1928-02-02

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 15, respecting certain patent application of William H. Millspaugh.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 16, respecting certain patent applications owned by the British Steel Piling Company, Limited.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 17, respecting the Saint John River Storage Company.-Sir Eugene Fiset.
Bill No. 18, respecting a certain patent owned by Canadian Cinch Anchoring System, Limited.-Mr. Jacobs.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: For obvious reasons I
have had placed on the table in advance the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise. I hope the house will pardon me for not having attempted personally to table the volumes of evidence now tabled. I desire to lay on the table also the ten interim reports of the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise. With respect to the interim reports I move, seconded >by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that twelve hundred copies in English and four hundred copies in French be printed forthwith and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: In tabling now a copy of the public accounts may I direct the attention of hon. members and of the press as well to page XIV. In order to secure an independent audit of the balance sheet the treasury board instructed Messrs. P. S. Ross & Sons, of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, to perform the task and their certificate will be found on the page indicated.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act.
He said: This bill is the same as the one introduced last year proposing certain changes in the Naturalization Act in the way of simplifying the procedure whereby naturalization certificates may be obtained.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) asked whether it was the intention of the government to adjourn parliament during the funeral in the old country of the late Field Marshal Earl Haig. I am at present communicating to ascertain whether or not the British parliament would in such circumstances adjourn and if so we shall do likewise. If there would be no adjournment of the British parliament, there will be no adjournment here. Before the day is over I hope to be able to give a final word to members of the house. In the meantime, I might say that instructions have been given to have-at the time of the funeral in London- the flags flown at half mast on all public buildings in Canada as a token of national respect to the memory of the late Earl Haig.

Unemployment in Nova Scotia



FARMERS BANK LIQUIDATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Alexander Robb: Yesterday, on the orders of the day the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) asked the following question:
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Farmers Bank has been definitely wound up and a financial statement received from the liquidator.
I promised to give the hon. member a reply to-day. This is the memorandum I have received from the department:
On December 20th, 1926, the liquidator G. T. Clarkson, received his discharge from the Supreme Court of Ontario, all assets of the Farmers Bank having been realized upon and accounted for.
Out of assets estimated in 1910 at $2,000,000 odd, the total amount collected by the liquidator was $1,372,829. This included $314,880 collected on account of double liability as against $584,500 capital subscribed.
After providing for note circulation 100 per cent and paying legal and liquidation costs, nothing was left for depositors, the total of whose claims was $1,134,036.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA COLLIERY DISTRICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I should like to draw the government's attention to the rather startling state of affairs in Nova Scotia in the matter of fuelling of Canadian government boats with American coal, as outlined in part by a telegram received by me this morning which reads as follows: Halifax, N.S., February 2, 1928.
R. K. Smith, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Unemployment in colliery districts. Glace Bay mines, only a few days' work each month. Startling fact that at present time in port of Halifax Canadian government boats being bunkered American coal. This has been going on since 1921. Within past forty-eight hours Lady Laurier and Arleux bunkered American fuel.
In view of the information contained in this telegram and considering the very serious unemployment situation among the miners in Nova Scotia, thousands being out of work and in destitute circumstances-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
gentleman not to argue the matter but simply to put a straight question.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I would like to ask the government if they will take immediate steps to have this unpatriotic practice discontinued-
Mr, SPEAKER: Order.


Robert Knowlton Smith: -and also
supply this house with an explanation as to why it has been countenanced.


Hewitt Bostock: Notice should be given of such a question. No argument should be made on a question put on the orders of the day.



GOVERNOR GENERALS SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, as I address myself to a brief discussion of the question introduced in this debate, one or two at least of which are not included in the speech from the throne, I feel at the outset that I should join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the hon. member who moved the address (Mr. Ilsley) and the hon. member who seconded it (Mr. Beaubien). I have no difficulty whatever in most sincerely doing so, as I rarely listened to so careful and eloquent a presentation of the motion as I did on that occasion. There is, however, a little curiosity raised in my mind. When I learned that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) was to second the address, there immediately occurred to me a very fervid declaration of independence which I had heard from the leader of the Liberal Progressive party not so long ago in this house, and I naturally wondered if the independence had been sacrificed in order to permit the hon. member to second the address. Now I am not particularly critical of that at all, at the same time I think that an explanation might well be made, because if independence has not been sacrificed, then I submit that next year it would be quite in keeping that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) should move the address and that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) should second it. If on the other hand the independence has been sacrificed, then surely the house would be at least interested, if not excited, over the information. I might even picture a more extreme case than that. We might have, for example, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moving the address, and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seconding it. I rather think, however, Mr. Speaker, that before either of these gentlemen would undertake that re-

The Address-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
sponsibility they would at least like to have something to say in the drafting of the address. I am not sure what part the Liberal Progressives did take in the drafting of the address; I hope very little, if any, [DOT]because if they took any part in it, it does not do them much credit.
One point was raised by the mover of the address that I wish to refer to. He spoke in terms of adulation of prosperity-that was not unexpected. Any government, whether Conservative, Liberal or Farmer or anything else, at least allows it to be inferred that it is responsible for the prosperous condition, and those who toil for the country get very little share of the credit. In the course of his address he went on to speak of the amazing results achieved from the coking experiments of last year. I knew myself that no amazing results had been achieved, but after reading his remarks I desired to investigate the matter a little in case I had been mistaken, and I find that in the year that has passed since the coking legislation was enacted, only one contract, that with the Nova Scotia Power Company, has been entered into. Under the terms of the contract the total capital that will be invested in the plant is estimated at $160,000. The output naturally would be very, very low, and if the coal industry of Nova Scotia is going to depend upon such an extraordinary form of encouragement as that, with the result I have pictured, I am not surprised at the conditions which led to the question that has been asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). However, that is just in passing.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the speech made no reference to reductions in taxation. It is true, the Prime Minister at a later date remedied this neglect by intimating cautiously that he had no doubt the Minister of Finance would, at the proper time, on the budget, I presume, indicate to the house substantial reductions. I hope so. I congratulate the Prime Minister on being able to make the announcement. But let me utter a word of warning at this moment. My hon. friends to my right, following their convictions, urge that reductions be made on the sales and income tax. The reason is quite dear to everyone. The more reductions in the sales tax and the income tax, providing the necessity for revenue continues, the longer will be maintained the most objectionable of all forms of taxation, that of the customs tariff. I submit, therefore, if the Minister of Finance is going to be in the happy position of making any material reductions in taxation this
year, that those who are associated with him, as well as those in this comer of the house, who have always cooperated with him on this particular point, certainly will join in expecting that the reductions will be in the right direction. We hope to see material moderation in the customs tax on many articles. Not a mere ticking of the cotton duty, nor a mere dallying with some other bit of duty here and there, but a fairly general reduction. I would not ask for a monstrous reduction all at once. I grant you it is not reasonable to throw in the face of the manufacturing class anything in the way of great embarrassment at one time; but there are many commodities to-day that are carrying an absolutely undue privilege at the expense of the common people. Now, all I ask is that in the reduction of taxation this year a large number of the more important commodities at least shall receive a measure of consideration from the administration in the reduction of indirect taxation.
So far as the appointment of ministers to Japan and France is concerned, I must most sincerely congratulate the government. I think both from the point of view of our national position and our international relations the step is one which can well be justified, particularly with respect to Japan. After all, Canada's future will to a large extent develop along the line of expansion in oriental trade and oriental activities. At the present time no continent is receiving greater attention from all the other continents of the world than the continent of Asia. I think it is high time that Canada, so close to that great continent, should have representatives there who will take care of Canadian interests and do all they can to develop the most favourable trade and pacific relations with oriental countries. However, in the Prime Minister's remarks in this connection he made, I think, a little slip, which I am sure at the moment was not intentional, but which unfortunately may to some extent result in criticism in the orient. As the Prime Minister himself no doubt is aware, oriental countries are particularly sensitive, especially in their dealings with occidental countries; and the Prime Minister intimated that the proposed ambassador to Japan would represent Canada's Asiatic interests-Asiatic interests. I understood the Prime Minister to say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find that I did not use that expression. At least such was not the inference I wished to have drawn. What I was stressing to the house was that there would be
no	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
only one minister on the continent of Asia, one on the continent of Europe, and that I did not think in the matter of diplomatic appointments abroad that this was travelling at a very rapid pace. That is the point I was making. The proposed minister will be to Japan only.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand that; but as the Prime Minister is aware Chinese sensibilities, as well as the sensibilities of other nations on that continent, are very easily offended, and it may be that they will resent the suggestion that the affairs of their country can be handled in any way, either in regard to diplomatic relations or otherwise, from Tokyo. I am glad tlhe Prime Minister is in a position to persuade me that there was no such intention behind his statement.
With regard to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I regret that they were made. I regret it very sincerely because I am afraid that, again due to oriental sensibilities, even the nation of Japan may not now be willing to accept the kindly intentions of the Canadian government if it finds that His Majesty's loyal opposition in this house is opposed to the appointment at Tokyo. I rather think that _the Japanese government will hesitate to accept the interchange of ministers as long as any large portion of this house is opposed to it. Let me say, then, Mr. Speaker, speaking, I trust, the view of some members around me if not all of them, that so far as we are concerned we heartily approve of this appointment and sincerely hope that the Japanese government will accept the offer in the spirit in which it is tendered.
Recently my attention was called to the organization in the city of Montreal of a council to study Pacific relations. I simply remark that as an indication that other portions of Canada, besides the government and besides the members of this house, realize the necessity for taking a deep and personal interest in what is going on in the oriental countries and in what is likely to go on.
The hon. member from Calgary, who discussed many things in his address-


Mr. ADSHEAD:: West Calgary.


Edward Joseph Garland: I beg the pardon of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead). There is another illustration, Mr. Speaker, of the sensibilities of people, and one has to be very careful 1 The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in his remarks referred with lamentation to the outflow of wheat, of mineral products, of pulp and

pulpwood, and even of paper. He just bemoaned the fact that they were going out. He did not say anything about an embargo on their going out,, he did not make the slightest' suggestion on what should be done, and I presume his remedy would be to cap all the oil wells, stop all mining development, and prevent the farmers raising more wheafr than could be consumed profitably at home. I am not at all sure that that is a fair conclusion to draw from his statement, but in the absence of a more reasonable explanation from him that conclusion is certainly inescapable.


An hon. MEMBER:: He said they ought to be worked up in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have waited patiently ever since the report of the board was made public for the announcement by the Minister of Railways that this meeting had taken place, but I have seen no announcement of it.


Mr. DUNNING:: It has taken place.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope if
it has the minister will tell us the result of that conference, because it will be intensely interesting. Last year he went on to say:
But in so far as the government can move upon the basis of the information we expect to receive from the Board of Railway Commissioners. the government will move along lines designed to mitigate the situation and widen the market for Alberta coal.
That closing sentence fills me with hope. I am satisfied that we have now reached a stage of this prdblem so close to its solution 56103-8
that the ministry will this year find itself in a position to introduce a measure providing for the necessary alteration in existing conditions Which will bring about the desired result.	[DOT]
What should that change be? First of all we have this $7.22 rate which the board found to be the actual out of pocket cost involved.
I have heard men in the street discuss the matter, and they have said, "You cannot apply that rate because it would result in a loss to the railways." I say to you hon. gentlemen and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the $7.22 rate includes every possible charge that can be attributed to the movement of coal. So far does it go that it actually takes cognizance of the wear and tear to the steel rails as the result of the transportation of coal cars. It takes into consideration every other possible charge, switching, terminal charges, water, labour charges, everything which can possibly be attributed to coal, but of course it does not take into consideration the constant charges which would go on whether or not coal is moved.
Now, during the summer months I believe there are about 40,000 freight cars lying idle, according to the statement of the technical experts of the railways before the commission. All we ask is that some of these cars be put into operation for the transportation of coal, and we say further that not only will there be not a cent of loss to the -railways as the result of the establishment of a fair rate for this movement, but that the railways will probably make a profit as the volume of business increases. The out of pocket cost is fixed at $7.22, which includes every charge which can possibly be made against this movement, but that rate was arrived at upon a wrong basis; the conclusion was reached incorrectly, and the whole thing was absolutely unfair to the coal movement. Why the Board of Railway Commissioners arrived at such a decision is beyond my understanding. I dislike to impute motives, and I am not going to do so now; I am not going to suggest that they were under the influence of the railways, but I am going to ask that the commission give some explanation now as to why they proceeded upon the basis they did lake in finding that rate.
An estimate was made of the number of cars which would be used in the movement of coal; they were all considered going down loaded, and an estimate was made of the cost of moving the loaded train. Then the commission said, "You have to get these empty cars back again; how much will that cost?"

114	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
First of all they said, "Each of these cars is going to go back empty." That of course is perfectly absurd. The most ordinary individual on the street, with the most ordinary intelligence, will realize that if you are going to increase the volume of tonnage and the production in any .particular industry, you are also going to increase the quantity of commodities consumed by that industry, and as most of these commodities come from the central or maritime provinces, you must naturally increase your tonnage going back. So if you used 10,000 cars to bring coal to this part of the country, it is absurd to argue that 10,000 cars would go back empty, yet that was the basis taken by the commission.
However, we will not quarrel with that; we will go to another point. How much will it cost to move these cars back? The commission said it would cost as much to move the empty car back as it cost to move the loaded car down. I appeal to the intelligence of this house to find any common sense in a statement of that kind. They said, "It costs so much to move a loaded train of coal to Ottawa, and it is going to cost just as much to move an empty train back." Of course, any ordinary individual knows that is absolutely absurd, but we will pass over that. We will give them all these things for good measure; these will represent a share of the profits to the railway companies in addition to the cost rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
permit a question? Did the railway commission use the per ton mile basis in both cases?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, they
used several bases; there was an A basis and a B basis; there was a C.NR. basis and a C.P.R. basis. I have the whole thing under my hand, but it would take me forty hours instead of forty minutes to dispose of it. My time is limited, so I must get on to the more important points. The Minister of Railways may smile at this, but he will not smile at what I am about to say.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not smiling at my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps my hon. friend was smiling at the forty minute limit. I am sure he is very glad that there is such a limit when discussions of this kind come up.
However, I want the house to consider one or two further points. In finding this cost rate, the Board of Railway Commissioners said that these cars would need repairs if they were put into that business.

We agreed to that and asked how much the repairs would be. We ascertained that the average cost of repairing freight cars over the whole Canadian National Railways system was $121.90 per year, but the provincial experts representing Alberta and Ontario brought forth another basis upon which this cost had been worked out. They said that there must be a scientific basis and that they would accept the only basis of that kind in North America, the one accepted and used by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. On that basis the provincial governments worked out a cost per car per annum of $209.52. That was a large increase over the average cost of $121.90 but what did our friends of the railway commission say? They wiped that aside; they refused to consider that scientific analysis and accepted the statement of the Canadian National Railways that it would cost over $424.85 per car per year. Eight and a half per cent of the total available cars would be used in the movement, but for eight and a half per cent of the cars to be asked to carry 24 per cent of the total car maintenance cost is utterly unfair. If that were reduced it would mean a difference of $1.30 a ton in the cost of the movement of coal. But that is not all. There is something else which needs to be demonstrated. I ask you, gentlemen, to take out your pencils and first of all deduct $1.30 from $7.22. The board also asserted that fifty-nine days would be consumed in the round trip for a train of coal going from Drum-heller to Toronto. But the average for the round trip would be not more than thirty-two days; and the average speed of all trains on the Canadian National railway in the west is! fifteen miles an hour. Another unfair feature was in regard to the car loading Now the average car loading-not the maximum or the minimum-of the whole Canadian National railway system amounts to 36 tons. That is the average load put in a freight car for the whole system, including package freight, furniture and everything else. For the Canadian Pacific railway the figure is 38 tons. But the Board of Railway Commissioners took 33.4 tons as the basis for the coal movement. Anyone can understand how unfair that is when they begin to analyze exactly what this means to the coal movement. The difference in cost between a 33.4 ton load and a 36 ton load is exactly 47 cents a ten. Deduct this 47 cents a ton, plus $1.30 from the $7.22, and you have a rate of $5.45. At that rate nobody questions

The Address-Sir George Perley
that Alberta coal can be brought down to Ontario to sell in competition with American anthracite.
Then we come to the next point. We are asked:	Why fix the statutory rate of $0.50
a ton when it is said that 15.45 will carry the coal and cover every possible charge attributable to it? Well, this question came up before the Alberta coal operators. The analysis of the. Board of Railway Commissioners came before them and having carefully considered it they said:	There is no
use our demanding that minimum cost rate of $5.45; it might not be fair. We are going to be as fair as we can. All we are asking for is that we shall get a rate at which our coal can be moved. We will not ask for $5.45, but we are willing that $1.05 should be added to that amount making the rate 86.50. In the interests of the largest coal deposits in the British Empire, in the interest of the development of one of the greatest resources in the Dominion, and the second greatest resource after agriculture in my province, I appeal, with some hope, to this government and to this house, that a bill will be introduced before the session closes, providing for a statutory rate on coal. It may be that they may not feel free to set a permanent statutory rate, but that they will be willing to test my proposals, and in the meantime will establish a temporary rate by statute for three years. If that is done I would urge the government to place independent accountants at work in order to ascertain whether the report of the Board of Railway Commissioners is accurate or not. The future of the Alberta coal industry, the future of one of the greatest resources of this country, is at stake. There is no use talking about your resources-no matter how eloquent your terms may be, or how violent your arm-waving may be-until you develop them. You have here a chance of developing one of Canada's greatest resources, and I offer the suggestion I have made to the government as a solution of the problem, which may be applied without further delay.
SIR GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, in the first place may I join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address upon the very eloquent manner in which they expressed their views. I rise simply for the purpose of making a few observations in reference to one particular clause in the speech from the throne-I refer to the proposal of the government to send ministers to foreign states. To my mind this is a step in the wrong direc-56103-8J
tion, and I regret to say that upon this matter I disagree with my hon. friend the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who preceded me. As a matter of fact, I am strongly opposed to this being done under present circumstances. I am not going to discuss the present constitutional position or development of the Dominion. This has already been done by my chief in a much better way than I could do it myself. It is sufficient for my purpose to remind the house that we have in Canada greatly progressed from the status of a crown colony, which we occupied years ago, to our present position. To-day we are, in fact if not in law, the master of our own destiny. In bringing this about all the prime ministers of the Dominion have given a helping hand, but none more than my former chief, Sir Robert Borden, during the war years and during the negotiations which resulted in the treaty of Peace.
To-day I make bold to lay before the house in a few plain words what I understand to be the position and feeling in Canada at this moment. On the one hand there has developed in this country a strong and robust Canadian spirit, and I believe it is increasing. I am glad that this is so, because it is certainly our duty to look after the interests of the country we love. This feeling is, I think, specially noticeable among the young men. They will not be content to have thi3 country remain in any position of inferiority or subordination. They say, and quite properly, that every British subject, no matter in what part of the British dominions he may live, should have an equal voice and influence in all matters of common concern, and particularly in any issue as to peace or war. On the other hand there is in my opinion an overwhelming proportion of Canadians who favour the maintenance of British connection, and the working out of the destiny of this Dominion of ours in cooperation with Great Britain and our sister dominions. Now the question that I wish to ask is: How are we going to reconcile these two ideas and what plan can be worked out to accomplish that result? There are some people who say the thing is impossible, and certainly nothing of the kind has been accomplished in the world up till this time. As a matter of fact we are, I believe, in the midst of a great experiment or adventure in government. And we have half a dozen separate countries working out their own destiny, having full authority over their own affairs, who should work together in foreign matters. While I acknowledge the difficulties-we must all acknowledge them- still our race has had a genius for compromise

The Address-Sir George Perley
and for arranging questions of this sort. I believe this problem can be dealt with by the exercise of patience and goodwill on all sides; but in my opinion we have no hope of bringing this about unless we have a single foreign policy. Unless the various parts of the King's dominions speak with one voice and present a united front to the rest of the world how are we to get along? Can this end be attained if any considerable portion of the British commonwealth is going to send independent ministers to all foreign countries? In my own opinion it cannot. The other day my chief referred to the unfortunate implications which would be conveyed to foreign countries by Canada's appointing ministers to them, and I can see further complications which I need not at this time enlarge upon inasmuch ns every member of the house may visualize them for himself.
Personally I never was in favour of the appointment of a minister to Washington, although there were many strong reasons for that departure which do not apply to other countries. The United States is our great and friendly neighbour and we have vast interests in common. In the case of France there are sentimental reasons why such an appointment might be considered, but as a matter of fact- at least this has been my experience-my fiiend Mr. Philippe Roy, Commissaire Gen-erale in Paris, has been able to deal with all problems which have arisen between the governments of the two countries. I believe his work has been most satisfactory. But this proposal that we should appoint more ministers to foreign countries is to my mind a most dangerous precedent. Who can tell where it is going to end? In his speech the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the government intended appointing a minister to France, who would be the sole representative of this country on the continent of Europe and one in Tokyo who would represent us on the continent of Asia. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), in a few words, explained how this would create a misunderstanding, and I should be glad to have the matter explained by the Prime Minister. What other ministers are going to be appointed? By what authority did the government decide to appoint these two ministers and enter into an agreement before submitting the matter to parliament? I know there is general authority on the part of the government to perform executive functions, but the decision to make these appointments is something which will have far-reaching results. So far as I know there has never been any discussion in this house such as would indicate
ISir George Perley.]
that Canada is prepared to send ministers to all the countries of the world, and I submit that this matter is too serious for the government to have settled it without having first brought it up in the house and having had it thoroughly discussed. It seems to me that the opinion of parliament and of the country should have been sought to ascertain whether it was the desire of the people to have the appointment of these ministers proceeded with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to my hon. friend that the precise language in the speech from the throne is to the effect that we "propose" to send the representatives. Care was taken to indicate that parliament would in the first instance be called upon to consider the matter and to make the necessary appropriation, but before coming to parliament it was necessary to ascertain from Japan whether, in the event of the Canadian parliar ment agreeing to appoint a representative to Japan, that country would be agreeable to receiving him.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I can quite understand that the matter must be passed upon by parliament in some way or other, but an arrangement of this kind should be discussed by parliament before and not after it has been made. The exact words in the speech from the throne are these:
By agreement between the governments of France and Canada and the governments of Japan and Canada, it is proposed


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is proposed; that is all.
Mr. BENNETT.: By agreement.


George Halsey Perley: We do not know whether the agreement has been made, although I understand that it has.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I may tell my hon. friend exactly what has taken place. Japan has intimated to Canada that she is agreeable to receiving a representative provided we send one, and we have stated that we are agreeable to receiving one from Japan if one is sent. But the Japanese government *-and they have directed attention to this fact -have still to obtain the consent of their legislative body to sending a minister to Canada, just as we have intimated that on our part we shall have to get the consent of the Canadian parliament before any understanding can be implemented in the form of action.


George Halsey Perley: My right hon. friend knows that this is a far-reaching question of policy, and therefore the government, in committing itself as it has done, is placing

The Address-Sir George Perley
the house in an extraordinary position. The agreement must be ratified by the house, because its rejection would amount to a vote of want . of confidence. A policy of this moment ought to be decided by the house before such action is taken as in this instance. What is going to be the situation if we have ministers in all parts of the world? The government is confining itself now to these two proposals. But who knows what day they may decide to appoint ministers to other countries? And what will be the position in those foreign capitals if every section of the British Empire decides to send a representative there? Let us suppose we had six ministers from as many parts of the British Empire, all resident in Czechoslovakia; we can imagine the confusion that would be there. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this plan is going to make for the whole-hearted cooperation of the British commonwealth such as we all want to promote? What excuse does the Prime Minister give for this action? At page 60 of Hansard I read:
I believe it is true that our trade with the orient to-day is greater than was the trade of Canada with the United Kingdom at the time the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. When that event took place Canada's trade with the United Kingdom stood at a certain figure. That figure is exceeded today, so I am informed, by the total trade of Canada with the orient.
I submit that the very reason given by the Prime Minister is an argument against his course. I wish to draw a sharp line between diplomacy and trade. In trade the various parts of the empire are rivals competing one with another, and it is our duty to see that our own people get the best chance possible for trade in every part of the world whether they compete against some other part of the King's dominions or against foreign countries. Let us have separate trade commissioners in the various countries as they may be required. That is one thing. But in diplomacy the King's dominions must be one and must speak as one people if we are to hold together. That is the problem which all the countries of the British commonwealth have before them at the present time. And you may ask, how are we going to accomplish this and still each part have a separate status? I appreciate the difficulty, but during the time I was in England I conceived the idea that it might be possible to have a foreign office representative of the whole British commonwealth. That is to say, it would be separated from the other departments of the British government, and would attend to the foreign policy on behalf of all parts of this empire.
Now I do not see why a foreign office should not be administered by El committee, on which each of the dominions would have a representative, and with a British representative as chairman, under present conditions, so long as the mother country is more populous than we are-


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the British Prime Minister declared that the sharing of any such control was absolutely impossible?


Mr. BENNETT:: He took it back two
years later.


George Halsey Perley: I understand
that he has changed his mind since in that regard, and that happened some years ago. There is another prime minister now, and there have been several prime ministers since. As a matter of fact, my judgment is that so long as we find a way of holding together, the British government will be willing to listen most favourably to any suggestions put forward by the Dominion to that end. That is the way I found it when I was over there. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this foreign office could not be administered by a committee, with a British representative as chairman. I ask you whether this service could not be recruited by men from all over the King's dominions. I ask you whether it could not be so arranged that a Canadian might be ambassador to France, for instance, or an Australian ambassador to the United States. In other words, these services should be recruited from all over the King's dominions. Some years ago Sir Robert Borden was offered the appointment as ambassador to the United States. I am sorry he found himself unable to accept the position, because I think it would have made a very good precedent. Some people say we cannot have an empire organization like such as I suggest that would be workable. There has been and is one empire organization that does work, the first one to function, and it works well. I admit it is in a different category, but when it was first started many people doubted whether it could be handled successfully and to the satisfaction of everyone. I refer to the Imperial War Graves Commission. I was at a meeting of the committee when it was first considered and when we got the royal charter. I was a member of the commission and took a great interest in it during all the time I was in London. Many people thought that Canada should look after the graves of her own men who died in the war. But the result has shown that joint action by the whole British commonwealth has produced the best results.

The Address-Sir George Perley
Everybody is satisfied with it and during the time I was in London and attended the meetings I felt that I was listened to and had as much to say about what was to be done as any other member of the commission. I say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity that I believe he is taking the wrong path, if he wishes to develop a plan of cooperation and partnership among the self-governing units of the British commonwealth., I admit that it would be difficult to work out a plan that you could feel would be satisfactory, but if my suggestion is not feasible then some other method should be found, so that we could all get together and speak with one voice to the whole world. I say again, in my opinion, that it is vital that we should do so, if the British commonwealth of nations is to continue to work together. As one of the half dozen oldest members in this house, I do not suppose I will live to see it myself, but in my mind's eye I can visualize an occasion arising when, under the present proposals of this government, the British ambassador and the Canadian minister in some foreign capital may be found urging different courses. How are we going to avoid that? We certainly do not wish anything of that kind to happen, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have taken this opportunity, in a few plain words, to try to put my views of this particular matter before the House of Commons, and I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant relief to find, in the midst of controversial matters, a common ground of agreement. It relieves tension and imparts to a discussion a fellow feeling which makes us all akin. In the debate on the address from the throne, such a common ground occurs in the felicitations which have been offered to the proposer and seconder of the address by members on both sides of the house, and at the risk of saying something which may be considered stereotyped, I must take this occasion to express publicly what I have stated to them privately, that their speeches were models of brevity, conciseness and lucidity, delivered in a tone appropriate to a high occasion, flattering to themselves and honouring to their constituency. In connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow Biver (Mr. Garland) regarding the seconder of the address, I would like to ease his mind with regard to that independence of which he speaks, and to say that the seconder of the address spoke f without consultation with me as chairman or any other member of this group, and he did 
so on his own responsibility as a member of this house, accountable only to himself and his constituency.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) remarked at the beginning of his address that the speech from the throne is "remarkable more for what it does not say than for what it does say". If I have any dbjection to offer it is in what it does not say, and later I shall deal with the omissions.
While the leader of the opposition ha3 endeavoured to minimize the first paragraph of the address, which refers to the "marked prosperity of the country, the volume of trade and of building construction, the growth in employment, the increased railway receipts, the expanding revenues and business conditions generally all bearing testimony to a sound economic development which promises much in the way of substantial progress", yet by one of those "implications" which recurred so often in his speech, he does admit there is a present economic prosperity because, as he put it, "a lesser number of people inhabiting the same area have been creating new wealth more rapidly than they did before", and this wealth created by the depletion and sale of our natural resources. It is a gloomy picture he depicts. I trust he is not proposing to assume the devastating mantle of a Dean Inge. If his picture be true, then all the presidents of the banks to whose statements the Prime Minister referred must be wrong, absolutely and most negligently wrong. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway must also be wrong in his statement published in several papers this year in which he says that:
The general business of the country experienced a consistent and widely spread development based upon very general agricultural prosperity and industrial expansion.
The leader of the opposition well knows- he has probably helped to draft in past years the statements published by the bank of which he was a director-that no more carefully worded documents are published than are those of our banks at their annual meetings, based alike upon their country-wide knowledge and experience, and definitely proved by the financial reports of which they form the prologue. By reason of these authorities and in the light of the reply of the Prime Minister, I am going to assume in my argument that the paragraph I have quoted from the speech from the throne is correct and that the leader of the opposition, not for the first time, is wrong.
But the leader of the opposition has a remedy upon which he dwelt at length, and that is immigration. No one will deny we

. The Address-Mr. Glen
need immigrants, no one will gainsay that in this Dominion we can offer to the proper kind of settler the opportunity of a fuller life than any other country in the world. That statement covers a large territory but I think any member of this house would have no difficulty in proving it. I would not wish, however, that any member would take the same illustration which the leader of the opposition gave and choose the year 1913 as a basis of comparison, for if we endeavoured to prove his contention, or rather his implication, that more settlers are necessary for permanent prosperity, the fact is that that year, 1913, in which he said " in no one year since 1921 have we brought into Canada half as many people as were brought here in 1924 "-a year, by the way, in which the Conservative party was in power-was the year in which, despite that tremendous immigration, our total adverse trade balance was greater than in any year of our history. But yet I would not lightly dismiss his suggestion of a reference to a special committee, if for nothing else than to dispel suspicion, to correct abuses if any, and not least, to curtail or control the activities of self-appointed immigration agents, be they railway companies or individuals.
I feel that the problem lies not in immigration, but in assimilation. In the vast farming areas of the west we want new blood in our settlements who will take up land for their own use. We have not had much difficulty in obtaining labour, apart from spring and harvest, but of actual settler immigrants -I speak of my own constituency-we have had very few. I agree with the leader of the opposition that this question transcends party and I will welcome any method to attain what we all desire. I would, however, point put. this fact, that Canada is big enough, broad enough and desirable enough to attract settlers; it should never be small enough to beg them.
In the limited (time now allotted, Mr. Speaker,-with which let me say I have no complaint, although like others I may at times wish it longer-I do not intend to speak on any of the various questions specifically mentioned in the address. I propose to speak on matters not mentioned, but which in my judgment will have to be discussed during this session. On Tuesday night I listened with interest to the address of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and there was one sentence which particularly struck me. He asked: " What counts in the matter of taxation?" He answered it thus: " It is the burden upon the
people; that is the only test I think that is the most important matter we have to discuss and decide at this session of parliament.
I do not minimize or subordinate all the important subjects referred to in the address, but after all the well being, contentment and happiness of the people is the principal function of government, and for these reasons I was sorry to note that no reference was made in the speech from the throne giving promise of reduction of taxation. I was glad however, to hear the Prime Minister forecast reductions, and I hope they will be in the direction I propose to outline.
I would not wish to discuss this matter on any narrow basis. I have always realized and appreciated the fact that government of this broad and diverse Dominion must necessarily be based on compromise between conflicting interests; but having said that, let me also say that there are certain broad lines of general policy to which I, in common with almost all the members from the prairie provinces, am committed (1) by conviction and (2) as a representative. We must admit and record that nearly all the promises and pledges of the Liberal candidates in the 1926 election have been implemented by this government, for instance, the maintenance of the Crowsnest pass agreement- to which the Conservative party in convention assembled have given approval, although somewhat tardy; energetic and immediate steps towards the completion of the Hudson Bay railway-shall I say?-with the tacit approval of said convention; old age pensions; completion of the Customs probe; maintenance of the tariff reductions in the famous Robb budget, and others which I need not enumerate.
It is a matter of gratification to find that these reductions, which were so strenuously opposed by the manufacturers of automobiles-not forgetting His Majesty's loyal opposition, have resulted in no impairment of the production of cars by our manufacturers, but, on the contrary, have contributed to their progress. And when I listened to the hon. member for South Wellington, I was amazed to hear him accuse the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) of lack of courage. If anything was needed then, in view of the tremendous uproar made by these manufacturers, it was courage, and the Finance minister most certainly displayed it. When the same hon. member stated that the minister was "content to sit at his ease and .allow the Department of Finance practically to run itself," surely he was in error. At
The Address-Mr. Glen

all events, his experience must be different from mine, for I came to the conclusion very early that the Finance department was the minister, and a stubborn, self-willed Scotchman at that, with all that that implies.
I am therefore in my concluding remarks, going to address myself to him particularly. In my judgment a good deal of the prosperity of this country to-day is attributable to the fact that in the post-war period the government of the day have not sought to embark upon quack revenue-producing experiments, but have stayed put behind a tariff which in comparison with that to the south must be described as moderate. When the attempt was made to stampede the country towards higher tariffs, it failed ignominiously and the consequences so freely predicted then have failed to materialize. On the contrary we have made material progress. The work, however, is not yet done. The Conservative party, if you except the Winnipeg platitudinous utterance, have not so far indicated their tariff policy. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has not yet volunteered to the country and to the house where he and his party stand, if one might except only the one word "protection" which one may hear delicately uttered now and again by one or two irresponsible members. He speaks, it is true, of trade within the empire. With all deference I would suggest that such an idea is merely a pipe dream and is relieved from absurdity only by the eminence and the position of the speaker. There can be no two opinions on this matter, that the world is our market and will become increasingly so as the*years go on.	,
If therefore, this prosperity can obtain with a moderate tariff, so-called, although in my view, most immoderate, I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that at no time in his political life has he had an opportunity as favourable as now of demonstrating the efficacy of a moderate tariff and of showing the fallacy of this fetish of protection. I am aware that he will not go so far as I would like, and on this point I would like to correct an impression which is disappearing in some quarters but which still has its devotees. We in the west have insisted in the past and will also in the nature of things insist in the future on a large measure of free trade; but nevertheless there is not one thinking man among us who does not recognize that these matters cannot be dealt with otherwise than by degrees. We know that industries must have time to accommodate themselves to changes, and we are ready to give the fullest and most ample

consideration to all their claims. But having said that, we trust they will also recognize that we cannot and will not continue to suffer under vexatious and unnecessary tariffs which not only hinder the development of production, but seriously affect the standard of living. The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) in his speech referred to the uneven distribution of the country's prosperity, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), dealing with that, stated that when the labourer receives only one-third of the added value which his labour produced he did not wonder that the other classes who received the remaining two-thirds rejoiced in the prosperity. To this I will add that where it can be proved that industries are placing burdens on the taxpayers by taking advantage of tariffs, a summary remedy should be provided by parliament. I think that is good doctrine and it could be subscribed to even by the Conservative party.
If I had the time I would like to give a number of examples, but I am going to deal with only one or two. Some exception has been taken to the workings of the tariff board. In my judgment the tariff board are performing a function which no other body in the Dominion of Canada is able to perform. They are there as a fact-finding body, not as a recommending body, and on the question of tariffs what we certainly lack in this country is facts. It has happened that an application has been made before the tariff board by the Consumers' League for a reduction in the tariff on cottons. I have not had an oportunity of reading the evidence because it has been available to members of the house only within the last two days, but I have had an opportunity of reading the argument which was presented on behalf of the applicant for a reduction in the tariff and, so far as I could see, that argument was not contradicted nor controverted in the slightest degree. No exception was taken to it by any member of the board, and therefore I may assume that the facts which I now give and which were stated before that board are correct.
What was the application? It was an application for a reduction in the duty on cotton goods and it was stated then that under the general rate the average rate of duty on cotton goods was 30 per cent; that the average percentage which productive wages have to the volume of product was 20 per centt. The applicants were willing to give tariff protection under the general tariff equal, not to the difference in wages at home and abroad, but to their entire wages, exclusive of course of salaries. One would have

The Address-Mr. Glen
imagined when that offer was made,, which in my judgment was a generous one, it would have been willingly accepted, but the answer was that the cotton industry claimed protection equal to the entire cost of everything they purchased in Canada as well. That is to say, if wages are 20 per cent and raw materials purchased in Canada amount to 30 per cent of the selling price of the goods, the tariff protection should be 50 per cent.
Figures were given showing that the Dominion Textiles had a total production in 1924 of $20,232,716, and its wage bill was $4,408,852, or 21.8 per cent, but this includes salaries as well as wages. If wages were taken alone the percentage would be less than 20 per cent.
The Wabasso Manufacturing Company, according to figures submitted by them covering a period of eleven years, manufacturing some of the finest qualities of cloth and yarn where the proportion of,wages would be higher than in the coarser grades, had paid out in wages and salaries 23.7 per cent of the value of their products. During that time the average tariff under the general rate has been in excess of 30 per cent. The tariff rate is therefore 6.3 per cent higher than the total amount of wages paid by that corporation. It was contended that they could not compete with labour in the southern states. From their own figures it was shown that the average wages in the industry are as follows:
State or Province-	Per Annum
Massachusetts	 $954
South Carolina	 631
Quebec	 592
That was from their own showing. The manufacturers contended that they were not getting their fair share of the market, but what are the facts? In 1914 the consumption of raw cotton in Canada was close to 80,000,000 pounds, while in 1927 it was 135,796,625. Does that show that they are not getting their share of the market?
Then let us consider the import of dutiable cotton goods. From 1914 until the present time the figures are:
1914	 $26,210,000
1922		 33,332,000
1923		 37,222,000
1924		 34,969,000
1925		 31,812,000
1926		 29,977,000
1927		 28,096,000
You will understand, however, that during the years 1914 and 1927 there was a tremendous advance in prices. If instead of dollars we could give these figures in yards or pounds it would show an actual decrease in the volume of cotton goods imported during this period. So high is the duty in
existence at present, in fact, that it acts in a large measure as an embargo and keeps goods out. This reduces the revenue and, in addition, allows Canadian manufacturers to charge prices much beyond the world level.
Canadian Cottons Limited submitted a statement in which they claimed that the cost of producing cotton goods in Canada was 35.07 per cent higher than in the southern states and 32.8 per cent higher than in Great Britain. Our average tariff on cotton goods at that time, under the general tariff which is the rate under which American goods enter, was 30 per cent, while British cotton goods enter at approximately 18 per cent. From these figures it will be seen that it would be absolutely impossible for Canadian Cottons Limited to survive if their contention was correct that they had to operate under a much heavier manufacturing cost than was the case elsewhere. What are the facts in regard to that company? In the Financial Times of last year we find the following:
The balance sheet of Canadian Cottons as of March 31 last showed a surplus amounting to $2,737,563, equivalent to over $100 a share on the 27,155 shares of common stock. In addition there is shown among the liabilities an item of $600,000 for special replacement reserve, despite a generous reserve^ for depreciation. If this sum were included in surplus, the latter would be shown equal to $123 a share on common stock.
That seems a pretty good showing for a company labouring under such a heavy handicap.
Then we have the Dominion Textile Company, about which I am sure this house has heard before. This, was a most remarkable financial adventure. The present owners paid $500,000 for stock with a par value of $5,000,000, and year after year they paid dividends on the par value. Then the stock went up in price and they gave to every holder of two shares the right to purchase an additional share at par, when the stock was selling far above par value. Then a year later they split it three ways, so that each shareholder received three shares for one, and lo-day that stock is selling for $130 per share. This company has a capital valuation of over $29,000,000, but in all the years since it was formed only $3,000,000 has been paid for this stock. What made it worth $29,000,000? Surely there can only be one answer; the consumers in the Dominion of Canada paid the difference, and put in eight dollars for every dollar put in by the shareholders. If the profits were measured against the actual amount of cash paid in by the original owners, we find the actual earnings of the Dominion Textile Company to be in excess of 220 per
The Address-Mr. Glen

cent. As a further point, let us consider the evidence given by Mr. Daniels, general manager of this company, before the special committee on the cost of living, which will be found at page 362 of the proceedings of that committee. While under examination by Mr. Pringle he was asked the following question:
For 1918 you earned about 291 per cent?
To which he answered "Yes." Yet that company was before the tariff board in December last asking for an increase in the tariff.
My contention is that the consumers cannot afford to pay to an industry in Canada a bonus so far out of proportion to the services rendered to the community. We desire to be fair to an established industry and to encourage it by every legitimate means, but there must be a limit. Surely no offer could be more generous than to ask them to agree to a tariff under the general rate which would be high enough to cover wage costs. This would mean that the people would penalize themselves to that extent and without recompense or return they would pay the entire wage bill of the industry. It should be understood, of course, that this would apply only to the general rate and that the industry would have to be content to accept under the preferential tariff two-thirds of the general rate, and an intermediate tariff in proportion.
Here again I would emphasize my point of view. Such measures of tariff relief do not affect or minimize the basic principles underlying all tariffs, and it must not be understood that I accede to the need for tariffs. These sheltered industries must recognize that basic production in Canada should not be asked continuously to maintain them, and they must take the necessary steps for their own development and ability to stand alone. As I have said, we do not desire to be unfair or drastic. We wish them to recognize that the protection which they have enjoyed for so many years cannot be prolonged indefinitely. The point of view of the consumers who bear the burden and who pay the costs must be considered, and in all fairness the cotton industry cannot complain of being taken by surprise. This matter has been long before the house; Hon. T. A. Crerar, formerly member for the constituency which I now represent, so long ago as 1922 spoke of this matter in this very chamber, and pointed out the anomalies of the situation. These people knew then that these demands would be made, but nothing has been done. When an offer was made they refused it and continued to hide themselves behind this high tariff.

As I have already said, there are a number of applications now before the tariff board, the evidence in which has been completed, and I must say that- the glaring inequalities are just as pronounced, although I cannot touch on them now because my time is getting short. The Minister of Finance has the records; he has the power and, I hope, the inclination to give relief to the consumer in these and in other ways, and I would ask him if the time is not long overdue when the people of Canada should participate in the dividends which have been earned by these companies. The consumers do not own the companies, but the consumers made them. These sheltered industries are built up from the pockets of the people, and they enjoy a shelter which they have abused. No one in the west or elsewhere objects to any individual or any company getting profits so long as they are obtained in open competition with the world. The great retail stores of the Dominion have built up their business not through protection but by efficiency and service. They do business and make money by legitimate business enterprise, and is it too much to ask the manufacturers to apply the same principles? If they do so, they will have the hearty and active support of the common people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Finance to embody in his budget reductions along the lines I have indicated. We feel sure that no harm or injury would be inflicted on these industries, and the relief which it. would give to the consuming public would be incalculable. It would be reflected in the greater purchasing power of the dollar and in increased amenities of life, and may I say, as a last word, that such a reduction would be in entire accord with the declaration made by the minister during the budget debate last session, when he said that this government "are recognized throughout Canada, and we are proud of it, as a low tariff party."


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to occupy
the time of the house for a few moments only to consider one aspect of the interesting speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the address. The subject to which he referred, inter-imperial relations, has been. one of very great personal interest to me since the time of my boyhood. It has been an ideal of young Canadians growing old, ever since their days at the academy and the university, that we should one day attain equality of status with Great Britain

The Address-Mr. Cahan
and with other parts of the British Empire, now known as the dominions. We have watched from year to year an improvement in that status, but we have not yet seen the accomplishment of the ideal which stirred so many of us thirty and forty years ago. That ideal has been in progress of attainment for eighty years in this country, but it was left, I think, to the Prime Minister erroneously to claim that he and his associates have at length accomplished it.
It is well that we should understand the present condition of affairs in order that, thinking clearly and foreseeing the future, we may prepare for the solution in a satisfactory manner of the great problems which still await us. It is not, as the Prime Minister suggested, a mere matter of legal technicalities, a mere matter of petty formalities, a mere matter of petty practices. It is not, as he said, a removing of trifling anomalies and, irritating remnants; it is the ' solution of the problem of the basic conditions which must underlie the relation of Great Britain to her dominions and to all other parts of her empire, and the relationship of the dominions to Great Britain and to each other. There is not now, and there has not yet been attained, an equality of status between Great Britain and Canada, and certainly no equality of status between the imperial parliament and the parliament of Canada if you accept the word "status" in its ordinary meaning and purport. Those who were attempting by the adroit use of words, under the guidance of Lord Balfour, to lay down what they called general principles-but which they also qualified as a theory, a formula and a dogma in the very report cited by the Prime Minister-with respect to equality of status between Great Britain and her dominions, saw clearly that there were differences, and grave differences, which they sought to set aside under the term "differences of function." Now what are the differences of function as between the parliament of Great Britain and the parliament of Canada? They are very grave differences indeed involving, it seems to me, very serious differences in the status of these two countries. Canada may be a nation, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) sought to explain in the address which he made before Le Cercle Universitaire de Montreal, which has been widely circulated in pamphlet form. The minister in a very lengthy argument sought to prove that Canada is a nation. I agree, with the qualifications that he laid down, that Canada is
a nation. He also sought to prove that Canada is a state.	I admit, within the
qualifications that he laid down, that Canada is a state. But the matter of importance, in considering the problem presented by the Prime Minister, is that Canada is not a sovereign state. The parliament of Canada is to-day subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain. The legislative jurisdiction of the supreme and dominant parliament of Great Britain is not restricted by any territorial limits. That jurisdiction extends - to the uttermost part of the uttermost limit of a far-flung empire, with respect to which it legislates from time to time ,and its legislation must be construed and applied by the courts of every part of that empire. Great Britain's legislative jurisdiction applies *to British shipping on the seven seas, to the sailors on British shipping at sea and in port, and it applies also to the property, to the lives, and to the interests of British subjects, citizens of Canada, citizens of Australia, or citizens of the crown colonies who are British subjects, wherever they may be in any part of the world.
The Canadian parliament has no such jurisdiction. It is, under present conditions, subordinated to imperial legislation which in terms applies to Canada. The Canadian parliament has jurisdiction limited to its own territory, and to a boundary of three miles at sea along its coasts; its jurisdiction does not extend beyond that. This parliament has no jurisdiction over Canadian citizens once they pass beyond the three-mile limit, or beyond the boundary line to the south. It can make no laws which affect them in their conduct when they are beyond the confines of this country. It has been laid down by the Privy Council that the parliament of Australia and its various states, that the parliament of Canada and its various provinces, have not the jurisdiction which appertains to Mexico or Patagonia, or any of the Central American states, or any other sovereign power from Liberia down to Monaco, that of bringing home and punishing there, under Australian or Canadian law, Australian or Canadian citizens who are guilty of crimes committed beyond the confines of their own state. If a Canadian citizen to-day commits a crime in Mexico and returns to this country it is the safest asylum he can find on the face of the globe, because this country cannot commit to prison and punish Canadian citizens for crimes committed by them abroad. This parliament cannot to-day provide legislative safeguards respecting the conduct of its own shipping and its own sailors, its own naval or

The Address-Mr. Cahan
mercantile marine, while on the high seas. When we were sending our little Canadian navy to sea before the war I pointed out to the Prime Minister, of that day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, that these naval ships belonging to Canada and carrying Canadian commanders and sailors might commit any crime they pleased upon the high seas and there was no Canadian law under which they could be punished; furthermore, that the parliament of Canada was incapable of passing a law to punish such crimes or misdemeanors committed upon the high seas. The result was that new amendments to the naval law were obtained-from the imperial parliament, if you please-whereby offenders of this character could be punished under admiralty law in the proper criminal courts. This extended jurisdiction of the parliament of Great Britain remains intact to-day. The Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, enacted by the parliament of Great Britain, also applies to Canadian citizens wherever they are found beyond the confines of Canada.
Moreover, there are grave restrictions to the legislative jurisdiction of Canada. The parliament of Canada cannot make a Canadian citizen a British subject throughout the British dominions. There are grave difficulties in connection with our legislation dealing with naturalization. The Canadian parliament to-day, except by separating itself politically and asserting its own sovereign independence, cannot of itself declare war, nor can it of itself make peace. When Great Britain is engaged in war it cannot declare its neutrality without at the same time severing its political connection with Great Britain and the other dominions ' beyond the seas. In respect of the carrying out of treaties, the Canadian parliament may make legislative provision for implementing treaties made on behalf of the empire, only so far as is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Again, the parliament of Great Britain has complete legislative jurisdiction over the succession to the throne: the parliament of Great Britain may to-day establish any form of government in Great Britain which it sees fit. Time and again there have been revolutions in Great Britain and different forms of government have been established. But the parliament of Canada must continue to be a Canadian parliament; it cannot of its own accord legislate its own extinction, nor can it of itself set up any other form of government than that which it has at the present time. The power of Canada to federate or to negotiate in any substantial degree with any [Mr. Cahan.1
of the other dominions is always subject to the powers conferred by the parliament of Great Britain.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, and as the Prime Minister also contended, Canadian statutes are subject to be declared void for repugnancy, in so far as such repugnancy exists, under the terms of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister inquired of the leader of the opposition whether he was in favour of the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Now I ask the Prime Minister not to be sensitive to my personal references to himself, as he appeared to be at one time in the past, because I have a great respect for his office and position, and any personal references I make to him are certainly not with any intent to show disrespect. But the Prime Minister, it seems to me, judging from the discussions of 1926 and i927, is intellectually utterly incapable of understanding the full implica- . tion of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. He fails entirely to distinguish between the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act and the abolition of the supremacy of the imperial parliament itself. The repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act by the British parliament would leave applicable to this country a long list of imperial statutes which are still in force, and such repeal would in no sense prevent the imperial parliament from exercising in the future its proper, valid legislative jurisdiction to legislate anew in time of crisis for any part of the empire. The repeal of the Colonial Law's Validity Act would not abrogate in any sense, would not affect or limit in any sense, the legislative supremacy of the parliament of Great Britain. Many authorities have contended-it has been contended even in this country, it has been contended in Great Britain and in Australia -that the continuance of the Colonial Laws Validity Act is in itself a charter of rights for the dominions in so far as it implicitly prevents any acts, other than those made by direct reference applicable to the dominions, being enforced or enforceable in the dominions themselves.
There are therefore grave distinctions, in what the Prime Minister calls functions, between the widely extended functions of the imperial parliament, the widely extended functions of the British government, and those which are vested in the Canadian parliament and the Canadian government. It is significant that when you speak to any English statesman you discover the difference between the views which he holds privately and those which he expresses in public. J

The Address-Mr. Cahan
have spoken privately to several Englishmen of high position in England, and those engaged in political life have usually one set of opinions which they express in public and another which they express in private discussion; and it would be difficult to find any Englishman in high position who believes for one moment that the mere agreement among the gentlemen who represented Great Britain and the dominions respectively at the imperial conference, upon certain thereotieal principles which they there laid down, is binding in any sense upon the imperial parliament.
I know the Prime Minister cited, with a great deal of gusto, the remarks of Mr. Amery, but to my own mind, with all deference to the Prime Minister, that is a reflection of his sub-conscious sense of inferiority to British authority. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we had a grave constitutional crisis in this country, when he himself was the sole adviser of His Excellency the Governor General, he was so filled with that sense of servile submission to the overseas Dominion office that he himself advised the Governor General of Canada, in a domestic matter, to take his orders from the same Mr. Amery. I was more interested when he quoted a Canadian predecessor of his own, Sir Robert Borden, although I do not in all matters think that Sir Robert Borden may have, from time to time expressed the full extent of his own ambition with regard to securing equality of status between this country and Great Britain. In the very passage which the Prime Minister quoted from Sir Robert Borden there is an implication. He made a long statement with regard to the importance and effect of constitutional custom, precept and precedent as distinguished from legislative enactment. In quoting Sir Robert Borden he read:
The conventions-
Those are the precepts to which the hon. member refers.
The conventions are superimposed upon the law, and modify political relations without in the least affecting legal ones.
The Prime Minister, in his addresses to this house, and in his addresses throughout the country, which I always read with the utmost interest, because they are reported and sent broadcast throughout the country-I take occasion to smoke a cigar in my library and listen at the radio with gratification to his addresses-makes no distinction between the development of constitutional practice which lies outside the law and the development of the constitution which is provided and created by the statutory enactments of a competent legislature. There is a constitution of this empire. It is a broad constitution and it is found in a series of imperial enactments. It is found in the whole series of imperial treaties which are still in force. That constitution at present is regulated and controlled by those imperial enactments and by those imperial statutes, which form the basis of the legal constitution of the empire itself, and which cannot be abrogated, modified or restricted by any constitutional practice, and therefore it is to those measures that the Prime Minister and his advisers should direct their earnest attention.
At the meeting of the imperial conference resolutions were adopted which the imperial parliament have never approved or confirmed, and which by the way this parliament of Canada has never had the opportunity to approve or confirm; and no means have been formulated whereby the parliament of Great Britain to-day may effectively fetter its own future legislative action with regard to any part of the empire or with respect to any matter within its comprehensive legislative authority. The mere repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act would leave matters practically as they are. It was absurd to ask the leader of the opposition if he favours the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. I would favour it, yes, but undoubtedly what was in the mind of the leader of the opposition was that the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act would not impair or fetter in the slightest degree the dominating supreme authority of the imperial parliament which passed it. I have a reference here to one of those distinguished writers on inter-imperial relations, Jebb, in which he presents a long argument to show that the Colonial Laws Validity Act is really a charter of liberty for the Dominion rather than a fetter, as it merely expresses in a reduced and modified form the restrictions upon the application of its own acts which the supreme parliament had thereby enacted. Its repeal and nothing else will leave the jurisdiction of the imperial parliament just as extended at it is to-day, without any restriction whatever upon the exercise of that legislative jurisdiction with regard to the dominions.
Now these are not mere trivialities. There are laws such as the Merchant Shipping Act, which controls our shipping in every part of the world. I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and more particularly to clauses 735 and 736, which are not consistent with either equality of status or equality of function; although perhaps the Prime Minister may think equality of status does not imply equality of function, and that so long as we

The Address-Mr. Cahan
have something akin to equality of status the functions of the British parliament and government may remain as they are. There is also the Admiralty Act, under which the admiralty courts in Canada exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the Colonial Courts Admiralty Act of 1890. Our Canadian laws establish such courts, and their jurisdiction, procedure and practice are still subject to the approval and confirmation of Great Britain. I might go on, but I have not time, to consider a number of other acts, for instance, the Naturalization Act, the Copyright Act and other acts applying to this country. 1 could recite treaty after treaty which binds this country with respect to its treatment of the subjects of foreign states-but the Prime Minister says that these are mere trifling formalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Technicalities.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Technicalities. What I wish to urge upon the Prime Minister is this. If we are to attain equality of status, if we are to attain anything approaching equality of function, it is necessary that these imperial statutes should be wiped out.
But what is to take their place? The fault I find with him is that having satisfied the servile consciousness to which I alluded, a consciousness from which the inferiority complex has never been removed, he thinks it sufficient to leave to a body of experts in London to devise ways and means for solving these paramount problems in a way that may not at all be consistent with the views of this parliament or the views of the people of Canada. I have asked in a question before the house as to whether these expert committees which were proposed by the Imperial conference report have ever yet been consti-uted, as to who were appointed thereon, and as to whether any Canadians had been appointed, and I presume the Prime Minister will give me an answer when that order is reached in due time. But let the Prime Minister remember that every man in this country who is engaged in foreign commerce, every man in this country who is engaged in shipping, every man in this country who is engaged in large exports to the ends of the earth,-every one of these merchants and his legal advisers are wondering what is to take the place of the old imperial statutory constitution when that is wiped out. Take away the Admiralty Courts Act; what courts will be established in this country in the place of those constituted under that act? Take away the British Naturalization Act, and what is to be the status of the individual citizen fMr. Cahan.]
who leaves Canada and goes to conduct his business in any part of the world? Is he still to be under the protection of the British flag, is he still to be under the protection of the British fleet and of the prestige of Great Britain; or is he to be a mere derelict abroad without citizenship in any country-because Canadian citizenship to-day, as Canadian citizenship, is not recognized outside of Canada?
But I suggest to the Prime Minister, with the most disinterested motive, with a desire as fervent as his own can be to see that the national life of Canada develops along the lines which it has been pursuing for the last eighty years, I suggest that he himself and his government shall in the meantime appoint, as I proposed a year or two ago, a committee of advisory experts in his own country; that he utilize Canadian intelligence and Canadian brains to devise ways and means whereby when he has shattered the old statutory constitution Canada may provide something enduring that will take its place and keep us in political association with the rest of the dominions of the British Empire. Let me refer to an address given by Lord Milner, then Secretary of State of Great Britain, on July 9, 1919, before our Prime Minister was elevated to his present office, and before he and his associate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were ever in the position to make and elucidate these great reforms in our status to which they lay claim at the present time. Dealing with the situation long before the meeting of the last Imperial conference, Lord Milner said:
The only possibility of a continuance of the British Empire is on a basis of absolute, out and out equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the dominions. I say that without any kind of reservation whatsoever. It is easy to say that, but undoubtedly the working out of it in practice without bringing about a severance of relations between us and the dominions will be one of the most complicated tasks which statesmanship has ever had to face.
I am not afraid of it, and yet I have to admit that the difficulties are such that our best efforts may end in failure. I hope not, but at any rate there is no other way out.
Those are the problems which the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice and those associated with them are now, in the light of the resolutions of the last Imperial conference', called upon to solve for the nine million people who inhabit this country to-day and for the fifteen million who will inhabit it twenty or twenty-five years hence. In their hands rests the proper solution of these problems, or at least to direct the solution along the right lines, line?

The Address-Mr. McPhee
which will assure the autonomy of this country, lines which will assure our hearty cooperation with the other dominions, our 'continued political association with them and with Great Britain herself.
There were some members of the Imperial conference who, fortunately, perceived the importance and the difficulty of these problems, because the Imperial conference report says that when the conference came face to face with these problems they found:
-that the issues involved were so complex that there would be grave danger in attempting any immediate pronouncement other than a statement of certain principles-
In other words, they stated what they called a theory, a formula, of equality of status which I as a Canadian, proud to be a Canadian, regard as an ideal to which we should constantly strive to attain-an ideal to which we have not yet attained, but an ideal the attainment of which will demand the advice of the best brains that the right hon. the Prime Minister may procure to be associated with him. I say that the time has come now- I said it a year ago-when he should not leave to mere pronouncements by Mr. Amery, when he should not leave to a body of experts in Great Britain, the solutions of these problems. He should have the advice of the best brains he can secure in this country as to the steps which are to be taken when what he terms the "vestiges of the past" are swept away, so as provide durable foundations which shall take the place of the imperial acts and of the imperial treaties, and take their place in such a way as to provide properly for our future political relations with Great Britain and with the other dominions beyond the seas. In attaining that ideal I do not lay the stress I laid forty or twenty or fifteen years ago upon equality of status. We have gone to the length in announcing our desire for equality of status. But let us at least also take into consideration some really constructive efforts to establish on new foundations the real principles and policy which should govern in our future relations with Great Britain and the other dominions beyond the seas.
One word more and I am done. There has been some talk as to whether we should have the power to amend our constitution. The question all depends upon who constitute the " we." The people of Canada, represented by their provincial legislatures and by their federal parliament, have the right to obtain any amendment to the constitution of Canada as expressed in the British North America Act which they mav
desire with any practical unanimity. It is all very well to say that it is a roundabout and clumsy way that we should first agree as they did in 1867 and then place that agreement before the imperial parliament for enactment; but that is only a matter of form in any event, and although we have had several amendments made to the British North America Act, in no case' where we have presented an amendment which we desired to that act has that amendment been refused to this country. Therefore if we ask for amendments to the British North America Act which will provide for us any other way, through the Dominion parliament and provincial legislatures, of enacting statutory amendments to the British North America Act, let us at least first formulate some new entente, some new agreement, that will be binding and that may not be lightly modified, as the basis for the new statutory constitution which this country is to adopt. That problem I think will call for the consensus of the best minds that this country can produce. I see in it great difficulties. I believe I know this country fairly well, although perhaps during the last few years I have not travelled over it as much as I used to do. But we have in this country at present a great deal of agitation, of irritation, with regard to questions of race and religion, and I hesitate to put those questions again into the melting pot in Canada to-day until we have achieved a more united Canada, a more coherent and abiding sense of unity in this country, and therefore I think it is well in that respect to make haste slowly.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to join with those who have preceded me in extending my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address on their splendid efforts on that occasion. The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) acquitted himself in a manner highly creditable to himself and with honour to the counties and the province which he represents. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), making an equally splendid address in his mother tongue, revealed the handicap those of us in this chamber labour under who speak only the one language. Representing as he does a constituency in western Canada, he has the gift of being equally at home in the English as well as the French language.
I also wish to join with those who have preceded me in extending my sincere congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on his election to the leader-
The Address-Mr. McPhee

ship of the Conservative iparty. His years of experience in public life, his wide experience in business affairs, his high legal attainments which make him equally at home in the highest courts of our land as well as in the Privy Council, eminently fit him for the position to which he has been elected.
To the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King), personally and on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent I wish to offer my sincere congratulations on the splendid presentation of the nation's affairs which he made in this house a day or two ago. Frankly, fearlessly and in a manner which, I am sure, will commend itself to all fair-minded people, he outlined to this house and to the Canadian people the progress of Canada under the present Liberal regime. Progress and prosperity, abounding revenues, surpluses of exports over imports, reduction of taxation, remind one of the great years of development in Canada from 1896 to 1911 under the leadership of our great leader the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In this connection I recall the words that Sir Wilfrid Laurier used in this house in 1895. After listening to the then Minister of Finance reading from a long list of statistics to prove that Canada was prosperous, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then plain Mr. Wilfrid Laurier, said:
When the party which I have the honour to lead comes into power in this country it will not be necessary for any man to read from statistics to prove that Canada is prosperous. I will simply ask every farmer and artisan and mechanic and business man in the country to put his hands in his pockets and there he will find the evidence of his prosperity.
So it is in Canada to-day. On all sides there is evidence of prosperity; on every hand there is a spirit of optimism and buoyancy among our people. The presentation made by the Prime Minister the other day of the nation's affairs stands out forcibly in contrast with the condition that obtained in Canada when he took over the reins of government, I will read from the last address delivered in this house as Minister of Finance by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), under the late Conservative government. Speaking in this house as reported in the fourth volume of Hansard of 1921 at page 3121, he used these words-and this must have been the position in Canada at that lime so far as the minds of the members of the Conservative government were concerned because the then Minister of Finance was speaking on behalf of the government. He said:
We in Canada have a great task before us. The world is sadly out of tune. May we help
[Mr. McPhee.1
in restoring harmony? Trust and confidence are sadly lacking. Class interests are advanced with selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellowmen is weakened. Doubt, of the future is often voiced.
Could any tale of desolation, gloom and dismay be better pictured than that, the benediction pronounced on Conservative governments in this country for some time by the then Minister of Finance? What consolation did he hold out? Let me read just a sentence more:
The sun still shines-the rivers still sparkle

our lands are as great and fruitful as ever- our resources just as vast.
After giving the picture of desolation and gloom contained in his previous remarks the only consolation held out to the people of this country was that the sun still shone in the heavens and the rivers still sparkled on their way to the sea. Let me read just a line or two more from the same address, because it is necessary for a comparison which I wish to make later on. Speaking in the same connection the hon. member used these words:
If Canada is to continue to buy as much as she now does from the United States, she ought to sell a great deal more in that market. It is undoubtedly to her immediate interest that she should do so. The position of our trade with the United States, unfavourable as it is, is likely however to be made still more unfavour-[DOT] able.
How much was there to that prophecy? Let me quote the figures. In that same year
1921,	we imported from the United States goods to the value of $856,000,000, in round figures, while we exported to the United States goods to the value of $560,000,000, leaving a surplus of imports over exports of $296,000,000 In 1927. we imported from the United States goods to the value of $687,000,000 in round figures, and exported goods to the value of $479,000,000, leaving a surplus of imports over exports of $208,000,000. Instead of our trade becoming more unfavourable the present government reduced an unfavourable trade balance from $296,000,000 in 1921 to $208,000,000 in 1927.
Then I should like to give a few figures, which appear to me to be such that they Should be placed on record, as showing the relative per capita wealth of Canada as compared with that of the United States. In
1922,	the United States exported goods to the value of $3,771,156,489, and imported goods to the value of $2,608,079,008, leaving a surplus of exports over imports of $1,163,077,481. Dividing that by the population of the United States at that time gives us a per capita surplus of exports over imports for

The Address-Mr. McPhee
1922, of ten cents. I am using the years 1922 and 1927 for the purpose of comparison because the present Liberal government has been in power for that length of time. In 1927 the United States exported goods to the value of $4,968,485,000, and imported goods to the value of $4,242,183,000, leaving a surplus of exports over imports of $726,305,000. If we divide that by the population of the United States we have a per capita surplus of exports over imports of only six cents. What are the figures with regard to Canada? In 1922, Canada exported goods to the value of $753,927,009, and imported goodfe to the value of $747,804,332, leaving a surplus of exports over imports of $6,113,677. Dividing that by the population of Canada in 1922, gives us the figure of 64 cents per head of population of exports over imports. Last year Canada exported goods to the value of $1,267,573,142 and imported goods to the value of $1,030,892.505, leaving a surplus of exports over imports of $236,680,637. If we divide that by the population of Canada we have a per capita surplus of exports over imports of $24.90.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are those figures for the
year ending March 31?


Mr. McPHEE:: These are the last figures.
In the last five years the per capita surplus of exports over imports in the United States has decreased from ten cents to six cents, while in Canada in the same length of time our per capita surplus of exports over imports has increased from 64 cents to $24.90, the greatest per capita surplus of exports over imports of any country in the world. It .appears to me that these figures tell a story of prosperity which should be advertised to the whole world.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in endeavouring to show that Canada was not prosperous, referred particularly to the railway situation in this
country, and at page 14 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Then with respect to the railway figures: I am sure the gentlemen responsible for that speech have not closely analyzed those figures, because if the condition that prevailed last year is to continue for another three years, the railways will have no net revenue at all. The truth is that the Canadian Pacific Railway earned last year $3,766,000 more gross than the year before, but their net receipts were $4,700,000 less than they were in 1926; and the Canadian National railway system, while increasing its gross revenues by $2,692,000, decreased its net revenue by five and a half million dollars. Now as its net revenues were only thirty millions it follorvs that if the revenue of the railway is decreased by five and a half millions every year it will only be five or six years before it has no revenue at all.
I think the best answer to my hon. friend is to place side by side with his remarks the statement of a gentleman with whom I am sure he will agree; I refer to Mr. Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In an article published shortly after the beginning of the year, in which he reviewed the situation during the preceding twelve months, Mr. Beatty said:
A review of the past twelve months shows that the general business of the country experienced a consistent and widely spread development, based upon very general agricultural prosperity and industrial expansion . . . That business conditions are such is highly satisfactory, but it is also well worth considering why net earnings of the railways show, as they do, a very serious decline. The reason, of course, is plain to see. While wages paid to railway operatives have been advanced during the year, there has been a serious reduction in freight rates on grain, with the result that increased traffic, resulting from better business, has failed to keep pace in revenue with advancing costs of operation. Furthermore, the bad weather conditions during the early months of the harvest delayed shipping, and earnings of the last quarter of the year were further adversely affected.
Mr. Speaker; the country is prosperous. On every side, as I have already said, there is a spirit of optimism. The beacon lights of prosperity are burning across this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In our own great western country, notwithstanding unfavourable weather conditions, a good crop has been harvested. Our people are rejoicing over railway construction and increased business generally. The Hudson Bay railway is now assured thanks to the present government and to our energetic Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). The mineral developments in that section of the country adjacent to the Hudson Bay railway fully justify the wisdom of this government in pushing the railway to completion. The Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, owners of the Flin Flon mine, have contracted to build on the property during 1928-29 a 3,000-ton per day smelter at an estimated cost of $14,000,000. What is happening with reference to that mine will also happen in the case of other mines in the same territory.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is just about time to rise for the recess and as I wish to go on to another subject I should like you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. McPhee

After Recess
The house resumed' at eight o'clock.


George Washington McPhee: Mr. Speaker, before recess
I was discussing the financial and business conditions of the country, and now I bring my remarks to the section in the speech from the throne which refers to the celebration of the diamond jubilee. Here again great credit is due the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the extensive plans which he made for that celebration, while credit must also be given to Right Hon. Senator Graham and his associates for the highly satisfactory way in which the celebration was carried out throughout the country. The degree in which the jubilee celebration caught the hearts of our people of , all classes and creeds bears testimony to the wisdom of those who laid the foundations of confederation, and testimony as well to the fidelity of those who reared the superstructure on the broad lines of liberty, equality, fair play and justice to all.
I had the privilege of delivering several addresses in the course of the celebration, the largest gathering being in my own town, Yorkton, where there were seven thousand in attendance. Incidentally I may observe that in the way of local prosperity it is no longer a town, as yesterday it attained the status of a city. In another promising town, Theodore, I witnessed as intelligent and fine looking a collection of well taught school children as I have ever seen in any part of Canada. But the two celebrations to which I wish to refer for the purpose of the record were those that took place	in localities	where	the	settlerscame from	continental Europe.	At	a placecalled White Sand River Bridge, northeast of Theodore, where I attended a celebration, there were 367 children comprising six school	districts, all	dressed as	patriotically as possible, and each one carrying a union jack. Each child in that gathering was the son or daughter of parents bom in central	Europe, and	each of the five
teachers who taught those children daily and who mobilized the gathering, while of Canadian birth, was the son of parents who came to this country from central Europe. These children sang "0 Canada" and the national anthem with a spirit that would do justice to any gathering of school children in the Dominion. In another celebration at Rhein, Saskatchewan, where the people have come from Germany, I had the pleasure of addressing a gathering of 250 children. These also were well dressed in patriotic fashion and all carried union jacks. In massed choir they sang "O Canada," first in English, then

in French and lastly in the mother tongue of their parents, German. In connection with another celebration later on in the same place I was privileged to attend the .presentation of medals awarded by the Governor General for the best essays on confederation. These medals were given to those pupils in the school inspectorates who had written the best essays on Canada's development since confederation, and three divisions were made, the first division being grade 8, the second, grades 9 and 10, and the third grades 11 and 12. I was present when the school inspector pinned the medals on the boys who had won them. In the first division the medal was awarded, in this district, to Henry Graf, whose father came to this country from Germany. An independent judge, in giving his decision, said in reference to the prize essay. "It is carefully written and it has spirit and enthusiasm for Canada." The medal for the second division was won by Michael Ostopowich, whose parents came from central Europe. I put these facts on record because I notice that there is a tendency in certain parts of Canada to overlook the Canadianizing that is going on in our western country.
As I recall the incidents I have related, I think of the words of "The Canadian Immigrant" as applied to the parents of these children about whom I have been speaking:
We have left the land we have loved so well. With tears dimmed our homeland fires;
We have wandered far, we have wandered long
To the land of our high desires.
Not for ourselves do we seek the gold That lies in the prairie loam,
But that those we beget may find and hold In Canada a home.
Again as I recall these incidents I am proud to belong to the great Liberal party that has done so much for these people because it was under the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the administration of Sir Clifford Sifton as Minister of Immigration that the policy was inaugurated to bring these settlers to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate all religious and racial animosities in this country and let us bend our energies towards getting into Canada men and women physically and men; tally sound and willing to work. If we do that we shall build up a country worthy of the traditions of our past. Let us take the people from England and Wales, with all theii*love of liberty and freedom. Let us take the people from Scotland and Ireland, with the Scottish

The Address-Mr. Bird
thrift and Irish merit. Let us take the people from France who, in the early days, were the voyageurs and pioneers of discovery and ministration to the North American continent.	Let us take the people of the
northern countries of Europe, who for centuries have battled with conditions similar to our own. Let us take the people of Germany, with all their knowledge of scientific research. Let us take the people of the other countries of central Europe with their love of pastoral and simple life. Let us take the Italian, with his tradition of sculpture and art, and let us build up in this God-given heritage of ours on the northern half of the North American continent a race combining all the best traditions of the races from which we sprung, establishing here what we hope to see above-a house of many mansions where there is room enough for all.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, one is at some disadvantage in following speeches so eloquent as the last two or three to which we have listened. I think you will agree with me that the forty-minute rule is having results that we did not expect. Quantity is giving place to quality.
At the beginning of my few remarks I wish to commend the government and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) for the energetic manner in which they have applied themselves to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. That railway, as most of my hon. friends know, lies within my constituency. My constituents are in a position to appreciate or otherwise the efforts of the government in this direction, and I wish to say quite frankly that I have never yet heard one word of criticism of the policy of the government during the last two years. In regard to the change of ports, I am happy to be in a position to commend the government and Minister of Railways in that respect as well. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) joined hands with the Manitoba Free Press in expressing some doubt as to the wisdom of that change. It is a pity the leader of the opposition should agree with the Free Press only when the Free Press is wrong. We are very proud of the Manitoba Free Press in the west, but after all it is a human institution and occasionally it falls into error.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely inadvertent.


Thomas William Bird: The agreement of the hon.
leader of opposition I assume, was equally inadvertent. I personally do not think it is necessary to go very far afield to find a motive for the change that was made. It is not necessary to impugn either the morals or the wisdom of the Minister of Railways, because 56103-9J
fortunately there are reasons that are accessible to all who have studied the question which are amply sufficient to justify the change that has been made. The assumption seems to be that years ago there was a very thorough investigation, that a change had been made with insufficient regard to those early findings, and that the Minister of Railways has acted on the say-so of Mr. Palmer. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite so sure that those early investigations were thorough-going in any sense of the word. It must be understood that up to 1909 there was never any question of Nelson being an alternate port to Churchill. From 1909 until 1912, when the final decision was made, I am not aware of any investigation being made that would qualify in any sense of the word as being a- thorough investigation. It startles one to think that any government or governments should presume to decide an important matter upon such slender grounds. That initial investigation was far from being complete and thorough-going. Since 1912 much water has flowed beneath the bridge at Port Nelson. For four years the engineers of this government resided at Port Nelson and carried on the work of construction at that port. Those engineers naturally had an excellent opportunity of finding out all the possibilities at Port Nelson-four years of close investigation. From that time nothing that is new has been discovered concerning Port Nelson. All that there was to find out was ascertained at that time. So that it is very far-fetched indeed to say that Mr. Palmer gave a snap judgment, because Mr. Palmer had all the reports and all the results of that experience to judge by.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very much pleased at this point to be in hearty accord with the government and its policy. I think the action of the Minister of Railways is amply justified. The experience of our engineers at Nelson destroyed the old assumption that Nelson was an easy port to develop. The findings of Mr. Palmer at Fort Churchill, when he adopted the common sense procedure of sinking his drills at Churchill, destroyed the assumption that Churchill was a difficult and expensive port to develop. The old assumptions, which were entirely mythical, have been completely reversed, and it has been found that Churchill is the easy port to develop and Nelson the difficult.
Leaving that question aside, I should like to deal for a moment with our natural resources. I was glad to learn from the Prime Minister that at the Dominion-provincial conference there had developed a better feel-

The Address-Mr. Bird
ing of an inter-provincial character; an atmosphere was evidently generated there through which our sister provinces of the east were able to see this matter from our point of view. That is so much to the good. But I regret that the Prime Minister had not something more definite to say. As a member from Manitoba I want to tell this house that the return of our natural resources is the most vital question facing the province to-day, because in the last year or two some of the most valuable of those resources have been alienated from public ownership and handed over to private interests, and the process has been going on almost up to the present time. What is the situation? Here are we of Manitoba sitting helplessly by while our natural resources are being taken from us and given, in some cases, to alien ownership. At the convention of the United Farmers of Manitoba I was instrumental in getting an amendment moved to a resolution dealing with natural resources by which that convention was put on recoil'd as being in favour of the retention of our provincial water-powers-and very enthusiastically on record, because a short while before we of Manitoba had witnessed some of our most valuable natural resources alienated from our possession. I understand that the Dominion government has taken the position that the disposal of these resources is a matter for the discretion of the provincial government. After the carrying of that motion I was approached by a member of the legislature, a supporter of our provincial government, who repudiated the contention that the provincial government had any responsibility at all. He said: We are not responsible for this; the responsibility rests at Ottawa. We in Manitoba at this moment are in the position of having responsibility for our natural resources bandied backwards and forwards between Ottawa and Winnipeg, and it is an alarming situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who does not subscribe altogether to the doctrine that it is to our national benefit to get rid of our natural resources as quickly as we can. Their exploitation at any price is not one of the things I entertain in my economic or political creed. The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. McPhee) in a very eloquent passage of his speech, which I admired, dealt with the celebration of our diamond jubilee. Well, if there was one blot upon the formal celebration it was the bragging we did in regard to the amount of natural wealth that we possess. I do not think it is dignified for a young nation to be too chesty and selfimportant because Providence, with no special

regard to it in particular, placed those treasures where they are at the present time. I am anxious that our natural resources should be developed as speedily as possible, but I want to see them developed in harmony with a policy that will bring the greatest amount of good to the people at large. These streams of material blessings which we expect to flow from our copper mines, our gold mines and our forests will not of themselves, I suspect, begin to irrigate and bless the homes and the lives of the common people of Manitoba. This is the task of statesmanship, not to sit by and pay deference to the moneyed men of east or west or south or across the sea, and express a readiness to give these resources away, but rather to see that they are exploited in such a fashion that the people of the province, the pioneers who have borne the burden and the heat of the day, shall somehow get their share of that benefit.
With regard to our minerals in the north, I confess that they are of a peculiar nature. It does not seem to me there is very much hope that in the near future we shall be able to dig our copper or our gold in a way that will affect beneficially the ordinary farmer 01 labourer in any visible form whatsoever, Some people cling to the myth that somehow or other the speedy exploitation of out copper and our gold will bring indefinite blessings to the ordinary people. I do not believe it. I have never seen it happen. Unless there was some direct policy adopted by the powers that be, there could never be any hope that the exploitation of our resources by private capital would benefit the ordinary average citizen. Even on the basis of private ownership I think Manitoba has a right to dispose of her own precious metals. I do not think that the mining of these treasures can be economically developed by longdistance administration. So long as we are in a different position from Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia in this regard our mining development is going to suffer. I have no criticism at all of our Mines department. That, department cannot do the impossible. It cannot administer the Manitoba mines as sympathetically and efficiently as, for instance, the provincial Department of Mines at Toronto can administer the mines of Ontario. Therefore it stands to reason that the early and efficient development of our copper and other mines in Manitoba demands that the government at Ottawa should at the earliest moment hand over these resources to the provincial authorities.
In our pulpwood we have a species of natural resource which presents its own prob-

The Address-Mr. Bird
!em in Manitoba. We have in it a very rich natural resource which exists contiguously to that class of farming land in Manitoba which has never been any too productive, farming land on which for a good many years men and women have lived and eked out a most precarious living. Our timber resources stretch, I was going to say, in a never-ending line diagonally across the province and are bordered by a class of farmer whose condition is no advertisement for Canada. This is an opportunity for statesmanship so to exploit our pulpwood as to work hand in hand with this struggling class of farmers who exist along the border line of the forests of Manitoba. I maintain that that is not being done; that our forests are being rifled and depleted according to no rule of any kind that I can see. The whole situation, so far as I know it, is one of utter confusion and it is certainly not playing into the hands of the man who has toiled on the little homestead all these years. We cannot too soon see to it that in seme way or another these pulp resources are going to be of some benefit to that class of settler, not only for the present but for years to come.
In our water powers in Manitoba we have a great deal of pride. Manitoba is the third or fourth province in the dominion with respect to this form of natural wealth. It is a form of natural wealth which is inexhaustible, which requires no expenditure of our effort to renew it and which lends itself in a peculiar way for exploitation by the public and for the public. Inasmuch as it lends itself to the benefit of the people, just so much does it lend itself to the covetousness of the moneyed interests upon this continent. Within the last year we in Manitoba have seen our most valuable water power site alienated from public ownership. Last year in this chamber we men of the west stood up in what we thought to be a righteous cause. We thought we would stand between private interests and the consumer in Ontario, and when a raid was being made upon the water powers on the Ottawa river we came loyally to the assistance of the champions of the people. But within the short space of a year we have had the most valuable water power site in Manitoba given away without this parliament and without the people of Manitoba having had any say whatever in the matter. That kind of thing is a discredit to this parliament. This is a source of natural wealth which, by its very nature, lends itself to successful exploitation by the people themselves, a form of natural wealth which can easily be conveyed to every home in Manitoba so that
it can make its tangible benefits felt in the way of dissipating the drudgery which overshadows the lives of our people in the west.
So much for our natural resources. I want to say a word about the tariff board. At the convention of farmers held at Portage la Prairie I said a few unpremeditated things about the tariff board and since that time I have been very severely expostulated with by a good many of my friends. I want to make it clear that I have no criticism to offer against the personnel of that board. They are all very clever and efficient men, and if they have an opportunity to put in a stroke for the consumer I am quite sure they will do it. But the reason I criticize the tariff board is precisely this, that I am jealous of any body, no matter by w'hat name you call it, that steps in between government and the people Whom the government governs. Jealousy is sometimes based upon very unsubstantial grounds, I know, but if I had the time I think I could quote concrete instances to bring to your mind the fact that all such bodies, no matter what they are, always lend themselves in the course of time to the creation of opportunities, far too numerous, of defeating the interests of the people in the interests of the few. That is my contention and I do not think it can be very well gainsaid. I do not care about the personnel; it may be the most trustworthy that you could find. I do not care what the regulations are by which it is governed; they may be the wisest you can conceive. I am thinking not of to-day, but of to-morrow, of the future. This intermediary body, call it a board or a commission, steps in between me as a citizen and my government, and I contend that it has no right to be there. I do not want it to influence either the government or myself. I do not want to be blinded and I do not want the government to blind itself.
This tariff board in my estimation acts like a breakwater against which the waves of public opinion break and shatter and disperse before they are allowed to reach the halcyon calm of the cabinet council. That is what I believe and no one has as yet Shaken me in that belief. I know this and I do not think I am using satire when I say this; I do not intend to use satire. I think the government and its supporters, if they are honest, will recognize with me that the present government could not exist at all if it did not compromise on the tariff question. It is not a low tariff government or a high tariff government; it is a government, which has perforce to compromise in order to exist, a government which within itself contains represenatives of both elements of public

The Address-Mr. Bird
opinion. I know that in order to have the necessary atmosphere of calm, the necessary stability to carry on, it is essential somehow to temper the shocks of public opinion on the one side and the other before they reach the precincts of the council. It is better to have the clash outside than to have it within. I do not criticize compromise; I have learned to think that perhaps it is necessary in this country; but I do not want to see the compromise settled down at a point where the people are going to continue to be penalized. If there is going to be compromise, if we are going to settle down to a state of balance, it must be much nearer to a point where the people get something like justice. We have this shock absorber erected between public opinion and a government whose very character renders it somewhat necessary. But I, as a man representing a farming community, cannot sit quiet and allow any body, no matter under what pretence it exists, to shield any government in any way whatsoever from the expression of public opinion that my people expect me to make.
They say the board is a fact finding body. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) justified it on those grounds. I have as much reverence for facts as anyone; facts are serious things, and a fact scientifically established is a thing you cannot escape; when it is fixed it is always a step in progress. But are these so-called facts anything of that character? I do not believe they are. These facts are very imposing, of course, and I must say that they gave my hon. friend an opportunity to make a very excellent and telling speech indeed, but at the best they are statistical facts although some of them are very spectacular. I have listened to speeches of that kind for seven years, speeches just as effective, which arrayed facts just as well, but what does all this fact finding amount to? It amounts to nothing, and it cannot amount to anything. I do not know that a statistical fact, even when you have found it, does any more than simply give the professional juggler of facts just one more opportunity, and the consumers of Canada are not concerned with sleight-of-hand. They want action; they want results. There is only one fact with which they are concerned, and you do not need to go around by Robin Hood's horse stable to find that fact. The consumers of the country are only interested in the fact that the manufacturers of Canada have been riding on the back of the Canadian farmer for the last few generations, so why do you want to erect all this machinery in order to rub that in? What the Canadian
fMr. Bird.]
farmer needs is not a tariff board at all; he needs to organize himself to come down here and make it impossible for governments to carry on until some redress is given him. The farmer has been fooled once, and he will be fooled again, by being side-tracked by such will-o'-the-wisps as these.
Now we are told that this is a fact finding body but not a fact interpreting body, that what this body produces is not interpreted facts but simply masses of evidence, and everyone knows that evidence does not constitute facts. We have listened to evidence given before committees of this house, and we know that evidence is not facts. On most occasions evidence is a hay stack of miscellaneous representations in which there is sometimes embedded an occasional jewel of fact, something such as my hon. friend resurrected to-day. These facts are often the kind which are intended to adorn an election speech and make it look like something, but the people of Canada do not want ornamentation any more; they want action. They want this government to move in the direction of lower tariffs, and to move at once. I might offer a constructive suggestion to the government, and it is not far-fetched because we have precedents for it; as I have said, this tariff question in Canada has reached a sort of impasse, in which we cannot expect any great leewajr unless public opinion changes, and here we have a government sitting where it is because it is supported by low tariff votes. This government is in existence today because its majority is maintained by men pledged to low tariffs.


Miss MACPHAIL:: And women also.


Thomas William Bird: I think it is the duty of the
government to take the low tariff opinion of this house into consideration. I do not think low tariff men are unreasonable, with perhaps the exception of one or two whom I could name. We do not want to bring about the Kingdom of God over night, but we would like to see our tariff stabilized at a point lower than it is at present, which would be more consistent with justice to the producers and consumers of this country. There is no reason why a government supported in the way this government is supported and depending as it does on low tariff support, should not frankly state its case to the low tariff opinion of this house in order to secure in return an expression of public opinion as it exists in Canada to-day. Let the government find out what the low tariff opinion of this country means, what it demands, and what it is out for. I cannot see any other way in which the government can be carried

The Address-Mr. Cos grain
on honestly; I do not think this government can honestly exist a moment longer if some such arrangement is not made. This government cannot expect, low tariff men to keep it in power unless some move is made to meet low tariff opinion, because the government is putting some of its own supporters into an impossible position, which will not be tolerated back home.
Now just a word or two in regard to immigration. I think we get into the habit of talking about immigration as we talk about natural resources, without regard to underlying facts. We say, " Let us fill up the country, make it populous and great ". Most of us, when we catch ourselves by surprise, are megalomaniacs; we worship what is big, and we speak of things in quantitative terms. We do not stop to take heed of the human elements which exist all around us, and when we talk of immigration I am afraid we forget to consider the happiness and contentment of our Canadian homes. As we understand immigration in this country to-day, Mr. Speaker, it is competition; our immigration policy has been shaped not with the view of meeting the needs of the farmers but the needs of the urban centres. Our immigration policy professedly exists to flood our country with farmers, and no one can convince .me that that is not bringing the farmer up against unfair competition. If you flood our western country with wheat producers, there is no power on earth which can prevent the price of wheat from falling. I know that from year to year the world demands increases, but it increases at an ascertainable rate, and our immigration policy should have some relation to that rate of increase; otherwise you are deliberately attacking the standard of living of our western farmers.
I would like to pin down, if I can, this immigration myth with respect to Manitoba, and I am sorry I have no figures for the provinces further west. Our Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is from Manitoba. It is a matter of regret to me that the former leader of the Progressive party should be placed in such a position that his efforts, however excellent, are bound to be futile or to work injury on the people who placed him where he is. I find according to a government publication that for the year ending March 31, 1926, about 17,000 immigrants came to Manitoba. About 50 per cent of this number were agriculturists, or 8,913, to be exact; and of this number 70 per cent, or 6,239, were adult males, the real farmers. Thus we received in that year as many farmers as we could place on vacant lands whidh can possibly be farmed.
According to another publication there are 5,135,634 acres of unused land in organized territory in Manitoba. About one-half or 54.26 per cent of this belongs to the public and may therefore be assumed to be practically worthless. You can take my word for it that it is worthless or it would not belong to the public at the present time. Of the other half, which we assume is worth something, only 9.57 per cent is good, 46.50 is medium, and the rest is worthless. This leaves 1,250,000 acres. This would make 7,800 farms, and in 1926 we had actually 6,239 farmers come to Manitoba. Can anybody tell me where they are going? They are not going on our farms; they cannot get on to them. They are drifting away to Winnipeg, and over the boundary at Emerson into the United States. Now figures of this kind let light into this furore of propaganda about increased immigration. The facts are that we do not need it as far as Manitoba is concerned. It is something else that we need" we want to make our Manitoba homes comfortable, contented and happy, and that is what they are not. I want to tell you-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay, Translation):	Mr. Speaker, as I
had not the privilege o'f 'addressing :this honourable house last year, might I be permitted to take up a few minutes in order to congratulate you on your being elected for the third time to the so exalted post of Speaker of this house. The whole province' of Quebec prides itself and rejoices in seeing in the Speaker's chair of the House of Commons of Canada, one of its most distinguished sons. No doubt exists in my mind that sooner or later you will be called upon to fill higher posts, if not in the administration of this country, at least in other parts of the world.
Together with all the citizens and catholics of the province of Quebec as well as all the catholics in Canada, I rejoice in the elevation to the cardinalship of his Eminence Monseigneur Rouleau, archbishop of Quebec. I am glad to see that the new primate of the Catholic church in Canada, is a citizen of the province of Quebec. The custom has always been that the cardinal, in Canada, should be a bishop from the province of Quebec and moreover having his 'see in the city of Quebec.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, extend my most sincere congratulations to the mower and seconder of the address in reply to the
The Address-Mr. Casgrain

speech from the throne. They performed the task assigned to them with grace and dignity.
I am pleased to observe that the government has fulfilled a duty:	they have
acknowledged the rights of the French Canadian minority in Ontario, by calling to the , upper house one of its distinguished citizens, in the person of the hon. Senator Lacasse, and I think that all the French Canadian people of the province of Quebec, as well as those of other parts of Canada, will give credit to the government of the Right. Hon. Mackenzie King for such a fair and just act.
Recently Canada reached another pinnacle. Since it has joined the League of Nations, we have had the pleasure to see the hon. Senator Dandurand, a cabinet minister in the present administration, become president of the sixth meeting of the League of Nations. Moreover another very important post has been allotted to Canada: we now have the high honour of occupying a seat in the council of the League of Nations. No doubt if such a great honour has been bestowed upon Canada, it is naturally due to its importance, to the unique position it holds among the other nations of the world, but it is also due to the courtesy, dignity, experience and international relations of the hon. Senator Dandurand.
The speech from the throne mentions the appointment of ministers to Japan and Fiance. No doubt that these two new appointments will be of a nature to reflect still more gloriously upon the Canadian nation, and further the progress of our country in the path it is now pursuing.
The spee-ch from the throne also mentions the visit to this country of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, the Right Hon. Mr. Amery. He is here, so it seems, to try and devise, together with Canada, the most efficient way of representing our country in England. He may be prompted by the best of interests, both as to his views and the way of proceeding in the matter, but at the same time we are informed that certain vessels of the admiralty are coming over to replace other vessels in Canada. These things, sir, may have their good side, but might I remind the government that in all these matters, one must act deliberately and wisely, and not take any decision which might lead us into very costly ventures, like what took place in the past. I might repeat here:	Timeo Danaos et dona
ferentes.
_ The speech from the throne, referring to immigration, says that the government will,

by carrying out its policy, endeavour to attract here citizens capable of becoming good Canadians, who will help to develop the country and contribute to the Canadian nation's greatness. I would like to see such a selection, and I think that all those 'who come here from foreign countries can be assimilated, if we are careful as to where we locate them. As mentioned, the other day, by the right hon. Prime Minister, it is difficult to attract the best citizens of the countries of Europe. The best people of those old countries have emigrated to the United States or Canada. Allow me sir, to congratulate the government for having granted a subsidy of $150,000 to the province of Quebec, so as to help in the repatriation of the French Canadians who have emigrated to the United States. I think it is a sound measure and wise policy.
May I also draw the attention of the government to the fact that they should inaugurate a policy which would help the people of the province of Quebec and those of the eastern provinces wishing to settle in the western provinces, to reach that part of the country on better and easier terms than in the past. The people of the province of Quebec who, in certain cases find it impossible to remain any longer on our old lands would like to obtain the same privileges as foreigners enjoy. I trust that the government will give its full consideration to this question and grant to our people of Quebec and the old eastern provinces, the same advantages as those granted to the newcomers of European countries.
The Prime Minister, the other day, pointed out all and each of the most important activities of the administration. He gave the country a clear and precise statement of all that had been done during the good administration of his government. He clearly showed that the present government has been able to establish stability in the country, impart confidence among all classes of society, reduce duties and taxation and at the same :ime carry out the necessary work to help the progress of the various sections of the community.
The speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, also refers to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I am not opposed to it. I also believe that the members of this house are neither opposed to it, at least those who sit to your right, Sir. Nevertheless, I think that while we are constructing this railway, the government should not forget the building of certain railways in the province of Quebec-or the improvement of certain lines -which have been needed for a number of

The Address-Mr. Casgrain
years and on account of which, part of the Gaspe peninsula-the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure-is threatened with depopulation.
The government should find a solution to this problem of ours, as soon as possible, so as to keep among us the citizens of Quebec.
The speech from the' throne contains an item about a new airplane service for the carrying of mail from Rimouski to Montreal.
I congratulate the government on this matter. It is a new departure, and one must be up to date these1 days, we must not drag behind. There is but one thing that the speech from the throne has forgotten perhaps to mention, it is that I myself had the honour to obtain from the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) the establishment of a similar service to carry the mail by airplane from Murray Bay to the Seven Isles and the island of Anticosti. I therefore wish, on behalf of the whole population of the counties of Charlevoix and Saguenay which I represent, to *thank the government and the Hon. Mr. Veniot for having solved this so urgent problem which affects all the people of that section of the country. This service is not perfect. 1 have already drawn the attention of the Postmaster General to this matter. He can rest assured that every day I shall give him no peace so long as the service is not improved in such a way as to provide for all the needs of these people.
I have asked the government-and I hope that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) will comply with my request later-to grant a subsidy to private companies which are in a position to operate ice-breakers so as to maintain a regular service during the winter, along the north shore between Murray Bay and the island of Anticosti. I trust that this question as well as others will be settled to the satisfaction of the electors which I have the honour to represent.
The speech from the throne further mentions the interprovincial conference. Apparently, at this conference, many questions of interest to both the Dominion and interprovincial governments were discussed. Nothing but good can be the outcome of such conferences, and it would be desirable to hold them oftener. A matter of the utmost importance and to which I want to draw the attention of the government, is the improvement of certain highways in various parts of our province and in the counties which I have the honour to represent. As you are aware the question of highways is a provincial concern; quite so. Nevertheless there are certain far-off districts which are so sparingly
populated, and territories so little organized that the provincial government is unable to provide for all the needs which crop up every day in the various parts of these new territories. I appeal to the government of this country to come to an understanding with the province of Quebec so as to solve the problem in such a way that the postal service, the travelling and trade facilities can be kept up in a satisfactory manner. No doubt that through the distinguished and worthy representatives who hold office in the Dominion administration, we shall obtain justice.
Mr. Speaker, last year the government enacted certain legislation; the Farm Loan and Old Age Pensions Acts. I congratulate them on that score and I trust that the government of Quebec will take advantage of the legislation which has been included in the Statutes of Canada so as to give the benefit of these two acts to its citizens.
Yesterday afternoon, I listened to the speech delivered by the member for Temis-couafa (Mr. Pouliot). .The hon. member was careful enough to state, at the outset of his remarks, that he was speaking solely on his own behalf. I thank him; otherwise, I think, he would have discovered that there were members to your right, sir, who do _ not share his views nor would they have stood by him. For my part, I repudiate all that was said on that occasion by the member for Temiscouata; I repudiate the insinuations levelled at the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. The member for Temis-couata seems to take exception to a clause in the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the legislature, in Quebec, on the 10th of January last, and which reads as follows:
My ministers believe that Canadian unity and the future of Canada will be best assured by respecting provincial autonomy and by remaining loyal to the British North America Act in the spirit as well as in the letter.
This alause included in the speech from the throne and delivered at the opening of the Quebec legislature could well have been inserted in the speech from the throne delivered here, at Ottawa, on the occasion of the opening of parliament. Nobody more than the government of the province of Quebec wants the government at Ottawa to observe the federal pact. The Dominion as well as the provincial government wishes to uphold this pact ; because without it we would not know where we were drifting nor how we could safeguard our rights, language, religion and freedom.	*	[DOT]
Exception is taken in certain quarters because on certain questions, the Premier of
The Address-Mr. Casgrain

Quebec, shares the 'same views as another prime minister, the Premier of Ontario. But, sir, can we prevent people sharing our views?
If the Premier of Quebec expresses an opinion and the premier of another province holds the same views, can we infer on that score that both walk hand in hand and are of the same party? I do not think so. Whenever the Quebec and Ontario Premiers met in conference I rather think that it was the Prime Minister of Quebec, who led the way and that the former followed in his footsteps, it was not the Quebec Premier who followed. I, personally, know too well the Hon. Mr. Taschereau to think that he can be swayed by the views or bow to the opinion of another person; he is too sincere, upright and loyal, he holds too much to his opinions.
It seems to be rumoured in certain quarters that the Prime Minister of Quebec does not always agree with his friends in the Dominion government and the Liberal party at Ottawa. I shall ask my kind friends to recall where was the Premier of Quebec in those dark days of 1911, 1917, 1921, 1925 and 1926. He stood by the leader of the Liberal party carrying on the struggle by his side with all his energy in every riding of the province of Quebec; he stood beside my humble self, helping me to win the two united ridings of Charlevoix and Saguenay. If we answered: "Aye ready! when he asked us to help him in the provincial elections, he also, at the general elections of 1911, 1917, 1921, 1925 and 1926, answered back immediately:	"Aye
ready 1" He was ready, he has always stood by us when we were in need of him. And if my memory fails me not, Mr. Meighen has often taken him to task for his campaign in 1925, and again he referred to this fact recently in Winnipeg. When partisans of the Liberal party, who had always been friendly to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, left him in the great crisis of 1917, the distinguished leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec remained faithful to him, and again, (gter on, he carried on the struggle side by side with Mr. King, Mr. Lapointe and all the other party leaders. I do not hesitate to state, knowing Mr. Taschereau as well as I do, that he is without gainsay one of the first citizens of this country. Among all the prime ministers of the provinces of Canada, none are greater. I am fortunate and honoured to include him among my friends, to follow his counsels and benefit through his experience. With the exception of the eminent men who are at the helm of our government to-day, and the distinguished ministers from Quebec, at Ottawa, no one has worked harder and (Mr. Casgrain.]
more effectually than he for the success of the Liberal cause in the last Dominion elections, and a great part of the success obtained may be attributed to his good work and valuable co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, knowing the ins and outs of both the Dominion and provincial administrations, I have no fear in stating that-and I think that all those who sit to your right, sir, will agree with me-for ever so long, the most cordial intercourse has existed between the provincial and the Dominion governments. Mr. Taschereau is the worthy successor of the most eminent prime ministers of the province of Quebec, of Sir Lomer Gouin the Hon. Mr, Parent and the Hon. Mr. Mar-chand, who reflected such great honour upon the Liberal party and who also have shown that the Liberal party alone in Quebec as well as in Ottawa, was able to solve the financial problems both of Quebec and Canada. Some members may think otherwise- the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), perhaps- nevertheless I think that no one will hand down to posterity a more worthy name than tlhat of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau.
What impresses us most in the speech from the throne, are the great results achieved by the present administration; peace, union and harmony exist since we have such a government.
We have a Liberal government, both in Quebec and Ottawa, and business is flourishing; I trust that, together with all my Liberal friends, both provincial and federal, we shall have for a long time to come Mr. Taschereau at the helm of the Quebec government, and the Right Hon. Mackenzie King in charge of affairs at Ottawa. These two governments will ensure the union, peace and harmony existing to-day, and I feel certain that Canada will continue to move forward in the path of progress, and that Quebec will enjoy an era of prosperity unparalleled by any government of that province.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have been very much interested in the discussion that has taken place on the speech from the throne and I must compliment my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) on the admirable presentation he made of his case in moving the address in reply. It seems that one of the functions of the bi-party system is that, whenever a member on the right of the speaker rises, he shall tell us all the good things there are in the speech from the throne, leaving aside all reference to anything else, while those to the left of Mr. Speaker seem to have the faculty, as the

The Address-Mr. Adshead
hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) demonstrated the other night, of pointing out nothing but the evil. In my view our endeavour should be to give expression to criticism, not vindictively but in a friendly spirit, pointing out wherein there are errors, while at the same time giving credit where credit is due.
The hon. -member for Hants-Kings made the statement the other day that there was great prosperity in the country and that the chief point at issue was the question of distribution. He left us just there, making no attempt to show how the present method of distribution should be remedied. As I see it, that is.the whole question. The machines of Canada can produce more than the Canadian people can consume, although under present conditions they are not able to buy all the .products they require for their own necessities. The farming communities are confronted with this very problem. Consider the various processes through which the farmer's product passes, to each of which a profit is attached. The farmer takes his wheat to the elevator and there is a fixed charge there; the elevator stores it and there again there is a fixed charge; the railway company transports it and there is another fixed charge. And each one of these charges is based on a calculation which yields profits to those who handle the commodity. Not so with him. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) some years ago was engaged on behalf of a gas company to make a plea, which he did eloquently before the utilities commission, in relation to the price of gas for that company. He based his argument upon fixed charges, depreciation and also a fair profit, and in view of the argument, the utilities commission decided to have the price of gas fixed on the strength of these conditions. At that time the price of oats was twenty-five cents a bushel. I took home wth me the argument of my hon. friend from West Calgary and, calculating in accordance with the method which he had used in behalf of the gas company, I found that the price of oats should not be less than sixty cents a bushel. But in our agricultural communities it does not matter whether the grade of wheat is No. 1 or No. 2 or No. 4: the cost of handling the commodity is based on a system of profits and the farmer has to take just what is left. That is one of the reasons for the misdistribution of our so-called prosperity. Whenever there is a large crop the country at large prospers while the original producer does not get a fair share of what is left.
I come now to the Imperial conference, and in this regard I was interested in the argument of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). I gathered from the hon. gentleman this afternoon that in his opinion a sort of imperial parliament should mefet in London, the president of that parliament or committee to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain, with the representatives of the colonies sitting around, the assembly to solve foreign problems, questions of peace and war, and problems of foreign diplomacy. That very sane idea was put forward at the Imperial conference of 1911, when Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand made such a proposal. Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, rose at once and observed that in matters of foreign policy and of peace and war the responsibility could never be shared. He held it was utterly opposed to the principle of responsible government and that the foreign policy of Great Britain must always be decided in Downing street, who were entirely answerable to the British people. These policies, the conduct of these affairs, he intimated, could never be the subject of shared responsibility. I have never seen any retraction of that statement. I know that Mr. Lloyd George confirmed the idea, and I know that in practice it is still carried out. When the treaty of Lausanne . was being negotiated we were not consulted, but were simply asked to sign on the dotted line after it had been negotiated. When the treaty of Locarno was negotiated we were not asked if we had anything to say about the matter, but after it was all completed we were asked to sign on the dotted line. Last year I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), whether Canada had been consulted in regard to sending warships to China. He said not a word. So that we are at war, whether we will it or no, when Great Britain is at war, but have nothing to say about the matter except that we are at war, as the hon. ex-leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Guthrie) said. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) says he does not like Canada to suffer from any inferiority complex, and he stated that the Prime Minister was suffering from an inferiority complex. He wanted matters to be settled by Canadians and did not want Canadian destinies to be settled in London. If that is so, then much more should we have something to say about questions of life and death and peace and war, especially when 60,000 of our Canadian boys lie in Flanders fields. The proposition that we should not have anything to say in re-

The Address-Mr. Adshead
gard to peace and war is one which no self-respecting Canadian can accept, and if the wedge is driven in, if the old country authorities are determined that we shall not have anything to say in this matter, it is they and not we who are driving the wedge between the motherland and the Dominion.
I was very thankful last year that the Prime Minister intervened at the last moment and granted us the last post fund under which Canada would not be so humiliated that we would have to go out in the streets and beg in order to provide funds enough to bury the indigent returned soldier. I thank the Prime Minister very much for dealing with that matter and granting our request. However, there is one little matter that remains to be dealt with yet. They sent the auditors to the various Canadian legions; I know they sent them to Calgary. They audited the accounts and said they were all right, took them back to Ottawa and we received word that they were confirmed. I should like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that they have failed as yet to send a cheque. It may be said it is only a little matter, but in my opinion it is rather important. I should appreciate it, very much, and I know that the Canadian legion would appreciate it, if the government would fulfil that promise and send a cheque to the various Canadian legions to pay the bills they have incurred for the burial of returned soldiers.
Last year the question of aviation occupied considerable time in this house. A promise was then made that civil aviation would be made entirely separate from military aviation. Some members to my right seemed to think that as the air force had done good work in the war, and so they did-they should necessarily continue in the force as regards civil aviation. I am glad that the government promised that civil aviation should be entirely separate from the Royal Air Force. There is, however, a feeling among the returned soldiers that the promise is not being carried out. It is true I received a letter from the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Ralston) intimating that as far as the private pilots were concerned they need not even be British subjects, that they might receive their certificates and be in no way obliged to be on the military reserve. Captain McColl, Canadian ace, who figured largely in the war, called me up and showed me his commercial certificate; and I may say that the returned [DOT]soldiers who are engaged in aviation at the present time are very anxious that a complete separation of the civil from the military force should take place. On Captain McColl's

certificate as a commercial pilot there is the statement that he is automatically on the Royal Air Force. I have a letter from the deputy minister stating that while that is in the regulation, it is a dead letter; it has not been carried out and probably will not be But in order to satisfy fully the returned soldiers I feel it is the duty of the government to say so; they should inform these men that, they are not in any way connected with the military force. The government will be well advised to take into consideration the suggestion of putting the civil aviation on a footing entirely separate from the national defence; it should be under either railways and canals or marine and fisheries.
I come no-w to the question of the returned soldiers. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that for various reasons I have a warm spot in my heart for returned soldiers. I may be wrong in my estimate, but I am certain of this: that there is a feeling among the returned soldiers, and there is a feeling in the Canadian legions at Calgary and Ottawa, that the returned men, when making application for reexamination,. or making appeals, do not meet with a sympathetic attitude on the part of those who are examining them. I am not positive that that is the case, but I know that the Canadian legions and many of the returned soldiers with whom I have conversed feel that way. Whether it is so or not I think the department and the hon. Minister of Health, (Mr. King, Kootenay) should give instructions that the medical men who examine our returned soldiers should at least be sympathetic and treat them as if they were equals, not as if the examiners were captains and the applicants privates in the department.
I cited last year for the benefit of the minister the case of a man who upon enlistment stated frankly-it was on his sheet-that he suffered from incipient Bright's disease, but he added: "I do not want to be a slacker;
I am here if you like to take me as I am." We took him. I say "we" because I was responsible along with other citizens of Canada. When he came back from the trenches his disease was aggravated-I mentioned that to my hon. friend the minister in the house last year. He applied for a pension. They brought down his files, told him it was a pre-war disability, and nothing was done about it. That case was fought from May, 1918, until 1927; for nine years it was considered, which shows how tardy and how unsympathetic, in some cases at any rate, the treatment of returned soldiers has been. And what is the result? Here is the result. I got word

The Address-Mr. Adshead
from the Canadian office, from the official adviser of the soldiers, who wrote me as follows:
No doubt you will remember this ease. The man was suffering from Bright's disease and was refused treatment or pension on the grounds that it was not aggravated on service. The man went to England and 1 was finally able to get the department to grant him pay and allowance. He received f50 this year.
After nine years' struggle they granted him pay and allowance; but when the postman took the letter down the street and knocked at the door the poor fellow lay in his coffin.
I could quote one or two other cases of that nature. I say there is either too much red tape or too much delay in these matters, and I submit, sir, that men who offered their lives for us on the fields of Flanders should receive far different consideration at our hands.
Now I come to immigration. Last session I had occasion to put some questions to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) and he answered me along these lines:	I
can assure my hon. friend that there will be no flooding of labour in the towns and cities; all men who come here are going to farms either as farm help or as purchasers, and in six weeks from now there will be no unemployment. every man will be absorbed. I went home believing that, but as soon as I landed off the train in Calgary I saw three or four hundred Czechoslovakians walking the streets in search of jobs. They were willing to take anything they could get at from 25 to 30 cents an hour, to the detriment of Canadian workingmen. I wired to the Immigration department. We had been informed that an officer of the department, known as the superintendent of colonization, was supposed to look after immigrants on their arrival. I asked what his duties were. I was told he had to see that immigrants went to the places where they were supposed to go. But there was no superintendent of colonization accompanying these Czechoslovakians. They were brought in by the Canadian Pacific railway and landed at Calgary and other centres, where they were taking jobs at very low wages from Canadian workingmen anxious to secure work. Then I telegraphed the Prime Minister, and I wish to give him credit for his prompt attention, for he at once ordered an investigation. The investigator corroborated my statements in every respect. As soon as the investigator submitted his report the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart)-he was the Acting Minister of Immigration while the
minister of the department was away in England with Mr. Egan looking for more immigrants-I am informed cancelled the agreements with the railway companies, and thus put a stop to further immigration of this kind. I wish to give him and the Prime Minister every credit for their prompt action, but the point I want to bring out is this: We must have what I would term responsible immigration; and, further, the words of a minister given across the floor of the house that there is going to be no flooding of labour in our cities must be lived up to fully, to the very letter.
I think it was last session that I asked the Minister of Immigration:	Do you consult
at all with the provinces regarding their requirements for immigrants? And his reply was:	Well, not exactly. I hope that the
recent Dominion-provincial conference has changed that state of affairs. I think Mr. Brownlee's proposition is sound and would relieve the federal department entirely of responsibility if immigrants were brought in in excess of our requirements. He proposes: That it should be ascertained that immigrants coming in to buy farms have the necessary capital; that there should be a standard for the selection of immigrants; that in this selection the capacity of each province to absorb immigrants should be considered, and that the provincial authorities should advise the federal Department of Immigration in regard to their requirements. I think if the federal authorities would consult each provincial premier as to the class of men the province wanted, how many it wanted and when, the responsibility would be assumed by the provincial authorities, and the Department of Immigration would not be placed in the very unenviable position in which it found itself for a month or two last year. As I said before, I am very happy to give credit to the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Immigration for relieving the situation at that time as quickly as they could. At the last convention of the Alberta Federation of Labour it was stated that a large number of those Czechoslovakian immigrants were mechanics and knew nothing at all about farming, and that a number of them had secured work in the coal mines at Edmonton, thus depriving Canadians of work which they are rightfully entitled to. Before I came away the city of Calgary had incurred an expenditure of some five or six hundred dollars in looking after Czechoslovakians and Ukrainians who were sick and penniless and homeless in the city. I
The Address-Mr. Adshead

wrote to the Department of Immigration here asking if they would foot the bill, but they said there was no appropriation for the purpose. So the city of Calgary will have to pay for looking after people whom they had no voice in bringing to this country.
I entirely agree that the contented farmer is the best advertisement for immigration that Canada can have. [DOT] If you had farmers on the land who were prosperous and contented you could not keep immigrants out unless you put up a quota bar. To spend money and bring out men to settle on the land when those who are already here can barely make a living, is only going to increase the number of the discontented. We must make conditions on the land prosperous before we invite more settlers. I should like to see more immigrants from the British Isles, but as England is a highly industrialized country, and those in the rural centres do not seem very ready to leave the land, it follows that those who come here from the industrial centres are not exactly fitted to take up agriculture. A year ago a number of them came here from the mining districts, but they were entirely unsuited to our conditions, and for tin's reason some of them had to be deported.
As has been stated in this house before, what we require an immigration is quality rather *than quantity. I happened to meet Dr. Miller recently, at one time professor in the school of technology at Calgary. He went over to the United States and after three or four years returned to 'Calgary. He said, " Well, I have been three years in the United States, and they have almost made a pretty good Yankee of me." I replied, " That is too bad, Doctor. But will you tell me what are the qualifications to make a good Yankee that are not necessary to make a good Canadian?" In other words, the character of a man rather than his nationality is what counts. We have heard a good deal about foreign immigrants. I was present at a Canadian club meeting when a proposal was made to organize a Canadian club among the Ukrainians. A very laudable object, I suppose, but I think we are wrong if we suppose that because a man happens to have been bom m another country and speaks another tongue he does not appreciate and value Canadian institutions when he becomes a Canadian citizen. I hope none of us are labouring under such a great mistake, for the majority of our immigrants become good Canadians. I have in [DOT] mind a gentleman from Winnipeg whose father and mother, Icelanders, could not speak a word of English, yet he, their descendant, is a graduate of Manitoba

University, a Rhodes scholar, a member of this house, and a credit to Canada. I think my Canadian friends who were organizing the Canadian club were very much astonished when I told them of this fact. It is a very good thing to organize a Canadian club among the Ukrainians, but to assume an attitude of " I am holier than thou " or " I am better than thou " is rather beside the mark. I told them that in our house sitting quite near me was a gentleman, the hon. member. for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), whose parents could not speak a word of English, who himself is a Ukrainian, who graduated with honours at Manitoba Law School and who is to-day a member of the House of Commons of Canada. Surely these things ought to show us that it is not necessarily nationality that tells as much as it is the character of the man whom we bring to this country. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) speak of the assimilation of different nationalities. I am strongly in favour of a mixture of those nationalities which, for certain physiological reasons, are capable of assimilating. I think Ruskin says something like this:
Every nation has within itself some peculiar characteristic which it alone has and which it alone can make as a contribution to building up civilization and each one of those characteristics should not be curbed but should be developed in order that in the building up of this human temple of civilization each one might produce its peculiar characteristics and give its contribution to the civilization of the day in which it lives.
I fear sometimes that when we meet with these people whom we call foreigners there is an attempt to submerge them, to tell them they must adopt our Canadian ideals. I value Canadian ideals; I value the Magna Charta;
I value the struggle for liberty; but I am sure my friends in Switzerland value William Tell just as much as I value corresponding heroes in Canadian history. When I went to the Ukrainian temple and saw the pictures on the wall I asked who they were, probably thinking they were some terrible bolshevists or communists. They pointed with pride to men who had straggled for liberty just as our nation had struggled for liberty. I did not attempt to disparage them. In valuing those ideals we must remember it is the ideal that counts, not so much the symbol that stands for it. That is my idea of the question, of immigration and assimilation. After all, what is it that makes the British nation strong? Were they all Anglo-Saxons to whom that strength is attributable? Not at all. It was the intermingling of those nations from

The Address-Mr. Adshead
northern Europe, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes and Danes, that made the British a strong nation, and those countries which isolate themselves and keep themselves from everybody else are the ones that begin to decay.
I come now to the question of trade and commerce. I was very much interested [DOT] in reading the account of what the hon. member for West Calgary ,(Mr. Bennett) qaid in Vancouver. He is reported as having uttered these words:
We must decide within the next few years if we are to combine with other parts of the empire or combine with economic interests elsewhere. It is economic union within the British Empire or with our cousins to the south.
I notice tfhat he has advanced a stage in our relationship with the people to the south. They used to be " our neighbours " to the south; now they are "our cousins". He may get a closer relationship by and by. What I think my hon. friend ought to do is to state explicitly what he means by an economic union. If he means by an economic union; free trade within the empire, I will hold up both hands for it. I do not know whether he means that we are going to be forced into free trade with the United States or not.. I do not know that I would hold up both hands for that at the present time, but I would hold up both hands for a reduction in the tariff between this and other countries. But if by economic union within the empire he means freer trade and lower duties, he will have to settle with the manufacturers' association, because if there is anything that the manufacturers' association have fought before the tariff advisory board on occasions when I have heard them, it is the British preference. If we want economic union within the empire we must maintain the British preference to a greater strength than it is at the present time.
As regards the question of trade and commerce, I should like to know why we severed relations with Russia and why we destroyed trade which existed with Russia. I have never had an answer to that question. If the Russian people in Ottawa or in Canada generally have violated any confidence given to Canadians, if they have done wrong in Canada, I am quite willing to support the idea that for that reason we should sever diplomatic relations with those people. But if we severed relations with Russia simply because Mr. Baldwin did it or, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said last year, if we simply put up our umbrella because it is raining in London, then I say, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St.' George (Mr. Cahan)
said this afternoon, that we are certainly exhibiting an inferiority complex. He was extremely desirous that Canada should settle Canadian affairs upon a purely Canadian basis or because purely Canadian interests were involved.
The1 hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) rather objected to the tariff advisory board. As both sides of the house agreed that the tariff advisory board was a very necessary institution in order, as they said, to take the tariff out of politics, I do not know what else we can do than seek to protect the ultimate consumers by presenting their case properly before that board. I am rather proud to say that I gave my little mite in order to keep Mr. Deaehman at the tariff advisory board as representing the consumers of this country. I am not at all ashamed of that fact. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) this afternoon brought out the fact that some of these people, made, during the year 1918, according to their own evidence, 291 per cent on the actual capital invested. The house will remember that the year 1918 was the time of greatest stress that Canada or Great Britain or the allies knew in fighting the Germans. That was the darkest year of the war. Extra duties were imposed upon cotton in order to raise revenue for war purposes, and at that particular time when we were in the greatest stress, when your boys and my boys were over yonder fighting for liberty, these gentlemen sitting in a directors' office in Montreal declared a profit of 291 per cent on the actual capital invested. It is no wonder that one gentleman who appeared before the cost of living committee said: "We are not running this business for the glory of God but for the profits of the shareholders ".
I may say in passing that I attended a banquet to the tenth battalion. Although I suppose I would be called a pacifist, I was proud to attend that banquet and to address the returned men. Sir Archibald Macdonell was there and confirmed my statement. When I spoke to those boys I made bold to make this statement, and I -make it now: If Canada is dragged into another war it will be against my strong personal opposition, and not simply because Mr. Baldwin or Mr. MacDonald says so. If that should occur, then so far as I am concerned we will strive for one thing more; no one in Canada will be allowed to stay at home and make huge profits while our boys are fighting in the trenches. We will all go to war, lawyers, doctors, and everyone else; we will all get $1.10 a day; no one will make these extor-
The Address-Mr. Adshead

tionate profits, and no one will get the richer the longer the war lasts. When I mentioned that fact at the banquet of the tenth battalion I was surprised at its reception. I said it rather hesitatingly, but every man jumped to his feet and cheered, and even Brigadier-General Macdonell said: " Put it there, old man; I agree with you ", I believe every returned soldier is against another war, but if it should come I know every man of them will insist on this condition and I will take the same stand.
I have one more word to say and then I am through. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) told us that no reductions were to be made in the tariff because no reports had been received from the tariff advisory board except on a few minor articles such as ep;om salts and so on, and he did not think it right or worth while to bring down any reductions in the tariff. I accepted that explanation at that time and voted for the budget precisely for that reason. Now the government can have no excuses of that sort; the .tariff advisory board has made fact finding reports in more cases than one. I see my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) is not here. I am sorry, because when he was in Calgary he said that we in this corner attempted to foist our ideas upon the government and tried to bludgeon them. I do not want to use the bludgeon, but 'because I want to be true to my promises and true to the principles I enunciated in my nomination and my election. I said then that I was for low tariff and that I would support a low tariff; I must take a definite stand. I told the government last year that they could not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. One of the members in that comer said last year that he believed in a high tariff, and I was very much astonished to hear that from the Liberal side. I wonder what Doctor Clark or Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Sir Richard Cartwright would have thought of that? If you believe in a high tariff, go to the side of the house where you belong, where there are other men who believe in it and where they advocate high protection. One vote either way does not mean very much, but I want to say that you must bring forth fruits meet for repentance. You now have reports from the tariff advisory board, and something concrete must be brought down; something must be put in the- budget to show that you meant what you said and that what was given given last year as a reason was not a mere excuse. Some reduction in the duties on the necessities of life must be made in the budget which is 
to come. If that is done according to your promise and according to the statements which you made last year, I shall be content to support your budget. But if there is nothing done by way of reducing the tariff; if there is nothing there to show that you have acted in good faith and in conformity with the facts found by the tariff advisory board, I am afraid I shall not be able to support your budget.
Mr. Speaker, I have finished my few remarks. I hope it will not be considered that I have been u ing the bludgeon, because in my criticisms I have not said anything in a vindictive way, and I hope my remarks will be taken in the spirit in which they are made.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so while suffering from a physical disability with which I have been slightly troubled of late, and. I may find it necessary to curtail my remarks. I shall confine myself, therefore, to one or two subjects in which I am vitally interested.
Much has been said during this debate with regard to the wonderful prosperity in Canada at present, and something has also been said as to the part played in that prosperity by the production last year of the second largest crop of wheat in our history. I believe this to be true, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to point out also that the farmers of Canada are not sharing in that prosperity in the proportion to which they are entitled. This, of course, is due to many reasons, one of the most important being the poor quality of the grain this year. As the hon. member who has just taken his seat mentioned, no matter what- the quality of the grain might be the handling charges remain the same; consequently the returns to the farmer this year are much less. In my opinion the main reason for this condition is the ravages of rust; this is true of the whole province of Manitoba, at any rate, and perhaps a large part of Saskatchewan as well. It is a condition which is not confined to rvheat alone; the oat crop over the area which I have mentioned was almost a complete failure last year, and that adds greatly to the difficulty of the farmer.
Just at this point I would like to give the government credit for the fact that they have established in Winnipeg a well-equipped and well-staffed laboratory for the purpose of studying and combating this rust menace. We have been alarmed, however, at statements, or rather rumors, issuing from an unknown source, to the effect that we are likely

The Address-Mr. Stexdsman
to lose the services of some of the most expert members of that staff because their salaries are not sufficiently large to induce them to stay. It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that a country holding the proud position of the greatest exporter of milling wheat in the world-for that is the position now held by Canada-can surely afford to engage and retain the services of the very best experts to be found anywhere in the world to combat 4 his menace. I have stated that the farmers are not reaping a sufficient reward for their labour, and I believe that if they are to continue in the production of such crops as have recently been harvested it is necessary they should be relieved from some of the burdens at least under which they are suffering at the present time.
It has been suggested during this debate that this session we may expect reductions in taxation. What form these reductions will take we have not been told, but I should like to point out that one of the greatest burdens from which the agriculturists of Canada are suffering is the protective duties. There was a discussion the other day as to whether or not the tariff is a tax. To my mind that is neither here nor there; if it is not a tax it is certainly a burden on the producers of this country. I do not wish at this time to discuss the tariff at length, but I must say that the agriculturists of Canada, particularly those in the west, are looking for reductions in the tariff on many of the articles that enter into the cost of living and the cost of production. And are they not justified in entertaining those expectations? My hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) pointed out this afternoon that last year the Finance minister made the boast that this government are a low tariff government and are proud of it. If that be so the people are justified in expecting reductions in the tariff this year.
Now I wish to discuss another point. A situation has arisen in my constituency which is perhaps common to other constituencies located, as it is, along the border line of the United States in the prairie country. Many of the residents of these constituencies immediately along the boundary line have had, for one reason or another, which is their own affair, occasion to cross over into the adjoining state of Dakota. In order to do so they secured a permit from the customs officials, and trouble has arisen because they have returned to their own homes, oftentimes late at night, instead of driving a further distance of twenty or twenty-five miles, as the case might be, in order to report to the officers 56103-10
and return their permits. That has resulted in heavy penalties and fines being inflicted upon men who were absolutely innocent of any desire to break the law, and a number of such cases have been brought to my attention.
I want it clearly understood that I am not seeking to defend smugglers or those engaged in smuggling. I am speaking to-night in the interest of innocent, honourable, law-abiding citizens who live on the Canadian side of the border. In the report of the royal commission on customs and excise various statements are made with which I agree. Among other things it 'is asserted that the customs offices in the west are not all located at the most- advantageous points from a strategical point of view, particularly in the province from which I come. The ports of entry are confined to the railway lines, which in many cases are a long way from the border, and this involves, of course, much extra travelling back and forth for the people who live between the custom houses and the border. Now I am quite sure that the minister (Mr. Euler) in framing the regulations responsible for these penalties, had no desire that innocent (people should suffer from them, and right here I want to do him the credit of saying 'that in every case in which I have appealed to him on behalf of innocent sufferers in my constituency he has Shown great .consideration and sympathy and has done hiis best to afford relief. But would it not be better in the interests of all concerned if such occurrences could be avoided? I think it is possible to prevent them from happening to a large extent.
Among other things the royal commission has suggested cutting out a number of the ports of entry, on the ground that there are too many of them in existence. That may be true; as to that I will not venture an opinion. I am convinced, however, that many of them are not located where they can best serve the objects for which they were called into existence. As I have already said, they are established along the railway lines, while the traffic between the. two countries in the particular locality to which I have reference is almost entirely by automobiles on the highway. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, two provincial highways lead directly to the boundary line of the state of North Dakota, linking up there with highways on the other side and thus making it possible for international traffic to pass back and forth. I submit that is where the ports of entry should be located. Should the government see fit to consider this suggestion and put it into effect it will not only relieve

The. Address-Mr. Gershaw

the situation of which I have complained, but it will be of immense advantage to the travelling public who -pass backward and forward at the points in question, and will also provide a more efficient check on smuggling. It will make the smuggler's rvay harder and render it easier to -check him up and so stop this nefarious practice. The minister is not here tonight but I trust he will heed the suggestion I have made, because I am convinced that it would be of advantage, and I know positively that it would relieve the situation in regard to which I have had so many complaints from people living immediately along the boundary line.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I wish first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address, who performed their task in an eloquent manner. It is no easy matter to begin a debate of this nature and they set a very high standard. As a member from Alberta I also wish to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the high position which he now holds. The people of Alberta have a special pride in his success. When he returned from the Winnipeg convention the people in the different organizations in his home city of C-a-lgary gave him a welcome extending almost over a week. He was enthusiastically received in the capital city of Edmonton; in fact political and sectional differences were set aside and he was warmly applauded and honoured throughout the province.
The debate so far has been of a high order and free from unpleasant personal references. Many problems of national and international character have 'been discussed, and I hope to speak of some things of a more purely local nature. The leader of the opposition has presented the immigration problem as an issue. His words as reported at page 22 of Hansard, in reference to the getting in of new settlers read:
It cannot be done in any small way; it cannot be accomplished in any niggardly way, but is must be done in a large way. It involves the expenditures of vast sums of money and, more than that, it involves a large and comphensive policy of settlement.
Later on he pointed out that the province of Alberta had increased in -population from 1921 to 1926 to the extent of about 19,000; that is to say, it had increased from 588,000 to 607,000, or about three per cent. Who will say that we could properly assimilate a very much larger increase? At any rate, if that does seem small, I hardly think that the Liberal government here or the Progressive government in Edmonton should be blamed, because I believe the causes are

more economic than political. Let us see what some other agricultural districts have done during that same time. A census of some of the leading agricultural states in the American union shows an even smaller percentage of increase during the years from 1910 to 1920. Here are the actual figures: Kansas, an increase of five per cent in ten years; Iowa, five per cent; Kentucky, five per cent; Missouri, three per cent; North Dakota, ten per cent, and South Dakota, eight per cent. This is for a ten year period, and bear in mind that it covers the years from 1910 to 1920, during a considerable portion of which the war was in progress and prices were high, so that the drift was towards the farms. I cannot obtain the figures for the corresponding period from 1921 to 1926, but I think we may safely say that the rate of increase was *not very much greater, because those were the years.when there was a collapse in prices after the brief post-war boom; and they were the years of hard times in the farming districts both in the United States and in Canada.
As an illustration of the way in which prices have fallen, let us note that in February, 1920, the price of No. 1 Northern wheat was 82.15 whereas in 1921 it was $1.85; in 1922, $1.29, and in 1924, 99 cents. In other words, during that period the price of wheat had been more than cut in two. The price of coarse grains also followed the price of wheat. Now, the people had contracted certain obligations during these periods of high prices. Some men went on the land with the idea of producing food for the people of the world during the period of national crisis. When prices moved down these farmers found that they had to produce twice as much farm produce as they did before if they were to meet their obligations. Under such circumstances they were unable to carry on and many of them had to move out. Every one who has followed the trend of things in this country knows this to be true. Parliament itself officially recognized this state of affairs, for during the last session there rvas a revaluation of soldier lands. What was this but a recognition of the very fact which I have been stating?
Besides soldiers other settlers took up land during these times of peak prices and as their obligations were not reduced they encountered great difficulty in paying their way. During the past few years things have been a little better. The price of farm produce has increased, the prices of the things the farmers have to buy, machinery and Ford cars, have been reduced, and the price of

The Address-Mr. Gershaw'
wheat has again advanced. But although there has been some measure of prosperity it is not as great as has been advertised. A good crop seemed to be almost within grasp of the people of southern Alberta but owing to unfavourable weather conditions only about fifty per cent of it could be threshed. Many people were unable to meet their obligations in respect of such relief as they had obtained during the long series of dry years and in respect also of commitments in connection with pre-emptions and interest on pre-emptions. If the people of the east knew how difficult it was for the people on the farms in the west to pay back the money advanced to them for fodder and relief they would agree with us that these old claims should be cancelled, as. should be also the interest on pre-emptions. The people of Canada as well as this government owe much to the men and women who now find themselves unable, through no fault of their own, to meet these obligations.
This year there has been widespread dissatisfaction over the grading of grain. The present arbitrary system depends to a great extent upon the judgment of the inspector; consequently it lacks scientific accuracy. There is on the order paper a resolution regarding this subject and I' assume that it will be fully debated later, but the producers would be glad if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) would start an investigation with a view to working out some more satisfactory system of grading if this is at all possible.
Now, what policies should be adopted to modify or improve these conditions? I do not believe that bringing in a large number of immigrants at the present time would solve the problem unless living conditions are made happier for the people who are already here.
The cost of transportation must be as low as possible, and surely the Crowsnest pass agreement must be retained.
I do not think higher protection would help.
Let me quote from Senator Robinson, of Kansas, as reported in the Congressional Record, page 1554, with reference to conditions in the United States. The following are the figures of the failures:
National
State banks banks
1918	
20	...1919	
50	41920	
119	10	[DOT]1921	
204	471922	
277	551923	
578	771924	
613	1211925	
361	1031926	
722	...
The total liability was $165,000,000 in 1925. He says that the bureau of labour reports that employment is twenty per cent less than it was in 1920, and that there is a decrease of one-seventh in the payroll from 1920 to 1927. The index figure of employment in manufacture in 1920 was 118.8, and in 1926 it was 92.4. So we see that even in a country with a more highly protective tariff the condition has not been altogether good, and surely the condition would not be so good if the protection were increased in Canada, which is largely a producing country. We have a population of nine and a half millions and produce enough wheat to feed sixty millions. Many thousand cattle have been shipped to the United States this year in spite of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. I should say above all things that what we need as a primary requisite is a reduction in cost of living, and the one best means by which that can be secured is reduction of the tariff.
I recall with some interest the work of the tariff board. There have been a great many applications for tariff reductions. Many of the manufacturers have applied for tariff reductions because they are anxious to get their raw material at the lowest possible rate. Then there are a great many household articles of every day use on which reductions should be made. The average rate of duty upon enamel-ware and aluminum-ware is higher than upon silks and velvets, higher than upon jewellery, higher than upon fancy furs. The cotton schedule needs lowering in the worst possible way. It is so high now that it is stifling imports. Actual imports of cotton goods, measured in yards, on a per capita basis, are probably not more than one-half what they were in 1914. We cannot say that this is due to a change in the habits of dress of the people. There is a larger per unit consumption of cotton goods now than ever before. Merchants are appealing to the Minister of Finance to drop the sales tax. Millionaires are asking him to reduce the income tax, although few others favour its reduction. Revenues must be found, and I take the liberty of making this suggestion: a reduction in the rate of duty upon many items would be a considerable help in increasing the revenue. The rate is now so high that it constitutes an embargo upon imports, thus raising prices without making any material contribution to the revenue, with the result that the producers of this country are compelled to pay high prices and at the same time make contributions in other ways to the revenues, which under more reasonable conditions would come from customs taxes.
The Address-Mr. Gershaw

Raising tariff rates very frequently lowers actual revenue; reducing rates is apt to increase them.
In the milder climate of Alberta there are great numbers of horses, unused, running wild both winter and summer over the prairies. Since the war there has been little or no market for these horses, but the Department of Agriculture succeeded in selling about
3,000	of them to the Russian government during this year. The price is low, but otherwise no market could be found for the light horses. The horse owners appreciate the efforts of the Dominion and provincial departments of Agriculture and hope that these trade relations may be continued, as many more horses are available and every possible market for them should be developed.
Another problem much discussed in Alberta, and which means a great deal to returned men and others, is the getting of coal from the mines of that province to the markets of central Canada. This is such an important matter that boards of trade all over the country have passed many resolutions urging that something be done, and the government will make no mistake in taking the considered opinion and decisions of the men who make up these boards.
One other matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the government, and in which the west is tremendously interested, is that of branch line construction. There are many districts in western Canada in which rapid development is impossible because of the lack of railway facilities. In the constituency of Medicine Hat there are two branch lines required. One of them has been promised; very definite promises were made in regard to it several years ago. Many farmers have moved in and waited and waited, but as the line has not been completed they have had to move out. I realize the view held by some people in the east in regard to these matters. I have only this to say: in the older sections, where railway development has taken place, the resultant progress has certainly justified the act. I plead for generosity in the attitude of the house on this question. The history of Canada reveals a long record of struggle and doubt in regard to the wisdom of certain policies of railway construction. Sometimes we acted in haste; beyond question there were times when we built ahead of actual necessity, but taking into consideration the size of the country and the problems we had to face, we may pass lightly in judgment upon mistakes of the past. Railway building is not finished in Canada; it cannot be. If we are to make progress we must have a greater mileage than

we have at present, and if good judgment is exercised the construction of these branch lines will mean not greater burdens but the actual lifting of burdens now borne.
On motion of Mr. Smith (Cumberland) the debate was adjourned.



PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY, PRINTING AND RESTAURANT

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the honourable the Speaker, the honourable Messieurs Green, Hardy, Ross (Middleton), Sharpe, Taylor and Watson, have been appointed a committee to assist the honourable the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant of parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said restaurant.
Also,-A message informing this house that the honourable the Speaker, the honourable Messieurs Aylesrvorth, Sir Allen, Beaubien, Chapais, Gillis, Gordon, Griesbach, Hardy, Hatfield, Laird, Lewis, McDougald, McLennan, Poirier, Taylor, Turriff and Webster (Brock-ville), have been appointed a committee to assist the honourable the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said library.	.
And also,-A message informing this house that the honourable Messieurs Aylesworth, Sir Allen, Buchanan, Chapais, Donnelly, Farrell, Green, Hatfield, Legris, Lewis. McDonald, McLean, McLennan, Murphy, Pope, Raymond, Robertson, Sharpe, Taylor, Todd, White (In-kerman) and White (Pembroke), have been appointed a committee to superintend the printing of the Senate during the present session. and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament.



ADJOURNMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the adjournment of the house.
He said:	The Prime Minister wishes me
to say that he has been advised that the funeral services of Earl Haig in London tomorrow will be held in the morning, so that it will take place many hours before this house meets; also that a memorial service will be held throughout Canada on Sunday, February 12th, by the Canadian legion, and in Ottawa there will be a service in Keith's theatre at three o'clock in the afternoon of that day, to which hon. members are invited.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

The Address-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
Friday, February 3, 1928