1926-02-10

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I beg to lay on the table volume II of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The first shall
be last, and the last first.


James Alexander Robb: I am advised by the Auditor General's office that volume I will not be ready this week, but they hope it will be ready soon.

Report of the Canadian delegates to the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations.- Hon. Mr. Lapointe.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: I beg to move:
That when the House adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Customs Inquiry Committee


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to ask the leader of the government by what rule of procedure of parliament the government was authorized to retain two eminent counsel, Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C. and Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., presumably, as reported by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) this morning to the committee of inquiry into customs matters, for the purpose of representing that committee. The retaining of these counsel preceded the organization meeting of the committee and was done without consultation of the committee. These two eminent counsel have been brought to Ottawa, and when the committee met this morning it was instructed that counsel had been retained for the committee by the government. By what rule of parliamentary procedure is the government authorized on any occasion, and particularly on this occasion, to retain counsel for a committee prior to its organization and without consulting it?
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise:	If the question asked
by my hon. friend and the long argument which accompanied it are perfectly in order, the matter having been already discussed in committee this morning, and one of the rules of the House, if I understand them correctly, providing that any matter under consideration by a committee is not debatable upon the floor of the House, I will give the hon. member an answer. Only one counsel has so far been engaged by the government. On Sunday evening I communicated with both Mr. Geoffrion and Mr. Lafleur to ascertain if either would be available. Mr. Eugene Lafleur was not sure that he would be able to act and he has not been engaged. The services of Mr. Aime Geoffrion were retained, and the government offered to the committee this morning that he would be secured to assist the committee if the committee so desired. One member of the committee- I will leave the House to judge who that hon. member was-objected very strenuously to his engagement as counsel for the committee. The committee agreed however to recognize him as attorney for the Department of Customs and Excise, for the purpose, not of defending the department but Of probing into the administration of the department, correcting any irregularities that may be found and protecting the customs and excise revenue of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have allowed the question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the answer of the Minister of Customs and Excise, because I consider this a matter of public importance and tantamount to a ministerial declaration. But I will remind hon. members that until a committee reports, it is irregular to refer to its proceedings in debate in the House. Paragraph 2*14, page 67 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, states:
For instance, in the session of 1873, Mr. Huntingdon-
Who 'became Postmaster General later on. -was proceeding to refer .to certain papers and letters relative to an important matter under the consideration of a select committee, but the speaker decided in accordance with English precedents that they could not be read in the House.
It is the practice that until a report is made to the House by a. special committee or any other committee, matters discussed before such committee cannot be debated in the House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The question did not appertain to the proceedings before the committee, but to proceedings which took place before the committee was organized.


Ernest Lapointe: That was discussed in committee this morning.


Hewitt Bostock: The query was in order as was also the answer, which I regarded as a ministerial declaration. But surely no one will deny that, in the absence of a report to the House of the special committee, the proceedings of that committee may not be debated here.
Ml1. STEVENS: I gather from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I have not transgressed the rules of the House in putting the question.


Hewitt Bostock: No; as I have said, I regarded both the query and the answer as being perfectly in order. The answer in my opinion wias a ministerial declaration upon a question which was perfectly allowable on the orders of the day.



DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: May I ask the government, for my own information as well as foi the benefit of the House generally, to be good enough to state what departments are being administered 'at present by acting ministers? Some departments, I understand, are under the con-

Departmental Administration

tro! of ministers with seats in ihe Senate; what other departments are at the moment being administered by ministers who are without seats either in the Senate or in this House? I ask this question in order that 1 may know just where to go when I want to transact business in connection witlh the various departments.


Ernest Lapointe: The Post Office department is administered by the Postmaster General, the Hon. Senator Murphy, and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is under the direction of the Hon. Senator Beland, who has been at its head for the last five years. These two are the only departments which at the present time are under the administration of members of the Senate. Does my hon. friend want to know who are the acting ministers in some of the other departments?
, ' EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington): The ug ministers, or gentlemen who are administt <? any of the departments and who are no, members of this House. The minister has to ' us what members of the Senate are admin,., -mg departments. Are there not some depai mts that are being administered by ministers 'm are not members of either this House or , Senate?


Ernest Lapointe: All other departments
are being administered by acting ministers who have seats in this House, with the exception of the Department of Railways.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the only one?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Who is Acting Minister
of External Affairs?


Ernest Lapointe: The Prime Minister is
Minister of External Affairs.


Arthur Meighen: What seat does he represent in this House?


Ernest Lapointe: He will have a seat in
the House shortly.



PRIVILEGE-MR. SUTHERLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I desire to direct the attention of
the House to a misrepresentation in Hansard in the proceedings of yesterday, in relation to a point of order which arose upon which you, Mr. Speaker, gave your ruling. I was charged with having used the words "purchased by legislation," which I denied on that occasion. I rise to-day merely to emphasize 
the denial which I then gave, and Hansard proves that I was right and that you, Sir, were wrong. I think an injustice has been done me in that respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I have carefully read
Hansard and I adhere to the decision I gave yesterday and the point in question. I maintain that the words used by the hon. member were precisely those I mentioned in my ruling, and the hon. member has only to read carefully what he said to find that my ruling was sound.


Donald Sutherland: I
have read and re-read it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: When the House has declared for or against a ruling of the Speaker from which an appeal has been taken, the House must abide by the decision rendered.



LUSITANIA CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. N. DARKE (Regina):: I desire to
ask the government, through the proper minister, whether they have any information to offer the House as to when the Lusitania claims will be settled. I have some inquiries from my constituents in this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall inquire into the matter and
let my hon. friend have the information in due course.



REVISION OF STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: A committee or commission was
appointed several years ago to revise the statutes of Canada. Will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) say whether that committee is still carrying on and when it is expected that the revision will be complete?


Ernest Lapointe: The commission is still at work
and it is my hope that it will conclude its labours during the year 1926.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) received any representations from the dairy interests in the district of West Kootenay complaining of the disadvantages of the Australian Treaty? I have two
FEBRUARY 9. 1926	S-19
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
telegrams to-day protesting against the discrimination, one of which states that this discrimination is materially retarding the dairy interests of the country. The other telegram is to^ the effect that, as a result of the operation of the Australian treaty, butter fat to-day is selling at eight cents per pound less than it would have brought under other conditions.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not received either of
the telegrams referred to by the hon. gentleman. I have had some correspondence running back six weeks or so regarding the treaty, but my attention has not been directed to the messages which the hon. member has just read.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY DIVERSION OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Northwest Toronto):: I would call the attention of the government to an article appearing in a Toronto paper yesterday to the effect that a Mr. W. G. Bruce and Mr. C. A. Maguire of Toronto are appearing at the White House at Washington before President Coolidge to present Canada's case in relation to the diversion of water from the Great Lakes and outlining Canada's position in reference to a bill now before the United States Congress dealing with this matter. Do these gentlemen represent the government of Canada? If not, will the government take the necessary steps to safeguard Canada's interests? Are we being represented by private citizens, before United States senate committees and the United States Congress, over the heads of the British Ambassador at Washington and of the International Joint Commission, on a matter of such vital importance to this country?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: I doubt whether this government could prevent private citizens of Canada from seeking an audience with the President of the United States if he were willing to grant one, but the gentlemen to whom the hon. member has referred in no way represent this government. If they are appearing there this government knows nothing about it. The only intimation I have had in the matter is what my hon. friend has just brought to my attention.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Who does represent the
government?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend wants an answer to that question 14011-54



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
he had better put the question in another form.
Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister lay all
the papers in connection with this matter on the table?


Charles A. Stewart: We
have asked the Washington government to consent to all the papers 'being brought down in Congress and in this House simultaneously.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 8 consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland (South Oxford).
Mr. J. A. MACDONALD (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, last night wdien the House adjourned I was endeavouring to show why little reliance can be placed upon the pledges of Liberal politicians when they are contesting elections. We find that in 1896 when the Liberal party came into power it disregarded many of the pledges on the strength of which it had won the elections. The same thing happened after their return to office in 1921. Now we are face to face with their latest pledges, but what these are worth it is difficult. to estimate. The government is very indefinite in regard to its fiscal policy, and in view of its post election record in 1896 and in 1921 we can only imagine just what course of action will be followed. The Speech from the Throne is so vague and1 so indefinite that it really gives us very little information. Unfortunately this state of affairs makes for instability in the business world of the Dominion, and the condition is likely to become more and more acute while the uncertainty continues. Naturally business people will not invest their money in expanding present industries or establishing new ones while this state of affairs lasts, and it is becoming very detrimental to our national welfare. Only yesterday I was talking with a commercial man representing a house which manufactures a particular line of goods and imports other lines from France and England. If there was any stability in the tariff, indeed if there was any guarantee that even the present protection would be continued, that concern is ready to establish factories here to manufacture those imported lines. That is just a sample of the disadvantages that the country is labouring under, and it is one of the reasons why at the present



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
850	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
time Canada is not enjoying the prosperity which it should enjoy.
No one can have failed to notice the drastic changes in policy enunciated in the Speech from the Throne from the policy set forth by the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill only a few months ago. Those two policies are so widely different that there is scarcely any similarity whatever between them. In face of the changes which the government has shown it is prepared to make in the short period of a few months in respect to vital national questions, it is impossible for business people to have any confidence in the stability of the administration or in the permanency of the tariff, and consequently the whole country is suffering. If a board of directors, elected at the annual meeting of a corporation, turned right about face on the policy they had been entrusted to carry out, immediately the shareholders would bring them sharply to account. Yet this government went to the polls last autumn with certain very definite pledges, and inside three or four months it presents to parliament a Speech from the Throne outlining policies entirely different from the pledges given to the electorate.
May I say a word to our Progressive friends? I have been speaking to some of them casually and I gather that they are very strongly in favour of the group system. I believe that as a rule they are thoroughly honest in their belief that this system is much better than the two-party system. But when we survey the field it is very difficult to see how a group system can work successfully in this country. It might be possible in a small, compact country for a number of groups to function fairly well as a government, but for such a vast area as Canada and with so many diverse viewpoints and so many varying sectional needs, one group here and other groups there will never be able to get together and reconcile their viewpoints so as to secure a majority in the House. What Canada needs is what it has had in the past-two large parties containing representatives from every part of the Dominion. Each party having among its members representatives from the Atlantic to the Pacific can consider the problems facing the country and treat them from a national instead of a merely sectional viewpoint. Only in that way will the great problems confronting this country get proper consideration, and only in that way will each section find its local ..needs attended to in a way consistent with the national welfare. Mr. Crerar recognized that last year after his retirement

from politics, when he pointed out how the Progressive party in parliament had failed in that regard. While I believe, as I say, that our Progressive friends are sincere in their convictions, I am sure they are making a very serious mistake, and I think that ultimately they will realize that these sectional groups cannot be of any real value in our political life. The group idea, especially as we have it here, is sectional, and its views are sectional. That is perfectly natural, in fact it could scarcely be otherwise. One of the reasons why we have heard in this House charges of bids, of auctioning, and so on, is that this group has not come out fairly and squarely at any time and told the House what it proposes to do under present conditions. In 1923 when the general election in Great Britain resulted in a return of a majority against the Conservative government, although the Conservatives were still the largest party in the House, Mr. Asquith, speaking as head of the smallest group, announced that his party would support the Labour party to form a government. That settled the whole difficulty. These gentlemen have never yet stated that they would support either one party or the other in office. I submit that that is not a fair position for them to take, for undoubtedly it adds to the uncertainty of the parliamentary situation, and I think in fairness to the country and in justice to both historic parties they should come out and declare unequivocally just where they stand. That "would at once obviate any charges of bids, purchasing and so forth, which are very detrimental to the dignity and honour of our parliamentary life.
The question of Maritime rights has been dealt with already, and I do not wish to discuss it at any length.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the hon. gentleman state that the Maritime lighters are not a sectional group?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: In answer
to my hon. friend I may say that the Maritime righters, if you call them such, are squarely behind and have announced themselves as squarely behind the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Milton Neil Campbell: I may inform the hon.
gentleman that there is a member on the opposite side of the House elected as a Maritime righter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bring him over.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is a
statement or an opinion of the hon. gentleman which I am not called upon to answer. The
FEBRUARY 9, 1926	Sol
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kings)
point I wish to make is that with such uncertainty prevailing, the country has a right to know where every man and every group /stands in this regard. We have a group of Maritime province representatives who have been more or less organized along that line. I do not intend, however, to dwell on the question, because it has been fairly well dealt with and we will have an opportunity of discussing it later. I should like to put forward this view; the question of Maritime rights has been before the public for a number of years. Last year, during the election, Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King was in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; these matters were brought before him, and they have been brought before parliament and the government on many occasions during the past few years. Now, what are we offered in connection with these rights? What is our position in connection with our claims, as compared with the position of the Progressives with regard to their claims? Suppose that in the Speech from the Throne the Progressive group of to-day were offered a royal commission to deal with their claims, instead of having the promises already made in the Speech from the Throne, what would their answer be? I venture to say that the government would not be a government to-day. that that group would not accept the proposal for a royal commission and would have thrown the government out of power before this. There is hardly a question about that. I do not think the hon. member would deny it.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wish to confirm that; }t is quite correct.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The Address-Mr. Motherwell
eepted, whose pledge is regarded as being as good as his bond; a man who will at all events make an honest, earnest attempt to carry out the policies of his party and' any pledges he may make. We have on the other hand the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, a man with ability, it is true, but a man who to-day has put himself, in the eyes of the country and I believe in the eyes of hon. members to some extent on both sides of the House, into the position of being a short-sighted opportunist who is willing, for the sake of remaining in power for a shorter or longer period, to jeopardize the future of his country for a generation to come. Which of these men are we going to entrust with the leadership of the government? The country to-day is ready to trust the man whom even the Progressives, while not supporting him, say they would rather trust than the man whom, while they say they have no confidence in him at all, they support. They know that in the leader of the opposition they have a man of great ability, a man with a clear, logical mind and a belief in the policies of his party and' in his own professions.
I feel that I have taken up more of the time of the House than a new member should, and I wish to express my appreciation to you, Sir, and to the members generally for the patience with which the House has listened to my remarks.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, the House has been discussing now for a full month this important document, the Speech from the Throne, and the reply thereto, together with a number of other extraneous questions more or less associated with the Speech, and I think the country is beginning to wonder just how many more amendments our hon. friends opposite are going to make to it. Further, I think the opinion of the country is that it is about time we were proceeding with the work of the session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: One question upon *which the opposition and myself are agreed is that we should get down to business. Let us see what kind of business we have been engaged in so far, as a result of the obstructionist tactics of the opposition. We have had four amendments of various kinds put forward by the opposition. Two of them were direct amendments to the Address and the other two were more or less associated with it. Of the latter kind I refer to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when we started out first, an amendment for which we have ever since been grateful to him. The other is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I was going to say in the dead of night when other evils were abroad besides this kind of charge. That amendment has also been satisfactorily disposed of for the present at least. As regards the other two amendments, those made directly to the Address, the one moved by the leader of the opposition was of a somewhat insipid nature, capable of being construed in two or three ways, but it was also disposed of satisfactorily. This amendment was supposed to refer to the tariff. It spoke of employment or unemployment and of several other things, but the construction that could be put on it depended upon where you were speaking. One outstanding characteristic of the two amendments that were made to the Address was that neither of them proposed any change in the Speech from the Throne by way of eliminating anything. Am I to conclude from that that the leader of the opposition was agreeable to the Speech from the Throne provided that his little fiddle-de-dee amendment was added to it? Am I to conclude from the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that he agreed with the Speech from the Throne provided that he could bring in some indefinite statement about some indefinite treaty that he did not mention? That is an extraordinary attitude to take towards a question of this nature.


Donald Sutherland: Does my hon. friend not recognize the recent trade treaties entered into by the government?


William Richard Motherwell: But	my hon.
friend's whole speech, so far as I could gather, was against the Australian treaty, although it is not mentioned in the amendment at all.


Donald Sutherland: The recent trade treaties.


William Richard Motherwell: Am I to conclude
that the speech was to be kept separate and these amendments to be used separately according to the exigencies of the occasion? Let any hon. member or any elector read this amendment alone and I ask:	Would he suppose it to be an attack upon the Australian treaty? Let me read it:
We desire respectfully to express regret that resulting from the policy of and recent trade agreements made by the present government the dairy products industry of Canada is now being subjected to most unfair and

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
unwarrantable competition from other countries, and that the Speech from the Throne gives no indication of any remedial legislation which would remove the discrimination under which this industry suffers.
The plural is used, meaning several treaties. There are only two treaties that I know of that affect the dairy industry, and those are the Australian treaty and the treaty with the West Indies. As the latter has not yet been confirmed by this parliament, I presume it is not the one referred to. By the process of attrition we come to the conclusion that it is the Australian treaty that is referred to, particularly when we take the hon. member's speech into consideration in connection with the amendment.
Mr. ME'IGHEN:	What about the French
treaty?


William Richard Motherwell: I was not aware
that that affected the dairy industry very substantially.
Mr. ME'IGHEN: The hon. member is not aware that it raised the duty against us on condensed milk by fifty per cent?


William Richard Motherwell: The effect has been so infinitesimal that even with the aid of powerful X-rays the dairymen have not been able to discover it yet.
Mr. ME.IGHEN:	It killed the condensed
milk trade with France.
Mr. MOTHERWElLL:	That is too bad.
Coming to the amendment of the hon. member for South Oxford, am I right in assuming that the hon. member is attacking the Australian treaty?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend has asked a question. An order in council was put through, I think, in September, 190.5, extending to New Zealand the same privileges as were extended to Australia. Consequently, the amendment embodies New Zealand, Australia and France. Those are three which I had in mind.


William Richard Motherwell: We will get down to what it means, but how is the man in the country to secure the proper interpretation of it? The remedial legislation spoken of in the last few lines of the amendment must, I presume, be in the nature of either amending or abrogating the treaty. The only way that I know of by which we can effect remedial legislation is to do one or other of these two things. In the Speech from the Throne my hon. friend expects this to appear. The preparation of the Speech from the Throne was begun in anticipation of parliament meeting on the 10th December. That means that the

original drafting was started in November. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) apparently expects this government, to enter seriously into a treaty with a sister dominion and then, after having consummated that treaty, and after it has been two months in operation, to incorporate into the Speech from the Throne an undertaking to abrogate or at least to amend that treaty. Is that what my hon. friend wants?


Donald Sutherland: These objections could not apply to the order ,m council which was passed extending to New Zealand the same privileges that are embodied in the Australian treaty. New Zealand is the country from which we are receiving goods in large quantities as mentioned by me.


William Richard Motherwell: There would have
been no need of an order in council if the .Australian treaty had not been passed. We come back to the one inescapable conclusion, and that is that the Australian treaty was what my hon. friend meant and had in mind.


Donald Sutherland: And the order in
council.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well. Now
are we to be held up indefinitely merely because a certain order in council was passed? It amounts to obstruction and nothing else, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Does the hon. member
.regard six weeks' adjournment as facilitating the business of the House?


William Richard Motherwell: The six weeks are
gradually dwindling and we are only putting in the time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is not a very satisfactory answer.


William Richard Motherwell: It is as appropriate an answer as can be given to the question my hon. friend has asked.


Donald Sutherland: I
rise to a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has stated that the amendment I moved was an obstruction pure and simple. I consider that statement absolutely out of order and I would ask him to withdraw it.


William Richard Motherwell: I take it back. Perhaps I may put it this way, that my hon. friend's purpose was to facilitate the passing of the Speech from the Throne.


Donald Sutherland: There is a point of order before the House..

The Address-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: I take it back. It
must be one thing or the other; if the amendment does not constitute an obstruction it must be intended to facilitate the business of the House. If, however, there is an intermediary category in which I can classify the amendment I am willing to put it there. So far we have repulsed these various attacks-
I designate them attacks although I do not know whether some of them are worthy of that description.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Lest there be
some misapprehension about the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland),
I will cite Bourinot at page 365:
The terms "blocking" or "obstruction" have been ruled not out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Please do not
applaud the rulings of the Speaker. The minister has of course withdrawn the expression, but it is just as well that the House should be clear on the point. The word complained of has been used frequently, and personally I was in some doubt as to its admissibility.
I have looked up Bourinot and, as I have just quoted, he states that in England and in Canada the terms blocking and obstruction are considered not out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
may choose whichever alternative he prefers.


Donald Sutherland: You have taken it back anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: I have taken it
back all right; I am quite agreeable to do anything this afternoon. Now, other things being equal, Canada should promote as far as possible inter-imperial trade not only with the United Kingdom but with sister dominions, and a better way of improving the dairy industry than is suggested in this amendment is, in my opinion, to improve the quality not only of our export butter but of all other butter, and as well to improve the productivity of our dairy cow. After all it is the unit, the cow, that is the largest determining factor in the success of the industry. Bearing in mind these two points, let me now turn to the question raised by my hon. friend from South Oxford in regard to the importation of cheese. I assume that the hon. gentleman had no desire to mislead the House yesterday but certainly he was misinformed on the question. He spoke in large figures about the number of pounds of cheese imported into Canada last year, mentioning some 10,000,000 pounds. He quoted
the weekly letter of the Department of Agriculture in which the assembling of our own cheese and any other cheese we have in Montreal is reported. Usually it deals with Canadian cheese, but some 6,000,000 pounds of cheese were imported by the Kraft people from Great Britain less than a year ago and that product was not entered in the customs returns as New Zealand cheese. It was brought in by the Kraft people from Great Britain to 'be re-exported as process cheese. The Kraft people did not require all this cheese and they sold some of it to the Ingersoll Packing Company in the town of Ingersoll, and some of it apparently, after having paid the duty in the usual way, found itself in the town of my hon. friend. That I presume is the cheese to which he has been referring. I wish to clear this question up and in order to do so I desire to read from a memorandum supplied me this morning by Dr. Ruddick, the Dairy Commissioner. He says:
During March, April and May 1925, the Kraft Mar-Laren Cheese Company, Montreal, found it impossible to secure supplies of mature Canadian cheese for their business of processing. They therefore sent an agent to London, England, who purchased some 80,000 boxes (approximately 6,400,000 pounds) of New Zealand cheese and shipped them to Montreal from London. These cheese appear in the Customs returns as having been imported from the United Kingdom. These cheese were all to be used for making Kraft cheese which was to be re-exported to Europe.
So that my hon. friend did not get his returns from the Customs department, which would indicate the direct shipments from New Zealand. He got his information from a weekly letter supplied by my own department compiling the accumulation of stocks of cheese in the Montreal market-not in the port of Montreal but in the market.


Donald Sutherland: The figures I quoted yesterday were taken from a statement issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce and not from the letter of the Department of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: It says the Department of Agriculture, but if my hon. friend wants to correct it he is at liberty to do so. To proceed:
Kraft and Company have recently sold several hundred boxes of this New Zealand cheese to the Ingersoll Packing Company, Ingersoll Ontario. The Ingersoll Packing Company have a large home trade and as the stocks of Canadian matured cheese is practically exhausted they required these cheese to supply that trade.
It was just an ordinary business transaction to facilitate the processing of cheese, in which there was required some well-matured cheese to bring the product up to its proper

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
standard.	We were sold out of matured
cheese in this country and they obtained New Zealand stocks from London. And when did this occur? Long before the Australian treaty was passed or even discussed in this House. How does it happen therefore that my hon. friend has seen fit to bring up the question here? It had nothing to do with the treaty. How much cheese do you imagine has come in under the treaty? If this importation had come under the treaty by way of Great Britain it would have had to pay the full duty because, in order to get the advantage of the preference we give to New Zealand, the shipment must come direct from that country.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend has asked a question-


William Richard Motherwell: Well, now, I want to get through.


Donald Sutherland: But my hon. friend asked a question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
M'r. MOTHERWELL: The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is going to prance around every time I correct him he will be on has feet continually.


Donald Sutherland: Why ask me a question if you do not want it answered?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: As far as I recall, the hon. gentleman made an excellent speech.
I could hear it, anyway-and that is a big virtue in a speech in this House. I will quote again:
Kraft and Company have not imported any cheese since May, 1925, and the cheese 'being sold in Ingersoll to-day were imported by Kraft and Company nearly a year ago and before the Australian treaty was discussed.


Donald Sutherland: And sold last week.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. minister should not be interrupted without his permission.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend apparently wants to ask me something.


Donald Sutherland: I
assumed that the minister wanted an answer to his question when he asked why four hundred boxes of New Zealand cheese were sold in Ingersoll last week.


William Richard Motherwell: What of it, even if four thousand boxes were imported to Canada, via Great Britain? They would not en-

joy the preference and were imported before the treaty was even discussed in this House.


Donald Sutherland: Will my hen. friend-


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, he
knows I have got him nailed down. Here is a note:
The full duty or three cents a pound has been paid on the New Zealand cheese sold by Kraft and Company to the Ingersoll Packing Company. If it had come into Canada since the treaty went into force, the full duty would have been paid, because shipments must be direct from New Zealand or Australia to come under the terms of the treaty.
What is all this fuss and feathers about, then? But the best is yet to come ,and if my hon friendi cannot stand what I have already given the House I do not know what will happen when I come to the rest of it. Now I am going to take the importations of cheese for the last five years, because everybody knows it does not amount to a snap of the fingers outside of the Kraft cheese, which as intended largely for re-export.
In 1921 the total importations from the Antipodes were 62,213 pounds.
That was under the government supported by my hon. friend at a time When he was not doing any perspiring about this question.
Pounds
1922		 nil
1923		 4,072
1924		 7,925
1925			nil
That was up to October 1, when the treaty became effective. Now, what is of interest to this House is, how much cheese didl come into Canada from either New Zealand or Australia during the four months the treaty has been in force-October, November, December and January. Well just 270 pounds. Is it any wonder that our dairymen are alarmed? Three whole boxes of 90 pounds each have flooded the market of Canada with Australasian cheese! It is no wonder our dairymen are becoming stampeded and nervous about this tremendous flooding of Canada by Antipodean cheese. All yesterday afternoon to within ten minutes to six o'clock this was one of the outstanding features of my hon. friend's statement, and this is the only shipment of cheese that was germane to the question, because it came in after the treaty was put in force-270 pounds, or 3 boxes. I think those boxes must have found their way to Ingersoll. I wonder-oh, no, it cannot be a pui>up job by mv hon. friend on which to base a speech, because 'he knows there were other shipments of course. I do not know where they went to, but they came
FEBRUARY 9, 1926	S59
The Address-Mr. Motherwell
in. I leave it to the House to attach whatever importance they like to the Ingersoll shipment.


Donald Sutherland: What were the total importations of cheese last year?


William Richard Motherwell: From where?


Donald Sutherland: From all countries.
Mr. 'MOTHERWELL: We are not dealing with all countries now. I understood we were dealing with importations from New Zealand and Australia under the treaty. Now I come to butter, which seems to aggravate the soul of my hon. friend even more than the importation of three boxes of cheese. I have the importations from New Zealand and Australia for the last thirty years, dating back to 1896, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to go beyond 1911, when the Liberals were defeated. Of course I can go back to 1896 if the House desires the figures, but it scarcely seems necessary. In 1911 Canada imported from Australasia-that is Australia and New Zealand1-903,000 pounds of butter. I am giving round figures, Mr. Speaker. In 1912- and if I wanted to make a point against my hon. friend I could do so now, because this was immediately his friends came into power -in that year the importations jumped to
9,241,000	pounds. Next year-and this was before the war-it jumped to 6,116,000 pounds. The following year-the first year of the war- it jumped a little bit more. I understand my hon. friend was in the House at that time. 1 used to read the parliamentary reports fairly diligently before I came down here, but I never heard anything about his roaring up and down the side lines complaining about these importations-and when he roars you generally can hear him. How is it that his perspiration exudes so freely when there is only an importation of about 150,000 pounds, and he was as tight as a clam when it was 7,000,000 pounds.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend has asked a very reasonable question:	why I did not perspire. Simply because we had a duty of three cents per pound on the product at that time; there is no duty to-day.


William Richard Motherwell: It came in in spite of duty then. That does not improve matters at all, it only makes them worse. It shows that people who want butter are going to get it whether there is a duty on it or not. Does my hon. friend mean to say that he wants to import butter if he is allowed three cents a pound more for it? Well, that
is a strange desire. We should be able to afford1 him that opportunity. Most people would1 not mind paying three cents a pound more for butter if they really want it. However, let me go on. These importations gradually declined, and I think the lowest was in 1918. In 1921 the total was 1,533,000 pounds; the next year it had risen to 2,565,000 pounds. You see the Liberals are in power and it gets worse! In 1923 it had declined to 1,907,000 pounds; in 1924 it had declined still further, to 1,296,000 pounds; in 1925, up to the time the treaty came into force, we imported 162,000 pounds-about the second lowest up till last October. For the nine months of last-year the total importations of butter were
1,094,000	pounds. During February of this year we imported 834,000 pounds. We have had wires as late as yesterday from Vancouver indicating that there are shipments either not cleared from customs or in transit or in sight somewhere of 834,844 pounds of New Zealand butter, making a total of 1,929,465 pounds. Now we are about half way through the usual butter-shipping season from Australia, which runs as a rule -to about April 1. Consequently the most we can assume we are likely to have will be double this amount, or less than 4,000,000 pounds. That is scarcely more than half of the maximum brought in at the high water mark when my hon. friends were in power.
Mr. MoGIBBON: Does my hon. friend know that Australian butter is laid down in the city of Toronto for forty cents a pound?


William Richard Motherwell: I will come to that question of price presently, but I do not want to break the consecutive nature of my remarks. Therefore we find the total in the fiscal year to be a little less than 2,000,000 pounds. The yearly average for thirty years is 1,125,000 pounds; the yearly average from 1912 to 1915 inclusive was 5,000,000 pounds. The fact that my hon. friends were in power had nothing to do with it. Since 1914 the yearly average was 1,457,000 pounds, and since 1917 the yearly average was 1,186,000 pounds so that there is no appreciable difference in the importation of butter at the present time. It will be a little more by the time the usual importing season is over. What does that naturally indicate? That the people want the butter that we shipped for export last year.


Mr. DAVIS:: In the figures the minister is quoting in connection with the importation from Australia and New Zealand, does he include the amount which is now in bond, or just what has been cleared?

The Address-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I include everything on the face of the earth and on the water, that I can find anywhere. No doubt there is some of it in the cows' udders in Australia that will come across before the end of the season, but I do not include that. I have a telegram dated this morning, signed by the Collector of Customs, addressed to Mr. Farrow, Deputy Minister of Customs, and he gives the figure right up to the last pound-834,844 pounds. Since this was prepared this afternoon some more may have come, but that is as close as we can expect to get, it. I do not think I will be out of order when I say that in my estimation ten times as much harm has been done to the dairying industry of Canada by the propaganda that was started over here last June, and still continues, than any possible harm which could have resulted from this treaty. It is discouraging production and making our people feel that there is a regular avalanche of butter and cheese coming from the antipodes and that we might as well throw up our hands. These propagandists intimate that unless we put up a barrier against importation there is no chance for dairying in Canada, and the man who is wavering and weighing in the balance the question as to what he w'ill do, will quit. A great deal of harm is done by this propaganda, and I do not think it is done with any other purpose in viewT; it is simply propaganda. These statements have gone the rounds and appeared in the press, but they are no worse than about nine-tenths of my hon. friend's speech. Then we have heard the statement about the so-called Pattersen scheme by Dr. Ruddick-and when I first heard it I wondered if there was anything in it-that a bounty was to be given to all butter manufactured in Australia, including that which was exported. If that w'ere done, it would be a matter for every' country that was receiving the butter to look into very carefully. But here is the fact: The so-called "Pattersen" scheme in Australia.
For some years there has been an agitation among the creamery operators in Australia to put in force what was called a stabilization scheme.
Stabilization! That is an old-fashioned idea for jacking it up and keeping it there.
The scheme is a purely voluntary one and is not supported by the government. It depends for its success on every creamery in Australia joining on a voluntary basis.
When w'e were speaking on the main motion I think I mentioned that the Pattersen scheme was not a government scheme, and that it was not in force.
It is not yet in force and there is considerable doubt whether it can be carried out.

That went the whole round in the press and constituted a very important part of the propaganda. I had a letter largely devoted to this from the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan; he was really exercised about it-and he might well be, if it were true. He will ,be more exercised if he takes the trouble to read the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland).


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend will not attribute that statement to me, because I did not mention the Pattersen scheme.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that. I
said that nine-tenths of my hon. friend's speech was worse. I cannot expect my hon. friend to compile in one speech all the misstatements that are to be found. He will reserve some of them for a future occasion. The total manufacture of butter in Canada is 275,000,000 pounds. That is one of the things for which we have a very important home market. It is practically all consumed at home, except the 25,000,000 pounds which is exported. That means that 250,000,000 pounds are consumed at home. Suppose we import from Australia 5,000,000 pounds this year, what proportion does 5,000,000 pounds bear to 275,000,000? About one fifty-fifth. How wall that affect prices? I have a letter from Tom King pointing out the negligible effect that the exporting of our cattle would have on the American market because of the relatively small amount of such exports. Five million pounds of butter is such a very small proportion of 275,000,000 pounds that it cannot affect the price. It is generally expected, when a country has an exportable surplus of any commodity like butter, that the export prices determine the prices of what is used at home. There may be certain departures from that rule due to local conditions, but the principle is sound and we cannot get awTay from it. ,
Now then, a word about prices. It is generally recognized that we have a better price for butter this year than at any period since the conclusion of the war. It is generally recognized1 that butter has dropped about two or two and a half cents during the last two or three months. It is also well known that cheese has dropped more than butter, although we have had only 270 pounds of cheese coming into Canada from Australia since the treaty came into effect. Let me give you the Canadian prices for butter in October and January. The Canadian price was 43 cents a pound in October. The price on January' 22 wras 41 cents, a drop of two cents a pound. During the same period in


The Address-Mr. Motherwell
the United States it dropped from 52 cents to 42 cents, a drop of 10 cents a pound during the period that it dropped only two cents a pound in the city of Montreal. Did the Australian treaty have an adverse effect on the American market also?
Now as regards cheese can the price of cheese in Canada possibly be affected by the importation of 270 pounds, or three boxes, of cheese? The price of cheese in Montreal on the 15th of October was 23-J to 24 cents per pound, and on the 22nd of January, 17 to 17i cents per pound, a difference of about 6 cents a pound. The drop in the price of cheese could mot possibly have had anything to do with the Australian treaty; it was three times as much as the drop in the price of butter during the same period. Those of us who really feel anxious about this question should not associate it with all this propaganda and all this election talk that is mixed up with it. Out in Saskatchewan my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was getting off this drivel too, forgetful of the fact that he did more damage himself in advocating oleomargarine, and not only advocating it, but putting it on the statute book, and far more damage when he and his party defeated reciprocity in 1911, which would have given us the whole United States for a market right at our door. After all these mistaken policies of his, he now weeps whole bucketfuls of tears over an importation of 270 pounds of cheese. I see he is reading a paper. He is very industrious just now, and does not hear me. He is not on the hustings now where he can get away with that kind1 of drivel.


Donald Sutherland: He
is not missing much.


William Richard Motherwell: Did I hear a noise? Does somebody want to ask me a question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How much renovated
butter was sold last year?


William Richard Motherwell: There was no
renovated butter sold. "Art thou a citizen of Canada and knowest thou not these things?''


Mr. TOLMIE:: Does the minister say that no renovated butter is being made in Canada at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: Certainly.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the minister say
that no renovated butter is being sold in Canada at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: None that I know
of. It is unlawful to sell it. If anyone wants to break the law, that is a different matter.
We are having prosecutions for violations of the Dairy Industry Act by the dilution of butter, but there is no renovated butter being made as such. Of course, as long as there is a fine article like butter somebody is always wanting to work moisture or something else into it, but renovated butter is not permitted by law any more than oleomargarine is. I think I have now covered the price question, but if any hon. member wishes to ask me a proper question or thinks I have not dealt with it fully, I shall be glad to take up any other phase of this question.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does the minister not
think that the fact of Australian butter being laid down in Toronto for 40 cents a pound affects the price of butter in Ontario and Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Locally, yes, but
the question involves a much longer answer than that. Under the old order of things there was something that affected the price much more seriously, and that was the disposition to speculate in butter before the treaty was _ in force. With that protection of four cents there, our Canadian people had acquired the habit of buying up stocks of butter in the fall and speculating in it. and as long as that butter was held out of use, it had a more depressing effect on the market than any changes made in the law by the Australian treaty.


Peter McGibbon: Is it not impossible for
domestic butter to get much above 40 cents a pound when you can buy Australian butter for that figure?


William Richard Motherwell: Is my hon. friend
anxious to put up the price of butter beyond the world-market price? The price in Canada to-day is determined by the world-market. Butter is a world-wide commodity; it can be easily transported from one part of the world to another in a very condensed form. It is true that the importation of large quantities of butter into the Vancouver market, say, will temporarily affect the local market, but I say that the abolition of the tendency to speculate, which tendency we have found has been abolished since the treaty came into force, has done the trade more good than any importations have done it harm. After all, it is only during a few months in the winter that we have any Australian and New Zealand butter coming in. Why not rather try to raise the quality and price of our butter during our eight months of exportation instead of trying to hamper inter-imperial trade in that commodity during the four months that a little of it comes in? We have to take 24 cents a

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
pound less for our butter than New Zealand butter brings on the British market. Why not try to improve the quality of our butter to make up that 2| cents difference? That is the place to improve our dairying and at the same time to encourage trade within the empire. I am not one of those who go into hysterics about where we trade, but I do feel, and especially since the war, that the British Empire has lost its pre-eminence in certain commodities in the markets of the world, and the empire's only hope of remaining as preeminent in trade as she is to-day is to develop her trade within the empire to the limit. I think I mentioned that before on another occasion when I was speaking, but it will bear repeating. I heard a gentleman in Regina, a follower of Mr. Baldwin, deliver an address to the Canadian Club-it was not a political speech-that moved me very much. He said that if Great Britain was to maintain her pre-eminence in trade, then trade within the integral parts of the empire must be promoted to the limit. I believe in that, provided, of [DOT] course, it is in our interest to do so in other respects. Other things being equal, promote that trade. Even if there should be some little bit of disadvantage, do you expect to get all the advantages of this treaty without giving something in return? I say we have given the minimum. What about British Columbia? Is my good friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) going to vote for the amendment of my hon. friend from South Oxford? I would be very Sony to see him do so, because I know he will have a lot to settle with his electors if he does. Of course, sometimes we have to do things for party reasons, but I think my good friend veiy wisely voted for the Australian treaty.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Let me correct my hon.
friend. I was not there.


William Richard Motherwell: Then that leaves
my hon. friend free.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: When the government gave to Australia these concessions on their agricultural products, why did they not ask for similar concessions for our products in their market?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we ever expect to ship cheese to Australia; that is worse than sending coals to Newcastle.


Donald Sutherland: Before we get away from Regina-


William Richard Motherwell: I was not there.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend referred to a speech which he 
heard at Regina. Would he give us the resolution passed at the meeting of the Dairymen's Association on February 3, at Regina-


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I am coming
to that. I have here a memorandum which was prepared by the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner. From it I read the following:
The Dairymen's Association of eastern Ontario met in convention in Kingston on January 6 and 7.
Apparently the turmoil had not reached there; there was no one there to fan the blaze.
The Dairymen's Association of western Ontario met in convention at London on January 13 and 14. Both these organizations represent producers. At neither convention was the question of the Australian treaty discussed and no resolutions were passed.
In spite of my hon. friend's representations they did not get the thing going there.
A resolution condemning the treaty was submitted to the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association in convention at Truro, N.S., on the 28th ultimo. It received no support whatever. This association also represents producers.


Donald Sutherland: What date was that?


William Richard Motherwell: The 28th ultimo.


John Wesley Edwards: I beg to tell my hon. friend that the matter was discussed.


William Richard Motherwell: What does my hon. friend say?


John Wesley Edwards: The matter of the Australian treaty was discussed at the Dairymen's convention at Kingston, for I was there.


William Richard Motherwell: I know it was, and it was put on the table or under the table instead of being passed.
The opposition to the treaty seems to be coming from organizations of dealers and creamery operators who have some butter on hand which they think might have sold for more money if the treaty had not been in effect.
Now, that is not my statement. That is the statement of Dr. Ruddick, who has no political proclivities that I know of. He is Dairy Commissioner, and a good one, too.
Now we come to the western provinces, the last place in the world you would expect to find protective tendencies. It all goes to show that after all matters depend on circumstances-on how one feels as to questions of this kind, and who is promoting the representations that are made. I have had correspondence with a number of western dairymen and creamery operators and have indicated my views. Well our dairymen were
S6o

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
scared. They had heard the reverberations of the shoutings of my hon. friend opposite, and they did not know what was going to happen. It seemed likely to them that whole shiploads of dairy products might be brought over and flood our market, but the importation was limited to 270 pounds of cheese so they lost no sleep over the matter out on the prairies. I have, however, a resolution from British Columbia recommending either an amendment of the Australian treaty or its entire abrogation. British Columbia is exactly where you would expect an agitation of this kind to originate. Why? Because it is the flank most exposed to the source from which this butter comes. In other words, the butter arrives there at cheaper rates than those at which it can be delivered in
5 p.m. Ottawa or Montreal; the product is water-hauled and the freight is very cheap. But that sentiment does not by any means represent the views of the major portion of the dairy industry.
On a large question like this there is bound to be a difference of opinion, and I will admit to hon. gentlemen opposite that there is room for such a difference. That is the reason why a proviso was inserted in the treaty setting forth that if the time ever arrived when the treaty were shown to be inimical to the interests of Canada it could be abrogated on six months' notice. I presume that it could even be amended. But the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is impatient. He wants to amend the treaty before it has had a decent trial. Before even any shiploads are coming in my hon. friend wants remedial measures adopted with respect to the legislation on this subject forecast in the Speech from the Throne. What an absurd proposal coming from a mature individual 1 It might be all right if it came from a young girl still in her teens, but it does seem absurd that when Canada enters into a treaty with a sister dominion some people should raise a fuss about it before even we have had a chance to try it out. Talk about changing one's mind! That is a case of doing it by flashlight. Was I wrong, Mr. Speaker, in designating this kind of conduct obstruction? I think that was a mild term to apply to such conduct and that a much stronger expression would be justifiable. That is all I have to say about it.


Donald Sutherland: The minister did not give the resolution passed at the Saskatchewan meeting.


William Richard Motherwell: No, but I have its terms here: it was in opposition to the treaty.
I may say that I have had correspondence with different parties during the last six weeks and my reply to one gentleman-jMr. Joseph Caulder

a very prominent and successful dairyman living in the city of Moose Jaw- was this: I told him that in my estimation it was one of those things that you could not tell' offhand how it would turn out until it had been given a fair trial. I hope very soon we shall have a tariff board. If parliament does not wish to leave this question to the government-and perhaps it would not be wise to do so-we might let the tariff board look into the working of the treaty. We hope that board will perform a useful work and we believe it will. Perhaps this will be one of the first tasks assigned to it. At all events we require to have one clear experience of fall and winter shipments in order to determine where we stand and what the extent of the importations into Canada may be.
I need not speak now of the newsprint industry or the fishing industry. I know these are of immense importance, particularly to the eastern provinces and to British Columbia. I have visited some of the paper mills-and let hon. gentlemen mark this: I am not in favour of building up local markets by forcing an industry-but here is an industry that is developing more strongly than ever before because of the trade treaty with Australia. By reason of this development a larger local population will be created that will in turn eat more butter and other products. That is a legitimate home market which is growing up as a result of our extending our trade relations with sister dominions. The same may be said of the treaty with the West Indies. We have a policy for developing wider and more general trade within the empire. We admit that. One would think that the superheated imperialists and1 patriots opposite would be the very first ones to approve the adoption of such a policy. Apparently, however, they belong to the class that are content with Mp loyalty. My hon. friends are not prepared to trade with other parts of the empire unless it is on a different footing, or on a basis of preference for preference. Imagine putting the proposition up to the old United Kingdom of taxing the foodstuffs, taxing the very bread of the people over there, on behalf of the wheat growers or the dairymen of Canada! Well, every hon. gentleman has his choice as to what constitutes loyalty to the empire to which we belong.
Now, I have dealt with the dairy convention. Surely in regard to a big question such as this, in view of so much propaganda being carried on, people could not be expected to be of

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
one mind. Hon. gentlemen opposite are extremely hard to satisfy. They would propose an amendment even if we entered into negotiations to pave the way to Heaven. I think I have covered the ground fully, but if any hon. gentleman has a real question to ask I will try to meet his wishes before I sit down.
I should like to point out that we have been featuring the things we are giving under this treaty-the price, if you like, that we paid in return for this arrangement. How much do we figure we have received for our money or the equivalent of money if we gave it to anybody? We have much more, widely extended markets for our fish and our newsprint. How many of our farmers are interested1 in selling pulpwood? When I travel through the country I see pulpwood and pulp-wood mills, especially in Quebec and Ontario. Pulpwood mills are also to be found an the Maritime provinces-indeed in all parts of Canada except on the prairies, but they are developing them there also and soon in every province of this Dominion pulpwood mills will be established. Therefore the farmers who are clearing their land are interested in this matter. In the old days of By-town and in the pioneer sketches of Bathurst that we read of in the new book by Senator Haydon, we find that the only revenues those settlers got was out of the ashes which, resulting from the 'burning of the forests in log heaps, was converted into potash. To-day our farmers who are in areas that grow pulpwood have a source of revenue, and almost the only equipment they require to develop it is their strong right arm and a good axe. Of course animals are required to take it out, but with the minimum of expenditure in the way of equipment they can secure revenue from their homesteads. That pulpwood is connected with the question of newsprint, and the latter is benefited by the treaty.
Supposing I were to admit for a moment that the whole thing was a loss to the people of Canada in everything we had and that there was no advantage as regards the abolition of speculation ; supposing I were to admit for the sake of argument that the price of butter to the producer would be adversely affected, for three or four months and affected the other way to the consumer, I ask hon. gentlemen, are we to shut our eyes to the fact that after all as a Canadian unit we must play the game in making treaties? It is Canada as a whole that is making the treaty with Australia, not some part of Canada that does or does not like the treaty. In making a treaty with Australia or New Zealand or the West Indies

the dominating thought in our mind must be what is best for Canada as a whole, what is best for our inter-imperial relations. That seems to me so obvious that it is futile to argue it at length. But admitting again for the sake of argument that there is some doubt about what we should do, surely this is neither the time nor the place to associate this matter with the Speech from the Throne and say that one or the other must go. Are we to sacrifice the Speech from the Throne, 'with its sessional programme and all that it means for the Maritime provinces, the prairie provinces and indeed for all Canada-are we to sacrifice it for this? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the amendment, it is entirely impossible to accept it and at the same time to do justice to the Speech from the Throne.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend invited questions before he sat down. What concessions were received from New Zealand by extending to that country the same treaty that was extended to Australia, and what pressure was brought to bear by New Zealand to secure the advantages Australia had received?


William Richard Motherwell: I will answer that
very shortly. I do not know all the details, but I know that we are all in the one family.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in the hope that I would be able to receive some intelligent information in connection with the introduction of the Australian treaty; but having failed to get what one might reasonably expect to get from the hon. gentleman as Minister of Agriculture, I am going to occupy a few moments in discussing the amendment which is now before the House and in dealing with the situation as we find it.
I happen to be a representative of the farmers' interests in the west, believing in Tory principles and the Tory policy. We have to the left of us a group of farmers who have been sent here to represent the principles and the ideals of the farmers' organization in the west known as the United Farmers of Alberta. About the only difference between them and myself in most matters is in connection with the policies which we consider are best suited for the country in which we reside. Upon that one particular question we have never been able to see eye to eye. They represent a group that supports free trade, while my views are and have been for some time those of a group or class of people who believe that the

The Address-Mr. Davis
true fiscal policy for the Dominion of Canada is to be found in the platform of the Conservative i arty.
I want to refer to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), who is reported on page 263 of Hansard as having said:
But you will never convince a western farmer that protection can help him in any way whatever.
On page 263 the same hon. gentleman is reported to have said, speaking of protection:
I do hope that our farmers will not fall for that sort of doctrine. If they do, the cost of living will go up, the cost of everything will go up. Moreover, once the farmer admits he has got to 'be protected, he has no argument to come back against the manufacturer when the manufacturer seeks high protection, and he will find that he has sold himself for a mess of pottage.
At the East and West Calgary convention held on November 22, 1922, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) is reported by the paper published by the United Farmers of Alberta, of which I am a member, as having said:
He declared that he had been elected on a platform that asked for free food, and that he could not conscientiously support a measure to prohibit the sale and manufacture of an article of food-oleomargarine. The other parties would have been delighted had the farmer representative supported such a measure, which amounted to protection to the dairy industry, and would immediately have said that the farmers were asking for protection in this one industry, while seeking to do away with it in others.
While I admire these gentlemen for being conscientious in their stand and true to the cause they represent, I do not consider their principles or their stand as being in the general interest of the country for which we are here to legislate; nor are their views those of the people of the west. It is true they represent a group and a class, and in that representation we must admire them, but their policy is of such a nature that it cannot meet with my approval.
I am going to take up the time of the House for a few moments in giving a summary of how the people of the western provinces voted during the last election. In the election of October 29 we had three parties running in the west. It is true that some candidates assumed the name of "Liberal-Progressive, or "Farmer and Labour," and others ran under the designation of "Farmer." But the lines were pretty closely defined, and I am going to bring to the attention of the House the votes cast respectively in the four western provinces including the Yukon to show what the people of the western provinces think of the fiscal policy which we should have in Canada. In British Columbia 90,018 votes were cast for the Conservative candidates;
63,374 for the Liberals; and 765 for the Progressives. In the Yukon the Conservatives received 742 and the Liberals 508, while the Progressives got no votes. Now I come to Alberta, which is the most highly organized farmer province in Canada. That organization has been functioning for a period of about fifteen years and it is significant that as compared with a membership which a few years ago totalled some 30,000 there are today in that province in the farmers' organization only 13,000 members. The people are leaving it, believing honestly that the interests Of the farmers of that province can best be served and their purpose better realized if the affairs of the province are taken out of the hands of purely class representation. From that province we have in this House ten Progressive members, representing 50,574 voters; three Conservative members representing a vote of 51,11(1 and we also have three Liberals with 44,277. Many a time I have heard it argued by members of that organization that representation in parliament should be in proportion to population, and if that policy were ever put into force the Progressive representation in this House to-day would be differently constituted.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The actual representation in this House from that province is 9, 4 and 3, not 10, 3 and 3.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Well, 9, 4 and 3. While the Conservative total vote in that province was, as I have pointed out, 51,111 represented by three Conservative candidates, four Liberal representatives with a total vote of 44,277, we have nine Progressive members returned by a total vote of 50,574. In Saskatchewan the Conservatives polled a total vote of 49,821, the Liberals 82,283, and the Progressives 62,411. In Manitoba the Conservatives received 70,331, the Liberals 34,554 and the Progressives 46,057. In other words, the Conservative majority in the four western provinces, including the Yukon, over the Liberal vote, was 37,025, while the Conservative majority over the vote recorded in the interests of the Progressive candidates was 102,214. I draw the attention of the House to these facts to show that the Progressive group to my left does not reflect the desire of the western people as it should: be reflected.
Now, I have heard various things discussed during this debate in reference to some of the candidates who took part in the election, and I am going to read for the information of hon. members, to indicate that there was no doubt as to the attitude of the Conservative candidate in East Calgary, an editorial which

The Address-Mr. Danis

was published by my opponent, the owner of the Calgary Albertan who by the way lost his deposit. The editorial in question appeared on October 28, the day before the election. It reads:
In choosing a member the electors of East Calgary will decide in the main for two principal reasons-'the one has to do with the candidate as a representative and the other has to do with the policy he supports. Mr. Davis, the third candidate, is not a resident of the riding and has not in any way, or at any time associated himself with the riding of the city of Calgary or the rural part of this constituency. Mr. Davis says that he will follow his leader in his anti-western policy which includes the destruction of the Crowsnest pass agreement and extreme increases in the tariff. He will join up with the opponents of the government electorate in the Maritime provinces who are asking support of the policy of the east against the west; he will link up with Ontario high protectionists who call for an average tariff of sixty per cent, and if this is not high enough they will increase it.
In addition, Mr. Davis has an enlarged policy which means declaration of tariff war. If East Calgary wants wider markets and better trade relations with its nearest neighbors; wants to be represented in parliament by a tariff jingo, they know where to find him.
The only comment I have to make on that editorial is that the policy which I advocated in that election was the policy of the Conservative party. We always did and we do believe in protection, though not protection for industry in the narrow sense intended in this editorial. We believe in protection for all of the people of Canada whereby more stable and more beneficial results may accrue to the country as a whole.
In this connection I desire to spend a few minutes in discussing the Australian treaty. We had the pleasure this afternoon of hearing a splendid and "intelligent address'' by the Minister of Agriculture on this subject, which is one of no small importance. I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture and the House that in British Columbia, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and in all the provinces of this Dominion, we have an industry which is associated with the manufacturing of butter and cheese and which has devoted a lifetime to the promotion of dairying in Canada. Through the different associations in Canada request after request has come to the Minister of Agriculture for relief from the disadvantages of the Australian and New Zealand treaties. This is an issue of extreme importance and one that calls for the serious consideration of the House. Last night we were told by one of the ministers that one of the reasons why these treaties should not be opposed was the fact that Australia and New Zealand purchased their lumber in the district adjacent to Vancouver and took it there to manufacture the boxes for the shipment of the product. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is something of more

importance to be taken into consideration than an argument of that nature. Prior to the election to which I have just referred, the dairy interests of Alberta deemed it advisable to publish a statement, part of which I will read:
Australian butter knocks two cents off local cream price. Why Alberta fanner is hit explained by the creamery men. Cannot compete with Australian butter on Montreal and Vancouver markets at present cream prices, says:
Manager Tully of Campbell and Griffin-P. Pallesen's announcement confirms foregoing.
Cream prices paid to farmers of western Canada have been reduced since October 15, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan from 42 cents per pound for special cream to 39 and 37 cents per pound respectively.
Alberta prices were held at the high standard until Saturday morning, when dealers were forced to reduce their prices from 42 to 40 cents per pound for special cream.
These reductions were made imperative because Australian and New Zealand butter can be landed on the English market much cheaper than the Canadian product at this season of the year. Also, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are able to undersell Alberta farmers on the home market.
The following resolution was passed by the farmers of a province which the Minister of Agriculture referred to as a province that would never favour protection-by the dairy interests of Saskatchewan, the home of the minister himself. It is headed:
Expansion of markets and increase in production also effective in causing greater financial returns.
I must admit that last year throughout the Dominion the increased production and the increased price as a whole showed a decided improvement for Canadian dairy interests. But we must realize the fact that there were only two months of last year during which this treaty was operative, and that while there was no detriment to the industry during that time, the general opinion, is that there is great danger of the industry suffering severely this year. At the convention it was stated in part:
Your directors further feel that it is their duty to draw to your attention the impending peril to the dairy interests of western Canada created by the Australian Trade Treaty passed near the close of the last session of the Dominion parliament, and which came into effect on October 1 of last year. This treaty reduces the duty on Australian butter entering Canada to 1 cent per pound, and permits the entry of Australian cheese duty free.
This tariff unfortunately is much lower than the British preferential tariff, and has already created a competition in Canada against Canadian dairy products which is destined to have a disastrous effect upon the dairy industry of Canada.
By virtue of a previous trade agreement with New Zealand, these Australian tariff rates likewise become automatically operative as far as New Zealand in concerned.
The Western Canada Dairy Association is formulating plans to resist the continuance of this trade agreement, and a delegation from this body will wait upon the Dominion government shortly to urge for the repeal
FEBRUARY 9, 1926	S67
The Address-Mr. Davis
of this portion of the treaty referred to. Our company will be represented on the delegation.
Following that I have a quotation from the Dairymen's Association of Ontario, referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, which association some time ago drafted a letter protesting against the Australian treaty, to which letter up to the time of this publication they had received no reply. They not only saw fit to give publicity to their communication with the department, that communication having been ignored, but also to write to several outstanding public men who might bring the matter before parliament.
For the benefit of the House I wish to read1 a letter from one of the largest creamery manufacturers in Alberta. If hon. members knew him as well as I do they would have no doubt whatever as to the correctness of his opinion with respect to the introduction of this treaty.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the
hon. gentleman refer to Mr. Pat Burns?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I have not yet mentioned
the name of anyone, but in reading this letter I am pleased to give the name of P. Bums and Company. They write:
Replying to your letter of November 7, asking for information with regard to the probable effect of the Australian Treaty, if you will secure a copy of the Calgary Herald of October 26, you will find therein an article under the heading, "Australian butter knocked two cents off local creamery price." This article is prepared by us and gives all the facts of the case.
I should like hon. gentlemen to pay attention to this letter, which will enable them to form an opinion as to where we are at in connection with this treaty.
We might state that we protested against the ratification of the Australian treaty before there was any announcement of the impending election, and politics therefore had nothing whatever to do with our statement. The danger of injury to the dairy interests in western Canada resulting from the Australian treaty is real. As you probably know, New Zealand, which is the largest exporter of butter in the world, automatically benefits from the lowering in duty. Both of these countries are in a position to land butter for sale in Vancouver during our winter at a much lower price per pound, consequently they will govern the market, whether or not they land a pound of butter in Canada. They may not import much butter into Canada, but they will govern the price, as Canada will have to meet their quotations to keep their butter out.
The farmer of western Canada who produces the cream will be obliged to assume the burden in the form of lower prices for butter fat. This in a few words is the situation. Just how serious this loss will be only future experience can say.
And yet we are told by the Minister of Agriculture that world prices are regulated by supply and demand. When I quote the words of one who has been following this industry-and no industry has ever received 14011-55J
closer attention at the hands of any organization than has this industry at the hands of P. Bums & Company-I think the House will be inclined to aocept the statements contained in the letter regarding the probable disastrous effects of the Australian treaty upon our dairy industry. May I also state in this connection that of the first shipment of butter that came in from Australia, we find P. Burns & Company one of the largest purchasers. Why? Because he has endeavoured to control the trade of western Canada, and in order to do that he found it necessary to handle the butter shipped in from New Zealand and Australia so that they could obtain the product of these other countries to compete against the trade which he has maintained for a great number of years.


Mr. MILLAR:: Does the hon. gentleman think that it is in the interests of western Canada, or of Canada as a whole, to have the control of the price of butter in the hands of cold storage people, such as Pat Burns?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I do not know whether the cold storage methods have much bearing upon the market values or not, but I do know that the cold storage methods are a great asset to the producers of butter and other farm products, and if it were not for our cold storage system throughout the Dominion many of our products could not be sent to market. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) told us a little while ago that we in the Dominion of Canada produced 275,000,000 pounds of butter per year. I think if the hon. minister looks up the statistics which come from his own department, he will find that he is about 100,000,000 pounds out; that the production of the Dominion of Canada last year was approximately 195,000,000, instead of 275,000,000 as stated by the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: I was including
both dairy and creamery butter.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: How did the minister arrive at the figures?


William Richard Motherwell: The memorandum was prepared by one of my officers.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I can easily understand the department being able to arrive at figures in connection with butter that comes through a factory, but as to the butter produced on the farm and consumed on the farm, it is almost impossible to get the figures.
Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) told us that we had a saving clause in that agreement, and we are all glad we
86S
The Address-Mr. Davis

have it. That saving clause is.the provision for the annulment of the treaty, and that is the only thing that can save us. I suggest to the farmer representatives in this House that irrespective of the occupation in which we engage, we should have not only the dairy interests but every other interest affecting this country at heart. However, the question now before the House is one that deals with dairy and fruit interests in particular.
Reference has been made to the importation of butter, and the statistics have been given in this House. I hold in my hand information to the effect that there has been shipped into the Dominion of Canada since this treaty came into effect 3,727,174 pounds of butter.


Mr. KING (East Kootenay):: What authority?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: The information which I have here, I will go so far as to say, is considerably more authentic than that which the minister says he has received. I have before me a letter addressed to the Central Creameries Limited, dated November 14th, 1925, with regard to a quantity of butter arriving at Vancouver from New Zealand. I need not go into that, however, because the details have already been given in this debate. But let me read the following letter dated January 18, 1926, addressed to myself.
Received your wire reading:
"Wire giving all particulars re shipments of Australian and New Zealand butter since November fourteenth."
Immediately upon receipt of same, I replied as follows :
"January seventh 11,768 fifty-six pound boxes arrived Vancouver distributed as follows: 1,000 boxes for Victoria, 6,000 for eastern Canada and 4,768 for Vancouver Writing," which I beg to confirm.
I further wish to mention that of the 4,768 boxes for Vancouver, there wore 320 boxes consigned to the orient, leaving a total of 4,448 booxes for Vancouver distributors.
This is absolutely correct information and I am sorry to say that there is more butter on the way both for eastern and western Canada, but I do not know how much.
As already stated, this butter arrived on January 7th at Vancouver, and on January 11th the butter-fat prices in Alberta were reduced two cents per pound to the producers, and the butter prices, wholesale and retail, both in Alberta and British Columbia, were reduced three cents per pound. In other words, the Australian treaty will simply reduce the price of butter-fat, not alone in Alberta and British Columbia, but in the whole of the Dominion of Canada from the time of the arrival of the butter from the antipodes, and as long as any of those goods are on our market. Such are the actual conditions.
Any information which I can give you on this or any other subject, I shall be glad to furnish.
Then, following that was a telegram to the effect that 3,000,000 pounds were in transit. Following that telegram is a statement from
Mr. Davis J	- .
Henderson-Stuart, Limited, of Winnipeg, who are, I understand, brokers for New Zealand and Australia butter merchants, which reads as follows:
There are some 3,000,000 pounds New Zealands and Australians arriving at Atlantic and Pacific ports between now and February 6th, and more following. Most dealers in the east, and no doubt in the far west, were buyers, and pending arrival of their purchases, the weakness on spot butters is, not surprisingly somewhat aggravated. Past. Firsts at 40 cents is the nominal outside price on local sales.
In dealing with that question the Minister of Finance last night in his remarks made a statement which to me was a very convincing fact, as to the absolute necessity of maintaining our home market for our home product. When the Minister of Finance made the statement last night that there was a large quantity 'of Canadian butter shipped to England, and when that Canadian butter came in contact with! New Zealand and Australian butter, the unsold portion of the consignment was brought back to this country rather than sold at a sacrifice on the British market. That consignment consisted of 8,000 boxes, approxi mately 448,000 poundte. I do not think we car ask for any better evidence of the necessitj of a home market for home production. When we in Canada find it necessary to recall a large shipment of butter made to a European market, it is a matter of no small significance. What we do say is that so long as the dairy industry of this Dominion can produce sufficient butter for the requirements of the people of this country, this market should be retained for our own producers.
I have devoted a few minutes to the dairy interests, and I want now to take up the Australian treaty as a whole. While the dairy interests in this country are vitally affected by the treaty, we have other interests in this Canada of ours that are going to be affected to an even more serious extent by this treaty.
The first items I find referred to in the treaty are fresh beef, pork, mutton and lamb When you realize that we can scarcely find a market for these products that we raise in this country, and that our trade relations are such that Canada imported of these products last year the tremendous amount of 9,363,093 pounds, I say that instead of reducing our tariff upon these commodities that compete with our own industries, the duty should have been raised to a higher level than before. The duty upon these products was reduced under the treaty from two cents to one-half a cent a pound, and if you apply that reduction to the amount of these products that came into the Dominion during the year ended March 31, 1925, it would mean a loss to the treasury of $140,446.36.


The Address-Mr. Davis
On canned meats, poultry, game, and extracts of meats this government saw fit to reduce the duty from 17i to 15 per cent. Up to the Gist March, 1925, we imported of these products 1,485,876 pounds, and the reduction in duty on that amount would mean a loss to the treasury of this country of $37,146.90.
On lard and lard compounds the duty is reduced by the treaty li cents per pound. That was the former duty; now these products come in free. This reduction of 11 cents per pound in the duty has been made to enable the producers of lard in Australia and New Zealand to compete with this great industry we have here in this Dominion. Last year we imported 6,138,558 pounds, and the reduction in the duty on that amount imported would mean a loss to the treasury of $92,078.37.
On beeswax the duty was formerly 5 per cent; now beeswax comes in free. Last year we imported 149,273 pounds; the reduction in duty on that amount would mean a loss to the treasury of $2,572.
On eggs there was formerly a duty of two cents a dozen; eggs now come in free under the treaty. While I am free to admit that at the present time there may not be any New Zealand or Australian eggs imported into Canada, this concession in the treaty is so great as to induce them to educate their people, just as we have done in this country, to increase their egg production so that they can take advantage of this market which is offered them under the treaty. We imported last year 2,695,047 dozen of eggs, which would mean with the reduction in duty a loss to the treasury of $53,900.94.
On cheese, the government saw fit to remove the duty of two cents a pound altogether; cheese now comes in free. In the year 1925 -I am taking the statistics of the Department of Agriculture, which do not agree with the figures given by the Minister of Agriculture -we imported 4,544,485 pounds of cheese, with the reduction in duty that would mean a loss to the treasury of $90,889.70.
There are several other items which 1 shall not take up, but I want to'deal with canned vegetables.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I hoard the hon. member say that we imported 4,000,000
pounds of cheese. Were those figures obtained from the Customs department?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: No, from the minister's own
department.


William Richard Motherwell: I explained that.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Oh, no. The figures I am
giving were importations for the year ending March 31, 1925.
Mr.- MOTHERWELL:	That was before
the treaty.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Absolutely, but does the
minister mean to tell the House that the government's own statistics are incorrect?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: The figures I have given are the government's own figures.


William Richard Motherwell: They were put
there for an entirely different purpose-as a basis for the collection of duties.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Being government statistics
I take it they are correct.
The duty on canned vegetables was formerly one cent a pound; under the treaty they come in free. Last year we imported 13,608,542 pounds of canned vegetables, which with the reduction in duty would mean a loss to the treasury of $136,085.42.
Now I come to canned fruits. One could scarcely conceive, in view of present conditions in the fruit industry both in the east and the west, that any further encouragement would be given to outside producers to compete in our own market. Of canned fruits we imported last year 15,253,675 pounds, and upon that there was a duty of If cents per pound. Under the treaty the duty is now one-half a cent a pound, which would mean a loss to the treasury of $190,680.94, and at the same time enable the producers of canned fruits in other countries to come into competition with our own producers at home. But the most important thing in connection with fruit is the reductions that have been made in the duty on fruit pulp. Mr. Speaker. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Wednesday, February 10, 1926
The House mot at three o'clock.

List of shareholders in chartered banks; unclaimed balances, et cetera, in chartered banks, under section 114 of the Bank Act, 1923; also list of shareholders :t. Quebec savings banks; unclaimed balances, et cetera, in Quebec savings banks, under sections 58 and 59 of chapter 42, 3-4 George V, 1913.-Hon. Mr. Robb.
Fuel Supply



IMPERIAL PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I want to inquire of the leader of the House whether the government has any information as to the intention of the British Ministry of Pensions or of the Imperial government to take over the administration of imperial pensions in Canada and the United States, which administration has been carried on for some years by the Canadian government for the imperial authorities. Also, whether the government has notice of any claim in regard to maladministration, or overcharge, or excessive payments in connection with these pensions, and, if so, what amount is involved.


Ernest Lapointe: I will make the necessary inquiries. I am unable to answer my hon. friend offhand but I shall give him the information as soon as I obtain it.



OBJECTIONABLE PRINTED MATTER


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I desire to bring to the attention of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), a telegram which I have received1 from the President of the Women's Canadian Club of Fort William with reference to an American magazine which has published certain undesirable literature in relation to the late Queen Alexandra. I shall not mention the name of the magazine in question, as I have no desire to give it a free advertisement; I will communicate the name privately to the minister. The telegram reads:
We are greatly shocked and indignant at articles now appearing on the life of Her Majesty the late Queen Alexandra in magazine dates February 6 and 13. Is there any law against objectionable printed matter that could prevent the sale in Canada of the magazine or is there any department of the government that could investigate and keep out these truly vile articles?
This telegram is signed by Mrs. John Dyke, President of the Women's Canadian Club of Fort William. I know this lady very well and have a high regard for her, and I have no doubt- whatever that the articles are as described. In the circumstances I think the government should do something to stop the circulation of such literature in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: I am obliged to my hon. friend for giving me the name of the magazine. I will 
communicate immediately with the Postmaster General, who has charge of such matters, and will let the hon. member know the result later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may observe that a
good deal of this literature comes in by freight or express and not through the post office.



FUEL SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mfay I ask the government a question in view of a telegram which I have received- from Sydney from the Hon. Senator McCormick? The telegram, which speaks for itself, reads:
On receipt of vour message yesterday I telegraphed McLurg and have just received his night letter reply which reads: Sydney, February 8, 1920, Hon. John McCormick, Senator, Answering your telegram no arrangement has been made with C.N.R. for sale Princess coal. Canadian National offered to accept 15,000 tons of screened Princess coal to apply on the option they gave us to bank 120,000 tons Dominion coal. The directors of the N.S. Steel and Coal Co., decided they were unable to accept offer to bank 15,000 tons Princess which to provide relief would give Princess mine two days' work per week for six or seven weeks for the reason that the loss to the company would be too great. We understood Dr. Johnstone, M.P., was endeavouring secure rail freight rate on Princess coal to Quebec and Montreal which would enable us to sell and ship Princess coal by rail. Signed J. E. McLurg. Surely the Alberta rate for 25,000 tons to Ontario should apply to this small order in our desperate situation.
It appears from this telegram that no relief has so far been afforded the miners of northern Cape Breton-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: -and I wish to ask if the government has made any effort to secure the same rate for the transportation of coal pro rata from points in Nova Scotia to central Canada as now applies to the transportation of coal from Alberta. This appears to be the only way to relieve the present destitution at Sydney Mines.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the House that lengthy questions such as that which the hon. member is now putting to the government should form the subject of a notice. The Speaker invariably allows some latitude in the asking of questions on the orders of the day, but such questions should not be of a complex nature.


Arthur Meighen: As I apprehend the privilege, questions on the orders of the day, while not unlimited, are certainly not so

Questions on Order Paper
limited as to exclude inquiries on the answer to which depends the immediate livelihood of vast masses of people. Surely they are within the rule of urgency. It is true the telegram is rather long, but the question is short and simple. I may point out also, Mr. Speaker, that if the question goes on the order paper it means there will be no answer for six weeks. What is to become of the men in the meantime?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Mines, and as I am very much interested in this matter as representing a Nova Scotia riding, I will call his attention to the question of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt my colleague will see that he gets an answer.


Hewitt Bostock: I would refer the House to the usage as regards the putting of questions on the orders of the day, which will be found in'paragraph 311 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and in Bourinot at pages 364 and 365:
When the orders of the day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the Clerk Assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule, for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government, in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official
nwirds. nr in thp npwsnor\f*T-o [DOT] nr in sloniol	oorfoin
charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the House; or relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest. But these remarks should be brief as they are only tolerated, these being no question before the Chair when they are made, and no discussion should be allowed when a minister has replied to a question nor after a member has made his personal explanation. In asking a question, a member must not attack the conduct of the government. If a member wishes to make personal explanations in reference to remarks which have fallen from another member, the latter ought to be in his place.
Although the matter has already been debated at considerable length in the House, I realize that it is of great importance. However, the question in regard to it should be brief and to the point; and when it is of a complex nature, as this seems to be, notice should be given. At all events, I am quite sure that the members of the government who have listened to the rather involved question put by the hon. member will see that it is answered to-morrow.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) if it is the intention of the government to grant on 15,000 tons of coal from Cape Breton to Montreal the same
pro rata mileage rate as he said he was willing to grant for the transportation of 25,000 tons of coal from Alberta to Ontario?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that the government of Canada does not fix railway rates. The freight rates on the Canadian National Railways are under the control of their board of management. They have the privilege, if they desire, of fixing a rate on the movement from Nova Scotia commensurate with the rate fixed on the other movement, from Alberta to Ontario. I wish to make it very clear that neither the federal government nor any of its ministers had anything to do with the fixing of the rate from Alberta to Ontario.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the hon. gentleman another question? Is it true that he stated in his place a few days ago that he had arranged for 25,000 tons of Alberta coal to be moved to Toronto at the current rate of $7 a ton? Also, will he make a statement with regard to the 15,000 tons of coal from Cape Breton?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I have been very careful in my answers in this House to make it absolutely clear that the government has nothing to do with the fixing of freight rates. The government is willing to use its good offices in an effort to alleviate any distress in our coal-mining districts. Let me say distinctly, as I said before, that the government had nothing whatever to do with the fixing of the rate referred to. The granting of such a rate is the prerogative of the railway company.



QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker,, the matter of questions has been referred to, I would remind the House that we have a rule which makes the debate on the Address continuous. I do not see why that rule should be perpetuated, because the questions that are put on the order paper ought to get immediate attention, although in fact usually it is several weeks before they are dealt with. I would draw the attention of the committee on rules to the desirability of revising the rule in this respect so that questions on the order paper may be answered every day in the ordinary way.


Ernest Lapointe: A committee sat last
year for the purpose of revising the rules of the House.
Proposed Legislation


William Findlay Maclean: What did they
do?


Ernest Lapointe: It is unfortunate that
the report of this committee was not adopted last session, for in that event the extended debate on the Address that is now proceeding would have been curtailed long ago.


REFERENCES TO CANADA IN BRITISH PRESS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted
to call the attention of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization to a Canadian Press cable report of a speech made by the newly appointed Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, Mr. Bruce, in London last night, in which he deprecates attacks made on Canada by some British newspapers, and says:
It peeved one to come home to see malicious articles with reference to Canada, not only in the rags of the Old Country press, but in reputable journals.
Does the minister intend to make any investigation into this matter? And if such reports are appearing in the British press, will he take steps to see that our side of the case is also presented to the British public?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I too read the press despatch this morning to which my hon. friend refers. Up to the present I have not had my attention called to articles of this kind appearing in the British press, but I have been advised that some speeches made in this House on certain occasions have been reproduced in the English papers. I doubt whether we can take any action to prohibit that being done. In fact I doubt whether we would be warranted in attempting to interfere with the British press, which I assume is entitled to say anything it likes respecting the Dominion. Of course we have the liberty to refute such attacks, if we see fit.


PROPOSED LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire of
the acting leader of the government, the Minister of Justice, whether he can give the House any information as to the nature of the legislation promised the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) by the Prime Minister on January 28, with respect to amending the Naturalization Act and the

Criminal Code. This promise was placed on the records of the House by the hon. member. The matter, we have been told, has been decided upon by the government, and it has been intimated that such legislation will be brought down.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will ascertain the
nature of the legislation when it is introduced.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Only the member for Winnipeg North Centre knows.


INQUIRY-MR. McGIBBON
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask through
you if the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is willing to lay on the table a copy of the Prime Minister's letter, which he promised a week or ten days ago?


PENSION ACTS-CONSOLIDATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if it would be possible to have a consolidation of the Pension Act of 1919 and the various amendments passed from year to year since that date? It is an act, Sir, that must be consulted by many persons not trained in the law, and it should be made as simple as possible. At present it is very intricate, even for a lawyer.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to look into the
matter and, if at all- possible, I will try to meet the wishes of my hon. friend.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland (South Oxford).
Alfred (Fred) Davis: Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of the debate last night I was dealing with the reductions made by the Australian treaty in the duties on farm products. The next item with which I wish to deal is honey. The duty on honey was reduced by the treaty from two cents to one cent a pound. We imported 108,809 pounds of honey last year, valued at S19,205. Fruit pulp, not sweetened, which formerly carried a duty of 17 per cent, is now

The Address-Mr. Davis
admitted free. The duty on tallow, which was formerly 17i per cent, was reduced to 10 per cent. On dried apples and evaporated fruits the duty was reduced from 17J to 10 per cent. Taking into consideration the total imports for the one year prior to March 31, 1925, the reductions in duty made by the Australian treaty would mean a loss to the treasury of the Dominion of Canada of no less a sum than $772,826.
Yesterday I referred to certain shipments of butter from Australia and New Zealand. I find that on November 14, 1925, 1,200 packages of butter, amounting to 67,200 pounds arrived from New Zealand and Australia. On January 7, 1926, there were imported 11,768 packages, 56 pounds to the package, or a total of 659,974 pounds. There have arrived within the last few days or are now in transit a further 3,000,000 pounds. In all during a period of three months under this treaty we have imported into Canada from Australia and New Zealand, 3,727,174 pounds of butter, while for the year preceding March 31, 1925, we imported only 198,341 pounds; showing that since the introduction of this treaty there has been an increased importation into the Dominion of Canada in a period of three months as compared with the year previous, of 3,528,833 pounds.
Another very important commodity in which consideration is given to the Australians in this treaty is mutton. I well remember the day, Mr. Speaker, when out in the western provinces it was almost impossible to find a market for our western mutton. I well remember the day when mutton from Australia came into Vancouver ports in shipload lots. Finally measures were taken for the purpose of preventing the shipment of mutton from Australia to Canada, and from that day to this the sheep industry in Canada has improved as time progressed, to such an extent that it is now one of the most important and profitable industries we have in the western provinces. Under the treaty I find the duty on mutton has been reduced from two cents a pound to one-half cent a pound. That is simply opening up the market again for shipments of mutton from Australia, and I fear it will have the effect of producing the conditions we had in days gone by, of practically destroying the sheep industry in the western provinces. I will assume the responsibility of saying that in my opinion, while we have four million sheep in Canada to-day, the introduction of this treaty means a loss to the owners of sheep of at least $2 per head. If, as is stated in the letter which was read to the House yesterday from P. Burns & Company, of Calgary,
referring to the effect the lowering of the duty on butter will have in Canada, it matters not whether any butter comes in from Australia or not, our market will be affected just the same-and that is the general opinion, Mr. Speaker, of those interested in this great and growing butter industry-the reduction in duty on butter alone means a loss to the butter producers of Canada, on their production of 190,000,000 pounds last year, of $3,800,000. The reduction in the duty on cheese, which is also a product of butter fat, will mean a loss to our producers, on their production last year of 175,000,000 pounds, of $3,400,000. I submit, therefore, to this House that there is very great danger of the destruction of one of the most important industries we have in the Dominion of Canada, an industry which both Dominion and provincial governments have spent enormous sums of money to help build up and improve. I congratulate federal governments of the past upon their efforts in that direction; I congratulate our provincial governments for spending the money they have in endeavouring to build up different lines in connection with farming, ranching and the fruit industry of this Dominion; but I regret very, very much that we had introduced during the last session legislation which I fear will retard much of the progress we have made in the past.
I find that after the Australian treaty was adopted in this House, an order in council was passed by this government granting certain concessions to New Zealand. In order to get our products into New Zealand we have to pay upon lard for instance a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, while their lard can be shipped into Canada free of duty. On milk and milk products including butter and cheese, we are compelled to pay a duty of 25 per cent when we ship our products to New Zealand, while their products of a similar nature come in here under a duty of one cent a pound. We pay 3^ cents a pound on fish going to New Zealand, while their fish comes in here under the treaty. On fruit pulp we pay a duty of 3 cents a pound going to New Zealand, while their fruit pulp comes in here free. On meat we pay 20 per cent going to New Zealand, while they are able to ship their meats into Canada under a duty of one-half cent a pound.
I should like to deal with this order in council, because I think it gives us a little information which we had no conception of up to a short time ago. The order in council passed by this government is No. 1757, is dated Government House, Ottawa, September 26, 1925, and reads:
The Address-Mr. Davis

The Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General m Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to order that under the provisions of section 5 of the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925, and subject to the provisions of said act, the rates of duties set out in Schedule 2 of the same act shall be and the same are hereby extended to goods the produce or manufacture of New Zealand when imported into Canada.
Yesterday the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) the following question as reported on page 864 of Hansard:
Mr. Sutherland (South Oxford):	My hon. friend
invited questions before he sat down. What concessions were received from New Zealand by extending to that country the same treaty that was extended to Australia, and what pressure was brought to bear by New Zealand to secure the advantages Australia had received?
The Minister of Agriculture gave this intelligent answer:
Mr. Motherwell:	I will answer that very shortly.
I do not know all the details, but I know that we are all in the one family.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought my hon. friend* knew some of the details.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: According to the order that has been passed in council, we as a Canadian people do not enjoy the same privileges and rights in connection with this treaty as we do in connection with the treaty with Australia. The order in council provides that our markets can be used for the shipment of Australian products for which we receive no consideration whatever. Therefore I say that if we have a government which is willing to open up our markets, under conditions which this order in council provides, for the products of other countries in competition with our own products without receiving any consideration whatever, it is the duty of this parliament to deal with the situation. If any minister to-day is of the opinion that I have made in this House an assertion that is not correct, I will give him a few moments to take an opportunity of correcting it.
Under this treaty the fruit industry of the Dominion of Canada is threatened to a very great extent. While last year we did not import any fruit pulp, so far as I can gather, the duty on fruit pulp was reduced from 17i per cent to nothing. What was the result? I have in my hand a memorandum of the statement made by the Premier of Australia. He said:
Will Send To Canada Trade Representative.
Melbourne, Australia, February 5.-Premier Stanley M. Bruce announced in tlie House of Representatives to-day that efforts were being made by the govern-

ment to arrange with the dried fruits industry and other business interests for the appointment of a trade representative in Canada. The government, he added, was also considering making similar appointments in South Africa and elsewhere.
That in itself is something for us to consider. If the Australian government are of opinion that, under this treaty which they have entered into with us, they can protect the growers of fruit, the manufacturers of fruit pulp, 'by exploiting the markets of the Dominion of Canada at the expense of our own fruit producers, I ask the House to consider this matter and to record its vote in favour of the amendment so as to protect that industry. I find on looking through Hansard of a year ago that the Australian treaty met with some opposition amongst our Progressive friends, but some of them, representing as they did the farming industry, not only voted for the Australian treaty but spoke in favour of it. What is the result? There is not one man sitting at that end of the House to-day who recorded his vote in favour of the Australian treaty.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend has read
very carefully the debates of last session, will he tell us how many Conservatives supported the Australian treaty and asked us to put it through?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I am not familiar with how
many did so, but those Conservatives are here; just as other hon. members are here to answer for the votes which they recorded. Three or four on this side of the House may have supported that treaty, but a government that attempts to justify its position or its actions by referring to what others have done, is not worthy of the confidence of the people. In that little group down at the end of the chamber which last year consisted of some sixty representatives of farming and agriculture, we do not find one who recorded his vote in favour of that treaty. But we do find at the head of that group an hon. gentleman who voiced his opposition to it, who shirked his vote on that occasion; and I adk that hon. gentleman to explain to this House the reason why he did not give the organization which he represents that interest and support which it rightly deserves.
I want to deal for a few moments with the importance of the industry of which I am speaking. I do not wish any hon. member to think my mind runs in the direction of the protection of only one particular industry. I am going to give some figures to indicate the importance of the agricultural industry of the Dominion of Canada. These are the figures


The Address-Mr. Davis
according to government statistics, if they are
to be relied upon:
Invested in	farm lands	 $3,316,061,001
Buildings	 1,382,684,000
Implements	and	machinery	 665,172,000
Live stock	 641,144,000
Animals on	fur	farms	 7,394,000
Last year Canada produced from these different sources no less a sum that $1,453,368,000, made up in round figures as follows:
Field crops	 $995,000,000
Dairy products	 234,000,000
Live stock	 98,000,000
Poultry and eggs	 60,000,000
Fruits and vegetables	 44,000,000
Maple sugar and	syrup	 5,000,000
Tobacco	 4,000,000
Wool	 3,000,000
Clover and grass	seed	 3,000,000
Fur fanning	 2,000,000
Hon. members will realize from these statistics that we have a great number of farmers who are interested in different kinds of farming, each of which requires its own markets for its own products. But we have another class of farmers without any assets whatever, and that is the farmer that farms the farmer. In the organization to which I belong, namely, the United Farmers of Alberta, many of the conventions and meetings of which I have attended, we have a great deal of community singing, and it is usually very effective. I am going to read one of the favourite songs for the benefit of the House, a song which will apply to no occasion more aptly than it does at the present time. It was adopted as an official campaign song by the United Farmers of Alberta at their annual convention in 1920. If any person desires to sing the song it may be rendered according to the instructions given on the sheet containing the ditty. It is worded thus:
Organize
Ye farmers of this mighty land,
Organize, oh, organize;
Its bulwark evermore to stand;
Organize, oh, organize.
For with the flag of right unfurled,
In spite of darts against you hurled,
You still must feed this hungry world- Organize, oh, organize.
If you would come into your own,
Organize, oh, organize,
Or be forever overthrown;
Organize, oh, organize.
Yes, everywhere throughout this land,
The tillers of the soil must stand And be a firm, united band;
Organize, oh, organize.
Firmly to stand against each wrong,
Organize, oh, organize.
Your only hope is union strong;
Organize, oh, organize.
To break the bonds of slavery That bind you now from sea to sea,
And from oppression to be free,
Organize, oh, organize.
Your calling was the first of earth;
Organize, oh, organize;
And ever since has proved its worth;
Organize, oh, organize.	#
Then come, ye farmers, good and true,
With good of all the world in view,
The die is cast, it's up to you;
Organize, oh, organize.
-Tune of Maryland, My Maryland.
I submit that never in our history was there greater necessity to organize than there is in the case of the present treaty, which militates so much against our interests. In such an emergency as the one which now confronts us, parliament should be united in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and seconded by myself.
I want to deal for a few moments with certain conditions in the west under which the people there have sustained very severe losses owing to the want of a proper tariff policy. Before doing so, however, may I direct attention to the speech of the hon. tnember for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), as reported at page 318 of Hansard, wherein he made the following statements:
We have been told in the Speech fro-m the Throne that we must see to it and eliminate the element of uncertainty in the administration of public affaire. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite if the Liberal party in carrying on the government of this country have ever eliminated any element of uncertainty or anything else that would interfere with their own political manipulations? Was Mr. King eliminating the element of uncertainty when he went to his constituency of New York-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: North York.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: North York. We see so much of the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada in the United States that the error is pardonable, but I apologize for it.


John Warwick King: I take exception to that statement. It has been used all through this country, and it is not fair.


Arthur Meighen: Order.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I quote:
Was Mr. King eliminating the element of uncertainty when he went to his constituency of New York-
Again I should have said North York.
-and there met the president of the Liberal Association who was up in arms because of the tariff policy followed by Mr. King and his ministers? This gentleman, the president of the Liberal Association in North York, happened to be a pencil manufacturer. His business was practically closed up because of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in allowing Canada to become the dumping ground for all other countries in the world and to be flooded with the products of those countries-paid for in wages of debased currency -thus driving our own people out of employment. And, Sir, what did Mr. King do when he was confronted with such a situation in his own constituency? Hon. gentlemen well know he took such action as
The Address-Mr. Davis

wrought relief to his stricken friend the president of ohe Liberal Association. An order was accordingly issued and it went to every customs office in this Dominion^ and every dealer in pencils was prohibited from removing a pencil from any one of these customs offices until the duty on those pencils should be raised from $1.50 to $3 per gross.
In this connection I should like to say that if the same policy were enforced in the interests of the people and the manufacturers of Canada as a whole, this country would be more prosperous than it is at present. Industry generally in - this country would be flourishing, there would be no unemployment, and prosperity would prevail throughout the Dominion.
Hon. gentlemen will remember that when the Fordney tariff was brought into effect in the United States the government of that country saw fit to protect the markets there for the farming and ranching industry- by adopting a form of protection with respect to cattle shipped from Canada, and legislation was enacted under which every head of cattle exported to the United States from Canada was made subject to a duty of $2 per hundred pounds if the weight exceeded
1,000	pounds, and $1.50 per hundred pounds if the weight was that amount or less. Since there were in the Dominion 10,206,205 head of cattle, the value of that stock was reduced by approximately $10 per head the day after that legislation went into effect. In other words, by one stroke of the pen a loss of $100,000,000 was occasioned to the ranchers and farmers of Canada. To such an extent has our cattle industry in the west been injured that the organizations identified with it pressed upon the government the necessity of doing something to overcome this injurious legislation.
I have always taken the stand, and I still maintain, that if at that time we had had a government with sufficient confidence in itself to say to the United States, "If you put a duty on Canadian cattle we will place a duty on wheat going into the United States,'' that legislation would not have gone into effect. It is doubtful whether a duty on wheat going into the United States is beneficial or detrimental. Last year we exported through United States channels no less than 140,079,378 bushels of wheat, and through Canadian ports-Halifax, Quebec, St. John and Vancouver-126,790,482 bushels. I want to draw your attention to one very significant fact in connection with the shipment of wheat from the western provinces. Hon. members are all familiar with what is commonly known as dockage. In 1923 the farmers of the prairie provinces paid freight to the extent of $1,170,934.40 on foreign weed seed to Fort William, Port Arthur and Vancouver. In other words, we

paid freight upon upwards of 6,845 carloads of what is better known as screenings. I was always of the opinion, and I still hold the view, that sometimes we give a little too much consideration to the construction of elevators. From a national point of view, I believe that if we gave more attention to the building of flour mills than we do to the erection of elevators, we would be doing a great deal more for our country. Elevators employ very few hands, but flour mills employ men in great numbers. If the day should ever come when we could export the flour instead of the wheat, retaining the offal from the production of that wheat for the purpose of building up our cattle and live stock industry and thus putting back into the soil the equivalent of what we are taking out of it, I claim that the result would be very beneficial to Canada. I leave that suggestion to the careful consideration of the House and ask that in the future we give a little more consideration to development in that way rather than by the present method.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred (Fred) Davis: Yes.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Is the hon. member aware that Canadian lead pencils could not be obtained through wholesale jobbers in Canada until the recent government came into power? That has been my experience. They were not advertised by the big jobbing houses in Toronto.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I could not catch the question.


Willis Keith Baldwin: The hon. member mentioned lead pencils a little while ago.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I do not know what the question was, but I have an idea what my hon. friend would ask. If there is one large industry, it is the lead pencil industry. The production of lead pencils involves the taking away of a valuable asset we have in the soil, namely, graphite. The United States Dixon pencil industry gives employment to a large number of men. That is one reason why I say that if there is any hope for
4 p.m. the salvation in the building up of this industry for which concessions have been given by this government to the president of the Liberal Association of North York, it is the proper thing to do. But I object to one individual, because he holds a high and honourable position in the ranks of a certain organization, receiving consideration or redress from the government which other people in similar lines of business cannot receive.

The Address-Mr. Davis
I desire to draw the attention of the House to certain legislation that has been on the statute book for some time, and in this connection I wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Ro^etown (Mr. Evans). The hon. member made a statement in this House some days ago which I regretted very much to hear him make. Cn page 488 of Hansard he is reported ns having said, speaking of protection for the manufacturers of Canada:
I say (that the whole business of protection is robbery, legalized robbery; that you subsidize the manufacturers and that the manufacturers in return subsidize you.
As a brother representative from the western country, following the same pursuits in life as he does, on behalf of the people of the west and on my own behalf I must take exception to any statement of that kind.


Mr. EVANS:: Let me inform the hon.
member that that was a quotation rather than a statement of my own.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: It appears in Hansard as a
statement. While I am free to admit that the industry which we follow has received a great deal of consideration, not only from the Dominion government but from the provincial government-for which we are truly thankful -it ill becomes him, or any other representative of that industry, to use the phrase that he did. There is no industry in my opinion in the Dominion of Canada that has been subsidized at the expense of the public to the extent that the industry that he and I follow, namely, farming and ranching. I refer the hon. member to page 73 of Sessional Paper No. 16. 1923, in which he will find the following:
This policy provides for payment by the Live Stock branch of reasonable travelling expenses of fanners residing in Canada who purchase stock at general stock yards for return to country points. In eastern Canada the assistance rendered is confined to purchases of female breeding stock, cattle, sheep or hogs. In western Canada the policy covers stooker and feeder cattle in addition to breeding stock. Purchasers are required to fulfil certain requirements of the department in connection with their shipments and to give satisfactory assurance that none of the stock is being purchased for speculative purposes.
This policy has proved a very valuable educational agency in that its terms have encouraged farmers from all over the country to visit the stock yards and to became acquainted with methods of doing business at these points, and has unquestionably played a very important part in encouraging a return of unfinished cattle and sheep .to country points for funther feeding and also in the return of young female breeding stock, particularly from yards in western Canada.
The policy has been in effect on the stock yards of western Canada since the fall of 1916. On the yards at Toronto and Montreal it has been effective only since May 1, 1918. The following is a statement of the shipments made under its terms.
We find that under the terms of that legislation, which was enacted for the purpose of subsidizing the farmer to enable him to feed his stock and prepare it for market, there was spent in Canada no less a sum than $63,64620. There were 106,077 head of cattle, and the freight in connection with these, added to travelling expenses incurred by the purchasers, together with the keep of the farmers while at the stock yards, amounted to the sum T have just stated. And in the purchasing of sheep, there were distributed under the act and various regulations 126,795 animals in connection with which the government of Canada spent no less than $21,553.45. Under this act alone this government has paid out in the subsidizing of the live stock industry, in the way of travelling expenses and freight on sheep and cattle, some $85,000 odd. This is only one of several subsidies which this government has given to the farmers and for that reason I take exception to the remarks of this or any other gentleman who will quarrel with a government for subsidizing other industries when these subsidies apply to his own. There is another angle to this question, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in the House now that I am discussing it. The act provides for certain concessions for the building up of the live stock industry in this country and it has been in force for a good many years, but it has recently been repealed, and some day I shall have the pleasure of ascertaining why this was done. I can truthfully say, however, that the benefits of the act have been exploited by others. It has been common talk in the west for some years past that certain people have been going to the stock yards of western Canada and purchasing live stock under these regulations, having their expenses met and the freight paid upon cattle shipped to towns adjacent to the United States, unloading the animals at these places and driving them on * the hoof over the line. If the Minister of Agriculture has not been apprised of this fact I take this opportunity of informing him of it. It seems to me that it would be in the interests of the industry for the minister to make further inquiries in this matter with a view to finding out why the benefits of the act have been exploited by others.
It was my intention to say something about the coal situation, but as I hope that this matter will come up in the future I shall make no extended reference to it at this time. I desire, however, to call to the attention of the House the name of one man who has been very prominent before the public for some time past and who of late has evi-
The Address-Mr. Davis

dently become a protectionist. That gentleman in the last few days has been taking part in the by-election at Prince Albert; I refer to the Hon. Mr. Dunning of Saskatchewan. I should like to read what he had to say in regard to the development of the coal industry in the west. In his evidence before the Grain Inquiry Commission at Regina on August 6, 1923, the Hon. C. A. Dunning, Premier of Saskatchewan, declared for protection of the Canadian coal industry. He said he would have the government put up the protective tariff on United States coal so as to make competition of Alberta coal with American coal, at present freight rates, possible. He said:
This is the first opportunity to make the people of the east suffer for what they have given the west for the last forty years, and I think we should give them a dose of their own medicine now that they want our coal.
The Hon. Mr. Dunning said that, and the only comment I have to make upon the statement is that such is not the attitude of the western people. We have coal there in abundance and there is a field open in central Canada for that coal, and when the time comes for the movement of that product all we shall ask is that instead of the people of this part of the country sending their money to the United States and having it circulate there, building up that country, they purchase Alberta coal and thus help to develop what will prove to be one of our greatest industries. Certainly, however, the sentiment contained in the words of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, which I have just quoted, is not the sentiment of the people of the west, for the prosperity of this Dominion must depend upon the development both of the east and of the west in order to afford employment to as large a number of men as [DOT] possible.
I come now to the question of immigration. Some things have already been said in this connection and the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) has, I think, reflected the feeling that prevails among the majority of the people of the west. The Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) has told us that it is his intention to co-operate with our provincial governments with a view to promoting immigration in western Canada. Let me tell the minister that the Alberta government is a farmers' administration and is antagonistic to immigration under present conditions. For the information of the House I may read what the Hon. Herbert Greenfield, Premier of Alberta, said a short time ago on this subject:
[Mr. Davis-3
There should be no encouragement of wholesale immigration into Alberta from anywhere, until economic conditions in the province and in the west have been adjusted in respect to freight rates, marketing and natural resources, so that there will be a reasonable prospect of prosperity for the immigrants.
Perhaps I might indicate some of the reasons for the strong opposition of the west to a policy of immigration at the present time. A large number of people in the west purchased lands on the strength of the assurance that railway transportation would be afforded them. They have lived upon these lands for ten or fifteen years and so far that promised accommodation has not been realized. Others have purchased lands from the Natural Resources Department of the Canadian Pacific Railway on long-term payments, and after developing and improving their land and making payments for upwards of ten or fifteen years, they find that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has greatly reduced the price of similar lands, thus practically destroying their investment. This has caused great dissatisfaction. Some three years ago a movement was on foot by some of our members of the United Farmers of Alberta to encourage farmers of that province to sacrifice their interests there and move to Bolivia, which country, it was reported, offered great opportunities for the Alberta farmer. During a convention in 1923 they adopted a resolution requesting the Dominion government to expend1 the moneys proposed for immigration purposes to maintain the western farmers then in distress.
Public prejudice prevails over our banking system, the lack of financial accommodation for the western farmer and rancher, and the common practice of increasing the rate of interest payable by a farmer or rancher who is falling behind in his payments, thus making it still more difficult for him to meet these obligations. General dissatisfaction has always prevailed on the question of protection, the western farmer having had his education on the principle of free trade. These are some of the reasons given for the general opposition to immigration.
At the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta held a couple of weeks ago, Mr. H. W. Wood, the president of that organization, in the Calgary Herald, Jan. 20th, is reported to have said:
We are inviting immigrants to come here, and at the present time conditions for that purpose are better than they have been for some time. It will mean that the people will have to pay from five to ten cents on every bushel of what they raise. If they do they would be of such mental calibre that we would not want them We must fight this infernal thing to death-
.879

The Address-Mr. Cantley
He said this with stronger emphasis than he had employed on any previous occasion at the convention:
-and if we cannot do it in any other way we must appeal to the immigrants of other countries and say, "For God's sake don't come here."
I mention these circumstances so that the government may have full knowledge of the feeling prevailing in the western provinces with respect to any immigration policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I beg to call attention to some remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) which will be found at page 4S9 of Hansard. He said:
I will make make this further statement, Mr. Speaker, that the advocates of protection in Canada do not believe in their own policy.
I also wish to quote this statement which Mr. H. W. Wood is reported to have made during the last election:
We might just as well forget about protection. We have it, and will have it for two hundred years hence.
I agree with Mr. Wood. I am here as a representative of the principles and policies contained in the platform of the Conservative party. We believe that in them are to be found the only solution for many of the difficulties that now confront the Dominion. We are here 116 strong, loyal to our right hon. leader, and it is the determination of every one of us in this quarter of the House, if the opportunity ever presents itself, to put into effect the policies presented to the people of Canada during the last campaign by the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, may I explain that my presence here is due primarily to the personality and the persuasive powers of my respected chief, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). Whether I can be of any real service to the country at large, to my constituency and to my province, is as yet a matter of some doubt. But peradventure I may be able to offer a few constructive and practical suggestions to meet what I consider to be some of the vital needs of this Dominion.
May I in passing refer to a remark made a few days ago by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), when he spoke of the Conservative representatives from Nova Scotia as "a group of Maritime righters." We eleven blue-nose Conservatives are each and all champions of Maritime rights; but every one of us was elected as a supporter of the declared policy of our leader, and to him we confidently look to vindicate those rights and remedy some of the wrongs of which we complain, and which he has publicly acknowledged as existing. He has exhibited a sympathetic interest
in our situation, in our disappointment, in our aims and in our ambitions. This is in striking contrast with the attitude of the right hon. leader of my friends opposite, Mr. Mackenzie King, who, when in the Maritime provinces during the recent election campaign, said thal it was useless for us to expect to do any business with our sister provinces, that we must on the contrary look overseas for any satisfactory trade. In effect, he told us that confederation for us has been a failure. Well, Sir, it may be so; I hope it is not. But I ask:	If we cannot trade with the sister provinces, how long do our friends opposite expect the Maritimes to remain partners in this Dominion?
The union of Nova Scotia with the other provinces on July 1, 1867, was a marriage of convenience-not a love match. The then guardian of the fair daughter of bid Scotia, the Colonial office, for imperial and strategic reasons, urged the union. The marriage settlement was written by the family solicitor in Downing street, and is entitled the British North America Act. The provisions of that act, as expounded and interpreted to the people of the Maritime provinces prior to the union, have not been implemented, nor have the promised advantages been in any degree realized during any part of the intervening period since 1867. In short, this marriage has proved no more successful than most marriages of its class.
May I refer to some of the facilities available to the Maritimes in regard to overseas business which the leader of the late government advised us to cultivate. The Riverside Manufacturing Company of New Glasgow, ot which my friend John Underwood is general manager, has for years exported a fair quantity of hand cultivators and other agricultural implements of that class. They have found it necessary to ship those goods to Liverpool. You .may ask me: Why to Liverpool? Because at Liverpool practically every week in the year steamships are leaving for all the known markets of the world. Some of my friend's goods go to the west coast of Africa, some to South America and some to the West Indies and to reach these points he finds it necessary and desirable to make shipment through the port of Liverpool. I ask hon. members to mark the assistance given to this company by the Canadian National Railways as operated at the present time in Nova Scotia. In 1924 the through rate from New Glasgow to Liverpool was 60 cents per 100 pounds, or S12 per net ton. The distance from New Glasgow to Halifax is 106 miles, and for that distance the railway exacts a rate of 32 cents per 100 pounds. For the distance of 2,585

The Address-Mr. Cantley



The Address-Mr. Cantley
is fair to protect Ontario and western Quebec on the basis of the same rate for 1,000 miles territory, the same rate should surely apply in the territory between Montreal and Sydney, comprising 956 miles, thus giving Sydney and other Maritime province points a rate of 841 cents per 100 pounds on fifth class goods to Port Arthur, as against the present rate of $1.01, and other classes in proportion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: When were those rates
put into effect?


Thomas Cantley: Which rates?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The rates the hon. member is discussing.


Thomas Cantley: At various times. The
last was in 1924.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Were there not others
in 1919 and 1920?


Thomas Cantley: There may have been.
I am not referring to them, but to the rates in effect to-day.
On the same basis the same arbitraries should apply over Montreal to all points in the Maritime provinces. If distance is eliminated from Ontario to Port Arthur and the west, as it is under Schedule "A," why should not the Maritime provinces be treated similarly in the interchange of business between the Maritime provinces and industrial Ontario and western Quebec? The fact of the matter is that these commodities are carried over a whole zone of one thousand miles at one level rate, but when it comes to the question of rates between Montreal and Sydney, the territory is divided into several zones carrying several different rates.
It would appear that some fairer basis should be arrived at for the establishment of commodity rates than now exists. As an instance of discrimination in this respect, consider the rates on steel products, blooms and wire rods, from manufacturing centres in Ontario as compared with the rates on the same products from Nova Scotia. I will mention a few: The fifth class rate, which is the class to which these products belong, from Hamilton to Montreal is $9.63 per gross ton. The commodity rate is $3 per gross ton, which is 31 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sydney to Montreal is $5.10 per gross ton, or 41 per cent of the fifth class rate. Again, the rate from Hamilton to Owen Sound is $2.70 per gross ton on wire rods,, or 38 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sydney to Owen Sound is $7.90 per gross ton, or 47 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Hamilton to Welland is $1.70 per gross ton, or 42 per cent of the fifth class rate,

while the rate from Montreal is $7.50 per gross ton, or 50 per cent of the fifth class rate. Again, the rate from Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto is $4.30 per gross ton, or 39 per cent of the fifth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Toronto is $6.60 per gross ton, or 46 per cent of the fifth class rate. The rate from Sault Ste. Marie to Welland, Ontario, is $5.40 per gross ton, or 37 per cent of the fifth class rate, while the rate from Sydney is $7.50 per gross ton, or 50 per cent of the fifth class rate.
May I also refer to discrimination in pig iron rates. The rate from Hamilton to Charlottetown, P.E.I., a distance of 1,063 miles, is $6.50 per gross ton, which is 73 per cent of the tenth olass rate, and the rate from Sydney to Charlottetown, 398 miles, is $7.17, which is 100 per cent of the tenth class rate. Mark this, Mr. Speaker, if you please: The rate from Hamilton to Charlottetown, 1,063 miles, is $6.50 a ton, and from Sydney to Charlottetown, 398 miles, $7.17 a ton. I ask the question: Have we any grievance? The rate from Hamilton to Sherbrooke, Quebec, is $4.80 per gross ton, which is 62 per cent of the tenth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Sherbrooke is $5.40 per gross ton. or 65 per cent of the tenth class rate. The rate from Hamilton to Ottawa is $3.20 per gross ton, which is 49 per cent of the tenth class rate, while the rate from Sydney to Ottawa is $5.40 per gross ton, or 64 per cent of the tenth class rate. I have a lot more figfures of the same nature; I have a bundle of tables here, numbering a hundred or more, which show similar unfair discrimination,
I will only refer to one other item. Take rail fastenings. The rate from Sault Ste Marie to Winnipeg is 61-J per cent of the seventh class rate while the rate from Sydney is 75 per cent of the seventh class rate, and from New Glasgow 74 per cent of the seventh class ra.te. Again, we have to pay a full 100 per cent of the seventh class rate from New Glasgow to alt points in Ontario and western Quebec, while Sault Ste. Marie has rates to the same points varying from 70 :to 86 per cent of the seventh class rate; from Hamilton from 63 to 75 per cent of the seventh olass rate, and from Toronto from 66 to 85 per cent of the seventh class rate. These figures are based on the class rates now in effect from Sydney, and if these class rates were reduced by lowering the arbitraries over Montreal, as suggested in the foregoing, the discrimination would be very glaring. The fairest basis to apply in steel products would be a fairer percentage of the class rates to which they belong, reducing or increasing the percentage of reduction as the mileage increased; that is to say, 85 per cent of the class rates over a dis-

The Address-Mr. Cantley
tance of 500 miles, 80 per cent to points over 500 miles and up to say 1,000 miles, andi 70 per cent over 1,000 miles and up to ,2,000 miles. If this basis was applied to all territory in Canada it would eliminate discrimination completely. Why is it not done?
May I point out further the favourable position in which industrial points in Ontario are placed as compared with the Maritime provinces in the matter of export rates. Belleville, Brantford, Collingwood, Guelph, Hamilton, London. Milton, Owen Sound, Toronto, Welland, and Windsor, can all, under the present tariff, export their steel products to Quebec, St. John, Halifax, Portland, Boston, and New London, Connecticut, at two cents per hundred pounds over the rate to Montreal. Brantford, Hamilton, Collingwood, London, Owen Sound, Welland1, and Windsor, can include New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore at the same rate, while Guelph, Mfiton, and Toronto can ship via the latter ports at three cents per hundred pounds over the Montreal rate. Hamilton can ship via Halifax to any foreign country including St. Pierre and Newfoundland at two cents per hundred pounds over the Montreal rate. That is to say, the railways receive for the haul from Montreal to Halifax, 800 miles, two cents per hundred pounds, while the rate from Sydney to Halifax, a distance of 289 miles, is 19 cents per hundred pounds, this rate being applicable only to exports to British and foreign countries. The rate from Sydney to Halifax for export to Newfoundland and St. Pierre is 25J cents per hundred pounds, while the railways haul for the manufacturers in Ontario the 800 miles from Montreal to Halifax, at the rate of two cents per hundred pounds. The rate from Hamilton to North Sydney for export to St. Pierre and Newfoundland is 54 per cent of [DOT] the fifth class rate, which includes terminal charges, while the rate from Sydney to North Sydney is 124 per cent of the fifth class rate, including terminal charges.
I should like the House to grasp this fact. That on an export basis iron and steel products are carried from Ontario, and from Montreal after the close of navigation, to Halifax for two cents per hundred pounds whereas the rate for the same products from Sydney to Halifax is 19 cents per hundred pounds. In the former case the distance is 800 miles and in the latter case only 289 miles. These rates apply if the products are going to Great Britain. If Sydney products are going to Newfoundland they are charged 25i cents, or 12 times the rate that is charged the iron and steel manufacturers of Ontario. Again I ask is there any ground for dissatisfaction?
14011-50a
We submit this is an unfair discrimination. Ontario and western Quebec are surrounded by iron and steel commodity rates far lower on percentage of class to their own local territory than the railways allow from Maritime province manufacturing points, and Ontario manufacturing centres receive export rates on their surplus products which are not granted to Maritime province manufacturing points. We submit that if mileage is eliminated for export purposes, as already explained, to help out manufacturing centres in Ontario in order to reach world markets via Baltimore, New York, Boston, New London, Conn., St. John, N.B., and Halifax, the same consideration should be given the steel manufacturing plant in Sydney and Sydney placed on the same rate basis to those shipping ports in order to reach the world markets. The rates referred to from Ontario for export to St. Pierre and Newfoundland make it impossible for the Sydney steel plant to compete in those markets except by providing their own water transport, which is awkward and very difficult at times. We have to ship by steamers in the ore carrying trade from Sydney to Wabana, and thence by coasting steamer to destination. It is unreasonable to ask the establishing of rail rates from Sydney, and any other points they please, to all ports on the great lakes, on the same basis and in proportion to class rate as is now in effect to other water competitive points in Canada such as Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John. Ports in Ontario such as Toronto, Hamilton, and Owen Sound should receive the same consideration as other ports having these competitive rates. We would ask in establishing from ports on the great lakes the same commodity rate on a similar mileage basis as is in effect from industrial points in Ontario, or in the Maritime provinces for that matter, that these rates might very well be confined to Canadian products.
Not only are Canadian products for export carried at the rates which I have mentioned, but American products are carried at the same rates although they enter into competition with the products of our own plants in Cape Breton and other parts of Canada. Discrimination seems to exist in connection with shipments from Nova Scotia to points in Ontario reached by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railway systems, in case where the purchaser has his plant connected by a siding from the Canadian Pacific railway, but not by a connection from the Canadian National. Up to a few years ago the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways had a joint
The Address-Mr. Cantley

tariff to many of these points; routing could be given as desired by the customer, and the business was so routed. These joint tariffs however have been discontinued, and additional expense is therefore incurred on either the shipper or the receiver in the way of extra charges. Let me quote for the information of the House a letter recently received from a customer of one of the steel plants in Nova Scotia, in Harrison, Ontario, which reads as follows:
We are returning your draft of July 16, at thirty days for $823.47, covering car of iron. When your representative was here we stated the car must be Shipped via Canadian Pacific railway and it came in Canadian National, and cost us $13.50 more to unload than if it came in Canadian Pacific, as we can unload from Canadian Pacific siding into our yard, while from Canadian National railway it has to be teamed. Your representative said any additional cost in unloading if it came in Canadian National railway could be deducted from .invoice and we will charge your account with $13.50. You may pass draft for $S09.97, or we will send you a cheque for that amount when due.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very unnecessary burden which is placed on an industry located in the Maritime provinces; and it is discrimination against that industry in favour of the Ontario manufacturers. If both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways issued a joint tariff, as they formerly did, and each took a share of the haul, this burden would be eliminated. An alternative would be for the Canadian National railways to absorb the extra switching or extra cartage caused by their refusal to combine in a joint tariff. We know that this is done in other sections of the country.
Again, take the case of Sydney, with its steel manufacturing plants, which has for years felt itself discriminated against in the failure of the railways to issue export tariffs via this port on the same basis as they do for other Maritime and United 5 p.m. States ports. As previously stated herein, if distance is eliminated for the benefit of the manufacturing centres of Ontario, there is no reason why it should not be eliminated for the manufacturing centre of North Sydney, as at present they are handicapped in this world trading by the great difficulty in getting steamers which trade with all ports of the world to call for the products of the port, although these steamers pass in and out from St. Lawrence practically within sight of *he harbour. Outside of coal, which is not exported in less than cargo quantities, the export of Sydney is confined to steel products for shipment to the various markets of the world. In order to get steamers to call, certain minimum quantities have to be guaranteed them. This is a serious handicap compared with the advantages

enjoyed by steel plants in Ontario which have low export rates to all parts of the United States and Canada. They can take an order for and ship a carload to any part of the world as cheaply as they can 1,000 tons, and as the steel business is generally of small volume-done in carloads, so to speak- these low rates place them in a most favourable position as compared with Sydney plants, which have to guarantee a minimum quantity of some hundreds of tons before a ship can be induced to call for it. This discrimination could be overcome by Sydney being placed by the railways on the same basis, so far as export rates are concerned, as other Canadian and United States ports. In that manner export business could be diverted to this port in summer and to Louisburg in winter, by our efforts to procure sufficient cargo to induce steamers to call there, which, together with our own, could be of sufficient volume to make business profitable. True, there are no public terminal facilities. They have offered the railways the use of our own private facilities, as far as they can go, for handling such business, but the discrimination in the matter of export freight rates through the port of Sydney still continues. It may be added that it is a serious reflection on the government, and perhaps on the people, that proper shipping terminals are not provided in one of the best harbours of the world. The lack of them makes the Transcontinental railway practically a dead end at this port. However, if proper export rates were established By the railways, that would go a long way towards drawing the attention of the government to the need of proper dock and shed for storing inbound and outbound freight for furtherance.
Referring further to discrimination in railway freight rates, permit me to refer to the advance made in the old Intercolonial standard mileage rates on May 10, 1923. These rates apply to all classes other than those covered by town tariffs and special commodity rates. Among the items heavily affected is explosives from Beloeil, Quebec, to the Sydneys. In 1916 the rate was 94 cents per 100 pounds. At the present time the rate is S2.55J, per 100 pounds, an increase of 171 per cent. Explosives are a necessity in mining coal, ore and limestone. The freight alone at present means a cost of 4.6 mills per ton on every ton of coal mined. With the cost of this material and other expenses which enter into the cost of mining, this is a very heavy charge, and it amounts to considerably more on ore and limestone. Why this exorbitant increase has been made on explosives is difficult to understand. Since the rate existing in 1916 originally

The Address-Mr. Cantley
went into effect, the formulae of all explosives has come under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, and its manufacture and transportation have been greatly safeguarded. A steady improvement in the process of its manufacture has taken place, the improvement lessening the danger in handling it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I cannot at the moment recall a case where a single accident has occurred in the transportation of explosives -by rail. Cases are on record where explosives have been destroyed in cars when crashed into by a locomotive, but without any explosion or injury to surrounding property. A reduction on this commodity in line with others is therefore requested.
By the same change in the old Intercolonial standard mileage rates, the rate on horses in carload lots has been unreasonably increased. The Nova Scotia coal companies use in the mines and about their various works a large number of horses. We have occasion to bring these from Montreal and surrounding territory. The rate for these in 1916 was 38 cents per IOC pounds. To-day it is 100i cents per 100 pounds, an increase of 164 per cent. This makes the minimum freight rate per horse on the minimum carload $9.25, an increase of $5.75 per horse since 1916. These horses are light in weight, ranging about 900 pounds. The rate is unreasonable and unjust to the mining industry. As far as we are aware or can ascertain, no reason was ever given for increasing the Intercolonial rates to that of the standard mileage. The other increases made during the war period had some reason to support them, but this increase, made long after the war was over, does not seem to have had any justification whatever.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal to some extent with the coke and coal rate.


Mr. DUFF:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Cantley: Certainly.


William Duff: If within the last ten years such discrimination as he refers to has existed, have the management of either the steel company or the New Glasgow company appealed either to the railway authorities or to the railway commission for an order for a fair rate?


Thomas Cantley: The hon. member knows the management of both these concerns fairly well and he would1 not expect them to put up with conditions such as I have referred to without making some protest.
It is hardly necessary to state that these are serious times in the coal industry in
Canada. Competition is keen with the foreign product. Everyone recognizes that for the independence of Canada in the matter of its fuel requirements for domestic, industrial and railway purposes, this industry should receive every possible consideration. The greatest difficulty is experienced, not only in making any material expansion, but even in maintaining production. Innumerable efforts have been made to'obtain freight rates to enable this product to be placed on the market to meet foreign competition. Rates in effect throughout middle and eastern Canada go to show that the railways are giving preference to the foreign product and discriminating against Canadian production. Rates on this product, also on coke made from Canadian coal, should receive the careful consideration of parliament. We find that rates in effect from Buffalo, Black Rock and Suspension Bridge to Canadian destination are far lower than we can obtain for similar distances for our products. From Buffalo to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, the Canadian railways give a rate to American coal of 3.9 mills per ton mile; from Black Rock to the same destination, 3.9i mills per ton mile; and from Suspension Bridge to the same destination, 4.0 mills per ton mile. From Montreal to Cochrane the best we can get is 6.4 mills per ton mile, and from Quebec 6.6 mills per ton mile. To get to Montreal we have to carry the coal by water for about 900 miles, and to Quebec for about 750 miles. Besides the expense of transferring from steamers to cars, there is considerable loss owing to degradation in the coal compared with coal moved direct by rail from United States mines. The degradation, even in transporting bituminous coal by rail, has been given consideration by the United States Interstate Commerce Commission in considering rail freights. So much more should the degradation in transferring from steamer to ears, in addition to the movement by rail, be considered in establishing competitive rates on this Canadian product, and we think the railway should give this phase careful consideration. We submit that the long water haul should be considered a factor in establishing rail rates that are just to the industry.
We find that from some of the United States coal fields the Interstate Commerce Commission has recently established rates on bituminous coal of 5.4 to 5.7 mills per ton mile for distances of 380 to 400 miles- and this in a country whose coal industry has been brought up to the highest development and has practically no competition
The Address-Mr. Cantley

from outside sources. The rate by rail from Sydney to Montreal, a distance of 956 miles, is $4.50 per net ton, notwithstanding that this is a water competitive point, while the rate from Buffalo and Black Rock to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, is only $4.10 per ton; almost 100 miles longer, with a freight rate of 40 cents per ton less.
Have we any grievances in the Maritime provinces, and should parliament do something to improve those conditions? I ask this question of hon. gentlemen to my right, who time and again have expressed some consideration for our situation, and of hon. gentlemen opposite, many of whom claim to be of Nova Scotian birth. Are those hon. gentlemen prepared to support us in our demand for fair and equitable rates for the basic products of our province? I have referred only to the rates, from two points, on American and Canadian coal.
I may mention again the rate from Black Rock to Cochrane a distance of 603 miles, which is $3.80 per ton, as against Quebec, to Iroquois Falls-a coming coal consuming centre-of $5.55 per ton for a distance of 608 miles. If the railways can afford to carry American coal at such a low rate to meet water competition, they should surely do so to assist the mainstay product of the country, to meet foreign competition. You will find here a difference of $1.75 per ton in favour of the American product. Take again the rate from Buffalo to Sherbrooke, a distance of 536 miles: the American product gets a rate of $3.60 per ton, or 6.7 mills per ton mile, while the rate from Springhill, Nova Scotia, to Sherbrooke, a distance of 638 miles, is $4.30 per ton; exactly the same rate per ton mile. If distance reduces the rate per ton mile, it was not considered here, thereby again discriminating in favour of the American product. I claim we should have established from Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Levis, and shipping centres in the Maritime provinces, rates at least equally as low as those referred to above on American coal from the American border; otherwise discrimination against the Canadian product will exist.
With regard to coke rates, an effort is being made at the present time to find a substitute for hard coal for domestic use in Canada, and by-product coke seems to be the only alternative so far possible. The introduction of coke from Canadian coal is greatly handicapped by the attitude of the railways in the matter of freight rates. The Canadian National Railways, the only rail carrier by which the coke produced in eastern Canada 
from coal mines in Canada can be transported, does not take kindly to establishing rates which the needs of the country and the industry call for at the present time. Their latest proposal is for a rate twenty per cent in excess of coal rates. The president of the road, I absolve from any knowledge-at least, any considerable knowledge-of what his traffic officers are doing in the matter of preparing and enforcing the rates to which I have referred.
In the preceding portion of this statement I endeavoured to point out the discrimination against the Maritime provinces in coal rates. Adding twenty per cent to these rates, even should they be brought to a proper basis, to arrive at coke rates, we consider most unreasonable. We claim, in the interests of Canada as a whole, that as coke for domestic use is to replace anthracite coal, the rates on coke should not bear any heavier burden -than, at the outside, the percentage of rate on hard coal over bituminous, and in view of the fact that it is a new product for domestic use, and to get it established in place of hard coal, that it should be carried at the same rate as bituminous coal. We find in Quebec and Ontario anthracite carried at the same rate exactly as bituminous coal. For instance, from Montreal to Belleville, Ontario, the rate on bituminous and anthracite is the same, namely, $2.30 per ton. In no single instance can we find a rate on anthracite in excess of 20 cents per ton over bituminous. For instance, the rate from Buffalo to Cochrane, a distance of 1,049 miles, on bituminous coal, is $4.10 per ton, while the rate on anthracite is $4.30. Although we have the same rate on coal and coke to Montreal at the present time, it is our understanding that it is the intention of the railway to propose a change on this and charge us for coke 20 per cent over the coal rate.
What adds to the discrimination against the Nova Scotia coke is the fact that the minimum carload weight imposed by the railways in the Maritime provinces is 50,000 pounds, while on coke made in Ontario from American coal, and also on some American coke, they allow a minimum carload of 40,000 pounds. Where this hits the Canadian product severely is with a domestic customer who wants only the smallest carload he can get at a time with the minimum amount of freight. For instance, a buyer in Amherst can purchase a carload of coke from Hamilton of 40,000 pounds, which is freighted a distance of 1,032 miles at a rate of 6.6 mills per ton mile, or, $276. From Sydney to Chicoutimi, practically the same distance, 1,041 miles, he will have to pay 8.7 mills, or $455.

The Address-Mr. Cantley
Have we any grievances in the Maritime provinces! What are you going to do in the way of rectifying them?
Another factor bearing on freight rates, not only on coal and coke but also on steel products, is that these products are carried from the Maritime provinces in what otherwise would be return empties. This applies not only to the Maritime provinces but also shipments westward and northward from Quebec and Montreal, while the same products from the United States are carried in cars which in the majority of cases have to return empty. The industrial centres of the Maritime provinces, such as Springhill, Stellarton, New Glasgow, Trenton, Sydney Mines, Sydney and the colliery districts surrounding Glace Bay, buy practically everything they depend on for a living, namely, flour, butter,, meat, canned goods of all kinds, furniture, boots and shoes, hay, oats and other feed-in fact almost everything required outside of fuel they buy from Ontario and Quebec. All these commodities are good revenue producers for the railways. For this reason alone coal and steel products from the Maritime provinces going back in the returned cars which bring these products east and which would otherwise- and do otherwise-return empty, should receive more favourable rates than coal from the United States or coke made from United States coal that is transported in cars that invariably return empty.
May I point out the tonnage of some of the items I have referred to? Last year there [DOT] were transported over the Canadian National Railways to Nova Scotia:
25,000	tons of meat.
600.000	barrels of flour.
350.000	bags of oatmeal.
1.000	barrels of oatmeal.
5.000	barrels of rolled oats.
We consumed one-third as much oatmeal in Nova Scotia as we did flour. Perhaps that explains why some of us are here! May I tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that we also consumed 2,741,000 pounds of butter and 707,000 pounds of cheese?


William Richard Motherwell: You do not make
enough down there for your own use.


Thomas Cantley: No, sir, we do not; we
have other work to do. We do not claim to be a farming country.


William Richard Motherwell: You are, but you
do not know it.


Thomas Cantley: We claim that our principal products are fish and coal and lumber- and men. Allow me to refer to further hardships suffered by us. I have in my hand a statement showing the rates-taken at random-on grain from points in western Canada to Fort William and Port Arthur. These rates are shown per ton per mile in mills, with the percentage they bear to the eighth class rate under which grain and flour are classified according to the Canadian Joint Freight Classification. On the same statement are shown the rates on fifth class goods, steel products-which should be moved-and the tenth class rates on pig iron. This is assuming these goods were given equally favourable rates in proportion to class as is given to grain and flour.
We submit that if one section of Canada receives preferential consideration for its products another section should receive similar consideration for products produced within its territory. We think this must have been the intention of the government in passing the order in council No. 886 of June 5 last. The statement I am now dealing with shows that grain and flour are moved from some points in western Canada to Port Arthur and Fort William at as low a rate as 30 per cent of the class to which these products belong. It is well understood that the value of the goods receives consideration in the establishment of freight rates. There are no steel products manufactured in Nova Scotia valued at as high per ton as flour is at the present time. This is one reason why our iron and steel products should receive a more favourable rate. We submit that the westbound rates should be brought more in line with the rates we have mentioned as being given only for the benefit of other parts of the country, and the discrimination in freight rates westbound against coal, iron and steel products thus overcome.
There is only one word I wish to add on that subject. If Canada will impose a duty on coal considerably less than the duty which the United States at one time put on Nova Scotia coal, within ten years or less the Dominion will be entirely independent of all foreign sources for what is a vital necessity, coal, and can keep at home over a hundred million! dollars annually. All the anthracite now imported can be replaced by coke produced in by-product retort ovens. This policy would add .seven million tons to our Canadian output of bituminous coal, and would provide employment for over 40,000 working men. Of course it would add largely to our railway traffic.
When we in the Maritime provinces refer to our railway rates we are told that the British North America Act does not contain a clause guaranteeing to Nova Scotia or New
The Address-Mr. Cantley

Brunswick any definite rates of freight on the Intercolonial railway. True. But here we may inquire whether any stipulation was made or whether any clause of the British North America Act refers to the construction and free operation of an extensive system of canals in Ontario and Quebec at the charge and cost of the confederated provinces. The canals were constructed, they are now being greatly enlarged, and f,or many years they have been and still are operated wholly at the cost of the Dominion. Ninety-nine per cent of the advantage accrues to Quebec and Ontario, and the grain-exporting western provinces. Further, American products have been for years and still are carried free through these canals, and that in competition with the products of Nova Scotia, which have to pay high rates on a thousand miles of railway carriage, only to meet in Montreal manufactured goods from Ontario and the United States enjoying special canal transportation facilities at our expense. Maritime business has not only to pay heavy transportation rates, but it has also to pay its proportion of the cost of free canal service given to our highly specialized and long-established American competitors in the iron and steel trade.
Nova Scotia has but four important sources of trade: fish, lumber, coal and steel. No adequate effort has been made by any government since confederation to carry out the assurances then held out to us as to interprovincial trade. Geographically, the continental trade of the Maritime provinces should be with the eastern United States, and outside of these, with the West Indies, South America and Europe. This water-borne traffic is carried at rates of freight of from one-eighth to one-twelfth of a cent per ton mile, or, say one-tenth of the rate per ton mile charged for rail haul.
Full cargoes of iron and steel can be delivered at South American cities distant from 3,500 to 5,000 miles for one-half the present railway rate from Sydney to Montreal, a distance of 1,000 miles. Lumber is today being carried from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania ports at from $6 to $7 per
Shipping point	Destination
Drumheller		
Springhill, N.S		
Stellarton, N.S		
Stellarton, N.S		
Sydney Mines, N.S... .	. ..Montreal..
Sydney Mines, N.S... .	. ..Toronto.. .
Sydney, N.S		
Sydney, N.S		
thousand feet, while the railway charge to-day is $3.25 for a haul of 106 miles from New Glasgow to Halifax, a distance only one-sixth as great as that to these United States ports. Again, the same class of lumber is carried to the West Indies, a distance of say 2,000 miles, for $9 per thousand feet, which is relatively even a lower rate than to United States eastern seaboard ports; it works out at about one-quarter of a cent per thousand feet per mile. Our fish is carried to South America, the West Indies and Mediterranean ports at correspondingly low rates.
During the summer season Nova Scotia coal is largely water-borne from Pictou and Sydney to Quebec and Montreal, but low rates which are needed during the season of closed navigation on the St. Lawrence, are lacking, Were Nova Scotia operators given a mileage rate equivalent to that last year accorded to the Alberta collieries from Drumheller to Toronto, rates of $3.25 from Sydney to Montreal and $4.90 from Sydney to Toronto would be available as against the actual rate of $4.50 to Montreal now charged on Nova Scotia coal, or the only rate published, a commodity rate, of $9.80 to Toronto. Last summer Drumheller coal to Toronto, a distance of 2,025 miles, enjoyed a rate of $7, or say 3.5 mills per ton mile. I have prepared a statement which I will read showing the relative mileage and the actual rail rates charged on Nova Scotia coal, and the rate which should apply if Nova Scotia coal was accorded the same proportional mileage rate as Drumheller coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was the
hon. member quoting the special rate or the regular rate?


Thomas Cantley: I am quoting the rate
that was charged last year on a quantity of coal brought from Alberta to Toronto.


Edward Joseph Garland: The special rate.


Thomas Cantley: Yes. I think I know
the point to which my hon. friend refers, and		
I will deal	with it later.	This is the statement:		
	Drumheller	Actual rate
Miles	rate	
2,125	$7 00	$7 00 | Basis of 3.5 mills717	2 48	3 60 J per ton mile.816	2 82	3 901,140	4 00	984	3 20	1,318	4 28	1,001	3 25	4 501,335	4 90	
TMr. Cantley.]

The Address-Mr. Cantley
This shows that from Sydney Mines to Montreal, a distance of 984 miles, if the Drumheller rate applied we should get a rate of $3.20. From Sydney to Montreal, a distance of practically 1,000 miles, the actual rate is $4.50, a higher rate than that charged in Ontario for United States coal between points about the same distance apart. Had we the Drumheller rate which was accorded last year to a certain quantity of coal from Alberta, the rate would have been $3.25. I am not objecting at all to my hon. friends on my left getting that rate. What I ask of them is to afford us equal facilities for carrying our coal to the central provinces to those which they enjoyed last year, and the same rate at which I think the minister who, I understand, represents .the railway department, stated that he was prepared to carry 25,000 tons of coal to-day from Alberta to Ontario if that was desired. The Springhill-Montreal coal rate is thus 45 per cent higher than the mileage rate from Drumheller to Toronto, the Stellar-ton-Montreal rate 38 per cent and the Sydney-Montreal rate 20 per cent higher. The railway management say that the Drumheller rate is unremunerative and cannot be given save at certain seasons of the year. But the fact is that a considerable tonnage of coal was last year carried to Toronto at the rate I have quoted, and equally low rates were not and are not now available for Nova Scotia coal going west.
Due to our position at the extreme eastern edge of the Dominion of Canada, and situated as we are practically 1,000 miles from our nearest Canadian market, transportation is a basic economic factor in the interprovincial trade of Nova Scotia. That factor was realized by the fathers of confederation when the Intercolonial railway was offered to the Maritime provinces as a means to solve that problem. The union of the provinces was urged by the Imperial government of the day. Why? The object as I understand it, was to create a united Dominion, more capable of defence than were the scattered provinces of that date, a Dominion which in sentiment and substance would remain British. The empire, the central and the western provinces have benefited, but faith has molt been kept with Nova Scotia, and we suffer thereby.
Well managed and efficient railways are vital and indispensable to our whole economic life. Transportation is a national problem, not a local issue. It is of peculiar importance to Nova Scotia on account of her position as the extreme eastern member of the confederation. What, it may be asked, has Nova Scotia contributed to the transportation system of the
Dominion, and what share of the advantages of that development has she received, or does she now enjoy? I wish it to be known that Nova Scotia has paid her full share of all the development cost of the Dominion from July 1, 1867, down to this present hour, while the promises made and pledges given prior to and after 1867 have not been kept. Hence we find this Maritime unrest.
Nova Scotia's one commodity (that affords a large measure of employment and that should find a market in Quebec and eastern Ontario, is coal. About 5,000,000 tons of anthracite coal, as well as ail the bituminous coal required1 for the production of coke for ithe blast furnaces of Ontario, is admitted into Canada duty free. During 1923, 22,687,320 tons of foreign coal were imported into Canada. More than
17,500,000	tons of bituminous coal were imported into this country in the same year, this coal now paying an average duty of about 12 per cent on its delivered cost. As regards anthracite, every ton of this fuel, long imported, could be replaced by by-product retort-oven coke having a higher heating value than hard coal and at a price about two-thirds of that paid for that kind of fuel of which in 1923 Canada imported 5,167,881 tons. Had that tonnage of anthracite been replaced by Canadian coke, it would have increased the market for our soft coal by say 7,000,000 tons. Canada in the same year, 1923, imported 17,519,439 tons of soft coal. Had we bought this coal from our own mines to the extent of four-fifths of these two quantities, or say twenty million tons, we would have retained in Canada over one hundred millions of dollars, provided a larger traffic to our railways and afforded employment to 37,000 men and boys who, working an average of 280 days per year at an average yearly wage of $2,500 each would have earned $92,500,000, thus leaving seven and a half million dollars to meet the cost of mining supplies and overhead charges. Why do we not do it?


Peter McGibbon: What would be the cost of laying down coke in, say, Toronto?


Thomas Cantley: Coke ought to be laid down and delivered to wholesale buyers in Montreal for about two-thirds the present price of hard coal. And remember this: you are getting a fuel that is worth at least five to eight per cent more than any hard coal that is coming into this country to-day, whether it is American, Welsh or any other coal. The domestic coke to-day made from Cape Breton coal has a fixed carbon content of about 93 per cent. There is no anthracite coal coming into Canada, whether it be American or British, that will go over 85
The Address-Mr. Cantley


Mr. BHOWN:: Does the hon. member say that all that expense was borne by the four eastern provinces, or was it not simply added to the debt of the country which the whole country now bears?


Thomas Cantley: At the time I refer to,
when we bought out the Hudson's Bay Company, there was very little settlement in the western provinces.


Mr. BROWN:: But it is part of the debt of the whole country.


Thomas Cantley: The Address-Mr. Cantley

horse-power for about six to ten dollars per year. Under the circumstances we could not compete with them, because in the cutting of nails pow'er was the largest item in the cost of manufacture. That gives you a concrete example of the advantages derived by manufacturers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in connection with the power privileges from the system of canals.
This great lake commerce made possible by and dependent upon the Canadian canal system is reflected in the enormous tonnage passing through the Soo canal, the main artery of the west. The contribution the Maritime provinces have made and are continuously making towards the construction, extension, repair and operation of this great free transport system, useful only for the more favoured provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and the central west, is seemingly quite overlooked or, if realized by those who profit most, is seldom if indeed ever acknowledged.
Per contra, the Maritime provinces were contributors to the purchase of the prairie land, the policing, settling, early government, and opening out of the country for settlement, aiding immigration, quelling rebellions, building the Canadian Pacific railway, guaranteeing the Canadian National and Grand Trunk Pacific bonds, and constructing the Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge- all projects foreign to our necessities, but to which the Atlantic provinces have contributed their full per capita proportion of cost, interest and upkeep. And yet the Maritime provinces, when they ask that their larger, richer predominating partners abide by the promise they have given, are told that the Intercolonial railway is regarded as the milch cow of the Maritime provinces. To this taunt, and it has been made if I mistake not in this House in years past, it might then have been retorted that the Canadian canal system is the champagne locker of the central provinces, shared in some degree with our American coal and steel competitors. The milch cow of the Maritime provinces forsooth! We got the cow in exchange for our independence. We have fed her, and the older and central provinces have both the milk and the manure, and the Minister of Agriculture, when sometimes he feels his bowels of compassion moved, throws some of the latter product back to us. That is all we get.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.

Thursday, February 11, 1926