1928-02-06

BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table a copy of the interim report of Mr. Justice Martin, appointed a commissioner to receive and inquire into the arguments of the government of the province of British Columbia in support of its claim for reconveyance to the province by the government of Canada of the land conveyed by the province to the Dominion following paragraph 2 of the terms of union.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I also beg to lay on the
table, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the minutes of the conference at Washington between the customs commission and officers of the United States government on August 29 and 30, 1927. It is part of the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise.



PEACE RIVER-SETTLERS' RAILWAY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the government to the contents of a letter I have just received from the citizens of Vancouver:
Dear Sir,-
We are desirous of going into the Peace River district in the early spring and find upon making enquiries that there is no settlers' rate from here, but at Blaine an American citizen can secure a settlers' rate. There is no reduction on settlers' effects from here but there is from the American side. .
We understand the Canadian government will bring a European in here for about $15, and to go from here costs us each $45 via C.N.R.
I know of at least one dozen good fellows who would go out there and would make good but all feel the big drawback it is to be a Canadian. The European and American has us backed off our own map.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. For the information of the hon. member and others who put questions on the orders of the day, I would remind them that it is against the rules of the house to read letters or telegrams. Questions may be based on information so received, but no such communications must be read.
[Mr. Bradet'te.l


John Arthur Clark: Your Honour, I will put it
this way, that I have received a communication from British Columbia which indicates that the foreigner may and does receive special rates over our railways to our vacant lands, that the foreigner is given special consideration in settling our lands as against Canadians. I do not think I could put it in better language than it is put in this letter.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member is too well aware of the rules of the house for me to remind him that he must plainly put his question. This is not the time for argument.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must base my question upon facts, and the facts are fully stated in the letter. May I put my question in the form in which I have received it: Let us know what our Canadian government has to say about this condition, what they are prepared to do for our own Canadians?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the question of my hon. friend stand on the order paper for answer.



SEVEN SISTERS FALLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has received any request from the province of Manitoba for t.he power site known as Seven Sisters falls? If so, is it the intention of the government to hand over to the provincial government that portion of the natural resources of the province?
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior): The Minister of the Interior cannot hand over at will the resources of any province. I may say that correspondence has passed between the Premier of Manitoba and myself with respect to Seven Sisters falls, and he has been kept fully informed of every move made.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North'Centre):: Do I understand from the Minister of the Interior that no disposition of the Seven Sisters falls will be made without the consent of the provincial government?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I should not like to say that any disposition would not be made without the consent of the provincial government, but it certainly will not be made without their being fully informed of every detail.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is very unsatisfactory

The Address-Mr. Forke



PRIVILEGE-SIR GEORGE PERLEY

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE H. PERLEY (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In reading over the speech made by my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) last Thursday evening I find that he got a mistaken impression regarding something I said that same afternoon. The hon. member is reported as follows:
I gathered from the hon. gentleman this afternoon that in his opinion a sort of imperial parliament should meet in London.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether in these days anyone would suggest that an imperial parliament or a body to legislate for the empire should be formed, and certainly I would not. The suggestion I tried to make was that a plan might be found for administering the Foreign Office for the whole British commonwealth, formed on some such lines as the Imperial conference, and with representatives of each one of the self-governing parts of the empire on it. But I would say that such a committee could not and would not have any legislative functions whatever.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) if the dumping clause is now applied on butter importations from Australia and New Zealand that are sent here under the Paterson bonus scheme.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I might answer the hon. gentleman's question. No dumping clause has been applied on butter for some time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the mover and seconder of the address and to compliment them upon the admirable manner in which they performed their duty.
I was very pleased to read the speech from the throne, for I can endorse the statements
made about the prosperity of Canada at the present time. I regret, however, that, speaking for my own province of Manitoba, last year conditions were not so satisfactory as they might have been. We were promised a very fine crop almost up to the time of harvest, but then rust attacked the crop and reduced materially both the yield and the grade. So that from the point of view of grain-raising it was not a great year for Manitoba. But I am pleased to be able to point out to the house that my province has to some extent ceased to be an exclusively grain-growing province. Mixed farming is largely carried on to-day, and through the sale of farm products, other than grain, our farmers there will not be in as difficult a position as they might have found themselves had they been relying entirely on graingrowing. I look upon this as a step in the right direction, for I think it will lead to the consolidation and prosperity of the whole farming community if more closely followed in the days that are to come.
During the short time I shall occupy the attention of the house I intend to take up the question with which I am more immediately concerned, namely, immigration. This has been a subject of considerable criticism during the last few months and in the press as well as in public speeches made by prominent individuals almost everywhere in the Dominion the matter has been discussed. There does not seem to be any unanimity in the ideas that have been expressed. You will find contradictory statements on the subject. It is said sometimes that the Department of Immigration is doing nothing, that no immigrants are coming in, and the suggestion is made that the door should be left wide open to allow all and sundry to enter Canada. Again, we find people complaining of the regulations as being too restrictive; the statement is made that the department is more restrictive than anything else in its operations. It is not very easy to form any opinion or to come to any conclusion regarding the criticisms which one reads and hears. One must simply come to one's best judgment by following closely the trend of events.
I came to this country a great many years ago as an immigrant, going west and taking part in public activities there in so far as they had to do with the opening up of a new country. We had a large inflow of immigration into western Canada and when I came to the department I fancied I knew a good deal about immigration and that perhaps I should be able to do some useful work in that direction. I have found, however, with larger experience and after coming more
The Address-Mr. Forke

closely into contact with the work as it is actually carried on, that there are a great many angles from which this question is to be viewed. I discovered that I had a good many things to learn before I should know everything regarding immigration into this new land of ours. I found no unanimous opinion anywhere. I am free to tell the house that scarcely a day passes that I do not receive letters blaming the department for not opening the door wide enough, while on the other hand I receive fetters of complaint regarding the unemployment of Canadians although foreigners come in to take the place of our own natives. This is about the situation as it exists to-day so far as criticism is concerned.
I listened with a great deal of attention and, I may add, much pleasure to the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The hon. member for West Calgary suggested that nothing was being done, that immigration was dwindling, notwithstanding the fact that we had the facilities for taking care of a population of 17,000,000. He said that there were 10.000,000 acres of arable land within twenty miles of railway communication. In the main these statements may be true, but I am pretty sure that when the hon. member makes the statement that there are 10,000,000 acres of arable land within twenty miles of a railway he knows that these lands are all occupied by or are in the possession of private individuals or public corporations and that it requires money to purchase such land. So that settlers coming into the country without the means of purchasing stock and implements and making necessary payments on their land are in no position to take advantage of what is offered in the way of vacant lands. This is perhaps one of the great difficulties we have to face in connection with the whole question of immigration. It is not impossible to-day to secure any number of immigrants; people in every country on the face of the globe are looking with longing eyes towards this Dominion. If the doors were wide open and it were made possible for all and sundry to come in we should have no difficulty in securing immigrants. But of what advantage would it be to have innumerable immigrants landing on our shores without the means of setting up for themselves on the land? Our own labourers would also object strenuously to any such immigration policy. I have read the speeches of prominent citizens, bank presidents and others, in which advice is given on the question of immigration, and the leader of the opposition the other day suggested that the question should be taken hold

of and dealt with in a comprehensive way: vast sums of money ought to be spent. I have also heard that sort of statement made by bank presidents. I have never yet heard, however, any suggestion as to the manner in which the government should set about it and I have no authority from the government, nor do I think anyone else has at the present time, to spend vast sums in settling immigrants in this Dominion.
The activities of the department have been directed towards increasing the flow of people who are able to settle on the land and engage in agriculture. I was astonished the other day to read a statement attributed to Sir Charles Gordon in an address he delivered at the annual luncheon of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association at Quebec. The report reads:
Spending thousands of dollars annually to assist immigration was a policy opposed by Sir Charles.
"Provide plenty of diversified employment here and you need not spend a single dollar to assist immigration", he said.
"It is impossible and nonsensical for us to think that an immigration policy for putting people on the land is going to be a successful policy for this country", he said. "It cannot be done.
If that is so, the activities of the department are in large part wasted, because it is one of our endeavours to secure people who will come into the Dominion and cultivate the soil and help to develop our natural resources. I may refer to the steadv flow of rural people towards the cities. This is not peculiar to Canada; it is a movement that is taking place throughout the world. And it is a problem with which it is quite difficult to cope. It is no satisfaction to me, and I am sure it is no satisfaction to anybody else, to see a foreign family coming in and taking the place of a good Canadian family who are obliged to move to the city; and this has taken place in numerous instances. Just how is this tendency to be stopped? It seems to me that it is a matter of remuneration. Love of country life is a sentiment that seems to be non-existent. Ownership of land does not appeal to the people of Canada as it does to the people of the old country; it does not appeal to our own native citizens as it does to the foreigner. I have heard of one foreigner who came to Canada and who, after taking up his 160 acres, went down on his knees in his farm and kissed the soil. Love of the soil is apparently entirely absent from the economic condition of our country to-day. And yet no country has ever been great, no country has endured whose roots were not firmly .planted in the

The Address-Mr. Forke
soil. This is one of the great problems we have before us in Canada to-day-how to make our rural people contented.
I do not think I should ever have been in the House of Commons had it not been for my desire to do something to help the rural population and to make this country something more worth seeking than it has been. Most people agree to-day that an increased population would be beneficial. Canada is a land of vast distances and of great undeveloped resources, only needing capital and population. We have railways enough. I agree with the leader of the opposition that we have sufficient railway accommodation to take care of a population of 17,000,000. And we have a great deal of vacant land. We have also schools, churches, roads, bridges and various other conveniences which I am sure could be utilized by a much larger population than we have to-day. At the same time we are up against the problem I have referred to. We sometimes hear of manless land and landless man. I would say, bring the man to the land and it will solve the problem. That is not the big problem. There are much more difficult problems to be solved. It has often been said that a satisfied immigrant is the best immigration agent. I am sure I have often called the attention of the house to the fact that in order to make immigration a success one of the first and most necessary things is to see that the people we have are satisfied and that the people who come will be satisfied. The leader of the opposition says that the department is doing nothing. I might at least indicate the lines we are following. The Trades and Labour Council delegation appeared before the Prime Minister and members of the government to present their finding at the annual convention. The memorandum was prefaced by a quotation from a speech of my own, and I felt honoured when I found the labour men coming to the government with a quotation from a speech which I had made. With the permission of the house I will read the quotation :
The reasons against a wide-open policy allowing the entry of all races and classes are convincing. Mere numbers of themselves would contribute nothing to Canada's prosperity. Idle men without means are never an economic asset, and may, on the contrary, become a very heavy drag upon the producing part of the population. It is essential that immigrants coming to this country, come not only to Canada but to employment. It is equally essential that in finding employment for themselves they do not displace others.
I made1 that speech in Toronto and it was reported in the Toronto Globe. I will quote a few lines from the statement of policy I made in another place. I said:
1.	To recognize that while Canada requires increased population, quality rather than quantity is of first importance-in other words, that our immigrants must be selected with a view to their mental, physical, moral, industrial and racial fitness for settlement in Canada.
2.	That limitation of numbers must be determined by the available supply of suitable classes and Canada's power of absorption.
3.	That British immigration must always hold
first place in importance and every legitimate effort used to increase the flow of people from the mother country.	'
4.	Next after British immigration encouragement should be offered to a movement of settlers from the United States and from northwestern Europe-of those healthy, hardy people desirous of establishing themselves on land in Canada and becoming absorbed in our national life.
That, broadly, is the policy of the Department of Immigration. There is no wide, allembracing and vast expenditure of money mentioned in any of those statements. I do not think the time has yet come for any such movement. I wish I had time to say a few words in regard to the visit I had the opportunity of making during the past summer to the Scandinavian countries, especially Norway, Sweden and Denmark. I had the privilege of meeting members of the government in all three of those countries, I received the most cordial reception and I found that they were very much interested in Canada;
I also found no difficulty in conversing with them, as all were able to speak good English, and could even understand English when spoken with a Scotch accent. They were all interested in Canada. Most of them understood that we were not anxious for a large immigration from the large cities of Europe. I remember the minister in Sweden saying " We have lots of people in our large cities, but I know you are not looking for them." He also said they had quite a large surplus of rural population, and added, " If they do not emigrate they will go to the cities, and we would rather see them emigrate than make trouble in our larger cities on account of unemployment ".
I found the same condition in Copenhagen. They had there the problem of people crowding to the cities, with resultant unemployment. They also had a large surplus in the rural population, young men growing up on the small farm, who had to move out and must find a home some other place-either go to the city or emigrate. After I saw those officials the Danish government gave me and my deputy a car in Copenhagen, and we
1S8
The Address-Mr. Forke

drove a great many miles through the country, visiting different farms. We talked with the people about their economic conditions, and I must say that I was delighted to meet the class of people I saw in those countries. They were frugal, industrious and intelligent, and we could find no better settlers to come to Canada and help develop this great country.
Reference is sometimes made to the immigration to Canada during the early years;
281.890	of the 1913 immigrants were from foreign countries, as against an immigration of 72,887 foreigners last year. A great many people have been very much exercised over the immigration which took place last year. To be fair, I think when the leader of the opposition was speaking he did not so much regret the number as the fact that the British immigration was outnumbering the foreign immigration.


Mr. BENNETT:: The foreign outnumbering the British.


Robert Forke: Yes, and a good many
people seem to be afraid we were getting too many foreigners, and yet in 1913 there were
281.890	foreigners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the total
number?


Robert Forke: The total number was
402,432 immigrants coming into Canada in 1913. This is sometimes mentioned to me as something we ought now to aim at. I do not agree with that opinion. The conditions in the earlier years of this century and the conditions that exist at the present time are not the same in any way. The period from 1901 to 1911 was an era of great railway building, something we shall never see the like of again on the North American continent. Thousands of miles were being built, British capital was flowing into the country, two and a half billions of British money, came into Canada during those years and tremendous areas of the richest agricultural land in the world was being opened up for settlement from the building of the railway in the western provinces. Immigrants were coming in and towns and villages were springing up everywhere. Work could be had by everyone who came to the country, and consequently the country was able at that time to absorb a very large number of immigrants. The conditions to-day are entirely different.
I am inclined to think that a good part of the immigration that came to Canada at that time was only loaned labour from Europe, because it is well known that during all those years money orders and cheques were continually going back to the countries from which

those people came. When the era of railway building was ended a great many people went back to Europe and their labour was simply available for the years they were here. But conditions are different now. Our country offers splendid opportunities for the right class of people. I do not want to discourage anyone who wishes to come to Canada with the proper ambition and fitness for the work he shall be engaged in when he comes here. However, I want to take exception to the statement of the leader of the opposition that immigration is dwindling. That statement is rather misleading. In comparison with 1913 I would say "yes," but when compared with recent years I would answer "no."
I have some statistics here which show how immigration is related to economics. When deflation came in the price of agricultural products after the war, farmers were very much discouraged. Immigration fell off in 1922, although for a time after the war, when high prices were still maintained we had one or two very good years. However, the slump came and the prices of agricultural products were entirely out of parity with the prices of what the farmers had to purchase. Those engaged in agriculture at that time could see nothing but ruin staring them in the face. Fortunately a change for the better came, and prospects are very much brighter and very much more encouraging at the present time. Although in 1921 there were 130,569 immigrants into Canada, the following year the number dropped to 89,999. In 1922 there came from Great Britain, the United States, and northern Europe 68,365 persons, and from other countries 21,634, a total of 89,999. In 1923 there came from Great Britain, the United States and northern Europe-I group these countries because the people from those lands are very easily assimilated; they are people very much like our own and constitute the very best immigrants-56,515 persons, and from other countries 16,372 immigrants, a total of 72,887. Now let me compare the figures for 1921, 1922, 1923 with those of 1926 and 1927. These periods are for eleven months.
I do not happen to have the immigration statistics for the month of December. However, the omission does not matter because there is not much immigration in the month of December. The figures of the comparative statement are as follows:
1921		
1922		
1923		
1927	
Great
Britain, U.S. and northern Other Europe	countries
87,536	43,033
68,365	21.634
56,515	16,372
103,297	51,018
Total
130,569
89,999
72,887
154,315

The Address-Mr. Forke
So that in 1927 we had 81,428 more immigrants than in the twelve months of 1923. It is said that figures can be made to prove almost anything. The figures used by the leader of the opposition were perfectly correct, but they were presented in a different manner from the way I am giving them. I think the figures as I am giving them present a better view of the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You manage yours better.


Robert Forke: I have already stated that
the main endeavour of the government has been to secure British immigration. I have heard complaints sometimes that our display in London is not one for Canadians to be very proud of. I am quite willing to admit that we do not make as large a display in London as some of the other dominions do. I hope, however, that in the near feature we shall be able to do a little more than we have done in the past. But I must remind the house of this fact:	It is sometimes forgotten that the other dominions concentrate all their efforts in London itself, whereas we, on the other hand, have ten agencies throughout provincial England. At each of these ten points there is a resident agent with an office and staff where propaganda in behalf of immigration is in progress all the time. Lectures are given during the winter months, and members of the staff are available all the time for the purpose of advising intending immigrants. On my last visit to England I inspected all these agencies, and found them well equipped in every way. In each case the office is situated on the main street, and there is an attractive window display of Canadian products. Our efforts along this line are sometimes forgotten by visitors from Canada who simply go to London and see what is done there in connection with the other dominions. I think, perhaps, upon the whole that Canada carries on a more active propaganda for British immigration than any other dominion in the empire.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Do you seek to attract
the agricultural population of England, or the industrial population?


Robert Forke: Anyone in Great Britain
'who passes the required moral and physical tests, and can pay his own passage money, is free to comq to Canada; there is no restriction debarring him from doing so. Any British subject is free to come to Canada; he does not even require a passport. On the other hand you need a passport when you want to enter Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: - I read in Saturday's paper that a British subject desiring to come to Canada had to answer ninety-four questions, but that no such questions were asked of continental immigrants. I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend. My desire is simply to get information on this subject, and the hon. gentleman may answer the questions as he proceeds with his address.


Robert Forke: That could only refer to
assisted immigrants, and it is not correct even in the case of those who are given assisted passages. It is one of those instances in which there is a certain amount of truth, but it is presented in such a way as to be absolutely misleading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That seems to be the
trouble.


Robert Forke: I might take this opportunity of giving a brief explanation here of the empire settlement and other schemes. First of all let me read a short extract from the act, explanatory of the purpose of the legislation:
It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, in association with the government of any of His Majesty's dominions, or with public authorities or private organizations either in the United Kingdom or in any part of such dominions, to formulate and co-operate in carrying out schemes for affording joint assistance to suitable persons in the United Kingdom who intend to settle in any part of His Majesty's oversea dominions.
An agreed scheme under this act may be either:-
(a)	a development or a land eettlement
scheme; or	.
(b)	a scheme for facilitating settlement in or migration to any part of His Majesty's oversea dominions by assistance with passages, initial allowances, training or otherwise:
And here is a clause which is rather serious:
The Secretary of State shall not agree to any scheme without the consent of the treasury.
That is the snag I ran up against when I was in Great Britain; I had to deal with the treasury. When you have to do with the immigration authorities you do not experience much trouble, but when you come to deal with the treasury the matter is a little more difficult.
I should like to say a few words in regard to assisted passages. Assisted passages are only for agriculturists and domestics, and the department has a system for nominating individuals or families who are to receive assisted passages. Nominations are made by the department, or by individuals in Canada who require agricultural or domestic help, or by department officials in Great Britain.
There is the matter of bulk nominations This refers to bringing over settlers in large
The Address-Mr. Forke

groups by any recognized transportation, colonization, religious or social organization approved by the department. This applies to bringing out to Canada single Britishers or British families who will come to this country to work on the land, and organizations responsible for their arrival in Canada must guarantee to find them farm work for one year after their arrival here. After those concerned have discovered where openings exist for the employment of agricultural help from the old land, they turn in a list of the prospective employers and the estimated number of workers required to the nearest office of the land settlement board for approval. When this approval is given the workers may then be secured and brought to Canada. This is where all the trouble in regard to immigration and the criticism one reads about arrives. When one reads something terrible about the Immigration department, this refers not to the general run of British immigrants but to the assisted immigrants who come over here on payment of ten dollars and whose families, under seventeen years of age, come over free.
I may point out that at this time the two governments, the Dominion government and the Imperial government, with a refund from the transportation companies, are paying the balance of the assisted passage rates. The people who are given these rates state that they are coming out to assured employment, to work on the land, or to buy farms and settle upon them. The Dominion of Canada through the Immigration department is paying out hard cash to bonus those people to come and work on the land, and I do not see why there should be any criticism or fault found because the department takes some steps to make sure that those applications are bona fide, and that the applicants are coming to assured employment on the land or at least to be employed in agricultural pursuits.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who guaranteed the employment of the hundreds of Slovaks that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company flooded the west with last year?


Robert Forke: I shall have a word to say later in regard to the railway agreement. I have often pointed out to officials of my department that you can get a man in Great Britain to promise that the transaction is perfectly straightforward. You know that a man is going out to work for a certain farmeT on this side; but when he comes he finds that he and his employer are entirely incompatible, they cannot get along, and of course when a man is anxious to leave he leaves. I do not 
know that there is any recourse in such a case; this is a weakness in the scheme and it is not very easily got over. It will, however, be noticed that newspapers and public speakers who criticize the department, criticize it not so much for that as for the restrictions and blocks that are put in the way of people doing just what I have spoken about. What satisfaction is it to the Dominion of Canada to get immigrants to come to Canada at ten dollars a head and then find that they come to Canada for no other purpose than to cross the line just as soon as possible? I want hon. members- to understand something about the difficulty encountered by the officials of my department, and. how hard it is to meet situations which arise and which they know cannot always be explained in public. The British people are like the Canadian people; they are a fine people; but at the same time there are in Great Britain a few who are quite willing to come to Canada at the expense of the Canadian government on a payment of ten dollars apiece, and who will slip over into Uncle Sam's territory just as soon as they can. It is the duty of the department to prevent that sort of thing as far as possible.
In connection with the Department of Immigration we have a land settlement board, the personnel of which is exactly the same as that of the soldier settlement board, although we have not as many employees as we had at one time. Their duties are to assist immigrants who come to this country and to look after the carrying out of the three-thousand family scheme. In fact they are supposed to be at the service of every immigrant who comes into this country, and to give advice and assistance in buying land, implements and stock, and in fact advice in general. I think it will be found that those men are doing splendid service throughout the Dominion in connection with land settlement work.
We have also a scheme for bringing boys over to this country. The Dominion government and the Imperial government give a grant of eighty dollars for every boy between fourteen and seventeen years of age coming from a good home, and we are working in co-operation with the provincial government in regard to this scheme. The provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba have come under this scheme and they are at the present time working in agreement with the Dominion authorities. The province provides the farm as a sort of centre to which these boys come; it is not supposed to be a place where they will stay for any length of time; it is merely a dis-

The Address

Mr. MacLaren
tributing centre giving the Dominion government time to find suitable farms for these boys. The provincial government provides ten dollars, the Dominion government ten dollars and the Imperial government twenty dollars, making a fund of forty dollars for expenses in connection with the handling of these boys, and it must be remembered that the Imperial government and the Dominion government have made a grant of eighty dollars which is ample to cover the passage money of these boys as fifty-five dollars or sixty dollars will pay for the passage. This is one of the best schemes we have undertaken in the Immigration department, and we are getting hundreds of boys between fourteen and seventeen years of age, not from institutions but from good homes. These boys are under the protection of the provincial government, and I believe in a few years when they grow up into young manhood they will be the very pick of our Canadian citizens. This is one of the most hopeful endeavours in which we are engaged at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
the minister aright, that all boys of this class come from private homes?


Robert Forke: Most of the boys who are
being brought over under this scheme come from private homes. I would not say they are all coming from private homes. We have corporations like the corporation of the city of Newcastle which has been engaged in this work and sending some boys who are selected from private homes. They are young boys who do not know where to go to look for work and this scheme appeals to them. I had the pleasure of talking to the Lord Mayor of Newcastle who was most enthusiastic and who pointed out to me numbers of good families who had boys to whom this scheme appealed particularly. Most of the boys are of this character. I am not dealing with some of the private institutions which can avail themselves of the assisted passage scheme. The Salvation Army are bringing out a number of boys who get exactly the same grant as those who are coming out to the provinces. There are other organizations that have farms in Great Britain where they are doing a certain amount of training. Continual pressure is being brought to bear by different organizations, more especially by church organizations, to be allowed to come under this scheme, so that they may bring boys out to a centre from which they can be distributed. We have not encouraged them because we believe the provincial government with their farm have the best centre from which work of this kind can be carried
on. I have been particularly anxious to get into close cooperation with the different provincial governments in connection with all our immigration schemes and endeavours, and I believe the solution of many of our difficulties will be reached when we have the hearty cooperation, assistance and advice of our different provincial governments in connection with the activities of the federal Department of Immigration.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before this debate
closes there are some matters, three in all, to which I desire to make reference. The first is one to which my attention was recently drawn, and I now bring it before hon. members of the house. I may term it the incorrect orientation of Canada as presented by the cartographers of the government, or the geographical malposition of our country as shown on the maps.
The correct projection of a map shows the lowest part of the latitudinal line opposite the centre of the lower border, and the terminals of each latitude should be an equal distance from the lower comers. But what do we find? I have here the Year Book of 1926, and I ask hon. members to inspect the map opposite the first page. They will find that the latitude of forty-five degrees on the east side is seven hundred miles from the bottom, while on the west side it is only one hundred and fifty miles; in other words, the eastern portion of Canada is shown five hundred and fifty miles farther north than its true position. This same error will be-found in the maps on pages 6, 17, 190 and 268. As a result of this the maritime provinces are projected to the north. The map is askew; the east is slewed up towards the north, and the province of Ontario and the western provinces are correspondingly depressed. One marvels that the city of Ottawa should have such cold winter weather when the cartographers have succeeded in placing Ontario so far south. The peculiar construction of the map, however, may throw some light on the chart which the Prime Minister used to speak about a few years ago.
The next example is found in a book issued by the Department of the Interior, and one produced at great expense-the Atlas of Canada, of 1915. Here there are at least six maps improperly constructed in the manner I have described. I presume that this atlas is now no longer being issued and therefore I refrain from making an analysis. I now refer to the map of 1924 issued by the Department of the Interior. It shows the same errors as those that I have mentioned. It

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
places my own city of St. John thirty miles north of Winnipeg, yet its true latitude runs through the northern portion of the state of Oregon. May I add that the whole province of New Brunswick is somewhat south of the forty-ninth parallel. Maps such as this, Mr. Speaker, are hanging in the members' rooms, they are in our colleges, in our libraries and schools, and in the offices of our immigration agents.
The maps as distributed .by the Department of Immigration present the same inaccuracies. I do not suppose that the immigrants will study the lines of latitude to check up this strange arrangement, but they will look at the map with a view to seeing at what distance from the north pole a certain province is located. They wish to assure themselves, if possible, of coming to a moderate or temperate climate. It is not sufficient to say that this misrepresentation can be noted and checked up by observing the latitude. I would ask how many of the two hundred and forty-four members of this house-all intelligent observant men-have made this observation. I would ask how many of the general public are likely to do it. I think the answer is obvious.
But here is a still more important point. Many of these maps do not show the latitude, and therefore you cannot check them. Even a geographer would fail to read our geography correctly, as it should 'be read. An officer of the Royal Geographical Society was asked his opinion on these maps, and when I say these maps. I am speaking of those which are incorrect, and they are numerous, although there are maps that are correctly represented, and this officer fully agreed that the projection of a map should be symmetrically placed upon the sheet, so that a curved parallel of latitude would cut eastern and western margins at the same height. He says that on good maps draughtsmen follow this rule, and it is broken only by people who make a map by cutting a portion of a more extensive map and do not trouble to adjust the projection.
Whether that is the true explanation with regard to our Canadian maps I cannot say, but this I do say, that undoubtedly they present a wrong impression and give wrong information to ourselves and to the world, and I draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), and ask them to take such action as will avoid in future the perpetuation of the error.

I now come to my second subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is the London treaty, or the London agreement, or the London resolutions of 1S66 and the British North America Act of 1867. One hears frequently of the Quebec resolutions, one hears references beyond number to the British North America Act, but comparatively seldom to the London lesolutions or the London agreement. The Quebec resolutions and the London resolutions are very similar. True, the Quebec resolutions were more fully discussed than the London resolutions. The Quebec resolutions were drawn up not only with the colonies of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia participating, but also the colonies of Prince Edward Island and the colony of Newfoundland. These resolutions were not finally accepted; on the contrary, several of the colonies failed to concur, and therefore there was a conference in London, where representatives from Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia alone met, drew up afresh the resolutions or treaty, and signed the document at the Westminster Palace hotel on December 4, 1866. That is the fundamental document, the basis of confederation. On the London resolutions was framed the British North America Act. This act, I submit, is an enabling act. On what? On the terms of agreement entered into by the four provinces which proposed the confederation.
Now, the British North America Act does not necessarily contain all the provisions in the agreement; as a matter of fact it does not contain them- all, although it contains them very largely. I noticed last session that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his presentation of the Duncan report reminded us of:
The spirit which animated the fathers of confederation in their efforts to construct out of British North America a federal union under a system of government devised to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union.
Where did the Prime Minister obtain that quotation? He obtained it from the second section of the London resolutions. I think we hear far too seldom of the basis of our confederation. I would especially call the attention of the house to one section of the agreement which is not contained in the act, and I should like to place it on Hansard. It is section 66:
The communications with the northwestern territory, and the improvements required for the development of the trade of the great -west with the seaboard, are regarded by this conference as subjects of the highest importance to
19;

The Address-Mr. MacLaren
the federated provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the finances will permit.
On that section may well be based the policy of transportation through Canada. It can be made the substantial basis for that policy, and also for the government providing the necessary facilities in Canadian seaports. I ask hon. members to read that section carefully. It is still in force. It is as much in force to-day as it was on the day of signature. In this connection I would direct attention to the addresses and papers written by Mr. A. P. Patterson of St. John. He has made a study of these matters and has written several papers in relation thereto which are very informative and illuminating, and I believe all would gain a great deal of information from their perusal, as I have myself.
Now, I ask, how often have the London resolutions been printed in the last sixty years? I venture to think almost .never. I have in my hand a copy of the British North America Act with amendments, recently issued by the King's Printer. I examined this book and I failed to find the London treaty on which the act is based. This statute, I submit, is the enabling statute; the resolutions are the basis of our confederation. I would urge the government in any future issue of the British North America Act fo incorporate the London resolutions. The document should be withdrawn from its dusty quarters, for it is a vital document to-day, and I believe that in the interests of right and justice it should be printed along with the act.
My third subject, Your Honour, is that in reference to the maritime claims and the implementing of the Duncan report. On pages 2336 and 2337 of revised Hansard of last session will be found the statement of the position taken by a considerable number of maritime representatives on this side of the house regarding the action that the government was taking in relation to maritime claims. May I say that I still adhere to that position. I believe I cannot do better than review the tabulated list of items which we then submitted to the house, and which were then regarded as still to be implemented by the government. I now propose to go over the list again and see what progress has been made in this respect. The first on the list is:
The restoration to Canadian ports of Canadian trade now passing through foreign ports.
It will be remembered that in this connection a resolution was passed by the house instructing the railway commission to investigate the causes of our trade passing through 56103-13
American ports, and to make recommendations as to how this trade might best be recovered for the upbuilding of our own ports. I am not aware that such a report has come back to the government; in any case it has not been presented to the house. I would urge, if it is not in course of preparation, that the action resulting from the passage of the resolution in this house should be followed up and that so important a matter be dealt with by the railway commission and submitted to parliament.
It may be presumed that t'he special reduction on the Transcontinental to the city of Quebec is a gesture or a move to assist in reaching the objective of recovering our trade. Should the rates be extended to St. John and Halifax then a further step will have been taken. May I urge that the specific report referred to from the railway comniission be presented to the house.
Number 2 item of our list relates to the acquisition of certain railway lines in the maritime provinces and number 3 is the question of affording adequate protection to the steel and coal industries. I shall couple 2 and 3 for the same reason: the Postmaster General recently made a public statement to the effect that both matters were being dealt with at the present time by the government and he looked for some early solution.
Number 4 relates to additional ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and an improvement in the coal and transportation service on the island. That is a matter on which I have no information and I presume the house will be informed during the session.	-
Number 5 refers to the enlargement of the scope and power of the railway commission. As will be recalled, this recommendation was not acceded to by the Prime Minister last year. He said that the effects were so far-reaching that sufficient time had not been afforded for full consideration but that in any case he did not think it applied immediately to the maritime provinces. I venture to think that it does apply; the enlargement of the scope and power of the railway commission does apply in some parts of the country much more than in others. I believe that it applies much more in the maritime provinces. I urge the government to accede to that recommendation. Its great value is that there is opportunity for the railway commission to try out portions of the country where industries do not thrive. The commission can try these out to ascertain how industries can be encouraged in those places where at present they do not thrive, because this is essential to the prosperity and contentment of us all.



The Address-Mr. MacLaren
Number 6:	Further consideration of the
question of reduced freight rates, either by agreement or otherwise, to points not now covered by the present legislation. I may say that there are several points not yet covered by legislation-all portions of the recommendation regarding the 20 per cent reduction-and first, that clause which deals with the international freight rates. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) made the statement that this question was full of difficulties and he could not arrange it. Well, railways are no more full of difficulties than is the human subject; life is full of difficulties. It is for the Minister of Railways to overcome these difficulties, and I ask him to continue his efforts to bring about What is a very important and a very essential condition for the maritimes.
The next point I wish to touch upon is that of overseas freight destined for the Atlantic division. Here is another point which has not been implemented-a subsection of the recommendations on freight rates. The Minister . of Railways stated1 that in his opinion the proximity of the maritimes to the seacoast was a sufficient advantage and therefore he declined to accede. Is the Minister of Railways aware of this fact that, comparing freight rates between Montreal and St. John, specifically in the fourth class, the rates meet at Campbellton, giving Montreal an advantage of about 190 miles? I say that to accede to this portion of the recommendations is not only fair and wise but is necessary.
Then we come to another item under the same heading which has given rise to much dispute, and that is, the tariff as submitted by the Canadian National Railways on the 20 per cent reduction. After all, the railway commission is the body to settle this matter. Much disputing and arguing has been going on over the question, but after all it is for the railway commission to make the decision. What is the position? The Canadian National Railways submitted to the railway commission tariffs which were not accepted and the Canadian National was instructed to return with a revised tariff. It has not done so yet. I refrain from discussing the merits myself, but as the matter has been passed upon by the railway commission I think it is high time that the Canadian National re-submitted its tariff for approval and that the tariff be approved.
The last matter under freight rates has reference to opening the gateways which existed in Ste. Rosalie and St. John for years previous to the passing of the Canadian Freight Rates Act. As the house knows, these are gateways where two lines meet and where

there can be a transfer from one line, say, the Canadian National to the other, the Canadian Pacific, without additional cost and obtaining the same through rate that was in existence for some years.
Following on the passage of the Canadian Freight Rates Act the Canadian National Railways applied to the railway commission for authority to close these two gates. Decision was given against the Canadian National and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Ste. Rosalie should remain open and St. Johr closed. As one result of gaining the 20 pei cent reduction on freight rates in the maritimes we have lost the competitive route at St. John by the gateway being closed. I dc not suppose for a moment that that was contemplated by those who framed the act. I presume it was accidental and incidental in the phraseology, but the fact is that the phraseology, especially in the ninth section of - the act is such and was such that it curtailed the supervision of the railway commission and1 led to the finding of the Supreme Court of Canada. I urge, sir, that the govern-; ment make such amendments to the act as shall authorize and enable the gate at St. John to be re-opened as it was previous to the act.
My friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) has been discussing the matter very fully recently and one point he stated was that he considered it unfair that the Canadian National should have to pass its freight to the Canadian Pacific Railway and that the Canadian Pacific Railway could not be called upon to reciprocate. Now, sir, I have heard good opinion giving a different construction as to the powers under the open gateway-so good that I have grave doubts of the accuracy of the opinion of the Postmaster General on that point. .


Mr. VENIOT:: Would the hon. member
permit a question for the sake of information? Is there any order of the railway commission such as that issued against the Canadian National Railway, issued against . the Canadian Pacific Railway, ordering them to hand over freight in that way?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot say. I have
no knowledge one way or the other, but I give this as a good opinion of those better qualified than I am on a matter such as this, that it acts reciprocally, that what applies to one railway applies to the other. There is another matter in which the Postmaster General made a statement with which I am afraid I must differ, and that is that it is unfair to the Canadian National Railways. Let me say, that it is entirely a matter of service. The

The Address-Mr. Milne
open gateway means nothing in additional Tates or less freight rates. It does not mean much in the matter of time, whatever there is I do not stress that, but what I emphasize is the rights of shippers, such as exist in many other parts of the country, that where possible they should have a competitive trade route. Why? What is the value of that. It is neither the money nor the time, but it is efficiency, it is service and whatever is obtained most favourably is obtained under competition. There is no disposition in our country to favour the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National. It is a matter of efficiency. If the service of the Canadian National Railways will satisfy the people, the Canadian National will retain its business, and so will the Canadian Pacific under similar circumstances. Neither railway need have fear, nor is there any ground for having fear, if the service is efficient and satisfactory.
The final paragraph of the statement reads:
Number 7. Further attention to the great fishing industry of the maritime provinces, including curing, storage and transportation facilities to central markets.
That is the protection, handling, and marketing of fish products and as we know a royal commission is now sitting, I trust the result of the commission, which has the possibility of a great finding, will lead to the preservation of our fish, effective handling and good marketing.
I believe I have shown to the house that there are a number of resolutions, or portions of resolutions, that have not yet been implemented. I do not refer to the Ste. Rosalie-St. John matter. I do not say that is a resolution at all. That was a matter arising out of the act, but I am referring to matters outside of it, and I am also referring to matters outside of the Saint John-Que-bec railway question and the steel question. I say there are some resolutions not implemented. I cannot agree with the statement reported to have been made by the Postmaster General in St. John on the 18th January of this year that the government, with the exception of two resolutions, had implemented fully the Duncan report. I say, Sir, that I have shown to the contrary. I trust the Prime Minister will not accept the interpretation of my hon. friend the Postmaster General and I respectfully invite him to apply himself diligently to a further study of the maritime claims.


Mr. ROBERT MILNE (Neepawa):: In
rising at this time I should like to say that the people of the province from which I come appreciate the fact that the government in-



S6103-134

[Stage Direction]
tends to turn over to the western provinces their natural resources. I do hope, however, that they will not forget that a large part of our resources have already been taken, and that when the final adjustment is being made that factor of remuneration will be considered, in order to take care of those that have already gone. It is also gratifying to know that the government have taken active and definite steps to complete the Hudson Bay railway to the bay and that in a very short time we will be able to use that line to carry our produce from the prairie provinces to the markets of the world. It is also gratifying to hear of the prosperity of the Dominion generally. The trade figures certainly indicate that business in this country is good. The figures the bankers have given out indicate the same thing. But in spite of the fact that all these things tend toward prosperity, from my observation I am led to believe that the prosperity of our Dominion is not being distributed equally among all the different classes and districts of the Dominion. The agriculturists are the ones Who have laid the foundation for the prosperity of the Dominion. They supply approximately half of our population. The figures that were given in the house some few days ago show that out of an export of $1,218,000,000, grain products were accountable for about $447,000,000. Last year the agricultural production was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $1,660,000,000, which is a little less than the amount estimated for the previous year. I do not see that any fact has been presented to the house yet to indicate that agriculture is sharing in the prosperity of the country to the extent to which it is entitled. The recent census published in the province of Manitoba shows that in the whole of the province less than two per cent of the farm homes have running water, less than three per cent have electric light and less than 30 per cent have telephones. It seems to me this does not indicate that the people on the prairies are enjoying that prosperity which certain other sections and classes in this country are experiencing. Otherwise they would not be suffering from the lack of such requisites in their homes. Nowadays the telephone is considered indispensable in the home. It certainly is a necessity in the rural districts in the newer portions of the country where doctors, for example, live some distance away from their patients, and where the roads are far from good.
The income tax returns would indicate alsc that people engaged in agriculture are not as prosperous as they might be. Throughout
The Address-Mr. Milne
[Stage Direction]
the whole of Canada only 3,643 farmers are paying income taxes, which serves to show that the vast majority do not earn enough to bring them into the taxable class.
Another thing which indicates, to my mind, that the rural parts of Canada are not as prosperous as they should be is the difficulty in getting immigrants to come and stay. If the conditions in Canada were such that people could go on the land and make a comfortable living there would be no difficulty in securing immigrants. The problem then would be to keep them from entering the country. To-day everybody is crying out for immigration and saying that if we could secure population our problems would be solved. That may be true, but the difficulty seems to be to retain settlers when we get them. In the province of Manitoba between 1921 and 1926 the population increased by a little over 28,000. During the same period the immigration into the province numbered about 30,000 souls sb that not only did the province fail to keep its natural increase, but it lost 2,000 immigrants as well. These figures indicate that conditions are not as good as they might be. If we are to develop our country we must make the pursuit of agriculture more remunerative and profitable, because it is just as true to-day as in the pioneering days that the prosperity of the country depends upon the success of farming. There is no reason in the world why agriculture should not be enjoying a greater measure of prosperity than it actually does. No one has greater faith in the future of this Dominion, or of western Canada, than I have. From the point of view of production there is absolutely nothing wrong with the country nor with its agricultural class, which compares favourably with that of any other country.
One of the big drawbacks to the success of agriculture is the cost of production. The cost of transportation is also high, and that vitally affects the people of the west. Closely related to the cost of production and the cost of transportation is the tariff. The tariff tax is a tax that can be passed on to the consumer. In proof of this may I be permitted to quote from the Retail Trade Review for December, 1927, which makes the following statement:
Indirect taxation, such as customs, excise and sales tax, can be imposed by the Dominion government because manufacturers and producers are supposed to indemnify themselves against the same by passing it on to their customers.
It was proven conclusively, I think, when the duty on automobiles was lowered, that the consuming public were able to buy auto-

mobiles cheaper. I think the same result would follow if the duty were lowered on other goods. Those of us who are engaged in the farming industry believe that if the tariff were reduced on implements of production and the necessities of life we would be able to live more cheaply. According to figures submitted to the tariff board it cost the people of Canada about $19,000,000 to maintain the cotton industry in this country for one year. I do not know what the cost of maintaining the boot and shoe or the woollen industry was, but the amount must have been considerable. Now those who are engaged in pioneering and developing our country, laying the foundations for a better and more prosperous nation, are the people who are called upon to pay these taxes in order that industries may accumulate wealth. In many cases that I know of the children of these taxpayers are very inadequately clad and are unable to go to school except when the weather is mild. Yet these privileged manufacturers come along and ask for higher tariffs, with the result that still greater burdens would be placed upon these poor people whose children, in many cases, are not only poorly clothed but insufficiently fed. They are the people who are being oppressed in order that certain classes of individuals may be able to accumulate wealth.
I do not want to speak at great length but I should like to refer to the duty on cement. Cement is largely used in the rural districts for foundations and floors for farm buildings. In the interest of the conservation of our supply of lumber we ought to encourage the use of cement rather than limit its consumption by the imposition of a tax. If it were for no other reason than that of the conservation of our timber, it would be worth while considering the matter of encouraging the use of cement, but we find a tax of eight cents per 100 pounds imposed on this commodity. I do not know whether this matter has been referred to the tariff advisory board, but we would be almost led to believe the Canada Cement Company, which practically controls the manufacture of cement in this country, is well able to do without a tariff, particularly when we know that during the last few months they split a melon, as the saying is, and presented many of the shareholders with new stock.
Paint is another material which from a conservation standpoint is equally as important as cement. If the buildings, machinery and equipment of the agricultural people are not kept painted, they deteriorate and waste away in a comparatively short time, and

The Address-Mr. Kennedy
therefore in the interest of conservation the use of paint should be encouraged instead of being hindered by the imposition of a tariff tax. White lead ground in oil bears at the present time a tax of 37J per cent. To my mind this rate is absolutely unreasonable, and further if we have any idea of advertising our country to tourists and immigrants, nothing will attract greater attention and create a better impression than well-painted homes in rural districts and towns throughout Canada. Therefore the government would be well advised, instead of retaining this tax of 37i per cent on white lead, to encourage the use of paint by lowering this tax.
Another tax about which I want to say a few words is the income tax which, in my opinion, is one of the fairest systems of taxation we have, although a definite effort appears to have been launched to eradicate it. In fact, in the same pamphlet to which I referred a short time ago it is declared specifically that they will not let anything stand in the way of their accomplishing the abolition of this tax. I consider this tax is fair because the people who have the income are the people who have to pay it. We hear a great deal about the crop in western Canada this year. It is true that we produced a tremendous quantity of grain, but in spite of that fact there were large areas in the prairies where the crop was far below normal on account of rust, hail, frost and a dozen and one other things that occur at times to take away from us what promises to be a very profitable crop. When we have a tax like the income tax, those people who have been unfortunate in their returns are the people who do not have to pay, while the people who have good returns, either through their work or because of favourable seasons or conditions, are the people who have to pay-
The tariff tax and the sales tax do not take into consideration the prosperity of the individual who pays the tax; they do not take into consideration, as the income tax does, the responsibilities of individuals in regard to their dependents. Generally speaking, the tariff tax and the sales tax have to be paid to a larger extent by people who are developing our natural resources. The people who are making this onslaught on the income tax state in their pamphlet:
Indirect taxation, such as customs, excise and sales tax can be imposed by the Dominion government because manufacturers and producers are supposed to indemnify themselves against the same by passing it on to their customers.
I should like to ask these people who are so determined to abolish the income tax whv the
manufacturers are supposed to be exempt from taxation? What divine right have they that they should not help to bear the burden of the taxation of this country? This same circular makes this statement:
Men and women out of employment, and those who do not earn enough to pay an income tax are indirectly but not directly interested in this subject.
In my opinion they are the people who are vitally interested. According to the latest returns of last year in regard to income tax only about ten per cent of our people pay this direct tax. If they are relieved of the income lax, this means that a burden of 555,500,000 will be thrown on the shoulders of the other ninety per cent of our people who have not sufficient revenues or salaries to be taxable. We are told that the income tax is preventing capital from coming to our country, but any person who has been following the development of Canada will readily realize that this is not the case. Let me ask the government not to make any further reductions in the income tax, but rather that they consider the advisability of taxing the incomes of speculators who speculate on our grain exchanges and stock markets. Those speculators serve no useful purpose; they employ no labour, and I see no reason why such speculation should not be taxed.
I have endeavoured briefly to show that the agricultural community, the people who are laying the foundation of our prosperity, are not receiving their proper share of the prosperity which this country is enjoying, and I suggest that a reduction of the tariff tax on the necessities of life and implements of production will assist those people in ret-ainning what they have worked hard for, and what rightly belongs to them. I humbly suggest that the income tax be not reduced any further, but that consideration be given to the idea of placing a tax on the earnings of speculators who make money in our grain exchanges and bond houses.
Air. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the speech from the throne a number of times and I am not sure yet what to think of it. I do not know whether it was an attempt on the part of the government to hold the speech within certain limits as to the actual number of words employed in presenting it, or whether it was not possible for the government, in view of the celebrations and conferences held last year, to prepare an outline of the legislation that would come before parliament this session. Either the former must be true, or the government must have been so busy
19S

The Address-Mr. Kennedy
the only way you can help the farmers is to reduce wages in your manufacturing industry in order that your farmers may have better times, and vice versa. But as a matter of fact we cannot help people who are down at the $600 level by asking our industrial workers who have only half a standard wage to take anything less. But there is a place where it can be got, if it must be got in that way. I do not believe it must be. I believe it will be got by a better organization of our whole industrial life, so that our production will be cheaper and our exchange basis will be more near a parity. Where has the prosperity been going during these last few years and few months? What about the condition of our stock markets? An index from the long time or investors' point of view is published by the Bureau Monthly, based on a fixed list of stocks. In this index column 1 gives the weighted index numbers of the prices of the twenty-five best selling industrial and public utility common stocks on the Montreal and Toronto exchanges. In January 1925 in this column the price is 100; in January 1926, the third week, it had risen to 152.1, and continued steadily upwards with the exception of slight fluctuations until in the week ending December 31, 1927, it had reached 590.0, or an increase of nearly 500 per cent. I think I saw in one of the Ottawa papers on Saturday that the federal reserve board of the United States was going to increase the interest rate in order to check speculation.
Now I turn to the government. What was the policy of the Liberal party away back in 1919?-and they still proclaim it. It was a policy of promoting equal conditions, of giving equal rewards so far as industry is concerned. Well, what I have just referred to shows that industrial stocks are sky-rocketting, but the workers in agriculture and manufacturing industry are not getting what we recognize to be the standard living wage. Here is the Liberal platform of 1919, and it contains the following resolution as to the tariff:
Resolution on the Tariff That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: First: diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production *in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery fMr. Kennedy.]
and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and fbotwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
Let me now read from the Liberal declaration of 1921:
The Liberal party led by honourable W. L. Mackenzie King stands for: government of the people-not by autocrats; government by the people-not by big interests; government for the people-not for a favoured few.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the following statement in his speech:
I say, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with considerable pride, that there has never been an occasion when one standing in the position of leadership of a government was able to give to this parliament a record of greater progress or a message of higher hope, present and future, than I have been enabled to give to this house to-day. . . It is not for me to say what the Minister of Finance will have to tell this house when he brings down his budget, but I for one shall be very much surprised if he does not show again this year, as in former years, reductions of the public debt, surpluses, and further tax reductions.
My point is this:	The Liberal party came
into power on a platform of drastic tariff reduction, a reduction which, notwithstanding the accomplishments spoken of by the Prime Minister the other day, is not anywhere near attainment yet. The Liberal party came into power on the platform of promised increases in direct taxation. The first few years they were in power, as we know, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, was up against a condition where his revenues were hardly equal to expenditures. But what is the state of affairs to-day? We have good times. If therefore the government cannot give effect to these promises this year when is it going to be done? The old arguments ran as follorvs:	"When times are good, don't
change them; and when they are bad don't touch things or they will fall to pieces." The Liberal party stands to-day in the position where the revenues are buoyant, and if their promises ever meant anything to them this is the session in which they should carry out the pledges to which I have alluded.



192S

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Kennedy
During the last election I was informed that some of my Liberal friends were very much peeved at me because I said that there was scarcely any difference between the Liberal and the Conservative tariff policies. I want to repeat that to-day, and so that there may be no misunderstanding, I should like to put on Hansard a statement covering all the years the Conservatives were in power, from 188S to 1897 and from 1913 to 1922. I have given the Conservatives credit in each case for one year after they went out. In the statement I have given tne figures regarding the Liberals from 1898 to 1912 and from 1922 to 1926. In both cases I show the average tariff collections against all dutiable imports and against all imports dutiable and free, and taking the whole period during which both parties were in power respectively I find that there is a difference of just .8 per cent in favour of the Liberals. If you take all the years the Conservatives were in power you will find that the collections on dutiable imports average 27.4 per cent while in the case of the Liberals, during the whole time they were in power, the collections averaged 26.6 per cent, or a difference of .8 per cent. Taking the figures covering all imports we find, in the case of the Conservatives, an average of 17.2 per cent and in the case of the Liberals, 16.4 per cent. The complete statement is as follows:
Year Book-
Page 462-Canada Conservatives 1888 to 1897
Dutiable		All	
31.	.8	22	31.	.9	21.	831.	.0	21.	431.	.4	21.	029.	.7	17.	830.	.3	IS.	.430.	.9	17.	.830.	.5	17.	830.	0	19.	230.	.0	18.	.7307.	.5	195.	.91913 to	1922	26	.1	17.	.126.	1	17.	327	.4	16	.827	.2	15	.523	.8	13	.021	.5	12.	.121	.5	12	.322	.5	14	.720	.6	14	.124	.5	16	.2241	.2	149	.1307	.5	195	.9548	.7	345	.0
Liberals 1898 to 1912 Dutiable All
29.7	17.5
28.8	17.2
27.7	16.7
27.5	16.4
27.3	16.5
27.1	16.5
27.5	16.8
27.8	16.7
27.0	16.4
26.5	16.1
26.7	16.5
27.5	16.7
26.8	16.5
25.9	16.2
26.1	16.8
409.9	249.5
1922	to 1926
24.0	16.7
22.9	15.1
23.3	15.1
24.7	15.5
505.7	311.9
Average 26.6	16.4
With regard to the question of direct taxation, which has a bearing on what I shall say with reference to income tax, I want to read from the last paragraph of the Liberal platform giving the "resolution on financial condition and taxation":
Whereas both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation, while Canada raises not more than 20 per cent:
Be it and it is hereby resolved:
1.	That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profundest consideration of all patriotic citizens, and the exercise of the severest economy by the government;
2.	That increase of revenue must be sought from ail equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions;
3.	Taxes on luxuries.
I have shown that the difference between the two policies, Conservative and Liberal, over a period of forty years has been just .8 per cent. Now, what happened last year in connection with the income tax? In spite of these declarations we had a straight cut of 10 per cent. I am opposed to reductions in the income tax. The declarations of the Liberal party, if they lived up to them, would lead them also to such opposition, and I think that the sooner we reach the stage where governments and everyone else besides live up to their commitments, their solemn pledges, their platforms, the better it will be for this dominion. If parties cannot do this, then let us put an end to this travesty; let us be frank with the people. It has been argued that we should abolish the income tax because of the fact that it keeps capital out of the country. The chief reason why the retail trade bureau wants to abolish the income tax is simply the fact that those who pay it cannot pass it on to others. In their pamphlet they say, "A direct tax is a tax that cannot be passed on". We do not tax the people because we like to do so; as I understand taxation, it is imposed because of the necessities of government. And there is nothing, from the standpoint of the restriction of trade, which is true of the income tax that is not true of any other tax. But when you come to the income tax you are taxing profits, something which people can pay without hurting themselves; and the only alternative, if we have not an income tax, is indirect taxation in the way of a customs tariff on the requirements of people who to-day are enjoying less than a reasonable standard of living. I hope therefore, in view of its past pledges, in view of the fact that the income Lax is not a hardship, in view of the
Average 27.4	17.2
The Address-Mr. Kennedy
[Stage Direction]
fact that increasing capitalization in industry is not providing more employment but rather less, that the government will live up to its pledges and give all the reductions necessary this year in the direction it has promised in the past. Unless it does so it will become merely part and parcel of the Conservative party.
I wish to refer to one other subject-and I see my time is passing; however, we shall have other opportunities to express our views, regardless of the forty-minute rule. This is apparently a session of committees; we have been promised that one or two matters will be referred to committees-for example, the question of immigration. Last year we had a committee to which was referred the question of conditions in Athabasca at the last election. I think the Prime Minister has promised that the question will be referred to that committee again, or at least he said he was willing that it should be. But I should like to see another matter referred to a committee, and that is the whole question of campaign funds. The revelations made last summer before the royal commission which was then sitting are going to have their effect on the democratic institutions of the country if we cannot clean up the conditions referred to. I do not care what anybody says regarding the right of the private citizen to drink; I believe the people of Canada do not want the booze business at the bottom of our party system. A conviction is certainly taking hold in the minds of the people that those who have been violating the income tax and the business profits tax laws and who have stated that they had been paying into the party campaign funds of both political parties, were doing so for what was suggested, namely, for protection against a too vigorous application of the law to their case. Whatever may happen in the Department of National Revenue, I think we ought to open up the question before a parliamentary committee, to see if it is not possible to frame something in connection with the Elections Act that will at least make it possible for people in the Dominion of Canada to get a clear idea as to where the campaign funds of the two parties come from. We have had sneering remarks from across the house about the little group in this corner. We challenge you to divulge the source of your campaign funds, and all of them, as we have done. We may have our faults; we may be narrow in some respects, but we challenge both parties to meet us on that issue and to make public the source of the campaign funds which go into their treasury and help them to win their elections.

I wish to say a word regarding the question of appointing diplomats. A diplomatic representative in Japan has been spoken of. Diplomats have done some good and some evil. I do not know whether it is anything to be condemned, but we might as well keep an eye on the past and try to understand the dangers we are running into as well as the advantages. The agricultural industry of this country is very largely standing on its own feet-it does get some help by way of demonstration from the experimental farms. The Minister of Trade and Commerce would do very well if he would appoint a few more trade commissioners to the orient. We are looking for an increased market for our wheat in the east, and wheat is the commodity which produces marked prosperity-according to the statements of many of the big business executives throughout the country. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister of Trade and Commerce could see his way to appoint a few more trade commissioners in the orient.
With regard to immigration, which has been discussed here this afternoon, we are all wondering why we do not get more immigrants. Why do we not get them as we did from 1901 to 1913? In the first place there seems to be a scarcity in Europe of the people we want as compared with the period from 1901 to 1913. We ask them to come in and establish themselves under conditions that are entirely different. What was the situation in 1901? We were building railways ahead of settlement, and settlers could have the pick of the land for a distance of two hundred miles along a line of railway. Conditions are different to-day; we are not building railways ahead of settlement. If the government could see its way to fulfil the promise the Prime Minister made to the people in the Peace River country at Edmonton a few years ago, we might have similar conditions and might not have the same difficulty in getting and holding immigrants. But there is a fundamental difference. What are we asking to-day? We are asking that the settlers come in and live as best they can, twenty, fifty or a hundred miles from a railway. We ask them to exist as best they, can until in the face of their difficulties they furnish enough traffic to make a railway pay from the start. That was the attitude in this House of Commons on the government side last session. Even though we have made blunders in the past by being too optimistic we ought at least to meet the settler half way.

The Address-Mr. McKenzie
Mr, ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I desire to join with those on both sides on the house who have spoken qn this question, in offering my congratulations to the mover and the seconder for the manner in which they have performed the tasks allotted to them. I cannot say, however, that I can congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) who has just spoken or agree with him in the apparently pessimistic view which he has taken of conditions as they exist at the present time in this fair country of ours. At the commencement of my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me express my satisfaction and pride, which satisfaction and pride I believe are shared, not only by the members of this house, but by the people of the country generally, that the economic condition of this country is such that it was possible for the Governor General at the opening of parliament to express the optimistic views which he did. In the first paragraph of the speech he indicates his pleasure at meeting parliament and being able to congratulate it upon the marked prosperity of the country. He goes on to say that the volume of trade and of building construction, and growth in employment, the increased railway receipts, the expanding revenues, and business conditions generally, all bear testimony to a sound economic development which promises much in the way of substantial progress. I agree with previous speakers that the prosperity we are enjoying-because without doubt we are enjoying a measure of prosperity-is not evenly divided. I agree in that respect with the statement of the hon. member who has just spoken. As a matter of fact prosperity has never, at any period of its existence, been equally divided. I do not pretend to prophesy but I doubt whether the time will ever come, in this or any other country, when prosperity will be equally divided. In view of the statement made by One of old, "For ye have the poor always with you," I believe the same condition will prevail until the end of time.
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. member if he considers that a desirable condition?


Mr. McKENZIE:: mg events of the present year, if n-ot for many years. I agree with preceding speakers, and I was impressed as they said they were, with the part which was taken and the enthusiasm which was shown in the celebration by our people of non-British origin. Not only was this true of the children but it was also true of the adults; in many districts they were intensely interested in the celebration. Some of the best addresses that were made during that celebration were made by children not bom within the confines of Canada in some cases, and in other cases by children whose parents came to Canada as immigrants twenty and thirty years ago. I believe the celebration was of wonderful value to this country in helping to produce a better type of Canadian, and a stronger national sentiment not only among newcomers but also among our own people. In many instances our people learned more of their own country through the addresses which were delivered, and the pamphlets which were sent out from headquarters for their benefit. In this connection I would offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister upon the important part which he took in making that celebration the success it was. And let us hope that when the seventieth anniversary of confederation comes it will find him Prime Minister of Canada and that the celebration that will be brought on at that time will be better than the sixtieth anniversary because he will be able to profit by the experiences of this past year.
The next paragraph of interest deals with the visit of royalty and of the Prime Minister of Great Britain to our shores during the past year. But in the short time at my disposal I do not desire to speak further of matters of general significance. I would like to deal with a few items in the address which more directly affect the province from which I come and the constituency which I have the honour to represent. As one coming from the prairie provinces I am naturally interested in the statement in the address which, dealing with the Dominion-provincial conference and its results, reads:	[DOT]
In the light of the discussions at the conference my ministers are continuing negotiations with the prairie provinces for the return of their natural resources.
We in Saskatchewan have never been as vitally concerned in the matter of the return of our natural resources as the people of Alberta or even of Manitoba, but we were pleased the other day at the statement made by the Prime Minister to the effect that not only would we receive our natural resources '*ut we would still retain the subsidies which fMr. McKenzie.-]
we had been receiving in lieu of those resources since we became a province. That is very encouraging to us and we will look forward to the fulfilment of these negotiations.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), when he spoke on the debate on the address a week ago, rather twitted the government on the fact that in 1922 and 1923 in the speeches from the throne the matter of the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces was featured very much in the same way as it is at the present time, but that so far no advance had been made. In view of the reply made by the Prime Minister, I believe there has been more advancement during the past year in that respect than there has ever been before. But I would like to impress upon the mind of the leader of the opposition that 1922 was not the first time that we heard of the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces. I remember in the election campaign of 1911, the Hon. It. L. Borden, who was then leader of the Conservative opposition in this house and who was later Prime Minister of Canada, speaking not only at Weyburn but at other points throughout Saskatchewan, said to the electors:
I will give to the prairie provinces something of much greater value to them than reciprocity. I will return to them forthwith their natural resources which are theirs by right.
Needless to say he did not implement that promise. That was at the time when the reciprocity campaign was on, which meant so much to the prairie provinces. In the light, however, of what we have learned from the statement of the Prime Minister, let us hope that this question, which has agitated for a iong time the minds of politicians on both sides of this house and throughout the Dominion, will soon be satisfactorily settled. Some politicians whose minds have been agitated on this question have been really concerned for the good of their province, while others again have been very much concerned for what must be said to be nothing less than ulterior motives.
I should like at this time to speak briefly on another question which is of vital concern to the people of our province and the constituency which I represent, as well as to Canada as a whole. I refer to the reduction of taxation. Some time ago I received a pamphlet much the same, I believe, as the one referred to by the hon. member for Peace River, stating that the income tax in this country should be got rid of. We in the west do not share that view; we are not agreed at least that the income tax is the first tax that should be reduced. We take the stand that when reductions are made in taxation


The Address-Mr. McKenzie
and we hope that reductions will be made from time to time

those reductions will be made along lines which tend most to lighten the burden of those least able to bear the burden of taxation. We do not look upon the income tax as being that tax which should be reduced first because, on account of the liberal exemptions that are granted under the Income Tax Act, we do not see where any hardship is imposed upon anyone. A man and wife, for instance, have an exemption of $3,000 before they are called upon to pay anything towards the. income tax. If they have two children they have an exemption of $4,000; if they have four children they have an exemption of $5,000, and so on. No one can claim that any great hardship is imposed, but the same thing cannot be said with regard to some of the other taxes. There are certain features of the tariff and the sales tax. for instance, which directly affect the poor man's table and the clothing of himself and his family, and I would therefore hope that whatever reductions are made this year in taxation, they will not be made on the income tax unless relief is given also along the other lines which affect the common people of our country. It is possible, however, that there will be a necessity for making a few adjustments in the income tax in order to bring it up to date.
Coupled with the question of reduction of taxation, there is that of the reduction of our national debt. It is a source of great satisfaction to the people of Canada generally that during the past four years such substantial reductions in our national debt have been made. In looking over the public accounts which were brought down the other day, I noticed a few items which are of vital importance to us at this time in dealing with the question of the reduction of the national debt. During the last four years ending March 31, 1927, that is, during the years 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, the reduction in the national debt has been approximately $106,000,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is more than twice over the amount of all the reductions that had been made previously since confederation in our national debt. In all the other years since confederation down to the year 1924 the aggregate reductions in the national debt amounted to between $45,000,000 and $50,000,000, or less than half what the reduction has been in the last four years. That is a source of satisfaction to the people of Canada.
But there is something more. Not only have there been these reductions in the national debt, but there have been at the same time reductions in the taxation of our people. Comparison was made a few days ago by I think the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) between the debt of the Dominion of Canada and the debt of the province of Ontario, and he deplored the fact and was inclined to criticize this government because the reductions that are being made in the public debt of the Dominion do not compare favourably with the debt reductions made by the province of Ontario. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison between the national debt of Canada and the bonded indebtedness of our provinces or of our urban and rural municipalities. During the years of the war the national debt of Canada was increased by approximately two billions of dollars. That amount was paid out in the prosecution of the war. It was an expenditure for which no utility of any kind was provided, whereby even a portion of the interest on our national debt would come into the treasury by way of revenue-not one dollar. On the other hand, the bonded indebtedness of our provinces and municipalities, both urban and rural, has been incurred for the purpose of acquiring some utility. Various forms of utilities are provided by the bonded indebtedness of these other forms of government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the national debt, and endeavouring to show that it was what might be called a dead weight debt; that is, no utilities had been provided for out of approximately the two billion dollars which was added to our burden of debt for war purposes. On the other hand we find that usually when a debt is incurred by one of our provinces or by a municipality it is incurred for the purpose mainly of providing some utility, and generally sufficient revenue is derived from that utility to pay interest on the indebtedness and to provide a sinking fund for its ultimate redemption. So that when we criticize the government for not reducing the national debt, and at the same' time ask for a reduction of taxation, we ought to remember that we cannot expect the government to cut off the source of revenue by making such reduction and also reduce the national debt. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) both last session and this session has made some suggestions for the reduction of the national debt. I think it might be well for the government to follow those
206	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
suggestions, and then should the Conservative party ever regain power they would feel it their duty to continue the plan based on those suggestions and would be more diligent in reducing the national debt than they have been in the past.
Without going into any detail, I wish to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Souris' (Mr. Steedsman) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in relation to the permits which are issued at the customs ports to Canadians who desire to cross to the United 'States, and the difficulties that they sometimes encounter on their return to Canada. In this connection I would say to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) that when the time comes for dealing with the final report of the royal commission on customs and excise, particularly the clause which advises ar reduction of the number of ports, they consider carefully whether it would not be advisable to open more ports along the border rather than close any of the present ports. I believe that if we had more ports along the border line it would relieve a great deal of the difficulty complained of by the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred. I am inclined to think that the report is right in the recommendation concerning railway ports and those ports situated a long way from the border, on account of the use that is now made of automobiles. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are three ports along the border, and I believe that in fairness to the people who desire to cross freely back and forth this number should be materially increased. Our law-abiding people should be granted every consideration, and I do not think that my proposal would in any way facilitate smuggling operations.
I had intended to discuss the immigration question, Mr. Speaker, but in view of what has been said by the minister himself (Mr. Forke) this afternoon there is no necessity for me to do so.
My final word, then, will be in regard to the tariff. Last session we did not expect the government to do anything by way of tariff reductions because of the fact that the tariff advisory board was just nicely getting into its stride. But the board having in the interim considered a hundred or more applications, I believe sufficient evidence has been adduced to prove that in fairness to the consuming public there should be some material tariff reductions. I am not going to enumerate the articles on which these reductions should be made. I endorse what has been said by other members in relation to the commodities 
which they think should carry a lower tariff. I hope that when the budget is brought down we will not be disappointed in this respect, or in respect to what I have said regarding the income tax.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in congratulating the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) and the hon. member for Provenc'her (Mr. Beaubien) who respectively moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the throne. I do so, however, sir, with this qualification:	I regret that Providence,
in the shape of a snowstorm, denied me the pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Hants-Kings, but I did have the opportunity of reading his speech, and I congratulate him more warmly on his moderate tone than I do on its wisdom. He was good enough to make reference to a letter of mine which I wrote during the electoral campaign of 1926, and by quoting one paragraph of it he sought to induce this house to draw the inference that I was a seetionalist.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make only one or two observations in that connection. The first is that in so far as love of Canada is concerned and faith in her destiny I yield to no one; and, secondly, it seems to me a singular fact that whereas we have in the maritime provinces-and I am unhappy to have to admit it,-extreme sectionalists who term themselves secessionists, yet they have never found recruits in the ranks of the supporters of his majesty's loyal opposition. On the contrary, many of the most prominent of those self-styled secessionists are supporters of those hon. gentlemen who sit to your right, sir, and the chief paper of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia is avowedly secessionist. And I might make this further observation, that had the hon. member taken the house a little more completely into his confidence and reviewed the whole of that letter, it would have been apparent that the point I was making to the electors was that in 1921 Nova Scotia elected a solid Liberal representation to this house, and those hon. gentlemen supported the government and praised it, but they did nothing else; while those who came from the western parts were striving, and rightly striving, for the interests of their communities. The "solid sixteen" obtained nothing; the western members secured results. The inference to be drawn from the letter is that my hon. friend had better beware the fate which befell the "solid sixteen". It would be a pity for a man of his brilliant parts were he to ally-

The Address-Mr. Ernst
himself and be a martyr to the same unworthy cause as the "solid sixteen" espoused.
It is not my purpose this evening to go at any length into national questions-that is, national in the sense of being purely national, because we have many domestic questions which,.while they are not purely national in their aspect, while they may be regional and provincial, even sectional, yet they are national because there can be no sound health in the body politic unless the whole body participates. Consequently I feel justified!, if justification is necessary, in the references which I purpose making to,the particular problems that beset the province whence I come- Nova Scotia.
In the first place, let me add my voice to what the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smithl and the hon. member for St. John-Albert. (Mr. MacLaren) have said with respect to carrying out in full the recommendations of the Duncan report. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) has seen fit to make reference to the fact that these recommendations have been almost entirely implemented. I would refer him to an issue of the Financial Post bearing date November 18, 1927. After perusing it he will know, if he does not know now, that the major .portion of those recommendations have yet to be implemented. And I may tell him further that the people of the maritime provinces and' their representatives who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, will not be content till those recommendations have been implemented in full.
I pass now to another matter of provincial concern in a sense, and that is the old age pension legislation which was enacted at the last session of this house.


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


William Gordon Ernst: I quite agree with my hon.
friend who has said, "hear, hear", in so far as the principle of old age pension is concerned. I hope the day will speedily come when this country can do away with its poorhouses and when people who have served to the best of their ability will be taken care of by the state instead of becoming objects of charity. But I regret that the hope held out by the hon. gentlemen who supported the present government party during the campaign of 1926 has not been fulfilled, the hope that the present Pension Act would apply to the country as a whole. That hope cannot possibly be realized. There are provinces which have adopted the legislation, but I hope to show the house that there are other provinces which cannot adopt it; and if it is not adopted throughout the whole country it is inequitable and is not a fulfilment of the promise made by the supporters of the government during the election campaign. Let us take as an instance the province of Nova Scotia. I think you will agree with me, sir, that no matter how good the intentions of a province may be, no matter how desirous it may be of carrying out the provisions of the pension legislation or assisting the federal government, before that can be done two things have to be looked into: first, what will it cost; and, second, has the province the means?
Now, the scheme of the legislation, briefly, is that the federal government will assist the provincial governments to this extent: they will pay an amount not exceeding $120 a year to every indigent person of seventy years of age, provided the provincial government pays a like amount. What does that mean? In Nova Scotia, according to the 1921 census, there are about 25,000 persons over seventy vears of age. It is estimated by a competent authority in the province that one-half of ' these would be eligible under the present pension scheme if the provincial government adopted the legislation. Assuming that 12,500 persons had to be looked after, at $120 each, it would cost the provincial treasury about one and a half million dollars annually, not including the cost of administration. Take the argument one step further. In 1925 the Duncan commission took evidence in Nova Scotia and found that the province was in straitened circumstances, owing to the fact that its most important sources of revenue had been handed over to the federal treasury, without anything to offset that loss of revenue. The report recommended that to enable the province to balance its budget there should be an immediate lump sum increase in the amount of subsidy of $875,000 a year. Since 1925 Nova Scotia has not acquired any new sources of revenue. How then, if in 1925 the province needed $875,000 to enable it to balance its budget, can the federal government be sincere in the suggestion that the provincial government assume that additional burden of one and a half million dollars in order to carry out old age pension legislation?


Mr. NEILL:: If my hon. friend will permit me-who keeps those old people now?


William Gordon Ernst: Those old people are kept,
in part, by their sons and daughters, and others are in the poorhouse. But the hon. gentleman who asks the question overlooks this fact. It has been argued that the adoption of the old age pension legislation will do away with the poorhouses. I have made inquiry personally, and I find that many inmates are under seventy years of age. This
The Address-Mr. Ernst

means duplication instead of doing away with the poorhouses of the province. But to return to my subject: I ask, how can the federal government be sincere in requesting the provincial government to incur that expense, knowing that the increase in subsidy is necessary to meet present conditions? Bearing that in mind, there is only one of two possible solutions:	Either the Dominion
treasury must increase the subsidy to the provincial government to enable it to discharge the additional burden, or the scheme must be made purely federal in its operation. If the government is sincere in wanting to give old people pensions it must pass legislation which will be operative from coast to coast. It is for them to choose the solution. Had they been sincere in the first place they would have approached the provinces before enacting the legislation and obtained their opinions. It would be interesting indeed to know' just what took place in that connection at the recent provincial conference, both with respect to the provinces which have taken up the' scheme and with respect to the provinces which have not. In connection with old age pensions the circumstances are different in the various provinces, some having a larger percentage of their population requiring such relief. For instance, in British Columbia it was estimated that to put the legislation into operation would require two per cent of the gross provincial revenue. On the other hand, in Nova Scotia it would cost between 20 and 25 per cent of the gross provincial revenue. Therefore I ask the government, and I ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in particular, to take care of the# aged poor of the country, and at once introduce a federal scheme that will be Dominion-wide in its operation. What is the use of telling the people that the provincial governments should adopt the present legislation when those governments by reason of their financial condition cannot possibly do so? I ask him to introduce legislation providing for an old age pension scheme which will take care of the poor of the country, not only in one province or in another, but in each of the nine provinces of Canada.


Mr. HEENAN:: Does the hon. gentleman
know that some people down in that part of the country were advising an appeal against the law as it now stands, as being ultra vires of the federal government?


William Gordon Ernst: I was not aware of that, but I was aware that the chief Liberal organ of Nova Scotia asked the government to make it a federal law.

There are only two other matters with which I purpose dealing. The first of these relates to the appointment of a royal fisheries commission to investigate the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Gaspe peninsula. That commission has been sitting for some months.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: And the north shore.


William Gordon Ernst: Originally it was for the
maritime provinces, but I believe it has been extended since. That commission has been taking evidence in all the maritime provinces and at some points in Quebec. It has been stressed by members on this side of the house that it is due to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces that the report be tabled this year, and that action be taken to carry out its recommendations. It is also necessary that action be taken for the alleviation of the difficulties of the fishing industry in these provinces. I want to tell hon. gentlemen who do not know just why that is necessary. Some few years ago Nova Scotia was the leading fish-producing province in Canada; to-day British Columbia leads and Nova Scotia is second. But still we have in Nova Scotia some 16,000 fishermen primarily engaged in the industry, 4,000 more who secondarily derive their living from that occupation, and scattered over the whole province thousands more directly affected by it. We have on our shores some of the finest fishing banks in the world, banks to which fishing fleets from far-off Fiance resort. We have a large number of people there who are adaptable to the industry and who love the sea. And yet despite those facts, since 1914 the fishing industry of the province of Nova Scotia has lost 10,000 men, most of whom have gone to the United States to earn their living, because they do not wish to give up their calling, and are pursuing the industry at Gloucester or Boston. Such a state of affairs calls for a remedy. The position in the eastern part of the province is particularly acute. In view of the fact that this commission is sitting and will make its report it is not for me to prescribe a remedy, but it is for me to ask that some steps be taken to improve the conditions down there for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces as a whole.
There is another matter also relating to the fishing industry which I purpose dealing with, and then I am done. I refer to the question I brought to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) last session. Repeatedly during last session I urged upon him the importance of

The Address-Miss Macphail
having storm warnings broadcast to the fishing fleets. I did that because in August, 1926, two schooners from the Lunenburg fleet went down, taking with them fifty men. Last year, during the progress of his estimates through the house, the minister assured me this would be done in 1927. I regret to say that nothing was done, and in August, 1927, we lost not two but four vessels and eighty men. The disaster is all the more appalling when we stop to think that in some measure this might have been prevented if the assurance given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had been carried out. The hon. minister is not in his seat now, but I ask him in all sincerity not to wait for the report of the royal commission but to take action during the present session. Let the details be dealt with later on, but let him make a start now in order that such a disaster may not occur in this or in future years so that when the vessels return next autumn there will not be any vacant chairs or aching hearts.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I consider it something of a hardship to follow the very brilliant young member from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). We come again to the consideration of the speech from the throne, a speech which I feel sure was evolved in cabinet council, a speech that was written, I feel equally sure, by the first minister, and a speech that has been read to the assembled .commoners and senators by His Excellency the Governor General. In view of the whole matter it is not surprising that when we return to the House of Commons on the day following the formal opening we find the supporters of the administration rising in their places and saying that it is a very good speech. One would hardly under the circumstances expect them to say anything else. However, after reading the speech very carefully I think myself it is an exceedingly clever speech-how adroitly it says nothing at all!
I should not want to fail to congratulate the mover of the address (Mr. Ilsley) on the very excellent speech he made; I most heartily congratulate him. And as for the seconder, my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien); he is so delightful that one can forgive him much, and when one remembers that he was elected as an independent in 1921 and in 1928 we find him seconding the motion which embodies the scant legislative program of one of the major parties in the house, I feel he needs much forgiveness.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. member not vote on previous occasions for addresses 56103-14
in reply to speeches from the throne without having had anything to do with the preparation of them?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, but I did not second them. The hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Mackenzie), who spoke this afternoon, said: "The poor we have with us always." I think he was smugly complacent. He reminded me of an amti-Baptist minister who took as his text, " Beware of divers." The member for Assiniboia lifted the text completely outside the content in order to condone a very iniquitous system. I wonder if he would like to hear some other quotations. I think he would enjoy this: "What mean ye that ye grind the faces of the poor?" "The instruments of the churl are evil." " He deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right." " He who mocketh the poor reproacheth his maker." " Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto the least of these, ye have not done it unto me." "Depart ye unto outer darkness." I think that might be a word of warning to the Liberal party, that unless they realize that the elimination of poverty of the masses is the work of government, the outer darkness of opposition awaits them.
In the many speeches made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne much has been said about prosperity. I do not consider that adding to the wealth of the wealthy should be called, from a national point of view, prosperity. I think it is as true as when the words were spoken by John Bright to the British government that " the nation of every country dwells in the cottage, and unless the excellence of your statesmanship is impressed there on the feelings and conditions of the people, rely upon it you have yet to learn the art of government." I am glad to admit that conditions in rural Canada and in the homes of the industrial workers are ' slightly better than they were five years ago, but prosperity as it is understood in this house is unknown to our oeople. I had the privilege, and I conside'- it a very great privilege, of visiting last summer very many rural homes in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I certainly did not find in those homes the prosperity that I read about in the speech from the throne. I found people struggling to meet debt, and worrying over taxes and meeting the payment of their mortgages. I thought the conditions were particularly bad in the province of Manitoba. I believe it was said by some member this afternoon that they no longer grew grain in Manitoba. Well, I think that was true



The Address-Miss Macpliail
this year. I was thinking that the people who are in that province, when they read the speech from the throne and read the speeches that were made about it, will be amazed to learn that this long looked for prosperity has arrived. I am sure that from the feel of their pocket-book they will not know it has arrived. I visited the area between Sperling and Carman, a very wealthy part of Manitoba. I talked to people who went out there many years ago, relatives of my own, and I was told by them and by their neighbours that not more than three people in that community would be able to pay their taxes this year. I would not call that prosperity. I think one would be safe in saying that not ten per cent of the homes in rural Canada have running water, a bathroom, electric light, and the labour saving devices which the development of power makes possible. I think it is true, and I believe everyone in this house who is familiar with rural conditions will agree, there is too little comfort and beauty in our rural homes. I think too that the people in those rural homes are rebelling against that condition.
I want now to quote very briefly from Means and Methods of Agricultural Education, by Professor Leake, as follows:
Sometimes the drudgery of the farm is endured by the mother uncomplainingly, or even contentedly; but the daughter recoils from it with a growing discontent.
A little later he says:
The great problem, how to keep the boy on the farm, is troubling many, but it would become much less a problem if we could devise ways and means of keeping the girl on the farm. The girls are even more dissatisfied with farm life than the boys, and are leaving in greater numbers. The lessened proportion of women in the country homes of Canada was one of the startling surprises of the last census.
I do not consider that we can boast of our prosperity until that prosperity has reached the homes of the mass of the people. I think it is quite likely that the prosperity that has undoubtedly arrived in certain classes and sections of Canada will continue and will increase, until possibly it reaches boom dimensions, and will be followed by a crash or a long depression comparable to the one out of which we are just emerging. What is the government doing toward determining the cause?
I read with very great interest most, if not all, of the very delightful book which was published and sent to us by the Department of Trade and Commerce, entitled "Diamond Jubilee of the Confederation of Canada: Sixty Years of Canadian Progress." On page 60 of this work I find that the
TMiss Macphail.l
estimated gross agricultural wealth of Canada is $7,508,257,000, and the annual production on that investment is $1,600,000,000. On page 89 of the same volume I find that the total investment in the manufacturing industry is $3,808,282,981 and the annual production on that investment $2,948,545,315. These figures, in brief, mean that agriculture requires a $7 investment for $1 of production, and industry a $3 investment for little better than $2 of production. Under the circumstances we cannot wonder that we have ever with us the problem of rural depopulation. Other figures were given this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), which I need not repeat, showing that while farm lands fell $1 an acre between the years 1925 and 1926, industrial stocks and bonds doubled in value. With these facts clearly before us we can understand why it is that an intelligent and virile people are no longer willing to stay and slave under conditions which are not being remedied and with respect to which no real attempt at remedy is being made. The farmers of Canada are gradually learning that that industry which fails to assume responsibility for marketing its own productions arrives last in this race for the consumer's dollar. They are gradually-I think with increasing rapidity-remedying this by cooperative marketing. However, even though the farmers would market all their products cooperatively there still would rest upon their backs the great burden placed there partly through a bad distribution system of other commodities, and partly as a result of legislation passed by an organized minority for their own benefit.
One of the things to which I refer is the present Bank act. I notice in the W'eekly News of February 3rd, printed in Winnipeg, that the Bank of Nova Scotia made a dividend this year of 164 per cent, which seems a snug little dividend. The Canadian Bank of Commerce made a dividend of 12 per cent, with a bonus of one dollar. It was the same with other banks; evidently they are all making very great profits. Now there is a general feeling in farming districts that our banking system is not all it should be, and that some reform along the line of setting up a bank of issue and rediscount should at once be instituted. The Canadian Council of Agriculture-in April, 1927, passed a resolution to that effect, which I need not trouble the house to read.
Another thing with which the farmers are very familiar is the burden which is placed on them by the customs tariff. I feel it is true that the farmers all over Canada, re-

The Address-Miss Macphail
gardless of the province in which they live, but particularly in certain provinces, are looking to the government this year to bring down a general and very considerable reduction of the customs duties on those things that go to make up the cost of living, on the necessities of life and on the implements of production. I see no excuse which will enable the government to escape this time. I am sure that if there is any, they will find it, but it does not appear to me that there is any way of escape for them. They used to say they did not know just what to reduce, because of the danger of hurting some very necessary industry; but with the sittings held by the tariff board, the very excellent work that is being done by that body and the great quantities of data now before the government on this question, I cannot for the life of me see how they are going to say that they cannot now scientifically reduce the tariff. Of course they have a majority and that to me is not a hopeful thing.
I want to speak of another njatter. I am pleased to know that Canada has a nonpermanent seat on the council of the League of Nations. I think we are all very glad of that. I think we feel that Canada can do a very great work for humanity by being on that council. I believe the term is three years, although I am not quite sure as to the period. I hope that Canada, as an autonomous nation, will take a strong stand on the principle of arbitration, and will express her willingness to sign arbitration treaties with as many countries as are willing to sign them with us.	There is no reason
in the world why we should not do it. I believe it would be appreciated by other dominions and indeed by a large section of the people in the motherland.
I noticed, and I daresay all the other members of the house noticed, a very interesting editorial published in the Citizen this morning with reference to the International Joint Commission. It pointed out that for sixteen years Canada and the United States have had a board of arbitration working, and working with very great success, composed of three members from each country and that when it sits in this country a Canadian presides and when it sits in the other country an American presides. It is an interesting fact that all the questions that have been referred to this commission have been settled by the unanimous consent of the board in a way that has been pleasing to both countries. This is something of which both Canada and the United States ought to be veipr proud, and something that, without boasting, we could make known to the world. One feels that a 56103-144
rather tense atmosphere has recently arisen between the United States and Great Britain, and this is something that we all very deeply regret. I quite understand that I am a very simple soul, but I can see no reason why a commission similar to this cannot be set up between Great Britain and the United States.
Canada through her representative on the League of Nations should take a very strong stand against the international trade in arms and armaments. Somebody ought certainly to take a stand and there is no reason Why we should not do so. I find in private life that people who stand around waiting for somebody else to give them a lead are not of very great consequence. We should have initiative both as individuals and as a country, and through our representative on the League of Nations we should take a strong stand on questions on which we feel strongly. That this would be acceptable to at least some people and, I believe, to a large number of people in the motherland is quite clear from this quotation from Arthur Ponsonby's book, Now Is The Time, at page 82. He says:
Any disposition on the part of our dominions to refuse to join in these wars of European origin will be all to the good. The dead weight of a reasonable pacifism from that quarter might have a moderating effect on the home government.
He goes on to say things even more startling than that, but I will not take the time to read them to the house. I should like to draw the attention of our government to the fact i that now in the quiet and sanity of peace nine there are some things which we could do to show the world that we have definitely turned our backs upon old methods of settling international disputes. One is that the government should have full control of the manufacture of munitions. I see no reason why the manufacture of munitions which are designed to bring about the death of human beings should be in- the hands of private individuals who can and who have used this power for private gain. Let us now make a law stating that, if the worst came to the worst at any time in the future and we must face war, all property will be administered by the state; that is, there would be a complete conscription of wealth. I feel this would have a moderating influence upon certain elements in Canada.
In this connection, while this may seem presumption on my part, I urge the government completely to divorce aviation, which is rapidly developing along civil lines, from the military department, and not only from the military department but from military person-ilities. It would seem reasonable that in the

The Address-Miss Macphail
lear future we should form a department of iransportation which would include aviation dong with railways and canals, and national highways, if we should ever have such a thing.
I should like respectfully to ask the government when they intend to change the administration of the penitentiaries so that prisoners will be given as much work as they can comfortably do in a day and will be paid a decent wage for that work. We have heard a great deal about this; the house carried the resolution some time ago-let us have the legislation. We should go further than this, because it is only one little step, as we so often say in this house, in the right direction. A real study should be made of crime; we are all coming to the place where we admit that crime is caused by ignorance, poverty, lack of culture, lack of happiness. There are many things about the prisoners that need study besides the one that I have mentioned. In our whole system of taking care of prisoners we should look to the good that we can do to the prisoner while he is detained by the state, making him feel that the state is fair to him. That is why I want him to be paid a decent wage for his work, from which wage, of course, his keep must be deducted. We must never forget, too, that the family of the prisoner possibly suffers more than the prisoner himself, and when the prisoner comes out, there should be, shall we say, a fatherly hand of the government to guide that man into civil life, to re-establish him. So many of them when they first get out try for a few days or weeks to go in what we call a straight way, and not being able to do that they very soon revert to crime. Much could be done by the state to make these things better for the men and women
My stand on immigration is exactly what it has always been since I came to this house, and that is that if we would turn our minds to remedying conditions in the primary industries in Canada and do less talking and less spending of money bringing in state-aided immigrants to this country, we would be getting further on the road we all want to travel. We should look to the quality rather than to the quantity of immigration that comes to Canada. Any immigration policy worthy of the name should hold sacred, first, the ultimate good of Canada and, second, the good of the immigrant. Sometimes I think the good of the immigrant is not very much considered, although I may be wrong in that. Particular care should be taken to guard immigrants who do not speak the English language against fraud on the part of our loyal citizens when those immigrants [Miss Macohail.l
first arrive in this country. I have heard some amazing stories about what sometimes happens to non-English speaking immigrants when they first arrive in Canada and especially when they have some money. If we are going to have a stimulated immigration policy we might as well face the fact now as at any other time that we must inaugurate a policy of industrial or unemployment insurance. We simply cannot bring thousands of prospective settlers to this country letting them think we are going to take care of them and then not doing it when sickness or lack of employment or lack of warm clothing in our Canadian winter comes upon them. We must make up our minds one way or the other.
A week ago I was in the city of Windsor. I passed the factory of the General Motors, which was to be opened in a day or two but was not open at that time, and I saw actually hundreds of men standing in line waiting to see if they could get a job. I was with the librarian as we had come down to look through the library, and the reading rooms were not only comfortably filled but actually packed with men whom this tenderhearted woman said she could not turn out into the cold. There they were day after day as it was one warm place in the city of Windsor.
I hope during this session something will be done towards enabling married women to establish a legal domicile. This question has been debated in this house and as it was introduced by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) who, I believe, is a stepson of the government, I see no reason why they should not father his bill. The Canadian Council of Agriculture deals with the matter in this way:
Whereas the Canadian Council of Agriculture has for the past number of years passed resolutions asking that the inequality in our law as between men and women in the matter of domicile be removed.
Therefore be it resolved that we reaffirm our position on this question, and urge upon the Dominion government the enactment into law of Bill 111 introduced by W. J. Ward, M.P., Dauphin, enabling a woman for purposes of judicial separation or divorce to establish a legal domicile of her own.
I hope the government will look with very kind eyes upon this matter.
In closing, let me say that I am a member of an independent group. I am not interested in party politics; I am not interested in parties, although I must say in all fairness that I am very much interested in the people who compose the parties. I am at all times ready, and indeed anxious, to support legislation which to my mind is beneficial to the

The Address-Mr. Jenkins
constituency I have the honour to represent -I believe that is the correct form-and to the country as a whole. I want to help with legislation, but I can only help with it if the legislation is pleasing to the people who sent me here, and knowing what I do from six years in public life I fear that the legislative program of this session will not weary us too much. I do not believe that when you have a stable government-one with a very comfortable majority, you get good government. I may be wrong; I sometimes am, but I think not in this case, and so, having inpower a stable government, one with a very comfortable majority, a majority that unfortunately has been added to by men who should have known better, I do not see how we can expect a legislative program that will be pleasing to our constituencies. But at least we are here to get for the common people of Canada the best that we can, and I am here sitting ready to be pleasantly surprised by the government.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, permit me first of all to congratulate the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and at the same time to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who has been elected to such a high and honourable position.
The speech from the throne has in general met with the approval of the members of this house.
There were, however, those who voiced disappointment that it did not go far enough, but we presume, Mr. Speaker, that the budget which will be brought down later on by the Finance minister (Mr. Robb) will supplement for our friends what the speech apparently lacked for them. From what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, we can safely surmise that some pleasing revelations will be made, and from our experience of the last two years we may assume that our genial Finance minister will go even a little further than we hope or expect.
The speech, first of all, bears testimony to the fact that generally speaking conditions are good in Canada. I need not enlarge upon this phase of the subject, because it has been carefully covered by the speech of the Prime Minister and others who followed him; but I would just like to quote a few words from an address delivered by the vice-president and general manager of the Dominion bank at their annual meeting a few days ago:
This is the land of opportunity. Those Canadians whose early recollections go back to
confederation days cannot, when comparing the conditions then and now', but feel satisfaction and pride in the progress that, in spite of periodical setbacks, remains as the net result of sixty years. We can now look forward with confidence to a reasonable measure of fulfilment of a famous prophecy: "The Twentieth Century will belong to Canada."
A few words pertaining to conditions in my own province may not be amiss, Mr. Speaker. As a general rule we do not have any violent swings either upwards or downwards; things run along in a very even way. We have no great wealth and very little poverty. Our people as a rule are prosperous, and are willing to work and do their fair share in the upbuilding of Canada. In his report for this year, president R. L. Cotton of the Charlottetown board of trade says:
So far as our city (Charlottetown) and our province is concerned, the year has been one of more than usual progress and prosperity.
The fox business was especially good, and high prices prevailed not only for live foxes, but for pelts as well. This brought a very large amount of outside money into the province which tended to stimulate and help along business in every line. I think it is safe to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that as far as farm conditions are concerned, 1927 would hardly equal 1926 owing to the fact that the prices of many commodities were rather low, notably those of pork and potatoes. We have had a very fair crop of the latter commodity, *and thousands of bushels were exported to -the southern United States for seed purposes, but the price prevailing was rather low and would not give the farmers a very great leeway over cost of production. I am thankful to say, Mr. Speaker, that the warehouse facilities provided at Charlottetown, Summerside, and Georgetown for the handling of this particular commodity are of great assistance to our people and we deeply appreciate the consideration of this government in relation thereto. Mr. Boulter, secretary of the potato growers' association in an interview with the press a few days ago stated:
The volume of business during the fall season ending December 31, 1927 far exceeded that of any entire year of business since the association was organized. Considerably over one million bushels of potatoes were handled and twenty thousand bushels of turnips. The open fall aided greatly in the movements by water, the association having loaded in all sixteen steamers which would average over fifty thousand bushels per steamer. Three ports were used in loading, Summerside, Charlottetown and Georgetown. Without these added warehouses it would have been impossible to have moved such a large quantity by water. The Georgetown warehouse proved of exceptional value, as the seed shipped from this
The Address-Mr. Jenkins

port was for points south, whose growers would not under any consideration accept early shipments of seed. The fact, therefore, that the association was able to make these late shipments through Georgetown not only held the territory which they opened up last year, but allowed them to reach more distant markets, going even into Tennessee and Alabama, and seed shipments by water next year will in all probability be made as far as New Orleans in the gulf of Mexico. Many of our potatoes were also exported to Cuba and Canadian markets as well.
The sixtieth anniversay of confederation was duly celebrated in our province in common with other parts of the Dominion. We have a loyal and patriotic people and the celebrations were of a very high character
The speech from the throne refers to immigration. So far as Prince Edward Island is concerned we can only assimilate a limited number and they should be of a class of farmers who have some means at their command and who can go on the land, pay for it, purchase agricultural implements and not be hampered by debts of any kind. People of this sort are bound to make good, provided they are willing to work. We may also have a limited demand for farm help, but what we need above all else is to keep our own people on the farms. In this connection I Should like to quote from the speech made in this debate the other day by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette), who made a speech that is well worth reading. At page 177 of Hansard he says:
Let me go a step further. I do not believe we shall need so many immigrants, and I am sure we will not lose our population to such a great extent, if the government will do something to see that young Canadians are offered some inducement to go on the farms and stay there. As you know, the bright lights of the cities, with 'their theatres, dance halls and so on, are wonderfully attractive even to the urban population, so it is no wonder that the young people are attracted from the country.
I Should also like to quote again from the address made by the vice-president and general manager of the Dominion bank at their annual meeting. He said:
With respect to the important question of immigration, there is some encouragement in the fact that 1927 figures were the largest since 1913, and various colonization enterprises are proving successful, but the number of settlers is still very far short of our needs and capacity, and a more energetic policy by our government is required to revive the prewar flow of newcomers. The shift of population from the country to the city in the older provinces is a constant and partly inevitable condition brought about because the increased use of machinery in agriculture releases man-power, and also by the concentration of mass-production industry in the large labour centres. An additional, and a regretfMr. Jenkins.l
able, cause is that many young men born on the farm seem not to care for the life. Out-government should do everything possible to encourage our people to stay on the land.
One of the hon. members who spoke in this debate tonight referred to the fact that the young ladies were also dissatisfied. Our government should do everything possible to encourage the people to stay on the land. Some encouragement should be given to the sons of farmers to settle on the land, and if a scheme were devised whereby they would [DOT]receive assistance along lines such as that of the soldier settlement scheme with a loan of money and easy payments thereon, it would I believe be a great deal better than making experiments with people who are not suitable to our country, and who will not make good. We have had quite a number of immigrants coming into our province in past years. Some of them have succeeded, and others unacquainted with farms conditions made a failure with us, the same as they would anywhere else.
At a meeting in Charlottetown the other day .one of these gentlemen who came out from the old country stated in an address before the Rotary Club that he had an easier time on Prince Edward Island than he ever had at home. He was able to put a few dollars in the bank, something he could not do in the old land. This gentleman stated that it was detrimental to both countries to bring out unsuitable men, and when I see in Prince Edward Island, he said, big farms not half cultivated, I am convinced we should have more settlers of the right sort. He said:
Coming to the Island is like coming home. The scenery is much the same. Loneliness and homesickness are not felt so much here. The people are kind and sociable. There are opportunities on the island for practical farmers with a little capital. In the old country many are just making a bare living on small holdings. The taxes and rent are a great handicap. For instance on 30 acres of land a man pays $450 per year rent and $100 in taxes.
This amount seems rather exorbitant, nevertheless it is what this report states:
The farmers in the old country must be convinced first that it is to their advantage to immigrate. They will hesitate before selling their stock and home unless they know exactly how they will fare in Canada. The immigrant agent must tell them the plain truth about conditions here, tell them what the land is like, and what it will cost.
In the old country the farmers work from 12 to 16 hours per day. There is no need of it here. He had an easier time than ever he had at home, and was able to put a few dollars in the bank, something he couldn't do there.

The Address-Mr. Jenkins
While here there is good land, with a good and easy market for the produce, handy to neighbours, with horses and barns ready for the settler and with land already cleared, there is an impression in the old country that Canada is a wild country overrun by wild beasts.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has just emphasized what has so often been emphasized in this house, that what we need is quality and not quantity.
The speech from the throne also refers to the fact that so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, the increases in subsidy recommended by the Duncan report" will be continued this year. We firmly believe however, Mr. Speaker, when our claims are fully considered, that as a province we should receive much greater consideration in regard to subsidy allowance than we are receiving at the present time.
If the Prime Minister and his government in April 1926 had done nothing else but appoint the royal commission on maritime rights, they would be entitled to the gratitude not only of the maritimes, but of the whole Dominion; for a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and our country between the two oceans is indissolubly bound together; otherwise the spirit and meaning of confederation could not possibly be carried out. It has been said that the maritimes believe that confederation must be held together by sentiment, by the strong influence of a truly national spirit, assured and supported by an equitable federal agreement. It is contended that if Canada is to become a nation imbued with a truly national spirit selfish sectionalism so often displayed in the past must disappear.
It was to bring about such a spirit, and at the same time see to it that the Atlantic provinces were placed on a level with other parts of Canada with respect to trade and commerce, transportation and all that enters into progress and development, that the Prime Minister and his cabinet conceived and carried out the idea of the royal commission on maritime rights. If the report of that commission will do nothing more than educate the people of the maritimes and the other provinces of Canada on this vital and all absorbing problem, then it will have done much in the way of benefiting trade and commerce and more closely cementing the bonds of confederation.
As was believed by all who understood the people down by the sea, the Duncan report confirmed the view that the faith and interest of the maritime provinces in the general prosperity of Canada are' beyond question-* for our people adhere sincerely to the opinion that the solution of the problems of our own
and the other two provinces by the sea, should and can be found within the policies of this great Dominion.
The terms and conditions upon which Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873 contain the following significant provision: Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mail and passengers to be established, and maintained, between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well known, for it has often been stated and reiterated on the floor of the House of Commons, that this, the chief provision of the confederation pact so far as the island is concerned, has never been implemented according to the letter of the bond. So far as communication is concerned I believe that the government will carry into effect the recommendation of the Duncan commission, and provide another car ferry. Three years ago on the floor of this house I advocated that this matter should be dealt with, and I understand that the government for some time, through the Department of Railways, has been gathering information and making preparations for this desired improvement. We are sincerely hopeful that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will see fit to place, if not in the main estimates at least in the supplementary ones, an appropriation for this much needed work. These facilities will have a tendency to keep our people in the province and will give us an added sense of security, more especially so far as trade and commerce is concerned; because, Mr. Speaker, you may produce the finest products in the world, but if you cannot market them in the best condition and when the demand requires, they will certainly depreciate in value. Before our car ferry service was installed, it has been proved from statistics that our farmers realized a little more then 50 per cent of the value in other parts of Canada for their produce, owing to the fact that they were compelled to ship everything out and glut the market before close of navigation. To-day we can ship out practically at all seasons, and with the fine quality we produce we are able to command excellent prices for our products, in the markets not only of Canada but the United States as well.
The fisheries of our province are worth annually well over a million dollars. The marketed value for the past few years has been: 1924, $1,201,772; 1925, $1,598,119; 1926, $1,358,934. The figures for 1927 are not yet available. Although the catch was about the
The Address-Mr. Jenkins

same as that of the preceding year, its value will be somewhat less owing to the lower prices prevailing. The lobster catch in 1927 was 62,233 cwts. as compared with 66,298 cwts. in 1926. This very important fishery is hardly holding its own. Prince Edward Island has adjacent to it fishing areas of great producing capacity, and there is no question that if better prices could be obtained such fisheries as those of cod, haddock, herring and mackerel could be largely developed.
The oysters of Prince Edward Island are, in quality, second to none, but the fishery has now dwindled to about a quarter of its proportions of years gone by. For instance, in 1901 the catch was 24,972 barrels, whereas in 1927 it was only 4,064 barrels. There is no question but that the beds were fished too heavily in years gone by, but the main cause for the reduction is that several years ago a disease broke out amongst the oysters in the far-famed Malpeque bay area, which resulted in the death of the oysters on all the beds in the bay proper. Oyster farming has proved itself just as feasible as land fanning, and, where conditions are favourable, it has shown itself to be much more remunerative. The production of oysters under natural conditions about the island should leave no room for doubt that oyster culture would be successful there, if properly conducted. Keeping in view the areas that are regarded as suitable for oyster culture, there are the best of reasons for believing that, if properly conducted, the oyster fishery of Prince Edward Island could be made many times more valuable than it ever was, or is at the present time.
The situation is complicated by a division of jurisdiction, as while the regulation of this fishery comes under federal jurisdiction, the leasing of areas suitable for oyster farming is a provincial matter. It is understood that negotiations have been in process with the provinces for some time, whereby the full jurisdiction will be placed in the hands of the federal government, which has intimated that it is prepared to do what may be regarded as necessary to bring about an industry in oyster culture and cultivation, if such transfer of jurisdiction is made. I sincerely trust that this matter will receive the immediate consideration of the federal and our own provincial authorities.
As regards the fishing industry, I want to say how deeply indebted we are to this government for the appointment of the fisheries commission. The fishermen deserve every consideration from this house; they work hard and their hours are long and arduous. I do hope that when the report of this commission

is submitted to parliament it will be given the most favourable consideration, because it is my sincere belief that our fishermen as a class have not in the past received that treatment which they should have been given.
In connection with our transportation problems, it is pleasing to note that the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in cooperation with the Department of National Defence has placed in operation a weekly air mail service between Moncton and the Magdalen Islands. This service passes right over Charlottetown, and I think it would be a fine thing if the postmaster general could arrange to have any delayed mails which may be held at Moncton delivered promptly at Charlottetown. We are looking forward at no distant date to the establishment of a daily air service between the island and the mainland. This no doubt will assist the people of my province in some of their difficulties.
Our province never had crown lands in the general meaning of the term. Its lands were held by proprietors who had received them in grant from the British crown, and who leased them to settlers. In 1853 the legislature of the then colony empowered the government to purchase the land from the proprietors and to sell it outright to settlers. Before confederation approximately three-fifths of the land was bought from the proprietors either by the government, which paid for it out of current revenue, or by the tenants themselves.
One of the terms and conditions of our province's entry into confederation was:
That as the government of Prince Edward Island holds no land from the crown, and consequently enjoys no revenue from that source for the construction and maintenance of local works, the Dominion government shall pay by half-yearly instalments, in advance, to the government of Prince Edward Island, forty-five thousand dollars per annum, less interest at five per centum per annum upon any sum not exceeding eight hundred thousand dollars, which the Dominion government may advance to the Prince Edward Island government for the purchase of lands now held by large proprietors.
Advances were drawn by the province against the sum allowed in the foregoing provision to nearly the full extent for the purpose of buying out the remaining absentee proprietorships and transferring the lands to their own settlers. In the nature of things, the transaction was a costly one to the province, from the point of view both of its administrative expense and of loss of interest as well. There was, in addition, a net cash loss of $190,000 on the principal outlay. The government submitted to the Duncan commission a detailed claim, showing a very considerable gross loss on these land transactions.

The Address-Mr. Jenkins
In a book called Confederation Documents I find that a conference was held on December 4, 1866, at Westminster Palace Hotel, London, England, of delegations from the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This conference was held for the purpose of arranging terms of union of those provinces. There were six members representing Canada, headed by Sir John A. Macdonald, Attorney General and Minister of Militia of Canada, five representatives from Nova Scotia and five from New Brunswick. At this conference the following resolution was passed and ordered to be forwarded to the Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies:
That in case the colony of Prince Edward Island should hereafter desire to join the confederation of Canada, this conference recommends that the government of the confederation should deal with the question of compensation for the proprietary rights in the island in the most liberal spirit possible.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, only goes to show that it was the desire of ill parties to deal with our province in a fair and equitable way, and as the resolution states, in a most liberal spirit. That, I take it, is the spirit of confederation, and I firmly believe the people of this Dominion are willing to treat our province in this way.
We are sincerely grateful for the many recommendations made in the Duncan report which have been carried out. My hon. friend said that very few of these recommendations had been implemented. He is wrong. There are a few things which will have to be attended to in order to implement that report in full; two of these I have already alluded to, nomely, the increase in subsidy and the improvement of the oar ferry service between Borden and Cape Tormentine, but we have yet a great deal to be accomplished so far as our railway facilities are concerned.
From the different parts of the province our people are crying out for better railway accommodation and also for branch lines in order that they may market their produce in a better and more efficient way. Our province is the most densly populated in the Dominion, ijnd for this reason the transportation facilities should be increased. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) and myself have already presented a petition to the governor in council with regard to these branch lines, and I am hopeful that we shall receive some consideration. I understand that the member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) needs branch lines in his county, and no doubt he will later on present his case. In connection with a request for one of these branch lines, I have received a letter showing the amount
of tonnage that might be expected on a section of the proposed railway. With the permission of the house I desire to put on Hansard this letter, which is signed by reliable men. It reads as follows:
In connection with the petition forwarded to the lieutenant governor in council, praying for a railway, from the petitioners of Rustico- North and South Cavendish, Mayfield and New Glasgow, we hereby submit the following estimate of business per year:
Exports
Tons
Butter and cheese	 135
Codfish	 1,000
Lobsters	 280
Mackerel	 150
Herring	 630
Smelts	 50
Potatoes	 22,500
Turnips	 300
Hogs	 500
Eggs	 180
Poultry	 685
26,310
Imports
Laths and lobster supplies.. ..	280
Salt	 300
Gasoline	 140
Empty casks and rope, etc....	30
Fertilizer	2,100
Coal	3,500
Merchanndise-	_
(Dry goods, groceries)	1,330
7,680
When the railway budget is before this house we shall take the opportunity of asking for a statement from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) regarding proposed railway improvements. I take the liberty of giving him this notice so that he may be prepared. On" one branch of the railway system, known as the Murray Harbor line, we are running on the old narrow gauge, and this is a matter which should receive the serious attention of the railway authorities. The rolling stock is antiquated and out of date, and goods shipped on this particular line must in many cases be rehandled at Charlottetown, thus adding extra expense and damage to goods as well. I plead with the railway management that this matter shall receive immediate and careful consideration and, more than that, immediate action.
When all 1he recommendations, Mr. Speaker, of the Duncan report are carried into effect, no longer shall maritime rights be before the country. All that our people have asked for is justice under the confederation pact. This independent commission has acted with wisdom and discretion, and I am satisfied that the results will meet with the
The Address-Mr. Cowan

approval of all. I believe the spirit of fair play and justice which actuates hon. members of this house will see to it that the people of my province shall equally enjoy all rights and advantages along with the rest of Canada, and so, Mr. Speaker, we shall have a happy, contented and prosperous people.


Mr. D. J. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thun-der Bay):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to add my voice to those of other members who have joined in felicitating the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and the seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is the first time I have heard a speech moved and seconded in this house and I take it for granted that the words of commendation which have been uttered by hon. members are well merited.
At the outset I wish to make a few observations concerning a matter referred to in the speech of the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) regarding the Transcontinental railway. In the constituency I have the honour to represent there are several organized municipalities similar to those referred to by the hon. member. They do not obtain any taxes on property owned and operated by the national railways, and that gives rise to a peculiar situation. Some municipalities do collect from that railway which, prior to the formation of the Canadian National system, was knovra as the Canadian Northern. The town of Sioux Lookout, which is a thriving town in northern Ontario very close to' the present development in the Red lake and Woman lake mining areas, is not. in the fortunate position of obtaining taxation from that railway, and I desire to join with the member for North Timiskaming in urging upon the government, and particularly upon the Minister of Railways, that they take up this question at once and see to it that justice is done these organized municipalities.
In the speech from the throne reference is made to the successful inauguration of an air mail service between Rimouski and Montreal. Again I would suggest that, if that service is operating to the satisfaction of the department, an air service be established in the northern part of northern Ontario where it is impossible to secure railway communication and where the people, especially in the mining areas, are dependent for success and for the speedy transaction of business upon the early receipt and departure of mails.
There is one other matter not referred to in the speech from the throne but which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie

King) referred to and that was the development and construction of the international waterway, a subject by the way which appeals strongly to the people of the community in which I reside, namely, Port Arthur. It is particularly true that the towns and communities along the international waterway are interested in the development, and in the limited time at my disposal at this time I do not intend to go into any lengthy dissertation on that particular subject. Later during the session I hope to have an opportunity of saying a few words in that connection, but at this time I simply desire to say to the government that I think I represent the aspirations and thought of the people of the country when I urge that there should be no undue delay in pushing forward the construction of the international waterway. It will facilitate the movement of grain and other produce and traffic from the west, and now that the Welland canal is near completion-I understand it will be ready for use in 1931-every effort should be made to advance by all possible means the construction of the main portions of the international St. Lawrence waterway.
It is my purpose to-night to bring to the attention of the house a matter which I suggest has been entirely neglected by the government for the last six or seven years, a matter which pertains particularly to the district I represent. I think moreover it is of interest to the whole of Canada-I refer to what is known in our particular locality as the iron ore industry. I do not have to elaborate on this question at any great length, because I am sure that those who are readers of the newspapers and are interested in the development of that broad stretch of country between the east and the west of Canada are aware of the great development that is taking place there, and it is our hope that the iron ore industry in particular will receive attention from the government. The great area to which I refer, extending as you will notice from the Rouyn district of Quebec right through the Pre-cambrian shield of northern Ontario and through Manitoba to Saskatchewan, is the most highly mineralized area in the world. Geologists tell us that in that formation is found all the great mines that are in existence to-day. There is the Mysore in India, the Rand in South Africa; and that same formation is found in Norway and Sweden and in the northern part of Germany. Of this great Pre-eambrian shield ninety-five per cent is in Canada and five per cent in the United States, and in that five per cent in the United States we find the great Mesaba

The Address-Mr. Cowan
range upon which to-day the prosperity of the United States in regard to steel production depends. Very little of that whole ninety-five per cent of the Pre-cambrian shield that exists in Ontario has been prospected. Surely if the proper means were taken by the government that whole area could be developed and we should find within it unlimited wealth.
I subscribe to the words uttered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) when he stated that he hoped that in northern Manitoba would be found a continuation of the same mineralized area that we have in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. Apparently there is some ground for his belief that such is the case, for you will notice that in the last year or so the development of the Flin Flon on the boundary of Saskatchewan and Manitoba has been one of the greatest discoveries of this age.
I sincerely hope that the area to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre refers will enjoy equal prosperity with that of northern Ontario. Why do I bring this subject before the house? It is for this reason: There has been development in the past in this particular area. Up to 1921, of the iron ore smelted in Canada nearly thirty-three per cent was obtained from Canadian mines and smelted in Canadian furnaces, the balance coming from the United States. To-day there is not a single once of Canadian ore mined or smelted in Canada. Every ton that is brought in comes either from Newfoundland, which now provides at least thirty-three per cent of it, or from the United States. Surely the proposition does not require argument that we should develop our own resources. There is no doubt the mineral is there. There is no doubt that it should be developed.
You can apply the same reasoning to the pulp and timber resources of that north country. One thing which has helped Canada in regard to the balance of trade is the development of the pulp and timber resources of Ontario, and if the mineralized area of northern Ontario were developed to the same extent it should aid us in presenting a more favourable balance. The remedy I intend to suggest is not a new one; it has been adopted in the past. The government of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced legislation in this regard in 1896. I heard one hon gentleman to-day state that Sir Wilfrid Laurier suggested that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. I think he must have had an idea that the Conservative party would be the leaders of the government during that century, and if they had been I have
no doubt that this industry would not have been allowed to languish as it has, particularly during the last six years.
In 1898 a bounty of S3 per ton was made payable on pig iron, puddled bars, steel billets and ingots, and also a bounty of $2 per ton on pig iron produced from foreign ores. This did stimulate the industry, and progress was rapid. In 1904 the bounty was made applicable to the production of rolled round wire rods and certain other manufacturers of steel, and in 1909 to pig iron and steel produced by the electric process. From time to time the amount of the bounty was varied, and in 1912, the sum of 817,000,000 having been paid out in establishing the industry, all forms of direct government assistance were withdrawn. This ought to convince our friends to the right of the Speaker that if in that period of time to which I refer there was prosperity, surely the enactment of legislation now providing a bounty would make us more prosperous. In 1921 the last iron ore was produced in Canada and there had been paid out in bounties up to 1911 the sum of $17,000,000. For the next seven or eight years no further bounty was paid, and by 1921- which synchronized I think with the elections of that year-not another ton of iron ore was being produced in Canada. From that day to this there have been brought into Canada annually 750,000 tons of ore, one-third from Newfoundland and the other two-thirds from the United States. As I said a moment ago, it is a self-evident proposition that our own resources should be developed and manufactured into the finished article in Canada by Canadian labour.
The following companies have furnaces in Canada:
The Algoma Steel Corporation, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.-Has four furnaces with a combined capacity of 1,450 tons of pig iron daily. During 1922 they operated one furnace in January, two for the next seven months, and one only for the remainder of the year. This furnace is worked to only one-fourth of its capacity. It is situated within a few miles of where the greatest deposits of iron are found.
The Atikokan Iron Company, Port Arthur, Ontario.-Has one furnace of 175 tons daily capacity, which has been idle since 1911.
Canadian Furnace Company, Port Colbome, Ontario.-Has one furnace of 325 tons daily capacity.
Midland Iron & Steel Company, Midland, Ontario.-Has one furnace with capacity of 120 tons per day. Idle since October, 1919-
The Address-Mr. Cowan

Parry Sound Iron Company, Midland, Ontario.-Has a furnace at Parry Sound of 90 tons daily capacity. Idle since October, 1919.
Standard Iron Company, Deseronto, Ontario.-Has one furnace of 60 tons daily capacity, that has not been in operation since June, 1919.
Steel Company of Canada, Hamilton, Ontario.-Is operating two furnaces with combined capacity of 750 tons daily.
The Canadian Steel Corporation.-Has erected at Ojibway, near Windsor, two large blast furnaces, but has not yet operated them.
As I have pointed out, millions of dollars have been invested in these furnaces, and with the cessation of the bounty formerly voted all of them are idle except one. Surely that is a striking statement to make in regard to an industry which should be one of the basic industries of Canada, and one which is so fraught with the possibilities of making this country one of the great manufacturing centres of the world. Because after all, steel and iron are basic products in the manufacturing industry in every country. The iron and steel industry is one which has helped to make the United States so exceedingly prosperous, and if proper methods were applied here, I have no doubt the same result would be secured in Canada.
Now the remedy which has been suggested for the present condition of affairs was suggested by the commission appointed by the Drury government in 1923. That commission brought in an unanimous finding and reported to the Ontario government in favour of providing a bounty on the iron ore mined and put through the furnaces of Ontario. They said, moreover, that at least one-half of the bounty should be paid by the Dominion, seeing that the Dominion would obtain direct benefit from the re-establishment of the industry. May I say that the Ontario legislative assembly has already put in force-I think they did it two years ago-legislation implementing that report, so that the province stands ready to-day to assist this government if it will only provide the other half of the bounty. It may be argued by those who are not interested in the development of our iron ores, or in the metal industries of Canada that such a bounty should not be granted. May I point out that bounties are already granted under various names and disguises? For instance, experimental farms are established at government expense to aid agriculture. Thoroughbred stock is distributed at the government's expense with the same object in view. To perpetuate the fishing industry hatcheries are maintained by

the government at various points, and the credit of the province of Ontario is pledged for the production of Cheap power. These are all bonuses of one kind or another, and I claim that the iron ore industry should be put upon the same basis.
I was very much struck with the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in favour of granting assistance for the transportation of Alberta coal. That is just as much of a bonus as the assistance I am urging in aid of iron ore. The hon. member is asking that Alberta coal be transported at a reduced rate. Such assistance as that should not be considered as anything else than a bonus. I have every sympathy for the eloquent member for Bow River in the address which he made. I believe that his appeal is sound, but I maintain that the claim I am now advancing is equally entitled to consideration. I do not think it is necessary to labour the subject any further. Where formerly hundreds of tons of iron ore were mined in this country, not an ounce is now * brought forth. That ^atement in itself should be sufficient to commend the proposal I am making to the favourable attention of the government.
What benefits would result if the proposed aid were granted? In the first place the area to which I refer is sparsely settled; it extends from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary. Everyone knows that where a mining camp is established a town springs up immediately. Hon. members who have visited northern Ontario must have been struck with the Hollinger mine, which employs 3,000 people. That means support for at least 10,000 men, women and children. If only one mine were developed it would amply repay the government for the expenditure involved. It would create a more favourable balance of trade, because we are to-day importing from the United States and Newfoundland from two to three million dollars of iron ore per annum. Moreover the revival of this industry would provide employment for our own people. We have heard a great deal in regard to immigration. I am not so much concerned about immigration, although we need an increase of population. What I am interested in is the conservation of our population, the providing of an opportunity in Canada for the employment of our own people, retaining in this country those people who to-day are going to the United States on account of the pay cheque there being larger and more likely to be realized.
So I say that in this northern country mining must play no small part in the general

The Address-Mr. Heaps
plan of Canada's development. Providing our own iron ore from our own resources is a splendid objective in itself, but even that may be considered only as a means to an end if we can colonize and develop our vast northern territory. In doing so we shall assist in solving our railway problem and in bridging the gap which exists between eastern and western Canada. Hon. members know very well that by developing our iron mines the farming community will be greatly aided because it will establish a profitable market for the commodities produced on the farm, to say nothing of the all-round development to which it will conduce. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which in all fairness the government should seriously consider in order that they may re-enact the legislation which existed from 1896 to 1921.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Two-thirds of the group to which I have the honour to belong have already spoken in this debate, and the only excuse I have for rising at this particular time is the fact that we represent a much larger number of electors than might be inferred from our numerical strength in this house. In the last federal election almost 50,000 electors throughout the Dominion cast their ballots for Labour candidates, so that hon. members can understand how few they are represented by, when there are only three Labour representatives in this house.
Since the opening of the session I have sat very patiently listening to speeches delivered by hon. members from all parts of the Dominion. I have listened to members from the maritimes outlining the conditions that exist in that part of the country. I have listened to their tales of. woe and of the bad conditions that prevail there. The mining industry is to-day in a very bad state in Nova Scotia and in other parts of eastern Canada. The men are living there by the grace of their friends and whatever they can get from other sources.. The mines are operating two or three days per month, and even at the present time a royal commission appointed by the Nova Scotia government is investigating two of the mines in order to find out why they are not operating on a better basis. That goes to show that the Duncan report of 1925 has not proved to be a solution of the mining problem in that province; conditions to-day being just about the same as they were prior to 1925.
I have listened this evening to the story of conditions in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. I should like to have heard a little
more from the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) as to why the fishermen there receive approximately one cent per pound for their fish and by the time it comes to the consumer the latter has to pay anything from fifteen to thirty times as much for the same commodity.
I have also listened to members from Ontario telling us about the bad conditions that exist in that province, the large amount of unemployment in Toronto for instance, and the bad conditions among the farming community in the southern part of Ontario. I have listened to-day to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) telling us about the bad conditions amongst the farmers in Manitoba. The provincial government of Manitoba have even asked the Dominion government to assist in giving relief to the unemployed in the urban centres of that province From Saskatchewan we have heard similar stories regarding the conditions of the farmers in that province.
When we come to Alberta we have heard similar stories from hon. members who represent that province in this house. We have been told about the bad conditions of the miners, about the unemployment in the cities, and the demand for a reduction in taxation on the necessaries of life. I listened the other day with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who discussed the coal question and who demanded a national fuel policy. The same demand for a national fuel policy has been made by members in other parts of the house, but I have not yet heard it stated what they mean by a national fuel policy. Do they mean the nationalization of the mines in this Dominion, or do they mean something else?
I desire to make one or two remarks in connection with the Alberta coal situation, because one of the large consumers of Alberta coal is the province of Manitoba. Ten years ago Manitoba was using very little, if any, Alberta ooal. At the present time, as a result of the efforts of the Alberta government and efforts made in other directions, the domestic consumption of Alberta coal in Manitoba is approximately ninety per cent of the total. For that reason any action that is taken by the Alberta government or by this house in regard to the coal question, and particularly the Alberta coal question, is bound to be of interest to the people of Manitoba. The freight on coal is something which the people of Manitoba are interested in, and if the Dominion government or the railways are going to give a rate of $6.50 per ton on coal that is moved from Alberta right down, for
The Address-Mr. Heaps

instance, into the centre of Ontario, then the people of Manitoba will expect equal treatment to that given to the people of that province. If a ton of coal can be moved for 86.50 from Alberta to Ontario, there is no reason why it should cost $4.50 to move a ton of coal from Calgary to certain parts of Manitoba.
Alberta has thought fit at a recent session of the legislature to impose <a tax of five to nine cents per ton on all coal mined in that province. So far it has not been able to collect the tax because certain actions have been taken in the courts to test the legality of that legislation. As one representing the province of Manitoba I protest against legislation of that character. I cannot understand how a Farmer government, who have Farmer representatives in this house and who make speeches here objecting to taxing the necessities of life, can themselves tax a necessity of life for people in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. That tax of five to nine cents per ton which the Alberta government is endeavouring to impose upon coal mined in that province will add twenty-five cents per ton to every ton of coal sold, and will make it just so much more difficult for the mines of Alberta to compete with the mines of the United' States. On the other hand the Alberta government come to the Dominion authorities and ask them to reduce freight rates. Before they do that they should take every possible step to see that Alberta coal is mined in the most efficient way and given to the people at the lowest possible rates.
Another thing I should like to see the provincial government of Alberta do is this: For many yeaTS efforts have been made to find out the actual cost of mining a ton of coal in many of the Alberta mines, but so far those efforts have been unsuccessful. Apparently nobody can tell us exactly what it costs to mine a ton of coal in Alberta. It appears from the knowledge I have obtained that an obstacle has always been created when the question is one of getting this information from the proper authorities. I believe, however, the cost of coal at the mine mouth at Alberta is approximately $4.50 per ton, and I want to know why coal mined under similar circumstances in the United States, where wages are slightly higher than they are in Alberta, can be mined for one-half the cost in that province. The question arises in my mind whether they are using the most efficient methods for the production of coal in Alberta. I think when people in other parts of the Dominion are called to the
[Mr. Hpaps.l
assistance of Alberta, they ought to be given these facts, and it would not be amiss if the provincial government of Alberta attempted to furnish these facts to the people of the Dominion.
As I stated a few minutes ago, I have listened to speeches which various hon. members have delivered describing conditions existing in their respective provinces, and with the exception of a few speakers from the government side not a solitary member has spoken of the prosperity which, it is claimed in the speech from the throne, prevails at the present time in Canada. Each member has got up and told of the conditions that prevail in his own particular province, and it is very hard for me to reconcile the speeches made in this house, coming from the government side, from the opposition side and from the group in this corner, with the talk of prosperity in the speech from the throne. Ii there is prosperity, then I am sure that it is not reflected in the speeches that have come from every part of this chamber.
The speech from the throne deals very little with the future; it deals with the past. It is not a speech that looks forward; it is a speech that looks backward. I believe that statesmanship, as a rule does not take the backward view, but the forward view.
The things that are in the speech from-the throne I do not regard as of great and vital consequence. The important part of the speech refers to the appointment of ministers to France and Japan. I am sure that the unemployed of Winnipeg, the semiemployed miners of Nova Scotia, the fisherman who gets a cent a pound for his fish, and the unemployed in all parts of this Dominion, will feel that there is very little to rejoice over in the announcement that Canada is going to send ministers to France and Japan. That will neither fill their empty stomachs nor tell them where their next meal is to come from.
One^ omission from the speech from the throne, involving a matter which I think is of even greater consequence than the question of the appointment of two ministers abroad, is any reference to the reason why the Canadian government broke off friendly relations with soviet Russia. Both this session and last session we heard a great deal about the status of Canada. I am no great specialist on that question and do not understand it as deeply as some hon. members of this house do. But I am given to understand that one reason why the Dominion government broke off relations with Russia was because Great Britain had done

The Address-Mr. Heaps
so. The only excuse of this government, if I remember correctly, was that it had followed the example of Great Britain. During the last session of this house we were told that Canada had achieved a new status at the last Imperial conference, and yet almost immediately that new status had been achieved, at one of the very first opportunities the government had of showing that new status, it meekly followed the example of the British government. There was no reason why Canada should have broken off relations with Russia; and besides, I think it was a rather dangerous policy for the government to pursue, for this reason:	Supposing
within the very near future another government comes into power in Great Britain- as is very likely; for I think it is generally admitted that the only reason the Baldwin government is being kept alive is that it wants to save funeral expenses-supposing a new government comes into power in Great Britain, is the Canadian government going to follow that new government in its foreign policy? If it is, then this government is likely to change its attitude every few years. The government ought to realize! that in Great Britain at the present time there is a distinct cleavage between the two major parties in the House of Commons as to what their foreign policy and their relations with the other powers of the world should be.
It perhaps would be unfair if, while I am on my feet, I did not say a word about the Conservative party convention in Winnipeg last fall. I come from that city, and I was naturally very much interested in that convention. I must apologize to many of my friends in the Conservative party for the fact that I was not in Winnipeg at the time; I happened to be out of the city. Had I been there I should have been glad t'o show them some of the interesting things in Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. However, I am interested in the platform the party drew up, and also in the fact that a new leader was selected. I was interested in the fact that the Conservative party had put labour legislation in its program, but I was sorry that its program of labour legislation made no reference to the repeal of that anti-labour legislation of the year 1919. I think it would have been quite appropriate if in the city of Winnipeg such a plank had been put in the forefront of the Conservative party's platform.
I want to congratulate, if I may, the_ new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Bennett). I have been very much interested in the hon. member, interested long before I over dreamed that I would be a member of
this house, and I am rather surprised that he himself did not take a part in asking the Conservative party on that occasion in W in-nipeg to do away with that legislation which this house so hurriedly passed in 1919-in the space I believe of about twenty minutes. I know the hon. leader of the opposition is a man of profound political thought and of deep religious convictions, and it is to me most surprising that one of such firm convictions should still in the year 1928 be willing to put a man into the penitentiary because he quotes certain sections of the Bible?-I refer to certain poi-tions of Isaiah. I am surprised that a man of such a democratic mind as the leader of the opposition should still wish in the year 1928 to put a man into the penitentiary because he desires to read certain kinds of books which can be found on the shelves of almost any library in the Dominion of Canada. That is the legislation which we have sought to repeal in this house-in fact the House of Commons has in three successive sessions passed a bill to repeal it but the bill has been rejected the same number of times by the other house.
I notice one other matter that is absent from the Conservative party platform, and that is the very good suggestion that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) himself made in the house last year during the budget debate. On that occasion he suggested the conscription of money at four per cent; there is no such plank, however, in the Conservative party platform. If at any future time it is the fortune of the Conservative party to be the dominant party in this house, I trust that that particular suggestion of its leader will be put into effect.
There is one other statement- and I regret it exceedingly-that has been made by the hon. leader of the opposition in the course of the many speeches that he has made since he became the leader of his party. He has referred to the great asset that wealth is to a man in public life. I do not think wealth does give or ought to give priority to anyone who holds a responsible position in the public life of the Dominion of Canada. When the hon. leader of the opposition claims that the wealth he is fortunate enough to possess gives him a sort of prior claim to a position of responsibility, I think he is doing an injustice to a great many members of this house who are not so fortunate as to be possessed of any wealth at all. Wealth should give no prior rights to high office. In fact if we look at history we find that there have been very few really great men who have been wealthy and very few wealthy men who have been really great.
The Address-Mr. Heaps

It has been admitted by the leader of the opposition that we are prosperous in this Dominion. I wonder who enjoys this prosperity. After we have listened to speeches by hon. gentlemen from all parts of the country no one will claim that the great masses of the people have benefited greatly by this so-called and one-sided prosperity. I believe the leader of the opposition is a director of one of the leading banks in this country, and a few weeks ago I read the annual report of this particular bank, covering a whole newspaper page, while at the same time, in the inside columns of the same eastern newspapers which carried this report, there appeared the story of an offence committed by an employee of this very bank. This particular employee, in his less thoughtful moments, had taken a few hundred dollars that belonged to the bank. He was a young man who had previously enjoyed an excellent reputation at the bank. Naturally he was arrested, and taken to court. He was about twenty years of age and it appeared m the course of the proceedings against him that prior to the Christmas festivities, while reflecting on the poverty in his own home, he was driven to desperation and took this money so that his own family might enjoy some of the good things which are customary at that time of the year. Then it came out that this young man, who occupied a fairly responsible position with the bank, was receiving $40 a month. Here we have in one column of a newspaper the report of the prosperity of this bank, while we find that, the employees who have helped to build up these huge surpluses are receiving such miserable salaries as $40 a month. Hank presidents will speak of prosperity, but this man who was receiving $40 a month must be typical of thousands of others in similar institutions who are living on a wage barely sufficient to keep body and soul together.
The leader of the opposition has made one statement with which I am thoroughly in accord: he says he wants an educated democracy. I am prepared to go a long way with the hon. gentleman in an effort to reach that objective, and I feel sure that when we have attained it, when we have an educated democracy in Canada, there will be little left of either the Conservative or the Liberal party. I would suggest to the leader of the opposition, interested as he is in democracy, that perhaps in the future he might make a tour of the Dominion and address the masses of our people, telling them something about the democracy of Canada. I would venture a suggestion as to the nature of his text. The
TMr. Heaps.!
first question I would have 'him speak on is this: Who owns the wealth of Canada and who creates it? And secondly, I would suggest that he discuss the question of democracy in industry. In the third place, I would ask him to give some consideration to the question of a democratic second chamber.
This naturally leads me to a reference to the other chamber, which we are not allowed to mention directly in this house. Some years ago there was something in the Conservative platform about reforming the other chamber; I noticed in the Winnipeg platform recently formulated nothing to this effect. During the last election the Liberal party had something to say about reforming the Senate, but very little is said about that subject at this session of parliament.


Mr. BOURASSA:: It is reforming itself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend is fairly
correct, but I fancy that if there were a reversal of parties in the government of the country there might be a cry for reform on the part of those now in opposition. I do not think that the other chamber was ever intended to be a democratic institution, for I find in section 3 of the act creating it that this provision exists: that no man-no mention is made of women, because the appointment of ladies to that chamber has not yet been decided upon-shall become a member of that assembly unless he has a qualification to the extent of $4,000 in property. Now, bearing in mind the fact that this qualification was embodied in the act over sixty years ago, we can understand that the other chamber was never intended, as I say, to include any poor man. Four thousand dollars' worth of clear titled land in 1867 meant that a man must have a very considerable acreage before he could be' elevated to the other chamber in that period of Canada's history.
Canada at the present time is governed or partly governed by two houses. In one house we have a democratic body elected by the people of the Dominion, while on the other hand we have an autocratic assembly, an irresponsible body which can do as it pleases. It may veto legislation passed in this house just as often as it likes and yet we do not seem to be doing anything to ensure that the express wish of the people shall be carried into effect as the law of the land. I do not believe that in any country in which there is an elective system you will find a body appointed in the same way as our second chamber is in Canada; and sooner or later this other chamber of parliament will have to conform to the will of the people. At the

The Address-Mr. Heaps
present time there seems to be a disinclination on the part of the government to take any action in this regard although they said last year that this question would be dealt with. Well, it was partly dealt with by the provincial conference, and what has the conference resulted in? The work of the conference has been referred to in the speech from the throne, and while it is suggested that it was a happy gathering, I cannot understand why, if everything went so smoothly, it was considered necessary to hold it behind closed doors. Personally I do not like public bodies meeting behind closed doors under any circumstances, and the people of Canada were so much interested in the conference that the government might well have given the fullest publicity to its transactions. The conference was called originally for the express purpose of discussing the question as to what should be done with the second chamber, and now we find that no action is being taken merely because certain provinces say, forsooth, that they are not in favour of having anything done in the matter. In my opinion this House of Commons is just as representative of the people of the Dominion, under the British North America Act if you will, as are the nine provincial governments, and it seems to me that the conference has done more harm than good.
I should like to see this government take a bold stand on the question. Why could they not have proposed a dominion-wide referendum to ascertain the will of the people in regard to the Senate? There is nothing to be afraid of. The leader of the opposition, with his democratic feelings, could npt possibly object to such a referendum in order to determine this particular question. At any rate, if the question were submitted to the electors there is no doubt at all in my mind as to what would be the outcome. One of my colleagues from Saskatchewan observed that the new members of the Senate are. pledged to reform. Probably about eight or nine members have been appointed to that chamber under that pledge. But when you remember that there are ninety members odd in the other chamber-and some of these gentlemen have the happy faculty of living to a hundred and over-you can see how long it will take before pledges are received from them all.
The situation in the upper chamber to-day is such that it deserves some publicity. Thirty-two members of that honourable body are of the legal profession-thirty-two out of ninety-six. Twenty-five are directors of financial corporations; eighteen are merchants 56103-15
and manufacturers; six are medical men and eight are connected with the newspapers. The man who suggests that this body reflects the sentiments of this country is grossly mistaken and very far from the facts. Personally I am not in favour of a second chamber, but if there is to be one I think it should in some degree reflect the will of the people. It is all very well for hon. members to say that we must stand by the British North America Act. Let me say this in regard to that act: The British North America Act was made for the people of Canada and not the people of Canada for the British North America Act; and if the act does not conform to conditions as we find them in the country to-day, then we ought to amend it so as to bring it into conformity with existing conditions. Some of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec may be alarmed about any proposed amendments to the British North America Act. Let me assure them, as one member from the west, that there is no intention on the part of our western people to deprive the people of Quebec of any rights which may be guaranteed them under the act. Personally I should be entirely opposed to any attempt on the part of this house to infringe on any rights extended to the early settlers of this Dominion. At the same time, it would be unfair for any province, jealous as it may be of its own rights, to stand in the way of any attempt to amend the act to bring it more into conformity with modern conditions. There is nowhere in the world, so far as I am aware, a second chamber that has the powers which are enjoyed by the second chamber in Canada. It has been sometimes compared to the British House of Lords. But those who tell us that we should stand by the British North America Act overlook the fact that not more than seventeen years ago the British act governing the House of Lords was amended in respect of the relations between the two houses of parliament in Great Britain. In 1911 when the House of Lords attempted to veto certain legislation passed by the Commons, after they had rejected the budget, what happened? Immediately the Liberal Prime Minister of that day obtained from His Majesty a document empowering him to appoint to the House of Lords as many peers of the realm as might be necessary to over-ride the decision of that house, and that very threat to appoint several hundred gentlemen to the upper house disposed the lords to pass the measure which they had dared to reject. It took away their power of absolute veto. But we have no such right in Canada; we may pass legislation in this house a hundred times and have it re-

The Address-Mr. Laflamme

jected as often by the senate, if that body so wishes. The government cannot appoint one extra senator to carry into effect the wishes of the people; no appointment can be made except as a vacancy occurs. Gentlemen in this house, particularly my friends of the Conservative party, talk a great deal about following the example of Great Britain. But surely they must realize that our second chamber enjoys far greater powers than are exercised by the House of Lords. If they want to follow Britain's example-and I would suggest that they do in this regard-let them do as was done in Great Britain seventeen years ago: let them take away the right of veto from the second chamber.
I see that my allotment of forty minutes is up and I have no desire to exceed it. There are other matters which I should like to have dealt with but of course the limitation works in my case precisely as it does in others. I shall therefore conclude for the present and on some other occasion I may take up the subject where I now leave off.
Mr. LEO K. LAFLAMME (Montmagny) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of members, as it is my first attempt to address this house. As representative of the county of Montmagny, I wish to make a few remarks on the speech from the throne. I heartily associate myself with the members who have preceded me in this debate, to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both performed their task in a praiseworthy manner and the congratulations which were extended to them were well deserved.
First, the speech from the throne mentions the prosperous state of the country. By this it wishes to convey the idea of the general prosperity of our Canada. As stated by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), if prosperity is not everywhere felt, in each and every riding represented by the hon. members of this house, to the extent that we could say that conditions are very good and even of the very best, nevertheless we cannot deny that the country as a whole is certainly prosperous. If prosperity is not evident everywhere, if all and each of us can point out certain weaknesses in special cases, due to the fact that we meet in a house where every one comes from a different riding, and where also we must look after the general business of the country, we cannot however refrain from really agreeing upon that statement contained in the speech from the throne: that our country is prosperous and has been so during the last fiscal year of

1927. The statements contained in reports from bank presidents and various corporations, not only are optimistic but clearly testify that the country has enjoyed an unparalleled prosperity during this last year. I shall not further emphasize this point as the leader of the government has clearly exposed the situation, and has made us realize the optimism which every well thinking Canadian should feel when he considers the general conditions existing in our country.
Some have asserted that we had no reason to congratulate ourselves upon the year 1927 being the occasion of the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of Canada's confederation. This event was an excellent opportunity for Canadians to look back somewhat on the past. In all parts of the country we celebrated this anniversary, because we felt the need of commemorating what our predecessors had done for our country. It was well to recall the work done by the advocates of British institutions, it was necessary to remind the present generation, the young people, those who will follow in our footsteps, of the work accomplished by our forefathers in the various spheres in which they were engaged; it was also right to recall the struggles that our forefathers had to undergo for the vindication of responsible government. Especially within these last years this topic has been discussed in various ways and form; it was therefore well to recall these heroic struggles for the conquest of responsible government in order to obtain in Canada the same rights as British subjects enjoy in England.
These celebrations were also an opportunity for many to recall that the pioneers of this country came from the province of Quebec. On that occasion of July 1st, 1927, the opportunity presented itself to point out that those who had laid the corner stone of the first edifice in a great number of Canadian cities, were French or descendants of Frenchmen. At a time when we were speaking of unity and ties which should exist between the various races, we from the province of Quebec could not wish for a better opportunity to recall that those who cleared the land, the pioneers of our country, were our ancestors, in order to impress upon those who to-day live with us in this vast Dominion, that when we display our true and sincere love for the Canadian soil, it is because we really feel at home and are conscious that we took root, here before any other.
A question of the utmost importance which should be borne in mind by Canadians, is that of immigration, as mentioned in the

speech from the throne. The hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, for the most part discussed it from their own viewpoint. This question of increasing our population raises a problem which interests every one of us. We should sincerely strive to build up our country, to increase its population so as to lessen the burdens which we are forced to carry, and we should also develop the natural resources of Canada. If we are to have an increase in population, we certainly should all have at heart that this increase reflects on the general welfare. If [DOT] we find it necessary to bring in immigrants from foreign countries, Europe, the British Isles and elsewhere, not only should we insist that they be physically fit and sound of mind, but we should also seek to induce people who can really become Canadian citizens and think like Canadians that are now living in this country, so that they may be assimilated and join us in the ascending march towards progress. The problem is indeed a very interesting one, and here the question arises whether we should not give preference to those who were born in our country, who are more likely to remain here and foster its development. We should endeavour to solve the problem by doing our best to keep at home those who are born here. This immigration problem is also linked with that of emigration. Canadian born citizens have a natural desire to remain here; they wish to develop and build up this country 'which is dear to them. We should therefore find the means to keep this desirable population here, at least all those among our people who wish to settle in this country so as to further its expansion. Individual wealth must certainly promote that end, in fact it does contribute to the general wealth of a country, if we have the right kind of people to develop our natural resources. The latter will be unlimited because people will interest themselves and they will thus help most effectively in the general development and increase of the wealth of our country.	[DOT]
Surely, I shall be permitted, Mr. Speaker to comment briefly on the status of Canada For many decades past, Canadians' ideal was to reach the most autonomous state, almost independence. This idea has made great headway within these last years, and all of us look forward to the most complete autonomy possible. In the course of his travels through England, France and the United States, Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself expressed these views openly. He foresaw, in a more or less near future that the ties between Canada and England, and those between the British domin-56103-151	-
The Address-Mr. Lnflamme
ions and England, would gradually be loosened, and that all these dominions would one day obtain complete independence. The Liberals have always endeavoured to spread this autonomous idea, we cannot do otherwise since the Liberal ideals tend to greater freedom, especially since the war -this being a natural sequel of Canada's part in the treaty of Versailles together with the other dominions-and more so after England had practically acknowledged them a3 sovereign states. At the Imperial conferences of these last years, the delegates of the various dominions, as well as England's representatives, wished to emphasize and establish more and more our ascendency towards the most complete autonomy. This autonomous idea has made headway, especially since the dominions took part, as I mentioned a few moments ago, in the peace treaty of Versailles; the force of events has brought on this situation. England does not wish nor can it prevent the spread of this ideal, since she is herself the pillar of the free British institutions. I am however astonished that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and also the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban), wish to impede somewhat the enthusiasm of Canadians for this conquest of complete autonomy while awaiting independence. If we take the time to consider the texts of international law, indeed it strikes us that they do not fit in with the present state of the dominions. The autonomy which they have acquired up to now, if it is not quite independence, has certainly created some embarrassment in the interpretation of international law. In certain spheres and in many aspects they are looked upon as sovereign states; as for instance, they can. negotiate their own treaties through a minister of their own, without the assistance of an English ambassador. One must bear in mind that always, in regard to international law, nations have proceeded byevolution and when a situation had materialized, the wording of the international law conformed itself afterwards with the existing situation.
According to some people, we have no cause to rejoice in our status because there are still laws in force which curb our freedom. Well, if we have not really attained our ideal, let us take advantage at least of what is happening so as to keep before the public eye our imperial relations, and thus create a strong feeling in favour of such an ideal. Let every Canadian familiarize himself with the thought of a possible independence so
The Mexican Situation

that, when the time comes, we will have no fear of accepting the responsibilities of the accomplished fact.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear,
hear.


Mr. LAFLAMME (Translation):: Gradually, we shall acquire a national spirit and be proud of belonging to our country-a great, prosperous and more united Canada-because we shall have all worked for its expansion, its material and economic development, its conquest of complete autonomy, and its rank among the nations of the world.
On motion of Mr. Cantley the debate was
adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Tuesday, February 7, 1928