1926-02-19

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).
Bill No. 13, respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Kay.
TRANSPORTATION OF COAL On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Has the Minister of the
Interior suggested to the government that they provide a small sum of money sufficient to meet the costs of moving 15,000 tons of coal from Sydney Mines to Montreal over and above $3.25 per ton?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: No.
HUDSON BAY RAILWAY On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: On the 12th of this month
I put a question to the government with reference to the importation into the province of Saskatchewan qf a certain quantity of ties from the state of Minnesota for use on the Hudson Bay railway. The acting leader of the government [Mr. W. W. Kennedy,!
(Mr. Lapointe) replied to the effect that the report was incorrect inasmuch as he had nc information on the subject. Thereupon I wrote to the vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, purchasing department, and I have this morning obtained a reply giving certain information which I should like to submit to the House.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: Is my hon. friend asking a question or is he seeking to give information to the House?


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I am bringing a certain matter to the attention of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: Send us the letter.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: With the
permission of the House I desire to quote from this letter:
I have your letter of fifteenth instant in respect to the use of ties from the state of Minnesota.
The information in connection with this situation is that we were asked by our operating department to furnish them with a quantity of cedar ties for the Hudson Bay line, as it was felt that cedar ties would be of more advantage on that line than others because the traffic is light and, therefore, the mechanical wear on the ties would not be very heavy, and because a good cedar tie withstands the atmosphere well under light traffic conditions. There are none of these ties available in the vicinity of the Hudson Bay line, and I may say that we are buying all the ties we can get in Saskatchewan. It was very imperative, therefore, that we bring cedar ties from somewhere.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would advise the hon.
member to put the question on the order paper.



THE COUNTESS OF CATHCART

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I should
like to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he has received an application from the Countess of Cathcart to enter this country and if so whether the "moral turpitude" clause, which in our law is similar to that in the United States, will be applied.


Charles A. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: May I ask the Minister of Finance what has become of the first volume of the Auditor General's report. The last time we had this matter under consideration I gathered from what the minister told us that this volume of the report would be in the House that after-

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
noon. I am afraid the Auditor General has forgotten about it in the meantime.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: No fault is to be found with the Auditor General. I had from the Assistant Auditor General, Mr. Kearns, a few days ago a memorandum, which I regret I have not before me now, saying that the work had been delayed in the printing department, but he assures me that the report will be ready early next week.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose my
hon. friend will at least undertake before this House adjourns to make sure that that volume is brought down. It certainly ought to be.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, may I exercise
the Scotchman's privilege and ask another question? When is the House going to adjourn?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps that
might have something to do with it.



PROPOSED LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting
leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) if he can give the House some information regarding proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, the Naturalization Act and the Criminal Code which were apparently promised to the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), as intimated in a letter which he placed on Hansard on January 28?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: I
should like to ask the acting leader of the government if he can give the members of this House the information which was evidently conveyed to the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has
already asked that question. He is an old member of the House and knows that legislation is explained when it is introduced.


Donald Sutherland: Might I ask my hon. friend-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Donald Sutherland: -if this information will be given privately to members of this House if they make a request therefor to the acting leader of the government?


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the day.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: "That this question be now put."
William Walker Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of adjourning the debate last night I was drawing the attention of hon. members to certain matters which, it appeared to me, were lacking in the Speech from the Throne, and I was discussing particularly the absence of any suggestion regarding our fiscal policy. Now, perhaps the letter which I attempted to read a moment ago would be germane to the discussion of that question, and for the information of the House I propose to submit this communication, which has to do with the bringing into this country of ties for railway construction that, in my view, should have -been obtained in Canada. The letter to which I refer is dated Montreal, February 18, 1926, and is from Mr. R. C. Vaughan, vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, purchasing and stores departments, and is addressed to myself:
I have your letter of fifteenth instant in respect to the use of ties from the state of Minnesota.
The information in connection with this situation is that we were asked by our operating department to furnish them with a quantity of cedar ties for the Hudson Bay line, as it was felt that cedar ties would be of more advantage on that line than others because the traffic is light and, therefore, the mechanical wear on the ties would not be very heavy, and because a good cedar tie withstands the atmosphere well under light traffic conditions. There are none of these ties available in the vicinity of the Hudson Bay line, and I may say that we are buying all the ties we can get in Saskatchewan.
I may add that at that time there was an election going on in Saskatchewan.
It was very imperative, therefore, that we bring cedar ties from somewhere. We gave a contract to have them supplied from off the old Canadian Northern main line between Winnipeg and Rainy River, as in that section there is some good cedar available. As you know, the old Canadian Northern main line between Winnipeg and Rainy River runs for 43 miles through the state of Minnesota, and it so happens that the contractor as delivering some of these ties on his contract that are produced on that portion of our line which is in the state of Minnesota. I wired our Winnipeg office to ascertain the number of cedar ties which originated in Minnesota and which have been shipped to the Hudson Bay line, and I find the quantity is approximately 45,000. There will probably be a few more shipped from that district, but not a great many.
Our position is that we needed cedar ties for the Hudson Bay line and that we wanted to get these cedar ties at the lowest price and with the least possible haul to where they were to be used. There-
1156	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
fore, a contract was given for ties to he supplied in the territory referred to, and it so happens that the contractor is having some of these ties produced on the old Canadian Northern main line an the state of Minnesota. As you are aware, there is no duty on ties coming into Canada, and it is unfortunate that we were unable to get these ties elsewhere in Canada to meet our requirements, except at an increased cost to us.
As you know, a large amount of timber goes from Canada to the United States, and, no doubt, if we took objection to these few ties which are produced on our own lines coming into Canada, it might react against our general timber interests in a bigger way.
Our idea is to have all our ties, so far as possible, produced in Canada, and we buy approximately 7,000,000 ties annually, which are produced in Canada.
I saw a report in the paper that we were buying 000,000 ties in the state of Minnesota for the Hudson Bay line, which, of course, is ridiculous, and I assume in the final analysis there will probably be only 50,000 ties come from the state of Minnesota to apply on this Hudson Bay contract, but we must bear in mind that these ties are produced on our own lines and in a district where we get substantial revenue from manufacturers and dealers in forest products.
I would also like to point out that, under the terms of the contract, we stipulated that these ties were to be produced on our own lines, and it just so happens that a few of them are coming from the state of Minnesota.
I submit, Sir, that that is just 50,000 ties too many from the state of Minnesota. Surely the Canadian National management can get Canadian-grown timber for use on the railway, cut into shape by Canadian workmen, and thus give employment to our own people?
No mention is made in the Speech from the Throne of any solution for what has been called the national fuel problem. I am not going into the question at length because it has been fully discussed, but on every occasion when an hon. member from the Maritime provinces asked the government why it did not give some assistance in the way of lower freight rates to the coal mines of Nova Scotia, he was met with the answer: We cannot interfere with the railway commission; the commission is outside of politics, and we have nothing more to do with it than you have. In principle I take no issue with that stand, but I want to refer the House to something that transpired in connection with the railway commission just before the election in the province of British Columbia, which I suggest requires some explanation at the hands of a member of the government. On the very eve of the election an order was issued by two members of the railway commission, against and in spite of the desire of the majority of that commission, reducing the rate on the mountain haul. That needs some attention because, while it may not have been issued with any particular political object in view, it has been so interpreted in
'Mr. W. W. Kennedy.]
many districts by the Canadian people, and the action of the board on that occasion calls for inquiry.
There is also absent from the Speech from the Throne reference to the much-promised Senate reform.
There is something else, and while I do not criticize the government particularly for this, I wish it brought to their attention. There is throughout Canada a body of men who deserve and who, I believe, have received special attention at the hands of the government. They are returned, disabled veterans, and while the general policy of the Canadian government towards this class of men is generous, perhaps by reason of the difficulty of providing for all emergencies which arise, certain of them are labouring under disabilities which, I believe, hon. members in all parts of the House will be desirous of removing. I refer to the position of the disabled veteran who is unable to prove conclusively to the Board of Pension Commissioners that the disability from which he suffers can be directly traceable to his war service. Hon. members who are physicians know' that it is very difficult sometimes even for the best physician to trace a given illness to its original cause. There have come under my notice many cases of disabled veterans who were accepted in the army as fit, and who, since their return, have developed certain ailments which they claim are traceable to war causes, but who, because of the regulation that the onus is upon them to establish conclusively that such ailments can be traced to war service, are without relief. I do not go so far as to suggest that the door should be opened to everybody; but instead of the onus being upon the shoulders of the men, I would suggest that the legislation be amended so that once a returned soldier who is disabled or suffering from an illness is able to establish a prima facie case that that illness can be traced to war service, he has thereby discharged his onus, and the onus should then rest upon the government of the country to show that the disability from which he is suffering was not caused by war service. That is perhaps giving a class of men in this country the benefit of the doubt to which, I think, they are reasonably entitled. So much for the omissions from the Speech from the Throne.
What does the Speech from the Throne offer? If you will examine the fabric of the Speech carefully, you will not find it woven out of honest wool : you will find in it much of shoddy, shoddy that is put there for what purpose? Perhaps I am not allowed to say

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
what I think, but I will say that the effect of it is to make it more readily saleable. The Speech from the Throne, instead of being woven out of true, 'honest cloth, is woven out of a mixture of shoddy consisting of those particular things that have in their essence, not a national, but a. sectional appeal to certain economic groups, as has been admitted by members in various parts of the House. In the original Speech there was the appeal of rural credits and the Hudson Bay railway which had a special appeal to the Progressive group. The bon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), in discussing the Speech from the Throne, took occasion to remark that he found there something lacking. I refer- hon. members to Hansard of January 19 last at page 274 where this statement appears:
From the labour viewpoint the Speech from the Throne is notable for the omissions. There is no reference in it to some of the pressing problems which concern labour.
But that complaint no longer exists. That omission was speedily cured by a letter to which I have already referred from the leader of the government and which was placed upon the records of this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. WoodS-wort'h).
I wish now to discuss the attitude of the Progressive group in this House towards the Conservative party, not with any view of creating antagonism, but with the sincere idea that, perhaps, I may place before the members of that group some matters concerning our attitude towards the tariff with whidh they will not be prepared to take direct issue.
It has been stated in this House by some representatives from that group that they support the government of the day, not so much because of their confidence in this government, but because, being placed in this House in the position of choosing between two evils, they have chosen the lesser. The inference I take from that is that their particular objection to the policy of the Conservative party is because of its announced and often repeated stand on the question of protection, and I doubt if that will be denied. For that reason, in discussing the attitude of the Progressive group towards the Conservative party, I am going to deal with that same problem of the tariff.
I am aware that no subject is so prolific of debate as the tariff. If yofu want to start a debate either during an election or between elections, all you have to do is to have one man say: I am for protection, and another man say: I am for free trade, and you can deduce two perfectly good theoretical arguments. But when you come to discuss this
question in a practical way, it is just as well to dispense with those things which do not go to the root of the question; so I start with this statement and I challenge denial: There is not in this House or outside of it any responsible political party in the Dominion of Canada which to-day believes in, teaches or practises a policy of free trade. Is that true as regards the Conservative party? It is not Challenged; we do not believe in free trade. Does the Liberal pariy believe in free trade? I will call two witnesses, the first being the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, leader of the government, who, when speaking during the campaign in the Winnipeg rink to an audience of approximately ten thousand people declared that the Liberal party was not in favour of the policy of free trade. He said: It does not believe in a high tariff; it does not believe in a low tariff. It believes in the middle course.
Speaking again in the city of Kingston on October 21 last, as reported in a Canadian Press despatch, Mr. King said:
"I would oppose free trade with all my might," said Mr. King, at one stage, adding that he would just as strongly oppose the opposite extreme of high protection. "The present government" insisted Mr. King, "is not in favour of free trade, never has been, and would not be in the circumstances if it could.1'
I think that makes clear the position of the Liberal party on the tariff question, so far as it has been expressed by its leader.
If you want further evidence by a public man supporting the Liberal party during the last campaign, I will give you a name which is familiar to all members of this House, that of an outstanding Liberal in days gone by, a man of power, weight and experience in this country, who in the final battle in North York was called into that constituency by the leader of the Liberal party as his final hope and refuge; I refer to Sir Clifford Sifton. Speaking at Aurora, Ontario, on October 23rd last, as quoted in the Manitoba Free Press, Sir Clifford Sifton said-and I ask Liberals who profess to believe in free trade to pay attention to these words:
I am bound to say that I have been disagreeably affected by the discussions with respect to the tariff which have taken place in the present election. They seem to me to have been crude and ill-informed showing no systematic or careful study of the subject. Lett me say a few words to you on the subject of the tariff as it appears to me.
Then here is his pronouncement:
Our tariff is the result of about forty years of very careful study and very hard, conscientious work on the part of different Finance ministers and a corps of very well informed assistants. Successive Finance ministers have had commissions of inquiry and the whole subject lias been gone into in exhaustive

1158	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
detail. The result o-f this is that the tariff has been worked down to a condition in which there is very little more t-o be learned about it, and this is proven by the fact that as successive ministers of late years have taken office, no matter what representations they made before they got into office, they made very few changes in the tariff after they got in. The fact is that at the present time 'it is impossible to cut down our tariff sufficiently to make any substantial difference in prices to the consumers without making such confusjon and such dislocation of business that the damage done would be altogether out of proportion to the benefit to be derived.
I wish to place upon the records of Hansard one further test. We have had in this country, within my memory, election campaigns in which the Liberal party openly preached a free trade policy. It is true that that policy was subsequently modified by the present leader of the government to a policy that claimed to be moving toward the goal of free trade. I submit, apart altogether from what party you belong to, that the best test of whether any party in this country believes in the policy of free trade is to see what it actually does when in power. You may theorize in opposition, but what you practise in power is the test by which you should be judged. Now since 1878, when the National Policy was introduced in this country, and here I am repeating the declaration made by the right hon. leader of the Conservative party in this House, the firm and settled policy of this country has been one of protection. If it were true that since that day only Conservative governments had been in power the other party might say: Well, if we had been in power, we would have changed that policy. But we have had alternating governments, a number of Liberal and Conservative governments since that day, and if the Liberal party believed in a policy of free trade we would at least expect to find some substantial movement in that direction when it was in office.
These figures which I wish to place on record speak for themselves. In the annual leport of the trade of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924, at page 10, there is a summary of the trade of Canada with all countries from the year 1868 to 1924. I will give you first the average ad valorem rate of duty on all dutiable goods brought into Canada from all countries for certain years.
In 1878 the average ad valorem duty on dutiable imports brought into Canada from all countries was 21.4 per cent. In 1896, when there was a change to a Liberal government, the rate was 30 per cent. Then we had a period of Liberal administration from 1896 to 1911, and in 1911 when the Liberals went out of power the average rate was 25.9 per cent, or a reduction of 4.1 per cent. In 1911 a

Conservative administration came into power, and when it went out in 1921, the average rate was 20.6 per cent; yet when they came into power it was 25.9 per cent. So much for the average reduction. We had a Liberal administration again in 1921, and the average rate when they came in was 20.6 per cent; in 1924, it was 22.9 per cent.
One other set of figures I give you, and that is the average rate upon the total imports, both dutiable and free, for the same years. In 1878 the average ad valorem rate on all goods dutiable and free brought into this country was 14.2 per cent; in 1896, when the Conservative administration went out of power, it was 19.2 per cent; in 1911, when the Liberal administration went out of power, it was 16.2 per cent; in 1924, when the Conservative administration went out of power, it was 14.1 per cent; in 1924, during a period of Liberal administration, it had risen to 15.1 per cent. Now those figures speak for themselves, and they do, I think, suggest this, that the average rate of variation, either upon dutiable goods brought into this country, or upon all goods dutiable and free, is negligible. Weil then, all of us recognizing the fact that we must pursue some policy of protection, what is the next question?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: If the variation
of duty was so negligible, how does the hon. member account for the closing of the two thousand factories which his party says were put out of business by the reductions made in the tariff?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will tell
you what in my opinion is the reason. The importance of a tariff policy is not so much the height of the tariff as a definite, consistent policy which will stabilize business. Very often the mere threat of substantial reductions creates just as much harm, sometimes more, than the actual reductions themselves.
I want to say, particularly to the members of the Progressive party and to those Liberals who are open to conviction, that one of the things our party has chiefly to fight is misrepresentation in connection with the respective positions of the different parties on the tariff. Throughout the length and breadth of this country, at every election, the Conservative party is represented as being a high protection party, and the Liberal as a low tariff party. You ask the representatives of the Liberal party how high the Conservative party believe in putting the tariff, and they will not tell you. They will use some expression which conveys the idea that there is no limit to the height to which we will go in raising the tariff. You ask

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
them how much the Liberal party will reduce the tariff, and they will not tell you. So then it is not a question of a high protective party or a low protective party but, having decided that we must have a tariff, the question is how high shall that tariff be? There I think we can meet on common ground.
Let me submit an illustration: Supposing that in the city of Ottawa there is an industry employing, we will say, 150 men, manufacturing a commodity which enjoys a protection of 15 per cent. We will say that the government proposes to reduce the duty on that commodity by 5 per cent. Representations are made by that industry against the reduction. Forgetting altogether whether they are free traders or protectionists, if any five lion, megabers of this House were constituted a committee to decide whether or not that tariff should be lowered I submit, if they went about the matter in a business-like way, they would proceed somewhat along this line: First of all they would inquire, "Is that an industry that is good for the city of Ottawa and for this country?" Next they would say, "Open your books and show us why you must have a protection of 15 per cent?" If they show it is because they have to meet competition in respect of goods manufactured on a lower scale of wages in another country; if they show that they have to manufacture here under conditions which do not obtain in the competing country, then it must be decided whether it is desirable to give them the safeguard that they have asked for, or let them go out of business. Without carrying the illustration further, I submit it comes down to the question: shall we give them some protection? Then the next question is, how much? How shall the committee decide? Doubtless they would say: "Open your books and show us how much protection you actually need to carry on?" If the committee were of opinion that it would be bad for the city and bad for the community for that plant to close up they would say "We recognize that you are paying wages of sixty cents an hour, whereas your competitor is paying thirty cents an hour. We recognize that you aie manufacturing here under conditions which do not obtain in the competing country. We recognize the fact that you are paying your workmen on an hourly basis for a period much shorter than the working day period of the employees in the factories of that foreign competitor. We recognize that this country is basically a country of high wages."
14011-74J
Therefore, in deciding what protection should be given, I submit that for these reasons the committee would say, "We will give you such a measure of protection as will enable you to continue your business, pay your workmen the standard wage that is demanded in this country, and allow 3'ou to get a reasonable profit upon your investment." That, I submit, is the test which should govern the decision in a matter of this kind. That far, I submit, as far as I can judge, is the extent to which the Conservative party should go in the matter of protection and no further.
But why a tariff at all? I think I have demonstrated why there should be a tariff. Let any hon. member take his own town. To bring the situation a little closer home take the city of Brandon, for the sake of choosing the constituency of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke). We will say there is a plant there manufacturing some commodity under these conditions-basically high wages, hours which are regulated by statute, under our commendable laws which .prohibit the employment of child labour, under conditions where a man can only be required to work so many hours a day, under conditions where he has to receive that certain standard of wages necessary in this country in order to buy the necessaries of life-fuel, clothing and food for himself and his family. Then, if there is no tariff that manufacturer has to compete against a competitor-we will say in the state of Alabama, or any of the southern states, where the climate is warm and labour [DOT] is cheap. If the Brandon manufacturer pays sixty cents an hour to his employees and has to compete with goods manufactured by cheap labour, such as negro labour at 17 cents an hour; if he has to have an investment of $80,000, under the conditions in this country, as to heat, weather, and so on, as against an investment of probably only $8,000 down there, you will take those matters into consideration, and will make up your mind first of all as to whether that particular business should continue or not. If you do not believe in the policy of protection you will say, as some hon. members here say "No; if this institution cannot stand on its own feet without protection it does not deserve to live", and you will not give it protection. Then, by reason of the fact that it cannot compete with the goods brought in from the south, you know what will happen. You know what will happen if a concern cannot sell as cheaply as its competitors. There is only one end. That Brandon factory goes out of business. Suppose that factory employs 150
1160	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
men? Very well, they are thrown out of work, and they join the ranks of the unemployed. You have to consider if that is a good thing for the city of Brandon? Whom does it affect? Is it only the manufacturer, with whom we are often said to be linked in some special way?


Mr. FORKE:: Supposing you take some
of the farmers around the city of Brandon and they put their case up to you. They show you that they are carrying on their business at a loss, what sort of protection would you give them?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If my hon. friend will permit me to continue with my argument I will refer to the situation of the farmers in the vicinity of Brandon a little later on. In the illustration I have mentioned, what you have to consider is whether it is better for that community to protect that particular 'business and ensure its workmen continuous employment, or whether you shall say, "No you cannot have protection." If you make the latter decision that concern will go to the wall and its workmen will join the ranks of the unemployed. Then what do they do? Having being deprived of work in that factory and needing employment, they start looking for it. They will probably go to another factory in the same line of business in that city if there is one available. But if the same policy obtains so far as that factory is concerned what 'will they find? Jobs there? No. On their way into the office of that other factory to ask for a job they will meet more men like themselves coming away and swelling the ranks of the unemployed. So industry languishes. You have the problem of unemployment, and in the final analysis you have the problem of emigration from this country.
Why the need of protection? For this purpose,, and it has no other justification: For the purpose of allowing a business, if it 'is a good thing for the country, to carry on, to pay the standard of wages necessary to be paid in Canada, to expand if possible and develop the resources of this country, and increase its pay rolls!. By so doing it will benefit not that manufacturer alone. Far and away above the benefit that will accrue to that manufacturer, benefit will result to the employees and to the people of this country as a whole. Firstly there are the employees and their families. They buy from the local shops. The shops will buy from the manufacturers and the agricultural producers throughout this country, and the money which is paid out through the payroll of that institution will

find its way through all the avenues of business, even into the pockets of the local agricultural producers. What is the 'history of this question since the war? Since 1921 sixty-three countries of the world have raised their tariffs. That should indicate something. What is the aim of a tariff? The aim of a tariff is to develop and work up our own resources by our own workmen; out of the proceeds of the wealth so created! to pay these workmen, who as consumers buy from Canadian shops, who in turn sell the goods, the products of these very men who are their customers, in order that they may build up the greatest of all markets, the home market.
What is the result of 'such a policy? We build up our industries. We create employment. We fill up the vacant houses and create a demand for new houses. We increase our population. We stop the emigration from this country of the unemployed and the sending out of money to buy the manufactured goods of foreign countries. We attract people to our shores. Having done that we enlarge the home market.
Now how does this home market affect the farmer? I come now to the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I refer to a statement made by that hon. gentleman relating to that very subject which appears in Hansard of February 10, 1925, When the hon. member said:
No amount of reasoning, no amount of argument can ever convince the people dwelling upon the prairies that a protective policy can be of any benefit to them.
I ask this House, is it reasonable for the leader of a party to take the attitude that no 'amount of reasoning can convince him? I submit that the hon, member for Brandon does not do entire justice to all those in the ranks of that party. I will concede this, that the results of a protective tariff do not flow directly to the grain growers of the west. I think 'there is scarcely any other class of people in this country who will not admit that the effect of a protective tariff which builds up industries is directly beneficial to them. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) speaking the other night, referring to the matter of the tariff intimated that protection was good for the towns and cities and good for that rural class who were truck farmers in the vicinity of towns and cities, but he intimated it was of no value to the man who was strictly a grain-grower. I think perhaps that is what is in the mind of the hon. member for Brandon.
Admitting that the benefits do not flow to the grain growers directly, I ask the hon.

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
member to consider two things. My hon.
friend is a prosperous farmer in
4 p.m. 'Manitoba. His product is grain.
In order to realize the value of that grain he must get it to market. The actual value of that grain on his farm is reduced by the amount of freight he has to pay on it to get it. to market. Then I say that any policy that has the effect of either raising or lowering the rate on his grain is of direct interest to him. Suppose we wipe out protection in this country and introduce a straight policy of free trade; I do not think anyone will deny that many, many industries would quickly go out of business, and what does that mean to the railways, the carriers of goods? They will carry less goods. I ask this House, from what source are railway rates paid? There are only two sources, passenger traffic and freight traffic. The more important of these two kinds of traffic is the freight, which is more than twice as remunerative to our railway systems as the passenger traffic. In the case of every plant that goes out of business those railways cease to carry the goods of that plant. Multiply one by a thousand or two thousand, and you are eating into the very heart of the life of the railways of this country. You are taking away from them their most remunerative source of revenue -far more remunerative, so far as the rate per ton mile is concerned, than the grain rate. The railways still have to run, still have to pay their wage bills and pay for their upkeep and endeavour to get a fair return at least on the moneys invested. Who will pay it? The people who are left to use the railways. Where is the burden going to come? It is going to fall on the freight that is left to produce the necessary money to keep the railways going. What is left? With the falling off of industry, with the cutting out of that tremendous freight traffic which depends upon industry for its revenue, you have left the grain traffic of the west as one of the most important sources of freight. Under those circumstances, I ask the hon. member for Brandon, will the rates that he pays for every bushel of wheat taken from his farm to world markets be higher or lower? If higher then he is paying that much more because of the fact that free trade has driven the industries out of the country.
I say to the hon. member for Brandon that if, by a reasonable measure of protection, you preserve and develop the industries of this country and create freight traffic for the railways, to that extent you directly assist the hon. member for Brandon and those in his class.


Robert Forke: I want to ask' the hon.
member a question, because he has repeated that statement so frequently, and I cannot, follow his reasoning closely. He speaks about, wiping out industries, and I ask him, doesa Winnipeg exist for the purpose of supporting; the prairies of the west to the Rocky mountains, or do the prairies exist to support Winnipeg?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think the
difficulty in answering the question is that my hon. friend assumes it must be one or the other. I submit it is not a question of the prairies existing to support Winnipeg or Winnipeg existing to support the prairies, but their mutual interests interlock and one works for the benefit of the other.
Mr. FORKE; I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but that is the trouble with his argument. He is speaking altogether from the point of view of industry and he is forgetting the other side of the argument; he is arguing from the point of view of the producer and never giving a thought to the consumer.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will go a step further and deal with the other point to which I refer. Let us assume that with free trade in this country industries languish and many are wiped out. Let us say that instead of half a million people going from Canada in the last four years, as the records show, a million emigrated. Supposing that drainage of man power continued: what would be the result? The aggregate debt of this country is not affected by the emigration of the people; the people go but the debt remains. When there are ten million people in the country it is easier for the individual to meet his share of the debt than when there are five million to bear the burden; fifteen million can more easily bear it than ten million. Well, then, if the effect of a policy of absolute free trade is to swell the ranks of the unemployed and to increase in consequence the stream of emigration of people who are obliged to seek work elsewhere because they cannot find it here, then every man who goes away leaves behind him his share of the taxation and it must be borne by those who remain. If the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will follow that argument through he will find that if he intends to stay in this country he will be one of those who will have to bear the increased burden of taxation due to the exodus of our population. That is an important consideration.
1162	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The hon. member said a few minutes ago that if the representatives of any industry came to this House and urged that they could not carry on under the existing tariff, or in the absence of a tariff, he would examine the books and, if their representations were correct, he would either provide them with a tariff or increase whatever tariff was then in force, as the case might be. Now suppose the grain grower or the cattle producer came here and declared that he could not under present conditions make ends meet. How would the hon. gentleman by means of the tariff make either of these people prosperous? I ask the question merely for information.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I shall try to answer the question as best I can but I want the hon. member to understand that I do not assume to have a remedy for all the ills of the country. There is supposed to be a government for that purpose.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am merely asking for information.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So far as one branch at least of agriculture is concerned, it has been suggested that foreign competition be kept out; that is one proposal at any rate. As to the grain grower in the west, I do not see that a tariff will keep *out foreign grain. I will say this, however, that if the effect of such a tariff is to increase the home market, then by virtue of that improved market in this country the grain grower of the west will profit.


An hon. MEMBER:: In what way?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: An hon. member asks, in what way. I am familiar with the attitude taken by a number of members of the Progressive party in dealing * with this question. They say that so long as Canada is a wheat exporting country the price which the farmer receives for his wheat will not be affected, in any way by the home market but will be governed entirely by the foreign market.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the hon.
member a further question? How is it that the grain growers of the United States, with high protection, are in a worse position than the grain growers of Canada?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The hon. member for Provencher will be fair enough to let me answer his first question first. Perhaps he already sees the answer to his previous question. As I say, it is suggested in

regard to the grain trade of the west that an improved home market does not affect the price received- by the wheat growers so long as we are on an exporting basis. Well, let us assume that the wheat production in Canada in a given year is 400,000,000 bushels. The home consumption at the present time is probably 50,000,000 bushels and if you allow another 50,000,000 bushels for seeding purposes you have for export 300,000,000 bushels. - Suppose, the population of the country should increase until the home consumption amounts to 300,000,000 bushels and the exportable surplus is reduced to 100,000,000 bushels.
What about the argument that so long as we are on an exporting basis an increase in the home market does not affect the price? Will hon. gentlemen contend that an increase from 50,000,000 bushels to 300.000,000 bushels in the home consumption would- have no effect on the price to the farmer? Every million of bushels cut off from exports would represent that much less wheat in the markets of the world to fill the world demand. Let us push that argument to its logical conclusion ; suppose none of the countries producing wheat were on an export basis, then what -would be the price of wheat in the markets of the world where wheat must be had? I contend that with every million of bushels by which you reduce the visible supply of wheat in the world's markets you make for an increase in the world price of wheat.
A good deal has been said at times about the operation of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and if it serves no other purpose, at least it furnishes an illustration. This argument will appeal to many of the farmers of the west because, although they do not go to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, I understand that they frequently take a little flier in grain, so that they know how the markets operate.
If you go into any grain broker's shop where the prices of grain are tabulated you will find quoted at the beginning of each month the world's visible supply of wheat; and if a report comes from the Argentine or the United States or Russia or India or any other grain growing country that, by reason of the drought or a plague or something of that sort, the visible supply is cut down, immediately wheat jumps in price. So that when you reduce the exportable surplus of wheat of any given country you to that extent diminish the visible world supply, and that reacts on the price. If therefore you reduce the exportable surplus of wheat in Canada as a result of increasing the home consumption from 50,000,000 to

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
300,000,000, then you directly affect the world price of wheat and the result will be to raise the price in Canada to the advantage of the farmer.


Malcolm McLean: Would not the
hon. member's argument apply irrespective of where the people lived so long as they consumed the wheat? Whether they lived in Australia or in England or anywhere else, so long as they consumed the wheat would not the argument be the same?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I appreciate the significance of the question; I have heard discussed in the prairies the theory implied in it. It is this. The farmer says, "There are only so many people in the world and I am not concerned with where they live, because they must buy our wheat." I submit this simple illustration. [DOT] There is, say, a family of ten living in France and the wheat from a specific farm finds its way to that family. Suppose we transplant that family from France into Brandon; instead of the wheat being carried overseas it is taken by a much shorter haul to Brandon. Would not the price of the wheat be greater to the farmer under these conditions? Even if you do not admit that in such a case the value of wheat per bushel would be enhanced, even if you do not get a cent more, you certainly will not get any less.
Will it not be better eventually for this country that that family instead of living in Paris lives in the city of Brandon, and is there helping to build up the city and to create business for the local stores.


Mr. VALLANCE:: 
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not
undertaking to produce people to eat up the three hundred million bushels of surplus wheat. I am trying to pursue a line of argument which I see does appeal to hon. members of the group to my left, and also to some staunch Liberals from the prairies. Perhaps I have devoted sufficient attention to that phase of the argument.
I wish now to refer to where labour comes into this scheme of things, particularly as labour is ostensibly represented in this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I take it that those who are interested in the problems of labour are also interested in the problems of the unemployed. I ask the
farmers of the west to forget for a few moments that they are farmers and to come and live with us in the cities. If they will do this and examine the conditions under which some of our urban population live they will find that things are not as bright in the cities as the bright lights would lead them to believe. I recognize that those residing in the rural parts of the Dominion have some difficulties and that life is not always as interesting as they sometimes would like it to be; but if I could take a poll of all our farmers, I wonder how many of them I would find living under circumstances that they do not know the day or the hour when the bailiff will come along and say:	Your rent is overdue; pay up or out you go.
There may be some, but only a comparatively few farmers are in such distress. But in our great cities to-day if hon. members will examine the conditions they will be astounded to find how many people are living practically from hand to mouth, and do not know from one month to another whether they are going to receive sufficient wages to enable them to continue payments on their homes or rent to their landlords.


Malcolm McLean: If the hon. member will allow me? Taking his statement about city conditions to be correct, and admitting that the policy of this country for the past fifty years has been high tariff with very little lowering of duties from time to time, does he think it worth while to continue this system?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My answer to the hon. member is: We never have had a consistently high tariff. He expresses some impatience with that answer. Well, if he cares to examine the tariffs of other countries he will find that our tariff is exceedingly moderate, and always has been.


Malcolm McLean: Will the hon. member allow me to substitute for the phrase, "high tariff" the phrase, "system of protection" that we have had for the last fifty years?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then my answer is: Our chief difficulty is that we have never had adequate protection. When I say, "adequate protection" I do not mean high protection, I do not mean low protection, but I do mean such a measure of protection as is necessary to allow industry to carry on-to expand and to pay its workmen the standard of wages necessary for them to live in this country.
1164	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
Mr. SPENCfE (Maple Creek): Will the Lon. member admit that agriculture is an industry?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, certainly.


Mr. LADNER:: What next?


Mr. HOWDEN:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? If conditions are so very much better on the farms than in the cities, would it not be a good plan to have a lot of the city people live in the country?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I may tell my hon. friend that the happiest hours I ever spent in my life were in the country.


Mr. GHABOT:: In the summer.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But not all the city people can go to the country. I do not say that in the cities there is no happiness; I do not say that generally speaking there is extreme poverty in the cities; but I do say that there is a large element of our urban people who, if not in absolute poverty, are on the very verge of it.


Robert Forke: May I remind the hon. gentleman that some of us who live in the country know something about city life? For three years I was a member of a public welfare commission which inquired very thoroughly into the charitable institutions operating in some of our cities. I may tell him that as a result of that work there is nothing that I do not know about conditions in the city of Winnipeg; in fact, I think I could give my hon. friend some information about his own city.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
Malcolm McLean: Can the hon. member tell us how many of the people who left Canacta went to the other sixty-two countries in the world that raised their tariffs so much in the last few years?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I cannot tell my hon. friend that and I do not know that it goes' to the root of the argument at all. The main fact is that they left Canada, and when they left and went to the United States which is a high tariff country, they left that much more of a tax burden to be borne by the people of this country. I sa>
that a country which struggles along under a burden of taxation with a population of ten millions will perhaps lightly bear that burden with a population of fifteen millions. What we want in this country is people. We shall not get them by a policy that drives people out, but only by such a policy
1166	COMMONS
_ The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
as will build up industry in this country, create employment, andi make living conditions attractive to people outside.
Mr. MoMILLAN: Does the hon. member know that United States border immigration agents declare that between 1910 and 1920 over 742,000 Canadians went to the United States, while the official census of 1920 told us that there were 78,000 fewer Canadians in the United States than there were ten years before?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It may have been that some of the efflux to the United States during those years was because of the conscription law in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not applying that to any particular part of Canada, but to all parts, for we had many people in this country from all corners of the world who were not particularly interested in our empire quarrels, and they sought the easiest way out, which was across the line.
Now I come to the last question. There are some matters in the Speech from the Throne of which I have approved. It is true that I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to criticize the Speech in some other respects and point out matters in which it is lacking. I am faced, when the time eventually shall come in this House for the vote to be taken on the Address, as all hon. members will be faced, with the question of how I shall vote. Let me say this:	A vote
in favour of the Address may not be equivalent to a vote of confidence in the government, yet it clothes with the appearance of authority a government which has neither the confidence of this House nor that of the people of Canada. The Speech from the Throne is not that of a government enjoying that confidence, and without which it has not the right to govern. A vote, I say, in favour of the Address would appear to clothe with authority a government which has the confidence of neither this House nor the country, and I propose to give you1 a few reasons for my view.
My first reason is because of the declarations of the first minister himself, made at Richmond Hill, where he declared:
That brings mo to the situation with which at the moment the government is faced. As a government we can carry on until 1927 if we so desire. As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we all along have had in the House of Commons at another session; but shall we be able to do more than that? That is the question I have put to everyone of my colleagues in the government and to not a few of the members.
It is a question I now put to you who have honoured 
me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electorate of this country. Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable to cope
Now if he was unable to cope with those problems with a majority of one over all in this House, how can he assume to cope with these same national problems now, labouring under a minority of sixteen under the largest group in this House?
I advance another reason! Because the government lacks the power to initiate and carry into effect even such legislation as it believes this country requires. If you want proof of that, all you have to do is to examine the Speech from the Throne and you will find that it forecasts no legislation seeking to solve any of the national problems which the Prime Minister himself said must be solved. It contains only such matters of promised legislation as were necessary for the purpose of securing the support of certain economic groups in this House.
Again, I say, because the government lacks its quota of ministers of the crown, we have the situation in this House of a government which presumes to govern when we have not sitting in this House a Minister of Externa! Affairs, a Minister of Railways, a Minister of Immigration, a Minister of Trade and Commerce, a minister having charge of the Post Office department, a minister administering the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, or a Minister of Labour; and also because the government is without in this House its real directing leader.
Again, because lacking this quota of ministers it really formulates its policies, not through ministers responsible to the crown, but very frequently through those whom it attempted to elect as ministers in the last election but who were rejected at the polls.
I refer to such men as Mr. Massey, Mr. T. C. Norris, Mr. Marler and others.
Again, because it lacks a leader who holds the confidence of the people of Canada. I say to this House, and I say it not in any discourteous way, that the record of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King in the Dominion of Canada politically is not such as to command the confidence of the people of Canada to-day. For proof of that I point to his record. He entered parliament in 1908 for North Waterloo; in 1911 he was rejected by North Waterloo; in 1917 he was rejected by the constituency of North York; in 1919 he was elected by acclamation in the province of Prince Edward Island in a by-election; in

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
1925 he was rejected a second time by the constituency of North York; and now, it is true, he is representative for the constituency of Prince Albert.
Is there any reason for that record of defeats? I suggest that the reason is because the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King as leader of the Liberal party does not possess the confidence of even the Liberals throughout the Dominion of Canada, and that is because on all matters of national concern, when pressed for a solution of these problems he has never attempted directly to deal with them in any courageous way, but rather his manner of dealing with them has always been characterized by vacillation and uncertainty. That is why he has lost the confidence of the people of Canada.
There is another reason to which I wish to refer, and it arose during the last election, and that was the spectacle of the first minister of this country going throughout the constituencies of this country and seeking to offer a political bribe to the electorate by saying to them:	If you elect so and so, you
elect a man with a portfolio attached to him. I submit that that was highly improper for a first minister. I submit that once a man is elected, then, if a government sees fit to honour him with a portfolio, it is a matter for him to go back to his constituents and say: "The government desires me to take this portfolio." I say it is an improper thing for a prime minister to declare to a constituency :	"If you elect so and so I will make
him a cabinet minister." That argument was used. Where? It was used in an endeavour to elect the Hon. T. C. Norris in the constituency of South Winnipeg. But the electors of South Winnipeg declared that they would rather have the hon. member (Mr. Rogers), who to-day is welcomed back by all sides of this House, than the Hon. T. C. Norris, even with a portfolio attached. What did the Prime Minister say as to a portfolio for Mr. Massey? Speaking at Bowmanville, on October 19, according to a Canadian press report, he said:
"I intend," announced Mr. King, "to give him one of the best portfolios I have."
Well, the people of that constituency decided to elect the hon. member who now represents them here, rather than send to parliament Mr. Massey, even with the best portfolio that the Prime Minister could give him.
Again I say we should not vote confidence in this government. We should not do so because this government deliberately shirked a straight vote of want of confidence on the
motion that was introduced the o.ther night. We should not do so because it exists only by reason of the support of a majority of normally three who have not confidence in it. You can pick those three members wherever you like among the government supporters. If you do so you will frequently find that that majority is represented by three or more men who are not in sympathy with this government on matters of principle, who have declared time and time again during the election campaign that they had no confidence in it. If you wish one example, I will give you that of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) who is reported as having said, in discussing the matter of a coalition between the Progressives and the Liberals after the election:
There can be no coalition as long as the Liberal party is wallowing in the mire of corruption as it
is.
There is one of the majority of three. But the hon. member for Rosetown seems to have changed his opinions on his way down here from his constituency. I cannot suggest what induced him to adopt the course he has followed, but it reminds me of the story of Mary Malone. She decided to leave her native parish in Ireland and seek work in England. So she waited on the parish priest, told him her plans, and asked him for a reference. He gave her a certificate of character, but during the course of a severe storm on the passage over to England she lost her certificate. She went to the captain of the ship and told him her trouble. "Oh", he said, "I will fix that all right," so he wrote out a certificate that "Mary Malone left the city of Dublin with a good character, but she lost it on the way over."


Mr. EVANS:: I should like to inform my hon. friend that it is not a matter of changing my mind; it is a case of choosing between two evils. In such a case as that what are you to do?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member would not like to change from bad to worse.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: All I can say is that so far as the hon. member for Rosetown is concerned the government can count on his support under all circumstances, and under -all conditions, no matter how corrupt it may be.
Again I say the government does not enjoy the confidence of the country. I might refer to another of the majority of three, and I do not do so in any Slighting way. I mean the hon. member for Southeast Gray (Miss Macphail) who in this House, I think, de-
1168	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
dared as plainly as words can declare that she had no confidence in this government. I do not think that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who sits opposite, expressed1 any great admiration for the government of the day, either during his campaign or since he has come into the House. As a matter of fact if we take the reason given by the hon. member for Rosetown for his action what does it amount to? That he is only supporting this government' as the lesser of two evils. Then I ask, is that such a measure of support as a responsible government should depend upon? I say that a government which depends upon the support of members, which expects them to vote for it, because it is the lesser of two evils is not fit to remain longer in office.


John Evans: Will the hon. member permit me another question? Even supposing what he says were true, would the Conservative party be in a better position, seeing that they were also in a minority?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think the hon. member will have to wait and see. He will at least admit this:	That when the
present leader of the Conservative party makes a promise to the Canadian public he will carry it out, and from all corners of this House I have been pleased to hear expressions to that effect. The right hon. leader of the Conservative party entered parliament in 1908. From that time to this the hour hand of time has made many revolutions, but to this moment the hour has not yet struck when a promise of the right hon. leader of this party given publicly has passed at a discount from its face value.
I say this government does not possess the confidence of this House or of the Canadian people, because it wants to adjourn. When it wants to adjourn, instead of going on with the public business, it offers no other substantial reason than that it is tired and wants to go home. This government, unable to legislate, is unable to meet its obligations. When a man in private business cannot meet his obligations there is only one thing left for him to do. The same thing applies to a government. A government which can no longer meet its obligations ought in common decency to meet its creditors.
The government has ceased to guide the ship of state in this country. That ship is not guided by a man at the helm; it has lost its rudder; it is drifting helplessly without a pilot. Faintly pefhaps to the ears of Mr. King but plainly to the ears of the people of Canada came the sound of breakers ahead. On October 29th last this government was

tried by the people of Canada; the judgment rendered was that they had no confidence in the administration and that it should be evicted. The days of grace within which the government should have vacated the treasury benches have expired, and at this hour the sheriff of public opinion, armed with a warrant of eviction, stands knocking at the door.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members present will join with me in felicitating the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) upon his maiden effort. To have spoken at such length, to have furnished the House with such a comprehensive review of the political situation in Canada, and to have made such an arraignment of the government and such an exposition of its demerits is an accomplishment which deserves, I think, the commendation of hon. members generally. We of the Conservative party who have been longer in parliament are pleased to find on our side in this House a number of new arrivals of such capacity, energy and ability, as will in the future ensure the vigour and the permanence of that party in this country.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to offer a word of appreciation of yourself, and I wish particularly to congratulate the House on having in the Speaker's chair a gentleman of such superior cultural attainments, of such complete mastery of the English and French languages, of such wide experience in parliament, of such grace, dignity and knowledge of men's attributes-attainments which qualify Your Honour exceptionally well for the high position which you occupy. Having been in parliament for four years I know that on many occasions the position of Speaker has been a difficult one, calling not only for the exercise of sound judgment but for a great measure of patience and an attitude of courtesy and conciliation. These qualities, Sir, you possess in ample degree.
The Speech from the Throne brings to my attention the regrettable fact that the time will soon arrive for the relinquishment by Their Excellencies of the high positions which they hold in this country. As a great soldier Lord Byng did wonderful work in defence of the empire and of our own nation. As a statesman, as a governor general and as a man, I think I am safe in submitting to the House that Lord Byng has no peer in the annals of Canadian history. My hope is that the government and parliament as a whole may be able to prevail upon the government of Great Britain to extend their time in the high office their Excellencies now occupy

The Address-Mr. Ladner
when their period of service is concluded. We are all fully aware that their Excellencies Lord and Lady Byng of Vimy will receive from the people of Canada the hand of gratitude and friendship. I am sure they will from the people of British Columbia; we would welcome them to the citizenship of that fair province.	_
The country to-day is faced with a number of grave and very serious problems. Those hon. members who have studied our history prior to 1867, when confederation was brought about, will agree that the union of Canada at that time was largely a political union of scattered states with diversified economic interests. In Canada to-day we have arrived at a time when we need new makers of confederation-not a political but an economic confederation. Throughout the lengthy and breadth of Canada we hear of growing bitterness; we hear expressions of sectional feeling and the voicing of ideas which indicate intensive thought along economic lines. In one portion of the country they would have no tariff, in another portion a very high tariff, in another a medium tariff. In one section they would oppose the export of natural resources; in another they would encourage it. So that the problems of Canada have largely assumed an economic aspect, and their solution requires the skill, the judgment and the ability of men of business, of men of affairs, if general advantage to the country is to result. In facing that situation the government necessarily plays a 5 p.m. most important part; but instead of having a government of action, of vigour, of aggressiveness and of capacity, we have a government of weakness, of inaction and of incapacity-and, I may say, without being offensive, of political expediency. It is to that phase of the situation that I desire to address some of my remarks this afternoon, in order to bring to the attention of hon. members, and ask them to give some study to, one important question which affects western Canada. I refer to the question of the natural resources and the question of western development.
Before, however, dealing with those particular matters in detail, I should like to remind the government that in the Speech from the Throne we see no reference whatever to a possible solution or proposal for solution of problems affecting our ex-soldiers. These are many and difficult. Experience in the administration of existing laws has demonstrated the necessity of changes, some of them of vital importance. Throughout the country soldiers' organizations are complaining of lack of attention to these matters. The Speech from the
Throne does contain reference to old age pensions. And it is interesting to observe that when this matter of old age pensions- for which I have always stood; I believe them to be in the interest of the country, and that the country can well afford to provide for them-came up last year, the government passed the matter to a committee of the House. When the report of the committee came in, no action was taken by the government, because the report recommended that there should be a conference of premiers to consider not only the matter of old age pensions, in which the provinces have or should have an important interest under our constitution, but also a number of other questions of importance to the provinces and to the federal government. In that connection the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) speaking on February 18, 1925, made this statement:
If I remember well the language of the Speech from the Throne, it is that a conference shall be called together for the purpose of considering amendments to the British North America Aot with respect to the constitution of the Senate and other matters. Surely this-
Referring to the resolution of the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) respecting a suggested amendment of the British North America Act to enable Canada to amend her constitution.
Surety (this would be one of the matters which the government would submit to such a conference.
And amongst other matters was that of old age pensions. The whole tenor of the debate, the attitude of the government and the promise of the ministers, was that they would call a conference to consider these questions in which the provinces had a vital interest and had to be consulted. But what has happened? Not a single thing has been done towards calling that conference. But all of a sudden the government announces in the Speech from the Throne that they have evolved a scheme for old age pensions, the value of which will only be known when the legislation is brought down. There we have another indication of political expediency. One time it is an excuse for taking one course; another time there is excuse for taking a different course.
We have heard considerable discussion in the House about the election last fall, and I shall not weary the House with details. But there are some things which I wish to bring before hon. members, because the promises of the leaders of public thought, especially the leaders of the parties, play an important part in the crystallization of public opinion, and in enabling the public to understand the attitude of the parties on the great
The Address-Mr. Ladner

issues of the day. In the election of 1925 we saw repeated many of the practices which were common in 1921. Local issues became the dominating subjects of contest in the various districts. In 1925 in British Columbia, and particularly in greater Vancouver where there were four candidates, the question raised by the Liberal candidates was that of freight rates. There the Liberals claimed the championship of lower freight rates, and the tariff was not an issue. They were all agreed that we ought to have a protective tariff. The propaganda engaged in by the Liberal press and candidates, as well as by advertising, was to the effect that the Liberal party was the champion of lower freight rates and that the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King had given an assurance that there would be a still further reduction. It was stated also quite incorrectly and unfairly that the Conservative party stood in the way of that reduction. I have before me a number of election advertisements as well as some of the speeches delivered by the candidates and reported verbatim, and one of the most interesting of those speeches is that of Mr. G. G. McGeer who ran against my distinguished colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). When Mr. McGeer made his speech we had a stenographer report it and a copy of that report I have here. I desire to read for the benefit of the House an extract from Mr. McGeer's speech so that hon. members may appreciate the nature of the campaign in Vancouver and the difficulty of the public in grasping the real issues in that contest. Speaking at the Libera! convention on September 22, 1925, Mr. McGeer said:
I believe we have accomplished a great deal. We have secured freight rate reductions that have shown to the people of western Canada the value of freight reductions, and the difficulties under which we have laboured in the past. We have done this: we have roused in western Canada a sense of public resentment and we have made equalization of freight rates the foremost national subject in the Dominion of Canada to-day. But more than that, we have received from the Prime Minister of this Dominion a declaration that he will give to western Canada equality of treatment and see that they get impartial justice and fair play. This is the first time this has been accomplished in this Dominion.
We now have the opportunity as electors to accept the Prime Minister's word or we can repudiate his promise, and that is going to be the issue in this coming election. There are wrongs to be adjusted; there are rights to be declared, and we can go on if we will appealing to the Board of Railway Commissioners and the other courts of this Dominion, but I say to you, there is one court in which this issue can be finally settled; there is one place where the people of Canada can get lasting and final justice, *nd that is in the court of public opinion, and, when that is done, it will be written in the lists of the parliament of the Dominion. As your counsel-

Mr. McGeer happened to be counsel for British Columbia in connection with freight rates.
-to-day I advise you to take the Prime Minister at his word, accept his declaration and his new national policy, and send a representative to parliament that wili see that that is written in the statutes of the Dominion.
Hon. members who have studied the question know perfectly well that it was not the intention of the Liberal party nor of the government to write in the statutes of the Dominion anything further with respect to lower freight rates. They should have brought this about in June last; they started to make a reduction which would be of equal advantage to the Pacific' coast and to the people on the route going from the prairies eastward. But they failed to give justice to British Columbia. In the election practically every candidate and every speaker in the district focused his attention and his discussions upon the question of 'freight rates, distorting the position of the Conservative leader and of the Conservative party, and putting into the mouth of our leader phrases and opinions which he never uttered. Consequently they perverted the facts so that the electorate hardly knew what those facts really were.
_ I mention these things because they are so significant of the campaign generally throughout the country, serving at the same time, as they do, to recall to us something of what occurred in 1921. In my judgment the government in this contest, through their candidates and their speakers, should have discussed their record of the past four years, but they said not a word in that respect either in defence or in approval. In 1921 the declaration of policy was that there would be severe economy in public expenditures. Of that, in the election of 1925, we heard not a word. In 1921 they promised to bring into effect the League of Nations principles in regard to labour, as set out in their platform; but so soon as parliament assembled and the business of the House got under way they forgot all about their promises. In 1925 they had no statement to offer on this subject. In 1921 they promised an adequate system of unemployment insurance together with old age pensions, widows' pensions, and even maternity benefits. They were going to take care of everybody. But hon. gentlemen who were here during the past four years know perfectly well that, apart from old age pensions, no serious discussion took place on any of these questions; not a single proposal was submitted by the government to parliament. Of all the promises made in 1921, and which

The Address-Mr. Ladner
no effort was made during the course of the last parliament to implement), the Liberal party, in promising cash grants or bonuses to soldiers' dependents, in addition to the gratuities already granted, assumed probably the greatest and most responsible obligation -an obligation to a class of people who had given their service to the country and who waited in anxiety and with some confidence in our public men who had made these promises to have them fulfilled. To the disgrace of the Liberal party and of its leaders,
I say that during the whole of the four years they were in power in the last parliament they never uttered a single word in recognition of this particular promise, never gave any explanation of their delinquency in the matter, and never brought down a single line of legislation. When the election of 1925 came and we charged the government with default in this and all the other respects in which they had failed to live up to their promises, they had nothing to say. Of course they could say nothing, for they had done nothing. As a matter of fact, during the four years that parliament sat under the direction and control of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and his government not a single pledge of the 1919 platform, nor a single assurance given in the 1921 campaign, was actually honoured; not a single one. I leave it to the fair judgment of any hon. member who has studied these questions to determine whether or not my assertion in this respect is justified.
Perhaps the real spirit of the policy of the Liberal party in 1919 and in 1921, a policy of political expediency, can best be understood in the light of that classic dialogue of questions and answers which took place at Saskatoon at a meeting addressed by the Prime Minister, when somebody in the audience interjected in the course of the right hon. gentleman's speech a number of ques-. tions, the answers to which revealed his attitude when faced with the actualities of statecraft and the problems before the electorate. I am not going to cite many of these things, but I do desire if possible to impress upon hon. members the necessity for the leaders of our parties to carry lOtut their pledges in a statesmanlike manner instead of bending to the whims of sectional influences and of sectional inducements. That meeting took place at Saskatoon. I am reading from a report of the Canadian Press, dated Saskatoon, October 7, and published in the Montreal Gazette:
"I want to make my position perfectly clear." exclaimed the premier. "The government wants to have that road completed, and to have it completed immediately."
Referring to the Hudson Bay railway.
"That vis our desire. But how far can we go in the carrying out of our desire must depend upon the complexion of parliament." "How many miles per member will you complete?" queried a voice. The question caused a laugh. Mr. King: "I am afraid that if I say that I will go the limit if you will go the limit, Mr. Meighen would say that I am trying to bribe this constituency on the prairie."
Well, the rules of the House would prevent my right hon. leader saying what such a promise really amounted to, but a great many people outside parliament would certainly so express themselves.
* Another voice broke in; "How long are you going to wait for the prosperity which is ait the other end of the 92 miles of railway?" "That depends, "returned Mr. King, "on how strongly we are supported in western Canada, but if I find that the Liberal party has no representatives from Saskatchewan, do you think I can get the people from the other provinces to support an appropriation for the Hudson Bay railway?"
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, hon. members, if that is a commendable example of statesmanship from the leader of a great party?
Again there was an interruption that the Progressives had kept the government in power. "No, Sir, and they never did," Mr. King shouted back.
I wonder what he will say when he returns to the House.
"The Liberal party does not want to build the Hudson Bay railway," interrupted the heckler. "That is untrue," the premier warmly returned, "the Liberal party wants to build iit, but we cannot build it unless we have sufficient Liberal support from the prairie provinces to work with the men of other provinces, because you cannot get the House of Commons to vote the money unless you have unity of action.
Unity of action! The "unity of action" we find to-day is the arrangement between the government and our friends of the Progressive party. There it is at its maturity. Let me give another extract from this interesting and instructive report:
"You forget that Canada is growing," Mr. King returned.
This reply was in answer to an inquiry relative to a vote of 85,000,000 for the Quebec harbour.
Another questioner wanted to know why the vote had gone to the Quebec harbour. "We get a certain amount of support from Quebec," said Mr. King. He added that the argument that the government should do nothing for the people who supported it and give everything where it got no support-well, human nature would not stand for that sort of thing.


Mr. RINFRET:: That is all right.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member for St.
James says that that is all right. Well, that may be the political standard of our friends of the Liberal party, but I hope the Conservative
The Address-Mr. Ladner

party will never adopt it. Such a principle of action is ruinous to the country, for it corrupts the people; it causes men to seek office by promising all sorts of things to the electorate, instead of basing their appeal upon the enactment of legislation for the general welfare of the Dominion. It is a poor exhibition of statesmanship-in fact it is not worthy of the name of statesmanship. I take another quotation from this interesting report. It relates to the alternative vote.
Mr. Kang said that had the alternative vote been adopted Liberals would have had advantages in a number of three-cornered fights, "but." he added, "I am coming to see more dearly that the alternative vote will help to perpetuate the group system, and I believe the group system of government bad."
He believes it is bad-that was in October last. Now that the election is over he comes right back to practise what he then believed to be bad. He joins with the Progressive group and promises the single alternative vote to maintain himself and his government in power against the clearly expressed opinion of the majority of the electorate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have referred to these things because they are a sample of the campaign generally which was carried on last October, I believe that the questions and answers contained in this report of the Saskatoon meeting are very significant, particularly the question, "How many miles per member will you complete?" I think it aptly expresses the policy of the government in this present parliament. The Speech from the Throne discloses beyond doubt to any reasonable man who understands the great questions of the day that the whole purpose of the government's action is to seek the support of the Progressive members in order to maintain itself in power. In other words, the government is carrying out the policy of "How many miles of railway per member will you complete?" They have now got the support of twenty-four Progressive members. Just how many remaining miles of the Hudson Bay railway will be built? Well, the Prime Minister has run in Prince Albert in the meantime, and no doubt the whole road will be completed. You will observe, Sir, that in Saskatoon the question of the Hudson Bay railway was paramount; the report does not reveal any other subject of discussion. In Vancouver the question was freight rates, while in some other cities it was low tariff. I refer to these matters because I believe that instead of creating that unity of spirit and of action and promoting that good will among our confederated provinces which every true Canadian should try to foster, this temptation of yielding to the demands of certain sections 
of the country in order to secure votes is bad for the Dominion and must inevitably bring about sectional ill-will and disunion.
I purpose now to deal with that portion of the Speech from the Throne relating to the transference of the natural resources to the province of Alberta, namely:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to (provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources.
I recall to Your Honour that in the Speech from the Throne of 1922 a declaration was made that their natural resources would be handed back to the three western provinces. In keeping with the general sluggishness of the government, nothing at all was done to redeem that promise, but now, at this critical moment, when the government's fate depends upon the Progressive members, several of whom come from Alberta, the government suddenly awakens to the realization that it is in the best interests of western Canada to hand back their natural resources to those provinces. I wonder why the government has not come to an arrangement with the province of Manitoba, which has sent a number of Conservative members to this House? Those who have made a study of this question, particularly those who have read Mr. Chester Martin's little book, will undoubtedly agree that there are strong reasons why the province of Manitoba should receive its natural resources just as well as the province of Alberta.


Mr. DARKE:: Is the hon. member aware
that the same terms offered Alberta were also offered to Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not happen to be in the confidence of the government, but I have noticed that its conduct frequently co-ordinates with prevailing political conditions. In other words, I would judge that the agreement made with the province of Alberta is largely influenced by the advantages accruing to the administration from the support of Progressive members from that province.


Francis Nicholson Darke: What about Saskatchewan?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Saskatchewan seems to
have been looked after in another way. I refer the hon. gentleman to this Saskatoon speech.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: They are just ordinary
Grits.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My right hon. leader suggests that the Saskatchewan members are "just ordinary Grits." The government has got them, anyhow.

The Address-Mr. Ladner


Francis Nicholson Darke: But they did not need to
be bribed.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. gentleman will
read in Hansard the quotation which I have made from that famous speech in Saskatoon, he will find there the main incentive for most of the arrangements to be found in the Speech from the Throne.
I have taken for some time an interest in the question of the natural resources of the western provinces. In 1922, when I spoke on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I went somewhat exhaustively into the matter and into the claims of British Columbia wfith respect to the natural resources that were taken from our province unfairly and unjustly in order to bring about the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway. The principles underlying that problem are the same as those which apply in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
On January 26, at the request of a certain Toronto newspaper, I made a suggestion with respect to the railway belt and the Peace river block in British Columbia, and with respect to the Pacific Great Eastern railway and the very extensive land grants given to that railway and with respect to the Canadian National Railways. My proposal was published in the Vancouver Daily Province, and the next day Mr. Oliver, Premier of British Columbia, made a reply upholding a certain proposal that he had in the way of legislation for handing over the Pacific Great Eastern railway with some 16,075,000 acres of land to certain United States financiers who, it appears, were contemplating taking over this system. About ten days later Mr. Oliver, leader of the Liberal government, made in Vancouver a speech which was published in full in the Morning Star, a Liberal organ, of the 6th February, in relation to the same question. I make reference to this because I believe it is the first step by my good friend Mr. Oliver, who is a shrewd and able tactician in political matters, in connection with the next provincial election and, perhaps, in connection with the next federal election.
This question of British Columbia's claim for better terms had its inception in 1906 when Sir Richard McBride was leader of the Conservative government, and that question as well as the claim for lower freight rates began about the same time, the fight being carried on for a number of years. When Mr. Oliver became premier he took up the question of lower freight rates, and after enticing to his support non-political bodies such as boards of trade and other organizations in 14011-75
British Columbia, he finally made the freight rates question the centre of the hottest and fiercest political fight that has been carried on in that province. The question of freight rates became not only the centre of the political contest provincially, but the centre of the contest federally in the last election. Mr. Oliver proposes to hand over the Pacific Great Eastern railway, together with 16,075,000 acres of land containing many valuable assets, to these United States financiers, and he is making a claim on the federal government for the return to the province of the railway grants which originally consisted of about 13,000,000 acres but of which about
10,600,000	acres remain; and claims also the Peace river block.
That is the position of British Columbia at the present day. I make a proposal quite different from that. I think it will be a misfortune for Canada, and for British Columbia, if we allow a strip of land forty miles wide along the Pacific Great Eastern railway, with great resources in timber and mines and beautiful scenery, to be taken over by foreign interests of any kind who would gain a proprietory interest in those lands and in that railway. It is rumored that Mr. Oliver intends to call a summer session of the provincial legislature in order to consummate a deal which is under consideration and which was authorized to some extent by the last legislature. When my proposal was published in the Vancouver Province on the 26th January, Mr. Oliver the next morning made this reply which I will read because this is a matter, not only of provincial importance, as I will show in the development of my argument, but of national importance. Mr. Oliver made this reply:
(Special to the Province):
Victoria, January 28.-If American capitalists an willing to take over the Pacific Great Eastern railway, together with vast areas of subsidy land, they will not be barred on account of their nationality.
This was made clear by Premier Oliver when h6 issued a statement replying to the suggestion of Leon Ladner, M.P., as reported in "The Province," that the P.G.E. be kept in British control.
"As to whether British, Canadian or United States capital secures control of the railway and the subsidy lands matters but little," the premier asserted in his statement.
"If it is a private corporation it will operate for profit. Again, capital knows no international boundaries. If the railway and the lands are acquired by Britishers or Canadians their Stocks would be marketable in the United States-British to-day, American to-morrow or the reverse.
"In respect of the P.G.E. and its lands being acquired by the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Ladner's suggestions are very similar to the policy of this government, as first outlined 'by myself in a letter addressed to Hon. George Graham, Minister

The Address-Mr. Ladner

of Railways, dated April 30, 1925, and as outlined in an address to -the Vancouver Board of Trade this month. I am very .pleased to see a Conservative member of Parliament endorsing to a large extent a policy proposed by myself."
As a matter of fact, I am condemning the policy proposed by Mr. Oliver and I am repeating the policy which was proposed in this House in 1922 by myself and by other Conservatives in years gone by, particularly by Mr. George H. Cowan, who was formerly a member of this House. I submit to the House and to the government the wisdom of retaining the Pacific Great Eastern railway with its 16,075,000 acres of land under the control of the Canadian National Railways. If the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and these vast resources are of sufficient importance that the United States financiers are willing to come in, take them over, assume the obligations and complete the railway in order to gain the advantages from the resources that lie along the railway, surely such a proposal must be equally sound and advantageous to the Canadian National system which would have not only the resources but control of an important railway system.
I suggest that not only could the Canadian National Railways take over the Pacific Great Eastern railway and these lands, but the Peace river block composed of 3,500,000 acres of land, which has long been in dispute between the province and the Dominion, could well be handed over by grant to the Canadian National Railways. That would ensure to the Dominion and to eastern Canada in particular freedom from demands on the public treasury by the Canadian National system as a result of taking over the Pacific Great Eastern railway. I suggest that the Canadian National Railways should build and the future development of this country will make it necessary to build a railway from the Peace river district to connect with the Canadian National Railways at or near Fort George, either through the Peace or the Pine pass, and in that way an outlet will be given to the vast area of the Peace river district. I know some hon. members will not be much interested in this and will not understand it; but in that Peace river district there is a great empire; there are about 70,000,000 acres of land of which 20,000,000 acres can be brought under cultivation. When you consider that eleven million acres of land under cultivation in Alberta produced 110,000,000 bushels last year, you begin to grasp the immensity of the Peace river area, its importance in the west, and its opportunities for immigration and development. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that not only should we retain these railway systems,
fMr. Ladner.]
but the Canadian National should take over the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway by arrangement with the province of Alberta, so that our government-owned system would have control over the different western railways, the Pacific Great Eastern and the Edmonton and Dunvegan, and then in co-oper-at.ion with the government as well as with the other great railway system, the Canadian Pacific railway, they could undertake a scheme of immigration and colonization for the Peace river and other districts in western Canada.
This country is in need of immigrants. All hon. members, the press, and the public tel! us that the solution of our problems, financial and otherwise, is to be found in the presence of more people in this country. We know that is the solution, but I submit that we cannot get people into this country unless the government takes the initiative in formulating a constructive policy which will induce people to come to Canada, and which will provide them with the means of making a living after they are here. For that reason I commend the government for the arrangement they have recently made for securing immigrants through the co-operation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, whereby the two railway systems in a businesslike way will seek out suitable immigrants in Europe, and take the responsibility for placing them in western Canada, and see to it that they remain in western Canada to carry on the development of the country. I believe the scheme is sound, and I am suggesting to the government that the scheme should be extended to cover more completely the British Isles, so that our immigration policy would be based, not upon political expediency, not be subject to the whims of changing ministers, for we have had three or four ministers of immigration in three or four years, not be subject to a change of policy with a change of party in office, but there should be such continuity of policy and of business arrangements that the average business man who wants to make a capita! investment in a pulp mill or factory of any kind in this country, and the average man who wants to settle on a farm, could go to certain business people such as we have in these two great railway systems and make his plans and arrangements for perhaps the next ten or twenty or twenty-five years to come. In that way, by taking the business of immigration and colonization out of politics and away from government and putting it under the control of competent business management, with a consistent businesslike

The Address-Mr. Ladner
policy, we will secure results in Canada better than we have had in the past. The immigration policy in the past has been a complete failure. There has been practically no immigration in the past ten years. I readily admit that it is largely due to the low tariff that we have and to the economic conditions of the country, but I also believe that the system which has been followed by the government in the matter of immigration has been no system at all. The policy has been changed so frequently that no one can depend upon its permanency, and no man can know when he comes here with his capital what will happen to his venture.
I relate this question of immigration, Mr. Speaker, to the general development of western Canada. The Prime Minister has intimated in one of his political speeches that the spearhead of immigration was pointing westward. My right hon. leader has pointed out that statistics show that the spearhead of immigration is pointing southward, which has resulted in very little access to our population during the last ten years. I urge upon this House, in my small effort to make a contribution towards a solution of the problems of this country, the wisdom of placing in a businesslike way the control of the securing of immigrants in the hands of the management of our two great railway systems, subject to such restrictions as will protect the treasury of this country and the interests of the country at large. I suggest, I repeat, that the Canadian National railway system, without demands upon the public treasury, without obligating the government of Canada, without obligating the system itself, should be endowed.with such grants of land as would enaible it to take over the Pacific Great Eastern and the Edmonton and Dunvegan railways, and thereby be put in a position to settle these immigrants who come in throughout western Canada. That could be done without any trouble. In the Peace river district there aTe between 65.000,000 and 74.000,000 acres of land, of which 20,000,000 acres can be brought under cultivation; of that, 13,000,000 acres is class A land which will require no expense to bring it under cultivation, and the other 7,000,000 acres would require perhaps from $3 to So per acre to be made suitable for the growing of grain.
Mr. Speaker, an arrangement of that kind might involve not only the giving of the Peace river block now owned by the Dominion government to the Canadian National Railway, thereby settling a dispute between British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada, but, if necessary, the government should 14011-751
make such further grants of land out of the great Peace river area, which is owned by the Dominion government, as would absolutely ensure to the Canadian National system freedom from any financial obligations or loss in getting control of these two railways I have mentioned. I make this suggestion for what it is worth, and I am hopeful that in the course of time something like this will be done. I submit that this country will not develop unless some active, aggressive scheme is worked out and pushed forward, and the development of Canada to-day depends largely upon the development of western Canada . and upon the opening up of these new areas.


Francis Nicholson Darke: In that 60,000,000 acres, does the hon. member include the Peace river district in Alberta?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes. The proposal I submit necessarily involves an arrangement not only between British Columbia and the federal government but also with Alberta. I am told that Alberta has actually control of the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway by arrangement with the bondholders. The situation is ripe. All the integral parts required to be brought together to enable development to take place are there ready to be taken over. The economic situation of the country at large makes it possible to make arrangements that would enable the Canadian National system and the government to take hold of this enterprise at the very minimum of expense, with all the opportunities which are bound to develop in the future.


Mr. BALDWIN:: What is the mileage of the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not know the exact mileage, but the price asked by the Alberta government is in the neighbourhood of $15000,000.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Several hundred miles,
probably.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I understand that the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway is a remunerative system, and only a little extension by way of branch lines will make it quite profitable. I make this proposal so_ that hon. members and the people of eastern Canada will not feel that the public treasury of this country as a whole would be obligated with respect to this railway enterprise in the west. I think the west has now reached the stage where it can and should finance its own railway enterprises.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have made a suggestion, but involved in that suggestion is the
The Address-Mr. Ladner

question of the natural resources of the four western provinces. It will be a matter of very great interest to those hon. members who take the time and the opportunity to read the history of that problem. I will not worry the House this afternoon with any historical data, but I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members some of the principles on which the demand for the return of these natural resources is based, particularly that of British Columbia.
Before the western provinces became part of confederation, the six original provinces of Canada comprised an area of approximately 500 million acres. There remained a vast empire of nearly two billion acres which was the common property of the confederated provinces, as well as the unorganized territories of the country. By legislation enacted in 1809 and 1912, Ontario received land to the extent of 150 million acres, giving that province a total of 261 million acres, practically doubling its size. That legislation gave to Ontario lands of great value in mineral wealth, in timber, and in pulpwood. The province of Quebec by similar legislation in those years received lands which increased its acreage from 124 millions at the time of confederation to 452 millions. In other words, the province of Quebec is now four times its original size, and in these great additions of acreage it received properties which are now disclosed to have immense wealth in minerals, timber, and other resources. I wish hon. members from the eastern sections of Canada to bear those facts in mind when considering the claims of British Columbia and the other western provinces, because it will be found that in the course of events the western provinces, instead of receiving additions to their acreage, have been deprived of their natural resources which under the law of public domain was actually their property and should have been given to them. The province of Nova Scotia, through the construction of the Intercolonial railway, from which of course other provinces benefited as well, received the benefit of an expenditure of $160,000,000.
Mr. EVA'NS:	Before the hon. gentleman
gets too far away from the point, will he say why their natural resources were not given to those provinces?


Leon Johnson Ladner: To the prairie provinces?


John Evans: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

James Alexander Robb: Before you leave the Chair,
Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the House to lay on the Table volume 1 of the Auditor General's report?


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When the House rose at
six o'clock I had been dealing with the question of the public domain and the rights, constitutionally and in the light of history, of the self-governing colonies and dominions, particularly as relating to their right, upon attaining the status of self-government, to the control of their own natural resources. It is recognized by all constitutional authorities that both the dominions and the provinces should enjoy that right.
With reference to the question of natural resources, I had discussed a proposal under which the Canadian National Railway should take over two provincial railways, the Pacific Great Eastern and the Edmonton and Dun-vegan. I wish at this juncture to summarize that proposal, because there is one feature of it to which I omitted to refer. Under that proposal the Canadian National Railway was to take over the Pacific Great Eastern, together with 16,075,000 acres of land which, under an act of the provincial legislature, had been given as a grant to that railway system. I omitted to make some reference to the resources contained in that new' grant of land, comprising an area of about 40 miles wide and nearly 400 miles long, a grant almost as large as was originally given to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of a line to extend from one end of Canada to the other. The sessional papers for British Columbia for 1924 set forth the report of the surveyor who, under the auspices of the government, conducted an investigation of the timber in what is known as the Horse Fly Cruise, near Quesnel lake. This is merely one example of the resources along that railway. The report reads:
From investigations already made it would appear that this-
Referring to the Horse Fly Cruise.
-will prove one of the richest timber areas investigated by the department to-day. 75,000 acres covered, and 55.876 acres carried merchantable timber averaging 19,000 feet board measure per acre, a remarkably heavy acreage for timber east of the Cascade.
The total stand was over 1,000,000,000 feet of which 43.6 per cent was spruce suitable for pulp and paper, and I understand that one of the provincial ministers has made the statement that there is sufficient spruce and timber to keep two good sized pulp and paper mills going indefinitely. This report, as well as the report of Colonel Dennis, who is known to many hon. members as the head of the Natural Resources department of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and who had been engaged by the provincial government to investigate the lands along the Pacific Great Eastern railway, discloses the great richness of that district, particularly in mineral resources, which can hardly be calculated. I make special reference to this for the reason that in the past it has been proposed by provincial governments, who are always seeking to get something from the Dominion treasury without paying very much, that the Canadian National Railways or the Dominion government should take over the Pacific Great Eastern railway. That proposal appears to me to be not exactly fair to the rest of Canada. British Columbia has $47,000,000 invested in that railway and I might add, what I omitted to mention before, that the scenic beauty along the line constitutes a tourists' paradise.
The proposal which I now submit to parliament is that the Canadian National Railways should be asked to take over not only the Pacific Great Eastern railway and the obligations of the original investment, but receive as well the advantages of the 16,075,000 acres of land. As I have pointed out, the Canadian National Railways would also receive the Peace river block of 3,500,000 acres, of which 2,000,000 acres consist of arable lands suitable for cultivation. That Peace river block belongs equitably and, I might add, legally to the province of British Columbia although it was granted in 1884 to the Dominion under circumstances which would not be defended to-day. I suggest that if these grants of land, with their potential values in timber, mineral and agricultural resources, were not sufficient to indemnify fully the Canadian National Railways against any possible loss with respect to the Pacific Great Eastern or the Edmonton Dunvegan, then the Dominion could, as a matter of general advantage to Canada, grant to the Canadian National Railways additional lands, still m the hands of the Dominion government, out of the great Peace river area which comprises 65,000,000 or 74,000,000 acres of land, according to whichever engineer's report one is willing to accept. These are the conces-
The Address-Mr. Ladner


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Have any of
those lands yet been disposed of by either party?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes. The railway originally was to go through the Yellowhead pass, but the actual grant by the province to the Dominion was not made until 1880, when the route through the Kicking Horse pass had been decided on. In the interval lands had been alienated. It is in connection with that alienation that there arises a second claim that I am now about to deal with-that with reference to the Peace river block. Since then of course there have been further alienations.
The Peace river block, which constitutes our second claim, contains three and a half million acres of land, of which two million are arable. The Liberal government of 1S74 was strongly opposed to the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and found one excuse after another to delay the undertaking. Sir John Macdonald and his party were strongly in favour of aggressive action, and the people of British Columbia, small in numbers though they were in 1871-ten thousand whites and thirty thousand Indians- pressed vigorously for carrying out the terms of the contract. One of the excuses for delay made at the time was that in this vast railway belt certain lands had been alienated, and for that reason it was claimed that the province of British Columbia should give further lands, called "lieu" lands, to the federal government.
The Address-Mr. Ladner

So an arrangement was made under the Act of Settlement in 1884 which adjusted a number of disputes, and this arrangement was mainly brought about by the desire on the part of British Columbia to have the railway completed. Among the disputes so settled was the claim that the lands in the railway belt which had been alienated should be compensated for by the province of British Columbia transferring to the Dominion government the Peace river block of three and a half million acres. The claim had no basis in reason or in right, for the railway belt had been granted to the Dominion government in trust- for a definite and specific purpose, which had not been fulfilled because the whole scheme of financing had been changed. Nevertheless the province was so anxious to have the railway completed that the provincial government transferred the Peace river area to the Dominion government. It is true that the province received an additional annual grant of $100,000 a year, but this it should have received in any event.
There was another important point in the act of 1884 to settle the dispute concerning what is known as the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway on Vancouver island. As a result of the settlement the province parted with another 2,000,000 acres in order to induce the federal government to carry out their undertaking to build that railway and the arrangement which had been entered into with the Dominion authorities. In addition the Dominion government subsidized that railway with $750,000 and took over the construction of the old Esquimalt dry-dock. This question of the 2,000,000 acres of land for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway constitutes in my opinion the third claim of British Columbia for redress. The Mackenzie government, under what are known as the Carnarvon terms of 1874, bound themselves to build the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway free of cost to British Columbia, but they did not go through with it. The government at that time tried to get out of the deal and after negotiations actually offered British Columbia the $750,000 to give up its rights. The province foolishly did not accept the $750,000 with the result that it has never got anything in its place, and to-day the 2,000,000 acres of land are worth about five times what it cost to build the railway.
When the Act of Settlement of 1884 came before the parliament of Canada there was naturally considerable dispute. Ontario and Quebec each had a reason why no concession should be made to British Columbia, and

in order to settle these disputes and to appease the claims of Ontario and Quebec, certain concessions were made. Quebec had subsidized what is known as the Quebec, Mont. real and Ottawa railway and had spent $5,000.000 on it. So, as part of this arrangement or deal in connection with the Settlement. Act of 1884, Quebec received back the $5,000,000 which it had expended on the Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa railway. Similarly Nova Scotia was refunded its outlay on what is known as the eastern extension which became part of the Intercolonial system, and a further settlement was made with New Brunswick with reference to some railway problems that existed there.
If you calculate the expenditures and revenues by the Dominion government in British Columbia and in the prairie provinces, you will find these interesting facts: that in the three prairie provinces the expenditures by the Dominion government exceeded the revenues by $40,000,000 since the Dominion government took over the administration, but in British Columbia, with its great natural resources, the excess of revenues over expenditures since the province came into confederation amounted to $40,000,000.
When we consider the question of our annual subsidies, we find another situation in which British Columbia, in my judgment, has the worst of the transaction. Of course these subsidies are based on population. The annual subsidies are approximately as follows:
Ontario	$2,400,000
Quebec	 2,000,000
Manitoba	 1,470,000
.Saskatchewan	 1.753,000
Alberta	 1,621,000
British Columbia	 623,000
British Columbia has the same population as Alberta. Of course the explanation is given that British Columbia has her natural resources and the prairie provinces do not have theirs, but in the proposal, as I understand it, which the government has submitted in the Speech from the Throne, Alberta will retain her annual subsidy of $1,621,000 for the next three years and then will take over her natural resources and receive quite a number of advantages.
To sum up the concessions which British Columbia has been obliged to make in order to induce the Dominion government to carry out, not a new agreement, but the original contract of 1871, a compact which was embodied in an act of parliament by the Dominion as well as by the province, and to complete the railway, constitute the giving

The Address-Mr. Ladner
up of lands the conservative value of which is as follows:
Value of timber, over 22.000,000,000 feet in this 11,000,000 acres of the Dominion railway belt, according to official reports.. $ 75,000,000 Peace river block: value of timber and agricultural lands	 35,000,000
Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway grant:
value of 2,000,000	acres	
20,000,000Excess contribution	of revenue	
40,000,000Total	$170,000,000
This does not take into consideration the great value of mineral and coal deposits foiund in those lands. So I repeat that in order that we could have a consummation of confederation, in order that we could have a bargain which was signed, sealed and delivered with British Columbia, completed by the government of Canada, we w^ere forced by the exigencies of the circumstances to part with lands and timber the value of which exceeds $170,000,000-a colossal sum.
I have already pointed out, but I repeat by way of contrast, the treatment which Ontario and Quebec have received since confederation. When confederation started the first six provinces contained an area of 500.000,000 acres, and there was a vast domain of 2,000,000,000 acres which was the common property of the provinces of confederation as well as of the people in the unorganized districts. Notwithstanding that, out of this vast domain of
2.000.	000.000 acres, a great portion of which properly belongs to the prairie provinces and has not been given to them, by legislation of 1808 and 1912 Ontario has had her area increased from 150,000,000 acres to a total of
261.000.	000 acres, or practically double, and Quebec has had its area increased from 124,000,000 acres to 452,000,000 acres, or four times as much. I refer to these matters because in those additions to the provinces have been found enormous resources in minerals and timber which to-day are making those provinces wealthy and creating trade, traffic and industry beyond the dreams of the legislators of those times.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Does the hon.
member not think the Maritime provinces have a strong claim for some compensation?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do, but the Maritime
provinces have also been looked after to a certain degree, because they have received the advantages of the Intercolonial railway and they have not been obliged like British Columbia to part with land and timber to the tune of $170,000,000. Moreover, Canada provided $160,000,000 to build the Intercolonial railway and it has been a losing proposition ever since. So the case of the Maritime provinces is less strong, although they have a certain case because, like the rest of Canada, they have a proprietary interest in the vast domain which is the common property of confederation and which, in my judgment, should not have been given, as it was, to the other provinces without some compensation.
That disposes, Mr. Speaker, of my contentions on the part of British Columbia. We have ten Conservatives here from British Columbia and I do not see why our appeal should not be just as strong as that of ten good Liberals; I admit it might not be as strong as that of ten Progressives, but nevertheless I submit these claims to the bar of public opinion, and I believe that when properly informed of the facts not only the whole of western Canada but the eastern provinces as well will realize the justice and merit and equity of these claims, and a satisfactory adjustment will be made.
There are a number of problems which face this country at the present time. In making that statement I am not indicating that I intend to trouble the House with much more talk-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend from Bow River says, "hear, hear." I have not his eloquence, nevertheless I hope to make a contribution in fact and consistency of principle, which is something that has not always characterized the course of the hon. member in the last three years.
In reading over the Speech from the Throne, which says little and perhaps means less, we are not helped in trying to find a solution of some of the very great problems which press before the public of this country at the present time. In the earlier portion of my remarks I referred to the soldier question, to amendments to the Pension Act in connection with ex-soldier matters. There are quite a number of these matters, but the government has given no indication of any legislation in that respect. I know of cases of injustice due purely to the technicalities of the law, not intended by parliament at all, nor would they be defended by the public at large.
Then there is the question of old age pensions. That is going to be dealt with by the government,. We have matters affecting labour in this country. There is the question of the tariff, which, of course, is the bone of contention. There is the question of immigration. There is the question of reduction of taxation, and in my opinion that is one of the most important before the country to-day, because unless our taxation is on a
11S2
The Address^-Mr. Ladner

level with that of the United States, both capital and people will flow to that country and we will be at a loss. I do not see anything of a constructive nature in the Speech from the Throne that would help us toward a solution of that question.
Then there is the question of the National railways, a question which to a large extent is now out of politics. I am frank to say that in my humble opinion the National railways are under competent management which is proving successful, but there are matters which affect the Dominion of Canada in connection with the subsidies and assistance which must be given to that rail-way. Then there is the question of freight rates, on which I spoke earlier in my remarks this afternoon. The province of British Columbia particularly has suffered a great deal from the high freight rates. The fight has been carried on in parliament and before the Board of Railway Commissioners. The board has given certain concessions, but unfortunately during the last election campaign the Liberal candidate in Vancouver, Mr. McGeer, threw the whole question of freight rates into the heat of a political fight, and in my judgment did the cause considerable injury. However, the matter is now before the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Then there is a matter in which I am interested myself, concerning the protection of savings bank deposits by a system of insurance. I shall not go into that at the present time, because I have taken up the time of the House on previous occasions discussing it. I believe, however, that in addition to our existing bank deposit system, a system of guaranteeing savings deposits on an insurance principle would be both advantageous to the public and in the interests of the country as a whole, without doing any harm to our banking institutions; it would rather help them.
In regard to my own constituency, I propose to have a little private talk with my good friend the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) with regard to the north arm of the Fraser river. He is always open to receive us, but beyond that he does not always go in -the matter of giving us concessions, but this time I am hoping to show him by merit as well as by persuasion the wisdom of making some concessions.
We on this side of the House have referred to a number of these problems, Mr. Speaker, because this party offers a solution for them. I do not think that solution can be better expressed than in the words of the resolution my right hon. leader presented to the House on the 1st of June, 1925. A number of the

members may have heard this before, but they cannot hear it too often, especially my friends the Progressives. That resolution stated:
That, in the opinion of this House, to meet the situation which has resulted from a strengthening in late years of the protective system the world over particularly in the United States; to give new life to industry and productive enterprise; to preserve and enlarge the Canadian market for Canadian farm products; to stimulate the. development of Canadian resources by the Canadian people and thus create employment for our workers; to increase the traffic of our railways by which alone an all-round reduction of freight rates can be secured; and, as well, to provide added revenue and thus bring about a reduction of internal taxation, this Dominion requires an immediate revision of the Canadian tariff on a definitely and consistently protective basis.
That such revision should apply to natural products such as farm products, fish, and coal with no less thoroughness than to manufactured goods.
That to the same ends steps should be taken to conserve for Canadian development our essential and irreplaceable resources in material and power.
That while every effort should be directed toward the establishment of a system of preference for preference within the empire no preference should be given at the expense of the Canadian worker and all preference should be conditional on the use of Canadian ports.
That a tariff commission should be appointed representative of the three great classes of Canadian industry, agriculture, manufacturing and labour and be entrusted with the duty of studying Canadian tariff problems in their every bearing and of making from time to time such recommendations to the government as it deems in the general public interest with the reasons therefor, and with power also, where it finds unfair advantage is being taken of protective duties, of making recommendations to be given effect by the government for removing or reducing tariff schedules or imposing special excise taxes upon products in respect of which such advantage is taken, and that its reports, findings, recommendations and reasons therefor be given to the public.
That to enable the products of the western and Maritime provinces to reach more readily the markets so developed the special transportation burdens borne by those provinces should be shared by the whole Dominion either by contribution to long haul freight costs or by assistance in some other form.
In my judgment that policy, short and to the point, offers a solution for many of the problems which face this country.
I would also like to direct attention to a few word's from a report that many hon. members may have heard quoted from before, but it will do us no harm assembled here in parliament to hear them again. The United States Department of Commerce, in its official report No. 44, dated November 3, 1924, says:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States. The establishment of branch factories in Canada-as a means of supplying the Canadian market-is closely tied up with Canadian tariff policy. In fact there are movements under way now which a year hence may considerably curtail the advantages of operating branch factories in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Ladner
That movement I suggest was the general election in October. I quote further:
Against the set ,policy of the Conservative party of building up a thoroughly protective tariff to favour Canadian industries has been operating the influence of the Liberal pa-rty who stand for a more moderate level of import duties.
I read that, Mr. Speaker, in order to bring to the attention of hon. members the dispassionate and well considered view of keen, shrewd business men of the United States. That is the analysis they make of the situation in Canada; and I would commend the thought and ideas to my hon. friends the Progressive members before they continue, without limitation, their help to maintain the government in power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the debate in this House has from time to time revealed very clearly, whether in matters of policy or in conduct of public affairs, the weakness and the inactivity of the government. I commend to hon. members a reflection on the situation in the various democracies of the world. Before the war the sovereignty of the people was universally accepted. Since the w'ar we have had a reaction, a very strong reaction. Russia has accepted a tyranny worse than that of the Czars. China to-day is weltering in anarchy. Italy has practically eliminated its parliamentary institutions and taken a dictator who rules the country with an iron hand, is oppressing the press, and otherwise exercising his will as dictators do. In Spain the democratic institutions of government have given away to a dictatorship. The three great countries of Germany, France and England have witnessed a partial disintegration of their parliamentary system. In Germany the president has recently threatened a dictatorship. In France there have been three cabinets in less than one year; and those who have travelled lately in the republic tell me that there are rumours from many directions of a dictatorship in order to right the difficulties that confront the government there. In England we have witnessed a strong reaction. Britain, the mother of democracies, has seen the development of strong, radical forces controlling the legislation and policies of the country. Throughout the world popular government is in serious danger. European nations are in the grasp of dictators. There is a revolt, not so much against democracy as against the inefficiency and the weakness of parliamentary institutions and of governments. I submit that is a fair analysis of the situation in many of the democratic countries of the world having parliamentary institutions similar in principle to our own;
and I commend to hon. members opposite, as well as to hon. gentlemen to my left, the thought of the weakness, the impotency, and the lack of initiative on the part of the present government in matters of policy, in matters of administration, and in matters relating to the direction of the affairs of this country. The government is not only weak, but it Shirks the course which a strong, vigorous and courageous government would take in regard to the various problems awaiting solution in this country. It lacks the vigour and the courage necessary to deal with the present situation in parliament. It could pursue a definite course but it is afraid to do so.


Charles A. Stewart: Do not be
too sure.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Minister of the Interior says, "Do not be too sure." I can only speak for myself, but I say that if I were in the position of hon. gentlemen opposite, and if I had a policy to submit to parliament and proposed to carry on the business of the country, I would carry it on-


Charles A. Stewart: So will this government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: -and I would take the necessary means to enable me to carry on.


Edward Joseph Garland: From the statement the hon. gentleman has just made, is the House to infer that he advocates the application of the closure?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, I can only express
my own personal opinion, and I will tell you frankly what it is: the public of this country is sick and tired of inaction. There is business to be done, there are problems to be solved. The business is not done, nor is any solution of those problems recommended, because the government is too weak to do it; and in order to prove to the country that I was not weak I would bring in closure and do the business. Such a course might not be popular with all hon. members, even all those on my own side, but I am only expressing my own view, it seems to me that when you are faced with a situation such as the country is faced with at the present time in connection with the investigation of the Customs department, and regarding serious matters of administration affecting immigration, tariff matters, and all the other problems which exist, there is need for courageous action. We read in the press before the election statements by the government leaders of what they were going to do if only they had sufficient support,
The Address-Mr. Ladner

things they could not do before because they had to depend upon the support of the Progressives, but when that election was over they would reorganize the government and they would carry those measures into effect. But now we have a stalemate. The government is in the hands of the Progressive members. There is compromise of policy and compromise of principle, and where vigour and initiative are required on the part of the government in relation to important questions, they are lacking in the necessary courage and judgment. The whole situation of parliament is one of drift. The business of parliament and the administration of public affairs could be more ably and capably carried on, I think, if we all went home and left the deputy ministers to act so far as ministerial powers are concerned. For my part, as a young man coming from the west-


Ernest Lapointe: How old are you?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am old enough to vote,
and I am also old enough to see the weakness of the government's position. One does not need to be very old to see that. It would be interesting to hear from the government leaders some explanation of why they continue this course of drift day after day.
Mr. MadLEAN (Prince): The government do not wish to be hard with young men.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They may not wish to be hard on young men, but they are certainly hard on themselves so far as concerns the receiving of popular approval.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, we have to listen to a lot of nonsense.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What does the leader of
the House say?


Ernest Lapointe: We are hard on ourselves in listening to such nonsense.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Listening to such nonsen ce?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would prefer to make
statements such as I have made, though the minister may think them nonsensical, than to make promises such as he made, in the most solemn manner, with respect to calling a conference of provincial premiers and then ignoring them entirely without giving any explanation to the House. That is the trouble with a number of our Liberal leaders. They are full of promises particularly before election time, but lack miserably in action When the 
time arrives to do something in parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied enough of the time of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Some hon. members say
to go on. I have enough material to enable me to go on until twelve o'clock, but I do not propose to do so. I hope the members of the government will show a little more of the spirit of the Liberal party I used to read about some years ago, under the leadership of their great chieftain. A situation such as exists to-day would not be countenanced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and would not have been tolerated by Mr. Fielding. But this government is quite willing to make a deal with the Progressives in order to enable them to remain in power, and to adopt a policy so well exemplified in those classic questions and answers to which I have already referred, the best of which was, "How many miles per member will you give us?"


Francis Nicholson Darke: It has been an honour to me, as well as a pain, perhaps, to sit in this House remaining fairly quiet during the past six weeks. I have listened to a great many speeches, some good, some not so good, and some indifferent. I may say, as a business man that during the first part of the debate the speeches appealed to me very strongly indeed. I thought they were on the whole of a very high order. The subject was certainly a debatable one, and the very fact that the government were prepared to submit it to the House indicated that it migh be considered debatable. The debate at the outset was conducted, in my view, on a very high plane. But within the last three weeks the discussion has not been quite so good. I think the reverse should have been the order; we should have the best wine last instead of first. Of course I am not referring to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), which was interesting and very informative indeed.
I desire to congratulate the House on the good judgment they have shown in re-electing Your Honour to the Speaker's chair. I do not believe that there is a man in this House or m Canada who could so ably fill the position which you occupy to-night, Mr. Speaker. During the very trying weeks through which we have passed, your conduct in the chair has been fair, reasonable and honourable, and my best wish is that you may continue in that position, and that when

The Address-Mr. Darke
the next parliament assembles they will exercise the same good judgment in re-electing you to the speakership. I hope you will continue to fill the chair in this House as long as your health will permit you to do so, which I trust will be a good many years. I wish to ask of you on my own behalf the kindly consideration that you have shown to other new members who have addressed the House for the first time. I must confess that it is somewhat of a fearsome task for an ordinary business man to stand before such an august assembly and address them for the first time. However, I am sure, Sir, that if I should show any western broncho tendencies to strike out both fore and aft, you will apply the curb so firmly and yet so gently that I will not be thrown off my feet.
I observe that our friends on the other side of the House are still afflicted with a considerable amount of gloom. There does not appear to be any ray of light breaking through. In fact, across the way the atmosphere is almost as dense as a London fog.
Mr. SPENC'E (Parkdale): There is a good deal of fog around the hon. gentleman.


Francis Nicholson Darke: enough. The main solution hon. gentlemen have to offer is that in connection with the Canadian National Railways, Now I have no doubt that freight rates have some bearing on the troubles of the Maritime provinces but I think that the whole .problem goes deeper than that. It seems to me that hon. gentlemen will have to look elsewhere for a solution of their difficulties than to the transportation of a few thousand tons of coal.
An. hon. MEMBER: What about the tariff?


Francis Nicholson Darke: I am not referring just now to the tariff. What I have in mind at the moment is the possibility of shipping western grain through the Maritime ports. We should like in the west to see our wheat go through those ports; there is not a man in western Canada who would not prefer to see western grain go out of Canadian rather than through American ports. We are Canadians, every one of us in the west, for as a matter of fact a considerable number of us come from the Maritime provinces as well as from Ontario and Quebec. There is no doubt therefore about our being interested in the Maritime provinces. Indeed, we know more about the east than eastern people know about the west. Many of us were born there and we visit eastern Canada pretty often. But what is the situation? The suggestion has been made that either the government or Sir Henry Thornton should dictate to the railways as to where grain or cattle, for instance, should go on its way out of the country. Well, is the railway the servant or the master of the shipper? Suppose I as a shipper went to the Canadian National Railways to have a train load of cattle shipped through Portland or Boston and Sir Henry Thornton or the managers of the railway should tell me that my cattle must go to Halifax or St. John. What would you expect me to say in such a case? I should say, " If you do not want to carry my cattle to Portland I can get another railway to take them ". The important thing is to have shipping facilities provided for transporting our products from our own ports. It is useless asking Sir Henry Thornton to take our wheat to Halifax unless there is adequate shipping to transport it to the markets of the world.
Another point in the matter of Maritime difficulties has reference to coal. The central provinces imported last year of coal and coke -I think it nearly all went to those provinces 

$40,000,000. We do not use any anthracite in the west or, if we do, we use very little; we use our own coal. It is not perfectly clean, out we are patriotic enough to put up with some inconvenience and to burn our own Alberta coal. The only suggestion I have
	_
heard from the people of the Maritime provinces in regard to the coal situation is that the railways should haul Maritime coal at a loss, that loss to be borne by the Dominion as a whole. Now, a good many members from the Maritime provinces support a protectionist policy, and if it is good business for the people of Nova Scotia and Alberta to pay 25 or 30 per cent more for goods manufactured in the central provinces than they would have to pay for similar goods imported, would it not be reasonable to ask these central provinces to pay more for their coal so as to even things up? But has there been any suggestion from the people of central Canada that they are prepared to accept a duty of $2 or $3 per ton on foreign coal in order to encourage the consumption of a home product? I have not heard any such suggestion and I venture to say that if my good friends from the Maritime provinces were to make that proposal ,to the people of Montreal or of Toronto they would be turned down absolutely. It is all right for them to take but they are not so ready to give, and until something is done in that direction I do not think that you will get very far on the way to a solution of the trouble. I am not advocating protection, but I suggest that what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, and they might be given a dose of their own medicine. I am in favour of the proposed commission for I am not satisfied that we have all the facts before us. Let us get those facts and if there is anything that the people of the west can do to assist the Maritime provinces in solving their troubles I say that we are with them.
Considerable criticism has been levelled at our Progressive friends because they have seen fit to support the government, and very many unkind and unfair things have been said about them. I like criticism when it is clean and fair, but it certainly is not fair to insinuate that members of the Progressive party have been bought or bribed or that special inducements have been held out to them in order to secure their support. I think that the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) put the matter rather aptly when he said that perhaps it was a choice between evils, and like sensible people those hon. gentlemen have chosen the lesser of two evils. They could see nothing to hope for on the other side while they see at least a ray of hope on this side, inasmuch as, at any rate, we are headed in the right direction. But so far as the suggestion of bribery is concerned, I do not believe there is enough money in Toronto or Montreal to bribe or to buy the Progressive Party. They are supporting the government

The Address-Mr. Darke
because they are convinced that the government's policy approximates what they themselves advocate and support.
I am at a loss to understand the point of view of our protectionist friends. In one breath they claim that protection has been the settled policy of Canada for nearly fifty years and in the next breath they virtually complain that the country has been ruined because this government has kept that policy in force. They declare that the Liberal government, just as the Conservatives have done, has carried out a policy of protection. Well, if there has been protection what in the world more do they want? If the Liberals have administered a policy of protection why should hon. gentlemen complain? During the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the country was more prosperous than it has ever been in its history, and this hon. gentlemen must admit. They say of course that Providence was responsible. Well, certainly Providence was partly responsible, because Providence is always on the side of the right. And it is a pretty good thing to belong to a party that has Providence on its side.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) was rather tilting at a straw man this afternoon, it seemed to me, in his denunciation of free trade. I do not believe that you will find very many people in Canada to-day who believe that a policy of absolute free trade is possible in this country. We all realise that with the tremendous burden which the war has entailed, and with a policy of protection already in force in Canada, under which considerable industrial development has taken place, involving a great investment of capital, absolute free trade would be an impossibility and a hardship. At the same time, however, there are industries in Canada the capital invested in which would have served a better purpose had it been used in the development of some of our natural resources, instead of being employed in the production of goods from raw material imported into the country. Western Canada of course is not asking for any policy of protection. We realize in the west that we have to place our goods on the markets of the world in competition with the products of the world. You cannot protect the grain grower, the stock raiser or the dairyman on those western plains. It is impossible.
A great deal has been said about the dairy industry. If any fiscal policy adopted by this government endangers the splendid export trade in butter that, Saskatchewan has built up, I would oppose it; and if the imposition of a duty of three or four cents a ,pound is
going to force the home consumer-the labourer, the mechanic and everyone else- to pay that much a pound more for his butter than our surplus production fetches in the markets of the world, I would oppose it, for I do not think it is fair to charge the home consumer more that is obtained in the markets of the world. There is the falsity of protection right through, there is the weakness of the protective policy, it charges the home Consumer a higher price for his commodities in the home market than can be obtained for them in the markets of the world. You cannot produce goods cheaply finder such a condition as that, and Canada, with her enormous natural resources that must be turned into manufactured articles and sold on the markets of the world, can never meet foreign competition when the labourer and everyone else engaged in their manufacture are handicapped by high cost of living. That is where the shoe pinches the western man.
Not that we are opposed to manufacturing. There is no thought of opposition in the western mind to manufacturing industry. We want to see factories everywhere. But we do not think it is necessary that we should pay from 25 to 35 per cent more for goods manufactured in Canada than our brother farmers across the line pay for similar goods manufactured in the United States. Let me give an illustration of what that means. There is no man in Canada that gets greater service out of a moderate priced truck or automobile than does the western farmer. As a rule he is a considerable distance from the post office, the general store and the repair shop, and this rapid means of transportation saves him a great deal of time when probably despatch is very important to him.


Donald Sutherland: Does the hon. gentleman know that his predecessor in Regina, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), voted last session against the reduction of duties on automobiles?


Francis Nicholson Darke: I did not know it, and I am not politician enough to excuse wrong-doing or mistakes, not even on the part of my own government or any member of my party. If the hon. gentleman did that, I think he made a mistake.


Mr. CLARK :: Was he guilty of wrong-doing?


Francis Nicholson Darke: Perhaps that is overdoing
it a little. I will amend that, and say he made a mistake. I do not think the hon. gentleman would be guilty of wrong-doing. The Canadian farmer pays from $250 to $300 more for a
The Address-Mr. Darke

Ford oar manufactured at Ford, Ontario, than the American farmer pays for a similar car manufactured at Detroit, Michigan.


John Arthur Clark: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian farmer pays $250 more for a Ford touring car ait Ford than the American farmer pays for it at Detroit?


Francis Nicholson Darke: Yes, it costs more to the
Canadian farmer for a car manufactured at Ford, Ontario, than the American farmer pays for one manufactured at Detroit, Michigan. The duty is 35 per cent.


John Arthur Clark: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend,-


Francis Nicholson Darke: It is all right.


John Arthur Clark: -but I know he would like to be correct. To-day I happened to look uip that very matter, and the difference in price does not exceed $150. It may be that the cost of transportation and taxes make up the difference in the list prices.


Francis Nicholson Darke: I think there has been a
reduction recently. The $300 difference, of course, would be for the sedan car. At any rate there is a duty of 35 per cent, and the point I make is that the Canadian manufacturer of Ford cars raises his price to the actual amount of the tariff. Now, did it cost that much more to manufacture the car in . Canada than in the United States?


John Arthur Clark: Will the hon. gentleman admit that it does cost more to manufacture the Ford car in Canada than in the States?


Francis Nicholson Darke: No, I am not prepared to admit that it should.


John Arthur Clark: Just one more question. Realizing that in the Ford factory in Detroit twenty-five cars are turned out to every one at the Ford factoiy in Ontario, does the hon. gentleman still persist in thinking that proportionately it would not cost more to manufacture that one car than it does to manufacture one of the twenty-five?


Francis Nicholson Darke: I will give my hon. friend
the proof of my contention. The Ford Motor Car Company of Ford, Ontario, was incorporated in 1905 with a capital of $125,000. Not a dollar of new capital has been put into the company since. In the meantime the company paid in cash dividends $11,000 on each $100 share, and that stock to-day is worth $25,000 a share. I ask hon. gentlemen:	Is
that fair? Those are figures that cannot be disputed.


John Arthur Clark: The hon. gentleman has
asked a question. Does he realize that since

1913 the price of those cars has been reduced by nearly 43. per cent, and the price of labour has risen about 200 per cent?


Francis Nicholson Darke: This statement was published in the Financial Post in the edition of late August, or September. I wore out the clipping in my campaign in Regina and it did very good service. The western men would not object so much to a tariff if the manufacturer would not raise the cost of his protected goods to the level of the tariff. If he would say to the western farmer: "We want a tariff to hold your market but we shall not raise t'he price to the last dollar that the tariff allows," there would not be so very much complaint. But you can rest assured, if the Canadian manufacturer persists in taking advantage of every dollar of that tariff, the western purchaser or any man of common sense will prefer to buy the imported article, knowing that the twenty or thirty-five per cent he has to pay in' duty goes into the Dominion treasury to help pay taxes rather than in the form of excess profits into the pockets of the manufacturer. That is the whole situation.
The western man has no objection to industry; we want industry and we are glad to see it thriving. It does my heart good every time I come east to go through Montreal, Hamilton and Toronto and see those immense buildings being erected there. I know western Canada gives assistance in erecting those buildings and I do not begrudge it, but I say: Play fair with that great producing country to the west, the greatest market the eastern manufacturer has anywhere in the world; a market that is continually developing-because it is only in its infancy. The people of the east do not realize the asset they have in that western country. Last year western Canada produced about 400,000,000 bushels of wheat-one article alone. People talk to us about the home market-a home market for
400.000.	000 bushels of wheat! How many people would you have to have in Canada to consume that quantity of wheat at an average consumption of six bushels for each man, woman and child? You would require about
70.000.	000 people. If we are given a fair chance we can add to the production of western Canada each year more than sufficient to feed the population of Canada. Let me give some figures taken from a very reliable pamphlet issued by the W. Sanford Evans Statistical Service of Winnipeg. Some of the older members will remember Mr. Evans; at any rate hon. members know of him and will regard anything that appears over his signature as thoroughly reliable. I

The Address-Mr. Darke
am sorry I have not his 1925 statement, but I will have it in a few days. Speaking of the increase in production from 1920 to 1923, this pamphlet states:
From 1920 to 1923 there was added to the area under field crops of all kinds in the prairie provinces 7,623,490 acres. . . . The increase over 1920 was 25.2 per cent.
That was at a time when most people in Canada thought we in the west were barely holding our own, a time of very serious depression in the agricultural community. The article continues:
On this added crop area alone, at average yields, the prairie provinces could feed all Canada with wheat, potatoes and all other vegetables, including peas and beans, and grow all the rye, flaxseed and buckwheat Canada now raises; or, in the alternative, it could fill the total consumption demand for wheat of London, New York, Paris and Berlin.
That was only the increase from 1920 to 1923. What is the use of talking to western men about home markets? It is utterly absurd; the thing does not exist.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) came to Regina during the last campaign, and we are always glad to have the right hon. gentleman come west. We rather like him personally although we have not much use for his policy. His coming west is of great assistance to us during election times. I am perfectly safe in saying that his campaign speech in the Stadium in the city of Regina added at least 500 votes to my majority; so that naturally we are very glad to have him come	west at
election times. However, he submitted a proposition which the Hon. Charles Dunning called a horse trade; in other words, he said in effect: If you people in the west will agree to a higher tariff on manufactured goods, we shall give you protection on farm products. We looked the animal over and we concluded that he was blind, broken-winded and spavined in both hind legs, so the hon. gentleman took the animal over the Rockies into British Columbia and worked him off on the people of that province. I do not know just what British Columbia will gain by the " critter," I am sure; but I would advise the people of that province not always to take an attitude antagonistic to the prairie provinces. The prairies constitute the best market they have in the world for many of their products, and there is no reason why we should not work together. One of the bright spots during the depression was the fact that we had an all year ocean port at Vancouver for our grain, and this was certainly very reassuring. Regina is about midway between Fort William and the Pacific, and we are prepared and willing to assist British Columbia in getting any equali-14011-76
zation of rates in order that a portion of our grain may reach the markets of the world via a Canadian port. As a grain port Vancouver is of great benefit to us, but it is useless to us for stock shipments as the time consumed in shipping via Vancouver would render it impossible for us to compete in the British market.
I notice that our agricultural friends favouring protection are more candid than many manufacturers. The latter have always attempted to argue that an increase in duty does not increase the cost of goods to the home purchaser, but the dairyman argues in favour of a duty in order that he can charge the purchaser in the home market the extra three or four cents for eveiy pound of butter that is sold in Canada. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald)-I am sorry he is not in his seat-let the protectionist cat out of the bag nicely the other night, and it stood revealed in all its cattishness. One of his contentions was that if he had had a duty of ten cents a bushel on potatoes in 1924, he could have charged the western farmers ten cents a bushel more for their seed potatoes when they were already paying 81.50 to S2 a bushel. That was his argument in favour of protection, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the only argument that has been advanced in this House in favour of protection-in order that the home market might be protected. What does that mean? It means that the home market would be protected in order that higher prices might be obtained from the consumer. That is the idea, and that is what we object to, and object to in all sincerity. That policy will never build up a united Canada. That policy has built a wall of separation between western Canada and eastern Canada that is daily mounting. It has got so high now that it takes a man of high vision to see over it. That policy has built a wall between the Maritime provinces and eastern Canada. How much longer can that policy go on if we are to remain a united Canada?
I think the time is coming when we as Canadians will have to sit down together and evolve a policy that will be fair to every part of Canada, fair to the Maritime provinces, fair to the east and the central part of Canada, and fair to the west, and in a spirit of friendship and goodwill we must put a tremendous charge of patriotism under that wall that has been built up and blow the accursed thing out of our national existence. Otherwise, it will shatter confederation into atoms. You cannot go on with a policy of that kind and still have a prosperous and united Canada. You cannot have a united

The Address-Mr. Darke

Canada unless there is fair play all around. The discontent in the Maritime provinces cannot be allowed to continue; the discontent in the west cannot go on. You people in the central provinces have acquired eight-tenths of the liquid wealth of Canada. By the absorption of banks and the centralization of big financial institutions you have now in the large cities of Toronto, Hamilton, and Montreal, eight-tenths of the liquid assets of this Dominion. You control all our principal banks and trust and loan companies. We are not objecting so much to that so long as you realize that you are holding those institutions in trust for the people of Canada. The money is not yours; it belongs to the people of Canada, and is it fair and reasonable when the western farmer or producer wants to borrow a few hundred dollars to finance his crop that he should be charged eight and nine and ten per cent when you have millions to loan for stock speculation in the United States and other foreign countries. You will have to realize that you are holding that money in trust for the rest of Canada, and if you are going to play fair, reasonable consideration will have to be given to the outlying parts of Canada
I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. That railway has been somewhat of a bone of contention among the people of Canada for a great many years past. The people of western Canada firmly believe that the roadi will provide a profitable outlet for our stock and for a quantity of our wheat. Let me say right here that it is not going to deprive the ports of Vancouver, Halifax or St. John of one bushel1 of grain that can be handled through those ports; there is no question about that. The production of western Canada is going to be so great in the years to come that all! those ports will be choked. Vancouver was practically choked1 this fall with about fifty million bushels; they will have to add to their facilities. Not much more than forty per cent of the wheat that goes east goes through the port of Montreal. We have to have an outlet, and unquestionably nature intended the Hudson Bay to be the outlet for the western plains. If this were a new project, if we were asking the country to spend twenty or twenty-five million dollars on an absolutely new enterprise, there would be some reason for turning us down and saying it would be impossible at this time to consider the matter. But the government of Canada year in and year out have promised to build this road. They have had it investigated. I have in my hand a Teport that was made by a committee of the Senate and presented in this

House in 1923. I also have a few extracts from reliable mein that I wish to quote :
As far back as 1744, Mr. Dobbs, writing on conditions in the bay and straits wrote as follows: "It is probable that during the whole winter from October to March there is no ice in the strait to obstruct passage into or out of the bay, for a ship which chanced to be closed up with ice in an inlet, by the breaking of ice got out and came through the strait at Christmas without finding any ice in the strait to prevent her passage."
Col. H. H. Webb, present mayor of Winnipeg, passed through the strait in February, 1904, and encountered no ice.
Dr. Robert Bell, F.R.S., credited with seventeen years' experience in northern waters says: "It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating the straits for
they are upon tide water	Why, navigation
through the straits should be particularly easy, because while there may at times be floating ice, there are no rocks and islands upon which to go ashore."
Captain William Hackland, in Hudson's Bay Company service for 39 years: "Straits never freeze; no reason why steamships should not navigate at any time."
Mr. J. W. Tyrol], geologist, who passed through straits several times, writes:	"As to icebergs, they are
occasionally met with in Hudson straits being sometimes carried along the north shore by the prevailing current from Davis strait, but they are by no means of frequent occurrence, and not one-tenth as numerous as off the straits of Belle IsJe."
Then follows the opinion, of Captain Bernier, wtho has had nineteen years' experience in northern waters, and on whose opinion I place more reliance than on all the rest put together. He says:
The Hudson bay and strait are open to navigation the year around, but as far as the strait is concerned, icebergs block the way in places according where the current into or out of the bay drives them. With wireless stations established so that ships could be directed in their course, the Hudson bay ports would rank amongst the most important on the continent, owing to the very appreciable difference in distance to Europe compared with that of other ports.
In 1924, on his return from the north, he wrote as follows:
The nightmare and terror of the Hudson bay are about passed, and with aids to navigation, wireless, proper ship3 and proper men, it will be safer than the St. Lawrence, because there are very few shoals and the water is uniform and nearly constant daylight during the summer, which enables a mariner to see around him.
These are not the opinions of some westerner who might be Jed away by undue enthusiasm; they are the opinions of men of experience, practical men. All that the west is asking at the present time is that the remaining one hundred miles or less be laid with steel and brought into the bay, and sufficient facilities provided in ordet to thoroughly test the practicability of this route. I am satisfied that the additional expenditure necessary wonld be well justified, for the country has already put $22,000,000

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
into this enterprise, and surely for the sake of making that investment of $22,000,000 available for earning purposes, we should not hesitate to spend the extra three or four million dollars that ds required.
There is no doubt that there is immense wealth in that region. Take for instance, the purchase recently of the Flin-Flon mine, not very far distant from this line of railway. It was sold for close to $4,000,000, and the American company that purchased it is prepared to spend another $20,000,000 on development. Unless the Canadian National railway and the government get busy and get that line into Port Nelson, the Canadian Pacific will be into Fort Churchill first, for they are heading that way as fast as they can. Do not make any mistake; the Canadian Pacific Railway Company do not throw away any money on enterprises of that kind unless they can see results.
Mr. MeGIBBQN:	Is the hon. member
speaking with the authority of the government when he says they are limited to three or four millions?


Francis Nicholson Darke: No, I am speaking just as an ordinary business man. I am not in the secrets of the government and do not pretend to know what the government intend to spend; I am only suggesting that amount as being, I think, a reasonable estimate of the amount needed to complete the line to the bay, furnish adequate terminals, and thor-ourgly test out the road. Already $6,000,000 has been spent on terminals.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That is all destroyed.


Francis Nicholson Darke: Oh no, not a bit of it. The work is in perfectly good condition; just as good as the day it was built. A large delegation comprising representatives from Regina and Winnipeg inspected the work last year, and found it in splendid condition. All that is required is to reballast a part of the track, replace the ties, and lay the rails on the remainder of the line to the bay.
I have taken up much more time than I had intended, but I wish to make these few further observations:	After thirty-three
years' residence in the west I have absolute faith in the future of western Canada. I only wish that more of the people of eastern Canada would come west and see what conditions are there. As a director of the Regina agricultural exhibition I invite hon. gentlemen to come west next year and visit our exhibition. Bring a trainload of your manufactured goods along with you, and meet the farmers of the west. You will find them friend-14011- 76J
ly and open to conviction if you can show that you can produce goods of as excellent a quality as are manufactured elsewhere. Drop off at Brandon, the home of the good Progressive leader, and also at Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton. Show the people of the west that you have some interest in them. The west is the finest market that exists in the world, and what we want to do is to try to build up that market in the true spirit of Canadian friendship and patriotism.


Mr. STEWART McCLENAGHAN (Ottawa) :: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Ottawa I wish, on behalf of my fellow citizens, to extend to hon. members of this House a very hearty welcome to this the capital city of Canada. Coming as you do from all parts of the Dominion we would like you to feel not as strangers within our gates but as citizens of Ottawa, because this, after all, is your capital city as well as ours, and we believe that you share our interest in its welfare, our pride in its beauty, and our desire to make it worthy of this great Dominion. We ask you to convey to your constituents this message, that Ottawa's interests are the interests of the Canadian people, and that anything that tends to improve the architectural and natural beauties of the seat of government is a matter not merely of local but of national concern. We have in Ottawa a city that we are very proud of, and we ask you when you return to your homes to tell your constituents about the beautiful capital that is theirs. We also want you to extol the fine climate we enjoy. We are not ashamed of our winter climate in Ottawa; on the contrary we boast of it. We wish the people of Canada to discontinue the habit many of them have of going south for the winter; we would like them to accompany their representatives to the capital and enjoy the really wonderful winter climate with which we are blessed.
The mayor and the city council have requested me to state that in August next we shall celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the capital. A great celebration, which is to occupy two weeks, is planned, and we invite every member of parliament when he goes home to talk to his constituents, to tell them about this magnificent city, and try to induce them to come to Ottawa and make our acquaintance. One of the strange things that has impressed me since I entered the House is the fact that every province in the Dominion seems to have a grievance, with the exception of the two old provinces of Quebec and Ontario. They are the only ones who appear to be perfectly happy. I

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
have not heard any representatives from these provinces make any complaint about grievances. On the other hand we have heard all about the woes of the wheat miners of the west, and we have heard all about the troubles, trials and tribulations of Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not yet, only some of them.


Stewart McClenaghan: Yes, we have heard some of them, and I can testify that they were very ably explained. But the point I want' to get to the people of Canada is this: I attended a banquet in this city a year ago last spring in celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Hon. Thomas d'Arcy McGee, one of the Fathers of Confederation. Now, I happened to take part in the arranging of that banquet, with the result that I read a lot about confederation. As a result of my reading the history of confederation, and after hearing hon. members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tell their story, I came to the conclusion, that those provinces had a grievance, a real grievance; and as a representative of the central part of Canada I am going to do all in my power to help them.
Since coming to this House and hearing all these matters it has occurred to me that we shall have to start a second confederation; we shall have to delegate a competent body of men to go through Canada preaching a new confederation spirit. It seems to me that we are not going to get anywhere if there is continual bickering and fighting between the west and the east. The hon. gentleman who preceded me said in one portion of his address that while he was a free trader, yet when it came down to business free trade was a theory, the inference being that from a commonsense view anything else than a policy of protection was scarcely possible in this country. I believe the same idea prevails in the minds of most of the hon. members of this House, but they do not seem to get together. I imagine, however, that if twenty members from the west, including the Progressives, and twenty members from Quebec and Ontario, were to get together some morning and talk these things over, we might arrive at a solution of many of these questions. In this connection let me say that the first speech I ever heard on the subject of protection was delivered by the late Sir John A. Macdonald in the old opera house in this city, and there were a few words in that speech that impressed me most forcibly. The old chieftain during his

speech walked up and down the stage, and said:	"To get the right idea about the
National Policy the people must bear each other's burdens." There is the great underlying idea in a nutshell. Sir John went on to explain what he meant by that. He said. "You people in Ontario may have to pay a little more for your coal, but when you do that you will be helping your brothers, the miners in Nova Scotia. The people of Nova Scotia may have to pay a little more for their flour, but in doing so they will be helping the farmers and millers of Ontario." I wonder if the great men of that time, the Fathers of Confederation, had a broader grasp of this question than we have.
I want you to compare the idea of protection as illustrated by Sir John A. Macdonald with the position taken by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King when he returned to Ontario after his western tour. If my memory serves me rightly, at the first meeting he addressed in Ontario after coming from the west he spoke somewhat after this fashion: "You will have to watch this man Meighen. He has told the people in the west that he is prepared to do everything in his power to help by means of an adjustment of freight rates to bring coal down to Ontario; therefore you people of Ontario want to watch and see that your coal prices do not go up." Compare that attempt to arouse a spirit of antagonism in the minds of the people of Ontario with the breadth of view displayed by Sir John A. Macdonald when he said that we would have to bear each others burdens.
I believe it is necessary that we should all get more closely together on questions of this kind. Those of us in the east are strongly convinced that protection is the policy for this country; there is no question about it. During the election in the city of Ottawa we told the people there were just two planks in our platform. The first plank we put before them was a protective policy for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the working1 man and the working woman in this country, as well as the interests of the producer, and for the purpose of preserving the forests, the mines and the fisheries. It was a policy of safeguarding. The other plank was given to us by the people of Ottawa, and I think it was the plank on which we won the election, namely, an absolute want of confidence in the King government. I want hon. members from the west to realize that at the Auditorium here in his own home town the Right Hon. Mackenzie King had one of the largest meetings held in his interest in the Dominion. He did not have as

The Address-Mr. McClenaghan
large a meeting as the right hon. leader of the opposition, by five thousand, but it was large enough. At that meeting he said: "I want to get into this next parliament with a clear majority over all. I desire to have a majority of Liberals so that I shall not have to depend on the Progressives." Introducing the English candidate he said, "Here is my friend Mr. Wilson, who entered the Dominion parliament at the same time that I did. We were deskmates together, and got our first inspiration of Liberalism behind the grand old chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier." The next gentleman he introduced was Mr. Chevrier, the then sitting member, whom he referred to as one of the very finest men, a gentleman who had given him great assistance in Ottawa. We Conservatives agreed that the two candidates put up by the Liberals in the city of Ottawa were gentlemen above reproach. WTe admitted that the Liberals had two strong candidates. Mr. Mackenzie King had lived in the city of Ottawa since 1900; he was known by the people of this city better than by those of any other part of the Dominion. Some of the members of his cabinet have been living here ten and fifteen years. Hon. gentlemen must bear in mind that Ottawa is bilingual and we have a dual seat. The English and French candidates are elected on the same ticket; the elector votes for two candidates. Notwithstanding the fact that this was the Right Hon. Mackenzie King's own home town and that he had two splendid candidates, what was the result? Our whole campaign was conducted purely on policy. We had no personalities. We did not talk about the war in Turkey, about conscription or anything of that kind, because the majority of the votes in this particular riding were English, consequently that kind of talk would not go down. We had to talk straight business, and it was a business election. What was the result, then, in Mr. King's home town, where he and every one of his cabinet ministers were known? We knew them; we saw them driving past in their $8,000 automobiles, and if we did not get out of the way we would be splashed with the mud. The people of Ottawa, knowing Mackenzie King and the members of his cabinet as they did, voted want of confidence in them and turned a majority of 6,000 for the Liberals in 1921 into a majority of about 2,300 in 1925 for the Conservatives. That is something you westerners ought to consider and take notice of.
I have heard some hon. members on the other side refer to William Lyon Mackenzie King, and it sounded something like a high
churchman chanting the litany. But we know them all and it does not have any effect upon us. Mr. King is a nice gentleman; we all like him personally, but do not like his policy. The citizens of Ottawa and the citizens of Canada at large claim that the policy inaugurated during the last four years-or the lack of policy-has had a deterrent effect upon business, and that is the reason the people voted against his candidates. They have nothing against the candidates personally. It was a straight want of confidence vote in the King government.
I sat in the galleries when Sir John A. Macdonald was here, and I have heard all the great men in the public life of the country. I am one of the few in this House who had occasion when a boy to talk to the late Alexander Mackenzie, consequently I have seen all kinds of parliaments. I always sat in the men's gallery. I have been watching proceedings in the House for years. The people of Ottawa sit in the galleries, watch the proceedings and listen to the debates, and they generally form their opinion from the knowledge they acquire in that way. The rumour always is -that as Ottawa goes, so the Dominion goes. Ottawa went Conservative, and I claim the Dominion went Conservative. There is no question in my mind that the consensus of opinion is absolutely behind our right hon. leader, and what makes me feel so sure of that is the fact that the right hon. leader of our party in the last parliament had a following of a little over 50, but now comes back with 116. The right hon. leader of the government, when the House dissolved, had a following of 117; he now comes back with 101. The Progressives went out with something like 65, and they now return with 24. What would any ordinary man think about that? Would he not tell us that the consensus of opinion of the people of Canada was in favour of the Conservative party and their policy? There is no question about it that the people o-f Canada are anxious that we should assume the responsibilities of government at the present time.
The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, speaking at the Auditorium last October, made the statement that he wanted to get in absolutely independent of the Progressives. I happened to pick up a clipping from a paper, and it is strange that it comes from Vancouver, dated October 4. It contains the report of a meeting in that city. There were a lot of hecklers present and one of them was heckling Mackenzie King. Mackenzie King stated that the government could have stayed in office-and then a heckler broke in and
Transportation of Coal

said, "As long as old Forke helped you," and'.. Mackenzie King replied:
"Old Forke" has given us a lot of help, but he also has given us a lot of trouble. We are asking for a majority large enough to enable us to govern without fear or favour from any party or individual.
How can Mr. Mackenzie King expect to conduct affairs without fear or favour when he has sixteen less followers than he had lasit session? He is absolutely in the hands and under the will of his master. His master's voice is that of the hon. member for Brandon. That is where the leader of the government sits. You cannot figure it out in any other way. I cannot understand why that hon. member sits on this side instead of going across the floor with hon. members opposite. He should go over there where he rightly belongs, as the actual leader of the government. I hope before the recess is over, Mr. Speaker, you will be good enough to see that the hon. member is given a seat on that side so that we will be able to face him and not have to talk behind his back, as we are doing at the present time. I know there are independent men in the Progressive party and I respect them, but in my opinion there are more independent men in the Conservative party than in all the other parties put together; because when people are good Conservatives they are always independent.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
Monday, February 22, 1926