1928-02-09

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 24, to incorporate the Highwood Western Railway Company- Mr. Coote.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate Niagara Gorge Bridge Company.-Mr. Hay.
[Stage Direction]
Report of Federal District Commission and statement of receipts and expenditures of the commission for year ending March 31, 1927.- Mr. Robb.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Northwest Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to
amend the Railway Act. (Special rates on coal.)
Hon. CHARLES DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: By this amendment, and
as a start towards a national coal supply, coal mined and coked in Canada will be carried for domestic use on the same preferential terms as grain and flour are now carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD-EVIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to lay on the table the evidence given before the tariff advisory board with regard to cotton.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I will see if the evidence is ready, and will try to lay it on the table tomorrow or the next day.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT NEAVSPAPER COMMENT ON SPEECH IN THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been drawn to an article appearing on the front page of the Montreal Gazette under date of February 6, of this year. The article is headed:
Compromise in School Rates is Suggested
Below that appears the sub-heading:
Provincial Liberals Object to Criticism of Tasehereau by J. F. Pouliot, M.P.
I have a few comments to make on this article, so I intend to take it up paragraph by paragraph, and it begins as follows:
Special to the Gazette. Quebec, February 4: For the present at least it is not intended to name a commission to revise the Quebec municipal code. The last revision was approved by the legislature in 1915-
That is wrong; it was done in 1916.
-and amendments to the Municipal Code are not very frequent.
This is another mistake, because inside of ten years two hundred amendments have been made to the eight hundred articles of the code.
Premier Tasehereau is not suffering from a lack of offers to revise the code, and only recently answered in the negative to a request of Jean-Francois Pouliot, Liberal M.P. for Temiscouata, that he be appointed to undertake the work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Sir, to satisfy hon.
members on both sides of the house, I will tell them now that I have nothing offensive to say about Mr. Tasehereau to-day, and I will make my reply to this article as short as possible. First I would like to know if there is some expert or artist in quotations in the department of the Attorney General of Quebec who subtilizes documents in file and falsifies texts? I do not believe there is. I rather believe it comes from the correspondent of the Gazette in Quebec, who is the janitor of the falsehood factory or Ananias club of Quebec, and if such a thing happens once more I will name him so that the country will know the fellow as he is. I received only one letter from Mr. Tasehereau in that connection, and I will read to the house that section of the letter in connection with this article. The municipalities association of Quebec asked the

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
government to make a new draft of the Quebec municipal code because of the very many amendments which had been made, and I wrote telling Mr. Taschereau that if he wanted me to act as commissioner for this purpose I would gratefully accept. That part of the report is true, but my letter was written a long time before the house opened; it was written on November 4, while Mr. Taschereau was giving interviews to the papers in Ottawa during the Dominion-provincial conference. I received his answer when he went back to Quebec, and I will read the French text, which I shall be glad to show any hon. member of the house, and I hope Mr. Taschereau will not deny his signature. On November 12th ult., he acknowledges receipt of my letter of November 4, and the last paragraph of his letter reads as follows:
Je ne manquerai pas, au cours de la prochaine session, de faire part a la chambre de votre proposition.
I will translate that into English for the benefit of my English-speaking friends, and I wonder if they will take it as an affirmative or a negative answer. No one will change this letter, because I keep it in a steel file. The last paragraph is as follows:
I will not fail during the next session to submit your proposition to the legislative assembly.
Contrary to Esau, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, I have no hesitation in saying that if I have to choose between a job offered by any government, any company or any individual, and freedom of speech, I will always choose freedom of speech.
Now I crave the indulgence of the house to read further from this article, which is as malicious as it is slanderous, not only against myself but against every member of this house from the province of Quebec.
The attack which Mr. Pouliot made upon Premier Taschereau in his speech in the House of Commons had aroused considerable feeling here.-*
This I did not expect.
-and _ especially the statement that the provincial Liberals have regard for their federal brothers only when there is a provincial election. Provincial Liberals maintain that such is not the case, but if anything the situation has been the reverse. The Liberals have been in power at Quebec since 1897, which has meant handling of considerable patronage, and during the dark ten years, from 1911 to 1921, when the federal Liberals were out of power this patronage had to be spread so as to care for the victims of 1911,-
I was not one of them; do I look like a victim?
-and at times the butter was very thin,
There was no question of Australian butter at that time.
-and there was no jam whatever owing to the care bestowed upon the federal Liberals.
My answer to that is that the young man who wrote that article is known as a buffoon in Quebec. His bread is well buttered, and I am sure that he is jammed with that well buttered bread. The article goes on to say:
Provincial judgeships, positions as crown prosecutors-
I am not a judge, I am not a crown prosecutor.
-and other positions have been handed out by the Quebec Liberal government to distressed federal friends-
He should name them.
-and it has always been the provincial Liberal organization which has furnished the fighting means at federal elections-
I never knew that.
-not to mention the fact that the two official Liberal organs in the province receive their government support from Quebec, and not from Ottawa.
I draw that statement to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of the Finance minister (Mr. Robb).
Hence, provincial Liberals who have had to make way for the needs of federal Liberals fail to appreciate the attack made by Mr. Pouliot on Premier Taschereau.
I hope the house will allow me to answer that by a little story. When I was at college an elderly cousin of mine called on me the first year I was a boarder, and brought me once a bag of six very small strawberry tartlets. During the following summer she called at our house and when she found I was not very polite to her she said: "Why are you so impolite when I fed you last year?" Mr. Speaker, I have just a word more to add and it is this: I do not believe that false, malicious, slanderous story comes from Mr. Taschereau because I think he is enough of a gentleman to take the responsibility of what he says. But whomsoever it comes from I say to him that I despise a man who will make such insinuations. If Mr. Taschereau is not satisfied with what I have said, let him produce and lay on the table of the Quebec legislative assembly the official correspondence that has taken place between us since 1921.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
The Address-Mr. Veniot
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I desire at the very outset to extend my personal congratulations' to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett). Some hon. members from the west told this house that they felt proud he had been chosen, because the great Conservative party had to go to the west to find a leader. I wish to say to our friends from the west who spoke in that way that we in the maritime provinces are very jealous of the honours that come to us, and that we cannot allow the west to take all the credit in regard to the choice made of the leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman, I regret to say, is not in his seat at the present moment. I should like to see him there because I, as one New Bruns-wicker, would like to extend my personal congratulations to him as another New Brunswicker. It was in that province that he saw the light of day although, it is true, in one of its smallest counties. But coming from that small county, as he does, he occupies to-day the greatest position in the gift of the party to which he has adhered for so many years. I as a New Brunswicker feel proud of the faot that one of the great political parties in this country has chosen a native of my province to lead it and to help it in shaping its course for the future.
I have only forty minutes at my disposal, and I have certain important points which I wish to lay before the house. Therefore as regards the gentlemen who moved and seconded the address I will merely repeat what has been well said already as to the splendid way in which they discharged their duties. Not only do I congratulate them, but I hope they will long live to enjoy the position they now hold in the hearts of the people who have sent them here as their representatives.
I would not have spoken on the address, Mr. Speaker, had it not been that certain members from the maritime provinces have thought fit to cast doubt upon some statements I made at two meetings, one at Amherst, Nova Scotia and the other at St. John, N.B., in relation to what is known as "maritime rights", a subject now worn pretty nearly threadbare. Doubt having been cast upon the statements I made on those occasions I wished to take the very earliest opportunity to prove to this house that I was correct when I said that there were only ten direct recommendations made in the Duncan, report, and it is beyond doubt that there were only ten such direct recommendations, putting to one side suggestions and expressions of feeling on the part of the com-

mission, as well as arguments advanced by those who presented themselves before the commission. I make that statement now and I defy honest contradiction of it. Out of those ten direct recommendations, eight were implemented to the extent that it was practicable to implement them by legislation, by the various departments of the government, leaving two recommendations yet to be implemented and which, I understand, are to-day receiving the consideration of the government. Having made the statement that there were only ten direct recommendations, I intend to deal with those recommendations, and to show to the house the propaganda that has been instituted in the maritime provinces by certain persons. I am not going to attribute any motives to these persons, but I am going to lay the facts before the house and let the house come to a decision thereon. I remind hon. members of the action taken by parliament, and by this government last winter, of the consideration shown to the claims of the maritime provinces by our friends from the west, from Ontario, from Quebec, and from British Columbia. On that occasion all joined hands in an endeavour to obtain redress of the wrongs, so-claimed, of the maritimes; and in view of that action it is humiliating to think that to-day certain people in the maritime provinces are attempting to make a political football of what has already been done, and what may yet remain to be done, in connection with this important question. Is it any wonder that there is doubt in the minds of the people from the other provinces, who stood so loyally by the maritimes last winter as to whether we were sincere or not? Is there any wonder that some of those from other provinces who cooperated with us may entertain a feeling that we in the maritime provinces can never be satisfied? Is it any wonder that those of us on both sides of this house who have been advocating those rights-and I wish to give credit to our Conservative friends for the manner in which they stood by my colleague in the government and myself on this question-have, within the last two or three months, heard rumours that it is impossible to satisfy the maritime provinces?
Let me take up the first recommendation of the Duncan report in regard to the money grants to the provinces. That recommendation has been implemented to the full. Every suggestion made in the recommendation has been carried out. Let me correct the statement of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) that the extra subsidy was not paid

The Address-Mr. Veniot
to the Nova Scotia government during the session of parliament of last year. How could it be paid then? Why does the hon. member wish to leave the impression that the government of this country was keeping back that payment? The hon. gentleman should know that a certain practice prevails which regulates the payment of subsidies. These subsidies are paid twice a year on the first of July and the first of January, and on the first of July of last year a cheque was sent to the public treasury of Nova Scotia. If, as the hon. gentleman states, anything was kept back of money due to Nova Scotia by this government, that money was kept, not out of the extra subsidy, but out of the regular subsidy that was due Nova Scotia. That shows how the false impression was created and spread about, causing dissatisfaction.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Was it not the recommendation of the Duncan commission that the amount of $875,000 should be paid forthwith?


Peter John Veniot: I was coming to that. The
hon. gentleman has now given me the very ammunition I want and I thank him for doing so. There is another attempt on the part of somebody to leave the impression that the government of this country are tardy in paying this amount because the Duncan commission used the word "forthwith." Of course it did but parliament had to vote the money. The money could not be paid forthwith without a vote of this house and it could not be paid by the government until parliament voted it.


Thomas Cantley: Why did the government
not get the vote?


Peter John Veniot: We did not forget to vote
it. The hon. gentleman himself took a part in that vote. But the money could not be paid until the sanction of the proper authority in the person of the Governor General of this Dominion had been obtained and he had signed the act making it imperative upon the federal government to pay over these subsidies. What are the facts? This house rose late in the month of April of last year, and after the business of the house had been cleaned up and royal sanction had been given to all the bills that had been passed, this amount was paid on the first of July. On the 17th November, within seven months after the prorogation of parliament, the second amount was paid. The government did not wait to carry out the usual practice and pay the money only on the first of January. My hon. friend did not state that
to the house and those who are using that argument are using it like the chairman of the board of trade of the city of Saint John, who used that argument at a meeting on the sixth day of December in that city. The Premier of New Brunswick who was sitting by his side allowed that statement to go without contradiction, or at least no contradiction appeared in the report, when he knew that that amount had been paid to New Brunswick four weeks prior to the date that the chairman was addressing the board of trade in that city. That is a sample of the propaganda which is circulated throughout the maritime provinces in connection with the Duncan report.
Lot me come now to transportation and freight rates. A great deal has been said in regard to the question of transportation and the reduction of freight rates. It has been stated and the statement has been circulated broadcast by the boards of trade of Halifax and Saint John, the Saint John Telegraph-Journal and the Premier of New Brunswick, that the general average reduction was only sixteen per cent. I have in my possession a return which I asked for and received yesterday from the railway commission. The reason I asked for this return was because I wished to place it before the house. It shows the work done in checking up the twenty per cent reduction given by the Canadian National Railways from the first day of July to the pres-emt moment, and I am going to ask the permission of the house to place that return on the record because, as it is rather lengthy, it would take too much of the forty minutes at my disposal to read it. This, however, is what it will contain:
1.	Statement of traffic affected by the rate reduction under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, 1927, showing charges as billed and as would be on basis of rates in effect on June 30, 1927; also the proportion accruing to the eastern lines out of the rates in effect June 30, 1927, with the percentage of reduction in such eastern lines proportion, on traffic moving wholly within territory Levis-Diamond Junction and east thereof.
2.	The same on traffic moving from east of Diamond Junction to points in Canada west thereof.
3.	The same covering traffic billed from Saint John, N.B. between October 1 to 14, inclusive, to points within territory Levis-Diamond Junction and east thereof, as well as traffic moving from Saint John, N.B., to points in Canada west of Diamond Junction.
I ask the hon. senior member for the city of Saint John (Mr. MacLaren) to pay par-
The Address-Mr. Veniol

ticular attention to this, and to study these figures carefully when they appear in Hansard to-morrow. He will see that the reduction was not sixteen per cent. -


Mr. MacLAREN:: I made no statement
in reference to any percentage.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that the hon. gentleman did. I asked him to study the figures and he will see that the reduction was not sixteen per cent, but more. The reason why I am calling his attention to this is because the propaganda on the sixteen per cent reduction originated in the city of Saint John, the home city of my hon. friend. As I have known him now for a number of years to be honest and conscientious in anything he wishes to advance, I feel sure that when he finds out that the statement advanced by the board of trade, of which I believe he is a member, the Saint John Telegraph-Journal and the Premier of New Brunswick, is not right, he will be honest enough to stand up in public in the city of Saint John at the first opportunity and point out that those gentlemen were wrong and that I was right.


Murray MacLaren: I would wish for a ruling of the railway commission which I shall be pleased to accept.


Peter John Veniot: I am giving the finding of the railway commission up to date when I am submitting these figures for the records. They have not yet completed the full revision of the tariff submitted by the Canadian National Railways. The statement is as follows:
Statement of traffic affected by rate reduction under The Maritime Freight Rates Act, 1927 showing charges as billed and as would be on basis of rates in effect on June 30,_1927; also the proportion accruing to the eastern lines out of the rates in effect June 30, 1927, with the percentage of reduction in such eastern lines proportion.
Statement covers traffic billed from October 1st. to 14th. inclusive, 1927.
Traffic moving wholly within territory Levis-Diamond Junction, Que., and east thereof.
Freight Charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	 $208,736 62
As would be at rates on June 30, 1927	 260,988 42
Amount of reduction	 52,251 80
Percentage of reduction	 20.02%
Traffic moving from east of Diamond Junction to points in Canada west thereof.
Freight Charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	 $189,854 78
As would be at rates on June 30, 1927	 215,169 96
Amount of reduction	 25,315 18
Proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates on June 30, 1927.	123,557 98
Percentage reduced charges is of eastern lines proportion on June 30, 1927.	20.49%
Summary.
Total freight charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates..	..	*	
$398,591	40As would be at rates on June	30,	1927	
476,158	38Total amount of reduction	
77,566	98
Total proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates on June
30, 1927	 384,546	40
Percentage reduced charges is of eastern lines proportion as of June 30, 1927	20.17%
Statement compiled from revenue figures furnished by the General Auditor of Revenues, Canadian National Railways under date of January 4, 1928.
Statement of traffic affected by rate reduction under The Maritime Freight Rates Act, 1927, showing charges as billed and as would be on basis of rates in effect on June 30, 1927; also the proportion accruing to the eastern lines out of the rates in effect June 30, 1927 with the percentage of reduction in such eastern lines proportion.
Statement covers traffic billed from July 18th to 30th and from October 1st to 14th
inclusive, 1927.
Traffic moving wholly within territory Levis-Diamond Junction, Que. and east thereof.
Freight charges-[DOT]
As waybilled on reduced rates	
As would be at rates on June 30, 1927
Amount of reduction	
Percentage of reduction	

July 18th to October 1st to Total of both July 30	October 14	periods$182,345 55	$208,736 62	$391,082 17228,811 34	260,988 42	489,799 7646,465 79	52,251 80	98,717 5920.31%	20.02%	20.15%
The Address-Mr. Vemot
Traffic moving from east of Diamond Junction to Freight Charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	
As would be at rates on June 30, 1927	
Amount of reduction	
Proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates on June 30, 1927.. .. Percentage reduced charges is of eastern lines proportion on June 30, 1927	
points in Canada west thereof.

20.30%

20.49%

20.41%
Summary.
Total freight charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	
As would be at rates on June 30, 1927	
Total amount of reduction	
Total proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates on June 30, 1927. Percentage reduced charges is of eastern lines proportion as of June 30, 1927

20.31%

20.17%

20.23%
Statement compiled from revenue figures furnished by the General Auditor of Revenues, Canadian National Railways under date of September 13, 1927 and January 4th, 1928.
Statement of traffic originating at Saint John, N.B., affected by rate reduction under The Maritime Freight Rates Act, 1927, showing charges as billed and as would be on basis of rates in effect on June 30tli, 1927; also the proportion accruing to the eastern lines out of the rates in effect June 30, 1927 with the percentage of reduction in the eastern lines proportion.
Statement covers traffic billed from Saint John, N.B., between October 1st and 14th
inclusive, 1927
Traffic from Saint John, N.B., to points within territory Levis-Diamond Junction, Que. and east thereof.
Freight Charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	 $16,573 60
As would be at rates as of June 30, 1927	 20,642 18
Amount of reduction	 4,068 58
Percentage of reduction	 19.71%
Traffic moving from Saint John, N.B. to points in Canada west of Diamond Junction, Que.
Freight Charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	 $8,592 11
As would be at rates as of June 30, 1927	 9.647 24
Amount of reduction	'	 1,055 13
Proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates as of June
30, 1927	 5,228 12
Percentage of reduction in charges is of eastern lines proportion as of June
30,1927	 20.18%
Summary.
Total freight charges-
As waybilled on reduced rates	
As would be at rates as of June 30, 1927	
Total amount of reduction	
Total proportion of charges east of Diamond Junction out of rates as of June
30, 1927	
Total percentage of reduction in charges as of eastern lines proportion as of
June 30, 1927	
Statement compiled from revenue figures furnished by Canadian National Railways under date of January 4, 1928.
What does this statement show? It shows in the first category that I mentioned a reduction of 20.02 per cent, in the next category a reduction of 20.49 per cent, and so on. As regards traffic moving out of Saint John, the reductions amount to 19.71 per cent on traffic to points within territory Levis-Diamond Junction and east thereof, and 20.18 per cent on traffic to points west of Diamond Junction.

19.80%
the General Auditor of Revenues,
Yet in the face of that the Saint John board of trade, on the word of a so-called freight expert, sends out to the world the statement that the Canadian National have refused to comply with the orders of the railway commission and that all that we are getting today is a 16 per cent reduction.
Let me call the attention of the hon. senior member for the city of Saint John to a state-
The Address-Mr. Veniot

ment which he made yesterday and which is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. gentleman, if I mistake not-and if I am wrong I know he will correct me-stated that the Canadian National Railways had submitted a freight schedule to the railway commission and that the railway commission had returned it to them with orders to revise their schedule to give a 20 per cent reduction. I want to say now-and I am not saying this in contradiction of the hon. gentleman personally because I believe that he was mis-[DOT] informed and got this so-called information through the instrumentality of the Saint John board of trade-that that statement is absolutely false. I make that statement boldly because within ten minutes after the hon. gentleman made his statement on the floor of this house, I called up the railway commission and quoted him verbatim and 'in reply the railway commission said, No. As a proof of the fact that the hon. gentleman's statement is not correct, let me say that we are now using that very same schedule to check up all the freight carrying of the Canadian National Railways in order to see if their schedules come within the twenty per cent reduction as recommended by the Duncan report, and so far we find that they do.


Murray MacLaren: May I ask if the tariffs of the Canadian National Railways have yet been approved by the railway commission?


Peter John Veniot: I did not say they had
been. I said that the railway commission have the schedules that were submitted on July 1, 1927, and that they are checking them up, and that checking shows the percentages that I show here. When they are through checking them up it will be found, I am positive, that the same ratio or proportion of reduction will be carried right down through the whole schedules as submitted to be effective July 1, 1927.


Mr. QUINN:: You will add jam to the
bread and butter.


Peter John Veniot: It would be better if the
hon. gentleman would add some sense to his interjections.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: Very parliamentary language for a
minister.


Peter John Veniot: There is another gentleman from the eastern provinces who is feeling the shoe pinch.
Dealing with the question of freight rates and the figures I am submitting to the house, I wish to say that it is not a question of paper reductions such as are being asked for

by certain so-called freight rate experts independent of the volume moving, but it is the percentage reduction of traffic as it actually moves over the line. In the case of a general reduction, the percentage reduction of the traffic as it actually moves is the only real test of what has been done, and the figures I have given are no paper reduction but represent the actual reduction calculated on the quantity of freight moved over the line in comparison with the quantity moved over the line previously at a higher rate. No better criterion can be found or accepted.
Let me go further. The third paragraph deals with port development and export. This question is divided into four sections dealing respectively with Canadian trade, Canadian ports, statutory harbour commissions, port development, maritime trade and harbour facilities. So far as this recommendation of the Duncan report is concerned, it has been carried out by the establishment of the harbour commissions. I know that certain persons in Nova Scotia maintain that Halifax should be put upon the basis of an absolutely national port and should not be called upon to pay any revenue or meet any of the expenses incumbent upon the development of that port in the way of interest, and so forth. The people of St. John have accepted the Duncan report, have accepted the commission, and are prepared to do their share in carrying on the affairs of that harbour, and to meet so far as possible the amounts necessary to pay interest on the capital that will be expended in the greater development of the port of St. John. Halifax is no better than St. John.
While I am not going to refer at all to the attitude that the people of Halifax assumed up to a certain period, let me say that Halifax finally has accepted the action of this government in implementing the Duncan report, and I am proud to learn that they are going on working out that recommendation, and I hope, and dearly hope, that both St. John and Halifax will in the very near future become great grain-exporting ports of the Dominion of Canada. That is the end to which we Should work, and' so long as I have a voice in the affairs of this Dominion, so long as I have the honour to occupy a seat in this house-


Mr. McGIBBON:: It will not be long.


Peter John Veniot: You cannot knock us out.
My hon. friend is whistling to keep his courage up. So long as I occupy a seat in this house, and I expect to occupy my seat long after my hon. friend is politically dead, I shall put forth my very 'best efforts, whether I succeed or not, and I feel I shall succeed, in helping

The Address-Mr. Veniot
to build up the ports of the maritime provinces, and not only to carry out all that the Duncan commission recommends, but as the years go 'by and the trade of Canada grows, the government of this country will have an eye to it that St. John and Halifax will come into their own. I have confidence in the government and Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister stated from his place in the house last session what the government intended to do, and he said that he would carry out what he had stated. I had absolute faith in him when he made that statement, and he has done nothing since that would tend to shake that faith no matter by whom held.
Now I come to the trade policy. What do we find? The Duncan report recommended that the Dominion government should apply its mind to this proposition in the light of maritime province interests and having regard also to the position of other provinces concerned with these same products-that is, the basic products of the maritime provinces, the products of the forest and of the sea-with a view to entering into closer trade relations with the United States so that the products of the forest and of the fishing industry would be allowed to enter the American market on reciprocal terms.
Our friends of the opposition have been attempting, either in this house or in the country, to condemn the present government, saying that we have been inactive in that respect. Would it not make anyone smile, Mr. Speaker, to hear a Conservative blaming a Liberal government because they did not get down on their knees every day in the week, and twice on Sunday, pleading with the Americans to give reciprocity to Canada? Our friends are not consistent. The Prime Minister in laying before this house the program which the government intended to follow in regard to these recommendations pointed out that there is to-day, and always has been under Liberal rule, a clause in the tariff which gives power to the Governor General in Council to enter into reciprocal negotiations with the United States in regard to natural products, and the gentleman who went before the Duncan commission and asked that we enter into closer reciprocal trade relations with the United States was no less a gentleman than the Prime Minister of New Brunswick, the Hon. Mr. Baxter, the one who led the phalanx in 1911 when we were trying to get reciprocity with the United States and who went up and down New Brunswick telling the people that it was disloyal to have any truck or trade with the Yankees. Perhaps I will be pardoned if I say that that is the class of political bunkum 56103-is
that hon. gentlemen are interested in, and that is being spread as propaganda throughout the length and breadth of the maritime provinces.


Peter McGibbon: Like Moses Asiz.


Peter John Veniot: What did the hon. member say? He never opens his mouth that he does not put his foot in it.
Now I come to category 4 of this recommendation, respecting the coking plant. I am not going to discuss at length the question of the coking plant. The Duncan commission recommended certain things and the government have implemented this recommendation to the full. An attempt may be made to state otherwise, because the government has not yet dealt with the coal duty to protect Canadian coal. Be that as it may, the Duncan report in that respect has been implemented.
Then we go on and take the question of the bounty on steel. The recommendation so far as the bounty on steel is concerned, has not been implemented. At the very moment the Duncan report was being prepared by this house the tariff board was considering the question of the bounty on steel. The Duncan report recommended that they should also deal with the question of the duty on coal and the tariff board have this question now before them.
Having dealt with these recommendations which pertain particularly to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, let me say that I intended to deal with the recommendations that pertain to Prince Edward island, but my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Sinclair) in a well thought out speech, in a speech consisting of strong arguments, pointed out how the government had fully implemented the Duncan report, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned. I said a few minutes ago that propaganda was started in New Brunswick in order to belittle what has been done under the Duncan report. Let me give you an example. I hold in my hand an extract from the St. John Telegraph-Journal dated October 14, and this is what I find:
A synopsis of the Duncan report, submitted yesterday at the meeting of the council of the board of trade, showed that of the thirty recommendations therein contained two had been implemented, seven had been partially implemented, there had been nothing at ail done with nine, and there was a possibility that the remaining twelve might receive attention at some later date.
There is a statement that is going out to the country. A more glaring misrepresentation of facts has never been printed in the

The Address-Mr. Veniot

province of New Brunswick or any other section of Canada. The board of trade of St. John, occupying as it does, a position of responsibility, should be careful of the information they send out to the public. Another example of the way these misrepresentations are made will be found in the Financial Post, and I may say here that the reporter or representative of the Financial Post toured the province of New Brunswick and got certain information which was unfounded in fact, and he got part of it from the board of trade in St. John. On that information he based a certain statement published in the Financial Post and referred to yesterday by an hon. member from the province of Nova Scotia. This starts out by stating that the commission recommended the maintenance of St. John Rosalie gateway. No such recommendation is to be found within the four corners of the book containing the recommendations of the Duncan report. The Duncan report referred to the St. John and Ste. Rosalie gateways, only in so far as that question was, and is now, before the railway commission, as being one of importance to the maritime provinces, but it made no recommendation with regard to it. Again we find a recommendation that something be done by way of treaty to better the maritime markets in the United States for fish and forest products. This paper states that nothing has been done. It has been pointed out that we have authority to deal with that situation. But it takes two parties to make a bargain. When we undertook to deal with the United States some years ago the party Opposite told us they did not wish to have reciprocity in natural products, and some gentlemen on the other side indicated that they were strong supporters of that policy. When we again took up matters in a mutual way with our friends to the south, we got for reply the Fordney bill, which places a tariff wall between the United States and Canada in respect to our natural products. That is the answer we got, and yet they are sending out propaganda that this government is content to do nothing, and this propaganda is fostered by the Conservative party in New Brunswick at least, if not in the other two provinces. Their representatives stand up in the house and say that because you have not applied to the United States for reciprocity, you cannot expect-


Murray MacLaren: Not to interrupt, but
for the sake of completeness, may I remind
IMr. Veniot.]
my hon. friend of the recommendation at the bottom of page 25-relating to the powers of the railway commission?


Peter John Veniot: I will deal with that; I am not through. Give me time to get through with the matters I am now dealing with. So far as extending the powers of the railway commission is concerned, it was distinctly pointed out last night on the floor of this house that to undertake to extend such powers would not only require an amendment to the Railway Act, but would destroy the whole rates structure of the Dominion. My hon. friend who now puts the question to me sat in this house last winter and agreed with and applauded that statement.


Murray MacLaren: No, not at all.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Never.


Peter John Veniot: All the statements touching the Duncan report and the reasons why this and that recommendation could not be carried out were accepted by hon. members opposite without a murmur.


Murray MacLaren: Not at all.


Peter John Veniot: Did the hon. gentleman
protest?


Murray MacLaren: Yes I protest.


Peter John Veniot: You do now, but did you
last winter?


Murray MacLaren: I approved of what
was being granted, certainly.


Peter John Veniot: Why did you not protest?


Murray MacLaren: My position was-


Peter John Veniot: I do not think I should be
confined to forty minutes after all these interruptions.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member is
asking for the interruptions.


Peter John Veniot: When the hon. gentleman spoke I did not interrupt. Now let me refer to the argument used yesterday by the hon. gentleman in regard to the gateway at St. John. He said it was absolutely necessary to have this gateway opened for competitive purposes and so prevent railway monopoly. How can there be any monopoly and how can there be a competitive reason for its existence when the Canadian National Railways are compelled to make the 20 per cent rate reduction recommended by the Duncan report, but it is not compulsory on the other railway system; and if the latter do so it will have to be along the lines which govern in relation

The Address-Mr. Hanson
to the Canadian National system. There can be no need of competition in order to do justice and give fair play to the maritime provinces. I am not going to attempt to discuss in detail the principle of open gateways, but I do say to my hon. friend that this is the only instance in the railroad history of the world where one railway is compelled to hand over freight originating in its own territory to a competing railway that does not touch that territory at all. If our friends opposite can accept such a principle then it is up to them to justify it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to some statements made by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) in the course of his speech yesterday. Referring to a passage in the speech of the hon. member for Hamts-Kings (Mr. Usley) in moving the address my hon. friend stated:
This Mr. Speaker, is a striking example of the ignorance and arrogance of youth.
Then he proceeds:
May I ask him which party and what party leaders brought about confederation?
Surely this is the first time I ever heard that the Conservative party could claim the sole credit of bringing about confederation. The fathers of confederation were Liberals and Tories alike. What was Sir Leonard Tilley at the time of confederation?-a good substantial Liberal. True, he changed his policy later on in 1887, but he stood as a Liberal for confederation. Who were the Liberals of Quebec and Ontario who stood for confederation? Their names are recorded in our history. And confederation never would have been possible, so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, had it not been that Joseph Howe at last waived his opposition to the proposal. But my hon. friend hands it down as authentic history that the Conservative party brought about confederation. Then he goes on:
Which party in 1869 bought the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company?
Not the Conservative party; it was a coalition government in 1869 that took this step. My hon. friend is falsifying Canadian history. He also asked:
Which party built the Intercolonial railway?
The Intercolonial railway had to be built as part of the pact of confederation, and Liberals and Conservatives brought that about. True, the railway was built under a Conservative government which took office in 1871, but my hon. friend has no right to claim any credit for his party in respect of this national undertaking. And he also put this question:
56103-18i
Who played the "Linger Longer Lou" comedy in Washington?
Why, if my hon. friend will only read the history of his own party he will find that the first to play the " Linger Longer Lou " comedy were the Conservatives under Sir John A. Macdonald and under Sir George Foster and under Sir Charles Tupper; they took those frequent trips to Washington to induce the United States government to enter into certain reciprocal arrangements with this country. Now, if my hon. friend's expression, "This is a striking example of the ignorance and arrogance of youth," could be applied to the hon. member for Hants-Kings, might I not say that his interpretation of history is a striking example of that forgetfulness which comes with old age?
If I have any further time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on one more point in connection with freight rates which I overlooked. The chairman of the St. John board of trade in the course of his annual report to the board at a banquet held in December made this statement-


Mr. BENNETT:: You are past your time.


Peter John Veniot: Is my time up?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I should have had the temerity to intervene in this debate had it not been for the characteristically bombastic speech of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) who has just taken his seat. Down in New Brunswick the utterances of the hon. gentleman amount to nothing, and I do not think they will mean very much here after the members of this house have had an opportunity of hearing him a few more times. The people of my native province have taken the measure of the hon. gentleman-


Peter John Veniot: And the courts have taken your measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -they	determined in
August, 1926, that he should no longer be premier, and he is here as a member of this administration by the pure force of circumstances.


Peter John Veniot: What about the circumstances that brought you before the courts?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not intend to'emulate the example of the hon. gentleman. I should like to see the debate conducted on a little higher plane, and for that reason I do not

The Address-Mr. Hanson
propose to follow him in the manner of his presentation; but I do desire to make a few remarks with reference to the subject matter of his address. Before I do so, however, I should like to advert for a moment to the speech from the throne. It is the most remarkable document of its kind that I have ever read. I defy anyone to say that it lays down any constructive policy, or that any single paragraph holds out the slightest hope to the business men of this country. Certainly it contains nothing that holds out any hope to the industries of the Dominion; there is no hope held out to those who are seeking employment-and in my part of the country they are many; there is no hope held out to our manufacturing industries, and it is absolutely mute on the question of fiscal policy. It is easy to say that the country is prosperous. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said so the other day in the very eloquent and very extended remarks that he addressed to the house; but saying that a thing is so, and its being actually so, are two entirely different propositions. I submit that having had three or four good crops, and Providence having been kind to some persons in the Dominion, in that respect there is a substantial amount of new wealth. We are all glad of that, no one more so than I. But as to there being real prosperity, I have yet to be shown. In the province of New Brunswick I am very sorry to have to say that conditions have not improved. I say this very reluctantly, for there is no one in this house who takes a greater interest in the industrial development of my province than I do. I am doing everything that is humanly possible, within my humble sphere of influence, to - extend industry in New Brunswick, and I shall continue to do so whether or not I am a member of this house.
I do not intend to refer to the question of national status that has been raised in the speech from the throne and in the course of this debate more than to remark that as a humble student of international law I submit this as a sound proposition, that Canada is not a sovereign state and never will be so long as she is an integral part of the British Empire. 1 am content that she never should be a sovereign state.
Just foT a moment or two I would like to refer to the speech of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his seat. He made a speech in this house a day or two ago which I followed with the greatest possible care, as well as I could hear him. I have not taken the opportunity of reading 'his remarks as recorded in Hansard,

but the impression made upon me by his speech was that it was a confession of impotence and inability to meet the situation. I have one suggestion to make. At the recent annual meeting of the shareholders of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Sir John Aird, that great financier who appeared before the banking and commerce committee of this house some time ago, made a most constructive suggestion. It was to the effect that if the Department of Immigration of this country found itself unable to cope with the situation, a round-table conference should be called with the heads of the colonization departments of the railways, the immigration departments of the provincial governments and all others interested in this great national work, in order if possible to arrive at some solution of this problem-because it is a real national problem which is capable of solution and should be dealt with at the earliest possible time if this country is to grow as every hon. gentleman in this house desires it to grow. I commend that suggestion to the Minister of Immigration. He will receive assistance from the members of the . provincial governments; I know that the government of New Brunswick are sincerely anxious to cooperate with the federal Department of Immigration in the solution of this problem, and I venture to give the minister the assurance that he will not find the provincial government of New Brunswick, Conservative though it may be, actuated in the slightest degree by any political considerations. What we in New Brunswick want in the first place is to retain our own native born, and . then we want a healthy influx of desirable immigrants from the British Isles.
I cannot place too much emphasis on the word "British", because if you look back on the experience of the United States, particularly during the year 1917, but both before and after that time as well, you will see the result of the mixed immigration policy pursued for so long by that great country, which brought about the quota system and a policy of discrimination that should be adopted by any country desiring to remain white, or to remain British, as is the case with Canada.
I am sorry the Postmaster General is not in his seat. I do not for a moment venture to suggest that he has left the house because of anything I might say, because I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman has courage; I have never known him to run away from a fight. He is a professional politician, and I do not use that term in any derogatory sense at all, because I quite appreciate that a man who becomes a member of a federal cabinet must become more or less of a professional

The Address-Mr. Hanson
politician. I am not a professional politician but a commercial lawyer, and I feet it is due to the people of New Brunswick, whom he has attacked here this afternoon, and especially the associated boards of trade of the maritime provinces, that there should be some reply to the references he has made.
The hon. minister referred1 at great length to the Duncan report and to the carrying out of its terms by the present government. I should like to refer for a moment to what took place in this house last session with regard to that report. We have all read the Duncan report many times; personally I have studied it with the greatest possible care. We all heard the Prime Minister read a very carefully prepared statement in this house last session as to the attitude of the government in regard to the recommendations of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and his associates, and I am bound to say that the people of the maritime provinces were heartened both by the report and by the attitude of the Prime Minister as representing the government of the country. But to say, as the Postmaster General has said, not only from his seat in the house this afternoon but at two public functions in the maritime provinces within the past few weeks, that the government has implemented eight out of the ten major recommendations of the Duncan report, is, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of other close observers, very wide of the mark to say the least. Let me take up some of the more important points to which my hon. friend alluded this afternoon.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
clear up one point for me? I would like to know whether there are ten recommendations or thirty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all depends on what
you call specific recommendations. While there are ten major recommendations, I suggest that altogether, major and minor, there are thirty-two recommendations.


Charles Avery Dunning: Everyone who reads the
report gets a different idea as to the number of recommendations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest to the hon.
gentleman that he read it again and make up his own mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have done so, and have honestly endeavoured to carry them out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know my hon. friend
has read it, but as to the last part of his remark, I say to him that he has only partly carried out the recommendation affecting his department, and if I have time I intend to
refer to that recommendation dealing with international freight rates which, so far as I know, he has not attempted to put into effect.
Now let us refer for a moment to the money grants, which are of such great importance to the provincial governments. There is no doubt that the recommendations of the Duncan report in regard to this matter were as clear and as specific as the English language could make them. If anyone desires to look them up they will be found at page 19 of the report, and at the risk of taking up some of my very valuable time I will read them. I find this forty minute rule a very cramping thing, although I must confess that I was a party to it in the special committee last year. This is what I find in the report:
We do not feel, however, that it would be right or wise that the maritime provinces, in their present state of grave necessity, with deficits accumulating against them in their ordinary revenue and expenditure, should be left in suspense until a re-assessment is made by the Dominion government, and accordingly we recommend that immediate interim lumpsum increases should be made in the payments to the three maritime provinces	
If that meant anything at all it meant that just as soon as the government received authority from parliament, immediate lump-sum payments should' be made, but that was not done. If I remember correctly parliament prorogued on April 14, and the first payment was not made until July 1, which is not "immediate" within the terms of the Duncan report. Even then, only fifty per cent of the sum voted by parliament as a minimum lumpsum payment was paid, and at first it was proposed to hold the second payment until January 1 of this year. What did that mean? It simply meant that the provincial government of New Brunswick could not balance its budget for the then current fiscal year, because in that province the fiscal year ends on October 31, and I believe in Nova Scotia the fiscal year ends on September 30, a month earlier. The idea was to hold back fifty por cent of the lump sum due so that both the provincial governments, which happened to be Conservative governments, would be compelled to go to the people and say that they had a deficit.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not a doubt in
the world that that was the idea in mind. More than that:	the Prime Minister, if I
read his recent statement aright, and I think I do, did not on this specific recommendation accept the underlying principle of the Duncan report. As T understand the underlying

The Address-Mr. Hanson
principle of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan's recommendation in respect to this very vital matter, it was that this interim lump sum payment should be paid and Continually paid until the whole question should be finally settled as between the federal treasury and the other provinces, but that these payments were to be over and above and outside any consideration which could be given to the claims of other provinces for increased federal subsidy. That is the way I understand that principle. The Prime Minister specifically said-if my recollection serves me aright, I am sorry at the moment I have not his actual words under my hand-that they could not accept that recommendation. Now what does that mean? It means that my friend the Premier of New Brunswick and my friend the Premier of Nova Scotia have got to convince the treasury not only of the dominion but of every one of the other provinces that we in the maritime provinces, because of what we lost when we went into confederation, are entitled to that extra lump sum over and above any other consideration that may be given to the other provinces. Not only have we got to fight a battle with the treasury department of Canada; we have to fight it out with every one of the other provinces. Surely that is not what was recommended. We do not know exactly what happened at the Dominion-provincial conference, and I shall have something to say about that in a moment. For reasons which seemed to be good, and perhaps were good, we have no official report of the debates which took place at that conference. However, I do know that "the 'coon came down" and the payments were made less what this government kept back from Nova Scotia. Ultimately the payments were made-because I believe, of the good sense and the good conscience of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb); I want to pay him that tribute.
Now with respect to freight rates:	this
is an intricate matter, which no hon. member can hope to encompass in the course of the few minutes that are allowed under the present rule, but he can at least present a summary. The maritime freight rates act did not contain all the things which it ought to have contained. Primarily, I think, the Minister of Railways is responsible for that, and accepts full responsibility. Under that act the Canadian National Railways did file their tariff. My hon. friend the Postmaster General laboured at great length this afternoon to prove that under these schedules the national system had given more than a twenty per cent reduction in the rates covered

by the act. Well, my answer to that is this: If more than seven months have elapsed since those schedules were filed with the railway commission, why have they not been approved by the commission? Does it take seven months to check up the schedules that were filed on June 29 last? There is another reason. It is that the schedules as filed do not, I believe, in the opinion of the railway commission fill the bill under the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend show that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I cannot. I am trying to reason as closely as I possibly can, and I am expressing that as a proper inference from the non-activity of the commission in t)he matter. Now what do we find? We find that the board of railway commissioners did make an order which the national railways sought to evade. I am coming now to the question of the so-called " gateways." I quite appreciate that this is a technical question and one about which the average man ought not to express an opinion too freely. But I understand the principle is laid kid down by the interstate commerce commission in the United States, and is acted upon in that country, that a railway initiating shipments of freight has a right to the long haul, or the longest possible haul. That is a principle which the national railways are seeking to have incorporated in our freight rate structure, or in our sphere of transportation, in reference to all long hauls initiated on their, lines in the maritime provinces. That is a principle which has never been enforced in the maritime provinces, and ithe (primary reason, I believe-I want to be absolutely fair about this; the minister need not shake his head, because he will not find any fairer minded man in this house than I am-the reason is that the system grew up when there was no national railway system and the Intercolonial railway was the only railway operating there. I think that is correct. Now the condition which has prevailed in the maritime provinces in that respect has been of infinite value to every shipper of freight in that part of the country. He will get no special advantage in freight rates, but he will get something which is almost as good- the advantage of the competition in service, and no shipper in the maritime provinces is willing to forego that to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Wll my hon. friend permit a question? Does he agree to the extension of that principle throughout Canada, that the shipper should have the right to

The Address-Mr. Hanson
order the transfer to a competing railway of a carload of his goods at the nearest transfer point?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to answer that question, because I do not know what the effect of it is. The minister does or should know.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the real problem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what happens? Perhaps this will be the best answer to the Minister of Railways. The management of the national railways objected to the order of the railway commission. They wanted the Ste. Rosalie and St. John gateways closed. The railway commission ruled that they were not to be closed, and we have the spectacle of the government of this country through its influence and control-perhaps I had better take that back.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr HANSON:: It may not have been the government; I want to be fair. But we have the spectacle of the management of our national railways-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is better.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is accurate I think. We have the spectacle of the management of the national system, which is responsible to the government for the management of the railway, appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada from the decision of the board of railway commissioners on this very important matter. It may be they could have done it without the consent of the government; my own opinion is that if the Minister of Railways had said "no" they never would have appealed, and he will have to answer for that to us down below.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have pleasure in answering right here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very good.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not expect to follow my hon. friend " down below."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will admit that and say, down east. I am attributing nothing to the hon. minister. What happened as a result of that appeal to the supreme court? The Ste. Rosalie gateway was kept open and the St. John gateway was closed. I want to speak with all respect and perhaps I have not sufficient knowledge, but I must say that I cannot understand why one gateway was ordered closed and the other was kept open. However, that is the present state of the law. So that neither the Minister of Railways, the Postmaster General, nor anyone else, can
say that as a legal proposition the management of the Canadian National Railways was right.
Has the Duncan report been implemented on this matter of transportation? I say no.
I want to tell the -house that the great mass of forest products traffic originating on the national lines as well as the Canadian Pacific in my native province is destined for points in the United States. Give us that twenty per cent reduction to which we are entitled under the Duncan report and we will get a dollar on every thousand feet of lumber we ship across the line. Under present conditions in the sawn lumber business, about which I claim to know something, that may make all the difference between a loss and a profit. Let me tell the Minister of Railways and his colleague who sits beside him (Mr. Veniot) that the New Brunswick shippers of forest products will never be satisfied until this matter is straightened out properly and we receive the twenty per cent reduction on international freight rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: Could the hon. member
frame an amendment to the statute which would be within the competence of this parliament and which would render that effective?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have never tried, but I
will undertake to try, and I will undertake to present it to the house if the Minister of Railways will give it support.


Charles Avery Dunning: After it was passed, would shippers of goods on international lines under that rate get a freight rate twenty per cent less than they have to-day?


Richard Burpee Hanson: My information is that
they would.


Charles Avery Dunning: My information is positively to the contrary, and I am negotiating.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The answer depends on
where you are getting your information. My hon. friend gets his from Sir Henry Thornton. I do not go to -him for information; I get my information from those who have made representations directly to the American railways, to the traffic managers of those big companies, and who tell me they have no doubt that we shall get the benefit of the twenty per cent reduction if the government will do this.


Charles Avery Dunning: The American railways
definitely refuse.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had the spectacle this afternoon of the Postmaster General making a very determined attack on the gentlemen of the board of trade of the city of St. John. I do not know that I am called upon
The Address-Mr. Hanson

to intervene between him and them. I think Mr. Alexander Paterson, who is the gentleman who is responsible more than any other man for the information put out from time to time by the Saint John board of trade in reference to freight rate matters, will, in his own good time and in his own inimitable way, deal with the Postmaster General. He cannot slander a body composed of men like Mr. L. W. Simms, one of the finest gentlemen in Canada.


Peter John Veniot: Somebody is leading him
astray.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is not t'he kind of man who will be led astray. He is to-day vicepresident of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and next year he will be president of that body. That shows his standing not only in his community but in the whole of the Dominion, and I venture to say the people of New Brunswick will not have the slightest hesitation in choosing between the veracity of the Postmaster General and that of Mr. Simms. I will say that much by way of defence of one whom I consider a very fine cultured gentleman and one who has been slandered to-day by the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: He was not slandered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As regards my friend and former colleague, Mr. Baxter, I have no fear that he will not be able to take care of the Postmaster General in due course and at the proper time.


Peter John Veniot: We have often met.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He usually has done so
whenever they have met. I do not understand, and I deny as specifically as I know how to deny anything, that the agitation which was initiated by the associated boards of trade of the maritime provinces was fomented in any way by the Conservative party in those provinces. If it had been I certainly should have been one of the>
first to know about it; I think hon. members' will give me credit for being in the party councils far enough at all events for that purpose. The agitation against the method and manner in which the Canadian National Railways have implemented the action of this parliament was started by the associated boards of trade of the maritime provinces, which include in their membership many good outstanding Liberals, and in no way, shape or form was this agitation fomented by the Conservative party in New Brunswick. It so happens, however, that they took their case to Mr. Baxter and, able advocate as he is-no abler in the maritime provinces-he presented their case as and when he thought [Mr. Hanson.J
it was necessary to do so. I have never yet seen it answered by anybody, least of all by the Postmaster General in the three-hour tirade which he delivered in the Admiral Beatty hotel at St. John just before Christmas. These are two of the recommendations of the Duncan report that have not been implemented. Time will not allow me to go into them all.
I should like to take up the question of fiscal policy. It is a far cry back to reciprocity, and the least hon. gentlemen opposite say about it the better, I should think. I dc not see any signs of the Liberal party wanting to resurrect this corpse. Least of all do I see any sign of any responsible political leader in the United States wanting to revive this policy, and I think reciprocity may well be left to the limbo of the past. But there is need of a fiscal policy as regards the industries of the maritime provinces. There is an immediate need in respect to the steel industry, and I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), as the gentleman representing Nova Scotia in this government: What are you going to do about the steel industry? Time presses and the industry will not wait. What has happened in the town of New Glasgow? There are, for instance, silent hearths and ninety-three per cent of the workmen have crept away to the United States. Will the government get them back? If so, let us get them back quickly before it is too late.
What is the government going to do for other industries in the maritime provinces? I am not specially interested in coal and steel, although I am to a limited degree interested in coal. I witnessed the spectacle the other day in the town of McAdam in my riding of Virginia coal being burned on Canadian Pacific locomotives. This coal was landed and dumped at McAdam within seventy-five miles of a coal mine in my riding that was opened up and established to serve the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific buy of course, in the cheapest market. In that case let us have a little intelligent application for once of the dumping clauses.


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. member
mean to say that the Canadian Pacific can buy West Virginia coal cheaper than Minto coal?


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are buying it.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not mistaken. I
have seen the invoices.

The Address-Mr. Hanson


Peter John Veniot: I have the information
from Sir Thomas Tait, and he gives an entirely different statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know the coal is landed
in McAdam, for duty purposes at all events, at five dollars a ton and Minto coal cannot be landed at McAdam for five dollars a ton.
I have seen the invoices.


Peter John Veniot: That is not with the duty
added.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We want some declaration
of fiscal policy from this government regarding the boot and shoe industry in my constituency. What has happened? The British preference has been extended and extended and extended so that to-day the people who make the Hartt shoe, the finest made in Canada, are just able to hang on by the skin of their teeth. They do not know what day they may close. The Minister of Railways laughs. This is no laughing matter in the city of Fredericton.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member accused me of laughing at something he stated, which would make it appear in the record that I was laughing at the disaster which he was depicting in connection with an industry. Not only was I not laughing at the disaster he was depicting, but I was not laughing at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept absolutely the
statement of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was very cute of the
hon. member to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite willing to
take the minister's statement; I do not think he would laugh at a situation such as that. But what does he think of the situation down in Dartmouth, at the rope works? One after another, since 1921, the industries of my province, due to the pernicious lack of policy of this government, have dwindled away, failed and gone hence, never to return so long as we keep this government in power. I think the case of the rope works at Dartmouth is one of the saddest that has come under my observation in many days. The only thing that I can contemplate with more horror is that this government, at the behest of their friends from Saskatchewan, should interfere with the cotton schedules in the next budget. If that is done, we shall have one, two, three or four more deserted towns in the province of New Brunswick. Let me paint you a little picture. On the banks of the Nashwaak river, in the county of York,
lies the beautiful little town of Marysville, built by a great pioneer of industry in the province of New Brunswick, the late Alexander Gibson. It is the only memorial to his memory now in existence. He had the option, having amassed a huge fortune in the lumber industiy, of investing either in railway securities or in industry. He put his money into industry, and in the eighties he built in that beautiful little town the largest cotton mill that up to that time had been erected in Canada. For many years that cotton mill has supplied employment for seven hundred intelligent and well-paid mechanics and operators. The annual payroll of that mill is $700,000, the average wage per head being $1,000 per annum. Since 1921 they have found it difficult enough to keep that mill going at seventy per cent capacity. What does that mean? Operating at only seventy per cent of its capacity means all the difference between a decent livelihood for the operators} in that mill and the strictest penury. To-day the shadow is hanging over that town. I have had the mayor and representatives of the men come to me and beg me to do everything I can to counteract the pernicious action of the gentleman who is fathered by the members for western Canada before the tariff board. They asked: What will become of this town if this mill shuts down?
There is not another wheel turning in the town. What will become of the entire community if you rob it of an annual cash payroll of $700,000? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House of Commons, that if the cotton schedules are interfered with in the next budget the first thing that will happen will be that two mills in the city of Saint John will be closed at once. The Milltown mill is operating on short time now, and the Marysville mill is in great jeopardy. WThat does that mean? Assuming for the purpose of argument, which I do not admit for one minute, that the tariff schedules represent a tax, as gentlemen on the other side are so fond of saying, it has been figured out-I have not figured it out myself, nor have I attempted to verify it, but in the brief submitted by the cotton manufacturers it is figured out that |it amounts to five cents per head for each resident of Canada. There are gentlemen in this house and in the Liberal party who for the sake of five cents per head saved to their constituents would rob that industry of the protection that is necessary for its very existence. I thank you, Mr. Speaker and the house for your very kind attention.
The Address-Mr. Lacombe


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, at
a time when our most enlightened statesmen are endeavouring to create in this country a national sentiment, the attitude of our hon. friends of the opposition, who persistingly criticize the sessional program, seems to me very strange.
On the 2nd of February last, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) was disturbed at the thought of the proposed appointments of Canadian ministers to France and Japan. He criticized the government for creating a legation in Washington and stated that the commissioner for Canada, in Paris, owed his appointment to certain reasons of a sentimental order. Disregarding the general feeling of his riding which, on December 6, 1921, together with all the other ridings of the provinces of Quebec, had repudiated Sir Robert Borden's policy, he had the boldness to proclaim that the ex-Prime Minister had done more than any other to make us the masters of our own destinies. I well know that the hon. member would not dare advocate such a claim in his electoral division, neighbouring mine, and that his protest against the new status of our Dominion would meet with very few followers.
Pursuing his speech, the hon. member for Argenteuil outlined to this House the various aspects considered by the hon. leader of the opposition, regarding the dangerous complications which might arise from the appointment, by Canada, of ministers in foreign countries. Would the hon. member inform this House as to how these so-called complications would arise? Does he fear a conflict over the jurisdiction of the Imperial government, and that of our country? Whence would arise this conflict since the British Empire, according to the text itself of the proceedings of the last Imperial conference, is composed of "autonomous communities equal in status, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Following the hon. member for Argenteuil, the hon. representative for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), expressed the same fears. The former pro tempore leader of the opposition astonished nobody. Speaking as generalissimo of his party, on February 26,1927, at the ninth annual banquet of the Princess Patricia Club, he stated:	"that Canada should confide to
England the care of deciding questions of general interest to the empire as it was practised in 1014 at the declaration of war". But the ex-leader of the opposition did not stop there. He proclaimed highly, and this
FMr. Hanson. 1
in time of peace, that Canada was not doing its share in the defence of the empire.
Mr. Speaker, according to the statements of these hon. gentlemen, I have no fear in asserting that their attitude is an obstacle in promoting a Canadian spirit in this country. Their policy makes them more imperialist than the inhabitants of the British Isles themselves. Their policy is a hindrance to the realization of true Canadian national spirit, at present so much sought by all well thinking citizens of Canada.
I followed with much interest the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I read and re-read attentively the historical, legal and scientific observations which he eloquently made on the new status of Canada. Less imperialist than his hon. colleagues whose statements I have just commented upon, the hon. member hesitates to declare himself upon our old vassal state and that of our present rank of nation in the world. However, in the concluding remarks of his speech, he notices "in this country much agitation and irritation as to questions of race and religion," and he further wavers. How absurd! Where is to be found, sir, that great unrest? Whence comes that outbreak of quarrels of which my hon. friend speaks? Quite the contrary, and in this I share the conviction of my hon. friend for Charlevoix-Saguenay-I know no country in the world where law is more respected. Heaven , preserve us from trouble makers, propagandists of communism or bolshevism! Coming back to the so-called agitation and irritation noticed by my hon. friend, let me point out to him that, more than at any time perhaps since confederation, we witness the triumph of the ideas of his illustrious leader, Sir John A. Macdonald, who stated: "There exists no conquering or conquered race in this country." If the hon. member wishes to be honest about it, he will agree with me that it is wonderful to have succeeded in making a nation with such an immense country, by conciliating the various sections of the population and which, already moved by the same patriotic spirit, is the envy of the world, thanks to its prosperity in all spheres: agriculture, finance, industries of all kinds, and natural resources.
In my capacity of representative of a riding almost exclusively composed of farmers,
I have the honour to draw the attention of the house to the total agricultural returns in Canada, amounting to SI,600,387,100 for the year just ended. Who can tell us the amount of energy displayed by our Canadian farmers

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
to obtain such results? The government which, at present, is entrusted with the destinies of the country has rendered great services to the farming class. It has brought down the cost of production by reducing the duties on farm implements. It has found new markets for the sale of farm products. As regards vegetable and animal products alone, our farmers have exported last year, the amount of $796,871,009. Kindly note, Sir, that these statistics do not comprise the exports of lumber and other similar products which belong to the soil.
In the province of Quebec alone-an ideal country for farming, dairy industry and the raising of cattle-the output reached the remarkable figure of $282,739,000. This is a wonderful achievement. Yet, our rural population will continue to face the future with confidence inasmuch as those in charge of the country's welfare will lend them their generous assistance. That is why, I rather think that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in bringing down his next budget, will extend to our deserving farming population an encouraging and recomforting message. Let us bear in mind that agriculture is the barometer of national prosperity. It is also the mother of all other industries. From the most remote ages it has fed the world, and under the benevolent eye of Providence, it carries on its sublime mission, which is to spread life, fecundity and happiness among the nations. Let me now say a few words with regard to our financial situation. England and the United States alone surpass our country for the average wealth per capita. The sale of Canadian bonds in 1926, amounted to $565,278,644, and in 1927, to $616,464,400, that is an increase of more than $50,000,000 in one year. But a more important fact to note, is that Canada has been the principal purchaser of its bonds to the amount of $305,461,186, compared with the United States which only purchased to the amount of $300,304,547.
Is this not an irrefutable proof of our country's prosperity? However, the beneficial results of a rigid economic policy do not stop here. The surplus of revenue over expenditure, as brought out in the auditor general's report is more than $73,000,000 for the fiscal year 1926-27, notwithstanding a decrease in the taxation resulting from the war. Alas! shadows must intervene to spoil the picture and the treasurer of Canada informs us that the high handed proceedings of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, when he grabbed power in spite of the popular will, in 1926, cost the country the fabulous sum
of $1,844,479, representing the expenditure which resulted from the general elections on September 14, 1926. In the short interval which elapsed between dissolution of parliament, on July 2, 1926, and the meeting of the 16th Parliament of Canada, on December 9, of the) same year, an unconstitutional government found it possible to expend $80,671,982 by governor general's mandates. Of this amount, nearly $1,000,000 was taken from the treasury without even the slightest authority from the people's representatives.
My hon. friends of the opposition have always been very fond of inquiries. Perhaps they would relish less an inquiry made on the misdeeds of their short but evil administration. We had planned an economic policy and built up the finances of the country. Our hon. friends of the opposition coming in by the backdoor, in spite of all traditions and constitutional usage, seized upon the occasion to batter in the public treasury. Compare, sir, our opponents' policy with ours.
Allow me, sir, to broach the important problem of immigration. I am pleased to note that the Canadians who have emigrated to the neighbouring republic, are coming back in large numbers. I highly appreciate the government's efforts with a view to repatriating our people. In the course of the year 1927, 40,245 Canadians returned to this country. I think that, for the present, repatriation is our best policy on immigration. Let our government therefore increase their generous efforts to induce our people, who have emigrated, to recross the border. Certain experts in statistics figure out that the number of French Canadians living in the United States is a million. I think that with a little encouragement and persuasion, many among them would agree to return home.
During the year 1927, 154,318 immigrants have come to us from the British Isles, United States and other countries. A rigorous selection should be resorted to. It would be the greatest mistake to increase the number of unemployed to the detriment of our people. These new comers should all be settled in colonization areas and take up-farming. We only need immigrants who have passed both the sanitary and moral tests, and I am aware that the government is now keeping a strict watch as to this matter. We must also bear in mind that these immigrants will become Canadian citizens and they must therefore not be refractory to assimilation.
The speech from the throne mentions the visit of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Like the hon. member for Charle-

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
voix-Saguenay it is impossible for me to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the reason of his trip to our country. On the other hand, the Monthly Review, writing on the agricultural and industrial progress in Canada, mentions a project that the Right Hon. Mr. Amery has submitted or will submit to the Canadian government. The scheme would consist in bringing over to this country from Great Britain, a few hundred army men who have already undergone training in the most modern ways of farming. These immigrants would be guaranteed work for the next five years. This, in my opinion, is a delicate question, and full of consequences. If in fact these people from the British Isles come to Canada on condition and on a formal undertaking that they will take up farming, very well! But if on the other hand, deserting their new inheritance, they are to benefit some day from the famous clause of the Civil Service Act which would give them, with a minimum of qualification, preference over our young men, I think, that it is my duty to condemn beforehand a scheme which would favour strangers to the detriment of our people! However, I have faith in the executive of my country, in their wisdom and the cautiousness they will display in solving this problem.
I cannot refrain from mentioning the interest that is shown by the government in regard to aviation. The aerial communications are on the eve of a period of development unknown heretofore, and Canada owes it to her pride to step out with the other countries in this new sphere of activity. Already, from the Atlantic to the Pacific associations have been formed in the principal centres of the Dominion. They will be called upon to render valuable services in the commercial sphere as well as in research and topographical work. Air mail service will increase and extend our commercial and industrial relations. I therefore must congratulate the government on such laudable initiative, providing however that in this as well as in other matters, their first aim is the primordial interest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, a more and more brilliant future is in store for our country. Under the enlightened guidance of distinguished statesmen, such as the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues, we have reasons to expect much. Already, we are in a position to compare most favourably with the old Europe. If, for instance, we glance over France, Belgium or Italy, if we inquire on the spot into the economic and financial situation of these various countries, we are filled with the legitimate pride of having nothing to envy them. One sees on the other side of the

Atlantic pitiful workers toiling for the derisive salary of 15 or 20 francs per day, that is 60 or 80 cents of our monetary value. Generally speaking, all classes of society are happy on Canadian soil. Our public service, our systems of transportation offer to the tourists comforts unknown over there. It is true that the genius of these great nations has accumulated artistic treasures, which speak more to the heart and soul than a nugget of gold, but the day when our young Canada so full of promises will have reached its glorious zenith, it will be the finest country in the world.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to impose on the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address any formal congratulation, but just in passing I should like to wish them the compliments of the session, and save time that way. We often hear a great deal about the prosperity of Canada, and it is true that we are enjoying a certain amount of prosperity. Why not? We have perhaps one of the richest countries in the world in natural resources, one of the richest per capita to be found anywhere. We have enjoyed in addition to that excellent prices for our basic metals and, until recently, good prices for our timber. We have been blessed with three or four years of good growing conditions and excellent crops, and have been able to place our crops on a market that was *bare in comparison with what it was immediately before the war, largely due to the fact that Russia and some other countries were not producing to the extent that they were before1 the war took place. Then again we have had cheap money available. Money has been getting cheaper as the world has been getting back to normal business conditions, so that we have been able to secure capital for the development of our resources at fairly easy rates. After all, therefore, you cannot attribute this prosperity to the actions of the present government; if the Conservative party had been in power under similar conditions I think our modesty would have prevented us from claiming credit for it. Taking it all in all I think it has been a matter of good luck on the part of the Liberal party rather more than anything else.
The question of our status has occupied a good deal of the time of the house, and I do not propose to trespass on the time of hon. members by discussing the matter at any length; I think there are many other matters in which the rank and file of the Canadian people are more interested. Speaking from my own experience, having lived

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
a little more than half a century on the Pacific coast, I can recall several occasions during that period when it was a very lucky thing indeed that Canada was a part of the British Empire. My experience has led me to think that we should try to get closer to that empire rather than endeavour to see how far out of it we can get and still remain in it. Looking into the future, and having regard to the tremendous development that will take place on the Pacific coast within the next few years, we shall unquestionably find it to our benefit, to be part of and cooperate with the great British Empire, and to learn at the earliest possible moment to do our duty towards that empire and help to carry a part of the heavy burden now almost entirely imposed on the mother country.
I think the matter which has been referred to by one or two of the previous speakers, the emigration of our young men and1 women, is one of the greatest tragedies that we have to face. We educate our young people in our universities and schools at considerable expense, only to find that when they are ready to undertake employment there is no employment offering for them in their own country. We can only keep them at home by offering them equal treatment to that which they will receive in the United States or elsewhere. They must be paid wages just as attractive; they must be given working conditions that are at least just as good, and we must have work offering for them in sufficient volume to engage them when they are ready to undertake it. To-day then we should make the best of our opportunities. We have a country, as I have already pointed out, rich in natural resources, and we Should try to have the Canadian people themselves develop these resources to the fullest possible extent. We have a tariff to use if we wish. I am not one of those who think that the only good we can get out of the tariff is by raising it. In certain cases where a lowering of the tariff would get us more business, by making bargains with other countries and so forth, let us adopt that course. In other cases where a certain amount of protection is necessary, let us apply protection, always using the tariff as an instrument to better the conditions in our country and to keep the work 'here for our own people. We must cut out sectionalism. We must take a country-wide view of the whole situation, a Canadian rather than a provincial or district view. We must keep under consideration all the various activities in this great country of ours, always remembering that conditions are not the same in one part of the country as they are in another, and adopt a system of
give and take, if we are going to build up a united Canada. No one should expect any special treatment in his particular line. We should adopt as a principle the policy of manufacturing our raw products at home to the fullest possible extent, although I fully realize that this cannot be applied in every case- that it cannot be applied to as great an extent as we would like to apply it.
In the matter of wheat, I think we should adopt the principle of putting through the processes of manufacture in Canada every bushel of wheat we possibly can, and selling that product in raw form only where we cannot manufacture at home. Two great advantages would result from this policy, first, the work it would provide for our own people, and second, and almost as important, the retention of the offal, the bran and shorts that are left over after the manufacture of flour, for the use of our live stock men in building up that very important branch of agriculture.
Then in regard to our timber, we should manufacture our woods as much as we possibly can. There are certain conditions under which it pays us better to export timber in the form of logs. There are certain conditions of the market on the Pacific coast under which it would pay us to ship the logs out of the country and receive the cash for them rather than hold them on a slow market and have them injured by the teredo worm or depreciated in value from other causes.
At one time in British Columbia we shipped the bulk of our minerals south of the line to be refined; some went to Wales. Down on the Columbia river below Ross-land, in West Kootenay, we have a little town of eight thousand people, built up entirely by refining our raw ores instead of shipping them away. What has been the result? This town of eight thousand people has been established; the payroll is eight million dollars per year; the refinery require certain other things not directly connected with the refining, making it necessary for them to buy in one single year five thousand tons of structural steel, three and a half million bricks, four and a half mdlion feet of lumber, and one carload of cement every two days throughout the year. They are buying these things in British Columbia and building up a great consuming centre where our farmers and agriculturists can sell their products without paying heavy freight rates to far distant markets. What I want to point out is this, that if we had still continued the old system of shipping out our raw products, we should not be deriving the benefits that I have described.
The Address-Mr. Tolmie

In my opinion we should remove any inequalities in the tariff which are detrimental to the development of Canada. Particularly do I refer to agricultural products on which in the tariffs between Canada and the United States the balance is in favour of our neighbours. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they are in a very much better position than we are for the production of early produce, such as eggs, vegetables and fruits of various kinds, which they are able to ship into our country against a very low tariff in comparison with that demanded of our shippers in the event of their finding it necessary to market their surplus south of the line.
Let us learn, too, to run Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people first-for those people who stay in the country, who pay our taxes and conduct the government. Take the woollen industry as another illustration of what I have been urging. Our manufacturers have been protected to a certain extent until the woollen industry has reached a production volume of about one hundred million dollars per year. But look at our sheep population. Our farmers receive no protection for their raw wool. What do we find as a result? Australia with a sheep population of ninety-seven million; Great Britain-a small country in area-with over twenty million; little New Zealand with twenty-seven million; the United States with between thirty and forty million-and Canada with only two and three-quarter million. Why? Our wool has never been protected, and we have not had the stabilizing effect that the protection of wool would bring about. Compare this condition with that in the United States. They have a tariff on raw wool running as high in some cases as forty-five cents a pound, with the result that their wool and sheep industry is on a sound basis and is making more and more progress from year to year.
We should encourage the consumption of home products in every way possible. I am a very firm believer in keeping our Canadian dollar circulating in the country as long as we possibly can. I might suggest to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), as was pointed out by a previous speaker, that one of the most practical ways of doing this would be to make sure that Canadian coal is burned in government ships. Then, taking into consideration the fact that we are importing from the United States nearly seven hundred million dollars' worth of products every year, and that many of those products could be produced in this country, I think very good results would be obtained by making a careful analysis of

the imports and selecting those particular lines which we can produce here at a profit, and then stimulating and encouraging in every way their production at home instead of importing them from another country.
In this particular connection we might begin on butter almost right away. While I am strongly in favour of cultivating trade within the empire, I do think that the butter-maker of Canada is receiving unfair treatment under present conditions. Even my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) I know will admit that it is useless for our dairymen to attempt in the middle of winter the production of butter with stored feed, such as hay, grain, ensilage, and so forth, in competition with the grass butter of New Zealand; but this is what they are up against at this time of the year. It is all nonsense to tell us that the Canadian dairyman was very much delighted with the tariff of one cent per pound on butter coming from Australia and New Zealand; at least, judging by the papers, I do not think there is any evidence of delight on his part in some of the reports that I have seen. I have in my hand a report of a meeting in Toronto, held on November 22 and 23, at which the hon. Minister of Agriculture was present. It is interesting reading:
Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Dominion Minister of Agriculture, met with a rather warm reception from the National Dairy Council of Canada in the King Edward Hotel yesterday, and heard, in no uncertain terms, the council's attitude toward the Australian trade treaty.
The minister came as a speaker, but most of his remarks were devoted to an answer to an address by J. A. Caulder, of Regina, Sask., president of the council, who outlined the whole situation, and told of the effect the treaty had on the dairy industry in Canada.
Mr. Motherwell made a half-hearted defence of the treaty, at best, and advised the members of the council to send a strong deputation to Ottawa to meet the government on the matter.
The Australian treaty, said the president, was put over when we were asleep. We were not awake to its effect on us.
During the winter of 1925-26, there were few ill-effects, and Australia did not benefit through the treaty. At that time, consignment business in butter was prevented, because it came under the anti-dumping regulations. Thus ve could tell when shipments of butter from Australia and New Zealand were due in Canada, and govern ourselves accordingly. We were able to keep the price up to normal, and experienced little difficulty.
The next winter, however, was different. There was the strike in England, which injured our market there, and we found ourselves with an over-supply on our hands. New Zealand took advantage of the treaty and sent in large quantities of butter, on which it could undersell us. The farmers of Canada simply stopped, milking their cows.

The Address-Mr. Tolmie
Now consignment business has been taken out from under the anti-dumping regulations. Cargoes of Australian butter can be unloaded in New York under bond and held until the Canadian market is ripe for it, and we never know when the market is going to be flooded with this butter. Butter can similarly be dumped under consignment at Halifax or Vancouver and held there for sale.
I have two attitudes on this treaty, said Mr. Motherwell. I have my own personal opinion, and as a member of the government which sponsored the treaty, I have my public opinion.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Might I ask my hon. friend if that report is from the Mail and Empire?-because they did not have a reporter there, and they conveniently left out the word " not." I said, " I cannot have two opinions."


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The report is from the Mail and Empire.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought so. They had no reporter there.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: men should be paid sufficient money to enable us to retain their services, particularly those who show special aptitude along certain lines, pathological or research.
Another matter which I think is of vital importance to this country is land settlement and colonization. If Canada needs anything it needs people; proper colonization would go a long way towards solving our railway problems and would assist equally in lowering our taxes, besides giving a great stimulus to inr dustry and putting many acres of valuable land to work. I was rather surprised to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) criticized to some extent because he laid the actual conditions before this house. It was insinuated by my hon. friends opposite that we should adopt a sort of Doctor Coue attitude; that by continually telling ourselves we were prosperous, after a time we should be prosperous. I do not think we need hide anything in this country. We Should lay our cards on the table face up, because there is no worse advertisement for Canada than to have a man come here intending to settle and expecting certain conditions, only to be disappointed. I would tell the settler in the first place that there are many opportunities in Canada, but that if he is to succeed he must, expect to work. I would also make it very clear that there is no room here for the loafer who cannot afford to loaf. The spendid opportunities which exist in this country should be brought to the attention of the capitalist, but it should also be made clear to him that while capital invested intelligently and carefully will bring in good returns, Canada is not by any means fool-proof. We should welcome those who are willing to become Canadians and who will work for the progress of Canada. As far as the question of health goes I certainly agree with the government that we should make our inspections on the other side of the ocean. We have brought about the high standard of health of our animals by the strict application of the regulations of the department, and if it is necessary to insist on the health of imported animals it is all the more necessary for us to insist on the health of the people we bring to this country to lay the foundations for future generations.
Let us look for a moment at conditions in British Columbia. There we have a country larger than Washington, Oregon and; California combined; larger than France and Italy, with Switzerland thrown in, and when it comes to the Alpine scenery of Switzerland, we have enough scenery of a similar character in British Columbia to bury twenty-five Switzerlands and have sufficient left to entertain all the

tourists who come our way. We are very rich in natural resources, particularly in mines. Since the first mine was opened in British Columbia we have produced mineral wealth to the value of $900,000,000, and last year we produced mineral products to the value of $70,000,000. The country is rich from the west shore of Vancouver Island1 to the Alberta boundary, with minerals scattered in various districts between those points, and also from the forty-ninth parallel on the south to the Alaskan boundary on the north. So far as prospecting goes, our country has been merely scratched, and the mines already developed clearly indicate that mining in that province is a sound commercial success. Then again, west of the Rockies we have half of the standing commercial saw timber in the whole of Canada, and timber to the value of $82,000,000 was sold from our province last year. We produced 46 per cent of all the fish produced in Canada last year, and the value of our agricultural production amounted to $71,000,000. In addition to that we have a magnificent climate, and we have our splendid ports open the year round, unhampered by frost or ice. In addition to that we are very well located from a geographical standpoint, having easy access to the hundreds of millions of people on the other side of the Pacific, and having access also to the Atlantic side of this continent and to the ports of Europe through the Panama canal. British Columbia is about the same age as the states of Washington and Oregon, and is very little younger than the state of California as far as settlement is concerned. One would think that under these conditions we Should have people flocking to British Columbia in thousands and tens of thousands, looking for an opportunity to locate. But what is the actual situation? While the three states to the south of us can boast of a population of 5J millions, we have but 550,000 people in the whole province of British Columbia. To show you how we are developing in comparison with some of these states, let me say that there are 160 million acres of range lands, and we are using 6 per cent of those lands at the present time, while the state of Washington is using 69.7 per cent of lands of the same character. We are importing 75 per cent of the meat that we require in that province, while the state of Washington is supplying her own meat and exporting the balance to other states. We used 12j million pounds of butter last year in British Columbia. We purchased 7i million pounds outside of the province, producing only 5 million pounds at home. These conditions show the absolute necessity of settlement. in

The Address-Mr. Lovie
that great province bordering on the Pacific ocean. The opportunities there for development are very great indeed, and as I pointed out, the settlement of these lands will bring about such a condition of prosperity as we have not enjoyed up to the present time.
Then with regard to the return of the railway lands to British Columbia: I am pleased to know that the commissioner gave a favourable judgment in connection with this matter, and that the government has intimated in the speech from the throne its desire to return those lands to the province. When British Columbia entered confederation in 1871 one of the provisions was that a railway should be constructed across this country to the Pacific coast, and there was a strong desire on the part of the British government at that time to have connection with their eastern settlements on the Asiatic side of the Pacific. British Columbia not only gave a grant of forty miles of land along the railway, twenty on each side of the line, but contributed in the ordinary way towards the construction of this great road. At that time apparently it was not realized what a great national project it would be; in fact it was stated that the line would never pay for the axle grease used in its operation and that the whole resources of the British Empire could never build and maintain the road. Well, you all know how absurd that prediction was. The railway has turned out to be one of the greatest national projects for the development of Canada that has ever been completed in its history. The Canadian Pacific railway was the pioneer across the prairies of the west. It has developed those great stretches of country, has contributed in no small degree to the growth of British Columbia, and has brought prosperity to Canada as a whole. Under those conditions we in British Columbia feel that being the only province in the whole Dominion which contributed land to that great national highway it is only fair that those lands which were given in trust for the purpose of building that railway should be returned to us now that the enterprise is finished and has accomplished so much. This policy has been pressed by the Conservative party ever since the year 1891.
I sincerely hope that before the end of the session the government will give us an intimation of what it proposes to do in the matter of railway communication into the great Peace river country, connecting that vast rich area with some point on the Pacific coast. This is something that will be looked forward to with great interest by all the people located on the Pacific.
There is one other matter I wish to refer to before taking my seat, and that is the necessity of building good roads throughout this country. Since the advent of the automobile the building of roads is a much more serious proposition than it has been in the past. Roads require to be widened. They must have better surfaces than ever before, be much straighter, possess fewer curves, and so forth. All these requirements tend to make road building much more expensive than it was in former years. The Dominion government after all is a very large user of our roads. The Post Office department, of course, uses our roads daily; in fact every department uses the roads more or less during the year. I should like to suggest to the government that no more popular move could be made than the adoption of the policy brought into effect by the Conservative party in 1919 and kept in operation until 1924, under which certain grants were made to the various provinces in proportion to population. That legislation was much appreciated by all the provinces, and was taken advantage of to the fullest possible extent. These improved highways are necessary to automobiles, and we must remember that the auto truck has come into use to an enormous extent within recent years. Any move therefore, along this line would be warmly welcomed by the people of Canada.


Mr. W. J. LOVIE (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in this debate I congratulate the government upon the fact that it is able to announce in the first paragraph of the speech from the throne that Canada is prosperous. Trade returns all bear out that contention and so far in this debate nothing has been brought forward to controvert the fact.
Certain parts of the prairie provinces have been visited with an epidemic of rust, something that is getting all too common, and the results of which are disastrous to field crops. The crop of the year 1927, although large in the aggregate has not a high money value on account of much of it being low grade, due largely to the ravages of rust. In the province of Manitoba the oat crop was promising but it was practically a failure due to the rust epidemic, and oats both for seed and feed purposes will have to be purchased. For this state of affairs we do not blame the government as they have no control over climatic conditions. On the contrary we give the Minister of Agriculture and his department credit for the amount of research work already accomplished along the line of developing rust resistant strains of

The Address-Mr. Lovie

wheat. I would say, however, that what has been accomplished with respect to agricultural research has hardly touched the fringe of the question, and far more strenuous efforts will have to be made, and more money spent upon agricultural research work if results comparable with the importance of the industry are to be obtained. I would here impress upon the Minister of Agriculture just as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) who spoke before me did, the necessity of paying to men trained in agricultural research work salaries commensurate with the importance of that work, and sufficiently high to prevent Canadian universities and other countries taking those experts away. If the regulations of the Civil Service Commission prevent the payment of adequate salaries, means must be found to overcome that limitation, because investigation of the rust problem is a question of national importance. The rust epidemic strikes at the basic industry of Canada, the industry which is the very foundation of Canada's prosperity. Agriculture is by far the most important industry in this country, and unless it is prosperous no other industry can hope to succeed. In order to bear out that contention may I quote from a speech delivered by Daniel Webster at a meeting of farmers in Boston .in 1840. On that occasion that distinguished statesman said:
Agriculture feeds us; to a great degree it clothes us; without it, we could not have manufactures, and we should not have commerce. These all stand together, but they stand together, like pillars in a cluster, the largest in the centre, and the largest is agriculture. Let us remember, too, that we live in a country of small farms, and free-hold tenements; a country, in which men cultivate with their own hands, their own fee-simple acres; drawing not only their subsistence, but also their spirit of independence, and manly freedom from the ground they plough. They are at once its owners, its cultivators, and its defenders. And whatever else may be undervalued, or overlooked, let us never forget that the cultivation of the earth is the most important labour of man.
Man may be civilized, in some degree, without great progress in manufactures, and with little commerce with his distant neighbours, but without the cultivation of the earth, he is m all countries, a savage. Until he steps from the chase, and fixes himself in some place, and seeks a living from the earth, he is a roaming barbarian. When tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of human civilization.
To show the importance of agriculture in our country, let me say that the Canadian Review for 1926-27 gives the gross wealth of Canada's great primary industry of agriculture as approximately $7,817,718,000 for the year 1926. The figures from the same source

for the value of the total production of agriculture are $1,668,175,000, while from forests the total value of production for the same period was $209,276,561; from mines, $241,245,898, and from fisheries, $56,300,633, or a total value from forest, mines and fisheries for the year 1926 of $506,883,092. It will thus be seen that agriculture, with a total production value of $1,668,175,000 for 1926, and forest., mines and fisheries combined, with a total production value of $506,883,092, has to its credit a total production value of $1,161,292,000 in excess of the other three sources of wealth combined.
It is too much for the producers in an industry, which produces $1,121,447,000 value of field crops in a single year and which is being menaced by the scourge of rust until it is in danger of total extinction, to ask that the prosecution of research work along the lines of finding and developing rust-resistant varieties of grain should be carried on vigorously and no expense spared in the prosecution of the work? What has already been spenit upon rust research work has brought excellent results, but it is only a drop in the bucket compared with what will have to be spent by the Minister of Agriculture and hiis associates if success in dealing with the rust question is going to crown their efforts.
I wish to say a word on the Hudson Bay railway question. For the past forty years or more this Hudson Bay railway 'has been a live question in Canada around election time, but I am pleased to see by the speech from the throne that work is proceeding rapidly towards the completion of the railway. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Railways upon the energetic manner in which he carried out the work of selecting a terminal for the railway and also upon his prompt decision that Churchill was the better of the two ports in question. I have carefully studied the Palmer report upon both Nelson and Churchill, and from the data contained therein I have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that Churchill is by far the better ocean terminal for the Hudson Bay railway, and the wonder is that it was not selected years ago.
In conjunction with what the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) has said, I wish to say a few words about highway construction in Canada. A few years ago the federal authorities voted a lump sum of money which was paid over to the different provinces for highway construction upon the basis of population. I think the Dominion government was prepared to pay one-third of the construction costs up to a certain limit per mile.

The Address-Mr. Lovie
but my information is that that money is all expended. As the provincial governments of the prairie provinces are embarking upon quite an extensive program of highway construction, something which is long overdue, I would ask the Dominion authorities to vote this session a substantial sum of money to be paid over to the different provinces upon a mileage basis, to assist in the construction of all-weather roads.
Regarding the tariff, let me say right here that Manitoba members, in common with all members from the prairie provinces, are pledged to insist upon and support a policy of tariff reduction. Everyone living between the Red river and the Rocky mountains is opposed to a tariff higher than is necessary to produce sufficient revenue to run the affairs of government. They realize that a high tariff is an injustice because it allows one class of people in a country to levy toll upon the other classes; in other words, to levy taxes upon their neighbours for their own special benefit. From the commencement of the session of 1922 until the close of the session of 1926 protection of Canadian industries and still higher protection was steadily preached in season and out of season from the Conservative side of the house. Not a word was said about the agriculturists in western Canada, a class who, by no stretch of the imagination, can derive any benefit from a protective tariff, but who can be badly hampered in their operations by the enhanced cost of living and production caused by protection. Canada which is raising around 400,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum has to find an export market for a large part of that commodity as well as for other agricultural products, and upon all products of which a portion is exported, the export price sets the price for home consumption.
Because Canada is an exporting country she requires to have a very low tariff to enable trade to flow freely across her boundaries. No nation can export its surplus commodities unless it is prepared to import at the same time, and no nation can purchase the surplus products of another without paying for them in goods. International trade is not carried on with gold as a medium of settlement, but goods pay for goods to the mutual benefit of both parties to the transaction. Before last session the tariff advisory board had only been a short time at work, and consequently the Finance minister did1 not feel justified in making tariff reductions as the evidence in none of the cases submitted to the board was completed. But now that the evidence is completed in a good many cases
that have come before the board, the consumers in the country as a body are looking forward to tariff reduction during this session of parliament. In the matter of the cotton tariff schedule which was argued before the tariff board, the evidence brought out the fact that Canadian consumers of cotton paid for their requirements in cotton $19,000,000 above import value. The Canadian people paid $19,000,000 partly in taxes and partly in higher prices to keep this industry in Canada. In spite of that the cotton manufacturers had an application before the tariff board for an increase in the duties on cotton, but they certainly have not established any claim for higher duties unless it be on the assumption that they wish to be regarded as recipients of compassionate grants from the Canadian people.
One word now about immigration and I have finished. The speech from the throne mentions immigration and I would just say this, that it is something very strange if Canada, with its far-flung territory and vast resources, with a population of three persons to the square mile, while the United States has a population of thirty-five to the square mile, cannot support a population of more than nine or ten million people such as we have at present. We must take a broad view of the immigration question. Canada can support twenty million of a population just as easily as she supports half that number now, and were there that many in Canada, all settled and doing well, Canada would be more prosperous than she is at present.
Criticism is being levelled at the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) by some for bringing immigrants into the country, and by others for not bringing in a sufficient number; and almost everyone thinks he could run the Department of Immigration a good deal better than it is being run; but if he had a try at it for a year he would find that in spite of the most rigid selection of immigrants that could be practised, misfits would get into the country and cause trouble. I commend the scheme which the minister mentioned that he had in view of bringing boys from the old land, from good homes, and giving them a year's training in agriculture in Canada under the supervision of the Department of Immigration. They certainly will not all make farmers: it is not to be expected they will, but there is no reason why they will not make good citizens and take to the ways of the land of their adoption very quickly. That the years from fourteen to eighteen i3 a very good age for a boy to emigrate, I can attest to from personal experience, as it was
Ministers oj the Crown

when I was sixteen years of age that I crossed the Atlantic as an immigrant and made Canada my home, a choice, Mr. Speaker, which as the years have rolled past, I have seen no reason to regret.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 9, 1928
The house -met at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to remove the necessity of the re-election of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of introducing this bill last year, but it failed to be enacted into law owing to the *somewhat precipitate prorogation of parliament. I am introducing it again in the hope that it may be passed this year. The bill is similar in its provisions to the measure which was enacted in 1926 by the British parliament, and since that time by certain of the states of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. Its purpose is set forth in one paragraph, to the effect that a member of parliament on attaining cabinet rank is not obliged to submit himself to his constituents for re-election. I think this provision will appeal to many in this house, to those who are on the front benches as well as to those who hope to be.
For the information of the house I may say that the statute was passed by the British House of Commons on the 15th July, 1926. It became law in New South Wales in 1906, and was also passed in the state of Tasmania and the Dominion of New Zealand. In some of the other states it has not yet been enacted into law. I shall have something further to say when the bill is read a second time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act (Return tickets).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
[Mr. Lovie.J


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of introducing this bill, or one similar to it, on several previous occasions. It was strongly opposed by the two railway companies, which makes me believe that it must be for the benefit of the people. The bill is copied from the act which is in force in England, and its provisions are to be found in the one section which reads as follows:
A return ticket issued by any railway company between any two points in Canada shall be accepted by any other railway company whose line runs between the same terminals.
I introduced the bill first in the parliament of 1922. I think it was introduced subsequently, but it had some rough sledding and did not emerge from the railway committee. The intellectual calibre of the present parliament being so much higher than that of previous parliaments I hope the measure will be enacted into law this session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Speaker, in rising to resume the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I be permitted to join with hon. members who have preceded me, not in offering a dose of soapy, tepid water, to quote the words of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), but rather in sincerely congratulating the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), who so ably moved the address and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) who so ably seconded it. Both of these hon. gentlemen acquitted themselves very creditably when you consider the poor material which was placed at their disposal.
Before proceeding further I want to draw to the attention of hon. members a very discourteous retort made to me by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) during the course of his address yesterday. The hon. gentleman was telling the house how well the recommendations of the Duncan report had been implemented by this government, and he was quoting figures to show that on some commodities an excess of twenty per cent reduction had been made. Having in mind the words of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) when he referred to bread and

The Address

Mr. Quinn
butter and jam being handed out by the premier of Quebec to one of his political favourites, the Postmaster General used that term, and during his address I interjected the remark:
You will add jam to the bread and butter.
The reply of that hon. gentleman was:
It would be better if the hon. gentleman would add some sense to his interjections.
I did not make the remark in an offensive way; I consider it was very appropriate to the occasion, and I resent the implication of the Postmaster General that there was no sense in the remark. I leave it to the decision of hon. members if there was not as much sense in my interjection as there was in the whole speech of the Postmaster General.
While I am dealing with that hon. gentleman, may I bring another matter to the attention of the house? This is what he said in his speech yesterday:
Let me call the attention of the hon. senior member for the city of St. John to a statement which he made yesterday and which is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. gentleman, if I mistake not-and if I am wrong 1 know he will correct me-stated that the Canadian National Railways had submitted a freight schedule to the railway commission and that the railway commission had returned it to them -with orders to revise their schedule to give a 20 per cent reduction. I want to say now-and I am not saying this in contradiction of the hon. gentleman personally because I believe that he was misinformed and got this so-called information through the instrumentality of the St. John board of trade -that that statement is absolutely false. I make that statement boldly because within ten minutes after the hon. gentleman made his statement on the floor of this house, I called up the railway commission and quoted him verbatim and in reply the railway commission said, No.
Let me read a letter from the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners under date of July 30, 1927.
Alistair Fraser, Esq., K.C.,
Commission Counsel,
Canadian National Railways,
Montreal.
Dear Sir,

Referring to this matter, I am instructed to say that at a late meeting of the board consideration was given to the tariffs filed by your company under the authority of the Maritime Rates Act, and that the rates shown in such tariffs are inconsistent with provisions of the act and cannot be approved by the board; also that your company is directed to file forthwith, in place of the tariffs so already filed by it and not approved, such tariffs as are required by section (3) of the said act showing a reduction of approximately twenty per cent below the tolls or rates existing on the first of July, 1927.
That is the answer to my hon. friend, and I will leave it to the judgment of the house how much consideration can be given to statements made by him.
I will proceed to deal with the address of the hon. member for Hants-Kings who said:
Canada is prospering; we no longer talk of being on the eve of prosperity; we are enjoying prosperity. That prosperity has been briefly mentioned in the speech from the throne, and is more fully dealt with in the reports or addresses which have been presented by the presidents and general managers of the great Canadian banks to their shareholders during the last few weeks. These addresses tell the story of a greater progress than has ever before been experienced in the history of Canada, a greater prosperity than Canada has ever enjoyed.
I may say to the hon. member for Hants-Kings that the progress of any country cannot be measured by the success of its banking, financial and brokerage institutions. I recall at the end of last year reading in the [DOT] press of my native city of Halifax that a certain brokerage firm had granted a bonus of two hundred per cent to all its employees. Is that an indication of prosperity? Of course it is of brokerage firms and financial institutions; but I ask my hon. friend from Nova Scotia: Did that apply to the farmers, the people engaged in agricultural pursuits in his province? Did that apply to the fishermen of the maritime provinces? Did it apply to the miners and men engaged in other labouring pursuits? He knows the answer and the house knows it. So we cannot judge as to the prosperity of this country by the success of our banking and financial institutions. Further on in his speech the hon. member said:
... a very real reason for the tardiness on the part of the maritime provinces to share in the prosperity of Canada. That cause is the lack of markets for agricultural products in that part of the Dominion.
The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Mac-Nutt) pointed out very clearly how that applied to the dairymen of Nova Scotia and how the government have in their own hands the remedy with regard to the dairymen of that province. I ask: Does it apply to the farmers, for instance, to the producers of potatoes? May I suggest to the hon. member for Hants-Kings, who comes from a potato-growing district, that if he is looking for wider markets he should go to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), because a market is to be found in his department. Last summer while the Hudson Bay expedition was being equipped they paid 812.50 a
The Address-Mr. Quinn

barrel for potatoes from South Carolina to go to Hudson bay. There is a wider market for the hon. member.
As has been pointed out very ably by the representatives of the island of Cape Breton, there is great distress among the coal miners there, and when this same Hudson Bay expedition was being outfitted, all their boats and the supplies for Hudson Bay, all their coal supplies came from the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is
absolutely and completely wrong.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I can bring the proof of it. I have not got it under my hand, but I can bring it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That all the supplies-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Coal supplies, I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: Again I state that that
statement is absolutely false.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister
should withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. I raise the point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman not to use that expression. It is rather harsh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Withdraw!


Charles Avery Dunning: Am I instructed to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: I think it would be
better, to set an example to the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall endeavour to
keep in order, Mr. Speaker, but the statement of the hon. gentleman is certainly not in accordance with the facts.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will
ask to have the report tabled in this house regarding the purchase of supplies for the Hudson Bay expedition.


Charles Avery Dunning: You will certainly get
it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member for Hants-Kings also said in his address:
In addition to that, the production in many lines of agricultural endeavour has increased quite considerably. There is also a revival of interest in mining in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces as well, which in itself is very promising.
I notice that the hon. member did not mention where credit was due for the increased production in many lines of agriculture in his native province. That credit is due, Mr. Speaker, to the present administration in Nova Scotia which has seen fit to

appoint a department of natural resources, administered by a competent head, under which there has been a great increase in agricultural production in Nova Scotia in the last two years. If my hon. friend is honest, and I am sure he is, he will give full credit to the Department of Natural Resources of Nova Scotia for the wonderful progress that has been made in agriculture in that province; and similarly with regard to the increased activity in mining, which has been due to the splendid administration of the local mines department.
Dealing with the Duncan report the hon. member for Hans-Kings said:
Harbour commissioners have also been appointed for the city of Halifax, and it is hoped that this body will give some degree of direction and unity to the efforts of the people of that city to improve existing conditions.
I have not much to say by way of criticism as to that. We will first give the commission a chance to work. There may be some criticism in another session, but for the present all I wish to say to the Prime Minister and his cabinet in that regard is that if they had given more consideration to the business qualifications than to the political affiliations of the board, a better board might have been secured.
Considerable criticism has been levelled at the Department of Immigration, and justly so. Let me ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) if he can justify the dismissal of the caterer of the Immigration department at Halifax other than for political reasons, Oither than for the purpose of appointing a political follower of his own party who was very badly in need of a job. George Foley held that position to his credit and in a way that has won for him. praise from every transportation company operating out of Halifax. There was never a word of complaint, never a criticism about his conduct of the catering of the Immigration department at Halifax, and I tell this house and the minister that he cannot justify the dismissal of that gentleman. When hon. gentlemen talk about the progress and prosperity of Canada, I conclude that the progress they have in mind is to drive every man, woman and child who is not of the same political faith as themselves out of this country to the United States or some other countiy.	.
I am going to bring to the attention of the house a case which perhaps the Minister of Immigration will have an opportunity to explain. It is a case which came under my personal observation. I refer to the Mc-Conachie case. The minister knows the case

The Address-Mr. Quinn
very well. This man McConaehie, a Scotch miner, located in Lanarkshire, Scotland, served all through the great war, was wounded, and treated in hospital in England for a considerable time. Due to post-war conditions, he could not get work in his native country, and he decided to emigrate to Canada. He came out here to Glace Bay and obtained employment, and worked there continually for eighteen months. He has letters of recommendation as to his character, efficiency, and honesty, from the manager of the mines in Glace Bay. He saved his money and made a home so that he could bring out his wife and little family from Scotland. Finally he was able to send for them, and his wife with five little children made preparations to emigrate. First there was a mental and physical examination by the roster doctor in their home. This the family passed successfully. They came to Glasgow, where they had to undergo a similar examination, which they passed successfully. They disposed of all their household effects, and sailed on board the steamship Letitia, where, according to the regulations, the ship's physician again subjected them to an examination, which they passed successfully. They arrived in Halifax in December, about a week before Christmas, where another examination was made by I think Dr. Rutherford, who works in Quebec during the summer months and in Halifax during the winter. That doctor discovered that the infant child of fourteen months was feeble-minded. I have interviewed many medical men of prominence since this case came to my attention, and up to the present time I have failed to find a single physician who would say that a doctor can speak with any degree of certainty as to the mental condition of a 'Child of fourteen months. That family was detained in Halifax in the Immigration department, and eventually the case came to my attention, and I visited the family and made personal observations. Here was a bonny little Scotch woman, virile and strong, with a healthy, red face; as good a specimen of a Scotch woman as you could possibly get, and they are all pretty good. There were five children, ranging in age from eight years down to fourteen months. I went into the immigration office about five o'clock in the evening; the family were sitting there with the father, who had come from Glace'Bay to meet them. When I told them who I was, in company with the immigration chaplain, tears rolled down the cheeks of that father and mother when they told me of their case and how they had been detained there for three weeks. I asked for the story of the McConaehie family, and he showed the baby to me in the arms of its
mother. The baby's back was turned to the father, but when he said "Come, Bunny, come to father," the baby turned around, put out her arms and went to the father. That was the mentally defective child. I did not see any evidence of the Mongolian type to which the department referred in connection with this child. I stood there talking to the father and mother for three or four minutes, while tlhe baby was in the arms of its father. Then the mother turned to the child and called it by name, and it turned and put out its arms and went to its motheT. I went over and chuckled the little kiddie under the chin, and it smiled at me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It could not do otherwise.
I offered it a little candy, and it put out its little hand and took it, and this was the child said to be mentally defective and feebleminded.
What was the position of the Department of Immigration? They said the child must be deported to Scotland, and I suppose that is what my friend the minister calls encouraging British immigration. I wired the minister to this effect:
Strongly protest against deportation MeCona-chie family owing alleged feeble-mindedness child aged one who was examined and passed in Scotland by doctor selected Canadian government. Sailing was approved your department and family broke home. Husband working for and highly recommended by Dominion Coal. Has good home ready. Consider deportation of desirable family criminal and grievous blunder. Strongly urge admittance.
Felix P. Quinn, M.P.
Here is the answer, and hon. members will keep in mind that this child had been examined four times.
Your wire. There is no doubt. . . .
Three doctors said the child was not feebleminded while one said she was, so I submit that this is the judgment of the Minister of Immigration.


Mr. FORKE:: I protest against any such statement as the last. The hon. member must know that matters of this kind are dealt with by the Department of Health and not by the Department of Immigration. I have nothing in the world to do with it. [DOT]


Felix Patrick Quinn: This telegram was sent to
Robert J. Forke, Esq., Minister of Immigration, and the reply came back signed by Robert J. Forke, M.P., Minister of Immigration. I realized at the time that it was a case where the understrappers should not be dealt with, and I wanted to deal directly with the minister in charge of that department.
The Address-Mr. Quinn


Robert Forke: You have the advantage
just now; that is all I have to say.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, just to clear up the point-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Felix Patrick Quinn: There is no doubt-


John Warwick King: I thought the
house would like to have it cleared up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Felix Patrick Quinn: This is the reply I received:
Your wire. There is no doubt as to the mental condition McConachie child. She has been definitely certified as feeble-minded with no prospect ever developing to anything near normal. Law specifically prohibits entry to Canada feeble minded persons. Apparent carelessness roster doctor cannot be accepted as grounds for admission prohibited immigrant who will require institutional or other care throughout lifetime. Decision to deport all members family was due to statement of mother that if child not admitted all wished to return. Cannot agree that action of carrying out requirements law is either criminal or grievous blunder. In final analysis Canada is entitled to protection from possible liability lifetime maintenance child. Father subsequently requested that other children be allowed remain with him in Canada and request complied with.
Robert Forke.
Now, sir, I followed that up with a letter under date of January 7, as follows:
Replying to your wire of the 4th instant I have personally investigated the McConachie ease and have seen the infant Margaret, who is alleged to be feeble-minded, and I protest against deportation for the following reasons:
Firstly, there is conflict of medical opinion. Roster doctor certified infant to be mentally and physically fit, and you are aware that roster doctors are selected because of their good standing and are appointed for express purpose of preventing deportations on physical or mental grounds, and therefore their opinions should have great weight.
Secondly, the infant, being only one year old, it is not possible to forecast with any degree of certainty what its future mental condition will be.
_ Thirdly, the board of immigration officers who investigated the case were very favourably impressed with the family.
So was I:
Fourthly, I protest on humane grounds. The husband's father, mother, brother, sisters and all relatives are settled in Nova Scotia and all are. like himself, doing useful work. The mother, on receipt of letter from immigration authorities in England approving of sailing, sold her home, and if now deported would have no home or friends to go to.
Lastly, I consider the deportation under such circumstances criminal, inhuman and a grievous blunder. It is clearly a case to be dealt with under section 4 of the Immigration Act, which was framed not only to safeguard the interests of Canada but to deal with justice to the immigrant as well.

For the above reasons I insist that this family should have admittance to Canada.
Now let me quote section 4 of the Immigration Act:
The minister may issue a written permit authorising any person to enter Canada, or having entered or landed in Canada to remain therein without being subject to the provisions of this act. Such permit shall be in the form A of the schedule to this act, and shall be expressed to be in force for a specified period only, but it may at any time be extended or cancelled by the minister in writing.
McConachie wired to the Minister of Immigration first, asking for a special board of three doctors, the expense of which he was prepared to bear, and by whose decision he was willing to abide, but to that wire he received no reply. When he has a chance I will ask the Minister of Immigration to say why section 4 was not applied in this case, because the mental condition of this infant could not be forecast with any degree of certainty.


Robert Forke: Might I reply now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: The hon. member asked me
to tell him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Then I have the final letter
from the minister:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, having reference to the case of Margaret McConachie, and have carefully perused the same. You state that there is a conflict of medical opinion, apparently basing the said statement on the grounds that the roster doctor passed the child. Whilst it is true that the roster doctor did not certify the child as being mentally defective, the evidence on file very clearly indicates that had she been properly examined, she would have been so certified. There is no conflict of medical opinion in so far as the medical officers of the Department of Health are concerned; in fact, there is a unanimous opinion on the part of both of these officers who personally examined the child, and their diagnosis was approved of by the chief medical officer of the Department of Health at Ottawa. It would be a most unreasonable attitude to ignore the diagnosis of three experienced Canadian medical officers and accept as establishing mental fitness the fact that a roster doctor had passed the child.
You state that it is not possible to forecast with any degree of certainty what the child's future mental condition will be, in view of the fact that it is now only one year old. I am unable to accept this statement, and my remark on the point in question is based on the statement of the chief officer of the immigration medical service of the Department of Health that "in the present instance (referring to the case of Margaret McConachie) with the physical characteristics of the type described as Mongolian, the mental deficiency is quite inseparable from the physical abnormalities as set out in the history. We are of the opinion,

The Address-Mr. McMillan
therefore, that there is not the least prospect of the mentality of Margaret McConacliie ever developing to anything near normal."
I fully agree that the child should never have been passed by the roster doctor and that the return of the child and her mother will cause hardship. This phase of the question was very carefully considered before a final decision was reached; in fact the whole circumstances were painstakingly weighed both by the officials of the department and myself prior to the decision being reached that the child could not be allowed entry. Had the child s disability been one which could reasonably be expected to respond to treatment and a cure effected, there would have been no hesitancy in allowing entry under permit. The evidence, however, is all the other way. I do not deny that the interests of immigrants are entitled to every consideration, but even above this must be placed.the interests of Canada, and I may say very frankly that the admission of a feebleminded child whose lifetime must be spent either under the care of her parents, other relatives, friends, or the state, with all that that implies, would not be in the interests of the country, and it was on these grounds principally that the decision to carry out the law was arrived at.	.
Yours very truly,
Robert Forke.
Sir, law is law, regulations are regulations- but justice is justice. My hon. friend laughs.
I ask him to come down with me to Halifax, walk out to the pier on a black, dreary day in the middle of January, look at the steamship there, lines cast off, and that buxom little Scotch woman, with a baby of fourteen months over her shoulder, standing on the deck, weeping bitterly, distracted, while her husband remains on the pier with four little bairns ranging from two and a half to eight years of age clinging to him, bidding farewell to his wife, who is banished forever. I appeal to you, sir, on the grounds of Christianity, on the grounds of humanity, yes, on the grounds of British patriotism, if this is the treatment to give to a British soldier who was willing to risk his life in the defence of his country. Yes, law is law, but I have often heard quoted the words of a prominent lawyer and former attorney general of my native province: There was never a law made but there could be found in it a hole large enough to ride through on horseback. The Minister of Immigration might have found a hole and admitted the McConachie child. Certainly he might have admitted the child under a special permit. McConachie himself was willing to accept a temporary permit for the child so that it might be admitted for a few months and be given a chance to develop, and at the expiration of that period to have a final examination, the result of which would be' conclusive.
One other matter was dealt with very ably yesterday by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson)-the tragedy which is about to happen in my constituency through the threatened closing down of an industry in the town of Dartmouth which employs an average of 100 to 150 men with four or five hundred dependants. A delegation was here last week from the board of trade of the city of Halifax and the town of Dartmouth, asking for certain tariff concessions so as to save that industry from extinction. We are losing our industries in the maritimes as one by one they are being gradually driven away from us. Here is an opportunity for the government to do something to protect this industry.
If tariff concessions are not made the industry will close down in the course of another four or five weeks, and Nova Scotia in general and Dartmouth in particular will suffer the loss of four or five hundred souls. Where will they go? They cannot go to the great west, for they are not farmers and would be no good on the prairies, and there is no need for them in our larger cities where logically they should go. Their only refuge is across the line to join their brothers and sisters. That apparently is the policy of the government. But I hope not, and I appeal to their judgment to do something to protect this little industry in the constituency of Halifax.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to my hon. friends from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) and Pro-vencher (Mr. Beaubien) for the manner in which they discharged their duties as mover and seconder of this address. Their messages not only reflect credit upon themselves but on the' constituencies which sent them here. I am also pleased to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) upon his elevation to the high position of the leadership of his party. I wish him long life and every success in the office which he now holds, and I am certain that in his keeping the best traditions of the great Conservative party will be nobly maintained.
But, sir, I do not know that I would have risen in this debate had it not been for the peculiarly consequential role which my hon. friend the late acting leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Guthrie) assumes-the role of a lecturer on courage. His message to the hon. Minister of Finance was really amusing. What was more amusing still was the peculiarly consequential air with which he endeavoured to criticize the administration on its financial record. It is my purpose, in so far as I am able in the few minutes at
The Address-Mr. McMillan

my disposal, to try to place the record of this government before the house and country in comparison with that of the Conservative administration which preceded it. In order to do so it is only right that I should refer back to the history of this country at the close of the Laurier administration, which in a period of fifteen years brought the Dominion to a stage of development of which every citizen is proud, at an increase in ordinary expenditure of less than four million dollars per annum. When their successors assumed the reins of power they found the treasury overflowing and the country in a prosperous condition. What was the result of their financial administration? They threw away the country's money to such a degree that at the end of three years there had been an increase in ordinary expenditure, not of $4,000,000 per annum, as was the case with their predecessors, but of over $36,500,000. If you look back over the records of that time you will find that even their own political
friends and their party press were accusing them of squandering the finances of the country like a lot of drunken sailors. That was before the war. Then came the war, and in its direction and prosecution, together with the enactment of the War-time Elections Act and the act respecting the voting of soldiers, there came one of the most diabolical records of mismanagement and maladministration which had ever stained the pages of Canadian history. As regards that financial maladministration, what is the record? During the war they borrowed and added to the national debt, up to the year 1920, nearly $14,000,000 more than the entire cost of the war, saddling not only the people of Canada generally but our brave soldier boys, after they returned, with a burden which should never have been imposed upon them. The following statement shows that during the war the government did not collect even sufficient to run the country, outside of war cost:
Year
1914-	15..
1915-	16..
1916-	17..
1917-	18..
1918-	19..
1919-	20..
Total Revenue Receipts $ 133,073,482 172,149,393 232,701,294 260,778,953 312,946,747 349.746,335
Disbursements $ 248,098,526 339,702,502 498,203,118 576,660,210 697,042,212 785,769,611
Spent on War and
Demobilization Deficit	Account
115,025,044
167.553,109
265,501,824
315.881,257
384,095,465
436,123,276
$	60,750,476
166,197,755 306,488,815 343,836.802 446,519,439 346,612,955
.$1,461,396,204	$3,145,576,179

$	13,773,733
That burden should never have been created had that administration been conducted as it ought to have been. There was no reason why they could not have levied and collected hundreds of millions per annum, so that at the close of the war no one would have felt any additional taxation. Had that course been followed the national debt would now be comparatively
'Mr. SPENCE: Oh, talk some sense.
Mr. Mc'MILLAN: My friends do not like to hear this sort of thing, but I am afraid 1 Shall have to point out the facts. As I say, they borrowed and added to the national debt 114,000,000 more than the entire cost of the war, and the financial situation was such that when the present Liberal administration-


Mr. SPENCE:: Did you belong to the
Liberal party then?


Thomas McMillan: If I am interrupted it
will only mean five minutes to be added to

my time. I was about to observe that when the present Liberal administration took office their first task was to bring order out of chaos. They were faced with the enormous annual expenditure of over $463,000,000 and they could reduce taxation only as their carefully considered and gradually diminishing expenditures would permit. Nevertheless their record is good. I am not going to go over it in detail, but I should like to have the privilege of placing the figures on Hansard so that every hon. member may have an opportunity to study them. As regards the increase in the national debt under the Conservative administration during the war, I have figures in tabulated form which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will give to Hansard.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Read them.


Thomas McMillan: Along with this I will
show the result of five years of Liberal administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.

The Address-Mr. McMillan


James Houston Spence: Read it; that will take up your time.


Thomas McMillan: The statement shows
that at the beginning of the Liberal regime, as at March 31, 1922, the total expenditure-


James Houston Spence: Mr. Speaker, I submit that
the hon. gentleman ought to read the figures. Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Houston Spence: Let him read it.


Thomas McMillan: I say, the statement
shows that there was a total annual expenditure for all purposes of $463,528,000. I am not going to go over the figures, but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will place them on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Houston Spence: Read them.


Thomas McMillan: You do not want to see them in print; you do not want to have them placed on Hansard. At the end of five years, if you take as the basis the last year of the Conservative administration,-and it is not as high as it was previously-you will find that in that five year period, ending with March 31, 1927, there has been a saving of over $447,000,000, made up as follows:
Reduction
March 31,1923 .. ..'$434,735,277	$ 28,793,112
March 31, 1924	..	..	370,589,247	92,939,142March 31,1925	..	..	351.169,803	112,358,586March 31, 1926	..	..	355,445,308	108,083,081March 31, 1927	..	. .	358,555,751	104,972,638
Reduction in 5 years taking 1922
as basis	 $447,146,359


James Houston Spence: Have you got the money?


Thomas McMillan: Hon. gentlemen will
find the details in the public accounts. Now what about the railway situation? We know that a very important question in the minds of the Canadian people at that time was this: Will the financial situation of the Canadian railways overwhelm the country or will the government be able to surmount it? During the last two years of the Conservative administration the receipts of the National railways failed to meet ordinary expenditure by over $46,000,000, but when the Liberal government assumed the reins of power they consolidated the National system, bringing it under a board of efficient management. With what result? At the end of two years-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Thomas McMillan: You do not like to hear the facts stated. At the end of two years of Liberal administration, instead of a deficit, and a failure of receipts to meet ordinary expenditure, there was a surplus of over
$23,000,000. In other words, as between the management of the previous administration and that which has been exercised under the present government, there is a difference in favour of the latter of over $69,000,000. That favourable showing has continued from year to year until, for the calendar year 1926, the revenue exceeded ordinary expenditure by over $48,225,000. For the last year we have not received the entire returns, but the gross receipts were more; and the only reason why there will not be an equally favourable showing is the fact that there have been a reduction in freight rates and an increase in wages of employees. Added to this, there is the circumstance that in the west conditions were such that grain could not be moved, up to the end of the calendar year, to the same degree as formerly.


James Houston Spence: Do you blame the government for that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas McMillan: As regards the national debt, what do we find? On March 31, 1927 the national debt, according to the public accounts, amounted to $2,422,000,000 odd. During the last two years of the Meighen administration, that is 1920-1922, they were compelled to increase the national debt by over $173,000,000. No reasonable individual would expect that in one year the Liberal administration would be able to balance the budget. They were compelled the first year, 1922-23, to borrow, and increase the national debt by $31,000,000. But since that time what do we find? I read from the public accounts that in 1924 the reduction in net debt was over $35,000,000, in 1925, $345,589; in 1926, $27,706,000, and in 1927, over $41,000,000, or a total reduction in the four years of $105,000,000, and during the first nine months of the present financial year, ending December 31, there has been la further reduction of some $55,000,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the only thing which stands to the credit of this government. If my hon. friends opposite are not very well satisfied with these figures possibly they will be less satisfied before I get through. While, during the last few years, the record of the Conservative opposition was anything but commendable, this government has been making history. It took its stand and faced its difficulties in such a masterly way as to show that Liberalism has been doing things which will go down into history as constituting some of the brightest pages in all our political life. Despite its record of economy and efficiency and its substantial reductions in the customs
The Address-Mr. McMillan

tariff, when, at the close of the election of 1925, the Liberal- party found itself in the position of being unable to meet parliament with a clear majority of the house, did the Ri^ht Hon. Mackenzie King show any disposition to hog the spoils of office for the benefit of his political friends? Did he show any disposition to commit the government to any undesirable course of action? Not at all. During the whole of that emergency his action was such as to show that he was exceedingly anxious to preserve and uphold the best traditions of parliamentary government in this country. Having suffered personal defeat in his own riding he absolutely refused to open up any constituency or to make any public appointment in order to get a position for himself, as previous prime ministers had done, until such time as the representatives of the people should meet and decide for themselves who should lead and direct the affairs of government. Once they had done so, and had given a further mandate to the Liberals to carry on, he and his government proceeded to place before the House of Commons the most advanced program of legislation ever presented to parliament during any single session since confederation. So good was that program, and so much of it was able to receive the assent of parliament and of the crown before the explosion took place, that when the election did come, apart from the masterly way in which he was able to put the constitutional situation before the people, there is no doubt that the Robb low-tariff budget had more than anything else to do with turning the Liberal slump of the previous year into a splendid victory. Never in our history had any government redeemed itself in one short year. It was a triumph for legislation and good government. During all the previous session there was strong opposition to the Liberals, but the electorate having realized what real efficiency and tariff reduction did mean, swallowed it, went to the polls, and asked for more, and we have every indication that before the end of this parliamentary term they will not be disappointed in their expectations.
Now, sir, let us look just a little further into that situation. When, owing to the defection of a certain number of his supporters, the administraion of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King was unable to command the support of a maj ority of this house, did he haggle, or twist and turn, in order to hang on to the spoils of office? Not a moment. When it developed that he was unable to carry on with that dignity befitting a great parliamentary institution, that moment he asked the Governor General, as was his right, for an appeal to the 
people, to let them pronounce as to what should be the verdict. When that appeal was refused he resigned the premiership at once and handed over the seals of office. But when the shadow government began to act unconstitutionally, in trying to get control of the public business of this country and of the public funds, and wrongfully to advise the Governor General, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King assumed the role of a statesman, displayed all the qualities of an outstanding parliamentary leader-not only on the floor of parliament where he stood head and shoulders over every other member of the house but outside in the country at large. In parliament he compelled the members of that shadow government to sit like children at his feet. He gave them a good castigation, and compelled every one of them to admit that they had not taken the required oath of office, but that they were acting in a most unjustifiably unconstitutional manner. In the succeeding election, in the face of all the epithets and scandal hurled at the Prime Minister and his brilliant leading lieutenant, he was able to put the public issues before the country on such a high plane as not only to rivet the attention of the people but command their confidence and support. That attitude, apart from the Robb low-tariff budget, was what won the election, supported as the Liberal leader was by the great majority of the primary producers and general consumers of the country, men and women who do not importune cabinet ministers or the tariff board through deputations, not because they are not vitally interested but because according to the general nature of affairs they cannot afford to do that kind of thing. This must be done for them and the tariff board appointed by this government is busily engaged in performing that investigation in a most exhaustive and impartial manner which, I am satisfied, will have its beneficial effect in the very near future.
The Liberal policies of low tariff generally and reciprocal trade with our neighbours are the two great factors which will lead to a permanently successful agricultural industry and to the encouragement of shipping, industry and international trade. Canada can no longer continue to live within herself. We have become citizens of the world. Our international trade increase since 1913 has been nothing short of marvellous. With less than ten millions of people we now stand fifth among the great commercial nations, and we enjoy a per capita trade of almost double that of many other countries. Situated in such a pivotal position on the northern half

The Address-Mr. McMillan
of this American continent, on the straight way between the orient and the British dominions of Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the old world markets on the other, with two highly equipped lines of transcontinental railways and such a heritage of still largely undeveloped natural resources, our policy ought to be gradually to scale down all needless trade barriers and to go forward to meet the open competition of the world. We are now meeting that competition successfully, and if given the proper lead there is no reason why we cannot continue to fortify and improve our present favourable situation. As a great British economist has said, unless the United States and many other countries cease telling their people to " trade here " and " don't trade there," the world will sooner or later face an economic cataclysm from which no country can escape. To be thoroughly equipped against such an emergency, if we would realize and fully appreciate our great opportunities, it is our duty and in the highest interests of the . Canadian people gradually to scale down all needless trade barriers and to "let Canada lead the way."
The election of the 14th September, 1926, settled once and for all the role which governors general must assume in this country; they must recognize that the will of the ' Canadian people ia supreme and must respect, abide by, and carry out the will of the people as expressed in the advice given by the responsible prime minister of the day, who is and who ought to be the only official medium of communication and advice. Moreover, that role was confirmed during the deliberations of the recent Imperial conference where the people of Canada, through the medium of our two great Canadian leaders, led the way. That conference, representing all the dominions of the empire, unanimously agreed to define their position and mutual relation as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, while united by common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
When my hon. friend the acting leader of the Conservative party, after that conference, undertook to throw cold water on its achievements and charged that it was with a feeling of disloyalty to the crown that Liberals ventured to assert our equal status with the motherland and the .other dominions in their own spheres, he was effectively silenced by Premier Stanley Baldwin of Great Britain, who in Toronto on August 7, 1927, declared:
I defy anyone to find two statesmen who pull together better for the good of the empire then Mr. Mackenzie King and myself.
That was a clincher; that was the last word. It was uttered by a great Conservative, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and uttered in the heart of ultra-loyal, Tory Toronto. Surely such an expression emanating from such a source should give the quietus once and forever to that hollow disloyalty cry which we have so often heard in the past.
Just recently moreover along came Lieutenant Colonel, the Right Hon. Mr. Amery, British Secretary of State for the Dominions, preaching the same Mackenzie King doctrine. Listen to what he said:
The war, he said, had placed the empire's nations on a new footing of equality, and this status had been completely accorded them at the last empire conference. While the conference marked a great constitutional development, it could not surprise any student of empire affairs. The conclusions of the conference were implicit in their very foundations of empire.
Again he said:
The conference had laid down in the first place the complete equality of British nations- that none was subordinate to another.
"Canada is no more subordinate to Britain than Britain is to Canada", he declared: "That principle was laid down for the whole empire with absolute unanimity. How shall we use this equality?"
Mark you, Mr. Speaker, these are all Conservatives, but they are the right kind of Conservatives; these are all big men.
Further, it is recognized that the official channel of communication is now between prime minister and prime minister, as representing the respective governments, rather than through the medium of the Governor General as in days gone by, and this is the only enduring way. British statesmen realize perfectly that the broad foundations of liberty and equality upon which the British Empire rests would be rent asunder if they interfered with the freedom of the dominions. They know that the people of the dominions are their own people. They know that liberty with them is a passion; that they and their forebears left the native heath of the old land to pursue the search after freedom, and that freedom and liberty is as dear to them as life itself. As matters now stand, the political foundation of the British Empire rests, as the government of Great Britain has always rested, upon no written constitution, and this great empire will no doubt press forward from strength to strength and clear away these quibbling legalities which we have heard so much about, and which will gradually disappear as the snow before the noonday sun. I am sure we are all pleased to know
The Address

Mr. McMillan

that we have definitely settled the status upon which the dominions of the empire rest, and that our status is as it was first proclaimed, and afterwards maintained, by our great Canadian Liberal leaders. Canada has blazed the way for all the dominions from confederation downwards. It was the position which was first asserted and upheld by that great Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier, afterwards supported by Sir Robert Borden, and now at the recent conference carried to its full fruition under the guidance of Canada's two greatest Canadians, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and his worthy colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). This I consider as one of the great outstanding pages of Canadian history which will stand forever as a monument to the foresight and statesmanship as well as the honour of our great Canadian leaders.
I would like to voice my approval of the stand which this government took before the recent conference of the premiers of the provinces as expressed through the medium of [DOT] the hon. Minister of Justice when he said that we should be allowed to amend our own constitution as circumstances and conditions warrant. The slogan announced by my hon. friend the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a year ago, "Hands off the British North America Act," seems rather absurd when viewed in the light of recent history. What are the facts?
1.	In 1871 the parliament of Great Britain passed another British North America Act permitting the parliament of Canada to establish new provinces, and making provision for their constitution, administration and the altering of their limits.
2.	In 1875 the parliament of Great Britain passed an act repealing a section of the British North America Act and allowing the parliament of Canada to define the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons.
3.	In 1886 the British parliament passed another British North America Act allowing the Canadian parliament to make provision for the representatives of the territories in the Senate and the House of Commons.
4.	In 1907 the British parliament passed an act providing for payments to be made to the provinces.
5.	In 1915 the British parliament altered the constitution of the Senate by increasing the number of senators from seventy-two to ninety-six to provide for representation of the western provinces in that body.
All these changes you will find cited in Kennedy's Documents of the Canadian Con-

stitution. These are all amendments to the British North America Act which the British parliament passed as a matter of course at the request of the parliament of Canada, and I voice my approval of the words of the Minister of Justice when he proposed merely to dispense with a needless formality, to make the form correspond with the substance.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman's
time is up.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, happily I think this debate is drawing to a close. The range of the discussion has been as wide and varied as the national interests have seemed to be to the hon. members taking part, and properly so. If I understand the theory aright which underlies the latitude permitted in this debate it is that when hon. members representative of all the different groups in the house have presented their views to parliament, the government of the day will be in a better position to draft and to promote the. legislation of the session. With this understanding, I wish to make a few remarks before endorsing the vote of thanks proposed to His Excellency which is now before the house.
The speeches of the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) were such as to do them credit. The felicitations so genera ously extended by all members of the house who have spoken in this debate to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) are not only well merited, but they have been listened to with great pleasure, coming as they do upon an occasion when it appears to be recognized as the proper thing to permit the higher human elements to rise above the clash of party strife and warfare. I gladly add my congratulations to those of hon. members who have preceded me, and in so doing I feel that it would not be out of place, nor would it be resented by any member of this house, were I to make a passing reference to his predecessor in his distinguished office, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. It is no doubt with mingled feelings, sir, that we recall his presence here. Some who so recently fought with him will recall his presence with pleasure. Those who fought against him may recall his presence with fear. But all of us will recall his presence with admiration and respect. In making mention of his services to our country both as Prime Minister during the darkest period of our history and subsequently as leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, I but do honour to myself and indicate a sense of appreciation of a distinguished public servant which well becomes this house. I shall not now make any attempt

The Address-Mr. Irvine
to place an estimate upon those services or even to make a summary of his efforts; suffice it to say that the high qualities which he brought to his exalted office and the singleness of purpose with which he devoted those qualities to the service of Canada, have earns'1 for him an honoured place in our history. To his successor, who is equally gifted, I merely say that the country expects much from him, and I could not wish anything better for any man than that he be enabled to measure up to so great an opportunity for service.
Now, sir, I will address myself to the consideration of only one matter mentioned in the speech from the throne, the existence of which I notice has been denied by some hon. members who have taken part in the debate but which, on the other hand, has been vociferously re-established and re-asserted by those who have been speaking in support of the speech from the throne. I refer to the prosperity of our country. In accepting the popular meaning of that term, with certain mental reservations as to the extent and adequacy of the prosperity indicated, I have no intention of denying its presence. However, I regard the very mention of prosperity in the speech from the throne as being in the nature of an announcement, as though prosperity were not normally to be expected. If prosperity were a normal condition, as it might very well be, there would be no need for any announcement concerning it, but as things are prosperity is fittingly mentioned in the speech from the throne. To me, that amounts to the announcement of a welcome visitor, which comes to us at uncertain intervals, and I am very glad that the government have had notice of his arrival. I rise now not only to welcome that visitor with the government, but to insist that the government shall take at this session of parliament, and at subsequent sessions, steps which will compel that welcome visitor to become a permanent member of our family, if such be possible. In other words, I rise to urge a consideration which may lead to the stabilization of prosperity.
I am very glad to note that the government were too wise to claim that prosperity was coming to Canada through any particular act of theirs. I do not say this in any criticism of the government, I merely wish to indicate that if the government had claimed credit for the announced prosperity they would also have to take the blame for the unemployment and depressions which have characterized our Canadian industrial life for the last ten years, and they would also have to accept the responsibility for the depression and unemployment which will inevitably follow the prosperity which they have now announced.
This indicated prosperity brings us face to face with the chief problem of modern industrial life. Anyone who is at all observant must be convinced that industry and business move in fitful cycles of prosperity, alternating with dreaded cycles of depression. General reflection on this phenomenon has been crystallized into a few very definite opinions which vary, naturally, and which have been frequently expressed in this chamber. These different opinions have been brought forward in this . chamber voluminously during periods of depression and to-day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to review some of these opinions because I anticipate that they will be repeated a few years hence when dealing with the next period of depression. Hon. members who voiced these convictions will probably recognize them, but I draw them to your attention now if for no other reason than to show just how far we are from analyzing in a scientific way the real problem before us, and how much further we are from finding a satisfactory solution thereof.
The first opinion which I wish to recall will be that of the Minister of Finance. I do not, of course, refer to the present Minister of Finance because he may not be in that position when these speeches are next made, but whoever may be the Minister of Finance at that time will take the attitude that neither his department, the financial institutions in general nor the government will accept any responsibility for the unemployment and depression which he will, of course, deplore. His attitude is not hard to picture; "Deus Vult" will be his helpless cry, he will reluctantly admit that unemployment is present, and out of the very sympathy of his human heart he will be sorry for the sufferers, but the only thing he will be able to do will be to give a very small pittance of charity and hope for the return of the tide of prosperity.
Then there is another opinion which we have heard expressed and which we will doubtless hear again, that is that unemployment is caused by men who absolutely refuse to work. No explanation will be given of the fact that these men charged with refusing to work were the men who did work the year before, when prosperity was at its height, and no explanation will be given of tlhe fact that because of their very industry the shelves of the warehouses will be piled1 high with goods which cannot be removed and consumed thus carrying out the very aim of industry itself.
Another opinion will be that the depression which will then be prevalent was caused by something done or something left undone to the tariff, but that is such a well known ex-
The Address-Mr. Irvine

cuse that I pass it by without further comment. It has been dinned into the ears of the people of Canada for the past sixty years, and we are all familiar with it.
Then another opinion will be expressed, which will be that the hungry, unemployed people of that period should do penance for their lack of thrift. It will be said that out of their income during the period of prosperity they should have saved a good deal of money, and should be able to live in luxury without doing anything at all.
There is still another opinion, sir, which we have not heard expressed so much in this house, perhaps, but which we have certainly heard in other places. I refer to the opinion that the conditions of our industrial life are directly due to the decadent capitalist system; that there is no cure far it; that it must be destroyed, and that revolutionary methods must be adopted for its destruction. With this latter opinion, sir, I have no particular sympathy; I think the capitalist system was evolved to produce goods, and in that aim it has not failed at alt. I also believe that revolution is the last resort of the ignorant, so I am not particularly in favour of the last opinion to which I have referred. I would say this about it, however; the revolutionary, a product of industrial stupidities which we tolerate, hurls his challenge across the waste and chaos and inhumanity of the civilization which we endorse, forcing us to attempt to find an optimistic philosophy for the conditions of life. In other words, we are content with the dry as dust excrescences of an old outworn economic theory* which belongs to what is known as the "dismal science." Happily for the future, however, these are not the only opinions. There are those to-day who believe-not as the result of any blind credulity, but by reason of an inevitable conclusion derived from a close scientific analysis of industrial phenomena-that the depression which we have so often deplored is preventable; and if that is so, then those in authority should be held responsible for its recurrence.
What are the facts on which this hopeful belief is based? What are the steps in the analysis that leads to this conclusion? Everyone knows that prosperity comes gradually and finally ends in a boom. The boom slumps and ends in a depression. When prosperity begins naturally everyone in his own interest does the very thing which is needed to bring more prosperity; that is to say, when prosperity begins the psychological element begins to work-manufacturers and other producers of goods increase their means of production, and the money spent in this way increases

the consumers' purchasing power, and on goes the prosperity wave. And if bad times come a similar process is followed. In other words, the individual acts in the way described because he does not expect that the tendency which he has noticed, whether one of depression or of prosperity, can be stopped. He well knows that there is no agency to which he can look for any assistance.
Now, is there a way by which extreme depressions may be avoided? Is there a way by which prosperity may be made permanent? I will summarize briefly the essential factors which suggest the possibility of a stabilized prosperity. First, no one will deny that Canada is well equipped with natural resources, with plant facilities and with man power to increase production ad lib. No one will deny that much of the invested capital in Canada to-day is returning a poor profit, and in some cases is entirely lost, because it has been invested in manufacturing facilities the product of which cannot be purchased. The next thing to be noticed is that the people in Canada actually desire more goods. I refer to the statement of conditions as made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on Monday night. She pointed out that a very large percentage of the homes of our rural people could be very much improved, and that these rural people are very anxious to have them improved; that is, they desire more goods and higher standards of living. And undoubtedly it would be well for them if they could get more goods and higher standards of living. Why, in face of the capacity of manufacturing industry to produce plenty, and in the face of their desire for plenty, do they not have plenty?
Let me follow the steps of the reasoning in this regard. They do not have plenty because they do not create plenty; they do not create plenty because plenty cannot be sold. We are not in a position to buy any more than is being now created. More could not be sold if it were produced because consumers do not have sufficient income with which to buy more. The best proof of this is shown in the extensive selling on the instalment plan which has taken place in the last few years. It is estimated that during the past year three billion dollars worth of goods was sold or moved in the United States on the instalment plan. I am not advocating the instalment plan-do not forget that. I think the instalment plan is mathematically impossible, and that some day it must stop. I merely use this fact to indicate that if these people had had the money they would have bought the three billion dollars' worth of

The Address-Mr. Irvine
goods in cash instead of on the instalment plan. It is merely a fact to indicate that if the people had more money they would buy more goods.
Since producers cannot produce any more goods than consumers can consume, and since consumers cannot consume any more goods than they can buy and pay for, it is surely our duty to inquire into the sources of their income. Where do consumers get their money? Well, I think anyone will be ready to answer that consumers generally get their money in the form of wages, dividends, interest, profit and so forth. But the point to be emphasized is that all such moneys come from industry; and industry, on the other hand, has no other source of receiving its money than from the consumer, while the consumer has no other source of receiving purchasing power but from industry. Thus there is a constant circuit flow of money from industry to the consumer, and from the consumer back again to industry. So that if industry does not receive enough money from the consumer to buy its output, then its output cannot be bought out. Similarly, if consumers do not receive sufficient money from industry to pay for the output, it cannot be paid for. If industry therefore paid back to consumers all the money which consumers have sent to industry, and if, on the other hand, consumers could buy goods with all the money they received as wages, dividends, interest, profits, and so forth, from industry, we would have a pretty steady circuit flow; we would be able to buy a fixed volume of goods at a certain level of price.
But these things do not run so smoothly as that. We are living under a profit system, and consequently the man who produces goods must sell them for a price higher than it cost him to produce them. Moreover, it is necessary for corporations and individuals to save, and money that is saved appears first in the production of more goods, so that there is a constant tendency to pile upon the shelf goods that represent a surplus, not above the capacity of consumers to consume, but above the possibility of consumers to pay for with the wages they receive in the process of production. The right flow of money would be that amount which would balance the goods flowing into the market, and it is the lack of an agency to regulate that right flow of money that accounts for the recurrent depression and unemployment against which I am speaking.
But let us ask now, why it is that an agency of this character has not been established, that is to say, an.agency for the pur-56103-20
pose of regulating the proper flow of money into the market. The reason is that orthodox economists, those who wrote their treatises prior to the modern development and prior, to the modern problem, are the accepted authorities, regardless of the fact that their theories are contradicted by facts known to every business man capable of noting a fact. What is that obsolete theory to which those in authority give a blind allegiance? It is the assumption that no agency is required to regulate the flow of money, because, forsooth, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith have assumed that if producers obtain sufficient money for production, then consumers automatically will obtain sufficient to buy out their production. I want to explode this theory of the orthodox economists.
I will ignite the explosive by asking this question: Why cannot the money expended in production enable the consumers to buy the output? What is the reason? I indicated it a few moments ago but I will discuss it more in detail now. Money expended in production cannot buy the output because, in the first place, we are living under what is known as the profit system. I am not speaking against the profit system-I am merely pointing out a fact: We are living under a profit system and that means that the producer must get more for the goods he sells than it costs him to produce them. No man will go into business on any other condition. No man will do anything that will not yield him something in return, whether it be in the form of material wealth or in the way of satisfaction of a psychological kind. But be that as it may, since the producer has to sell his goods for more than it costs him to produce them where will the extra money come from? The money paid out in production is the only money the consumers have to buy with. Consequently there must remain on the shelves of the warehouse a surplus which represents the difference between the amount of money distributed in the process of production and the selling price of the goods. But that is not the only difficulty. Corporations must save. They have to replenish plant and extend it when necessary and this compels them to put by some reserve. Individuals must also save. It is a very admirable characteristic, we are told, to save money, and I am not arguing against it; it is necessary. But every dollar that the individual saves helps to hasten depression. Money saved usually is turned back into further production. But, you say, the consumer's dollar is bound to be somewhere. Yes; but let me show you where it

The Address-Mr. Irvine

usually is when we want it. Suppose it is in the bank: During the period of depression one thing that the bank finds it very difficult to do is to lend money to anyone, so that the consumer's dollar lies there out of the circuit flow and to that extent it is not functioning. The consumer is denied goods in consequence.
Some hon. members in this house may call me a theorist and on that assumption will disregard my plea. Meanwhile hon. gentlemen are giving their tacit endorsement to a theory which underlies our whole industrial system and to which are chargeable the most spectacular failures of that system; a theory which is proven to be false by every fact relevant to the subject. In further pursuance of my theme, I anticipate a question which some thoughtful member may possibly have in mind at this point. That question is this:	What is the cause of a period of
prosperity, since I have indicated that there is never enough money under the ordinary industrial system in the hands of consumers to buy out production? My answer is that prosperity invariably comes during periods of capital expenditure. This capital expenditure causes prosperity because the money expended in capital facilities immediately finds its place in the market for goods. And this increases the purchasing power of the consumer for the reason that, as yet, no goods have come from the facilities in question to balance the amount of money expended, as I have indicated. In this way capital expenditure always helps purchasing power. Let me illustrate this point. Suppose we have in this city a large boot and shoe factory and a period of depression is gradually closing in upon us. The shelves are being crowded with goods which cannot be sold. When the depression is beginning to settle on the factory, when they are paying off their hands, let us assume that the construction of a huge two million dollar plant-say for hydro electric purposes-is undertaken. Immediately construction work begins money is paid out in wages and so forth. But that plant so far has produced no goods to go on the market, it is distributing $2,000,000 of money which is available for the purchase of some of the boots which have been lying on the shelves of the boot and shoe factory which I have supposed. I might cite many instances, such as for example the marked development of the automobile business in the United States. That was a new industry a few short years ago whereas to-day it is chief in volume of production among the industries of the United States. The automobile industry on the other side produced [Air. Irvine.]
last year seven-eighths of the world's output, and in cars and car supplies there was spent in that country six billion dollars. United States prosperity in the last ten years, as compared with the poverty or lack of prosperity in other countries, has been due in large part to this expenditure in automobiles, but this has been so only because the automobile industry has been a growing one. A stabilized industry will not increase the purchasing power of the people because it does not enlarge plant equipment to the same extent as a new industry.
All periods of prosperity are caused by capital expenditure in the manner I have set forth. But just as soon as the goods begin to flow to the market from the new capital facilities, depression sets in and continues until conditions warrant the repeating of the process. In other words, we are prosperous when all the money expended on future production, together with all expended on current production, enables us to buy all the goods available. The position may be made even more clear when I say that in order to be able to buy the output of capital facilities now in use we must build new ones, and in order to buy the output of the new ones we must build still more new ones. When we stop this process disaster immediately overtakes us.
There can be only one solution to this problem, no matter how brought about, and that is our people must in some way be enabled to buy and pay for as much as they can produce of consumers' goods or the full equivalent in the product of other countries. That is to say: There must be sufficient money in the hands of consumers, together with our imports, to balance our industrial output. Someone will ask, why can we not ship our surplus to foreign countries? We can; but if you have not enough money to buy the surplus which you have at home you have not enough with which to buy the imports which, in the proper course of business, should be exchanged for exports. No country is unwise enough to ship goods out without having an equivalent in imports, and what is the use of getting imports without having money with which to pay for them.
I propose now to devote the remaining portion of my remarks to making a few suggestions with a view to the stabilization of the prosperity which is now beginning to make itself felt throughout the country,- suggestions which I shall direct not only to the government but to parliament. I may be mistaken in my estimation of the power of parliament. But at present I regard parliament as being-greater in authority than
FEBRUARY 9, 1928	30T
The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
any government, even allowing for the blighting influences of the party system upon it. There are on the order paper resolutions proposing the nationalization of banks and the establishment of a federal reserve system. At the moment I am not interested in these particularly but I refer to the federal reserve system by way of illustration. The chief contribution of the federal reserve banks m the United States has been to stabilize the money market. I will not describe the process by which this is accomplished. We need such an institution in Canada, but that alone would not solve our difficulty. We require an agency of some sort which will do for industry and business that which the federal reserve system has done for money,- to regulate the flow of money to balance with production, so that there shall be neither too much nor too little in circulation at one time. In finding a remedy for the present state of affairs in this regard, the first step is to discover something which at present nobody knows, and yet to discover which is well within the range of human intelligence. That something which no one knows but which might be found out is this: How much money do the consumers require to enable them to buy the current output? And how much of that amount is now furnished by the producers of goods in the form of payment for services? I propose, Mr. Speaker, that we set up a federal board which shall collect from every available source: (1) Such information and such data as are required to indicate the correct amount of the consumer's income; (2) With such information in their possession the board would next advise the government how its fiscal policy should be guided in respect to such information; (3) The board shall also determine the exact time at which public expenditures undertaken by the government shall be launched, the manner of its financing, and the extent to which it shall be put within a given time. In times of prosperity the government could shorten up its public works program, while it would extend that program in order to stem a tendency towards depression. In this way the control of money in proper relation to production would be possible. I should like to explain this more fully, but time will not permit.
There is talk, sir, of a great waterway that may cost 8400,000,000. I can imagine that the government in the near future may authorize the launching of that scheme without thought of its direct effect upon the industrial life of the country. But surely the letting loose of $400,000,000, without a balancing of goods in the market, ought to receive some consideration by any govern-56103-201
ment. I suggest, sir, that this government should organize such a board as I have indicated which board both by its own acts, and by the data which it will be in a position to furnish, will be enabled to give leadership to business in general. The very fact that business men would know that the matter was in control, that depression was not going to descend upon them, would encourage them to carry on, and thus prosperity would be doubly certain. I would characterize the proposal submitted in the words of Foster and Catchings-the economists of the Poliak foundation, who in their latest book, The Road to Plenty, say in respect to it:
This is a solution of the problem which is radical in that it goes to the bottom of the difficulty; a solution which is revolutionary in that it involves the overthrow of accepted ideas and the adoption of an entirely new controlling purpose. At the same time the solution must be conservative in that it leaves unchanged all those established institutions which are generally regarded as essential; a solution which is commonplace in that it requires us to do little more than we are already doing.
I conclude by saying to this government and this parliament that if nothing radical and constructive is done tlfe prosperity now heralded will depart in haste before the certain avenger depression. To do nothing is equivalent to making a decision to continue to have our periodic depressions with all their accompaniment of human suffering.


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: After
the very learned discussion we have had on economic matters I am not able as yet to determine what the effect will be on the price of wheat, but I do hope the effect will be good. The hon. member (Mr. Irvine) said he was not a theorist. I hope after I have had time to study his speech I shall find that he was quite correct in that statement.
I desire at the beginning to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I listened with very great pleasure indeed to the speech of the mover, the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley). He is a distinguished graduate of the university of Dalhousie, a distinguished son of Nova Scotia, and a most worthy representative of the constituency. I was very much pleased indeed to note the spirit of optimism in the speech which he made. I should like to apply my remarks equally to the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Beaubien) who seconded the address. In this great Canada of ours where two great races dwell, personally I am pleased indeed that this particular hon. member was chosen for the task of seconding the address.
308	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
I should like also to offer my congratulations to the Conservative party in that they were guided by the practice of the Liberal party in deciding to hold a national convention, which took place in Winnipeg not very long ago. It was very interesting to some of us to note the resolutions passed there, and we feel quite sure that the very atmosphere of the place tempered the spirit of some of those resolutions. I may add that we were exceedingly disappointed at the fact that no sooner had the convention closed than many eastern newspapers published directions to the new leader to the effect that they hoped he would not be guided by the resolutions passed there. Those of us on the outside of that convention had the idea that one of its purposes was to select a leader for the Conservative party, but apparently such was not the case. It now appears that the great Conservative party met in national convention for the purpose of selecting a leader of the opposition. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Dalhousie Gazette of November 17th, and I should like to quote what it says in that regard. First of all I may say that the hon. leader, after his election, received many telegrams of congratulation, and among them was one from the president of the students' council of Dalhousie university, of which my hon. friend is a very honoured graduate, and of which I also have the honour to be an alumnus. This telegram of congratulation was published in the Dalhousie Gazette, and to it the leader of the opposition replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Godsoe,
I have not had an opportunity until today to thank you for the very kind message which you sent to me on behalf of the council of the students on the occasion of my election as leader of the opposition in the House of Commons.
As you will note, this is a written statement, and therefore more likely to be exact. I do not wish to be too technical but the hon. gentleman himself makes much of a few legal technicalities with respect to our present national status, and indeed in all the speeches which I have heard him deliver in this house in the past two or three years he has been most critical of technicalities. I feel confident that he will not object to my observations at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to point out that it is a statutory office. There is a description of it in the statutes.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I will come to that a little later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will never come to it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have the
fullest confidence that my hon. friend will not object to my observations at the present time.
I understand the statutory nature of the position of leader of the opposition m this house. It is true that with the house constituted as it is at present, the leader of the Conservative party becomes ipso facto the leader of the opposition, but according to the statement of the hon. gentleman himself he was elected not as leader of the Conservative party but as leader of the opposition.


Mr. HOCNEN:: That is very fine hair splitting.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I remember a great and historic people who occupied a position somewhat parallel to that of the Conservative party in this country. They required a leader, so did the Conservative party. They were in the wilderness, so was the Conservative party. This great people chose as their leader a gentleman by the name of Moses, and he was a great leader. In Christian charity, with which Liberals are so richly endowed, let me add that we are most happy in our hope that the hon. gentleman from West Calgary will have a long apprenticeship in the position to which he says he has been called, so that he may attain to that sphere of greatness which history accords to that other leader of Whom I have just spoken. Should the Conservative party, by some political misfortune, some day come into power, the hon. leader of the opposition will find himself in the same predicament as Moses, who was permitted to see the promised land but not to enter therein.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that Moses sinned? That is why he was not allowed to enter the promised land.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I should not
like to say how many sins the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has committed. According to the hon. gentleman's mature and considered statement in the letter from which I have just quoted he would not be permitted to cross over with his party, for they had elected him to that position, which only those in the wilderness can occupy. The record goes on to say that Moses, when he was old, after being permitted to see the promised land, died in the wilderness. The rest of the parallel is left to one's imagination, except to add that the Conservative party must find the Joshua who at this moment is unknown, and perhaps as yet- unborn.

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
Let me add this: To the leader of the opposition, a distinguished son of a splendid province, a graduate of no mean university, I offer my sincere congratulations. He has wonderful mental capacity; his talents are well trained; he is well skilled in the law and he has a wide knowledge of political affairs. May I sincerely and honestly predict for him that he will have a very successful career in the position to which he has been chosen? I want to add one thing further. After the leader of the opposition was chosen he made many speeches in western Canada. I read those with pleasure and I was sorry that I did not happen to be in my city the day he was visiting there, but I had an opportunity of hearing him at Regina the next night. In^ the west he delivered speeches filled with a lofty idealism and a sound note of Canadian patriotism, and I want to compliment him sincerely on the high note which he sounded in those western provinces. Perhaps there might be just a tinge of regret at one section where I saw great tears in his eyes, and I might -be pardoned for thinking of the rich young ruler when he suggested the great heart-wrench it was when he was leaving those big interests with which he had been associated for such a long time. Apart from that little thing I desire to compliment him on the lofty tone which he sounded out in the west. One thing which struck me as being very pleasing was that he said that Canada was prosperous.
I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the excellent and admirable address which he delivered the other day in this chamber. It was one of his best efforts and one which will go down to history as showing the present position of this country. The Liberal party has a leader of which it may well be proud and Canada has a prime minister in whom it may have great pride and satisfaction. It rvas a treat to the house to listen to those lofty utterances setting forth facts which, I am sure, it is good for this country to know.
To come to the question of the speech from the throne, I understand some of my hon. friends opposite are not very well satisfied with the speech. The first paragraph states:
It affords me much pleasure to meet you at the commencement of another session of parliament and to be able to congratulate you upon the marked prosperity of the country.
Then it goes on to speak about the volume of trade and many other things, but I propose to let that stand for the moment. Mention is next made of the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, but even this does not seem to suit our hon. friends opposite. We on this side of the house had hoped that
they would at least rejoice in that great event, but apparently they did not do so. The speech goes on to refer to the visit of the Prince of Wales, Prince George and tthe Prime Minister of Great Britain, and in my judgment this visit and the occasion of the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation last summer were effective in making Canada better and more favourably known throughout the world, and should have aroused the patriotism and pride of every Canadian. To me at least that reference in the speech from the throne is an excellent one,
The next reference is to Canada's seat on the League of Nations. May I ask hon-members opposite if they do not think that is something worthy of recognition and note? I personally consider it a very distinct compliment to this great country, and may I hope that, situated as we are in the northern half of this North American" continent, where peace has reigned for the last one hundred years and more, our representation in that league will be of great effect in the interest of peace, not only on this continent but throughout the whole world.
The speech from the throne goes on to refer to the proposal to have ministers to Japan and France. I was much surprised to hear the caustic criticism which came from different hon. members on the other side of the house in regard to this matter. Last year when we were considering the question of opening up an embassy at Washington, very severe criticism was raised. Why are hon. members not criticizing tlhat to-day? We hear very little, if any, criticism of it at all. That was, of course, an experiment, but it is one which now they know they dare not criticize because the people are convinced that it was a wise step in the right direction. I had hoped that this proposal to send ministers to foreign countries would at least be one of the things in which members in all parts of the house, representing all parties, might be unanimous, and it would be very much better for this country had some hon. members considered this matter more carefully before entering into the criticism we heard here. I believe our representatives to France and J.ipan will prove equally as capable and important as our representative to the United States has proven.
As regards the Dominion-provincial conference, will any hon. member say that that conference has not done a great deal, and will not do still more in the interests not only of the Dominion as a whole, but of the several provinces? It is another matter of which we should be proud.
310 ^	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
The speech from the throne also refers to the Hudson Bay railway. Perhaps the completion of this railway is not a matter of much interest to some hon. members opposite. It was for a long time our impression in western Canada that some hon. gentlemen opposite were not very enthusiastic in regard to the project; in fact it has been so stated on the public platform and in the press. Let me congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) on the way in which he bandied this project from the time he became Minister of Railways. I believe this railway will be a great scuccess and will open up a part of our country which may prove the richest part of the whole of western Canada. Those of us who live in that part of the country do not lightly regard that paragraph in the speech from the throne, and even if hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to belittle the speech from the throne, we on this side of the house believe the Hudson Bay railway is a work of great importance, a work which will be in the interest not only of western Canada but of Canada as a whole.
I should like to make a short reference to the speech which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) delivered in this house a few days ago. I desire to congratulate him on his address; generally speaking I think it was well delivered and well thought out. I have no doubt whatever that from his point of view ft might be reasonably effective, but I should like to say to the hon. member that on some points our ideas are slightly different from his. In his very great modesty he pointed to some of the things which have been done in the last two or three years and he took much credit to himself in regard to them. He pointed out two or three other members in his group to whom he also gave credit, and he would leave the house and the country to infer that the responsibility for all this good legislation we have was attributable to him and his associates. In so far as they may have contributed something, I always welcome that kind of action in this chamber, but from his address I almost came to the conclusion that the Liberal party and the Conservative party on the other side are practically wasting their time in being here; that had we left everything to just a few members in that corner of the house, it would have been done more expeditiously and possibly just a little better.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Hear, hear.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The hon. member who has just said "hear, hear" apparently agrees with the idea that two or three can run the country, but some of us think other-

wise. The hon. member for Bow River made reference to the transportation of Alberta coal to Ontario. If this can be accomplished in a fair and proper manner, I am entirely and absolutely behind the scheme; I want there to be no mistake about that. But let us consider the situation which confronts us at the present time. The matter was referred to the board of railway commissioners to find out the various costs of transporting coal, the out of pocket cost, the inclusive cost, and the cost plus profit. We have an official report from that body.
Perhaps I should pause to say that I hate to criticize any official body, but I have had some little experience with the board of railway commissioners, as nearly all of us have had, particularly those of us who come from western Canada and were interested in the removal of the discrimination on the rates on grain eastbound and westbound. Now there was in 1925 legislation passed by this house which said specifically that if discrimination existed, that discrimination should be removed. The matter was referred to the board of railway commissioners, and if they found that any discrimination existed, that discrimination was to be removed forthwith, and forthwith means at once. What happened? In western Canada we found that they dilly-dallied over the question for months and months, even years, so that two crops of grain had to be moved at rates that were a very great discrimination against the farmers of northern Alberta, of northern Manitoba, and of northern Saskatchewan particularly. Consequently I am not so very much enamoured of this board of railway commissioners, and I am going to say this, that any board or any individual who will deliberately set at naught the will of parliament and the will of the people of this country should be removed from office, I care not what board or what individual it is. I am not, therefore, speaking now with any too great satisfaction in the finding of the railway board on the coal rate, but I want to say that up to the present time this board is still an independent board created by parliament to investigate this very matter, and so long as they remain that board I think we must accept their official finding.
What was that official finding? It was that the railways can move that coal from Alberta to Ontario at an out of pocket cost of $7.22. The hon. member for Bow River questions that figure. It is possible that the figure is not correct; I am not an expert on this question, but I do say this, Mr. Speaker, that for this house to adopt the principle of a statutory

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
rate on coal, or on any other commodity, which is less than the official finding made by an independent official body, would be going too far.


Peter McGibbon: Would the hon. gentleman apply the same principle to coal as to wheat, which is now being moved at a loss?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would apply
the same thing to coal as to wheat, but I would like to contradict the impression my hon. friend would give the house, that wheat is being moved at a loss.


Peter McGibbon: That is the verdict of
your own department.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It might take
me forty minutes to convince the hon. gentleman, so I shall not take the time now.
I was saying that in face of the official finding of that board, I do not think parliament would be justified in making a statutory rate lower than the rate named in that schedule. Suppose, for instance, that any person feels that the board did not go sufficiently into the matter, what is the obvious course? It is a further reference back to the board, or to some other body. But I repeat, I would not like to see any statutory rate enacted by parliament that would go in the face of an official finding such as we have before us at the present time.
I was a little bit surprised that some hon. gentlemen opposite who are so fond of talking protection did not have another solution for this problem; I was surprised that they did not advocate raising the tariff from three to five dollars a ton to keep out American coal. Then our Tory friends in Toronto would necessarily have to buy their coal in Canada; the railways would be able to get a proper rate for carrying the coal, and the transportation cost would have to' come out of their own pockets. I am surprised that that argument was not advanced. But no, the suggestion was not this, either from Alberta or from Ontario. That would not suit us they said. What they wish to do is to have a statutory rate which will be less than the out of pocket cost, and the citizens of the rest of Canada must make up the deficit. Our friends opposite have a funny way of invoking the aid of protection and the tariff when it suits them, and of adopting the very opposite principle if their pockets are going to be hit.
We must all recognize the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we in western Canada must bear the additional cost of that undue and unjust protection which they ask for on their manufactured commodities.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No chance!


An hon. MEMBER:: Bunk!


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is, I believe, the editor of the Orange Sentinel and knows more about that commodity than I do. I will leave it right there when he says it is bunk.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How clever!


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Not clever, but just a fact.
I want to say one word about prosperity We all remember the two or three elections we have had in the last few years, and what was the whole cry by the Tories from one end of the country to the other during those election campaigns? It was that Canada was going to ruin under the Liberal rule We had that cry when the tariff was reduced on agricultural implements. They said then: If you touch the tariff on agricultural implements, the agricultural implement industry will go out of business. But what have we found? We have lived a sufficient length of time since then to know that that argument can never be used in this country again. The agricultural implement manufacturers were never so prosperous as now. We heard the same cry when the duties on automobiles were reduced. We were asked to have pity on those poor unfortunate automobile manufacturers, those1 men who started on a shoestring and developed a business that ran into millions. We all remember how our friends opposite were so solicitous about these poor manufacturers. We remember how that delegation came down from Oshawa and settled on the lawn in front of this 'building, carrying flags and banners telling us that their homes would be closed down, to say nothing of their factories. But what did we find? We find that there are more automobiles in Canada to-day than ever, and also that the automobile manufacturers are more prosperous than they ever were before.
There is another thing. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen when he was leader of the opposition-and I must say that I quite agree with many of the things said about him by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), in this chamber this afternoon-made the statement: If I can be shown that by putting on an extra duty the price of an article is going to be raised, I would not be in favour of putting it on. Well, we all know what happened in connection with the automobile industry. The tariff was reduced, and are we paying the. same prices for automobiles as we did before the tariff was reduced? Every-
312	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
one in this country knows that the price of automobiles has gone down, and gone down markedly.


Mr. KAISER:: Because of the tariff?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The very gentleman who is now interrupting me, when it was proposed to reduce the automobile1 duties, came to me with tears in his eyes and tugged at my coat tails pleading with me to try and get my friends to have pity on these poor manufacturers. Oshawa will be closed down, he said, if you put these new duties into effect. Well, every time I meet him now in the corridors I ask him, " Is Oshawa still on the map?" and he replies, "You cannot hurt Oshawa." Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the only way in which Oshawa could be hurt would be to let some of his friends get into power and put a higher tariff on automobiles.
Coming to the question of unemployment, there is a little unemployment throughout Canada. There is in my own city, and I have no doubt there is in this city. The hon. leader of the opposition took his cue on unemployment from the fact that he saw a few men sitting on snow wagons clearing the streets for us to get through here. Let me say this, as one having had experience with regard to unemployment:	There is
less unemployment to-day than we have had for years and years, and no man can deny that. I know very well that in the city in which I live, under Conservative rule, we had the lines of unemployed waiting for their turn at the soup kitchens, but we were not shouting about it even then. We do not believe it is good Canadianism to bring it up to-day, when there are a few unemployed as there always will be in a country with such seasonal employment as we have in Canada.


Peter McGibbon: They have all gone to
the United States now.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend is not thinking of leaving, is he? I want to say that Canada is prosperous, and the people are no longer fooled with remarks such as those. Compare this country with some of the European countries and then talk about it. Ours is a land flowing with milk and honey. Only the other day I was speaking to a gentleman who has been in the central European countries for two years; he came into my own home to discuss the whole question of prosperity in Canada as compared with European countries, because it is only by comparison that we can get a fair idea of what is taking place. When we compare this country of ours with any other

country under the sun we are bound to say that we are proud of the country in which we live, in spite of some of the grumble-peddlers we have even in this chamber.
I would like to say a word now to my hon. friends from the maritime provinces. I am a native son of Nova Scotia and am proud of it. Almost a quarter of a century ago I left Nova Scotia for the west, but I return year after year and I am proud and glad to go back to those little provinces by the sea, because there is a charm about them which even that western atmosphere of optimism does not take away at all. Last year, Mr. Speaker, when we had the great question of maritime rights before this house, what did we do on this side of the chamber? Did we try to throw cold water on the proposition which was placed before us? No; we were sympathetic, and we assisted in doing what we felt was only right when we passed the legislation implementing the report of the Duncan commission; we felt that it was in the interests of the maritime provinces. But what did we hear this year? Did we hear thanks from hon. members opposite? Let me say that those of us who sit on this side of the house were bitterly disappointed and hurt; those of us who tried to assist every member from the maritime provinces sitting opposite to get those bills through l.asti year felt hurt at the criticism which we have heard during this debate. The government of this country went far to implement all the recommendations of that report. Sometimes I go back to Nova Scotia, where I always enjoy a visit, and talk a good deal to some of my Liberal friends down there. I do not suppose it will be of interest to the house to know what we talk about, but I have a lot of Tory friends in Nova Scotia as well.


An hon. MEMBER:: Conservatives.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes, Conservatives, if you will; it all means the same thing down there. I have talked to a large number of these Tories, and I can say that I would rather listen to the sentiments expressed by them and expressed in this chamber during this debate by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), the mover of the address and, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) and I would rather believe those to be the real sentiments of Nova Scotians, than what we have been hearing from the other side of the house. I have talked to a large number of these Tories, or Conservatives if you will, since this house rose last year, and what did they say to me?

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
They said, "We did send up a lot of members to the House of Commons, but we are sick and tired of hearing those members continually grumbling. We can say to you that that is no part of the sentiment of the people of the maritimes with regard to these matters." But we come back to another session this year and find the same amount of grumbling, as though nothing had been done in line with the report of the Duncan commission. Those Tories to whom I spoke in Nova Scotia went even a step further, and if it is any comfort to the members of the Conservative party I will tell them what they said:	"While we supported them last
year, we now feel very differently in the matter." They said to me, "When the Prime Minister was here he promised us a commission and said he would implement the findings of that commission whatever they might be, and added, the government of Canada went very much further in implementing that report than we had even hoped for. We felt that the Prime Minister was making the same political promises we used to hear in the maritime provinces, but we now see that he is a man of his word; up to the present he has done everything he said he would do and even more, and hereafter we are going to put our faith and confidence in the government which gave us what we asked for rather than in those men who did nothing but grumble about what we wanted."
I would like to touch for one moment on some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). He spoke about old age pensions. We in western Canada who spoke from public platforms during the last election said we did not believe that the Tory party in Canada were favourable to old age pensions, and now what do we find? British Columbia has passed legislation implementing the federal act: Manitoba and Saskatchewan have done the same thing, and they certainly have not Tory governments. We find that apparently Nova Scotia does not intend to take advantage of this legislation, and Ontario has already spoken through its premier. Those provinces both have Conservative governments. We find that when we come to social legislation in the interests of the masses of the people, we have to trust to the Liberal party or we will never get it.
Mr. hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg said that in his province more than fifty per cent of the people over seventy years of age were indigent. I know the province of Nova Scotia personally, and I do not believe for one moment that more than fifty per cent of the people over seventy years of age there
are indigent; as an old Nova Scotian I resent any such statement being made in this house. Even if there were a few people in my province who were poor, I would not like the word to go about that more than half the old people were paupers. I ask any man if it is good Canadianism to broadcast a statement of that kind to the world. Why not recognize and realize the fact that if Canada is to be made great statements of that kind will never do.
Now just a word or two about immigration, because I am afraid my time is almost up.
I would like to say that this matter of immigration is so vital and so important that our forty minute rule was condemned when the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) was cut off in the middle of his speech. For one, I would have liked to hear him continue, because I never like to make two bites of a cherry. He may have an opportunity to renew the subject later, but I believe this house and this country wanted a full statement from him with regard to immigration matters. Let me say at the outset that I would like to see all the immigrants we can assimilate, all who are healthy and willing to work, brought to this country from Great Britain, but I do not want to stop there. In our western provinces we have the finest example to be found in any country in the world; we have some of the best settlers this country has ever had. people who came from some of the European countries. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), who gave a very admirable address in this house a short time ago, gave the names of some of those in his constituency who during the sixtieth anniversary of confederation this summer gave some of the most patriotic addresses, and were awarded first prize for their efforts. Just a few days before coming back to Ottawa we had a banquet of the agricultural societies, at which approximately 300 or 400 people were present, and at this banquet awards were presented for the judging contests held at recent fairs in Saskatoon. In one instance we found that a young Russian Men-nonite whose name for the moment I have forgotten and who has been only three years in this country, carried off the highest award for judging at that particular contest. If you go to the university of Saskatchewan, which happens to be located in my home city, you will find on the attendance lists names which some of us could not pronounce, not at the bottom of the list but at the heads of their classes, and you could not have finer Canadian citizens. Let us have all the British immigrants we can get, as quickly as we can assimilate them, but I hope that some gentlemen throughout this country will cease this con-

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
tinual propaganda against the men and women who come from other countries, but who are making citizens of whom we are proud. Let me go further; if you want a fine virile race in this country; if you want to be a great, patriotic people, criticisms of that character certainly hinder a great deal more than they help. Oh, I have heard recently of some instances of racial and religious prejudices not only in my own province but over the Whole Dominion. I hope that that kind of thing wili be eliminated from this great Dominion which we are now building.
I was very much surprised indeed, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) a few days ago say:
Within the last three hours I had a cable from a friend of mine in London who is tremendously interested in this question,

The medical examination of immigrants in the old country.
-saying that the regulations now in existence are preventing people from coming to Canada. He said also that the new medical regulations were absurd, to give his exact words. I am not going to pass judgment upon them myself; I was very careful to tell the house that this was a cable from a friend vitally interested in these matters, not in any sense from a political point of view at all.
Of course. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman having had that telegram only three hours previously he should not from his seat in this house proclaim to the world that the new medical regulations are absurd without first investigating every last thing that could be investigated to ascertain Whether the medioal examination of immigrants overseas is being properly or improperly carried out. True, he was careful to say that he did not do such and such. Then, as they say in the record of the two -black -crows: Well, why bring this -matter up now? I claim' that propaganda of this kind does much to discourage immigration. I have for years advocated, and I still advocate a full medical inspection of immigrants on the other side.
I listened this afternoon to the pathetic case which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) brought to our notice-and even with all its pathos I must congratulate him that he had in his pocket a little bit of candy for the kid-but I am sincerely of opinion that these examinations should take place on the other side and that they should be thorough. If on the way over something serious develops which was not apparent at the time of examination, that should be brought to the attention of the immigration authorities here, and if any immigrants give misinforma-
tion to our officials I have very little sympathy for them. I have had a good many cases brought to my attention, some of them almost as bad -as that cited by my hon. friend this afternoon, but I always found after careful investigation that one of the facts which I -discovered had never been told before, and this one fact governed the whole case. We must have the entire facts in front of us -before we can pass judgment on these cases.
Immigration is a very important question, and medical inspection of immigrants is a very important question; then let us -be fair in our criticism of the department. Sometimes unfortunately too many people, not excepting hon. members, accept a little hearsay evidence and them place it before the public. If I may digress for a moment, I was very much surprised at a telegram read by my hon. friend from Cumibeirland (Mr. Smith). I took out a clipping from my own paper, the Saskatoon Star, headed-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time is up.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: In offering my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address, I do so not as a formal act of courtesy but rather as a tribute to the courage displayed by these gentlemen in tackling the job without any basis on which to make a speech. The speech from the throne adds one more precedent to a government which has become famous for its precedents. It contains absolutely nothing. His Excellency the Governor General might just as well have handed to you, Mr. Speaker, a blank roll of paper tied with royal blue, and a suitable address in reply would have been a snapshot of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), arrayed in his Windsor uniform, with decorations up to date, and with the Latin motto underneath: "Ex nihilo nihil fit"-"Out of nothing nothing comes."
In the zigzag course pursued by them since 1921, the government have performed some very strange acts. In the session of 1926 the bill of fare was a veritable political chop suey, composed of carefully selected titbits, well soaked in oil in order that they might be easily swallowed. It was swallowed with the result, as you know, that there was an epidemic of political indigestion ending in

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
the dissolution of parliament. In the session of 1927 they instructed the cook to leave out the oil, the result in that case being that everything was dry and indigestible; and the government, choking on its own food, had to call in the medical experts of the supreme court and later consult the specialists of the privy council.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was, I thought, unduly harsh, not so much perhaps in the words he used as in what they implied, in his references to the seconder of the address. In that great book which contains the titled people of the Dominion of Canada, the Parliamentary Guide, the hon. member for Bow River refers to himself, in the write-up which he has furnished, as a man of no politics whatever- "politics none." The hon. gentleman who seconded the address (Mr. Beaubien) calls himself a National Progressive. Well, I rather think that inasmuch as he apparently has a title, has some politics, as the designation quoted would indicate-and it is indicated in a vague way I am bound to admit-while the hon. member for Bow River has no politics, the seconder of the address evidently is going somewhere under some lead. The hon. member for Bow River, on the other hand, seems to be basking in his own smiles and learning at the feet of his own philosophy. I confess that I do not know what a National Progressive is, but I will candidly say that I like the sound better than "Liberal Progressive." I have concluded that the Liberal Progressive is a sort of half-way house between the Progressive party and the Liberal party. I have endeavoured to get some definitions of the term Liberal Progressive. One person suggested to me that a Liberal Progressive was a variety of politician sitting on the fence- you will pardon me if I use the expression which my informant used, but I will take it back if you tell me to-a political mugwump with his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Will the hon. gentleman give us a definition of "Liberal Conservative?"


John Wesley Edwards: If I thought it would have any effect on the hon. gentleman, or if I were sure his grey matter was properly functioning so as to take it in, I should not mind spending a week-end with him for the purpose of enlightening him on the point. Another person told me that a Liberal Progressive was a sort of politician who could stomach neither the Liberal party nor the Progressive in its entirety, but who
tacked the two ends together in the hope of fooling the electors and trying to make them believe that he possessed the best qualities of both Liberals and Progressives-if there are any best. But, Mr. Speaker, while we have the address in reply to the speech from the throne seconded by a National Progressive instead of a Liberal-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is something new.


John Wesley Edwards: That is
nothing new-certainly not, because we have as a cabinet minister the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke), who has not yet reached the point where he can call himself a Liberal. He still calls himself a Progressive; I refer you to the authority already cited, the Parliamentary Guide. In what position the Minister of Immigration is I do not know. He calls himself a Progressive and he is a minister in a Liberal government. It strikes me he is somewhat in the same situation as we are told Mahomet's coffin was in: 'twixt heaven and hell and fit for neither place.
We have been told, Mr. Speaker, that there are evidences of prosperity in this country. Surely no person could deny that for a moment. What are the evidences of prosperity? One of the evidences in living form is our ambassador in Washington. Half a million dollars has been spent there to provide him with a residence. Another evidence that we have lots of money in this country-which is an indication of prosperity of course-is the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in tearing down a whole block right here in the city of Ottawa. Then we have, of course, the further present evidence of a bountiful harvest, due entirely to the wisdom of the government. We have also, as an evidence of prosperity, the export of millions of dollars worth of raw material. That proves that we have the raw material or it could not be exported. A further evidence of our prosperity lies in the fact that we are exporting thousands of Canadians across the line to work up that raw material and ship it back to us. Then, as a further evidence of our prosperity, we have the fat salaries which are being drawn by deputy ministers, and by those who have been fortunate enough to be appointed on commissions. We also have the subsidizing of foreigners to come from Europe to Canada to force Canadians out of this country. On the other hand I call the particular attention of the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) to this fact. In speaking this afternoon he rather ridiculed
The Address-Mr. Edwards

(Frontenac)
the idea of the existence of unemployment. Well, as to that I refer him to page 186 of Hansard of this session, and to the statement made by the Minister of Immigration that scarcely a day passes but he receives complaints regarding unemployment in this country.
I might also refer, as further evidence of prosperity or the lack of it, to the fact that officials of the civil service, men who are going up and down this country doing important and useful work for the Dominion, are receiving entirely inadequate salaries for the duties they discharge. The same is true with regard to rural postmasters and rural mail-carriers throughout the country, who are so niggardly paid. It will be hard to make them believe that this country is prosperous when they receive such insignificant stipends. I refer also to the shameful manner in which our returned soldiers have been and are being used; I refer to the steel plants, and the other factories which are idle in this country and which should be operating. I refer also to the fact that thousands of men are out of work; that thousands who ought to be employed are denied work in this country, and that one of the most important functions of our ambassador in Washington has been to plead with the government of the United States to allow "out of work" Canadians to cross the border to get that employment which is denied to them at home.
Another matter to which I would briefly refer is the question of "equality of status" of this country, so much and so frequently talked about. I am sure the people of Canada deeply appreciate the wonderful work which was done for this country by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when, with their wonderful personality and influence, they went over to the old country and succeeded in wresting from the motherland another Magna Charta, another Charter, of freedom for this Dominion. In that connection, Sir, I might say that in so far as there is any changed status in the Dominion it started at the time Canadians left this country and went to South Africa to answer the call of duty there, sent by a Liberal government at the time and sent on the c.o.d. principle. That act on the part of Canadians at the time of the South African war startled the world to some extent. It startled the world but perhaps did not convince it that Canada was any more than an impulsive young nation. But, Sir, any change which has really come to this country and to its status in the eyes of other nations came 'because of the splendid work done by our soldiers in the Great war from 1914 to 1918, and it ill be-

comes the Prime Minister, or any of his government, to try to arrogate to themselves the glory for any change in the relations of this country towards other parts of the world, to try to take that glory away from the men who really brought to Canada the distinction it enjoys to-day.
In that connection, Sir, I want to refer just for a moment to a remark made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I can well
understand the audible smile of hon. gentlemen opposite; I take that as an indication of the contempt with which they accept the utterances of the hon. member for Labelle. The hon. gentleman in question said in the course of his speech:
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 everything 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.
It seems to me that it comes with ill grace from the member for Labelle to talk about others exhibiting a hatred of anything British, or having rancour in their hearts against British institutions and ideas of government. He, least of all, should mention that. But when he speaks, as he does, about the bringing of English settlers here as likely to produce a crisis between this country and the motherland, I would remind him that a man is not known by the way he trims his beard, or by the way he curls his moustaches, or by the elegant language which his education permits him to use. Something more than that is needed to constitute the man; and, Sir, we cannot forget that even the roughest and most uncouth apaches from the dives of Paris had something within their being that struck fire when their country called, that even the worst roughneck from Whitechapel, London, had within him something which struck fire when his country called. I know that the 'hon. member for Labelle cannot appreciate much less understand those sentiments; but I say to you, Sir, that if I had to depend upon any person to carry this country through a crisis I would rather have this country filled with apaches from the dives of Paris and with roughnecks from the slums of London than depend in a national crisis on men of the stamp of the hon. member for Labelle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)


John Wesley Edwards: Order what?
I have stated what I have stated and I mean exactly what I say. The proof is there- that when the crisis did come and the tocsin of war was sounded, the lowest of the low, those who had had no advantages at all, had in t'heir souls a spark which has never existed in that of the hon. member for Labelle.
I have just one word to say with regard to the question of natural resources and it is this-that the proposal to bind Alberta and Saskatchewan for all time, and to use their own property as a bribe, will take its place in history as the most brazen subversion of freedom this country has ever seen. I want to add this further statement that Alberta and Saskatchewan believe autonomy means selfgovernment for them as much as for the other produces. They believe that if advice from distinguished visitors when they are passing through this country is unwelcome, tyrannical dictation to the western provinces is even more so.
This house was startled this afternoon by a presentation of facts by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn), who placed before us the McConachie case1. I want to add a few items to that to show the house that it is not an isolated case and that the department presided over by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, no matter what his efforts may be, no matter how honest he may be in those efforts, is very inefficiently and unfairly managed. The McConachie case is fresh in the minds of all hon. members. It was clearly stated to us this afternoon. Let me' cite a few more cases in which the treatment was somewhat different. This afternoon there was placed on the table by the Minister of Immigration a return from which I cite a case of a boy of nine years of age who, because of deafness, was unable to pass the' medical examination, but to whom the minister granted a permit to enter this country. I oite another case of a man of thirty-five years of age from Norway with his wife and two children. He could not pass the medical examination; he was medically unfit to come into this country, but the Minister of Immigration and " Colonization gave him a permit to enter because he possessed $508. At least that is the reason stated in the return brought down by the minister.
Let me cite another case, that of Patrick McGorman, an Irishman, twenty-five years of age. He was certified at the port of entry as being feeble-minded and illiterate. But he had a brother in Toronto who said he would keep an eye on him and this man was
given a permit by the minister to enter this country as a desirable citizen. I find here the case of Mrs. Mary Holt, fifty-one years of age. The record states that she had a mental breakdown for which she was under treatment in Scotland. She, however, had a husband in this country who seemed to be able to receive her and who guaranteed that she would not become a public charge, and she was given a permit to enter. There is another case of a man named James Moore, who was reported at the port of entry as being physically defective and liable to become a public charge. Was he kept out by the minister? No, the minister signed his name to a permit and that man, liable to become a public charge, was admitted into the Dominion of Canada as a citizen.
Another case is that of Evelyn Crozier, eighteen years of age, suffering from psychopathic inferiority or emotional instability. She, however, was given a permit to come in, the minister explaining that they thought in a different environment she might improve somewhat, and they were going to give her a chance. Another lady, Nannie Torrens, was reported by the medical board as being of poor physique, with spinal trouble and heart disease which would prevent her from earning her own living, but this did not prevent the minister from giving her a permit to enter Canada as a citizen of this country. Another case is that of an Austrian Jew, thirty-five years of age, who was examined and rejected, but in view of certain representations made to the department he was allowed to remain in Canada. Who, I ask the minister, made the representations? Who is the power behind the throne in some of these cases? .	'


Robert Forke: The hon. member knows
that these are only permits for a stated period.


John Wesley Edwards: I know they are permits. That is exactly what I am saying. The McConachie family asked for a permit, but there was no permit for Mrs. McConachie with her infant child to stay here for even a few months.
Another case is that of a woman with an unpronounceable name, thirty-one years of age, who came from Poland. She was reported by the doctors as having valvular disease and being of poor physique generally. She had a six year old son with her. Her husband is in Saskatchewan, and the minister was influenced by the fact that there was a suitable home for her there. A bond of indemnity was given to the government that this person would not become a public charge.
318 _	COMMONS
TKe Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
There was a suitable 'home for Mrs. Mc-Conachie and her baby to come to in this country. Was she given any opportunity to furnish a bond ? None whatever.
The next is the case of Angelo Castenello, a Spaniard, twenty-six years of age, who came in first as a stowaway, and who did not report for years. He was then examined and rejected but he was allowed to stay. Another man, eighteen years of age, who came from Hungary, had been in this country but a short time when he was arrested on a charge of breaking, entering and theft, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The report of the minister says that the offence was a small one. The man was also reported as being dull mentally and suffering from several diseases, probably inherited. He was given a permit by the minister to stay in Canada with his parents, from whom we suppose he inherited those several diseases. He is a fine type of citizen to allow to remain in this country! That is an example of the great efficiency in the Department of Immigration! We are getting a wonderful population in this country, are we not?
Mrs. Julia Haber, who came from Poland with her husband and five children, suffered from toxic adenomatous goitre, but she was allowed to enter this country. Another case is that of a boy, seven years old, who came to Canada with his parents and who was certified at Quebec as being feeble-minded. The doctors at the port said that he might improve enough to avoid danger but he would never be able to earn his own living. His family, however, were here to look after him and he was given a permit. This boy, seven years old, and reported as being feeble-minded, probably knew enough to step out of the way of an automobile going along the street. They give him credit for that much sense and he is allowed in, but Mrs. MeConaehie is separated from her family and has to return to the old country with a baby fourteen months old.
The next case is that of James Murray, fifty-five years of age, blind in one eye and defective vision in the other. The minister's report states that this would seriously affect his ability to maintain himself, but it did not affect the minister so as to prevent him from granting a permit to this man to enter this country.
It appears that there is some influence behind the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization directing his efforts. It is hard for me to believe that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is a heartless man, 
but I have never had brought to my attention a more cruel incident than the sending of the MeConaehie woman out of this country, and in the light of the cases which I have cited, and which the minister himself re'ported in the return which he placed on the table today, I ask him now across the floor of the house if he will reconsider the matter and allow this MeConaehie woman to come here for a while under a permit.


Robert Forke: When I consider that the MeConaehie-


John Wesley Edwards: No. My
question can be answered in the negative or affirmative at once.


Robert Forke: I can answer it. %*


John Wesley Edwards: U the minister wants to make any explanations, he can make them later on, but he is not going to get up and make a speech. The reason he wants to make a speech on this matter is to endeavour, if possible, to excuse an act of his which is absolutely inexcusable.


Robert Forke: Unfair.


John Wesley Edwards: Unfair, the
minister says. I might answer that remark in this way: Having regard to the minister's action in the MeConaehie case, he is the last man in this country who should ever use the word unfair.
The matter of immigration, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of immigration and emigration, both of which are covered by the word migration.. Migration has always exercised a very great influence in shaping world history and determining the destinies of nations and their standards of civilization. Time will not permit me to refer to the three great migrations to Canada which have had an influence in shaping the standard of civilization in this county, but I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that in the forty years between 1881 and 1920 we received in this country 4,640 000 immigrants, which together with the natural increase should have given Canada a population to-day of at least sixteen millions. In the last fifty years we have only added to our population some six millions all told, while in twenty years, between 1820 and 1840, the United 'States population increased from nine to seventeen millions. We have spent, not only this government, but provincial governments, and the different transportation systems, millions of dollars in bringing immigrants to Canada. But it is not merely a question of bringing them here; it is a question also of retaining them after we get them here.

The Address-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
Immigration is more than a problem of numbers. It is, Mr. Speaker, a problem of the advisability and possibility of mixing old world and new world racial and cultural characteristics. It is a problem of what Canada will be and the part Canada will play in world affairs in the years that are to come. We do not want Canada to be eighty-five per cent rural, like Russia, nor do we want Canada to be about seventy-two per cent urban, like the United States. We should aim in the matter of immigration to get immigrants until our population is fairly balanced in terms of occupation. Another thing which we should aim at was indicated by President Coolidge in his address to congress in December, 1923. I quote his words:
America should be kept for Americans. To do this we can admit only those whom we can assimilate, namely, those whose backgrounds traditions and so forth are similar to ours, and those who come for the purpose of making America their home, and who will be partakers of the American spirit.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, might very well apply to the immigration policy that we should adopt for the Dominion of Canada. The strangers within our gates must have it impressed upon their minds that this is a British country, and that the union jack and the English language are the distinctive signs of our common Canadian citizenship.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: What does
that laugh mean?


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe):: Does the
hon. member think that those who were born here and have lived here for three generations are not as good Canadians as himself?


John Wesley Edwards: Why, my
dear sir, I was born here. Since 1921 Canada has lost to the United States at least six hundred thousand native-born Canadians. That number alone represents a loss of home markets to our farmers of $52,500,000, and a loss to our manufacturers of $145,800,000, a total of $208,300,000; and in addition, to that, most of the six hundred thousand native-born Canadians that we have lost since 1921 have established homes in the United States, which makes the loss greater than the figure mentioned. Professor Irving Fisher says that the average value to the state of each productive citizen is $3,000. I do not know whether that is true or not, but fix it at whatever figure you will, the loss to this country by our native-born Canadians migrating to the United States is a very considerable sum.
The Minister of Immigration says that the government policy is to settle people
on the land, and in the next breath he refers to the steady flow of rural people to the cities. Why is that flow taking place? Because of a foolish tariff policy which discriminates against our Canadian farmers. In his excellent speech the other day the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) gave some very interesting figures. He showed that in one week 128 carloads of tomatoes were brought into Canada, and during seven consecutive weeks 1,911 carloads of early vegetables. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) also gave the house some interesting figures. He stated that the province of British Columbia consumed 12,500,000 pounds of butter, of which 7,500,000 pounds were imported. He also stated that 75 per cent of British Columbia's meat consumption was imported. Across the* line in the state of Washington nearly 70 per cent of the lands of that state are occupied and producing, as compared with only a fraction of that amount in the province of British Columbia. During the year ending November, 1926, we imported butter to the amount of $3,324,339 from Australia and New Zealand, and last year $3,503,833 or a total of $6,828,172, representing 20,000,000 pounds of butter imported in two years into Canada from other countries-20,000,000 pounds of butter which the Canadian farmer should have made himself, and representing nearly $7,000,000 which should have gone into the pockets of our Canadian farmers.
I notice that the Minister of Immigration lumped the figures of immigrants coming in from the United States, the British Isles, and Scandinavia. Why did he1 do that? Because had he separated the figures it would have shown the utter uselessness and inefficiency of his immigration policy; it would have shown that he was not getting from the British Isles the immigration which lie-says it was the object of the government to obtain. Let me give the figures for just, one year. In 1927, 49,784 immigrants came to this country from the British Isles, and 73,182 from continental Europe. That situation is made worse by the fact that in 1926, 94,631 Canadians went to the United States, of whom 56,957 came back, leaving a net loss of 37,674 Canadians. Deduct that from the number of British who came to this country, 49,784, and it will be seen that our net gain of British subjects was in that year 12,110, as against 73,182 non-British.
Where is this going to stop, Mr. Speaker? I say it is high time that serious consideration should be given to this matter by the government and members of this house. We want more immigrants in Canada, it is true,
The Address-Mr. Dunning

and we want immigrants of a selected type. I submit with all due regard to those who apparently may differ from me that it should be the object of this government or of any government in the Dominion of Canada to facilitate and encourage in every way possible the bringing in of immigrants from the motherland rather than from continental Europe. That is the only way we can build up this country along the lines on which we hope to see it grow.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I
shall not take up many minutes of the short time that is allotted to me under the new rules to congratulate at any length the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address. Suffice it to say that I associate myself fully with all the congratulations which have been extended to them by previous speakers; they were indeed well earned. The duty was never more fittingly discharged than by the two hon. gentlemen who on this occasion were entrusted with that task. I do want, however, to take a moment to felicitate my old personal friend and political enemy the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), upon his attaining the high and responsible position of leader of his party. I entered somewhat into his feelings as he addressed the house the other day on the speech from the throne; my memory went back to those delightful addresses which those of us who come from -western Canada have 'been accustomed to hear during past years from my hon. friend. They were all delivered with that charming abandon and graceful freedom of utterance. He was at all times capable of releasing a veritable Niagara of eloquence- arid usually informed eloquence-upon any subject which he undertook to discuss. As I say, I entered into his feelings the other day, because the restraint of responsibility was upon him for the first time, or at all events that was the first occasion upon which I have had the pleasure of listening to him since he assumed a position of responsibility. I know how it feels to be robbed of that freedom of utterance, as one is bound to be robbed of it when the sense of responsibility bears heavily. I can only hope and trust that in the discharge of the duties to which my hon. friend has been called he will not lose that charm and eloquence which have been so characteristic of him during the years which are past.
With regard to this question of prosperity, there appears to be some criticism from those opposed to the government that reference should have been made to it in the speech from the throne. There is a disposition on

the part of the opposition to develop the idea that Providence is looking after this country in spite of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now I have it, have I
not? Well, Mr. Speaker, I take rather the opposite view; I take the view that it is a good thing for the country to have the kind of government with Which Providence will consent to co-operate. It is a matter which should give pleasure to all Canadians, whatever their political views may be, that it is possible to feel from coast to coast the throb of renewed economic energy in spite of the blue ruin stories from my hon. friends across the way. Every indicator which business men accept and which economists consider to be standard goes to prove that the people of this Dominion of Canada are to-day enjoying a measure of prosperity which is enjoyed by very few nations of the world.
With especial reference to those blue ruin cries, I was much interested to note that hon. members opposite, in their addresses, have very largely abandoned the line which was taken very generally a few sessions ago. During the first session I had the privilege of occupying a seat in this house, we were fed day after day with the story that if this government were not turned out of power immediately, in a very short time Canada would not be a fit place in which to live, and it would be impossible for our people to live and function in this country. Yes, that line has been abandoned to-day by my hon. friends opposite, and it is to their credit that this has been done. The only ones retaining it are certain maritime province Tories Who are still singing the same old blue ruin song in spite of the improvement which is manifest to-day in the general condition even of the maritime provinces.
I want to devote just a few moments to the points which have been raised with respect to the Hudson Bay railway. I do not intend to discuss the matter at any great length, because I expect to have an opportunity at a later date, possibly in committee of supply, to answer any questions which members of the house may wish to ask with regard to this matter. In his admirable and restrained address the leader of the opposition rather doubted the authority of the government to proceed in the manner which we adopted during the year 1927 and which we have followed up to date. I can only refer him in that connection to Hansard of last session, and to the vote which was passed by this parliament in the same manner every

The Address-Mr. Dunning
other vote in connection with the Hudson Bay railway -project has been, passed since it was commenced, no matter under what governmental leaders. May I direct my friend to page 2151 of Hansard for last year, where I was asked the question direct by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie):
At what port, may I ask?
On that occasion my answer on behalf of the government was:
I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that we expect to he guided by the investigation in that regard.
Later on the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. MeGibbon) asked the following:
When do you expect Mr. Palmer's report?
In reply to which I said:
Not later than August?
Yet we are given to understand by the leader of the opposition that the government should have obtained Mr. Palmer's report in August and then stayed our hands with regard to the prosecution of the work until parliament had met and passed upon it. That was not my understanding of the will of parliament as expressed last session. The whole trend of the discussion on the vote, and indeed the size of the vote itself, -is evidence to the contrary. My hon. friend also made reference to the fact that the first speech which he delivered in this house, in 1911, contained a plea for the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I was curious enough to look up that speech, and I find in it, as my hon. friend has stated, a plea for the immediate completion of the Hudson bay route. He evidently had faith in it at that time; he emphasizes his faith and then goes on to say:
It will provide an additional transportation route by means of which millions of bushels of grain that will be produced on the fertile prairies of the west will find access to the markets of the world, and even although that route be open only for a very short time in the year, it will afford that measure of relief which the absolute necessity of the case demands. It is of the highest possible importance, not only that the best route with the best grades be chosen, but that the terminals also shall be the best that can be provided. I am convinced that the determination of these questions by the government, after proper consideration, will commend itself to the people of every portion of this great Dominion.
In 1911 my hon. friend was quite content to have these great questions determined by the government, and I submit that last session this house, by its action upon the' vote for that purpose placed before it, did give the government the necessary authority to act as the government has acted in connec-56103-21
tion with the matter. My hon. friend addressed the house on the Hudson Bay railway not only in 1911, but also in 1926. Hon. members who were present on that occasion will remember that the Tory party was divided on the question of the advisability of completing the Hudson Bay route. Several very strong addresses were delivered, notably by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) indicating the belief on the part of a large proportion of hon. members opposite that the whole project was utter folly, could not possibly have any national value, could not possibly fulfil the purposes for which it is being developed.


Mr. CAHAN:: Did you find that in my speech?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, most certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt it very much.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would take up too much of my time to quote his speech now, but I would suggest to -him that he read it over himself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I asked for a later and
wider investigation as to the strait and the bay.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read his speech.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to take up my forty minutes reading my hon. friend's speech; I want to make my own.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Accept his statement now.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, I accept any statement my hon. friend makes, but I do commend him to the reading of his own speech in the light of what has transpired since. My hon. friend from West Calgary had undergone a change of heart between 1911 and 1926, because in the latter year he said:
I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson. I say that because I have not adequate information that would convince me that the expenditure of the money necessary, some $29,000,000 or $30,000,000 would be in the public interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: He was quite sure in
1911, but when seven-eighths of the railway had been built by 1926 he thought we ought to have an investigation about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is wrong about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to read further:
My mind is open; I have no preconceived notions, no prejudices and no bias with respect to this question. On the evidence as I have read it-I have read all the evidence that has been available-there seems to be a marked conflict of opinion.



The Address-Mr. Dunning
Then, later on the suggestion is made that:
-the minister take steps immediately to demonstrate beyond any peradventure the feasibility of navigation in the straits. The minister has indicated, although not in so many definite terms, that he will at some future day ask parliament to support such a vote. . . No one in this house can say authoritatively that from the evidence we have before us it is an economic certainty that the Hudson Bay railway if constructed to the bay would successfully, efficiently or economically serve the purposes in mind.
In 1911 he told us of the millions of bushels of grain that would go by that route. Let me continue his speech:
That, it seems to me, can be ascertained only by a thorough examination on the part of those competent to make such an examination, not on the land but on the sea
I commend my hon. friend for his view in that regard, but I would point out this: That examination of the straits has been commenced. Is my hon, friend from West Calgary now satisfied? Have his doubts been removed by the work which has up to now been done?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have no report of it yet.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly, and yet the
great Conservative party and its leader are now ready to support the completion of the Hudson Bay route. That is exactly my point, Mr. Speaker, that in 1926 everything was doubtful. In the minds of many hon. gentlemen opposite the whole thing was completely wrong. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said: investigate. The government agreed that an investigation should be conducted. He wanted nothing more done until the investigation was completed. The investigation is not yet completed, but my hon. friend to-day is nevertheless-may I take it that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is now convinced' that the Hudson Bay route is practicable, that it is good sound business for the Dominion to develop it along the lines that the government is doing? He does not answer. I am afraid that the change of view of my hon. friend and his friends must be ascribed to other reasons than those which he stated would alone satisfy him in the session when the vote was made to which I have been referring.
There is just one other matter with reference to the Hudson Bay at this time that I should refer to. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Quinn)-I am sorry he is not in the house-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ah, yes. He stated this afternoon something to the effect that economic conditions in his province could be

cured by the Minister of Railways buying Canadian goods for the Hudson Bay work. I trust I am not misquoting my hon. friend. Then he went on to say that the Minister of Railways had purchased West Virginia potatoes-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, Carolina potatoes and Virginia coal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Carolina potatoes and
Virginia coal. I managed to have myself declared out of order by describing the statement as false, Mr. Speaker, and of course I cannot now under the rules of the house say that it is false, but I can place upon the record a report from the purchasing agent of the department with reference to all the purchases made by the Department of Railways and Canals in that connection, and leave the house to judge whether my hon. friend's statement was true or false.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am quite certain it was.


Charles Avery Dunning: False?


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am quite certain that it
was true.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now will my hon. friend please listen:
As requested by you I beg to submit herewith details of coal and potatoes purchased in Nova Scotia in connection with the boats which sailed from Sydney and Halifax to the Hudson bay last fall on account of the Hudson Bay railway terminals. The steamship Canadian Raider, which sailed from Sydney, had a cargo made up as follows: 3,840 tons run of mine steam coal, supplied by the Dominion Coal Company, Limited, Sydney.
Does my hon. friend say that the Dominion Coal Company was supplying West Virginia coal from Sydney? Is that true or false?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is out of order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ten tons of blacksmith coal in bags supplied also by the Dominion Coal Company, Sydney.
And here is what my hon. friend hangs his hat on:
408 tons anthracite stove coal in bags, supplied by S. Cunard and Company, Limited, Halifax.
Supplied for the stoves in the camps at Hudson bay.
Similar coal to that which was sent by the government which supplied those stoves, and of which my hon. friend was a supporter when the Nelson terminals were first commenced under a Tory government. I do not call them traitors to Canada because they did that; it was a sound, wise thing to do. But why should we be blamed for supplying 408 tons

The Address-Mr. Dunning
of anthracite coal to burn in the very anthracite stoves supplied by the Conservative government? There was also:
100 tons approximately of general cargo, including canned goods, meats, hardware, etc., purchased from Canadian firms in Halifax and Sydney. No potatoes were forwarded by the department on this ship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the potatoes for the ship's own use? That is what he was talking about.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will come to that in
connection with the next ship. I shall be very glad to give my hon. friend the information. Here it is:
The tug St. Ann, which sailed from Halifax, had a cargo of: 238 gross tons of screened hunker coal, supplied by S. Cunard and Co., Ltd., of Halifax; 16 net tons screened Sydney coal in bags, supplied by S. Cunard and Co., Ltd., Halifax; 45 bushels of potatoes for the crews use supplied by Nickerson and Crease, Ltd., Halifax.
And the purchasing agent adds that, although he had instructions to see that they were Canadian potatoes, he could not positively swear that those forty-five bushels were Canadian potatoes. And would it be a terrible thing, I submit to the leader of the opposition, for forty-five bushels of potatoes to be purchased for the crew of a ship going to Hudson bay, which potatoes, from the information at hand, might or might not be Canadian?
I come next to the tug Ocean Eagle: 380 gross tons of screened bunker coal supplied by Cunard & Sons, 170 net tons, Sydney screened coal, 30 gross tons screened bunker coal supplied by the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company Limited, North Sydney-and they of course would not be supplying West Virginia coal-and also 45 bushels of potatoes for the crew's use. Again I cannot say positively, I cannot swear, that there might not have been a Yankee potato among them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Charles Avery Dunning: Why? Well, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet reached the point where we insist upon a brand being placed upon potatoes.


Peter McGibbon: Tell us the price.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not got it here but I shall be delighted to ascertain it for my hon. friend.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I gave it this afternoon.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the Conservative party has reached such a pass that it requires to make all this fuss about forty-five bushels of potatoes it is indeed in bad straits. Let 56103-21J
me say in conclusion on that point that the policy of my department, under instructions from the minister, 'is to purchase Canadian supplies wherever they can economically be secured, and that policy will be continued so long as I have the honour to occupy my present position.
With regard to fuel and the need, as stated by a number of hon. members, for what is described as a national fuel policy, I shall say very little at this stage because I know that my colleague the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) is working on the matter in the same conscientious manner as he has been doing ever since the information came to him from the railway commission regarding the question. I should like, however,'in reference to the phrase "national fuel policy," to commend to the members of this house the advice offered by the leader of the opposition in a recent speech, wherein he warned the public of Canada not to be led astray by catchwords.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad you read it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, I have yet to hear a definition, of what would constitute a national coal policy. What should be the details of such a policy and upon what principles should it rest? If it is to rest upon the same principles that underlie that other noble catchword so often used by my hon. friends opposite-the Conservative national policy, which means that all the people are to be taxed for the benefit of a few-then I for one do not want any extension of that kind of principle in our national life. Even those of us who do not believe in the principle of high protection, who do not wish to see our protective tariff go ever higher and higher, as hon. gentlemen opposite seem to wish, must contend with what has been built up through the years, and in justice to all those who are dependent upon a fiscal policy which has been in existence in this country for so many years, it is necessary for us to use caution and prudence in interfering with it. That constitutes an additional reason why we should be doubly careful not to embark upon other so-called national policies which have as their basis the taxation of the many for the benefit of the relatively few.


Peter McGibbon: That's cheap; it comes
from Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have found it rather
dear than cheap in practice. As regards the desirability of fostering so far as possible Canadian industry through the medium of transportation organizations, I need hardly say that I am in hearty accord with the principle and will do all I can to promote it.

The Address-Mr. Dunning
I have given evidence in the past of my interest in the matter and will continue to do all I can to further efforts in this direction. However, let me lay down this principle in connection with transportation: It is my duty to watch the interests of transportation in this country, and if the state, for state reasons, desires to fix a rate for the carriage of goods which is below a fair and reasonable level from the standpoint of the transportation companies, and in the view of the railway commission, then the state should not ask these companies to bear the loss but should vote it in parliament on the same principle as is applied in the Maritime Freight Hates Act. I say this in the interests of the people's railway. If we are to expect esprit de corps, that devotion to duty, that pride in the institution on the part of its officers and men, (without which success is impossible, then we -must hold up before these officers and employees an incentive to have their institution make both ends meet. But we cannot do that if we force the railways to bear an *expenditure, ordered by the state, below what is declared to be a fair and reasonable rate.
With regard to maritime freight rates, I laboured with others, notably the two ministers from the maritime provinces, to evolve last session a measure which would carry out the desires, the aspirations of the maritime people in this regard; and I am astonished to-day at the manner in which our work in this matter-work which has been commended by the people of the maritime provinces of all political shades of opinion-has been complained about and condemned by the maritime Tories in this house. I am very thankful that these hon. gentlemen, although temporarily representing the people of the maritime provinces in this house, do not really represent them in their attitude towards the government on the question of freight rates in those provinces. The people of the maritime provinces have given ample evidence to myself and other members of the government of their appreciation of what has been done in the way of reducing freight rates. My hon. friends talk about paper rates, and they insist that the government has been niggardly in the matter-no, not the government; because the attack has been directed against the Canadian National Railways. One hon. gentleman, the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) I believe intimated that he would not take Sir Henry Thornton's word; he went elsewhere, "to the American traffic men," he said. He did not go to our own railways. More Virginia potatoes.
I Mr Dunning.]
After all, what is the real test as to whether or not the people of the maritime provinces have received the benefits which this parliament contemplated they should derive from the act? The real test is whether or not they are having their traffic moved to-day, under the act, at twenty per cent less than it was moved a year ago; and I venture the statement that the figures given by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) prove-it will be proved progressively as time goes on-that the freight bills of the people of the maritime provinces with respect to traffic movements under the act will be shown to be twenty per cent less than they would have been had the Maritime Freight Rates Act not been passed. That is an incontrovertible fact. So far as international rates are concerned, when the matter was dealt with in the house last year I gave the information to the best of my ability. I pointed out that the international joint rate was controlled neither by the railway commission of Canada nor by the interstate commerce commission of the United States, and that I was convinced from information supplied by American railways that were the rates reduced twenty per cent on the Canadian side, the United States in self protection would see to it that Canadian shippers did not get the advantage of that reduction. In an interjection when my hon. friend from York-Sunbury was speaking yesterday I mentioned that to him. He indicated that I got my information from the wrong source. I got it from Sir Henry Thornton, and he did not believe Sir Henry Thornton. Well, I do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say anything
of the sort. I said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will allow
me to correct him. What I did say was that I did not go to Sir Henry Thornton for information. I said nothing more and nothing less.


Charles Avery Dunning: The implication certainly was that my hon. friend had little confidence in information supplied by Sir Henry Thornton. However, I will leave it at that. The matter can easily be settled if the veracity of the management of the Canadian National Railways is questioned. If my hon. friend does not choose to take his information from that source I suggest to him that he obtain a letter from the traffic and operating vicepresidents of the American railroads undertaking that if this twenty per cent reduction is put into force on the Canadian side with respect to the Canadian proportion of the

The Address-Mr. Dunning
through rate, they will not take steps to enlarge the total international through rate. If my hon. friend will get that sort of offer from the American railroads then his information may indicate the American roads have changed their views since one year ago when the matter was negotiated with them, and I shall under those circumstances be glad to take into consideration an amendment to apply the reduction to international rates as well as to the rates now in force under the Maritime Rates Act.
I do not know how many minutes I have left, but I want to say a word or two about this "gateway" question. I doubt if the members of the house are really familiar in detail with what constitutes the open gateways my hon. friends opposite are making such a noise about. The open gateway, as referred to by maritime Tory members, would mean this, and I will apply a simple illustration in my own case, in western Canada: My farm is situated a few miles from a Canadian National railway station. Twenty miles down the line is an interchange point with the Canadian Pacific railway. What my hon. friends are contending for is that when I ship a carload of grain from the Canadian National station I should have the right to say to that company: You must turn this car over to the Canadian Pacific railway at the interchange point twenty miles away and let that railway haul the car to Fort William or Port Arthur. That is what the open gateway means. And what is the history of them in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? They came about in a perfectly understandable manner. In the days when the Intercolonial railway did not extend beyond Levis, in the days when it was not a part of a national railway system, in the days when it was necessary for a shipper to get off the Intercolonial line and on to the Canadian Pacific somewhere, they were allowed, for convenience sake, to interchange at St. John and Ste. Rosalie. Now the Intercolonial is part of a great national railway system capable of taking freight from the shipper to any large centre anywhere in Canada Nowhere on the North American continent does the principle prevail that a shipper can direct a railway company to hand over a carload of freight to another railway company to haul to a destination which the first railway conveniently serves. Nowhere does that prevail. My hon. friends do not even argue that it means anything material in an economic sense to the people of the maritime provinces. Does it mean lower rates? No. Does it mean any saving? No; their claim
was it meant competition. Well, I am a believer, so long as our present system prevails, in a measure of competition but there is wise, sane competition, and foolish and unsound competition. I submit that if the principle of the open gateway were applied all over Canada we would have this kind of competition between our two great railway systems. The Canadian Pacific railway would be sending canvassers to me, located on the Canadian National railway, to attempt to get me to tranship my goods to the Canadian Pacific lines at the earliest opportunity, and conversely the Canadian National railways, I think, would be compelled to do the same thing in connection with Canadian Pacific railway points. I submit that we would be introducing a species of competition into our railway business which would not be advantageous but for which the people of Canada would be compelled to pay very large sums because of the expense involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ste. Rosalie is left an open gateway.


Charles Avery Dunning: By order of the Supreme Court of Canada it is left an open gateway. I shall not go into the legal aspects of the matter; I am merely discussing the principle of it on this occasion as applied to railroading generally throughout Canada and the North American continent. I might, however, ask my hon. friends this question: Does the Conservative party of this country stand for the creation of open gateways of the description of the St. John and Ste Rosalie gateways from one end of Canada to the other? That is a very simple question. Tories from the maritime provinces speaking in the house here have made it very clear what they want. Although it does not mean anything to their people financially; although it means no advantage to them at all but does mean robbing the people's railway of freight which it originates, they nevertheless want this privilege kept up in these two cases. Now I am willing to concede to the people of the maritime provinces in principle, on account of their peculiar condition, on account of the conditions of confederation, all that has gone before in the way of legislation, but I am not willing to concede that they are entitled to something which will not benefit them, but which will simply benefit the competitor of the Canadian National railways in these cases. Nor can I be accused of being unfair to the management of either of the two great railways systems, I endeavour to hold the scales evenly. I would say the same thing if
The Address-Mr. Dunning

the railway affected in this case were the Canadian Pacific instead of the Canadian National.
May I say in conclusion, because my time is nearly up, that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in his address resented the fact that the Canadian National railway appealed to the railway commission and to the court in this matter. At first he stated that the government of Canada was behind it. Then he corrected himself and said that at least the government could have stopped the appeal. I wish hon. gentlemen would consider what that means. The management of the Canadian National railway lines, under our law, is just as free to use the railway commission and the judicial institutions of this country in what they believe to be the interests of the national railway as the management of the Canadian Pacific is free to use the same institutions in the interests of their railway. I submit that it will be a bad day when any minister of railways puts his hand on the shoulder of the management of the Canadian National railway, in connection with a case before the railway commission or the court, and will say " do thus and so ". Does my hon. friend from York-Sunbury want that condition to prevail? Does he want the government to interfere with the management of the railway in a matter which, under the law at present, is wholly within the competence of the management? Yesterday, if I can understand the English language, he said he thought the government should have interfered. Mr. Speaker, I submit that such interference would be entirely contrary to the principle upon which we have established our national railway system. It is perfectly clear what the division of responsibility is between the government and the Minister of Railways on the one hand, and the management of the system on the other, and certainly it does not include any right to the minister to interfere with matters which are wholly matters of management in the case of the ordinary railway company.


Hewitt Bostock: Time. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: 
Mr. KENNEDY:: Would the hon. member identify the tests that were made?


John Gordon Ross: I am quoting
from the report, of the Department of Mines, Canada, showing tests of various fuels, table No. 5, showing the relative values of various fuels tested compared with American anthra-
328	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
cite and based on pounds of fuel fired per therm (100,000 B.T.U.) delivered to the cooling-water of the system.
I was giving the prices. Alberta coals, at Lethbridge, lump at the mine, cost to-day $5.50 per ton; Lethbridge egg, $4.25; Drum-_ heller lump, $3.85 to $4.25, at the mine; Coalspur double screened lump, $5.50; furnace, $5; egg, $4.75; Foothills lump, over five inches, $5.50; over one and a half inches, $5; egg, $4.75; Edmonton, six inch lump, double screened, $5; lump, one and a half inches and up, $4.50.
Suppose Alberta did get a rate of $6.50 per ton. With these mine prices their coal would cost over $10 per ton in Ontario. At the present time Alberta coal must be laid down in Ontario at not higher than $8.50 per ton if it is to compete with Pocahontas and Pennsylvania smokeless coal. In London, Ontario, at the present time there is a coal being laid down known as Virginia red jacket, which costs at the mine $2.25, plus freight $3.70, plus duty, 50 cents, or a total of $6.45 to the dealer in London. That is lower than the freight rate my hon. friends from Alberta are asking for. How can Alberta coal compete there?
If you take Alberta coal as against anthracite, assuming a price even of $4 per ton at the mine for Alberta coal, and a freight rate of $6.75, that coal landed in Toronto would cost $10.75. According to the tests it takes one and one-third tons of the Foothills coal to equal one ton of anthracite, which would bring the price of Alberta coal to over $14 in comparison with American coal, which is actually being laid down in Toronto to-day for $12 a ton.
If we have to subsidize things in this country there are plenty of things that we might better subsidize than coal to the advantage of the whole people of this country. Why not, develop the market, west of the lakes before the Ontario market? The country west of the lakes in 1926 imported 78,800 tons of anthracite and 1,314,000 of bituminous coal. Let. us try and get that market first. If you cannot capture the Winnipeg market, where your coal rate is less than you are asking for from Alberta to Toronto, how can you expect Alberta coal to compete in Toronto?
The other day in this house one hon. gentleman took exception to the finding of the board of railway commissioners. I do not hold any brief for the board, but so long as you have a court int his country to decide these questions, you should abide by the decisions of that court until you set up another in its place.

The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) takes exception to the finding of the board with regard to the $7.22 rate. He says that that figure is incorrect. He is somewhat in the position of a plaintiff, who, because the judge and jury find against him, says the court ought to'be dismissed. I shall not go into the full report of the board of ralway commissioners, but will deal with the high lights brought out by the hon. member for Bow River, and then try and give the facts as I have ascertained them.
The first statement to which I take exception will be found on page 112 of Hansard, in these words:
-I am prepared to accept Sir Henry Thornton's statement that he can haul coal at $9 a ton, pay the share of the over-head and make a substantial profit.
I submit that Sir Henry Thornton never made any such statement, and I believe that was to the knowledge of the hon. member, in all probability, because I understand he was on the committee which investigated this matter, and he questioned Sir Henry Thornton regarding these very points. I do remember . a statement appearing in the press some time ago purporting to come from Sir Henry Thornton, who said that if the mine owners in Alberta were willing to shave their price, if the dealers in eastern Canada were willing to shave their price, then he would shave the price of the railway cost and take $9. I think that was the statement made by Sir Henry Thornton.
The second statement made by my hon. friend was to this effect:
So far does it go that it actually takes cognizance of the wear and tear to the steel rails. . . It takes into consideration every other possible charge. . . which can possibly be attributed to coal. . .
Nevertheless, while before the railway commission the railway companies were allowed to charge the wages of the crew on the train carrying that coal and the cost of the coal in the tender, they were not allowed to charge the cost at which the coal was picked up at the place from where it was taken. Alberta coal had no charge against it for freight until it was beyond Winnipeg; it had to be hauled all the way from the Alberta mines to Winnipeg before any charge for carrying that coal could be made by the railway. Then there was another item of cost which could not be taken into consideration. If Alberta coal supplanted a million tons of American coal in Ontario, we must remember that to-day the Canadian National Railways haul that million tons of coal from the boundary at a profit of say 25 cents a ton. Then who is

The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
going to pay the quarter million dollars which would be lost in that case? It would have to be paid by the people of Canada, of course, if you take away that profitable business from the railway companies.
The next point with which I wish to deal in the speech of my hon. friend is his suggestion that if 10,000 cars of coal were hauled to eastern Canada the traffic back to the west would become so very much greater. Of course there would be some additional freight, but the position in regard to the rail-w'ays to-day is that they are hauling back empty cars even now, and if you bring down 10,000 cars more it is not going to help them at all. In 1925 the Canadian National Railways hauled back 8,000 empty cars to western Canada, and in 1926 they hauled back 10,000 empty cars. My hon. friend also said that the railway commission found that it cost as much to haul back the empty trains as to haul down the full ones. I take exception to that statement; it does cost as much per gross ton, and I believe that is what the railway commission said. In other words, included in a train hauled down here are so many thousand tons of train and so many thousand tons of coal, and the railway commission said that it would cost as much per ton to take the empty car back as it would cost per ton to bring down the full car, and I think that is absolutely right.
The next point is with regard to the repairs to railway cars. My hon. friend stated that a fair rate for repairs to all the cars over the whole system was $121.90 per year; That certain experts worked out a figure of $209.52, but that the railway commission did not take either figure but placed the cost at $424.85 per car. As a matter of fact, the railway commission did accept the theory of Mr. Oliver, who was employed by the people interested in bringing Alberta coal to eastern Canada, plus 11 per cent per car mile. You cannot set up a price for repair work on cars per year. If one car stays on a siding all year and another-is in service all the time naturally the one continually in service will have a much higher repair cost, so you must take the per car mile cost., which I believe was done by the railway commission.
The next point was in connection with the loading of the cars, and it would seem that my hon. friend made a big point there, because it looked as though the railway commission had taken an unfair load for the cars. My hon. friend said that the average of the national system was 36 tons to the car, while the average of the Canadian Pacific railway was 38 tons to the car. I have the exact figures here, taken from page 29 of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for
1926, item 162. The average loading for 1925 was 24.59 tons and for 1926 24.39 tons, or about 12 -tons less than the amount given by my hon. friend. American loadings are given as 27.4 tons for 1926 and .27 tons for 1927. On page 36 of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's annual report for 1926 the car loadings, stated by my hon. friend to be 38 tons, were given as 26.63 tons for 1925 and 26.76 tons for 1926.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does that apply to coal?


John Gordon Ross: That applies to all cars, which was the way my hon. friend gave it.


Robert Gardiner: Does that apply to coal?


John Gordon Ross: No, but I will give you the figures. The railway commission took as their basis the figure of 33.4 tons,, and they got that figure from the actual loadings of Alberta coal in connection with the experiment of 2,000 cars which were shipped east. Is it unreasonable to take that as the actual figure? Why should my hon.. friend say it is unfair?


Mr. SPENCER:: Was it not said that that, coal was put in small cars on purpose?


John Gordon Ross: No, it was not.. As a matter of fact, if you will look up the evidence given before the railway commission,, you will find that Mr. Stut-chbury, who was. very much interested in the moving of Alberta, coal, went to the superintendent at Edmonton, and asked him to put the coal in the smallest cars possible, because he could not sell coal in the big cars if they were fully loaded.


Henry Elvins Spencer: He wanted it well distributed at that particular time.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, and they
always want that in the coal business. The-small car is what is wanted all through western Canada, and in the smaller towns throughout eastern Canada. The actual loadings out of Drumheller this last year were 34-tons to the car. When a man in a small town is buying a car of coal he telephones and makes it known to the people in the surrounding country that he 'has a car load on hand. Now, he has a better chance of getting; that small car unloaded than if he ordered, a big car, with the advantage that he does, not have to unload the coal into his bin, thus. saving cost. That is Why the small car is in demand all over Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely in favour of moving Alberta coal to Ontario or to any other part of Canada provided it- can be done on its own feet-provided it can be done without making the rest of the Dominion pay a.
330	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
toll. I 'do not believe in that, and never will. My hon. friend from Bow River made a very fine political speech for his own riding where the coal miners are. He is one of the party or group who have stood upon the platforms of western Canada for the last four or five years and told the people that the old line politicians, Liberal and Conservative, were trying to hoodwink the electorate into believing certain things. What did he do with his own electors the other day? He tried to dangle in front of them the hope that if a $6.50 rate could be put in, Alberta coal could be hauled to central Canada and they would make a good living out of the business, when he knows perfectly well that that cannot be done. And were they to get this $6.50 rate the Alberta coal producers would be using protection against other parts of the Dominion, and they do not believe in protection. We in western Canada do not believe in protection at all. Why should my hon. friend from Bow River get up in this house and plead for protection for the coal industry because it happens to be in his constituency, any more than my Conservative friends across the way should plead similarly because they happen to have some other kind of industry in their constituencies? They are not thinking of all the people of Canada, they are thinking only of their own small localities.
I simply wanted, Mr. Speaker, to put these' facts before hon. members and before the people, because thousands of dollars' worth of literature is going all over the Dominion today in an attempt to foment and ferment another sore spot in the country, which this house will some day have to fix up, and I think that propaganda should be stopped, and stopped right now. We had a maritime question to fix up last year. They may have been right, they may have been wrong; I do not question whether they were or not; but whether they were right or wrong we could not allow a sore spot to continue in the Dominion; we had to fix it up. Now hon. gentlemen are going around the country spreading their propaganda and telling the people of Ontario that they can sell Alberta coal in Ontario in competition with other coal, leading the coal producers of that province to believe that prosperity will be theirs when the rate mentioned is in force. Although they know full well that no rate can be put in operation that will carry Alberta coal to compete, in Ontario, yet they are dangling that prize in front of the people's eyes, thus making another sore spot in Canada for us to fix up some other day.


Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to enter into this discussion, but certain statements having been made from the other side of the house, I feel it my duty as a maritime man to refute them. This afternoon the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) expressed himself as somewhat dissatisfied with the claims that were being made for the people of the maritime provinces, and he led one to believe that they were not entitled to what consideration they have been given during the past year by the present administration. I regret very much that the hon. gentleman comes originally from the province of Nova Scotia, because I do believe that had he visited his native province in recent years he could not possibly criticize the maritimes as severely or feel quite as bitter as he does regarding maritime rights.
I wish, Sir, to direct the attention of the house to the conditions under which the people of the maritime provinces obtained certain concessions, if you may so term them, last year. The government in appointing Sir Andrew Rae Duncan chairman of the commission could not have chosen a better man, and no doubt those who were associated with him were sincere men. They went through the country from place to place and got what data they could regarding conditions existing in the maritimes, and they tried to evolve some system whereby the people might be given that which was due them. When it is remembered that the maritime provinces came into confederation in opposition to their own judgment, and the part they have played since that time, I think every consideration should be shown to them. It is not necessary for me to relate what the maritimes have contributed to confederation, but it may be said that they joined with Quebec and Ontario in the purchase of the western lands and contributed their part to the funds which went to the development of the western provinces. I believe the Duncan report is very fair in its recommendations, and undoubtedly it has met with the approval not only of this house but of the country at large.
It has been claimed that we are not entitled to the special rates recommended by the Duncan report. I wish briefly to point out the reason why we are so entitled. From our geographical position we are now only following out the system which has been adopted by the United States. There had been no serious attempt made to recognize the geogrgaphical position of the maritime provinces with regard to transportation. The

The Address-Mr. Price
railways participate in and encourage the lower westbound rates from the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, but do not carry this same principle into Canadian territory. In other words, while there is a differential westbound rate from all north Atlantic ports in the United States to points in the central states and the central provinces of Canada, the rates applied to the maritime provinces are equal both ways. This is not a tariff wall, of protection for the shippers situated on the eastern extremity of the United States, but a rate that permits them to overlap their competitor and do business in at least a fair proportion of the country. Otherwise they would be confined to the territory east of their central competitor, while the competitor in the central territory could ship both ways. For example, the rates from Boston and Portland are lower westbound than eastbound for the same mileage, over the same route, for the same class of merchandise and for the same class of service, as follows:
Cents lower
Boston to Chicago via the all U.S.A.
route	 7
Boston to St. Louis, via the all U.S.A.
route	 7
Boston to Chicago via the Canada and
U.S.A. route	 12
Boston to St. Louis via the Canada and
U.S.A. route	 12
Boston to Montreal	 7
Boston to	Toronto	
15Boston to	Ottawa	
11Boston to	London	
15Boston to	Hamilton	
15
I point these things out in order that horn, members may have an idea of what the present rates are where differentials are allowed. I would refer now to our land policy, which was copied from the United States after the revolutionary war. At that time thirteen states of the union found themselves in possession of vast territories extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and north to the great lakes. Each state contended that extension was due it. Finally it was decided that the matter should be left in the hands of the federal congress with the request from the various states that a proper division be made of the proceeds, affording equitable treatment to all. In the case of the maritime provinces we did not participate in the lands which we assisted Quebec and Ontario in purchasing to constitute this Dominion of ours. We have not to date shared in any division that has been made. While we are perfectly free to say that we are in favour of a return of their natural resources to the western provinces, it must
be borne in mind at the same time that the maritime provinces have also their rights in that territory.
I w'as amazed the other day at the remarks made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in which he heartily eulogized the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I am glad to observe that he has had a change of heart since he addressed a Liberal gathering in Montreal recently, when he expressed the opinion that the Conservative party had chosen from our ranks the man whom it was easiest to defeat. No doubt the hon. gentleman will claim, as he has done on many occasions, that he has been misquoted. In St. John he stated his regrets that St. John-Albert was not represented in the federal house. This was very complimentary indeed to the members Who have the honour to come from that constituency.
The Postmaster General has been a very busy man. I referred last year to the large number of postmasters and postmistresses who had been dismissed. Now, I do not believe that the government to-day is in favour of these wholesale dismissals. I do not. believe they meet with its approval. I would refer here to one dismissal in particular which has taken place recently. In this case the same mail that conveyed seasons greetings from the Postmaster General and Deputy Postmaster General as well, to the Postmaster at Fox Creek, in my constituency, also carried notice of dismissal to the man who held the office at the time. The people in that community are very largely supporters of the present administration. Apart from three or four families, members of the patronage committee, every family in the constituency has petitioned the government in this matter. The population of the constituency is dwindling owing to the policy of this government. Apart, I say, from three or four families, members of the patronage committee in that district, the people to a man and woman have signed a petition praying that the previous postmaster be reinstated in his office.
To give you an idea of the way in which this patronage committee operates in my constituency, I wish to read a letter from the late Liberal candidate in the district to Mr. Theophile Brisson, a former supporter of the government:
Dorchester, January 12th, 1928. Mr. THEoraiLE Brisson,
Fox Creek.
Dear Sir,
I wish to acknowledge your letter rvith enclosed petition opposed to the change in the Fox Creek post office.
The Address-Mr. Price

This action was taken at the request of the Moncton parish No. 11 Liberal committee. I am sorry their action does not meet with your approval, and I note a copy of the petition has been sent to the Postmaster General.
Yours very sincerely,
H. It. Emmerson.
The reply received from the minister was as follows:
Ottawa, January 10, 1928. Mr. Theophile Brisson,
Fox Creek, N.B.
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge receipt of yours of the 3rd instant with request. In reply, I will say that the order has already been given for the change and it is not my intention to withdraw it.
Yours truly,
P. J, Veniot.
In other words, ninety-nine per cent of the people of that constituency are not to have their wishes carried out. In addition to this, a large petition was forwarded to the Postmaster General as well as to the candidate in the constituency.
Reference has been made by the Postmaster General to the attitude of various boards of trade and of the people generally throughout the maritime provinces, to the effect that the people are not appreciative of what has been done for them; and the suggestion is made that action is being taken at the present time under the cloak of the boards of trade and various organizations, of a political nature. May I say that I had the pleasure of attending a banquet given to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Postmaster General some time about June 15 last, and perhaps on no previous occasion, for some time past, had political differences been so largely eliminated as they were then. The press had suggested it and the advice had been complied with 100 per cent. The gathering was representative of both political parties and a general get together spirit prevailed throughout. Members of various boards of trade were present. The premier of New Brunswick had made many complimentary references to both the Minister of National Defence and the Postmaster General and had stated that:
The only way to get cohesion is to back up these two men and to present a united front.
It is more regrettable that the Postmaster General should think it necessary now to open a tirade against the Premier of New Brunswick and also to make most unbecoming references to the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson). As regards the hon. member for York^Sunbury, let me say that he pays 100 cents on the dollar, owns his

property in his own name, has no judgments standing against him, and has the esteem of the citizens of Fredericton as well as of the people throughout his constituency. I would add that the references to him indulged in by the ministel were not in keeping with the high office which the Postmaster General fills at present.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago referred to the unemployment situation and claimed that unemployment in Canada was diminishing. The Prime Minister no doubt knows very well that Dominion employment bureaus are not to-day doing the same business which they formerly did. Political patronage has come to the front to such an extent that those desiring employment as clerks, stenographers or skilled labourers in the government service are obliged to appeal to Liberal patronage committees. In relation to any work involving emolument all questions are referred to the patronage committee. As an instance of this,
I would point out that the bridge and building department of the Canadian National Railways has seen fit to drop permanent employees previously employed in order to take on employees who have given evidence of having supported the Liberal government. Recommendations have been accepted from the patronage committees over the heads of the Department of Railways. As a matter of fact anyone who is familiar with the working of the bridge and building department of the Canadian National Railways knows that it is recognized as a temporary department, and that while employees therein may be in the permanent service and may be contributing to the provident fund, there are only certain months of the year during which they are permitted to work. There are months when they have no employment of any description. For that reason, together with the fact that they must remain in the service . a good many years before they can participate in the benefits of the provident fund- they must have attained the age of sixty and have been fifteen years in continuous service-I submit that they should be given special consideration from the standpoint of protecting their position. They are not given that protection. As a matter of fact men who have been in the service for many years have been removed and their positions given to young men who are not qualified.
As another evidence of the kind of patronage system which prevails I may say that the Dominion employment bureau, situated in the city of Moncton, had placed a man as a stationary engineer. While on his way to

The Address-Mr. Price
take up the position he was told by a member -of the Liberal patronage committee that it was useless for him to go where he had been -commissioned, because he was on the wrong side of politics, and another man was given the place and permitted to run a stationary engine although he was not qualified for that position under the laws of the province.
During the speech of the Prime Minister in this debate he was asked by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) this question:
Is the Prime Minister aware that in the last five years more Canadians crossed to the United States than the number of immigrants who, from all sources, came to this country?
The Prime Minister replied that he was not aware of this but if the hon. member for Muskoka was anxious to encourage immigration he would not advertise such a condition. The Prime Minister's reply is the measure of his manly attitude in dealing with public questions:	Do not let the truth be known
lest it prevent immigration from coming to Canada. Why spend millions of money in bringing immigrants into Canada when the result is to force Canadians to leave the country in order to get employment? The hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out that the first thing to do is to provide employment for our own people. In taking that stand he is on safe ground. That attitude is borne out by the statements made by the president of the Bank of Montreal in an address at the annual luncheon of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association at Montreal, when he said that it was physically impossible to stem the tide of emigration to the United States without having tariff protection equal to that of the latter country. If Canada were a dominion of the British Empire as remote from countries as Australia, then she might be able to continue the present moderate policy of protection. But existing as she does in close proximity to a highly industrialized neighbour, Canada will never keep her own sons and the people brought in by immigration without adequate protection for industrial enterprise. Any policy which does not provide for the industrial employment of immigrants, as well as for the settling of newcomers on the land, will result in failure. Of the immigrants that this country can secure, thirty, forty or fifty per cent will have to be given industrial employment. Canada must have more population, but more population will not come while there is so much unemployment in industrial centres, and a restricted home market for the products of the farm.
The other day we had evidence, and I regret it very much, of the deplorable. condition of the Consumers Cordage Company of Dartmouth. That concern is asking for a little support from the present administration. It is applying for a little more protection, and I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to consider seriously the needs of this small concern, which is employing something like 150 people. That protection is needed in order to enable the concern to compete against cord and rope which are coming in from the United States. Unless something is done to alleviate its condition this firm will be absolutely obliged to close down, there is no doubt about it.
Reference has been made to the Australian treaty, and I may say that this treaty is having a prejudicial effect upon the production of butter in my constituency. The people there have a very short season. They experience difficulty in getting about the country during the winter time owing to the very heavy roads. They are handicapped by a very early fall and a very late spring. If the Minister of Finance wishes to encourage these people he should come to their assistance. This applies to those engaged in the dairy industry not only in the maritime provinces but throughout Canada. I have in mind one creamery in my own constituency which used to market its products in the city of Halifax. At the present time, however, they have three months' supply of butter on their hands and are unable to unload it owing to the local market being flooded with New Zealand butter. Under present conditions they cannot compete with the imported product, and throughout the country farmers are declaring that unless they can get a little protection they will not continue in the dairying business. I think the situation is one which calls for the earnest attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) .
One of the hon. members for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) the other day spoke of the conditions in Prince Edward Island and seemed to be thoroughly satisfied with them. May I point out that in 1871 the population of Prince Edward Island was 94,021, but that in 1921 it had decreased to 88,650. I cannot see what cause for satisfaction my hon. friend has in the existing conditions in Prince Edward Island. With a decrease in population it is surely time to do something in the way of increasing local industries, or to bring about greater development there. During the administration of Sir Robert Borden improved means of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland were established in the shape of a car ferry service be-
The Address-Mr. Price

tween Point Borden and Cape Tormentine. It was also intended to provide other facilities if the development of business warranted it. As a matter of fact the present government would be amply justified in doing something further for Prince Edward Island along these lines.
The people of the maritime provinces are very sympathetic towards the desire of the people of Alberta to find a market for their coal in the province of Ontario, and greatly admire the pluck and enterprise which they are displaying in connection with that movement.
In connection with the movement of immigrants to Canada we believe the maritime provinces are discriminated against in the matter of rates. For instance suppose that an immigrant arrives at Quebec instead of Halifax: it will cost such a person more to travel to the maritime provinces than would a ticket to the western prairies. That is a condition which should not exist. This matter rests with the passenger service association, but it is worth while drawing the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) to it.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to direct attention to some expenditures which are being made by the government at the present time. I believe the King government to be one of the greatest spendthrift administrations we have ever had, and if the people were conversant with the facts they would express their opinion in no uncertain way. For example, millions of dollars are being spent in this beautiful city. I congratulate Ottawa upon what the government is doing for it, but I think that when the people throughout Canada realize' the enormous sums which have been expended and are still being spent here, they will have something to say to the present administration at the next election. During the last fiscal year nearly twenty millions of dollars were spent in the city of Ottawa and district, including the following items:
Civil service salaries	$14,974,385	58Public buildings, repairs, improvement, furniture, etc.. ..	623,058	17Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen, etc	
389,915	91Lighting	
99,001	68Water	
39,829	39Elevator attendants	
99,001	68Telephone service	
95^000	00General caretaking	
304*298	58
What I desire to point out particularly is the expenditure of the federal district commission amounting to $3,338,881.47, of which nearly $2,500,000, or, to be exact, $2,483,443.11,

was for the construction and maintenance of the numerous parks, driveways, gardens, greenhouses, playgrounds and other things considered necessary in the general scheme for the beautification of the national capital. The itemized figures are as follows:
Maintenance of greenhouses .. .. $ 91,278 67
Macdonald garden cost	 262,176 70
Maintenance and construction work
on King Edward avenue and park 206,807 12 The national park	 212,253 94
Of which $132,354.83 was for construction and $79,899.11 for maintenance.
Rideau canal driveway cost, $701,886.03.
Of which $299,078.35 was for construction and $402,817.68 for maintenance.
In the face of these expenditures, how much will appear in the estimates for highway construction in the different provinces of Canada? I say to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) and to the Minister of Finance that when this condition of affairs is known to the general public, I believe the government will be properly censured for the action which it has taken in bringing about such enormous expenditures.
In conclusion, I wish to make reference to the Provident Fund Act of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees. Some years ago a minister of railways of that day gave it as his opinion that an amalgamation should be made of the Grand Trunk fund and the Intercolonial railway and Prince Edward Mand railway fund and a better basis worked out whereby all employees could be treated alike. I believe the action of the government a few years ago in raising the minimum pension of Canadian National railway employees from $20 to $30 a month was very commendable, and in my opinion we should in the near future have that minimum raised to $50 a month. These employees are contributing and doing the best they can to keep up their end of the scheme. In times past they have contributed more than the government, particularly when the government was contributing $100,000 per annum.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate, but I was so intrigued by the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) that I would like to give him a little backing up from the point of view of another province. We hear a great deal these days of national policy; I think the word "national" has been rather overworked and in no case has it been more so than in connection with the fuel policy. We hear at every turn of a national fuel policy and a national coal policy. What

The Address-Mr. Neill
do they amount to when they are examined? The other day I heard an hon. member from Nova Scotia state that he had a national coal policy to announce for the benefit of Canada.
I prepared myself to listen to him with great interest, because we have a very serious coal problem in British Columbia; but the hon. gentleman had not got into his stride before it developed that his idea of a national coal policy was purely a selfish provincial policy, asking for an increased tariff for the benefit of Nova Scotia alone. Notwithstanding the fact that he was aware-and he must have been aware, because I told him so last year and, I think, the session before-that if his object was attained of an increased duty of one dollar a ton on bituminous coal imported into Canada, that would mean the ruin of our coal mines in British Columbia because our market is largely in the United States and as we have a reciprocal duty with the United States it would mean that their duty would also be increased a dollar a ton-notwithstanding this he elaborated his view, under the guise of a national coal policy, that we should have a largely increased duty on coal. That, however, was not so remarkable except that his attitude was purely provincial, selfish and narrow; but it was not so illogical in one way because he belongs to a party which believes in the principle of tariffs and still higher tariffs as a remedy for all ills.
But what shall be said when we come to the suggested coal policy of the other end of Canada, that put forward by the press in a very expansive way and by some of the members from Alberta? Their idea of a national coal policy appears to be that this house shall impose upon the two railway companies of Canada a statutory rate vastly below what the coal can be economically carried at. Sir Henry Thornton has the credit of being a capable administrator, and that has been well demonstrated. If he could carry this coal at a rate that would be ever so slightly profitable to him there is no question that, owing to the volume of it, he would be very anxious to carry it. The fact that he has turned it down and cannot meet the wishes of hon. members from Alberta is proof that the statutory rate asked, no matter how it may be camouflaged, is an attempt to put into effect a rate that Sir Henry Thornton and the Canadian Pacific cannot economically maintain. That is the full and absolute and only meaning that can be taken out of this demand for a statutory rate. If I were to talk in the langugae of the man on the street and not in the language of this parliament I would say, perhaps, that that smacks strongly of what is popularly
known as "graft", if we accept the meaning of graft-taking from many people either money or privileges for the benefit of a few people, because that is what is proposed in this case. This comes with particularly bad grace from hon. members who, a few years ago, could not find it in their hearts to protect the children and the dairy farmers of Canada by voting against the encouragement and manufacture of oleomargarine. Of course I refuse to no one the right to change his mind on principles if he sees fit to do so. I only mention this in passing and drop a flower on the grave of political consistency.
As I have said, I have no objection to the principle of protection. As hon. members have perhaps heard me say before, I have no political morals on the question of tariffs, and I would cheerfully advocate protection to-day if I thought it was for the benefit of my province or district, or free trade tomorrow. I do not believe it is a matter of religious belief that should be adhered to, and this saves me from getting into many an awkward position. If this desire for assistance in regard to coal mined in Alberta were put into the form of a bonus-because that is the least vicious form of protection there is, and is far preferable to a tariff-I would have no great objection; but I have a strong objection to its being camouflaged as a rate at the expense of our national railways, because this means the undermining of the whole system, expensively built up, of our government owned railway. Where is this thing going to stop? Because you cannot give to one man and deny another. If Nova Scotia gets its rate rake-off and Alberta gets its handout, who is to be the next, and where is this principle going to stop?
There is another phase of the matter that attracts my attention as a representative from British Columbia, and more particularly from the coal mining sections of that province. If the coal mines of Alberta have to be pap-fed to-day by a rate east, how long will it be before they will want to be wet-nursed on a rate west into Vancouver? The one would logically, undeniably, follow the other, and where then would our coal mines on Vancouver island come in? They are struggling very hard at present against the competition of fuel oil, and it would obviously be unjust to saddle them with the burden of an unfairly reduced rate from Alberta, of which they would have to pay a portion, in order to ruin their own industry. We have a coal problem in British Columbia, and we have not come whining to this house about it and asking to be pap-fed. Our coal mines are deep, they
The Address-Mr. Neill

are expensive to work, and we are losing our market to American fuel oil. I investigated this question on one occasion with a view to seeing whether we could not find an outlet by shipping our coal, which is on the seaboard, by means of the government merchant marine ships to Montreal or Toronto via the Panama canal, and I have reason to believe that the same reduction that is asked to be given on Alberta coal, which means a present of two dollars a ton, if given on British Columbia coal going to Montreal or Toronto via the Panama canal, might enable our coal carried by the government merchant marine ships to compete in the coal markets of Montreal and Toronto. But we have not asked that, because we did not think it sound policy that we should come here and ask for our profits to be boosted or our business to be supported by the other parts of Canada, especially when it would mean involving the Canadian government railways and the allied merchant marine in a rate that would be economically unsound and bound to lead to heavy deficits. Once you start that principle, where are you going to stop?
I shall not detain the house further, Mr. Speaker, because I understand it is the wish to get through by eleven.
I did not have the advantage of hearing the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I do not know what coal policy he referred to or what his views will be, but I earnestly hope, if the government thinks it necessary to give a subsidy in connection with Alberta coal, that the money will be voted in the estimates as a straight bonus to that industry, and only on coal going easit, and not mixed up or camouflaged with a rate on the railway which will be disastrous to our Canadian National Railways.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Robb, it was ordered that the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


James Alexander Robb: That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.']
James Alexander Robb: That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1929, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the house proceeded to government notices of motions.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Aet in relation to advances authorized to be made to the king's printer for the purchase of materials, to execute orders and requisitions and payment of wages, and to provide that the total amount of such advances shall at no time exceed the sum of seven hundred thousand dollars or such sum as may hereafter be determined, from time to time, by the governor in council.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the disposition and allotment of the canteen funds which were accumulated during the war by certain units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Canada, the Canadian Siberian Forces and by the forces stationed at St. Lucia (British West Indies), resulting from the profits of canteens and other like institutions operated by the several units and formations, and for the administration of the same by the provincial board of trustees appointed under the Canteen Funds Act, chapter 34 of the statutes of 1925.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with

Supreme Court Act
the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay to the National Battlefields Commission the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars a year for a period not exceeding ten years from the first day of April, 1928, to be expended by the commission for the purposes of and subject to the provisions of the Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act such sum or sums of money as may be required, not to exceed in the whole the sum of five hundred million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada; the principal and interest to be charged upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Dominion Notes Act be amended to provide that the governor in council may establish branch offices of the Department of Finance for the redemption of Dominion notes (in addition to those already authorized), at such other place or places in Canada as the governor m council, on the recommendation of the treasury board, may authorize.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend and revise the Electricity Inspection Act to bring it into conformity with the existing conditions in electricity, in regard to the commercial unit of supply, the units of electrical measure, inspection standards, the verification of meters, and other related matters, and to provide for the appointment of a director and such assistants as may be deemed necessary.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, February 10, 1928