1928-03-14

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to give Nova Scotia its full representation in the House of Commons, as provided for under the terms of the British North America Act?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The present representation of Nova Scotia and the other provinces of Canada in the House of Commons was fixed by this parliament, as provided for under the terms of the British North America Act, by statute 14-15, George V. chapter 63.


PORT OF CHICOUTIMI
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total revenue of customs at entry port of Chicoutimi in the years 1926 and 1927, respectively?
2.	What was the revenue collected in each sub-port in each of the above years, the subports being Port Alfred, Jonquiere, Hebertville, etc.?
3.	What was the total revenue of customs entry at the port of Chicoutimi itself?
4.	How many inbound and outbound ocean going steamers have reported to the customs port of Chicoutimi during 1926 and 1927, and what was the tonnage of each?
5.	How many of above reported from the subport of Alfred (on Ha-Ha-Bay) and what was the respective tonnage?


Mr. EULER:: 1, 2, and 3.
Statement of Revenue Collected by the Department of Customs and Excise. At Chicoutimi, Hebertville, Jonquiere, . and Port Alfred-during the Fiscal Years 1925-26
and 1926-27.
Fiscal Year 1925-26 Customs Excise Taxes Excise Sundry	Total
Duties	Duties Collections
*	Chicoutimi	$	70,090 05 $	39,285 57 $	423 76	
$ 109,799 38* Hebertville	
98,332 29	37,483 41	
135,815 70*	Jonquiere	
98,387 39	37,913 14	1,026 58 $	209 49	137,536 60* Port Alfred.'.' .. ..	86,233 60	19,704 03	
105,937 63Grand Total.. . .$ 353,043 33 S 134,386 15 $ 1,450 34 $	209 49 $ 4S9.089 31
Fiscal Year 1926-27
** Chicoutimi	$	57,519 16 $	50,711 48 $	380 56	
$ 108.611 20Hebertville	
51.927 40	24.034 53	
75.961 93Jonquiere	
265,169 95	62,400 53	1,261 81 $	120 00	328,952 29Port Alfred	
370,330 29	96,493 25	
466,823 54Grand Total.. ..I 744,946 80 $ 233,639 79 $ 1,642 37 $	120 00 $ 980,348 96
* Outports under chief port of Quebec during 1925-26.
**Chief port from April 1st, 1926, with Hebertville, Jonquiere, and Port Alfred as outports.
4 and 5.
Port	1926	1927Inbound	Outbound	Inbound	Outbound
Quan- Reg'd. Quan- Reg'd. Quan- Reg'd. Quan- Reg'd.
tity	Tonnage	tity	Tonnage	tity	Tonnage	tity	TonnageChicoutimi,	Que....	4	5,924	4	5,924	2	2,664	31	55,005Port Alfred,	Que. .	31	67,398	32	58,454	19	45,762	Total.. 56103-85	35	73,322	36	64,378	21	48,426	31	55,005
Questions


MR. J. REID HYDE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	For how many days in the fiscal year 1926-27 was J. Reid Hyde employed in connection with, (a) the High Commissioner's office in Londpn; (b) the Department of the Secretary of State; and, (c) any other government department?
2.	What was his remuneration per day?
3.	What services did he perform?


Mr. RINFRET:: 
SALE OF SCHOOL LANDS-ALBERTA
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	How many acres of school lands were sold at the recent sales of school lands in the province of Alberta?
2.	How many acres of school lands were knocked down to Jos. A. McCallum, or to Mc-Callum agencies?
[Mr. Euler.
3.	How many acres were knocked down to one A. Shandro?
4.	Was the regulation initial payment made on each parcel of land sold or knocked down?
5.	If not, how many parcels were knocked down on which no initial payment was received?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 
CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of money already loaned to the Chicoutimi Harbour Commission?
2.	What was the total amount of money spent during the year of 1927 for dredging at Chicoutimi ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MERRITT, B.C. PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Did the government in 1911 purchase a double corner in the town of Merritt, British Columbia, for the purpose of erecting thereon a public building?
2.	Did the government in 1911, or subsequently, appropriate a sum of $24,000 for the construction of said building?
3.	If so, vras the building erected?
4.	If not, how many times was this sum revoted ?
5.	Has the government recently received representations from the board of trade of Merritt to renew this appropriation and proceed with the erection of this building?
6.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	No, but a site on the northeast comer of Granite avenue and Voight street was purchased in 1913.

Questions
2. No, but appropriations were granted as follows:
1911 12			$ 5,000
1912-13			 10,000
1913-14			 20,000
1914-15			 25.000
1915-16			 25,000
1916 17			 25,000
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Yes.
6.	The matter is under consideration.


RAILWAY WHARVES-1'ICTOU, N.S.
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What repairs have been made on each of the railway wharves at Pictou, Nova Scotia, since January, 1922?
2.	What was the amount spent on each of such wharves on account of, (a) labour; (b) material, during the years 1922-23-24-25-26-27?
3.	Were the repairs made by employees of the government or by contractor ?
4.	If by a department of the government, what department and who was the foreman in charge?
5.	Have these two wharves been taken over by the Public Works department?
6.	If so, at what date was the transfer made?
7.	Will repairs be made on each of said wharves during the present calendar year and, if so, will the repairs be made by a department of the government or by public tender and contract?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Approximately 100 per cent of the deck, caps and stringers, and 25 per cent of the piling, renewed on the freight shed and east wiharves.
2.	Labour	Materials
1922.	Records destroyed
by fire at New
Glasgow	
Nil	Nil1923.	Freight shed wharf.	$ 500 85	$	554	16East wharf	
Nil	NilLabour	Materials1924. Freight shed wharf.	2,925 69	4,339 59East wharf	1,051 53	673 301925. Freight shed wharf.	54 49	21 58East wharf	Nil	Nil1926. Freight shed wharf.	267 17	191 04East wharf	423 34	846 731927. Freight shed wharf.	3,970 44	3,556 34East wharf	2,115 83	2,824 05
3. By employees Canadian National Railways.
4.	Engineering department, Canadian National Railways, Robert Bowen, foreman.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Present plans are that repairs will be made ito both wharves during present calendar year by Canadian National Railway forces.


AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND TRADE AGREEMENTS
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	On what dates did the trade agreements between Canada and Australia, and between Canada and New Zealand, become effective?
2.	What were the imports into Canada from (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand, during the years 1925 and 1927, respectively, of the following commodities, cheese, butter, milk, cream, milk powder, bacon, ham, and mutton?
3.	What were the exports from Canada to, fa) Australia, (b) New Zealand, in the years 1925 and 1927, respectively, of the following commodities, cheese, butter, milk, cream, milk powder, bacon, ham, and mutton?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Trade agreement between Canada and Australia became effective 1st October, 1925. This agreement was extended to New Zealand on 1st October, 1925.
2.	Imports into Canada from Australia and New Zealand of the undermentioned articles during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1925 and 1927.
Articles
Cheese	
Butter	
Milk (fresh)	
Cream (fresh)	
Milk powder	
Bacon	
Ham	
Mutton	
	Prom Australia		New Zealand	
1925	1927	1925	1927.Pounds	18	15$	10	6.Pounds	801,324	162,848	4,904,536$	289,098	59,579	1,728,020.Gallons	$	.Gallons	$	.Pounds	96$	12
$				
				
$				
.Pounds	117,969	895,268	40,174	12,785$	13,527	113,217	5,801	2,098
1326
Questions

3.	Exports (Canadian produce) from Canada to Australia and New Zealand of the undermentioned articles during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1925 and 1927.
Articles
To Australia 1925	1927
To New Zealand 1925	1927
Cheese	Pounds

Butter	Pounds

Milk	Gallons

Cream	Gallons

Milk powder	Pounds

Bacon	Pounds
Ham	Pounds

Mutton	Pounds


MEDICAL INSPECTION OP IMMIGRANTS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	On what date did the new system of medical inspection of immigrants come into force?
2.	What was the object of the increase of medical inspectors in Great Britain and on the Continent ?
3.	What qualifications (were demanded in selection of these medical inspectors?
4.	Where were these officers trained for this special work and by whom?
5.	Who were appointed to this work and what was the address of each in Canada?
6.	At what points overseas have these inspectors been placed, giving name of inspector at each point, and date when duty began?
Mr. KING (Kootenay);
1.	Medical inspection of immigrants compulsory from 15th February, 1928, but inspections carried out at the request of prospective immigrants from 15th October, 1927.
2.	To carry out medical inspection of every prospective emigrant before embarkation.
3.	Qualifications required: Graduation from a medical school of recognized standing; a license to practice medicine; two years' experience in the practice of medicine or in making medical examinations and analyses; inherent executive ability; tact; good judgment; excellent physical condition; moral character.
4.	Training in special duties carried out at London, England, under Doctors Jeffs and Pamey.
5.
Name of Medical Officer-Canadian Residence
Archibald, C. H., Toronto, Ont.; Arpin, C N., Regina, Sask.; Audet, G., Quebec, P.Q.;

Bain, T. D., Toronto, Ont.; Currie, G. C., Regina. Sask.; Cock, J. L., Halifax, N.S.; De-lamere, H. D., Toronto, Ont.; DuPlessis, F. X. L., Richmond, P.Q.; Douglas, J. S., North Bay, Ont.; Egan, W., Ottawa, Ont.; Ferguson, G. B., Hamilton, Ont.; Grant, J. E., Locke-port, NjS.; Hames, C. F. W., Toronto, Ont.; MacDermott, W. B., London, Ont.; Nodwell, G. R., Grand Valley, Ont.; Rolland, R., Montreal, P.Q.; Savoie, A. M., Regina, Sask.; Turnbull, A., Flesherton, Ont.
6.	, i ;
Name of Medical Officer-Station Overseas- Date of Commencement of Duty
Archibald, C. H., London Area, October 17, 11927; Arpin, C. N., Danzig, November 9, 1927; Audet, G., Antwerp, November 14, 1927; Bain, T. D., Glasgow, November 24, 1927; Currie, G. C., Liverpool, November 24, 1927; Cock, J. L., Birmingham, November 23, 1927; Delamere, H. D., York, November 7, 1927; DuPlessis, F. X. L., Paris, October 15, 1927; Douglas, J. S., Liverpool, December 12, 1927; Egan, W. London, December 12, 1927; Ferguson, G. B., Rotterdam, December 12, 1927; Grant, J. E., Liverpool, November 21, 1927; Hames, C. F. W., Belfast, November, 16, 1927; MacDermott, W. B., Bristol, November, 15, 1927; Nodwell, G. R., Glasgow, December, 12, 1927; Rolland, R., Riga, November 28, 1927; Savoie, A. M'., Hamburg, November 18, 1927; Turnbull, A., Inverness, November 24, 1927.


MOISTURE CONTENT OF WHEAT
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1. What is the maximum moisture content which one northern, two northern, three north-

era, four, five and six wheat, is being shipped out of the port of Vancouver as straight grade cargoes, by government inspection department, for the crop year 1927-28?
2.	Is the moisture content designated on the certificate issued by the inspection department?
3.	Has the standard of the moisture content been changed or does it remain as in effect as in past years?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	14.4 per cent.
2.	No.
3.	Yes: Up to the present maximum which has been in effect during the last two crop years.


IMPORTATION OF BUTTER
Mr. FAFARD:: What was the total quantity of butter, (a) imported into Canada from Australia from April 1st to January 31st, 1928; (b) imported monthly into each province from April 1st to January 31st, 1928?


William Daum Euler: (a) and (;b).
Imports of Butter from Australia Entered for Consumption in Each Province of Canada, Monthly, from April 1, 1927, to January 31, 1928
British
Month Quebec Ontario Columbia Total lib. lb. lb. lb. 56,672 616
42,000
99,288 42,000 192,584 333872


DUMPING CLAUSE
Mr. KAISER:: 1.	How often in 1927 were the provisions of the dumping clause in the Customs Act applied?
2.	What particular industries were affected?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Dumping clause applicable to importations entered at customs without reference to department at Ottawa. No special compilation made of entries on which dumping duty was collected.
2.	Dumping duty applies to all imported goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if the selling price to purchaser in Canada is less than fair market value.
-	-	56,672
-	- 616
- 28,000 28,000 42,000 164,584 24S,584
April, 1927 ..
May	
June	
July	
August .. .. September .. October .. . November .. December .. January, 1928
Totals ..
Capital Increases and Profits


POSTAL HELPERS-MONTREAL
Mr. LAFLAMME:: 1.	How many persons were appointed as postal helpers in Montreal during the months of July, August and September, 1926?
2.	Were applications for such positions invited by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	How many applications were received?
4.	Were appointments made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?
5.	How many applications were received from men who had seen active service overseas, and how many of such men were appointed?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	43.
2.	An eligible list for postal helpers was in existence at that time and .there was no necessity for calling for applications.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	25 were selected from the Civil Service Commission's eligible list. 18 were obtained by local selection.
5.	3 of the men employed had seen active service overseas.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	How many employees of the Department
of Agriculture were on salary, pay or allowance in each province during 1927?	_
2.	What amount per province was paid to those mentioned in question one, as salaries and also as travelling expenses?
3.	What number of officials of the Department of Agriculture were employed in each province during the year 1927 in each of the following classes, (a) sheep promoters; (b) wool graders; (c) egg promoters; (d) egg graders; (e) hay promoters; (f) hay graders?
4.	What amount was paid in each province to each class mentioned above under the name of salaries and of travelling expenses?


CAPITAL INCREASES AND PROFITS
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: For a return showing-1. All increases made to capital from profits in the form of stock dividends or in any other form whatsoever.
2. The profits Reported by all industrial organizations as to: (a) gross profits (per cent) on nominal capital, (b) gross profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends, (c) net profits (per cent) as to nominal capital, (d) net profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: However much it may be desirable to secure this information in whole or in part, I think I can convince my hon. friend that he is asking for something which it is practically

Evidence in Japan in Litigation
impossible to obtain. I direct his attention to the first part of his motion, which asks for a return showing:
All increases made to capital from profits in the form of stock dividends or in any other form whatsoever.
Take a small business started many years ago; perhaps the owner of the business was unable to borrow money and all his savings from year to year went back into that particular business, which may have grown to a considerable size. Or take a fanner who started out on a homestead or who bought a farm at a low price; perhaps he got a little stock, and the herds and flocks increased from year to year and he put the money back into the farm. After a period of years that farm and stock may have become quite valuable.
Then take the next clause, with regard to industrial organizations; I imagine my hon. friend refers to incorporated companies. Some of these companies are incorporated under provincial charters, and it would be impossible for this government to secure the information with regard to the actual cash invested in such organizations. It may be said that the government could obtain part of this information from the Income Tax branch, but so far parliament has declared that income tax returns are confidential, and we are not allowed to give out that information.
In view of this explanation perhaps my hon. friend may see fit to withdraw his motion. I am not sure just what he wants to get at, but I suggest that he might very properly drop the resolution, and he and I could have a word together to see what he really does require. If the information is within the department we will be very willing to help my hon. friend, but as the resolution stands it is impossible to carry out.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Dropped.
Motion dropped.


EVIDENCE IN JAPAN IN CANADIAN LITIGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is too late. The order of the day has been called.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. BENNETT:: Yes, the hon. member was on his feet.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask if the attention of the Prime Minister has been directed to the press despatches from British Columbia, which indicate that the Japanese government have lately refused to allow a commission appointed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to take evidence in Japan in a case which was pending in British Columbia involving something over $1,000,000. Much to the embarrassment of the parties, the Japanese government refused to allow evidence to be taken by the commission before the British Consul General at Tokyo. I have press despatches here which I shall be glad to hand to the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not been advised of the despatches to which my hon. friend refers, but judging from his remarks I would say they afford another reason why we should speedily have a minister at Tokyo.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now.leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Hewitt Bostock: The house has disposed of two amendments-first, the subamendment- and second, the amendment. The question now is on the main motion.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the house having disposed of the subamendment presented by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), on which I spoke, and of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Oahan), I propose now to address the house for a few moments on the main motion presented by the hon. Minister of Finance. In doing this I really perform what is perhaps a duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has already spoken in this debate. The rule seems to be that when a motion is made, such as was made by the hon. Minister of Finance, and amendments are proposed, any member of this house who speaks to the main motion and the amendments after those amendments have been moved may not speak again. Otherwise the debate would never terminate. The members who may speak are those who had not spoken at the time the amendment

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
was moved to the main motion. Otherwise, of course, the rule of the house against speaking twice to a question would be nugatory.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other member
desire to speak on the question of order? I have been thirty-two years in the House of Commons and this is not the first time this point has been raised. Every amendment is a question by itself, and when an amendment is disposed of any hon. member who has not spoken before the amendment was moved is entitled to speak. The only member of the house in the present instance who is debarred from speaking is the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who spoke on the main motion. Now the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke, it is true, last night but merely on a question of order for the purpose of asking the house to observe the rule which provides that the house shall not sit after eleven o'clock. Now let me quote what Beau-chesne says under standing order 43, paragraph No. 334:'
By moving or seconding an amendment a member, if he utters a few words, actually speaks to the main motion. It is only after the amendment has been put by the Speaker that it is considered a new question.
Each amendment is therefore a new question, and those who have spoken once on the amendment cannot speak twice, but as long as the main motion is not disposed of, if an hon. member has spoken only on the amendment, he can speak on the main motion.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the question of order. It seems to me that the leader of the opposition is certainly right and perfectly logical in his argument. If the rules are wrong in that regard they should be amended. As it is now this debate is liable to be reopened and every hon. member excepting the member for St. Lawrence-St. George may speak again. Now it is very hard to differentiate and to tell whether any hon. member spoke on the subamendment alone, or on the amendment alone, or on the whole issue. As far as I can judge, all members who have spoken while they spoke on the subamendment also spoke on the amendment and the main motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if an appeal is entered from your ruling with all deference I think I shall be obliged to vote against that ruling.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: My view has always been that the mover of an amendment, as for example my hon. friend, the member for St. Lawrence-
St. George who was the mover of the first amendment, would have the right to speak on a subsequent amendment. There was a subsequent amendment. All others who have spoken in this debate have spoken practically upon three questions-the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment. Therefore they are all precluded from speaking again, and the only one entitled to speak on the second amendment would be the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but as the second amendment has been decided by the house he also is now precluded.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: May I say first that there is no man who would like better to have the vote taken immediately than myself. I do not propose to discuss what the rule should be, but I think all the old members of the house will remember as well as I do that it has happened not only once or twice, but many times, that the debate has been resumed after the vote on an amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By those who did not speak on the amendment.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couat.a):: I would suggest an opportunity be given to each member to speak before the vote is taken. It will only cause a loss of two or three minutes, and we might sing Alouette.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I have looked into the question that has been raised, and my firm conviction is that every member of this house except myself has a right to speak on the main motion. That was the conclusion I came to after careful consideration of the procedure, and if it comes to a question of a vote I should have to vote that way.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: I do not think that any member except the member for St. Lawrence-St. George has a right to speak. Any member who spoke before the amendment was submitted to the house is debarred, but any member who spoke after the amendment was proposed is free to speak again. Any member who spoke after the subamendment was moved is also free to take part in the debate on the main motion. As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the subamendment, the amendment and the main motion are three different subjects of discussion, and when a member speaks he is supposed to speak on the question which is before the house at that time.


Hewitt Bostock: On a debate on the budget, members are at liberty to speak on

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
matters generally affecting the affairs of the country, but if it is very clear, very evident that in the present debate the amendment and the subamendment raise an entirely different issue, then every bon. member is entitled to speak on those different issues so raised. The two amendments having been disposed of and the main motion being put to the house, every hon. member except those who have already spoken, has a right to speak to it.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appeal from the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: On the main motion being put, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) rose to address the house. Thereupon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) raised a point of order on the ground that the hon. member for Labelle, having already spoken, was debarred from addressing the house. Mr. Speaker ruled that the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment were three different questions and that the hon. member for Labelle, not having already spoken on the main motion, was entitled to speak.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not vote, Mr. Speaker, because I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc), who is not in his place. Had I voted, I should have voted against the ruling of the chair.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted, I should have voted against the ruling of the chair.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mc-Diarmid). Had I voted I should have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I should have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Mr. SINCLAIR (North Wellington):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Under a misunderstanding, and under pressure, I voted thinking that there were no pairs on this division. I voted against the ruling of the chair.


Hewitt Bostock: Once a vote has been
recorded and proclaimed, it cannot be withdrawn.	.


John Ewen Sinclair: I
am not withdrawing my vote, Mr. Speaker; I am simply making an explanation.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) on government questions only. That being the case, I did not consider that pairs held in this division, and I felt I had a perfect right to vote.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I should have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker,


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask hon.
members to maintain not only the dignity of the house but the freedom of speech.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Now that a majority of
this house has sustained the freedom of speech and the liberty of individual members under the rules of the house, and voted that those rules shall be respected by all, I intend to devote a few moments not exactly to the consideration of the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance, but to exercise-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask the
Sergeant at Arms to exercise the rights of the house.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I propose to exercise the oldest privilege pertaining to a representative of the people, a privilege which, in the wording used yesterday by the Prime Minister, has behind it the sanction of centuries of tradition in the British parliament, and that is, that whenever the Minister of Finance or any adviser of the crown moves to go into supply, or into committee of ways and means, every free elected representative of the people has the right to express his views and the views of the people who have sent him here. In this I am sure the distinguished leader of the opposition, divided as we may be on many questions of public interest, will stand upon his long knowledge of British public affairs and his parliamentary culture, and admit that in so doing I am not only claiming my right, but asserting a right of every member of this house to whatever party he belongs.
May I say-and here I address myself quite sincerely to all the members of this house, no matter to what party they belong-that it was neither to my taste nor to my comfort that I prevented the house from concluding its business last night upon the proposals of the Minister of Finance? I did it for two reasons. One, because I wanted this house to have an opportunity of realizing the consequences of the rules of debate that it has established. Those rules are supposed to be for the common good of the country, of the House of Commons, of every party within the house, and of every freely elected member. When the revision of the rules was under discussion, my excellent and intimate friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated most positively, in the name of the government, that he accepted the rule for the adjournment of the house at eleven o'clock every night, provided it was connected with the adoption of the rule debarring any hon. member, with the exception of the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, from speaking more than forty minutes. Although I did not believe that those rules would work for the benefit of the country, or that they would attain the avowed and sincere object of abridging debate, I did exactly what the Minister of Justice did; I accepted the one rule because the other \ as accepted and in the belief that both would be enforced.
What I wanted to emphasize before this house and before the country last night is this. If the forty-minute rule is to be enforced rigidly, as it has been since the beginning of the session, the other rule should also be enforced rigidly. It should not be relaxed for the comfort or at the wish of either the
The Budget-Mr. Bourassa

government or the opposition. I did not desire last night to embarrass the government or the opposition, neither did I wish to cause discomfort to any hon. member. I took my stand to exemplify the conjunction of those two rules, and to have it laid down in practice that they must be applied, whether they are agreeable or disagreeable to this member or that member, to this party or that party. In doing this, I believe-I may be mistaken- that I have helped the house to vindicate the primary right of every hon. member, and the house itself to observe its own regulations.
This brings me to the other consideration which induced me last night to prevent the final decision of the house upon the budget proposals. Yesterday afternoon we listened to two very interesting speeches from the leaders of the two great "historical" parties. These parties, according to the letter of this book-Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms-are the only acknowledged parties in this house. I want to be absolutely fair and as nice as I can afford to be. Both leaders availed themselves of the privilege accorded them to speak as long as they wished upon a measure which has been treated in detail by some forty members on one side and by some sixty members on the other, all of Whom have more or less upheld the same views and propounded the same policy. Under the forty-minute rule, the leader of a small group like our Progressive friends, the leader of a still smaller group such as our three Labour friends, and the unfortunate individual who, if you like, represents an eccentric brand of people, but people who are British subjects just as much as any other class of people in this country of ours, people who have elected me freely to this house under the same constitution and to express their views with the same freedom as may be enjoyed by the Prime Minister of Canada or by the leader of the opposition-under this rule each one of us is limited to forty minutes in which to expound doctrines or opinions with which you, Mr. Speaker, or the members of the government, or the members of the opposition, may not agree, but which I think you and they desire to listen to with the sense of British fair play and patience which we exercised in listening to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition.
But that is not the main point. Upon the subamendment presented by the member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), because of my determination to respect the longstanding traditions of the British parliamentary system, I refrained altogether from dwelling upon a matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) 
and discussed at length by the Prime Minister last night; I mean, the evolution of our system of government and parliamentary representation. I refrained, because I considered that in discussing the subamendment it was not quite proper to dwell upon this question, which relates to the general policy of the country. But now that the amendment and the subamendment have been disposed of, I owe it not to myself-I am but an insignificant individual-but I owe it to the thousands of people in the province of Quebec, and even in Ontario and in the other provinces, who have done me the favour of expressing some degree of confidence in me in the last twenty years, to say what I think of the opinion which the Prime Minister expressed yesterday on the question of party evolution. The Prime Minister knows that I am a personal friend of his. The Prime Minister knows, and no one better, that no party call or allegiance brought me back to public life when, he being loaded from one end of the country to the other with Ihe accusation of being untrue to Canada and to the British Empire, and of harbouring American tendencies, I stood by him, because I felt that he was on the point of resurrecting the old "Canada first" spirit of which his illustrious grandfather was one of the creators, and of which his excellent father was one of the upholders. I sustained him freely in the province of Quebec and elsewhere during the elections of 1925 and 1926. The province of Quebec sent a solid delegation to support the government, and the Prime Minister knows, or ought to know, that that was not due to party allegiance, but to the free and voluntary determination of a growing number of men and women in my province who have ceased to believe in the gospel of party, and who vote for one party or the other according to circumstances and to their own convictions.
Of course, when the trial came in those days that were fought out during the session of 1926-and they have already been referred to in this debate-great respect was paid to every form of independent influence and support that could be given to the government. But since the general election of 1926 returned the government with a clear majority, it seems to me that the thermometer of sympathy and of expressed admiration for independence of thought and action of such people, in the province of Quebec or elsewhere, has somewhat come down. Therefore I simply wanted to choose this occasion to tell the Prime Minister and his friends that those men and women, free of their will, free

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
of their convictions, who voted to support him in the fall of 1925 and the fall of 1926 because they thought that the Liberal party stood for freedopi of conviction, for freedom of speech, and for freedom of action, will be just as prepared to vote against that party the moment they find that such	appeal to their sense of honour
and sense of citizenship was misdirected.
I have always believed, in matters of political as well as individual hygiene, that an ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure. In the past I was forced, wrongly perhaps, certainly against my taste and personal affiliations, to fight against the Liberal party, thereby assisting the Conservatives-Heaven knows there was no co-operation-in gaining ground in the province of Quebec. Now for my own sake as well as for the sake of my good Liberal friends I do not want those days to return. I had enough of them, as I believe my good1 Liberal friends had also.
While no doubt there is much in what was said by the Prime Minister and, before him, by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) as to the inconvenience of group representation, at the same time, as I have suggested privately to friends on both sides of the house, I believe that if parliamentary government is to ensure to Canada what it ensured to England in days gone by, and what it still preserves to the people of Great Britain, there must be found some combination between the principle of free representation of all classes and groups, call them what you will, the free representation of all currents of opinion, of all interests, great or small, in every part of the Dominion, and the principle of stability of government for which the Prime Minister rightly stands and for which I stand just as firmly. But is it true, as was suggested yesterday, that the two party system is indispensable to proper parliamentary government?-that it is impossible to have stability of government without the house and the country being divided into two camps? I pay tribute to the Prime Minister's wide knowledge of history, his broad mind, and all the fine marks of scholarship which I have admired in him ever since he came back to this country as a young man; and I have followed his career with considerable interest. I was surprised, therefore, to hear the right hon. gentleman express the opinion that the two party system or, as he put it, the system of government now in vogue in Canada, has stood the test of the centuries in England. It is the very opposite. Study the glorious history of British parliamentary institutions, from the early days of the Witenagemot, transplanted to England from the soil of Saxony, down to the great revolution of 1646 and later to the less bloody though more significant revolution of 1688, and you will discover that in all this time the principle of class representation or, if you prefer the expression, the recognition of the needs of all classes, was vindicated by the free action of a free parliament long before there was any such thing as a two party system or before any cabinet existed. Not a revolutionary, not a jurist, but a conservative-minded man like Lecky pointed out some thirty years ago that in the evolution of representative government in Great Britain, from the days when the armed and privileged leaders of the masses, the noblemen, wrested from a tyrannical king, first, the primary rights of the aristocracy, and then those of society at large, as an annex to the aristocracy, until the time of the triumph-I will not qualify it-of so-called democracy, the distribution of power has been continually maintained in the balancing of political influence among certain classes of the people or among the people as a whole, but that in our days that balance is threatened by the usurpation of all powers by the cabinet.
One of the things by which I have been brought, French as I am by origin, to a sincere though not servile admiration for the British system of government, is precisely the fact that there is no finality in that system. Every nationality within the empire, whether English, Scottish, Irish, French, Dutch, or Italian in origin, which voluntarily acknowledges the king as the emblem, if you will, of the sovereignty of its nationhood, can commune with men of English extraction in the gradual evolution of government, and can bring its contribution to that system. I admire the British system for the very reason that it is at once broad and supple enough to survive all reforms, and to adapt itself to the genius of every race within the British commonwealth, without fear of any of its basic principles being destroyed. As the descendant, either of those Normans Who introduced into England some of the features of that form of government, or of four generations of Canadians who have lived under British institutions and helped in moulding the form of government in this country, I cannot endorse the words of the Prime Minister that the present system, under Mr. Baldwin or under any other gentleman who may be at the head of affairs in London or Ottawa, has reached the point of perfection. There is ample room for improvement.
The Budget-Mr. Bourassa

Not only is the two-party system a modern excrescence of British parliamentary institutions, but it is one that cannot last. Indeed, it has ceased to be in England. Under what conditions was it born? Every schoolboy who has studied the history of Britain knows that the tw'o-party system of government had its origin in the transmission of - sovereignty from a Scottish royalty to a German dynasty imported from Hanover and enthroned in the seat of the Stuarts. These Hanovers were good fellows enough but they did not speak a word of English; they could not communicate with the British people. A man of genius, though not afflicted with too many scruples, Robert Walpole, created a new system in order to strengthen the Hanoverian dynasty and to discourage effectually the champions of the alleged rights of the Stuarts. Finding that he had to encounter the opposition and ill will of the Tory aristocracy, still firmly entrenched within the precincts of the House of Lords; finding also that he could not depend even upon the Whig lords to assert the rights of the people as against the rights of the lords, Walpole purchased a majority in the House of Commons and thereby brought about the real cleavage between the Lords and the Commons, at the same time laying and strengthening the foundation of the two-party system. The Tories and the Whigs were the successors of the old Jacobites and of the Independents or Covenanters. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the two-party system was bom in iniquity, as the result of a long civil war which had torn asunder the basis of government and social law in England.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: And it has remained that way ever since.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But thanks to the
extraordinary genius of the British race, and to borrow the words of one of their greatest statesmen, a genius which is perhaps the more powerful because it is bound up with some degree of stupidity, the British people gradually adapted themselves to that system of government. They soon found out, however, that the two party system produced those things which were so deprecated two years ago and which have been deprecated ever since by opponents of the group system in this country; it produced corruption and logrolling-to	use modern	phraseology-as
between the two parties in the house and as between the organizers and vote catchers of the two parties among the people.
I pass over the period of the great crisis which accompanied and followed the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars, and come

to the time when affairs came back to their proper level in England. A new power had arisen, which has made itself felt ever since the world over; that is the power of the rising masses, the tillers of the soil and the toilers of the factories, who in their turn asked for a place in the sun and for a share of the liberty wrested by the nobility from the crown and by the high middle classes from the nobility. Ever since that time the two party system has failed to exist in its integrity in England.
Then how can the Prime Minister or any hon. member of this house fail to acknowledge the tremendous services which have been rendered to modern England by the newly arisen parties? If to-day, after centuries of religious and civil intolerance equal to that which existed in France or in any other country, England is held as the classical land of liberty, it is due of course to some extent to the commonsense of the British people, but it must be also acknowledged that it is due to the struggle which was made by the representatives of the Irish nation who, from the time O'Connell broke the doors of the House of Commons and refused to take an oath which meant abjuration of his faith, forced upon the conscience of the British people religious tolerance and respect for all creeds. If to-day the toiling classes of England, after having been deprived of their elementary rights for centuries by the Anglo-Norman nobility, can have a pride in their British citizenship, it is due to a certain extent to the commonsense of the Liberal party of England, but where would the Liberal inheritors of the old Whiggish party be today if it had not been for the struggle which was made by the representatives of the working classes? If to-day English labour has the right to share in English citizenship, in English nobility and in English monarchy, is it not, because of the fact that such men as John Burns, Kier Hardie, and Ramsay MacDonald, he the most illustrious of all living statesmen in England, supported by the growing strength of those who once and for so long were the subdued classes, have proven to the world that a labourer or a farmer may at times produce a political thought and a political strength which the time-serving politicians and classical parties have been unable to do.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the house at greater length; one reason why I have spoken, and the minor reason, was to show the house the result of those rules which were adopted in a somewhat hasty manner.
I have asserted myself, not for my own sake,

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
as I have already said, but rather to my extreme discomfort. I do not like to be disagreeable to my fellow members when I can avoid it, even to my good friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) who, by the way, is my best friend in this house, because every time he vituperates against me he brings more votes to me in my constituency. I like to be as nice as possible to all,-but I claim that every time even the humblest member of this house,-and I am one of the humblest individuals,-calls for the application of the rules indiscriminately as between parties and leaders, that man is working for the good of the house at large and for the good of every party in the house.
My second reason for speaking to-day is because, with the ideas, the principles and the ideals to which I have devoted my life at the expense of all political honours and comforts, and with all the friendship I have for the Prime Minister, I could not let pass that assertion of the tumbling-down party system of government, the complete failure of which both parties may delay for a certain time, but which they cannot stop. Something else will take its place. I do not find fault with the arguments brought forward by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways; although perhaps out of place and time, I believe they were valuable contributions, to what- should be one of the chief concerns of all people in different parts of this country. Last summer, from Halifax to Vancouver, I expressed the hope that every individual in every community in this federation of ours would devote more time and study to these great problems, because if there is one feature of our social and political state in which we have fallen far below the great traditions of the British nation, it is in the disinterestedness of many of our people. I might even call it the social aloofness with which all too many of our professional and business men, our farmers and our labourers look upon the great problems of the nation; it is the facility with which all classes and groups, if you wish to so call them, disassociate themselves from the general interests and the future of this country, relying upon this man or that man, this group or that group, this leader or that leader, to settle the affairs of state for them. Sir, if we want to preserve in Canada the essential characteristics of a nation, with the great moral and political inheritance we have received from the two great countries which have contributed the most of our population, and if at the same time we want to look to the future with optimism, strength of will and the determination of purpose which is characteristic of a young and growing nation,
we must be at once Liberal and Conservative, but we must have also an eye to the aspirations of all groups; racial groups if you like, provincial groups, or class groups, who find rightly or wrongly that the Liberal gospel or the Conservative doctrine is not sufficient to meet their desires.
I venture to predict that the first of the leaders of these great parties who understands the situation and leaves the narrow trail of party shibboleths, party traditions, party slavery and party narrowness of mind, to associate himself and his party with the growing aspirations of all Canadians, east and west, of old French or English stock, or those newcomers to whom we owe a duty to welcome as brothers in this great- family, will become in very truth the leader of the nation. The party and leader, I repeat, that will not go counter to these groups or classes, but will be prepared to receive the expressions of opinion of all and give them a sympathetic hearing without asking them to pass under the yoke of party allegiance or so-called party co-operation, will be the party and the leader of to-morrow. That leader will be the man of to-morrow and the leader of Canada, because he will have shown himself capable of understanding the hopes of this young giant nation that refuses to be shackled by the shibboleths and traditions of old countries, respectable though they may be, which do not fit our present state of mind, and which will not harmonize with it in the future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend takes his seat I wish to correct what appears from his remarks to be a false impression he has gathered as to the purport of what I said last evening. I was not attacking group government in what I said, and I was not seeking to emphasize the importance of the old political parties. What I was baking exception to was a theory of representation put forward by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to the effect that a member is elected to parliament as a representative of a class. To make my meaning perfectly -clear, my hon. friend in order to take the same position would have to stand in this house to-day and declare that he is here to represent the journalists of Canada because he is a journalist and belongs to that class. His whole speech this 'afternoon has been an assertion of the position I was taking last night, namely, that an hon. member is not here to represent a particular class whether it be agricultural, professional, labour or other, but is here to represent all of the people regardless of the particular class to which he may belong.
The Budget-Division


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I take advantage of the five minutes left to me to tell the Prime Minister that I could not read over his speech of last night, because owing to the incorporation of so much printed matter in it, Hansard was not distributed until five minutes before the house convened'. I agree largely with what the Prime Minister has just stated, but I claim that he has not put the question fully and completely. Every member of this house is bound, of course, to do justice to all classes; but the representative of a rural community is naturally obliged, because of the character of his constituency, to give more attention to rural interests. The representative of a labour community too, such as my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere), is bound to pay more attention to the interests of the people who send him here. As a matter of fact, we have, as representatives of constituencies, to take into account the desire of the particular classes who make up the majority of these constituencies. As to what the Prime Minister has said with respect to representation of a class, I have always opposed, for example, the idea of calling one of the members of the government, Minister of Labour.


Mr. KAISER:: Mr. Speaker, when is it considered that a member's speech is concluded? My understanding is that when a man resumes his seat his speech is over.


Hewitt Bostock: My hon. friend's theory is correct. In the present instance, however, when the hon. member for Labelle sat down the Prime Minister explained to the hon. member that the latter had probably misunderstood the speech he had made the previous night. According to my understanding the hon. member for Labelle made an explanation upon this point. In any event the hon. member's time has expired.


Hugh Guthrie: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had 1 voted I would have voted against the subamendment, for the main amendment and against the motion.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Martin James Maloney: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Irvine: I was paired with the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. McDiarmid). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
["Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.\nmember for BelleChasse (Mr. Boulanger) must have been inspired to bring forward this resolution and he is to be congratulated upon the splendid speech that he delivered to this house in support of it. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). He commenced by saying that he concurred in the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse and he admitted that our young men in Quebec and Ontario were certainly as worthy individuals as the foreigners who are brought to this country.\nThe problem of immigration has been discussed in this house for many years and all governments of late years have paid a great deal of attention to it. But it has been found and admitted that, although enormous sums of money have been spent in order to promote immigration, the results that were ex-\n\nWestern Lands Settlement-Mr. McGibbon\npected did not ensue. A great improvement in immigration has been noticeable, especially since the present government has been in power, and the1 great efforts made by the former Minister of Immigration and the present minister have been fruitful. I want to say to the hon. menfber for Frontenac-Add'ington that he should not send forth the whispers of death as he did a few minutes ago when he took advantage of the discussion of the motion of -the hon. member for Belle-chasse to state that our young men, whom we wish to establish on our farms in the west or in Ontario and Quebec, would have no reason to stay in this country or, if they had gone away to the United States, to return, because they could not make a living in Canada on account of the policy of this government. I wish to protest against the attitude of the hon. member as revealed in that statement. Instead of making such a statement he should join hand in hand with the hon. member for Bellechasse' and support this resolution in the same spirit as it has been introduced in the house.\nMr. PETER MoGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house at length upon this question, but it seems to me that in a small way it will supply something that this country needs very materially at the present time, and that is work. One thing that to my mind is wanted in Canada to-day is work. It has been my unpleasant duty now for many years, almost weekly, sometimes almost daily, to write medical certificates for people in my riding, boys off the farm and from other places, who 'are going to the United States largely because 'there is not work for them in this country. We might just as well admit this fact and we deplore it as much as anybody. They are going there and during the last three or four years I have not run across a single one that has returned. My sister's family consists of five children and four of them are in the United States making a living, although they would much prefer to live in Canada if they had equal opportunities. It is the duty of this country and, of course, of the present government, to supply every means possible to give our people work. I have not been able to understand why the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) will give greater facilities, greater encouragement, to people from Eur ope, than he will to our own people when they are almost daily leaving this country in search of work.\nI regret also that the government have discontinued giving assistance to our soldiers.\nThat scheme, launched as it was under great stress and difficulties, was a success, everything being taken into consideration, and I think it points the way for helping to keep our boys at home. I agree with the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) that there are still great opportunities in Ontario and Quebec and I am going to throw out to the government the suggestion that they can keep people on the land profitably in other ways than by having them grow grain or raise stock. I have spent some time in the last few years investigating fur [DOT]farming in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec. In that country there are -admirable 'locations for that business, and in my belief a -man who goes upon a fur farm where the conditions are suitable can get a greater revenue from it than he could from any farm in the west or in the older parts of Ontario on purely agricultural land. The possibilities are greater, and more than that, it is something new, comparatively speaking. In northern Ontario -and Quebec there are timbered lands and lakes and rivers and swamps that are admirably suited for this purpose. I wonder how many members of this house are aware of the rapidity with which rats, for example, multiply. They will have four or five young ones at a litter, and four or five litters a year, find those rat skins are worth from $2 to $2.50 each. The rats feed themselves, and all you have to do it to see that the conditions are favourable, and weed out their enemies. That offers a possibility for the government and the people of this country to develop a new industry that would be very profitable indeed *to Canada. It has this further advantage, that the character of the country best suited for the purpose is the least valuable as a rule for agriculture, and once the timber is taken off, the land has -practically no value at all. Anyone who has travelled over northern Ontario and Quebec must have seen large areas of land which to-day are practically worthless for agriculture, but which -could be utilized in a scheme of this kind, giving employment to tens of thousands of people, who would -make a better living from it than they could from agriculture simply."]
James Alexander Robb: This being private members'
day, and the government having no wish to infringe upon the rights of hon. members in respect of private business, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Belledhase) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, citizens of Canada desirous of settling on western lands should receive from the government of Canada the same assistance and favourable treatment as the citizens of Europe.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Immediately following the motion you have just read there is one standing in my name. This motion of mine was discussed on the 16th day of February, the discussion starting in the evening about 10.36 and continuing until about eleven o'clock. Discussion of that motion having already commenced, I claim that it should take precedence over the motion you have just read to the house. In the discussion that took place that evening the right hon. the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
As the rule now stands, this resolution becomes the first order the next time these motions are taken up.
Whatever the interpretation of the rules may be, I think that a motion that has once been called and discussed should have precedence over any other motion on the order paper. That is what occurred in the case of my motion. If the rules are such that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) has the right to proceed now with his motion, I think there is something wrong with the
1338	COMMONS
Western Lands Settlement-Mr. Boulanger
rules. Under the circumstances I think that my motion should have precedence over that of the hon. member.


Mr. BOULANGER:: I would not have any objection to allowing the motion of the hon. member to take precedence over mine.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. gentleman, but this is a question of the interpretation of the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: Standing order 27 says:
If at the hour of six o'clock p.m. on a Wednesday, or at the time of the adjournment of the house, a motion on the notice paper be under consideration, that question shall stand first on the order paper of the following day, next after orders to which a special precedence has been assigned by standing order or order of the house.
Under the rules, the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse stood ahead of the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg. When by the effluxion of time the hon. member was interrupted by the operation of the eleven o'clock rule, his motion was kept where it was when it was introduced. The motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse did not lose its rank on the order paper. The hon. member for Bellechasse was entitled to have his motion called, and if not proceeded with on that day, to have it called in its place upon another occasion. That occasion has arisen to-day, and if the hon. gentleman does not proceed with his motion now it will go to the foot of the order paper. It stands now where it ought to stand.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I was a member of the committee that revised the rules, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think the committee had any such intention. If there are thirteen or fourteen orders called, as has often been the case in this house, should all these orders take precedence over an adjourned ordejr when six o'clock comes on Wednesday? That is the question. I do not think so. Here is a case where one order was ahead of the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg, the debate on which was adjourned according to the rules of the house at eleven o'clock, and if the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse has precedence over it, then all orders called previous to it on that day w'ould have the same precedence.


Hewitt Bostock: Standing order S2 says:
When a private member's notice of motion shall have been twice called from the chair-
The motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse has been called only once. To-day is the second time of its calling. It is where it Should be, at the head of the motions on the order paper. Because the hon. member for

Bellechasse was not ready to proceed when the motion of the hon. member for North Winmipeig was called, his motion did not lose precedence, but if he does not proceed with his motion to-day, it goes to the bottom of the list.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: 
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Is there not plenty of available agricultural land in both Quebec and Ontario?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I would not say that; I think most of the good farming land in the bid provinces is already occupied. Fortunately, in the case of my own family, we all remained in Canada; but this is not always the case with eastern Canadian farmer families. There remain very few colonizable areas in eastern Canada and the surplus farmers' sons go to the cities, sometimes on this side of the border but very often on the American side, where they are lost to Canada. This attraction of the sons of our farmers by the industrial cities of New England, which are closer to us than western Canada, is a subject of much anxiety to every Canadian who loves his country, and it is quite natural to think of means to prevent the desertion of their traditional calling by such valuable citizens. Case after case has come under my observation, in my own and in the neighbouring counties- and I presume the situation is about the same in the maritime provinces-of young farmers, born tillers of the soil, brought up in the best traditions of our unsurpassed rural population, becoming lost in the great American cities near us. They have heard of the vast fertile

Western Lands Settlement-Mir. Boulanger
plains of the west where hard work, of which they have no fear, and intelligent effort, are always sure of their reward; but, alas it costs a small fortune for eastern 'Canadians to go west and settle there and no benevolent government or colonization organization has been willing to offer them assistance of any kind. This emigration of our young farmers took quite an alarming turn a few years ago, but I must say that, due to the good administration which this government has given the country, and thanks also to the praiseworthy policy of a great Canadian, the Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Prime Minister of Quebec, in attracting capital to our province, in prohibiting the exportation of hydro-electric power, in encouraging the exploitation of our natural resources, and in creating industrial centres and new markets for our farmers, the situation is not so grave as it was, although still too great a number of young farmers, who cannot find land in the east, are obliged to expatriate. It is with a very great sense of satisfaction that I note, in the report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, that during the last year 56,957 Canadians who had gone to the United States came back to the country they had abandoned. And at this juncture might I be permitted to thank the government for having place a sum of $50,000 at the disposal of the province of Quebec to repatriate its citizens.
But however satisfactory might be the repatriation and return of Canadians who found out that, after all, their own was the best country to live in, it seems to me that it would still be more satisfactory to prevent our own people from leaving us; and I am convinced that this very desirable end would be attained by giving young Canadian farmers, unable to find land in their own vicinity, the same assistance as is given others to go and settle on vacant land in western Canada. I repeat that we in the east are not against bringing in immigrants to colonize our undeveloped areas; we are not even against assisted and subsidized colonization, if we must have it. But we demand that Canadians should be given the first chance, that before we spend our money to place strangers on our land we must first try to place native Canadians there. It appears to me that such an enterprise particularly commends itself in these days, when we talk so much of the necessity of achieving Canadian unity and of creating a distinctive Canadian spirit and character. Prominent people like Colonel R. H. Webb, mayor of Winnipeg, and others, fear foreign domination in the Canadian west; they deplore the spread of communism, which certainly did not originate with our native 56103-861
population; they claim that 40 per cent of the criminals and 60 per cent of the people in asylums and sanatoria, are foreign bom; they oven pretend that immigrants, placed at great cost on land, desert and drift to the cities, where they displace our native workingmen, or to the United States, which was their secret destination from the start. But, sir, let us give our idle land to till and to cultivate, even if we have to assist them with public moneys to do so, to the descendants of those who came on the Hector, to the descendants of the British Empire Loyalists, to the descendants of those who came back to their ravaged homes after the "Grand Derangement" and to the descendants of those who from the provinces of France, three hundred years ago, came without assisted passage or hopes of after-care, to settle on the shores of the St. Lawrence, and to roam this continent from the gulf of Mexico to Hudson bay and from Labrador to the Rockies. Let us place them on the land and they will remain; they have been doing so for centuries. They have inherited traditions of courage, selfreliance, perseverance and tenacity, and they need no training to become accustomed to Canadian life. You can trust them to work for Canadian unity and to help build a strong and vigorous nation, endowed with the qualities and characteristics of the two great races which have written their fame on the pages of our history and which are destined by Providence to achieve together the destinies of Canada. And if the time should ever come when it is necessary for them to defend the soil in which they have been rooted for generations, their past will be a guarantee that the heritage entrusted to their care shall not be wrested from them.
The idea embodied in the resolution which I have the honour to propose is not a new one, but I sincerely believe it is sound and one which it would be in the interests of the country to put into execution. It seems a fundamental necessity to do everything possible to conserve our rural population, that quiet, honest, sane, hard-working and clear-thinking rural population which accord^ ing to Mr. Stanley Baldwin is the core and the source of the strength of the nation. Assisting farmers' sons, who cannot find land in the east, to take up land in the west is, in my humble opinion, one of the best ways of keeping our rural population and of maintaining the balance which must exist between city and country dwellers. It may be objected that provincial governments would look with disfavour upon the emigration of their citizens to another province, and that the
1342	COMMONS
Western Lands Settlement-Mr. Arthurs
federal government would not see the advantage of assisting the transportation companies or the colonization societies in moving these people from one place to another within the country. I do not need to point out, however, that the object of this resolution is to devise a means of preventing the surplus farming population from leaving not only their native provinces but Canada as well, and that provincial authorities would rather see young farmers go to western Canada than to the United States. As to the reluctance of the federal government to spend money in assisting Canadians to settle in their own country, I think we need have no fear on that score because last year the Minister of Immigration and Colonization told us he was working on a plan to help young Canadians who desired to become settlers. If the discusison of this resolution does no more than hasten the maturity of that plan, it will not have been in vain.
I have therefore the honour, Mr. Speaker, to move the adoption of the resolution.


James Arthurs: 
Mr. P. E. BOIVIN (Shefford):: I wish to say only a very few words on the matter under discussion. First of all I congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) upon the case which he has .presented in support of this motion, and the manner in which he has dealt with the problems which have to be faced not only in the province of Quebec but elsewhere in this country. I wish the house would take this question into very serious consideration, because it is a problem for which we have to find a solution, and one that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) should study very carefully.
I had not anticipated that this question would be brought up at this particular time and therefore I am not as well prepared to discuss it as I should otherwise have been. But I want to suggest a plan to which the Minister of Immigration and Colonization might give consideration and which he might find worthy of adoption in due course. To make it a success, however, this plan will involve the co-operation not only of all the members of this house but also of every business man and every newspaper dm the country. I realize that it will be a big undertaking, but it is one which is worth studying. That plan is this: that the government establish training farms in every province of Canada, organized to train young mem in farming in the same way that the Militia department train our boys in military affairs in camp. The men to be trained on those farms should be recruited just as we recruit our soldiers. Enlist the men for three years, bring them to these model farms, keep them there and train them in practical farming. After a certain period, when they have been thoroughly
trained, settle each man on say 100 acres of land, in groups, and give them all the encouragement necessary to make that settlement a success. We should endeavour to keep in this country those of our boys who 'have been trained to a certain extent in farming and like the occupation, but who cannot stay at home because the homestead is not large enough. If young men of this type were brought to model farms where they could bo trained and made practical farmers, Canada would gain to a tremendous extent.
Then again at periods when the country, perhaps, was not as prosperous as it is to-day and a certain amount of depression prevailed, you could take from the cities, men who complain that they cannot find work. You could say to them: Go and enlist on one of these farms, and you will at least get your living. If they turn out to be good, practical men, by all means locate them on farms and give them a chance to make a success of farming and become good Canadian citizens. If we pursue the course I have advocated we shall be able to retain many of our own sons in Canada, and they will not be tempted to leave the country and go elsewhere. If the Department of Immigration wishes to study this plan, I shall be only too pleased to cooperate with them in every way and to give them the benefit of any ideas that I have,


John Wesley Edwards: I have only one or two observations to make in regard to this motion and to the remarks offered by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). In the first place I want to say that I am in entire agreement with the tribute which he pays to the young farmers of the province of Quebec, a tribute, I presume, which will apply equally to the young men on the farms in Ontario. In intelligence, virility and energy I think I should be safe in saying that these young men are the equals if not the superiors of any settlers we could get from any other country. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a weakness in this resolution which should be pointed out and I have risen for the purpose of doing so. The resolution says:
That, in the opinion of this house, citizens of Canada desirous of settling on western lands should receive from the government of Canada the same assistance and favourable treatment as the citizens of Europe.
Why specify western lands? I venture the statement that we have hundreds of thousands of acres of just as good lands in Ontario and Quebec as the sun ever shone on, which have not yet been brought under cultivation. It seems to me, also, that there are advan-
1344	COMMONS
Western Lands Settlement-Mr. Edwards
tages to the intending settler that can be offered in inducing him to go on unoccupied lands in Ontario and Quebec that cannot be offered to any settler going to the west. For instance, assuming if you like-and I make the assertion in the confident belief that I am correct-that we have hundreds of thousands of acres of just as fertile soil in Ontario and Quebec as there is in any province in the west, then a man who settles on a farm in either of the two former provinces has this advantage over a man who settles in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta: When he brings his farm under cultivation and has his products ready for the market, he is within twenty-four hours of large centres of population like Toronto and Montreal where he can sell those products to advantage. I do not admit for one moment, nor do I believe that any person else who has travelled over this country to any extent will admit, that the soil in western Canada is one whit more fertile or better adapted to agriculture than is the soil in Ontario and Quebec. I repeat there are advantages in Ontario which I believe the men in the western provinces will come to realize in the very near future, and I would ask my hon. friend therefore if he is prepared to extend the scope of his resolution and ask this government, or any government that may be in power, to give assistance to those in western Canada who might desire to come east and settle on vacant lands in Ontario and Quebec. Because I assume that the time will come when the western people will become aware of the advantages I have indicated, and will be anxious to take advantage of them. Why should not people leave cities like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, and even Saskatoon and come down and settle on some more splendid lands in New Ontario, or on some of the vacant lands in the province of Quebec? Why ask the government to adopt a scheme giving special help to those who want to settle in the west? I am not depreciating the advantages of the west but I rather think that a little too much attention has been directed to the west in our immigration efforts to the detriment of the older provinces of Canada. These provinces, I think, have been overlooked to a large extent in our immigration and colonization campaigns in this country.
The resolution, no matter what may be said in favour of it is defective and weak in that it specifies that as regards Canadians who desire to settle on the land, assistance will be given only to those who are going to the west. I see no reason for specifying that and I do not think such a scheme will work out in practice. Very soon other provinces would

be asking the government to give the same assistance in bringing people from the west or the extreme east for settlement in the central provinces.
There is just one other thought that I should like to add to this for the benefit of my hon. friend who introduced the resolution and who, in introducing it, very naturally, though very incorrectly, paid a tribute to the government of the day. Might I point out to my hon. friend that there are very definite reasons, other than the ones that he mentioned, why the boys are leaving the farms of Quebec and Ontario. This government has adapted a policy to discourage our boys in Ontario and Quebec from going on the land. What particular branch of agriculture will a boy take up? Will he go into dairying in the face of the attitude and action of this government in adopting the Australian treaty? Has he any encouragement along that line to go into, dairying in this country? Will he take up gardening, raising fruits and vegetables in the face of the attitude and action of the government in placing every possible obstacle in his way to make a success of it? Will he be encouraged to go into the sheep industry in this country? Not under the policy followed by this government. So I would appeal to my hon. friend who introduced this resolution, I am sure, honestly, conscientiously and believing in what he is advocating, to direct some of his logic and eloquence towards the members of the government and to endeavour, if possible, to induce them to see a little reason and to adopt a policy which will offer encouragement and not discouragement to those on the land in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Mont-morency):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member for BelleChasse (Mr. Boulanger) must have been inspired to bring forward this resolution and he is to be congratulated upon the splendid speech that he delivered to this house in support of it. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). He commenced by saying that he concurred in the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse and he admitted that our young men in Quebec and Ontario were certainly as worthy individuals as the foreigners who are brought to this country.
The problem of immigration has been discussed in this house for many years and all governments of late years have paid a great deal of attention to it. But it has been found and admitted that, although enormous sums of money have been spent in order to promote immigration, the results that were ex-

Western Lands Settlement-Mr. McGibbon
pected did not ensue. A great improvement in immigration has been noticeable, especially since the present government has been in power, and the1 great efforts made by the former Minister of Immigration and the present minister have been fruitful. I want to say to the hon. menfber for Frontenac-Add'ington that he should not send forth the whispers of death as he did a few minutes ago when he took advantage of the discussion of the motion of -the hon. member for Belle-chasse to state that our young men, whom we wish to establish on our farms in the west or in Ontario and Quebec, would have no reason to stay in this country or, if they had gone away to the United States, to return, because they could not make a living in Canada on account of the policy of this government. I wish to protest against the attitude of the hon. member as revealed in that statement. Instead of making such a statement he should join hand in hand with the hon. member for Bellechasse' and support this resolution in the same spirit as it has been introduced in the house.
Mr. PETER MoGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house at length upon this question, but it seems to me that in a small way it will supply something that this country needs very materially at the present time, and that is work. One thing that to my mind is wanted in Canada to-day is work. It has been my unpleasant duty now for many years, almost weekly, sometimes almost daily, to write medical certificates for people in my riding, boys off the farm and from other places, who 'are going to the United States largely because 'there is not work for them in this country. We might just as well admit this fact and we deplore it as much as anybody. They are going there and during the last three or four years I have not run across a single one that has returned. My sister's family consists of five children and four of them are in the United States making a living, although they would much prefer to live in Canada if they had equal opportunities. It is the duty of this country and, of course, of the present government, to supply every means possible to give our people work. I have not been able to understand why the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) will give greater facilities, greater encouragement, to people from Eur ope, than he will to our own people when they are almost daily leaving this country in search of work.
I regret also that the government have discontinued giving assistance to our soldiers.
That scheme, launched as it was under great stress and difficulties, was a success, everything being taken into consideration, and I think it points the way for helping to keep our boys at home. I agree with the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) that there are still great opportunities in Ontario and Quebec and I am going to throw out to the government the suggestion that they can keep people on the land profitably in other ways than by having them grow grain or raise stock. I have spent some time in the last few years investigating fur [DOT]farming in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec. In that country there are -admirable 'locations for that business, and in my belief a -man who goes upon a fur farm where the conditions are suitable can get a greater revenue from it than he could from any farm in the west or in the older parts of Ontario on purely agricultural land. The possibilities are greater, and more than that, it is something new, comparatively speaking. In northern Ontario -and Quebec there are timbered lands and lakes and rivers and swamps that are admirably suited for this purpose. I wonder how many members of this house are aware of the rapidity with which rats, for example, multiply. They will have four or five young ones at a litter, and four or five litters a year, find those rat skins are worth from $2 to $2.50 each. The rats feed themselves, and all you have to do it to see that the conditions are favourable, and weed out their enemies. That offers a possibility for the government and the people of this country to develop a new industry that would be very profitable indeed *to Canada. It has this further advantage, that the character of the country best suited for the purpose is the least valuable as a rule for agriculture, and once the timber is taken off, the land has -practically no value at all. Anyone who has travelled over northern Ontario and Quebec must have seen large areas of land which to-day are practically worthless for agriculture, but which -could be utilized in a scheme of this kind, giving employment to tens of thousands of people, who would -make a better living from it than they could from agriculture simply.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
house adjourns, I should like to advise my hon. friends as to the procedure for tomorrow. It was understood that when the Finance Minister introduced the budget and spoke on a Thursday, private members would
Questions

not be deprived of their right to an equivalent amount of time on some subsequent Thursday.


James Alexander Robb: They do not want it tomorrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government's intention was to give to-morrow afternoon to hon. members as private members' day, and then to go on with the regular Thursday proceedings in the evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be convenient to-morrow, and I gathered from what the Minister of Finance said that he desired to-morrow afternoon toi proceed with , his resolutions. We are quite agreed that he should do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then if that
is agreeable to all parties in the house, we will go on with his resolutions to-morrow.


Mr. SPENCER:: Providing, of course, that the arrangement as to giving private members an equivalent amount of time is adhered to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is understood.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 15. 1928