tried to show by old country statistics last year, that a very large proportion of those who were leaving the Old Country were not agriculturists. A very considerable proportion of those who come over prove unfit, drift into the cities, and then we have the unemployment of which I spoke earlier in the evening. The situation which we face in Canada is becoming known in the Old Country. I would like to quote again from another issue of this press service which is being broadcast over Great Britain.
It is manifestly unfair to the British emigrant who is attracted to the Dominion by the offer of reduced fares, who is told that work awaits him, and that the government's representatives will look after him when he arrives, to find that he has entered a country whose economic and social development has not kept pace with its growth of population.
There seems to be no other inference to draw from the figures given, but that Canada is in the literal sense of the words an over-populated country, acquiring population at a greater rate than it is able to provide for its people.
That is rather a new light on the question, that we are over-populated, and the writer believes he is right in drawing that inference because we cannot hold our own people. He goes on:
Consequently there is a surplus of urban workers; the land is constantly recruiting workers who drift to the cities and provide Canada with precisely the same problem of unemployment that we have to face in this country, and that every capitalist country has to face.
So much for how they are beginning to see these things in the Old Country. 1 am trying to bring to this House a sense of the reality of things as we find them in going up and down among the common people of this country. I should like to read a paragraph or two 
as to how some of the farmers on the plains are feeling. I quote from a pamphlet issued by the Farmers' Union of Canada:
It-
It is referring to the question of immigration and the idea that immigration is a benefit:
It is based upon the assumption that population necessarily means prosperity. They say that if we only had a few more millions scattered about these vast prairies we would have a land flowing with milk and honey. Which is very true. But they do not say where the milk and honey will flow to. If the milk and honey continues to flow into the milk cans and honey jars of bankers, mortgage companies, implement firms, wheat speculators, and others, there will in the end be just as little for the consumers and just as little for the producers as there is to-day. The question is, not how much milk and honey we can cause to flow, but how much milk and honey the producers can get for their labour. If we only get 30 cents of the consumer's dollar and big business gets 70 cents, it will not increase our prosperity to know that there is another man only getting 30 cents of the producer's dollar. It will not increase our happiness and prosperity to know that there are 20 millions more only getting 30 cents of the consumer's dollar. Our prosperity will only be increased by getting more of the consumer's dollar in return for what we produce. It is not greater production, but a greater share of production that we need.
That is what somebody called the other day, reail horse sense. I think I will read on:
The greatest argument, however, and the most convincing against a vigorous immigration policy lies in the very need of that policy. The thing that damns it most is the fact that it is necessary.
If we had a system of production and distribution which would enable farmers to make a decent living by their labour, immigration policies would be unnecessary because every man would be an immigration agent. But because farmers have no-t been able to make a living under the system it has become necessary to persuade people to come. And in that business of persuasion all the seductive trickery of advertising is brought to bear to induce people to come to the Canadian west.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes some of us are accused of criticising schemes which are proposed and of not suggesting any alternative scheme. Of course, when we give an alternative scheme, somebody is sure to say that it is idealistic and impracticable, so we hesitate to do so; but I would suggest certain conditions which seem to me to be imperative if we are to have an immigration or colonization scheme upon which we can firmly base the future prosperity of this country.
First of all, I believe we should have free land for the intending immigrant. Some of the old-timers in this country boast of how they got on and how prosperous they became, and they are rather inclined to scoff at the newcomer because he does not do as well.
I would urge upon them this fact, that the earlier settlers in western Canada, and the same was true of eastern Canada, got

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
absolutely free Jand, and very frequently in comparatively accessible parts of the country. The newcomer to-day is not in as good a position as the immigrant who came into western Canada twenty or thirty or forty years ago.
Secondly, I would suggest that we must have cheap railroad rates.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the hon. member takes that up, I am sure he has something to offer that would be of considerable value in solving this problem of getting free land.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that in a moment.
The second condition that I would indicate would be the absolute necessity of cheap railroad rates. That has been emphasized in this House perhaps almost ad nauseam for many years, and yet we must get back to the fundamental fact that the railroads of Canada were built to serve the people of Canada, and yet under present conditions they are not serving them. We have the Canadian Pacific railway, a huge corporation, having drawn a great part of its capital from the people of this country in one form or another; we have this great Canadian National railway system which has been built up, and which is very heavily over-capitalized. Are these roads really filling the need? Remember that very few countries in the world are able to carry on successfully which are situated as our western country is, a thousand miles from the seaboard. The key to the situation is undoubtedly transportation.
The third condition I would lay down is cheap money-because under modern conditions the farmer, just as the business man, must do his business on credit. There is no use going back to the time of the pioneer settlers and suggesting that the settler to-day should do as the settler did thirty or forty years ago; he cannot.
The fourth condition I would urge is that in some way there must be a removal of the mortgages which so heavily bear upon industry to-day. We have the mortgages of the public debts; we have the mortgages created by inflated land values; we have the mortgages created by watered stock; we have mortgages of all kinds, which are very largely responsible for the high cost of production at 9 p.m. the present time. When we say, do away with these things, immediately there is an outcry. Free land? The land is held by speculators and corporations, a considerable amount of it, and they refuse to relinquish it from their grasp. The colonization scheme that was brought to this
House a few years ago was an attempt to unload these vacant lands upon newcomers. We speak of cheap railroad rates, and immediately we are up against these railroad corporations, and particularly that corporation of which the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) spoke the other night. We speak of cheap money; those of us who were in the last parliament know the difficulties we had in the Banking and Commerce committee when we spoke of any means by which cheaper money could be obtained for the farmers. And as to the removal of mortgages, even any modest suggestion that we could reduce our public debt or force the overcapitalized industries to let out a little of the water is immediately met by an outcry. And so the great mass of the people of this country are coming more and more clearly to recognize that the policies of Canada, the fundamental policies, have been in the past dictated to no small extent by a comparatively small group of financiers. I do not know just what the outcome is going to be. I have sometimes hoped that in the shake-up we get in this parliament a definite line of demarcation may foe established between those who represent the big interests and those who represent the interests of the common people of this country. I do not know whether this will come through another election-another election may delay its coming even further-but I do know that until that issue is clearly joined; these problems of immigration, of the cost of living, and a score of others I might mention, will not be solved. The trouble is that in dealing with the immigration question we have looked at the matter altogether too much from the standpoint of immigration companies, or from the standpoint of trade returns, or through official eyes, and not sufficiently from the Standpoint of the local community or of the immigrant himself. I would urge that we take a great deal more care in the very difficult and very delicate process of transplanting human beings from one country to another, or from one environment to another. We all know how, in the spring time, we sometimes transplant tomato plants or cabbage plants from window-boxes out into the open, and we then take a great deal of care to set up a can, a shingle, or something of that kind, to shelter the tender plants from the hot sun or from the wind. What do we do in the case of human beings coming to Canada? Why we wheelbarrow them into this country, dump them, and leave them to shift for themselves as best they can. We recall the saying that "To teach puppies to swim, chuck them in." Apparently we have acted on that

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
theory, and while some of the puppies have managed to swim, others have gone to the bottom. In any case there has been an immense amount of hardship, and we have been loaded up with problems in this country that it will take years to solve. Anyone who has lived in the Old Country mu^t understand that life there is far different from life in this new land, and that the change ought to be very carefully supervised. I think we can give the government credit for having done gome excellent work in the last few years in connection with the soldier settlement scheme, and for using the machinery of that organization to a greater and greater extent in connection with the settlement of immigrants on the land. But we have not gone far enough, and the trouble is that these selfsame interests have constantly blocked constructive work along this line.
May I give an illustration? I remember a few years ago making a survey of certain social conditions among. the foreign immigrants in the three western provinces in connection with the Bureau of Social Research of the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberti. I found that a very considerable portion of the stock was low grade stock. The people frequently were growing crops from comparatively poor seed. Somebody put it to me rather graphically in speaking of the conditions away out north of Edmonton, when he said that you could' almost tell how far away you were from the city by the size of the hogs-they were so much better a breed and would pay so much better when they were adjacent to civilization, or where .there were facilities for carrying on stock raising scientifically. I found out that there were a very large number of women at that time who were very much isolated, and the same thing is true to this day. I know that a very considerable number of women inmates of the North Battleford Insane Hospital were afflicted with melancholia induced by the hardships and isolation which they had to endure. I found there was a very considerable lack of education in many districts. As a matter of fact at that time-it was some years ago-in a very representative! series of foreign settlements extending all the way from Edmonton to Winnipeg, I found that one-third of the foreign children were not attending any school, though we were supposed to have compulsory education. I found instances when the foreigners themselves could, read !)and write, having learned in central or southern Europe, but their Canadian-born children were absolutely illiterate. I do not give these

as general conditions, but I know they prevail in many of the backward parts of this country, the very parts to which we are sending immigrants. I may say that I called the attention of the then Premier of Saskatchewan to these facts, and I brought to him a scheme by which we could do something to remedy these evils, by placing demonstration farms within easy access of those districts, having consolidated schools, district nurses, and so on. Of course he came back at me immediately with the question "Well, but how would you finance the scheme?" I had worked out a plan and I suggested that a very few cents extra tax per acre on vacant land would entirely cover the expenditure. He immediately threw up his hands, "Why," he said "already the American investors are squealing because of our wild lands taxation." That, Mr. Speaker, was very characteristic of the attitude that we have assumed toward the immigrant in times past. We have been looking at settlement from the standpoint of investment, and we have not considered the load we were placing upon the bona fide settler on the land.
I should like to refer very briefly not merely to the material needs of the immigrants, which ought to be attended to if we are to evolve any thorough-going scheme of immigration, but also to their cultural needs. There are two rules that I should like to lay down in this connection. They have come to me after some years of experience with these immigrant peoples, and they are practical rules. The first is, that we should give to these people the best that we have, and the second is that we should take from them the best that they bring. Let me pause to develop very briefly my thought. Sometimes I should like to write an article on "How the foreigner sees Canada," as he arrives in this country by the railroads, as he stops at the immigration hall, as he passes out into our little towns, as he goes into the cheap hotels or lodging houses; as his daughters go into the restaurant kitchens, as they attend the cheap movie shows. Do we ever consider what Canada looks like through the eyes of a foreigner? We have given them the very roughest and hardest side of Canadian life. Many of them have been here for years, yet they know nothing of the history, traditions, or cultural life of this country. Sometimes we find the results in the police court when boys or girls who have run wild are brought before the magistrate, and then we have the task of sending them to the reformatory or attempting to punish them. Perhaps we ought rather to

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
adopt the attitude which is said to be that of the Chinese educationist, who, when somebody goe3 wrong, punishes the parents and guardians and not the children. The fact is that in a great many of these cases it is we who are to blame and not the foreigners who have come to our midst. It may be true that the foreigner comes here with a small percentage of assets in money, but I submit he brings with him cultural assets that are by no means negligible. We have people coming to us from all parts of the European continent who seem to be bom with an innate love of music and with an ability to express themselves through music. Foreigners who have all their lives been accustomed to the drama and dramatic representations come to our country, and we laugh and scoff at them, trying to get them to leave these things behind them. I have seen out in British Columbia little mountain towns where the only music to enliven the life of the town was that given by an Italian or by the children of some of these despised immigrants. I have seen in Winnipeg and away out in Vancouver again and again most creditable dramatic performances, which go to show that people who come to this country are striving to the utmost to maintain some of the culture which they have brought with them from the Old Land. Wf have not tried to understand them; we have despised them more or less. We have said to them: "You ought to become Canadians; you ought to leave everything foreign behind." We talk very lightly about assimilating our immigrants. I presume the meaning of that word "assimilate" is "to make like." Do we want these immigrants to be made like us? I think I might say: God forbid! We in this country have not so far attained such a standard of beauty or goodness that we want all the people to be made in our own image. We forget sometimes that in the effort to make these people like us we drive out of them the very highest things which they bring to us.
Again, let me given an illustration which came under my notice a few years ago. The then Governor General, Earl Grey I think, was visiting the schools of the city of Winnipeg, and he was told that a large number of the children were of foreign extraction. So His Excellency asked all the Ukrainian children to hold up their hands. Not a hand went up. Then he asked for a show of hands from all the German children, and not a hand went up. It was the same in the case of Polish children-no move. His
Excellency was somewhat mystified. Then the teacher suggested that all the Canadians stand up, and every child was on its feet in a moment. Of course, the teacher was complimented and the papers made quite a little fuss about the matter. But those of us who have been in touch with social work know there is another side to that question. The fact is that those children have been so taught that they are ashamed of their origin, and a man that is ashamed of his origin is not worth having in this country. What would you think of an Englishman or a Scotchman who would throw off his nationality and culture just as a man throws off his coat? We have not thought seriously enough of this question. We have brought these immigrants here to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and if we are able to work them more cheaply than Canadians, we are anxious to bring them in by the shipload. What is called patriotism is taught in this country, but we should think a little more of what patriotism involves.


Mr. FOSTER:: Will the hon. member
name one school anywhere in western Canada that teaches immigrants that we as Canadians are ashamed of the immigrant and his family or what he brings with him?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will just say that that is a very common, I would go almost as far as to say a prevalent attitude throughout the greater part of western Canada.


George Eulas Foster: That is no answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman can say that it is no answer; but it is my answer, and I am afraid he will have to be satisfied with it. I would suggest that I know western Canada just as thoroughly as any other hon. member.
In this connection there is one other matter upon which I would like to offer a suggestion. We have had a great deal of condemnation of the policies of governments in times past, because there has been a tendency to segregate the different nationalities of these immigrants. As a matter of fact it is not so much chat the immigrants have segregated themselves as that when the foreigners have come in many of the English-speaking people* have moved out, for the very reason that I have referred to, namely, that they do not like to live among the foreigners. The result has been that very frequently, in the course of a few years, we have little isolated foreign colonies throughout the country. Those who are desirous of promoting Canadian unity very often say that this state of things should not

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
exist and that we should mix the people all together. On its face that suggestion looks rather plausible; but there is also another side to that question, and I am not at all sure that that is the shortest way of incorporating these foreign peoples into our national life. I have noticed that in many of the mixed communities where there are only two or three families of each nationality, not one of the nationalities or groups has any genuine community life. They cannot possibly have their church, halls, schools, cooperative societies and all that kind of thing to which they have been accustomed in the Old Land. The result is that they are little more than working machines living lonely lives and very often having comparatively little opportunity of entering fully into our life here. It would seem almost essential that at least for a short time these people should be kept within reach of those things to which they have been accustomed in the Old Land. Let me give an illustration. I mentioned the care with which we transplanted tomato plants. When we do so, we do not shake off each last atom of earth, let the plant dry out for a while, throw it on the hard ground and hope it will grow. Rather we keep a little bit of moist earth around the roots and try to preserve that for a short time until the plant is able to strike down deeper into the new soil. I suggest that something of that kind should be done when we outline an immigration policy for this country.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the hon. gentleman indicate just what he would suggest to the government to bring about that condition of affairs?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A number of things might be suggested. I have said that a beginning is being made when we are talking now not so much about immigration as about colonization. I have said further that a beginning is being made when we have expert supervision. Personally, I think we should have a more definite organization of community life than we have at the present time. It often takes many years before immigrants may have even medical service. It is a great load on the provinces to give medical services away out in these rural districts. The matter is one for arrangement as between the governments; but at present the federal government is dumping the immigrants in and then leaving the local governments or communities to do the work necessary to building a community. That is what I should like to emphasize in connection
	.,iu IJiJ
with this whole matter. We must not. consider our work done even though we bring these immigrants carefully to this country, see them through our immigration halls and personally conduct them out to the local communities. We must go further than that and see that they have full educational opportunities out in those country districts. The work that has been undertaken to a certain extent in all our provinces is sufficient to indicate the lines along which this should be carried on.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would a
federal tax on unoccupied speculatively held land not assist in carrying out this work?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a suggestion which I made a few years ago. Personally, I do not think a man has any right to hold land out of use and I would force all land into use. That could readily be done. If you want to do it in a perfectly constitutional British way, put a sufficiently heavy tax on the idle land and it is very easy to bring it all into use. That could be done with a lot of other things as well; it is easy to finance any proposition if we have the will to do it. During the four years that I have been in this House I have heard this immigration question presented from many angles 'but not quite from the standpoint of the immigrant himself and the life that ought to be possible for him in this country.


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. member satisfied with the type of immigrants we get from the United States into western Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we in the west generally regard them as among our best immigrants.


George Eulas Foster: Has the hon. member ever been down there in the United States and worked at all among the people of whom he speaks? Does he understand something of the difficulty of getting those people up herein view of the tax referred to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I know a little of that. I have not worked in the United States among these people to induce them to come to this country but I know that if we impose a heavy wild land tax we may prevent many of them from coming here for investment purposes. I submit that it is no great gain to this country to have many of these people come here and buy land at $5 and $10 an acre and hold it until it is worth anywhere up to $40, and then sell it and go back to the United States, leaving the bona fide settlers to bear the burden of the enhanced value of.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
that land. In that connection another grievance has been felt in the west, and that is the fact that great corporations have held on to large blocks of land while the ordinary settlers have had to develop the surrounding lands by their own initiative. Then the enhanced value of the corporation land has gone into the coffers of those who did practically nothing to help in the building up of the community. '
I do not wish to enter into any discussion of the character of the various classes of immigrants coming here, but it seems to me that we are jumping rather recklessly from one horn of the dilemma to the other. First we say that we need British immigrants and when we get them here we say that they are not fitted for the country. Even the Journal said yesterday that the trouble was that a little group of British immigrants in this House were trying to run this country. I think that in itself might be a good answer to those who suggest that we do not speak disdainfully of the "foreigners" in our midst! The fact is, of course, that a great many of these British immigrants, accustomed to industrial life, do not fit in readily into the agricultural life of the country, while many of them have been used to better types of social legislation and really higher standards of living than they find here. Hence they become agitators and get into trouble with the authorities because they are accused of stirring up trouble. That is the difficulty with British immigrants. And when the foreign immigrants come we turn round and say that they are not British! They have their own ideals, and during the war, of course, we suspected them of all sorts of things. We said that the melting pot had not done its work; they were still foreigners and we despised them. Now I urge that we must cultivate a greater spirit of tolerance if we are to prove ourselves equal to the tasks involved in a large immigration scheme. We have had recently in the west the introduction of that American organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. I happened to be in British Columbia a few weeks ago when one of the members of the local House, a Labour member, introduced a resolution dealing with this matter. I want to read one or two sentences from this resolution :
We regret, however, that a fraudulent, alien, terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan is attempting to organize in British Columbia.
And that the purpose of this body is to perpetuate religious hatred amongst our citizens and to substitute lynch law for duly constituted authority.
And that the record of this society is one of murder, violent assault and unspeakable crime.
I had placed in my hands a short while ago one of the circulars sent to a friend of mine summoning a meeting of this organization. It is drawn up in language such as it would be impossible for me to reproduce and exceedingly difficult for the Hansard men to write. This circular speaks of the organization as being about to expound-
-the ideals, objects and purposes of this rapidly growing organization of white, Protestant, Christian, law-abiding men.
"White" simply means that they are against hot only orientals but against all foreigners. They are the Nordic class. I have never been able to determine who the Nordics are, but apparently they are ourselves, and all who are not ourselves are not Nordics. That is as far as I can get the term defined. And the fact that they are "Protestant" indicates that they are against Catholics. Then they are "Christian," which merely means that they are against the Jews, for I do not think that the term refers to the qualities they have so far exhibited. Further, they are "law-abiding;" that is to say, they are against the people who do not think as they think, and are prepared to take extreme measures to make others conform to their ideas. I shall not go into the literature which I hold in my hand, nor am I going to urge the Department of Justice to summarily deport these people. I would remind them however that the machinery is there and has been used in the case of much more worthy people. I am not strong however, on repressive measures; I hope we shall soon have fewer of these measures than are now in force in this country. I do think, though, that we should do everything in our power to lessen the influence of such an organization as this, because if we allow such bodies as the Ku Klux Klan, the latest American importation, to engender a Spirit of intolerance in this country we are bound t-o have a serious time ahead of us. Some of those resident in the east know how difficult it has been at times to bring together the two great races of Canada. When we go west of the lakes, and even before we reach the lakes, we find communities of people entirely different from those the easterners know anything about. There are tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of them in a single group and they have their national ideals, their national language and their national religion. Are we going to force them into our particular mould? We have asked them to come to this country and if we attempt anything so foolish we shall have a serious problem on our hands in the days to come. I

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
believe we ought frankly to face the question. Personally I do not think that we should bring more people into Canada than we can take care of and build into our national life. We shall have to exert ourselves to a greater extent to adapt to our conditions those who are already here; otherwise racial, religious and political differences are bound to manifest themselves.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I heartily endorse what the hon. member says about the Ku Klux Klan, but does he know that under the criminal code that body is prohibited from carrying on its operations in Canada inasmuch as it is a penitentiary offence to go masked by night?


James Shaver Woodsworth: but it reached its greatest 'height during the war period. The metal used in the manufacture of big German guns which bombarded Paris from a distance of twenty miles during the war was said to be nickel steel. So that nickel became of value for armaments, but as hon. members will very well remember, in the month of February, 1922, at the Washington armament conference, the nickel industry over night lost seventy per cent of its market. Thus the nickel industry in one day received a blow from which it has not yet recovered. It had at that time reached its highest state of development; it was producing 85 per cent of the world's supply. Up until 1920 two large corporations, engaged in the mining of this valuable mineral, the International Nickel Corporation of Sudbury, and the Mond Nickel Company at Copper Cliff, had been supplying the needs of the world. In 1917 or 1918 the British American Nickel Company was organized, but as a result of the circumstances which have been referred on a few occasions during this debate, it operated for only one year. During its operation the price of nickel dropped from 33 and 32 cents to 23 cents a pound. Owing to the decision of the Washington disarmament conference to discontinue the building of dreadnoughts and battleships, the International Nickel Company closed their plant, and it remained closed for fully a year and a half; but during this time the Nickel Corporation did not remain idle. At the cost of a very large sum of money, and by the aid of scientific research in an attempt to reduce the price to the consumer, they evolved a new method of producing nickel at a very much smaller cost than was possible in pre-war times. The Nickel Corporation, after two years of research and expending large sums of money, were able, not only to evolve this new process, but to develop new uses for nickel. To-day nickel is used in the manufacture of aeroplanes, in the manufacture on a small scale of automobiles; it is sold in rods, bars and ingots, as an alloy in making tools, and especially in making pipe, utensils and so forth-products which are affected by acids- because nickel has the quality of resisting the effects of acid. It was only after this prolonged research and a great expenditure of money that the nickel industry achieved anything like the success it had had in pre-war times. As I said before, the International Nickel Company is producing metal at the present time, and this metal is now sold to the steel industry in the United States.

The metal as it leaves the refinery now is in the final state in which it is sold, so far as the International Nickel Company is concerned. Nickel in the markets of the world to-day is an article that is sold exactly like copper. The International Nickel Company has developed in Canada what is to-day one of the key industries of the world, and that has been done without assistance from either this government or the provincial government. This industry has developed the entire Sudbury district, and has made possible also the development of large areas of agricultural lands which depend, in large measure, upon the nickel industry for existence.
The situation with the Mond Nickel Company, which I have heard assailed in this House to-day, is slightly different. In mining metal, the first and only ambition of those engaged in the business is to pro-
10 p.m. duce metal at a price that will bring a profit. The Mond Company, who were the pioneers in the business in Northern Ontario, have a property which consists of nickel copper ore. That accounts for the fact that the headquarters of the Mond Nickel Company are known as Copper Cliff. The Mond Nickel Company smelt their ore, which is a very expensive process requiring a tremendous amount of fuel. This process reduces very considerably the profits derived from that business. Theirs is a nickel copper proposition, which requires large quantities of fuel to refine the matte, and so the Mond Nickel Company, in order to operate their plant at a profit, decided to establish a reduction plant in the centre of the coal fields of Wales at Swansea, where they possess an immense area of very low priced coal, and there to-day they are reducing and refining into a saleable product the matte which leaves their plant in Canada, and which is composed of 85 per cent nickel and copper. The ore produced by the Mond Nickel Company is composed about equally of nickel and coppen, and the only market they have for one-half of their product is in the markets of Europe. The reason why they refine their product overseas is that they possess in Wales large quantities of very cheap fuel, and that is why the Sudbury district has become the producer of 85 per cent of the world's nickel.
What would be the results of an embargo upon nickel? Nickel has a wide variety of uses. Before the Washington disarmament conference 75 per cent of the nickel produced was used for armament purposes. If we put an embargo on nickel, do you expect that the shipbuilding plants on the Clyde and at Belfast, or at Philadelphia, will move to Canada?

The Address-Mr. Lapierre
Would there be any new industry established in Canada if an embargo was put on nickel? I would put that question to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), who on several Qceasions has maintained that nickel is a tremendous monopoly, and that if we imposed an export duty on it, great industries would develop in this country. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the nickel industry in the stage which it has reached at the present time, where it is producing an article of world-wide demand, would not be benefited nor would Canada be benefited by an embargo. Furthermore I would say that an embargo would lead to the exploiting of other nickel deposits of which there are many in the United States, in New Caledonia and in Europe which are not at present exploited at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me illustrate for the benefit of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) what the discovery of nickel has done for northern Ontario. If we have to-day an extensive and most profitable development of mineral wealth in the northern part of the province, it is due in very large measure to the discovery made in the Sudbury district. The figures which I am about to quote will serve to show what the discovery of nickel in the Sudbury district has done for northern Ontario. The expenditures at Copper Cliff in the Sudbury district from September, 1902, to September, 1920, were as follows:-
Labour and	salaries	 $35,900,000
Miscellaneous supplies not including fuel... 13,915,000
Wood from	local contractors	
685,000Freights to	railway companies	
11,736,000
Contractors, erecting plants and so forth. 2,014,000

The investments in plant in the Sudbury district alone were upwards of $14,651,000. In addition these other expenditures have been made :-
Dwellings and stores	 $ 1,632,000
Hospital	 203,000
Club house	 61,000
Total	 $16,547,000
It has been stated on many occasions that nickel ore was being treated in the United States. For the last six or eight years the International Nickel Company have been treating their ore at Port Colborne where they have erected a refinery at a cost of $6,000,000. The same applies to the British American Company which, at a cost of $5,000,000, erected the refinery at Deschenes, but a few miles from Ottawa, and is an emphatic and outstanding proof of the fact that there is no monopoly of nickel in Canada. Why should any corporation whose operations have reached such a magnitude in this country be saddled with an em-14011-37
bargo? The extent and value of the discoveries made in northern Ontario is one reason why I am in favour of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


William Findlay Maclean: Would you extend the road from Ontario or from the west?


Mr. LAPIERRE:: From the west.


William Findlay Maclean: Not from the south?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Not from the south. As my hon. friend, who is very much in favour of government control, knows, the Ontario government, realizing the tremendous potential wealth existing within the territory north of the Transcontinental railway, have already constructed 135 miles of an extension to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway with the ultimate design of building to James bay. From information which has reached me I have come to the conclusion that we are on the eve, in that district, of solving the fuel problem of Ontario. If the people of Canada have sufficient faith in the great resources of that wonderful northern country the development of its minerals in the future will be of an amazing character. We have now gold, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, asbestos,-


William Findlay Maclean: And the P. metals.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: And platinum, as to which my hon. friend has displayed so much anxiety in the past. I have before me volume 54 of the Ontario Sessional Papers, Part II, 1923, which contains a statement of the amount of platinum extracted from the nickel deposits in northern Ontario. It amounted to 11,788 ounces, the value of which was $924,000.
I did not intend to speak about the tariff in my speech on the Address, but a great deal has been said about the tariff. The tariff, I believe, is one of the questions upon which the next election will be fought and upon which my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House will again meet the electorate of Canada. The way in which the tariff has been discussed, the way in which it is understood by the mass of consumers, is a great misrepresentation of conditions as they exist. It has been Said by some of our friends opposite that the tariff is a tax. It has even been said by some of them that there is a great distinction between a tariff and protection. The point I wish to make is that whether it is protection or whether it is a tariff, during the last campaign our hon. friends opposite appealed to the people of Canada for a higher tariff, for a tariff such as they had before. Throughout the country, in the press, on every platform, the arguments used by our opponents were

The Address-Mr. Lapierre

that conditions in Canada were such as they are owing to the fact that we had reduced the tariff; that a high tariff or a higher tariff would bring greater prosperity to the country. It has been admitted by speakers on the opposite side of the House that conditions in Canada are far better to-day than they were in 1901 when this govemmemt came into power. It has also been admitted that our trade balance is very much more favourable to-day than it was then. I have in my hand the Dominion Bureau of Statistics returns of Canadian exports and imports by groups. In 1920 our unfavourable trade balance was $34,115,907, and as all our hon. friends remember, at that period- our currency was greatly depreciated. Our Canadian dollar was at that time worth 87 or 88 cents in the monetary markets of the world. But in 1922, one year after this government came into power, our favourable trade balance was $135,768,542, and in 1925, it amounted to $392,831,447. These results were obtained while we were being accused of reducing the tariff. Our hon. friends opposite at that -time were telling the consuming public and the great mass of the producers that Canada's best market was the home market, and at that very moment in the United- States they were appealing to the American people along the same lines. What has been the result of the Fordney-McCum-ber tariff in the United States? Shortly after the advent of the Coolidge administration, the President of the United States named a commission to inquire into agricultural conditions in .the western states, and soon after the report was made, Mr. Herbert Hoover in a statement made to the Board of Trade of the city of New York stated that, in view of this report, the United States had- reached a stage where they had become a self-contained nation, a nation producing for its home consumption and consuming its own production, and that owing to the high cost of production in that country, the United States farmer could no longer expect to export his surplus to the markets of the world. He advised the farmers of the United States to reduce their production to the requirements of the United States market. This has been intensified during the last three or four months, and we find that in the four agricultural states, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Dakota there is a great movement against the Coolidge government on account of its attitude towards a high tariff. They have realized that no nation can be prosperous when agriculture is not prosperous. I have before me an extract from an American periodical in which conditions which now exist in those western states is

very plainly set forth. In a despatch to the New York Tribune by Mark Sullivan, I read the following:
The east, either through preoccupation with its own prosperity or for whatever reasons may be, failed to know what was happening among the farmers. At a moment when values of corporations were mounting on the New York Stock Exchange the value of land was going downward. When manufacturing corporations were announcing stock dividends and eastern banks announcing record earnings, western banks and other institutions were embarrassed, in many cases to the point of failure, by the decline in values of farm land, farm mortgages, and some farm crops.
Now that Washington's attention has been called to it forcibly, the contrast between east and west is almost dramatic. The western condition includes an average of more than two bank failures a day; sheriffs' sales in nearly every county seat; cuts in the rents of city houses and apartments of as much as 50 per cent; an estimate by the Nebraska State Bureau of Crop Statistics that the purchasing power of the farmers has suffered a reduction of $62,000,000 this year.
This condition gives rise to a political mood just beginning to express itself in attacks on the tariff, on the railroads, whose earnings and values go up as the farmers' go down; on the federal reserve system, and on 'big business.' It is in some degree similar to the condition which arose in the middle of President Taft's term, and which expresssed itself in the election of a Democratic Congress and in Roosevelt's attempt to prevent Taft's renomination.
The farmer's situation presents the greatest, most far-reaching and most perilous economic problem with which the American people are faced, declares B. F. Yoakum, Chairman of the Board of the Frisco railroad system and a recognized authority on the farmer's problems. According to Mr. Yoakum, the American farmer is in a worsj situation to-day than at any time in his history.
Representative L. J. Dickinson of Iowa has introduced a bill in Congress to provide for the disposal, through co-operative and pivate agencies, of the surplus of wheat, corn, rice, cotton, tobacco, cattle and swine. And Senator Capper, a Kansas representative who owns twelve or thirteen profitable farm papers, and who is said to be particularly quick and sure in detecting the drift of public sentiment in his state, has suggested a retaliatory campaign against manufacturers because of the failure of the farmers to obtain what they have demanded of Congress. If this is the result of the operation of a high protective tariff in the United States, which is practically a self-sustaining country, what would be the result of a tariff such as our friends opposite suggest should be put into force in this country? Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that they are in favour of a tariff such as they have in the United States, and I find that during the last campaign the leader of the opposition expressed himself in very definite terms on this subject. I shall ask the House to listen to various statements he made in different places.

The Address-Mr. Lapierre
At Stonewall, 'Manitoba, on. July 30, 1925, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen:
Mr. Meighen dealt at considerable length with the tariff question and maintained that a protectionist policy was the only one that would put Canada on its feet economically. So far from the tariff being reduced, he claimed it should have been raised and the example of the United States followed.
At Leamington, Ontario, on September 11, 1925, according to the Montreal Star:
He (Mr. Meighen) again pledged his party to raise tariff walls to the level of the United States; to give them something to bargain with in the markets of the world and give the same protection to every producer of industrial and farm products as other nations enjoyed.
At Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on September 18, he is reported in the Charlottetown Guardian as follows:
The way to bettering our conditions was along the lines indicated, Mr. Meighen believed. "Let us have more protection; hold our people; produce our own goods."
At Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 7, the Vancouver Province thus reports him:
"What will we do when we take office?" asked Mr. Meighen. "I will tell you. We will first address ourselves to framing a tariff policy. We will put our tariff wall right up to the level of the American tariff wall. We will make it as hard to get their products into Canada, as they make it for ours to get into their country. I do not mean that we must necessarily put our tariff as high as a gallows, but high enough to give our workers protection, to encourage our industries and bring back prosperity to Canada."
At Calgary, Alberta, on October 9, according to the Calgary Albertan:
What Canada should do would be to put up its tariff wall as high as the American tariff and then it would be in a position to barter.
And in Ottawa, on October 28, he is reported as follows in the Ottawa Citizen:
,We propose to give the producers of primary products a tariff equal to the American tariff and do it right away.
If the American tariff has done so much to drive 75,000 agriculturists from the farms of the middle west during the last decade we can easily understand what would happen to the farmers in Canada if we had in this country such a tariff as is in force across the line, when our farmers have to export their surplus products in competition with the products of other countries. I maintain that the policy advocated by the Liberal party is a sane and safe one, a proper tariff such as will bring to Canada the prosperity which we Should enjoy in this country. In the constituency which I represent we fought the last election on a moderate tariff issue, the policy which was advocated in this House during the four years of Liberal administration preceding the election. But in the last few weeks of the campaign a new element was introduced into
the fight in northern Ontario. My opponent was accompanied during that campaign by Mr. J. L. Lafontaine, who was announced as a member of the law firm in Montreal to which Hon. Mr. Patenaude belongs. In the French sections of the constituency my opponent was introduced as a Patenaude candidate and great was my surprise when on October 19 the leader of the opposition, accompanied by Mr. Lafontaine, spoke in favour of him as a Conservative candidate. This was all the more surprising to me in view of the fact that at the very moment when the right hon. gentleman was addressing a large meeting in my constituency there was being distributed in the French section of the district a pamphlet containing the following:
Statement by Mr. E. L. Patenaude The Hon. E. iL. Patenaude, speaking oil September 30, at Saint-Laurent divided his speech into a certain number of subjects. To sum up, (here are a few of the statements 'made. . . .
Further on the following statement appears in the pamphlet:
Status personnel en politique.
Je suis libre de toute fa^on, aussi libre de M. Meighen que je le suis de M. King.


An hon. MEMBER:: Translate it.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: The translation is:
Personal status in politics. I am free in every way, as free of Mr. Meighen as I am of Mr. King.
And on the reverse of the pamphlet there appears the following:
Votez pour John Ferguson, Candidat Liberal-Con -servateur.
Vote for John Ferguson, Liberal-Conservative candidate.
Before concluding my remarks I desire to refer in as few words as possible to the situation that now exists in northern Ontario, and I would respectfully call the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to the great possibilities of our natural resources in that country. We have in northern Ontario what will possibly prove to be the greatest element in solving our transportation problem. While it is true that agriculture will for many years to come be the basis of our national wealth, if the financial interests will give the same amount of attention to the wonderful and almost inexhaustible deposits of mineral wealth in northern Ontario, we shall have gone a great way towards solving some of the serious problems which will have to be dealt with by the House during this session.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): I beg, Sir, to join with those who have preceded me in this debate in tendering to you my sincere congratulations on your re-election to the high office of Speaker of this House. The

The Address-Mr. McPhee
dignity which you have already displayed in the carrying out of your important duties has made a lasting impression on my mind and, I am satisfied, on the minds of all the other new members of this House. I congratulate also the mover and the seconder of the Address on their maiden efforts, because I know from experience that it is a somewhat difficult task to address an assembly of this kind before one gets what is known in maritime language as his "sea legs."
I was much struck the other day with the closing words of the hon, member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) when he referred to the greatness of our Dominion and exhorted us all to work in unity and sincerity for its further development. Canada is a wonderful country, and I sometimes think that instead of the doleful remarks depreciating different parts of Canada, if we devoted more time to publishing to the world the greatness of our resources it would be far better for our constituencies in particular and the Dominion as a whole. The late iMark Twain tells a story of a visit which he once made to Mount Vesuvius. As he looked with wonder and astonishment on that great work of nature a native came up to him and said, "You have nothing in your country, Sir, that can touch that." Mark Twain turned to him and with pride and indignation swelling his breast he said, "We have a waterfall in our country, Sir, that would put that thing out of business in five minutes." And so it is with everything that we have in the Dominion. Canada has the greatest wheat fields; Canada has the greatest coal fields; Canada has the greatest gold fields; Canada has the most varied distribution of precious and economic minerals; Canada has the most extensive forests; Canada has the most extensive fisheries; Canada has the greatest number of miles of river and lake navigation; Canada has the greatest extent of coast line, and Canada has the greatest area of pasturage and arable lands of any country in the world. A country so vast that, with one exception, you can take the largest of the countries of Europe and it would look like a monogram on a handkerchief if placed in the almost illimitable stretches of our great northwestern country -a portion of which I have the honour to represent in this House.
With that statement of our greatness, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disconcerting to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) with reference to business conditions in his district. Let me quote his words as reported in Hansard at page 226:

There may be prosperity in some parts of this great Dominion, but in my part of the country there is none. In fact the condition is the reverse to prosperous.
These are doleful words, and to show that the same sentiments are held by the colleagues of my hon. friend from Nova Scotia, one had only to listen to the applause which greeted his remarks. I am happy to say, however, that the one bright spot from the Mari-times, as far as new members are concerned, is the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Jenkins). His address was an oasis after listening to the wailings from the desert of gloom as featured in the addresses of hon. gentlemen opposite from the Maritimes. In truly patriotic style he pictured to this House and to the country the potential wealth of the little province down by the sea. It was of special interest to me because Prince Edward Island is my native province, and I spent the first thirty years of my life there. I had the honour of sitting in the legislature of Prince Edward Island fifteen years ago, representing the second district of Queens county, the county so ably represented by the hon. gentleman to whom I refer. With him I can join in singing the praises of the garden of the gulf,-
No land can boast more rich supply
That e'er was found beneath the sky,
No purer streams have ever flowed
Since Heaven that bounteous gift bestowed.
In the manner in which the hon. member for Queens dealt with the business conditions in his province and the requirements for its better development, he has displayed the same business characteristics that have made him one of the real successful young business men of this country, and I can assure the hon. gentleman and all other members from the Maritime provinces who are truly and honestly solicitous for the welfare of their provinces that those of us who -come from western Canada, whose interests after all are identical with theirs, are prepared to co-operate with them in the bettering of those conditions that are essential to the making of a happy and a contented Canada east and west.
If conditions in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are as bad as hon. gentlemen opposite would try to make us believe, have they investigated how much the party to which they belong has contributed to -bring about that state of affairs? If I wanted to trespass upon the time and patience of this House in going over the long struggle for wider markets and freer trade in the Maritime provinces previous to 1911, I could give quotations from the statements of great political leaders of Canada at that time in the Maritimes, some of whom

The Address-Mr. McPhee
belonged to the Conservative party. But I will not do so. I will deal with conditions as they existed in the Maritime provinces during the election of 1911, and with the result of that election on those provinces as I see it. I can do that because at the time of the reciprocity election of 1911 I was a member of the legislatuie of Prince Edward Island and took an active part in the campaign in that province.
Let us look at the effects of the election of 1911 on the Maritime provinces. Prince Edward Island is twenty-four hours' run by rail from Boston, Massachusetts. The city of Boston to a certain extent is circumscribed by the lumber state of Maine and by the quarry state of Vermont. It is a city with a population of over 2,000,000 people, a city which can consume all the surplus agricultural products of the Maritime provinces. If reciprocity had carried these provinces would be in a position to sell to the city of Boston their surplus agricultural products without paying any duty. Boston now has to draw its food supply from the inland portion of the United States. But what happened in the election of 1911? The Conservative party linked itself u,p with the selfish interests of Montreal and Toronto, so concisely referred to by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) the other day, and they defeated the Liberal party and reciprocity. What is the result? The Maritime provinces, owing to the high duty which they have to pay, are prohibited from entering their natural market, the city of Boston, and have to depend upon the home markets of Sydney, Halifax and St. John, to which reference was made the other day. If such conditions exist in the Maritime provinces as my hon. friends state, and if there is any blame, let them lay that blame where it properly belongs-on the party that delivered the agriculturists of Canada, east and west, body, bones and soul, into the hands of the selfish protectionist interests of Canada.


Mr. PRICE:: I would like to ask the hon.
member if he realizes that under Conservative rule from 1911 to 1921 the city of Moncton doubled its population, and also, I may add, increased the pay sheet in connection with the Canadian National Railways from $325,000 to $500,000 per month?


Mr. McPHEE:: I am glad there is one
bright light from the Maritime provinces on that side of the House. I would answer the hon. member's question by asking him how much the contracts due to the war had to do with the increase in population in the city of Moncton.
I said at the outset that our interests in western Canada were identical in many respects with those of the .Maritime provinces; it is so in respect of the matters to which I have just been referring. What did the defeat of reciprocity and the defeat of the Liberal government in 1911 mean to the agriculturist of western Canada? Here is where my good Progressive friends opposite and myself can stand on common ground, because if there is one thing that our Progressive friends and those of us of Liberal persuasion from the western provinces have in common, it is this: that we are sent down here to say to our protectionist friends, with due apologies to the great American commoner who a few months ago passed to the great beyond, "You shall not press down on the brow of the Canadian farmer a crown of thorns. You are not going to crucify western Canada on a tariff wall such as you suggest". What did the defeat of reciprocity and the defeat of the Liberal government in 1911 mean to us in western Canada? At certain seasons of the year we import largely fruit and vegetables. I have here from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a statement of the amount of duty collected on those commodities as follows:
The total amount of duty collected on fruits and vegetables during the last three fiscal years was as follows:
Fiscal Yea re
Duties Collected 1923	1924	1925
Fruits of all kinds, fresh, dried, canned,
etc., and fruit juices. $1,999,953 $2,182,923 $2,254,310 Vegetables, fresh, dried, canned, etc., including	#
pickles	 1,240,248	1,358.453	1,542,991
Practically $4,000,000 collected in duty on fruit and vegetables. I do not know what portion of that duty we in western Canada have to bear, but it has been estimated by one gentleman that our share of it w'ould average $1,000,000 a year. Who pays this? The consumer certainly, and those of us in western Canada who are consumers arc bled to the tune of $1,000,000 by way of duty on fruit and vegetables, because we permitted a Tory government to gain ascendency in this country in 1911. Take the matter of agricultural implements. Shortly after the election of 1911 the managing director of one of the largest dealers in farm machinery in western Canada published a statement showing in tabulated form the reductions in the price of farm implements his company would have made if reciprocity had carried, and he said, "What my company would do other companies would be obliged to do." The farmers,
5S2
The Address-Mr. McPhee

as far as I gather from his statement, would have saved on an average $1,000,000 a year. There we have the agriculturists of western Canada penalized to the extent of $1,000,000 a year on agricultural implements to satisfy the selfish interests I have before referred to.
I wish to deal briefly with the remarks made by a few of our stalwart Conservative friends in this House a few days ago-and I am prompted to take this course, Mr. Speaker, because of the address to which we listened yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). Let me deal first of all with the criticism made b3' the hon. member, recorded in Hansard on page 607, of the leader of the Progressive party for the statements he made with reference to Saskatchewan being the greatest dairying province in the Dominion. I have taken the trouble to look up the facts in Hansard in order to correct the hon. member. Let me refer, first of all, to the statement made in this House by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on May 7, 1924. Here is what the minister gave us, the figures having been obtained from the Bureau of Statistics:
Saskatchewan Ontario
Butter, per capita	
30 lbs.	25 lbs.Poultry, per capital	
11 lbs.	5 lbs.
I have also taken the trouble to get from the Bureau of Statistics this afternoon the
last statement on record with regard to this matter, and here are the figures:
1924	Saskatchewan Ontario
Butter, value per capita..	..	$10 44	$9	96Poultry, value per capita	..	7 00	5	60
The only product in which Ontario has excelled us is eggs, for which the figures are:
Saskatchewan Ontario Eggs, value per capita..	..	$8 49	$8	60
On page 509 of Hansard the hon. member ,for Frontenac-Addington made the following statement:
Australia is following a policy of encouraging its farmers, giving a bonus on every carcass of beef shipped out of the country, as well as a bonus of six cents on every pound of butter exported, and this government meets that situation by letting Australia and New Zealand butter come in here under a duty of one cent per pound to compete with our home product.
Now what are the facts? I took the trouble to ascertain them from the Dairy Commissioner, and I have a memorandum from him as follows:
For some years there has been an agitation among the creamery operators in Australia to put in force what was called a stabilization scheme, but which is now generally known and referred to in the press as the Patterson scheme.
The scheme is a purely voluntary one, and is not supported by the government. It depends for its success on every creamery in Australia joining on a voluntary basis.

The plan is, briefly, to make a levy of two cents per pound on all butter manufactured, and thus create a fund out. of which a bounty of six cents per pound could be paid on the one-third of the total production which is exported. It is claimed that this would have the effect of increasing the price for that which is consumed at home to the extent of the net bounty, which would be four cents per pound.
It is not yet in force and there is considerable doubt as to whether it can be carried out.
It would not make it any easier to ship Australian butter into Canada, because the bounty would be paid on all butter exported. Australian butter will come to Canada only when the Australian producer can get more money for it here than he can in the world's market.
The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington was very bitter against the Progressive party and relieved himself by an attack on the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. He read a statement to the House and concluded with these words:
The facts are here to prove what I say, that the most unscrupulous and cold-blooded profiteering monopoly that ever existed in this or any other country is represented by the United Grain Growers' Grain Company, the heads of which company laid down the platform of the Progressive party in this House and in the country.
I hold no brief for the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. They are a corporation doing a legitimate business in this country, just the same as any other company in Canada. They conduct their business in open competition with other companies of a like kind. They do not seek any special concessions, and the very fact that they are able to do business and to show the profits which .my hon. friend stated, but which I do not admit, is proof positive that the competing companies have not attempted to undersell them; otherwise they would not be in business. What we object to is not the volume of business these companies do, but to an increase in the tariff on agricultural implements to permit our Canadian manufacturers so protected to take from the farmers purchasing their implements an increase in price equivalent to the increase in duty.


Mr. EVANS:: Would the hon. member allow me to interject that the United Grain Growers did not make that profit on the handling of implements or on any other commodities?


George Washington McPhee: I stated that I did not admit that the statement of profits as given by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington was correct.
On motion of Mr. McPhee the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
5S3

Auditor General's Report
Monday, February 1, 1926