1928-02-03

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of bill to amend the Civil Service Act (Director of Public Service)-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. SPEAKER:: This bill provides for the appointment of a director of civil service whose duty it shall be to co-ordinate the staffs of the various departments.
As such an appointment would involve an expenditure of money, the bill must receive the recommendation of the crown before it can be entertained by the house. Section 54 of the British North America Act provides that it shall not be lawful for the house to adopt any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue to any purpose that has not first been recommended by message of the Governor General and our standing order No. 60 states that all motions made for charges upon the people must be first referred to the committee of the whole before any resolution of the house do pass thereupon.
It seems therefore that the bill cannot be introduced by a private member. I kftow that I allowed it last session when the hon. member gave very little explanation on introducing it, but I should certainly have ruled jt out of order had it come up for second reading. I therefore rule that the present motion is out of order.



BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I
desire to ask the government if the report from Commissioner Martin with regard to the return of British Columbia lands has been received and when we may expect to have it laid on the table?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The final report has not
been received. An interim report has been received, and I think I might undertake to have it laid on the table on Monday.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA COLLIERY DISTRICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Yesterday my hon.
friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) made reference to certain reports in regard to the
use of American coal for bunkering purposes on Canadian vessels. I caused inquiry to be made, but I have not yet the full details in regard to the matter. As soon as I get the details I shall communicate with my hon. friend in regard to it. In the meantime, I want it to be understood that it is the stated policy of the Canadian government to use Canadian coal on all our boats and I am very much surprised to hear that certain reports have been made along the line mentioned by the hon. member. The stated policy of the * government is to use Canadian coal and I shall see that that policy is put into practice. If an exception has been made, I shall see that the matter is corrected and that our policy, which is very well known, will be continued.



FARMERS BANK LIQUIDATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if I may have a copy of the final statement of the liquidator of the Farmers Bank showing the receipts and disbursements.


Mr. ROBB:: At the moment I can see no
objection to it. I shall inquire at the department and communicate with my hon. friend on Monday.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to a railway tie-up on account of storms on the Canadian National railway between Montreal and Nova Scotia, I was not able to be present at the opening or to hear the mover and seconder of the address, I had occasion to read their speeches in Hansard and I think, with those who have preceded me in this debate, I can very sincerely tender my congratulations to those hon. gentlemen. Perhaps, I can go a step further with respect to the mover of the address, and say that the government of this country is to be congratulated upon paying a tribute to the province of Nova Scotia by selecting the mover of the address from that little province by the sea. I am sure the province will appreciate the honour and will also acknowledge that the mover of the address worthily upheld the capabilities of those coming from there.
150	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I need pay attention in any specific way to the speech from the throne. It has been referred to by all those who have spoken as being of an empty character. I think it might be said that it was a Skilfully prepared document, closely and scrupulously evading anything of importance to the Dominion of Canada, and it probably will go down in history as a state document which would take first prize in respect of what it does not contain rather than for what it does contain.
I should like to make reference to the fact that the national fuel and steel question was omitted from the speech from the throne. The hon. member from Bow River (Mr. Garland) referred to this fact in his address yesterday, and made it clear that this matter has been long delayed by the parliament of this country. Definite action is an urgent necessity and the question should be taken into earnest consideration without further delay. I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear the statement in the house to-day from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) with respect to information received by me that Canadian government boats were being fueled with American coal at the port of Halifax. Yesterday afternoon I attempted to ask the question in the house and Your Honour ruled it out of order for what was probably a very good reason. The telegram I read to the house yesterday was followed by another telegram received by me last evening, and I am going to crave the indulgence of the house to read this second telegram now. The statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is very refreshing to us and I am sure will be appreciated by all those who live in Nova Scotia. The last telegram I received reads as follows:
Suggest you raise in house question of authenticity of following statement which appears in Evening Mail Thursday February second:
"Unemployment conditions are serious in sections of the mining centres of Cape Breton; Workmen are idle, women and children are in want of food and clothing. The situation is due to the fact that there are not sufficient coal sales during the winter months to keep the Nova Scotia mines operating at full time. In the meantime on the Halifax waterfront to-day two Canadian government ships the Arleux and the Lady Laurier are having their bunkers filled with United States coal-coal mined by United States workmen and brought to the capital city of one of the greatest coal mining provinces in the world. Was there ever a greater outrage, was there ever a greater sham than the slogan of the politicians, 'Canada for Canadians' "?
If that report is true, Mr. Speaker-and 1 have no reason to doubt it-it seems to me that, as stated in the telegram, the slogan, " Canada for Canadians," is certainly a sham [Mr. R. K. Smith.}
of the worst character. The coal districts in Nova Scotia are in a very bad condition at the present time as far as employment is concerned. In the isle of Cape Breton, which is part of the province, thousands of workmen are idle and their families are in destitute circumstances, due to the fact that the operators cannot find a ready market for their coal at this season of the year. And yet boats owned and operated by the government of this country are being fueled with American coal at the port of Halifax! It seems to me that immediate steps should be taken not only to ascertain whether this is being done, but, if such is the fact, to have the practice cease without any delay, because as long as it is allowed to continue-and I understand that it has been going on since 1921-you will lose entirely the respect of the people of Nova Scotia. And let it be remembered that one-fifth of the population of that province is directly dependent upon the coal and steel industry. Therefore any action that tends to prevent employment being secured by the miners of Nova Scotia is deeply resented by all.
Now, with respect to the coal industry in Nova Scotia, let me remind the House that this is not a new question. In 1924 a delegation came to Ottawa headed by the then premier of the province, the Hon. Mr. Armstrong. That delegation presented their views and their claims to the government of the day and in no uncertain terms stated that unless some immediate steps were taken to remedy the then deplorable situation in the coal fields of the province calamitous results would follow. After that, Mr. Speaker, came the recommendation in an addendum to the report submitted to the provincial government by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan-not the Dominion Duncan report, but the provincial. In that addendum Mr. Cronyn, one of the commissioners, recommended to the government of Canada that this industry be placed on some sort of stable basis, insisting that it needed more tariff protection in order to compete with imported coal. I should like to say, sir, that this recommendation was not taken seriously by the government.
Then came the famous Duncan report that was submitted to this parliament last session. In that report by implication, if not expressly, we were told that the tariff on ooal was not sufficient. Those are not the exact words; the language used was something like this-that the question of the tariff on coal should receive' the immediate attention of the tariff advisory board, and they recommended that it be placed before that board without

The . Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
delay. Well, the subject could not logically be placed before the tariff board for any reduction in duty; the duty is far too low now; it could only be placed before the tariff board for a substantial increase in duty. So I say the question of the coal industry, so far as the east is concerned, has been completely neglected by this government, and no effort has been made to see that it takes its proper place as one of the greatest basic industries of the Dominion.
It is not difficult to discover what the policies of the different parties in the Dominion are with respect to the coal industry. I have before me the remarks of the Liberal candidate who was contesting the county of Cumberland in 1921. Addressing a meeting at Amherst on October 5, in the presence of the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, the Liberal candidate said:
Free trade is not the policy of the Liberal party. If it were I would oppose it because I believe it would briug disaster to our industries and remove from the farmers the home market which is practically the only market they have left. Free trade may be all right from the wealthy grain growers of the west whose wheat goes to the foreign markets and who do not have to worry about selling their produce at home, but it would mean paralysis in the maritime provinces. Also, I am a firm believer in the establishment of a national coal policy for Canada-no country, especially a country with cold winters, which depends on a foreign nation for its fuel, can claim to be independent of that nation.
Then he announced his policy:
Every pound of coal purchased by the government should be mined by Canadian miners and transported over government railways to the points of consumption. Coal required by other consumers in Canada should be carried at cost.
This is reported in the Halifax Chronicle of October 6, 1921. As I have said, on the platform at the time was the present Prime Minister of this Dominion. Therefore, I take it, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the coal industry of Nova Scotia is concerned that was the Liberal policy in 1921.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It did not have much
success.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Not very
much.


Mr. BENNETT:: Opportunism never did
succeed.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Now, Mr
Speaker, if that was the policy of the Liberal party in 1921, certainly no effort has been made on their part to carry it into effect. Such a policy is certainly needed. Unless something is done, as Mr. Cronyn has pointed out, we can only expect a calamitous situation in the coal fields of Nova Scotia. The royalties on coal are one of the principal sources of revenue for the province, and consequently when the coal industry is stagnant the provincial revenues are correspondingly depleted. If the coal industry is in a flourishing condition it benefits generally the whole province; but I am sorry to say that the industry is not flourishing to-day, but the reverse of that.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a national fuel and steel policy, and I believe that the following measures would help to bring this policy about. In the first place, coking plants should be established. Some attention was given to this last session, and I believe something is being done along these lines at the present time.	*


Mr. HANSON:: What about the use of
Canadian coal?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I was told quite recently that a plant is being established in the city of Montreal which is to use four hundred tons of coal a day in the manufacture of coke, but that the coal is to be American coal. I am not sure whether that is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Correct.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Then it is
a crying shame that that sort of thing should be allowed to go on. Yesterday the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) drew attention to the value of the coal fields in the province of Alberta, and stated that those deposits were greater than all the coal deposits in the other parts of the British Empire. It is inconceivable that in a country like Canada, striving to get on its feet economically, and claiming by some to have reached the status of a nation, American coal should be allowed to come in at the expense of our own coal miners and coal operators and to the great disadvantage of certain parts of the Dominion. Has it ever occurred to hon. members that an emergency might arise in this country Whereby we might be shut off from securing coal in the United States or other parts of the world? The United States is the country from which we secure most of our imported bituminous coal, and a crisis might arise at any time whereby our supply from that market would be entirely shut off, and we would be thrown back upon our own resources, and possibly not be able to cope with the demands that would be made upon our own supplies. It seems to me that we must look at this situation from the viewpoint of national development,
152	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
from the viewpoint of saving and safeguarding those industries which are of such great benefit to this country, and unless we do inaugurate and put into force a policy of that character, it seems to me that we shall never truly be able to say that we have reached a state of nationhood.
I was going on to mention the different factors that occurred to me as necessary in the building up of a national steel and fuel policy:	First, the establishment of
coking plants; second, a subvention granting assistance in the carrying of coal west of Montreal; third, real tariff consideration against importations of coke, anthracite screenings and bituminous coal; fourth, more favourable transportation rates; and fifth, the abolition of the customs drawback on foreign coals used in coking.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if these methods were inaugurated, we would make an effective start at all events at putting Canada on the basis of securing a national fuel policy which I believe would work out in the end to the advantage of every section of the country, because if we doubled the output of coal in the Dominion, doubled the output of the coal fields of Alberta and Nova Scotia, we must naturally expect that there would be a reduction in the price to the consumer; that is the natural consequence that we must expect to follow, that with the output, doubled, there would be a corresponding decrease in price to the consumer.
I come now to the question of subsidies, as outlined in the Duncan report submitted to this house last year. I am not so sure but that not only the government of this country, but parliament also, missed not only the spirit of the Duncan report but the phraseology as well with respect to provincial subsidies. I would like to read a short paragraph from the Duncan report in this connection. The report says, on page 19:
We do not feel, however, that it would be right or wise that the maritime provinces, in their present state of grave necessity, with deficits accumulating against them in their ordinary revenue and expenditure, should be left in suspense until a reassessment is made by the Dominion government, and accordingly we recommend that immediate interim lumpsum increases should be made in the payments to the three maritime provinces as follows:-
The report then goes on to enumerate the payments-$875,000 to Nova Scotia, and so on. I would call the attention of the house to the words used by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan in this report. He says, "immediate interim lump-sum increase." The report was filed with the government of the day on
[Mr. R. K. Smith.)
September 23, 1926, and the first instalment of the subsidies was paid in July, 1927. At that time only one-half of the $875,000 was sent to the province of Nova Scotia. The balance was held by the Dominion treasury until late in November, until, as a matter of fact, after the Dominion-provincial conference held in Ottawa last fall, at which, representatives of our province brought the question up and forced the hands of the Minister of Finance to send along the balance of the subsidy, which should have been sent to us in July. Not only that, but even then the sum of $133,000 was held back from the final payment owing to a disputed claim between the province and the federal government in connection with the sending of the militia to the island of Cape Breton. That sum of $133,000 was deducted from the subsidy. The province of Nova Scotia disputes this claim. It is out of all proportion to the services rendered, and I claim that the federal government had no right and no authority whatsoever for withholding this amount from the subsidy that was sent to M)va Scotia. It is quite true that under the Militia Act there are certain regulations whereby under certain conditions a charge may be made, but the province of Nova Scotia was contesting this claim; it is still in dispute, but notwithstanding that, the federal government held back this $133,000. That to me, Mr. Speaker, bears the earmarks of rather sharp business practice, and I do not know that we should sit idly by and let that sort of thing continue without making a protest, and we do protest against it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Did the province of
Nova Scotia or the provincial government request the federal government to send troops on that occasion?


Robert Knowlton Smith: The attorney
general of the province of Nova Scotia did, I understand, ask that troops be sent down there, but as I understand it, under the Militia Act, which governs this matter, before any responsibility can rest on the province, action must be taken by order in council, and no order in council was passed by the government of Nova Scotia asking that these troops be sent there. I do not think that the government of the day in dealing with the provinces in financial matters should deal with them in a strict and rigid' manner. I do not say that the government should spend money recklessly, but I think it should spend it generously so far as the provinces are concerned.
Away back in 1867, under the confederation pact, we lost a good many of our elastic sources of revenue. They were handed over to the

The Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
Dominion parliament, and we were granted a small- subsidy in order to enable us to cope with certain matters of local concern. For instance, we had! to look after the public health of the province, education, and highways. Turn your mind back to 1867 and you will realize that no person at that time could possibly conceive that public health service would have developed as it has done and would require the expenditure that it calls for to-day. At that time public 'health was not a very serious question. Science had not developed to the stage that it has reached today, and it was impossible to forsee the large amounts of money that it would 'be necessary to expend on public health. The same applies to education. With regard to our highways, no person ever dreamt at that time that highways would 'have to be kept up in the state in which they are maintained to-day. That was before the day of the automobile, and people were not thinking then of keeping up the highways in an efficient state for automobiles and tourist traffic. But these burdens were saddled upon the different provinces, and we were expected to shoulder them and make headway on the small subsidies that were granted at that time, although they have been increased, it is true, from time to time. Under the Duncan report we should have received the increased subsidy dating from September 23, 1926.
Back in 1867 we were partners in the purchase of lands in the western portion of the Dominion, and we gave those lands away freely and gladly to make up the other provinces of the Dominion, in order that the prairie provinces might be carved out; and it is a good thing that we did, because the west has helped to make this country great, But, Mr. Speaker, we expect something iii return. The Prime Minister said the other day that the suggestion had been made-I do not know whether it was at the Dominion-provincial conference or not-that the western provinces should not only receive back their natural resources, but that the subsidies should be continued to them as well. I am in full accord with that suggestion. If we are going to maintain any standard of civilization in this country consistent with modern day requirements and our advancement, in so far as I personally am concerned, I thoroughly approve of the provinces getting the subsidies as well as their natural resources. I think this question has reached the point where this government should deal generously with all the provinces of this Dominion. As I have already said, this government has the elastic sources of revenue which we have not, and it
is very difficult for the governments of t)he eastern provinces to make ends meet. I call attention also, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in the Duncan report it is pointed out very clearly that there is no extravagance so far as the administration of the provincial governments is concerned; no one can point to any reckless expenditure made by any of the governments. The commission states that the local governments of the east, and I am sure this applies to all other provinces, are carrying on their administrations as economically as possible.
Now I come to another matter and that is the representation from Nova Scotia in this House of Commons. We claim, and I think quite properly, that we have been overlooked to the extent of one member of this house; in other words, we have fourteen members from Nova Scotia and we claim that there should be fifteen members representing that province. I do not think I can do better in this connection than to read the statement which was presented to the Duncan commission, which makes the matter very clear. I might remind the house also that this matter was brought to the attention of parliament last session by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), but so far as I know no action whatever has been taken by this government. If you will bear with me for a moment I will read the few paragraphs in the brief of the Nova Scotia government presented to the Duncan commission dealing with this matter:
The population of Nova Scotia increased from 1911 to 1921 by 31,499. Quebec's population increased at a relatively larger rate, so that tile unit of representation after the 1921 census became 36,283. Nova Scotia's representation in the House of Commons was therefore reduced from 16 to 14. The population contained 33,965 more than was necessary to give fourteen representatives, but because we had fallen 2,318 below the fractional part, not exceeding one-half of the whole number required to entitle the provir 'e to a member, our population to that exten! was disregarded, and we suffered the loss of one member. Nova Scotia could not retain its members, as Ontario did. under subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act, whereby no reduction can be made unless the proportion which the population of the province bears to the total population of the Dominion be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
It may be difficult to overcome an effect such as this, but it is a fact that there are 33,965 persons in Nova Scotia unrepresented in tile House of Commons, while there are in Canada, outside of the maritime provinces, ninety-six electoral districts returning members with less than that population within their bounds. The membership for Nova Scotia cannot be reduced below ten, the number of our senators. But if by the increase of population in Quebec our representation were lowered to this minimum, it would mean a
154	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
total reduction since Confederation of nine. This is a condition which is being rapidly approached.
Had the unit of representation, instead of being 36,283, been 36,125, a difference of 158. Nova Scotia would have saved another representative, and instead of having fourteen members in the House of Commons would have had fifteen; that is, if the population of Quebec had been less by 10,287 persons the unit would have been so reduced. By the British North America Act, section 51, subsection 2-
"There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number of sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained)."
Quebec is defined by this act, section 6, as follows;
"The part of the province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this act) which formerly constituted respectively the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate provinces. The parts which formerly constituted the province of Upper Canada shall constitute the province of Ontario; and the part which formerly constituted the province of Lower Canada shall constitute the province of Quebec."
That is, the popidation to be taken is the population of the territory known as Quebec at the passing of the British North America Act. But the population of Quebec which has been taken as the basis for the unit of representation since 1900 is the population of that province as originally constituted, plus the population of the extensions made by chapter 3 of the acts of 1898. It is now possible from information at hand to ascertain just what population was counted in these added territories. for they contain all of Abitibi, the district of Labrador, and what is known as part of East Maine, all that territory north of the height of land, part of it being traversed by the National Transcontinental railway. In extending, the boundaries further in 1912 the territory then given to Quebec was excluded in considering the population for forming the unit of representation, but the population added by the act of 1898 is included.
A statement from the Dominion Statistician shows that there were 13.644 people in this area. These should not have been counted in determining the unit of representation. Excluding them, the unit becomes not 36,283 as used, but 36.073. This figure divided into the population of Nova Scotia 1921 gives 14 and a fractional part, exceeding one-half of the whole united number by 778 and entitling this province to another federal member. The representation in the House of Commons from Nova Scotia, as fixed by the Redistribution Act, 1924 (14-15 Geo. \. C. 63). should therefore have been fifteen members. The province was under-represented in the last parliament by one member and will be in the next unless immediate steps are taken to correct this error.
I think that explains the matter fully. We understood that the province of Quebec, as originally defined under the British North America Act, was to be the unit acted upon.

Instead of that, however, in the last redistribution other portions were taken in, other sections were added and the population counted, which changed the unit and thereby deprived us of one additional member. We feel that we are entitled to this and we believe that the government of the day should take the (natter under immediate consideration and see that we get justice in this respect, This question has been to the fore for some little time but nothing has been done, and I sincerely urge the government that no further delay be countenanced in this regard but that immediate steps be taken to redress this wrong.
For a moment or two I would like to speak with respect to the steel industry, which at one time in this Dominion employed 20,000 men. It is true that this was in an abnormal period, during the war, but under normal conditions this industry employed about
14,000	men. In Canada to-day only about one-half that number, or about 7.000 men, are engaged in this work while steel products are pouring into Canada from foreign countries and putting our own workmen out of employment, causing many of our factories to stand idle and bringing depression generally to industries which once thrived and helped to build up communities and1 the nation. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker that the government should take seriously under consideration the question of the revision of the tariff with respect to steel in order to provide this industry with sufficient protection to enable it to exist and carry on. It seems to me that it is not only a crying shame but a disgrace to allow an industry which has been built up in a country entirely adapted to it, to fall into decay as has been the case with the steel industry in the last few years. I would urge the government, therefore, that when the budget is brought down this year some attention be given to this very important question.
Then I have just a word to say with respect to the fisheries in my province. There has been a commission investigating that industry and endeavouring to find some means by which it may ibe placed upon a more secure foundation than has been the case for the past few years. The report of this commission should be tabled with the least possible delay, and immediate action on the report should be taken as soon as that is done.
During the past few months there have been some rather conflicting statements made with respect to the implementing of !the Duncan report. I am not making any statement in this connection in any carping manner, or with the intention of criticizing or
15.5

The Address-Mr. Thorson
embarrassing .the government in the least.
I think I am expressing the minds of the people in Nova Scotia when I say that we are very thankful indeed for what the government has done in connection with the Duncan report, but we do claim that they have not nearly implemented that report in full, and that some statements made by a minister of the crown with respeot to the implementing of this report are somewhat removed from the actual facts. I refer to statements made by the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) at different places in the maritime provinces to the effect that practically all the recommendations and suggestions contained in the Duncan report have been carried out. Now, Mr. Speaker, we of the maritime provinces contend that this is not an accurate statement of the facts as they exist. As a matter of fact a great many far-reaching and important recommendations and suggestions in the Duncan report, have not been carried out. We were quite willing last session-those of us who sit on this side of the house-to give the government ample time to formulate their policy and to carry out in their entirety all the recommendations contained in that report. But the progress made. I must say, has been slow. People in the maritime provinces are waiting, but the conditions down there are such that they are not going to wait for an indefinite period in order to have these recommendations fully implemented. I was rather astounded to read the statements made by the Postmaster General speaking at two different points-at Amherst and at St. John-with respect to what the government had done towards implementing the Duncan report. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the whole of the recommendations in that report should be implemented without any further loss of time. I am sure that we on this side have endeavoured to help the government in respect to whatever legislation was proposed in that report. We still maintain that attitude and we hope to do everything in our power to assist the government in seeing that these recommendations are carried out in their entirety. But may I point out that delays are dangerous, that great hardships are being worked on account - of these recommendations remaining unfulfilled. I hope and trust therefore, that the government will take immediate steps to see that these recommendations are carried out in their entirety.
I did intend to go into some further matters, but I see that my time has elapsed. In closing I want to thank the members of the house very heartily for according me such close attention during my remarks.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in this parliament it is singularly appropriate that the address in reply to the speech from the throne should be moved in both French and English, in order that we may constantly keep in mind the equality of the two languages in this country. I sincerely hope that the tradition in this respect which has grown up since confederation will not be departed from in the years to come.
May I at the outset follow the example of those who have preceded me in this debate and express my admiration for the brilliant address delivered by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), and at the same time tender my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien) for the able manner in which he seconded the motion.
May I also add my congratulations to those that have already been tendered to the hon leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the great honour which was accorded to him by his party. I am sure that we all join in the wish that the great talents of which he is possessed may be devoted to the cause of national unity and prosperity. If it should ever be his responsibility to lead the government of Canada may he bring to the discharge of that responsibility the lofty sentiments of service to which he gave expression at Winnipeg upon the occasion of his selection as leader of the Conservative party.
I do not intend to deal at any great length with that portion of the speech from the throne which deals with the prosperity with which this country is undoubtedly blessed at the present time, nor to attempt an analysis of its causes, except to say that in large measure it is due to the bountiful harvests that we have enjoyed during the past three years, and to remind this house that agriculture is still the chief industry of Canada and as such continues to deserve our first consideration.
I do, however, wish to say a few words with regard to the great mining activities that are taking place in the province of Manitoba. I will not repeat what the hon. member for Provencher said with regard to the richness of the resources that have already been discovered. A new era is commencing in northern and eastern Manitoba, and I venture to prophesy that the history of northern Ontario in mineral development will be repeated in northern and eastern Manitoba. In order to promote and regulate that development we in Manitoba must look to the Dominion of Canada, for we do not as yet have control over our natural resources. May I here exio6
The Address-Mr. Thorson

press the hope that the question of returning to the western provinces their natural resources may be settled in the very near future. We have already, and very recently, had an excellent example of cooperation in the manner in which the federal and provincial governments worked together in order to make possible the development of the Flin-Flon mine, and I sincerely hope that that cooperation may continue in the future.
Two suggestions have been made with a view to promoting and regulating mining development in Manitoba. The first of these suggestions is, that the present system of taxing the gross output of a mine should give way to a system of taxing the profits of the mine, particularly in the early stages of mining operations. This system is in force both in Ontario and in Quebec. It is a system to which the investing public is accustomed, and provided the necessary safeguards are set up for the protection of the interests of the public, it is urged that a similar system of taxation be adopted for Manitoba.
The second suggestion that is made has to do with the registration of documents affecting mining claims. Under the law and regulations at present in force, title to mining claims in the province of Manitoba is by way of lease from the Dominion of Canada. This has been the system in force since 1914, when the previous system of granting freehold title under a patent from the crown was discontinued. Under the present system provision is made for the registration of an assignment of any right or interest acquired under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, provided that such assignment is unconditional and its execution is satisfactorily proved. No provision, however, is made for the registration, after the issue of a lease from the Dominion, of any other document affecting mining claims. There is no provision, for example, for the registration of that very common form of agreement known as an option agreement. It is urged, and I think rightly, that this is unfair both to the prospector and to those who have the capital for mining development. It makes it very difficult for the prospector who has staked a claim, in respect of which he has received a lease from the Dominion, to interest capital in the development of that claim, for persons are naturally unwilling to buy a claim outright, without first investigating its possibilities, and they do not desire to spend large sums of money in investigation on the strength of an option agreement when that option agreement may be defeated by the registration of an assignment of the lease from the prospector to 
someone else. Under the present system the door is open both to fraud and mistake. The person who is investing capital in mining development is entitled to certainty of title when he decides, if he should so decide, to exercise the option which he has taken. It is therefore suggested that provision should be made for the registration of all documents affecting mining claims either by way of amending section 86 of the Dominion Lands Act or by appropriate regulations. These two suggestions which I make have the strong support of the mining bureau of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, the Manitoba branch of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and the Manitoba Chamber of Mines. Furthermore, the Manitoba government is in hearty agreement with the spirit of these suggestions. I therefore urge that they receive the serious consideration of this government for action during the present session, so that we may be prepared for the great mining activity that will undoubtedly take place immediately in Manitoba.
A moment ago I made the statement that agriculture was the chief industry of this country and as such continued to deserve our first consideration. May I add my voice to that of those who desire to see that industry promoted? The very small margin of profit which the farmers of this country make in the circumstances under which they operate at present, can be increased only by lowering the cost of production, the cost of living and the rates for carrying their produce to the markets of the world. May I express the hope that the burden of taxation, both direct and indirect, especially the latter, which now weighs so heavily upon the people and particularly upon the farmers of this country, will be substantially reduced during the present session?
Western Canada watched with a grdat deal of interest and with considerable alarm the investigations made by Mr. Palmer into the question of the Hudson Bay ports. It was feared by many that this investigation was merely the forerunner of delay. That alarm was dissipated by the action of the government. in definitely selecting Fort Churchill as the terminal of the Hudson Bay railway. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) deserves and has received the thanks of western Canada for the courageous and expeditious manner in which he dealt with this all-important question. We are looking forward to the day when Manitoba will have a maritime port and western Canada a new outlet to the sea.

The Address-Mr. Thorson
Western Canada is always vitally concerned with questions of transportation and will note with considerable interest the section of the speech from the throne which promises consideration to the various railway problems of the provinces of Canada. May I urge that consideration be given in this connection to additional representation of western Canada on the Board of Railway Commissioners?
May I also, as one of the representatives of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba, bring to the attention of the government the advisability of extending the railway facilities that already exist in that portion of Manitoba which lies east of lake Winnipeg, with a view to linking up those facilities eventually with the Hudson Bay railway? The extension of such facilities will aid greatly in the development of the rich mining areas of eastern Manitoba, it will afford access to the timber resources of that portion of the province; it will make the tremendous power possibilities of the Nelson river more readily available for industrial development, and it will provide a much shorter and cheaper route to the Hudson bay terminal for Winnipeg and all the southern portion of Manitoba. In addition 1 am confident that such a route will attract a large volume of traffic from the states immediately to the south of Manitoba. Such extension would be of inestimable benefit to the city of Winnipeg and to the area which it would serve, and an additional guarantee of the ultimate success of the Hudson Bay railway would be provided. I therefore urge that the government give serious consideration to this suggestion.
Before I proceed to a discussion of international affairs and the question of national status, I wish to refer for a moment to one other matter of domestic concern which has to do not with matters of material prosperity, but with the health and welfare of our. returned soldiers and their dependents. I am sure that the returned soldiers of this country will welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that a parliamentary committee will be appointed during this session to consider the difficult question of pensions. I am equally sure that all shades of political opinion in this house will unite in the desire to see that the pledges which Canada gave to her overseas men will be implemented in every particular, so that they and their dependents may feel that full justice has been done to them in so far as it lies within the power of this house to do.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate about the status of
Canada. I do not intend to deal with that question at any great length, for I expressed myself fully on it last session, and I have seen no reason to change the opinion which I then held. The imperial conference of 1926 was a great achievement of British statesmanship. It did not, I admit, change the legal status of Canada. It did not confer upon Canada any legal rights which Canada did not till that time possess. But it paved the way for a change in that legal status. It paved the way for conferring upon Canada the additional rigilts that she does not now possess, and it brought into the clear light of day, for all the world to see, a new attitude of interimperial relations between the various members that make up the family of British nations. That new attitude has been clearly shown, by the British statesmen, and by the statesmen of the self-governing dominions who have been our distinguished guests during the past year. Some of them, may have been unwilling converts to the new conception, but may 1 express a tribute to British statesmen in general when I say that British statesmen possess a special aptitude for recognizing facts as they exist, and when they see the light they are not obsessed with the shadows. I quite agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that we do not as yet possess absolute equality of status.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said .


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I quite agree with the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), that we do not as yet possess absolute equality of status. That hon. member in the course of a very forceful and able address, stressed the difficulties that must be solved before equality of status is achieved. I regret that he should have thought it necessary to lower the tone of what was otherwise an excellent address by the petulant remarks which he made with regard to the Prime Minister. Every lawyer who has given thought to the subject realizes clearly that so long as our parliament is inferior and subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain, so long as we do not possess the right to pass legislation having an extra territorial effect, so long as we cannot validly prohibit appeals to the Privy Council, if we should so desire, so long as we cannot amend our constitution without the intervention of the parliament of Great Britain, we do not possess equality of status with Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear; I say so.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is well to keep these
facts in mind so that we may not lose sight of the objective. It is well to appreciate
15S
The Address-Mr. Thorson

that the problems in the way are difficult of solution, but surely we in Canada do not intend to leave our problems unsolved simply because they are difficult of solution. I must confess a feeling of some disappointment at the attitude of the hon. leader of the opposition on this question. When he was asked by the Minister of Justice whether he would cooperate in asking to have the Colonial Laws Validity Act repealed, he replied, among other things, that he was too old to be caught in that way, as though he were seeking to avoid some trap that was being set for him. I had hoped that he would take a bolder stand.


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


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And indicate clearly what he and his party were prepared to do toward the solution of this great problem. I still have hopes that he will take such a course when the weight of his new responsibility presses less heavily upon his shoulders.


Mr. MANION:: He will, right after the
next election.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If he will follow the example of the premiers who have had the honour to lead the government of this country, then I have no doubt, that in this respect the growth of Canada will continue as it has done in the past. The difficulties are there, Mr. Speaker. We realize these difficulties. The Imperial conference itself realized them very completely. It recommended that a special committee be set up for the purpose of solving these problems and solving them in the light of the declaration of equality that came from the conference. I sincerely trust that steps will be taken in the very near future by the necessary parties to implement the recommendations made by that conference; so that we may have conferred upon us the autonomy that we do not now possess, and so that we may have conferred upon us the rights which refei red to a moment ago which are not yet ours.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have those committees to which my hon. friend refers ever held a sitting, and has the government of Canada taken any steps to see that the imperial go\ eminent appoints those committees and that they commence their work?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am unable to answer
the questions asked by the hon. member for Bow River. I am urging that the necessary parties take the necessary steps at as early a date as possible, in order that the problems which are referred to may be properly considered. I am anxious that progress be made towards the realization of the ideal of equality

that wTas visualized at the conference. We on this side of the house are proud of the attitude taken by our leaders on the question of national status, for it is an attitude that is truly consistent with the best British traditions of political evolution, and any other attitude would be unworthy of the example of selfdevelopment which Great Britain herself has set for us. In my humble opinion the realization of this great ideal-and I am quite willing to agree that it is an ideal and glad that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George so regards it-is inevitable and is essential to the maintenance of the close relationship which holds the British nations of the world together.
In the larger field of international relations Canada continues to make progress, both in matters of trade and in the promotion of goodwill and mutual understanding with the nations of the world with whom she is associated. The Canadian minister at Washington has upheld the name of Canada with credit to himself and distinction to his country. We are now to have ministers to France and Japan. If we can be as successful in these appointments as we have been at Washington-and I see no reason why we should not be-great advantages will accrue to the Dominion.
It is hardly necessary in this country to mention the desirability of maintaining the most friendly relations with France. That is accepted as a matter of course. It is hardly less desirable that we should maintain and promote friendly relations with Japan. Our relationship with that country is twofold- domestic and international. May I direct the attention of this house to the figures indicating the amount of our trade with Japan and China. Our total trade with these two countries has grown from $10,951,591 in 1917 to $59,679,059 in 1927-an increase of almost 600 per cent in ten years. In 1927 our imports from these two countries amounted to $16,211,972, and our exports to them to $43,467,087. During the year ending March 31, 1927, our trade with Japan alone amounted to $41,117,413, which included imports from Japan amounting to $11,170,380, and exports to Japan amounting to $29,947,033. During that year Canada traded with 112 countries. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that Japan was our- fourth best customer.
Those who have given any thought to the growth of population must be struck with the fact that the population of the world doubled itself during the last century. If this great rate of increase continues in the future, as many students of the question be-

The Address-Mr. Brady
lieve it will, there is an alarming prospect before the world, for food production has barely kept pace with the increase of population. I disagree very strongly with the suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate that we in Canada Should curtail agricultural production. In view of the rapid increase in the population of the world, I venture to express the opinion that in the future the commanding positions in the world will be occupied by those countries which have the power and the space to produce large quantities of food wherewith to feed their own people and the people of other countries. No country in the world is feeling the problem of increasing population more acutely than Japan. No country in the world has a greater opportunity than Canada of producing food on a large scale. Are we, Mr. Speaker, to confine ourselves to the home markets in view of such a situation? I can see visions of an enormous trade in foodstuffs between Canada and Japan. The great Peace river country lies open, awaiting development that hungry Japan may be fed. Open up that great tract of land, provide for it an outlet .to the Pacific coast, so that we may realize and fully develop the great opportunities of trade between Canada and the orient.
Cur minister to Japan will have other duties to discharge than the mere promotion of trade interests, for we are a Pacific nation and interested in the problems of the Pacific. I cannot usefully add anything to the eloquent plea which the Prime Minister made for the promotion of peace and goodwill amongst the nations bordering on the Pacific. That objective alone, without any considerations of trade, is worth attaining.
The government is to be congratulated upon the manner in which it is facing Canada's international obligations. Canada has definitely ventured upon the wider arena of international politics. She is of the world and cannot remain outside it. Canada's election to a seat on the council of the League of Nations brings home to us more vividly than ever before a realization of the great responsibilities and the great obligations she undertook when she became a member of the league. Her representatives on the council will play their part in deciding the policies and exercising the executive functions of the league. As members of the council they represent not only Canada, not only the British nations of the world, but the total membership of the league, all the nations of the world that belong to it. There are duties and obligations owing to the world at large
through that membership on the council. Canada has great responsibilities and great obligations to discharge, but she is in a very fortunate position to discharge them. Freed as she is from the necessity of building a great navy, freed as she is from the necessity of maintaining a great standing army by the fortunate geographical position in which she finds herself, which renders her comparatively free from attack, she has a great opportunity for promoting peace and goodwill and acting as an interpreter not only between the two greatest English-speaking nations of the world, but between the two great continents of Europe and Asia. Who, Mr. Speaker, could not be proud of citizenship in a country so blessed by Providence in opportunities for promoting the welfare of mankind?


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: The speech from the throne by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session outlined certain legislation which the government proposes to ask parliament to adopt during the present session. I wish briefly to mention one of two matters, Mr. Speaker, that seem to me to be of outstanding importance, and then come to certain phases of the situation in Canada to-day which are calling for redress and advanced legislation.
First of all, I notice that the government proposes to send ministers plenipotentiary to France and Japan. That proposal has already been discussed from both sides of the house, and I believe the feeling throughout Canada is that in taking such a step we are advancing into dangerous ground, and we should be very careful because of the consequences that may ensue if this policy is carried out to its logical conclusion.
The government also intends to take steps this session to return to Alberta its natural resources, and to British Columbia the lands of the railway belt and the Peace river block.
The two pieces of legislation I have mentioned, which the government intends enacting this session, are but the corollary to implementing the Duncan report. Both have been advocated for many years, and not merely on this side of the house. They were advocated as far back as 1901 by Premier Dunsmuir of British Columbia, later by Premier McBride, and during the last session of parliament by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). I trust that as a result of this legislation which is forecast in the speech from the throne there will be considerable development in both these provinces, a development which has been considerably retarded in the past.
The Address-Mr. Brady

The speech from the throne has been praised to a very considerable extent, and so far as any legislation that will be of benefit to the people of Canada is concerned, that praise is not confined to the members on the government side of the house. The members on this side of the house likewise accord praise to the government for any legislation that will be productive of good for the people of Canada. The government has been repeatedly congratulated upon its splendid record, and that brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the very question that confronts the people of Canada to-day. It is the most vital question that we can discuss in this assembly. What the people of this country are demanding to-day is, which of the great political parties is presenting the facts as they exist at this present stage of our development. I notice that there' has been a disposition on the part of many government supporters to argue during this debate from the particuluar to the general, to try to take a universal application from some few isolated facts. I do not for one moment deny, Mr. Speaker, that prosperity is moving over the face of Canada. We see evidence of that on all sides, and indeed it would be a strange thing after the way Canada has been blessed by abundant crops, blessed in the courage and strength and virility of her people, if there were not at this period, sixty years after confederation, at least some evidences that we were prosperous. The Prime Minister said that we should not say anything in this house which would indicate to the outside world that things are not like a garden of Eden in Canada, or words to that effect. Sir, this government had its very origin in democratic party government, and the opposition has a bounden duty to perform. Its duty is to give honest criticism, and I shall not be prevented from doing so by the mild rebuke which was given to some members of the opposition by the Prime Minister.
We all rejoice to know that Canada is entering upon an era of prosperity, but so far as I can judge, this government has not been giving to the people of Canada that legislation and that help which a young country such as this, with its great wealth, is entitled to receive especially at this important stage in its history. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that much of the work of this parliament last session was turned over to all kinds of commissions? We had the Duncan report from a commission that was appointed to inquire into the grievances of the maritime provinces. That commission was appointed
fMr. Brady.]
to try and find means of alleviating the conditions that prevailed in the maritime provinces. We also had a commission appointed to investigate the administration of the Customs department. For what purpose? -in order that we might prevent the flow of goods entering from foreign countries without paying customs and excise duties. We now have a commission investigating the fisheries. For what purpose?-in order that we may try to save the greatest industry possessed by Canada, because credible testimony causes us to fear it is in danger of being wiped out. I say that no government in a great country like this should have to spend its time, its capabilities and the money which is supposed to go into the coffers of the treasury, for the development of the country in investigations and commissions such as these.
The opening of parliament is a period of stock taking, or is considered such by the people of Canada. They want to know the stage of progress reached and the hope for future expansion. Since 1867 the questions of greatest interest to the people of Canada have been those belonging to the sphere of commerce, industrial and agricultural development and the development of our railways and our ports. These are the main things in the estimation of the people of Canada. We have passed through that eventful stage of experimentation in legislation; those experiments have now become firmly embodied in the laws of our country, and the hour has come when the statesmen who control the destinies of our Dominion should solve these problems which will fit in with the growing needs of this great nation.
We have heard a great deal about immigration, but I say that in spite of what we have heard in this house, that we are making progress, no man dares deny that the greatest tragedy which could occur within any nation in the world is taking place every hour and every minute in Canada. We are losing the cream of our intellect; the youth of both sexes are leaving us, as regularly as the waters pass over the face of the earth, and they, are leaving us not to return. I ask you, sir, how this government is attempting to solve that vital problem, upon which the future greatness of this country depends. There has not been one month since last May that I have not written out letters of recommendation for young Canadians passing into the United States. Is it right that to-day we should talk about plenipotentiaries, to foreign states when the very life blood

The Address-Mr. Brown
of our nation is ebbing away hourly and the government has not the ability or the machinery with which to check it?
Let me present to the house a few facts. I cannot draw a great dramatic picture, but by a simple comparison the smallest child may understand the situation. British Columbia is a country larger than Italy, Germany and France combined and to-day it has a population of about 560,000 people. New Zealand, a little country of 102,000 square miles, has a white population of 1,500,000 people and still, sir, the history of British Columbia antedates the political history of New Zealand. Let me show it in another way. The constituency of Skeena, which I represent, has a larger area than New Zealand. It is even larger than Great Britain and Ireland and yet to-day, with its fertile valleys, its millions of acres of land, its rivers, its seas, its mighty natural wealth of forest and mine, there are only 40,000 people to be found therein. Is there something wrong, or is it possible that I stand here this afternoon telling this house things are not existent? That is what is wrong with Canada. We are losing our own sons and daughters and bringing in immigrants from other countries. The object, of course, is to make them colonists, and finally citizens, but we are not even doing that.
The forty minute limit confines one to a few salient points, but I would like to emphasize one point particularly to the government. That point is, that the great need of western Canada has not been touched upon and has mot been voiced as it should have been in the speech from the throne. We should have our transportation facilities increased, both by land and water; we should have federal aid for our highways, which are the very veins of traffic development, I think, sir, that we are paying too much attention to externals and not enough to internals. It is within Canada that the future success of any government must lie; it is there, sir, that we must concentrate our efforts. We must step down and come among our people and examine their wants and their needs, and then the solution .will be obtainable. I appeal to this government to accept what I know to be true, that the brightest gem which could be placed in the crown of any government is waiting, once the great Peace river country west of the Rockies is opened up, and British Columbia receives more equitable treatment and a fairer share of the revenues which she has given in the past and will continue to give in the future to this Dominion of Canada.
56103-H


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I shall not be able to rise to the heights of oratory reached in the speech that we have just listened to. Indeed I feel that it is an injustice, perhaps, both to myself and to the house, that I should be asked at this time to step into another member's place and speak with somewhat inadequate preparation. With the other hon. members, who have preceded me I would heartily join in congratulations to the young member from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) who moved this address.
A great deal has been said with reference to the speech from the throne, as to what it does and what it does not contain. I think, perhaps, if we examine the speech from the throne and compare it with others over a period of years, it will be found very similar to some that have gone before. Some speeches from the throne have gone very fully into the program that the government had in view. Others have given very meagre intimation of what was intended in the way of legislation; and I was not at all surprised when I read the speech that it should be subjected to that old, standard criticism, that has been levelled so often against speeches from the throne-I am not making it myself -that it is more remarkable for what it does not contain than for what it does. That is not a new thought in this parliament by any means. However, the speech seems to be considered a convenient peg on which hon. members may hang speeches touching any matter that they have in mind.
A good deal has been said about the prosperity of Canada at the present time. I know it is a very difficult matter to get an adequate or a proper gauge of what constitutes prosperity. I recognize that it is quite possible that in matters of high finance, in big business, things may seem to be prosperous, and yet in other walks of life many of our fellow citizens may be suffering hardship and distress. But judged by the ordinary gauges that are used to measure prosperity, judged by the gauge I imagine the hon. leader of the opposition has been accustomed to use himself in times past, Canada should be considered to be in a fairly prosperous condition. I have here a little pamphlet that came into my hands last night -I am only sorry that I have not had time to read it in more detail-issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on agricultural and industrial progress in Canada. Evidently the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has no doubt as to the prosperity of Canada judging by this pamphlet. It empha-

The Address-Mr. Brown

sizes the fact that bond sales during the year have been gratifyingly large, and in a large measure are being purchased by Canadian citizens, and so on all through the pamphlet. It points out the great increase that has taken place in the establishment of industries and in the products of those industries. I might call attention to one of these, one that we have had to deal with in the past and that may be brought to our notice again. I do so because I believe application has been made to the tariff advisory board to consider the question of a duty on binder twine. Now this pamphlet deals with the cordage, rope and twine industry, and it points out that during the year the number of plants engaged in the manufacture has increased from nine to eleven, and that the gross value of the products has increased from 88,000,000 odd to $10,000,000 odd. But the last paragraph in this particular section deals with the question of binder twine, and in view of the application which has been made for the imposition of a duty on that article I think it is well worth hearing these figures. So I will read the paragraph:
The binder twine situation in Canada in the first six months of the present fiscal year is very interesting. Imports into Canada in the period dropped from 280,895 hundredweight, worth $4,049,686, to 194,283 hundredweight, worth $2,290,110, the decrease being due to lower purchases from the United States, while those from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands increased. A t the same time exports rose from 59,280 hundredweight worth $742,735 to 140,299 hundredweight, worth $1,571,234. While there was a decline in exports to Argentina of from 16,602 hundredweight, worth $215,225, to 7,500 hundredweight, worth $82,500, shipments to the United States increased from 25,450 hundredweight, worth $334,123, to 66,860 hundredweight, worth $794,022, and to Russia from 1,060 hundredweight, worth $11,872, to 30,872 hundredweight, worth $340,359.
So that while these binder twine industries are asking for protection for their products, these figures issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company make it abundantly clear that they are perfectly well able to compete with other manufacturers, both in the United States and in Europe, in their own territory. Let us hope, therefore, that we will not hear very much about any proposition to put a duty on binder twine.
There has been some difficulty on my part in trying to reconcile the position taken by the leader of the opposition in the first part , of his speech with another taken in the latter part of that speech. In the first part of his speech he referred to the fact that we were exporting very largely of our raw products

of the farm, the forest and the mines. I would not have been very much surprised at that had he not included paper in the list. In the early days of the parliament that was elected in 1921 we were, for two or three sessions, met by the demand that there should be an export duty upon pulpwood, or in some cases an embargo, and the reason given was that we should seek to turn more of that raw product into newsprint. It was urged on the other hand, and I think as events have shown properly so, that there was a gradual, normal increase in the manufacture of pulpwood into newsprint without the imposition of either an embargo or an export duty. That is abundantly confirmed now in this pamphlet. Figures were submitted last session by the pulpwood association, that is an association consisting of the small owners of pulpwood land, to show that a proportionate increase was indeed taking place, and that is abundantly proven according to the statements in this pamphlet. It points out that in 1927 the output of Canada was substantially over' the 2,000,000 ton mark, and that increases the Dominion's lead over the United States to more than 500,000 tons as compared with less than 200,000 tons in 1926. Let me read another paragraph:
Similarly the export of pulp and paper products from Canada in the twelve months increased in value by over $3,000,000. This increase is attributable entirely to exports of paper, these growing by almost $10,000,000 in value, while the value of exports of pulp decreased substantially.
Therefore if we had taken the advice of hon. gentlemen, most of them situated in that corner of the house, to put an export duty on pulpwood or an embargo as was advocated in some cases, we would have 'been taking a step that was not necssary to accomplish the purpose which they had in view and that would probably have wrought injury to other interests that would have been affected.
We can take it as absolutely certain that for many years to come our chief exports are going to be just the products of the farm, the forests and the mines. The question of the conservation of our timber resources is an important one; it is one that should be faced by the government as a question by itself, and every possible proper means should be taken of conserving these resources. But when the hon. member came to the latter part of his speech, I found it a little difficult to reconcile-the position he took then with his first position, because he advocated a very large policy of immigration; that large sums of money should be set aside to promote immigration to bring people in to develop our natural re-

The Address-Mr. Brown
sources. If we are going to bring in a large volume of immigrants, we may take it for granted that the great majority of those people will 'be employed in developing our mines, forests and fields, and for a long time to come these products will constitute the great bulk of our exports.
I was interested when the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke of the burdens that were being levied by this government upon the people. Again he overlooked the fact, to which I took occasion to call attention lost year, that there was a tendency to confuse the rate of taxation with the volume of taxation. Perhaps in some few details it may be pointed out that the burden on the people has been increased. That is certainly true with regard to the duty on raisins, as affected by the Australian treaty. Without going into the merits of the sales tax I will admit that in that connection there may be some slight increase; but let us remember that so long as we impose indirect taxation, so long as we impose taxation upon trade, it is impossible for this or any other government to say what the volume of taxation will be. All that the government can do is to fix the rate of taxation, and if trade is prosperous naturally the volume of taxation will increase, so that those across the way or others may argue that the burdens upon the people are correspondingly increased. I took occasion last year to place on Hansard certain figures that I had gathered in regard to the automobile industry. I have not those under my hand at the moment, but they showed conclusively that the reduction of the duty on automobiles had led to a great increase in the revenue that the country derived from automobiles. Indeed, the argument that we always placed before tariff commissions when we met, was that it was possible to reduce duties and yet increase the revenue. Even the hon. member for South Wellington at one time in his political career would have used the same argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the sales tax and
the excise tax were left on automobiles.


John Livingstone Brown: I am referring simply to
the customs duty on automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the burden of taxation with respect to automobiles is higher.


John Livingstone Brown: It was not increased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it was. One was taken off and the other put on.


John Livingstone Brown: No. The hon. member for South Wellington made a remark which struck me very forcibly at the time he made it.
56103-Hi
He said: "What we need is a minister of finance with courage." I began to think over the matter and the various demands that were being made upon the Minister of Finance just to see what kind of a minister of finance we really needed. I came to the conclusion that it was not so much a minister of finance with courage that we needed as a minister of finance who was a magician who could show us how we were going to reduce taxation and pay the public debt, how we were going to reduce taxation and increase our expenditures, how we were going to have our cake and eat it. I felt that we needed a minister of finance who could demonstrate that it was possible for two straight lines to enclose a space and who could disprove Euclid's axiom that "things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another." In view of the fact that we are called upon to make very large expenditures-and when the estimates are brought down we will find that hon. members from all over Canada are asking for them, and there is room for increased expenditures-I can well imagine that the Minister of Finance will have a job on his hands to reconcile the two ideas.
But if we have not a minister of finance with courage, we have a Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) who at least has exhibited courage in his mode of dealing with the Hudson Bay railway. I think I ought to give him credit in any event for that. The easiest path for him to have taken would have been the path of least resistance, namely, to have gone forward with the development of the port of Nelson. In doing so he might have fallen back upon the reports of engineers who had previously given decisions in regard to the matter. But instead of that he took what at one time was an unpopular stand in this house. It was unpopular, I know', when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) took the stand that Churchill should be considered. Personally I must confess that at that time I took the stand myself that, unless very good cause could be shown for a change, having begun the development of the port of Nelson we should continue to develop that port.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We spent six million
dollars.


John Livingstone Brown: But in reading the reports that have come from Mr. Palmer I am satisfied that the correct decision has been reached. It seems, though, that we were formerly misled as regards the character of the Churchill harbour. I know I had always been given to understand that Churchill harbour had a rock bottom; that it would be impossible to
The Address-Mr. Brown

make a harbour there without a tremendous amount of work. The reports indicate that instead of the harbour at Churchill having a rock bottom it has a bottom that can be very readily dredged to make a harbour sufficiently commodious for the purpose in view. There was a disposition to establish comparisons between the engineers who years ago decided on Port Nelson and Mr. Palmer who has given his decision in favour of Fort Churchill. All I can say is that we have some little light thrown upon the engineers who chose Port Nelson when we remember that they sent up there a sand sucker dredge that never found any sand to suck. The nature of the bottom to the harbour would not permit of its being sucked.
I do not intend at this time to deal at any length with the tariff. Our position with regard to that matter has already been emphasized on both sides of the house, but I wish to point out one or two things with regard to the customs regulations of the day. I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Steedsman) said last night. The customs regulations are in some cases most annoying. I think hon. members and ministers do not always get the point of view of those who have to abide by those regulations. They should remember that over one thousand miles of the Canadian boundary lies between the great lakes and the Rocky mountains. It should be made as easy as possible for people living on both sides of the boundary line to obey the law. Customs laws are not very popular at any time. We all know that, but we should make them as easy of observance as possible. That is not the case at the present time. Indeed, a great hardship is imposed upon many innocent people who have to pass backward and forward across that line. I notice that in the report of the Customs commission there is a recommendation that the number of ports of entry be decreased. Before that is done, I would ask that the Minister of National Revenue give very careful consideration to the matter. I had hoped before speaking on this matter to have had the whole situation more completely in my mind as regards the number of ports of entry than I have at present, but I know that along my own line of railway within the province of Manitoba, which runs at distances varying from ten to twenty miles from the boundary, practically right through the southern part of the province, a certain number of customs houses and ports of entry are located. There are one or two others. I can conceive it quite possible to reduce the number situated along that line of railway 
without entailing any hardship upon any person. So far as the customs report deals with the merchandise brought in through those ports, I will take no exception to the recommendations, but if the number of ports of entry is reduced, account should be taken of the fact that it is not merely the merchandise. that actually comes in that has to be taken care of, but also the prevention of smuggling from the south, and further that reasonable facilities must be afforded those who want to pass backward and forward. If the minister carries out the recommendation without taking these considerations into account, he will make a mistake. I had occasion last fall to visit a point along the international boundary. I was asked to go down and see the condition of things that prevailed there, and I found that it was a matter of great hardship to the people who wanted to pass backward and forward to observe the regulations that were imposed as regards getting permits for crossing the lines and then the return of the permit. The character of the country there was such that men could not reach the nearest office without making long detours, and it puts honest law-abiding men in the position that they can only obey the law at very great hardship and cost to themselves. Before the report of the Customs commission is put into effect as regards reducing the number of points of entry, I hope this phase of the situation will be given consideration by the minister. The argument is frequently advanced in regard to the liquor trade, that bootlegging is increased because of the rigors of the law. Indeed, in the custofhs report, it is said that there would be less inducement to break the law if the excise duties were not so high. I am not going to discuss that argument in the meantime, but if it is true in regard to that matter, it certainly ought to be true in regard to the question to which I am referring; so that innocent people who want to cross backwards and forwards should have no more hardships than necessary placed in their way. We are aware that state roads are being constructed in the United States to meet the highways in Manitoba, to permit intercourse between the two peoples, and then we enact these very drastic regulations, to prevent the people making use of these facilities.
I shall not deal further with that just now but I wish to bring the matter strongly to the notice of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler).
I heartily endorse what has been said with regard to the necessity for the establishment of better facilities for promoting research.

The Address-Mr. Oott
Research i9 of importance to the farming industry because of the prevalence of and the destruction caused by rust. Indeed, unless some remedy is found for the rust that is now afflicting our crops there is great danger that Canada may lose the pre-eminent position it now occupies in the export of high class milling wheat, and no amount of money that can be spent will be too great if a solution of that problem can be found. If in attempting a solution of the problem we find it necessary to pay higher salaries to the technical men in question, pay them we must, and if in order to pay them we must to some degree upset the Civil Service Act, then upset it must be.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Hear, hear.


John Livingstone Brown: Because we cannot afford to lose the best trained men of Canada when they are needed to investigate these problems.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I should like to occupy the time of the House for a few moments to discuss the situation as it exists in western Ontario among the tobacco growers, which is most appalling. Before so doing I desire to join with other members of the house in offering my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address, as I also desire to bespeak appreciation of the tobacco growers of western Ontario, particularly the riding which I have the honour to represent.
I desire to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), his deputy, Dr. Gris-dale, the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, Hon. John S. Martin, and his deputy, Mr. Roadhouse, for the personal attention they have paid to the tobacco growing industry of western Ontario. I desire to read an article appearing in the Tobacco Growers Guide, taken from the Farmers Advocate, which says:
The whole tobacco growing industry in Ontario is deep in the quagmire. The reasons given for this unhappy state of affairs are many and conflicting. Some blame the quality of the crop; others blame the tobacco companies. In spite of the British preference and the alleged demand in the United Kingdom, our tobacco is not moving and morale amongst the growers is at low ebb. When a situation such as this arises there are usually many reasons; and the only way to let in the light and clear the matter is for the growers themselves to be masters of the situation, know all the facts and through their own duly elected officers keep themselves informed as to requirements, values and movement of crop. So long as the growers know only the producing end of the business, and many of them knowing that poorly, there will be disappointments and failure. The only solution of the problem is a real business-like co-operative marketing company, owned and controlled by the growers themselves. Such a company could advise its members regarding acreage; through instructors it could assist growers in producing a quality product, and then it could explain to its members what the market situation really was. So far as Ontario is concerned the growers themselves would be masters of the situation and would not be working constantly in the dark as they seem to be at present.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent we produce approximately forty per cent of the entire crop of tobacco raised in the Dominion. During the last few months I took occasion by calling private meetings to ascertain if we could not uncover the discrepancies and discriminations that seemed to exist against the tobacco growers. I held sixteen private meetings before calling a general meeting, which was attended by seven hundred tobacco growers in the town of Leamington. These meetings were the prelude to a meeting that was attended by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his deputy minister. Aside from the private meetings that I called, other meetings were being held in the county, and at one the following resolution was passed:
Whereas the farmers of Essex county have been induced by various ways and means to tremendously increase their acreage of tobacco and their capital investment to take care of the same during the past season;
And whereas these farmers are now finding that their marketing facilities, conditions and quoted prices are irregular and discouraging for the future.
The directors of the Essex County Farm Bureau request that you bring these conditions to the attention of your Department of Agriculture so that if possible we ascertain the reasons for these irregularities, with the end in view of having a more satisfactory solution found for this acute problem.
This was carried unanimously. In addition to those meetings there was a meeting of the tobacco growers of the township of Pelee island in the constituency of South Essex, and the following resolution was passed:
That this meeting, representing the tobacco growers of Pelee island, views with much concern the state of the industry, both as regards price paid by the buyers and the difficulties experienced in disposing of the crop to the best advantage.
We feel that the advantage of the British preference has not benefited the growers in any sense, but that the money has gone into the hands of the buyer, thereby depriving the grow'er of the benefit for which the preference was intended.
It is becoming obvious that the present state of affairs cannot go on, for the simple reason
The Address-Mr. Gott

that the grower is never sure of being able to dispose of his crop. Tobacco farming is not the easiest task in the world, and the grower wants to feel a little more confident concerning the disposal of his crop.
Having before us the wonderful advantage the wheat pool has given the farmer in the west, this meeting- is of the opinion that a pool, of a similar nature would be advantageous to the tobacco grower, and wishes to place on record its willingness to support any move made in this direction.
These are only samples, Mr. Speaker, of the resolutions that have been passed at meetings held in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Now, we have what is known as a British preference on tobacco. That preference was established by the British government in 1916 to induce the growing of better grades of tobacco in the British colonies for consumption in the British market. This preference was first given in 1916, taken away in 1921, and re-established in 1925. It gives the growers of colonial tobacco a preference of 49 cents a pound in the British market. But, sir, we have come to the conclusion that to-day the tobacco growers of western Ontario are not enjoying the preference that was given them with the sole intention of their not only increasing their acreage but improving the grade of their tobacco. Just to show that our tobacco is winning favour in the British market I desire to quote the following figures of increasing exports:
Pounds
1920	 70,000
1926..	..(approximately)	6,000,000
1927	 5,577,981
The figures for 1927 are for the ten months to the end of October. Our exportation to Great Britain represents less than four per cent of the consumption of the British tobacco market. Now let me give the house the British imports of tobacco from the
United States during 1926:
Pounds
Flue cured	 125,964,372
Barley	 305,942
Dark	fired	Kentucky.. .	15,733,539Dark	Virginia	
3,626,160Green	river	
3,638,170Cigar	leaf	
30,380
During 1926 Canada imported from the United States 13,517,316 pounds of flue cured tobacco. We imported only 141,656 pounds of cigar leaf and 282,123 pounds of dark fired Kentucky. Last year we consumed in our domestic market approximately 40,000,000 pounds of tobacco. We exported to Great Britain 6,000,000 pounds of flue cured and we imported from the United States 13,517,316 pounds.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the duty on tobacco going into the United States is much higher than our duty on their tobacco entering Canada. The United States duty on Canadian unstemmed tobacco runs from 45 cents to $1.85 a pound and on stemmed from 50 cents to $2.50 a pound. The Canadian duty on American tobacco is only 40 cents a pound straight, and importers have the privilege of leaving it in bond for two years. They are afeo allowed a rebate of the duty paid in respect to raw leaf manufactured for export. I should just like to address the Minister of Agriculture for a moment, if he will give me his attention. I t'hink it would be wise to discontinue the rebate which is allowed to our tobacco manufacturers on imported raw leaf when manufactured for export. I desire further to say to the minister that as tobaccogrowing has become the most important industry among the farmers of western Ontario, no rebate should be allowed, and the duty should be collected when the tobacco enters the country. I should also like to say to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that if we had a higher tariff on flue cured tobacco coming from the United States part of the problem now confronting our farmers in the tobacco-growing sections of western Ontario would be solved.
May I direct, the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance to the three principal factors that enter into the solution of our tobacco problem? First, a more extensive cooperative marketing system; second, a reduction of the excise tax on cigars and cigarettes; third, a higher duty on flue cured and other tobaccos entering Canada from foreign countries. I think that the farmers are doing their very best to solve their present difficulties, and in - view of that fact I am going to ask the government to increase the duty on flue cured tobacco coming from the United States, not up to $1 or $1.50 a pound, but to 65 cents a pound. I think that will help to solve the problem. The Minister of Agriculture knows that it is a very serious problem. We have 5,000,000 pounds of the 1927 crop still unsold, in a non-competitive market, where there is no person bidding on the crop, and I think the house will agree with me that that is a very precarious condition for the tobacco growers of western Ontario to be in. The farmers are doing their part, and I ask the government to join with them and do its part. It is a very easy thing to increase the duty to the point where it should be.
We imported 13,500,000 pounds of tobacco last j'ear from the United States, and we ex-

The Address-Mr. Gott
ported to Great Britain only 6,000,000 pounds. To show you that our tobacco is winning	
favour year by year	in the British market,
I desire to give the	exports from Canada
for the last six years	Pounds
Year	exported
1921-1922		. . .. 340,487
1922-1923		. . . . 892,482
1923-1924		.. .. 1,164,061
1924-1925		.. . . 2,219,109
1925-1926		.. .. 2,722,897
1926-1927		. . .. 6,308,093
This is evidence, Mr. Speaker, that our tobacco is growing in favor year by year in the British market. The British market took last year altogether 197,509,815 pounds of tobacco for consumption in the British market, and for the first ten months of 1927 they imported 158,693,166 pounds, so if we can produce a good1 quality tobacco in Canada we can sell to the British market all the tobacco we can produce in this country. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, only four per cent of the total imports of the British market are supplied by Canada, and yet the preference was given to colonial tobacco growers in order that they might raise the quality and type of their tobaccos in the British colonies, so that Britain could purchase its tobacco requirements from them instead of purchasing each and every year 150,000,000 pounds of tobacco from the United States.
The entire tobacco crop in Canada in 1925 was approximately 30,000,000 pounds. Ontario produced approximately 26,000,000 pounds, of which Essex county produced 13,674,900 pounds. So that the riding I have the honour to represent produced aipproxi-mately 13,000,000 pounds, or considerably more than half the tobacco grown in Canada in 1925. In 1926 the price of flue cured tobacco ranged from 32 to 60 cents a pound. In 1927 much of the flue cured tobacco that we produced in the county is still unsold, and there is no competition. The highest price paid in 1927 was 44 cents per pound.
During my investigation into conditions in the tobacco industry I was amazed to ascertain the profits of the Imperial Tobacco Company, and when I quote the enormous profits that are being made by this company, I want it understood that I am not taking issue with any director or any member of that firm. So far as I know, each and every person connected with the Imperial Tobacco Company is a gentleman; I hope so, at least, and every person who buys for them is, I believe, a gentleman of high standing. I am quoting these figures only to show the enormous profits that are made by the manufacturers as compared with those who grow the tobacco,
those who do the real hard work and suffer the hardships. I wish to show that the profits of those who do the real hard work are not all commensurate with the profits made by the tobacco manufacturers. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to grasp the significance of the following figures. In 1926 the net profits of the Imperial Tobacco Company were $3,672,850. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1927 the total net profits were $4,371,613. I trust that the Minister of Finance will note the figures I am givine For the two years 1926 and 1927 the total net profits of the Imperial Tobacco Company were $8,044,463.


James Alexander Robb: Is that after paying dividends?


Mr. GOTT:: Those are the net profits.


James Alexander Robb: After paying dividends.


Eccles James Gott: The net profits, I presume, would include dividends. Those are their net profits anyway. Now during the year 1927 it is claimed that the Imperial Tobacco Company handled less than 10,000,000 pounds of tobacco. If that is the case, they made no less than 43.71 cents per pound on everv single pound of tobacco they manufactured. These are figures that have been cited not only at private but at public meetings. They are figures that have never been disputed, and I have every reason to believe that they are correct. The Imperial Tobacco Company or officials thereof also make enormous profits through the sale of fertilizer to the farmer; they get the farmer both coming and going. They sell the fertilizer at high prices to the farmer, and the farmer has to take any price they offer for his tobacco. It puts the farmer in a very disadvantageous position. He has to pay the highest price for the things he wants to buy, and when 'he goes to sell his products he has to take any price they offer. That of course applies not only to tobacco but to all the products the farmer raises in the Dominion. He pays the highest price for the goods he buys, and generally sells his products for the lowest price, due to the fact that he buys in a protected market and sells in a non-protected market.
I have before me reference No. 69B, which was an application made to the tariff board. I have not very great confidence in the tariff board, but I should like to read this application which was made to them, signed by Andrew Wilson & Company, Limited, General Cigar Co. Limited, L. 0. Grothe, Limited, H. Simon & Sons, Limited, John McNee, Sons, William Ward & Sons, Limited, McLeod Nolan & Company, The Tuckett Tobacco Co. Limited. The reference reads as follows:
16S
The Address-Mr. Gott

In making representation on behalf of the cigar manufacturing industry of Canada for relief from present taxation burdens, we would point briefly to the appalling decline in the past decade and a half. Further, we would again voice our contention that the increased duties imposed since 1913 were in the nature of war time levies and as such should now be removed.
The reduction in the number of cigar factories in Canada during the past ten years has been 60 per cent. Employment has been seriously curtailed; capital has been penalized and government revenue has suffered.
In order to restore the industry to anything like its former basis, material reduction in prices to the consumer must be made. Such a reduction is only possible through reduction of the levies which have been imposed on the cigar trade through taxation since 1914.
I heard two or three words of the speech of the hon. member who preceded me, and one word which struck me forcibly was the word "bootlegger." I want to say to the Minister of Finance that there is more bootlegging in the Dominion of Canada in the cigarette business to-day than in any other branch of commerce, and I will point out how easy it is to smuggle and sell American made cigarettes in Canadian stores. There are thousands of cartons of cigarettes coming into Canada on which no duty is paid. Across from Windsor there is a store at the foot of Woodward avenue in Detroit which caters to Canadian business. Men go in there and they are not content to bring a package of cigarettes across but bring two cartons on their hip, and if they are coming in cars they bring many more cartons of cigarettes with them. Some of the stores in Essex county import cigarettes and pay duty on them, but these are only sold when some officer of the law pays them a visit or when suspicious people are in the store. For the rest of the time they are selling cigarettes imported from the United States on which no duty is paid at all.
Cigarettes in Canada to-day are twice as expensive as in the United States, due to the excise tax. This brief also points out that the production of cigars in Canada has dropped from 294,772,935 in 1913, when the 28 cent and 42 cent leaf duty was effective with a flat excise of S2 per thousand, to 174,154,652 in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927. I say to the Minister of Finance now that this reduction in excise which I propose will be' an inducement to Canadian manufacturers of tobacco to place on the market a cigarette which will appeal to the consuming public, and it will stop the smuggling of cigarettes to a very large extent. The excise tax on cigars and tobacco to-day is too high, and constitutes an extreme penalty on the consuming public, the manufacturer and the grower.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to place on record the imports of unmanufactured tobacco into the United Kingdom for each of the calendar years from 1922 to 1926 and for ten months of 1927, as well as the imports of unmanufactured tobacco into the United Kingdom for the fiscal years 1920 to 1924, which includes the importations from British Colonies as well as other countries. I also wish to place on record, with your permission, the exportation of unmanufactured tobacco from Canada by fiscal years for the years 1921 to 1927 inclusive. It shows that we have gradually increased our exports to certain countries, while in other cases our exports have fallen off. For instance, in 1924-25 we exported to Germany 794,815 pounds, while the following year we exported only 711 pounds, and for the year 1926-27 we exported 1,952 pounds. With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I will place these figures on record.

The Address-Mr. Gott



IMPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO INTO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
Calendar Years
Countries	1922 '	1923	1924	1925	1926	1927 to Oct. 31stU.S.A	
Other Foreign Countries	
Total Foreign	
Cyprus	
South Africa	
N. Rhodesia	166,396,097 5,535,058	155,434,263 5,569,386	156,921,009 6,743,647	163,030,799 7,476,078	161,659,317 5,856,206	121,369,088 3,495,013171,931,155	161,003,649	163,664,656	170,506,877	167,515,523	124,864,10146,772 59,387 360,325	140,814 50,505 366,513	58,891 110,398 718,200	14,217 27,222 993,863	7,430 462,934 2,323,322	66,372 176,995 720,979 6,581,287 11,757,188 7,505,258 1,348,501 5,577,981 94,504Nyassaland	
N. India	
Br. N. Borneo	
Canada	6,734,863 3,934,573 593,016 855,397	5,891,167 4,574,504 894,209 955,507	7,162,183 8,353,408 857,791 1,747,960	7,300,385 7,965,987 852,696 1,848,533	9,157,582 12,216,058 913,141 4,892,386 21,439	Total British	
Grand total	12,584,333	12,873,219	19,008,831	19,002,903	29,994,292	33,829,065184,515,488	173,876,868	182,673,487	189,509,780	197,509,815	158,693,166
Fiscal Years British
Countries	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
				8,463 50,505 5,891,167 4,574,504 955,507 140,814 366,513 894,209 9,644	364,002 197,402 6,882,452 8,388,055 1,787,170 59,382 719,392 839,730 35,871
South Africa	 Nyassaland	 British India	 Canada	 Cyprus	 Rhodesia	 British North Borneo	 Other British Countries		927,897 5,505,518 9,589,879 215,137 43,611 156,249 1,579,056 2,832	10,572 4,776,903 1,415,162 174,361 15,503 174,665 739,050 20,524	59,387 6,734,863 3,934,573 855,397 46,772 360,325 593,016 37,775		
Foreign
Russia		10,886,174 1,479,462 177,448,836 167,619 496,942
	
	
	
	
	325,434 974,462 961,337
	
	
	
	5,927,005
	
	160,584 1,022,105 461,775 17,880 91,940 324,658
	
	
	
	
	
	
776,164	24,056	161,696	695,156481,505	981,718	1,005,772	871,180214,690,878	166,755,352	154,799,345	156,891,09753,864	130,821	112,617	193,20067,625	130,657	- 70,610	180,3011,485,656	1,499,562	1,758,317	1,947,3167,304	9,698	3721,144,593	1,235,285	868,769	1,066,844378,555	52,885	863	13,17055,085	68,903	308,462	401,300	457,028	527,69929,452	11,060	222,744	68,768	28,527	31,691	50,065502,616	258,167	273,412	185,539872	22,319	5,267	6,740	102,874	243,457	158,340	146,74042,502	161,091	215,059	200,697
The Address-Mr. Gott

[Stage Direction]
Country	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27United Kingdom	340,487 11,087 4,684	892,482 8,415	1,164,061	2,219,109	2,722,897 374	6,308,093British Guiana	British West Indies	Newfoundland	400 79,995 17,660	Belgium	84,543	176,737	175,447 318,474	127,119 326,075	Denmark	France	2,211 16,132	Germany	324,202 59,328 3,050	794,8.5	711	1,952Italy	Netherlands	12,952	20,576 32,860 10,868	Switzerland	United States	12,847	10,421	13,775	38,376	8,648 12,279Other Countries	
I desire for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the early vegetables which we produce in Essex county. I have the honour to represent the most southerly section of Canada, which I believe produces the finest crops of early vegetables in Canada. During the debate on the budget last year the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) made certain remarks in connection with the dumping clause to which I will refer. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, but I will read what he is reported to have said, which will be found at page 541 of Hansard for last year:
They told me that dumping was going on. I undertook to find out whether it was going on or not and to find out what evidence there was that it was being practised. I went to the Minister of Customs and asked him. He reminded me that the Liberal party was not in power at the time and that the Conservatives were responsible. He referred me to his private secretary. I went to the private secretary and he referred me to the deputy mfnister. I went to the deputy minister and he referred me to somebody else. I went to that somebody else, and he referred me to still another. I think I went to every man in the customs building, except perhaps the policeman and the janitor, and I put the same questions to . everyone. "What evidence had you that dumping was being practised last July when you imposed the dumping duty?" They all made the same answer: "Plenty of evidence",
The hon. member for Weybum used a good deal of space and a large number of words in explaining to the house that he was unable to find any evidence of the dumping of early vegetables into Canada during the year 1926. On July 1, 1926, I received the following telegram:
We respectfully wish to draw your attention to the fact growers here have been seriously handicapped by heavy importations of southern cucumbers and tomatoes which have severely

hurt marketing of our hot house crops in this district. We are now about to begin heavy shipments of field crops such as cabbage and tomatoes and if above unfair competition continues serious losses will be sustained by our growers. We would ask you to use every influence to remedy these conditions.
This telegram was despatched from Leamington and was signed by the Seacliffe Growers. That telegram was passed on to the Minister of Agriculture, who wrote me saying he had referred the question to the Minister of Finance, who in turn referred it to the tariff board, a body which I claim is inactive and never had many signs of life. On July 2, I received another telegram signed by the Seacliffe Growers, as follows:
Cabbage crop nearly unsalable. Prices offered would not net growers one cent pound. Tomatoes in much same position. All owing to import of American stuff which is being dumped in this country at prices that take such low duty that there is no protection to our growers. Cannot something be done to enforce anti-dumping act? This situation has already entailed serious loss to producers in this country.
The following figures, I think, will explain the state of affairs directly responsible for that telegram. During the week from June 24 to July 1 inclusive there were imported into Canada 128 carloads of tomatoes which arrived at their ports of entry practically free of duty, or at such a low rate that it meant no protection to our growers. The following are the figures:
Carloads
Montreal	 79
Toronto	 35
Winnipeg	 8
Ottawa	 6
During the seven consecutive weeks from May 12 to June 30 of the same year, 1,911 carloads of early vegetables were imported,

The Address-Mr. Gott
which threatened destruction to this industry in Essex county. Here are the figures:
Week ending	Carloads
May 19		205
May 26	 230
June 2		365
June 9	 220
June 16	 260
June 23	 217
June 30	 414
I say to the hon. member for Weyburn that these conclusive figures should be definite proof that dumping did exist when order in council No. 1088 was passed. When I returned to Essex county, from which the complaints had emanated, and visited the farms and fields, after ascertaining beyond question of doubt that the importations from the United States were causing serious injury to our farmers I forwarded the following telegram to the Hon. H. H. Stevens, who was at the time Acting Minister of Agriculture:
Vegetable growers of South Essex have drawn my attention forcibly to glutted conditions of their markets making it impossible to dispose of their produce with the result that crops are being left in the field. Government reports issued by the Fruit branch, Department of Agriculture, show hundreds of carloads of competitive vegetables imported weekly-see telegraphic report number 14 showing 414 cars imported into eleven Canadian centres during the short period of one week. American reports show such crops in the United States being shipped at prices that do not pay cost of transportation to markets, far less cost of production, with result that ad valorem duty imposed by our government and based on invoice price at point of production means absolutely no protection against heavy importations. These deplorable conditions existing now with reference to hothouse tomatoes, cabbage, and beans will continue with reference to main crops of field tomatoes and potatoes which are now ready to be harvested, unless some immediate action is taken now by our department. On my return to Essex county I made a personal canvass of the district and find conditions exactly as represented in this wire.
Eccles J. Gott.
In response to my appeal Hon. Mr. Stevens caused the immediate passing of the order in council known as No. 1088, to which the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) takes serious objection. That order in council was dated July 13, 1926 and under it the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise valued certain fruit and vegetable products when imported from the United States, as follows, per pound net:
Cents
Tomatoes	 5
Cucumbers	 3
Cabbage	 li
Celery	 2
Onions	 1i
Potatoes	 2
Asparagus	 10
Cents
Carrots	 li
Beets	 2
Lettuce	 3
Spinach	 3
Cauliflower	 2J
Peaches	 4
Raspberries	 17
It was declared:
These values shall be held to be the fair market value thereof for purposes of application of ad valorem rates of duty and special duty.
I would ask the hon. member for Weyburn if he does not consider these prices represent a fair market value. My hon. friend made a reference to section 47a of the Customs Act. The growers in the county which I represent appreciate very much the fact that there is such a clause in the Customs Act under which fair market values may be placed on importations from the United States during periods of dumping. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it was in the best interests of the farmers that the action referred to should have been taken. It certainly was in the best interests of the farmers that I have the honour to represent. The very moment that order in council went into effect the huge importations of cheap American products ceased, and the Canadian growers delivered to the towns in Essex county fresh vegetables each day. They sold direct to the consumers at a satisfactory price and the latter paid less for what they bought than they otherwise would have paid.
I observe that my time has expired, but in closing I want to make a reference to the unfavourable trade balance of the Dominion, which declined by something over $114,000,000 in the twelve months ended September 30th last. During that period we exported to Great Britain $435,350,400 worth of products, and we imported from that country $227,000,000 worth of produce, giving a favourable balance in the case of trade with the mother country of $208,000,000. On the other hand we exported to the United States $477,154,614 worth of goods and imported from that country goods to the amount of $707,654,535, leaving an adverse trade balance with the United States of $230,499,921. Thus our trade with Great Britain resulted in a favourable trade balance of $208,000,000, whereas our trade with the United States occasioned us an unfavourable balance of $230,499,921, leaving us with a total adverse trade balance for the year of 22 million dollars.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bock
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. G. BOCK (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the indulgence of hon. members for any imperfections they may observe in my attempt to present a few remarks in connection with the speech from the throne. Being a plain western farmer with no claims to oratorical ability and with but a very scant knowledge of parliamentary procedure, I trust their criticisms with regard to any observations I may make will be tempered with kindness, in return for which I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible.
In the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) who made so splendid an address on Friday last, and also to make mention of the very able manner in which the hon. member for Provfncher (Mr. Beaubien) acquitted himself. I hope at some future time I may be able to present my remarks with the same assurance and ease of manner which my hon. friends displayed on that occasion. I also wish to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on his having been elected to that high position, and, like many other Liberals present no doubt, I hope that he may long continue to hold that position.
I have been so much impressed by the grandeur and the splendour of these historic halls that I fear I may not be able to do justice this evening to my constituents, conscious that I am surrounded by brilliant statesmen and gifted orators. I can only comfort myself by remembering that, unschooled and inexperienced in parliamentary lore, nevertheless, as I wish to assure hon. members, I am sincere in my desire to be of service to my constituents and to Canada as a whole.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I would not take the # splendour too seriously. The hon. member ' is of more account anyhow.


William George Bock: I thank my hon. friend. On an occasion of this kind I could scarcely forbear to refer briefly to the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation, and I think the national committee deserve our congratulations on the very successful manner in which that vast program was carried out. I am sure this celebration served to create a deep interest in Canadian history and tradition, because no one could have participated in that celebration without acquiring a more comprehensive knowledge of Canadian history. The various departments of government, both federal and provincial, reviewed 
the progress of our country since confederation in their many publications and supplied a mass of information on our political and economic development. In addition to this the newspapers, private institutions, and many individuals, contributed a large amount of valuable information touching on various phases of our Canadian life.
I am convinced that the influence of the celebration on the children of Canada must have been remarkably strong. From coast to coast our young people were busily engaged in essay-writing competitions and oratorical contests on Canadian subjects, which must have revived and deepened their interest in the study of Canadian history. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) referred very appropriately last night to that particular part of the celebration when he commented on the way in which our foreign-born young people had participated in it. When we reflect that it is on the rising generation tha't the future of our country depends, the keen interest displayed by young Canadians was gratifying. The very atmosphere seemed to be filled with harmony and unity, and with a consciousness of the fact that the entire nation was listening to the grand carillon pealing forth our national anthems. The inspiring words spoken by our foremost Canadians .seemed to find echoes in the hearts of us all. All question of partisanship, all distinctions of class, race or creed, were pushed far into the background where we hope they may remain forever. I am glad that at this session of parliament, following as it does the great jubilee of confederation, there appears to be even in this chamber an exemplification of that harmony and unity so strikingly in evidence last July, because sometimes on reading Hansard in the past I have been inclined to think that at times there was scarcely sufficient harmony to go round.
In the year just past we have had some very distinguished visitors in the person of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, his royal brother Prince George, and Mr. Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain. While we as Canadians are always glad to welcome a representative of His Majesty to our shores, we always feel particularly glad to welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as wherever he goes he carries a message of goodwill, and through his kindly and cheerful personality he has done much, I am sure, to strengthen the bonds of sympathy and common interest which unite the various units of the British Empire. The visit of Mr. Baldwin might be considered a reminder of the importance of our jubilee of confedera-

The Address-Mr. Bock
lion. I understand in visiting us last summer he established a precedent, as prior to that time no British premier had ever visited one of the dominions during his term of office. It is also interesting to recall that Mr. Baldwin was bom in 1867, the year of confederation, and the fact that he celebrated his sixtieth birthday on Canadian soil was rather a pleasant coincident.
I should like to place on record a few remarks with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. In this regard I think the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) is to be congratulated on the very prompt manner in which he acted in making his decision in favour of Fort Churchill as the terminus of that railroad. He did not hesitate nor allow the grass to grow under his feet after he received the preliminary report of Mr. Palmer, and though his prompt action in this matter was criticized to some extent by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), yet we all are aware that had he deferred action in order to await the approval of parliament on a matter of this importance, he would have subjected himself to the criticism of every energetic citizen of Canada, including probably the leader of the opposition himself.
I believe it is customary for a new member to refer to some of the outstanding features of his constituency, and in this connection also I shall endeavour to be very brief. The constituency of Maple Creek is situated in the extreme southwest corner of the province of Saskatchewan. It is an entirely agricultural area- adapted to ranching and wheat raising. The western half of the constituency lies within the area known as the Chinook belt, which is not always blessed with the average or ordinary amount of rainfall, and which is subject in the growing periods to those hot winds that sometimes sweep in from the southwest and destroy the crops in a very short time. Many of the farmer's in that area are in a rather unfortunate position. A considerable number of the original settlers have left and have located in other parts of the province where the rainfall is more plentiful. Many of those remaining will never be able to pay up the amount still owing on their pre-emption. It has been thought by some that if they were given an opportunity to file on a second homestead-the abandoned lands in that area being made available for this purpose, with the indebtedness cancelled -it might assist them materially to carry on. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) last night touched on this phase of the situation, as his constituency adjoins mine and many of the conditions there are
much the same as those in Maple Creek. I have been informed that some relief may be anticipated, an act respecting debts due to the crown having been passed at the last session. This would mean that each case would have to be adjusted on its merits, I understand, as a blanket policy would involve difficulty in establishing boundary lines; that is, if a certain area were segregated it would apply to all located in that area. The settlers in this area are a very good class of people and are deserving of some consideration in this regard.
You, Mr. Speaker, have no doubt heard of the bountiful crops with which the west was favoured last year. We had an unusually late spring, and with the almost continuous rainfall seeding was not completed until about June 1, and in some cases later. We had an abundance of moisture, and the prospect looked veiy bright. Then, a series of disastrous hailstorms swept over the country and wiped out thousands of acres of splendid crops. This was followed by frost and then by rust, and when the crops were harvested continual rainy weather delayed threshing operations. To aggravate matters, winter set in on November 6, much earlier than usual, and I would judge that in the western half of my constituency at least 45 or 50 per cent of the crop is still unthreshed, having been snowed under. A large percentage of the grain that had been threshed was of low grade owing to frost and rust damage, and the wet weather prevailing at that time caused most of it to grade tough or damp. So when we read in the papers about the glowing conditions in the west, we regret that those conditions do not obtain everywhere.
In this connection I would point out that I believe conditions would have been, much worse had it not been for the operation of the wheat pool, for I am sure we are all agreed that through our system of distribution by means of centralized marketing we have been able to secure a much better return for our product than we could have done otherwise. I think the splendid success of the wheat pool in western Canada to-day constitutes a demonstration of the benefits of economic distribution, for while it raised the price of wheat to the producer-it has been said by reliable authorities in the neighborhood of 25 cents a bushel-it did not increase the price of bread to the consumer. Possibly some of our hon. friends who are seeking an upward revision of the tariff might be able to reduce their cost of distribution in somewhat the same manner.
The Address-Mr. Bock

I have noticed' in the press recently that some of the experts engaged in rust research work in connection with the Department of Agriculture might be obliged to discontinue it owing to the remuneration not being sufficient. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if this branch of the department has any hope of solving so serious a problem as that of stem rust, we should see to it that sufficient funds are provided to enable the department to carry on in this very important research work.
I could not very well refer to the constituency of Maple Creek without making some mention of my hon. predecessor, Mr. George Spence, who was our representative in this house in the last two sessions of parliament, As an untiring worker in the interests of his constituents he had no peer. He devoted a great deal of his time to the promotion of railway branch lines. Indeed, most of his electors were very reluctant to dispense with his services as their federal representative. His work in relation to the establishment of the consumers' league is, I am sure, well known to us all. I might mention incidentally that the winning of elections was one of Mr. Spence's favourite pastimes. I believe in the past two years he has contested and won four elections. This is a record which, I think, will stand for some time to come. To follow in the footsteps of so energetic a man as George Spence-he is now Minister of Railways and Highways in the province of Saskatchewan-is going to be no easy task for me if I make any attempt to maintain the fast pace which he set.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, possibly I should thank the hon. leads' of the opposition for the fact that the Maple Creek seat was not contested in the recent by-election, and I can afford to do so. But I am inclined to think that my acclamation was not due so much to any generosity on the part of the hon. leader of the opposition, or to any great personal merit of my own, but that it was rather a reflection of the confidence of the people of my constituency in the present Liberal administration.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I wish to congratulate the last speaker (Mr. Bock) on his maiden speech. I am sure that the oldest member is still able to look back to that outstanding event in his parliamentary career with a certain feeling of satisfaction. But although I am a young member I must confess that I do not recall my own maiden effort with unmixed pleasure; in fact I have not yet altogether recovered from the ordeal.

The speech from the throne has been criticized for what it contains and for what it does not contain. Many able addresses have been delivered from both sides of the house, in the course of which the ground has been very fully covered, and if it were not that during the debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought to our attention a matter which is very vital to the province of British Columbia, I would hesitate to take part in the debate at this time. I may say that the oriental question has never been a political issue in our province. We have, irrespective of party, been working shoulder to . shoulder in that great fight for a white British Columbia. For the last thirty years we have appealed to this parliament and to the people of eastern Ontario to join with us in checking what we have termed the oriental menace. We have been rewarded by the fact that some years ago we were successful in securing the exclusion of Chinese immigrants. Since that legislation went into force not one Chinese immigrant has stepped on our shores. Now comes the question of the Jap, and I can assure hon. members, irrespective of party, that the people of the province of British Columbia were delighted to know that one of the old parties in Canada in convention this year, with representatives from all parts of this Dominion, recognized our claim for the general application of something in the way of effective exclusion of orientals. The Prime Minister in his address last Tuesday expressed regret at the action of this convention. He.said:
I was sorry to see at the party convention which my hon friend attended that among other resolutions which were passed was a resolution declaring for oriental exclusion.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this house will agree with me that there was nothing wrong with that resolution. It is short and I am going to read it to you. It is as follows:
Therefore resolved, that Canada adopt an aggressive system of immigration based upon the selective principle and with that end in view efforts he directed to:
(1)	Repatriation of Canadians.
(2)	Securing a larger percentage of British settlers.
(3)	Taking full advantage of the assistance tendered by the British government to promote empire settlement.
(4)	Making arrangements between the two governments to ensure proper training of the youth of the British isles as agriculturalists to better qualify them as Canadian settlers.
(5)	That in the selection and settlement of immigrants a sane classification and distribution should be made taking into consideration the immigrants' previous occupation and adaptability and that in such distribution the needs of all provinces should be given fullest consideration.

The Address-Mr. Barber
(6)	That in selecting new immigrants, relatives of present citizens of Canada should receive favourable consideration.
(7)	That special concessions be granted to Canadians to enable them to settle our vacant lands.
(8)	.Oriental exclusion.
That resolution is in the best interests of Canada. I am not going to deal with it generally, but I will take up section 8, and I think it is fair that we should read along with this section the preamble:
Therefore resolved, that Canada adopt an aggressive system of immigration based upon the selective principle and with that end in view efforts be directed to oriental exclusion.
This is what we have been working for in British Columbia for a number of years in regard to Japanese immigration. We have asked that some action be taken that would eventually lead up to the exclusion of Japanese immigrants. About twenty years ago we entered into an agreement with Japan which was ratified by the two governments. It is known as a gentleman's agreement. The terms have not been made public, but it is understood it was to limit the immigration of Japanese immigrants to this country. In 1922 during a debate in this house I understand that a full day was set aside to consider the oriental problem. During that debate it was pointed out by some members from British Columbia that this agreement was ineffective and a demand was made for its abrogation. The government at that time agreed to accept an amended resolution reading as follows:
The government should take immediate action with a view to securing the effective restriction of future immigration of this type.
The words "effective restriction" were preferred by the government to the word "exclusion," and they assured us that that would very shortly lead up to what we desired, namely, exclusion. What has been done to give effective restriction to Japanese immigration? The gentleman's agreement is still in force. Has Japanese immigration decreased since the year 1922? Let us look at the reports in the Department of Immigration and Colonization. Those reports show that the number of Japanese who entered this country were as follows in the years given:
1923		 369
1924		 448
1925		 501
1926		 421
1927		 475
These Japanese entered as immigrants and became residents of this country. The
serious part of this influx during those years is that so many women have been permitted to enter. Of the 1.397 Japanese who entered Canada during the last three years, 724 were women and 250 children under 18 years of age. It is construed that because nothing was said in the agreement about Japanese women there was no bar to their entry, or in the words of a Japanese, it is a gentleman's agreement and does not apply to ladies. They say there is a woman for every Japanese man who wants one, and as a result the Japanese are breeding themselves into possession of a good share of the business of British Columbia.
The following details of the oriental occupation of British Columbia were assembled through official inquiries made by the bureau of provincial information, giving the situation accurately to the beginning of 1927:
(1)	At the beginning of 1927 the oriental population of the province was at least 46,500, or 1 in 12 persons. (Taking the adult males only into consideration, there is one Asiatic male for every five men in British Columbia. -T.M.).
(2)	The Japanese birth-rate was 40 per 1,000, as compared with a general birth-rate (except native Indians) of 18 per 1,000.
(3)	The increase in the Japanese population through excess of births over deaths was greater, by more than two to one, than the immigration of people of that race.
(4)	Arrivals of Japanese women have greatly outnumbered arrivals of men for several years; two women coming in for every man.
(5)	Of oriental arrivals in Canada in the past 20 years, British Columbia got 80 per cent of the Chinese, over 98 per cent of the Japanese, and nearly 99 per cent of the Hindus.
(6)	Orientals owned land and improved property in British Columbia to an aggregate value of $10,491,250, and lease property valued at $1,099,500.
(7)	Over 11,300 orientals were employed in the industries of the province.
(8)	In three years preceding 1927 the number of Japanese children in the public schools had increased by 74 per cent, while white children had increased by only 6 per cent.
(9)	With development of production under glass, the oriental was more and more increasing his hold; in 1923 he had constituted 9 per cent of the growers with 28 per cent of glass area; in 1925, 13 per cent of the growers with 37 per cent of the glass area.
(10)	The handling of produce and garden truck by pedlars or hucksters was almost entirely in the hands of Chinese, and the same applied to the sale of vegetables in stores, to the extent of 91 per cent in the city of Vancouver.
Speaking of Vancouver, I have a statement here from the city hall records, as of October 31, 1927, showing that the number of trade licenses issued to Chinese in that year was 756. and the number issued to Japanese 1,060.
The Address-Mr. Barber

The Prime Minister and others have laid great stress on the question of trade, and have pointed to the growth of the Pacific ports. All I have to say in that regard is that other countries have adopted exclusion measures, and it has not interfered with their trade with the countries affected. South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, sister dominions in this great empire, all have oriental exclusion laws, but still they trade with Japan and China. The United States has passed a Japanese exclusion law, and yet their trade with Japan increased enormously last year.
Another stumbling block appears to be Great Britain anti her foreign relations. So far as British Columbia is concerned, I do not think anyone will doubt the loyalty of that province to the British crown, and we would not like to see anything take place that would disturb the friendly relations between Great Britain and Japan. We claim that it is not necessary to disturb these relations, and that such a thing would not happen. It has not happened with the other British dominions. As I said before, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia all have exclusion laws. Asiatics are not permitted to enter these countries as immigrants or to become citizens. Australia to-day boasts of being a white man's country. At the same time the people of Canada must realize that under the present arrangement there has grown up a great domestic and economic problem in this country. I would point out to the Prime Minister that we do not insist upon the word "exclusion", which he claims is so objectionable to Japan, being incorporated in the legislation. He may adopt the Natal act or any other act that he sees fit so long as it will give the result we desire, and that is the exclusion of Japanese as immigrants to this country. I feel that there should be no objection on the part of Japan if it was pointed out to them that some legislation of that kind was necessary, that it was impossible to assimilate their race with ours, that such an attempt would be fraught with great danger, and that it was in the best interests of both nations that immigration should cease. In other words, we must be able to say to them, without offence, that the time has come for effective exclusion of that class of people from our shores as residents.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order for me in rising to speak on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne to congratulate the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address. It has been a great privilege for me
[Air. Barber.]
in this my second session to study the members of this house, and I just wish to say that the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) certainly lived up to expectations. That part of the country has produced eminent orators and statesmen, and he is a true Liberal of that great school. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the seconder of the address. His was a splendid speech. I have had the pleasure of reading it all the way through, and the hon. member did credit not only to his constituency but also to the great race that he has the honour to represent in this house.
I also want to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I know that my humble congratulations will not go very far, especially afteT the wonderful reception their addresses have received in the press throughout the whole of Canada. They have certainly lived up to the high expectations that were held of both of them, and they thoroughly deserve all the congratulations that have been showered on them from both sides.
I had the good fortune to-day to read some comments in Saturday Night on the speech from the throne, and I gathered from that reading that there was considerable information to be gathered and a lot of work to be done this session.
I wish to make just a brief allusion to the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. It has been a wonderful thing to unite all the different groups living in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It has been a wonderful thing for the whole nation. Some splendid addresses were made, and we had distinguished visitors from Great Britain whose visits were appreciated by every section of this country. Several suggestions have been made as to the best ,way of commemorating this great national event. One came from the maritime provinces that we should construct a confederation highway. That would be something tangible to show to future generations that we really wanted to unite the whole of Canada and maintain the spirit of confederation. It would be a highly desirable thing to construct a highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, binding together every section of this great country of ours.
I want to say just a word in regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. I believe that the government has taken the only practical stand under the present circumstances in giving this question, which is not only a national but an international question, very thorough study. While I am in full sympathy

The Address-Mr. Bradette
with the needs and requirements of these two provinces, we have in Ontario, within our own borders, a wonderful waterway which eventually must be developed; I refer to the Georgian bay canal. It is really a national waterway within our own borders. As I said when I spoke in this house last year, the problems of southern Ontario ,are also the problems of northern Ontario, and vice versa, and I think in this discussion we should consider first of all the national waterway we have within our own borders.
Now I would like to say a word or two about immigration. I have heard hon. members opposite say that during the last ten years the population of Canada has not been increased. I am glad to say, as a representative of one of the most prosperous ridings in the whole of Canada, that the population in my riding and in northern Ontario generally has increased at least 300 per cent in the last ten years. If you look at the statistics you will find that in 1916 we had a population of only 30,000 people, while to-day we have over 100,000, and I believe the same principles should apply tp the western provinces. We need immigration, but as the government has well said through the Prime Minister, we want to be .in a position to assimilate the people we bring in. Let us not go too fast in these matters; let us try first of all to give them work.
I was greatly surprised two or three weeks ago to read in a newspaper the fact that a young British immigrant brought before a justice of the peace said he was surprised to find that there were six months of winter in Canada. We must tell the truth to the immigrants who leave their own shores and come to Canada. It has been my good fortune to speak to many British immigrants and they were absolutely unprepared for the winter conditions in this country. While we all know we have a beautiful winter I think everyone naturally prefers the summer, and we should see that the people we bring out are fully acquainted with these facts. Perhaps it would not make so much difference to those coming from the Scandinavian countries, where conditions are somewhat similar to ours, but I must say that some of the British people are being brought here under false representations. As you know, most of our immigrants arrive in the spring or early summer, and are greatly surprised at our winter climate. When the first snow comes they expect it to go away shortly as it does in England, but when they find it remaining for six months they are disillusioned and disappointed,: and this is one of the great 56103-12
reasons why so many immigrants leave Canada. We should tell them the truth before they come here. I do not say that we are handicapped by our climate, but of course it creates certain seasonal conditions. As we all know, the primary industry of Canada is farming, and the farmers do not employ as much help in the winter as they do during the summer months. That condition applies until the end of March or the first of April. For these reasons I repeat that it is not fair either to Canada or to the immigrants themselves to bring them out here under any misapprehension. We must tell them of the exact conditions which prevail here, and if they want to come over under those conditions, as I believe they will, I am sure they will make better Canadians.
There is another class of immigrants to whom I would like to refer. I speak now of those who come to Canada with the sole intention of sending out as much money as they possibly can. You would be surprised, if it were possible to get these statistics from the Post Office department, to learn the amount of money which is being sent from Canada back to Europe. Every dollar earned in Canada by this type of immigrant is a dead loss, because it is all sent out of the country. We should see that we get the class of immigrant who really intends to live here all the time.
Let me go a step further. I do not believe we shall need so many immigrants, and I am sure we will not lose our population to such a great extent, if the government will do something to see that young Canadians are offered some inducement to go on the farms and stay there. As you know, the bright lights of the cities, with their theatres, dance halls and so on, are wonderfully attractive even to the urban papulation, so it is no wonder that the young people are attracted from the country. If it were possible for the government to induce those young men and women to remain on the farms it would be a very splendid thing. Just in this connection I might mention something to which I have given a good deal of thought. In northern Ontario we have at least 20,000,000 acres of the best land in Canada to-day, and I believe it to be a fact that there are millions of acres of vacant lands in the western provinces as well. It should be easy, therefore, to retain our young manhood which we are now losing to the bigger towns and cities of this country and eventually to the larger centres of population to our south. Most of these young people would make good farmers and good citizens, but what are the actual conditions?

17S
The Address-Mr. Bradette

Within the last four weeks I was in the city of Toronto, and on my way to the theatre I was stopped at different times by five able bodied young men asking for a quarter with which to get a meal. It seems to me that if the federal and provincial governments could do something to settle these young Canadians on the land it would be the best possible way to provide employment. If we could induce a young man to take a farm in northern Ontario, perhaps the government might promise to give him twenty-five dollars for every acre of 'land that he clears, for a yearly maximum of 20 acres of land for every acre he cleared to a total value of 11,500, and some arrangement might be made whereby, if that young man remained on the farm for ten years, the money would be refunded to him and he would have his land free. If something of that sort could be worked out it would help a great deal in keeping our people here.
We were told this afternoon that we are importing a large percentage of our vegetables and fruits, and surely it is no wonder, because I believe our cities are over-populated. I was in Montreal some time ago and was told by some people there that if they lost their positions around the beginning of December they would be unable to get other work until spring. In northern Ontario, however, we have seasonable employment. When the farmers are through with their work in the summer they can work for the big companies in the woods or in the minesi and in that way find employment twelve months of the year. Again I say I believe the government are following a wise policy in trying first to assimilate the immigrants we have already brought in, and in not bringing more' people here by the thousands without finding employment for them for the whole year.
Then I would like to say a word in connection with the reduction of the national debt. I am absolutely in favour of certain measures by which we may expect to reduce our debt slowly and surely, but I believe the time has arrived when this government should spend money on public buildings all over Canada. We know that in the past the governments have been following a very wise policy in only spending what was absolutely necessary, but I believe we should now begin to spend money in this way where it is needed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I can tell my hon. friend opposite, to ease his mind, that I do not want to make a run on the treasury myself.
I am thinking at the moment of the city of Toronto, where they need a big customs house.

I think that is something they should get, and I have no doubt they will get it in time. There are of course a good many other localities besides Toronto and Montreal in which public money should be spent, because I know in certain sections of the country they are very badly in need of post offices and other public buildings. I do not- suggest that this money should be spent on public buildings alone, however, and I will give you an instance of another way in which some of this money could be profitably spent. In the town of Kapuskasing, within the limits of my own constituency, we have the best experimental farm in the whole of Canada, but within the last year I have had several reports from the settlers of that district fo the effect that some of the horses belonging to that experimental farm were being hired out in order to make both ends meet. There is a case in which I believe some money could be spent to great advantage, because it is not fair for the settlers of that district to have to compete with government agencies in that way. I have suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that sufficient money be given that experimental farm to permit them to meet their own expenses, and relieve the settlers in that neighbourhood from this unfair competition.
We cannot always go by what we see in the newspapers; sometimes they contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but at other times they contain very queer things, and I would not like it to be understood that I am suggesting a run on the treasury. I do not intend to make any such raid unless conditions absolutely warrant it, but in this case I believe we could spend at least $10,000 more with very good results.
One of the other things with which I would like to deal while I am on my feet is the very momentous question of the taxation of railway properties. People in the town of Cochrane, and when I say that I include the whole district of northern Quebec and northern Ontario practically from Quebec city to the Manitoba border, have been agitating for the last ten years at least that the property of the Canadian National Railways, or at all events a section of the old National Transcontinental line, should be taxed. We had several promises made by different ministers of federal governments of both parties, but with no result, and I am putting this before the house not in' any political sense but because I believe it to be a national matter. In order that this cause might be furthered, before the house opened I gave notice of the following motion:

The Address-Mr. Bradette
Taxation of Canadian National Railway property, on that portion of the railway system primarily known as the National Transcontinental, and extending from Quebec city to Winnipeg, for municipal and school purposes, in all localities, along these sections of the railway municipally organized-
Whereas, government ownership of the Canadian National railway system has created a burdensome situation in a number of municipalities through having a large portion of otherwise assessable property placed on the exempt list; and
Whereas, in many cases the loss of municipal taxes from such exempt property is out of proportion and creates a very serious loss of revenue absolutely needed for the proper administration of municipal affairs; and
Whereas, the prerogative of the crown, of having crown property exempt from taxation, was established prior to the crown ever expecting to or undertaking to take up competitive business in full competition with private corporations which are subject to municipal taxation; and
Whereas, it would appear that justice and equity would preclude the crown from taking advantage over private corporations in the discharge of corporate business; and
Whereas, the National Transcontinental was built by the Dominion government for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway on the understanding that it would be handed over to this latter railway on completion and under a lease, as an integral part of the Grand Trunk Pacific system; and
Whereas, the principle of taxation of railway property on the Canadian National railway has been maintained and in some cases established, in most sections of the present corporation, namely; over the portions of the system originally called the Grand Trunk railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial;
Therefore be it resolved: That this house urges tile waiving of the prerogative of the crown of exempting any such railway property from municipal and school taxation, on that section of the Canadian National railway system originally known as the National Transcontinental railway, from Quebec city to Winnipeg, for all organized municipalities along that part of the Canadian National railway system, which is occupied and used solely for the administration and maintenance of that portion of the aforesaid railway system.
A few days afterwards I received the following letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons:
January 19 th, 1928.
Dear Mr. Bradette,
The notice of motion which you sent in for the order paper does not seem to be in order, as resolutions to increase a charge upon the people must be introduced by the government with the recommendation of the Governor General.
You are asking by this motion that the house urge the waiving of the prerogative of the crown of exempting the Canadian National Railways from the municipal taxation in a certain part of the country. If you secure an affirmative 56103-rl2i
vote, the government will be bound to renounce these taxes. In other words you are asking for a decision of the house on a charge upon the people without following the ordinary practice.
I took the matter up with Mr. Speaker this morning and he entirely agrees with me. I regret therefore my inability to give notice of this motion when the session opens.
As I said before, this is a very important matter for northern Ontario. I have no quarrel \Vhatever with public ownership. I am well aware of the fact that public ownership is dcfing wonderful work in the province of Ontario; it has certainly accomplished striking results from an industrial and commercial point of view in the southern portion of the province. I doubt, however, if we should have the prosperity we enjoy to-day in northern Ontario if we had had to depend upon that policy. To private ownership and the investment of private capital we owe much of the development in the northern parts of the province. In presenting the case as I do for the town of Cochrane I am speaking for the whole of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. In that sparsely populated northern country the municipalities need all the taxation they can get, and the amount involved here will run to from $75,000 to $100,000 a year.
I am going to read a memorial which was drawn up by the town of Cochrane, discussing the merits of the case. Other municipalities have concurred in this representation, and although it is somewhat lengthy I deem it better to place it before the house so that all hon. members may be apprised of the fact. The communication in question reads as follows:
The municipal council of the town of Cochrane, in conjunction with other municipal bodies in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, has the honour to place before the honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals, the great injustice suffered by the towns and villages in these localities through the differentiation in respect to taxation for municipal purposes of the Canadian National railways, and to respectfully submit the following facts in connextion therewith: -
(1)	The National Transcontinental line was built by the Dominion government for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway on the understanding that it would be handed over to this latter railway on completion and under a lease, as an integral part of the Grand Trunk Pacific system.
(2)	The National Transcontinental line, to all intent and purpose, was completed at the close of the year of 1913 but the failure of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to fulfil their undertaking left the National Transcontinental line at the mercy of an indifferent operation of portions of the road, by contractors, thereby greatly retarding the development around hero, until in July 1915 it was consolidated with the Intercolonial railway into the Canadian Government railways and has been in operation ever since.
(3)	A large section of the National Transcontinental line has heen built through virgin lands

The Address-Mr. Bradette
of northern Ontario and northern Quebec and must be considered, in every sense of the word, purely a colonization road and the townsites along this section have been laid out on picked out level stretches of either muskeg or swampy bush land which required an enormous amount of groundwork in the clearing, in order to permit even the most rudimentary town planning.
(4)	The building of this colonization portion Of the National Transcontinental line can therefore in no way be considered a boou to the towns along its right of way as all these towns had to come subsequent to the building of the railway and they have since done their full sh9.re in the colonization and development of the territory within their sphere of influence, in even a larger proportion than the railway itself has done for northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
(5)	The demand for educational and sanitary measures alone, in the building up of the towns to the present time, has been out of all proportion to the ability of ratepayers of these towns, to meet, since the largest property holders, the railways, are exempt from municipal taxation.
(6)	Conditions as they exist to-day in Cochrane are to be found in a more or less like measure along the entire colonization section of the National Transcontinental line between La Tuque, Quebec, and the Manitoba boundary.
(7)	In addition, the town of Cochrane, in common with other towns and villages along the National Transcontinental line in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, has suffered repeated devastation and the town of Cochrane especially, suffered on two occasions almost complete destruction by fire which struck the town from surrounding bush lands and for which no blame can be attached for lack of prevention.
(8)	Again, owing to the inability of collecting adequate taxes, by reason of exemption of railway property, the town of Cochrane suffered severely through the scourge of epidemics, brought about through lack of funds to complete necessary sanitary improvements, with the consequence that the ratepayers have been greatly impoverished besides causing intense suffering through loss by death of a large number of citizens.
(9)	In the year 1919 the town of Cochrane petitioned the Dominion government and parliament for relief through permitting assessment of railway property within the municipality' and a promise was made that pending legislation of the session of 1919 would make special intervention by the government unnecessary, as through the creation of the Canadian National Railway Company, this company would be given a lease of the Canadian Government railways and would take the status of any ordinary corporation.
(10)	Statements made in the House of Commons at that time by the leader of the government, as appearing in Hansard of that session, clearly indicate the intention of the government to fulfil promises made to the town of Cochrane, but there is nothing in the final bill enacting the Canadian National Railways Company to supplement such statements.
(11)	The colonization section of the National Transcontinental line is the only railway built in Canada through virgin lands in the last forty years which has never assisted in the building and subsequent progress and development of towns and villages along its course, by assuming their just share of taxes to such muni-

cipalities, and yet the proper operation of a railway, and the subsequent success from such, preconceives that towns be built and conveniences be furnished to further the welfare and provide suitable living conditions for the employees of such railway.
(12)	There is no place in Canada which presents a more incongruous situation than that which exists in northern Ontario and northern Quebec with respect to exemption of railway property from municipal taxation and no comparison can be made with other sections of the Canadian Government railways where the advent of the railways came subsequent to the existence of towns and villages, thereby bene-fitting such towns and villages in a large measure. Any assistance, therefore, which may " be granted to the town of Cochrane and other municipalities along the colonization section of the National Transcontinental line, can in no way be considered a precedent, to be followed in respect to other places.
At a meeting of representatives of municipal bodies from along the colonization section of the National Transcontinental line between La Tuque and the Manitoba boundary, at which delegates were present from Cochrane, Sioux Lookout, Redditt, Kapuskasing, Hunta and Moonbeam in Ontario and Privat in Quebec, the following representation was fully concurred in.
Therefore, having in mind the unwillingness of the Dominion government to open up the general question of taxation of Canadian government railway property, the undersigned municipal corporations urgently request the honourable, the Minister of Railways and Canals to favourably consider the justice of making an annual compassionate grant, in lieu of taxes, to the municipal bodies affected and to have the necessary appropriation for the current year included in the supplementary estimates to come before the House of Commons during the present session, on the basis of the average annual loss of taxes had the railway property been subject to taxation.
The loss from taxation suffered by the town of Cochrane, based on a property assessment of the National Transcontinental line within the municipality, as appearing on the Cochrane assessment roll, of approximately $300,000 since 1915, when the line became operative, would at an average tax rate of 40 mills represent a sum of $12,000 annually, or for the whole period until the end of the year 1923 a total of $108,000.
The loss from taxation suffered by the town of Sioux Lookout, based on a property assessment of the National Transcontinental line within the municipality, as appearing on the Sioux Lookout assessment roll, of approximately $448,900 since 1915, would at an average tax rate of 40 mills represent a sum of $17,950 annually or for the whole period until the end of 1923 of the year 1923 a total of $161,550.
The loss from taxation suffered by the town of Kapuskasing, based on an assessment of $20,000 since 1921, the inception of the town, would at an average tax rate of 42 mills amount to $840 annually or a total since 1921 of $2,520.
The loss from taxation suffered by the public school section No. 2, Clute and Calder, at

The Address-Mr. Bradette
Hmita, based on an assessment of 83,000 would at an average rate of 22 mills amount to $66 annually or a total since 1921 of $198.
All of which is most respectfully submitted.
We sent several delegates to interview the government of the day, and although we were all given a warm welcome and a sympathetic reception, no headway was made in the direction of the desired legislation. I have here several letters that 1 have received either from members of the government or from one or other of the two political parties dealing with this matter.
Here is a letter signed by Senator G. D. Robertson, and written under date of February 14, 1923:
Dear Sir:	.
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th inst. together with printed circular enclosed referring to the desirability of the Canadian National Railways being assessed for municipal and school purposes.
At Cochrane and other points along the Transcontinental where the railway property represents a large portion of the improved property in the municipality, I readily appreciate the propriety of the railway bearing some of the cost of municipal taxation, especially for schools, as most of the children attending such schools are children of employees of the railway company and such employees ought not to be taxed for school purposes more heavily than are similar employees in other municipalities where the proportion of taxation is more widely distributed. This question was discussed some two years ago by the late government, being brought to its attention by the undersigned after my return from Winnipeg in August 1920 via the Transcontinental railway, when this question was brought to my attention, but it was not deemed advisable to take action at that time, or until the whole of the government-owned lines were merged into one system. Now that this is being done and the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern portions of the Canadian National system do pay taxes, there would seem to be no good reason why some reasonable rate of taxation should not also be imposed upon the portions of the national system formerly known as the Canadian Government Railways.
I shall be glad to lend such aid as I may be able to bring some relief to your municipality, and others similarly situated, but feel that the movement should be initiated in the House of Commons, as the jurisdiction of the Senate, of which I am a member, respecting the introduction of money bills might be questioned.
This is a letter dated February 23, 1923, from Mr. William Irvine, M.P.:
I have received your communication, alsc resolution passed by the municipality of Cochrane, regarding the taxation of Canadian railway property -within the boundaries of your municipality. I certainly am in favour of the taxation which you demand, and if the matter is brought before parliament, it will certainly receive my support.
I have on file at least a hundred letters from ministers, premiers of the day and
members of parliament, and although many of these letters were absolutely non-committal, some of them were sympathetic. From these letters I gathered the impression that this matter was going to be brought before the house. I had the good fortune on one occasion of listening to the late Hon. Frank Cochrane, then representing a portion of the riding which I have the honour to represent to-day. He was at that time Minister of Railways and, speaking at Cochrane, my home town, he said that government railway property should be taxable; that it was an injustice, especially in connection with that section of the Transcontinental, that it should not be taxed. Do hon. members realize that to-day, as has been stated in those petitions, the Canadian National railway system is actually paying taxes on most sections of the road, and that in 1925, if I am correct, special grants were given to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to the amount of $230,000 a year, as compassionate grants in lieu of taxes? As I said at the outset, we do not want straight taxation, but I believe we are entitled to a compassionate grant.
In the same year, 1925, an amount of $75,000 was offered to the province of Ontario, but for some reason, unknown to us and known only to Premier Ferguson, that offer was turned down. As I said at the beginning I believe the taxation on the whole system from Cochrane to Winnipeg will amount to $100,000, and I do not see why the Premier of Ontario refused that grant, which was and still is absolutely necessary. If the government is willing and ready to-day to extend that grant, it should be distributed through the provincial government or the railway municipal board to the municipalities. I remember on one occasion when a delegation was waiting upon the Hon. Mr. Ferguson, asking him for taxation on. the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, which is a provincially owned railway, the answer he gave us was in this sense:	The moment we
receive taxation from the Canadian National, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario and the provincial government will do their share. In my home town the total assessment of those railways is at least a million dollars, so that if we were to receive a compassionate grant it should amount to at least $10,000 a year. I know the Canadian Pacific has a special department, with officials visiting all sections on which they are paying taxes. As hon. members are aware they are paying taxes on practically their whole
The Address-Mr. Bradette

system, but we would be satisfied with a compassionate grant instead of a straight assessment. Perhaps many people are not aware of certain facts. This is a clipping from the Northland Post, a Northern Ontario newspaper:
An enquiry from Ottawa regarding the conditions of British government property in London brings the information that the Imperial government pays practically on government property in London the local tax rates. The thing is done in the frequent British way of meeting a troublesome situation by doing what ought to be done, but specifying that no legal obligation is admitted. The Imperial government declines to acknowledge any liability for taxes but appoints an officer to report what is fair. The officer reports that it would be fair for the government to pay a certin amount to the local authorities -and it turns out that this certan amount is equal to what would be the taxes if the property were taxed.
As I say, we would be quite satisfied in Northern Ontario to receive such a grant. We do not want a straight assessment. Perhaps in the discussion some legal point might be brought up which it would be hard for us to overcome. After approaching the Canadian National Railways on many occasions we wrote a letter to their attorney and this is the reply, dated May 14, 1923:
I have your letter of the 9th inst. You ask whether the act incorporating the Canadian National Railway Company gives the directors wide powers in respect of taxation. In reply I beg to advise that it does not. The only powers that are given to us in respect of the Canadian Government Railways, under the entrusting order in council, are to manage and operate the property, that is, we practically have the powers of a general manager. Now the exemption from taxation relating to crown property held by his majesty in the right of the Dominion is found, as you know, in the British North America Act. As general manager we have no authority to disregard the terms of the British North America Act. It would be just as reasonable, or even more reasonable, to expect the Postmaster General to pay taxes on post office property and to waive the crown right for exemption as it would be for us to attempt to do so in respect of crown railway property in the town of Cochrane.
It seems to me that the only remedy can be by act of parliament, or by some act of the Dominion government directing us, notwithstanding the exemption, to pay taxes. This direction could not be limited to the town of Cochrane, it would have to extend equally to every municipality through which the government railways run, or wherever they own property, and the question therefore is a very large one. Furthermore, if the crown in respect of railway properties pays taxes, the same condition, though with less force, could be made by any other municipality where Dominion property is situated, in respect of post offices, military property, canal property,

immigration property, and all other property held on behalf of the crown. You cannot, it seems to me, admit liability in one case and deny it in another. You would have to treat all municipalities fairly and on an equal basis.
It can readily be admitted that the town of Cochrane is situated disadvantageous^ in respect of its taxable area, since a great deal of property is held for railway purposes either by Dominion railways or provincial railways. Both are equally exempt under the same act. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the town owes its very existence to the two railways in question.
If the matter came before our directors I would be obliged to advise them, from a legal point of view, that they had no power in themselves to waive the exemption provided by the British North America Act, as the question is purely one for the Dominion and provincial governments to consider and to remedy as they see fit. The only feasible remedy that I can see would be by a special appropriation made by parliament to the town in lieu of taxes, but whether the government or parliament would be content to recommend or pass such an appropriation is very questionable, in view of the discrimination they would thereby be making in favour of your municipality as against all others.
Those are some of the objections against such taxation. On one occasion I met Mr. Ruel personally and he made the same argument, that the British North America Act should be amended so that the government railways could pay taxes. Everyone is aware, without being a legal light, that when the British North America Act was drafted in 1867 there was no thought that the government would go into the railway business; that railways would be under public ownership. It was well known that the Canadian Pacific was under construction and no one dreamed that the government of the day or any future government would go into the railway busniess. But I believe in view of the manner in which the Canadian National Railways are being administered the system if not legally, at least is morally bound to pay taxes.
At the time of the amalgamation of the railway systems now forming the Canadian National Railways the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, during the discussion in committee of the bill to effect the amalgamation, said, as reported in Hansard at page 1697:
It makes the new corporation liable at law and vests in the new corporation the rights at law of a corporation rather than putting it in the position of the crown. . . It can act as a corporation not subject to the restrictions or to the enjoyment of the privileges of the crown.
And again at page 1698 we find him saying:
Upon amalgamation the company will own the direct physical assets.

The Address-Mr. Bradette
Further at page 1703 we find him proceeding:
Does not this bill mean that we are attempting to set up a system of corporate management divorced from direct government interference or control of this great railway system-corporate as distinguished from departmental management? ... It seems to me to be a very real company. We want to make it a real company, but it will be a very unreal company if one-half is to be departmental and the other half corporate. I do think that while it is true that this is in reality a government enterprise, it is equally true that we are trying to operate it as a business concern under corporate management.
To live up to the spirit of these words, as the system to-day is being administered absolutely independent of the government-for I believe every member on both sides of the house will recognize that politics do not enter into the management-the whole system should be liable to taxation.
At page 1690 of Hansard I find the following pertinent statements of Sir Thomas White, at the time Minister of Finance and acting leader of the house:
This railway company of which the government is the virtual proprietor, notwithstanding the corporate form in which its assets are held, is not a department of the government in the same sense that the Railway or Customs or Inland Revenue is a department of the government.
That is a complete answer to the letter of Mr. Ruel, the counsel of the system regarding the ownership of the Canadian National Railways. Sir Thomas continued:
As I pointed out last evening when I spoke upon this matter, there are two ways in which the Dominion government could administer this great railway system which has now come into our hands and such other systems as may be acquired in the future. One way would be to attempt to administer them as the Intercolonial railway was administered, by the Railway department of the government, which, as the committee knows, is under the direct control of the Minister of Railways. The other way, both for practicability of administration and for divesting the government as far as possible of control in order that no question of political patronage may enter, is to administer them through the medium of a joint stock company or companies. Take the situation as it exists to-day. The various departments of the government, including the Railway department in respect of the Canadian Government Railway, make their estimates, and all expenditures are audited by the Auditor General, as my hon. friend has indicated. But in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, whose stock is held by the government-just as the stock of this company which we are now creating will be held for the government -the administration being under a corporation is carried out as corporations carry out their enterprises. The corporation, as such, receives all revenue, and all expenditures are made under the authority of the board of directors.
It will be seen that it was said by tne government of the day that the Canadian National railway system was going to be run as a private corporation absolutely independent of the government. From that a layman would gather that the corporation would be liable to taxation just like any other private corporation. Another thing: to-day the Canadian National railway system is paying taxation to the tune of millions of dollars. Apparently what is meat in one case is fish in another, and northern Ontario seems to foe out of luck because of the fact that at the time of the construction of the National Transcontinental line the Grand Trunk Pacific did not want to undertake work of construction from Quebec to Winnipeg and through some unforeseen development the line was not taken over by that company. But I see no reason why we should be penalized on that account. It is absolutely unfair, and, I repeat, that morally, if not legally, the section of the population affected should be given compensation by way of taxation.
In the course of the evidence given by Mr. A. J. Mitchell, vice-president in charge of finance of the Canadian National Railways, when he appeared before the parliamentary committee on national railways and shipping, he stated that municipal and provincial taxes and taxes on lands in 1920 on the national lines amounted to $1,371,853.41. But northern Ontario did not get a cent of that money, other sections of the country benefited, and even the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, although they may not be getting direct taxation, are taxing the revenue of the system. Here is another typical case which I quote:
A report from Toronto states that the Canadian National Railways lost the appeal in the divisional court respecting the business assessment on the Toronto suburban ticket office, executive offices and express sheds. The court of revision held that the assessments were not validly made. Judge Denton restored the assessment, and the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board affirmed his order. Now the appellate court sustains the board's ruling.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, I have made this appeal as strongly as I know how, but I fear through lack of experience I have not made it nearly as convincing as I should like it to be.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon. gentleman is exceeding his time.
On motion of Mr. Sanderson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
184	COMMONS
Peace River-Settlers' Railway Rates
Monday, February 6, 1928