1926-02-24

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, some few days
ago I mentioned to the House that we had asked the American government to name a date on which'we should, concurrently, table
Chicago Drainage Canal

the despatches passing between this government and the government of the United States with reference to the Chicago drainage canal. They have agreed, and have named this as the day for the concurrent publication of the despatches.
In tabling this interchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to the matter of the withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes system by the Chicago sanitary district, a word of explanation is desirable.
The correspondence covers the permit of the 3rd of March, 1925, issued by the United States Secretary of War to the Chicago sanitary district, and the subsequent exchange of communications between the two governments up to the end of the year 1925.
In my statement to the House of Commons dated January 25 last, mention was made of the permit of the 3rd of March above referred to, authorizing the diversion of an amount of water expressed as not to exceed an annual average of 8,500 second feet through the main and auxiliary channels of the sanitary district. It is believed that the object of the United States Secretary of War in issuing this permit was to legalize under United States law, in so far as a permit of the Secretary of War could legalize it, the withdrawal of a sufficient amount of water to protect the health of the inhabitants of the sanitary district, while at the same time incorporating in the terms of the permit provision for a progressive curtailment of the total waters diverted from the Great Lakes by calling upon the Chicago sanitary district and the municipality of Chicago to install sewage disposal works, to construct a control gate in the Chicago river to control flood flows and to meter the domestic water supply.
While the foregoing outlines the general objectives of the Secretary of War's permit, it was, unfortunately, possible to place various interpretations upon the amount of water which could be diverted under its terms. This uncertainty arose from the phraseology of the permit itself, and from the physical conditions obtaining in respect to the actual diversion.
While all the water carried1 in the drainage canal is a diversion from the Great Lakes system, yet the waters in the canal are not all diverted in the same manner. Certain of the waters are diverted directly from lake Michigan by the main drainage canal and its auxiliaries. A second manner of diversion is through the disposal of the domestic water supply which is pumped from lake Michigan by the municipality of Chicago and as sewage passes into the drainage canal. The quantity

of water so diverted amounts to some 1,200 cubic feet per second. A third manner of diversion has been the reversal of the flow of the Chicago and Calumet rivers, whose waters in the natural state were discharged into lake Michigan, but are now diverted into the drainage canal. This last diversion ts estimated to be an annual average amount of 1,300 cubic feet per second.
With the above conditions obtaining it was, therefore, possible to interpret the permit of the 3rd of March as being applicable in any one of the three following manners:
1.	That the amount of 8,500 cubic feet per second was inclusive of all waters diverted, regardless of the manner in which diversion was made;
2.	That the amount of 8,500 cubic feet per second was inclusive of all waters diverted, with the exception of the water diverted for domestic purposes; that is, a total abstraction of 9,700 cubic feet per second was recognized;
3.	That the amount of 8,500 cubic feet per second was applicable only to the direct diversion by the drainage canal and auxiliaries from lake Michigan and was exclusive of the water diverted for domestic water supply and by the reversal of the flow of the Chicago and Calumet rivers; that is, a total abstraction of 11,000 cubic feet per second was recognized.
With the object of securing from the United States government a specific interpretation of the terms and conditions of the permit, this government has exchanged notes with the government of the United States, as a result of which a clear-cut definition has been placed upon the permit. This exchange of correspondence is tabled herewith. The communications from the government of the United States now make it clear:	First:
That the 8,500 cubic feet per second includes the reversed flow of the Chicago and Calumet rivers, but is exclusive of the 1,200 cubic feet per second pumped for domestic consumption by the city of Chicago; that is, a total abstraction of 9,700 cubic feet per second is recognized; Second: That this total diversion of 9,700 cubic feet per second authorized or recognized is practically the amount being actually diverted at present.
In further reference to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the permit as disclosed in this correspondence, it might be stated that it is the understanding of the United States government that the gross flow in the canal will be rediiced by December 31st, 1929, to
8,000	cubic feet per second and probably to 6.700 cubic feet per second, and the United States government states further that the
FEBRUAiRY 24, 1926
Australian Treaty
sewage treatment programme of the sanitary district has been arranged so as to make it possible to effect a reduction to a gross flow of 4,167 cubic feet per second by the year 1935 or before. 1 might add that it is the intention of this government to follow closely the actual progress which is made in the construction works necessary to enable the proposed curtailment to be realized.
The papers brought down to-day cover the despatches exchanged during 1925 subsequent to the issuance of the permit of the 3rd of March. In January of the present year, as indicated in my statement to the House some weeks ago, the Canadian government, having secured an official interpretation of the United States permit, set forth its position in a comprehensive manner in a further despatch, which included a protest against pending proposals for the construction of a 9-foot navigable channel in the Illinois and Mississippi rivers based upon the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second from the Great Lakes through the sanitary district canal. It has been agreed with the United States government not to publish this despatch until the reply is also available for publication.
In conclusion, I might add that while some progress has been made towards bettering the conditions with respect to the Chicago diversion, as will be realized from a review of this correspondence, this government is maintaining the closest possible contact with every phase and feature having to do with the Chicago diversion and will continue to present the Canadian viewpoint with all possible firmness to the United States government. It might be further emphasized that this government has never at any time recognized, in the smallest degree, the diversion, and will continue to protest against the entire principle of abstracting water from the Great Lakes to another watershed.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: What year was that?


Charles A. Stewart: Last year,
1925.


Mr. CAHAN:: Will the correspondence be printed for distribution?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it can be printed.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
would not like to answer that question because the whole matter, as my hon. friend knows, is before the courts of the United States 'as well as before congress, and it is also being dlisdussed very freely in connection with the hearings at Washington. So far as the Canadian government is concerned that is another matter and I should not like to express an opinion as to whether or not the Secretary for War has the necessary authority to issue such a permit.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Two days ago I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to an article which appeared in the press regarding the reported bonus to be paid by the Australian government in connection with the exportation of butter, and was informed that the Minister of Finance was in communication with the authorities of the Australian commonwealth touching the question which is known as the Pattersen scheme. Has the minister any information to give on the subject?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: No reply has yet been received.


Donald Sutherland: Was the communication by cable or by letter?


James Alexander Robb: I will find out and let my hon. friend know just what was done. I am being instructed in this matter by the officers of the department.



SOLDIER SETTLERS' LAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: On the 18th February I drew the attention of the government to a report that fifty families of immigrants had been settled on certain vacated soldier lands, and the Minister of the Interior stated that he would obtain particulars. I also drew attention to a report that these immigrants were- being settled on the lands referred to at valuations below those originally placed on them. The minister stated that he also had1 received complaints to that effect, and would look into the matter and give the House the desired information.


Mr. GEARY:: Has the government given Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of
any consideration to the legal right of the the Interior): I had the report in question Secretary for War of the United States of prepared but I missed placing it on ithe table America to give a permit for the diversion of and it has now gone back to my office. How-lake waiter at all?	ever, I will table it to-morrow.

The Address-Mr. Gott



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: " That this question be now put."
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose last evening-


Mr. MACLEAN (South York):: Will the hon. member foe good enough to move a little nearer to the centre of the chamber so (that we can all hear him?


Eccles James Gott: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
members to preserve order so that the hon. gentleman who has the floor may be distinctly heard.


Eccles James Gott: I say that Canada has reached a position where an exportable surplus of

onions can be developed each and every year, if business principles and good judgment be applied 'to the operation of the industry, and if the necessary precautions be taken to safeguard it at all times-and when 1 say that I mean 365 days of every year. This industry is one which is assuming considerable proportions in the riding I have the honour to represent. At this very moment, growers in western Ontario who have been marketing onions all winter, are faced with the situation that they are receiving approximately 31.10 per hundredweight-or 60 cents per bushel- with a possibility of having to dump the onions out on the field in thirty days because of the approaching arrival of new ones from Texas, C&lifornia and other western states.

The Address-Mr. Gott
This situation is discouraging to the growers in our part of the country. It is a disadvantage in the extreme, but it could be prevented easily if the government would protect our growers, from the standpoint of selling in the fall at harvest time, from the direct competition of the so-called Spanish onions, which are put on the market at prices equal to any prices that our domestic onion dealers are quoting. This competition from Spanish onions continues throughout the winter. Then in the spring the local onions stored and carried over the winter are faced with refusal at city markets because of the coming in of the new onions from Texas and California. If the United States has a large surplus so that the prices there to the grower are low- sometimes they are invoiced as low as 50 to 75 cents per bag-not bushels but hundred pounds-paying a duty of 16 cents-they can land them in Toronto, Montreal and the Maritimes as cheap as, if not considerably cheaper than the western Ontario growers can. This is discouraging to the grower who, if he seeks to take a bag of onions into the United States, is compelled, regardless of the prices at which they are selling, to pay a duty of $1 per bag.
The state of New York in 1926 produced twice as many onions for the fall market as any other two states in the union. New York is much closer to eastern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, than is western Ontario, hence the freight rates fully compensate for the duty of 30 per cent, as the duty is usually based on a very low billing. The production of onions in western Ontario could be materially increased if the market could be stabilized, but there is no money in onions at 30 or 40 cents per bag; and the Canadian people are big enough that they do not want to buy onions at 50 cents per bag if it means the annihilation of an important Canadian industry.
American grown onions when imported into Canada are billed so low for customs purposes that the duty gives very little protection to Ontario growers, while on the other hand Canadian growers of onions are barred from the adjacent United States markets of Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Chicago, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Columbus and Cincinnati, because of the fixed duty of $1 per hundred pounds imposed by the United States government. We are barred from the United States market while at the same time our onion market is taken from underneath our feet by onions from Spain, the West Indies and the United States; yet our government, not knowing that 14011-82J
such is the condition, sits idly by. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), is in his seat, and if he will arouse himself for a short time, I will submit to him a few constructive points relative to the preservation of this one industry in Canada-in South Essex at least, where an onion shed is now under construction by the government for the storage of onions until the surplus stock of American, Spanish, and the West Indies onions is off our own market. I will say to the hon. minister, that South Essex does not want an onion shed built for one, two, or a few political favourites. They want protection of their product to assure them of our own market, in which they can dispose of their own product at a reasonable and profitable figure.
The proposed construction of an onion shed at Leamington'-which, by the way, has been started and is now under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture

was a costly, vote getting, experiment. The onion growers voted strongly-and I trust the Minister of Agriculture will observe the term "strongly1"- against the government candidate, the Right Hon. George P. Graham and the government's proposal to build an onion shed instead of giving them protection on their product. Protection, not an onion shed or onion sheds, is what my constituents desire. I am inspired to try to impress upon the hon. Minister of Agriculture, if it be possible, the faet that he can, by almost a stroke of the pen, preserve an important industry in western Ontario which to-day is not receiving fair play.
Let me make one or two constructive suggestions. First, there should be adequate protection on all vegetables, principally onions, raised in Ontario, or in any other part of Canada, protection equal in every respect to that accorded the United States vegetable raisers, so that the barrier to our vegetables seeking markets would be equalled by the barrier the American growers encounter in trying to reach our market. Second:	The development of export market facilities and the methods of handling our vegetables, so that we can dispose of our exportable surplus each year, thereby providing a safety valve for any seasonable surplus that we may have from time to time. As an instance, I would mention that during the winter of 1924-25, sixty-seven car loads of onions were exported to Cuba from Ontario and Vancouver, and forty-two car loads of British Columbia onions to the Orient.
In this connection, I might state that under date of February 16, Mr. G. E. McIntosh,
The Address-Mr. Gott

Fruit Commissioner, received the following wire:
Chatham, Ont., February 16, 1926.
Mr. G. E. McIntosh,
Fruit Commissioner,
Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa Ont.
Wire collect names and addresses several reliable, aggressive exporters onions to Cuba and West Indies market. Heavy importation Spanish onions during past five months have taken place of large amount domestic onions with resulting considerable surplus our onions.
If 20 to 50 cars domestic onions could be exported, a fair market might be provided for remainder onions. About 25 cars freshly regraded onions are available at $1.25 per cwt. f.o.b. Western Ontario points and growers pressing to sell.
' Sgd. Bhcce F. Bradley.
This wire was not despatched by any person animated by political affiliations. It presents the actual condition in western Ontario to-day, as set forth by a man who thinks we should at least be entitled to our own market so long as we do not exploit it to the disadvantage of the general public.
Thousands of farmers in the United States -vegetable raisers, tobacco raisers, and all classes of farmers

would be glad to come to our district if the market for the vegetables they could grow were other than it is at present; and I beseech this government to co-operate with us in this respect in the interests of the people whom I have the honour to represent, before it is too late. The industry is well worth preserving; the farmers of South Essex have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in -it.
In 1924 Canada produced 31,218 tons of onions. Of that amount Ontario produced 23,844 tons, and the riding I represent produced over one-half of the total production of the whole Dominion. For the period of four months of the year 1925 we exported 9,116 bushels of onions at a value of $7,979, and imported for the fiscal year $401,814. I obtained these figures from the report of the Ottawa Fruit Commissioner, Mr. Fulton. We can produce onions, the best in the world, sufficient for the consumption- of the whole Canadian market, and have thousands of bushels -for export purposes, if this or any other government will only give us a chance to see what actually can be done.
I plead for fairness to all classes. I submit that when we remedy this difference in tariff we Shall at one stroke -put ourselves on the way to improve our transportation, immigration, emigration, agricultural and general business conditions. If we do not raise our tariff to meet that of our closest competitor we shall -be steering straight into disaster.

American potatoes and other vegetables have been permitted to drive Canadian produce from the market. Our home-grown vegetable and fruit stocks are allowed to decay, while the market is supplied from the United States at one-third -the duty at which we can supply their market. The loss to Canadian growers amounts to millions of dollars annually, and the industry is blighted by unnecessary competition. The preservation of our market garden industry means increased buying powers to -the extent of millions of dollars for large sections of Canadian people, to the ultimate benefit of the entire country, while the consumer, as well as the producer, will reap the profit.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to submit a statement of farm produce imported into the Dominion o-f Canada from the United States for the year 1924, as follows:
Apples	
Applies dried.. Pears.. .. ,. .. Peaches in cans. Peaches raw.. .
Cherries	
Grapes	
Strawberries.. ..
Plums	
Butter	
Eggs	
Cheese	
Lard	
Pork	
Beef	
Mutton	
Tomatoes	
Potatoes	
Cabbage	
Onions	
Other vegetables,
Com	
Tobacco	
....	$ 775,819
..	..	56,407..	..	566,634..	..	201,630..	..	403,312..	..	83,349..	..	661,443..	..	785,150303,495..	..	783.488..	..	2,508,383..	..	318,981..	..	1,144.141..	..	5,134.061..	..	33,943..	..	250,692..	..	964,055..	..	451,449..	..	187,677..	..	434,548..	..	1,396,080
bushels 14,120,962 pounds 16,848,439
Total foodstuffs imported, $494,349,000.
In the recent campaign I stood for six points, namely:
1.	To reduce our national debt and lessen the burden of taxation by strict economy in every department of government.
2.	To stop the alarming tide of emigration by encouraging the development of Canada's great natural resources and give employment to Canadians at home.
3.	To adjust the tariff so as to give reasonable and just protection to Canadian farm and garden products, in order that the Canadian farmer and every man who labours may obtain the highest prices for the products of his toil.
4.	To develop a sane immigration policy, with the view of building up Canada as a great and prosperous nation within the British Empire.
5.	To conserve Canada's raw materials and manufacture them at home, thereby giving

The Address-Mr. Gott
employment to hundreds of thousands who, through the exportation of same in the raw, follow it to the factories in search of employment.
6.	To adopt at all times a conciliatory and constructive mode of procedure on matters pertaining to our national welfare; and to represent all the people regardless of colour, creed or political affiliation.
I quote from the Mail and Empire of September 12, 1925:
Australia Booming
On Wave of Prosperity, Sir James Elder Says
Toronto, September 12.-Illuminating figures showing what protection had accomplished in Australia and other parts of the British Empire were imparted yesterday at the exhibition directors' luncheon, at which Sir James Elder, Trade Commissioner for Australia in the United States; Hon. J. F. Cahan, M.P.P., member without portfolio of the cabinet of the Nova Scotia government, and Ben Smith, a member of the British Labour party in the House of Commons, spoke.
Sir James Elder said he was certain that Australia would be an exhibitor at the 1926 exhibition. Unlike Canada, he said, Australia was now riding on the crest of a phenomenal wave of prosperity, and the wheels of industry were spinning as never before, so much so that the people of Australia were fast being relieved of the heavy burdens of taxation. Protection had been the one cause of Australia's wonderful success in the interchange of trade with other countries.
Sir James declared that during the past three years Australia had reduced her war debt by over $110,000,000, while the aggregate Federal debt had been decreased to the extent of $2,000,000,000. Australia had not only reduced her public debt, but the government was seized of the importance of relieving the people of heavy income taxation and four reductions had been made since 1914, the present tax being on the basis of pre-war days, plus 20 per cent and further reductions were contemplated in the very near future.
I have been asked by members on this side of the House where I stand on the question of Maritime rights. I have heard the question very often asked in this chamber:	What are Maritime rights? I
quote a reprint from the Montreal Herald:
Halifax Elevators Lie Idle as Bulk of Grain Crop Shipped by Way of the United States.
Not one bushel of the 24,095,814 bushels of Canadian wheat exported to Great Britain this year has arrived at one of empire's most important ports.
I realize from that article what Maritime rights are, and I say to this House that I stand for Maritime rights just as I stand for Alberta coal for Ontario. I stand for Canada for Canadians. I stand for a national fuel policy which, I believe, would be a wise and patriotic policy, one conducive to the exclusion of millions of tons of United States coal annually from Canada and one that would keep at home millions of dollars every year to help to turn the wheels o.f Canadian industry.
Much has been said in this House about precedents. I have heard more precedents mentioned since the opening of this session than in all the rest of my life. Let me quote a living precedent, one which stands out in the world to-day as a beacon-the United States of America. The United States is the richest country in the world. It is the most highly protected country under the sun. Its workmen are the best paid men on earth and its commodities are sold at prices as reasonable as those of any country. Only when Canada adopts measures similar to those adopted by the United States in regard to the tariff, shall we prosper. Protection brings capital investment, industry, employment, wages and competition. Competition brings prices within the reach of the working man and, above all, presents us with the means of preserving the essential of nationhood-our manhood. Protection brings industry and one industry brings another. The protective tariff develops home industries and these industries promote others, giving employment to working men, wages to local families and contentment in the home. They give custom and profit to local business, and the prosperity of the manufacturers and of business concerns generally provides freight for the railways, which again employ more workers. All these combined furnish a better home market to the farmers who are sadly in need of a more extensive outlet for their products.
This is the policy which the Conservative party stand1 for and which will be put into operation at the earliest opportunity after they have come into power. Like 115 other members on this side of the House, I was elected on a protective policy. I represent a progressive constituency and a farming community, and speaking for the farmers of South Essex, whose very existence depends upon protection and whose progress has been very seriously hampered by unfair competition, I stand behind a leader whose policy it will be to promote such conditions as are vital to the welfare of that constituency among others.
There are 116 members on this side who are united behind one leader with one policy and one principle that of a unified Canada. That leader is courageous!, otitspoken, straightforward and honest, and 116 men are pledged to him both in heart and in mind. With confidence they stand behind him ready to assist in the passing of legislation by means of which every section of the country and every citizen of this Dominion will be benefited, regardless of their political affiliations or their standing in their respective communities. That policy is a policy to build up Canada and to elevate the morale of our citizens,
The Address-Mr. Gott

and' that policy will be acceptable, I am sure, to every section of Canada. Our policy is one of adequate protection to all classes, a policy which will be conducive to Dominion-wide prosperity on the farm, in the factory and in the home; and in that policy lies the only solution for the problems of our war and railway debts and the exodus of our boys and girls to the United States. In it lies the solution for the problems also of our present ruinous taxation and the burdens under which the Canadian people are labouring to-day. Our policy offers to this country an aggressive and economical government under stable and fair conditions by means of which we may all achieve prosperity, stimulating immigration, bringing back our people from the United States, expanding our revenue and reducing our taxation. For if we are to prosper as a nation we shall do so not by looking backward and attempting to retrieve the mistakes of the past, but by looking forward and making a gigantic preparation for the things that are to be done.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I have taken the liberty of breaking what I understand to be an unwritten rule, namely, that when members address the House they should do so from their own seats. I am speaking from the seat of another member in order to save the strain on my own voice and the strain on the hearing powers of hon. gentlemen, who I assume-though possibly the assumption is gratuitous-will want to hear what I have to say whether they agree with it or not.
We are drawing to the close of what must be in the memory of even the oldest members of this House an extraordinary experience, perhaps one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of parliamentary procedure. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) in the course of an excellent address, dropped, like 'Silas Wegg, into poetry, and expressed the hope, in the words of Burns, that some god might give either to the House or to some party in it, possibly to hon. gentlemen opposite and to the government, a vision of themselves as they appeared to others. I want to try in a few minutes to answer that prayer, and as a kind of deus ex machina to show to hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially to ministers on the treasury benches, how they and their actions, during these weeks that have passed since we gathered here as a parliament, have appeared to a humble back-bencher of this House.
At the call of the acting government we assembled on January 7. The first message which we received was from the crown through

the lips of the Speaker of the Senate. We were told in that message that it did not please His Excellency to state to the House the purposes for which parliament had been summoned until a Speaker should have been elected. We returned then to this chamber and did what, so far as gentlemen on the opposite side and the government are concerned, was the only proper and efficient piece of business which they have accomplished in the past weeks:	I refer, Sir, to your election
to the chair of this House. I would give the government more credit for that but for the fact that there is a lurking suspicion in my mind that they did it rather under the influence of that law, the only law they appear to know, the law of inertia. You, Sir, had been elected as Speaker in the previous parliament and it was the easiest thing for the government-although of course they received the hearty concurrence and unanimous approval of all members of the House-to yield to the force of that law of inertia, which is the law of their being, and follow in the footsteps of the previous parliament.
The day following we attended in the Senate chamber to hear the Speech from the Throne. We expected that it would 'be a speech setting out, as on the previous day it had been stated it would, the purposes for which this parliament had been summoned. We knew what those purposes were, because the Prime Minister had himself drawn up and published in the Ottawa Journal of November 5 the reasons that should govern him in bringing parliament together. The government met as soon as possible after the election, said the acting leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe),and1 having considered the situation the leader of the government tendered1 his advice to His Excellency. And what was that advice? In a statement which he issued and which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 5, the Prime Minister stated:
After several interviews with His Excellency at which the (position brought about iby the recent general election was ful'ly discussed and all alternatives presented, I have taken the responsibility of advising His Excellency to summon parliament for the earliest practicable date-
-For what purpose?
-in order to ascertain, the attitude of the parliamentary representatives towards the very important question raised by the numerical position of the respective political parties.
That was the advice tendered by the Prime Minister to His Excellency, and His Excellency accepting it, parliament was summoned accordingly. We then attended in the Senate chamber to hear the Speech from the Throne, and some of us expected to hear a statement

The Address-Mr. Bury
along the lines of that published by the Prime Minister himself on November 5 as it appeared in the Ottawa Journal. What as a matter of fact did we hear? We heard something absolutely different; we heard a Speech from the Throne prepared by an acting government which assumed that it would continue in office and which came down in the normal way to carry on the business of the country during the session. There is no doubt as to the attitude of the Prime Minister; there is no doubt as to the attitude of members of the government and their followers, on this point. Not merely did the leader of the House endorse this statement of his leader published in the Ottawa Journal, but be said on the very next day, the day we heard the Speech from the Throne:
We say we were justified in retaining office and summoning parliament-
For what purpose?
-to ask for the decision of this parliament as to who should be its executive.
That is why we were summoned. Then again the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) on January 11, followed exactly the same line. He said:
The question before us was a very simple one. It was whether the government had the right, first of all, to meet parliament; and, secondly, whether the government wad justified in asking the members of the House of Commons-
To do what? To consider a Speech from the Throne with a full-dress programme of legislation? No.	But-
-to decide whether the government should remain in power or whether another administration should be formed.
Again the Solicitor General adopts his leader's position at page 61 of Hansard where on the same date, he is reported as saying:
After the Elections the Prime Minister took the following position:	This government will remain in
power until parliament meets. * [DOT] [DOT] Now the Prime Minister had to face a novel situation, as I have tried to prove, and not only a novel situation, but a difficult situation. A man with ordinary conceit might have thought he had enough experience, enough judgment, enough personal perspicacity to advise His Excellency, but the Prime Minister took another stand. He said, "It does not belong to one man in Canada, no matter how exalted his position may be, to decide a situation so novel and so difficult. I will have the greatest, the highest and the most competent tribunal of the land to decide it, and instead of giving my own personal opinion I shall ask the two 'hundred and forty-five representatives of the people to make the decision."
Was the Prime Minister justified or not? Well, had hon. gentlemen consistently followed the principles laid down in the statement published in the Ottawa Journal of November
5; had they consistently followed the statements and arguments of their own speeches; had they consistently observed their position as they themselves over and over again in no ambiguous terms described it, I for one, whether it was constitutional or not, would have had no fault to find with them. But they did not. Knowing very well what that position was, that they were to meet parliament and put before it as its prime business -as its only business until that was cleared away-the question: Who is to govern this country; what government is to be the executive of this House-knowing that that was the position, they never say a word about ir. in the Speech from the Throne. What was the kind of Speech from the Throne some of us might have expected under the circumstances?
Let me analyze the actual Speech for a minute. It starts with a few paragraphs that are innocuous-perfectly natural and perfectly pro-per; a paragraph of welcome; a paragraph referring to the lamentable death of Queeu Alexandra; a paragraph recording the appointment of a member of the government as president of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations; a paragraph of congratulation on the growing prosperity of agriculture and trade. All of those were perfectly proper
But how should the Speech from 4 p.m. the Throne then have continued?
Surely it should have proceeded, along the lines of the Prime Minister's own statement in the Ottawa Journal, to say that his ministers had advised him to summon parliament and submit the question which the electors, he said, had not already settled on October 29. But in the Speech from the Throne there is not a word of the purpose for which parliament was summoned. This is what follows:	Legislation regarding proposed reduction of taxation; regarding reduction of expenditures; regarding consolidation and co-ordination of departments; regarding simplification of forms of public accounts; regarding measures to obtain settlers and encourage those who have left the land to return; regarding special arrangements for settling crown lands; regarding rural credits; regarding the appointment of a tariff advisory board-which was to take place at once; regarding a trade agreement with the British West Indies; regarding the Hudson Bay railway-which was to be completed at once; regarding the appointment of a royal commission on Maritime rights; regarding the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources; regarding the amendment of the Dominion Elections Act, and the estimates
The Address

Mr. Bury

for 1926, Yet the government comes to this parliament and says, "Gentlemen, we do not know who the country wishes to govern. On October 29 the issue was not settled." We say it was. We say the ordinary elector on the street knows it was. We say that if at any period of parliamentary history the electors of any country told any government they had1 lost their confidence, the electors of this country told (.this government so on October 29. But I accept for the time being the premiss of the Prime Minister; I will suppose he is correct in saying that the electors had not decided that point on October 29. What follows? He says: "Since the electors of this Dominion did not decide that on October 29, I am going to leave it to the members of the House to decide." But instead of coming here and leaving the members of the House to decide untrammelled1-leaving them in the same position as the electors were on October 29-as he should have done, he brings down a full-dress Speech from the Throne packed with prospective legislation.
It is done, and it cannot be undone. But it is setting a precedent which is extremely pernicious. I want to make that point very clear to hon. gentlemen on my left. I have the highest regard for them, and the fullest belief in their integrity and purity of purpose. I know some of them personally. I do not believe they recognize and realize all that lay by way of implication in the-I dare not say, dishonest conduct of the government. What does it matter if we cannot say it here? They can say it outside-I repeat, I do not believe they recognize and realize all that lay by way of implication in the conduct of the government in professing to leave this matter in the hands of parliament as it was on October 29 when the electors, the Prime Minister said, failed to give a sufficiently articulate and distinct and pronounced judgment. No, instead of that we find this state of affairs.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Will the hon.
gentleman permit a question?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Certainly, sir.


William Findlay Maclean: (Prince) Can he quote a precedent where parliament was summoned without a Speech from the Throne 'being brought down?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: 
Alfred Edgar MacLean: When would the hon. gentleman suggest that the remainder of the Speech be brought down?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I will answer that, Mr
Speaker. Surdly the hon. gentleman will not be troubled by precedents? Why, the argument of the Solicitor General was that the position was so extraordinary, so novel and so difficult that precedents were not on the page at all. We could not look at them; for there were none to look at. We had to let the flexible, pliable constitution of the British Empire adjust itself. It was a thing of rubber or wax; it could be adjusted to any emergency, and we were to adjust it to this emergency. I suggest that common sense and honesty would have adjusted it in this way, by bringing down a Speech from the Throne along the lines that I have mentioned. That would have been honest and straight; it would have been according to the position of the Prime Minister himself, and then when parliament had decided which government was to hold office, another Speech from the Throne could have been brought down, if you choose, setting out the legislation proposed.
I will deal with that later on. But just here, may I say that the argument of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) amply bears out my position? What was that argument? It was this:	He impressed upon the
members of this House and more particularly upon hon. members to my left, that this party was guilty of a heinous offence. Why? Because it brought in an amendment which, had it passed, would have rendered the Speech from the Throne a farce, nugatory, abortive. In other words, his argument was this:	A
Speech from the Throne has been delivered by His Excellency; the Conservative party have brought in an amendment which, if it passes, wall make it impossible to carry out or even consider that Speech; then another government will have to come into power and another Speech from the Throne will have to be delivered. I asked him the question: Supposing this motion of ours had not been proposed at all; supposing on the very first day, when the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) brought forward his resolution, we

The Address-Mr. Bury
had said, "All right, put it to the House," and the motion had been voted down-and the Minister of Justice did not know which way the House was going to vote; the House was to be perfectly free; he could not tell what the result of his own motion was going to be-what then? Would not the very same result have followed the defeat of that motion; and the minister admitted it would. The very same results would have followed as would have followed the carrying of our amendment. The head and front of our offence therefore is this, that we introduced a resolution which prevented the government from introducing a resolution which, if it had been defeated, would have made the Speech from the Throne a farce. That is what follows.
The next phase was that the Minister of Justice rose in his seat and sought to justify the action of the government. The argument he used was this: This is not an abnormal situation; it has occurred over and over again in British parliamentary history; we have precedents for what we have done. And he produced his precedents; but the trouble about them was that although they were very good as precedents, they did not precede this particular situation. They were like the address, which any members of this House who have read that amusing story The Lunatic at Large, will remember was given by the lunatic to the lady whose sympathies and help he wished to enlist in his attempt to escape from the asylum. He told her that he had been at one time a clerk in holy orders and that his permanent address was: "care of the Archbishop of York, Bishop-thorpe Palace, Yorkshire." The next time the lady met him she taxed him with the fact that her letters had all been returned with the endorsement "Not known," and she asked him if the address he had given her was a real address, "Oh, yes" he said, "it is a real address, but the trouble is it never was mine." Well, the Minister of Justice gave us precedent after precedent, and the only trouble was that the precedents did not fit. Precedents? A plague on the precedents! There is no precedent in British parliamentary history that is on all fours with the situation with which we were faced when we came to this House on January 7th. You may find a precedent for a party that has not a majority continuing in office; I grant you that. It may be you can find a precedent for a party with only the second largest group in the House continuing in office; suppose I grant you that. But that was not this situation. Shall I tell this House what this situation
was? A Prime Minister with a majority in the la'st parliament over all other parties combined in this House, a small but actual majority; a Prime Minister-and here is the second phase of the situation-who goes up and down the country telling the people he cannot govern with a small majority over all other parties combined; who says there are great issues and great political measures that must be passed if the country is not simply to continue marking time; who says that if he does not get a majority over all other parties combined he will not consent to continue to hold office but will go back to the country for what is absolutely essential, a majority of Liberals over all other parties combined. The third phase of the situation is a Prime Minister who, going with that programme and with those professions to the country, is turned down by the electors and comes back to the House, not with a majority over all other parties combined, but with a minority under all parties combined of about 43, if my recollection is corect. And that is not the only thing. With nine cabinet ministers slain, including the Prime Minister himself. This, forsooth, is retaining the confidence of the country! I am carried back in thought to those halcyon days of freedom, the days of the cane and the imposition,-the dirty inky fingers, the tousled hair and the pain and penalties of learning Southey's Battle of Blenheim. I remember the scene. Old Kaspar sitting in front of his cottage in the evening sun, with his little granddaughter Wilhelmine sporting on the green, and Peterkin her brother finding a skull by the river in the ground that had once been the stricken field of Blenheim, bringing the skull to his grandfather and asking, "what does it mean?" The old man told him that it was a relic from the field of Blenheim, and described how thousands of men lay rotting in the sun the day after the great battle; and this is the moral of his story:
But things like this you know must be
After a famous victory.
On the 29th day of October I can imagine the Prime Minister and his lieutenants and henchmen looking down over the stricken field as it lay, after the ballots had been counted in that great election, and I can imagine him telling the tale of the skulls-one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and then, more wistfully, nine-his finger falling most tenderly on his own. I can picture him as, his indomitable spirit rising within him, he turns to one of his henchman and cries: "Graham, what do you call it? Defeat? Not defeat Graham! Things like this you know must be
The Address-Mr. Bury

after a famous victory." If that is the right hon. gentleman's conception of a victory, God save us from a defeat.
Hardly had we adjusted our minds to this argument of precedent when lo and behold! the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) rises in his seat to tell us that the situation was so novel and abnormal that no precedent could be found for it, and we had to manufacture precedent ourselves. That was his position absolutely. The British constitution, however, he said, was so flexible, so pliable, that it could adjust itself to any emergency and he cited, by way of proof of that, instances in British history of two kings, one a king who had lost his country because his subjects-shall I say, his constituents?-got so utterly disgusted with him they told him they did not want any more of him. I appreciate the analogy. I think it was a wonderful piece of intellectual effort on the part of the Solicitor General to discover the analogy and the precedent. Then he went on to tell us of the other precedent, of the king who lost his reason-a more important thing, reason, although the reason may not have been of the highest quality; still it was all he had. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman will fear a Greek bringing him a gift? If not, I, as a very humble back-bencher on this side of the House would venture to offer a third precedent, that of a king who lost his head, which he could not get back. And so we have the four kings, as we have in Scottish history the four Marys. We have the king who lost his country, the king who lost his reason, the king who lost his head, and the King who lost his seat, all triumphant examples of the flexibility of the British constitution, and its power of self-adjustment to any emergency however novel or great. Well, if the Solicitor General is right in his argument, what becomes of the argument of the Minister of Justice? The lean non-precedent kine of the Solicitor General have eaten up the fat precedent kine of the Minister of Justice; yet are they none the better favoured therefor. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the House voted after all, under the tactics and manipulation of hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, that this was a genuine government, and that it was fit to function. We on this side of the House bowed to the will of parliament and said, "Very well, proceed to function." To our amazement, at once a look of pain, of disgust, of horror, and amazement passed over the faces of hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. They said, "Heavens! How can you expect us to function? We cannot function without a six weeks' adjournment. We are not a government; we are only a relic [Mr. Bury.l
of a government, a remnant of a government, a dilapidated derelict of a government. We have no head, or arms, or feet; we are only the trunk of a government." Some hon. gentlemen opposite sufficiently conversant with English parliamentary history might say, "We are only the rump of a government. You cannot expect us to do anything." No, I do not know that I expect the rump of a government to do anything except to sit still; and I think they have done that admirably.
May I give this House an incident in British parliamentary history, that is not uninteresting, nor is it quite irrelevant? In the early eighties the leader of the Irish Unionist party in the House of Commons was Arthur Mac-Morrough Kavanagh, the lineal descendant- the real lineal descendant and not a bogus claimant-of one of the old tribal kings. He had a beautiful place. He was very wealthy. But God had seen fit that he should be born without arms and without legs. He was the type of being of whom one might say in the words of Portia to Nerissa: "God made him, and therefore let him pass for a man." He might have shut himself up as a recluse in his beautiful home, but he chose to knit his teeth and plunge into public life to serve his people and his country, and he went to parliament and became, and acted for some years as, the leader of the Irish Unionists in the House of Commons. He was carried, like a sack of potatoes, by his valet or footman to his carriage, from his carriage to the train, from the train to his yacht in Kingstown harbour, from his yacht in the Thames to the terrace of the House of Commons, and thence he was carried and put down, like a sack, in his corner seat in the chamber, from which for years he led his party. If this trunk of a government had the head that crowned, and the spirit that animated the misshapen body of Arthur MacMorrough Kavanagh they would never have asked for a six weeks' adjournment, they would have gone on with the business of their country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to a subject with which I wish to deal at some length. In my first speech I

shall I say threatened, or shall I say promised?-that is according to the ' attitude of mind of hon. members-that I would deal with the question of Alberta coal, which is such an important question in the province from which I come-


Mr. ROBIOHAUD:: Under our constitution is it not proper to allow the majority, even constituted as this one is, to rule?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friend has missed
the point altogether. I am taking the Prime Minister on his own ground. His argument

The Address-Mr. Bury
is: "I went to the country on the 29th October for a verdict. I did not get my verdict.
I ought to go to the country again, but it is too expensive. I will as the next best course go to the representatives of the country in parliament and ask them to say what the country did not say." He should therefore have put this question to us here in parliament, without a King's speech which contained a programme of legislation; that was absolutely inconsistent. What he has done is done. He has got his following in this House by means that I, at least, if I were in his position, would not stoop to use. The hon. Minister of Agriculture makes an observation which I did not catch. I am sure, however, that it is on a par with the other remarks which have fallen from him.
Now, I said that I would address myself to the question of Alberta coal, and the movement of Alberta coal into the central parts of this Dominion. Members of this House who are not too far removed in years from their school days-I do not say their college days but their school days-will remember the romance attaching to the parentage of Thomas a Beoket. His mother, like the lady in the Bab ballads, was a Saracen maiden and his father, Gilbert Becket had met her while serving overseas. When the armistice, or whatever it was called in those days, was signed Gilbert Becket returned to his own country of England. The lady was naturally lonely and decided to follow him. But the trouble was she knew only two words in English-the name of the capital city "London," and his own Christian name "Gilbert." However, by dint of calling out "London" long enough she got to England; and then by calling out "Gilbert" long enough on the streets of London she finally came across her warrior and they were married, and gave birth in process of time to that great ecclesiastic, who became such a thorn to his king, Thomas a Becket. I am reminded of this incident because prior to the 29th October my constituents dinned into my ears two words, "Ontario" and "coal." On the 29th October I succeeded by virtue of these two words, Ontario and coal, in capturing the seat of East Edmonton. /My constituents sent me here with these two words as the chief words in my vocabulary, and told me to come here and effect a union between Alberta coal and the Ontario housewife-not a temporary liaison, as the Minister of the Interior apparently desires, a kind of emergency union while the legitimate spouse of the Ontario housewife, American anthracite, happens to be out of the field, or away from
home. I would not tolerate that, and I am amazed at a man like the Minister of the Interior, brought up in a proper home like myself and with all godly influences around him, from his childhood, suggesting such a thing. Nothing less than a legitimate, permanent, stabilized, undivorceable union-if you can get such a thing-between the great coal mines of Alberta and the housewife of Ontario will satisfy us in the former province.
Now, what are the facts in connection with this question? The first is the fact that in Canada-I am sorry to trouble the House with statistics; I, myself, hate them,. I can never remember them, and I do not think they do much good-we have one-sixth of the known coal measures of the world. In Alberta we have 85 per cent of the known coal measures of Canada. We have therefore in Alberta 14 per cent, roughly speaking, or one-seventh, of the known coal measures of the world. There seems to be no reason why, with those enormous coal resources within our province, we should not be using our own coal, rather than spending on American coal the millions of dollars we are sending out of the country at present.
On the other hand, Ontario is virtually without coal. It would almost seem as if there were a Divine purpose in that, and that there should be a union between the two parties, the one supplying what the other lacks. At any rate, that is the view we take in Alberta. By reason of that, attempts were made at various times by those who are interested in the Alberta coal, the Alberta government and the private operators, to make experimental shipments and to capture the Ontario market for the Alberta operator and the Alberta mines. I am not going to do more than briefly sketch these attempts, but I do so because I want this House to realize the enormous amount of labour, energy, time and money that, have been expended in the attempt to get Alberta coal into the Ontario market: I do so because, if we are now to lose this market, the whole of that expenditure of time, money, energy and thought will be lost, and we shall have to do the same thing over again to re-capture what we now have. These efforts in brief were as follows: in 1922, the very day Premier Ferguson took office as Premier of Ontario, a conference was held in the city of Edmonton between the Canadian National Railway officials, Sir Henry Thornton, the Canadian Pacific Railway officials, the Alberta government and the Alberta operators, with the result that an arrangement was reached by which 6,000 tons were moved at a secret rate. The ar-
The Address-Mr. Bury

rangement at first was to move 4,000 tons, but the amount in fact moved was 6,000. I do not know whether I am at present authorized to divulge what that rate was, and, being in doubt, I will not divulge it. It was a low rate. Then in 1923, private interests attempted to continue this movement. The Edmonton Journal and the Ottawa Journal between them-and the greatest credit is due these and other journals in the matter- arranged for a trial shipment of one car to Ontario for demonstration purposes, and domestic consumption in small lots. In the same month another car was shipped by the Edmonton Journal, the Toronto Star and the 'London Tree Press; later the same month a third car was shipped by the last-named papers, and in the early spring several cars were shipped by the Alberta government to the Ontario government. On all these cars the full freight rate of $12.70 demanded by the railway was paid. The Ontario consumer got the coal at considerably less than that rate, because the coal was donated, and the difference between what they paid and the amount of the freight rate was borne by the Alberta government, by the coal operators and by the newspapers themselves. That show's you that this was not an attempt on the part of those interested in the Alberta coal movement to saddle the whole burden of the experiment on the governments. The authorities and individuals mentioned did yeoman work, heroic work, in trying to capture a market in Ontario for Alberta coal, and they are merely asking now that what they commenced, and what they possibly succeeded in accomplishing, shall not be allowed to slip away and become of no avail.
Attempts were made following that initial movement to get the federal government to take action. I should like to review briefly what those attempts were. A letter was written by the Trade Commissioner of Alberta to the Minister of the Interior in April, 1924, regarding a proposed shipment of 200,000 tons. On May 7 a further letter was written by the commissioner to the same minister, and there were interviews at Ottawa. Finally on the 17th July, after considerable correspondence and a number of interviews, this House verted 8200,000 for the purpose of assisting a test movement of coal from the province of Alberta to the province of Ontario. I have copied from Hansard the particulars of that vote. I am not going to trouble the House with it beyond saying that it refers practically entirely,- excepting a reference at the end, to a shipment of Alberta coal. The Minister of the Interior said:
There is a demand at present from western Canada- 
Western Canada mark you-
-for a trial shipment, and while I have put this sum in the estimates for the purpose-
That is for the purpose, according to the language of the minister, of shipping Alberta coal to Ontario.
-I am doubtful whether under existing conditions we can carry out the experiment.
But $200,000 was voted by parliament, earmarked for that purpose. Now what happened? After that vote nothing was done until August. In August there was a conference at Edmonton between the Minister of the Interior, Sir Henry Thornton, the Trade Commissioner of Alberta and the Premier of Alberta on the subject, at which it was decided that it was then too late to do anything, although $200,000 had been voted on July 17 for that express purpose. The decision to do nothing then was due to the imminence of the grain shipment, and perhaps to other reasons; but the further decision was arrived at that the shipments should commence May 1 of the following year.
On September 3 we have the next stage in the movement. An order in council was then passed on the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior providing for the payment of a portion of that $200,000, namely $20,000 to the miners of eastern Canada. Still nothing was done to assist the Alberta coal movement, although $180,000 lay in the hands of the government ear-marked by parliament for that purpose. On February 25 the order in council which had allocated and paid over the $20,000 of this money to the eastern mines came for the first time to the notice of the Alberta authorities, and they naturally protested. The result was an interview given by the Minister of the Interior here in Ottawa to some of the Ottawa papers. The interview reads:
The proposal, said the Hon. Charles Stewart last night, originated among the mine owners of Nova Scotia.
But I have just read to hon. members from Hansard a statement in which the Minister of the Interior explained the vote of $200,000 and justified it to parliament as being for the purpose of assisting the movement from the west. In anything I am saying I am not in the least out of sympathy with the claim of the east for assistance. I am only dealing with the action or inaction of the government. or of the Minister of the Interior- although I do not think he is personally to blame; I think there was some other influence operating behind him to explain his inaction in respect of the Alberta movement. I simply want to show that the people of the west, the.

The Address-Mr. Bury
coal interests in Alberta, and the people in Ontario who want the movement fostered and helped have been receiving no assistance whatsoever from the government. The minister said:
The proposal originated among the mine owners of Nova Scotia, but I was successful in having $50,000 of the $200,000 specially allocated for Alberta coal.
Where and when? The minister does not say. He continues.
The Alberta interests never made a demand for any portion of the money.
The Alberta government and the coal commissioner had been bombarding him with letters and telegrams, and holding interviews with him, and he had gone to Edmonton and had had a discussion in the August following the vote. Yet we have this statement that the Alberta interests never made a demand for any portion of the money and that if they had! done so, it would have 'been ready for them. That is the next stage in this history of inaction. Ultimately, however, certain shipments were made with Ithe details of which I am not going to weary the House except to say that in 1925 the proposed shipment was reduced from 100,000 tons to 25,000 tons. No actual shipments however were made, nor was anything done, until late in June, 1925, when the rate inquiry came up and Sir Henry Thornton stated in essence: There is a rate inquiry pending, and I am not going to move any coal subject to any check-up, because I am not going to have my books produced for the purpose of a check-up; but since I refuse a check-up I am going to move this coal at a cost of seven dollars a ton. Thus the moving of coal at seven dollars a ton commenced, and I understand 75,000 tons of coal in all have to this date been shipped under that arrangement. That is the position in which the matter stands at the present time.
The attitude of the government has been, as I have described it, extremely unsatisfactory. Hon. members must remember two things: First, that the railroads had stated that they could not move coal at less than nine dollars a ton, $12.70 a ton being their regular freight rate, but they consented to move it at seven dollars a ton subject to a check-up, provided that the government of Alberta and the federal government undertook to pay the difference of two dollars a ton. The attitude of the Prime Minister on that when he came west was: The whole thing is "a huge fake." He did not damn it with faint praise; he damned it by the loudest kind of reprobation and absolute repudiation. On the other hand the leader of the opposition (Mir. Meighen) took the view that it
was a matter as regards which the federal parliament should do everything possible to assist Alberta coal to capture and hold the Ontario market; that if necessary for that purpose, an adequate tariff should be imposed upon United States coal; that in any event, after the freight rates to be fixed upon this coal had been ascertained, it might be necessary, and1 if it were necessary the government should hold themselves prepared, to make some contribution to stuch freight rates for the desired purpose.
What are the arguments in support of this policy? The first is of course the economic argument. In dealing with that may I refer for a few moments to a report of the standing committee on Mines and Minerals to which this House referred a resolution passed on March 19, 1923? This appears in the Journals of the House of Commons for 1923, in volume 60, appendix 6:
Ordered that the following resolution be referred to the said committee-
That is the committee on Mines and Minerals.
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for Canada to have a national policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on a United States coal supply, and that the whole question of fuel supply for Canada together with the question of costs, transportation, desirable interprovincial action and other means whereby Canada may be self-sustaining and self-supplying as regards fuel, and to inquire into the necessity and possibility of supplying substitutes for coal be referred to the standing committee on Mines and Minerals and that the said committee report to the House.
In the third and final report of that committee, at page 7 of this appendix, there is to be found this statement:
Your committee has heard much evidence from various parts of Canada on every phase of the questions submitted to it in said resolution.
One statement may be made without any hesitation, that is, that it is absolutely necessary that every step possible should and must be taken at once by Canada through its government, its transportation companies, its coal operators and manufacturers of other fuels, to make Canada independent of all other countries for its fuel supply.
That is the economic argument, which was adopted, enforced and emphasized by the report of the standing committee of this House on Mines and Minerals in 1923. Surely there is no need to labour that argument. Ontar:o has hitherto been dependent upon the United States for her coal supplies. May I give the House just rapidly a few of the statistics dealing with this matter? In 1924, Canada imported from the United States 16,379,337 tons at a value of $64,236,409, and that does not include the freight paid to United States railroads. Such freight therefore must be added
129S
The Address-Mr. Bury

McLennan, Liberal candidate for East Edmonton, one of our own citizens, after living here for twelve yers, makes statements as follows:
"The general opinion seems to exist among the coal men of the city that Alberta coal is not adapted, with one exception (the Lakeside coal), to the Ontario market."
Then follows this comment upon that statement:
This statement in view of the facts is so misleading that we, the undersigned, wish to place the facts before the public. Below is a letter from a customer of a car of coal sold by Mr. McLennan in his own home town in Ontario two years ago for one of the undersigned local mines:
Glencoe, Ontario, Sept. 19, 1923. Crown Coal Company Ltd.,
Edmonton.
Dear Sirs:
Vue understand that from October 1 for one month the freight rate on coal will be seven dollars a ton. If so, please ship us two carloads of coal, egg size, and two carloads of lump coal. Ship one car of each kind as soon as possible at the low rate, and the other car of each kind at the last of October. We might say that the coal we received from you was most satisfactory in even' way.
Thanking you for past promptness and trusting to get the same in future.
Yours truly,
Mosa & Ekfrid Co-operative Co., Ltd.
J. S. McAlpine, Mgr.
Can there be any doubt in Mr. McLennan's mind or anyone else's as to the fitness of Edmonton and Clover Bar coals for Glencoe, Ontario, Mr. McLennan's old home town?
We the undersigned have never received one complaint from Ontario customers but have hundreds of unsolicited letters as above.
It is up to you, Mr. McLennan.
In other words, the very man who two years before had sold Alberta coal to Ontario consumers, and knew how anxious they were to obtain it-that they were in fact asking for further shipments-gets up on the platform, and because his leader had told him the movement was a fake, and be-
5 p.m. cause his running mate in West Edmonton as Minister of the Interior had discountenanced it, in the teeth of his own knowledge, states that, in his view apparently, Alberta coal is no good for Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have here letter after letter from various coal companies in this very province, some of them of very recent date, written in reply to my personal inquiries, and every one of them testifying to the fact that the coal is excellent, that it is comparatively smokeless, and gives great heat. All the writers are concerned about is that they cannot get enough of it. I might perhaps read a few of these letters. The first is dated January 20, 1926:
All the shipments of Alberta coal we have had so far have arrived in good shape, and while the most af it has been delivered to our customers direct from 
the car. we did stock and hold two cars this summer from about August until November and found very little if any depreciation.
As to quality and adaptability, all those who bought this coal were entirely satisfied with it, and wanted to get more of it, but as our requested allotment was cut in two we could not supply the demand.
We have recently tried to get more but are advised that as we got our full share in July we cannot expect further supplies until some new arrangement is made.
Here is a letter also dated January 20, 1926:
Our shipments have been most satisfactory in every respect.
We had a shipment of twenty cars last August, and we sold every ton of it direct from the cars. We have another shipment of five cars on our siding now, which is also all sold, and we are delivering it as fast as we can.
We could have handled a great deal more of it, but could not get it. Both shipments arrived here in first-class condition, and most of the second shipment went to customers who had some of the first lot. We have had a good many of our customers tell us that they would never use any other coal if they could get Alberta, and a lot of them have been quite enthusiastic about it. In most cases they seem quite surprised that there is no smoke from this coal.
We would be very pleased indeed if we could get more of this coal at once. We could handle a lot of it yet this season if we could have it shipped now.
Here is another letter of the same date:
All the coal received was excellent burning coal and gave very good satisfaction.
There are too many of these letters for me to trouble the House with them all, but they all are along the same line. I have the assurance of the Alberta Fuel Commissioner and of the Alberta coal operators with whom I have corresponded that they have not on file a single letter that is not equally appreciative of the quality and heating power of this coal.
The only remaining question is this:	Assuming that Alberta coal is all that it is described to be, assuming that the Ontario consumer will have his or her needs perfectly met by this coal, is it possible to carry it economically from the Alberta mines to Ontario? On that question there was at one time considerable doubt. The railways said that their proper freight rate was $12.70-the same rate I believe as they charged for wheat. Then they climbed down to $9, saying that this figure represents the actual operating cost. Sir Henry Thornton, as I have already mentioned to the House, rather than have a check up of the actual cost, said, "I will carry 25,000 tons at $7 per ton," and since that offer and its fulfilment he has carried two further shipments of 25,000 tons in each case, making a total of 75,000 tons in all carried at that rate.
The question of the cost of carriage has been gone into already in some measure by the special committee appointed by this

The Address-Mr. Bury
House. I do not want to weary the House to any extent with that inquiry except to say this, that the evidence goes to show that
,$7 could be made to pay not merely out of pocket costs, but also something towards interest on capital charges or overhead. On pages 231 and 232 of Appendix No. 6 to which I have already referred, Mr. (Mallory, the director of the Bureau of Statistics of the Canadian National railway, computes the cost of haulage thus:
Per Train Mile
Repairs to track and	structure	
36.2	centsEquipment repairs	
140.6	centsTransportation	
156.1	cents
332.9 cents
Then he adds 10 per cent for contingencies, or 33.29 cents per train mile, bringing the total to 366.19 cents per train mile. I may mention that he is in error in his addition in one figure, that, namely, of transportation, which according to his own details should total 156.1, whereas he makes it total 166.1. That makes the true total as I have already given it, 366.19 cents per train mile. He takes the double distance then from the coal fields to the Ontario market, charging the full rate for returned empties the whole way, making 4,252 train miles at 3.66 cents, and that works out at $15.77 per ton. But the train on which he bases his calculation is only an 1,800 ton train. The tons he is working with are gross tons, and he is giving the same rate for returned empties as he gives for the full train load. My suggestion is that if concessions and allowances be made on the points which I have mentioned, the actual rate per ton on a 2,000 ton train would be $7,778, and if a 2,300 ton train were hauled, $6.75 per ton or less, and if a 2,500 ton train were hauled, $6.23 per ton. Even on that I am allowing 100 per cent for returned empties.
On page 237 of the same appendix hon. members will find set out the tonnage which can be hauled along the different divisions of the line from Coalspur to Toronto, and if the House will give me leave I will hand that statement in for insertion in Hansard. It will be noted that the gross ton is 2,240 pounds as against the net or short ton of 2,000 pounds. The statement is as follows:
Gross tons
Coalspur to Main Line	 1,750
Main Line Junction to Edmonton	 2,300
Edmonton to Tofield	 2,000
Tofield to Wainwright	 2,000
Wainwright to Biggar	 2,300
Biggar to Nutana, (Saskatoon Yard).. ..	3,700
Nutana to Watrous	 3,250
Watrous to Touchwood	 2,800
Touchwood to Melville	 3,400
Gross tons
Melville to Rivers	 3,100
Rivers to Transcona	 4,500
Transcona to Redditt	 3,300
Redditt to Sioux Lookout	 3,300
Sioux Lookout to Armstrong	 3,300
Armstrong to Nakena	 3,000
Nakena to Hornepayne	 3,000
Hornepayne to Foleyet	 3,000
Foleyet to Capreol	 3,000
Capreol to Parry Sound	 2,750
Parry Sound to Toronto	 1,900
The main point is this: There is only one stretch, from Coalspur to the main line, where one engine cannot haul more than 1,750 tons. On all the rest of the line, from the main line junction right down to Parry Sound, one engine can haul, according to the grade, at the very least 2,000 tons, and in most cases 2,750 tons, and up to over 3,000 tons.
Looking at it in another way, Mr. Butler at page 175 of the Appendix states that the average earnings of the Canadian National for 1922 were $4.29 per freight train mile. Taking the distance from Edmonton to Toronto as 2,108 miles, a coal train from Edmonton to Toronto obtaining the average freight earnings of $4.29 per mile would earn $9,043.32. If you add 60 per cent for returned empties, which is what I contend to be a fair rate for returned empties, you get a total of $14,469.30, or about $6 per ton on a train of 2,375 tons.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), than whom no member of this House either in the last parliament or in this has taken a more intelligent or active interest in this matter, has set out at page 121 of the same Appendix a detailed1 statement of what has been estimated to be the actual out of pocket costs, computed on a most generous scale, of the haulage of a coal train carrying 2,370 tons from Alberta to Toronto, and he has ascertained it ,to be approximately $4.62 per ton. Any member of the House who is desirous of looking up the particulars can get them in Appendix No. 6 at the page I have mentioned.
But even if the railway could not haul coal from Alberta to Ontario at $7 per ton for out of pocket costs, surely it would be worth while for this Dominion government to grant a subsidy, at any rate until the movement had become established, a market created and a volume of freight developed, because it stands to reason that the more coal that is produced in Alberta, the cheaper will the coal be art the pit mouth. The trouble with the ordinary coal miner is this, that he is not working regularly. I have here statistics as to the number of days' work done per year by the coal miners of Alberta,

The Address-Mr. Bury

and it works out at about two or three days a week. In this same Appendix Mr. Macaulay, one of the officials of the Drumheller mine, brings out in his evidence that one of the arguments which the coal miners put up to the operators continually for a rise in wages or for the maintenance of the existing rate of wages is this: that they are not getting regular work; that they have to make enough in one day to keep them living for two, three, or sometimes four days. It stands to reason, therefore, that if you increased the production of the coal mines and gave the coal miners regular employment, they would be prepared to work at a lower rate of pay. It stands equally to reason that if there were a volume of output established from the Alberta mines greater than at present, the coal operators would be content to take a smaller profit on each ton of that output. In point of fact I consulted one of the operators in the Edmonton field, and put that question to him straight. I said this: "Assuming you could get what you want, namely the Ontario market for the Alberta mines, do you think I am safe in assuring the House that the profit of the coal operator and the rate of pay of the coal miner would be reasonably reduced, so as to bring the price of coal at the pit mouth considerably under what it is at present?" He said: "You are perfectly justified in making that statement. What the exact amount of reduction would be I am not prepared to say, and you have no authority to say, but you are at liberty to state that there would be a considerable reduction." Now surely, possessing this great transportation system which we have established, it would pay us, for the purpose of keeping in this country the enormous amount of money that we are pouring into the United States, and for the further purpose of increasing the population in the province of Alberta, to subsidize if necessary, at any rate for a certain period, the transportation of Alberta coal.
There is one other argument I should like to mention, and that is the argument of the unity of this great Dominion. Shortly before 1906, that great tribune of the people in Britain, Joseph Chamberlain, resigned his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and went out preaching his gospel of imperial federation and the closer knitting together of the integral parts of this great empire of ours. He preached that we must have not merely a sentimental tie binding the Dominions to the Motherland, but an economic tie as well; there must be such trade relationships between the different parts of the British Empire that the bond of union shall not be

merely a sentimental attachment, but also an economic, industrial and profitable one. The same thing is true of Canada. We are a great federation of provinces. In seeking to unite this country we must not depend entirely upon the natural instincts of race and a common allegiance to one parliament and to one crown. We must see to it that every part of this Dominion of ours is economically knit with every other part, so that the wellbeing of the heart may permeate and pulse ,to the remotest part of the body. And I say here is one concrete way in which you can show the western provinces of this Dominion that west and east are one, and that we do not have to wait to that day Till earth and sky stand presently Before God's judgment seat
before west is no longer west and east no longer east, but west and east are one country, with one purpose, and with one great economical and industrial life. I am stressing this .point for one reason, with which I shall close.
At an outlay of great time, great trouble, much thought and much money, Alberta has captured, or is capturing, the Ontario market. She has been able to do so only because of the strike in the anthracite mines of the United States. Now 'I want to put this question to hon. members of this House: The strike in the United States is over. Very soon American coal will be knocking at the gates of Ontario. We have no assurance that the coal movement from Alberta will not stop-at least we had no assurance until the other day. The promise and the pledge and the whole attitude of the Minister of the Interior was that this was only an emergency measure. Even now the last word we have from the government, its eleventh or twelfth hour repentance on this point, is its pledge that it will pay the difference between the seven dollar rate and the actual cost of transportation, or the rate that shall be struck as a result of the inquiry of the railway board, and that only as an emergency measure. What assurance then have we that when the American anthracite industry gets going again and American coal comes knocking at the gates of Ontario, or at the head of the lakes, the government will not say, "The emergency is over, and we are not going to continue helping the transportation of coal from Alberta any longer." I would ask this House to remember that the American coal operator will use every ounce of power and every available resource, will make every conceivable sacrifice, to get back into this Ontario market. He will cut his coal prices to the quick; he will cut his transportation prices to the quick; he will try to shove

The Address-Mr. McOibbon
out Alberta coal in so far as it is in here already; and if this government proposes to take the position that the moment the American coal industry is able to supply the Ontario market, the emergency will no longer exist; that its promise will be at an end. and that its subsidy or guarantee to the railroads will be withdrawn, what will happen? All our labour will be lost. American anthracite will come flooding into Ontario again. The Alberta mines will again be reduced to the position they were in when I was campaigning in my election: three mines in the mountains shut down-C ado man, Luscar, and Mountain Park-and other mines working only part time; every mine in the town of Beverly closed except one, and it only working part time. That is what will happen. Is this House prepared to countenance that when through a kindly Providence-if I can call it a kindly Providence-and the strike of the American coal miners, we have got our feet into this market?
I for one shall continue to protest against any inaction on the part of the government, or any failure on its part to keep us where we are and to assist us in endeavouring to get a greater share of the market than we now have. That is the point to remember. The only promise we have from the government is the promise of an emergency measure, and what the House wants to establish and to make the government realize is that it ought not to be an emergency measure but a permanent policy on the part of the Canadian parliament; and that if the American operator with his anthracite coal comes knocking again at the doors of Ontario or the head of the lakes we shall say to him: "Our own kith and kin first." The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is no longer in his seat. If he were I should remind him of the argument he used when the question of the Australian treaty and its extension to New Zealand was before the House. At that time he was asked the question, "What consideration did New Zealand give for the extension to her of the privileges of that treaty?" and he rose with sublime indifference and said, "I do not know; but I know it is all in the family." Is there any reason why it should not be a case of, "all in the family" in this instance also? If this government is prepared to give concessions to New Zealand without consideration should it not a fortiori give concessions to Alberta for consideration?
The last plea and the last ground on which I leave my appeal is that this House, this government, and this country should see that we do not slip back into the position in 14011-S3 i
which we previously were. With great toil, trouble and expense we have got our feet into the Ontario market. The government should take all necessary steps to ensure that our position in that market is maintained and extended. I am prepared further if need be, to take this position: that the duty on American coal shall be made sufficiently high to ensure that American anthracite slhal'l not be sold here at a price with which the Alberta coal cannot compete. Our dumping clause is a farce. There is nothing in it to prevent United States operators from dumping their anthracite coal into Ontario at a price which would make it impossible for Alberta coal to compete or for the Canadian National railways to transport Alberta coal at any reasonable rate. I wish to make my plea on this particular subject because I foresee that if something is not done in the immediate future a danger faces an industry which is vital to the western province from which I come.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: For nearly seven weeks, Mr. Speaker;,
the House has been detained here by a rump of a government, the members of which have shown their incapacity to govern or to control this House, yet they have not the good manners to resign. They have, Sir, called-i parliament together, presented a Speech from; the Throne, and started a debate which they are unable to control. They voted for an adjournment and a holiday which they have been unable to get, and now we see them adopting more or less of a side-line in the amendlment of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) to help them out of the hole in. which they have got themselves.
In the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne I believe it is the privilege of every member of this House to lay before parliament and the government any pleas that he may wish to make on behalf of his constituents and the country. It is also his privilege, if I understand our constitutional government correctly, even to carry that so far as to move an amendment to the Speech from the Throne in order that he may the more forcibly bring matters to the attention of parliament and place the members of this House on record. The member for Nelson in addressing this House was exercising his right, but when he made the motion which he did, a motion which by the very nature of it precluded every other member of this House from moving an amendment, to my mind he was exercising a right in an arrogant manner; he was proceeding not in accordance with -the true spirit of parliament-
The A ddress-Mr. McGibbon
(COMMONS
ary privilege. Representing as I do a constituency in the province of Ontario, I resent that infringement upon my liberty as a member of parliament.
I was sent here with the expectation on the part of my constituents that I would contribute something toward the solution of the questions which are before the country. This very resolution has to a certain extent pre-cludled me from doing that. If the hon. member for Nelson and his leader-as I believe we must exclude the rest of his party-have no more interest in the affairs of this country than to vote themselves a holiday and an indemnity, their constituents made a very bad choice in their election, and in my opinion the hon. gentlemen should go back and ascertain whether their constituents are willing to uphold their action in that respect. The member for Nelson and his leader were either acting on behalf of and with the knowledge of the government, or they were not. If they were acting on behalf of the government-and I for one believe they were-they are being nsed as the tool of a government which had *not backbone enough to take that action themselves. If they were not acting on behalf of the government, they were applying a gag to this House, something which no member of the Progressive party would do if he lived <up to his principles. If the government were not in league with the member for Nelson and his leader they might possibly be excused. If they were in league with him, I say they are adopting a cowardly policy in order to apply a form of closure on this House, a thing which they had not the courage to do themselves. Again, if they were not in collusion with the member for Nelson, then the condition we have in this House to-night is this: that the government, or the supposed government have delegated their authority to the Progressive group and are no longer in control of the legislation of this House.
I ask the Minister of Justice how it is that he has delegated to the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the right which is inherently his to control the legislation of this House? I ask him, and I ask the party behind him, would the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who led that party to probably the greatest point in its perfection, ever have submitted1 to such a humiliating position? In effect, the leader of the government is playing the role of a political Lazarus and is begging a promise from the political Dives, the member for 'Brandon. He has lost control of the House and of the legislation. Nobody knows that to-night better than the Progressive group. This parliament has been in session seven *weeks, and what has been our duty and how

have we performed it? What is the duty of the government at the present time? Is it not its duty to bring in legislation dealing with the great questions which are before the country to-day? We have nothing but a blank Speech from the Throne which has, in the opinion of everybody both in this House and out of it, been introduced for the one purpose of obtaining the support of the Progressives. I ask that group to-night, is there one of them who thinks the government have forecast that legislation as a matter of policy? Do they think the government did so because they were convinced it was in the best interests of the country? Or do they think it was simply in order to obtain the support of the Progressive group to my left? The question whether legislation is to be introduced in this House on its merits or on the ground of political necessity is a serious one. I ask them further this afternoon, in view of the history of the last seven weeks, whether they think this government can pass that legislation.


Mr. BROWN:: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member for
Lisgar says, yes. I might answer him in the language of the late Minister of Finance when he said once in this House that he had not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. The members of the Progressive group know perfectly well that this government is not in control of the House, but that the party under the leadership of my honoured leader (Mr. Meighen) is. Not only does this House know it; the country knows it, and it will not be very long until this government, that knows it just as well, will vacate the treasury benches and my honoured leader will carry on as head of the government. When he takes his seat to your right, Mr. Speaker, this country will have at the head of its government not only a man with a policy that will cure its present ills, but a man that has the courage to put that policy into effect. That is something which is absolutely lacking in the government of the day.
In my opinion the solution of the ills of this country to-day can be summed up in a very few phrases:
1.	We must have greater industrial prosperity.
2.	We must have more -men at profitable work.
3.	There must be a diminution of taxation.
4.	We must have greater markets for our agricultural people.
Those four things contain the remedy for the ills from which this country is suffering to-day. Over four years ago this govern-

The Address-Mr. McGibbon
ment were called to the council chamber to sit down as a board of directors to administer the affairs of this great Dominion. For four years they have been doing that, and what has been the result? They have crippled the industrial life of Canada; they have failed to lower the burden of taxation; they have failed to solve the transportation problem; they have sacrificed the agricultural people and they have crucified the labour people on the altar of incompetence and drift.
In that indictment I want to look at their record and the condition of the country today. I will take up first the matter of taxation. I find on looking up the consolidated revenue of Canada that this government has taken on an average four million dollars a year out of the pockets of the people of Canada more than was taken during the last year their predecessors were in office. I find that, the taxation to-day stands at the enormous figure of more than $627,000,000 or about one-quarter of the total income of this Dominion. That includes of course municipal and provincial taxation. I find that they have failed to keep pace with the other countries of the world; that the United States has reduced its taxation three or four times, bringing it from $54 down to $27 per capita. I find that Australia has proceeded along the same lines, until to-day her taxation is only about twenty per cent greater than it was before the war. I also find that New Zealand has balanced her budget and has to her credit some millions of pounds. Consequently I say to this government that although they have taken more money out of the pockets of the people, their extravagance and incompetence have been such that they have failed to govern this Dominion properly and to restore in Canada that measure of prosperity which other countries enjoy.
For the benefit of my friends from the west I am going to review the taxation of this country. I have in my hand a detailed statement of the consolidated revenue of Canada and I find, for example, that there were collected in round figures, $233,000,000 in customs and excise taxes, $56,000,000 in income tax, $2,700,000 in business profits tax and $32,000,000 in postal tax. I am stating this only on account of the attitude my hon. friends have taken in this House when they have approached members from Ontario and Quebec an attitude not of one who is pleading a cause, but rather of one who approaches with a stiletto in his hand and a gun on his hip. I feel it is my duty as a representative from Ontario to show these people just who
pays the bills. The income tax payments are, in round figures, as follows:
Ontario	 J26.000.000
Quebec	 20,000,000
Saskatchewan	 891,000
Alberta	 1,189,000
Manitoba	 3,500,000
Thus a large part of the income tax was paid by Ontario and Quebec, by the good old province of Ontario that never grumbles at anything, that is to-day quite willing to pay an additional sum of money in order to get Alberta coal, that is willing to put her hand into her pocket in order to pay to move the coal or whatever is necessary from the Maritime provinces so that we may solve their problems. We are not a selfish people. We believe in a united Canada; we believe in helping the west and the east; but we do not like my hon. friends to put a stiletto into the industries of this country and ruin the market that we ourselves have largely built up. We want to live and to let the others live. No man in this House would more gladly and willingly than I, sit down at a table with my friends from the west or the east and try to solve their problems, even if a bigger tax has to be imposed upon the province I represent or the province of Quebec. There are certain geographical conditions that handicap the people in different parts of this country. I for one believe that the people of the west and the people of the east have both to be helped, and possibly through putting our hand into the national treasury and paying a part of their freight from both ends. Let us therefore clear the decks of that; there is no misunderstanding in that regard, and I am simply putting this before the House to justify the province from which I come.
Let us take now the postal revenue. We collect in round figures $32,000,000 in postal revenue to which the provinces contribute as follows:	Ontario $13,000,000; Quebec
$5,000,000; Manitoba $3,000,000; Saskatchewan $2,000,000 and Alberta $1,000,000. Next let us take the business profits tax. Of $2,700,000 odd collected, Ontario paid $1,500,000; Quebec $695,000; Manitoba $137,000; Saskatchewan $51,000 and Alberta $48,000. Next I take the revenue of the Department of Customs and Excise. What do we find there? We find that of $233,000,000 collected Ontario contributes $96,000,000; Quebec $90,000,000; Manitoba $11,000,000; Saskatchewan $2,000,000 and Alberta $5,000,000.


John Livingstone Brown: How does the hon. member arrive at these figures?
The Address-Mr. McGibbon


Peter McGibbon: I will tell my hon. friend
in a moment. Now I realize that this statement is not exactly fair to the west, and I dio not want to be anything but fair. Much of the customs duties collected in Quebec and Ontario passes on to the west, but these are the figures that I have obtained from the Bureau of Statistics. Let us suppose however that on a per capita basis every man in the three western provinces paid a sum equal to that contributed by every other individual in the Dominion, the amount paid by Saskatchewan would be only $13,000,000. So much for the analysis of these taxes.
I want to say a word or two now about the income tax, and probably I shall be maligned for what I shall have to say in this regard. I believe the income tax is the most unfair tax which the people of this country have to bear. And why do I say that ? I have here an analysis of the income tax paid in Canada and I am going to quote from it, not in order to disparage any class of our citizens but merely to state an argument. I find that the salaried peolple paid $62,000,000 -[DOT]! am giving the figures for the last five years-out of a total of $177,000,000, while the manufacturers paid $56,000,000; the merchants $43,000,000; professional men $11,000,000, and farmers $3,000,000. You will observe at once that the salaried class shoulders by far the largest proportion of this taxation, and I contend that in addition to paying his own tax the man on salary helps to pay everybody else's, for he belongs to the class of people who cannot pass their income tax on to anyone else. The business man, the manufacturer and other classes of our citizens are able ultimately to pass the cost of their business on to the consumer, and among the consumers are the people on salaries. I say therefore that there should be some modification in this tax so as to make it bear more equitably on the people of the country.
Let me point out something to my hon. friends from the west. I have here a statement showing the per capita wealth of every province in the Dominion, and while I will not weary the House now by reading it I will hand it to Hansard. According to this statement the province of Saskatchewan comes first, Alberta second and [Manitoba third. Bearing this in mind, let us see what the per capita taxation in the various provinces is. The income tax in Prince Edward Island amounts to 44 cents per capita; Nova Scotia, $1.56; New Brunswick, $1.90; Quebec, $7.99; Ontario, $8.40; Manitoba, $5.37; Saskatchewan, $1.07; Alberta, $1.83. So that the provinces in which there is the largest per capita wealth pay the smallest per capita taxation.
Let us take the postal tax. I find that Ontario pays $4.21 per capita; Saskatchewan, $2.95; Alberta, $2.97; and Manitoba, the highest of the lot, $5.60. I believe that taxation based on the per capita wealth of the country is the fairest, because in that way you more evenly distribute the burden.


John Livingstone Brown: Where were those statistics secured?
Mr. MoGIBBON:	From the Bureau of
Statistics.


John Livingstone Brown: When they were compiled
no account was taken of the mortgage indebtedness of the three provinces.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	With due deference to
my hon. friend, I have a little more confidence in the head of the Bureau of Statistics, so far as these figures are concerned, than in the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and when I am told by the bureau that these figures are correct I accept them. In any case, there is mortgage indebtedness in every province, so that there is no argument in that. The point is that the people in the west have the largest per capita wealth while they pay the smallest per capita taxation.
I beg now to place on Hansard the following tables:

The Address-Mr. McGibbon



REVENUE RECEIPTS OF CANADA, BY PROVINCES IN WHICH COLLECTED, 1925

[Stage Direction]
Provinces
[Stage Direction]
Revenue of Dept, of Customs and Excise
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax
[Stage Direction]
Business Profits Tax
[Stage Direction]
Postal Revenue Gross
[Stage Direction]
Total of Distri- butable Items
[Stage Direction]
Interest on Invest- ments
[Stage Direction]
Other Non- Distri- butable Items
[Stage Direction]
Total Consoli- dated Fund Receipts
[Stage Direction]
1925
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
t
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
s
[Stage Direction]
s
[Stage Direction]
*
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
250,544
[Stage Direction]
38,696
[Stage Direction]
150,162
[Stage Direction]
439,402
[Stage Direction]
3,815,619
[Stage Direction]
847,447
[Stage Direction]
28,335
[Stage Direction]
1,303,451
[Stage Direction]
5,994,852
[Stage Direction]
4,660,317
[Stage Direction]
766,597
[Stage Direction]
24,517
[Stage Direction]
1,237,316
[Stage Direction]
6,688,747
[Stage Direction]
90,120,103
[Stage Direction]
20,147,700
[Stage Direction]
695,062
[Stage Direction]
5,982,415
[Stage Direction]
116,945,280
[Stage Direction]
96,093,647
[Stage Direction]
26,059,427
[Stage Direction]
1,526,345
[Stage Direction]
13,067,423
[Stage Direction]
136,746,842
[Stage Direction]
11,566,985
[Stage Direction]
3,526,473
[Stage Direction]
137,020
[Stage Direction]
3,719,682
[Stage Direction]
18,950,160
[Stage Direction]
11,332,328
[Stage Direction]
11,293,540
[Stage Direction]
346,834,479
[Stage Direction]
2,193,537
[Stage Direction]
891,366
[Stage Direction]
51,813
[Stage Direction]
2,468,339
[Stage Direction]
5,605,055
[Stage Direction]
5,106,625
[Stage Direction]
1,189,579
[Stage Direction]
48,366
[Stage Direction]
1,931,190
[Stage Direction]
8,275,760
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
18,869,059
[Stage Direction]
3,930,498
[Stage Direction]
192,969
[Stage Direction]
2,288,735
[Stage Direction]
25,281,261
[Stage Direction]
Yukon
[Stage Direction]
116,269
[Stage Direction]
68,900
[Stage Direction]
197,360
[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous
[Stage Direction]
302;532
[Stage Direction]
302,532
[Stage Direction]
Total Net Revenue.
[Stage Direction]
233,095,237
[Stage Direction]
57,466,683
[Stage Direction]
2,704,427
[Stage Direction]
32,160,904
[Stage Direction]
325,427,251
[Stage Direction]
11,332,328
[Stage Direction]
11,293,540
[Stage Direction]
346,834,479
[Stage Direction]
1,218,640
[Stage Direction]
Net Total
[Stage Direction]
233,095,237
[Stage Direction]
56,248,043
[Stage Direction]
2,704,427
[Stage Direction]
32,160,904
[Stage Direction]
324,208,611
[Stage Direction]
11,332,328
[Stage Direction]
11,293,540
[Stage Direction]
346,834,479
[Stage Direction]
Income tax refunds have never been apportioned by provinces.
[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]
Note.-'The statistics of the above table represent the nearest possible approximation to a distribution by provinces of the revenue receipts of Canada. The figures of the revenue of the Department of Customs and Excise here given are "accrued revenue", and those for postal revenue are the "gross" revenue.
Per Capita Wealth
Prince Edward Island	 $1,353
Nova Scotia	 1,437
New Brunswick	 1,541
Quebec	 2,347
Ontario	 2,507
Manitoba	 2,705
Saskatchewan	 3,757
Alberta	 3,317
British Columbia	 2,604
Y ukon	 4,058
Canada	 $2,525
Income Tax Receipts Per Capita, by Provinces,	1925
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward
[Stage Direction]
Island
[Stage Direction]
$0
[Stage Direction]
44
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
56
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
90
[Stage Direction]
Quebec
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
99
[Stage Direction]
Ontario
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
37
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
07
[Stage Direction]
Alberta
[Stage Direction]
v
[Stage Direction]
1 83
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
96
[Stage Direction]
Yukon
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
97
[Stage Direction]
Canada
[Stage Direction]
(gross) 6 13
[Stage Direction]
Canada
[Stage Direction]
(net: excluding refunds) 6 00
[Stage Direction]
Business Profit Tax
Saskatchewan	06 cents per capita
Customs and Excise and Excise Tax Receipts
Postal Tax
[Stage Direction]
Ontario
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
90
[Stage Direction]
per
[Stage Direction]
capita
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
60
[Stage Direction]
per
[Stage Direction]
capita
[Stage Direction]
Alberta
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
80
[Stage Direction]
per
[Stage Direction]
capita
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
per
[Stage Direction]
capita
[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 25, 1926