1926-02-08

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1925.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.
Report for the year 1925 of the positions excluded under the provisions of section 38B from the operation of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended by chapter 22, 11-12 George V.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: In reply
to the question asked by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) on Friday, I have a reply from Mr. YateS, Secretary of the Joint Board of Engineers investigating the matter of the St. Lawrence waterway, which reads:
It is the expectation of the Canadian section of the Joint Board of Engineers, which is studying this question, that the report will be made some time in July next.


Mr. MANION:: There have been no interim reports of any kind?
14011-51i


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Robert James Manion: They will make a report
about July? *


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.



CIIILD IMMIG RATION-BARNARDO HOME

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 11. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre): Has the hon. minister an answer to my question of the other day in regard to the regulation excluding the Barnardo home from bringing out children to this country?
Charles A. Stewart: Yes, my hon. friend was correct. Beginning with April 1, no boys are accepted under fourteen years of age. They are making a three year trial of the experiment.


Mr. HOCKEN:: There is nothing in the legislation to that effect.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I think it is only a departmental ruling.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: An arbitrary ruling.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.



ALBERTA COAL-TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: May I ask the Minister of the Interior and Acting Minister of Railways if he can give us an assurance that an accurate record of the cost of moving coal from Alberta to Ontario is being kept? The whole purpose of voting a subsidy would be to see that such a record was kept. Surely this government will see that it is done. It is of vital interest to Alberta.


Charles A. Stewart: The vote last year was for the purpose of test movements, and as the government of Canada was the owner of the railway on which the test was made, it was clearly understood that the Alberta government was to provide the facilities for keeping an accurate record of the test. The present movement is not a test movement. The coal is being moved by the railway company at S7 a ton, and no records are being kept, so far as I know.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Does the minister not
see the importance of ascertaining the facts as to costs? In view of the statement he has made, are we to remain helpless unless Alberta sees fit to make the test?
Executions at Winnipeg


Charles A. Stewart: This is hardly the place to carry on a discussion about this matter. The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is the body which is competent to hear evidence with respect to tests. The arrangement last year was for the movement of train load lots. I doubt whether the movement that is taking place at the present time is in train load lots, moreover the movement last year, in addition to being in train load lots, was to be made during the months of May, June and July, the summer months, when it was anticipated that the rolling stock would be idle and the power requirements would not be so great. At the present time the statement of Sir Henry Thornton is that there is difficulty about securing supplies and he is bringing forward this movement. I understand that the other day the order was increased by
25,000	tons, but I have no first-hand knowledge of that.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) right in assuming that the Minister of the Interior is still Acting Minister of Railways, and how long are we expected to have an outside minister in charge of a heavy department? Is the present arrangement going to continue and how long?


Charles A. Stewart: The
Minister of the Interior is not the Acting Minister of Railways.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Following up the question which has just been asked, will the minister tell me if the government is prepared to order a special investigation into the question of special rates for coal?


Charles A. Stewart: Before the railway board?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.



EXECUTIONS AT WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe), with regard to the executions which are to take place in Winnipeg to-morrow, whether he has had called to his attention the statement made by the Attorney General of Manitoba when this matter was being discussed a few days ago on the floor of the legislature. He said that hanging men by the neck was a relic of barbarism and there was nothing more brutal or inhuman. In view of the strong protest made in opposition to capital punishment. 
especially in this case as to the place and method, may I ask whether the ends of justice would not be advanced by commutation to life imprisonment?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In the course of my consideration
and analysis of these two capital cases, I have received representations that if the executions were to take place, they should take place somewhere other than the gaol of Winnipeg. I have also had other representations of quite a different character. Under our constitution, criminal law and procedure are under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, but the constitution of criminal courts and the administration of justice generally are under the control of the provinces. In this matter there are provisions in our criminal courts determining the mode of execution when there is a sentence of death, and also that the execution must take place within the walls of the gaol where the offender is being con-lined. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Attorney General of Manitoba has any authority to alter that. The provincial authorities have only to comply with the provisions of the statute. My hon. friend calls my attention to the remarks of the Attorney General of Manitoba with regard to the mode of execution and the advisability of changing it; and he himself suggests that we should alter our decision on account of those remarks. So far as I have been able to find in the Department of Justice, there has not been a general demand, I might even say an appreciable demand, with regard to the advisability of changing the mode of execution in capital cases. Still, I agree that it is a most important matter,, and the suggestion of the Attorney General of Manitoba deserves and shall have most careful and serious consideration. Obviously, however, my hon. friend's request could not be acceded to. To accede to it would mean to paralyse the administration of criminal law and justice throughout the country because of a suggestion that a change in the mode of execution might be desirable. Such a change, I may say, even if admitted as advisable on principle, would imply serious practical difficulties, and it would have to be ascertained and made clear that those difficulties could be solved before I for one would recommend a change to this parliament. I may observe incidentally that the mode of execution in this country is the mode which has always prevailed in Canada and it is still the old English practice.


Arthur Meighen: I do not rise in respect
of the main question asked. I agree with
FEBRUARY 8, 1926	S05
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
the minister; but inasmuch as, under the code, the place of execution is, as the minister says, the place where the prisoner is confined, it surely is possible-I know it has been done-to alter the place where the prisoner is confined and thereby alter the place of execution. As this place happens to be right under the windows of the university, where there are many students, it would seem well to consider whether the alteration could not be made.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it could
be done. The sentence of the court mentioned where the prisoner was to be confined, and he has been confined where the sentence stated.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I wonder if the Minister of Finance can tell us when the lonely volume of the Public Accounts will be supplemented so that we may have something to do during the long adjournment.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I expect the other volume to be ready today. If so, I will ask permission to have it tabled.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. MACDONALD (Kings):: I desire to direct the attention of the government to a matter referred to in the following telegram which, Sir, with your permission, I will read. This telegram is from Souris, P.EJ. It says:
Can you bring to attention Minister Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment discrimination against returned soldiers m railroad snow fighting here; can supply concrete case of returned man with good war record and wounded refused work while four of one family none of whom saw service employed.
J. F. Sterns.
In view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways are entirely out of politics, why is it that in connection with railroad snow fighting and all other work on the Prince Edward Island railway no one need apply for employment unless he is armed with a recommendation from some Liberal committee or Liberal heeler?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: If the hon. gentleman
will send me the names of the returned soldiers who are referred to in the telegram, I will see that communication is had with the railway authorities.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 1, 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.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, parliament met this
year under rather unusual circumstances. Those who were present in the last parliament will recall that in a House of 235 members the government had 118 members, the Progressive party had in their ranks 65 members while the Conservative party had but 50 and the remainder were, or were supposed to be, Independents. In the election which was held on the 29th of October last to elect representatives, not to 235 but to 245 constituencies, the government succeeded in having elected 101 members, the Progressive party 24, the Conservatives 117, and three Independents. It is easy to see that the situation was a most unique and unusual one ia view of the fact that the government attempted to carry on instead of doing what would be expected under such circumstances, namely, resign and ask His Excellency to call on the leader of the largest group in the House to form a government. This is no doubt responsible for the fact that we are to-day resuming the debate on the Address one month after its presentation to both Houses of parliament by His Excellency the Governor General.
It is well known that the Address as delivered by His Excellency is prepared by the government and is supposed to outline all the important legislation which is to come before parliament during the session. The debate on this Address, after it had been read, was not proceeded with for a week so that the government might ascertain in the meantime whether or not they would be permitted to carry on. It was quite evident that they could not do so without the support of some of the other groups in the House elected in opposition to them. They finally succeeded in getting a sufficient number of hon. gentlemen to support them when the motion of confidence was put to the vote and afterwards the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was taken up. That debate continued for some time and on January 28, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), as the House was about to adjourn that night, asked the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) how long the government intended to protract
SOG	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
the discussion, as speaker after speaker on behalf of the government had taken up the time of the House. As a matter of fact, members on this side had ceased taking any part in the debate and were ready to voce. The division was taken some time iater but not until some sixteen or seventeen speakers had held forth on behalf of the government. Some statements ,were made in the course of these speeches delivered on the government side which I felt at the time it was not advisable to allow to go unchallenged, and after the vote was taken on the amendment to the Address which had been proposed by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), I moved the adjournment of the debate about midnight, fully expecting that it would come up again on the following day. To my amazement, however, the leader of the government did not see fit to proceed with the Address the next day but moved a motion that this House, when it adjourned after the conclusion of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, should stand adjourned until March 15 in order that the government might reorganize, as he stated it was impossible for them to do so unless an adjournment were granted.
You will observe in the Address that the government intends to unite a number of departments and to reduce the number of ministers. The acting leader of the government on that occasion made it clear that it was necessary that every department should be represented in parliament by a minister, and it was with that purpose in view that he proposed such a lengthy adjournment. That was on the first day of February; this is February 8 and we are only now resuming the debate on the Address. Hon. members will therefore see what a most extraordinary session this has been so far, and the delay that has taken place has resulted altogether from the inability of the government to function. They now admit that they are not able to carry on and they ask for an adjournment of six weeks in the hope of being able to reorganize and build up their forces.
The Address was presented in the usual way and although it has been discussed to a considerable extent by hon. gentlemen opposite it has been held up by the intervention of the motion to adjourn. I shall refer briefly to some features of the Speech from the Throne, the most noticeable of which is, I think, an admission that things are not well in the country. After claiming credit for the advance in the trade in Canada the government proceeds to outline its programme for the session. It is quite true that our exports

have very largely increased during the past year and it is a hopeful sign in this great country of ours that some progress and development are in evidence in spite of the many restrictions which have hampered our people. The increase was largely agricultural; we have been favoured with a splendid crop and the prices, owing to [DOT] a general price increase throughout the world, have undoubtedly brought a good deal of money into circulation in Canada and improved conditions in that respect naturally followed.
It will be seen further on in the Address that it is claimed an effort is to be made to retain on the land our existing agricultural population and to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience. It is admitted that these people have been going out in large numbers to other countries or, if they have remained in Canada, they have been moving into the towns and cities. Now the government claim they are to introduce legislation designed to keep at home those whom we have with us already or to bring back to the land those from rural districts who have gone to the cities and towns. In this connection reference is made to the value of the home market and the necessity for acquiring wider markets in other countries as well. Great stress is also laid on one other proposition, that of rural credits.
The first clause I desire to refer to, as to retaining our agricultural population and preventing an exodus from the farms, as well as the need for wider markets and the value for home markets, coupled with the necessity for rural credits to enable our agricultural population to carry on, is a paragraph of considerable importance. It may appear satisfactory to some people but to me it is not; I do not think that it comes within the province of a government to do things for the people which they could or should do themselves.	It seems to me that if
the restrictions which at present hamper agriculture in this country were removed it would not be necessary for the government to finance loans to our farmers to enable them to carry on. I will attempt before I sit down to show wherein the government have failed in that respect, and that no reasonable effort has been made by them to enable those engaged in agriculture in Canada to carry on profitably. We find that agriculture in Canada to-day is so hampered with restrictions of one kind or another that many farmers are only too glad to abandon an occupation for which they are qualified and have been engaged in for many years and

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
to take up something else in connection with which there is less governmental interference.
To illustrate the influence to which I am referring I need only ask you to turn to the Auditor General's report for the year 1924, wherein you will fjpd that there was paid out in one department of the government alone no less than $866,000 in travelling expenses for government officials who travel around the country supervising and interfering, and generally discouraging the farmers. And remember that this does not include the cost of automobiles, railway fares and expenses of that sort, or salaries; it is merely for the ordinary travelling expenses of officials on salary. Some one may say, "This country is spending a lot of money on agriculture, so why do the farmers complain?" Well, I am pointing to one item, a large item, which I defy anyone to show has been spent largely in the interests of agriculture. On the contrary the effect has been to discourage those enagaged in that occupation.


Edward Joseph Garland: On whom was this $866,000 spent?


Donald Sutherland: It represents travelling expenses of officials of the Department of Agriculture for the Dominion for the year 1924.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were they travelling inspectors or stationary government officials?


Donald Sutherland: Both. I am sure my hon. friend must have observed a good many of them. This expenditure was incurred, I may say, before the Minister of Agriculture turned loose on the country another army of what are known as egg inspectors. Incidentally I might refer to something that took place in the city of Ottawa last week when the produce dealers of the Dominion met here in convention. I have the trade bulletin published in Montreal which contains a report of the meeting. As my hon. friend has asked the question, perhaps I may be allowed to throw a little light on how these people look on the matter by quoting the article in the trade bulletin. It deals with the difficulty that the egg inspectors have in determining what the regulations really mean, because what are known as "firsts" are really "thirds", and "seconds" are really "fourths". They suggest that "standard" should be used instead of firsts and "medium" instead of thirds. The article proceeds:
When news of this resolution was wigwagged to parliament hill, the hon. Minister of Agriculture was dumbfounded, flabbergasted, and it is confidentially
reported that he immediately applied for the job of Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan. That any mere aggregation of egg dealers should dare to call a "second" a "medium," conjured up visions of the black art witchcraft, hypnotism. "Mediums" were fakirs, masqueraders, clairvoyants, charlatans. Away with them! Give me back my trusty "seconds"!
It may be true that no one wants them, and we hope no one will want them. We hope every last one of them will rot. If they must be eaten, send them to Toronto. There are no Liberals there anyway. Serves them right for producing "seconds. '
This illustrates the views entertained by those engaged in the trade towards the regulations which have been enacted by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and which have worried the people for the past year. The army of inspectors necessary for this work is not included in the figures which I have given to the House, and I am satisfied that reference to the Auditor General s report for the past fiscal year will show a considerable increase in the amount paid.
On Friday of last week the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) charged us on this side of the House with obstructing the business of parliament. Just imagine, the member for Pontiac complaining about obstruction, with sixteen or seventeen of his colleagues speaking on behalf of the government, and not a speech from this quarter of the House! It is the most absurd and ridiculous statement ever made in view of what actually happened. But there was something more. The government was not ready to go on with any business and it was necessary in the meantime that the administration should have better control over the House before it would take chances on the House voting. That is really what was disturbing the government. On January 29 a supplementary address was presented to parliament. The main Address had not been disposed of when a supplementary one came down-not presented, it is true, in the usual way, through His Excellency the Governor General; but this government has no regard for customs, precedents or parliamentary procedure. This supplementary address was presented to the House toy the hon. member for Winnipeg 'North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). As I pointed out the other day, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not accept the word of the Prime Minister; he required a promise in black and white on the records of the House over the signature of the Prime Minister before he gave his vote on behalf of the government. After reading this letter he followed that up by saying:
I.t seems to me that we must be very grateful indeed that the peculiar combination of circumstances which we find existing in the House at this time has seemingly made it possible to place upon the statute
80S	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
books long overdue legislation in the interests of 6ome of (the most needy but least influential dements of our population.
Here is a statement by a member of this House that the weakness of the government enabled him to hold up the government, as it were, and to force its acceptance of the supplementary address before it would dare risk a vote on the motion then before the House. It -it any wonder that the people became alarmed at the situation which had developed in parliament and that the press was filled with references to the bargaining, the purchasing which was alleged to be going on in the House of Commons?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman has only recently referred to the member for Winnipeg North Centre, I must object to his repetition of the word " purchasing " in connection with any transactions which have taken place in this House.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a little late in the day in objecting. The term has been used so often that it is not necessary for me to repeat, it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, if the implication is that any purchasing has been done, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have alreadv during this session taken very strong objection personally to the use of such an expression by members of the House, and I hope the hon. member will withdraw it.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was listening very carefully. The member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said that the newspapers had been talking about purchasing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I understand
aright, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was referring directly to what had taken place in this House and was quoting from Hansard.
I ask that any reference to purchasing, so far as members of this House are concerned, should be withdrawn.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, shall I proceed?


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask hon. members on each side of the House not to use the expression complained of. It is both slanderous and unparliamentary. I have objected to it already during the course of this session. The mere fact that the expression is quoted from newspapers does not render it admissible in

debate as applicable to any member of the House.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I did not quote from any particular newspaper, because of the fact that the quotations I have are in-my room. I was merely pointing out that such references had been made in the press all over this country, pointing out the unsatisfactory conditions which existed here in Ottawa, and I quoted the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as an evidence to justify, possibly, in the minds of the people outside this parliament what they suspected was going on here. It is up to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to take any inference he sees fit from it. It is not for me to say what he had in his mind when he made the statement quoted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this expression has not been withdrawn and I urge that it should be, in fairness to myself and to the other members of this House.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if there is a point of order I desire to make some comment on it.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand it is a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. member is asking for the withdrawal of a statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford. Surely this House is not going to hold that an hon. member cannot refer to a statement made by a newspaper to the effect that there was purchasing by promises contained in the Speech from the Throne. Your Honour has stated that it was libellous. If it is libellous almost every newspaper in Canada is liable to action in this regard. There has not been such a statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford. Such a statement quoted even directly would not be libellous. What one cannot charge against an hon. member is such conduct as in itself would be an offence against the code or unbecoming to a gentleman. There is not only no such charge, but even in the newspapers themselves there is nothing which in itself would be an offence against the code or unbecoming to a gentleman.


Edward Joseph Garland: On the ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for South Oxford distinctly referred to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and said that what he had stated was a justification for the newspaper article.
FEBRUARY 8, 1926	S09
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)


Mr. MARCIL:: Mr. Speaker, It is a well known practice in parliament that a member may not state by indirect means what he cannot state by direct means, and the quoting of a newspaper is no more justification than if he had employed the terms himself, if it applies to the personal integrity of any member of the House.


Mr MEIGHEN:: I repeat that if the hon. member had used the words quoted by the press directly, the words are not libellous. They do not attribute an offence against the code or conduct unbecoming to a gentleman, consequently they are not outside the purview of this House.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the keeping of the honour of this House by all parties and all groups is in your care, and whether an hon. member reads from a newspaper or makes a statement himself, I submit to you, Sir, that such statements are unworthy of a member of parliament, and that the hon. member, in the interests of his own party, should withdraw that reference.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, might we have the point of order clearly stated, that we may know just what we are speaking to?
I have not even heard the point of order stated. If Your Honour would be good enough to state what it is, we might discuss it.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
member for South Oxford was speaking of the legislation referred to by the government in the Speech from the Throne, and he stated that as that Speech contained promises, especially for the western section of Canada, the support given by hon. members from that section, and notably by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was a support which, from what I gathered, had been purchased by those promises. Is that statement correct?


Arthur Meighen: I am ready, so far as I
am concerned as the leader of this party, to take the statement as though the hon. member had made it himself; and I contend that it is quite within the rules of the House.


Donald Sutherland: If I may be permitted, I was referring to what I termed a supplementary address presented to this House and the condition of mind of the people of the country, and said that in part it might be attributed to the statement by the member for North Centre Winnipeg which I read. I did not quote the press reports, which I might have done. I merely referred to the attitude of mind of the people
as a result of the articles which were appearing in the press, and I cannot see that there is anything out of order in that. It is really a statement of fact, because the public mind is very much disturbed indeed as a result of what has already taken place here.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out that the articles appearing in the press are largely taken from the speeches which are made in this House.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, before I get through I would like to add to what I have already said-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member ua*
already spoken. I am quite ready to give my ruling now. I do not suppose the hon. member for South Oxford intended in his remarks to impugn the personal honour of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but as the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has just said, we must all protect the honour and dignity of the House of Commons, and the Speaker cannot allow such expressions during ddbate as an 'allusion to purchase, even quoting from newspapers. Quotations from newspapers are not evidence or proof but merely the expressions of opinion of writers, and we cannot, under cover of the press, allow the libelling of some hon. members of this House. Let me quote Bourinot on this point:
In the House of Commons a member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself as a political institution, or as a branch of the government or upon the other house
(u)	; or to impute to any member or members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case
(v)	* ox to use any profane or indecent language, sucli as is unfit for the House to hear or for any member to utter (w); or to question the acknowledged and undoubted powers of the House in a matter of privilege (x); or to reflect upon, argue against or in any manner call in question, the past acts and proceedings of the House (y); or to speak of committees as if they were the special nomination of any person or "packed majority''; or to speak in abusive and disrespectful terms of an act of parliament; or to speak ironically or in terms of disrespect of the members of the other house of parliament. Persona! attacks upon members will always be promptly rebuked by the Speaker.
I need not go further. All authorities are unanimous upon this point, that anything which reflects discredit on any of the hon, members of the House is considered1 unparliamentary, and whether the purchase is by money paid directly or by legislation I consider it as a libel of the hon. member referred to. I would therefore ask the hon. member
810	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
-who, I am sure, did not intend to impute any motive to the action of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-to kindly withdraw that expression.


Arthur Meighen: I do not rise to question the ruling. I rise, as I have a right to do, to appeal against the ruling, which I do with atl respect.


Hewitt Bostock: I will state the point to the House-


Arthur Meighen: I would ask that, first,
the words objected to be read, exactly as used.


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker having decided that the expression "purchased by legislation" is unparliamentary, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the House that the ruling of the Speaker be sustained?
Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker. I desire to say that I did not use those words.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is not
in order now.


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker's ruling is
sustained.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan).

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley); but through inadvertence, not looking upon this as a ministerial question, I voted. If there is any doubt in the matter and if it is possible to strike out my vote, I would ask that it be struck out, because the hon. member for Argenteuil is not in the House.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.


James Alexander Robb: May I be allowed a word
before the hon. gentleman proceeds? I notice members are giving reasons why they were paired. I do not understand this to be a ministerial question. It was a question whether the ruling of the Chair should be sustained.


Mr. BOYS:: Under the terms of a memorandum which has been submitted to the government whips and which has been approved by the ministers, it is well understood that pairs are to count upon any matter introduced by the government or any member on its behalf, or upon any matter introduced by the opposition or any member on its behalf. I would be inclined to think this is a matter which has arisen owing to the action of the leader of the opposition, and, therefore, is one which comes within the terms of the agreement relative to pairs.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Such a memorandum
was submitted to the whips to be considered, and at that time, it was. I think, decided that it would apply only to sessional pairs. Only a few of those pairs have been arranged; the others have been pairs arranged for just a few days in order to accommodate members who are going away.


William Alves Boys: I agree with the hon. member. I was addressing myself particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil) who has signed an agreement for a sessional pair, and for that reason I thought my remarks were applicable.


Donald Sutherland: I
quite agree with the ruling of the Chair. Had I made the statement upon which you, Sir, gave the ruling, I would have voted with those who voted to sustain your ruling. As, however, I did not make that statement, I do not consider the matter need be discussed any further so far as I am concerned. I wish to discuss another matter, and I hope I shall
be permitted to refer to something that is on the records of Hansard. On July 16, 1924, the Minister of Railways-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very
familiar with procedure in this House, but as I understand it, the expressions used were declared by Your Honour to be unparliamentary, and i ask that they be withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: I have declared that the
expression should be withdrawn and there has been an appeal from that ruling. The ruling has been sustained. The hon. member should now withdraw the expression.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking to the point of
order-it is really not a stated point of order
__may I say, with due regard to Your Honour.
who could not be expected to catch every word that drops from the lips of hon. members when they are debating, that the hon. member for South Oxford did not use the words referred to in the ruling? I submit that he cannot be asked to withdraw words that he never used. To do so would be putting him in an invidious position, and I am quite sure Your Honour has no desire to do that, nor can the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) insist upon a withdrawal under the circumstances. Furthermore, the hon. member for South Oxford has repeatedly stated that had he used such words, he would have withdrawn them, but that he did not use them. If the House cannot allow the matter to end in that way, certainly no opprobrium ought to be heaped upon the head of my hon. friend, nor should he be forced into a false position.


Hewitt Bostock: I heard the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford; I heard the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for South Oxford expressly used the expression which I qualified as being unparliamentary. He intimated that he would make a distinction; that he did not impugn the personal honour of the hon. member, but that the papers had been repeating all over the country that there had been purchase by legislation, or such words as those. That is the expression which I qualified as unparliamentary. The hon. member must yield and withdraw the expression. ,


Donald Sutherland: (South Oxford):
I find myself in a most, difficult position. I do not wish to disagree with your ruling, nor will I put myself in that position. I have always had' strict regard to the rules of this House, and if no reference is to be made in this parliament to articles reflecting on hon.
812	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
members which appear in the press, it is about time that we knew it should not -be allowed. Furthermore, it is only a few days ago that a member of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: - got up in this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: - and referred to us as willing vassals of a foreign power.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sure that the hon.
member has not the slightest desire to provoke disorder, and there is no reason why the question should not be discussed quietly. So far as quotations from newspapers are concerned, I had not a moment ago under my hand the passage in Bourinot relating to this point. At page 336 Bourinot says:
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating (from persons outside the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
I have no doubt that the expression that escaped the hon. member was pureljr an inadvertence, but as it comes within the pro-scripion I must rule it unparliamentary. The hon. member did not of course intend to be unparliamentary, and as an old and respected parliamentarian he will, I am sure, accept the ruling I gave, which, as he will see, cuts both ways.


Donald Sutherland: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to withdraw the references in question. I presume however that the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) a few days ago, as reported in Hansard, will stand. Now I wish to refer to something said in this House on July 16, 1924, when the question of building the Hudson Bay railway was before parliament, on a motion of the then member for Prince Albert, Mr. Knox. The Minister of Railways at that time said:
I (think every member will agree with me that parliament, as now constituted, is not prepared to vote money for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
"As now constituted":	in my opening remarks I pointed out the political complexion of the last parliament in contrast with the constitution of the present House. Now I wonder why this change has come over the government since they have been reduced to a minority in parliament. Evidently they are

prepared, so long as they can get a majority in this House, to vote money to-day for purposes for which they would not have voted it when they had a clear majority themselves in parliament. Hon. members will have to draw their own inference from the facts.
A few days ago I made reference to a newspaper-a Canadian Press despatch-according to which certain members of this House had stated that they would give their support to the government provided the government would pass legislation in the interests of the west. I have always understood that representatives of the people in parliament were supposed to represent not only their individual constituencies but the whole Dominion; I have never been of the opinion that a few members had the right to come to parliament exclusively for the purpose of having some particular measure passed for the advantage of their own part of the country.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the hon, member
name the members who made that statement?


Donald Sutherland: If
my hon. friend is one of those who did not make the statement I presume he has a perfect right to say so, but I do not think that I am called upon to name specifically the hon. members who took that stand. It would take considerable time to name them. 1 would also refer to a statement reported in the press as having been made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) in Montreal a few days ago to the effect that the Progressives were Liberals in a hurry. The minister was reported as stating what would happen if those gentlemen got into too great a hurry, and he intimated another appeal to the country by the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
probably the greatest of all libels.


Donald Sutherland: 818	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
were received at the port of Montreal, of which 42,071 boxes were New Zealand cheese. The Trade of Canada report issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, from which I have been quoting, shows the importation of cheese during the past year. It was practically all New Zealand cheese, the quantity being 10,234,338 pounds. This goes to confirm the arguments you hear advanced that it was the manufacturers of kraft cheese who imported it into Canada. Yes, and the people who imported the cheese are selling it to-day all over Canada, in the county of Oxford, part of which I represent-the greatest cheese manufacturing county in Canada-and elsewhere; box after box of it is being retailed to-day.
The Address refers to the value of the home market. Why should the people of this country have to go to the expense of finding a market in about seventeen foreign countries for their surplus cheese and butter and overlook the home market. The value of the dairy production of Canada last year was upwards of three hundred million dollars, of which only twenty per cent was exported. The fact that eighty per cent of the total dairy production is consumed at home proves the value of the home market and illustrates the value of retaining that market before seeking one abroad; because the home market that is found at the doors of the farmers all over this Dominiion is of the greatest value to them. They find that market without the great expense which they have to incur when their product is sold to dealers and shipped to foreign countries.
The government have absolutely failed in their duty to the farmers of Canada, and it is nothing short of an outrage that conditions such as prevail here should be encouraged at this time. No one realizes that better than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) himself. I thought the other day, when he was speaking in the House, that he was of that ' opinion; that he had an idea he would be able to prevail upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin), to whom he was referring, and, also the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to see the wisdom of changing this treaty if it was doing the people of this country an injury as alleged. When the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways spoke in the county of Oxford during the last election campaign, they were very careful to refer to the effect of the Australian treaty. Mr. Mackenzie King made the statement that it it were found that this treaty was doing any injury to those engaged in dairying in
[Mr. D. Sutherland 1
Canada, they would see to it that the necessary six months' notice was given to have the treaty abrogated. But he said that the dairy industry in Oxford must be in a bad way if dairy products could be imported ten thousand miles from New Zealand and Australia and sold here. The minister is aware that shiploads of dairy products are coming into this Dominion; consequently dairying must be in a bad condition, and it is up to the government to act quickly and to see that the necessary notice is given to have this treaty abrogated or amended.
I hope before this parliament proceeds further with regard to any of the other treaties which have been announced in the Speech from the Throne, care will be taken to examine them carefully because nearly all the important treaties which this government have entered into have proved disastrous to us. The government have been anxious to make treaties with countries where the balance of trade has been largely in our favour and two years' operation shows that those balances have beeu converted into balances in favour of the other countries. I might along that line point out that agriculture, even when we have had a reasonable tariff-no, not a reasonable tariff because we have never had that on agricultural products-has never had a fair chance in this Dominion. Our big neighbour to the south of us is in a position now, especially as it has a high tariff, to make it difficult or impossible for us to export agricultural products to that country and there are times when it suits its purpose to export to this country its surplus of agricultural products. During the last five years, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, our imports of pork products from that country amounted to 293,292,716 pounds and our exports to all countries amounted to 666,769,800 pounds, so that we imported nearly one-half as much as we exported. Hon. members should ask themselves why such a situation should arise. Our imports and exports of butter and eggs were as follows during that period of 5 years:
Exports	Imports
Butter	
71,426.000 pounds	15,544,000 poundsEggs	
23,483,955 dozen	35,788,903 dozen
And so on. I could quote figures similar to those in connection with many other of our agricultural products. It is true that the trade of Canada has increased very considerably during the last year and our imports have increased as well, but the significant fact is that in our trading with the United States, in 1925 there is a balance of trade in their favour of $107,000,000. There was a sub-

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
stantial balance of trade in our favour as regards the United Kingdom, but this was lost to us immediately we began dealing with our neighbours to the south. In fact, the disparity is so great that I might well place it on Hansard. Our imports of vegetable and animal products from the United States during that period amounted to $123,147,973, and yet my hon. friends to my left in the Progressive party say: "Oh, we who are engaged in agriculture do not require any protection in this country." The other day the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), who was referring to the Australian treaty, was quoting from an address made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and he reached as far as this point:
I believe most of the members of the House, particularly in this quarter, were equally in favour of the Australian treaty.
And he stopped there. I asked the hon. member to read on when he stated:
There is nothing further.
The next words as contained in Hansard are:
Mr. Sutherland:	Speak for yourself.
Referring to the hon. member for Vancouver South, who continued to speak. Yet the impression left on the House the other night by the hon. member for Rosetown was the end of the matter. I pointed out at that time that that was not the attitude of most members on this side of the House. At least, I asked the hon. member for Vancouver South to speak for himself and not for those around him. I have under my hand a letter written by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec on the 27th March, 1925, in answer to a letter from the secretary of the agricultural society at Saint Cesaire, Quebec. This letter reads:
Dear Sir :
I have your letter and also the accompanying resolution.
I made further application to the federal authorities this year to obtain in favour of farmers a raising of the duties on agricultural products entering Canada from the United States so as to protect the Canadian farmer in the same degree as the American fanner is by the Fordney tariff.
I regret not to have succeeded in my application as the budget speech makes no mention of any change in this part of the tariff.
I always hope, however, that the federal authorities will accede to the numerous requests which have been made to them, and to my own repeated solicitations.
Yours very truly,
J. E. Caron.
My hon. friends from Quebec say that the tariff, or rather protection, was not an issue in the last election in that province. The Minister of Agriculture of Quebec realized the
situation which prevails there, a situation which is practically the same as that existing in Ontario and the western provinces.


James Alexander Robb: No person said that the tariff was not an issue in the province of Quebec. The tariff was the one issue in that province.


Donald Sutherland: Protection. I have heard the statement made repeatedly in this House that the people of Quebec were not asking for an increase in the tariff. I have heard that statement made repeatedly during this parliament. The Minister of Agriculture was pointing out the unfair condition which prevailed and had been urging this government to increase the tariff on agricultural products in order to protect the farmers against the disastrous competition from the United States and elsewhere.


Mr. MOTHERWELC:: You mean the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec?


Donald Sutherland: Yes, a real Minister of Agriculture who was alive to the interests of the farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: A Liberal.


Donald Sutherland: And I presume that certain hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this House appreciate, in their own opinion at least, the needs of agriculture in the province of Quebec better than does the Minister of Agriculture for that province. At any rate, that is what one would gather from the statements they have made here. I have here a copy of an article written by the secretary of the Canadian Creamerymen's Association of Ontario dated London, Ontario, January 28, 1926. This article says:
The Canadian Creamerymen'a Association in annua! convention, Toronto, on November 21 and 22, 19?5 despatched to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa copies of a resolution urgently appealing to the government to take immediate steps to grant relief to the Canadian dairy industry which is now grievously imperilled by reason of the new Australian Trade Treaty. No acknowledgement of the receipt of our communication has as yet been received, and as far as we have been able to ascertain no consideration has been given to this urgent appeal.
I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec would have acknowledged a petition of this kind had he received it.
In urging you and your associates on to further effort in defence of the dairy industry of this country, may we be permitted to call your attention to certain further facts with respect to more or less recent develofpments in this regard. For many years the government of Canada and the governments of the different provinces have been engaged in campaigns in which vast sums of public money have been expended to educate the farmer and to persuade him to develop winter dairying. The province of Alberta, as you know, has made a notable response and has gained a deserved
$20	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)
reputation for the quality of its dairy products, one of the most important markets for which was found in Vancouver, Victoria and the province of British Columbia. On January 8, 7,000 boxes of Australian butter were landed at Vancouver and being sold at lower cost, forced the Alberta producers out of tho market. The farmers of Alberta under the necessity of winter feeding, with costly hay and grain, are unable to meet the competition from Australia and New Zealand, in the season which is our winter and their summer and dn which their cattle are grass fed at practically no cost. Alberta has been forced therefore to ship to Montreal, and there again has been met by cheap butter from Australia and New Zealand. The cut in duty from 4 cents to 1 cent per pound has wiped out in one blow the fruit of the whole campaign for winter dairying in Alberta.
Yes, and in other provinces of the Dominion as well.
In respect to Ontario, this same situation is duplicated. The low stocks of butter to-day would warrant payment of 50 cents a pound for butter fats by the creameries to the Ontario farmers, but in view of the dumping of tons of Australian and New Zealand butter into the Ontario market, we are unable to pay more than 42 cents per pound. We are advised that from 17,000 to 20,000 boxes of this product of their summer season is now en route to drive our own producers, in winter, from their home market. The reason for this diversion of their shipments to Canada Lies in the fact that the British market is now down, and as a result the Australian-New Zealand butter is being offered to the Canadian market at 37 cents per pound.
The act of placing, on the free list, cheese which formerly paid 3 cents a .pound is also a serious matter though not so great a hardship in view of the fact that the 'home consumption in Canada has been negligible as compared with the British market in which Canada has met the Australian and New Zealand opposition.
We need not reiterate that wheat and the dairying industry 'have ibeen the backbone of this country, nor should it be necessary to stress the fact that national prosperity is imperilled by the unwise infliction of -these hardships upon dairymen.
The treaty was framed in politics, regardless of the needs or opinions of the dairying industry. Its damaging consequences are already imposing hardship upon our people, and undoing all that has been done in the past several decades to build up this foundation block of Canadian prosperity.
This is signed by the secretary of The Canadian Creamerymen's Association of Ontario.	,
I desire also to refer to an article which appeared in the Regina Leader or February 4, 1926, reporting a convention of dairymen:
The Australian Trade Treaty and -the stamp tax on cream cheques were among important subjects on which action was taken yesterday by the Saskatchewan Dairy Association convention. In connection with the first-mentioned, the convention endorsed the action of the directors in protesting to the federal government against provisions of the treaty as they applied to the supply of butter and cheese.
Further reference is made to the matter in the Montreal iGazette, implying that a resolution had been passed pointing out the injustice of competition from Australia and New Zealand. Yet I have heard hon. members in this House behind the government get up one after another and declare that the Australian

treaty and the treaty with New Zealand would have no disastrous effect on agriculture and dairying in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of the article in question?


Donald Sutherland: 
James Alexander Robb: In this House there is no better champion of the dairy industry than the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), particularly when it is a question of protection. I am not prepared to give my hon. friend the same credit when perchance we br^ng in legislation to reduce the tariff on certain dairy utensils that are used in this industry. My hon. friend apparently forgets that he is the champion of the dairy industry, and seeks to lead us on this side of the House to believe that he thinks the dairy industry can be encouraged by taxing the utensils required in that industry. I give my hon. friend credit for this: that he .has opposed every treaty, this government has brought in. He has 
done that following the leadership of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: And made no mistake.


James Alexander Robb: He has consistently opposed all treaties that this government has brought before parliament, notwithstanding the fact that most of the treaties we have brought in have given greater preferences to the dairy industry and the agricultural industry than they have to any of the other industries of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Which one?


James Alexander Robb: I will quote some figures in a moment. It so happened that the concessions obtained in the other treaties were, I will admit, more favourable to the agricultural industry than they were to the manufacturing industries of Canada. My hon. friend this afternoon stressed the fact that the Belgian treaty had been of little use to Canada. For the advantage of hon. members who have not followed that subject, let me quote figures to show the steady growth of our butter trade with Belgium in recent years. The exports of butter into Belgium in 1921 amounted to 72,623 pounds. In 1922 the amount increased to 110,362 pounds and in 1924 to 267,183. Then in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925 the export of butter to Belgium, which in 1921, during the period my right hon. friend was prime minister, amounted to 72,623 pounds, increased to 763,212 pounds.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain what change that treaty made in the duty on Belgian butter?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the figures before me.


Arthur Meighen: Did it make any change?


James Alexander Robb: Under the Belgian treaty we obtained the most favoured nation treatment.


Arthur Meighen: It made no change.


James Alexander Robb: Hon. members have been loud m their statements that by our adoption of the Belgian treaty we ruined the glass industry in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that there was not a farthing's change in the tariff as it affected glass. This afternoon my hon. friend criticizing us in respect to the dairy industry and criticizing the programme now before the government, made no mention whatever of the W'est Indian treaty which will come before parliament this year. In the West Indian treaty we took particular care to secure most favoured nation treatment for the products of Canada, particularly as affecting our dairy and agricultural industries. For instance, we have under the West Indian treaty, as hon.

The Address-Mr. Robb
members will observe when it comes before them, a preference in most of the colonies of 50 per cent, and in no case shall the duty imposed upon Canadian dairy products or upon any Canadian products, specified in that agreement, exceed one-third of the general Tate.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):: This treaty is not before us.


James Alexander Robb: No, but it will come before us.


Alexander Dew Chaplin: Is the hon. minister quite in order in bringing it up now?


James Alexander Robb: I will not dwell on that point more than to say that if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Oxford carries, all this goes by the board; and all that is outlined in the Speech from the Throne will go by the board if the hon. member's amendment is adopted.
The hon. member made considerable reference to our trade with the United States. As a matter of fact the United States is the best customer Canada has, and buys from Canada more farm products than Canada buys from the States in that line of goods. We sold to the United States not a very great quantity of butter, because it is true that the United States has a very high tariff on butter, and later on I will ask hon. members if the experience of the high tariff on butter has encouraged the greater production of dairy products in the United States. During the year 1923 we exported cream and milk to the United States to the value of 12,983,238. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925, we exported $6,079,168 worth, or considerably over double the value of that exported in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923. I am told that the exports for the nine months ended 31st December last will be considerably in excess of those for the previous year. Hon. gentlemen may say: "Why should we ship cream and milk to the United States? Why not ship butter?" Had the reciprocity pact of 1911 carried-it was strenuously opposed by my right hon. friend-we would have been shipping butter instead of milk and cream. But when Canada rejected a proposal which would have allowed her to send butter into the markets of the United States without one cent of duty, the United States revised their tariff, put up the duty on butter and put milk and cream on a basis where they could buy it. And they are buying it; they bought last year an amount far in excess of Canada's imports of butter from any country.


Arthur Meighen: When was the United
States tariff raised on butter? In 1921?


James Alexander Robb: There were three advances in
the tariff. I have not those figures before ine, but I shall be glad to discuss that with my right hon. friend at some other time.
It has been argued this afternoon that the dairy industry in western Canada is in a very poor condition, that it is threatened with ruin because of the changes in the Australian treaty. My right hon. friend may not have been correctly reported, but I recall having read some of his speeches during the election campaign when he asserted that by the Australian treaty this government had ruined the fresh egg and butter industry of Canada. If my right hon. friend was correctly reported, that was not a very great credit to his intelligence. I would give him credit for greater intelligence than to believe that Canada will ever buy fresh eggs from Australia.


Mr.   MEIGIIBN@: Will the hon. gentleman try to make an exception and quote something that I said instead of making these wild assertions?


James Alexander Robb: If my right hon. friend says
that he did not make the statement that we had ruined the fresh egg industry, I will withdraw it at once, but I read it in a good Conservative newspaper.


Arthur Meighen: Just bring the newspaper. I do not think the hon. gentleman read it.


James Alexander Robb: Then my right hon. friend
did not make that statement. We will let that drop right away. I notice my right hon. friend sees the foolishness of a statement of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: Not so very foolish.


James Alexander Robb: There are some good reasons
why Canada will never buy fresh eggs from Australia. In the first place, if you get the egg from the hen immediately she leaves the nest, ship it to Vancouver and then rush it through to Montreal on a fast train, it takes that egg seven weeks to get to Montreal,, and people in Montreal or Toronto do not buy that kind of "fresh" egg. There is a better reason than that: Australia has not the eggs to export. In the last year, as is shown in their year book, the total export of eggs from Australia to all the world was 665,620 dozen. During that same period Canada exported
2.890.000	dozen, most of them going to the United Kingdom.
I said a moment ago that it was alleged that the dairy industry in western Canada was in a bad condition. If it is, the reports of the dairy people of western Canada are very misleading. My right hon. friend has just
The Address-Mr. Robb


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 
James Alexander Robb: Yes, our newsprint now goes into that market free. I may observe in passing that our exports have increased marvellously since ithe treaty has gone into effect, and the Pacific coast province is benefiting particularly.
It has been argued that the Australian agreement has adversely affected the daii-y industry of Canada and I want to disprove that statement. No matter what views hon. gentlemen in this House may hold in regard to that agreement, I think they will admit that the prices of butter and cheese, like the price of wheat, are controlled by conditions in the world market, and a country like Canada, which exports large quantities of butter, surely is not afraid of the importation of a little butter from Australia or New Zealand. How much blitter dlo you fancy Canada imported in the fast fiscal year? Less than one third of an ounce per head of population. It is true, as has been said, thait the price of butter has dropped Slightly within the last few weeks throughout Canada, but I would point out that the decline here has not 'been marked as it was in the United Kingdom or m the United States, where there is a tariff of 8 cents per pound protection. In 1923 Canada exported of butter 21,994,578 pounds and in 1924 13,648,968. Compare that with the year 1925. We exported in that year 24,501,981 pounds; and in the present fiscal year, for the seven months, from March to October, our exports were approximately 22,000,000 pounds. What explains this great increase in our exports of butter this year? The explanation is simple and is obvious to every dairyman. This has been a splendid year for the dairy industry; we have bad good grass and an abundant supply of w'ater and consequently we have had a very good flow of milk. We had the product to export, and it soi happened that world conditions were favourable to this country. Early in September a strike developed in Australia and New Zealand, preventing the butter mlakers of those countries from shipping their product to the markets of the United Kingdom, and apart from that the markets in the Old Country were themselves short of supplies. Coupled with this condition, Germany entered the British market seeking large quantities of butter, and all these circumstances made for a rapid advance in the price of butter over there. Butter advanced three cents a pound on the markets of the United Kingdom and remained at that level until it was announced on October 21 that a consider'a.ble supply was on its way from Australia and New Zealand. This was responsible for a slight drop in price. The cost of shipping butter from Australia to the United Kingdom is just about equal to the cost of shipping it to Canada; they can send a tub of butter from Australia or New Zealand to England at about the same rate as they can send it to this country. Canada being nearer
The Address-Mr. Rohh

to the United Kingdom and 'having a supply of butter when the market was short overseas, we were naturally called upon to supply that shortage, and the result was that we sold ourselves short, so short indeed that on December 1 ithe stocks of 'butter in this country amounted to 13,759,656 pounds as against 28,969,705 pounds in 1924. In other words, there was less than half the quantity of butter in store in Canada on December 1 last than there was at the same date in the previous year, and that is why butter was so high in this country. When the arrivals came to England from, Australia and New Zealand we found that the market in Canada was higher than it was in the United Kingdom and in consequence we brought back to this country 8,000 boxes, or about 448,000 pounds of Canadian butter, for which better prices could be obtained in Canada than in the Old Country.
My hon. friend lays great stress on the fact that if the tariff on butter were higher our farmers would get a better price for their product. Well, fortunately we have an example of the effects of a high tariff on butter right alongside of us. The United States has a tariff of 8 cents a pound on butter, and the House will be interested to know that on January 13 while the price of No. 1 pasteurized butter in Montreal was from 42i to 42J cents a pound, in New York the same quality was selling for 42 cents a pound-notwithstanding the duty of 8 cents a pound. I think I have proved conclusively to hon. gentlemen that the United States tariff on butter 'has not increased the farmers' return from that product across the line.
I wish to put on record, Sir, the cold storage holdings of butter in Canada on January 1, 1926: "
Creamery	 9,873,469 pounds
Dairy	 140,957 pounds
Creamery butter shows a decrease of , over .56 per cent from the same date of last year, and of 32 per cent from December 1, 1925. In other words, there was 32 per cent less butter in storage on January 1, 1926, than on December 1, 1925. Dairy butter shows a decrease of 67 per cent from last year and of 3 per cent from December 1, 1925. This creamery butter is held as follows:
Jan. 1, 1923 Jan. 1, 1928
Montreal	
9,042,860 lbs.	4,494,676 lbs.Toronto	
3,998,845 lbs.	1,613,475 lbs.
These figures are rather interesting in view of the statement that in Toronto there is such a large quantity of Australian and New Zealand butter.
British Columbia	 1,575,609 lbs. 331,472 lbs.
I Mr, Robb.]
So much has been said about the importation of butter that it is interesting to note that for the twelve months ending December, 1925, the total imports from all parts of the world amounted to only 99,748 pounds. During that same period we exported 26,646,535 pounds. But hon. gentlemen will probably say that since this treaty went into force on October 1 last enormous quantities of butter have reached this country from Australia. Well, I have quoted the total imports from October 1 to December 31 of last year. Let us examine the figures since January 1. I hold in my hand a memorandum dated February 5 to Mr. Ide, private secretary to the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin), giving the imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand entered for consumption in Canada from October 1, 1925, to the end of January, 1926. These are the figures:
Australia	 473,476 pounds
New Zealand	 621,145 "
So that instead of the four million pounds that my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, we find that less than
700,000	pounds came in during that period.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: The two sets of figures the minister has given make over a million pounds.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right.


Arthur Meighen: Just to the end of January.


James Alexander Robb: From October 1.


Arthur Meighen: It all came in in January.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but that is considerably short of four million pounds.
Mr. MEI'GHEN: There have been some importations since.


James Alexander Robb: I notice so from the newspapers; but it was also stated in the press that enormous quantities had arrived. However, these records show that this tremendous volume of importation existed only in the imagination of a newspaper reporter.
Now, Sir, it has been stated that we dhouid put a very high tariff on butter to encourage our dairy industry. It so happens that on Saturday I received a coipy of Economic Conditions, 'Governmental Finance and United States Securities, published in New York this month. This booklet gives a review of economic conditions in the United States as they affect farmers there who enjoy a protection of 8 cents a pound on their butter. It is

The Address-Mr. Robb
stated that in 1920 there were 31,364,459 dairy cattiie in the United States; in 1925 these had dropped to 25,997.752, or a decrease of 17 per cent, notwithstanding a tariff of 8 cents a pound on butter. So, apparently the United States with a rapidly increasing population is not showing anything like a corresponding increase in the production of butter.
I have just one other observation to make, Mr. Speaker, respecting the dairy industry. I am with my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in the doing of everything that can be done to protect and to help our dairy industry. I give my hon. friend credit for having stood up against his own party when in his judgment they introduced a measure that was more detrimental to our dairy industry than the Australian trade treaty can ever be. My right hon. friend the leader of the apposition (Mr. Meigfhen) was not so interested in the welfare of the dairy industry of Canada during the years when he permitted the introduction of oleomargarine into this country. I have not the figures before me, in fact I have not taken the trouble to look them up, but I have in my hand an *extract from Hansard of June 22, 1922, where at page 3434 my hon. friend from 'South Oxford is reported as follows:
Hon. gent'emen say that the government are anxious 1 o get revenue.
That was the excuse for oleomargarine. But they allowed oleomargarine to come in free of duty in competition with Canadian butter. In the statement submitted by my hon. friend at that time he showed that during the year, ingredients for the manufacture of oleomargarine were imported totalling 41,102,000 pounds.


Arthur Meighen: What year was that?


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member was making reference to the .previous year, 1921, when my right hon. friend was prime minister.


Arthur Meighen: And when the hon. gentleman himself supported the admission of oleomargarine.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no. If my hon. friend
looks up the records he will find that. I was with the hon. member for South Oxford on that issue.
Now. Sir, if trade were all the other way; if the balance of trade were not in our favour or anywhere near it, we could afford to be rather chesty with Australia, but the trade is all in favour of Canada. I am just wondering how long the Australians, who are just as proud as Canadians, will endure the speeches
of hon. gentlemen opposite without themselves abrogating that agreement. I find that the trade of Canada with Australia in 1917 was as follows: we sold Australia 86,549,546 worth, while Australia sold us $762,113 worth. That trade increased a little; I am not quoting every year, but I will give the figures for 1919, which is a pretty good year for my hon. friend. In 1919 we imported from Australia $4,963,446 worth, and exported to Australia $14,019,629 worth. Then we come along to that period when the balance increased in our favour. In 1920 our imports amounted to $1,371,775, and our exports to $11,415,623. In other words, for every dollar we spent in Australia we received ten. The following year there was a little change; it was the last year my right hon. friend was in power. Our imports from Australia in that year amounted to $791,980, and our exports to Australia $18,112,861. Now hon. gentlemen can see how hard it was to reach an agreement with Australia when the Australian had before him the figures for that year. I went to Australia in the fall of 1922, and was confronted with this argument: "You have bought from us only $791,980 worth of goods, but have sold us $18,112,861 worth." The proportion has been running along at varying ratios-ten to one, eighteen to one and nineteen to one-until last year it was down to six to one. For the twelve months ending December 1925-and I want hon. gentlemen to observe that during three months of that period this treaty was in force-the imports had dropped from $2,634,713 to $2,271,216, or a decrease of $363,497 in our purchases from Australia. But during that period we sold Australia goods to the value of $14,075,554, or an increase of $203,835. Under these conditions, Sir, how long is Australia going to be satisfied, with hon. gentlemen in this parliament, supporters of my right hon, friend, appealing to us the abrogate the Australian treaty? It is true that we have it in our power to do so; article VI of the agreement provides as follows:
The Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations a3 are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent, of this act and of the 6aid agreement and may, upon giving six months' notice to the government of the Commonwealth of Australia of his intention so to do, order and direct that the tariff concessions extended to Australia by this act, shall cease and determine, whereupon they shall cease and determine accordingly.
I leave it at that. While it is true that the price of butter in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto dropped about three cents early in January, it is also true that the price of butter is still six cents higher than it was during the same period last year, so hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Robb

tlemen cannot attribute the reduction to the Australian treaty. The price of butter in Canada is on a level with the markets of the world and will continue to remain on that basis, because Canada is a butter exporting nation. We export large quantites of butter and I submit that we are not afraid to do business with any country in the world.


Mr. TOLMIE:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? With the seasons opposite in Australia as compared with Canada, does my hon. friend think it is fair to have grass butter produced south of the equator coming into competition with butter produced in western Canada, in the middle of the winter?


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to get into a controversy with my hon. friend, who is an expert agriculturist, but I am willing to take the judgment of the Dairy Commissioner of Canada, who at one time was Dairy Commissioner of New Zealand. The judgment of that gentleman is that the quality of Canadian butter will be improved in the world's markets if, instead of storing up our butter, we ship it to the markets of the world in good fresh condition. The result of that policy is evident in the fact that during this year Canada won several prizes in the London, England, show competing against the products of New Zealand and Australia. Canada's butter now ranks high in that market, and Canada's butter will be able to compete there.
Now, Sir, I think 1 have detained the House quite long enough. I simply rose to answer some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Oxford. I am not going to quote the trade figures for previous years; every hon. gentleman knows that the trade of Canada has increased by leaps and bounds and that the balance of trade last year was very greatly in our favour. Our increased exports have brought back to par the value of the Canadian dollar, and that is not a disadvantage to the dairying industry of Canada.. No matter what you do in western Canada, the dairymen of the east, from the Detroit river to Halifax, are compelled to buy large quantities of United States corn, and during the period when my right hon. friend was prime minister, if we bought corn in the United States we had to pay 113 cents for one dollar's worth of com, which was an additional expense to the dairymen of eastern Canada. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any arrangement or trade agreement Canada can make which will allow her products to go more easily to the markets of ithe world is not a disadvantage to Canada. I am willing to believe-and I stand here representing just as good a dairy section as the hon. member for [Mr, Robb.l
South Oxford-that my people are not afraid of the Australian and New Zealand butter. You cannot fool them into the belief that because butter comes in from Australia and New Zealand it is going to lower the price in Canada. They know they can meet that-competition in Engand; they are able to meet it and are satisfied to do so.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the
House was impressed with the statements made by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) regarding the effect of the Australian treaty. It was not surprising to learn from those statements that the effects of the treaty upon Canadian farm products were serious, and that Canadian farmers were suffering from its introduction. That was the criticism from the outset; from the time the treaty was brought before parliament until the present day, that has been the forecast regarding its effects. It is only now that complaints are coming in-and I may say that I have received a number of them-as to the effects of the treaty with respect to butter and cheese, which are being felt by the farmers even on the Atlantic coast. One of our great problems is to make farming remunerative and attractive, so as to encourage those who are new on the farms to remain there and induce others to take up the occupation. Does the government for a moment believe that the way to encourage ' our farmers is to bring into operation an arrangement such as the Australian trade treaty? Surely not. Surely on the contrary it is one important means of inducing our farmers to leave their farms, because the difficulties in the way of making a remunerative livelihood must necessarily be increased.
The Minister of Finance has, I must say, made the most modest defence of the treaty that we could reasonably expect him to make. That is to his credit, because it does not require much foresight to see that should the minister be in office for a short period in the future he will have to come to this House and ask for changes in that treaty. My hon. friend gave a history of the steps that had been taken in the last number of years to negotiate a treaty between Canada and Australia. He did not give us, however, certain particulars which would have been of interest to the House. For example, we heard nothing of the preliminary draft treaty with Australia that the minister had drawn up, and which proposed the raising of our general tariff as a preliminary. No hon. member denies the advantage of negotiating trade treaties, but we on this side certainly do

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
abject when the treaty entered into is a faulty one and detrimental to the interests of this country.
There- is one clause in the treaty we are discussing that 1 corn'mend, namely, that which makes provision for abrogation, because in due course-and that at no very distant period-either the clause in question will be invoked, or changes will be made that will place the treaty on a better basis. The Minister of Finance has presented this argument: Either it had to be a treaty with Australia on the present basis or no treaty at all. I do not agree with that contention, and I ask why the minister did not proceed with the negotiation of the original draft under which it would have been possible to do some bargaining in Canada's interest. Why
9 p.m. was that -treaty not proceeded with? Is this not the explanation: that the government felt they would be open to the charge of adopting a policy of high tariff and protection? In view of that they receded from their original position and entered into the present treaty.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should take part in the present debate for the reason, among others, that my province is without representation in the cabinet, to say nothing of two other provinces. I feel it to he my duty, therefore, to say something on the questions of the day in order that my province should not be entirely forgotten. Now, Sir, I propose to speak of one of the great problems of-Canada, one which means much to us, one which is of the greatest importance, one which means the success or failure of the confederation pact. The problem to which I refer has to do with what constituted one of the pillars on which the structure of confederation rested. Had that pillar not been there I do not think confederation would have taken place. I refer, of course, to the question of national transportation. Under the policy then contemplated, we were to do our own trade, and traffic was to pass east and west to and beyond the seas; and may I say here that on the successful accomplishment of this policy the future success of our country will yet depend.
I venture to divide the history of transportation in Canada into three great periods or three great movements. Two of them have taken place and have passed into history; the third is with us to-day. The first great transportation movement, was witnessed at confederation. It consisted in the construction of the Intercolonial railway and of the canals. We know that movement did not progress, did not develop as it should,
but rather it halted. I might pause here for a moment to refer to the exact status of the Intercolonial railway and its relationship to the Canadian National railway, and I do so because the subject was referred to a few days ago by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). Let me briefly state the matter as follows:	An act was passed in
1919 to incorporate the Canadian National Railway Company. That act contains a section, No. 11, which is a permissive clause; it is one of an enabling character. It states that by passage of an order in council the government railways, which include the Intercolonial, may be operated and managed by the Canadian National Railway Company. The Intercolonial is not an integral part of the Canadian National railways. It is placed under and with those railways for the purpose of operation and management, but it could be restored to its original status to-morrow by cancelling the order in council referred to, the remainder of the railway being left to continue to carry on as it is to-day. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) said the other day that it would require an act of parliament to remove the Intercolonial railway from the Canadian National. I submit that the position is as I have stated it. The railway is there by order in council which can be revoked any day. I do not, however, propose to discuss the question whether or not it is advantageous for the Intercolonial railway to be operated with the Canadian National, but I would like to inform the House that when my honoured leader comes into power the eastern division will be extended to Montreal, including the Intercolonial railway.
Now then we come to the second great transportation movement. It was during the ministries of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see that the
question of transportation is relevant to the question now before the House. I think the hon. member should connect his statement about transportation with the amendment which is now before the House.


Murray MacLaren: I am not attempting
to do it. I am speaking on questions arising out of the Speech from the Throne.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is
speaking to the amendment.
Mr. MaeLAREN:	I was not speaking to
the amendment, Does the Speaker rule that I am out of order?

The Address-Mr. MacLaren


Hewitt Bostock: I trust the hon. member
will connect the statement he made as to transportation with the matter before the House.


Murray MacLaren: I may state at the outset that the connection between these matters will be a very slender one.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member will
make the connection he will be fully in order.


Murray MacLaren: 

DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS-INTERNAL TRADE BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
Exports op Canadian Wheat and Total Grain Via United States Atlantic Seaboard Ports by Ports During the Calendar Year 1920 and Crop Years 1920-21 to 1924-25
23	
t- a United States Atlantic " seaboard ports	1920x	1920-2 Iz	1921-22Z	1922-23z	1923-24*	1924-25f	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.	Wheat Bush.	Total Grain Bush.Portland, Me	
Boston, Mass	
New York, N.Y	
Philadelphia, Pa	
Baltimore, Md	
Norfolk, Va	9,668,910 462,292 9,634,433 3,440,055 2,367.886	9,067,333 751,143 13,664,213 3,440,055 2,367,886	13,544,801 831.995 24,177,275 6,097,346 5,514,161	16,362,864 1.262,835 31,250,316 6,113,217 5,967,278	9.239,260 5,068,470 39,681,733 28,117,198 7,737,973	12,550,593 6,151,661 49,860,010 33,216,018 9,961,767	18,388,570 7,949,845 47,756,779 26,104,236 15,600,473	21,456,503 9,326,405 59,990,202 26,390,642 19,752,318	7,713,330 7,161,283 60,786,540 22,984,111 14,988,030 12,545,505	11,369.796 8,633,642 78,609,458 23,863,867 16,274,561 12,883,413	3,161,590 978,398 34,340,/92 15,889,209 5,632,062 353,460	5,067,920 4,111,452 64,378,158 18,626,125 7,954,943 353,460Total	25,591,576	30,190,630	50,165,578	60,956,510	89,844,634	111,740,049	115,799,903	136,916,070	126,178,799	151,634,737	60,355,511	100,492,058
x Calendar, z Crop year ended August 31, 'Crop year period 11 months ended July 31, t Crop year ended July 31. Note.-Total grain includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and buckwheat.
Shipments op United States Wheat and Total Grain Via Canadian Atlantic Seaboard Ports by Ports During the Crop Years 1920-21 to 1924-25
Canadian seaboard ports	1919-20z	1920-21Z	1921-22Z	1922-23z	1923-24*	1924-25t	Montreal	
Quebec	
St. John, N.B	
Total	7,334,349	12,300,778 79,214	12,560,138 40,011 1,785,441	38,241,157 82.092 1,828,791	31,080,635 602,357 228,186	81,507,094 3,243,782 4,822,356	28.229,632 335,858 158,102	52,378,774 351,581 2,582,880	16,239,206	22,680,517 545,305 491,947	50,155,229 1,049,035 3,472,556	82,117,608 1,270,032 5,253,5217,334,349	12,379,992	14,385,590	40,152,040	31,911,178	89,573,232	28,723,592	55,313,235	16,239,206	23,717,769	54,676,820	88,641,161
z Crop year ended August 31, * Crop year period 11 months ended July 31, f Crop year ended July 31.
Note.-The figures showing the shipments of United States grain are taken from elevator returns at the above ports.
The Address-Mr. MacLaren
S3,!

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, in his speech of a few days ago stated that we must be wary of this grain that is sent from the United States through Canada. He said that they may do very dreadful things; that they may get annoyed and cut all this trade off because we say that we will not send our grain through the United States. That is not quite a happy way of stating the case. Surely this country is at liberty to do as much trade over its own railways and through its own ports as possible, and it is proper for it to do so. There is .a difference with a distinction that amounts to a good deal; not that we should not do trade with the United States
or through it, but that we should have regard to business in our own country and do as much business as possible over our own railroads and through our own ports. That should not give rise to resentment on the part of a friendly neighbour. The way to secure the respect of our neighbour, is to show him that we are doing our utmost for our own country.
There is a further table that I wish to place on Hansard, and that is one covering a period of four years showing the total exports overseas through Canada and through the United States. The statement is as follows:
Canadian Exports to overseas countries via the United States for the last four years
Exports to
United Kingdom via United States	
Per cent of total exports to United Kingdom	
Other British Empire via United States	
Per cent of total exports to other British Empire.. ..
Foreign countries via United States	
Per cent of total exports to foreign countries	
Total exports via United States	
Per cent of total exports to overseas countries.. ..
	Years ended	March 31	
1922	1923	1924	1925$102,148,220	$178,966,431	$152,276,836	$173,556,26434.0	47.1	42.1	43.77.490,639	13,983,246	20,815,847	18,350,57315.9	22.9	26.9	23.137,788,555	39,369,092	50,585,707	65,452,73036.9	31.8	28.3	36.9147,427.414	232,318,769	223,678.390	257,359,56732.8	41.1	36.2	39.3
I notice that the percentages are somewhat similar for the last four years, but in 1925, 39.3 per cent or nearly 40 per cent, of all our exports overseas went through United States ports. These are the reasons on which I base my statement that the country's great movement in the construction of railways and in obtaining the enactments has halted.
I come to the third great transportation movement in the history of this country. What is it? It is not governmental. It is not railroad. It is one of the people and the press of this country. The Maritime provinces have felt the transportation question most acutely, but it is now appreciated throughout the whole Dominion. It is receiving the support of the press generally, of boards of trade and other organizations, and of business men all the way from Vancouver to the Atlantic ocean. Not long ago there was read in this House a resolution from the St. John Board of Trade, and in that connection I wish to read an extract from a letter of the commissioner of that organization which accompanied the resolution:
The routing of Canadian traffic over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports is, obviously, a national matter of the most fundamental importance- a matter which must not be considered as other than national. Further, it is a matter concerning which the whole Dominion is now thoroughly aroused. The people and press throughout every section of the country express amazement at the alarming economic menace involved in using Canadian traffic to build up 14011-53
United States railways and seaports, and to provide employment for United States workers which, in the natural course, would have taken the form of Canadian wages for Canadian workers.
The testimony of 23 out of 29 members of this House from the Maritimes is further evidence of the attitude of the people in that part of the country, and I think the status of hon. members on this side has been misrepresented in that regard. These hon. members are strongly impressed with the importance of a proper national transportation policy, one that would carry from coast to coast; but at the same time that is not the only ,piank with the Maritime members who have come to this House. The other policy which they advocate is that of protection, and that combination of protection and proper transportation is largely the reason that the Conservative party has such a large representation from the Maritime provinces in parliament to-day. I do not wish to suggest, because it would not be the case, that our twenty-three members are here, returned by such large majorities, simply because they are Conservatives. We know that is not so. As a matter of fact we know that so great has been the dissatisfaction with the present government in regard to its transportation policy, to say nothing of other shortcomings, that our majorities have been largely augmented by Liberal votes. I would not attempt to read
[Stage Direction]


The Address-Mr. MacLaren
extracts from the public press in this respect; it would be impossible, for the consensus of the press is in favour of what I am now representing to the House. But there is one matter to which I should like to refer, with regard to the Montreal Gazette. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg the other day quoted the Gazette as being unfavourable to Canadian transportation. Let me read a short extract from that newspaper of January 23 of this year:
The government, jolted by the very practical expression of dissatisfaction given by the electors, has made a curious play to appease them by announcing its intention to appoint a royal commission to enquire fully into the claims of the Maritimes, and to recommend such redress as may appear to be practical and appropriate	The grievances of the Maritimes are neither numerous nor beyond the ability of a properly constituted government to remedy, and they would never have arisen with a Charles Tupper or a Leonard Tilley in office. The Maritimes want Canadian trade through Canadian ports, surely not an unreasonable request, and it is small wonder that they grow angry with policies which send (the winter overseas traffic of the Dominion to Portland and New York, instead of to St. John and Halifax. One of the most striking anomalies in the public affairs of this country is the use of the Canadian National railway dn promoting trade through an American port, and one cannot doubt tlrat the sentiment of the Canadian people runs strongly against the perpetuation of this policy. It may cost something in the way of lower rail rates to deflect this traffic, but the offsetting gain in Maritime prosperity and contentment makes the price cheap. Scores of millions of dollars have been spent on the construction of the National Transcontinental railway for the avowed purpose of retaining traffic to Canadian ports, yet not a bushel of grain
passes over the line to St. John or Halifax	
It should not be beyond the capability of parliament to afford relief. A government animated by a truly national policy, mindful of the fact that the interests of the smaller provinces call for not less care than those of the larger, and that what helps one helps all, would not resort to the transparent humbug of a royal commission, but would itself devise and apply remedial measures.
That is the paper which was recently quoted by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg as supporting his view that after all there was not much trouble with the Maritimes and that they could not expect much in the way of transportation of grain. There .are only two other references I desire to make, and I shall read them because they are recent. One appeared in a Toronto newspaper on January 27.
It reads.
Regret that a greater proportion of Canadian products is not shipped out of Nova Scotian or New Brunswick ports was expressed by W. A. Austin, president of the Dominion Bank of Canada, in his address to shareholders at the annual meeting of the bank to-day. Mr. Austin strongly advocated an allCanadian all-winter port route, pointing out that the ports of Halifax and St. John were well equipped to handle grain particularly. He declared the aspirations of the people of the Maritime provinces deserved the sympathetic consideration of the rest of the country.

The last quotation I shall venture to read, another recent one, is taken from the London Free Press:
If there is to be a happy, contented, united, prosperous Dominion, it can only be by every part of Canada being satisfied and prosperous. As long as the Maritime provinces are dn their present mood Canada as a whole cannot progress as it should.
The grievances of the Maritime provinces are real ones, not imaginary, and steps should be taken at once by the new parliament to get at the bottom of the difficulty.
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And what is the proposed remedy?


Murray MacLaren: The remedy lies with
the government.


William Findlay Maclean: In doing what?


Murray MacLaren: I have already referred
to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the construction of our railroads. In respect to that construction there have been legislative enactments declaring that the money was being contributed to encourage trade over Canadian rails and through Canadian seaports. I submit that this government should observe those enactments. Not only that, but as a matter of honour and of good faith those enactments should be observed. I say further to those who may not be deeply impressed with this view, that it is good business to do so, that it will pay the country in a way that the present method of doing business, of sending our export traffic through United States seaports, can never equal in the slightest degree. I am asked by my hon. friend:	What is the remedy? The remedy
is to carry out that policy as expressed in those enactments-to so conduct our trade with the outside world that it shall proceed over Canadian rails and through Canadian seaports. That is the principle underlying the legislation, and that is the hope that was held out to the peqple of this country at the time of confederation. I have pointed out how on two occasions we have halted in carrying out that policy; I believe that on the third occasion something of great moment will happen, because this time it is not the government, it is not the railroads, it is the voice of the people that is urging this policy, and the pressure of public opinion will continue until it is carried out.
Now, iu the Speech from the Throne the government states that to encourage the movement of the trade that I am speaking, of it will instruct the Board of Railway Commissioners to investigate the causes of the diversion of traffic-of grain and other Canadian products-to United States ports-

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
The government states that that is its fixed policy. Surely this means that it is a settled policy, a policy that has been pursued for a considerable period. But this quasi government-if I may so term it-has given no sign of having such a settled policy, at least one has failed to find any evidence of it, and I am therefore inclined to look upon its declaration with a great deal of doubt; in fact I am still skeptical whether the government really appreciates what the country expects of it. Why does the government refer this matter to the railway commission? For the last five years the causes of this diversion of traffic have been discussed time and time again, both in this House and throughout the country; the press has been full of it. This discussion was all about mileage and grades, what are spoken of as "economic reasons" for the diversion. I might add that there are also vested interests to be taken into account. One of the great causes, I believe, for this continued diversion of our traffic to United States ports is that routes become ruts; undoubtedly at the present time our trade flows along the path of least resistance. But supposing the railway commission does carry out the instructions of the government and investigate, what more can it know than what the country already knows? It will of course bring in a finding, and then there will be more discussion as to its accuracy or inaccuracy. But why any further inquiry? Has not this country spent two hundred million dollars and more for the construction of railways to carry our export trade to our own ports? Why is not this done?
Let me say that at this time we look at the question from a different angle-not that the railway commission should inquire into the causes of the diversion, but as to how we can recover our trade at the earliest possible moment and in the best way. That is what the country wants done to-day. While I believe that the reference of this question to the railway commission may be of some use, yet I do not think the result will be conclusive or sufficient. What, then, remains? The government must act. There is no use sheltering behind the railway commission or the Canadian National railways. The government itself has a vital part to play in any such policy as the circumstances demand. This brings me to the question: What is the relationship between the Canadian National Railways and the government? I venture to think there is a great deal of misapprehension on this point. Under the terms of the act the board of the Canadian National Rail-14011-53 j	[DOT]
ways was appointed to operate and manage the system. Paragraph eleven declares:
The Governor in Council may from time to time by order 'in council entrust to the company the managing and operating of any lines of railway-
Now, mark what follows:
-upon such terms and subject to such regulations and conditions as the Governor -in Council may from time to time decide.
What Idoes that mean? One often hears when any criticism is made of the Canadian National Railways that we are interfering with the board of management. That may be so, or it may not. The board is entrusted with the operation and management of the railway, and there is provision in the act for the Governor in Council to instruct the board from time to time. What does Sir Henry Thornton himself say? In his annual report two or three years ago he stated that transportation from the national standpoint rests with the government, that it is not the function of his board to deal with such a question of higher policy. In that statement I fully concur. Sir Henry Thornton, I believe, is absolutely right in his view that he and his directors are operating and managing the Canadian National Railways in order to make the best financial showing. Now, this does not necessarily mean the best financial results for the country generally. In other words, you cannot expect to have the Canadian National Railway system managed and operated as an isolated, distinct, separate organization. It is an integral and intimate part of this whole country, and it has its relationship with every important and vital condition of this country. It must enter into it as a portion of the organism, and therefore there is no use in saying that it must be treated and looked upon purely as a railroad, because it is artificial; it is uneconomic; it is untrue; it belongs to this country, and therefore there must be a marked and intimate relationship between the function and management of the railroad and the interests of the country. The moment a word is said about the president of the Canadian National Railways one is criticized by people who say that it is an attack on Sir Henry Thornton. I am not proposing, at any rate not this evening, to make an attack on Sir Henry Thornton, although there are occasions when he should be criticised. Sir Henry Thornton can qualify for the humanum est erare class the same as the rest of the people of this country, but that is not my point. I think Sir Henry Thornton is correct in his contention, and it is time the government realized it and took action. If the rail-
The Address-Mr. MacLaren

way company proposes, and correctly so, to carry out these instructions to operate and manage the system, it is for the government to carry out that high national transportation policy which must proceed from the government. You cannot expect a railway board to carry that out of itself; the railway board will not for a moment take the risk of incurring a financial loss or the responsibility.
Many of the conditions which show a good economic result for the railways make poor paying business for the country, for reasons which we all know. Our railways are not using our own coal and rails and so on, and our Canadians are not getting the employment. Before proceeding further I think I might make the observation that if the Canadian National Railways, instead of using its very considerable energy jto provide new trade routes for our grain through the United States, would devote that energy to working up a new transportation system which would carry that grain through Canada, it would be better for the country. I understand that it is difficult for a number of senior officers of the Canadian National Railways, men who have spent years with the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk systems, men who have been brought up to the habit of advancing the interests of these railroads in the old way, to transfer their enthusiasm and their energy to national directions. If that be the case, and I think there is reason for the statement, such an attitude, must cease. I believe it would be in the interests of Canada to have a well considered and selected superannuation system for some of these officials, and then Sir Henry Thornton might have around him the stimulus and impetus of men imbued with the idea of protecting our own transportation and our own interests.
Then there is something further, the most important point of all-what can the government do? If a government has what it calls a fixed policy, and if it is set forth in the Speech from the Throne, let it mean something real and substantial. Let it be in the form of an order in council from the government to the Canadian National Railways to the effect that the government policy is Canadian trade over Canadian rails and through Canadian ports; that it proposes to observe the legislative enactments which I quoted briefly this evening, and that the national railways should conform as closely to that policy as it is possible and practicable for them to do. Then we would have something worth while.
I think I should say something, Mr. Speaker, in reference to this royal commission which

has been mentioned to inquire into the problems and grievances of the Maritime provinces. The people of the Maritime provinces have asked for redress. One remembers that last year a delegation of five or six hundred people came from the Maritimes asking for redress. And what does the government give them? It gives them a royal commission. Evidently the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is in the confidence of this government. He would seem to be the spokeman of the government on the Maritime issue, because he is the only one who has spoken on that subject. Incidentally here I would like to express my appreciation of the attitude of other members of various parties who have made sympathetic and proper reference to this matter. But the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says that the whole question of Maritime rights is Tory propaganda. If that be the case why does the government appoint a royal commission? Then, not content with that, the government sends another question, that of transportation, to the railway commission to deal with. There is a doubt cast on the sincerity of this whole business. The question of Maritime rights has been discussed in this House for years. It is well known what Maritime rights are. Why take up time over a matter with which everyone is acquainted? It is a loss of time; it is delay, it is sheltering behind a royal commission. If ever there was a decapitated and eviscerated government it is the one now in power. Why not do something in this matter, instead of pushing it on to a royal commission? I do not think that proposal is going to be well received. I think it is time to act. This is evidently a government of byways and hedges; it will not act; it diverts, postpones and delays matters, allowing them to be dealt with by commissions of various kinds.
But there is something I would like to refer to specifically. In the Speech from the Throne I see the word "immigration" and before taking my seat I propose to say something on that subject. The principle at the back of an immigration policy is to increase our population, either by retaining people or by encouraging others to come to our country and remain here. I believe, and of this I do not think there is any reasonable doubt, that the most efficient means we could take to increase the population of this country would be the establishment of a proper Canadian transportation policy and the application of the protective policy. With proper policies in both these directions the people would have greater inducements to remain here; the
FEBRUARY 8. 102b	S3Y
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
want of immigration would be very much lees felt, and I believe the country then could almost look after itself. But admitting that it is proper to have an immigration policy in the usual sense, these are the points, I think, that we should bear in mind: First, the agents overseas should represent the various portions of the Dominion, and at present they do not. Those desiring to come to Canada cannot obtain the necessary information regarding those sections in which they wish to locate.
I say, therefore, that the agents overseas should represent fairly the different portions of the Dominion. Secondly, the immigration policy should be applied to the different sections of Canada in a fair and reasonable way; and it should be a part of that policy that each portion of the Dominion should receive the benefit in a way that would tend to meet the local needs and conditions. That has not been so in the past, and is not now the case. There are large sections of Canada that have not participated in the benefits and advantages of immigration although they have been entitled to their fair share of such benefits and advantages. Lastly, I would urge that the policy of immigration be so directed that the peopling of the Dominion should proceed from the populated districts onward, and newcomers should not be encouraged to go to remote points. Of course, we know that distant hills are greenest but permitting people to locate in far distant points only causes harship to themselves and results in difficulty to the railways when it becomes necessary to follow them up. The most earnest attention should be given to a policy of this character so that newcomers may be located within a comparatively 6hort distance of their fellows, and while engaged in earning their livelihood may enjoy the advantages of a certain amount of social intercourse, rather than be allowed to locate at far distant points where railway communication has not yet been provided and where they are almost completely isolated.


William Findlay Maclean: I
should like for a moment or two to refer to the questions raised by the preceding speaker. I have been very much impressed by what he said. Undoubtedly the people of the Maritime provinces have a grievance in regard to transportation, but my hon. friend has not specified an immediate cure for that grievance. I have proposed a cure, not only this session but in other sessions, and that is-


Murray MacLaren: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I desire to correct that statement. I have already stated in the plainest language what measures should be adopted.


William Findlay Maclean: The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
be effected an immediate reduction of railway rates could be brought about.
Another way in which consolidation can be made still more effective is by a re-routing of the rivals into one. The engineers and the traffic managers have worked that out in every detail, and the economies that would result are so large that there would be no difficulty in carrying into effect what my hon. friend has advocated. What he wants is lower rates, rates sufficiently low to compel the traffic to go to Maritime province ports. The .way to accomplish that is first of all to carry out the economies I have described. If you do that you can achieve relief immediately. It would not take two years-indeed, it would pot take one year-to carry out such a policy that the Maritime provinces would experience great prosperity and great relief. The ports of Halifax and St. John can handle all the grain traffic we can give them. But why route our grain to American ports? Because we Canadians are such fools that we insist on wasting money, throwing it away at the rate of two hundred millions a year, when probably one-half of that sum wisely expended would build up our own ports. Let us put a stop to that extravagance. If one can read the signs of the times to-day both the two great railway companies are prepared to stop the extravagance of which I have spoken. They are willing to enter into negotiations to cut out the extravagance, and the duplications. At present they are not doing it. A royal commission is not necessary to bring about consolidation and a cutting out of the waste that exists to-day. It can be done by agreement between the managements of the two systems. When that is accomplished you will be able to re-route the traffic, reduce the charges, allow the freight to go by Canadian ports. People say that the buyers of our wheat ought to say by what route the freight shall be carried. I do not accept that. It is for the country which has spent millions and millions in building railroads in Canada to see that they carry out what was intended in the construction of the railway, namely, the development of our own country and ports.
I have every sympathy with the plea the members for the Maritime provinces place before us. Their ideas have been presented to-night in a very moderate and fair way. It is the duty of the government-not of the opposition-to	do something toward the
amelioration of the conditions brought to our attention this evening, and I hope the House will give some time to this discussion, and will permit a much fuller discussion later on.
I desire to express my sympathy with the 
members of the Maritime provinces in the case they present to us, which will be presented in still stronger terms by all the men who have come from the eastern section, not so much as Conservatives, but to vindicate the rights of these provinces as members of the confederation.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: 
James Alexander Robb: What did the lady pay for it?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: She paid
exactly the same price as she would have paid for Canadian'butter. But the question is this: even at an equal price, why should we leave our own Canadian products on the store shelves or in the hands of the farmers -and buy something from Australia, and why should we make that condition possible by giving Australia a .preference in this market?


James Alexander Robb: The lady was not in favour of the made-in-Canada programme.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is rather evident, but that is not a cure for the evil. The cure is to do with that industry as we have done with all other industries-protect it.
We have heard a good deal about eggs, and the question has been much discussed; it came up during the campaign in Prince Edward Island. It is a very serious matter with us, because we are large producers of eggs. In March last year the Egg and Poultry Association of Prince Edward Island passed a resolution asking for an increase in the duty on eggs, to bring it to a level with the duty of the United States against us. The Egg and Poultry Association of Prince Edward Island is an absolutely non-political organization; if it were political it would not exist long. Aside altogether from their political ideas they felt the need of protection for eggs, and passed a resolution asking for it. It may be said by some people who have not looked into the question carefully that the fact that cheap United States eggs slump our prices at certain times of the year is the only difficulty we have to contend with. But that is not so, Mr. Speaker. It is not even the serious difficulty, although it is serious enough to have cheap United States storage eggs come here and smash our own market at a time when our cost of production is high. Another point that ought to be considered is this:	In the spring when our production
is heavy and the people have a large surplus 
of eggs to sell, they have to depend very largely on the dealer who stores them to hold them the following winter. They are the people who, in the time of heavy production, make the price. How do they make that price? They look forward to January, February and March when they can sell storage eggs. Now if there was a protection of eight cents a dozen on their eggs they could afford to pay five cents a dozen more for them for storage purposes. In that way the advantage would apply to prevent the heavy slump on the market at this time of the year and also when the production is heavy and the packing is going on in connection with the egg business.
Some time ago there was a statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in the House as to (possible remedial measures that would be adopted if the existing condition did not soon better itself. I might also say that a banquet was held by the Produce association at the Chateau 'Laurier about the same time, which was attended by the minister. The facts of the Case were weii understood by him; it was known to him that American eggs were being sold at eighteen cents a dozen, and all the dealers at the gathering were very anxious to have a remedy applied. At the banquet in question a song was sung asking the Canadian hen to stop production so that the price might advance. The Minister of Agriculture joined in that song, but so far as I know that is the only remedial measure he has adopted up to the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: There are no complaints now, are there?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Then there
must have been a change in the situation very recentiy. All our farm products are about in the same position. I have simply mentioned a few to illustrate the condition we are in and why, in a general way, the protection of these products would be a benefit to us.
The government tell us that they have attempted to deal with the situation by providing better markets for us. They go to the outside world and make treaties with other countries. They go to South America, to the West Indies, and to Australia; they go as far away as they can go, forgetting to take cars of the home market; and every person who has any conception whatever of the conditions under which our products are marketed will agree that no market in the world is equal to the home market. There never was and there never will be any market as good or as stable as the home market. We have on'B

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
to glance at the conditions to see that. If we can sell our products at our farm gate, or at the nearest village or town; if we have a consuming population in our immediate vicinity, that is the best market in which to sell. That is the market in which we get the best .price at the lowest cost. Any person who has had experience in a foreign market- for example in the West Indies or South America-knows that when you get down there, specially if you have perishable products, you are up against all kinds of condition? which are dangerous. You have the risk of having your perishable products destroyed, to say nothing of the risks of navigation, and the risk of ever getting your money back In many cases you take all these risks, and they must be reckoned with when the price is being paid for your products. 'More than that, in many cases you are up against competition with the whole world. Some years it may be all right to sell in foreign markets;
I am not objecting to them, they are good in themselves. Neither am I objecting to trade treaties if they are the right kind-that is not my point at all. Those markets are very good when the conditions are right; but there is no telling when you are liable to be swamped by the over-production of the world in certain lines and you will not be able to sell in those markets then a.t any price. On the other hand, if we have a home market, with an industrial population that will consume the larger proportion of our products, and if we have reasonable protection, then we are safe.
Now let us deal with the trade treaties. There may have been cases where they have been productive of benefit, but in other cases they have not resulted in any advantage. Take the treaty with France, which was heralded a few years ago as a wonderful achievement by the present government, as the best stroke of business any government in Canada ever did. What was the result of that, treaty? In 1923 we imported $12,000,000 worth of products from France, and in 1924 our importations amounted to eighteen million odd dollars worth. It was a very good stroke of business for France because it increased that country's sales to us by fifty per cent. When we come to look on the other side of the ledger what do we find? In 1923 we sold $14,000,000 worth of goods to France, and in the year following our sales dropped to $10,000.000 worth. Who received the benefit from, that treaty?


An hon. MEMBER:: France.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Of course it was France. As to the Australian treaty,
although it has only been in effect a very short time, it looks as if it would operate in the same way, although we hope for better results from that arrangement. An hon. gentleman asks me what about Italy, but I have not studied the figures in connection with our trade with that country. Now the treaty with France has had this result: Taking the figures as given in the government's own publication, we find that France last year dropped from our fifth to our thirteenth best customer. If this is the result of the trade treaties into which we enter, I hope we shall not negotiate any more of them. I do not at present know enough about the West Indies treaty to discuss it intelligently, but it will be before the House in due course, and I hope it will be shown that we have derived some practical advantage from it and that the benefits to us are not negligible as in the case of other treaties which are already in effect.
I was rather struck with a statement of the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Elliott) to the effect that industry depends upon the prosperity of the farmer. In making that statement I believe my hon. friend was putting the cart before the horse. You must have population to consume your farm products. What is the use of raising farm products if there is no market for them? To
11 p.m. say that industries depend upon the farmers' prosperity is not stating the situation correctly. Farmers depend upon a population to consume the products they raise, and if they do not have that market how can they be prosperous? The exodus from this country is very largely bound up in that particular question. The sons of farmers will not, in all cases, stay on the land. Some of them do not want to be farmers, they want to enter industrial life; and if they do not find in this country the opportunity to do so, then they go to other countries where they can find that opportunity.
That is one of the reasons why our population is not increasing as rapidly as it should. We have down in the Maritime provinces, and particularly in Prince Edwnrd Island, no industries whatever in which our farmers' sons who do not wish to continue farming can engage; consequently they have to go to a foreign land. If there were more industries in Canada, say in Montreal or Toronto, or if we had industries growing up in Halifax, St. John or Sydney as rapidly as they should be growing, our boys would find work there; opportunities would be open to
846	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
them nearer home and they would not be obliged to go to foreign lands. We in Prince Edward Island are hit harder in this respect than the people of other parts of Canada, because with us there is nothing but the land. We would like to see the young men, when they leave the land, remain in Canada. That is another reason why, if it is possible, protection should be given to Canadian industries to the extent of enabling them to build up and provide employment for our own people. Our young people are strong for education; they do well when they go into the professions, but the truth of the matter is that we must have an all-round country which will present opportunities for every person, and until we have such a country we will not progress as we should.
The member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) stated the other day that the parties were not very far apart. That is true or has been true to some extent so far as the carrying out of policies is concerned. But we find in elections that as a rule they are as far apart as the poles. I can remember the days when the Liberal party had all kinds of fiscal policies-tariff for revenue only, unrestricted reciprocity, commercial unions, free trade as it is in England, and various others. They used these at various elections until 1896, and then what happened? The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, and naturally you would suppose that immediately, or as soon as possible, some of these policies would be put into effect. But we find that after the whole of the fourteen years of Liberal administration the general tariff of Canada was higher than it was in 1896. It is interesting to note the manner in which they carried out some of their policies. . A great deal has been said here about the tariff on agricultural implements.
I remember the way they attempted to carry out their policy in that regard. For instance take the question of the binder. In 1896 when Laurier came into power the duty on a binder was 20 per cent, and if a binder valued at $60 was brought across the line from the United States, the farmer in Canada who bought it paid $12 duty. During the first session of the Laurier government they reduced the duty to 17-4 per cent. It was not a very big reduction, but still one would suppose that the farmer would get a $1.50 advantage-2-4 per cent on $60. He was led to believe that the reduction from 20 to 17| per cent would give him at least

that advantage. But immediately after the act was passed lowering the duty, an order in council was passed providing that that binder crossing the line would be valued at $100 instead of $60. You can see the result. Instead of paying $12 duty on the binder as previously, he paid $17.50, and this clause in the Speech from the Throne to-day relating to tariff is designed in such a way that you could do just that kind of thing with it, or anything else you liked, because it does not bind the government to anything.


Mr. BALDWIN:: At what period since confederation was the policy of the Liberal party unrestricted reciprocity?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I do not think I can answer that question, but I believe it was in 1891 or 1892. I can remember the date, but I am not sure at just which election. I think it was the election of 1891.
As the hour is getting late, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, February 9, 1926