1926-02-15

PRINCE ALBERT BY-ELECTION CORRESPONDENCE WITH CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER TABLED

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the House some correspondence exchanged between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Speaker of the House.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. J. A. ROBB (for Mr. Lapointe) moved:: That Messrs. King (Kootenay), Casgrain, Charters, Tolmie and Spencer be appointed a committee to prepare and report with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I do not think the
motion is in order. It appears under Government Notices of Motions on page 53 of the order paper, and, of course, could only come in its regular turn. Had I had any information about it I would not object, but I ask that it stand until it can come up in the regular course.


James Alexander Robb: I have no objection to the
resolution standing. It was given to me just as I came in, and I thought perhaps my right hon. friend had been consulted.
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE-MR. FOSTER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of
9S2
Alberta Coal
[Stage Direction]
privilege. The Ottawa Citizen in its issue of February 13, referring to myself, has thi3 heading on an article:	"Asks Freight Rates
out of Board's Hands." May I state that a careful reading of my remarks will indicate that I stated the Intercolonial rates should be taken out of the board's hands, rather than the whole question of rates over the railways in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to a telegram that has just been received from the Milnes Coal Company, Limited, Toronto, as follows:
Wire what the prospects are for obtaining further supply Alberta coal on seven dollars freight rate. Citizens of Toronto in large numbers inquiring for this coal. Immediate action necessary if situation is to be relieved.
I would ask the minister if he is prepared to try and make similar arrangements with Sir Henry Thornton for a further shipment of Alberta coal at the $7 freight rate to relieve the apparent necessities of the citizens of Toronto.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I thought I had made it perfectly clear to the House on a previous occasion that I did not have anything to do with the $7 freight rate. If my hon. friend will look up the Journal of Saturday, he will note that the arrangements were made by the Ontario government with Sir Henry Thornton. So far as I know, the rate is still in existence; I have not heard of it being discontinued. I wish to make it perfectly clear, however, that this government had nothing to do with the inception of that rate. That rate was put on by Sir Henry Thornton to meet an emergency, and I understood, in conversation with him, that it would remain on so long as the emergency existed. I note from what the Journal had to say the other day that there had been . conferences between Premier Ferguson and Sir Henry Thornton with reference to this matter; but the fuel controller of the province of Ontario, Mr. Ellis, is the man who ascertains the necessities of the case, and who makes the arrangements with the railway company for the shipping of the coal.



INQUIRY INTO COST BY RAILWAY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I should like to draw the attention of the government to an article which appears in the Montreal Daily Star of February 12. It is headed " Ottawa government to investigate the actual transportation rate " and reads as follows:
The government has under its immediate consideration a programme of instruction to the railway commission to examine into and report on the actual cost of moving coal from the Maritimes and from Alberta to central Canada it was learned to-day. Hon. E. M. Macdonald, Minister of Defence, intimated this this morning to a group of Alberta and Maritime members who had met to discuss the fuel problem.
Has the government instructed the railway commission to take action along the lines suggested; and if so what is the nature of the instructions given to the commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I can best answer that by laying on the table of the House to-morrow the order in council dealing with this matter. Yes, we have passed an order in council asking the board to investigate.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: May I ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) if his attention has been called to the fact, apparently thoroughly authenticated in our western press, that four young Japanese ladies, graduates of the Tokio Normal College, have arrived in this country and are going to Mission City, and to Ocean Fails, B.'C., to give instruction to Japanese public school students after their regular daily classes? And if that is so, I would also ask under what section of the gentleman's agreement these ladies came in, either as agricultural labourers or as married women, the only two classes for which they are apparently eligible?


Charles A. Stewart: This is the first I have heard of the matter, but I will inquire and find out the facts.



ARRIVAL OF FOREIGNERS AT ST. JOHN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: I draw the attention of the government to a despatch from St. John, N.B., dated February 14, as follows:

Immigration
The Canadian Pacific steamship Montclair arrived in port this morning and docked shortly after twelve o'clock. In addition to the passengers originally booked for the Montclair, those who had been coming to Canada on the Canadian Pacific steamship Marloch, which was in collision recently with a British steamer after leaving Antwerp, were also on board. These were nearly all foreigners, comprising Russians, Italians and Poles.
Passengers arriving on the steamer commented on the fact that there were no less than nineteen languages spoken by people of different nationalities on board.
I should Like to ask the Minister of Immigration whether this is the class of immigrants that is 'being brought in under the comprehensive immigration plan mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, for what purpose these immigrants are being brought into Canada, and whether the minister will give the House an outline of this immigration policy referred to in the Speech?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly answer offhand so comprehensive a question as that, but may I say briefly-


John Arthur Clark: Then may I make a suggestion. Will the minister make a statement during the present debate? I think the House is entitled to the information.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I will make the statement on the first convenient occasion. I may say for the information of my hon. friend that we have preferred countries, as well as non-preferred countries, from which immigrants are being selected and brought forward. My hon. friend has made a quotation with respect to the very class which are non-preferred and are coming through the instrumentality of relatives provided they have agricultural experience, and the other qualifications necessary.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I ask the minister if the class of immigrants referred to in the despatch read by the hon. member are being guaranteed live-years' employment by this government?


Charles A. Stewart: The immigrants to which that applies will be immigrants coming forward after the inception of the regulation. Those referred to may have been picked prior to that agreement. I should not like to answer definitely but I can say for the information of my hon. friend that all who come forward under that agreement will be guaranteed employment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the date of the agreement?


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the day.



UNSUITABLE IMMIGRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I call the attention of the government to the fact that there are certain officials in England who still regard Canada as a sort of penal colony. In a despatch from London which appears in this morning's paper I read the following:
S. E. Short, chairman oif (the Birmingham justices of the peace, gave an accused man the choice on Saturday of Canada or trial 6n charges of threatening to shoot a woman and with having been drunk and disorderly.
The prison doctor said that file man was sane, but addicted to. alcohol. His solicitor af once Baid that the man would sign the pledge and leave Birmingham for the Channel Islands. Mr. Shodt, objected. "They are freer with alcohol in the Channel Islands than we are here," he said, "He had batter go to Canada instead."
The accused man agreed, and the charge of threatening (to shoot was withdrawn, and the other charge adjourned for a couple of months for the magistrate to be assured that the man has gone (to Canada.
I should like to ask into which province this man is to be sent?


Mr. STEVENS:: And will the government guarantee him five years' work.


Charles A. Stewart: I fear the Minister of Immigration could hardly answer so comprehensive a question as that. I think, however, I can safely say that man will not come to Canada.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I wonder if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will gratify us with volume 1 of the Auditor General's report.


James Alexander Robb: I have not yet received that volume.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When is it coming?


James Alexander Robb: It is promised to-day. Perhaps it may come before to-day's sitting is over.



ASH WEDNESDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Alexander Robb: On Thursday last the hon. member for London (Mr. White) inquired as to whether the government proposed sitting on Ash Wednesday. I replied that we hoped the Address would be disposed of-and we are still hoping -in which case we would follow the usual custom and, I added, adjourn. I find the usual
984	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
custom is to sit, and it is the intention of the government if the Address is not disposed of to continue the session on Wednesday.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say when that became the usual custom?


James Alexander Robb: Last year we sat on Ash Wednesday.


Arthur Meighen: The first time, was it not?


James Alexander Robb: I do not recall whether it was the first time or not, but I do recall that a list of holidays was prepared for governing the civil service, and Ash Wednesday was not one of those holidays.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Sutherland (South Oxford).
Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the motion under discussion, and to the amendment thereto. I wirfi to make a few remarks concerning a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) during his speech on the present debate last week. The minister delivered a very amusing address, although I cannot say it was instructive, during which he said:
One question upon w'hich the opposition and myself are agreed is that we get down to business.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side fully agree with that statement. We have been expecting that the government would show some sign of bringing down their legislation, and we are prepared to deal with it the moment it is brought in. The Minister of Agriculture proceeded as follows:
Let us see what kind of business we have been engaged in so far as the result of the obstructionist tactics of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the statement that the opposition are practising obstructionist tactics. Obstruction, in parliamentary language means, to prevent or hinder the passage of legislation introduced by the goverment. What legislation have hon. members prevented from passing up-to-date? What business has been presented by the government for hon. members to consider? I have before me the orders of the day, the routine of proceedings for to-day, Monday, February

15, 1926, and it does not in any way differ from similar orders placed in our hands from day to day since the beginning of the session. I notice under the order "Introduction of bills" that there are no bills for the consideration of the House; and up to the present moment the government has not presented any measures for us to deal with. The next order is the special order "Consideration of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne." Now, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot say that we have not applied ourselves to the discussion of that Speech. The members of the House have discussed it so ably and so vigorously that the government has been practically paralysed and rendered dumb. Hon. members of the three minor groups have apparently entered into a conspiracy of silence and the debate has been carried on by members of the opposition. The next order is in connection with private bills, and there are only two of those bills on the order paper, moved by members of the House. The next order "Questions" contains 140 questions asked by private members, none of which has been answered by the government. The next order is "Notices of motion for production of papers." I see that forty-nine of these motions have been presented to the House by members of the three opposition parties in the House. None of them has been presented by followers of the government. The next order is "Notices of motion." These notices of motion bring forward certain resolutions inviting expressions of opinion by the House, generally relating to public business of importance to the country. These are all brought in by private members, largely on this side of the House, and two or three by the minor groups in the House, but none by the followers of the government. This circumstance makes it evident that the followers of the government have not up to the present period of the session taken any interest in the business of the country. The next order is "Public bills and orders," and all of these have been presented by private members of the House, largely on this side. None of them has been presented by followers of the government and none by the government itself. The next order of business is "Government notices of motion." This order of business contains only one notice, and that is a notice of motion for the adjournment of the House. To-day we have another motion which appears for the first time, namely the motion presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) a few moments ago, asking that a special committee be appointed! to select the standing committees for the session. This notice appears after the House has been in session for
FEBRUARY 15, 1926	F
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Holton)
five weeks whereas the usual custom is for it to appear on the first day of the session. The government then had not been preparing for business up to the beginning of the sixth week. The next order of business is "Government orders," and here we have the following order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on (t!he motion of Mr. Lapointe that in the opinion of this House, in view of the recent general elections, the government was justified in retaining office and (in summoning parliament.
This was the ill-fated motion introduced on the first day, which was so adroitly thrust aside by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). This motion was introduced by the leader of the government following the time honoured precedent by which parliament asserted its rights and powers to discuss and to attend to any public business before proceeding with the Address from the Throne. In presenting that motion the leader of the government announced to the country and to the world that under our constitution the people rule, and that the representatives of the people in parliament assembled are supreme. It was then the right and the power of the government to present any question of public importance for the consideration of this House without proceeding with the Speech from the Throne, and giving it precedence over the Speech from the Throne. The leader of the government followed that up by another motion which was presented to this House on the 8th January, which will be found on page 11 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Hon. Erneat Lapointe (Leader of the House):	I
move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough) that the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business of the House excejpt government notices of motion and introduction otf bills, until disposed of.
Hon. members will notice that the government especially excepted two orders of business which they could have proceeded with, even if the Speech from the Throne had not been disposed of. They could have brought in during that time notices of motion on which bills could be presented to this House and discussed by the hon. members. These bills could have had a first reading and could have been laid upon the table, and put into the hands of hon. members in order that they might study them and be prepared to discuss them when they came up for second reading. But no bill has been introduced and no business has been presented to the House; consequently I claim that the Minister of Agriculture is not justified in saying that members of the opposition are holding up business when there is no public business to transact.
In connection with this motion there is one significant fact to which I would direct the attention of the House. I took the trouble to look up Hansard for the first days of each session since this government came into office in 1922, and I found certain facts which are rather illuminating and which give us a clear indication of the intention of the government. I noticed that on March 8, 1922, the first session of the fourteenth parliament was convened. On the opening of the session, on the first day, the motion giving precedence to the consideration of the Speech from the Throne was moved by the Prime Minister, and in that motion he excepted the introduction of bills as the only order of procedure given precedence over the Speech from the Throne. On the first day of the session a special committee to select the standing committees was named. On January 31, 1923, the second session of the fourteenth parliament, the same procedure was adopted, and the only order of business given precedence over the Speech from the Throne was the introduction of bills, and again the special committee to select the standing committees was named. On February 28, 1924, the third session of the fourteenth parliament was convened, and the same procedure was adopted. I he introduction of bills was the only matter before the House that was excepted, and a special committee to select the standing committees was announced. On February 5, 1925, the fourth session of the fourteenth parliament, the same procedure was adopted. Ihe only order given precedence over the Speech from the Throne was the introduction of bills, and a special committee to select the standing committees for the session was named.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day had the right, if they so wished, to except other matters of business, but in those-four sessions of the fourteenth parliament it was clearly indicated on the first day that the government intended to proceed at once with the public business. They took the proper steps to do so. They made provision for their standing committees to function during the- sittings of parliament. But what do we find on January 7, 1926, at the opening of the first session of the fifteenth parliament? The same procedure was adopted with regard to the Speech from the Throne. The motion was introduced and the government especially excepted introduction of bills and also government notices of motion. The first time that government notices of motion had been excepted, and another exception, a very vital one, was that the government did not name a special committee to select the standing

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
committees for the session, clearly indicating that the government did not intend to proceed with public business when they met parliament on January 7. This is a clear indication that the government deliberately deceived parliament and the country. They met parliament with not a single seat vacant in the House but failed to go on with their business. By that very fact they admitted their impotency, but still they cling to office. That shows very , clearly that this side of the House is not obstructing business.
The Speech from the Throne which we have been considering since the first day of the session, has been so linked up with the motion for adjournment that we cannot pass it without agreeing that this parliament shall cease to function for five weeks. I am not opposed nor objecting to the Speech from the Throne. It means nothing; it is simply a tentative programme presented to parliament in order, if possible, to induce members of the three minor groups to vote with the government. This adjournment will lengthen the session of the House by five weeks, and I oppose that adjournment because of the added expense that it would incur, as the adjournment is part of the session. Whether parliament sits or not, the expenses of the session will go on. I have before me a clipping which I took from the Ottawa Citizen of February 10. This is an article by their special correspondent who, I think, should know what he is speaking about when he sends this broadcast to the country. He says it will and does cost $30,000 a day to run a session of parliament. I think those figures are too high; I think the gentleman is taking into consideration, in connection with this session of parliament, expenses that are on a yearly basis, such as indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons, salaries of ministers and probably salaries of officials in some of the departments. But supposing we cut that in three and say that it costs $10,000 a day-and I think even that is a high estimate-an adjournment of five weeks will cost the country $250,000 for the mere purpose of adjourning in order that the government may be able to repair their trenches and prepare for the work which they should have had in readiness for the meeting of the House.
An adjournment in the midst of a session is the most effective measure that could be adopted to obstruct public business. It means that the House shall cease functioning, shall do no business for five weeks. Therefore I say that the government are obstructing business. They are the real obstructionists; in fact, they are the obstruction. We want that obstruction removed. We are quite

frank about it. What the country wants, the only thing that it will accept, is that this government should cease functioning and give way to another one. Business will never become normal in Canada until that is brought about. What has become of our Progressive friends to my left? Those who were in the last House spoke very frequently and loudly about wanting sessions of parliament to be convened earlier in the year. They went even so far as to say that they would like to have a session before Christmas with an adjournment until after the New Year, and then start the business of parliament early in January so that they could get away in time for their spring seeding. What has become of their farms now? Have they no spring seeding to do this year that they should become such "willing vassals" of an impotent government? I must apologize to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for using a remark that he made in this House when he said, applying the words to this side of the House, that we were "willing vassals of a foreign power." The hon. gentleman in those words expressed volumes with regard to his attitude towards the empire. What has become of the independence of the hon. member for Labelle that he has become such a " willing vassal " of the usurper of the premier office of the Dominion of Canada? The Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, who is so anxiously waiting for returns from Prince Albert to-day, stated very frequently while in opposition in this House that if he were made Prime Minister he would convene parliament early in January in order to meet the wishes of our friends of the Progressive party. But since he has attained office, he has failed to implement his pledges with any performance. He is something like Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, one time Labour Prime Minister of England, who very frankly admitted, after he became Prime Minister, that those things were not so easy. He made this frank admission in the British House of Commons:
In regal'd to our pledges and their fulfilment, why should I not confess we -were a little innocent in this matter? Things which seemed very simple to carry out when we were without experience became very complicated and difficult when we became members of the cabinet responsible for them.
That is exactly the position of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King to-day and the government find that these things are not so easy when they are in office.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) a week ago to-day, may I, just for the purpose of refreshing the memories of

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
hon. gentlemen behind the government who do not seem to be taking interest in this debate, read it?
We desire respectfully to express regret that resulting from the policy of and recent trade agreements made by the present government the dairy products industry of Canada is now being subjected to most unfair and unwarrantable competition from other countries, and that the Speech from the Throne gives no indication of any remedial legislation which would remove the discrimination under which this industry suffers.
This is a very important resolution which aims at remedying the defect in the treaty. That treaty came before the House last June and it went into effect on the 1st October, 1925. When it was before the House last June, it was thoroughly discussed by members on both sides. At that time I took occasion, in connection with the treaty, to make some remarks which I do not feel I have any need to retract, and I shall read them to-day largely because in the course of those remarks the attitude of some of our Progressive friends to our left is brought out. As reported on page 4853 of unrevised Hansard of last year, I made this statement:
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, although T am not opposed to the advantage given the pulp and paper industry under this treaty, yet I do not believe it is proper that that advantage should be gained by sacrificing our agricultural interests. I think our agriculturists need just as much protection os any other branch of Canadian industry. Under this treaty they will be up against almost a free trade proposition with respect to the farm products of Australia, the import of which must result to their serious disadvantage. In that regard I do not feel that I can support this treaty, although I agree that we should do everything possible to get a market for our manufactured products. But we should also conserve our own market here in Canada particularly for the agriculturists, and especially those who are engaged in mixed farming. I am satisfied that our friends from the west who support this treaty now will find it detrimental to them when they go into mixed farming a few years hence. I should think that they ought to look a little bit into the future.
Mr. Campbell: May I point out that the three prairie provinces to-day, taking into consideration the rural population, produce more butter and cheese per head of population than all the other provinces?
Mr. Anderson: Then I will guarantee they will feel the competition coming from Australia more than the rest of Canada will, and that when the treaty comes into operation they will be soriy they voted for it.
An hon. member: We have not voted for it yet.
Mr. Anderson: Will hon. gentlemen support it?
Some hon. members: No.
What I said then is coming true to-day and the dairy industry of Canada is beginning to feel the effects of the Australian treaty. It is interesting to recall some of the statements made in this House at the time by members of the Progressive group. For instance the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), who was then a member, made this statement:
Mr. Evans: Now, we should be doing all we can to foster primary production in this country, and
particularly in the basic industry, which is agriculture,
and if this country is to prosper this must be done.
Mr. Anderson: Are we doing it by means of this treaty?
Mr. Evans: No, that is what I am saying.
This clearly indicates that 'the hon. member was in favour of protection for agriculture; he opposed the treaty for the simple reason that he felt that the protection which was enjoyed by the dairy industry in western Canada was being taken away by the treaty. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forkel also contributed a few remarks which will be found on page 4674 of Hansard:
Now, when I look out to the west I remember that the people there are great consumers of raisins-perhaps no other dried fruit is more generally used in the prairie provinces, and when I think of my own constituency and the large amount of duty they will be called upon to pay under this treaty, I .feel that I will have to vote against it. It is contrary to the principles which we have always professed that tariff rates should be increased, consequently I feel as a matter of principle that I cannot support this treaty, although I do not entertain perhaps the same hostility towards it as the hon. member for Bow River, but, balancing the whole thing, I thing I will be compelled to vote against the measure.
The only increase in duty brought about by that treaty was a slight one on raisins in the general tariff, and yet the hon. member for Brandon opposed the agreement on that ground.	I thought I would look into the
question to see what the Objection amounted to and I find that the duty on raisins up to then had been two-thirds of a cent per pound. That duty was increased to 3 cents per pound in the general tariff while raisins were allowed in free from Australia. I might make the point here that the hon. member for Brandon contended that free imports of raisins from Australia would not reduce the price of that commodity inasmuch as they could not supply the market, and he argued that we should still be using California raisins, paying 3 cents per pound on them. But even with the 3 cents per pound duty, I find that we imported in 1924 38,000,000 pounds of raisins on which duty amounting to $1,140,000 was collected. This meant 12J cents per capita of the population or 65 cents per family of five, while if we deducted the two-thirds of a cent per pound which was on before the increase the duty would amount to 10 cents per head or 50 cents per family. Surely that is not a very great price for the constituents of the hon. member for Brandon to pay in order to maintain protection to the dairy industry of western Canada. As I have said, we imported in 1924 38,000,000 pounds odd of raisins at a cost of $3,222,000, when we paid two-thirds of a cent per pound duty, and in 1925 we imported 44,000,000 pounds at a cost of

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
$3,157,000, a reduction of over $100,000 in the total price paid, although the importation was
6,000,000 pounds more. This proves that the increased duty did not cause any increase in price, which was materially reduced.
With regard to the vote which was taken on the treaty when it was brought up in the House, I have before me a copy of Hansard of that date showing the division.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Can the hon. member tell us what countries those raisins came from? Hid they come from California as before?


Robert King Anderson: A large quantity came from California as before. Now, the division as it appears in Hansard shows that hon. members of the Progressive group in the House at that time and who are in the present House voted against the treaty, and they voted against it on the ground that there was an increase in duty on raisins. But in the light of the facts that I have already cited you can see how small that objection was, and I am constrained to believe therefore that the real reason why those hon. gentlemen voted against the treaty was the fact that it was going to do away with a certain amount of protection on the dairy products of the provinces they represent. They are in favour of protection on the things they sell while they advocate free trade in respect of what they buy. That is the only conclusion I can come to, and it is interesting to note in that connection that five members of the Progressive party now in the House who were opposed to the treaty at that time did not vote at all. I am not going to name them for I do not wish to infer anything from the fact that they did not vote. There are [DOT]many circumstances beyond the control of a member which may prevent him from voting at any time, and there may have been circumstances best known to those hon. gentlemen which made it impossible for them to vote on that occasion.
The amendment before the House challenges the existence of the treaty. It is a demand for its amendment, to remove the restrictions under which the industries of dairying and mixed farming suffer in Canada. This bias been very clearly stated by other speakers, but I intend to enlarge somewhat upon it. The concessions to our manufacturing industry undler the present treaty could have been secured without any sacrifice of our agricultural interests. In fact the first agreement entered into between this government and the Australian government provided for that very thing. The government did not present the agreement

to parliament, and we could get no information concerning it from official sources, but we did learn from the American press that the treaty provided for a substantial increase in the general tariff in order that Australia might be given a substantial preference in our markets without sacrificing the agricultural interests of .Canada. That proposed treaty was not presented to parliament because hon. members of the Progressive group opposed it. The government thereupon amended the agreement reducing the duties on the general tariff to their present level and sent it to Australia for ratification, but in so ' amending it the Canadian government in some instances reduced the duties on agricultural products from Australia to the free trade line. When the new treaty was brought down hon. gentlemen of the Progressive group voted against its ratification, but they delegated a sufficient number of their colleagues to vote for the treaty in order to save the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I state in the most positive terms that I want to see manufacturing industries flourish in this country-I want to see the paper industry flourish, the fishing industry, the automobile industry and the iron and steel industry flourish-these and all other industries in this country I desire to encourage, but I do not want to see them flourish at the expense of agriculture. I am in favour of protection for all our industries -including agriculture. In a word, I am in favour of the policy enunciated by the Conservative party in the last campaign-that all interests and all classes in Canada should receive the benefits of protection.
The districts in which mixed farming, dairying and fruit growing are carried on, are the beauty spots of this Dominion. In fact, Sir, they improve upon nature, they make the very landscape smile with happy homes embowered in flowers and fruit. That is the outstanding feature of a prosperous agricultural industry in any country; it makes for a contented people. Naturally these are the sections which with their beauty and prosperity attract tourists. And these smiling districts are to be found all over Canada. You will find them in the Annapolis and adjacent valleys of Nova Scotia; in the valley or the St. Lawrence in Quebec; along the north shore of lake Ontario, extending thirty miles inland; in the Niagara peninsula, which has become a veritable garden; along the north shore of lake Erie; along the shores of lake Huron, extending for miles inland; also in the Okanagan and adjacent valleys of British Columbia, and in the delta of the Fraser river. These fruitful sections connect-

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
ing the Atlantic with the Pacific are a very beautiful and a distinct connecting link. In short, Sir, mixed farming is a national industry. I am not now speaking in the interests of any province, but of the whole Dominion. Agriculture in other parts of Canada is flourishing, but in the sections I have enumerated it is ia very distinct industry, and a blow at our mixed farming is a blow
4 p.m. at our national existence. The capital invested in our dairy and mixed farming activities runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. We produce similar pioducts to those which are produced in such profusion in Australia and New Zealand- fruit, vegetables, butter, cheese, and meats- all of these are produced in Canada, but they are produced in even greater profusion in the Antipodes. Why, then, should we give the. people of Australia and New Zealand these tariff concessions?


Mr. BALDWIN:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Are not raisins, which are produced in vast quantities in Australia, one of the commodities accorded very favourable treatment under the Australian treaty? I am not aware that we produce raisins.


Robert King Anderson: A concession
was given to the Australians on raisins, and as we do not produce this fruit ourselves, there is no reason why we should not allow it in free. But Australia and New Zealand can produce the other articles I have mentioned much cheaper than we can on account of their more favourable climatic conditions. Nearly half of Australia is in the tropical zone and the other is in the south temperate zone. Thus that country can produce fruits and vegetables under just as favourable conditions as they can be produced in the United States, and the competition of our Antipodean cousins in these lines is almost on a parity with similar competition from the United States. While the distance from Australia is greater, involving higher transportation charges, yet this is more than offset by their climate, which does not require the Australians to house their cattle during the winter; it does not require the winter storage of fodder for their cattle; -it does not require any winter care of plants and fruit trees. Consequently their cost of production is very much lessened. They have another advantage in that their summer season is our winter season, and under this treaty their grass-fed butter will be coming in here during the winter months to compete with our stable-fed butter, which costs us considerably more to produce. This will be a serious menace to our dairy producers.
Many of our farmers 'have gone to great expense in improving their herds, their stabling, their facilities for storing fodder, t'heir feeding equipment during the winter months, in order to cater to the wants of the Canadian people throughout the winter. We have also large sums of money invested in creameries and cheese factories all over the country in order that a steady flow of these products may be maintained to our own market and to the export market. In addition to those capital investments we have a large amount of capital invested in cbld storage plants for the purpose of preserving the summer or grass-fed butter for winter consumption in order to maintain a steady flow of this commodity ,the year around, and so prevent any sharp rises in price. The people interested in these various activities have a right to expect the government to conserve their investments. But this government, apparently unknowingly, throws their interests in the waste paper basket in order to advance the interests of the people of the Antipodes. In other words, this treaty affords a splendid opportunity to our cousins in Australia and New Zealand to capture the Canadian market for dairy products, particularly in the winter season when prices are high. Yet the government, blind to its duty to its own people, and obsessed with the idea that freer trade, irrespective of competition, produces national prosperity, is jeopardizing an industry which it should be protecting to the utmost.
The concession given by the Australian government on manufactured articles, which she cannot produce and which she needs, is no real concession to offset the concessions which this government has granted to the dairy farmers of Australia. The Australians wanted our manufactured articles. On the other hand, they asked and received concessions on what they do produce on an extensive scale and naturally have a large surplus for export. Consequently, they are looking for export markets, and they are very glad to get concessions for their products in the Canadian market. They would not ask for these concessions if they did not feel they could successfully compete in the Canadian market; and they can successfully compete in our markets because the transportation charges are not greater than the transportation charges the Ontario farmer has to pay who ships butter to Calgary. The two can meet there in competition on equal terms, and the consequences will be that the dairy industry of the west will meet with severe competition from Australia and New Zealand just as soon as they are able to ship
990	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
their products into our market. The Australian government of that day must have felt they were dealing with amateurs in diplomacy when they met our ministers, for the Australian people knew absolutely that this trade treaty would not be in the interests of Canadian agriculture. Their Minister of Trade and Commerce said so. He apparently had a better conception of what the treaty would mean to Canadian agriculture than our Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for what did he say? I am quoting now from the speech which the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) made in this debate only a few days ago. The Australian Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Pratten, said:
The problem was to arrive at a result which would achieve the main objects of the negotiation, namely, a wider market for our primary products with a minimum of disadvantage to our secondary industries. The utmost care has been exercised to attain the result, and I feel sure that a careful examination of the proposals will prove that it has been attained.
Further on Mr. Pratten said:
We can readJily imagine that the concessions proposed by Canada on primary products, of which she is a large producer, will lead to criticism by representatives of Canadian primary producers on the ground that their interetsts are being sacrificed to Canada's need for markets for manufactured goods.
Evidently the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Australia sized up the situation and foresaw what the results would be in Canada. He felt, as the members of this House felt, that agriculture in Canada was being sacrificed in the interests of industry. This man, thousands of miles away, was able to size up the situation better even than our Minister of Finance, who, speaking of the Australian treaty, said in this House on June 22, 1925:
We do not claim that this is going to be of any material advantage to agriculture, but we do claim that it will not injure agriculture.
That is the postion the Minister of Finance took. He felt that the treaty was not in the interests of agriculture, but. he was willing to take the risk of injuring agriculture in Canada to see how the treaty would work out.
Another point I wish to take up is in connection with the extension of the Australian treaty to New Zealand. Twice before the question has been asked in this House as to the extension of the Australian treaty to New Zealand, but no answer has been elicited from the government. An order in council was passed on September 26, 1925, and the question was asked in the House whether by that order in council the same concessions given to Australia were being extended to New Zealand, and if New Zealand was giving to Canada the same concessions that Australia

was giving. The hon. member for South Oxford asked:
What concessions were received from New Zealand by extending to that country the same treaty that was extended to Australia, and what pressure was brought to bear by New Zealand to secure the advantages Australia had received?
That question was asked of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who replied:
I will answer that very shortly. I do not know all the details, but I know that we are all in the one family.
But he did not come back to the question. and1 'he gave no answer to it.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Excuse me. That
was the end of my remarks, and I did not want to open up the question again.


Robert King Anderson: The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Davis) also raised the same question. He said :
According to the order that has been passed in council, we as a Canadian -people do not enjoy the same privileges and rights in connection with this treaty as we do in connection with the treaty with Australia. The order in council provides that our markets can be used for the shipment of Australian products for which we receive no consideration whatever. Therefore I say that if we have a government which is willing to open up our markets, under conditions which this order in council provides, for t'he products of other countries in competition with our own products without receiving any consideration whatever, it is the duty of this parliament to deal with the situation. If any minister to-day is of the opinion that I have made in this House an assertion that is not correct, I will give him a few moments to take an opportunity o-f correcting it.
No answer was forthcoming from the members of the government, and several of them were in their seats. That question has not been answered yet, and it is an important question, and should be cleared up. Has New Zealand given us any concessions in return for the concessions that have been extended to her, or was the order in council just a blank order allowing New Zealand products to come into our market without our receiving in return any concessions whatever? This House and the country are entitled to an answer to that question, and I think the members of the government who are now in the House should make some attempt to deal with it.
As regards the trade of Australia and New Zealand-, if we look at those two countries combined, in order to see if they can compete in the Canadian market, we find that the combined area of Australia and New Zealand is almost equal to that of Canada-3,078,443 square mil'esl. The combined population of those two countries in 1921 was 6,654,000, while that of Canada in the same year was 8,778,000. In 1923, the combined foreign trade of

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
Australia and New Zealand amounted to $1,747,4:75,000, while Canada's, trade in the same year amounted to $1,747,875,000, or a difference of only $400,000. The combined foreign trade of Australia and New Zealand works out at $160 per capita, while Canada's amounted to $104 per capita. The combined exports of Australia and New Zealand in 1923 amounted1 to $825,335,000, as compared with $945,295,000 for Canada. But when you look at their dairying, at their mixed fanning, you will find the difference is much greater and much less favourable to Canada. Australia and New Zealand combined have 1,008 factories engaged in dairy production, and they produced in 1923, 370,000,000 pounds of butter and 146,667,000 pounds of cheese. Their production of butter was far in excess of Canada's production, which amounted to 151,000,000 pounds. Canada also produced in that same year 135,000,000 pounds of cheese. So Canada must face keen competition in both these products, and it must be borne in mind that Australia and New Zealand will certainly export more of these products because they have a smaller combined population than Canada. Consequently they compete in the keenest manner with Canada in the British market, and there will also be very serious competition in the Canadian market under the terms of the present treaty. The exports of butter from New Zealand and Australia in 1923 amounted to 204,593,000 pounds, the exports from Canada to 21,900,000. Of cheese in the same year they exported 149,600,000 pounds whereas the Canadian exports amounted to
114,000,000 pounds. The same year there were exported from New Zealand and Australia 152,000,000 pounds of tallow, and 1,236000 dozen eggs. Now, a serious situation will be caused if this butter enters the Canadian market, and it has been coming in since this treaty was negotiated. I have here some figures given me by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They show that in 1924 there was no Australian butter imported into Canada, or in the year following, 1925, until the month of December when a few pounds, amounting in all to 278, came in. But in January, 1926 -and it will be remembered that the treaty became effective on October 1, 1925-476,198, pounds of Australian butter were imported into the Dominion, showing that Australia has already taken advantage of the treaty to ship her butter into Canada. A similar condition applies with respect to New Zealand. There were quite a number of pounds coming into Canada from that dominion in 1924, but the significance of these imports lies in the fact that they nearly all came in during the winter
months. Just as soon as summer comes along New Zealand butter ceases to compete in the Canadian market, but the competition begins again in the fall of the year, when the cold weather is approaching, in order to derive ,the advantage of the increased1 price in the Canadian market. In 1925 there was scarcely any butter entering from New Zealand1 until about the end of the year when imports commenced to enter this country. In November of that year the imports of butter amounted to 37,800 pounds. In December the importations amounted to 13,000 pounds and in January, 1926, to 570,185 pounds. That was the amount which came in in one month. It is still coming in, and will continue to come in in greater quantities as time passes, Showing very distinctly that those countries in the Antipodes are going to take advantage of the Canadian market at the very time of the year when it costs the Canadians most to produce their butter, and when Australia and New Zealand can produce their butter at a minimum of cost.
The same is true with respect to fruit. Australia with its tropical and temperate climates can produce fruits in great abundance, and these fruits will come into this country to compete with our Canadian fruit. The worst feature about the situation, however, is the importations of fruit pulp from Australia which will come into Canada and be made into jams and jellies here to the detriment of the Canadian fruit grower if not to the detriment of the Canadian jam producer. I have taken this matter up with several Canadian producers of jams and they say that the treaty with Australia will not .injure their business because they can buy fruit pulp from Australia cheaper than they can buy fruit in Canada. But even if they do not wish to buy the fruit pulp they will be compelled to do so because if one man imports Australian fruit pulp the others will be obliged to follow his example or else be placed 'at a great disadvantage. The result will be detrimental to the Canadian fruit growers who will not have ihe same extended markets for their products.
The same thing is true with respect to Canadian vegetables. Vegetables can be produced in Australia more cheaply than they can be grown in Canada, and the result of this competition will be to injure both Canadian vegetable growers and canners.
There is another matter in connection with this treaty that I wish to take up and that is in regard to the paper industry. The expectation is that the Canadian paper industry will derive great benefit from this treaty, and up to the present time there has been an


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I enter on this debate at this late hour with a good deal of apprehension, because it is an absolute impossibility to touch on the various points, or on any one point of that Speech from the Throne, which has not already been very thoroughly threshed out. I wish to extend to you, Sir, my hearty congratulations upon the fact that you have been again chosen to occupy the important office of Speaker. Those of us who have been members of the House for some considerable time and who have had the opportunity of observing the manner in which you have discharged the duties of the office regard with satisfaction this renewed expression of confidence on the part of the House. We have noted the fairness with which you have given your decisions and we have always met with encouragement when we have applied to you for information regarding the proper method of carrying on the proceedings of the House. Your agreeable and distinctive personality and unfailing courtesy have contributed to the esteem in which you are held by all members of the House. We are conscious of the fact that you have discharged the duties of your high office with dignity and grace.

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
I wish to extend to the mover and the seconder of the Address my hearty congratulations on the masterly way in which they fulfilled their part in the presentation of the resolution. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the previous speaker (Mr. Anderson) had to say with regard to the charge that this section of the House is obstructing business. Well, we have been prepared ever since the 29th October, head up and ready to go on with the business of this parliament. We have also turned down or voted against the proposal that we should take a holiday for six weeks. If we had such an adjournment we who live out at the Pacific coast would probably put in that time fishing or playing golf, and we think we are very much better off down here attending to the matters which will be brought before the House. At the present time the Address is the one thing under consideration. We feel that we would be much better employed working here than journeying three thousand miles to Victoria and back within a period of six weeks.
The question thiat arises under these conditions is, why does the government call us here if they were not ready to proceed? A long period elapsed between the 29th October and the day the House was called. It is the government's business to function. That is the view I take of i:t. Then why not go ahead? If it is a government that is to function, if it possesses sufficient strength to carry on the government, there is nothing Standing in the way. We are waiting for it to present its business, and we are here to carry it on. With regard ;to this charge of obstruction on our .part, I look upon it simply as a matter of propaganda. The idea is to scatter the propaganda all over the country and give the .people the impression that the opposition is responsible for the delay. It is a smoke screen to hide the truth of the situation, which is that the government is not ready to proceed.
Looking over the situation, we find that a very peculiar condition exists in Canada. We find that when the Prime Minister asked for a dissolution of this parliament he did so for the reason, as he expressed it, that he did not possess a sufficient majority to carry on the government properly, and that what he needed and what he desired to get from the people of Canada was a sufficient majority of Liberals, the one party of which he is the head*, so that he would be enabled to carry on the business properly. He went further than this and made the statement that if he did not get this majority he would dissolve and ask for 14011-63
another election. We thought that was a very bold statement. Those of us who had known about his 1919 platform, his platform in 1921 and many little turns that he had made between those dates, did not attach very much importance to his pronouncements. With those who are not so familiar with his .political tactics in the past perhaps they made an impression .and they may have expected something very great from them. However, did he retire? Did he call for a new election? Not by any means. He is hanging on by his bootstraps, and in the language -of the Calgary stampede, he no sooner hit the saddle than he dug both spurs into the cinch, grabbed the horn o'f the saddle with both hands and hung on for grim death. I think it is the worse exhibition of "pulling leather" ever seen* outside .of a stampede. Now then, finding he had lost his seat in the scramble, owing to the splendid efforts of the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox), he prospected very carefully in the constituencies in the east, getting very few offers in reply to his call, and not enough to encourage him to select one of those constituencies as a place where he would seek re-election. Then he .travelled off to Prince Albert in far away Saskatchewan, because things looked a little better there. But the funniest .part of the whole situation is that he has announced that this proceeding will help to link up the east with the west. Bom west of tlhe mountains, and having spent the greater part of my life in the western country, I am fairly familiar with the people out there, and I can assure him that this proceeding will have nothing to do with the linking of the east with the west. I can assure him that what will link the east with the west is a better knowledge by these people of each other and each other's problems. What is required, in order to link the east with the west, is, for the people to circulate among each other, to travel east and to travel west and to know and understand the country better. Cut out all provincialism, and do not attempt to build up and run this great Canada of ours by confining your efforts within a provincial circle. Lower the freight rates so that we can deal with one another a little better. Then after that use a good measure of horse sense, and in this way we will accomplish a great deal more towards linking the east with the west than we will by the Prime Minister running away from constituencies where he has no chance out to a constituency where he thinks he has a chance. I think it would have been much more sportsmanlike on his part if he had

The Addrexs-Mr. Tolmie

just come out before the people of Canada and had explained to them that it was a matter of "safety first" that induced him to select Saskatchewan. I say that if he cannot win in Saskatchewan he cannot win anywhere. In the province of Saskatchewan they have a provincial government which is one of the most complete political machines in the whole of Canada. They control the whole press, all the important papers in that province. They control also the radio distribution, and in addition to that the telephones are government owned and they do not hesitate to put all this machinery into operation.


Mr. McINTOSH:: What press does the hon. member refeT to?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am talking about the principal papers in the province of Saskatchewan.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I control part of the press of Saskatchewan and they do not control me.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I did not say they controlled you or anybody else, but that they controlled the press.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If they controlled the press, that would include me.


Arthur Meighen: I might point out that the hon. member said the important press.


Charles A. Stewart: Would the
hon. member say that the Regina Leader was controlled by any government or any coterie of the government? I would like to know if it is.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I know it leans so far over to one side that you cannot pull it back.
Another very interesting point in the hon. gentleman's first address when he reached Prince Albert was his reference to the great advantage of unity in Canada. That is what everyone desires; everyone wants to see the different parts of the country more closely linked together. But to my utter astonishment, reading on a little further, I discovered that he had begun to preach sectionalism for the purpose of gaining votes. He referred to the big interests of Montreal and explained to the people how, according to his view, those interests were trying to get control of the government of this country so as to enable them to ".put the screws" on the western farmers and other people. Such a statement is not to be expected from a man of his high position; anyone, who has the future of Canada at heart should carefully avoid making statements of that kind.

With reference to the Speech from the Throne, perhaps its most disappointing feature is that it has nothing in the way of a promise of stabilization of business conditions; but the government propose to continue to provide easy access to Canadian markets for producers in all other parts of the world. They propose to permit Canadians to buy outside to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, products which we can produce at home, and at the same time to have our young men emigrate from this country so that they may secure positions for themselves elsewhere. No improvement is promised over what has been going on during the last four years; indeed the government do not possess a working majority so as to give them the necessary strength for this purpose. It is true that conditions are better in this country than they have been for some years. But this has been largely due to a bountiful Providence that has given us larger crops in the last two years than we have had for some time and in addition to that, owing to poor crops in other sections of the world, we have been able to secure satisfactory prices for our products.
The people of Canada want in the first place good government, and one of the first things required1 of good government in a country like Canada, with its large and varied resources, is the ability to keep the people at home and satisfactorily employed. In this the present government has absolutely failed. The people do not want political jockeying, sectional appeals, or a middle of the road, jelly-fish policy. That is not going to get us anywhere. What we want is economy in administration, lower taxation, a reasonable solution of our railway problem and the putting into effect of a good, strong, nationwide immigration plan. To accomplish this we need a strong, virile government which will make an analysis of our economic situation, devise plans for its betterment, and then have the courage and strength to put those plans into effect. I am afraid there is no hope of this being accomplished by the present aggregation. They are dependent upon a small group-and it is rather amusing to hear talk in this House about the necessity of co-operation, particularly after the Saskatchewan election when the provincial Liberal government condemned the third party to the fullest pcsssible extent. We also had ministers of this cabinet in itfhe last federal election telling the people that a third party was not a necessity in this country. But when they come here and find that dt is necessary to get a majority; that there are a number of

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
small groups in the House, they begin to speak about the usefulness of co-operation and try to apply it. This matter would have been far better treated under the head of "trade and commerce".
All of us in Canada, it matters not whether we come from the Atlantic or away down by the Pacific, have a great respect for the grand old provinoe of Quebec, one of the first settled sections of Canada. But we find that this great province, which on many occasions has occupied the .proud position of holding control in the Liberal party, is now down on its knees, kowtowing and salaaming to the third party, which is a little group from the plains of the west. When I meet the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) in the corridor after one of these votes has taken place, I look on him with a good deal of admiration, and I can see very clearly why he walks with a "prood" step on an occasion of that kind. The whole thing savours of weakness and incapacity, and I am quite sure no good can result from carrying on under present conditions. Canada is crying out for a stable government, for stable business conditions, and I am sure she cannot hope to get that from this aggregation which is already almost in the stage of rigor mortis. Under such conditions it will be far better to have a clean-up, a new election, so that we may get some party with a working majority.
Looking over present conditions in Canada we find that we are at present carrying a public debt of about $2,417,000,000; a debt of the Canadian National railways in securities held by the public amounting to $913,000,000, and, in addition a provincial debt of about $650,000,000, the whole borne by a population of about 9,000,000. These are the basic facts to be grasped in arriving at an understanding of our position. We have about 317,000 miles of Canadian railway's,
22,000	being in the Canadian National system and 15,000 miles in the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian National deficit in 1924 was about $55,000,000, a very much better showing than that of some previous years, but this can be looked upon as a fixed liability in making any plans for the future of this country. The government has spoken very vigorously during the past four years about meeting the situation, about increased prosperity, about the development of our natural resources and also about a workable immigration policy; but we have had no tangible results. As an illustration, let me quote from the Ottawa Journal of December 30, 1925, which shows that for the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, immigration into Canada was 422,808 and emigration from Canada, 460,026, or a 14011-631
net loss to Canada in four years of 46,218 people. Just think of that! We have been pouring out between two and three million dollars a year in order to get people into Canada, and after spending some $12,000,000 and working for four years, Mr. King leaves us with 46,000 fewer people than when he began. And that is not all. Whereas a large number of those whom he brought in came from continental Europe, nearly all those he drove out were Canadian or British born.
During last session we had a very interesting discussion on the improvement of our railway situation, and hon. members will recall that we discussed several plans. We considered the necessity of co-operation with a view to further economy on the part of both roads. We talked about the avoidance of duplication in train services and other matters. We also went so far as to discuss amalgamation. This discussion received considerable publicity; it was taken up by the papers and published very freely, with the result that the people of Canada have benefited to a great extent because they now grasp the importance of this situation. The capitalization of the Canadian National on December 31, 1924, was $2,027,000,000, of which, as I said before, $913,000,000 are held1 in securities by the public. The last report of the Department of Railways and Canals shows that in five years the Canadian National system has gone about $572,000,000 further into debt. We all admit that Sir Henry Thornton's task is a very big one. It is a great task to undertake the management of a system embracing 22,000 miles of railway in a new country like Canada, where in many sections the population is very sparse. But Sir Henry Thornton has the backing of the Dominion treasury behind him, although he has received practically no support from the government in the way of improved business in the country, large immigration to Canada, or the taking of proper steps to keep our people at home employed and producing so as to increase freight. He has received no support in that particular line, as indicated by the quotation from the Journal, and it must be admitted that the deficit would have been greater had it not been for the fact that we have enjoyed a few good crops.
It is generally recognized that we have .not enough business in Canada at present to keep up with the development of these two important roads. They are developing their facilities and increasing their capacity, and if we are to meet the situation and maintain the splendid service which must be maintained if we are to make the progress we desire, there must be no interference between the
The Address-Mr. Tolmie

*railways, the one with the other. It is absolutely necessary therefore that we should have a greater development all round in Canada. The one thing that seems to indicate any promise for the solution not only of this problem but of many other problems in Canada is a proper policy of immigration. .Let us see what some people have to say with regard to the question of immigration and the necessity for an adequate policy. We already know that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Beatty, has expressed himself on many occasions as being strongly in favour of an immigration plan. Sir Henry Thornton in his last annual report says:
From time to (time, and particularly during the past two years, reference 'has been made on various occasions to the need for immigration. The whole future of Canada and of the railway systems in Canada depends upon increased (population and upon the increased traffic which would result therefrom. As compared with what anight be done in order to bring about the desired result, the efforts mode in the past might be termed somewhat spasmodic and unorganized. If there ns to be real success the matter will 'have to be handled otherwise in the future. The Dominion as a whole, the provinces individually, the railways and all other business organizations are, each of them, interested. The problem is of sufficient magnitude and danportanoe to justify in its solution the employment of the most capable and energetic minds in the Dominion. The investment of money on a larger scale than in the past will also be required. The matter might be entrusted to n permanent commission constituted somewhat on the lines of the Board of Railway Commissioners, except that more commissioners would doubtless have to be appointed; and this immigration commission would have to be authorized to make expenditures under a general programme approved by parliament.
Only one man has taken exception to any immigration policy, and that is the late Minister of Immigration, who according to the .press has made the statement that immigration is not necessary. But the most prominent *business men in this country are on record as advocating a vigorous policy in this direction. What is needed-I quote from Willisoirs Monthly of January 26-is:
To recognize immigration as (the chief national problem, co-operate -with the provinces' in directed and assisted settlement, give essential supervision to newcomers, consolidate settlement in the western railway belt, increase the supply of farm labour, multiply urban consumers, and by increase of production, give the Dominion a more commanding position in the world's markets.
Then Sir Thomas White, speaking at the Economic Conference at Winnipeg on November 16, 1925, said:
What we greatly need in Canada to-day is a million more pf the productive population. If we can accomplish this within a reasonable time, we 3hall see our way through our economic difficulties- our railway problem will be solved, and our taxation eased.

Hotw shall we obtain increased immigration of a good quality and likely to become productive? The problem 'is much complicated by the state of Europe. There is, too, less capital available to those who would emigrate. Substantial assistance may be gi/en by governments if any considerable number are to become settlers upon the land in Canada. And there is nothing new in this. If we could be assured of a flow of new settlers to Canada, public money spent in establishing them on the lands, in our various provinces, would, in my view, be a productive expenditure of the most valuable kind.
We see therefore that a great many men promimjpt in business and in public life in Canada, who are looked upon as authorities on all questions of this nature, are thoroughly agreed that immigration is one of the chief means by which we can solve many of pur problems in this country, and I am sure that under the circumstances the government cannot afford to sidestep the issue any longer.
Before discussing the question of immigration at any length, I would observe in passing that we must make some provision for those people who are already in the country. There is no one in Canada who is so adapted to Canadian conditions as the Canadian himself. I say therefore that all native born and other Canadians should be provided for; the same privileges should be extended to them as are afforded immigrants coming in from the outside. Suitable business conditions should be established; we need a stable government; and we should see to it that our industries are enabled to work to the fullest capacity in order to give employment to the people who are now at home.
Then colonization must be taken up as an absolute necessity to any successful immigration policy for Canada under present world conditions. The selection of immigrants should be carefully looked into and we should get people of the right type who will stick to the country until they become good Canadian citizens. Upon this point I shall have a word or two to say later on. I think, too, that it is well for us to assist as far as possible new desirable families coming into the country, and in the whole of our activities in connection with the immigration and colonization we should emphasize the importance of adequate colonization rather than endeavour to bring in mere numbers, because after all in any successful immigration scheme what counts is the number of people who Remain on the land rather than the mere fact that people come in in large numbers.
Looking at the figures for the past few years, I must say that they are not very flattering. In 1911 our population was 7,206,643 while in 1921 it was 8,788,483 and in 1926, 9,000,000. Between 1911 and 1921 our immigration into

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
Canada amounted to 1,728,921, whereas between 1921 and 1925 it was only 500,000. With the natural increase that is to be expected in this country our population at this moment instead of being only 9,000,000 should be at least 11,000,000, so that the showing we have made is not so very good. It is clear that a large number of people have left the country. The figures in regard to rural population are more striking. In 1911 we had 682,329 occupied farms and in 1921, 711,090, or an increase of 28,761 in ten years. From this we must deduct the farms under the soldier settlement scheme, amounting to 14,000. This scheme, as hon. members will recall, was introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and it has proved highly successful, as witness the fact that some 75 per cent of those who were settled on the land are still there. So that the net increase in actual new farms in Canada in 15 years has been only 14,000, or less than 1,000 per annum, and this at a total cost of $30,000,000 over that period. This expenditure on immigration has increased to $3,000,000 per year in the past four years, exclusive of what the railways have spent. I think that we should aim at increasing the
700,000	occupied farms by at least 5 per cent per annum, which, taking into account the families accompanying the immigrants, and resulting increase in business, would run into several hundred thousand more settlers in Canada. We shall never get anywhere by following such a policy as we pursued in the year 1924, when we paid out $2 per immigrant in invitations soliciting settlers to come to Canada, as against 20 cents devoted to the newcomer to help to make him a good Canadian citizen. We must take care of these people when they arrive. We must take care of the producers and developers of our country. We have agricultural investment of about seven billion dollars, and if this industry were placed on a good sound footing, so that those engaged in it could get a reasonable return for their efforts, then practically every other business in the Dominion would take care of itself. In any successful policy of this kind, however, we must have actual settlement and actual land development-the bringing under cultivation of a vast new acreage. If this cannot be done after all these years of effort, I think it would be much better to scrap the Department of Immigration and divert the money so saved into some better channel.
The expenditure on our past efforts in the United States is significant. From 1921 to 1924 we expended1-exclusive of head office administration-$1,494,676 to secure immigrants from that country or an average of
about half a million dollars a year. I am afraid that we expended some of this money without carefully considering the results likely to be produced. Immigrants from the United States for the period from 1900 to 1921 numbered 1,375,051 souls. The census of 1921 shows that of these only 320,915 remained with us. In other words, 77 per cent of these immigrants left Canada while only 23 per cent remained.
Speaking on the subject in Victoria on October 20, 1925, I discussed immigration from the United States, and also the practicability of attempting economy in that direction by making some arrangement with the railway companies to carry on our immigration efforts there to a much greater extent than they are doing at the present time. I felt if we could do this we would be accomplishing economy of the right kind, and could use the money thus saved for the colonization or settlement ,of these newcomers. I stated:
Why then cannot the government get the railways together and say: "This American field is so specially yours, and you are able to do immigration work here so effectively and cheaply in conjunction with your other itraffic work, that we feel we should leave this to you. Let us save our expenditures and use them where better results can be obtained. Let us get togther and effect an arrangement that will be businesslike and get results.
I am quite sure that the railway companies would co-operate in any such plan. I do not mean that we should not secure as many American settlers as we possibly can, but there is one very important factor always to keep in mind when dealing with the prospect of securing and keeping American settlers- the proximity of Canada to the United States. Here we have two countries adjacent to each other with an imaginary boundary line several thousand miles long, with living conditions practically the same on 5 p.m. each side of the line, and the people speaking the same language. So it all depends on which side of .the line times are better as to which way the people will flow. Of late years it is not unreasonable to remember that we have not been getting very many Settlers from the United States. Naturally the farmers have stayed in the country that protects them, in the country where the government does not lavishly give away markets to their competitors in other countries. That is the reason why we have not had a flow bf settlers from the United States to Canada. The closeness of the two countries must be a factor always to be kept in view when dealing with immigration from the United States. There will be naturally a flow between the

fhe Address-Mr. Tolmie
.two countries, and it would be just as reasonable for us to go to a great deal of .expense on the other side of the line to attract settlers as it would be for the city of Toronto to establish an immigration office in the city of Montreal.
Co-operation with the railways in Great Britain would also accomplish a very substantial saving. At the present time we have seven immigration offices in England, three in Scotland and one in Ireland, at a cost, from 1921 to 1924, of $1,087,247. The railways have agencies in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Southampton and at other points. In addition, there are about 3,500 booking agencies established in Great Britain, whose function is ito secure traffic for the railway and steamship companies on commission. Besides those [DOT]officials and agencies the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia maintain immigration offices in Great Britain. Bo here is a chance for co-operation and 'economy. In striking contrast with this is the fact that Australia maintains but one office, depending practically entirely on the booking agencies to secure settlers-and you know, [DOT]Mr. Speaker, that during the last year or two she has secured a very large number indeed.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
the bon. gentleman what proportion of British settlers Australia has secured in the last few years in comparison with Canada's share? If he has the figures I shall be glad if he will give them to the House. I have heard a similar statement made very often.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I saw those figures a day
or two ago, but I do not happen to have them with me.


Charles A. Stewart: Mai I tell my hon. friend that Canada has secured more British immigrants than Australia and the United States put together?


John Arthur Clark: Australia's population has increased considerably during the last three or four years.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
talking about increase of population; -I am talking of the number of immigrants from Great Britain.


John Arthur Clark: Australia has got them from somewhere-her population has increased; ours has not.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: A great many immigrants to Canada drifted south with the birds and never came back.


Charles A. Stewart: All I am
asking is a straight question as to the pro-

portion of British immigrants to the two countries.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: gration to Canada we must make provision to assist the families that come here and get them properly started when they reach this side.
Now let us look at the historical record of immigration to Canada, and where we received our population at the beginning. There has never been a great immigration movement to this country which resulted in actual land settlement in which the settlers did not receive assistance. The Canadian population came from two sources. In 1760 there were
60.000	French-Canadians in Canada; to-day they have increased to 3,000,000, and I want to congratulate them, for they make very excellent Canadian citizens. We got the remainder of our population as a result of .three distinct waves. First, we had the United Empire Loyalists, some 50,000 people who established the province of New Brunswick, tripled the population of Nova Scotia, and determined the English speaking character of the province of Ontario. The second migration was that known as the post-Napoleonic, occurring right after the Napoleonic wars. This wave increased the population of Ontario to a very great extent.
The third wave which I wish particularly to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is a very interesting one. This wave reached its peak about 1913-1914. At that time we had immigrants coming into this country at the rate of
1.000	per day. The United Empire Loyalists were state aided. They received free land, some rations; they had log buildings constructed for them and small clearings made, and were staked to implements and stock. In the post-Napoleonic wave, under Governor Colborne, the settlers were given ten-acre clearings, log buildings, rations for a year, and loans for implements and live stock. Nearly all of them were without any resources whatever. The third wave, as I said, is a very interesting one indeed. In this case, to only a few of the continentals was it necessary to give what is known as a grub stake. Advances were also made for live stock, but the chief assistance was secured from the .business (and industrial activity of the country at that time. Railways and public works were under construction, so it was an easy matter for these men to obtain work. Once they got their families located they secured employment and in that way obtained enough cash to carry on while establishing a home.
What is the condition to-day? We are attempting to settle people in this country without any colonization scheme and at the same time without all those advantages that were enjoyed by those settlers of earlier days -without free homesteads; without railway Mr. Tolmie.]
construction; without construction of public works. We have been attempting to bring these people in without any of the advantages that made immigration policies a success in years gone by. We cannot expect results unless we give some inducement to the people to stay here, and unless we extend assistance to them at the beginning to enable them to establish themselves thoroughly until such time as they can make a living. Any policy which depends entirely on advertising and propaganda never has and never will result in actual land settlement, and owing to the changed conditions in the world and to the ravages of the war it is more necessary to-day than ever to provide immigrants with assistance.
As I said a moment ago, we should be willing either to go the whole way in this matter of immigration schemes and provide colonization, or to scrap the Department of Immigration, save the money which its maintenance involves, and spend it in a better way. With an expansive and constructive land policy courageously carried out we should be able rapidly and steadily to increase the number of occupied farms and open up thousands of acres of new lands. Such a policy would be applicable to either the old provinces or the new ones, and would be as fair to one province as to another. What I have to suggest would apply from one end Of Canada to the other and would have the effect of improving the conditions of farming. Wo will suppose for a moment that we have three thousand families, the full quota, coming out under the arrangement with the British government and being established on the land. They would immediately require 6,000 horses, from 6,000 to 9,000 cattle, about 3,000 sows, and 30,000 chickens. All this would create a demand immediately among the farmers who are already located here. The Empire Settlement Act of 1921 makes provision for immediate settlement. This can be taken advantage of at once. I understand the government is moving along those lines, and has already brought in some families. The system should be extended to the fullest possible extent. It should be extended to all the different provinces, but should be confined to areas of good land. I have no respect at all for those who will take the new settler, coming in with his wife and young family, deliberately place him on a piece of bad land, and expect him to make a living. These men should be given the very greatest care. They should be properly located and afforded an opportunity to make good. The same privileges should be extended to all qualified Canadians

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
who desire to go back to the land, and also to some continental Europeans. We have found that many of the latter are excellent settlers. The Scandinavians, for example, were the founders of the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin in the republic to the south. I have known men of this race in the west who are doing excellent work as dairymen. In one settlement in Alberta some 83 families were located, and only one family returned to the land of their birth. In that case the wife came from one of the higher families in Denmark and was not accustomed to conditions such as were encountered when the original settlement in Alberta was made.
After the people are placed on the land I am of the opinion they should not be left there to rustle for themselves. A good plan would be to have a supervisor locate on one of the new farms, whether it was a bush farm or on the prairie, and develop it himself, so that at all times he would be available to the new settlers for advice as to machinery, the sharpening of an axe, the setting of a saw, or numberless problems that face those who come from foreign countries and1 settle on our lands.
Another very good plan would be to teach these settlers from the very beginning, from the very inception of the scheme, the good old Canadian habit of making a living off the farm. We do not want any more "rawnehers"-we prefer ranchers in this country, as many of the right class as we can properly get.
Such an immigration policy would solve two problems. In the first place it would solve the problem of farm labour, because these new settlers can be utilized in the harvest fields of the west. On account of their previous farm training they would soon learn and would readily acquire the necessary experience for the development of their own farm. One commendable feature of such a plan is that when the harvest season was over those men would not drift back to the cities to join the bread line or the parades of the unemployed; they would work on their own farms.
The opening up of our new lands would largely increase production in Canada, would tend to the greater development of the Dominion, and would add considerably to the general business of the country. Now, the position of the government in this matter, in my opinion, is to assist in the development of marketing to the greatest possible extent. That work is already being carried on in some degree. It is very excellent work, and it should be extended wherever possible so as to provide a market the very moment the
new settlers began to produce. There is no greater incentive to any man to produce, whether he is engaged in industry or in farming, than to feel that he can dispose of his goods at a profit when he has them ready to sell.
In a country like Canada, with its vast area, sparsely settled and with its great distance between towns, one of the most important things is to get freight rates, particularly on agricultural products, down to as low a rate as possible, and thus encourage the farmers to develop the country. In this connection I should not consider for a moment that the Canadian National railway is a white elephant; it would play a very important part in any such development as I have outlined
a development which should involve the settlement of vast stretches: two hundred miles in New Brunswick, three hundred miles in northern Quebec, six hundred miles in northern Ontario, the sparsely settled districts in the prairie provinces, and the great inland empire in northern British Columbia. Tremendous assistance would thus be given to the Canadian National railway in the furnishing of tonnage right along the line. In this respect we should invite each province to cooperate with us, so that local advantages might be extended which would constitute an inducement for colonization. Then I believe in getting settlers fairly close together, not scattered over large areas, so that they may enjoy social intercourse, co-operate in their marketing operations and help one another in the harvest season.
We have exercised a great deal of care to maintain the high character of our live stock herds. We have*been particularly careful in the selection of live stock from other countries, subjecting them to various tests and to very careful examination, with the result that at the present moment Canada is in the proud position of having her herds freer from contagious disease than any other country in the world. By following along these lines in connection with our settlement; by exercising care to select only men and women of healthy types, we can build up our people into a strong, virile nation. We should take no chance along these lines, but be scrupulously careful in every respect. We should give the new-comers a generous, warm welcome on their arrival here, and at the earliest possible moment make them feel we are receiving them as future Canadians, and that we trust them in every possible way.
In Canada we have long neglected a matter which is most important, in my opinion, in regard to new settlers, and also in regard to the people who are living here already. I
The Address-Mr. Tolmie


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to associate myself with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in extending my congratulations to you on your re-occupation of a position which you so admirably grace. It is rather hard to speak after the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie), who has just sat down. He is a product of the constituency which I represent; he votes for me, and I am very proud of the little fellow.
During the last week we have seen in the press more or less criticism of this side of itlhe House for What is called our obstructionist tactics. If a person carefully analyses and studies the personnel of this group of 116 members sent here to do business for Canada, he will have a little confidence and justification in believing that they know what is the best thing to do for (Canada at this juncture. We came here prepared to do business, but when we arrived here we saw a government in power that could not-and I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite will claim for a moment that this government can endure. A government in a much stronger position last session had to go to the country, and the reason they gave was that they lacked support to carry on the affairs of government in an efficient manner. This government has not the support it had; it cannot endure; and I say this, perhaps, with a small degree of sympathy for some hon. gentlemen opposite. I think the best interests of Canada will be served if they resign, go to the country and *let us have a government that can carry on [DOT]the public business efficiently. What Canada wants is a good strong government, be it Liberal or Conservative, and a good strong opposition. That is the government this country must have if we are going to succeed, and it is the government we shall have sooner or later. We will continue in the even tenor of our way, talking just as we have been doing, and we think the Jesuitical
The Address-Mr. Dickie

*doctrine is justifiable under these circumstances. We do not think the government on the other side, constituted as they are, can govern Canada properly, and we are talking, hoping against hope that words may fall on some fertile political ground and accomplish something for the benefit of the people of this country.
The policy which we placed before the people and on which we were so strongly supported was a policy of protection. That policy, if we can only have an opportunity of putting it into effect, will bring stability to Canada. That policy, inaugurated by our great chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, many years ago and later adhered to by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, brought prosperity to this country, but a government desirous of remaining in power has been gradually drifting away from the principle of protection. People throughout the world have been adopting higher tariffs; just as soon as foreign articles come into competition with the products of *their industries, up goes their tariff. We in Canada, although we can profit by example, do not need to look to other countries for examples. Let us as good, virile Canadians exercise our intelligent initiative. Let us *initiate our policy; let us get into the van of progress instead of being laggard camp followers after other nations as we have been. *Nearly every nation in the world to-day has a protective policy. With a boundary line stretching 3,000 miles 'alongside of the most virile nation in the world, how is it to be expected that we can get along without a protective policy? We want a policy that is adequate to protect our industrialism-because if we are going to succeed we must have industrialism. People can speak of our great wheat fields, our agricultural products; but they are not enough to ensure the success of this country. Let me give a littie illustration to bear out what I am saying. As hon. members know, the great agency for collecting all the money that we require in Canada is the Customs department which collects the import duties, excise duties, sundry collections, income tax, war tax, and business war profits tax. Mr. McC'rea, former hon. member for Sherbrooke, asked this question in the House on April 22, 1925:
What was the total revenue of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1925, from all sources under the control of the Customs department.
The answer was $305,945,000. That is the amount that was required in order to carry on the affairs of Canada. British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario are the great industrial provinces in Canada and towards that $305,-
IMr. Dickie.]
945,000	they contributed $45 per capita. Saskatchewan, a wheat growing province, contributed just $4.18 per capita. I want to be perfectly fair. We know that the good people of Saskatchewan, if they buy goods in Canada imported from other countries, contribute towards that revenue, but we find the people of that province wishing to throw down our tariff walls, and in fact in one instance to obliterate them. If that were done and they bought United States or English goods, should this mythical Hudson Bay route ever amount to anything, that would mean they would not be contributing in any case much more than $4.18 per capita towards carrying on the public business. It would take just 70,000,000 such people to pay our running expenses today. That is an argument, I am sure, in favour of industrialism, and, as I say, we must protect our industries if we are going to succeed.
Why dhould we be sending enormous sums of money out of Canada year after year? Last year of iron, metals, minerals and their *products we imported $293,553,787 worth and we exported $88,230,090 worth. There is an adverse balance of trade on that item of $204,322,097, and $150,000,000 worth of those articles could1 be produced in Canada without any difficulty at all, relieving the situation in Cape Breton, Hamilton and other places where there are iron manufactures. We may have to pay a little mo-re for the time being by buying in Canada, but we should protect our iron industries, bring our coal into central Canada from Alberta and Nova Scotia, and get away from this appalling state of trade with the United States.
Although Canada is an agricultural country, last year we imported from the United States $91,588/125 worth of agricultural and vegetable products and1 we exported to that country $61,100,779 worth. There is -an adverse balance of trade of $30,487,746. We could cut $20,000,000 off that without any trouble and send that amount circulating throughout Canada for the good of our people. W|e exported a little more than $6,305,487 worth of wheat to the United States. Let us -analyse that exportation of wheat. The people across the line with their protective principle say to their people: You cannot eat bread' or cake made of Canadian wheat; we will put a duty on Canadian wheat of 42 cents a bushel to prevent your using it for making flour or bread in competition with bread made from our flour. They impose a duty of 42 cents and we allow that $6,395,847 worth of wlheat to go to Minneapolis and other points where it is mixed with a certain amount of their inferior wheat and ground into flour, afterwards entering into

The Address-Mr. Dickie
competition on the markets of the world with our flour, which is the best that is produced in the world. I would! put an export duty on that wheat equal to their import duty so long as they refused to eat bread made from Canadian wheat. You go into the United States and you never see anything for sale that was manufactured in this country, whereas, if you go into any little store on this side of the line,

and this is true from one end of Canada to the other-yo|u will not fail to find American goods, shoes or other products, prominently displayed on sale. Do we want to trade with those people? Certainly we do; but we want an even break with them. The moment ouir canned British 'Columbia salmon goes over there and enters into competition with their salmon, up goes their duty. We all know what happened throughout the west in regard to our cattle trade, when our animals from the prairie provinces came into competition with the cattle of the United States. The Fordney-McCumber tariff was put on without any consultation with our Canadian farmers, who were practically precluded from Sending their animals across the line. I say that we should take a leaf obt of the United States' book. I do not suggest that we should imitate them or anybody else, but let us realize that they are practising good, sound, common horse sense and we in Canada must do the same if we hope to succeed.
Last year we imported $35,614,526 worth of miscellaneous products while we exported $10,046,378. There is another adverse balance of $25,568,148, and I am safe in saying that anyone who cares to go through the list will find that two-thirds of these importations could have been manufactured in this country. We sent to the United States $6,395,847 worth of wheat and that of course is included in our exports. I see here an item, which I can hardly understand, of $11,000,000 worth of alcoholic beverages which we exported to the American side. I presume this can be included among the vegetable products; at any rate it is a matter for gratification that this particular item should be among the exports instead of being absorbed in Canada.
Of chemicals we imported $24,760,000 and exported $16,209,000 worth, and I venture to say that over $8,000,000 worth o;f these could have been manufactured here. We imported woollen and knitted goods to the value of $39,576,228 as against $2,982,599 exported. The great bulk of these particular goods came from Great Britain. Now we all wish to trade within the empire and to give every part of the empire a chance to do business, but I do not think that we should trade, even with England herself on too easy terms, while our
own woollen mills are idle and our woollen operatives are walking the streets looking for work. We must protect our operatives in Canada, for we do not want to have our men drifting across the line. Let us give them work here by making Canada a great country industrially. If we make Canada great we shall help at the same time to make the empire great. At all events, we must look to ourselves first and foremost before practising too much charity towards other countries. We imported last year over $2,111,083 worth of boots and shoes and if you go into Quebec and other centres in Canada where these articles are manufactured the boot and shoe men will tell you that if that $2,000,000 were spent in this country they could run full time and manufacture a larger quantity of boots and shoes, thus giving employment to more workmen in Canada. This industry represents an investment of some $30,000,000 and is struggling to get along, but we poor credulous Canadians will go and spend $2,000,000 on boots and shoes from elsewhere which could very well be manufactured in Canada. This sort of thing must cease if we are to make Canada the country it ought to be.
Consider for a moment the subject of Canada's natural resources. The manufacturing of our raw products into the finished article is one of the planks in the Conservative platform. il do not know how far the party intends to go in that direction, but for myself I would go the extreme limit. We do not import from the United States any raw material that represents to that country an asset which is being depleted. They say to us, "We want your pulpwood for our mills; you bring it over here and we will manufacture it into the finished product and build up an industrial population on this side." Why can we not manufacture our own raw materials, our metals, our asbestos and all the rest of them? Last year we sent the United States $5,000,000 worth of raw asbestos.
An 'hon. MEMBER:	Did we not import
$24,000,000 worth of raw cotton from the United 'States?


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am speaking of assets
that are being depleted. We do import cotton but that is an annual crop like wheat. Any geologist will tell you that it requires millions of years to form an asbestos deposit, and asbestos bodies are not inexhaustible. Nor are our forests inexhaustible. It is these products that they want on the other side in order to provide employment for their labour, and we are foolishly sending these things to them. We have in Thetford, I understand, a manufactory which is capable of
The Address-Mr. Dickie

supplying all the needs of finished asbestos material throughout Canada; still, simply because we have not a duty that would keep this product in the country for manufacture here, we sent to the United States last year $5,000,000 worth of asbestos. At the same time we bought from them $540,000 worth of finished asbestos goods. I cannot understand the folly of it; I do not see why we allow this state of affairs to continue. I believe that $5,000,000 of asbestos rock which we shipped to the United States would represent, when fabricated into the innumerable articles into which asbestos enters, something like $50,000,000. There we have $45,000,000 lost to this country; it goes to enrich the United States, to add to her prestige and to build up an industrial population there at the expense of Canada. We cannot afford to let such a condition continue. It is true that they might impose an adverse tariff against us on asbestos if we decided to manufacture the product exclusively in Canada, but we must be prepared to stand up against such a hostile tariff and show them that we are a nation determined at all costs to manufacture our raw products.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to prove, and I think I did prove conclusively, that our very serious adverse balance of trade with the United States could be reduced, by adopting an adequate protective policy, such as the Americans have against us. I do not suggest that, parrotlike, we should copy the United States; but, as I said earlier in my address this afternoon, I think we Canadians should certainly have greater confidence in ourselves. We should have initiative, we should make history, instead of being content to follow in the train of other countries. With our wonderful wheat lands, with our vast forest wealth, with our .great mineral potentialities, with our many water-powers still undeveloped, and with our important fisheries, I ask, Sir, why should we not take the initiative and make this a country wihich shall 'be known all the world over as a country whose policies are worth emulating, instead of continuing our present practice of following the example set by our neighbours?
Before six o'clock I had started to discuss another phase of the economic condition- our pulp and paper industry. I may say that

the figures I am about to give to the House were, in part, submitted by an hon. gentleman last week, but in order to substantiate my argument it will be necessary for me to present some of his figures again, even at the risk of tiring hon. members. In the Iasi fiscal year we manufactured $133,319,491 worth of paper, and we exported $41,563,241 worth of pulp, or a total of $174,884,732 worth of pulp and paper produced in Canada. We exported 28.6 per cent of all the pulpwood we cut. The value we received for that pulp-wood was $14,113,367 odd. If we had manufactured it, we would have created a value of $50,017,043. I consider that equivalent to a loss to Canada of $35,903,676. This pulp-wood went across the line and gave employment to thousands of American workingmen. A value of $35,000,000 was created over there. Our good French-Canadian young men, in order to engage in the manufacture of that pulpwood into paper, drifted away from their delightful province-home-loving people as they are, they had to seek employment across the line, drifting away from hearth and home and from the spiritual teaching they received at their mothers' knees and elsewhere. I consider that exodus a tragedy, Sir. We must take steps to prevent a continuance of that movement of our young men across the line if we are ever going to reach the destiny which a beneficent Providence has ordained for us.
According to the report of the Royal Commission on Pulpwood which toured Canada in 1924, it is estimated that our farmers exported 60 per cent of the total of our pulpwood exported to the United States, for which they received $6,711,000. We have been told that disaster will overtake our settlers and farmers if we do anything to prevent their exportation of pulpwood. The average price the farmers received for their pulpwood, according to the pulpwood commission, was in the neighbourhood of six dollars a cord. In arriving at imy figure of $6,711,000 I have put the price at eight dollars a cord to be absolutely within the mark, although our settlers and fanners in northern Ontario do not receive anything like that price. Now, we lose $35,000,000 in order to enable those farmers to make $6,711,000. I do not want to impose any hardship on our settlers, but many of them who say they rely on the sale of pulpwood to establish themselves on their farms are not bona fide settlers, particularly in northern Ontario. Those men go on the land ostensibly as settlers, but after they have taken off the pulpwood they do not attempt in some instances to cultivate the land. They move on, probably repeating the

The Address-Mr. Dickie
process. I do not say that this happens in the province of Quebec, but I know it is reputed to be the practice in northern Ontario.
Now, my idea is to "play cricket", as we say, that is, not to work hardship on anybody, not even on the Americans who have established their plants across the line for the manufacture of our pulpwood. I would say: After January .1, 1928, not one stick of pulp-wood shall be exported except under a duty of four or five dollars a cord. In other words, I would impose what practically amounts to an embargo. That would give the Americans a year and a half to get ready to transfer their plants to this side of the line. Then to meet another phase of the argument, that the settler would be at the mercy of our pulp and paper manufacturers, I see no practical reason why the government should not appoint a buyer of pulpwood in Ontario, Quebec and1 the Maritime provinces. With the government at his back that man would be able to make better terms with our pulp and paper manufacturers for pulpwood than the individual farmer can arrange to-day. I am sure such a plan would work out satisfactorily. But although I have been preaching this doctrine for the past couple of years, I do not seem to get anywhere. I do not know why. I have noticed lobbyists around this building. This week and last, one of those gentlemen has endeavoured to interview me respecting the exportation of pulp-v'ood to the United States. I do not imagine they are doing it just for the sake of doing it. Possibly the pulp and paper men of the United States are behind them; I would not blame them if they were, but I blame our people for being so credulous and simple as to fall for such a thing.
The capital invested in the pulp and paper industry in Canada, according to the latest figures, is 8500,000,000. That shows the immensity of the business, and1 we are still building mills. In British Columbia there is another big pulp and paper industry in process of re-organization, financed by the McCormick people of the American side. We welcome these Americans to British Columbia; we want them to come, but we want them to play the game with us; we want them to buy the stuff we manufacture in Canada; we want to see that they do not evade taxation, and we are willing to let them take their legitimate profits out of the country. If we cannot get our own people to embark in business we want them to come here, and surely we can protect ourselves against those who do come.
As I said, the capital invested in the pulp and paper industry in Canada is $500,000,000,
and if we manufactured in Canada the pulpwood which we export, it would justify an additional expenditure of $140,000,000. What would that mean to builders and other artisans engaged in the erection of mills for treating that pulpwood? The total number of employees in the paper industry in Canada last year was 27,627. If the pulpwood exported was manufactured in Canada, a further 8,000 men would be employed, which would mean a population of at least 20,000. The total salaries and wages paid in the pulp and paper industry was $37,649,528; and there would be an additional $10,241,867 if we manufactured all of our pulpwood in this country.
Some people say that we have plenty of pulpwood and timber in this country, but what has the pulpwood commission to say on this point? The commission reported that the point of ultimate exhaustion of our pulp and paper material will be reached in Ontario and Quebec in fifty-one years, and in the Maritime provinces in thirty-one years. That estimate does not take into account loss by fire, by insects and other natural causes, and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that next to man the greatest enemies the forest has are the inhabitants of the forest, the bugs and insects that feed on the forest trees. Since 1920 the pulp and paper industry has increased by just 50 per cent. The industry has been increasing by leaps and bounds, and that of course brings the time of exhaustion still nearer. Fire and insect pests, which account for 40,000,000 feet a year, also contribute to cut down the time when we look for ultimate exhaustion. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we have not enough pulp and paper material in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces to keep our present plants going full speed ahead for twenty years. Long before the period of ultimate exhaustion is reached, supplies will have fallen off here, there and everywhere, except for the mills that have great limits of their own. So we should look towards the future. As I said to the House a year ago, I have been privileged to have lived in other countries and to have seen them denuded of their timber, and their people bewailing their reckless haste in cutting the timber. I have seen this in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in California and in Virginia. Go into any of those states to-day and they will tell you how foolish they were to have cut down their forest so recklessly. It has affected adversely their climatic conditions, and in addition they have now to import lumber which they would not have had to do but for their recklessness in the past. In British Columbia we are tearing down our forests, tearing through them like a destroying
The Address-Mr. Dickie

augel, without any thought for the future. There is plenty of timber to last my lifetime and the lifetime of many others here, but we are here from all parts of Canada and it is our duty to look after the future destiny of this country, instead of thinking only of the present moment.
In British Columbia last year we exported 211,000,000 feet board measure of sawlogs. We would have exported very much more but for the fact that there was a quiescent period in the lumber industry. People from the Maritime provinces, from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will realize what 211,000,000 feet board measure means, as it approaches their total cut. We see those booms of logs going out day after day to mills in Bellingham and Port Angeles. WTe see our heads of families and our boys going across there, following the logs, to work in the mills cutting those logs into timber. That is an economic crime, and we want it stopped. We do not seem to be able to stop it; I do not know why, but perhaps we shall iget wisdom as we grow older. Standing in Victoria you can look across and see the lights of the prosperous little town of Port Angeles, and when you go over there you will find that every third or fourth person you meet has come from the district that I am trying to represent, from Victoria or its environs. They have gone over there to make the living that has been denied them here through our silly, silly policy of letting all this timber go out of this country to be manufactured. Go through any part of my constituency in the southern part of Vancouver island, and there you will see great long piles of pulpwood, all going to Port Angeles to be manufactured in the mills there, and every dollar's worth of pulpwood that goes over there is manufactured into a product that is worth at least $6; so you can see the immense benefit that accrues to the workingmen who are engaged on this pulpwood manufacture. We must stop the export; and I would apply the same remedy I suggested a moment ago; I would give them till the 1st of January, 1928, and beyond that date allow no more pulpwood to be exported across the line. There is no economic argument against such a policy.
What happens when the pulp is manufactured at home? The Powell River Pulp and Paper Company are manufacturing pulp, and there you see a prosperous community of
3,000	people. I think it is one of the most ideal communities in Canada. The company is making plenty of money, and they treat their employees splendidly. No man works for less than SI a day, and no man works more than eight hours a day, and it is all

white labour. They have their recreation grounds, golf links, tennis courts-everything for the comfort and happiness of man. On one side of the town there is salt water and the other side a lake on which you see hundreds of craft belonging to the workingmen- an ideal community. The men are well paid and are happy and contented. How much better it is to build up communities of that kind than to have our pulpwood going across to build up industrial centres on the American side.
Another thing. Within twelve miles from where I live there is the most up-to-date saw mill in Canada, the most up-to-date saw mill in America, I 'believe. It is electrically driven throughout and cost $4,000,000. That capital was invested by Americans, and was distributed among workingmen in the district where I reside. The earnings of these men are distributed amongst the farmers here, there and everywhere for the purchase of their products, bringing prosperity to the entire district. Comfortable cottage homes are being built for the workingmen and the company tell me that eventually they are going to employ all white labour. The community will comprise at least one thousand people, all glad to be living in British Columbia, where they want to live if they can make a living. So I say let us put a stop to our present policy. Let us take a firm step and a long step forward. We shall hurt somebody, but you cannot accomplish any great reform without someone being hurt. Let us look to the future and to the general good of our people. We are here in charge of Canada trying to do what is right and best for the country. I have every faith in this Dominion, but it makes me almost heartsick sometimes to see the failure to accomplish those reforms which will advance us another step to prosperity. As I said before, we want a protective policy. We want a policy that will build up our industrial life in Canada and give our manufacturers business enough so that they can go ahead and pay as good wages as are paid on the American side. Then our problem of immigration will be solved. We can do that, but there is no other power under Heaven that will accomplish that result.
It is the good wages that drags our young men across the line. When times are good at home nobody leaves, but when the opposite is the case our young men go where better times prevail and where they have better opportunities. The profligate and spendthrift will throw his money away but the careful .man will save it. There are greater chances for every man where the wages are good. Give

The Address-Mr. Dickie
our manufacturers a chance by providing an adequate tariff and keeping competition out of Canada. And then, having given protection to our manufacturers, let us see that they do not take an undue advantage of the opportunity afforded them. Let us buy our manufactured goods at home instead of sending $300,000,000 to the United States for the purchase of goods. Just think what $300,000,000 mean to a population of 9,000,000 people. Think of $300,000,000 saved in Canada, invested in industry, and in other ways circulating and percolating into every nook and cranny of the economic and business life of Canada. If we could save that money to this country we could have prosperity. As it is we have been marking time with a little sporadic prosperity such as you heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) speak of the other night. Sherbrooke, perhaps, is prospering, but Canada as a whole is not prospering. But why Should it not prosper? We have a better chance than any country in the world with our wonderful resources. The thing is that we want a higher order of nationalism, we want to become truer Canadians. Let us see to it and let us do for our manufacturers what the Americans are doing for theirs. Then if any article of American manufacture comes into Canada in competition with our manufacture let us make the tariff adequate so as to put an end to that competition. Perhaps we will have to pay a little more, but we will be keeping our money at home; and the homely maxim, "Keep your money at home" has more merit than the whole platform of the government opposite. Keep your money at home and you will keep your boys and girls at home. How long are those delightful, lovable people of Quebec going to look with complacency on their boys and girls drifting out of their province across the line when they have wonderful water-power awaiting development, when they have magnificent forests, when they have vacant lands on which there is ample room for millions pnore people than they have at the present time? It is pitiful to see this exodus going on and this lack of prosperity. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not free-traders any more than we are. The free-trader will soon be as extinct as the dodo.
Just a few words with respect to the Australian treaty and I shall have done. We have been unfortunate in our treaties, as was shown by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) on Friday. Our French treaty was a failure. A favourable balance of seven millions was converted into an adverse balance of five million dollars a year. That is some-14011-64
thing tragic. There may have been other reasons that contributed toward that result,
I do not know. We do know, however, that treaty did not bring about the prosperous conditions that were prophesied at the time. Then there is the Australian treaty. Coming from British Columbia, as I do, and knowing the immense benefits that accrued to the canned fish industry there, and more especially to the pulp and paper industry, I would be the last one to ladvise the abrogation of this treaty. I have already referred to the Powell River Pulp & Paper Company whose operations have created a community of three thousand people. They are now enlarging their plant and expending an additional $8,000,000. I am informed that they would not have done this if it were not for the provisions of the Australian trade agreement with respect to paper. But I say the government went into that treaty absolutely weaponless. With a high protective tariff, such as nearly all countries in the world have, but ourselves, at the present time, we would have been in shape to bargain with the Australians. The Australians are a reasonable people. No reasonable Australian will say, "I want to send my eggs into your country free, but I will charge you eighteen cents a dozen if you send eggs into my country". That is something for which they would not have asked.
I consider that the importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand will prove disastrous to British Columbia and Alberta. I do not say that we will be as adversely affected by that treaty in the case of eggs, as so many people think, although there are many poultry raisers in our province. Those who do not get money from home raise chickens there. The situation is serious, but the most serious phase of the whole thing is the fact that when too many eggs are thrown on the market in Seattle they dump them over into British 'Columbia, and down comes the price of our eggs. We want protection against the eggs of the United States. We want just as big a duty against their eggs as they have against our eggs. I would not hesitate to make that duty larger.
As I have already said, we went into the Australian treaty weaponless; we had nothing to bargain with. Some of us did not want to vote against the treaty; we were placed in a very peculiar position when it came before the House. We knew that it would be of immense benefit to the pulp and paper industry, but we also thought we knew that the whole burden of that treaty was going to fall

The Address-Mr. Dickie

on the agriculturists, as in fact it has fallen. It falls on the fruit man, the dairyman, and the: man who lives by agricultural pursuits instead of being spread all over Canada. I do not suggest that the treaty will be abrogated. Furthermore, I do not believe in regarding treaties as scraps of paper but I do say this: If we have a tariff that is adequate for the protection of our workmen, bur farmers, our manufacturers, and everybody else in Canada we will be able to go to the Australians and say, "In this case we were driven into a corner by very strong interests across the seas". As in fact the government were; they met with strenuous opposition from big people in the United Kingdom; and probably the Minister of Finance was obliged to go a little further than he would have liked to go in negotiating a treaty. However, we hope the treaty may be amended in such a way that there will be no feeling against our Australian friends, and that both countries will prosper.
With respect to the admission of raisins free of duty into Canada. We were going to do them a great favour in that respeet; maybe we will in the future. Last year we bought two and a half million dollars' worth of raisins in the United States for which we had to pay nearly three cents a pound more because of the duty-which may be considered a duty for revenue, and I do not object to it. But we only imported $32,000 worth of raisins from Australia, so hon. gentlemen will see that raisins were not a very prominent factor in connection with the treaty.
Now I shall resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose upon doing so I shall recall, as usual, a number of things I might have said but did not.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I think it is a happy custom which prevails that a member rising to address this House for the first time in a new parliament pays his tribute to Your Honour's impartiality, dignity and kindly courtesy. With that tribute I desire to associate myself, and I would go further and express my admiration for the perfect control which you have of the two languages, your own and the language of Britain.
I desire to address myself for a few minutes to the amendment which is before the House. I shall endeavour not to repeat the many figures and quotations which have been made by other members, but I must refer to the regret which we feel at the discrimination from which the dairy interest is at present suffering. I do not criticize the government for endeavouring to make a trade argreement, but rather for the terms which are contained
[Mr. Dickie.l
in the trade agreements which this government has made. When two nations come together to form a trade agreement there must be a spirit of give and take. There must also be a mutual desire to trade. That mutual desire between Canada and Australia has been present for some years. Negotiations have gone on with interruptions, but eventually, in the summer of 1924, a draft agreement wa3 arrived at. That draft agreement appeared in the Canadian press. It came from United States commercial intelligence sources. In it the details of whait Canada was to give and what she was to receive were described, and the country judged of it in accordance with the interests of the industries.
After the session opened last year repeated attempts were made to ascertain from the government just exactly where we stood with regard to this trade agreement. We could get no information. Industry was becoming anxious. Those portions of industry which were to benefit under the agreement did not like to go ahead with their increased- work, and they became nervous lest -those benefits which they expected to receive should not be as great as they anticipated, and that portion of the industry which was to do the giving was nervous lest after all it should be asked to give more. At last the Prime Minister told the right hon. leader of. the opposition (Mr. Melghen) that he could satisfy his curiosity by referring to Australian Hansard. When we refer to Australian Hansard we find the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the Commonwealth government had delivered a long speech referring in great detail to the items of the treaty. The part of it which referred to butter, which is at present under discussion under this -amendment was as follows:
The present Canadian tariff imposes a duty on butter of three cents a pound, general.
That is of course a slip of the tongue, for three cents a pound preferential and four cents a pound general.
Under the conditions of the agreement Canada will alter her tariff to two cents a pound British preferential and five cents general, thus increasing the preference from one cent to three cents.
That at least was some gesture towards protecting a Canadian industry, and as such it was appreciated by those of us who wished to see an adequate tariff rule this country. But (time wen-t on and that was all the information that was vouchsafed to us until at last, on the 22nd of June, the agreement itself was brought before the House and- the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) delivered a speech in explanation of it. We found to our dismay -that Canada had to do some more giving, and we were extremely surprised to

The Address-Mr. Stirling
find that one particular part of one particular industry, and that the biggest industry in Canada, was selected to do the giving-the mixed farmer, the dairyman, the fruit grower, the vegetable grower and the live stocjc man. Those were the people who were to do the giving, the very branch of the important industry in which the farmer is most particular, to build up the soil. The figures alt that stage then stood: our butter to the States would pay eight cents a pound; our butter to Australia would pay six cents a pound, Australian bultter coming into Canada would pay one cent a pojund, and all other butter coming into Canada would pay four cents! a pound. That is where the figures stood and where they now stand, with this exception: that the government in September last, under order in council, extended1 those same privileges which Canada was giving to Australia to New Zealand. Miember after member has endeavoured to get a statement from the government to explain what Canada is to receive from New Zealand in exchange for what Canada is giving, and so far we have not been told. If Canada is not receiving anything from New Zealand in return for this, all I can say is that the government is dissipating the assets of Canada. It seems to me somewhat like a card player who, through mistakes in his play, has lost the game, and proceeds then to give away some more of his cash to an onlooker. We have tried in this House, and in the departments, t.o find out just where Canada stands with regard to her negotiations with New Zealand, but I hope before this debate is concluded that some member of the government will explain just what Canada has received or is to receive from New Zealand.
When the Minister of Finance last year brought down the Australian treaty he referred to the alterations which had been in that draft in the following terms:
We are* making some other concessions in this measure as it is presented to parliament to-day that will remove and lighten the cost of living and reduce the cost from the breakfast table, without in any way injuring the Canadian trade. We have looked into this very carefully. As the measure was presented to the Australian commonwealth parliament, it was suggested that there should be some changes, some increases in the Canadian tariff. As Australia was not willing to accept the measure and allow us to issue a proclamation last year, we had thought it better to bring it before parliament as it is, and I think I will be able to convince hon. gentlemen that the breakfast table reductions we have made in the cost of living will not in any way interfere with the industry in Canada, but I am bound to admit that it will to a degree take away some revenue from the department.
In the first place, that statement reads to me like a document out of which some clauses have been erased, because I can see nc connection whatever between the increases which Canada was proposing in her general tariff, and Australia being unwilling to accept the draft. We endeavoured to find out through the minister just in What way the breakfast table was going to be bettered, and I think the term he used was that although butter would not be cheaper, there would be a better feeling at the breakfast table. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), looking for information, asked this question three times:
In what way will tile breakfast table be favourably affected?
And the third time he asked it, the minister's reply was as follows:
Because we shall not be collecting the same revenue as we did before.
Then the minister proceeded:
Why is it of advantage ifor Canada to make a trade agreement with Australia? Well, the seasons in the two countries are exactly opposite. It is now summer in Canada,

the growing period; it is winter in Australia.
But if we take that for a reason for hammering our mixed farmer for somebody else's benefit and if we say we shall receive in Canada the summer butter of Australia, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the other shoe should fit on the other foot, and that Canadian summer butter should have reasonable opportunities for entering Australia. But supposing our butter attempts to enter Australia, it meets with a tariff, not of one cent but of six cents a pound. Similarly, the argument, if it has any value at all, should apply to New Zealand, and if New Zealand's summer butter may now enter Canada at a duty of one cent a pound, surely equal facilities should be afforded for Canadian butter entering New Zealand. But if Canadian butter attempts to enter New Zealand it is subjected to a duty of 21 pea- cent ad valorem, and it does not seem to me that those are reasonable terms on which to frame a trade agreement between two countries.
The dairying industry in British Columbia is an important one. By that I do not mean to suggest that it is as large or that there is such an immense production in British Columbia as there is in the prairie provinces and in some other parts of Canada; but under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, both Dominion and provincial, farmers-not only those who devote all their time and land to dairy production, but the fruit grower, the vegetable grower, the live stock man and the poultry man as well -are all advised not to put their eggs into one basket but to increase diversified farming, to keep some cows. Those men who go in for farming of
The Address-Mr. Stirling

that description send their cream to the creamery and they are dependent upon the cream cheque for their whole living or to augment the income which they make from other sources. Their home and farm are just as essential to them as theirs are to owners of far larger acreages in other parts of Canada. Those mixed farmers are bringing up their families on those farms. The farmer trains his son; we help to educate him, and if that son in growing up sees that the industry in which his father is engaged is receiving something in the nature of a slam from the government of the day, what is more likely than that he will look for his future employment elsewhere than in Canada?
Another most valuable assistance which is smiled on at least by the Department of Agriculture is the childrens' clubs:	pig clubs,
poultry clubs, calf clubs, through which the youngster is enabled to get well bred animals or birds, the idea at the back of that being to foster mixed farming in Canada. I do not suppose there is in the whole of this Dominion a prouder dairyman than a high school boy, Foster Whitaker, in Armstrong at the north end of the Okanagan valley. A few years age he obtained through a calf club a jersey heifer calf. His neighbours did not think at the time he had got anything in the way of a remarkable animal, but he believed in that heifer calf and he tended it along with the other cows on his father's farm. That heifer calf has grown into the world's biggest producer. I read a few sentences from the Armstrong Advertiser of January 28:
Although she was running as a four-year old
That is this cow which is known as Pretoria Oxford Janet.
-in the test just completed, being four years, 277 days old at the commencement of the 305 day period, she has eclipsed the records of bo-th four and five year old Jersey cows in this particular.
The article goes on to give the records of the previous record holders, both of them Jersey cows from Oregon. Then it proceeds:
But Janet as a four year old has produced 14,935.2 pounds of milk and 869.31 of butter fat. Thus she has brought back the Jersey record to Canada and to the British Empire, and the empire at large has reason to be proud of her to-day.
There is no prouder dairyman in Canada to-day than that boy. This cow has made this wonderful record in spite of ilhe fact that some mischievous miscreants broke into her bam last Halloween, threw her and bound her to a beam. Fortunately this did not set her back in her milk and cream production for long; and there is the result. I can assure you, Sir, that when I saw her in the stock parade at the Armstrong fair last fall she

made the perfect picture of a cow. That is one way in which under government auspices endeavours have been made to foster the mixed farming industry in Canada, and I can imagine no better way than that of trying to get our youngsters interested in the production of butter, eggs and all the other products of a mixed farm.
When I went back to Yale last July and began to move through the constituency, nothing astonished me more than the unanimity of opinion that I found against the Australian agreement, wherever I went in the mixed farming section. It was unsought by me; it was brought to me; wherever I went apprehensive questions were asked me as to what the effect would be on the dairyman, the fruit grower and the vegetable grower. The people were bewildered that this government, which so often preaches peopling the waste places of Canada; which through its Department of Agriculture endeavours to interest farmers more intensely in their industry, should at the same time give such a manifest slap in the face to the dairy industry. I want to draw attention to a piece of newspaper propaganda, I will call it. There is a newspaper called Farm and Home that finds, or at least used to find, its way to a great number of the farms of British Columbia. After the Australian treaty had been debated in the House, it came out with an editorial on the 25th June running in part thus:
Canada has long desired better trade relations with Australia, but the treaty of reciprocity as it now stands cannot be expected to win approval in this province.
I may say that there is no doubt whatever as to the political bias of this paper, for at the time of the by-election in Yale in 1924 it came out as a strong supporter of my opponent.
The basis of desire for reciprocity with Australia has always been the seasonal difference between the two countries. When it is winter in Australia it is summer here. . [DOT] . The hope of Canada has been to expand her markets for fish, lumber and fresh fruit. The hope of Australia has been to increase her outlet for raisins and other canned and dried fruit. It would appear that Canada's negotiators have been over anxious to arrive ait an agreement, with the result that Australia has driven a true bargain.
It then touches on fruit and vegetables and various items mentioned in the trade agreement, and with regard to butter it says:
Under the treaty butter would be admitted at one cent per pound and cheese free. This presents an alarming prospect to our dairymen whose future is closely identified with the possibility of increasing butter and cheese production for the home market.

The Address-Mr. Stirling
That pretty well represented the feeling of the mixed farmers in the valleys of British Columbia, and evidently Farm and Home must have had a change of heart. Something happened. Possibly it was the Prime Minister's speech at Vancouver not long before the election in which he dwelt on the good points of the Australian agreement in the hearing of those people interested in pulp and paper work at the coast. He ridiculed the idea that butter coming from Australasia all those thousands of miles could possibly be a detriment to this great butter exporting country. I suppose the first thought that occurred to the people was that a commodity coming those thousands of miles would meet with difficulties in the matter of freight rates. But the Prime Minister did not draw attention to the fact that butter from Australia reaches Vancouver at just about the same figure as it costs to bring it from Calgary.
Anyway, whether that wa3 the 9 p.m. reason or not, a week before the election the same paper came out with an editorial of a very different tone:
A general election campaign la in progress and on Thursday, October 29, the citizens of Canada will express themselves and give voice and power to their opinions by means of the ballot. Boiled down to the facts, the issues are not difficult to understand, although every effort is being made to confuse them in the minds of the electors and the red herrings being utilised are numerous. The present Liberal administration under the leadership of Right Hon. Mackenzie King asks for a definite mandate on his policy, not feeling justified in proceeding for another year without an expression of public opinion on it.	.
Then it proceeds to outline the six points of that policy, the sixth of which is:
An increase in markets for the farm and other products of Canada by further trade treaties such as those recently made with Australia and other British dominions.
This goes to show that the paper has had some tangible reason given to it for altering its views, and I may observe that its distribution is not as great in the farms of British Columbia now as it was previously. I think I know perfectly well what the opinion of the people whom I represent is with regard to the effect of the treaty on the dairy industry. I can of course speak only for the people in the valleys in Yale, but the British Columbia Dairymen's Association, whose delegates come from every dairy section of British Columbia, from the Windermere valley on the east to Cariboo and Chilcotin on the north to the line and to the Pacific ocean, met in annual convention in New Westminster and voiced their views in the following resolution:
Resolved that whereas at the close of its last session the federal parliament rushed through legislation giving to Australia a preferential tariff on cheese and butter, 14011-65



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
And whereas this legislation is likely to discourage the production of cream during the winter months in this country owing to the maintenance of low prices to meet the competition of Australian products moving to our ports by low ocean rates against our own high railway rates,
Be it resolved that this convention goes on record by voicing its disapproval of this concession, and that such action be taken as may be deemed necessary for the protection of our dairy industry.
As I say, we members have the honour, the duty of representing in this House the feelings of our constituents, and I have no doubt that hon. members from Saskatchewan have been expressing the opinions of their constituencies when they have pointed out that they value their principles above their cream cheques. But it is remarkable that about the same time as these hon. members were speaking there appeared in the press resolutions and reports from associations of dairymen in that province. Thus, the Saskatchewan Dairy Association at their conventionendorse the action of the directors in protesting to the federal government against provisions of the treaty as they applied to the supply of butter and cheese.
And at about the same time the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creameries called attention to-
-"the impending peril to the dairy interests of western Canada created by the Australian trade treaty" and declare that the company will be represented in a delegation of the Western Dairy Association shortly to wait upon the federal government in this connection.
I anticipate that when that delegation reaches Ottawa it will probably have a conference with my hon. freinds from Saskatchewan, and I suggest that they could have no better topic of discussion than this question: Is it to be our habit to buy our necessaries in Canada, produced in Canada, or shall we rather tend to buy in the cheapest market, caring not whence these goods come?
I shall have no hesitation in voting for the amendment. While the government, the opposition and all patriotic people in Canada are arguing that the thing we ought to do is to increase the number of farmers, to produce more, to buy more in Canada in order to provide tonnage for the railways and so by that means endeavour to tackle the overrailroaded condition of this country, it is incongruous that at the same time the government should come forward with a trade agreement following a similar agreement, both of which have done damage to the dairy industry.
Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: I hasten, Mr. Speaker,
to tender my congratulations to you on the honour which this House has done you, and although they are late still I assure you that they are none the less sincere. I also extend EnmoN
1014	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
to the mover and seconder of the Address my compliments and assure them of my pleasure in having heard their speeches at the opening of this debate. It is not my purpose to review what has taken place since the election in October further than to remark that since that time, the smoke and the clouds having cleared away, the people of Canada have realized that they failed in that election to return a majority group to parliament. The Conservative- party since that time has been in the same mood and has evinced the same disposition that we find to-night-disappointed anid disgruntled, desiring to reach out and to come over here where they are not wanted by the elected representatives of the people.
Now, Sir, it has been suggested that the government, having failed to secure a majority group, should have resigned and allowed another minority group to succeed It. The wisdom of the Prime Minister and his government has been amply confirmed by the elected representatives of the people, and although there are some hon. members who have an idea that being elected by one constituency means more than being elected by another, that is not true. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) this afternoon twitted and criticized the Prime Minister because he had gone to Prince Albert to seek election, having suffered defeat in the general election-as have all prime ministers in this country at some time or other. It was his right to select the seat that he wished to represent, and having selected Prince Albert, he should not be criticized by any hon. member on the opposite side, because we find that the great leader of the Conservative party, Sir John A. Macdonald, did not hesitate to go to Victoria, British Columbia, to find a seat, having been defeated in the general election-and in those days Victoria was much more remote in relation to the central provinces than is Prince Albert to-day. We find also that Sir Wilfrid Laurier at one time had occasion to go to the same district -Prince Albert-for re-election. I think, Sir, it can be fairly said that the Prime Minister has been unfairly used by the opposition. They apparently fail to realize that he is not only Prime Minister of Canada, but is also the leader of one of our great, historic parties. They have risen in their places and twitted him and his party because he had not a seat in this House, and then, for party advantage, they have seen fit to try to prevent his re-entry into this House at an early date. But the election has taken place to-day, and the result will be known by hon. members within an hour or two. Un-

fortunately under the cumbersome machinery of our law an election cannot take place in less than from four to six weeks, and in the meantime the difficulties facing this government have not been made any easier by hon. gentlemen opposite. But we are not asking for any quarter. The Prime Minister will be elected to-day to a seat in this House, and in due course he will be among us again.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He is elected.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Good. All that the Conservative party has said against him as an individual and as Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party will not, I believe, benefit the opposition one iota.
During the general election and for the preceding three or four years a vigorous propaganda has been conducted throughout Canada by the Conservative press and by the Conservative party in denunciation of the government, saying we are inefficient-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Warwick King: Your turn is
coming. Our Conservative friends have denounced us, saying we are inefficient, that we are doing nothing for the country-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Warwick King: Just wait a minute; we will see. A studied attempt was made by the opposition, both in this House and throughout the country, to create a feeling of despair on the part of the public. How well they succeeded is shown by the result of this election. Do hon. gentleman opposite think that any good can accrue to Canada from such propaganda? When this government came into office what was the financial condition of the Dominion? My hon. friends opposite are fully aware of the facts. In 1921 when the books were balanced it was found that revenue had failed to meet expenditures by $91,000,000. In 1922, the last year in which our friends opposite had control, there was a deficit for the fiscal year ending in March of $81,000,000. But in 1923, by careful administration and by economies effected in the public services by this government, economies which did not disturb the efficiency of those services, the deficit was reduced to $31,000,000; in 1924 there was a surplus of 135,000,000; and again in 1925 there was also a surplus.


Mr. CHABOT:: How about the bonds
guaranteed by the government in 1922, 1923 and 1924; surely the hon. minister would not put those on the credit side of the financial statement?

The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)


John Warwick King: I will deal with that a little later when I come to the railway situation.


Arthur Meighen: Now is a good time to do so.


John Warwick King: No, I will do so when I come to the railway situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are facts that cannot be controverted by hon. gentlemen opposite; indeed, they are proven by results. In 1921 we all know that the Canadian dollar was at a discount of from 15 to 20 per cent. Since 1924. it has been at. par, and at times* at a premium. Surely there is no better evidence of the soundness of our financial condition than the value of our dollar in the markets of the world. To-day the ordinary expenditures for government

I am not referring to the uncontrollable expenditures-are comparable with similar expenditures for 1913 and 1914. That is, the business of this country is being conducted at an expense comparable with that before the war. That being so, I submit that the record of this government has not been surpassed, if indeed equalled, by any government that I know of.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not only balanced the budget and shown the surpluses that I have referred to, but we have made very marked reductions in taxation. In 1924-25 we reduced taxation to the extent of $25,000,000, by lowering the customs duties and the sales tax. We are told that there has been no reduction in the income tax. This is not correct. There has been a marked reduction, starting at the bottom; that is, through increasing the exemption for each child from $200 to $500, a man with a salary of $3,500 to $4,000 a year and with four or five children who in 1921 and 1922 would be paying $40 in income tax, to-day is not paying a dollar. There are many such men throughout Canada.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: They have not any income.


John Warwick King: I said the man enjoying an income of $3,500 to $4,000; if he has a family of four or five children, by reason of the increased exemption for each child, he does not pay any income tax today.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Would the Minister be good enough to tell the House how much less this government has taken out of the pockets of the people in the last four years than its predecessor?


John Warwick King: I could do that if I wished to take the time, but there has been so
14011-651	-
much repetition and prolonged speaking in this debate that it is my desire to be brief. I have the information my hon. friend wants, and I will send this document over to him for his information.


Peter McGibbon: I have the information. You have taken as much out of the pockets of the people as your predecessors.


John Warwick King: I have dealt briefly with the financial situation, and now let us look for a moment at the railway situation. The railways are of great importance, and the obligation that is on the Canadian people Jo-day in that regard was placed there by the party sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker. It was they who brought about the amalgamation of these railways.
I will now give the operating ratio. In 1921 it took 112.70 to earn $1 on the Canadian National railways; in 1924, it took 92.68; on November 30, 1925, the operating ratio was S7.83. Again, in 1919 we found that these roads had an operating deficit of $14,223,000; in 1920, a deficit of $34,532,000; in 1921, a deficit of $11,543,000; in 1922, we find, not a deficit, but a surplus of $2,886,000; in 1923, a surplus of $20,430,000; in 1924, a surplus of $17,244,000; in 1925, a surplus of $30,000,000- in fact we are told now by Sir Henry Thornton that for 1925 there will be a surplus of over $32,000,000.
My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) asked about guarantees. I will give him the history of guarantees. There has been no change made by this government in the method of book-keeping as regards advances and where those charges are made. The following statement covers the years 1919 to 1925:
Canadian National Railways
1919-	20-[DOT]
Cash	 * 55,264,144
Guarantee	 17,109,027
Unguaranteed	issues	 25,000,000
1920-	21-
Cash	 109,662,656
Guarantee	 50,000,000
Unguaranteed	issues	 27,000,000
1921-	22-
Cash	 95,533,726
Guarantee	 61,000,000
Unguaranteed issues	
1922-	23-
Cash	 80,213,023
Guarantee	
Unguaranteed issues	
1923-	24-
Cash	 24,550,000
Guarantee	 72,500,000
Unguaranteed issues	
1924-	25-
Cash	 18,027,000
Guarantee	 81,000,000
Unguaranteed	issues	 9,375,000
1016	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
In other words, during the years 1919 to
1921,	under the administration of my hon. friends opposite, the Canadian National railways were given in cash and guarantees 1388*569,533, and in the years 1922 to 1925, under the present government, the railways were given in cash guarantees 8276,290,023.
iMr. CHABOT:	What is the amount of
bonds redeemed by this government between 1921 and 1925?


John Warwick King: I have not those
figures here. This statement I have given was prepared by the Railway department, and it sets out plainly the cash advances and the guarantees given.


John Léo Chabot: But the amount redeemed
is very important. There was some redemption of bonds in those years.


John Warwick King: I have not that
information here, and it is not applicable to my argument; but if my hon. friend wants the information it will not be difficult to get.
There is no doubt the people of Canada are deeply concerned over the railway situation, but it is indeed gratifying to find that during the last four years when our friends opposite were telling the Canadian1 people this country was going to the bow-wows, in each and every year of those four years the railways which the people own were making a steady advance, and to-day they are in a position decidedly better than they were in in 1920, 1921 and
1922.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain just what the advance was in 1924 over 1923?


John Warwick King: The advance to
the railway, or the advance in earnings?


Arthur Meighen: The minister said
the railways had made a steady advance each and every year. I would like him to outline the advance made in 1924 over 1923.


John Warwick King: The year 1924
was a short year; 1923 was better than 1924.
iMr. MEIGHEN:	That was an advance
backwards.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend wishes to quibble, yes. But the important fact is that in 1925 there was a surplus of $32,000,000 as compared with a deficit in 1920 of $34,500,000, and this advance has all been

made during the time that our friends opposite were detracting from the efforts and courage olf the Canadian people by their false propaganda up and down this land.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will the minister state what lines lie was referring to when he gave the earnings for 1919, 1920 and 1921? Also, what amount, according to the statement of the president of the Canadian National railways, has been added to the deficit of t'lie railways in the last four years?
Mr? LAPOINTE:	Put that on the order
paper.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
can get that information by inquiring from the Railway department or consulting the Minister of Railways. I am not the Minister of Railways. I have certain information supplied to me, but the information I have is authentic and effective.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister
explain how we can consult the Minister of Railways?


John Warwick King: The Minister of
Railways can be consulted.


Arthur Meighen: Where is he?


John Warwick King: Put a question
on the order paper and you will get your answer.


Arthur Meighen: When will you get your answer?


John Warwick King: Whenever we
close this debate.


Arthur Meighen: Then we are going to
adjourn. How are you going to get your answer then?


John Warwick King: I am sure the
government will be able to satisfy my hon. friend. If my hon. friends are really interested in having figures, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed to give this information to the House with respect to the by-election in Prince Albert to-day:	42 polls give Mr. King 4,980; Mr. Burgess, Conservative, 1,000. The city of Prince Albert-gives Mr. King a majority of 790.


William Richard Motherwell: Ninety-eight polls
yet to hear from. Another four thousand.


Mr. EVANTUREL:: Let the leader of the
opposition smile now.

The Address

Mr. King (Kootenay)
Mr. ME1GHEN: 1 thmk the hon. member who is interrupting ran as an independent himself. He should not be very ungracious to others.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) It is his privilege. May I now continue my speech? I said it was not my desire to prolong the argument, but I wish to deal with this particular question.
We have heard a good deal during the last few days in this parliament about the necessity of Canadian trade passing through Canadian ports. Why will hon. gentlemen opposite not be fair to their own country and state correctly the conditions which exist in the country? It has been the desire and the effort of this government to promote trade through Canadian ports. It is well known to hon. gentlemen opposite that when in 1923, Mr. Fielding increased the British preference, he made that increased preference applicable to British goods that came through Canadian ports. With what effect? That to-day 98 per cent of the goods coming from Great Britain under the preference do come through Canadian ports. In the city of St. John this government, on coming into power, found one little potato house, operated by private interests, striving to handle the potato crop of the Maritime provinces. What was the condition at that time? The port of Boston was being used by the potato growers in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, in order to ship their goods to the markets of Cuba and the southern states. New, what is the condition to-day? This government has established two large well-constructed potato houses in the port of St. John which are serving the people of the Maritime provinces, and to-day the trade which formerly went through the port of Boston is going through the port of St. John, to the advantage of the potato producers in the Maritime provinces. That is known to hon. gentlemen opposite, but we never hear of it. The expenditure for that purpose was justified, and many shiploads of potatoes have gone from the port of St. John that formerly went from the port of Boston.
We have heard a good deal about shipments of grain and grain products from our Canadian ports. I think the former premier of the province of New Brunswick (Mr. Flemming) submitted figures to parliament which were not a true statement of Canadian trade in the matter of grain passing through Canadian ports; and I propose, before I conclude my remarks to-night, to place on Hansard an accurate statement of the Canadian trade in grain passing through Canadian and American ports, so that it may be there for the advantage of the Canadian public. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to realize or to be advised of the fact that the Canadian railways have to meet the geographical disadvantages of the Maritimes in regard to the freight rates on grain going through St. John and Halifax. The rate to those ports is the same as the rate to Portland. That is, a man shipping grain from Port Arthur or from bay ports can ship through the ports of St. John or Halifax for the same cost, so far as railway transportation is concerned, as to the port of Portland. Someone may ask: Why does not the grain go through Canadian ports? Well, hon. gentlemen opposite know very well that when a man ships grain to the seaboard that grain is not yet on the market; he has still to charter a vessel that will take his grain from the Canadian port to the Old Country or to the countries of Europe.
Let us be practical, and let us be fair to ourselves. Here is the situation: A man is dealing in grain. He has his grain in one of the lake ports. He decides to move that grain, amounting say to 500,000 bushels, to the United Kingdom or to some European country. He knows the cost of railway transportation to the Atlantic seaboard exactly, but the unknown quantity is the rate at which he can charter a vessel to carry that grain to the market which he aspires to reach. That is the whole story. He is a shipper of grain, a shrewd business man engaged in a business that i3 not local-because a man shipping grain from Canada has got to compete with the man shipping grain from Russia, Australia, India, the Argentine, and other countries. So he must seek the best charter he can get for the transportation of his grain. He gets in touch with the shipping interests and finds there is certain tonnage at Philadelphia, New Orleans, New York, Boston, New London, Portland, St. John and Halifax, and then he gets his rate. Now, it is well known that in the larger American ports there is a larger tonnage. A tramp ship may leave Great Britain and go to South America with a cargo. It takes another cargo there, brings it up the United States coast line and discharges it at some port there. Then it is ready to take another cargo. Will that ship take cargo at a lower rate than a ship that leaves Glasgow and goes directly to St. John or Halifax? The question answers itself. That is the difficulty, and it will continue to be the difficulty until our Canadian people become so patriotic that they will say: "We will ship through our eastern Canadian ports, no matter what the cost"; and when they say that they go out of business. The remedy is the building up of a large population in Canada that will develop a larger world! trade such as will
1018	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
attract a larger tonnage to our shores. When that situation has been brought about there will be more wheat going through Canadian ports.


Mr. PRICE:: Will the minister explain how it is that the Canadian Pacific railway can haul grain from the west to a Canadian Atlantic port and do it at a profit, and that the Canadian National, even with a shorter mileage, cannot?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is ill advised. The rates are the same on the Canadian National and on the Canadian Pacific. But the Canadian Pacific have their line of steamers on the Atlantic running between Liverpool and various other countries. In winter time their Canadian port is the port of St. John, and the wheat they handle is carried on their liners. But that is only a small percentage of the shipping that would take care of the large wheat tonnage that might be seeking to go forward. As far as the two railways are concerned I think their rates are equal to either St. John or Halifax.
But, Mr. Speaker, in order that there may be no misunderstanding I shall set forth the facts. I do not believe that any hon. member, even for political advantage, should seek to depreciate the conditions which prevail in Canada and try to make them out to be worse than they really are. Now, the hon. member (Mr. Flemming) a few days ago made this statement, as reported at page 269 of Hansard:
I have here the figures showing the amount of grain shipped through Canadian ports and through American
ports respectively during the last five years, and I would point out that during the greater part of that five year period this fixed policy of the government was in full force and effect, this policy that was to take Canadian products through Canadian ports. And what do we find? The following are the figures:
And then he sets out the figures. Take the years 1920 and 1924; the figures were so startling and so far removed from my idea of the Canadian grain trade that I made a note of them at the time and had the matter checked up. The Statistical department give the figures, and they say:
We have checked the statement in Hansard of January 19, page 282, and find that the figures quoted show shipments of Canadian wheat only via eastern Canadian and eastern United States ports. They do not include direct exports for consumption in the United States or export shipments via Vancouver or other Pacific coast ports.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to compare these figures, because I think it only fair that the people of Canada should have direct information on this point. My hon. friend on that date, January 19, page 269 of Hansard, said that in 1919-1920 there were shipped through Canadian ports 48,345,000 bushels of grain. Now in that year there were shipped, not 48,000,000 bushels of grain but 60,458,000 bushels of grain through eastern ports. There ,were shipped in that year not 13,000,000 bushels of grain, as the hon. member stated, via United States ports, but 22,000,000 bushels. I am going to pass on, but I ask permission of the House to place these figures on Hansard, starting from 1919-20 and continuing to 1924-25.
The figures are as follows:
Fiscal year ended	Eastern Canadian Ports	Via United States Ports	United States Grain via Can. Ports	Halifax and St. John	Vancouver, B.C.Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.	Bush.1919 20	60,458,550	22,295,698	12,379,992	17,847,300	70,4391920-21	62,361,026	64,081,186	40,152,040	9,729,166	603,7581921-22	66,072,.914	118,277,210	89,573,232	10,422,121	7,984,2311922-23	109,005,882	153,693,499	55,313,235	15,999,549	18,212,8451923-24	152,264,158	170,449,348	28,717,140	16,255,546	55,792,9821924 25	100,516,631	111,265,612	88,641,161	8,784,062	25,111,891I will take the year 1923-24,' because my hon. friend did not give us all the figures. The hon. member stated that in 1923-24 there were 72,980,000 bushels of grain shipped through Canadian ports. As a matter of fact in the year 1923-24, 152 264,000 bushels of grain weTe shipped through Canadian ports, and in the same year there were shipped through the port of Vancouver 56,792,000 bushels. In other words, instead of a shipment of 72,000,000 as the hon. member for 	_
Victoria-Carleton told the House, there was a shipment that year of 207,000,000 bushels -quite a difference. If my hon. friend wanted to be fair and to show the true condition with regard to grain shipments, he would have ^hown that there were shipped via American ports 170,000,000 buslhels of grain, and that in 1921-22 Canada received 89,000,000 bushels of American grain, and it passed through Canadian ports.

The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
I have taken, longer than I intended on the matter of trade through Canadian ports, but I think it only fair that we as Canadians should indicate that not only this government but every government that has been in power in Canada has spent very large sums from the public treasury building up terminal facilities in our eastern Canadian ports and of late years in the western Pacific ports, with a view to controlling Canadian trade and inducing that trade to go through those ports as far as possible. The late government spent $19,000,000 in the city of Halifax in port development during the war years. This government spent a million and some odd dollars in building 'an elevator at Halifax. Some of our friends from Halifax have indicated that that elevator is not what they want. It is a useful elevator, and if grain has to go through Halifax it had to be built. The hon. member for Victoria-Garleton entirely overlooked the development of -western trade in grain and grain products. He overlooked the fact that in 1923-24 some 55,000,000 bushels of grain went through the port of Vancouver. I would advise my hon. friend to acquaint himself with conditions in the grain trade and conditions in the ports of Canada, because there has been a desire by this government, and I say by all governments, to stimulate trade through Canadian ports.
In 1923 this government was asked to put a customs officer in the city of New York in order that Canadian trade might take advantage of the Panama canal. That was a most insistent demand coming from western Canada. The government met that demand, and an officer was stationed in New York. But there -was a string on it; we said that if business goes through the port of New York it must go into British bottoms, with the result that the trade between eastern and western Canada via the Panama canal is to-day a trade maintained in Canadian ports both east and west.
In passing I would like to refer to the railway legislation adopted last year, undfer which the government removed special agreements and restrictions that were curtailing the opportunity or the possibility of the railway commission developing equalized and just rates throughout Canada. Those restrictions, I say, were removed by legislation passed by the last parliament, the only exception and difference being that we did retain that portion of the Crowsnest pass agreement which relates to wheat and1 wheat products. Knowing the advantage of the great harvest of this year; knowing that the bankers have recently stated that $250,000,000 more this
year have been let loose in Canada for Canadian business on account of this great grain crop coming out of the northwest, surely no Canadian who has studied conditions in Canada would object to the government's retaining that portion of the Crowsnest agreement, in order that those who were engaged in the .great industry of agriculture in western Canada should know that there was a maximum rate to be charged on grain and grain products. That is the only restriction the government left; otherwise the railway commission are free at this time to devise a railway tariff or rate structure that will be equitable and bear equitably on all parts of Canada.
During all this period of gloom, what has been the history of Canadian trade? We have passed from unfavourable trade balances to favourable trade balances. We have a favourable trade balance this year of over $300,000,000. But there are some on the other side who would argue that having a favourable trade balance is unhealthy for Canada. I had occasion to read the Ottawa Journal on Saturday last, and I noticed a very small item there. It is not a very large one, as hon. members will see, but if it had told of an adverse effect upon Canadian trade there would have been headlines on two or three pages of that journal. This is the item:
Trade balance now against the United States.
The balance of international trade swung against the United States during January.
The country's imports totalled $414,000,000, and its exports $399,000,000.
My hon. friends opposite have become enamoured of the United States of late years. They enjoy making comparisons between Canada and the United States. They say, "Look at the United States, the way they have reduced their taxation." Why not be fair with ourselves? We know, each and every one of us, that the people of the United States, due to the fact that they did not enter the war in its early stages, reaped great advantages. Untold millions flowed into that country for war purposes from the various nations that were engaged in that struggle. After the war was over they acquired tremendous wealth and they have enjoyed a period of goqd times, as was not to be unexpected. The United States people are to-day world bankers and are watching the trade and advancement of each and every country, especially debtor countries, and the Bankers' Trust Company of New York, in making survey of Canadian conditions, has this to say:
All of the accepted criteria of prosperity such as car-loadings, bank clearings, et cetera, demonstrate a marked advance in general business for the first three-

The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
quarters of 1925 as compared with the parallel of 1924. Canada is, perhaps, not near the high tide of prosperity which the United States is enjoying, but the divergence between the conditions of the two countries is diminishing and it is expected that in the coming year Canada will enjoy a period of prosperity equalling that of her southern friend and neighbour.
It is well to take the opinion of the outsider and to believe that expectation will be realized. If we look around this country, there is undoubtedly an improved condition; but what I would like to make clear at this time is that during this period of so-called "blue ruin", Canada has set her house in order; her national finances and her railway financial situation have improved; trade through Canadian ports has developed and increased; our trade balance is a favourable one to-day, and for a people who were confronted' with conditions that according to some people were disastrous in 1921, we have, in the short space of four years, passed from a period of distress to a period of optimism, a period that could be made optimistic if Canadian public men would play fair with Canada.
My hon. friends have apparently worried very much ajbout the exportation of raw material from Canada. What nation in the world does not export the raw material that it does not require in its own industries? I know of none. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) spoke of raw material that was not replaceable and when checked by another hon. member who suggested cotton, he said that cotton was replaceable. That is quite true, but spruce trees can be replaced just in the same way as cotton, the only difference being that the process is longer. Do my hon. friends opposite say that the crude oil that comes out of the fields of the United States is replaceable? But still the surplus crude oil is exported from the United States to Canada and other nations of the world. We heard within the last few days our United States friends complaining that they were not getting enough raw rubber, and they were blaming Great Britain for holding it back. Great Britain from the colonies where rubber is produced exports that raw material; she does not take it to Great Britain and manufacture it there. In the same way the United States export the surplus of their cotton crop to Great Britain, France, Germany and other nations which are in the keenest competition with them in the fabric industry. She exports cotton because it is profitable to do so.
As regards the exportation of pulpwood, we know that in every province of Canada except Nova Scotia it is not permissible to export pulpwood from crown lands-that is, not only provincially but federally-owned. Under

these circumstances the only timber that can be exported is that on land which has passed from the crown to the individual homesteader, the individual settler or farmer who happens to have a wood lot on his farm, or the company or individual who, by purchase or agreement, has come legally into title of lands carrying pulp timber. That quantity amounts to only about twelve per cent of the total. With this new government in Nova Scotia and with Mr. Barnjum a member of the legislature, we shall surely look forward to legislation being passed in that province that will place its crown lands in the same position as crown lands in the other provinces, and that will not permit the exportation of pulpwood from its crown lands. That is surely to be expected at this session of the Nova Scotia legislature.
But is there great occasion to worry? No. No other industry in Canada has developed so rapidly and substantially as the paper industry. Within the last three years Canada has grown in the production of paper, so .that this year she will be the largest exporting nation in the world of newsprint and paper. How is that coming about? Because we have the raw material and we have those great undeveloped water-powers which will bring and are bringing to this country the capital necessary to develop this great industry. Therefore, if there should be for the time being a dwindling quantity each year from farmers' lands, or from individual or company holdings, of certain timber or pulpwood going to the United States, I would not lose a great deal of sleep over that. If the industry continues to develop as it is at present, it will not be long before we shall absorb all the pulpwood that comes from the farms and individual limits in Canada itself. That would be much better than the suggested policy of my hon. friends opposite, a policy which their government, if they ever were or ever became a government, would not dare to put into effect.
It is surprising to find the great interest that the Conservative party are now taking in the farmers of Canada. There was a time, not many years ago, when, if their efforts had been directed as they have been during the last few days in this House, the farmers of Canada would have enjoyed a trade agreement that would have been of real advantage to them and to the Canadian people generally.
I refer to the reciprocity campaign of 1911, when the Conservative party, not considering the farmers of Canada, but doing as they are to-day, considering only the desirability of obtaining power for themselves, went up and

The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
down this land deceiving the people in regard to the reciprocity treaty of that time.
We have heard some discussion of the alleged dangers of the Australian treaty to the dairy and agricultural industries of Canada. Well, let us consider for a moment the origin and the development of the treaty. If you will remember, in 1923 the Right Hon. Mr. 'Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, in his wisdom invited the prime ministers and associate ministers of the various dominions to meet in London to discuss imperial relations and the conditions then prevailing in the constituent parts of the empire and to hold what was known as the Economic conference. Those gentlemen who followed the trend of events, at that time will recollect that Mr. Baldwin declared that it would be in the interests of the empire to have certain preferential arrangements agreed upon between the dominions on the one hand and the Mother Country on the other. He did not succeed with his proposal, for shortly afterwards, on appealing to t'he people of Great Britain1, he and his government were defeated at a general election. At that time however the prime ministers of Canada and of Australia held many conferences, and although the proposals of Mr. Stanley Baldwin proved abortive there was a feeling on the part of the prime ministers of these two great dominions that there was an opportunity to develop trade between the two countries. A trade treaty was therefore taken into consideration 'by the two governments respectively, with the result that an agreement was ultimately reached.
There seems to be an opinion on the opposite side of the House that a trade arrangement, to be satisfactory, must be entirely one-sided. Now trade arrangements are not made in that way between individuals and they are not made in that way between nations. There had to be reciprocity in regard to the commodities exchanged between the two peoples, and the treaty which we negotiated came before parliament last year and was accepted by parliament. It came into force iin October, 1925. Surely hon. gentlemen can allow a trade treaty, negotiated between two dominions within the empire, to operate at least one year before they begin to talk about its abrogation. What has come over the great imperialistic party opposite? Has the Hamilton speech altered the whole viewpoint, the whole imperialistic outlook, of the Conservative party? Has that outlook been so changed that a trade treaty entered into bebwen two of the largest dominions of the British Empire cannot be allowed to function for the short period of one year-I would say two years, but at least one yearbefore hon. gentlemen suggest abolishing it? Before the treaty came into effect they went up and down the country telling the farmers that its effect would be to ruin them. Has anyone been ruined? No. Butter is higher to-day in Canada than it was at this time last year, and no one has been 10 p.m. hurt at all. Surely there is _ enough of the imperialistic spirit left^ in the Conservative party for them to give the treaty at least one year's fair trial.


Otto Baird Price: 
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: Can the hon. minister tell us where the steel rods that entered into the manufacture of this wire came from?


John Warwick King: I suppose they
would come from the Sydney plant.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: 
John Warwick King: That does not detract from my argument at all. This steel is now being shipped from Sydney, and whether or not the wire was brought from Germany lost year I do not know.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: The rods that entered into the
manufacture of the wire were brought from Germany.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Warwick King: I did not say steel rods, I said wire. One of our basic industries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is fishing. Thait industry will have an additional market of six million people opened up to it under this treaty. Is not that worth while? In British Columbia we know it has been worth while. Where in previous years the products of the industry were carried over from year to year, to-day they are sold in advance. So there is no difficulty in finding under this treaty advantages for Canada, and consequently there is no reason why hon. members should represent to the people that this is not a treaty in 'the interests of this Dominion but rather for the advantage of Australia and New Zealand.
There has been some criticism of the government for having extended- the provisions of this! treaty to New Zealand. That this action was taken is not hard to understand if we give the matter a little consideration. In 1904 New Zealand gave to Canada the British preferential tariff, and at that time our imports amounted to $19,442, and we exported to New Zealand $587,000. Under this treaty our purchases from New Zealand increased until in 1921 they sold us $4,219,000, and they purchased from Us $11,873,000. But since then the trade has been dwindling, and for the fiscal year 1925 we bought $1,180,000 worth of goo* and sold to New Zealand, $15,079,000 worth. Having entered into a treaty with Australia, what could be more natural than that we should give the same preference to the sister dominion lying alongside, especially when on looking back over the past twenty years of trade we find that the Canadian people have increased -their trade with New Zealand from $587,000 to $15,079,000?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What advantages, if any, does Canada get from New Zealand in return for the extension of the treaty to New Zealand?


John Warwick King: I was trying to
make it plain that we are doing a very nice trade with New Zealand. Under the treaty arrangement with New Zealand we have many advantages, New Zealand extending a very substantial preference on many important Canadian articles: on wearing apparel, there is a 20 per cent preference; boots and shoes, 20 per cent preference; hosiery, 15 per cent preference, cotton piece goods, 10 per cent preference, wrought iron tubing, 20 per cent preference; certain agricultural implements, 10 per cent preference; electrical appliances, 10 to 20 per cent preference; wire, 10 per cent preference; printing paper, free of duty; wrapping paper, 15 per cent preference; motor vehicles, 15 per cent preference; rubber tires, 15 per cent preference.
Canada certainly is not suffering from her trade with New Zealand, for New Zealand buys fifteen dollars' worth of our goods for every one dollar's worth that we buy from them; so to increase that trade ought to be a fairly good bargain for us, and the game thing applies to the trade agreement with Australia. The people of Canada will not suffer by these trade arrangements; in fact, there are great opportunities for trade to develop through
1024	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. King (Kootenay)
the Australian treaty, in, for instance, the paper industry, the motor industry, iron and steel, and the fishing industry. It is well known that trade begets trade, and although lumber and lumber products may not be mentioned in the treaty, we know that if our trade with Australia and New Zealand1 is developed in certain lines, other lines will follow and there will be larger quantities of lumber and other products go to Australia and New Zealand, to the benefit of the Canadian people.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, I should continue at greater length. I do appeal to hon. members opposite to give this treaty, which has been entered into in good faith, with a view to being advantageous to both dominions of our empire, at least an opportunity to demonstrate its advantages. If disadvantages should develop there is a proviso, as is well known to hon. gentlemen opposite, whereby the treaty can be cancelled on six months' notice. But that is not the desire of the Conservative party to-day. Their one desire is not inter-imperial trade, not empire trade, but to trade places with the government and to get on this side of the House. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is a greater object at this time. Would it not be well to concede to the government, which has been sustained up to the present by the members of the House, not simply on one vote but on several votes, the right to reconstruct and reorganize their ranks in order that they may meet parliament and carry out the sessional programme that is indicated in the Speech from the Throne?
We have heard many speeches, and it has been noticeable, Mr. Speaker, that since the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made his speech, in which he went over item by item the proposed legislation of the government and in most cases commended it, there has apparently been a studied effort to keep away from the matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and to discuss amendments such as we have before us now. I believe it is the desire of the majority of this parliament to put into legislative enactment the programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and I believe it is the desire of the people of Canada that parliament should be allowed to proceed with that work. I believe the people of Canada are fair enough to say that the government having met parliament and having been endorsed by the majority in parliament, should have the right to reconstruct their ranks; I have enough confidence in the sportsmanship and fair play of the Canadian people to believe that,

Let me also say this: In my mind, and in the mind of many observers, the Conservative party, in this House, which through its board of strategy may have thought to serve that party, has failed to serve that party Well. Further, I know that they have done parliament and parliamentary institutions in this country great harm by this obstruction. The government have not asked a great deal. Surely they were entitled to ask for an adjournment, just as my hon. friends opposite, if parliament had decided that they should rule, would have had the right to ask for and would have received an adjournment; there is no question about that. The primary reason for calling together this parliament was to decide whether the government or our hon. friends opposite would have the majority. Up to the present the government have had the majority, and they are entitled to go on until there is an adverse majority against them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Then go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Don't adjourn.


John Warwick King: We can go on very well; there is no question about that. But would it not be better and in the interests of all parties that parliament should adjourn, and that time should be given the government for reconstruction, after which parliament would reassemble and go on with the business of the country?


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, alow me in the firdt place to endorse all the felicitations and congratulations which have been extended to you upon your fair-mindedness and ability to carry out the onerous duties of the high office to which you have been re-elected.
First of all, I wish to refer to this question of alleged obstruction. The government have very sedulously propagated the idea that the opposition is obstructing the business of this country by the tactics they are pursuing on the floor of this House. That opinion was put forward a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). It is true that the question was taken up on this side of the House this afternoon, but I want to carry a little further the argument that was made today that we are not obstructing the business of the country. I notice also that the government press has put forward the idea that this party is obstructing the business of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Fraser


John Anderson Fraser: I am very glad indeed that in the first few observations I make in this House I am able to win the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely the Minister of Agriculture was badly advised when he made that remark-or he has looked into matters very carelessly-'because since that time I have examined the record and know exactly what the position is. Hon. gentlemen opposite, 1 have no doubt, will be delighted at the information I am going to give them. I can assure (them that they have had more speakers on their side than we have had in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and the amendment thereto. Let me point out that up to the time the Minister of Agriculture spoke the speakers were as follows. Liberals 26, Progressives 5, Independents 1, Labour 2, a total of 34, while the opposition had put up a total of 18 speakers. Now where is the obstruction? I may say 'that we on this side expect this government to resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes. I was sent down to
use all the pressure I could to get the government to resign, and that shall be my first business in this House. The government are expected to resign because they do not control the House. That is apparent because they have no legislation to submit to parliament. If they are prepared to go on with the business of the country why do they not produce the necessary legislation so that the House may carry on? So I say they are not in a position to submit legislation to keep the House going or to carry on the business of the country. There are pressing problems confronting Canada to-day, and the legislation necessary to settle those problems has not been brought down, although parliament has been in session six weeks. Surely it is time the government resigned and let somebody else get into power that will bring down the necessary legislation.
There is another aspect of the government's attitude that is most surprising to me, and it is this: The amount of talk there has been on the part of members opposite supporting the government and the different groups here in regard to co-operation. Now it is only a few months since we passed through a general election, and I want to ask if anyone heard of co-operation from this government during the election campaign. Co-operation with the different groups in this House is not the doctrine that was preached by the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill. He did not say then that if he were
not placed in a proper position he would co-operate with the groups in this chamber. I do not think so; I do not think anyone ever heard a word about co-operation until after parliament had assembled. Now the different groups here and the government are talking all the time about co-operation. Let us examine the situation a little. Were the government and these groups endorsed by the country at large? I think not. I think the government themselves suffered a good deal at the hands of the electorate on that occasion, and that is the reason they are in such a difficult position to-day. Were the Progressives here endorsed by the electors? Why, Sir, when they went to the country they had a representation on the floor of this House of sixty-five members, and they have come back from the last election with only twenty-eight. The only party that has come back with an absolute endorsation from the electors is the Conservative party. It is the party that is expecting and asking this government to get out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Anderson Fraser: Is not that a reasonable request? My hon. friends opposite applaud. Of course they applaud the statement because they know it is right. Beyond all question the government and these different groups were discredited at the last election, and yet they come here and talk about co-operation. I say they are flying in the face of public opinion; they are defying public sentiment. There is only one thing for them to do, and that is to hand in their resignation and let us have a chance. It is no argument to ask us what we would do if we were called upon to form a government. It is of no use to say to us, "You have not a majority here and you -could not carry on". To hon. gentlemen who raise that argument I say, "That is none of your business. If you are not able to carry on, hand in your resignations. Never mind about the other fellows". One sure thing is this: that hon. gentlemen opposite, having come from the country two or three months ago, are not entitled to another dissolution, whereas this party is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Anderson Fraser: Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite who are so merry and feed so sure at the present moment that they are going to hold down their positions, that I am not so sure about it. I want to tell them, that the people want another election. They are asking for it; they are demanding it, and whether you like it or not they are going to have it.
The Address-Mr. Fraser

do the last parliament the government had a majority entitling them to carry on, irrespective of what groups there might be, but they went to the country and came back with a lessened force. In the last parliament the government tolerated the groups without being subservient to them; but what is the position now? I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to remember that the groups can inflict death upon this government any time they so desire; they can inflict that penalty any time they wish. Is it reasonable to argue that the people of Canada expect these groups, with the lesser power they have or should have in this House, to be in a position to take such an attitude as that? I do not think so. I think it is a poor argument. The position of the government is entirely untenable; to me it looks intolerable.
I do not know that I expect hon. members to agree with me, but I wish to read what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) told the House the other day, and I am going to criticize his attitude in some respects. He gives his reasons for casting his vote in favour of the government, and he goes on to say:
When the government says, "We will do this and so," we have a very reasonable belief they will carry it out because, if they do not, they may lose support. But if we accept merely the assurances of hon. gentlemen opposite and they come into power, we have no assurance that they will carry out even any pledges they make, because they can always appeal to the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Anderson Fraser: Thank you, very kindly.
The hon. member said they could always appeal to the country. That is the point of view, I may say, which must appeal to men anxious for certain specific legislation. Well, the - hon. member had a very nice riding in British Columbia. He was not afraid of the elections at all. What is he kicking about? Why is he afraid to go to his people again? That is absolutely beyond me. There is nothing else in it but a fear of the result of an election when he appeals to the country again. He is afraid to go back to hi3 constituency, and what is he afraid of? If he has such a fine constituency and such a fine backing, what is the matter with him? Why not clear up the situation by appealing to the country and seeing what the people think about the condition as we have it in Ottawa at present.
There is much conflict of opinion with regard to the present situation here, and a great deal of consideration should be given to that question by every hon. member in

this House, because the country is expecting it of them. So far as I am concerned, my mind is firmly made up that the people of this country are very shortly going to insist upon another election.


Charles A. Stewart: We just had one to-day.


John Anderson Fraser: Just had one the other day?


Charles A. Stewart: No, to-day.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Would the hon. member like to face his opponent again?


John Anderson Fraser: criticism to offer in that regard, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the facts; I am going to take it for granted that that is a fair expenditure. If we turn to the mining industry, what do we find? The government spent 81,000,000 on that industry last year. I was very much interested the other night in the speech delivered by the hon. member foi West Kootenay, in which he pointed out the necessity for more expenditure in regard to research work in our mining industry. I can add to that that a great deal of information could be collected that would be of immense value to our prospectors if the government would spend much more money on the geological survey in British Columbia. Prospectors cannot be expected to cover the whole area of British Columbia, and they should have intelligent direction. I am sorry to say that prospectors are becoming gradually fewer and fewer in number, and that is a bad thing for a mining country. It is the duty of this government to try to encourage some of our virile young men to undertake that occupation which was so attractive to our people some forty or fifty years ago. In order to accomplish that, all they have to do is to spend a little more money, take a little more time and perhaps get a few more officials with the proper qualifications whom they can send out to map out mineral areas where the prospectors might go with a fair chance of getting something that would be worth while.
In point of production the mining industry is fifth in importance of the major industries of Canada, the order of precedence being manufacturing first; agriculture second; forestry third; construction fourth, and then mining. Yet I find that in a classification in which there are twenty-one industries, mining appears in the public accounts in the twenty-first category so far as the financial assistance given to it by the government is concerned. What a contrast! Fifth in production and last in attention received from the government. That is not right, and I am here representing the people of British Columbia, and particularly a mining district, to tell the government that we shall not 'be satisfied until this condition is remedied. This neglect must be redressed and we are determined to have some better attention paid the mining industry. I can assure the government that nothing they can do will more quickly restore commercial balance in this country and bring about an improvement in labour conditions. And when I talk about commercial conditions in Canada I have in mind businesses of all varieties. The government must help the farmer, the labourer, the manufacturer and every Other business man in the country, and there is no industry which will more readily and more satisfactorily respond to assistance than the mining industry.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I would call that industry a science of the earth, I am with the hon. member in his desire to have it supported and I would ask him what allowance he would consider adequate.


John Anderson Fraser: I am a new member, Mr. Speaker, and this information, which I have hunted up in the few days that I have been waiting for the government to hand in its resignation, I am not prepared at the moment to analyze. I am not going to go into exact detail in regard to the requirements of the industry in Canada but I should think that we ought to start with $5,000,000 instead of $1,000,000.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Hear, hear. I support you.


John Anderson Fraser: I am glad to find that when a reasonable proposition is put up to reasonable Liberals they are ready to endorse it. Now I come to a controversial question, and as the hour is late I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.



END OF VOLUME I