1929-06-03

Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) moved:: That the first and final report of the joint committee on the restaurant be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 336, for the relief of William John Blight.-Mr. Neill.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by
an asterisk.)

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 
Mr. ELLIOTT:: Stand.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is there any intention of answering this question at this session? I would like to have it answered if possible during this session.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope to be able to give
my hon. friend the answer, but it is information that had to be obtained from Vancouver, and is in process of being obtained as rapidly as possible.


LEGERE, N.B., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Who occupies the position of postmaster at Legere, Northumberland county, New Brunswick?
2.	When was the appointment made?
3.	On whose recommendation?
4.	Who held the office prior to such appointment ?
5.	For what reason was the change made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Archie Dcsroc'he.
2.	19th November, 1926.
3.	Member for constituency.
4.	Mrs. Rose Legere.
5.	Mrs. Legere's husband was postmaster up to the 19th August, 1926. In June, 1926, charges of active political partisanship made against the postmaster were investigated and proven. The office was transferred to Mrs. Legere in August, 1926. In November, 1926, the office was transferred to Archie Desroche.


WHITNEY, N.B., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Who occupies the position of -postmaster at Whitney, New Brunswick?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Who was his predecessor?
4.	What was the reason necessitating a change, and on Whose recommendation was the change made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Gregory Dunnett.
2.	1st September, 1927:
3.	P. A. Forsyth.
4.	Political partisanship. On recommendation of member for constituency.


TRADE COMMISSIONERS
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many trade commissioners were employed by the Department of Trade and Commerce in the year 1921?
2.	How many trade commissioners are now employed by the Department of Trade and Commerce?
3.	How many assistant trade commissioners were employed by the same department in 1921, and how many are now employed by that department ?
4.	How many offices were maintained in 1921: (a) in British countries; (b) in foreign countries?
5.	How many offices are now maintained: (a) in British countries; (b) in foreign countries ?
6.	Does the government intend establishing
additional offices in the near future for the extension of Canadian trade, and if so:	(a)
how many; (b) where?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) (for Mr. Malcolm) :: 1.	On March 31, 1921-19.
2.	33 (including Y. Lamontagne on loan to the Egyptian government).
3.	(a) in 1921-none; (b) now-11.
4.	(a) 10; (b) 9.
5.	(a) 14; (b) 18.
6.	Yes; as and where occasion requires.


TRADE STATISTICS-MOST FAVOURED NATIONS
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	With what foreign countries did Canada exchange most-favoured-nation treatment in 1921?
2.	With what foreign countries does Canada now exchange most-favoured-nation treatment?
3.	What were the total imports and exports with the treaty countries of 1921 in the fiscal year 1921-22?
4.	What were the total imports and exports with the foreign countries with which Canada now exchanges most-favoured-nation treatment, in the fiscal year 1928-29?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) (for Mr. Malcolm) :: Questions

1 and 3. Canada's imports from and exports to foreign countries which granted to or received from Canada tariff concessions during the fiscal year 1921-22 under trade treaties and agreements or provisions of most favoured nation clause in British treaties binding on Canada.
Countries
1.	Argentina..
2.	Belgium.. ..
3.	Colombia.. .
4.	Denmark.. .
5.	France.. ..
6.	Italy	
7.	Japan	
8.	Netherlands..
9.	Norway.. ..
10.	Russia	
11.	Spain	
12.	Sweden.. . .
13.	Switzerland. .
14.	Venezuela..
Total
Total
Imports from
total F,xports to Canadian Foreign
Produce Produce Total Exports
$ 2,355,100	$ 3,233,423
3,845,718	12,359,300
360,509	127,199
119,315	2.243,181
13,482,005	8,208,22S
1,387,370	15,335,818
8,194,681	14,831,520
4,002,047	9,582,924
426,928	3,913,372
1,683	2.617,739
1,779,408	816,977
245,295	1.220,196
8,671,608	345.626
294,305	512,499
$45,165,972	$75,348,002
59,951	12,419,251
621	127,820
680	2,243,861
40,210	8,248.438
4,612	15,340.430
45,648	14,877,168
10,014	9,592,938
859	3,914,231
4.989	2,622,728
31,518	848,495
822	1,221,018
22,158	367,794
		512,499
$222,179	$75,570,181
2 and 4. Canada's imports from and exports to foreign countries which granted to or received from Canada tariff concessions during the fiscal year 1928-29 under trade treaties and agreements or provisions of most favoured nation clause in British treaties binding on Canada.
Countries
1.	Argentina	
~'7'2. Belgium	
~~3. Belgian Congo	
4. Colombia	
'' 5. Cuba	
-*6. Czecho-SIovakia	
7.	Denmark	
8.	Esthonia	
-	9. Finland	

10. France	
-11. French Africa	
''12. French East Indies	
13.	French Guiana	
14.	French Oceania	
*T5. French West Indies	
~16. Madagasca	
-T7.	St. Pierre and Miquelon	. .
-* 18. Hungary	
-19. Italy	
-	20.	Tripoli	'21.	Italian Africa, Other..	..
22. Japan	
23.	Korea	
"24. Latvia	
"25. Lithuania	
'26. Netherlands	
27.	Dutch East Indies	
28.	Dutch Guiana	
-29. Dutch West Indies	
30.	Norway	
31.	Portugal	
32.	Azores and Madeira	Islands.
'-33.	Portuguese Africa	
-34.	Portuguese Asia	
"[DOT]35. Roumania	
'36. Serb-Croat-Slovene State.. ..
'37. Spain	
'38.	Canary Islands	
""39.	Spanish Africa	
40.	Sweden	
41.	Switzerland	
42.	Syria	
43.	Venezuela	
Total	
I Mr. C. A. Stewart.1
	Total Exports to		
Total	Canadian	Foreign	Imports from	Produce	Produce	Total Exports$ 7,427,568	$ 14,493,191	$ 607	$ 14.493,79812,014,538	27,301,384	149,680	27,451,064189,180	189,1806,849.408	1,797.393	4,487	1.801,8804,903,506	4,442,953	76,778	4.519.7313,297,563	1,703.825	3,798	1,707,623152,721	5,981,035	2,862	5,983,897168	88.680	88.68098.286	2,122,129	540	2,122.66926,215,696	16,131,188	112,559	16.243,747153,244	475,026	475.0261,099	52,055	416	52.47153,017	53.01740,042	40,0421,719	511,374	56	511.4301,865	36,425	36.42555,524	2,729,124	22,360	2,752,48418,001	134.026	134,0264.260,325	23,024,899	3,933	23,028,832732	73212.974	12.97412,921,317	42,099,968	6,985	42,106.9532.359	160,995	160,99522,102	34,315	34.31510.301	7,239	7,2399.016,763	44,366,888	98.976	44,465,864704.663	3.605,367	330	3,605,69752,592	123,580	123,580173,319	185,044	902	185.946989,504	7,435,537	1,591	7,437,128678,030	5,735,299	5	5,735,30484,804	187,199	187,199943,194	943,1941,683	1,68332,364	568.432	16	568,44825,543	48.829	48,8292,700,033	5,704.255	5	5,704,2607,060	71.374	71.37415	65.789	65,7892,185,089	4,765,818	30,672	4.796,4907,917.445	483,919	76,541	560,46018.368	476,229	476.229701,935	1,792,549	136	1,792,685$103,694,837	8220,184,154	$595,235	$220,779,389
Questions


TRADE STATISTICS-BRITISH COUNTRIES
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	With what British countries did Canada enjoy customs tariff preferential treatment in 1921?
2.	With what British countries does Canada enjoy customs tariff preferential treatment?
3.	What were the values of the total exports to these countries: (a) an the fiscal year 192122; (b) in the fiscal year 1928-29?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton; for Mr. Malcolm);
1,	2 and 3. British countries that granted customs tariff preferential treatment to Canadian products in 1921, and that give preferential treatment at the present time; with Canada's domestic exports to these British countries: (a) in the fiscal year 1921-22; (b) in the fiscal year 1928-29.
(a) In the Fiscal Year, 1921-22
British Countries
1.	United Kingdom	
2.	New Zealand	
3. Union of South Africa	1
4. Southern Rhodesia	)
5.	Northern Rhodesia (Zambesi Basin) . . . .J
British West Indies-
6.	Barbados	
7.	Trinidad and Tobago
8.	Bahamas	
9.	Grenada	
Leeward Islands-
10.	Antigua	
11.	Dominica	
12.	Montserrat....	..13.	St. Kitts-Nevis..	.14.	Virgin Islands..	. .15.	St. Lucia	10.	St. Vincent	17.	British Guiana	18.	British Honduras.. ..19.	Western Samoa	20.	Cyprus	
Canada's Domestic Exports to $299,361,675 4,128,531
3,890,390
1,377,984
4,548,535
1,829,798
2,298,105
150.964
Included with New Zealand Not specified
Total

(b) In the Fiscal Year, 1928-29
British Countries
1.	United Kingdom	
2.	Irish Free State	
3.	'New Zealand	
4.	Australia	
5.	Union of South Africa	
6.	Southern Rho'desia	
7.	Northern Rhodesia (Zambesi Basin) .. ..
8.	Bermuda	
British West Indies-
0.	Barbados	
10.	Jamaica	
11.	Trinidad and Tobago	
12.	Bahamas	
13.	Grenada	
Leeward Islands-
14.	Antigua	
15.	Dominica	
16.	Montserrat	
17.	St. Kitts-Nevis	,.
18.	Virgin Islands	
19.	St. Lucia	
20.	St. Vincent	
21.	British Guiana	
22.	British Honduras	
23.	Fiji	
24.	Western Samoa	
25.	Brunei	
26.	Sarawak	
27.	Mauritius	
28.	Gibraltar	
29.	Cyprus	
Canada's Domestic Exports to $429,730,485 4.144.743 17.357.763 19,470,305
12,231,773
1,628,003
1.681,950
5.266,083
4,153,571
4,656,219
2,238,506
900,034
329,797
Included with New Zealand Not specified Not specified Not specified 75,391
Not specified
Total


$503,864,623 314S COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions as Orders for Returns

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the value of the total exports of fully or chiefly manufactured goods in the fiscal year 1921-22?
2.	What was the value of the total exports of fully or chiefly manufactured goods in the fiscal year 1927-28?


Mr. STEWART (Edlmonto-n) (for Mr. Malcolm):: 1.	Canada's total domestic exports of fully or chiefly manufactured goods in the fiscal year 1921-22 were $303,642,174.
2.	Canada's total domestic exports of fully or chiefly manufactured goods in the fiscal year 1927-28 were $458,796,561.


STEAMSHIP TYVIAN-COAL SUPPLIES
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	What quantity of coal, if any, was supplied steamship Tyvian by A. T. O'Leary and Company during the period from February 1, 1928, to April 30, 1929?
2.	What was the price paid?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	1,063 tons.
2.	$7.50 per ton.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What were the Canadian exports to Great Britain for the year ending March 31, 1929?
2.	What were the Canadian imports from Great Britain during the same period?
3.	What were the exports to and imports from Great Britain during the years ending March 31, 1927, and March 31, 1928?
4.	What were the Canadian exports to the United States for the year ending March 31, 1929?
5.	What were the Canadian imports from the United States for the same period?
6.	What were the exports to and imports from the United States during the years ending March 31, 1927, and March 31, 1928?
7.	What quantity of the following products was exported to the United States for the year ending March 31, 1929: (a) wheat; (b) wood reduced to pulp; (c) pulpwood; (d) silver ore and bullion; (e) raw hides; (f) logs; (g) raw fur; (h) printing paper; (i) unmanufactured leather; (j) raw wool; (k) asbestos raw; (1) aluminum bars; (m) whiskey; (n) malt liquors: (o) settlers' effects?
8.	What quantity of the following products
was imported into Canada from the United States during above period:	(a) machinery,
showing various classes; (b) motor cars; (c) parts for motor cars?



DOMINION NOTES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPENOER;
1. What was the amount of Dominion notes advanced under the Finance Act, and outstand-

ing at the end of March, June, September and December of each year from 1926 until the present time?
2.	What were the amounts of securities accepted as a basis for the foregoing issues of Dominion notes?
3.	What were the different clases of securities and the various amounts of each accepted for rediscounting, for the same period?

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	When students are -invited, or permitted, to join an Aero Club to become aviators, does the government assume any responsibility in case of fatalities?
2.	Is insurance required?
3.	Are planes insured, and for how much?
4.	What was the -nature of the fatality at the Walkerville Aero Club in tbe fall of 1928?
5.	Who was killed?
6.	Was there any insurance on the life of the deceased, government or otherwise?
7.	Was an investigation made?
8.	If so:	(a) by whom; Ob) who was consulted; (c) wh-at transpired at the investigation?	.
9.	Whether the aeroplane was equipped with parachutes.
10.	Whether it is the intention of the government to provide aeroplanes with parachutes.
11.	Whether proper precautions were taken to see that students were properly looked after while taking the course.
12.	Whether more precaution is now taken in this regard than prior to the fatality, and the nature of same.
13.	Whether any allowance was made by the Government to the family of the unfortunate student, and, if so, how much.
14.	Whether any financial assistance was given to the family by the Aero Club, and, if so, how much.
15.	Whether Government aeroplanes are now equipped with parachutes, and, if so, from what date.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to -the appointment of J. L. Bourgould as inspector of operations in the operating department of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.



GUS CARRIER-PRINCE ALBERT PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Clark:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to Gus Carrier, Prince Albert penitentiary, from January 1, 192o, to date.
Mr. CLARK; I think that in the absence of the Minister of Justice this motion should stand.
Motion stands.

Unopposed Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer) (for Mr. Garland, Bow River) .moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, applications, ratings, and all other documents in the possession of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of National Revenue, together with copy of report of the proceedings and decisions thereof with respect to the appointment of Mr. Richardson, assistant dry goods appraiser at Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am not sure whether the information asked for is wholly of a character that can be produced. Some of it may be confidential. If we pass the motion in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, I would like it to be understood that the minister will reserve such rights as he has in the matter.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In the absence of the
hon. member for Bow River, perhaps the motion had better stand.
Motion stands.



STEWIACKE VALLEY RAILWAY

Mr. THOMAS OANTLEY (Pictou) (for Mr. Mac'Nutt) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and other documents in the possession of the government, in connection with the Stewdaeke Valley railway, in the county of Colchester, from the first day of January, 1870, to date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This order runs back into history pretty far. I doubt if we now have any telegrams and the like sent in 1870, but I may say that any documents which may be still available in the department will be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Reginald Geary: For a return showing the number of automobiles seized at the port of Athelstan during the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923. 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928, the name of the parties from whom seized, date of seizure, date of sale, to whom sold, amount received, how long in storage, name of party with whom stored, and amount paid for storage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the absence of the
Minister of National Revenue I think the motion should stand.
Motion stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 255, for the relief of Marion Rose Harrison-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Power in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are there any
children involved, and if so, what provision has been made for them?


Mr. LAWSON:: There are no children
of this marriage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 286, for the relief of Marion Ann Terry-Mr. Taylor-Mr. Power in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this case? The sponsor of the bill is not here, and perhaps it had better stand.


Mr. SANDERSON:: The sponsor is ill and cannot be here. He has asked me to sponsor this bill in his absence. There are three children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any provision being made for them?


Frederick George Sanderson: We have no power to make provision for them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not necessary for us to go into that; we need not grant the divorce until provision is made. All I ask at this stage is are the children being provided for? According to the information now before us we are breaking up a home and making no provision for the children.


Frederick George Sanderson: The children are now in the care of the petitioner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is she in financial circumstances to enable her to care for them?


Frederick George Sanderson: I understand so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 290. for the relief of Joseph Edwin Wood-iMr. Howden-Mr. Power in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Procedure respecting Divorce
James Shaver Woodsworth: Where is the
sponsor in this case? I am given to understand that he is sick. It is rather remarkable the number of hon. gentlemen who are sick at the end of the session! But if the sponsor is ill, we had better let the bill pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 296, for the relief of Charles Edwin AValker- Mr. Sanderson-Mr. Power in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a bill to
which the attention of the private bills committee should be especially called. The respondent denies that she is guilty. There are several corespondents named in this case. As I understand it, at the present time the respondent is in receipt of a separation allowance. She believes that this is simply a " frame-up" in order to relieve her husband of the responsibility of paying this separation allowance. In this case, as in a number of others, there is no notification given to the respondent before she comes to the divorce committee of the Senate as to what charges she is to meet. When she appears before the committee charges are introduced of which she has no knowledge whatever, and hence she is not able to produce witnesses in refutation of those charges. Further, only a limited amount of money is granted to her in order that she may make good her defence, and this allowance is not sufficient for her to call the witnesses necessary when several corespondents are named. I call these allegations to the attention of the private bills committee in order that this particular bill may receive careful consideration there. If not, I am afraid we shall have to take it up in detail and ask for rhe evidence here on the floor of the house.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat the same way as my hon. friend. When the charge of adultery is brought against a woman she should have full particulars and ample time to prepare her defence. When she goes before the divorce committee and swears positively that she has not committed that offence, I give great weight to her evidence, because my experience is that in civil cases a woman hesitates very much before she perjures herself. I think a great deal is to be said in favour of this bill being reheard

by the private bills committee, or at least being postponed for further consideration by this house.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Power):: Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Those in favour of section 1 will please say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Charles Gavan Power: Those opposed will please say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Charles Gavan Power: In my
opinion the "nays" have it.
(Mr. BOYS: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether anybody appeared on behalf of the respondent when the bill was before the private bills committee. I do not know what the proceedings were there; I have not the record before me. One would almost imagine that if the respondent denied Ihe charge, and asked for an opportunity of calling evidence to prove the falsity of the allegation by the petitioner, her request would have been granted. I do not know whether she asked for the opportunity or not, but there is one sure thing, if she asked for it, and it was refused, there was no reason in the world why she Should not have appeared before the private bills committee when they had the bill under consideration and given some indication of her evidence and asked permission to call witnesses. From my knowledge of the atmosphere in the private bills committee this session, had that been done I have no doubt full opportunity would have been given her. If no such request was made of the committee why now should we be asked to send the bill back? I certainly do not want to stand against any woman wrongly accused, but it does seem to me there should be some finality to these proceedings. I am in accord wdth what has been said that perhaps the opportunities given to the respondents in these cases are more or less insufficient. There is nothing in the petition except the allegation that a certain woman has committed a certain offence with a certain man on divers occasions. Perhaps that procedure should be amended. But that is not before us at the present time. The divorce committee dealt with this bill. I think we ought to be told whether the request that I have referred to was madte. If it was made and refused, why did not the respondent through her counsel, or through my hon. friend, if he is interested-as he has been in other cases

Procedure Respecting Divorce
and taken action and well taken it-appear before the private bills committee instead of waiting until we get to the last days of the session before raising this point? It does not seem to me to be fair to the other side-and there are two sides to this question. I think before we send this bill back to the private bills committee, somebody with knowledge of the situation should acquaint us with the proceedings before the divorce committee and before the private bills committee when the bill was under consideration there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, personally I know nothing with regard to the evidence in this case. It is some two weeks ago since I had a letter from the respondent asking that something be done for her protection.


Mr. BOYS:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think the time has come when>
some stand should be taken by this house as to what right any member has to introduce and place upon Hansard letters written to him privately by one of the parties to a divorce action, which letter could never be admitted before a committee of this house or any court of justice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


William Alves Boys: I am raising a point of order.


Charles Gavan Power: The member for Simeoe has the floor on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will please sit down.


William Alves Boys: My point of order is that no member of this house has a right to quote from a private letter he received from one of the parties to a divorce suit, which letter would not be admitted before either the divorce committee or the private bills committee or any court of justice.


Charles Gavan Power: With all respelct to the judgment of the hon. member for Simeoe, I am inclined to think that his point of order is not well taken. In my view any member of this house has a right in debate to quote any document if he will produce it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have that ruling. But it may relieve the mind of the hon. member for Simeoe if I tell him that I had no idea of reading a letter. He complained that this matter ought to have been brought to the attention of the house at an earlier stage. I stated that several weeks ago I had a letter from the respondent urging that something be done in the case. Now-
7S594-200


William Alves Boys: Is not that quoting from a letter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, that is not quotation; it is a reference.


William Alves Boys: You might as well read it as state what is in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon. gentleman let me have the floor for a moment? A few .minutes ago he complained that nothing had been done, and inferentially he suggested some of us should have done something. I say I had no personal knowledge of this case, but that one of the parties concerned had written to me simply because I had been taking a stand in a general way against these eases. She had written to me asking that something should be done. I had brought one or two cases before the house. In this case I did n.ot want to weary the house at the time by reading another letter into the records and making another appeal. I am not a member of the private bills committee;
I have to attend other committees oif the house and to do work outside of this divorce question. I take it for granted that the members of the private bills committee, including the hon. member from Simeoe, should have given some consideration to this case when it was before the committee, but apparently nothing was done.


William Alves Boys: Would you suggest that we should delay it without a request from the respondent?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest that every bill which comes before the private bills committee should receive consideration.


William Alves Boys: I suggest that the hon. gentleman had better read this case and the other cases before he starts to object to what has been done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would remind the hon. member for Simeoe that the only two measures which have been held up in this house and have been referred back to the private bills committee have resulted in one being withdrawn and the other voted down. Out of 250 cases coming before this house, only two were carefully examined by the private bills committee and both of them were rejected. I do not suggest that this proves that if all of the 250 were so considered that they wouLd all be rejected, but I do say that it is a most remarkable thing that such a decision should. have resulted in regard to these two. When I, as a private member of the house, am appealed to to take such action as will delay a case of this sort, it seems to me that I have a perfect right to voice an



Procedure Respecting Divorce
objection to proceeding with the bill. This woman the respondent in this case, claims that the whole matter is a frameup, and so far as I am able to observe the procedure as carried on by the Senate committee, the way is wide open for a frameup. Here let me emphasize a point which I mentioned and which I think is worthy of the consideration of this house: the respondent was given no opportunity whatever to know what Charges were being made against her. Several corespondents were named, and it would require a very heavy expenditure of money for her to bring witnesses from a distance in order that her case might be established, and possibly the evidence against her refuted.


William Alves Boys: Did the respondent's counsel
before the divorce committee ask for an appeal?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I believe so.


Mr. NEILL:: Was the respondent represented by counsel?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but that did
not altogether meet her need, 'because she had not the money to bring the witnesses who were required.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend knows that if
she requires money an allowance is made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A certain allowance is made, but I would ask the hon. member how far S75 will go in paying fees of counsel and in bringing witnesses to testify to several distinct charges. Here is one fact I gather from the evidence; the most material witness for the respondent was not able to be present. It is a queer 'thing that we should damn a woman in this way simply because it does not meet the convenience of the Senate committee to postpone the case.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is the evidence to which the hon. gentleman has just referred the evidence in this case?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting from:
The petition of Charles Edwin Walker for a bill of divorce from Eva Mary Leroy Walker: report of the committee on divorce, together with evidence received by the committee. Minutes of evidence, the Senate, Ottawa. April 22, 1929.
On page 9 I read:
Mr. Shorey:	Mr. Chairman, before the
evidence is taken I want to make a formal application for a postponement on behalf of the respondent. I assume ordinarily that it would be made after the plaintiff's case is in. I do not want to delay the taking of evidence this morning, but there is one witness in particular for the respondent, a Mrs. Irene Henderson, a cousin with whom the respondent has been living practically since the respondent and her
Mr. Wnodsworth.]
husband separated, who is a most material witness for the respondent. In March she had a major operation.... -
And she was not able to be present. What was the answer of the Senate to that? I read a little further on on the same page:


The Chairman:: One of the difficulties is this: the committee is made up of different members, and you cannot always get the same members together to h*ar the second part of the case.
That is a beautiful court. Part of the jury is present to hear one part of the evidence and another set of members wander in to hear the second part. So the divorce committee refused to grant the delay in the case. They were anxious to get through with a grist of business and so the case had to be proceeded with. The woman not having the opportunity of bringing her witnesses and not having the funds with which to do so, not having any knowledge until she came here as to what particular charges she would have to meet-all these things are contrary to the practice of any respectible court; and when the matter does comes before our committee there is no check whatever in regard to the case. Under these circumstances I think I am quite right in asking that this bill should be either voted down at the present time or be referred back to the committee for consideration. I am aware that the members of the private bills committee do not want to be held up in their work; they do not want to have to reconsider these matters at this late hour in the session. But if they cannot give the case proper consideration it would bo far better to have the bill withdrawn rather than, in haste and irrevocably, to pass on this woman a judgment which could never be recalled. This, it seems to me, is a reasonable position to take.


Frederick George Sanderson: I move that the bill be referred back to the private bills committee.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is not
in order at this stage. Shall section, 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: Progress might be reported, and when the Speaker is in the chair the motion can be put to have the bill referred back to the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: I move that progress be reported.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.
Mr. Speaker having taken the chair:

Private Bills
On motion of Mr. Sanderson, the bill was referred back to the special committee on miscellaneous private 'bills.



WILLIAM EDWARD KING

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 267, for the relief of William Edward King-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 299, for the relief of Edith Laura Hewitt-Mr. Casselman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


Mr. KAISER:: The hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) asked me to sponsor this bill in his absence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But are there any children?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: He said not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 306, for the relief of Ruth Leonard Wiser-Mr. Rowe-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


John Frederick Johnston: The sponsor is not
present and there is no one here to answer the question. The bill will stand.
Bill stands.



BERTHA JANE PHELAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 301, for the relief of Bertha Jane Phelan-Mr. McQuarrie-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
78594-200^
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to ask the hon. member, whom I know is well posted on this bill, whether there are any children?


Mr. McQUARRIE:: There are no children living.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Robert Wilson Reoch.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of John Wilson Pickering.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Wallace Wellington Corkum.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Dora Chearn-ley Chearnley.-Mr. Howden.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of William Edgar Baird.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Roland Emory Anderson.
Bill No. 304, an Act for the relief of Olive Marion Gerrard.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 305, for the relief of John Beck.- Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of George King.- Mr. Bowen.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31S, for the relief of Sam Gladstone.-Mr. Ilsley (for Mr. Jacobs).
Bill No. 324, for the reliel of Vivian Elizabeth Pearce.-Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 325, for the Telief of Alice Clarke. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Hambourg.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Florence Gertrude Singer.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Fanny Elizabeth Reed Kendall.-Mr. MacLaTen (for Mr. Bell, St. Antoine).
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Robert Henry Dunlop Ellis.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Evelyn Cowie. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Enid Marjorie Judd.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Christina Adams Bourne.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Ruth Agnes Townsend.-Mr. Lawson.
Privilege-Mr. Thorson

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) advise what steps have been taken for the safeguarding of Pelee island which has been lately partially destroyed and the occupants of which are very fearful of what will happen in the future if preventive steps are not taken.


John Campbell Elliott: The matter to which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) refers was investigated last week by the engineer for that particular district. This is one of the many complaints we have received of flooding which has taken place within the last two or three weeks. My recollection of the report is that the flooding was very bad on Pelee island, but any remedy suggested does not come within the scope of the Department of Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is suggested that a
very small expenditure now might save some more later on. That was the only reason why I was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I think what my hon.
friend refers to is the breaking away of dykes. They were not, if my information is correct, originally constructed by this department, or by this government, but are drainage works.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is it not a fact that the
taking away of gravel and sand from part of this island is more or less accountable for the trouble to-day?


John Campbell Elliott: It has not been so reported by the engineers.


James Dew Chaplin: I think it would be well
for the minister to make inquiries in that regard.



PRIVILEGE-MR. THORSON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: I rise to a question of privilege.
On Friday evening the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made with regard to me certain statements which are not correct. In reply to a question put by me as to the hon. gentleman's attitude to the Hudson Bay railway, he made amongst other statements, the following observations with regard to myself:
He may be able to take hon. gentlemen's amendments away from them and appropriate them as his own.
Later on he said:
Not until you were driven to it-like the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg which he appropriated as his own.
fMr. McQuarrie.i
These statements are both irrelevant and incorrect. I realize, of course, that the hon. gentleman was excited when he made them, but I cannot allow them to remain on the record uncorrected. I deny that I have ever appropriated any hon. member's amendment as my own. If the leader of the opposition had taken the trouble to consult Hansard, he would have seen that the statements of which I now complain are incorrect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the question of
privilege raised by the hon. gentleman, there was no excitement about the matter at all. I could not hear very well what the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) said, but what I did say-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I rise to a point of order. I have made a denial absolutely that I have ever appropriated any other hon. member's amendment as my own, and that statement must be accepted by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I observed was
that, listening the other evening to the hon. member for North Winnipeg, my hearing indicated that he said that one of his amendments had been appropriated by the hon. gentleman. It was to that I referred. If my information is incorrect, my statement is incorrect and unwarranted in fact, but I certainly understood the hon. member for North Winnipeg stated that to be the fact. I will turn up Hansard and see what he said in order to be certain. But if his statement was as I heard it, my statement is correct.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Do I understand the
leader of the opposition to accept my statement that I did not at any time appropriate any other hon. member's amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is this: that if the statement made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg is correct, I accept that statement. If the statement made by the hon. member who has just spoken is correct, I must accept that statement. I have therefore to take the choice between the two and I have not yet decided which to take.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the leader of the opposition should abide by the rules of the house. I have made a denial that I ever appropriated any other hon. member's amendment as my own. I make that statement as a member of the house and it should be accepted.
Mr. .SPEAKER: I understand the leader of the opposition has accepted the statement of the hon. gentleman.

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
PRIVILEGE-Mr. BENNETT .
Oil the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a more difficult matter to speak to with respect to a representation made in a newspaper, apparently indicating why the hon. gentleman asked me some questions the other evening. This appeared in a newspaper published in Saskatoon

and perhaps the observation of the Minister of Justice the other day that there is an election in Saskatchewan may also have something to do with this-"Tories block Hudson bay port." Those who were present the other evening will recall that no objection was taken to the project, but an effort was made to ascertain how much money had been expended in the past, there having been no opportunity in the public accounts committee to elicit this information. If the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) were here-and I in common with every other member regret -that it is necessary for him to go to the hospital-he would agree, as the record shows, that no effort was made to block the vote; further, that I stated clearly that the party with which I am associated stands squarely behind the enterprise, and has done so from its inception, and that at the Winnipeg convention it passed a resolution which it will be my duty to endeavour to carry out, namely, to see that that road is completed without unnecessary delay.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the opposition desire to raise certain matters for discussion on the motion to go into supply. Several of the ministers are absent this morning attending the funeral of the late Mr. Lanctot. I have explained the situation to my hon. friend, who has agreed that if we give an opportunity for discussion later in the day, we may be permitted to go into supply immediately. I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that when we have concluded the morning session, it will be moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day, and to-night at eight o'clock any matter may be brought up for discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister was not present for the moment, and I agreed with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that
if possible we -would make that arrangement. The Prime Minister to whom I communicated the matter this morning, has stated the communication correctly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As we approach prorogation, it is always understood that the committee of supply may report back and sit again the same day, so we shall follow that rule to-day.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-chargeable to collection of
revenue- graving docks:
Champlain graving dock	 $ 97,000
Lome graving dock	 42,000
Esquimalt graving dock	 81,400
Total	 ?220,400
Thomas Erlin Kaiser: When may we expect the
supplementary estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: That is a matter in regard to which the Minister of Finance would be able to give-my hon. friend more information than I can, but I expect the-m very shortly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were promised for Friday last.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers generally, $30,000.
John Campbell Elliott: This item was discussed
and was allowed to stand. I am not sure whether it was passed.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister explain this term " generally "? Is it miscellaneous?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the general vote lor harbours and rivers, to cover general expenses. It is not limited to a-ny one province.


James Dew Chaplin: It is more to cover
emergencies?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: What
class of emergencies would be done under this Vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to cover travelling expenses, printing, stationery, instruments and so forth which cannot con-
3156	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines
veniently be charged against any one item in particular of the general appropriations for construction, improvements or repairs in the different provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and Telephone Lines
Prince Edward Island and mainland, $7,000.
Land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels for cable services, $218,000.
Alberta and Saskatchewan, $114,000.
British Columbia, mainland, $36,000.
British Columbia, Vancouver island district, $132,000.
British Columbia, northern district, $88,000.
Yukon system-main line, $139,000.
Telegraph and telephone services generally, $5,000-Total, $739,000.
Mr. FRASER:: What repairs or improvements are proposed on the Yukon system? Does this vote cover repairs proposed to be made during the present season?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the maintenance vote. It is required for working expenses, including salaries, repairs, supplies and living expenses in connection with the system for the year 1929-30.


John Anderson Fraser: What repairs are proposed to be made on the Yukon system under this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: 
John Anderson Fraser: There are no specific repairs in mind at the present time?


John Campbell Elliott: No.
Mr. MlcQUARRIE: With respect to the telephone lines in the interior of British Columbia, a sale was made last year of some of the lines to the British Columbia Telephone Company. Is it proposed to sell any more of these lines?


John Campbell Elliott: I answered that question the other day when we were considering vote 148, but I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend's question. It is proposed this year to sell lines north and east of Kamloops. They will be advertised and sold if satisfactory tenders are received.
Mr. MicQUARRIE: The sale is going to be advertised this time?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Last time the lines were not advertised for sale at all; they were sold to the British Columbia Telephone Com-

pany without any advertising for tenders. I [DOT]believe that the Okanagan Telephone Company, which has been carrying on business in that territory for quite a number of years, was not given an opportunity to buy those lines, but that instead the British Columbia Telephone Company was allowed to go into that territory, and I am informed that the Okanagan Telephone Company was prepared to make an offer for the lines if there had been any competition. Would the minister explain why no opportunity was given to other companies to bid on the lines the government proposed to sell last year? The minister perhaps knows Something about the Okanagan Telephone Company, or at all events his deputy will, because i.t is quite a large concern and has been carrying on business foT a great number of years. It would seem to me to foe most unfair to cut, in on the Okanagan Telephone Company, one of the pioneers in that district, in the way that has been done. I have not got it here but in my room I have a lot of correspondence in connection with the matter, and it seems to quite aparent that this deal with the British Columbia Telephone Company was put through behind the backs of the Okanagan Telephone Company, which had been I think negotiating for some time with the government. The Minister of National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay)) who is a cabinet minister from British Columbia, knows something about it. I think certain conferences weje held in British Columbia with the directors of the Okanagan Telephone Company. Perhaps the minister could give us an explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall foe glad to do so.
I do not think that the Okanagan Telephone Company will say they were not given an opportunity to bid on the line that was sold last year. My hon. friend will remember that this matter was under discussion a year ago when the estimates were before the house. Of course I have not the details here, but l can assure my 'hon. friend that what took place was this: The Okanagan Telephone Company was interested only in a very small portion of the line, and they wrote the department I think making perfectly dear that they were interested in only a small proportion of the line that was to be sold. That particular portion was the best revenue producing part of the line, and it was felt that we could not sell it without selling the balance. We had only one bidder for the whole line, and it was sold to that bidder.
I understand that the Okanagan Telephone Company is this year in a position to bid for

Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines
the lines that are proposed to be sold, and they and everybody else will have an opportunity to tender.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am afraid the minister's information is not entirely accurate because I was informed by the manager of the Okanagan Telephone Company just shortly before I left for Ottawa that had they known that those lines would be sold by the government they certainly would have offered a better price than the government got from the British Columbia Telephone Company.
1 think the statement was made by the previous Minister of Public Works that the government would not sell any part of the line unless they got rid of the whole thing, but as a matter of fact the government did sell only part of the line. That is what I am objecting to, and that is what the Okanagan Telephone Company objects to, that the government did sell a part of the line without giving the Okanagan Telephone Company a chance to bid on that part at all. I do not know that this vote should go through until we have some further information from the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: The whole section, of which the part that the Okanagan Telephone Company proposed to purchase was only a very small part, was sold.


William Garland McQuarrie: But the price that the government put on the line when the negotiations were taking place with the Okanagan Telephone Company was very much higher than the price at which the lines were sold. If I remember correctly the price which the government got from the British Columbia Telephone Company was $100,090. Am I right?


John Campbell Elliott: I think you are too high; 1 think it was less than that, but I would not say positively. I shall be very glad to show my hon. friend the correspondence, and I think I can satisfy him that the statement I am making as to what took place is absolutely accurate.


William Garland McQuarrie: In any event the
minister states positively that with respect to any future sales a chance will be given for other concerns in British Columbia to bid?


John Campbell Elliott: That is correct.


Mr. CAYLEY:: How did the federal government come into possession of these lines?


John Campbell Elliott: These are part of the
lines that were originally constructed for the purpose of giving to the settlers in the outlying districts, where no commercial company would undertake to build, facilities to enable them to keep in touch with the rest of the world.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I notice there is one line
in Prince Edward Island. Was that built by the federal authorities?


John Campbell Elliott: It is part of the arrangement made at confederation to provide Prince Edward Island with telephone communication to keep the people in touch with the mainland.


Mr. LUCAS:: Why are there two votes
dealing with telegraph and' telephone lines; vote 313, $739,000 and vote 147, $258,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Vote 147 is for construction and does not include salaries. The other vote includes salaries for maintenance.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the mileage of the
federal telephone lines in Alberta?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot offhand give the mileage for Alberta. I have a statement which I shall be very glad to hand to my hon. friend, showing the total mileage of telephone and telegraph lines.


Mr. COOTE:: Has the minister given consideration to the possibility of consolidating the telegraph lines from Edmonton to the Peace River country? I am told that the lines run in close proximity to the railway telegraph lines. I am not personally familiar with the situation, but I have had a few letters about it. If the minister has not given consideration to such a consolidation, will he have his officers look into it this year?


John Campbell Elliott: The object of these lines
is to provide accommodation where there is no other means of communication. The matter to which my hon. friend refers has had consideration, and the general policy of the department as far as possible is not to have two lines in close proximity. One line is expensive enough in that sparsely settled country.


George Gibson Coote: I am not suggesting that
any telegraph lines should be discontinued to points that aTe not served by the railway telegraph lines; but from the map it appears to me quite possible that there might be a consolidation of some of the lines running from Edmonton up to the Peace River country.


Alan Webster Neill: This is a departure from
what I think should be the established policy of the government. I would consider it of interest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) if he can

Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines
distract his attention for a moment from the divorce bills. This is a departure from the principle of government ownership. The government builds these telegraph lines and then as soon as they become profitable, or nearly so, they hand them over to a private company. It is not fair to the system. And it is not fair to the principle of government ownership, towards which we are supposed to be working all the time. I can see the day when perhaps this policy will be extended all over British Columbia. It is altogether undesirable because we have had some experiences of privately owned telegraph lines. While they are well conducted business propositions, the private companies are absolutely coldblooded and will not give accommodation unless there is good money in it for themselves. The government telegraph service, like the Post Office Department, gives some assistance to the outlying pioneer districts. If this principle of selling out is extended, I can see the day when those people will be cut out from such facilities. When the service becomes profitable why not keep it on and so help to balance up some of the unprofitable sections?


John Campbell Elliott: If it is decided to go into government ownership and operation of telephones-


Alan Webster Neill: And telegraph lines.


John Campbell Elliott: -telegraph and telephone lines, because they are working together so far as those the government operate are concerned, perhaps there is a great deal to be said in favour of it.


Alan Webster Neill: You are in it now.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but only for the
purposes of providing facilities that are not otherwise obtainable. We are not in it as a commercial proposition. If it were entered upon as a commercial proposition, then my hon. friend will see we would endeavour to take over what no doubt he has in mind- we would take them all over and run the profitable as well as the unprofitable lines


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why should the
government turn over the profitable lines to private companies?


John Campbell Elliott: The reason we build these lines in the first place is to supply facilities that a commercial company will not supply because it does not look like a profitable venture. As soon as some commercial company will take them over and operate them in conjunction with other lines that they have, which make them profitable, the government endeavours to get rid of the deficit by handing over those lines.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But why should
the government do all the pioneering work and be at all the loss of initiating a system and then as soon as it becomes profitable turn it over to a commercial company? It seems to me the government should retain the system when it becomes profitable.


Alan Webster Neill: On the principle enunciated
by the minister we shall find the government selling the Canadian National Railways.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further, as regards
telegraphs, have we not a system of practically government-owned telegraphs in connection with Canadian National Railways?


John Campbell Elliott: For the operation of the
railways; that is correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But in commercial work, in connection with the railways?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, part of it anyway.


Mr. EVANS:: There are still in Saskatchewan some telegraph lines which I do not think are needed. There is a part of the old line from Qu'Appelle to Battleford, and New Humboldt, some twenty miles, still in existence, and this side of Battleford, at a place called Baljennie an operator is maintained all the time, although there is not much work to do. All he gets over the wires are the market reports, and there is absolutely no need of that line. I understand that the line was only a year or two ago practically renewed from Baljennie to Battleford. It may be needed further northwest up to Fort Pitt and further up, but the other part of the line is certainly not needed and there is no reason why we should pay an operator to be there all the time doing nothing.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the name of the
line?


John Evans: I am referring to the line
from Baljennie to Battleford, twenty odd miles.


John Campbell Elliott: 	5274
Total	1,635
The total mileage the government operates is around 10,000 miles.


John Evans: Is that line running down to Willow Branch still maintained-and from Moose Jaw south?


John Campbell Elliott: I am under the impression
that it is, but I cannot say.


John Evans: It is not needed.


John Campbell Elliott: I can assure my hon.
friend that the moment it is not needed it will be discontinued. There is this difficulty in regard to the lines that are not largely used: unless someone else is willing to take them over, there may be a few people along the line who are using it and who would feel it a great hardship if the service were discontinued.
Mr. EVAN'S:	But in this case it crosses a
great many of the railway lines and runs alongside some of them. Moreover, the whole country is pretty well served by telephone as well.


John Campbell Elliott: I am obliged for the information and I will make a special inquiry to see just what the conditions are.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is there a government
telephone line running north from Edmonton? If so, why not join up with the Alberta government lines from Edmonton?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the one from
Edmonton north is a telegraph line.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways at Edmonton.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the principle on
which these lines are built?


John Anderson Fraser: I want to ask the minister a question in connection with the fourth item in vote 313-British Columbia, mainland. That vote has been reduced from $92,000 to $36,000. Is that on account of the sale of the lines south of Kamloops during the last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: How much of the $92,000
of last year's vote was actually spent?


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue was $22,485.
For 1928-29 the expenditure was $114,183.42
to March 31. That is Alberta and Saskatchewan.


James Dew Chaplin: He is asking for British
Columbia.


John Anderson Fraser: The total vote was $92,000 for British Columbia.


John Campbell Elliott: The expenditure last year on the British Columbia mainland was $59,978.10 out of the $92,000. That is why the appropriation has been reduced this year.


John Anderson Fraser: This year $36,000 is being
asked to carry on these lines. It is proposed also to sell the lines east and north of Kamloops. Tenders are being called and the proposition is to dispose of the lines. Suppose these tenders are accepted: there is an important administrative office in Kamloops; what is to become of that office?


John Campbell Elliott: If the line is sold the
office will of course be discontinued. If the
line is sold to another company the office will disappear so far as we are concerned.


John Anderson Fraser: What about the men in the service? What will become of them? A certain number of official positions will be abolished and what will become of the officials who have no jobs left?


John Campbell Elliott: In the past, as largely as
it has been possible to do so, those who were operating lines sold by the department have been taken over by the purchaser. That is usually what does happen and what we hope will happen to a large extent here.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not think you have
ever had to face a situation exactly like that which exists in Kamloops at present. There you have had an administrative office with administrative officials in a central location; you have sold the lines south of the city, but of course you have not done away with the administrative offices. However, now it is intended to sell the lines to the east and north of the city and there will be no need of those administrative officials in the future. I am not concerned about the ordinary clerks or operators, because they will probably have an opportunity of being taken over by the purchasing company, but some of the administrative officials have spent a long time in the service. I know that one man, the superintendent, has been in the service for twenty-five or thirty years, but now his office is to be abolished and I would like to know what disposition is to be made of this man and other ranking officials in that office.
3160	Tj	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say anything
definite about what will happen to the general superintendent or any [DOT] particular officer, but I can assure my hon. friend that it will be the aim of the department to provide, as far as it can be done, for those who are not taken over by the purchasing company.


John Anderson Fraser: I suppose it has not been decided whether it would be possible to move these administrative officers from Kamloops to Ashcroft?


John Campbell Elliott: We cannot say at present


Mr. BRADY:: I would like to ask the
minister whether any extensions are contemplated in the telephone system of northern British Columbia?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
turn to vote 148 on page 45 he will find that it includes the extensions which are proposed for this year. The vote of $88,000 to which he refers is for the purpose of operating the lines we have at present and does not include the construction of new lines.


James Charles Brady: I have before me a resolution from the Associated Boards of Trade of Central British Columbia with reference to telephone facilities in the northern part of central British Columbia extending from Terrace for about three hundred miles along the Canadian National line, embracing the whole of Ominica county as well as the Skeena. I think perhaps at this time it would be well to let the minister know the great needs of this part of Canada in regard to an up-to-date telephone system. The resolution, I propose to read, is very brief:
Whereas present telephone facilities throughout the central interior of British Columbia are most inadequate, and many settlements are without this means of communication altogether ;
And whereas this large district, which is increasing in commercial importance every year, has to depend on insufficient telegraph facilities, and a tri-weekly mail service;
And whereas telephone lines traversing important parts of this district not served by telephone would be of very great benefit to the various business interests established in the district, and to settlers:
Be it therefore resolved that this convention of the Associated Boards of Trade of Central British Columbia do ask that the Dominion government have a survey made of the situation herein related, with a view to the construction of telephone systems where required, at the earliest possible moment.
I will not delay the committee very long, out I would like to draw attention to the remarks made by the minister a few minutes ago. He said that the department was de-

sirous, so far as it was possible and without considering the commercial aspect, of giving these aids to the scattered settlements throughout Canada. Ontario and Quebec do not call upon this government to develop their telephone systems-they are able to look after their own-but I honestly think this department has been very dilatory in coming to the aid of the settlers in those districts of central British Columbia who must depend on the Dominion government. I travelled in that country last fall and found that places like Colley Mount, in the Francois lake district, where there are very fine farms and' numerous settlers, have no connection with the outside world. The result is that there is a retardation of development, because the people are reluctant to go far away if they do not get telephone accommodation.
Once more I would ask the government to heed the requests of the people who go to such trouble to present their needs to this department; I think at least the government should have a proper survey made in order to find out really what extensions are necessary so that definite steps may be taken to assist in the settlement of these areas. I believe that the money spent in telephone extensions in a country which is being settled is money which undoubtedly will bring results later on. I hope this matter will receive the sympathetic consideration of the government.


John Campbell Elliott: I will be very glad to inquire into the matter to which my hon. friend has referred. It is the desire of the department to impress upon the people who go to tlie outlying districts of the country the fact that they will not be cut off from the more settled portions of Canada and that they will be provided with facilities for communication with their friends and business connections so far as it is reasonably possible to do so.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like to ask the minister a question with reference to the telegraph service from Vancouver north along the coast of the mainland. I believe the line runs as far as Pender Harbour, and I understand that the service given is not satisfactory in that the offices are closed on Sundays and holidays. In the summer time a great many people go to the seaside resorts up along the coast and when an accident happens or someone becomes ill on a Sunday or a holid&y there is no way in which a telegram can be sent. It seems to me that some arrangement could be made whereby messages would be accepted by the Canadian National Railways Telegraph Company for delivery in Vancouver on Sundays and holidays. The

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Senn
men who send the messages are available because t'he offices are generally located in their stores. I have endeavoured myseilf to send out messages on several occasions but have found that it was impossible to do so.


John Campbell Elliott: These lines are pretty
primitive, and a great many offices are located in the houses of the operators. These men are usually available but they cannot be expected to stay on the job all the time. There is only one operator at each office, and there are bound to be periods when he would be taking time off. However, the sugestion made by my hon. friend is worthy of consideration and I shall be very glad to look into it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am afraid I have not made myself clear to the minister. The trouble is not with the men who send the messages, but with the delivery of the messages in Vancouver.


John Campbell Elliott: The bon. member's objection is that the receiving end1 is not kept open.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes. I suggest that
it might be possible to make an arrangement with the Canadian National so that they would accept messages from along the coast and deliver them in Vancouver on Sundays and holidays. They could also send out messages where the operators could be reached.


John Campbell Elliott: No complaints have reached the department with reference to the particular matter the hon. member has mentioned. We have an arrangement with the Canadian National applying to certain places.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Garland McQuarrie: This item is not carried as yet, because I desire to speak with reference to the Okanagan Telegraph Company again.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.-
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: AVith the consent of the house I would like to advance Bill No. 254 in connection with the terminal facilities at Montreal, if my hon. friend is ready to proceed with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we were going on with
supply after eight o'clock. That was the arrangement.



SUPPLY-AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['The hon. member is\ngetting aggressive.']
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: 
Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from a dairy district, where practically every farmer is a dairy farmer, I am naturally interested in anything that concerns or affects the dairy industry. I have listened carefully while hon. gentlemen in this house have declared that the importation of butter at one cent per pound duty did not injuriously affect our dairy industry. As I have listened to them it- has seemed to me that they could not be in very close touch with the dairy industry, at least with those whom this importation of butter most vitally concerns, namely, the producers-the dairy farmers.
In a great agricultural country like Canada, where all governments in the past have sought to encourage and fester the dairy industry, a country which has gained a place as one of the leading dairy countries of the world, it does seem to me reasonable that we should at least be able to supply our own requirements.
I think I am voicing the opinion of thousands of those who are engaged in the dairy industry to-day when I say that had there been no importation of butter at one cent per pound duty, our butter production would have kept pace with the times, and we would not now be importing such large quantities of butter.
For years the dairy farmers of the district which I have the honour to represent were urged by the department of agriculture to engage in winter dairying. We were told by the dairy and cold storage branch that our prospects for increased prices for butter would be better could an all the year round supply be provided. Now, in a country like Canada an all the year round supply can be provided only by winter dairying. Up to within a few years ago winter dairying was on the increase in our district, but at the present time, with the exception of the production of sweet milk for our towns and cities, winter dairying is practically a dead issue.
Dairying in Canada made great progress from 1900 until 1926. What is the reason that it has not continued to forge ahead? Is the dairy farmer less patriotic than he was in 
1926? Is he less capable of producing to-day than he was a few years ago? Rather is the failure not due to the fact that a few years ago this government took away the slight advantage which the dairy farmer held in his home market, and forced him-notwithstanding the fact that he must stable his cattle from six to seven months in each and every year and give them extra care-forced him. I say, to take a price for his butter based upon the competitive cost of producing a pound of butter fat in a country where conditions as to climate and feed are very favourable.
I thmk, Mr. Speaker, that the dairy farmers of this country have a right to expect fair play. Fair play is all they ask. It is a significant fact that Canada is the only British dominion that permits the importation of butter at 1 cent per pound duty. Australia has a duty of 12 cents per pound; New Zealand, 7 cents; South Africa- had a- duty of 4 cents per pound, but in 1926 when Australia succeeded in shipping large quantities of butter into South Africa the duty was raised to 10 cents per pound to preserve the home market to the South African producer; the United States has a duty of 12 cents per pound, and if indication counts for anything now, that duty will soon be raised to 14 cents per pound; Argentine has a duty of 6.18 cents per pound; while in Canada, where dairying is carried on perhaps under even more difficult conditions than in any of the countries that I have named, this government has decided that the only protection the Canadian dairyman is worthy of is one cent per pound. Since that decision was made and became effective, in 1925, the farmers of the Antipodes have been capturing the butter market of Canada. The Australian treaty was made applicable on and after October 1, 1925, and at that time by order in council the 1 cent rate on imported butter was extended to New Zealand. It is true that Australia did grant certain concessions to Canada in return for the concessions that Canada granted to her; but as far as I am aware neither then nor since has New Zealand granted any concessions to Canada in return for the concessions that Canada granted to her.
Now, I should like the house to note for a moment the imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1921, to March 31, 1925, or the

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Tummon
five years preceding the coming into effect of the Australian treaty and the New Zealand order in council. I will not weary the house with all these figures. I might say that 1 have two or three other tables here that I
shall ask the indulgence of the house to place on Hansard. I do not take uip much of the time of hon. members, and I trust that this indulgence will be granted to me.
The figures are as follows:
Production of Milk by Provinces 1926 and 1927
Province
Lbs of milk 1926
Lbs of milk 1927
Increase	Decrease
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick.. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia..	.
174,695,130
539,502,783
422,565,110
3,953,741.220
5,602,202,761
634,706,590
994,689,201
813,196.472
272,040,990
178,564,368
526,412,334
403,614,618
4,057,161,966
5,128,278,311
660,449,500
1,049,216,124
761,633.312
294,911,760
3,869,238
103,420,746
25,742,910
54,526,923
22,870,770
13,090,449
18,950,492
473,924,450
51,563,160
Total
13,407,340,257	13,060,242,293
210,430,587	557,528,551
Total decrease for 1927 as compared to 1926, 347,097,964 lbs.
Production of Dairy and Creamery Butter by Provinces, 1926 and 1927
Lbs. of butter
Province	1926
Prince Edward Island	 2,844,213
Nova Scotia	 6,789.590
New Brunswick	 8,732,027
Quebec	 69,557,061
Ontario	 88,541,176
Manitoba	 24,654.342
Saskatchewan	 35,329.136
Alberta	 29,412,466
British Columbia	 6,349.276
Totals	 272,209,287
Lbs. of butter
1927	Increase Decrease
4.019,442	1,175.229		
11,059,740	4,270.150		
4,398.212	  4,333,815
73,592,954	4.035,893		
94,471,921	5,930,745		
22,727.882	  1,926,460
29,495,531	  5,833,605
25,679,712	  3,732,754
6,533,553	184,277		
271,978,947	15,596,294	15,826,634
Decrease over increase, 230,340 lbs.
Production of Factory and Homemade Cheese by Provinces, 1926 and 1927
Province
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Lbs. of cheese	Lbs. of cheese		
1926	1927	Increase	Decrease2,003,787	1,658,178	345,609121,408	112,591	8,8171,066,432	810,719	255,71346,456.384	37,591,951	8,864.433119.510,674	96,253,607	23,257,067972,484	722.659	249,825399,724	286,371	113,3531,489,721	880,457	609,264227,762	155,792	71,970
Totals
172,248,376	138,472,325
33,776,051
Total decrease 1927 compared to 1926, 33,776,051 lbs.
For the five years ending March 31, 1921, to March 31, 1925, the total importations of butter from Australia were 310,890 pounds; from New Zealand, 7,154,907 pounds-a total of 7,465,797 pounds. It will be noted that of this total only 310,890 pounds came from Australia. From these figures it is evident
that New Zealand butter was better known and better liked in Canada than was Australian butter. Notwithstanding any effect of the Patterson scheme in the importation of Australian butter, the granting of the same concessions to New Zealand took away from Australia, as it were, the advantage

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Tummon
which she hoped would accrue by the concessions which Canada had granted to her.
Now, let hon. members note the quantities of butter imported from these two countries for the four fiscal years following, that is 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929.
Year	Pounds
1926		 4,828,468
1927		 5,705,960
1928		 14,195.789
1929		 24,952,611
It is a significant fact that during the last three months of the fiscal year just closed -that is to say, January, February and March-the importations were as follows: 1929, 7,660,681 for January, in comparison with 3,183,289 for January 1928; February 1929, 6,598,476 in comparison with 3,052,311 for February 1928; March 1929, 3,259,145 in comparison with 2,676,492 for March 1928. In other words, there was a total increase of 8,606,210 pounds for the three months January, February and March, 1929, in comparison with the corresponding three months in 1928.
Some people will ask, what about the consumer? They will say that if it were not for this importation of butter at one cent a pound duty the consumer would have to pay more per pound for this product. I am not so sure of that. The most discouraging thing the Canadian dairy farmer has to face to-day is the fact that he is not secure in his own home market. The people in the towns and cities of the districts I have the honour to represent are not much concerned about a few cents a pound on butter. They believe that the greatest asset they can have is a prosperous farming community at their door. They believe that a prosperous farming community right at their door is of greater value to them than a prosperous farming community three thousand miles away. Similarly, the fanners of that district believe that towns and cities at their door, where workmen are busy making the tools and implements they require on their farms-and the farmers of Canada at large require-are of greater value to them than prosperous towns and cities in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
The foundation of the entire dairy industry is the production of milk and the success of any one branch of that industry is no indication of the success of the industry as a whole. A farmer, if he is geographically so situated, will perhaps send his milk to the cheese factory this year and next year to the creamery to be made into butter. That is a common occurrence throughout Ontario. 1 repeat, the success of any one branch is no Tummon.]
indication of the success of the industry taken as a whole; but the production of milk is the foundation or basis of the entire industry. Upon it all branches of the dairy industry are built. From 1910 to 1926 the dairy industry in Canada made great strides forward; but something seemed to have gone wrong in 1927. It is well to remember that the Australian treaty and the New Zealand order in council wrent into effect fifteen months prior to the beginning of the year 1927. Let us note what the total dairy production in Canada was for the two calendar years 1926 and 1927-that is, the total dairy production of Canada expressed in pounds of milk and covering milk made into butter, both dairy and creamery, home made and factory cheese, miscellaneous factory products, and milk consumed fresh or otherwise. The figures for the years from 1924 to 1928, inclusive, are as follows:
Year Pounds
1924	12,318,538.000
1925	12,651,308,000 Increase over 1924-*
332.770.000	pounds
1926	13,407,340,000 Increase over 1925-
756.032.000	pounds
1927	13,060,242,000 Decrease from 1926-
347.098.000	pounds
1928	Not yet available
I regret that the dairy statistics for the year 1928 are not yet available, but I will venture this opinion, that when they are available they will show a corresponding decrease in the basis of the entire dairy industry production of milk in comparison with 1927. Let us take the decrease of 347,098,000 pounds in the foundation of the dairy industry in 1927; at the usual average ratio of 3-5 pounds of butter fat to 100 pounds of milk, this would represent 12,148.429 pounds of butter fat. A pound of butter fat is equivalent to 1J pounds of butter. Thus the decrease in the milk production in Canada in 1927 compared to 1926 is equivalent to 14,378.115 pounds of butter. Now we have a rather interesting comparison. If we go back and look at the importations of butter into Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1928, which covers the milk producing periods of 1927, we find that the importations were 14,195,789 pounds. In other words, the shrinkage or decrease in the base or foundation of the entire industry in 1927 compared with 1926, expressed in pounds of butter, agrees with the amount of butter imported during the same period from the Antipodes, and most of which came from New Zealand. There could be no stronger evidence to show that the importation of butter at one cent a pound duty from the Antipodes is gradually driving the Canadian dairyman back. The two oldest branches of the dairy industry in

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Tummon
Canada are cheese production and butter production. The importation of butter into Canada at one cent per pound duty does not come directly into competition with such branches as sweet milk for cities, condensed milk, sweet cream for ice cream and sweet milk and cream for exportation into the United States. The New Zealanders cannot compete directly with these branches, But the importation of butter does directly compete with those dairymen who follow the two old natural branches, the production of cheese and the production of buttter. The dairy farmers who follow these two branches are for the most part geographically so situated that they must depend upon these two lines for a market for their milk, and often, if they are so situated, they may change from one branch to the other from season to season.
I think this is clearly demonstrated if we look at the figures for Ontario. In 1927 as compared with 1926 the production of milk decreased by 473,924,430 pounds, but notwithstanding there was an increase of 5,930,745 pounds in the production of butter. However, there was a decrease in the production of cheese of 23,257,067 pounds. There was a total decrease in the production of dairy and cieamery butter in Canada of 230,340 pounds as compared with 1926; that is a comparatively small reduction, but the reduction in factory and home made cheese amounted to 33,776,051 pounds. Here again, if you take the pounds of milk necessary to make this quantity of cheese in addition to the pounds of milk represented in the decreased production of butter, you will find that it agrees. Thus in the year commencing fifteen months after the New Zealand order in council came into effect, under a duty of one cent per pound we had an importation of butter amounting to 14,195,789 pounds, which is equal to a reduction of 347,098,000 pounds of milk, the production of which is the foundation of the dairy industry, and 'the effect of that importation was reflected in the decreased production in the two natural branches of the dairying industry, cheese and butter.
On page 9 of the pamphlet issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with dairy factories we find that during 1927 the total delivery of milk to cheese factories in Canada was 1,384,860,282 pounds, but the decrease in the production of milk in that year as compared with 1926 was almost equal to one-quarter the total amount of milk supplied to all cheese factories in Canada in 1927. The total amount of milk supplied1 to all cheese factories in Ontario in 1927 was 1,080,187,411 pounds, so the decrease in milk production in that year as compared 78594-201
with 1926 is equal to about one-third the entire cheese factory supply of milk in Ontario in 1927.
If we exclude Ontario and consider the other eight provinces, the decrease in the production of milk is greater by 42,425,128 pounds than all milk supplied to all cheese factories in those eight provinces in 1927. As the previous speaker (Mr. Senn) has said, there has been a great decrease in the number of dairy cattle in Canada; in 1927 that decrease amounted to 75,275 milking cows, as compared with 1926. It may be said that United States dairymen are coming to Canada and buying our cattle. Why should they not do so? They are protected and secure in their home market, and they can come to Canada for our cattle. Surely there is something wrong with the dairy industry of this country, and when any business begins to go back it is time to look for the cause and apply a remedy. The dairy farmers know something is wrong and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) knows something is wrong, or if he does not know I wonder what he meant when he spoke before the National Dairy Council at the King Edward hotel in Toronto last November, where he is reported to have said:
You know that for the last year or two Canada has been relying on the west for the production of butter, and the west has rallied to that reliance by increased production. As far as I can see there is no visible increase in eastern Canada, and the west has been eon-verted during the last decade and a half from an importing country to an exporting country in butter. But now there has been a cessation of that increase during the past two years. We will not inquire into the reasons for it.
Then there was laughter.
There may be many and just as you will look at it, right up in Saskatchewan people differ as to the cause of it.
Then there was great laughter.
I feel that is true, but common sense wrill suggest to both east and west that whatever the causes may be, few or many, they should be removed at the first opportunity, otherwise our production of butter and other products is going to decrease. The west was your best bid for the production of butter, but whatever the cause or causes-it may be due to our poor class of dairy cattle; in our hard times we may have been induced to sell off our best cattle-
Imagine a minister of this government talking about hard times during the past two years! If a member on this side of the house made that statement he would be accused immediately of talking blue ruin.
-with the result that production gradually went down-it may have been due to nonnutritions feed during the winter and bad falls, which sometimes come about, or it may be a combination of all these and some other things.

3168	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditiom-Mr. Robb
Then there was great laughter, but the minister continued:
I take this ground, with your admonitions right in my mind; and I think it should appeal eventually to all of us that whatever the disabilities and limitations of the west to better production may be they should be diplomatically, quickly and quietly removed, whatever they may be.
That is the attitude we on this side of the house are taking on this matter, that the handicaps or disadvantages under which the Canadian dairyman is labouring to-day should be quickly and quietly removed. As the previous speaker just said, this is not a question of empire trade, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does not look upon it as such. Speaking in Woodstock on September 21, 1925, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
There is one condition of that treaty which says that we are free to alter or to abrogate it altogether on six months' notice. I say to the farmers of Oxford that if the Australian treaty does any injury to your industry I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that I will give that six months' notice on short order.
I say this is not a matter of empire trade but a matter concerning the welfare of the dairy industry of Canada. That is why we bring. this question to the attention of the government, and in the words of the Minister of Agriculture we say that the handicaps under which the dairy industry is labouring should be diplomatically, quietly and quickly removed.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. gentleman who brought up this question on the motion to go into supply made the broad statement that this government had done nothing to help the farmers of Canada. When he made that statement I recalled the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1924 when we reduced the duty on agricultural implements, on dairy utensils and on machinery required for work in our orchards, and removed altogether the sales tax from agricultural implements and dairy utensils.


Mr. HANSON:: Beautiful.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. gentleman opposite says "beautiful," but I can recall that he was one of those who kept the house in session day after day protesting against this reduction in the duty on agricultural implements and on dairy utensils which we were told would ruin these great industries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason the
treaty was made.


James Alexander Robb: The agricultural implement industry in Canada is in better shape to-day than it was when the reductions were made. If the statements presented by my hon. friends to-night had any foundation in fact we would be unanimous in a desire to find out what the trouble was and how a cure could be effected.


James Dew Chaplin: What does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) say about that?


James Alexander Robb: As to the prices received for
the products, I intend to show that the dairy industry is in a better position to-day than it was prior to the introduction of the Australia-New Zealand agreement. I fail to understand the logic of my hon. friends opposite. They do not want to trade with the United States because that country is placing restrictions against our products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite correct; we are not allowed to trade with the United States.


James Alexander Robb: I will show my hon. friend
in a moment that we are allowed to trade with the United States.


Thomas Cantley: Upon unequal terms.


James Alexander Robb: They do not wish to
trade with the British dominions because, they say, they believe in the proper method of trading-paying with their own products. The favourable balance of trade for the years 1924 to 1929 inclusive as between Canada and Australia and New Zealand amounted to over $130,000,000.


Mr. IRVINE:: What does that mean?


James Alexander Robb: That means that we had a favourable balance of trade of over $130,000,000 more than we bought from them.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Is that a good thing?


James Alexander Robb: Do hon. members argue that the men employed in the factories of Canada; the men employed in the woods getting out lumber and canying it to the saw mills and to the paper mills; the men who are employed on the railways hauling to the seaboard; the men on the docks-do they say that those men and their families are not consuming our farm products? I submit that this condition has brought about a greater consumption of farm products in Canada.
My hon. friend made a comparison between the position of the Canadian farmer and that of the United States farmer, mentioning the greater advantages which the American farmer enjoys. My reading of the press within the

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Robb
last few months has convinced me that the United States farmer, the man who has been enjoying the high tariff protection which hon. gentlemen opposite are preaching, is in a very much worse position than the Canadian farmer.


Thomas Cantley: He wants more protection.


James Alexander Robb: He wants more protection,
but what he really needs is a lower cost of living. I will admit at once that the dairy farmers of Canada would be helped very materially by a lowering of the cost of the feed products required for their stock. I will admit at once that under our freight tariff arrangement we encourage the export of bran and shorts, rather than their consumption in Canada. The millers prefer to export bran and shorts, not only because of the favourable freight rate but because of certain restrictions which prevent the miller from putting the mill-run screenings in the bran and shorts for local consumption while he is permitted to include them in the materia] exported. It is much more profitable for the miller to export, and that is a matter which might be deserving of some consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next year.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends have tried to
argue that the dairy industry has been ruined. 1 propose to offer in evidence against that argument statements which have appeared in two newspapers, both loyal supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The first statement appeared in the Montreal Gazette in connection with their annual survey of the trade of Canada. That paper has as commercial editor a gentleman who for many years has reported the dairy exchanges throughout Canada and who has been a very close observer of the conditions relevant thereto. Experts maintain that last year there was a greater production of milk and that dairy cattle have increased in value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Experts maintain "1


James Alexander Robb: This is what Mr. Bark, commercial editor of the Montreal Gazette, had to say on January 4, in his annual survey of farming conditions in Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: He was not acquainted
with your statistics.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend say that
the Montreal Gazette is not a reliable paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the paper, it
is Mr. Bark.
78594 -2014


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Bark said:
It is the production of milk that counts, and there is more milk produced in Canada now than ever before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Bark continues:
On account of having no export surplus of butter, the price in Canada is not regulated by the world market, as it is when there is a surplus, and while we have been importing butter the price here has been from five to twelve cents above the price producers would have received if they had been obliged to export a surplus.
That is a statement made by a gentleman who has lflade a close survey of market prices prevailing throughout the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the opinion of one
individual.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend say that
the prices quoted are not correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is inaccurate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are wholly inconsistent with the government's own statistics


James Alexander Robb: Mr. James Newbigging,
president of the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association, had the following to say at London on January 9, 1929:
The growing local trade in eastern Canada continues to absorb a greater quantity than is being produced and must for the winter season depend on imports to supplement the supply.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He claims the production
has fallen off.


James Alexander Robb: Then there is another statement made by a gentleman who has been very prominent in the dairy industry in recent years. This gentleman is a very good personal friend of mine but he is opposed to Australia-New Zealand trade agreement. He is secretary of the National Dairy Council, and I might mention that this council does not consist of farmers, but is largely financed by the cold storage operators and not by the farmers of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they any the worse
for that?


James Alexander Robb: No, they are none the worse
for that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why say so?


James Alexander Robb: This gentleman, Mr. W. F.
Stephen, speaking at the same meeting in London, made the following statement:
From the summary of trade for the twelve months ending November, 15,758,251 pound* ol butter were brought into Canada.
3170	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Robb
That is for that particular twelve months. The statement continues:
It is generally conceded that 1928 has been one of the best years for the industry. Prices for dairy products have rated high, with cheese prices .leading all others, running about three cents per pound over 1927.
Hon. gentlemen opposite were very much alarmed recently when the United States indicated that they were going to raise the duty on milk and cream, and we have still echoing in our ears the lamentations of hon. gentlemen opposite that this great dairy industry' was going to be ruined. The answer to that from my part of the country-and I claim to represent one of the best dairy sections in the Dominion of Canada, exporting large quantities of milk and cream to the United States, as they do throughout all the eastern townships-and the answer to that right in the district surrounding the city of Montreal is to be found in what was published recently in the papers in regard to the increase in price to milk producers. I have under my hand the Ormstown Bulletin, which has great admiration for my hon. friend opposite and his party and supports them regularly. This paper is published in the county of Chateauguay, and I find this statement in the issue of May 30, 1929:
Mr. W. L. Carr, Director of the Montreal Milk Producers' Association reports that at the price conference between the milk producers' association and the Montreal dealers held on the 23rd instant, an agreement was reached that the price of milk on the Montreal market for four months, commencing June 1, will be $2.39 per 100 pounds f.o.b. railway stations Montreal.
It goes on to state:
This is three and two-thirds cents per gallon better than for the five months' period during which summer prices ran last year.
With that advance in price, surely no one will argue that the dairy industry is not receiving good prices. We are getting higher prices than if we were exporting our surplus to London, England, as we did in former years. A price of $2.10 per 100 pounds for 3i per cent butter fat is equivalent to 52i cents per pound for butter. When Canadian dairymen can sell their milk for $2.10 per 100 pounds, you cannot blame them very much if they are ready to buy butter anywhere they can get it for 45 cents per pound. They are getting the equivalent of 52^ cents per pound for butter and they are becoming just as good traders as any other persons in business.
Just one word more in conclusion. My hon. friends opposite who to-day are assuming in-

terest in the dairy industry have very short memories. They forget the days not so long ago when they permitted the import free of duty of oleomargarine-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Robb: -and the ingredients required
to manufacture it. During that period there was the competition in one year of 15,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine imported into and manufactured in Canada. I am ready to take the judgment of any dairyman throughout Canada whether he prefers competition from oleomargarine or competition from butter coming from anywhere, butter that he himself can buy for his own family. As long as he is getting from $2.10 to $2.40 per 100 pounds for his milk, he is not complaining.
I repeat that something must be done for the dairy industry of this country by way of adjustment so that they will be able to buy their feedstuffs a little cheaper. The two great factors on a dairy farm are, first, labour, [DOT]and, second, feedstuffs. There has been a scarcity of labour on the dairy farms. Feedstuffs are not only high in price but in some cases unobtainable and it seems to me it would become hon. gentlemen opposite better to try to remedy that condition than to place higher tariffs against butter that is required, not only in the cities, towns and villages, but by many of the farmers throughout the country.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is extremely urgent in his support of the order in council which was passed by the government and which enabled New Zealand1 to receive the benefits of the Australian treaty. The Australian treaty is the child of the Minister of Finance. His predecessors had (failed time and time again to draw Canada and Australia nearer together on the question of a commercial treaty. The Minister of Finance succeeded. Unquestionably he obtained benefits for Canada, and the dairy farmer of the Dominion paid for those benefits in golden butter. In the session of 1925, after a very considerable debate, parliament accepted the basis of the Australian treaty. No sooner had that session ended; no sooner had hon. members returned to their ridings, than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking at Woodstock in September, pointed out that there was a method whereby Canada could be safeguarded should damage result. Be pointed out that there was in the treaty a clause which would enable the government of Canada to give six months' notice

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Stirling
to the other contracting parties, under which notice it would !be possible, for Canada to draw back on the treaty. Five days later the government of Canada presented to New Zealand on a platter the terms of the Australian treaty. Whether or not it was reasonable for the Prime Minister to .make any reference whatever to New Zealand when he spoke in Woodstock on the 21st of September is a matter for conjecture, but the fact remains that whether or not the government of Canada at that date realized that New Zealand would be asking for those terms, Canada gave those terms to Neiw Zealand, and although questions have fairly often been asked in the house as to what Canada received in exchange from New Zealand, we are yet in ignorance that Canada received anything.
After that, the dairy interests of Canada approached the government on many occasions, pointing out the difficulties that the dairy farmer in this country was subjected to on account of the importations of butter from New Zealand and Australia. At first the serious matter was butter from Australia, but as Australia adopted a plan known as the Patterson scheme, which produced what one might call a fictitious price for export butter, it was open to Canada to apply her dumping duty. That was applied, and butter from Australia ceased to come in quantity. Australia, perhaps not unreasonably, regretted that Canada had adopted this method of dealing with her importations, but it was interesting to Canadians to be able to remind Australia that not very many months before, Australia herself had applied very much the same treatment to New Zealand butter entering Australia. The National Dairy Council in their annual meeting in February, 1928, drew the attention of the government to the fact that the butter coming in from New Zealand, increasing and ever increasing, was a serious menace to the dairy interests in Canada. Their delegation met the privy council. They went so far fourteen months ago as to ask the government to rescind that order in council as regards New Zealand, but the government-the Minister of Agriculture (.Mr. Motherwell) we must presume, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who fathered this arrangement -were of the opinion that they were better informed than the dairy men of Canada, and no action was taken to assist them. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that we have got into this difficulty primarily for the reason that we are governed in this country by a government whose fiscal policy reminds one of Nebuchadnezzar's image; for were we to describe this ministry member by member one could hardly avoid remembering that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) prates of freer trade, that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has achieved immortality by his accurate reference to Canada's protectionist policy, that the Minister .of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) has seen the light, that he would infinitely prefer his principles to override his desire for power, that he is busy day by day and week in by week out endeavouring to lead his colleagues into the paths of protection. Then we have the Minister of Agriculture, who on his arrival in Ottawa was undoubtedly a free trader from Saskatchewan. He has received a higher education in Ottawa, and he realizes to-day that there is nothing so very evil in a protectionist policy. He is assisting the Minister of National Revenue to lead the composite cabinet which governs this country into paths of protection, but unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture has been suffering from insommia. On occasion, when, unable to sleep, he rolls over and discovers a lump in his bed which on examination proves to be a pound of New Zealand butter. He examines the wrapper on that pound of New Zealand butter and finds that it is a Canadian creamery wrapper, but unfortunately when he minutely examines it he fails to discover in the most. minute print the fact that the butter came from New Zealand. The Minister of Agriculture was present when the National Dairy Council met in convention in February of last year. They made their statements in his presence and they came back at him again and again endeavouring to enlist his sympathy. When his turn came to speak he spoke in these words:
Let me draw your attention to another difficulty since we are pointing out difficulties in connection with the Australian treaty. Our western people, as you know, are preferably low tariff peaple. The moment they begin to agitate for a raising of duty, even though it is only to get it back to where it was, they are put in the embarrassing position of being high tariff on butter but low tariff on farm implements. It is no joke to take this position. I suppose it can be done, but it requires explaining. So you will sympathize with us all. I am sure you feel it yourselves.


James Dew Chaplin: Who was it said that?


Grote Stirling: The hon. Minister of
Agriculture, addressing the annual convention of the National Dairy Council in 1928. That the National Dairy Council may have altered its stand to a certain extent is perhaps explainable; for I have not yet heard in this house a contradiction of the statement that I have made, somewhat in allegory, that New Zealand butter is being wrapped in Canadian
3172	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Stirling
creamery wrappers and sold to the unsuspecting consumer as Canadian butter. Perhaps when the hon. minster speaks in reply, or on his estimates, he may give us some much wanted information on that subject.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who is doing that?


Grote Stirling: I refer the hon. gentleman to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who knows everything connected with dairy farming in Canada.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is not the Canadian farmer who is doing it anyway.


Grote Stirling: I have not suggested for one moment that 'the Canadian farmer is doing any such thing, because if it is being done in Canada it is being done to the detriment of the Canadian farmer, and he knows it. I do not know whether this government will consider the question of giving us any assistance in this matter, but I do know that the dairy farmer in the west and in British Columbia, which is beyond the west, is most rapidly altering his position with regard to tariff questions. He realizes that mixed farming is in a different category from wheat farming. He realizes that if he is not permitted a fair chance of selling his butter in the domestic market he has got to go out of business. The fact that the hon. Minister of Finance should use as his stock argument to-day, as heretofore, that the dairy farmer in Canada is getting more for his butter, leaves me absolutely cold. The price that the dairy farmer gets for his butter makes, I think, very little difference when you remember this fact, that the milch cows in Canada are decreasing, that the calves, are being vealed, and that the hogs are not being raised in the same numbers that they were, while at the time the number of milch cows in New Zealand is increasing. If the Canadian dairy farmer were satisfied that he is getting better prices for his butter to-day, would he be selling his milch cows? Would he not rather be increasing the size of his herds, and would he not be endeavouring to keep the domestic market for his own use? Canada is ceasing to be an exporting country and is becoming year by year an importing country. Is that a safe position for our dairy industry?


Mr. WARD:: If it be the case that protection would increase the dairy herds of Canada, why is it that the cattle population of the United States has decreased by something like 17,000,000 in the last fifteen years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is larger this year than it was last. Surety the hon. gentleman knows that.


Grote Stirling: I would suggest, in the first place, that I was not preaching protection at this moment as the panacea of this ill. I was pointing out that the government of this country four years ago put over a trade agreement wdth a sister dominion, to which I have no objection, but the government bought the benefits of that trade agreement at the expense of a certain industry in this country which our Dominion Department of Agriculture and the departments of agriculture in all the provinces in this country are doing their very best to build up, and the result of that trade agreement has been a millstone aroqnd the necks of the Canadian dairy farmers.


William John Ward: I cannot compel the hon.
member to answer my question, Mr. Speaker-


Henry Herbert Stevens: You certainty cannot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it is not a correst question.


Grote Stirling: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when I am through, as I shall be in a few seconds, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) should tell us his own solution for the difficulties which confront the dairy farmer to-day. It appears to me that this government, having gone into a trade agreement with a sister dominion, and having then presented the terms of that agreement to another sister dominion-with both of whom we should like to trade if it is to Canada's advantage-must find a solution for this matter. Whether it be that they must adapt the arrangements that they had in mind when they were negotiating this treaty is for them to decide; but on the decision that they make the dairy farmers of this country will decide whether or not they will support the administration.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few
words on this question, largely to express my sympathy with agriculture and its difficulties. Perhaps I take quite a different view from that held by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house who have given us their views. I think I mentioned some time ago that the condition of agriculture is one of the world's prpblems of to-day. It is not only in Canada, in the United States, in Great Britain or on the continent of Europe that the farmers are having difficulties; as I said before, the condition is world wide.
I believe that to-day the farmers of Canada are more prosperous than those of any other country on the face of the globe. I do not mean that our farmers are getting everything

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Forke
they ought to get or that they are in the best position they could possibly attain. At the same time I am perfectly satisfied with the truth of that statement. In Denmark I found the farmers working on ten acres of land and making a living, but they were working from daylight to dark and were living with a frugality and working under such hard conditions as none of our western farmers would submit to. Coming over to Great Britain, I found hundreds of thousands of acres of grass land that it would not pay the British farmers to cultivate, and those Danish farmers were cultivating their small patches of land and selling their bacon and dairy products in the city of London. That is one of the conundrums that my hon. friends opposite may be able to solve.
A good deal has been said about our people going to the United States. Does any one know of any Canadians leaving Canada to farm in the United States?


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Many from my county have gone over to the state of Maine. I can count them by the hundreds.


Robert Forke: It may be so, but I am surprised.


Hugh Guthrie: You are always learning.


Robert Forke: If hon. members on the other side are satisfied that Canadians in large numbers are leaving Canada to go over to the United States to farm I very much doubt it. I think you will find them in the larger cities working at other occupations. Hon. gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that there is no exodus of Canadians to the United States to take up farming.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mafiion) made a speech the other day about the large number of educated Canadians going to the United States. I once made a speech of the same kind in Montreal, and I was surprised next day to see in large headlines in the Montreal papers that the hon. member, for Brandon was against education! You see how things can be twisted. I did not notice that the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William were treated in the same way. It will surprise the house to know that every year 25 per cent of the graduates of Acadia university go to the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why do they go?


Robert Forke: That is a question which perhaps some one may be able to answer.


Thomas Cantley: It is easily answered: you are responsible.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Robert Forke: But only 5 per cent of the
graduates of the university of Winnipeg go to the United States. Tell me the reason why? Tell me why the maritime provinces are importing their butter at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So is Ottawa.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: These are economic conditions and cannot be explained by merely laughing at my statement. To-night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) mentioned oleomargarine. I well remember that exactly the same type of speech as hon. gentlemen opposite are making to-night was made in this house at the time-that the dairy business was being ruined by the importation of oleomargarine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about processed
butter?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend was in
the house at that time and he heard all the speeches then made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You voted for it too.


Robert Forke: Are the farmers of the United States prosperous to-day? What is the trouble with them? They are being caught in the same vicious circle. As the price of their products rises, so also does the cost of production. Our farmers will find themselves in just the same vicious circle if they think they are going to be benefited by protection. But I am not going to discuss the fiscal issue. I simply rose for the purpose of expressing my sympathy with agriculture and with our farmers in the difficulties they have to meet. I feel perfectly certain that the imposition of a duty of 2 or 3 cents per pound on butter will not solve the problem in the satisfactory way expected. There is something very subtle in the word "protection". When the farmer or any other producer has difficulty in putting his product on the market, and the word "protection" comes to his ears, it has a subtle influence over him and he thinks that such a remedy would benefit him. I do not know of anything more plausible than the argument for protection, yet every economic authority in the world has stated time and time again that the whole theory of protection is wrong in substance and in fact.
3174	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Forke
The other day I picked up a United States publication called Farm and City Life. From it I jotted down the following 'in connection with farm operations in the United States:
Farm population smallest in thirty years.
Nearly 5,000,000 left the farm in the last 20 years. Not entirely due to hard times.
93,500,000 in the cities to-day; 75,000,000 in 1920. One person on the farm; 3.4 in the city, compared with 2.4 nine years ago. Increased production tends to balance these conditions.
Probable that increase in consumers will over-balance increase in efficiency of production, and gain will be to the farmer.
Why are people leaving the farm? Is the farm population declining in resourcefulness and ability as well as in numbers? Replies were received from 2,745 farmers. Some said it was a poor business; they could not make ends meet. One fourth were leaving the farms from physical disability-retired farmers. One in 40 had saved money to live easier and to move where more advantages could be found,- to the town or city.
The drift of young men and women to the towns is as old as time. One half were better on the farm; the cost of living consumed wages.
Advantages of country life-health; close to nature: the spacious character and independence of country life.
Upon the whole the country loses in efficiency and ability by the drift from the farm.


Hugh Guthrie: May I ask the minister
a question? Is he in favour of continuing the present importation of butter from New Zealand?


Robert Forke: I do not think it will make
any difference.


Hugh Guthrie: Are you in favour of continuing it?


Robert Forke: I am not in favour of continuing or discontinuing it; I will leave trade to make its own balance.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: I do not see just exactly
where the amusement comes in. I have listened to several speeches to-night, and listened respectfully, and I sympathize with the farmers in their difficulties. I should like to see them get the best prices possible, and if it is likely to improve the condition of the farming population by any change in economics I shall be only too glad to support such a change. But I am thoroughly convinced that putting a cent or two more on butter would not benefit the fanmer in the long run, because as we can see in Australia to-day the farmers ate caught in a vicious circle. The farming population in Australia at the present time is in a worse condition than the farmers of Canada, and the same is true of the farming popidation of the United States; and the reason is just that; they are working in a

vicious circle of high production costs which more than counterbalance any increase in production which they may have.
I hope to see the day when the farmers of this country will enjoy prosperity in an increasing measure. I am one of those who believe that no country will be great unless its roots are firmly planted in the soil, and I deplore the effect of present world conditions on agriculture-not Canadian conditions but world conditions. There is a tendency for agriculture to sink lower in the scale and I deeply deplore the fact. It would be disastrous to Canada if the farming population of this country ceased to be a healthy, robust yeomanry and sank to the level of a .peasantry. Our country will prosper just in proportion to the prosperity of the farming population. I wish to see industry prosper too, but unless agriculture prospers this country as a whole will not progress. I rose merely to voice my sympathy with the agricultural people. They are the people to whom I belong and whom I love.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	At the time it was introduced I
opposed the Australian treaty because 1 believed that agriculture was sacrificed-at least it was not considered-in order that markets might be found for certain manufacturing interests in Canada. I want to support the Conservative members who have spoken, although I am not sure that I can support their remedy. They have not proposed one, but they have only one remedy for everything so I presume it is the same one. But so far as I have followed their speeches I think they have told the truth in regard to the condition of agriculture; agriculture is not in a sound condition. As regards the figures which have been given with reference to dairying, I am not sure whether I should find them the same if I looked them up; one can get figures to prove almost anything one sets out to prove. I shall not, therefore. enter into a discussion of the figures. I want to say a word or two, however, about the subject generally.
I was opposed at the time, and am still opposed, to the idea of the Australian treaty for the reason that the basic principle of lhat treaty was that the manufacturing industry in Canada should be considered while agriculture was not. Let me point out to the members of the opposition that I was opposed to the attitude they took on reciprocity for just the same reason. In the defeat of reciprocity the people who worked towards that end were [DOT] thinking not of agriculture but of the manufacturing industry, and I think we can truth-

Agricultural Conditions-Miss Macphail
fully say that the policy of Canadian governments, regardless of whether the government at any time has been Liberal or Conservative in name, has been to put the good of the manufacturers and their allies first, and the good of the great and basic industry of agriculture last. To my mind that is putting the cart before the horse. We have had it that way for a long time, and that accounts for the condition in which we find agriculture to-day. Protection is only a part of the contributing cause; there are many other things involved in the question which I do not intend1 to go into at the present moment.
One hon. member who spoke-I do not know him and therefore I cannot name his constituency-said that the people of the Canadian cities were very much concerned about the Canadian farmer. I am sorry to disagree with him; I do not think that statement is true. Of course, I do not mean that the people of his city are not concerned; but they are far above the average in intelligence. I find that the city people to whom I talk- and I have talked with people of many cities -know very little about the condition oi agriculture, for they are of the opinion, generally speaking, that agriculture is in a flourishing condition. They judge that by the prices they pay-the retail prices. If the dairy industry in Ontario could work out a cooperative system such as the wheat producers have developed, it would in some measure help to improve conditions.
I want to say only one word more. Protection, so far as the farmer is concerned, is in my opinion a snare. It may be that here and there the farmer would gain something; but I am absolutely convinced that on the whole he would lose much more than he gained, because he would then put himself in the position where he could no longer fight the protection of, for instance, the manufacturers. He would have lost the ground on which until now he has stood. So that if one could get a cent or two more per dozen for eggs, or a cent or two more per pound for butter, so far as the ordinary farm in Canada is concerned, that would have mighty little to do with the margin left over at the end of the year-if the farmer was happy enough to have one. The prices the farmers pay for the goods they consume and the prices they get for all the goods they sell are the factors that contribute to the margin when the year's business is balanced. If the Canadian farmer wants to learn about protection, let him look a little more closely into the condition of agriculture in the United States. The hon. member for York-Sunbury, (Mr. Hanson), I believe, seriously suggested
that a great many farmers were going from Canada to the United States. I do not think he intends the house to believe that he really meant that statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said that in the neighbouring state of Maine, which adjoins my constituency, 25 per cent of the farmers of Aroostook county, 25 per cent of the farmers of Washington county, 25 per cent of the farmers of Somerset county, were recruited from the counties of Charlotte, York and Carleton in New Brunswick. That is the statement I made, and I can prove it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifty years ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, within the past ten
years.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Then certainly the
farmers in the maritime provinces must be in a bad way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are, since this government came in.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Anyone who thinks that one government or another is so important as to affect the condition of a basic industry like agriculture has a very childish mind. I have known of some farmers who did leave Canada to go to the United States to farm but I have not known of one who bettered his condition by so doing; and some whom I have known intimately very much regretted the change. That is all I care to say. As to the condition of agriculture as described by Conservative members who have spoken, I fully agree. The Australian treaty did not consider the agricultural industry, with that I agree. But with the proposed remedy which, though unspoken, is to be inferred from their speeches, that protection will cure the farmers' ills, I do not agree.


William Irvine: It is very fitting and necessary that this house should spend some time considering the basic industry of Canada. I am sorry that the house could not have had some definite information that this matter was to have been brought before us at this time. Had that information been afforded us, we should now probably have available the material which we have collected during the years and which bears upon the subject before us. As it is, we are more or less compelled to speak on a moment's notice and to depend upon our memories for Whatever facts we may bring forward.
I should like at the outset to point out that I do not think we shall solve this problem by the kind of discussion we have heard to-night and which we will doubtless con-
31/0	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Irvine
tinue to hear until the subject is disposed of. The element of party polities is ever present in all discussions on the floor of the house, and I presume none of us is absolutely free from that feeling in the discussion of whatever subject may be under consideration. No doubt each one is trying his best to secure some advantage for his own particular party or group. That is one of the phases of our present parliamentary system which we must grin and bear. I do hope that in the very near future, however, the government will take the necessary steps to institute a thorough inquiry into the entire agricultural industry, an inquiry which will be quite untainted with partisanship and which will be conducted with a view to obtaining the facts as to the actual economic condition of the farmer and the general outlook of the industry and discovering what can be done to improve those conditions.
I am sure most of us will be grateful to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sena) who has brought this very important question to the attention of the house. No one will say that the agricultural industry of Canada is on a sound basis at present; in fact perhaps we must admit that agriculture does not seem to be on a very sound basis in any country. When all is said and done the agricultural problem of Canada is not peculiar to this country; there are agricultural problems of a very serious character everywhere, and perhaps one reason for this condition is that agriculture itself is passing through a phase of industrial development which perhaps we have not fully understood and to which we are not able quickly to accommodate ourselves. However, there are problems which are peculiarly Canadian, some of which might be mentioned in passing before I proceed to deal with the specific matter to which the attention of the house has been directed. I think agriculture is suffering, among other things, from .over-capitalization, with regard to the high prices paid for both land and machinery; and it is also over-capitalized because in relation to the amount produced the overhead is much too great. I would say also that agriculture is suffering from having to pay a much too high rate of interest. This is one of the chief hardships of agriculture in western Canada in particular. I believe that agriculture in Canada is suffering also from a decided discrimination in taxation. The dairy branch of agriculture has been affected by the Australian treaty; I do not think anyone can seriously deny that and it is . the dairy industry as affected by the Australian treaty which is before the house to-night.

I want to associate myself with the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who introduced this subject; indeed I must say that the dairymen of the riding of Wetaskiwin, which I have the honour to represent, have spoken emphatically on this issue. The Minister of Finance goes to the Montreal Gazette .to find out what the cows are doing, but he should go to the farmers of Canada to get that information,. I venture to say that -the minister will not go to the Montreal Gazette for the cream for his porridge to-morrow morning, and I do not see why he should go to that newspaper for his information as to the economic condition of the dairymen. At any rate, I know that the dairymen of my own riding have expressed themselves in no uncertain way to the extent that the Australian treaty has hurt their business, and that is the question now before us.
The hon. member who introduced this subject quoted figures to prove at least to his satisfaction a very material decrease in the production of butter and a further decrease in the number of dairy herds, with a corresponding increase in the production of butter and in the dairy herds of New Zealand. I do not know whether or not his figures are accurate, but I noticed that the Minister of Finance produced another set of figures. I think it is to be deplored that there seems to be no way of getting accurate figures. If we cannot get them right we would be far better off to leave them out entirely, but surely there is some source to which we may go for figures which may be accepted by both sides of the house. Apparently it is the practice for one side of the house to get the facts which suit them and for the other side to disregard those facts and secure quite different information. I am not charging that the hon. gentleman who introduced the subject gave incorrect figures, but it is very strange that the Minister of Finance should find it necessary to quote another set of figures practically the opposite of those given by the first speaker.
Personally I have no doubt that there has been a decrease in the dairy herds of Canada and in the production of butter, but as to the actual number of cattle or millions of pounds of butter I do not know. I would also agree with the minister that there has been an increase in the price of dairy cattle, but there has been a greater increase in the price of beef cattle which fact has affected the price of dairy cattle, so that certainly does not prove that the dairy industry has not been affected by the Australian treaty. I want to point out to the Minister of Finance and to the gov-

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Irvine
eminent that discrimination has been shown against this branch of agriculture by the Australian treaty, a discrimination in the sense that the little protection which was given the farmers on the one or two items upon which a tariff is practicable was taken away and no corresponding reductions were made with regard to the articles which enter into the production of the commodities so dealt with. That is a discrimination. It has been said that the benefits to Canada of the Australian treaty were purchased and paid tor by the dairy industry. I do not think there is any doubt about that; if the dairymen are to be deprived of the protection which they had on the one or two articles on which it was possible to place a tariff, then they should have a corresponding reduction in tariffs on highly protected items which enter into their business.
It does not require any statement from me to prove that the farmers of Canada generally have expressed themselves as being opposed to tariffs, but I think I am correctly interpreting the opinion of the farmers of my own province when I say that they ask for equal treatment in this regard. If it is impossible to give them the same protection which is given to everyone else, then protection should not be given to anyone. That is their challenge. If you universalize protection, then no particular class will suffer. The nation may suffer or it may gain, as the case may be, depending on which is the correct view, but if you protect every class then no class will be unduly burdened. You must do one thing or the other; you must either protect the farmers equally with all other classes or you must not protect anyone. That is the position which the farmers in the west are beginning to take. They are opposed to tariffs, but they are saying also that they should receive equal treatment. If you are going to protect the manufacturers and then take off the protection which the farmers had, conditions will be a great deal worse. Protection is not a moral issue, it is a matter of dollars and cents. It concerns the implements and other things which the farmer needs, and no farmer can afford to set himself upon a moral pedestal and say: Because I have subscribed to a so-called Liberal doctrine for twenty years, that is no reason why I should allow my business to suffer from an injustice of this kind. This is not a moral question, it is an economic one, and economic principles alone must govern. In taking this new attitude the farmers of the west cannot be said to have abandoned their principles; they stand just as ready as ever for free trade.


Robert Forke: Who authorized the hon. gentleman to speak for the farmers of western Canada?	.


William Irvine: The same ones who authorized the hon. minister to speak for them. I should like to ask the hon. minister who authorized him to speak for them. I am speaking directly for the greatest farmers' organization in the Dominion of Canada, and he was not.


Robert Forke: You say so.


William Irvine: The hon. minister varied from the first principles of that organization, and discarded the principle upon which he was elected. If that is not a sufficient answer for the hon. minister I can give him more information, but I think that is all I need to say now.


Robert Forke: Anything which the hon. member can say will not hurt; go ahead.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That comes well from a minister.


William Irvine: Perhaps if the hon. minister had a little more understanding it might hurt a little more; if he has not and it does not hurt, so much the better for him. I will challenge even the hon. gentleman who assumes to have the right to speak for all the farmers and say so far as I know there is no farmer organization in western Canada which has not expressed itself as being in favour of the principle of free trade, they are the only people however who do express those ideas. Nevertheless, they are saying: Since you will not give us free trade, do not protect everyone else and leave us to pay the bill. That is the position they are beginning to take, and surely ir is a reasonable one.
What does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) have to say in reply to this question which has been brought to the attention of parliament, this question which is engaging the serious attention of a very important branch of the agricultural industry in Canada? What remedy does the minister offer to parliament and to the people of Canada? His first point is to attempt to prove that the Conservatives had done even worse on one occasion. Mr. Speaker, I know that that is a very common political answer, and I do not suppose the minister is open to any more severe criticism for making it than is any other minister who has adopted that attitude in past years. I suggest to the minister that it is too much of an old-fashioned argument, it is too stupid an argument for a brilliant man like himself to present. I would ask him to drop that kind of parrying and face
3178	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Irvine
the question squarely. What do the farmers of western Canada care about the allegation that on one occasion the Conservative party advocated the bringing in of oleomargarine and that such is said by the Minister to be much worse than what has been brought in by the Liberal party? That is no answer to the argument; it is not even recognizing the problem, and is unworthy of the minister.
Then the minister disputes the fact that there is a problem; he says it does not exist and that the removal of protection has increased the industry, given higher profits to the farmers, and, according to the Montreal Gazette, has produced more milk and more of thing else which goes to make a flourishing industry. I hope that someone will be in a position to challenge the minister's figures. I am quite satisfied that they are incorrect, but I am not going to offer another set of figures.
Then the minister offers a solution to the dairymen of Canada. He tells them that, although they have been receiving less for their butter and have suffered a little through the reduction in the tariff, the country has been able to ship out $130,000,000 worth of goods to New Zealand more than would have been possible had this reduction not been taken away. If the minister wanted to make a donation of $130,000,000 to New Zealand, why should he ask the farmers of Canada to assume any sacrifice in order to make that possible? The donation could have been made direct without touching the tariff on butter at all. If he did not make a donation to New Zealand of $130,000,000, for which he received nothing, then what did he do? What is the meaning of this? I would say to the minister that that argument is a half-baked platitude and one which never was and never will be true in relation to international trade. There is no such thing as a favourable or adverse balance of trade. It must be built up either by debts or through making presents to the other people. Surely the time has come when the minister should stop making these meaningless statements as an excuse for having done something which he should not have done, or for not having done that which he should have done.
The minister next quotes from the newspapers and claims that the Montreal Gazette has a more accurate knowledge as regards milk than have the cows and the men who milk them. I suggest that he consult with the men in western Canada who are milking the cows and find out whether or not they agree with him that the Australian treaty has improved their industry. If it has not improved that industry, why does not the minister frankly
TMr. Irvine.]
admit it? I would not blame him for having made the experiment, but I am blaming him for denying that a certain thing has happened when those engaged in the industry concerned and best qualified to know assert that it has. I blame him for refusing to face the issue.
Then the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) rises to extend his profound sympathy to the down-trodden agriculturists of Canada. We all know that the Minister of Immigration is a very sympathetic gentlemen; he could not help but be sympathetic to anyone, and in extending sympathy to the farmers he is only extending that which he would extend to anyone else. At any rate there can be no doubt that the farmers who had to reduce their production of butter last year because of the treaty which the Minister of Immigration helped to put into effect, will be very glad of his sympathy and probably will be better with it than they would be without it. But I fail to see how it will raise the price the price of butter or improve the industry concerned.
The Minister of Immigration tells us next that conditions are not as bad as they might be. That is always one of the pleas of the Minister of Immigration. I was going to say I should like to see conditions so bad that he would not say that, but I will take that back and express it in this way-I should like to know how bad things would have to be before the minister would agree that they were bad enough. The argument of the Minister of Immigration in his concluding remarks was that protection does not protect. He did not say it in so many words, but this is the logic of his argument: that the manufacturing industry would be far better off without any protection at all, for surely it follows that if the dairymen are better off without protection the manufacturers also would be better off without protection. If the manufacturers are better off with protection, then by the same token so would the agricultural industry be better off with it.


Robert Forke: I would ask the hon. gentleman to continue his own speech and not to put words into my mouth.


William Irvine: I would not think of putting words into the hon. member's mouth, because they would so ill fit the reasoning of my hon. friend that they would be incongruous, and I have sufficient of the artistic in my nature to be ashamed of incongruities. I am trying to get at the reasoning of my hon. friend. Maybe there was not any, but I understood he was endeavouring to reason, and that the basis of his reasoning was that

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Adshead
protection did not protect. I have heard my hon. friend argue that manufacturers in Canada are a privileged class; that protection does them good; that it gives them higher profits. We have never said anything different from that. Our objection to protection is that we have to pay the price the manufacturer gets. That is the argument against the protection of the manufacturer. I never heard anyone say that the manufacturers were not protected, and that protection was not good for them, until the minister argued it to-night. The same logic must apply to agriculture or the dairy industry as to manufacturing in respect to protection. If manufacturers are benefited by protection, then to the same degree must the dairy industry be benefited by it, or there is nothing in the principle of protection. I am not arguing for protection:
I am simply pointing out that it must be as true in the one case as in the other, and we get nowhere by arguing that protection does not protect. Protection does protect those who have the privilege, but other people have to pay the price.
The fact of the matter now is that under the Australian treaty the men who produce butter in Canada had their protection reduced in order that protected goods of Canadian manufacturers could find a market in New Zealand and other countries in return for the butter that was shipped into this country under the price at which the Canadian producers could afford to produce it. That is the situation. Therefore the pious wish of the Minister of Immigration that he would live to see the day when the farmers would be out of all their troubles will not avail much, if we will not face the fact, which is that the Australian treaty has been detrimental to this industry. The question is whether some other way can be found to relieve the pressure which the Australian treaty has brought to bear upon this industry. That is the problem of the government. But the solution of this question is not going to be assisted in any way by a complete denial of the fact, a denial by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that there has been any harm at all done to the industry, an argument by the Minister of Immigration that protection does not protect, and by not facing the fact that the Australian treaty had a direct and detrimental effect upon the dairy industry.
That is the situation as I see it, and as I indicated at the outset I doubt whether a discussion of this kind, thrown as it inevitably always is upon a partisan basis, will get agriculture very far. I would suggest that at another session of parliament the government should institute a careful inquiry into
the whole subject of agriculture in Canada from an economic standpoint, with a view to finding a remedy. If the United States, for instance, as some hon. gentlemen opposite would suggest, has followed the wrong course in raising the tariff on agriculture, as they may have, we will learn a lesson and will not fallow their example. But certain it is that agriculture in this country requires some kind of assistance or direction, whether it be in the way the United States are doing or in some other way, and we must find our own way. We will not find it by refusing to admit the problem or in refusing to study it in a proper manner.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Speaker, while I agree with many things which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has said, there are some in regard to which I feel it incumbent upon me to differ with him. I am very glad to hear him point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that there is no such thing as a favourable balance of trade, and also to the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) that there is no such thing as an adverse balance of trade. When I spoke on the budget I think I made the same remark. I took occasion afterwards to get the chief statistician of the Dominion of Canada to analyse the favourable and unfavourable balances of trade for three years, and we found exactly as my hon. friend has said, namely, that there is no such thing as an adverse or a favourable balance of trade. It is made up of either services or goods in each case. Therefore when my Liberal friends boast of having a favourable balance of trade, it is an empty boast, and if my hon. friends criticize them for having an adverse balance of trade, it is an equally futile criticism.
But when the hon. member for Wetaskiwin states that he is speaking for a large number of farmers of Alberta and that they should be equally protected along with the manufacturers-


William Irvine: 1 did not say that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I understood my hon. friend to say that if the manufacturers had protection, the farmers should have equal protection.


William Irvine: Or else cut off all protection.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Exactly. I am glad to say that the farmers with whom I am associated take exactly the opposite view. In fact I stated so in my budget speech and I do not wish to rehash that again. They dealt with the Australian treaty and they passed a resolution at their meeting pointing out that
3180	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Adshead
for the small increase they might get, if they got any, they would be ait the mercy of the manufacturers who would demand on their manufactured products a greater increase which would entirely offset any benefit that might accrue to the farmers.


William Irvine: Has my hon. friend read the resolution passed at the last annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: No.


William Irvine: That is the only body that speaks officially for the farmers of Alberta.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am speaking for the United Farmers in my district who spoke to me. I know the resolution they passed.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is the hon. member aware that the pool farmers in the three prairie provinces have before the tariff board at the moment an application for increased duties?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am not, but I have before me the resolution of the United Farmers of Manitoba reading as follows:
Whereas, the United Farmers of Manitoba in their annual conventions have repeatedly condemned the policy of tariff protection as being an unjust method of taxation, as subsidizing the industries protected at the expense of all other industries, and as unduly raising the costs of living and production, especially for those engaged in agriculture, and have demanded its abolition,
And whereas, the farmers cannot consistently oppose protection for other industries while claiming it for their own,
Be it therefore resolved, that the executive board of the United Farmers of Manitoba protest strongly against the action of the Canadian poultry pool in asking for the increase of the duty on eggs and for the permanent maintenance of an arbitrary valuation of frozen eggs for customs purposes because such action places agriculture as a whole at a serious disadvantage ill resisting the demands of other industries for increases in the tariff.


Robert Forke: I would suggest that the
hon. member hand that resolution to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) to read over.


William Irvine: May I suggest that there is no organized farmers' movement in Manitoba, and my hon. friend is largely responsible for it.


Robert Forke: The hon. gentleman states
what is not true.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I wish my two hon. friends would allow me to finish my remarks.
It is perfectly true that no amount of protection would increase the farmers' production. Wheat is the greatest agricultural product of the west, its production last year amounting to about 500,000,000 bushels. Protection is merely

a will-o-the-wisp for the farmers of this country. If they accepted it even as regards butter they would be placing in the hands of the implement industry and other manufacturers a lever by which the manufacturers would take out of the pockets of the farmers ten times the amount the farmers might receive from the tariff on butter.
Let me go a little further. I was very much interested in the statement of my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) that Australian butter is being wrapped in Canadian creamery wrappers and sold in Canada as Canadian butter. By whom? Certainly not by the farmers. Then it must be by the dairymen, those very gentlemen who came to the Minister of Finance and asked him for an increased tariff on butter. They must have perpetrated the fraud-for a fraud it is-if it was not the farmers; and certainly, I say, the farmers would not do it.
My hon. friend spoke of the lack of authenticity of figures, how hard it was to get accurate figures. The acting leader of the opposition, speaking on the budget quoted figures as to the imports under the Australian treaty. His figures were accurate because he got them from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, but unfortunately he quoted figures on only one side of the question. He told us at that time that the imports of Australian and New Zealand butter for the calendar year ending December 31, 1928, were close to $6,000.000, or to be exact $5,916,669. That is perfectly correct; those are the official figures. But he did not quote the figures on the other side. He did not show the amount of money that was received by the Canadian farmers for the milk which they exported to the United States. These same figures are shown also by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and they are just as reliable as the figures quoted by the acting leader of the opposition. They show that the exports of milk and its products from Canada to the United States for the calendar year 1928 amounted to $8,749,932. Of course our farmers could not both export their milk and make it into butter. Placing the two sets of figures side by side, we see that for the year 1928 butter from Australia and New Zealand came in to the amount of $5,916,669, and that in that same year our farmers exported milk and its products to the United States to the amount of $8,749,932: in other words they actually benefited to the amount of $2,833,263.
But even if the price of the Canadian farmer's butter was lowered a little by these importations from Australia and New Zealand, would my hon. friends like to ask the workingmen of their district to pay four or five

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Evans
cents a. pound more for their butter? I put that very question to some farmers in my constituency; for 1 have a mixed constituency, with several hundred workingmen working in the shops. I said to the farmers, "Because you have the opportunity of raising the price of your butter a few cents a pound, do you want me to carry the message to these workingmen that because you have that opportunity you are going to charge them four cents a pound more for their butter? Butter is now 45 to 50 cents a pound." They said, "We do not want any such thing as that. We do not want the Australian treaty to be touched." That was the advice of the farmers to whom I spoke about it. I do not know why it is, but as the lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) said, some hon. gentlemen seem to think that the one and only remedy for every ill in Canada is protection. If it is the dairy industry that is suffering, their remedy is to put on more duty; if it is the woollen industry, put on more duty; if it is the steel and iron industry, put on more duty. It was rather amusing to watch two hon. gentlemen who appeared before the tariff board last fall, the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), one arguing for free coal for his industry in Hamilton and the other arguing for a duty to protect his own particular industry. While I agree that agriculture on the whole is not in a flourishing condition in Canada to-day, I do say that the panacea for all our ills is not protection.


John Evans: This
question coming up to-night is not altogether a surprise. That the industry of agriculture is in a bad way I do not think anyone on either side of the house will dispute. I want for a few minutes to go into the causes of the difficulties that are being experienced in that industry. The present situation diates very largely from the time of the war. During that period those who were conducting the affairs of this country put into force various war measures, and at that time we thought we would be patriotic in listening to them and following their advice. The farmers, being then largely unorganized, were the only class that had their produce commandeered, and their wheat was commandeered at about 50 per cent of its value, according to the price that all other producers and manufacturers were getting for what they produced. Not only that, but we were advised to borrow money and extend our farming operations; in fact, we were advised as well to go into the raising of live stock and were assured
that the banks would lend us all the money we wanted. Some of us unfortunately listened to that advice, and to-day we are suffering on that account. Some of my neighbours borrowed money at the banks to purchase live stock, and in less than two years, before those animals could be matured, the banks foreclosed on them. The banks even then had hard work to clear their own by foreclosing, and the farmers to-day are out ot business. These are things that we cannot overlook. We have not yet recovered from that period, and we can see no hope because both sides of this house maintain a system which makes high the cost of all our commodities. We are suffering because of protection as it is enforced to-day, and the strange thing is that while hon. gentlemen on one side of the house argue as though they were maintaining a free trade policy and the other side accuse them of being practically free traders, as a matter of fact we have very high protection; the people hardly know to what extent that tariff wall exists, or how high it is, and because of the discriminatory application of the tariff wall the whole burden today falls on the agriculturists. If there is one thing the matter to-day with the egg and poultry producer and the butter producer it is the high cost of all their commodities.
First of all let me deal with the distributing system which we have in Canada to-day. I go down the street in Ottawa and I look into the windows of the butchers' stores. We are sadly put to it on the farm to find a paying market for our beef. The price of beef-is over 300 per cent higher in the shop windows than that which the farmer gets for his dressed carcasses. Thirty-five to forty-two cents per pound is a common price in the Ottawa butchers' stores. Thousands in this city are going hungry for beef because they cannot buy it, yet the farmer cannot sell it at a profitable price.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: That would be a very
good reason why a number of people in the city of Ottawa should be paid higher wages, including those in the civil service.


John Evans: The hon. gentleman still
misses the mark. Because of one class being protected we have put the interests of that class entirely out of line with the interests of the whole community; and because of high prices it becomes impossible to distribute these goods at anything like a reasonable price over the cost of production. Beef is a case in point.
In this house I have often protested against some of the methods of the manufacturers
3182	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Evans
and distributors. But let me quote one of the manufacturers themselves, a vice-president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1927. He attributes the cause of the hard times in the maritime provinces to the "shortsighted selfishness"-I want to say that those are not my words-to the "short-sighted selfishness" of his own class. Mr. L. W. Simms- the gentleman to whom I refer-said:
Turning to industry: the story of the maritime provinces under this head since confederation is a long series of tragedies. Some would-be comforters have tried to convince us, without knowledge of the facts, that the hard times in the maritimes were but the result of postwar depression that was common to all sections; but this industrial record belies them. You will find splendid industrial plants in many places in the maritimes standing gaunt and empty or the stark ruins of once thriving industry staring mutely in a setting of tumbling cottages, once happy homes, their owners forced to go to New England for a livelihood. Not a few of these have been bought out, closed down, and dismantled by central Canadian competitors.
The very men who were boasting about protecting the home market for agricultural produce destroyed the home market of the maritimes, bringing .those provinces down to the position where they had to come to this house and ask for direct help. Then again he says:
Prior to confederation and the building of Intercolonial, central Canadian factories, even when they could compete at all, had naturally to lay their goods down at any point in the maritimes on a basis of world competition.
That is one thing our Canadian manufacturers will not do to-day-face world competition. As I have said before in this house, the export of manufactured goods is carried on at the expense of the agriculturist, who foots all the unjust bills passed down to the point where they can go no further-to the man on the land. That alone is the cause to-day of the hardship on the farms of Canada. But let me quote from Mr. Simms a little further. He says:
A year or so ago, a circumstance occurred-
This was in 1927.
-which is unfortunately not an isolated instance of the nationally disruptive forces that commercial life has been guilty of. The jobbers of central Canada in a certain commodity went to the producers of this article, all of whom happened to be located in Ontario, and stipulated that no jobber in the maritimes was to get within 10 per cent of the price they received. The size of their combined business was too important to be ignored, so the manufacturers agreed. Quite by accident a maritime wholesale house discovered the discrimination and protested vigorously. One manufacturer yielded to his protest for fair play, with the result that the central Canadian jobbers
[Mr. Evans.1
punished him by depriving him of hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of business.
But let me sum up in Mr. Simms' own words:
The government and the railway commission may do much to adjust more equitably the burden of our abnormal 3,700 mile length and one hundred mile width; but the business men of the country can. I believe, do much more by getting together and substituting broad patriotism for short-sighted selfishness.
These are the words of one of the Canadian manufacturers themselves. I have spoken already about the unjustly discriminatory way in which protection has been applied. I have a document here prepared by a tariff expert, which goes to show how utterly unfair our system of protection is. I know that our farmers cannot be protected as long as they have such an exportable surplus, for prices will be the world prices and they will have to accept them. But this unfairness in the application of the protection system is beyond our comprehension. For instance, take the importation of one class of article which every housewife must use-cooking utensils. Each importer has a certain status under the rules of the distributing combine. The importers are classified as small dealers, large dealers, departmental stores, jobbers and consumers. The small dealer gets a discount of 50, plus 15, plus 5 per cent. The rate of duty is 30 per cent. The value for duty then becomes, for the $100 worth, $40.38. This statement was prepared when the sales tax was in effect. So the duty is $12.11 and the sales tax was $2.62. The large dealer gets a discount of 50, plus 15, plus 10 per cent. The rate is 30 per cent. The value for duty is $38.25. The duty is $11.47, the sales tax $2.48. The department store gets a little bette.r treatment still, the discount being 50, plus 15, plus 15 per cent. The value for duty is $36.13. The duty is $10.83 and the sales tax $2.40. Then I come to the jobber; he gets a discount of 50, plus 15, plus 20, per cent. The value for duty then becomes $34.01, the duty is $10.20, and the sales tax $2.21. Let us come now to the consumer. It does not matter if he does buy in foreign countries at manufacturers' prices, because there is no discount allowed under our tariff system so far as the consumer is concerned; so that his rate for duty becomes $100 in comparison with $34.01 for the jobber. In other words, his duty is $30 instead of $10.20, and his $100 worth of goods in the foreign country becomes $135.50, while for the jobber it becomes $46.42, for the department store, $49.36, for the large dealer, $52 and for the small dealer $52.51. I ask hon. gentlemen whether they can see

Agricultural Conditions-Mr. Evans
any fairness in that. Can they carry on a callous campaign for protection, putting the burden on the consumer in this way? How long will this system last? How long will the people stand for it? They have stood for it so long only because every journal in the country is a tied journal and the people are not getting the truth of the system as outlined and administered at Ottawa. These things are unfair.
Take the very product which the farmer raises, and the finished article therefrom, and what do we find? We find t'o-day that he pays for his sack of flour nearly one cent a pound on the average higher than that same Canadian made flour is sold for-flour of the same grade -on the other side in Liverpool. That also is an injustice, is it not? And then when I say that the one side of this house is maintaining exactly what the other wants, let me refer to a little incident of the budget this year-and I will name only leather. The price of hides is pretty fair at present, but we cannot always find a market for them. Let us take leather and the articles made therefrom. We find this year that the Minister of Finance put leather for mitts and gloves on the drawback list, and the importer, the manufacturer, gets one third of a rebate in duty. But what about the consumer? The whole duty of 35 per cent is maintained on the finished article. At that time, coming up to the house here one morning, I saw a man with a pair of yellow mitts on, and he told me he had paid a dollar for them. The real price of those gloves was 65 cents, but the tariff compelled him to pay 35 cents more for them-an article he needed and must use in this climate before he could do anything in the way of earning his wages. This is also an injustice, surely.
Coming again to the commodities which the farmer most needs, what do we find? Take agricultural implements, for instance-and these are last year's, figures, with the duty standing as it is. I will not give the hundreds, but the value of goods made in Canada, agricultural implements, was $38,269,000 the value of implements imported was $18,946,000; the value of goods exported was $17,412,000, and the value of goods consumed in Canada $39,802,000. The amount of duty collected on the imported portion is $944,893, and the total paid in wages $10,088,000. The additional cost to the farmer, the cost of the tariff, was just exactly $2,000,000. And most or a great part of the raw material can be had in our own country.
But there are some items even worse than that. Take for example such a commodity as cotton goods. Made in Canada these goods amounted to $76,274,000; imported, $31,000,000;
exported, only $410,000. Consumed in Canada were goods to the extent of $107,373,000. The amount of duty collected on imported goods was $6,612,000, while the total wages paid in the whole industry amounted to $13,860,432. The extra cost of the tariff to the consumer of Canada was over $9,000,000 more than the wages paid in the whole industry, or $22,423,000. Is it any wonder that one company in the textile industry can boast of paying 291 per cent and can come barefacedly before the committee and say, "We are not running these mills for the glory of God"?
I thought I would give a few of these facts to show why to-day agriculture is in a bad state. I have letters coming to me every day from settlers in Saskatchewan-people who are amazed at the foreclosures that are taking place in their district. And what are the government doing? What are the opposition advocating? What are they doing to-day to keep agriculture going in Canada? Oh! a vigorous policy of immigration-but only immigration.
There must be some equity in the administration of the laws, Mr. Speaker, and some of the unjust laws must be removed from the statute books. One class must share the benefits which the others are enjoying, and if you are going to bring in immigration from central Europe-people who will be content to adopt a lower standard of living than we are accustomed to in this country-then something will have to. be done. These things cannot go on unnoticed any longer by the people of western Canada, and the longer I am in this house-I say this in all seriousness-the more I am convinced that the time is coming, indeed it has already gone, when western Canada can see no use in being tied up to the east. I hate to say that, but you are creating such a sentiment throughout the west, by unjust legislation in this house, and the time will come when the test of confederation will have to be made, because we cannot go on this way. We are not inferior to any eastern manufacturer or city man. We are making our living, and if there is one class on which this country will have to depend yet more than on any other I say it is a virile, contented population on the farms of Canada.
Motion agreed to on division, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Telegraph and telephone lines-	'
Prince Edward Island and mainland, $7,000.
Land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels for cable service*. $218,000.
KEVIS iD EDITION
3184	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines
Alberta and Saskatchewan, $114,000.
British Columbia, mainland, $36,000.
British Columbia, Vancouver Island district, $132,000.
British Columbia, northern district, $88,000.
Yukon System-main line, $139,000.	[DOT]
Telegraph and telephone service generally, $5,000-Total, $739,000.
John Campbell Elliott: Before this item is carried I desire to make an explanation in answer to a question asked this morning by my hon. friend from New Westminster. He was under the impression that the Okanagan Telephone Company had not been given an opportunity of tendering on the sale of telephone lines which was made last year. Since the morning session I have looked up the file and I find that there was correspondence with the Okanagan Telephone Company as far back as 1923. In one letter, which I think I showed my hon. friend, they indicated that they were interested in only two parts of the line, that is, from Enderby to Sicamous and from Enderby to Salmon Arm. The section of the line which was sold last year had been run for some time at a yearly deficit of about $30,000; before that line was sold the head of the telegraph service, Major Gobeil, got in touch with the president and manager of the Okanagan Telephone Company and was again advised by them that they were not interested in purchasing the whole section.


William Garland McQuarrie: That was just previous to the sale?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, just previous to the sale. Negotiations were carried on and the sale was made to the British Columbia Telephone Company for $50,000. By that time this company had made arrangements to construct lines which would be operated in competition with the section sold. This year it is proposed to sell some other portions of line, including the sections from Enderby to Sicamous and from Enderby to Salmon Arm; this sale will be by public tender and will be advertised in different sections of the province so as to give every one interested an opportunity of tendering.


Grote Stirling: I am surprised to hear from the minister that in 1928 the superintendent of telegraphs again got in touch with the Okanagan Telephone Company.


John Campbell Elliott: That was in 1927.


Grote Stirling: Were letters exchanged or were the negotiations carried on by way of conversations?


John Campbell Elliott: The superintendent went
out and got in touch with the officials by wire.


Grote Stirling: And in 1928 he was told
they were not interested?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1927.


Thomas Cantley: I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that on April 29 I asked for some information in regard to the gentleman upon whose recommendation certain work was done in the maritime provinces. On that occasion the minister said that if I would allow the matter to go over he would give me an answer. I did not obtain that answer; consequently on May 8 I placed a question on the order paper as follows:
1.	What is the name and the address of the gentleman recognized by the minister, resident engineer, or other officer of the Department of Public Works, as having the patronage of the county of Pictou during the year 1927 and part of 1928?
2.	Who succeeded to the patronage ot the county during the latter part of 1928 and 1929!
The answer given is that there is no individual so recognized. I do not think that answer is correct, and I would like to know if the minister still adheres to that as being a correct answer to my question.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I do adhere to that
as being a correct answer.


Thomas Cantley: In that case I would
refer the minister to the correspondence from Mr. T. J. Locke, district engineer for the province of Nova Scotia, who wrote Mr. John A. McLean that on the recommendation of Mr. A. McColl he was appointed foreman in charge of repairs to channel piers, Bailey's brook. That letter was written on May 29, 1928. Then on July 4 Mr. Bennett, assistant engineer, wrote Mr. Locke as follows:
Saw Maclsaac at noon to-day but bad to leave immediately to catch Mr. McColl at Malignant Cove.
He also stated that Mr. McColl had advised him that he was going to wire the Minister that day that if he did not accept the engineer's report that the work be done by day labour, an engineer should be sent from Ottawa so that he might be assured as to the wisdom of the advice tendered. Then on July 13 I find that the same engineer, Mr. Bennett, reported that the work done at Bailey's Brook was the worst he had ever seen. The man who did that work was appointed on the nomination of Mr. McColi. and this foreman was ordered to discontinue the work; in other words he was dismissed. Then on Jply 26 I find that Isaac Arbuckle was notified that upon the recommendation of Mr. McColl he had been appointed foreman in charge of repair work to the Canadian National wharves at Pictou. Again on

Business oj the House
September 8 I find1 that the district engineer writes Mr. McLean that no further work is to be done by him on the Bailey's Brook wharf, and as a matter of fact work was suspended for two months or more, at the dictation of Mr. McColl, during the best part of the'season and resumed only late in the season, again upon the recommendation of Mr. McColl. Then another gentleman was appointed, and so on; I could go through page after page of this same sort of thing, but in spite of what is disclosed by this correspondence the minister tells me that the information given in reply to my question was correct. I say it was not correct, and it is for him to explain, in view of this correspondence, why he says that information was accurate.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
answer my hon. friend, to his entire satisfaction, I hope. I would say that there was considerable correspondence with my hon. friend himself. In looking over the correspondence I find that he has been fairly active in the county of Pictou. This was particularly true during the summer of 1926, when the party to which he belongs for a short time controlled matters in that and other ridings throughout the country. I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that when work is to be done in any particular county or constituency, naturally some local man is consulted with regard to the local situation. If a foreman is required, the engineer of this or of any other department could not be expected blindly to engage the man wdtfaout having him recommended by someone. That has not been the practice for a number of years in that riding or in any other riding. There is a great deal of difference between consulting a man as to whom he would recommend, and accepting that recomendation or continuing the man in service when he has proved to be unsatisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or if his politics were bad.


John Campbell Elliott: When you are looking for a foreman, that question is not nearly so important as are his [DOT]qualifications for that particular job.


Thomas Cantley: They were more important in the case of McLean; that has been abundantly proven.


John Campbell Elliott: When he was reported
upon as not being satisfactory he was promptly dismissed.


Thomas Cantley: Then the department took the recommendation of the same man with regard to another appointment, and that did 78594-2024
not turn out well either. McColl has been recognized again and again, and is still so recognized. The statement of the minister is not a fair one, nor is it a true one.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is
getting aggressive.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1930, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe, the house adjourned at 10.59 p.m.
Tuesday, June 4, 1929