1928-02-07

RAILWAY BELT WATER ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Railway Belt Water Act.
He said: This is the same bill that was passed by the Senate last year. In the dying days of the session it came before this house but, on behalf of some of the members from British Columbia who did not happen to be present at the time, the leader of the opposition of the day took exception to its being proceeded with, urging that the absent members wished to discuss it. The proposed bill seeks to amend two sections of the act ol 1927, making it easier for the commissioner of water in British Columbia to administer the Waiter Act in the railway belt. A full explanation is contained in the marginal notes of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act.
fMr. LaflMmmp.]
He said: The object of the bill is to change the name of the Gold and Silver Marking Act to the Precious Metals Marking Act so as to include platinum, which recently has come into general use in the jewellery trade. It is also proposed to give the governor in council authority to make regulations covering the quantity and quality of material that may be used in what are termed plated articles.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership) .
He said: The object of the amendment is to provide for a uniform law, as in the United States, England and Australia, requiring sworn semi-annual statements from all newspapers, magazines, trade journals and other periodicals which contain articles designed to influence public opinion, giving the names and addresses of editors, owners and stockholders. There is a proviso that this act shall not apply to religious, fraternal, temperance, scientific or other such publications. The names of small stockholders are not required to be given.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a
question the answer to which. I have no doubt will be of interest to many people in Canada. It is this:	Has this government, by direct
request or by correspondence, conversation or negotiation with the government of Mexico or with any representative of that government, intimated its desire that the consul general for Mexico in Toronto, Senor Medina Barron, shall be recalled?


Mr. SPEAKER:: In view of the importance of the question I think the hon. gentleman should give notice.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I agree entirely with you, Mr. Speaker.


John Wesley Edwards: No doubt.

The Address-Mr. Cantley



UNEMPLOYMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA COLLIERY DISTRICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: A few days ago the hon.
member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) referred to certain information he had obtained in regard to the use of American coal for bunker purposes on Canadian vessels. I promised to make inquiry into the matter and I am now in a position to state that the information submitted is absolutely incorrect. The policy of the department has always been to use Canadian coal for bunker purposes on Canadian vessels, and this policy has been followed more particularly in connection with the steamships Lady Laurier and Arleux, to which reference was made in the despatch in the newspaper and in the telegram read by my hon. friend. These two vessels have been using Canadian coa! for bunker purposes and were so doing at or about the date indicated in the telegram and in the reference contained in the newspaper.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: Will
the minister have the matter thoroughly investigated, in a formal manner-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Am I not
permitted to ask a question?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, but not to argue
the matter. I understand that the minister has answered a question asked by the hon. member the other day, and no argument may ensue.


Robert Knowlton Smith: But am I not at liberty to ask another question?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, another question.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That is what
I am doing. Will the minister have the matter thoroughly investigated in a formal manner, rather than submit a statement of the circumstances, by wire exchanged between him and his officials. I feel sure it would be much more satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia if such a formal investigation were held.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 

ADDRESS JN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mir. Isley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, it is so seldom that I find myself in a position to return thanks to this government that I take the first opportunity this session to thank them for the compliment done my native province in selecting one of the younger members from Nova Scotia to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) spoke fluently and with considerable self-assurance, not even hesitating to cast some reflections upon the premier of the adjoining province of New Brunswick for certain statements made by him with which the hon. member told the house the great bulk of the people of Nova Scotia were not in accord.
I think the statements made by the premier of New Brunswick on the occasion referred to met with the cordial support of the great bulk of the intelligence of Nova Scotia.
Again, the hon. gentleman in referring to the outcome of the Liberal-Conservative convention at Winnipeg last November stated when referring to the resolutions passed at the convention:
This I cannot help thinking is an indication that even the opposition is coming around, getting into line, and that henceforth it will be more constructive, more truly national in its efforts and activities.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a striking example of the ignorance and arrogance of youth. More constructive, more truly national indeed! May I ask him which party and what party leaders brought about confederation? Which party in 1869 bought the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company and opened up and largely peopled the great lone spaces of the northwest? Which party built the Intercolonial railway? Which party in 1870 brought the province of Manitoba into the Dominion? Which party built the Canadian Pacific railway? Which party conceived and executed the Grand Trunk Pacific railway scheme?- and when it failed and threatened to bankrupt the national credit, opposed taking over the road and its incorporation in a national system of railways?

a system of which our friends opposite are now so proud? Which party advocated unrestricted reciprocity? Which party advocated continental free trade? Who played the "Linger Longer Lou" comedy in Washington? What was the Liberal election cry of 1911? Which was the more constructive, more truly national? Canadian history will say that beyond all question the Liberal-Conservative party was always the most constructive, the most truly national of any party in Canada. May I advise the hon. member


Mr. ILSLEY:: To what year did my hon. friend refer?


Thomas Cantley: The year 1921 as against 1925. If I took the yearn of the war, from 1914 to 1918, the figures would be much
greater.	' .
Regarding the Duncan report, it will be noticed that the continuance of the money grant made last session is recommended. May I point out that so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, the grant which the Duncan repoit recommended should be paid forthwith was not paid during the session, or indeed until some months later. Then only one-quarter of the sum recommended was forthcoming. The sum of $133,000, representing the amount in dispute between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, then the subject of proceedings before the courts, was deducted in a most unfair and highhanded manner. Afay I say that I consider this action on the part of the government hasty, miserly ill-considered and decidedly highhanded.
I am always glad to be able to congratulate my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I can congratulate him now on the prompt, and I believe wise, decision at which he arrived in connection with the terminus of the Hudson Hay Railway. Nelson as the terminus of that railway was impossible. Of that w'e had ample evidence. On the other hand Churchill, so far as I am able to judge from the information available, is a much better port. I wish to say that if we in Nova Scotia have silently acquiesced in the Hudson Bay railway scheme it was by way of a concession to what we know to be the cleaily expressed views and wishes of the people of the west who believe that, that project is practicable. Many of us in Nova Scotia do not so believe, but. we are loath to thwart the hopes and aspirations of the people in the west, and prefer that even larger amounts of money should be spent rather than that
discontent on that score should be created in those western provinces. I should like our friends in the west to remember that when considering the causes of unrest and dissatisfaction in the maritime provinces.
As to immigration the Prime Minister a few days ago warmly defended the deputy minister of the department concerned. Nobody on this side of the house, so far as I can recall, made any complaint with respect to that official. Speaking here last year, or possibly the year before, I expressed my views quite clearly in regard to the capacity and character of the Deputy Minister of Immigration and they were not derogatory. The man primarily responsible to parliament for any shortcomings in connection with immigration is not the deputy, it is the minister, and perhaps the less I say in expressing my estimate of his capacity the more charitable I shall be. The best immigration policy this country could have, and we certainly need more people in Canada to support the burden of taxation due to the war expenditure and our overdeveloped railway systems, is not the expenditure of a larger amount of money on immigration-although probably that is desirable if such expenditure is wisely made and planned-but a sound fiscal system such as will provide work for our own people, and permit of the manufacture of our raw materials within the confines of Canada, as against the policy of sending out hundreds of millions of dollars for raw materials which we ourselves could supply. If we adopted such a policy as that, we could repeat in this country the successful results which have been witnessed among our neighbours to the south. Consider, Mr. Speaker, the humiliating position we witnessed last year when our new envoy to Washington went down on his knees and begged the United States government to allow some four thousand Canadians to cross the international boundary line each morning and earn their daily bread. Why should we be in that humiliating position? Why not provide work within our own country for our own people? We have been told on most excellent authority that $1,300,000,000 of the savings of the people are lying in the banks of Canada practically unused. We have in Canada more than sufficient capital to provide the facilities or the machinery to employ not only all the labour that we have here to-day but an immigration from Europe as
The Address-Mr: Cantley

great as that which we had in 1913 when it was at its peak. Why do we not make use of this money?
As regards the Saint John and Halifax harbour commissions, all I wish to say at this time is that, as established, they in no way meet the intentions as expressed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and his fellow-commissioners who reported to the government in that connection.
We welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne as to the intentions of the government in regard to industrial Und scientific research. I only hope that the facilities provided' will be ample; that they will be under one competent head and that, in addition, adequate buildings, adequate accessories in the way of scientific instruments and that sort of thing will be provided, so that we dhall have in this country an institution of scientific and industrial research commensurate with our position in the world to-day.
I wish to refer for a few moments to one of the follies of the government as illustrated in Bill No. 233 of last year, to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada. Most of us will remember that this bill was submitted to and passed by the house last year. Let me ask the government: What progress has been made in that connection? What real encouragement does it give to the establishment of a coking industry in Canada? We on this side pointed out last year the entire inadequacy of the legislation to bring about the condition which its sponsors said would be effected. I repeat that what is needed in that connection is not such legislation as is provided by Bill No. 233, but an adequate duty on coke and on all forms of coal. If we are given that, no bounty will be desired or required and none ought to be paid.
Let us consider the situation for a moment. We have to-day in Cape Breton great numbers of miners who are idle due to the fact that, following the close of navigation on the St. Lawrence river, our maritime coal cannot reach the consuming centres of Quebec and eastern Ontario, no adequate provision having been made to reach those markets by rail after the season of closed navigation. What we need to meet that yearly recurring difficulty is that a rate should be given which will permit Nova Scotia coal io be carried to the eastern townships, Montreal and nearer Ontario points by rail during the winter months. Were we, given a rate of one-third of a cent a ton per

mile-and I particularly call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) to this,-a rate equivalent to that asked by our friends from Alberta, who ought to get and who I hope will get what they ask for, we would be able to bring up to the eastern townships, Montreal and the nearer points in Ontario, Ottawa and perhaps as far as Cornwall, sufficient coal to maintain our miners during the winter months with not full work, but with four or five days' work a week, which would be a godsend to them. This coal question will never be settled until some scheme is devised whereby we can move coal by rail during the winter months.
A few years ago we brought up some 260,000 or 280,000 tons of coal through Portland, but that was at a time when freight rates were less than one-half what they are to-day, when the cost of hauling in other directions was less. An attempt was made the year before last to do the same thing, with the result that the cost of shipment in the way I have indicated ran up to figures that made the business impossible. There is no use in our endeavouring to put the question to one side because it will not down. Any government responsible for carrying on the affairs of the country must face the situation and deal with it, and I trust the Minister of Railways will take the matter into consideration and make some effort to deal with it effectively. The Canadian National Railways sends down to the seaboard of the eastern provinces large numbers of cars loaded with material to be exported from this country, and a very considerable proportion of these cars are returning empty. What we ask for is that such rates will be given as will employ those returned empties in moving eastern coal to the eastern townships, Montreal and eastern Ontario. Last year we paid foreigners to mine for us 18,000,000 tons of coal, a quantity greater by more than 2,000,000 tons than all the coal mined in the Dominion of Canada during the same period. Why did we do that? To ask the question is practically to answer it, because every man of intelligence in this house knows why we did it. We gave to another set of foreigners orders for $226,000,000 worth of iron and steel. We had Mr. Massey begging at Washington that 4.000 of our people should be allowed to go over there to obtain a livelihood. A sane policy would give them three meals a day at home and would bring back a million of our people who have migrated to the other side. Why did they have to go over

The Address-Mr. Cantley
there? Simply because most of us at home were fools.
Referring again to the question of winter coal, we landed at Montreal this past, season 1.634 tons of English coke, nearly 5,000 tons of German coke and 13,000 tons of so-called Dutch anthracite. In all we landed at Montreal during the past season nearly 700,000 tons of European fuel. If our miners in Nova Scotia and Alberta had had ordiers for that quantity of coal to be mined during the winter, wre would have less difficulty, less unrest and less suffering, than we have there to-day.
I would like the house to consider for a moment our situation in regard to iron and steel and the recovery made by Germany since the war.


Mr. DUNNING:: Perhaps my hon. friend
would permit me a question. As he knows, it is not intended to embarrass him because he knows the keen interest I take in this question of coal. I cannot quite understand the application of his last remarks with reference to coal imported into Montreal, presumably during the open season. Could not Nova Scotia coal have competed there, having a shorter water haul in the summer than the water haul from Europe? What is the deduction my hon. friend draws from that fact he cited?


Thomas Cantley: I quite understand the
question, and I think I can give the minister a satisfactory answer. We in Nova Scotia, in Cape Breton particularly, mine during the summer months all the coal that we can mine with the number of men and the equipment that we have. But it is a seasonal business. We nre busy for possibly seven months out of the year, and for four months we have no outlet. Now if that seven hundred thousand tons of coal had not come in, and the government would move in the way I suggested, we in Nova Scotia could have supplied that amount of coal. Is that a sufficient answer?


Charles Avery Dunning: But the people who
bought that coal bought it in the summer time. It came in by water. Why could they not have bought Nova Scotia coal?


Thomas Cantley: We produce all we can during the summer but are idle in the winter time; that is the answer. If I had five minutes' conversation with the minister, his intelligence is so great that I am sure I could convince him.
I was going on to refer to the recovery of the German steel industry after the war. 1 think it will be within the knowledge of most members of the house that, due to the Versailles treaty, Germany lost about forty-three per cent of her producing capacity in iron and steel. Notwithstanding that setback, Germany is rapidly regaining her position as a steel producer. Basing an estimate on the rate of progress towards the full recovery of her productive capacity, as shown by the figures for 1927, leaving aside the output for preceding years-there is every reason to believe that her production in 1928 will be considerably greater than it was in 1913 or in any other pre-war year in the history of the German empire. I would like the government to compare our stagnation, indeed retrogression, in Canada with the prosperity of the German empire so far as iron and steel is concerned, or even with that of Great Britain, or with that of the United States, although the latter country is not producing as much steel this year as they did two years ago. It would appear to me that the government seldom make a tariff change without hitting the Nova Scotia steel industry, as instance the drawbacks on agricultural implement steel, and later on the changes made in the tariff in favour of the automobile manufacturers. The policy of the government seems to be one of less and less protection for the basic industry which of all industries in this country has been sacrificed in favour of secondary industries.
I would now like to call the attention of the house to the matter of maritime unrest, and ask them to consider the case of Amherst, where in 1921 the Liberal candidate made his declaration as to coal duties and coal transport, and then visit the towns of Trenton and New Glasgow in Pictou county, where, during the same election campaign, the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, in the course of addresses in New Glasgow, Trenton and Stellarton, stated that the duty on coal was a fake duty and pledged himself, if returned to power, to put on a real duty of $1.50 per ton on coal, and also to give real protection to the steel industry. Then view Sidney Mines, where Mr. Kelly, during the same election contest, made promises of a similar character. Indeed, practically every supporter of the Liberal government in the province of Nova Scotia referred in much the same terms to the same subject, with the result that "a solid sixteen" supporters of the present government were returned to the house, with the subsequent result that while here they were as dumb as oysters in regard to the needs of their native province.
Within the last few days, if indeed they are not here to-day, a delegation from the town of Dartmouth, in the province of Nova
The Address-Mr. Cantley

Scotia, has been, pleading with the finance minister to save an industry in their town which has been established for well nigh a century, an industry which was in vigorous growth long before confederation, and which to-day, under a greatly reduced scale of tariff, is employing one hundred and sixty hands, representing a community of from six hundred to eight hundred persons, all of whom are entirely dependent on this industry, and will be thrown out of employment in the midst of the rigorous winter unless the finance minister comes to their assistance and extends to that industry the protection they ask. If he fails to do so, Dartmouth will be added to the tragedy of Amherst, New Glasgow, Trenton and Sydney Mines. I appeal to him to save the establishment, for he alone caD do it, and no attempt to pass the responsibility to the maritime members, as was last week attempted, will avail those threatened with the loss of their livelihood and homes.
Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Finance that to bring into this country enormous quantities of coal and coke, quantities greater in the aggregate than we ourselves produce, and this while our miners both in Alberta and Nova Scotia are out of employment, is a matter of vital importance, and is viewed with alarm and grave discontent.
Speaking in this chamber on March 18th last, the first minister intimated that his government hoped that by accepting as they had the recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims, virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country would recognize a wish to remove that question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife. Referring to this matter from my place here on April 12th last, I ventured to point out to the house that in effect but a small proportion of the recommendations of that commission, had the proposals of the government at that time really implemented. The situation differs now in no important respect from the position at that date, and, Mr. Speaker, I now again appeal to the first minister at once to carry into full and complete effect all the recommendations of the Duncan commission, and that in no niggardly way. If he do so, he and his government. will do much to relieve a difficult situation in the maritimes and will bring to him the thanks of a million and a half of people who, as regards energy and achievement, have no superiors in this broad dominion.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the feeling in my native province has been well voiced by the four lines of Claude McKay's White Houses:

Your door is set against my tightened face, And I am sharp as steel with discontent,
But I possess the courage and the grace To bear my anger proudly and unbent.
The Prime Minister, if he would take counsel with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Railways, and some others of his cabinet, could completely change the situation, and thereby earn the gratitude of the maritimes. I appeal to him to do so.
I wish to thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the careful attention which it has been good enough to accord to me.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I hope the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), for whom I have a great deal of respect, will not charge me with any discourtesy if I do not follow him in his speech, first because most of it was devoted to a question upon which he is an authority, and secondly because it is a question of a local nature which I expect will be treated by other members cf the house who are equally familiar with it.
With regard to the mover and seconder of the address, I have already told them privately that I would spare them the dose of soapy tepid1 water which they have received every forty minutes since the opening of this debate, reserving to myself the right to express privately my admiration for the manner in which they have accomplished their duty.
With regard to the speech itself, my good friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) has, in a somewhat critical or ironical vein, staged that he was looking for the day when, perhaps, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Labelle, (Mr. Bourassa), would move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Well, with due respect to the throne, to the speech, to those who prepared it, and to the house, may I say, sir, that if the member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself ever have anything to do with the speech from the throne, it may be a little more crazy than the present speech but somewhat less stupid. I mean to say that it is a tradition of parliament that the speech from the throne should contain as few ideas and thoughts as possible, and as many words as may cover a certain number of pages of Hansard. In this respect the speech of this year is a modele du genre. In fact, in my somewhat radical way of looking at things, it would be more practical to do away with the old custom of bringing in a so-called speech- which is not a speech-in the name of the crown, although the crown has nothing to do with it-talking about the times and the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
weather and so forth, which we all know about by going out or remaining in. and about the great crops, some of which we know about and some of which we do not know about, according to the part of the country in which we live. In a so-called democratic country, supposed to be governed in a businesslike fashion, it would be simpler and more to the point if the government would bring down a ministerial program saying, "During this session we intend to propose such and such matters." The opposition might have a counter program, or if they saw fit to act on the lines designed by the able leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), they might decide not to prescribe until they were called on.. But I suppose if any government attempted to do away with the old-time custom some of the members of this house who are attached, and especially those w'ho pretend to be very much attached, to British precedent would have to cry out against revolution, because, as far as my limited knowledge of the history of parliament goes, the only practical and effective speech from the throne I have known of in the last three centuries is the one which Cromwell delivered when, pointing to the mace, he said, "What shall we do with this bauble? take it away." We have not reached that point of the English precedent yet.
With regard to the prosperity of the country, of course there i3 prosperity. You and I, Mr. Speaker, might remember that when we came here as young, unsophisticated youths we heard a speech from the throne; and it was then stated by the government of the day that the good times were to be attributed to the policy of the government, and that statement was contradicted by the members of the opposition. I think it was customary in past centuries, and it has been customary ever since. In the time of Louis Philippe in France, when Marshal Boult was head of the government, the French press stated that he had lost the battle of Toulouse, but when he was out of power they claimed he had won the battle of Toulouse-always the same battle.
There are indications of prosperity in the country. I think some of the elements of prosperity are>
due to the policy of this government. Some may be dated back to the policy that was in force when the hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. But I think the share of the government, of any government, in the growth of the country is not such that either party should boast about it from day to day, and week to week, at every session of parliament. In my mind,
ignorant as I am on most questions, but having given some little thought to this issue, we consider too much the outside results of economic activity and do not look enough to the basic laws of economics. We should endeavour more than we do to generalize and harmonize as much as possible the elements of prosperity, from year to year, as between the various parts of the country and the various classes of people contributing to that prosperity.
I have heard with interest the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the leader of the opposition. May I take advantage of my older age to praise both of them for the general tone of those speeches? I agree with a good deal of what both have said, and perhaps a little more with what was said by the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Gardiner). I will give one instance for example. The leader of the opposition insisted very strongly on the importance of increasing immigration into the country in order to enhance and support that prosperity. The. leader of the government replied by insisting on the importance of importing capital as well as population in order to maintain that prosperity in a proper balance. But I think the leader of the progressive group went to the root of the question when he said that most of us had a wrong view of the nature and importance of the role played by capital, or what capital is. Capital is not money,, as a matter of fact. The proportion which gold and silver, or even bank and state bills representing money, count in what is called capital in the world to-day is but a drop in a sea of water. Unfortunately, what is called capital, what is supported as such by legislation in most countries, and too often by a venal press, is not capital really representing the accumulation of real wealth, or the accumulation of productive labour, but fictitious capital represented by paper, which enlarges the so-called capitalization of industry and financial institutions, and calls upon the masses, the consumers and the ratepayers to bonify that capital. It is useless to talk about permanency of prosperity, about the real prosperity of this country, till this parliament and all the parties composing it have sufficient humility to understand that very few of us are capable enough, as parliamentarians, to deal with that tremendous problem, and that we should take time to borrow what enlightenment may be given to us by men most versed in problems of economic and social adjustment, in order to make a review, not only of the budget, not only of this or that source of public revenue, not only of this or that part
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

of our economic system, but a whole and comprehensive review of the complete economic fabric of this country.
Canada, situated as it is beside that tremendous country to the south of us, and connected with Great Britain, who in spite of all remains the centre of finance and trade in the world, can borrow from these countries true elements of prosperity and at the same time avoid the traps into which they have frequently fallen. The so-called prosperity which reigns, either in England or in the United States, produces these two evils- pauperism and extreme capitalism; and I claim that pauperism generally and extreme capitalism-capitalism too highly protected by the state-are the two evils which are threatening the economic balance of this country, as well as undermining social justice and the moral and physical happiness of the people. I shall not dwell further on this point, which may be dicusssed at greater length in connection with the budget.
With regard to taxation, I merely state now, what I have said in previous sessions:	I
will not allow to go unchallenged the argument so frequently advanced, that the province of Quebec is bound to a policy of high protection. I have said time and again, and I repeat it now, that every occasion on which the tariff issue has been before the people of Quebec, the vast majority of them have voted either for reform, or for reciprocity, or for some other form of reduction in protection. I do not want our western friends to remain under the impression that the mass of the good people of Quebec are led blindly by the nose by a handful of capitalists in Montreal.
As respects immigration, I submit respectfully to those gentlemen in this house who have discussed this phase of our national problems, that in my humble judgment they are taking but a very partial view of the situation. Immigration is but one of the factors of the dominant problem facing our people to-day. The thing of importance is what I would call the population difficulty. Everyone agrees that we have a territory vast enough to maintain millions upon millions of people, although regarding the manner in which we should set about increasing our population opinions vary. The most thoughtful men and women of my native province, to whatever party they may belong, hold the antiquated view that the best way of solving the population problem, is the one which was devised by the Creator of mankind in the beginning:	I mean the cradle
policy, if I may say so. There I am skating

on pretty thin ice, when we see the leaders of both the great parties who have done so little to help in the solution of the problem. I do not know about the other leader; if he is in the same case the matter is worse still. It is time to cry, " Go forward." The second point I wish to make in this regard-and it is an important factor in our population problem-is the advisability, not so much of bringing more people in from outside, but of keeping at home our own people. I claim that it is the duty of the government, of the opposition, of all parties, the duty of all right-thinking Canadians, to see to it that economic and social conditions in Canada shall be such that Canadian-born citizens, or those who are Canadians by adoption, of whatever race or of whatever creed, who are living to-day in Canada and struggling to make the best of their situation, shall be given a fair chance to carry on. Whether these people live in the east or in the west, whether they make their homes in the city or labour on farms, we should see to it that economic conditions are such as to promote their welfare in some reasonable degree. Under a proper regime of social and economic justice in Canada there should be room for all wellthinking and right-acting citizens, but no room for sharks, beggars and exploiters.
The third factor to be considered in relation to this problem is one which I suggested many years ago in the old house and which I repeat now. It is this, that instead of offering such abnormal inducements to foreign immigrants, whether they come from the British Isles or from continental Europe, we should offer advantages, at. least equal if not superior to those extended to outsiders, to the farmers of Quebec and Ontario as well as of the maritime provinces, who have a taste for the west and are desirous of settling in that part of our dominion where they feel that there is likelihood of their prospering. Many years ago, I once applied to the Department of the Interior for transportation facilities for a good sturdy farmer of my own constituency who desired to go west with his wife and five children; and to my amazement I discovered that it would have cost him five times more to go west than it would an immigrant from Liverpool or Manchester to come from England across the ocean and take up residence in Manitoba. It would cost, I say, five times the sum required in the case of such an outsider to take a Canadian from the province of Quebec to western Canada, where he could assist in developing our western territories. There is no reason why thousands of our own farmers who cross the border into the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
United States, simply because our cities are over-populated and our farms are unsuitable for one reason or another, either because they are too small or because conditions are not just right, should not be enabled to move to western Canada and take up suitable land there. They will not take up bush lands, but they would go west if the conditions were favourable.
Now I come to my fourth point. Before going to Europe tq look for immigrants, why not let us endeavour to bring back to this country Canadians-I mean, those willing to come back-who have had to settle abroad? They are not numerous, there is no use in deluding ourselves in that regard, but such of our fellow citizens as have gone away either from Quebec or Ontario, from Manitoba or the maritime provinces, who are willing to come back should be offered the best chances. The old maritime provinces have been bled for the last fifty years of some of their best blood. I have visited probably fifty towns in New England in the last half century or so, and have discussed the matter with various American citizens, formerly Canadians; and I have most invariably found that they had been obliged to emigrate from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, merely because no inducement had been offered them to go to western Canada. In parliament, of course, the advice had been very heartily given-go west! But when these people wanted to go west-no. The tramp in England, the revolutionary in France, or the socialist in Germany, these were all offered more attractive advantages than were held out to the natives of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, to go to Manitoba or Alberta and become Canadian citizens. I repeat, we should make a serious effort to bring back some of our Canadians, especially those who have not been out of the country for too long a time. Most of these people went to the United States under distressing circumstances. By birth, by habit, by tradition, by instinct, they are fit for a living in America generally. It ought therefore not to be a difficult matter to induce them to come back and settle in this country, if reasonable advantages were put in their way.
So far as British immigration is concerned, this seems to be a sore point with the leader of the opposition. However, I am going to speak my mind on this question, just as I will do on everything else, here and elsewhere. From a purely individual point of view-and we have of that many instances
in this very house-we can get from the British Isles some of the best samples of manhood; and as far as I am concerned they will always be welcome to this country. But it is equally true that owing to the social and economic conditions which have been prevailing in the British Isles for years past, due to the fact that no government there has yet dared to offer to the millions of free citizens of England and Scotland the opportunity to possess an inch of their native land, the land for which their forefathers have laboured and bled for centuries, but which remains in the possession of His Grace the Duke of Westminster, or His Grace the Duke of Sutherland, to such an extent that at the present time there is more grazing and hunting land upon which the masses of England cannot settle than there is vacant land in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the hands of the grabbing railway companies and other speculators,-I say that due to that condition of affairs in the British Isles, you have now millions of people in the cities of England and Scotland who have been disconnected from the soil for generations. It is against their instinct, it is against their aspirations, it is against their very temperament to become again tillers of the soil. They talk about socialism and- radicalism and communism in England; these are the outgrowth of the selfishness of the possessing classes. But I do not think that heretofore the efforts of all good Canadians, whether English or Scottish, or Irish, or French, or of any other blood, should toe directed to making Canada an easy cure for the social evils of England and a safety valve for the selfishness of the possessing classes of that great country. From a social point of view, therefore, let us beware before we open our doors to anyone who may come from England with a heart full of hatred against all British institutions, with a heart full of rancour against every thing connected with the British system of government. Of course, if you wish to hasten the day of secession, if you want to precipitate Canada into a crisis with Great Britain, bring as many as you can of that kind of people to this country.


Mir. CLARK:: What did the poorest of England do in the war; did they not fight for their country?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They fought for their country, not for another country. Suppose Canada is at war-
The Address-Mr. Bourassa


An hon. MEMBER:: They fought for
France and for you.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They fought for England, and did it well.


An hon. MEMBER:: They fought for you too.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is a matter of
opinion. I am simply saying-and every thoughtful Englishman and Scotchman is my witness-.what is being uttered every day in Great Britain, where liberty of speech exists in fact and not merely in theory. I was in England last year, not for the first, the second, the third, the fourth or even the fifth time, and I made new acquaintances and was confirmed in the opinion which I held long before the war. that you have in England people of the right kind who want to send to the dominions-or the colonies as they still term them-the right kind of settlers; but you also have people, especially those belonging to the wealthy classes, who want to get rid of the poor and who say: We will send them to the colonies and let the colonial governments and parliaments deal with them.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It has been told me by some of the leaders of public opinion in England. From their point of view it is patriotic, they feel they are doing t'heir duty in the best interests of their country. Let us be as careful of the welfare of Canada as'they are of the future of England.
With regard to dealing with immigration wholesale, as has been suggested by the leader erf the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I beg to differ with him also as to the means. I have had occasion in the last thirty years to find out that all great schemes of immigration, all tremendous policies of wholesale immigration have failed, whether under a Liberal or a Conservative government; while on the contrary every small and energetic enterprise conducted by the right kind of men, either in this country or in Scotland or in England or in the United States, to organize small settlements of the right kind of people, whom they lead to the place where they are to live' and obtain for them there the conditions that will make them happy settlers,-those settlements to my personal knowledge have done wonders. I can speak of three in the west, that I have known in the last thirty years, one French, one German and the other Scottish. The French settlement-I mean from Quebec-was made in the neighbourhood of Gravelbourg. Two or three men with a set idea of accomplishing something went there and secured a tract of

land, made arrangements with the Department of the Interior here, and made an individual canvass of the right kind of people in the province of Quebec, brought them out, saw that they were properly settled and that they received what they had been promised, that is, the administration that they wanted, a municipality organized, and a church and a school built. To-day, after only fifteen or twenty years, you have there one of the finest settlements of the w'est. * In the old days- I mean some twenty-five years ago-two or three gentlemen came to my room. They were delegates from certain German inhabitants of Dakota, born Americans, who wanted to come and live in Canada. They explained to me the manner in which they were organizing the settlement. They took up a tract of land somewhere between Regina and Prince Albert. I traversed that section many years ago. Previous to settlement it was a perfectly wild country and absolutely dry. I well remember the old railway from Regina to Prince Albert was in such a bad condition that they had to cut the train in two, and I saw antelopes near the track gazing at us and apparently thinking:	What kind of beasts
are coming to take our place? Those settlers found they could have that territory irrigated, and they brought in a whole colony of some two hundred people all farmers with the exception of a blacksmith and two or three mechanics. To-day that is one of the finest settlements in Saskatchewan between Regina and Prince Albert. I know of another one, although I have not visited it personally. It is a Scottish settlement that has been established near St. Paul de Metis, somewhere in Alberta. This again was organized by a Scotch priest and a few delegates in the same manner as the first Scottish settlements that were established in Prince Edward Island a few years after the conquest of Canada, and out of which practically arose the province which exists to-day. That shows that private but well reasoned initiative, if properly helped by the government, will operate in a much more practical way and will produce more enduring results than a wholesale policy of immigration inaugurated by such founders as the North Atlantic Trading Company of ill-fame.
But, sir, if we want to preserve our people, if we want to bring in from all countries the right kind of people, and induce them to stay in Canada instead of passing over to the United States after they have remained here sufficiently long to comply with the requirements of the quota law enforced by our neighbours to the south, there is something

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
more to be done. We have to put Canada on a proper economical and social basis, and there I come back to the point I spoke of at first. It is all very well to deal at this session with the tariff, at another session with the income tax; but as long as we do not develop in the minds and hearts of all Canadian men and women, fathers and mothers of families, that all in all-morally, intellectually, economically, socially and politically- their children will be better off in Canada than in the United States, or better off than they were either in England, Germany, Russia, France, Italy, or any other country they may come from, it is useless for us to talk of having a tremendous immigration policy to people our country. We will go on as we have done since confederation, under all governments, under all policies, not filling the country, but making of Canada the sieve through which the best of our blood, and the best of the foreign imported blood, goes to the United States.
But, sir, there is something more. If we want to attract the right kind of Europeans- and here I refer especially to the good people of Britain, to the right kind of Englishmen, of Welshmen, and of Scotchmen-it must be made clear to them that when they come to Canada they leave aside the quarrels and the war stress of Europe. It must be made clear to them that under this much disputed equality of status, upon which much discussion will take place for years to come without any solace for the common people, that Canada is not at war every time England may be at war. It means that Canada, situated as she is and occupying one-half of the continent of North America, having lived in peace for a century with the country to the south of us, is determined to maintain peace with all countries on earth, with all countries on both sides of the two oceans which wash her shores. In that respect I fully agree with the policy pursued by the present government in enhancing, gradually and not in any hurry, the position of Canada in the international world. They do it, and I know this to be the case, not only with the full assent but with the full sympathy of the best minded Englishmen. That is shown by the utterances of Mr. Ponsonby, who was quoted yesterday by the hon. lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), but there are many Englishmen-not only radicals, not only Liberals, but some of the best Tories, some of whom I had the honour of meeting again last year- who want to see the dominions, but- especially Canada, force, so to speak, the whole British Empire as a world power to impose a policy
of peace upon the world. In that respect the presence of our representative on the council of the League of Nations is worth, to my mind, much more than many of the other emblems of liberty or of domination, of which we have boasted for many years in the past, because there can be no doubt that, on the council of the league, Canada is not sitting as a tool of the British government; Canada ' is represented as a nation. I said last year, and I repeat it to-day, that neither Sir Austen Chamberlain nor any responsible English statesman, would ever state that the British Empire was represented by two voices on the council of the League of Nations whilst other nations have only one. Of course, they know that Canada is there for her own sake, and they want her to be there as such. There is this further fact: In view of the present conditions of things in the world, England is the power which is most interested in making peace as permanent as it can be. I have said it in my own province, and I repeat it now, that I have the deepest admiration and the fullest sympathy for the attitude taken in the last six years by the British government, and I am prepared with my humble voice and through the influence of the Canadian government, to uphold that policy. Not as the slaves of England, but as free Britishers talking in the name of a free British country, we should take this position in face of the representatives of that magnanimous country:	Now that you are talking peace,
now that you are working for peace, we will help you out. The moment you unmuzzle your guns and work for war again, we will be against you. We are prepared not to leave you but to accompany you on the path of peace, never on the path of war. If we do that, if we do it at Geneva and elsewhere, we shall not only accomplish our duty to Canada but we shall have rendered a service to Great Britain, to the true Britain, to the Britain of the masses, to that great nation which has done so much to enhance ideas of liberty, properly balanced methods of government, ideas of social justice in spite of so many obstacles put in her way by some of her own people. If -we do that we shall have accomplished our full duty as Canadians and as associates of the British nation.
In that regard again, I fully commend the policy of the government in appointing representatives of Canada, not only as trade commissioners, but as foreign ministers or residential ministers-the title is nothing to me. Because, take Europe for example. It is all very well to have a representative in France, an official representative, who now for the
240	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
first time in half a century will have the right to step in at the Quai d'Orsay and have a heart to heart talk with the foreign minister of France, a thing which he could not do before because he was considered only as a sub-clerk of the High Commissioner's office in London. I know as a matter of fact that both Mr. Fabre, and Mr. Roy, have been prevented from communicating with the French government because the Foreign Secretary of the time at London did not want them to be known as representing Canada. Now, however, they will be able to talk and exchange their views freely. If you have a representative in Berlin-


Hewitt Bostock: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but his time is up.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think I have three
minutes yet, Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the clock.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman must respect the chair.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Very well, Mr. Speaker, if my time is up I shall reserve the rest of my remarks for another occasion.


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: It is difficult at any time to address this house with confidence. That difficulty is intensified when one has to follow such a brilliant orator as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). For the nice things that hon. gentleman said about the maritime provinces we are duly grateful. We had the honour of a visit from him last summer, and we all look back to that visit with a great deal of pleasure. The hon. member addressed several meetings in the maritime provinces, and although we do not agree with everything he says, we must all regard him as having a great deal of reason for the faith that is in him. It was evident that at least some of his remarks this afternoon were not receiving unanimous assent, particularly from members on this side of the house, but his remarks on immigration will, I believe, receive the commendation of a great many. The subject of immigration is a somewhat difficult one. Even our Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), in his speech yesterday, admitted that he had many things to learn with regard to immigration. From press reports in the various parts of this country it would appear that that opinion was fairly generally shared, and possibly the minister's statement was the only thing required to make it unanimous. I think we can agree with the hon. member for Labelle in regard to at least two of his grounds, first, the great desirability of retain-
ing Canadians in our own country. That, I think, should be the first aim and object of an immigration department. The second, and one of equal importance, is the desirability of selected immigration. I, for one, am not in favour of throwing down the bare and allowing everybody to come to this country. We have at the present time three or four examinations of intending immigrants, one before they leave, one on the boat and one when they arrive. There should be but one examination, an examination before the immigrant breaks up his home' and makes all his preparations for leaving his own country. That is the time when the one and final examination should be made.
With regard to the observation of the hon. member for Labelle that if England ever goes to war again, we shall be able to stand aloof, I think very few in this country will subscribe to that view. If England is at war, we are at war and there is no escape from that fact. We are either a part of the British Empire or we are not. If we are a part of it, we must bear our share of the responsibilities of that empire, and I believe that at the present time we are not bearing our full share of our responsibilities towards the empire.
With reference to the observation of the hon. member that in inducing immigrants to come to this country, it would be a greater attraction to them to hold out the higher moral ideals we have here than our material resources, I fear that many of us, who have not the same lofty ideals as the hon. member for Labelle has, will find it difficult to subscribe to that doctrine, and I am afraid that from a practical standpoint, when you endeavour to induce anyone from the old country or any other country to come to Canada, the material inducements will weigh more heavily with him than any moral inducement we can offer him.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has on this occasion taken a very wide range. It is, of course, customary in a debate on the address to allow the widest latitude and to permit hon. members to discuss questions of interest to any part of Canada. This year for the first time in our history we have placed some restrictions on that, and although a member is allowed the widest latitude, he is circumscribed somewhat by the fact that he is obliged to confine himself to forty minutes. The debate on the address has already gone far enough to indicate that the wisdom of the rule which we adopted last year has been justified. It is pleasing to note that throughout all the speeches very kind references

The Address.-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
were made and deservedly made to the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address. I did not have the pleasure of hearing but I read both addresses, and I want to join in cordially congratulating both the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) on the way in which they discharged their duties in that respect. With regard to the mover of the address, it may be said that a sort of maritime clannishness would make our congratulations to him a little more cordial; but in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Cantley), I fear that the house might regard with considerable diffidence any observations I might make lauding the clannishness that should distinguish maritime members. Although, however, we may and in all probability will hold divers political views, we can all rest assured that the hon. member for Hants-Kings and the other members from the maritime provinces will all be united on any matter affecting the interests of their home provinces.
In looking over previous debates of this character I think one strain, one general criticism, will be found to follow through all the speeches of the opposition, and that is that the speech from the throne contains very little to commend itself to the House of Commons. It is possible that, in days gone by, that criticism was not wholly warranted, but I do not think there is very much doubt that the criticism in regard to the present speech from the throne is that it is to be regarded as not much more than a curtain-raiser. There are in it some things that deserve consideration, and the first matter is the reference to the good results that flowed from the conference that took place last year between the various provinces and the federal governmnt. I am glad of that; I think the conference was a very wise move, and in years to come it will be found desirable at certain periods to hold such conferences, because with the growth of the newer provinces and the changing conditions throughout the whole of, Canada, readjustments of relationships between the various provinces and the federal government will be found necessary. Of course, the various provinces are not all of the same political faith as the federal government, and it is very desirable that that should be the case. It is said that the view was held by Sir John Macdonald that it was very desirable that the various provincial governments should be opposed politically to the federal government because, if they were all of one political faith, he 56103-16
believed there would result a gigantic political organization that would be a menace to the state. Whether that is true or not, I think most of us on this side will subscribe to it, particularly as long as the present government remains in power.
It appears that several recommendations of the Duncan report are receiving consideration. The Duncan report which will no doubt take its place, Mr. 'Speaker, as one of the most important political documents in our history, has already done considerable good. It has given new life to the people of the maritime provinces and I think, if I might be allowed to say so, that the psychological effect of the Duncan report was of considerably more importance to those provinces than the material benefits that have so far flowed from it. Some over-enthusiastic admirers of the present government have gone to the length of saying that the recommendations of that report have been fully implemented by the government. This is not the case, and do not let us for one second imagine that such is the case. I am going to read an article from a magazine published in the maritime provinces entitled " The Busy East," reporting a speech made by Mr. Simms, who was president of the maritime board of trade and was largely instrumental in framing the case for the maritime provinces before the Duncan commission. Among other things in his address at St. John he said:
The Financial Post of November 18 published a fair and accurate synopsis of the Duncan recommendations with what had been or left undone in the case of each. The synopsis in question shows that up-to-date, but two of the 30 recommendations have been fully implemented, i.e.:. The passing of legislation to bonus coke ovens and the total payment of the immediate interim lump sum grants. Only one-half of these grants was paid as at July 1 last. However, at the recent Ottawa conference of premiers, the immediate payment of the other half was secured.
Then five of the recommendations have been partially implemented. In the case of other 11 no action has yet been taken. Possibly, the remaining 12 may receive later attention.
While not unduly impatient, and recognizing that such chronic and far. reaching troubles do not often lend themselves to speedy adjustment, it is not unreasonable that the maritime provinces should be anything but satisfied with the action to date regarding the Duncan recommendations. Most maritime people fully appreciate that a lot of hard and unselfish work has been done by their ministers and members on both sides of the house have given our cause loyal support. This is so obvious that we see no reason why anyone should shrink from facing the facts of the case as they exist to-day.
Surely no patriotic Canadian would deliberately make statements calculated to mislead the public as to the position of these recommenda-


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: In taking part in the debate on the address I do so more particularly for the purpose of referring to certain matters that apply more

especially to my own constituency than to Canada as a whole. I was interested in the speech from the throne in its reference to prosperity. Whether Canada is prosperous in the degree we have been told in this house by various hon. members, or whether, as the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) has endeavoured to make us believe, it is not prosperous, I still feel that in the part of Canada from which I am fortunate enough to come and which I have the honour to represent conditions are nothing like those described by that hon. gentleman. When he refers to thousands in his district being in dire distress, I think that every hon. member will agree with me that there is no such distress in western Canada, notwithstanding that we have matters there which we feel call for some remedy.
I should be remiss in the discharge of my duties if I did not add my voice to the general congratulation which has been tendered to the mover and seconder of the address on the splendid way in which they presented the motion to the house. The reference which was made by the mover of that address to the part of the country which he represents, and which I believe is in the vicinity of the district represented by the last speaker, stressed the prosperity of the Dominion. I believe that the past year has been a most memorable one in Canada's history. Last year the people of this Dominion had brought to their notice more pointedly than ever before the stage of development which we have reached. The celebration in July served to bring to the attention of the Canadian people quite forcibly the fact that we had gone possibly further than any other country in the world in a shorter time, and I think that all evidences point to the fact that Canada as a whole is in a prosperous condition. I do not intend to deal with that phase of the situation. I want to refer more particularly to certain situations which have arisen in western Canada.
If you go back a number of years you will realize that the early pioneers in 'the west settled at great distances from railways, and these pioneers made it possible for the western prairies to be opened up for settlement. They made possible the adoption of a great immigration policy, as has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). These pioneers in many districts in western Canada are still living great distances from railways and I believe that this is one of the reasons why we have an immigration problem on our hands. During the two sessions that I have had the honour of representing my constituency in this house, this being my

The Address-Mr. Bothwell
third session, many bills for branch line railways have come up and been passed, providing largely for construction in the northern parts of the western provinces, opening up new territory, which is of course necessary; but only in some instances have they taken care of the older settled parts of the provinces where the pioneers are entitled to some consideration. I have in mind a district in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There the settlers have been for some twenty-five or thirty years, and they are still hauling their products to market for distances varying from twenty-five to thirty-five miles. It is said that the territory belongs to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, whose main line runs through it. This company may build branches there without coming to parliament for a charter, but it has not yet seen fit to do so. The Canadian National railway, however, is within twenty miles of Swift Current and a few more miles from the district I speak of-a pioneer district containing probably as fertile and productive land as is to be found anywhere in Canada. As I say, the Canadian National railway is only a little more than twenty miles away, and while the territory may be described as Canadian Pacific territory, nevertheless I feel that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not take advantage of the situation, the Canadian National Railways should have an opportunity of building a branch line without subsequent competition from the Canadian Pacific. If it were possible for this house to take such steps as might be necessary to shut a railway company out of a district, if it will not give that district service, in order to let another railway company supply the transportation needs, I think it would be the part of wisdom to do so. We do not want any more paralleling of lines, but if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not see fit to build into such a district, then I believe it is the public duty of this parliament to see that the pioneers in such a district are served with proper transportation facilities, so that the country may be made available for settlement, and the boys and girls of the pioneers, instead of becoming disheartened and going to the cities or to the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, will be satisfied to stay at home and settle the vacant lands. You cannot expect them to do so today when those vacant lands are twenty-five to thirty-five miles from a railway.
We in the west were all happy to see the decision made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) last summer in selecting the port for the Hudson Bay railway. I think he is to be congratulated on the stand he then took. The investigation apparently was fully
made, and any person who reads the report of Mr. Palmer will, I am sure, feel satisfied that every reasonable precaution was taken to make the proper selection.
The railway into the Flin Flon area I also believe will be an advantage to the people of the west, and I feel that the government is to be congratulated upon their action in that connection. But at the same time I want to ask the minister, who has shown that he is able to take the initiative, not to overlook the district to which I refer; its transportation needs have been brought to his attention on many occasions. Only this morning I received the Swift Current Herald dated February 2, in which the following reference is made to the railway situation:
With both the provincial and federal parliaments in session, and absorbing as we do the daily reports of proposed legislation, we are again moved to feel vituperative in connection with the situation existing in this district in the lack of railway accommodation. The board of trade has held indignation meetings with monotonous regularity; delegations from the outlying farming territory unserved by railways have come and gone; resolutions in hamperfuls have been forwarded to Ottawa; floods of oratory have been loosed-we have been sadly neglected, discriminated against, so on and so forth-and in the end we find ourselves in the same old position, and farmers are still hauling their grain the odd twenty-five miles or so.
And further on occurs this passage:
A lot of people feel that if the government were given an indication that the voters, regardless of'affiliation, are ready to stand up and protest emphatically-and protest by force of the ballot-this district would undoubtedly be given consideration without undue delay. When hard-shelled voters, who have voted the same party ticket since being granted a franchise, feel that way about it, why something's going to happen sooner or later.
I read that simply to show the feeling of the people in that particular district. A few years ago the Minister of Railways was the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan. In that office he realized some of the financial difficulties of the city of Swift Current, and now when we have an opportunity of getting concerns such as the Cockshutt Plow Company, the John Deere Plow Company and the International Harvester Company to establish branches in the city, but find them hesitating to do so because of lack of access to the territory contiguous to Swift Current that should be served with railway facilities, I think he should take this into consideration, remembering what took place a few years ago in that particular city and district.
Another matter that I propose to deal with concerns the Post Office Department. When
The Address-Mr. Bothwell

a change was made in the postal rates it necessarily brought under consideration the scale of postmasters' salaries, as many of our postmasters are paid on a commission basis. The present schedule provides for payment of only $60 per year for the postmaster of an office whose annual revenue is under $100 That means that a postmaster out in the country is paid some S3 a month-hardly enough to clean the kitchen where the people of the district gather to get their mail. I know many hon. members have districts in their constituencies in which it is almost impossible to find anybody to look after the post office. When a man does take on the duty it is simply that the district may not
lose the post office, not because he feels ha is being adequately paid for his services. Now, the post office is a public service, and whether it is paying or not I submit does not matter; the people are entitled to get service. Therefore when the revision of salaries is being dealt with, I trust the Postmaster General will take into consideration the representations which have been made by the Dominion Postmasters Association. They asked for slight increases, and for the benefit of the house I should like to give the following comparative table of salaries paid these officials in this country and in the United States. The statement is as follows:
Revenue	Present salary	Proposed salary	American salary	Revenue	Present salarj'	Proposed salary	American salary$	S	$	$	$	$	$	$100	60	100	160	. 2,200	860	1,475	2,100200	100	200	320	2,300	890	1,525	2,100300	150	300	480	2,400	920	1,575	2,290400	200	400	565	2,500	950	1,625	2,290500	250	500	650	2,600	980	1,075	2,290[DOT] 600	300	575	735	2,700	1,010	1,725	2,480700	350	650	820	2,800	1,040	1,775	2,480800	400	725	895	2,900	1,070	1,825	2,480900	450	800	970	3,000	1,100	1,875	2,6701,000	500	875	1,045	4,000	1,400	2,375	3,0501,100	530	925	1,120	5,000	1,700	2,875	3,4001,200	560	975	1,195	6,000	2,000	3,275	3,6001,300	590	1,025	1,270	7,000	2,300	3,675	3,9001,400	620	1,075	1,345	8,000	2,600	4,075	4,4001,500	650	1,125	1,420	9,000	2,900	4,475	4,9001,600	680	1,175	1,530	10,000	3,200	4,875	5,4001,700	710	1,225	1,720	20,000	5,200	7,375	8,4001,800	.740	1,275	1,910	30,000	7,200	9,875	10,9001,900	770	1,325	2,000	40,000	9,200	12,375	13,4002,000	800	1,375	2,100	50,000	11,200	14,875	16,0002,100	830	1,425	2,100


Mr. VENIOT:: Does the statement indicate or show that it includes commissions on post office orders, postal notes and stamps?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No, it does not.


Peter John Veniot: Well the American salary
is fixed, and no commission is allowed. That is the difference between the two systems.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There may be some
allowance, but so far as the country offices are concerned the amount derived from the sale of money orders and postal notes is very small.


Peter John Veniot: The record shows it.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There is another matter in connection with the post office situation

to which I should like to draw your attention, and that has to do with the railway mail clerks. I am only going to make one comment with respect to them and it is this: In Canada railway mail clerks work on Sundays and on holidays, and are called on at night. The maximum salary, as I understand it, in Canada, is $1,800, whereas in the United States the maximum salary for railway mail clerks is $2,600. Then, too, the minimum salary of the Canadian railway mail clerks is SI,140, as compared with the minimum in the United States of $1,800. I think it would only be fair to say, however, that our mileage allowance is higher than it is in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Bothwell


Mr. YENIOT:: There is no mileage allowance in the United States. The railway mail clerks there are allowed a lump sum for expenses.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes, that is quite correct, but the mileage allowance 'in this country reaches a greater total than is allowed in the United States. Application has been made to Ottawa for a revision of salaries, and when the salary schedules are being arranged by the Postmaster General I hope he will take the claims of the railway mail clerks into consideration as well as those of the postmasters, particularly postmasters in the smaller offices.
Again in connection with the Post Office Department it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that some arrangement should be made whereby officers in the postal service of this country who are interested and efficient might be transferred from province to province, or from town to town, if health or family requirements make such a change necessary. We have some postmasters who are most interested and most efficient. We have some postmasters in small offices who have brought about tremendous increases in the postal revenue by reason of the interest they have taken in their work. To illustrate what I mean I may say that I have here a circular that was drafted and sent out by a certain postmaster last year after the reduction in the postal rates. This man is greatly interested in postal work, and if I read a portion of the notice he sent out it will serve to demonstrate the great enthusiasm which he entertains for his work. For example I would quote these passages:
There is no safer method for sending money than by post office money order, no matter how large or how small the amount may be. Because the public is learning more and more to appreciate the dependability which can be placed on the services rendered by the post office, explains why instances are increasing where people send thousands of dollars by post office money orders. This public confidence is growing, because:
1.	The post office benefits everybody, and is absolutely impartial. It does not favour any one at the expense of anybody else, the rates being exactly the same to everybody, for whatever service may be rendered.
2.	The post office carries your message or money safely, promptly and cheaply, and is at your service continuously.
3.	The post office is your institution. It belongs to the public. The more you patronize it, the more will you help develop and extend its usefulness. Please remember, it does not operate with a view to create a surplus, but all its earnings are employed in improving the service. As you help create benefits, you likewise share them.
4.	The post office is used by everybody in some way. Therefore, the surest way to reach anybody with a message or with money, is to employ the method which reaches the most people.
The cost of mailing a letter has been reduced to two cents. Think for a minute what a two-cent stamp will do for you. Everybody is benefited by this reduction. However, it means a tremendous reduction in the revenue of the post office, which can be off-set only by making greater use of all the different kinds of service which it offers, such as:
1.	Writing more letters.
2.	Sending out more advertising matter.
3.	Sending more parcels by mail.
4.	Taking advantage of the security offered by having parcels insured for a very small additional fee.
5.	Registering all important letters or other items which affords added protection in handling.
6.	Sending merchandise c.o.d. which secures prompt payment.
7.	Sending money by post office money orders (these cover the globe) or, for small amounts payable in Canada only by using postal notes.
If you want to pay your taxes, or mortgage, or an account at some other point, or make a payment on land you have bought, or send money for any other purpose, remember, there is no safer method than by post office money order. If for any reason it should be lost or accidentally destroyed, you can obtain a duplicate, without one cent of expense.
These are some of the ways by which the post office serves you. You will admit it is a very good and useful service, and the way to maintain good service is to use it extensively. Therefore, use the post office in every way you can, and as often as you find it necessary to transact any kind of business which it can do for you.
I submit that a man who takes interest enough in his post office to get out matter like the foregoing is very much needed in the public service, and when it becomes necessary for him, through health or family reasons, to move to some other part of the country, surely it should be possible, under the Civil Service Act if you will, to have that man transferred in accordance with his own wishes. Corporations such as railway companies, banks and trust companies seem to shift their best men around from one province to another, or from one city or town to another. Why should not the same policy be pursued in the public service?
There is one other matter I should like to touch upon, and that is the question of federal grants for highways. Hon. members will recall that in 1919 an act was passed, making provision for an appropriation of some $20,000,000 to the various provinces in Canada to be expended in the construction of highways to be approved by the federal government. The latter was only to contribute some 40 per cent of the money re-
The Address-Mr. Bothwell

quired for building these highways, the provinces putting up the balance of 60 per cent. In the older settled parts of Canada, certainly in some parts, there are good highways, but that grant of $20,000,000 gave western Canada only a start because we have a tremendous mileage with a comparatively small population. The United States have made federal grants to the extent, I believe, of about $725,000,000-too much, I believe, judging from reports received from the United States as to how the people there feel they are taxed. I believe an appropriation such as was made in 1919 is within reason and would assist materially in regard to highways. As we hear from almost every speaker in the house we have on our hands an immigration problem. If we have good roads, we have practically on our doorstep about 120,000,000 people, many of whom are looking to Canada. With good roads and with the number of motor cars that are being used now, it is easy for these people to cross the line and to travel through Canada, but they are not coming in the numbers they would come if we had better roads. Interprovincial highways, transcontinental highways, highways north and south, which might be assisted by the federal government would be of inestimable value in settling the country. A visitor to the south of the line just a week or so ago, a man who is now controlling some thousands of acres of land in western Canada and a man who knows the type of farmers that are needed for the west as settlers, has this to say in speaking of the United States farmers:
When the unrest and discomfort of the agricultural class is so freely admitted by the press, the politicians and the large land dealers in the cities, one may be sure it exists among the farmers to even a more intensified degree. I had the opportunity to learn this first-hand, not from chronic kicking individuals, but from highest authorities in the land business as well as from our own Canadian government agents.
In speaking about immigration to this country, he says:
It is a large subject and no attempt will be made to touch its many aspects, but I am reliably informed by two Canadian government agencies as well as by colonization agencies and private conversation with some individual farmers that there is considerable immigration interest.
That is south of the line.
While we maintain sixteen Canadian government agencies, and some of them are doing good work, it looks as if more could be done to promote the immigration of seasoned and experienced farmers with equipment to settle upon our lands: there is a class of such farmers available and they would bring no assimilation

problem with them, and are even more adaptable to conditions here than our English cousins.
The average American prospective immigrant is fully equipped with horses and machinery, stock, household effects, and enough money to take care of himself for perhaps a year, and would be prepared to rent or buy on a very easy payment plan.
My contention, therefore, in connection with grants to highways is that by good highways we would open up the country to such an extent that we would induce more settlement from across the line; we would induce more people to come from there, and travelling through the country as tourists, or in whatever way they come, they will make the best kind of immigration agents for us.
Coming again to railways, I think it was in 1926 that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) referred to the 1908 strike of railway shopmen in this country. I have been informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are now laying off men when they attain 65 years of age, and because they took part in that strike of 1908, the company are refusing to pay their pensions. If this is a fact-and the facts are true in at least one case so far-I believe this is a matter with which parliament should concern itself. The railway companies, as I view the situation, have been paid in freight rates by the people of this country sufficient money to take care of their pension schemes. The money has been received by the railway companies but it is not being paid to those persons who have become entitled to it. I have in mind one instance of a man who worked for forty-five jjears for this company, and I am told that there are no black marks against him in connection with his service with the exception of the fact that he was out on strike in 1908. He went out on strike with the shopmen not knowing beforehand that a strike was about to be oalled; as a matter of fact he was acting in that particular capacity for only about eight days before the strike was called. On attaining the age of 65 years a few months ago he was laid off and a pension is refused. As I view that situation, it seems to me that the government of this country should take the matter up with the railway companies who have received the moneys that are payable by way of pension. I do not know what effect an appeal may have, but if an appeal does not have any effect, I hope and trust that action can be taken whereby such a condition cannot arise in the future. The

The Address-Mr. Jellijj
1908 strike, as I understand it, was a legal strike and the men are not entitled to be penalized to the extent to which they apparently are under the ruling made by the company.
There are many other matters which might be dealt with, but they can be discussed better on the budget debate and I just wanted to bring to the attention of the house at this time the matters to which I have referred, particularly in connection with those districts -the constituency which I have the honour to represent is not the only one by any means-which are apparently being discriminated against in regard to railway construction, when other portions of Canada are being served in order to bring in settlers from other countries to populate our country.


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour and the reception which I understand is being held for Mr. Kellogg, I suggest that you call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in reference to the subject which is now before the house, I wish first of all to conform to the polite conventionalities which attend this occasion. I wish to extend my heartiest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address in reply to the speech delivered at the opening of this session by His Excellency the Governor General. Congratulations have been showered upon the hon. members who performed this function, and very justly so; they carried out the task committed to them with credit both to themselves and to the constituencies which they have the honour to represent. But as I sat here quietly, reading the speech from the throne and listening .to the eloquent comments upon it which were being made by the mover and the seconder, I could not help thinking that they were employing a great deal of rhetoric and exerting a very considerable effort in spreading their decorations over a barren fig tree; for I must admit that I am quite in agreement with the comments of a good many members who have spoken in this chamber as to the paucity of legislation forecast in the speech from the throne. This, to my mind, is particularly notable, and perhaps particularly open to criticism, when one has in mind the
things which have been occurring throughout our country during the last year, especially the events in connection with the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. All over this great land of ours from one end to the- other, from the capital to the little school house away out on the prairie, we were eulogizing the magnificent efforts of the fathers of confederation who brought together the far-flung provinces of this Dominion into one great federal whole and gave us the opportunity for the development of this northern part of the north American continent. It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of ail those celebrations, of the inspiration which comes from recounting the achievements and accomplishments of the great fathers of confederation, and of the manner in which the various booklets and publications issued in connection with the celebration have brought home to our people the wonderful development which has gone on here, that that inspiration should have been so great as to bring us, in our legislative program for this year, to a feeling which would raise our level infinitely beyond what it was before, and thus advance materially the development of the land we all love. That is the criticism I have to offer in reference to the speech from the throne, and to the absence therefrom of so many matters which have been discussed pro and con throughout the 'ength and breadth of this land during the last year. It seems to me there should have been in the speech from the throne an indication of the measures which the government propose to lay before parliament during the present session.
As I have said, that is by way of criticism. There may be reasons for the omission of items of legislation with which I am not familiar. I have no desire to be unjust to the government in the matter; I have no desire to utter a single word which will embarrass them in carrying on the great work committed to their charge. On the contrary, I think it may fairly be said of me that in all things I have wished to uphold their hands and to help them. That, I believe, is the attitude to-day of every member in the group with whom I am associated, and also of those who sit on your left, Sir, in regard to the coal proposition, to which I wish to refer later.
I have referred to the mover and seconder of the address; I do not wish to omit mention of the newly selected leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I want to associate myself with the remarks made on the opening day of the session by the leader of our group. The leader of the opposition is a citizen of my own province, one of whom we are all proud and who is qualified in every
The Address-Mr. Jelliff

bushels of wheat to the market was doing us a pretty good service. Later on larger cars, which conveyed 1,200 to 1,300 bushels, were built. They were succeeded by cars carrying from 1,500 to 1,600 bushels, and to-day oars are operating on those lines that carry 2,000 bushels of wheat to the market. Also in place of the inferior engines of thirty years ago we have the great mogul engines of to-day. Transportation is developing; it is not at a standstill. I believe that these railway companies, with their efficient presidents and with the inventive genius which must exist in the ranks of their employees, can find a way of moving that coal, and moving it at a rate which will enable us to use Alberta and Nova Scotia coal in central Canada and thus be independent of outsiders in the matter of our coal supply. I am urging this matter on the Minister of Railways, and urging it in a friendly spirit. I believe that if he were to introduce a bill this session fixing a rate for the carriage of Alberta coal there is scarcely an hon. member who would not vote for it, -in fact the vote would be almost unanimous, because the people of Canada are insisting upon the solution of the coal problem, and so far as I can see this is the only way to solve it.
So far as the speech from the throne is concerned, there are one or two other matters upon which I should like to toueh. Mention is made in the speech that the appointment of ministers to Japan and to France is contemplated. I am in hearty accord with that proposal. I believe the appointment of such representatives to those foreign countries with which we desire to do business and to extend our commerce can be of immense value to Canada. In that connection may I say, that when this matter came before me I was trying to recollect whether I had ever seen any report as yet as to what our representatives at present in foreign countries are doing. It seems to me that we should have reports from our representatives in foreign lands so that we may know exactly what they are accomplishing towards the expansion of our commerce. It does not seem to me to be essential that we should have at foreign capitals men who are simply representing us in a social and a political sense; that was fairly well done under the former regime. What we want is the appointment of representatives who can help to extend and increase the commerce of this country and afford further opportunities for marketing the products of Canada. We have had an ambassador at Washington now for almost a year, and I am rather curious to know what he 
has accomplished. I have seen no report of his activities, and I doubt whether any other member has done so. I do not doubt at all that Hon. Mr. Massey has been rendering useful service in Washington, but I believe it would be a good thing to take parliament and the country into the confidence of the government and give us each year a report as to what our representatives in foreign countries are doing to advance our business interests in the countries in which they are located.
For instance I have here a statement to which I should like to refer for a minute or two-and I am sure this will interest my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). It deals with an industry as regards which, it seems to me, something might have been accomplished on the other side of the line. I refer to the cattle trade. We were complimenting ourselves very highly here a few years ago on the fact that the embargo which restricted the importation of our cattle into Great Britain had been removed. Almost everybody who had anything to do with it was given the credit for helping to .raise that embargo, but I do not think it was ever definitely determined to whom the credit really belonged. However, we expected that with that embargo removed a great trade in cattle would spring up with Great Britain. What has been the result? I have here a report, which I secured a day or two ago, from the Bureau of Statistics as to our exports of cattle to the United Kingdom. In that publication the number of cattle exported in 1923 to the United Kingdom is given as 57,672 head. In 1924 the export of cattle amounted to 79,435 head, and in 1925 the total was 110,868. We boasted that year a great deal as to what we had done in the way of securing a market in the United Kingdom for our cattle, In 1926, however, the exports fell off to 79,985 head, and for 1927 they dropped to 8,203 head. There may be a reason for that which I do not understand. Of course there have been strikes in the old country but I do not believe their beef-eating stopped to the extent that it would cause a fall in our cattle importations into Great Britain from 110,868 in 1925 to 8,263 in 1927. I am not finding fault with the government in regard to that although I am calling the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to it. I am suggesting, in connection with this proposal to send ambassadors, representatives, high commissioners and trade agents to foreign countries, that they exert themselves to see that the trade of Canada is not only maintained but increased.

The Address-Mr. MacNutt
Let us look on the other hand at the importations into the United States. These are the exports of cattle to the United States for the same year:
Year ended
December 31	Number
1923		 120,947
1924		 133,025
1925		 149,067
1926		 158,295
1927;	 283,004
That is in spite of a tariff against Canadian cattle entering the United States.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I regret that as my time is up I shall have to discontinue my remarks.


Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I will occupy but a very short time in offering a few observations on the subject matter before the house. For the very eloquent and kindly words expressed by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) in his certificate of character and integrity of our honoured leader (Mr. Bennett), on behalf of the members on this side, I extend to him our sincere thanks. This debate has been under discussion now for the past eight days and I am sure we all agree that it has been earned on in a most gentlemanly and kindly manner. As I sat in my seat on the opening day and listened to the eloquent speech of our honoured leader and the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I wondered if the Christian era had at last reached parliament hill.
So much has been said throughout this debate on many matters which I wished to discuss that I will not tire the house with any repetition. There is, however, in this house a custom that will bear repetition, and that is in hon. members extending to the mover and seconder of the address their felicitations. It is particularly pleasing for me to-night to offer to my fellow Nova Scotian the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) and to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien) my congratulations on the very creditable way in which they performed a somewhat difficult task. In the great republic to the south of us, we Nova Scotians, or Blue-noses as we are sometimes called over there, are noted for three things: codfish, handsome girls, and college professors. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, looking around him to select a member to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and make a good job of that task, would naturally look towards the little province down by the sea which has such a reputation as I
have indicated and which has given to this great Dominion three of its prime ministers.
Throughout the debate on the address I have observed that there is a tendency on the part of a great majority of members who have spoken to confine their remarks largely to that part of the country from which they come, and I may be permitted to do the same, particularly as the hon. member for Hants-Kings interjected into his speech a distinctly maritime flavour. He volunteered to give this government some advice; he advised his government that down in Nova Scotia they wanted wider markets. The cry of " wider markets " is a very old one. Hansard has been loaded up with it from the day that it was first issued. It is a catch-cry that is used in this house at every session. Wider markets are desired when we produce more than we consume.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings referred to apples, which constitute a very large crop in that portion of Nova Scotia from which he comes. I confess that in regard to markets for apples the hon. member is much better informed than I am. I know, however, that the home market consumes about fifteen per cent of the apples that are raised in that province, while the British and European markets consume the remaining eighty-five per cent. I realize that if the whole crop of fruit from the Annapolis valley were thrown at one time upon the home market, the producers would receive barely enough, if enough, to pay for the package that contains the fruit, but I know further that from now until the new crop comes in next year it is almost impossible to buy in the stores of that province Nova Scotia apples. Our stores are filled up with a highly-coloured, poorly-flavoured apple imported from somewhere else. I would not venture to say that they are from Ontario or British Columbia when I have around me so many hon. members from those two great provinces.
Do we want wider markets for our butter when the province of Nova Scotia does not produce one-half of the butter it consumes? What the farmers of Nova Scotia do want is a policy which will give Nova Scotia products a preference over foreign products in the Canadian market. What we want is increased production to meet the demands of our own consumption. Our farmers cannot meet those demands in the face of the conditions that are confronting them to-day.
I asked a question yesterday in the house regarding the dumping clause, if it was still being applied to butter coming in from Australia, and the hon. Minister of National

The Address-Mr. MacNutt
Revenue (Mr. Euler) informed me that it had not been applied for some time. With butter coming into this country as it is, and has been-only a few days ago twenty-seven thousand packages arrived in Victoria, B.C., averaging about fifty-six pounds to the package-I say, Mr. Speaker, that with such conditions existing, our farmers have no incentive to endeavour to increase their production. Not only does this Australian butter come into the Canadian market at a duty of one cent a pound, but the farmers who produce that butter, the shippers and exporters from Australia and New Zealand are being paid by their own government a bonus of six cents a pound. These conditions, Mr. Speaker, in the province from which I come are driving our dairy farmers out of business.
From the county which I have the honour to represent, during the past seven months 2,000 of the best and highest butter fat-producing cows were shipped out, mostly to the United States, and as I left my home to come here American buyers were at that time loading several carloads more for shipment into their market. Our farmers are being driven out of business. Of course, we cannot stop our American friends from coming into N'ova Scotia and buying our cows if they find they can buy them cheaper there than elsewhere. With a Canadian duty of one cent per pound and a duty of twelve cents protecting the American dairymen it is easy to see why our cows go to the United States. I do say that the government have it in their power to apply the dumping clause to stop the importation of this foreign butter that is driving our Nova Scotia farmers out of business. I have on the order paper a question asking when this dumping clause was applied and when it ceased to operate, and I may have something more to say about this matter in the future.
Do we want wider markets for our farmers? Let me read a resolution that was passed by the farmers of Nova Scotia at the annual meeting of the dairymen's association held in the town of Truro, the seat of the county which I have the honour to represent. This resolution was passed in January, 1927:
Whereas the agreement as negotiated between the Canadian and Australian governments has reduced the customs tariff on butter coming into Canada from 4 cents per pound to 1 cent per pound;
And whereas as a result of this agreement coming into effect October 1, 1925, the price on Canadian butter has been reduced more than the amount of the original duty;
And whereas this reduction has had a detrimental effect on winter dairying in Canada, affecting both the producer and manufacturer; Be it therefore resolved that we, the dairy-
men s association of Nova Scotia in annual convention here assembled, do humbly pray that the Dominion government do restore the customs tariff to its original rated duty of 4 cents per pound or equal to the Australian bonus of 6 cents per pound, at the present session of parliament;
Further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, and each of the Nova Scotia M.P.'s as well as a copy to the Hon. J. A. Walker, Minister of Natural Resources, Halifax, asking the Nova Scotia government to use their good offices in our behalf.
I will now read the resolution that was passed by the same association in January, 1928:
Be it resolved that the Nova Scotia dairymen s association in annual session assembled in Truro, January 17th-18th, 1928, reaffirm the action of this association in passing a resolution at the annual convention, January 19th-20th,	1927, asking the government to
cancel the clause of the Australian treaty and the order in council which allows butter to enter Canada at the fate of one cent per pound duty and cheese free and restore to the farmer that which was taken from him by the signing of this treaty and the order in council allowing New Zealand butter and cheese to enter Canada at the same rate of duty.
Further resolved that we request that the dumping clause be at once applied to all butter coming into Canada from New Zealand and Australia whether on direct sale or on consignment.
Further resolved that the copies of this resolution with the 1927 resolution attached be mailed to the members of the senate, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada; the members of the government; the federal members for Nova Scotia, and the Minister of Natural Resources, Hon. J. A. Walker, Halifax.
Those are resolutions, Mr. Speaker, that were passed at a convention of hard-headed farmers, farmers who are members of the two old political parties in this country. They realize that the situation that exists in that province is for them a very precarious one. In view of these resolutions I do not think that the question of wider markets is receiving much attention from the farmers of that province.
Again, do we want wider markets for our pulpwood, when we have steamers leaving the shores of Nova Scotia almost like ferries, carrying the raw wood across into the American market, to be followed there by the young men of our province who follow the wood to find employment in American mills, working up into the finished product that wood that should have been manufactured at home. What we do want in Nova Scotia is home manufacture of our raw materials, and a fearless determination to develop our own heritage for the benefit of our own people. I

The Address-Mr. MacNutt
could go on and at considerable length mention many more of the products of the farm of which we do not produce in Nova Scotia nearly as much as we consume. I refer to cheese, to eggs and many more products.
So much has been said throughout this debate on the question of coal that I hesitate to venture upon it, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) discussed that question this afternoon. I may, however, be permitted to congratulate the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), upon his very able speech in this house a few days ago. His analysis of the situation in the province of Alberta, having reference to the demand that an out-of-pocket cost rate be given the coal producers of that province, is so similar to our demand from the maritime provinces that I could not add anything to the splendid analysis of that subject which he gave upon that occasion. I might say that my hon. friend robbed me, in that able speech, of a good deal of matter that I intended to present to the house. .
Canadian coal for Canadian people is a slogan that I believe should be sung throughout the whole of Canada. It is a national question. It is a question that can be solved, if it is energetically taken hold of. Give the railways the out-of-pocket cost on moving coal and you will at once bridge the great gulf which is now fixed between the coal producers in these provinces and the consumers in the central provinces. The coal operators of Alberta are demanding this out-of-pocket rate to overcome what is known as seasonal unemployment. During the summer months they have not sufficient market to keep their mines operating at full capacity, while in Nova Scotia, as was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Pictou, we require this seasonal employment, and this out-of-pocket rate would give employment to our miners after the St. Lawrence river has been closed to navigation. During the summer months our mines are worked to capacity, but with the closing of the St. Lawrence the work automatically ceases and destitution soon follows.
I wish to compliment the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) on the fact that he is always a very good listener when matters pertaining to his own department are up for discussion. He interjected a question when the hon. member for Pictou was speaking, and asked why 700,000 tons of coal were brought from Germany and England into the metropolis of Montreal during the summer months. Why should this coal be brought such a great distance when it could be obtained from the mines in Nova Scotia, which are much nearer Montreal? From the shake of the hon. minister's head I do not think he quite understood the meaning of the remark of the hon. member for Pictou. Let me say, therefore, that during the open season of navigation our mines are worked to their full capacity. The people of the great metropolis of Montreal, knowing that they cannot get coal by the St. Lawrence route in winter, naturally have to store large quantities and keep it on hand, and not being able to get it from the mines of Nova Scotia, they had to obtain it elsewhere. What we ask is that this out-of-pocket cost which the Alberta government and the Alberta operators are asking for, be extended to the province of Nova Scotia. If that were done the necessity for buying and storing such large quantities of foreign coal during the summer months would be immediately eliminated.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to bother my hon. friend or interfere with the trend of his argument, but for the sake of clarity would he tell me just what he means by the out-of-pocket cost? That is important, of course.


George Taylor MacNutt: It is quite evident the
Minister of Railways was not in his seat the other afternoon when the hon. member for Bow River made a splendid analysis of the matter with respect to out-of-pocket cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I was.


George Taylor MacNutt: There is a difference, I
admit, between the contention of the operators, the government of Alberta, and that of the railway commission, as to the cost. The railway commission, as stated by my hon. friend from Bow River, claims that it costs as much to move empty cars as it does to move loaded ones. I do not think anyone believes that. I agree that the difference would not be so great as perhaps appears at first sight, but I do not believe it costs as much to move empty cars as it does to move loaded cars.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not intend to interject an argument, but rather to find out whether he meant the out-of-pocket cost as determined by the board of railway commissioners, or the claimed out-of-pocket cost as stated by the hon. member for Bow River and others, who argued that the commission was in error? It has an important bearing, from my point of view, on the question of the transportation of coal from Nova Scotia.
The Address

Mr. MaeNutt

Mr. MaeNUTT:	Not being an expert in
rates I am not in a position to say whether the railway commission are right in their contention about the out-of-pocket cost, or whether the government of Alberta is right. But if they are right in their contention that it costs as much to move empty cars as to move loaded ones, I say we have thousands of cars coming into Nova Scotia during the winter months that of necessity must be returned to the central provinces, and if you take the out-of-pocket cost as mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, I think the Canadian National Railway will be making money out of the transaction.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I can assure the hon. member that the commission's figures are wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that I have
created a misunderstanding. I was not asking whether the commission's figures were right or wrong, but I was asking whether the figures my hon. friend was giving as being so useful to his argument, were the commission's figures or the lower figures quoted by the hon. member for Bow River. The difference is material and would have an effect on the economic situation. If you say you are taking the lower figure, that is an answer to my question.


George Taylor MacNutt: I am free to admit I
am taking the figures presented by the hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Avery Dunning: And lower still if you
could get them.


George Taylor MacNutt: Quite so. So much
has been said on the question of immigration in the debate that I hesitate to make any reference to it. I understand we are to have a commission or committee appointed to investigate the Department of Immigration. The first duty of the department or of such a commission should be to find ways and means of keeping our own people in the country. If our own native sons cannot make a living in Canada-Canadians who succeed everywhere else in the known world *-how, I ask, can we expect people from foreign countries to come here and succeed where such Canadians fail?


Mr. FORKE:: The Immigration department will not be helped by any statements such as the hon. gentleman has just made.


George Taylor MacNutt: I am sorry to say I did
not quite catch what the minister said. Yesterday, as the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) was addressing the house, I could not help wondering when he told us

that in his visit abroad he had met so many people who desired to come to Canada. Knowing as I do the conditions that obtain in the farming industry in my own province, conditions of which I have already spoken, I wondered why these intending immigrants referred to by the minister would come to Canada and go in for farming, especially dairy farming such as is carried on in my constituency, rather than go to Australia where they would receive a bonus of six cents on every pound of butter they might ship out. As I say, I could not help wondering as to this as the minister presented his case to the house
Now a word in regard to the Duncan report-because if a maritime member addressed the house and had nothing to say in that regard, the people at home would think that something was wrong with him. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his excellent speech a few days ago, assure the house that during this session the question of implementing the remainder of the recommendations contained in that report would be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) spoke of improved-conditions in the maritime provinces. In this we can agree: the carrying into effect of part of the Duncan report has had a wonderful influence on that section of the country; and what is more important is the moral feeling it has produced. The old feeling that existed in the maritime provinces against the rest of Canada is dying out and the maritimes to-day are facing the future with confidence and hope. A striking development has been in evidence in the growth of the cooperative movement aniong farmers' clubs, womens' institutes, egg circles, fruit companies, creameries and organizations having to do with potato and live stock shipping, all of which have taken heart anew. The people are looking not to the past but to the future. In the city of Halifax we have under construction two chateau type hotels which will cost millions of dollars, and believing that they are an index to prosperity we welcome them. There is no question that a better future awaits that little province and the people who are behind the construction of these hotels no doubt foresee such a development in the maritimes as warrants them in undertaking the expenditure. Tourist traffic will be doubled and trebled immediately. Those members who come from the interior provinces and who have not yet had a sniff of good salt air from the Atlantic, I invite to come down to Nova Scotia and receive the benefits from the change.

' The Address-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
As we did a year ago, we on this side of the house are disposed to take the word of the Prime Minister at its face value. Our attitude will be one of watchful waiting during this session, and I want to assure the house that in taking this attitude we do not imply that the time has yet come when the sword can be sheathed.


Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens):: It is my pleasure at this time to join with those who have preceded me in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address upon the way in which they have discharged the honourable duty conferred upon them by the government. In continuing the debate 1 may be permitted for a moment or two to refer to some of the things that have been touched upon by the hon. member for Colehestei (Mr. MacNutt). In the opening of his remarks he made the statement, with which I can pretty much agree, that we in the maritime provinces are renowned for our codfish, our handsome girls and our college professors. The only amendment we in Prince Edward Island would suggest to that sentiment is this: we would mention the handsome girls before the codfish.
Belonging as I do to the agricultural calling, I may perhaps be allowed to say a word in reference to the statements that have been made regarding the production of butter and other dairy produce in the maritime provinces. It has been claimed by many public speakers throughout Canada that our farmers are suffering as a result of the Australian treaty and that there is consequently no incentive to the butter and dairy producers in Canada. 1 was at a loss to gather, when the hon. member for Colchester was speaking, whether he put himself on record as being opposed to Americans coming here to buy our dairy cows, because I know that in the maritime provinces during recent years, especially since the policy was put into force of bringing these provinces into the disease free area, the eyes of American dairymen as well as of dairymen in central Canada have been turned towards the njaritimes. There is an appreciable movement from the large dairies 'from time to tipfe throughout the year to replenish their stocK^f dairy cows from disease-free areas,, and that is largely the reason why we see so many leading dairymen coming to that part of the country, particularly during the summer season when cattle can be shipped. Further than that, a movement has developed in recent weeks, perhaps I should say months, from the West Indies, for dairy cattle from the maritime provinces. Shipments are now being collected for the West
Indies. This movement is largely due to the fact that tests have demonstrated that the dairy cattle of the maritimes are freer from tuberculosis than the dairy cattle of any other section of the Dominion. I feel that if the hon. members who are interested will compare the prices of butter throughout Canada during the past few years they will find that those prices have not been depressed by reason of the competition of the butter producers in our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand. If as a member of the empire we are going to advocate inter-imperia.1 trade, how can we ask for a repeal of the Australian treaty and be loyal to our professions in that regard? As an agriculturist in direct touch with the work of finding markets for our dairy products, I am in a position to state that the main result of the importations of Australian butter has simply been to put the speculator in Canadian dairy products out of business rather than to injure the farmer. To-day we have a ready market all the year round in Great Britain for our dairy products. It is in the same market that the dairy farmers of Australia and New Zealand dispose of their surplus product. That market controls the price of butter in the markets of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And undoubtedly the dairymen of Canada are ready to compete wfith the other sister nations of this great Commonwealth in supplying the British market. I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying that I am unwaveringly opposed to the suggestion, made by the hon. member for Colchester that an additional duty of four cents a pound be imposed upon butter. As. to the bonus, New Zealand butter-which I think is chiefly coming into Canada-does not enjoy the incentive of a bonus. The bonus system applies only in Australia, and 1 am not sure whether it is in full operation at the present time or not.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to one or two of the outstanding points in the speeches that we have heard from representatives from the maritime provinces during the past few days. The hon. members for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald), and Colchester (Mr. MacNutt), spoke to-day, and a few days previously we heard from the hon. members for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), as well as my hon. friend from St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren). In all those speeches the one outstanding feature was their reference to the Duncan report on maritime claims, and each hon. member complained that the government had not fully implemented the



The Address-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
recommendations contained in that report. But, with some very slight exceptions, all those hon. gentlemen were very careful not to specify any particular recommendation that had not been implemented by the government as far as possible up to this time. Unconsciously they congratulated the government upon the effect produced in the maritimes by the Duncan report. The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. MacNutt) said that it had had a wonderful effect in the maritimes. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton stated that the Duncan report gave new life to the maritimes. But my hon. friend from Pictou was more cautious-he said our thanks were due to the God of the harvest. However, in the latter part of his speech, when associating himself with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in pressing the completion of the Hudson Bay railway and other western projects, he said: "Members from the west should remember our views when considering this dissatisfaction and unrest in the maritimes." As a maritimer, Mr. Speaker, I claim that such reference to the maritime provinces is unwarranted, and is not a true reflection of the spirit of our people at this time.
Now, sir, let us look at the Duncan report and see how far our friends are justified in raising this cry of inaction by the government. Taking the recommendations paragraph by paragraph, the first is that a money grant should be made to each of the maritime provinces. This recommendation has been implemented as far as possible to date, pending a general adjustment as recommended by the commission. The second recommendation is that there should be a reduction of twenty per cent in freight rates on all traffic which both originates and terminates at stations in the Atlantic division of the Canadian National railways, including export and import traffic, by sea, common to that division, and that the same reduction be also applied to the Atlantic division proportion of through rates on all traffic which originates at stations in the Atlantic division, excluding import . traffic by sea, and is destined to points outside the Atlantic division. That has been implemented in full, with the exception of incoming freight by water destined for maritime points and the freight going out to United States points by rail and water originating in the maritime provinces. Our friends opposite claim that this also should be implemented. I am confident that a close perusal of the freight revenue statements that have been made by the Canadian National Railways at the end of each month from July 1 to 
December 31, 1927, will show that compared with the same volume and the same period in 1926 the freight earnings on the Atlantic region have shrunk 20 per cent. So that they have given full effect to what has been recommended by the Duncan commission. The figures that have been published bear out that statement to November 30, and the figures published to the end of the year will I am confident show a similar result.


Mr. CAHAN:: Does that twenty per cent reduction apply on the same volume of freight?


John Ewen Sinclair: On the same
volume of freight as compared with the previous period of 1926.
Now, sir, on page 27 of the report will be found one of the recommendations of the Duncan commission with respect to Prince Edward Island. That recommendation is in two parts. First, it is recommended that a survey be made of the railroad with a view to straightening it and giving better accommodation. This survey was made during the past year. Then there is the recommendation for an improved ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. A survey was made during the past year with a view to implementing that recommendation and I would say here in passing, in harmony with my colleague (Mr. Jenkins) who spoke yesterday, that the increased volume of' trade in Prince Edward Island demands that at the earliest possible moment greater capacity should be provided in connection with the ferry service. In the matter of the recommendation for improved facilities in connection with the Prince Edward Island railway and the ferry service the government have gone as far as it is humanly possible for them to go up to this date.


Thomas Cantley: Would it not be humanly possible for the government to have ordered the second feTry boat that is called for by the report?


John Ewen Sinclair: If my hon. friend wdll scrutinize the report he will find that it does not recommend a second ferry boat.


Thomas Cantley: I have scrutinized the
report as carefully as any member of this house.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have the report here and if the hon. member questions my statement I shall be happy to demonstrate its accuracy. In further answer to his question I would say that neither the government nor the railway can act a year in ad-

The Address-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
vance of a thorough survey by the engineers to determine the type of boat that is required. It would not be doing justice to Prince Edward Island to award a contract for a boat until a thorough survey of the existing conditions had been carried out and a suitable type of boat designed. The ferry boat which at present carries out the service does not meet the requirements of the present day, and the government are doing everything possible to meet that deficiency. I feel that it will not be very long, therefore, before even the exacting imagination of the hon. member for Piotou (Mr. Cantley) will be satisfied.
A further recommendation in the Duncan report was that a survey should be made of the three ports of Prince Edward Island with a view to providing transportation facilities, particularly for potatoes and other products. That recommendation has been carried out also. A survey has been made and contracts have been awarded. Two of them have been completed, and the necessary facilities thus provided at Summerside and Georgetown were in use this year. As a result hundreds of thousands of bushels of potatoes have been shipped by water to southern markets. The work at Charlottetown has only been partly completed. However, a contract for the construction of deep water facilities on the improved lines in connection with the railway terminus there has been awarded, and we hope those facilities will be available for taking care of the crop in the fall of this year. So it would seem that notwithstanding the complaints of hon. gentlemen opposite, the recommendations for better harbour facilities in Prince Edward Island contained in the Duncan report have either been fully implemented, or are well under way.
As far as the bonus for the steel industry is concerned we all know that when litigation was pending it was not an opportune time to carry out the proposal. In regard to coking plants, however, legislation was passed at the last session to give effect to the recommendation of the commission in that regard.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend in the very excellent speech he is making. He has said that the litigation over the affairs of the British Empire Steel Corporation last year rendered the time inopportune for giving effect to the recommendation of the Duncan commission. Can he give us any assurance, now that the affairs of the company have been straightened out, that we can look for the required assistance in the budget when it is brought down?
56103-17J


John Ewen Sinclair: The question my hon. friend asks indicates that he accepts my statement that it was inopportune to take any action when litigation was pending. In regard to his question I can tell him that I have always found it a wise thing to look for things to those from whom we are most apt to get them, and that his desire for information will be fully satisfied when the budget comes down.
On page 41 of the Duncan report are set forth recommendations as to the action the government should take with respect to certain railway problems in the province of New Brunswick. In regard to the Kent Northern railway the recommendation is that negotiations be opened with the company looking to its being taken over. I understand that recommendation has been acted upon, and negotiations of the kind referred to have been opened.
On page 42 of the report the recommendation was made for the appointment of a deputy minister of fisheries. May I point out that legislation was passed at the last session of parliament for the carrying out of that recommendation.


Mr. HANSON:: Where is the deputy
minister?


John Ewen Sinclair: The implementing legislation has been passed, and it is for the department to carry out its provisions.
It was recommended also in the report that a geological survey be made of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, particularly in regard to the clays and road materials that are available for the building of roads in these two provinces, especially in the latter. During the past season the required survey was made to determine the quality as well as the quantity of the clays available. I am not so well posted with respect to New Brunswick, but as regards Prince Edward Island that recommendation was carried out by the mines branch during the past summer.
A further recommendation was that agriculture, in the case of Prince Edward Island, where it is the leading industry, should be deemed as under technical education. That recommendation has been carried out to the full by the Labour department in the administration of the Technical Education Act.
I think it is fair to say that on the whole the government have gone as far as it is possible for them to go in implementing the recommendations of the Duncan commission. I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite from the maritime provinces that they have not given a correct account of conditions in the


Charles Avery Dunning: How are the people satisfied with the terminal work?


John Ewen Sinclair: I have had no complaints whatever in regard to the t'erminal work. I think the expenditure that is being made this year in providing standard terminals in the city of Charlottetown meets with the approval of all our people. It is really a necessary part of the standardization work; in order to use the remaining narrow gauge equipment and take care of the running expenses of the standard equipment that is now in use on a portion of the road, it was necessary to have that terminal work done at this time as decided upon and requested by the engineers of the road.
There is another feature of the speech from the throne to which I should like to make reference. In the last paragraph it says that substantial assistance and improved facilities will be provided for industrial and scientific research. That, Sir, will meet with hearty approval from our people in Prince Edward Island, because there is no doubt that the advance of scientific agriculture in our province has been quite rapid during the past few years. I feel that an expenditure along that line will mean a great deal for the pro-

The Address-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
ducers of grain and root crops. I have in my hand a copy of an address delivered to the professional institute of the civil service of Canada at its meeting in the Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, on November 27th last, by Professor J. C. McLennan, of the University of Toronto, a noted scientist of whom Canada may well be proud. He says:
By the use of "off-peak" electric power we can obtain vast amounts of such gases as oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and such materials as phosphorus, magnesium and aluminium.
He says further:
It will be possible, too, with the large supplies of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus that we can secure by the use of our spare electric power, to build up immense industries for the production of artificial fertilizers, and these products can be used in ever increasing amounts to enrich our grass lands, to increase our hay and root crops and to increase -yes, double, at least in many places-the production of our grain fields.
That has a particular appeal to our people in Prince Edward Island. We have been growing our potato crop on artificial fertilizers. We have used considerable quantities of them, buying them in the markets of the world, but chiefly from Baltimore in the United States. Last year we used about thirty thousand tons of mixed fertilizers for the production of our crop. The amount in use has been increasing rapidly from year to year, and if fertilizers can be produced as here indicated from the waste energy of our electric power and the raw products of Canada can take the place of what we are now importing, it will certainly be a step in the right direction. By providing fertilizers for our people from our own natural resources, it will improve conditions generally in Canada, as well as help our trade balance. I think the action of the government in that regard is to be commended, and I hope that a liberal allowance will be made for the organization of an adequate research bureau in Ottawa.
Before closing, I might refer to a matter of probably local interest, which was also referred to last night by my hon. colleague. The speech from the throne speaks of the progress and development that has been made in Canada in aviation, particularly in regard to the carrying of the mails, and we are all glad to learn of that. My friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), of whom we are all proud in the maritimes, is to be congratulated upon inaugurating an air mail service in Canada and delivering the mail in a shorter time than it had been delivered previously. I am referring particularly to the weekly service that is now given the people of the Magdalen islands. No people in Canada were more

in need of being brought closer to the mainland of Canada than our good friends in the Magdalen islands, and we are all glad to see that they are getting this service. We have an idea that perhaps the minister might see his way clear to supplement that service by giving to us in Prince Edward Island a similar service, which would not entail any great expense, now that he has the plane and the equipment at Moncton. During this season of the year particularly, from the first of January until the ice goes away in the spring, our service is often interrupted, and we have especially during week-ends and on certain days during the week when steam communication is interrupted, quite a long time to wait for the regular delivery of mail. If some system could be devised by the Postmaster General by which an air mail service could be given to the people of Prince Edward Island, as an initial step, to carry our delayed mails, I am sure it would be much appreciated by the province in anticipation of a regular aerial mail service.
I see Mr. Speaker is becoming restless and that my time is up. I thank the house for its attention.


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to make a few remarks on the subject before the house. We are now in the closing days of the debate, and the main subjects dealt with in the speech from the throne have been so thoroughly discussed that there is very little left for one to say.
First I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address on the very excellent manner in which they performed their respective duties. Especially do I congratulate the mover, who is a maritimer; and I am glad that the government saw fit thus to honour the hon. member for Hants-Kings, who is keeping up that reputation for oratorical ability which in days gone by was so ably displayed by many who sat in parliament, made laws, and came from the little province by the sea.
I do not wish to appear either over-optimistic or pessimistic, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not deny that prosperity may exist in some parts of the country, especially in the west on account of the great wheat crop, the same cannot be said of the eastern part of Canada, where unemployment is very great and our principal industry, coal mining, is stagnant and comparatively idle. Prosperity in that district during the past few years has been unknown. Only a few days ago the citi-

The Address-Mr. Johnstone
zens of Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, clubbed together and raised a subscription of nearly S3,000 to help the mining district of Cape Breton. That district is in great want; certainly there is no wave of prosperity there.
I want the house to understand distinctly that our people are not looking for relief or for charity; they want work. We find a mine only working 180 days in a year, the average wage being about $4.50; and I ask hon. gentlemen, how can a man keep a family when he is working only about half time' to say nothing of paying the debts incurred in the winter season when there is no work for him?
It does seem peculiar, Mr. Speaker, with the large coal fields in the west and in the east, that $100,000,000 of Canadian money should be spent on foreign coal. Why should not that money be kept in our own country? What a difference it would make in the matter of unemployment! I know of many miners from Cape Breton who are working in the coal fields of Philadelphia and being paid in American money for sending coal into their native country. Something must be wrong, and' something ought to be done. The board of trade in Halifax has passed the following resolution, which has been confirmed by all the other boards throughout the province, composed as they are of all classes and creeds, political and otherwise:
Whereas in the calendar year 1926, Canada produced 16,457,484 tons of coal and imported 18,056,139 tons, including 4,242,932 tons of anthracite, and indications are to the effect that importations for the year 1927 will exceed those of 1926. The importation means the export of over $100,000,000 in payment therefor: and
Whereas in the year 1926 the steel plants of Canada produced only 649,390 tons of iron and steel products (which is less than one-half of their capacity output) while in the same year 922,482 tons of foreign iron and steel in directly competitive forms were imported into Canada, and about $50,000,000 exported in payment therefor;...
Therefore be it resolved that the parliament of Canada should adopt a national fuel-steel policy which recognizes Canada's need of these commodities of coal and steel and Canada s ability to fill that need, the aim of which policy should be to produce in Canada the coal and steel consumed in Canada so far as that is presently possible, and to take all steps necessary to ensure expansion of these industries so that they may ultimately give complete fulfilment to this national policy.
That was the resolution passed by the board [DOT]of trade of Halifax, and which was sent to and concurred in by the different boards of trade throughout the country. What is the solution of this annual lack of employment in our coal centres? Last session we thought we had found a solution in the coke oven bill, but apparently we did not-and why? The
answer is that these coke ovens are using American coal instead of Canadian coal, because the American coal comes in practically free and owing to the cost of transportation can be purchased more cheaply than Canadian coal. Now, Sir, I do not think that the way to build up our country is to close down our own industry and import our products from a foreign country. There are only two things I know of which will -provide a remedy, namely, tariff and railway rates. We must have such railway rates that we shall be able to ship our coal by rail during the winter months, thus giving employment to our miners in Cape Breton. Let me quote a statement prepared by the Hon. G. S. Harrington, Minister of Public Works and Mines for Nova Scotia, with regard to a national fuel and steel policy:
That the Dominion of Canada adopt a national fuel and steel policy the aim of which is to produce in Canada the fuel and steel consumed in Canada; that the recommendations of the Duncan commission framed towards this end be made effective forthwith; and that all steps necessary from time to time to give full effect to this policy be taken by the parliament of Canada.
Present steps recommended:
1.	Coking plants.
2.	Subventions for carriage of coal west of Montreal.
3.	Tariff consideration for imported coke, anthracite screenings and bituminous coal.
4.	More favourable transportation rates.
5.	Abolition of customs drawback for foreign coals entering Canada for coking as now allowed.
If this policy were put into force without delay the money now sent out of the country for the purchase of foreign coal would be spent in Canada, and in the next speech from the throne the government would be able to say truthfully and honestly that there was prosperity throughout the land.
The speech from the throne makes mention of the celebration during the past summer of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. I wish to congratulate the government upon the success of the celebration. The organization of committees and the carrying out of the various plans were all that could be desired, and I think it was a great thing for Canada. When we recall the unanimous character of the demonstration, extending as it did from east to west and including every little hamlet, village and town we see how strongly the patriotic feeling prevailed; we realize that it showed plainly to other countries that Canada is essentially patriotic, no matter what a few propagandists or secessionists might say to the contrary.
With reference to the Dominion-provincial conference, I believe it will be a good thing
The Address-Mr. Johnstone

if the terms of that conference as agreed upon are properly carried out. If not, it is useless and a bill of expense. I am convinced that much good must have been accomplished by the representatives of the different provinces meeting and discussing matters with the federal government.
I have very little to say on chat very important and well discussed matter of immigration policy. I am in favour of a commission to go into the whole business in order to find out what is the right policy to adopt. I do think that a certain number of immigrants might be turned to the maritimes. In Cape Breton we have splendid, fertile farms with no one to work them. I believe the local government is trying to formulate some scheme to relieve that situation. As I understand from the speech delivered by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. b'orke) yesterday a conference with the different provinces is contemplated in the near future; I hope it will be productive of some good.
I do not wish to detain the house any longer, but I trust that, if not all, at least some of the few suggestions that have been offered to the government will be taken notice of, that our country will continue to prosper, and that this prosperity will extend over all parts of this fair Canada of ours.


Mr. HUGH ALLAN (North Oxford):: will diligently apply itself to the tasks which confront it? Thus shall we perfect the vision of those illustrious men whose deeds we celebrated last year and hand down to posterity a heritage worthy of the age in which we live.
On motion of Mr. Veniot the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 8, 1928