1929-02-11

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Grand Trunk Act, 1906-7, with respect to pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNL Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to further amend the Intercolonial and Prinoe Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: We have been
advised by the Justice department that the present act should be amended and consolidated.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROOT VEGETABLES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This bill provides for the establishment of certain grades for vegetables and prescribes the size of containers and the handling of vegetables for export.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act (investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies).'
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill very much along the lines of the bill introduced by myself last session, providing that the Railway Act be so amended as to give the railway board jurisdiction on a rate inquiry to investigate not only the affairs of a company under its present jurisdiction, but also the affairs of a subsidiary of such company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE

[Stage Direction]
MULTILATER.'p nUlATY FOR THE RENUNCIATION ^	OF WAR
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have just received the general treaty for the renunciation of war, signed at Paris on August 27, 1928, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has notified the British government that Canada will sign the optional clause.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might say to my hon. friend that something has been done. I shall be glad to inform him what it is later on.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. T. M. Cayley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who
sit to your left join with the members of the government in congratulating the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They discharged that time honoured duty with satisfaction to their party and credit to themselves.
The reference in the address to the improved condition in the health of the sovereign has already been considered by this house in a formal way, and I am sure we all trust the day is not far distant when the entire British Empire may unite in general thanksgiving to Almighty God for having preserved to the peoples of the empire the life of their beloved sovereign.
The speech from the throne, apart from that, may indeed without exaggeration be said to be a document of glittering generalities; it is somewhat difficult to ascertain by a careful perusal of it just what definite legislative proposals the government may have in mind. It is rather a review of past conditions and an assumption of the role of Providence than an indication in any degree of what the government's legislative intentions are. I suppose, however, that in that regard the government may be excused; for their bill of fare-to quote the language of a former leader of the Liberal party-is undoubtedly very meagre. So far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we do not propose just now to trespass upon your time, Mr. Speaker, nor yet to encourage the people of the country to believe that we are here for the purpose of discussing abstract questions and problems. As long ago as 1878 Sir John Macdonald expressed this view, and his successor in leading the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie, also spoke in the same terms.
It is a well known fact, as those who are students of our parliamentary institutions will remember, that for a period of ten or eleven years at a stretch the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was invariably terminated in a single day, and usually before six o'clock. If the speech means anything, it means that measures will be introduced and that these measures will be

The Address-Mr. Bennett

discussed and debated by parliament; and any antecedent discussion of such measures, before they are brought down to the house, is but beating the air and wasting the taxpayers' money. There are times, of course, when large questions may have to be considered in relation to the speech from the throne; this was done, for instance, in the days of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in the days of Sir Robert Borden. But unless the opposition proposes, for some great purpose, to move a vote of want of confidence in the administration-which is not our intention at this moment, inasmuch as amendments are limited, by our practice, to suggestions of what the speech should contain but does not -then indeed no good purpose may be served by such abstract discussions. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention at the moment of moving an amendment to this speech from the throne; to do so would necessitate the entire recasting of that document, for if we indicated to the country the matters which should be dealt with but which are not, what would be left of the speech from the throne would be very meagre. There is so little in it. We will rather adopt, as far as we may, the practice which is approved by one writer in Great Britain, who has said that it is usual "to allow the address to pass without a division so that it may be, in point of fact, unanimous in respectful expression of deference when the house has received the first communication of the session from the sovereign to his representatives." That will be our attitude.
But, sir, one must make some few observations with respect to a document of this character. It is to be observed that the keynote of it is rejoicing at prosperity and the improved trade of the country. There is no member of this house who does not rejoice that Providence has given us great crops and that we have had a large measure of prosperity. But this I will say: I challenge my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) to point to a single item in all the long record of our trade in which there has been any interference by this government, since it came into power in 1921, which has not brought a measure of disaster to the industry with which it has meddled. And when I say a measure of disaster I mean a lessening, a curtailment of the export business of that industry and an increase in imports of the products it manufactures. Whether you take butter or machinery, sugar or cotton, whether you take the legislation of last session or that of any other session: wherever the government has interfered you will find that there 
has been a diminution in the prosperity of that particular industry so far as Canada is concerned. It may be said, with respect to the implement business, that this is not so, because of certain conditions in connection with the expansion of the Canadian industry to the neighbouring republic. But if you will analyse it you will find, in connection with that industry alone, that there was an increase in imports in the last year of $15,000,000 from the neighbouring rebublic-imports of agricultural implements alone. In regard to butter, you will find that, before this government began to interfere with our dairy industry, this country was able to export some fifteen million pounds of butter per annum. But our importations during the last twelve months have gone up to sixteen million pounds, so that we are no longer an exporting community so far as this commodity is concerned. And the provincial Minister of Agriculture the other day in Alberta, pointed out that there had been a decrease in dairy herds in that province in the last few years of 60,000 cows. It matters not whether you take agriculture or industry, wherever this government has legislatively interfered it has been to the detriment of either agriculture or industry.
I would remind this government and the country that when we discuss the question of prosperity it is highly important and desirable that we ascertain just -what is the basis of this country's prosperity. What is it? Is it its industry? It is not. The basis of Canada's prosperity at this moment is agriculture; whether you like it or not, sir, you will find', if you look at the returns, that the purchasing power of this country is derived from what we are able to sell. The increased purchasing power of Canada is represented in turn by what it is buying; we may buy at home or abroad, but so far as this increased purchasing power is concerned, it arises from what we have been able to sell. Consider for a moment what we have sold, what we are selling, where our purchasing power comes from, and you will observe that it does not come from any action on the part of this administration, nor yet from the acts of man himself; it comes rather from a beneficent Providence that has enabled us to reap very bountiful harvests in the last few years. The sales, for instance, of grain and grain products for the twelve months ending December 31 last amount to $558,000,000. When you recall that the sales of living animals-diminished though they have been-amounted to Yt\ millions; cheese, 25 millions; fish, 35 millions; raw furs, 23 millions; hides and skins, 11J

The Address-Mr. Bennett
millions; meats, 20 millions; milk and cream, 10 millions; vegetables, 7i millions; tobacco,
2 millions; wool, 3 millions: when you recall these figures you begin to realize how large a part the agricultural industry of this country has played in providing the purchasing power of the people and thereby ensuring the prosperity to which I have referred. If we frankly recognize that fact we must also recognize the sales that have taken place of our forest and mineral products. From our forests alone, in lumber, we sold last year $93,000,000 worth of goods. In paper and pulp, in the lowest form in which wood may be manufactured so that it may be available for the finished product in other countries, we sold, of paper, $147,000,000 and, of pulp, $45,500,000. With respect to mines and minerals, we sold $173,000,000 of products. In other words, the purchasing power of the people has been provided by the sale of our agricultural products, by the sale of our forest products, and by the sale of our mineral products. And so far as our agricultural products are concerned, it will be observed that what we sold amounts practically to one-half of ^the whole of our purchasing power; for last year we sold $1,349,000,00 worth of goods. That was the sum total of our sales to the world. You will observe that practically one-half of that came from agricultural products. Then if you take the products of our forests and our mines, without going into details since this is not the occasion for so doing, it will be observed that you have nearly $1,300,000,000 from these sources, leaving a very small sum indeed to represent the exportable industrial products of this country. Then if you will turn to the other side of the picture you will observe that of the $1,222,000,000 worth of goods purchased by Canada during the past year, we bought goods to the value of $825,000,000 from the United States; in other words, with the purchasing power with which we were endowed through the industry of our farming population and through the richness of our farms, our forests, our fisheries and our mines, we sent $825,000,000 to the United States, which means that two-thirds of every dollar which went from Canada to buy goods last year went to the United States, although they bought from us goods to the extent of less than $500,000,000.
When my friend the mover of this address expatiated the other afternoon upon the marvels of the British preference I wondered if he had read the last figures of the trade returns. The total amount we were able to sell to the whole of the British Empire last year was about the same as the amount of 78594-21
goods we sold to the United States and it will be observed that the total, small though it was, was brought about by overcoming many difficulties in connection with the restrictions which have surrounded the operation of the preferential tariffs as we now have them administered by this government. I mention that because to me it seems reasonably certain that the government is labouring under an entire misapprehension as to the basis of our prosperity. When you see a steady increase in the amount of goods which we acquire from foreign countries and which might be made at home; when you see a constant increase in the labour given to people in other lands in order that they may supply us with goods; when you see the matte and the ore of copper and other metals sent from this country, fabricated into finished products by the labour of foreigners and sold here to our Canadian people; then you know, as I know, that this is a wrong condition which the Canadian people must remedy and,
I am certain, will remedy at the earliest opportunity.
The basis of prosperity being as it is and the purchasing power of this country being as it is, before I conclude I hope to develop what I conceive to be the duty of the government under these circumstances and with the opportunity which lies before this government, a greater opportunity than ever was presented to any government under the light of the sun, because we live in an age when science has been able to make very great contributions to industry, and the opportunities of the Canadian people have become correspondingly greater by reason of the richness of our resources. There never was a time when there were greater opportunities for the development of a concrete policy of far-reaching importance, due to the rich agricultural, mineral and other resources of this country. My complaint, and I believe the complaint of the Canadian people, is that this government has been content to rest quietly and supinely and look upon this prosperity, which has been (brought about by the wonderful productivity of our soil and the wonderful richness of our resources and say, " Behold, no improvement is possible " regardless of the fact that those who read history, those who follow tihe trend of events and those who read the message of Mr. Mellon in 1925, which was so pregnant with material for every thoughtful man, and those who read his message of a few days ago as well as the speech from the throne, will ask themselves what this government is doing to prepare for the day which must come when, with contracted trade and with lessening opportunities
The Address-Mr. Bennett

With these words the representative of the sovereign meets this parliament. I will ask any hon. gentleman here if he will go to any business man or thoughtful Canadian in his constituency and read those words to him and say, "That is a fair reflection of Canadian public opinion." Is there any Canadian who regards this problem as being adequately dealt with by the present system? We have here one of the largest undeveloped areas in the world; we have a very pressing necessity for more people. There need be no misapprehension about that, notwithstanding what has been said from time to time to the contrary. It will be found that the increase of population in this country, brought about through bringing additional people in, will not only lessen unemployment for those who are now in it, but will increase all employment. Those who have studied the problems connected with the movement of people realize that instead of there being a diminution of opportunities for labour, the flow of new peoples into a country means the increasing [DOT]of the opportunities for those who are there as well as providing work to those who may come.
Last year the government tried the experiment of bringing into this countoy during the harvest season a number of people from Great Britain. Some of our friends were greatly agitated about that; some of them thought it was going to be fraught with the greatest danger. I observe from the returns, which the department very kindly and courteously furnish me from month to month, that credit is taken for the Whole of the movement of these people into Canada at that time. But I learn that more than half of these people went back to Great Britain, and there is no record of that in the immigration returns of [DOT]this country. In other words, these returns, as they now stand, indicate that there came into this country some fifty thousand British people up to the end of December. Mr. Amery, speaking in the House of Commons on the 19th December last, said that 8,449 British miner emigrants were sent to Canada and up to that date 6,876 had returned, and 4,577 had been assisted to return. We retained something like 1,573 of the number that came in, and no statement to that effect appears in the immigration returns sent out by the department from month to month. I inquired personally as to this being so.
This experiment having been made, may I direct attention to an article appearing in The Round Table of December, 1928, at page 180, as follows:
Indeed, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, when it held its annual conference in
tMr. Bennett.]
Toronto in September, roundly denounced the experiment, and for its appeasement, Mr. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour in the King cabinet, apparently regardless of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility, virtually repudiated the scheme as the product of other minds than his own, and made the charge that before the miners left Britain, they had been misled by gross misrepresentations to the effect that they could easily find employment in the Canadian coalfields, where, according to Mr. Heenan, a surplus of labour already existed.
Many of us will recall the language of the Ottawa Citizen in dealing with the same incident of the Minister of Labour's speech. This is our comment with respect to that. This scheme apparently was ill-conceived, improperly considered before it was launched, and when launched was not a success. The result is that of those who came to this country on account of the representations that were made to them, all but 1,573 had gone back before the 19th day of December last, and of those remaining 1,573 we do not now know how many have gone back sinoe, but we do know that of those who went back 4,577 were assisted in their passage across the Atlantic ocean. In face of that we are told that the stream of immigration moves smoothly; that it is being satisfactorily maintained. In the language of the speech from the throne, bringing some 8,000 to Canada, sending back 6,800 of them and helping 4,577 of those 6,800 to return home, is satisfactorily maintaining the stream of immigration. I do not think the Canadian people look upon the matter in that way. I put this to the Prime Minister and to the members of this house:	Has this government grappled with this problem at all? Has it not endeavoured piecemeal to appease this interest and that? Has it not endeavoured by a concession here and firmness there to>
appease all classes and accomplish nothing?
I observe that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) the other day spoke of the curtailment of continental immigration, reducing it by one-third, saying that the railways were bringing too many people from continental Europe into this country and that it was desirable to welcome British settlers. Could anything be simpler to increase the percentage of British settlers than to cut down the percentage of the flow from other countries? You do not increase your effort; you do not desire to get more settlers of the kind required; but all you do is to cut off certain classes of settlers and say:	Behold, the British percentage of the total immigration is now greatly increased. The Minister of Labour had a simpler method than that. According to him all you had to do was to bring in

The Address-Mr. Bennett
enough people and see that enough of ours went to the United States from year to year, so that those who were left would get jobs. Then if those who were left in Oanada went to the United States there would be more jobs for those coming. That is not dealing with the problem at all.


Mr. FORKE:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says:
"Hear, hear." The responsibility rests with him and his government. We have no power to control the expenditures; we have no power over the money of this country; but all I can say is that when, in the fullness of time, that power is entrusted to those who sit to the left of the Speaker, they will deal with the immigration problem in a different manner.
There is one other matter to which I as a westerner must direct attention. Once more the speech from the throne deals with the return to the provinces of their natural resources. You will observe that the government say:
A royal commission has been appointed to inquire and report as to what financial readjustments are necessary in order that the province of Manitoba may be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources, as from its entrance into confederation in 1870.
Further on in the speech appear these words:
Negotiations have also been resumed with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan with a view to the transfer to these provinces of their natural resources, and with the province of British Columbia with respect to the restoration to that province of the lands of the railway belt and the Peace River block.
What are the facts with respect to that? First of all, may I remind the house that on the 9th day of March, 1922, there was again a speech from the throne prepared by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). That was the first speech for which he was responsible, and that speech contained this paragraph:
The long standing question of granting the control of the natural resources of three western provinces to their respective provincial governments has engaged the attention of my ministers. Sympathizing with the desire of the authorities of these provinces, which have now advanced to maturity, to have the same control and management of their resources as is possessed by the older provinces, my government have made a proposal to the governments of the several provinces concerned, which it is hoped may lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question at an early date.
That was in March, 1922. Nearly seven years of peace, of useful opportunity, have gone by, and in those seven years this government has not accomplished what it aimed at in 1922. Why should Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba be placed in that position? Why is it that the people of western Canada still have Ottawa dealing with their resources? This morning's mail brought to us an extra of the Gazette containing regulations from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Mines at Ottawa, dealing with the great mineral resources of the western provinces, providing methods by which they were to be administered. Are the people of the west to be held in bondage longer by this government? Is it because the Minister of the Interior desires to retain his position; is it because this government desire to administer these resources, to alienate our water-powers, to alienate our great mineral wealth in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that for seven years this effort has accomplished nothing? The people of western Canada have become insistent that something should be done. They are weary of these long suggestions contained in speeches from the throne as to what is to be done, commencing from the first speech prepared by this administration.
How would Quebec like it if the resources of that province were being administered in Winnipeg? How would the members who sit for Quebec constituencies or those who represent constituencies in Ontario like it if their people were told that a bargain made by somebody in Winnipeg deprived the people of those provinces of revenues from royalties on gold for twenty years? That is what this means. Our vast coal areas, our forest areas, our rich mineralized1 areas in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan continue to be administered in Ottawa, notwithstanding that we have reached the age of maturity, that we are over twenty-one years of aige. We are told in the speech from the throne: Manitoba is to have a commission to determine what its position is commencing with 1870. Does anyone for a single moment believe that the western provinces can be treated dissimilarly? They must all be treated on the same basis. Equality of treatment must be accorded to them. You cannot select Manitoba for one form of treatment, Saskatchewan for another, and Alberta for another. The people will not tolerate and have no right to tolerate such treatment. Last July, just before a grant of water-powers by the federal government, the rights of Manitoba were determined by an agreement to which I shall refer in a moment. Then a commission was appointed
The Address-Mr. Bennett

consisting of a member of the Privy Council, who had been a member of a former government, a very able financial man, and a judge from the Saskatchewan bench, to hear, consider and adjudicate upon the claims of Manitoba.	,
With respect to Saskatchewan, the premier of that province had some correspondence with the Prime Minister of Canada, and he is to come here on the 19th day of February to consider the matter further, just after his legislature has been prorogued for the year. What about Alberta? We all know the situation with respect to that-the agreement brought in, the reference to the courts, the courts determining in accordance with the contentions of the government. Since then we have now a further suggestion, and with it the statement that this is the final conclusion at which the government has arrived. Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne itself is the most damning indictment that there could be against this administration in its dealing with the natural resources of the provinces in western Canada. There is the speech from the throne, and in one paragraph it says: We have appointed a commission. On the other hand, the speech from the throne says: We are going to negotiate with the other two provinces. How can it be possible to suggest that you are going to deal with Manitoba in one way, and with the other two provinces in another way? Let us look at the manner in which each of them is being dealt with up to the moment.
Saskatchewan, as I have said, is not to be dealt with until the 19th day of February, when discussion is to take place between the premier of that province and the Prime Minister of this country.
So far as Manitoba is concerned, I read that on the 1st of August, 1928, an order in council was passed from which I quote the following clauses:
1.	The province of Manitoba to be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources, as from its entrance into confederation in 1870.
2.	The government of Canada, with the concurrence of the government of Manitoba, to appoint a commission of three persons to inquire and report as to what financial readjustments should be made to effect 'this end.
3.	The commission to be empowered to decide what financial or other considerations are relevant to its inquiry.
4.	The findings of the commission to be submitted to the parliament of Canada and to the legislature of Manitoba.
5.	Upon agreement on the financial terms following consideration of the report of the commission, the respective governments to imtro-
TMr. Bennett.]
duce the necessary legislation to give effect to the financial terms as agreed upon, and to effect the transfer to the province of the unalienated natural resources within its boundaries, subject to amy trust existing in respect thereof, and without prejudice to any interest other than that of the crown in the same.
6.	Pending this transfer, the policy of the government of Canada in the administration of the natural resources of Manitoba to be in accord with the wishes of the government of the province.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the right hon. the Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, advise that, pursuant to part I of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99, revised statutes of Canada, 1927-
The Honourable W. F. A. TuTgeon, a judge of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan.
The Honourable T. A. Crerar, of the city of Winnipeg, province of Manitoba, and
Charles M. Bowman, of the town of Waterloo, in the province of Ontario, Esquire, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada,
(the commissioners agreed upon by both governments), be appointed commissioners to conduct such inquiry, and that they be authorized to engage the services of such accountants, engineers, technical advisers or other experts, clerks, reporters and assistants as they deem necessary or advisable.
E. J. Lemaike,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
That deals with the Manitoba situation. Now I turn to the situation in Alberta. We find that just a few weeks ago a conference took place between the representatives of the province of Alberta and the representatives of the Dominion of Canada, and on the 29th day of December last, only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Canada wrote to the Premier of Alberta in the following terms:
Dear Mr. Brownlee,
The members of the government having been advised of the outcome of the conference held in Ottawa on the 12th and 13th instant, between a committee of the Dominion cabinet and representatives of the government of the province of Alberta, and having approved of the same, I have now the pleasure of communicating to you the terms of the offer which the Dominion government is prepared to make respecting the transfer to Alberta of the unalienated natural resources within the province.
Speaking broadly, it is proposed to transfer to Alberta the natural resources in their entirety with the exception of those aTeas now set apart for park purposes.
With regard to mineral rights in national parks within the province, it is proposed to place Alberta on the same footing as the other provinces of the Dominion.
With respect to the school lands trust fund and the school lands, it is proposed that these shall pass to the administration of the province but shall be set aside and continue to be administered by the province for the support ol schools organized and carried on therein in

The Address-Mr. Bennett
accordance with the laws of the province, hut in compliance with the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Here I pause to point out that those were words that were used by a great convention assembled in Winnipeg, in dealing with that problem. I take it that the right hon. the Prime Minister, in order to expedite a settlement of this somewhat disputatious matter, as it has become through the action of the government itself, inserted those words, " in compliance with the letter and spirit of the constitution." I congratulate him upon his effort to secure unanimity with respect to a matter of that kind. The letter continues:
Following the transfer to Alberta of the natural resources, it is proposed to continue to pay to the province of Alberta the present annual subsidy in lieu of lands, of $562,500, with the understanding, of course, that increases in the subsidy to the province as provided for pending the administration of the natural resources by the Dominion government, shall cease upon the transfer of the resources to the province.
As for the present reference to the courts of section 17 of the Alberta Act, the matter is before the judicial committee of the Privy Council, but Their Lordships have expressed the view what there should be an appellant party other than the Dominion government whose contentions were upheld by the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. We understand that your province does not wish to appear in the capacity of an appellant in this reference. We will consider further the advisability of our government taking steps with a view to having this appeal proceeded with, in order to secure a decision of the Privy Council in the matter.
It should be understood that these proposals now made to the province of Alberta have been very carefully considered by the Dominion government and are not subject to further modification by correspondence. It is our hope that the government of Alberta will see in this offer an indication of the sincere desire of the Dominion government to arrange an early settlement of this long-standing question.
Now I put to the house this question: Could any province be expected to accept those proposals in their entirety, if that province happened to be, for instance, Alberta, in view of the arrangement made with Manitoba? I happen to live in the province of Alberta, not in Manitoba. Here are the proposals for Manitoba:	Why was Alberta
treated in a different way? Why do you go back to 1870 and concede, so far as Manitoba is concerned, as we always have contended in the west, that these natural resources belong to the west, and that the crown in the right of the Dominion administered them only in trust for the new provinces that were to be-why concede that for Manitoba and say:	We will go back to
1870 so far as Manitoba is concerned, and not say the same for Saskatchewan and Alberta? What is the answer to that? The answer would be, I suppose, that Alberta got a subsidy in lieu of lands. So did Manitoba. The swamp lands of Manitoba you will recall were turned over to that province. There is Manitoba, on the one hand, and there is Alberta on the other, being treated differently.
I speak now in my capacity as a member from the province of Alberta, and I deny the right of any government to come to a measure of settlement with Manitoba that is not accorded to the province in which I live, and which I have the honour to represent. I go further, and I now appeal to those hon. gentlemen opposite who are such pronounced autonomists, those gentlemen who deny the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and who say that the Supreme Court of Canada should settle all these matters. Why is your government now so anxious to go to the Privy Council on appeal from a judgment in its own favour-a judgment in its own favour, mark you? Where is the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), who talked about the autonomous rights of Canada with respect to its courts? The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was a unanimous judgment in support of the federal government's contention as to the proper interpretation of section 17 of the act of 1905, and when my right hon. friend, who is not a lawyer, says that the matter is before the Privy Council, his language is not quite technically correct. The position is that the Dominion government made an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It has not yet received that leave, and when the application for leave was made to the Privy Council, the presiding lord asked who was the appellant, and as they did not have any appellant except the Dominion government, which could not appeal from a judgment in its own favour, they have apparently been looking ever since for an appellant. I do suggest to my friends who are so strong for autonomy, and who argue so strongly for the finality of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, that they should get busy with their government and ask them why they are going to appeal from a judgment in their own favour. It is for only one purpose -delay. We have a right, so far as Alberta is concerned, similar to the right conceded to Manitoba by this order in council, upon which legislation will undoubtedly be framed.
Bear in mind this further fact, sir. This legislation passed by the provincial legislatures
The Address-Mr. Bennett

and by this parliament has to be ratified at Westminster before it becomes finally binding and effective with respect to these provinces. That means another year's delay. My friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) stares, but that is the fact. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) and the law officers of the crown will confirm my statement. The legislature of Saskatchewan is no longer in session; the legislature of Alberta is in session; the legislature of Manitoba will be in session this week, and opportunity is afforded this parliament to carry into effect the suggestions made by the Prime Minister in 1922 when he first met this house in that capacity and was going to deal with the problem at once. He has been going to deal with it ever since. As has been suggested to me, there is a clause in the agreement that was submitted to this house in 1926 with respect to the ratification of the legislation by the Imperial parliament. This was inserted because it is necessary from the constitutional standpoint.
So that is the position to-day with respect to our natural resources. I was very much pleased to see the concession by the government that these resources are held by the crown in right of the Dominion in trust for the crown in right of the provinces. When that order in council was passed by the government last August it put its final approval upon that concession by stating that with respect to Manitoba we had to go back to 1870 to determine what its rights should be as to the resources that had been alienated and, I take it, the revenues therefrom. That being the position with respect to this longstanding matter, I earnestly hope that the government will rearrange its program so as to concede to these western provinces the same rights, and place them in the same position, with respect to these vast areas that the crown in right of the Dominion holds in trust for the crown in right of the new provinces that were called into being. That, I think, is not an unreasonable position to take, and we trust that the government will without more delay see that effect is given to it.
As to the royal commission to deal with radio matters, I have only this observation to make. In view of the promises that were made last session, it does seem to me that an unusually long time has been allowed to elapse before appointing that commission. Radio becomes of some importance. Canada has quite as large an area as the great republic to the south, and we have just as much air north of forty-nine as they have south. I am satisfied that the conference 
recently held here has arrived at conclusions based upon a realization of the mutual obligations and the mutual opportunities in connection with the transmission of messages through the air; but I do complain of the unnecessary delay that has taken place in appointing the commission.
Now, sir, the paragraph in the speech from the throne referring to the improved conditions under which international and imperial relations are earned on does not call for any discussion in view of what was said last session.
But this brings me to a matter which I do regard as being of very vital importance to this country. The immediately succeeding paragraph deals with the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war, which was signed on behalf of Canada in August, and states that it will be submitted to us for approval. It is always a very delicate matter to refer to the positions that are taken by other countries than your own; your observations are always open to misconstruction, and doubtless they are sometimes misrepresented. But since the right hon. Prime Minister affixed his signature to the treaty I venture to say that not within the memory of any man on this continent has language so violent been used by public men in the United States with respect to Great Britain, Great Britain has been charged with desiring war. When you read, not the irresponsible utterances of jingoes, but the carefully-considered and carefully-prepared editorials in the great newspapers and articles in the outstanding magazines of the United States contributed by ex-service men of the army and navy, and when you peruse the debates in the United States senate, you cannot but be struck with the fact that we Canadians are being entirely overlooked in relation to this matter. When our great neighbours talk of war against Great Britain, they should understand that they are talking also of war against Canada. And the use of the word "war" in magazine articles, newspaper editorials and speeches is the negation of the very purpose of the treaty itself-the absolute negation. Listen to the words of M. Briand when this treaty was being signed. He said:
For the first time in the face of the Whole world through a solemn covenant involving the honour of great nations, all of which have behind them a heavy past of political conflict, war is renounced unreservedly as an instrument of national policy; that is to say, in its most specific and dreaded form-selfish and wilful war. Considered of yore as of a divine right and having remained in international ethics as

The Address-Mr. Bennett
an attribute of sovereignty that form of war becomes at last juridically devoid of what constituted its most serious danger-its legitimacy.
Henceforth, branded with illegality, it is by mutual accord truly and regularly outlawed so that a culprit would incur the unconditional condemnation and probably the enmity of all its co-signatories. It is a direct blow to the institution of war, even to its very vitals. . .
Now, sir, at the very time when we are asked to ratify that treaty, we are surrounded by discussions just such as preceded the war of 1914. I wonder if the members of this House will take the time to go to the library and seriously read the articles and the editorials in the United States magazines and newspapers in which this word " war " appears so often. This is being done by the nation that asks us to outlaw war. The word " outlaw " has a well-defined meaning, and, sir, I do not like to see this country placed in the hypocritical position of signing a solemn treaty when the very nation that proposed it is talking in terms that are the very negation of its spirit and provisions. I realize indeed how serious these matters may be, I realize that it is just such language which creates that jingo spirit so absolutely at variance with the very thought of peace. If, sir, we are going to think in terms of peace, we cannot continually talk in terms of war. When I read those utterances, and when I saw this paragraph in the speech from the throne I decided-and in this I believe I represent the thought of a great many Canadians-that we should deprecate this discussion about war, that we should deprecate this effort of the great nation that put the treaty into concrete shape to create this dangerous war feeling by the tenor of the articles and editorials in their magazines and newspapers and of the speeches delivered by their public men. I say we should deprecate, and we do deprecate, the creation of a sentiment that is at direct variance with the very thought of peace.
Who that has studied modern democracy does not realize just where such talk leads to? You will recall the slogan, "Remember the Maine," and its results. What was the result of the great newspaper campaign initiated by Von Tirpitz in his attempt to create public opinion in favour of his measures for a greater navy? There was always one nation at which the attack was directed-Great Britain. Her navy and its supposed purpose was so presented to the German empire that it inflamed their passions, aroused suspicion and created an attitude of mind absolutely contrary to peace. Therefore, sir, I say we Canadians should do everything in our power to let it be understood we regret such expressions.
We cannot understand it; and in the light of the post knowledge we have and the discussions that have taken place we trust that we are not being placed in a hypocritical and ridiculous position with respect to the ratification of the treaty.
Sir, in my view, this country is not interested in what other countries may do to ensure freedom from attack upon their ships on the high seass or to maintain the safety of their trade routes throughout the world. We must look after ourselves and concede the right to others to do the same. If once a contest in armaments begins, whether it be on land or on sea, the end is as certain as an end can be. The history of the world bears testimony to this. The stream of time is strewn with the wrecks of nations that have engaged in a mad struggle for the maintenance of armaments. We Canadians, standing as we do between the east and the west, the greatest of the dominions between the far off east and the far west, we who live north of the forty-ninth, surely have a right to say as regards the ratification of a treaty such as this, that we regret that the discussions that have taken place subsequent to the signature of the treaty in Paris are wholly at variance with those that were antecedent thereto. It is, I think, our duty to make this clear; we would be derelict in our duty if we did not do so. This at any rate is the consideration that influences me in making these observations.
There is one remark I have to make with respect to acts which will be amended, among them the Elections Act. I do not know whether this intimation is a forerunner of an early appeal to the people, but I do say that anything that can be done to improve the Elections Act, whereby the will of the people may be made effective, should be undertaken. We who sit to the left of the Speaker realize this, in view of the fact that we received several hundred thousand votes more than did those who occupy seats to the right of the Chair. Those who sit on this side would therefore be glad to have the act amended in order to reflect more truly the will of the people.
One matter to which we shall have to give our attention is the state of the public accounts, which the faithful commoners will have an opportunity to consider. These, of course, are the accounts for the year ending March 31, 1928-not 1929. We shall, however get a budget speech, so called, which will deal with the accounts up till 1929, and it may be interesting to know-it will be pleasing, no doubt, to those who sit directly to the
The Address-Mr. Bennett

right of the government-that during the last ten months this country has collected more revenue than it has ever done in any ten months of its history. According to the Canada Gazette of Saturday last, the total taxes collected in Canada during the last ten months amounted to nearly $330,000,000, and of that vast sum over $152,000,000 came from customs.
O, ye free traders! Ye free traders from the province of Saskatchewan, who sit to the right of those who sit to the right of the Speaker, rejoice and be exceeding glad that $152,000,000 of taxation was raised !by customs. And that is only $25,000,000 in excess of the taxes thus raised the year before. This, of course, meant greater opportunities for expenditures; and notwithstanding all that we have been told, the truth is, as indicated by the Canada Gazette, that during the last ten months this country has expended some $15,000,000 more, in ordinary expenditures, than in the same period last year. Oh, they say, that is nothing; we have the money- we have $152,000,000 in customs taxes and $15,000,000 more to spend for any purpose under the sun. And there are not lacking those on the other side of the house who will tell us how usefully the money has been expended for the purpose of advancing the public interest and promoting the political welfare of the government.
There are some matters which are not dealt with but which we expected to see mentioned in the speech from the throne. For example, there are the reparation claims: we expected that, at the very least, the speech from the throne would take notice of this matter. It does not; but on the order paper we have, immediately after the order for the consideration of the speech, the intimation that 2} millions will be used for the purpose. I can only hope that in the distribution of these sums of money regard will be had to the purposes for which the money is paid, and the adjudications of the tribunal that had to consider the claims of the applicants. That matter will of course be the subject of a subsequent debate and I will therefore say nothing further with relation to it.
I had looked for some reference to the senate; I thought that the senate would be modernized and reformed, because most speeches from the throne which we have had since 1922 have contained some reference to that chamber. But there is nothing in the speech this year in that regard. I recall a speech of my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) in western Canada last fall,

and I remember that a greater than he was dealing with the reform of the senate when he left it to Providence.
But I have always thought that there was one matter which the government should, in these days of buoyant revenues, properly consider, and that is old age pensions and allied social problems. The right hon. the Prime Minister was good enough some years ago to indicate that, in his view, a system of old age pensions and social legislation worthy of the name should contain some provision with respect to contributions on the part of the persons affected. As it is to-day, we have but what has been called the dole system. In Great Britain they have no such dole system, inasmuch as the employer, the employee and the state make contributions. Here, on the other hand, the taxpayer alone contributes-the taxpayer of the Dominion, first, through the contribution of one half by the Dominion to the provinces, and, secondly, the taxpayers of the provinces themselves. Now the time has come when a large system of old age pensions should be developed, and a measure to that end should be submitted, with the joint approval of the provinces and of the Dominion, so that men and women might be able to make those contributions so essential to place a system of this sort upon a proper basis, as is the case in other countries. I go further and say that if we fail to take this step we shall place an intolerable burden not only on the Dominion but on the provinces themselves-and this in the not very distant future. For there is, to use language which is sometimes employed in connection with marine matters, " a slack " that must be taken up; there is a large number of older persons whose contributions will not take care of their own particular cases, and the state itself must fill that gap by the contributions it makes. I hope that the government will take this matter into its earnest consideration, in these days of buoyant revenues.
There is one other matter I wish to suggest to the administration, and with it I have concluded my observations. There are two great problems that confront the people of the British Empire; they are the largest problems that have ever been offered for the solution of men and women in any age. We inhabit one-fourth of the world's area; we have one-fourth of its population; we have the greatest unoccupied spaces ever given to a people in trust. These great spaces came to us through the toil, the effort and the sacrifice of men and women of ages long since past. We have a population congested in some sections, and a sparse population in others. Why should not the congested areas

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
be relieved of their population and the sparsely peopled areas be populated? That is one problem. The other problem is that of development. I will not at this time endeavour to point out what the resources of this empire are, nor how great a part Canada plays in any development of these resources. In nickel, asbestos, lead, tin, gold, silver, metals, minerals, wood products-in all these there are abundant resources in Canada as well as in other parts of the empire: copper in Rhodesia, diamonds in South Africa and great cotton fields in India and Egypt. We have one-fourth of the people of the world, although it is true that part of them are backward races, unsuited to our country. So I suggest to the government that since England can no longer take the lead with respect to this matter, this country should call a great economic conference to meet in Ottawa. Let the Dominion of Canada take the lead; let us call an economic conference of the British Empire to meet in this city to consider, after being properly informed, the two great problems of settlement and development. That would be a step forward and would ensure to us what the Minister of Trade and Commerce must realize we are running a chance of losing overnight through hostile tariffs, namely, our markets. I can only say that if we who sit to the left of the Speaker were entrusted with the responsibilities of power to-morrow one of our first actions would be to ask that representatives of this great empire meet in this capital city of Ottawa in a great economic conference to grapple and deal with the problems of settlement and development, for one-fourth of the world's people aTe not trustees for nothing. Where England may not take the lead, as 6he may not at the moment in a matter of this kind for reasons which are obvious, we may point the way, remembering that the first of the colonial conferences, which ultimately became imperial conferences, sat in this city. A great economic conference brought together through the initiative of the Canadian government -would be able to work out a solution of these problems which would not be temporary in its character, which would not be subject to adverse and hostile legislation, but which would represent the agreed views of one-fourth of the world's people, occupying one-fourth of the world's area. That in itself would do much to secure for all time that outlawry of war, that perpetual peace, for which all democracies are striving.
I leave that suggestion with the administration in the hope that they may be pleased to adopt it for the benefit of this country and for the good of the empire to which we belong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
join very heartily with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), in, and at the same time to thank him for, the words of commendation which he uttered with regard to the speeches made by the hon. members who moved and seconded the motion on the address. Both were excellent speeches. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley) has been in this house for two years; he is known to us all and we had reason to expect that when he sought to review the causes underlying the prosperity of the country, he would bring to bear in his remarks the experience which he gained during years as a teacher in the schools of this country, and that he would give to the house an analysis which would be cogent in its reasoning and forcible in its expression. He acquitted himself admirably, and is to be warmly congratulated on the manner in which he moved the address. To the hon. member for .Toliette (Mr. Ferland), who seconded the motion, it must have been a formidable task to come into the House of Commons and be obliged to make a speech within twenty-four hours of his introduction. All who were present were more than charmed, I am sure, with the manner in which the hon. member acquitted himself on that occasion. It was a maiden speech, and I venture to say it was one of the best maiden speeches ever delivered in this House of Commons by any hon. member. We will look forward with interest to his further contributions to debates in this chamber.
Now may I extend one word of congratulation to my hon. friend? I should like to compliment him upon the brevity of his speech. If the government may be congratulated on nothing else, at least it is to be congratulated in having put into the lips of His Excellency a speech which at least partially silenced the leader of the opposition. I am not surprised that my hon. friend was brief in his remarks. He had a very difficult task to perform, in some respects the most difficult he ever has had. He could not deny the prosperity which exists in this country at present. After all, one of the great objectives of government is to make a people happy, contented and prosperous, and when a government is able to exact from the leader of the opposition the admission that the country is happy, contented and prosperous, that government has great reason for congratulation.
I noticed however, that while my hon. friend was prepared to admit the prosperity he was not inclined to give the government
30	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
all or even part of the credit for it. He was inclined to give Providence most, if not all, of the credit, for everything that has taken place. May I say to my hon. friend that Providence, being wise, at least saw to it that its favours were not shown until it was quite certain that hon. gentlemen opposite would be out of office for a considerable time. Providence quite evidently has chosen the time in which to favour this country with the prosperitiy we now enjoy, I may also say that while Providence is allpowerful there are some things it cannot do alone. In human affairs Providence must work through men and through governments. If to-day we are to thank Providence for the prosperity of this country, as we all do most profoundly, I think we can also acknowledge the part taken by the workers of this country, by those engaged in industry and in trade and commerce, in working with Providence towards its development. We are justified moreover in making acknowledgment in some measure of the policies of the government which have contributed to that end.
With regard to the policies of the government and the prosperity which we enjoy today through the bounty of Providence and with the aid of Providence, I would say first of all we owe very much to the policies brought down in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Let me recall the position of the country when the present government assumed office. The Minister of Finance was obliged at that time to acknowledge heavy and recurring deficits, which were bringing the country more and more into a condition of bankruptcy. After this administration had been in office a year or two the present Mininster of Finance could come to the house and, instead of bemoaning deficits, announce surpluses. From year to year he has continued to announce surpluses, with the result that not only has the national debt been greatly reduced but the taxation of the people has been reduced as well. I think it is an elementary principle in the development of a nation, all other things being considered, that that country which is least heavily taxed is likely to be most prosperous. Year after year the Minister of Finance, in presenting his budget, has been able to announce to the house some further reduction in taxation. He has announced reductions in the income tax, in the sales tax, in the stamp tax on cheques and in the postage tax, one series of reductions after another, and by reducing or

eliminating taxation in this manner the country has been placed in a better position than it otherwise would have been.
May I refer also to the indirect customs taxation which has been of importance in the matter of reduction. My hon. friend spoke of interference with trade, and said that whenever this government had interfered with trade it had made matters worse than they were. I do not know what he had in mind when he used the word "interference" because what we have been seeking to do in the matter of trade has been not to interfere but to rid the country of many interferences. I am unable to see where we have interfered with trade by introducing impediments, particularly impediments of the character which hon. gentlemen are advocating. Rather have we removed some of these impediments; we have reduced considerably the indirect taxation which had been placed on some of the industries of this country. And that reduction in taxation has resulted in a considerable benefit to industry, and to the country as a whole.
My hon. friend did not mention many industries or commodities. I think he mentioned only two: he spoke of butter and he spoke of automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Agricultural implements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg his pardon, agricultural implements. If there had been more to speak of I think we would have heard so from my hon. friend.
Reducing it to butter and to agricultural implements, may I say to my hon. friend that I doubt if he has fully appreciated the circumstances which have contributed to certain of the results he indicated. He spoke of basic industries and commodities and of other industries or manufactures to which they give rise. I assume that each year's butter manufacture comes from the milk crop. First of all, the farmers have to have a supply of milk from which to manufacture butter. They may sell the milk itself or the cream, or they may use the supply of milk for the manufacturing of cheese or butter whichever is the more profitable. Instead, however, of going into the production of milk, they may find it more profitable to invest their capital and time in some other 'branch of agriculture. If my hon. friend wifi apply what I have said with respect to the milk trade and its subsequent development in Canada, he will find an explanation of why the export of butter has fallen off. He will find that more of the milk has been sold, that is has been more profitable to sell than

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to manufacture due in a large part to the increasing tourist travel in this country. He will find that much of it has been manufactured into cheese; also that the farmers in the west, finding it more profitable to devote their time and attention to the raising of wheat, have paid less attention to the manufacturing of butter. I will leave it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to give us more detailed information on this question. My hon. friend will find, with respect to the country from which we have been importing the largest amount of butter, that we have, in exchange, been sending to that country and to the country associated with it, a larger amount of manufactured commodities and supplies of one kind or another than we did in former years, when we were, perhaps, importing less in the way of the single commodity butter. I refer, of course, to New Zealand and Australia.
Coming to the other commodity which my hon. friend mentioned, agricultural implements, if he will stop to look at the figures he will find that instead of falling off, either in the value of their production or in the total quantity produced, there has been a steady increase ever since the tariff changes were introduced. I have in my hand a statement by the Dominion statistician with respect to the agricultural implement industry in Canada. This shows that the production of agricultural implements and machinery was valued at $42,000,00 in 1927. This was 12 per cent above the value of $38,000,000 for the previous year, which in turn showed a gain of 54 per cent over the total of $24,000,000 reported for 1925. Taking the figures for the different years, the numbers of employees in the agricultural implement industry in Canada are shown as follows:
1923		 7,792
1924		 6,700
1925		 7,559
1926		 10,091
1927		 11,011
The selling value of the production totalled as follows:
1923		 $26,026,419
1924		 26,447,171
1925		 24,770,216
1926		 38,269,214
1927		 42,996,288
So far as the agricultural implement industry is concerned, far from any action of this government having proved a detriment to it, the figures would show that the industry has prospered more than ever.
My hon. friend referred to the basic industries of the country as being the source from which its wealth was derived. I am glad
my hon. friend has at last come to see that the primary industries are the basis of industrial prosperity in the country. That is what we have been trying from the beginning to have him recognize; it was what we tried to have him recognize when we reduced the duties on the implements of production in the basic industries. If the basic industries of this country are developing to-day as they have never developed heretofore, it is due, to a very considerable extent, to that reduction in the duties on the implements of production which has served to make implements cheaper to those who are engaged in these industries, and in the second place, to the reduced cost of living thereby effected' and which has furthered production.
There have been other government policies which account for the increased prosperity at the present time. Let me mention policies with respect to the railroads of this country. When we came into office we found two or three systems, competing to a certain extent with each other, and under different managements. We now have these systems brought into one coordinated whole and working as one under one successful management and administration. In other words, we brought about the consolidation of the Canadian National railways. We brought that consolidation about at a time when these railways were liabilities to the country. Year after year there were deficits in operating expenses as well as deficits in other directions. What is the position today? The position to-day is that an institution which was a liability has come to be recognized as one of our greatest assets. With the development of the Canadian National railway system has gone the extension of branch lines in different parts of this country, all of which has helped to bring agriculture very much more to the fore, to develop agricultural, lumbering, and mining districts heretofore undeveloped, and to bring the foreign markets and domestic markets more nearly into touch with these basic industries which are as has been said the basis of our prosperity.
Not only has there been a consolidation of the railways in this manner, not only has there been an extension of railway development, but one of the first problems the government grappled with was the question of railway rates. The government grappled with this question first with reference to western Canada,.and then with reference to eastern Canada. When we came into office we found that the Crowsnest pass agreement had been suspended. We restored the terms of that agreement, first with regard to grain and then
32	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
with respect to other commodities. A year or two ago, we found there was considerable depression in the maritime provinces, and we grappled with the question of railway rates in the maritime provinces. We made concessions in freight rates to industry and to the people which have served a useful purpose in the development of the maritime provinces. So our policies with respect to the railways have contributed in a very substantial way to the prosperity of the present time.
I might mention policies related more particularly to other departments of the government. Let me take first the Department of Trade and Commerce. I notice that my hon. friend did not say very much about the paragraph in the speech from the throne which spoke of the new steamship service between Canada and the West Indies and which refers to the continually expanding trade of the Dominion and the facilities which the government are providing for furthering markets in different parts of the world. He left all that severely alone. But one of the great achievements of the present administration has been the manner in which it has furthered export trade not to one country only, but to all parts of the world, furthered export trade in accordance with a policy that has been carefully thought out of encouraging trade by subsidizing certain steamship lines, by seeing that the necessary trade commissioners were appointed, by providing private concerns with necessary commercial intelligence and generally by taking sudh steps through scientific and industrial research and in other ways as would serve to advance the interests of trade throughout the Dominion.
I might speak also of the part which has been played by the Department of Labour in helping to reduce industrial unrest to a minimum. No other country in the world has been as free of strikes within the last few years as has been this Dominion of Canada, and if that is true, no small credit is due to liberal measures and policies and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) for what he has helped to effect in that regard.
Despite all that my hon. friend says with regard to immigration, may I say that I think the policies of the government with respect to immigration as well have contributed very materially to the prosperity of this country. We have been cautious in the manner in which we have dealt with this problem. We have endeavoured to bring into this country the numbers which we believed could be assimilated in a natural and normal way and who would remain permanently here. We have avoided steps which would lead to un-

rest, and which in the end, would be certain to retard in a most unfortunate manner the tide of immigration.
These are only some of the policies which the government has brought forward and put into practice since it came into office, but all of these policies have contributed in a real and substantial way to the development of our industries and to our present prosperity.
I was interested in hearing what my hon. friend had to say about the extent to which the commodities that we were exporting were commodities that were associated with the great basic industries. He has, I notice, in most of his speeches been seeking and he did, I think, by implication to-day also seek to convey the impression that Canada in some way or another was parting with her estate, to use a phrase which he used on a previous occasion; that we were depleting our resources; that in some way or another we were depriving future generations of raw material which they ought to have. My hon. friend has answered, I hope, effectively to himself and to the country the one point that he has been seeking to make right along against this administration. He has shown that most of these exports are natural products of the field, of the forest and of the mine, largely, may I say, products of agriculture and products that could not be exported in a more developed or finished state than that in which they are exported at the present time. Let me make myself clear by referring to wheat. I have not at hand at the moment tlhe figures in regard to the total exportation of wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: He put flour and wheat together.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am advised my hon. friend put flour and wheat together.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Grain and grain products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Grain and
grain products. Will my hon. friend say that the exportation of this year's crop of wheat means the robbing of future generations of crops of wheat that may be exported? That is what I hope my hon. friend will keep in his mind. He has left out of the account in his public addresses the fact that the large exportations are of those commodities in which this country has a distinct natural advantage and which are capable of reproduction. We have a great advantage given us by Providence in our natural resources and these resources in large part are capable of reproducing themselves. At least as regards agriculture, with

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
respect to the products of the field, live stock, fruits and the like which constitute the major part of our export trade, these are all commodities which can be reproduced from year to year and which require only the guidance of a department of the government to preserve in ever-increasing amount what to-day is taking place in the way of exportation. Turning from agriculture to the forests, we have in this country an extent of timber area, a quantity of timber unparallelled by that of any other country in the world, excepting possibly Russia and Siberia combined. We have not begun even to estimate to t'he full extent the timber resources of Canada; but the timber resources, by a careful system of conservation, and reforestation, may be maintained despite the large exportation, and, as my hon. friend knows, the provincial governments which have most to do with the forests have combined with the federal government in providing measures of conservation which will help to preserve the forests to future generations.
We have the largest fisheries in the world and there again the problem is one not so much of restricting exportation as of an effective and successful conservation.
As regards minerals one mi^ht almost say that the total potential production of our mineral resources is as yet completely unknown. I wonder what the people of Great Britain would not give to-day if they found it possible to continue the export of coal, the basic raw material from which England has derived such revenues in past years. Great Britain is in her present state of depression largely because she has lost the market she had for one of her essential raw materials. We are in the present happy position of prosperity by reason of the fact that we have been discovering ever wider and wider markets for those products in the production of which we have a natural advantage.
I noticed, by the way, that when my hon. friend was in Nova Sootia in the course of his campaign there in the summer, he did not hold as steadily to his doctrine about not exporting raw materials as he sometimes does. His speeches there seemed to be suited to the locality even more than to the general principle which he has been laying down. . He happened to be in a certain community at the moment at which the United States imposed a tax upon gypsum, and my hon. friend protested to the community that the United States were always imposing taxes on commodities going into that oountry, that they in Nova Scotia were being deprived of their 78594-3
rightful market and that they ought to protest against that sort of action on the part of a foreign country. Yet this gypsum is just a raw material of the very kind to the exportation of which my hon. friend has been taking strong objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend does not have that quite right. I said that we should not oontinue to trade with a country by sending them sixty-six cents out of every dollar's worth of our purchases, if they declined to buy from us, and I instanced gypsum as the last item of their policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I also say that at the same time the government of Nova Scotia which my hon. friend was indirectly assisting or attempting to assist at the time, sent through its Minister of Mines a communication to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance of this government urging very strongly that representations should be made to the United States to withdraw or to lower the duty and so make possible the continued export of the raw material gypsum into that country.
No, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of the export of raw materials, one has to take into account the stage of a country's development. Every country goes through certain marked stages of development in its industrial life. A new country naturally begins with the exportation in larger percentage of its raw materials than of its finished goods, but little by little, as these raw materials exported bring back to the country the purchasing power for other commodities produced or manufactured within the country, that purchasing power is used for the development of new or growing industries. And so a domestic industry is built up, not by erecting a Chinese wall around the entire nation to prevent the exportation of any of its products, as would be the outcome of the doctrine of protection if carried to its logical conclusion, but by permitting in the first place a large exportation of raw materials of which the country has a surplus and with the purchasing power which comes from the sale of those materials, developing more and more within the country itself the industries into which those raw 'materials may enter. If we wish to build up in Canada, as we do, and as we are doing, an increasing manufacturing industry, the most effective way to do it is in the first place to put our people in a position where their money can be invested in industry, and that can be done by selling in as large quantities as possible the products of the country in the producing of which we have a



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
natural advantage, and secondly, by discovering so far as we can the markets abroad which will enable us to expand in our sale of commodities which we produce or manufacture. If one would take the trouble to consult the figures and see what is actually taking place in the matter of development, one would find that while a few years ago we were exporting raw materials almost exclusively, the percentage of partially manufactured commodities and the percentage of wholly manufactured commodities which we have been exporting has been continually increasing. In other words, we are getting away from the stage of a country which is simply selling its raw materials to the stage where as a country we are developing a large manufacturing industry as well. The development of Canada in this particular will, I believe, compare more than favourably with any other industrial country in the world; that is to say, we have reached a higher stage in our manufacturing development in Canada, having regard to the age of the country and its population, than has, I believe, any other country in the history of the world.
I now hasten to follow my hon. friend's example and shall not dwell too long upon any one subject. I shall endeavour to take up the several matters in the speech from the throne which he touched upon, and to do so in the same order.
May I, before proceeding further, recall my horn, friend's reference to the improved health of His Majesty the King? As my hon. friend has said, this House of Commons gave expression last week to its thankfulness and rejoicing that His Majesty's health has recovered to the degree that it has. I am sure that we have all read with increasing thankfulness and rejoicing the word that His Majesty, being now at the seaside, is rapidly approaching the stage where convalescence may be looked for. We in Canada will be happy to join with Great Britain and other parts of the British Empire in a day of thanksgiving just as soon as His Majesty's government in the old land deems it advisable to name a day of thanksgiving for the Empire as a whole.
I come to the next matter to which my hon. friend has refered. He spoke of the fishing industry and to the reference in the speech from the throne to the appointment of a deputy Minister cf Fisheries, and asked if it was the intention of the government to appoint a minister of fisheries. I would say to my hon. friend that it is the intention of the government to add to the ministry the

separate portfolio cf minister of fisheries, but I hope he will allow us to choose the moment that seems most opportune in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About election time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition spoke at considerable length upon the question of the transfer of their natural resources to the western provinces. He chided the government for the delay that has taken place in successfully bringing about the transfer of the natural resources to the different provinces, and he pointed to a reference in the speech from the throne of three or four years ago to the effect that negotiations were then under way with the hope of effecting a transfer so far at least as some of the provinces were concerned. My hon. friend might have gone back further even than that. He might have gone back to the days of Sir Robert Borden when he first came into office, and to the time when mv hon. friend was associated with Sir Robert, and he would have found in some speeches from the throne of that day references to the intended transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The war stopped that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The war can be blamed for a good many things, but not wholly for that. No, I will give my hon. friend the explanation. The explanation is this, that in the matter of the transfer it takes two to make a bargain, not one. We could transfer the natural resources in five minutes if we were prepared to give the western provinces all they wish to have. If the government has 'been cautious in proceeding in this matter, it has been due to the fact that we have felt and rightly felt, that the government, in the matter of the transfer to the provinces of these natural resources, has a great trust for which it must have regard.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The difficulty was that you had three making a bargain, instead of two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Three?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes; this
government, the Alberta government, and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Mr. BOURASSA:: I am glad to learn that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what my hon. friend from Frontenae-Addington (Mr. Edwards) really has in mind is that Sir Robert Borden had a third in his party on that question, and that he himself made the third.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
To come to what actually has taken place with respect to the endeavour of the government to settle this question, I would point out that in the first instance the question was taken up with the three provinces combined. We assumed that that was the wish of the western provinces, but it was discovered after a preliminary conference that very little headway could be made in the settlement of this question by meeting the provinces collectively. It was then decided to endeavour to settle with each province separately, and that step was justified by the fact that a little later we were able to come to an agreement with the province of Alberta, though still unable to come to any agreement with the other two provinces.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asks why Manitoba is treated in a different way from Alberta. The answer is this. The province of Alberta and ourselves were able to come to definite terms with regard to a settlement.


John Wesley Edwards: Was that in 1926?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. We were able to come to definite terms, and were on the point of having a bill passed through this house in accordance with the terms which were then agreed upon. We were not so fortunate with regard to Manitoba. There were very difficult questions of accounting to be dealt with, and because of that we had to adopt some other method in seeking a solution. The method adopted met with the approval of the Manitoba government. We agreed upon a method and basis of settlement with Manitoba. This was a step in advance of any that had hitherto been achieved so far as that province is concerned. Not only did we reach a satisfactory method and basis of settlement, but we were in complete agreement as to the personnel of the commission that should inquire into the matter and report to this house. That commission is at work at the present time, and as soon as its report is made it will be presented to parliament. We hope it will afford the basis for a satisfactory conclusion to the resources question with that province. If Saskatchewan is still to be negotiated with, that is not the fault of this administration alone; it is because up to the present time we have been unable to concede to that province what it thinks it is entitled to in connection with the transfer. But the point that I should like to make is that in all these cases we are now further 78594-3}
advanced than at any time during all the years that an effort has been made to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Coming to the railway commission, my hon. friend made a rather drastic attack upon the government, charging us with having appointed to that commission worn-out politicians. I do not know where my hon. friend got the idea of worn-out politicians, unless it was from the personnel of the commission in the days when his friends were in office, for as I recall at that time two or three of its members had been members of his own party in this house. I personally do not think these gentlemen were worn-out politicians; I cast no reflection upon the government of the day in the appointments they made. But I do say that this government in filling vacancies on the board has appointed as members men who have been well qualified for the position. For instance, the government has appointed the Hon. Mr. McKeown as chairman of the commission. Mr. McKeown was called from the bench to that position. He was not in politics, but he replaced a gentleman who had been appointed to the board from the political field by hon. gentlemen opposite. We have reappointed Mr. S. J. McLean. Mr. McLean was appointed originally by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and has been continuously on the commission from that time. He has had no association with politics whatever, and so far as his appointment is concerned I think my hon. friend's remarks will not apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might mention the other members of the board, but I do not know to whom my hon. friend is alluding. I wish he would tell us frankly the personnel to which he takes exception. Every other member of the commission appointed by the government was selected because of his wide knowledge of public affairs and because of a belief in his ability to carry out-its duties in a satisfactory way.
I come now to immigration, and my hon. friend's reference to the paragraph in the speech from the throne on this subject. He attacked our policy because, he said, a large number of the British miners who had been brought out to this country to help in the harvesting operations in the west had returned to England. May I say to my hon. friend at once that the bringing out of the miners had nothing to do with immigration, except indirectly. Our hope certainly was that many of the miners would see the advantage of remaining in this country.
36	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are included in the immigration returns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those who
stayed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the whole lot.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The criticism
of my hon. friend, I gathered, was that the miners should have remained in Canada as immigrants, and that because all had not, our immigration policy, bad in this regard, fallen down. In bringing miners over to help to harvest the crops in the west we were simply extending to Great Britain a policy which in former years had operated within the Dominion, the policy of 'bringing in the harvesting season from our eastern provinces men to nelp as harvesters in the west. Some of them stayed there after the harvest, but most of them returned to their home provinces. A large number of the miners have remained in Canada; a still larger number, it is true, returned to Great Britain. My hon. friend takes exception to some contribution to their return passage. It was the understanding arrived at in advance of their coming, that if they were unable to find employment to justify their remaining here, then the transportation companies would be responsible in part to see that they were returned to the old country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask the
Prime Minister, if the primary purpose of the government was to supply harvesters for the west, why was it that the later excursions from both British Columbia and the maritime provinces were cancelled?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
that I cannot give my hon. friend an answer at the moment, but no doubt in the course of time the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) will supply the required information.
Now, may I refer to another matter in which the leader of the opposition appears to have come more into agreement with the government than in former years? A very substantial paragraph in the speech from the throne relates to the recent appointment to Canada of representatives of the governments of Great Britain, of France and of Japan, and also to the appointment which has been made by Canada of a minister to Paris, and the contemplated appointment of a minister to Tokyo. My hon. friend says that we may pass over this matter and leave it at the point where we discussed it last session. I take it that- since that discussion my hon. friend has seen that these steps not only are approved by the country generally, but that 
they are in the right direction, and that as the speech from the throne says, we may expect as a consequence of this development a better understanding between bur country and the countries to which I have referred, and more in the way of cooperation in matters of mutual concern.
May I say that I was not a little surprised at the reference by the leader of the opposition to the multilateral treaty and to the statement in the speech from the throne which says that it will be submitted to parliament for approval. Just why he felt called upon to go out of his way to enlarge on certain articles which he says are appearing in some of the periodicals and press of a neighbouring country, I am unable to tell. Instead of questioning the good faith of any one I prefer, myself, to follow the example of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain, the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain, who, when asking the British government to give its approval to that treaty, said he believed the treaty had been passed by the United States without any reservation, and in good faith, and that the United States as well as Britain intended to live up to every word of it. That, too, is my belief, and I do not think my hon. friend, (Mr. Bennett), was called upon to send out from this House of Commons to the neighbouring country any word capable of being interpreted as implying a doubt on the part of Canada as to the good faith of the United States in respect to a treaty to which that country has put its name.
My hon. friend spoke of jingo articles; had he left the matter at that I should have thought he was correct, for that is what I regard those particular articles to be. There have appeared in some American journals articles of a jingoist character. But that is no reason why my hon. friend need make in this parliament a jingoist speech, calculated to throw a doubt on the good faith of the neighbouring republic. May I say to my hon. friend that if there should ever come the moment when, as between Great Britain and the United States, relations should become in the least strained-I do not suggest that anything of this nature is evident at the present time, but if this should happen- then I believe that, as never before, it will be the duty of every member of this parliament, to do his part not to increase any tension that may exist but to relieve it as far as it may be in his power to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has my right hon. friend read the speeches in the senate of the United States-not the speeches of jingoists but those made in the senate?

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend prefers to follow the example of certain gentlemen in the senate of the United States, I for my part prefer to take my example from the parliament of Great Britain and to emulate the Secretatry of State for Foreign Affairs. No speeches have been made in the British parliament of the character of that made by my hon. friend in this house; and so far as the British public are concerned,
I hope they will understand, when they read the words of my hon. friend, how they happened to be spoken-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and will not take those words too seriously. We all understand my hon. friend's jingoist tendencies, and I think it is important that the people of Great Britain and of the United States as well should understand them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will discuss the right hon. gentleman's tendencies later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well; my hon. friend will have an opportunity to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that the first of all duties of a public man, and certainly of the leader of a political party, is to be very careful of the way in which he refers to the domestic affairs of other countries, and doubly careful when his words have reference to the possibility of international difficulties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is anything more I need add at the moment, except to say to my hon. friend that, as the session proceeds, I shall endeavour to touch upon any points that have been omitted at the moment.
One reference my hon. friend made upon which, before concluding, I should like to say a word. He spoke of the Elections Act and wondered whether the allusion thereto, in the speech from the throne, in any way portended an early election. I wish to put at rest his mind and the minds of other hon. gentlemen who may have any doubt as to the intention of the government in this particular. The government must always reserve to itself the right to judge when the proper moment comes to go to the country and make its appeal to the electorate. So far as I can see at the moment, there is no reason whatever why any appeal should be
made to the country this year. I believe the country has every confidence in the government; I believe the country is prospering more and more; and unless something develops in the course of this session to cause the government to alter its present intention there will be no election until at least another year comes round, and then possibly not for another year or more.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: My first duty is to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cayley) and seconder (Mr. Ferland) of the address upon their speeches last Friday. If I have any criticism to offer of the speech of the mover it is merely this, that with reference to the conditions generally prevailing in Canada he was rather too optimistic, taking all things into consideration. However, I take this opportunity of congratulating him upon his effort.
Now, we have had the privilege this afternoon of listening to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as well as to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The prime minister has replied to the leader of the opposition, and I am not going to take up the time of the house to any great extent in criticizing the observations of either of these gentlemen. I think I have something to say of some importance to the people whom I represent and consequently I will not devote too much time to a criticism of these speeches.
One remark the leader of the opposition made struck me forcibly. While he admitted that we in Canada at the present time were enjoying an apparent prosperity, he warned the country to prepare for a possible deflation. I believe there is some truth in what the hon. gentleman has said, because we who are students of economics must know that while we have periods of prosperity, so called, these periods are always followed by periods of deflation; and it is my judgment that we in this house should take every step we possibly can to provide against the time of deflation when it comes, whether immediately or four, five or ten years hence.
One other remark I wish to criticize is the reference of 'the Prime Minister to the Crows-nest pass agreement. The western members know very well what this agreement means to western Canada. When we went into western Canada it was understood that we were to be protected by legislation in regard to grain rates. For war purposes this agreement was set aside for a certain period. The rates immediately went far beyond and above those specified as the maximum in that agreement.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Western members will recall particularly the year 1922 when the period of suspension of this legislation was about to expire. At that time there was a proposal in this house further to suspend the whole agreement for another term of years, and I am satisfied that had it not been for the stand which the western members took on that occasion the Crowsnest pass rates would not now be in force. I am willing to give credit to the government for everything which they finally did to make that rate agreement effective. The Prime Minister must remember that the committee which was organized to inquire into the question decided that this agreement should be suspended for a further term of years, and it was only after a review of the question again that the committee arrived at the conclusion that, as respects the Crowsnest rate agreement, the rates relating to grain should come into force on the 7th of July of that particular year. It was the western members who were primarily responsible for that agreement coming into force again. We remember also that in 1924, in order to make the agreement effective as regards grain rates, the government brought down legislation for which I will give them credit. They brought down legislation to make the rates effective on branch lines as well as on main lines, and for this the government must be given credit. At the same time, however, we must remind the government of this important fact: in order to pacify the railway companies or other interests, a part of the Crowsnest agreement was abrogated for all time; that is to say, on commodities originating east of Fort William the Crowsnest rate does not now apply at all. That is the situation to-day. "
Now I wish to take a little time to go through the speech from the throne and make a few remarks with regard to some of the items therein dealt with. I have not the time at my disposal to discuss every item, but I am going to deal with a few in which I am more particularly interested.
The first question to be considered is that of prosperity. I want to ask the government, where is the prosperity in Canada to-day? Are the working people prosperous? Are the farmers prosperous? I want to say that as far as my knowledge goes there is very little added prosperity among these particular classes, and after all they are the more important classes in this country. I am quite willing to admit that in certain quarters there is great prosperity, but as yet that has not reached the masses. Consequently it is futile for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to intimate to the people that we have great

prosperity among all classes in this country. I notice one very significant change in the way the part played by Providence in the production of our great crops is dealt with. I remember that in past speeches from the throne Providence was always given the credit for producing great crops in Canada, but now we find that the government has come to the conclusion that the farmers have some responsibility and deserve some credit for these great crops. This year we find the farmer sharing with Providence in the production of the great crops of this country, and with regard to the speech from the throne I think this is a very decided improvement.
Reference is made to the national research laboratories, and I commend the government for pushing to a conclusion this feature of last yeaifls legislation. However, there is one point which I would impress upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues; in conjunction with the research laboratories there should be a bureau of standards. To-day the Canadian people have very little knowledge of what they are buying, while in the United States the bureau of standards gives the people a proper intimation of the different* articles or commodities offered for sale from time to time. Under these circumstances the people of the United States are in a better positibn to judge as to the relative values of the goods offered for sale. I merely make that suggestion; no doubt it will take some time to get these research laboratories started, but I believe a bureau of standards should be created at the same time.
The speech from the throne also deals with the Hudson Bay railway, and calls attention to the fact that the railway is very close to Fort Churchill. I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the government and particularly the Minister of Railways; since he has undertaken to create a port on Hudson Bay together with a railway leading to it, he has worked very hard. We all trust that when the Hudson Bay railway is completed and the facilities at Fort Churchill are sufficient to handle the business likely to go there, that port will be satisfactory in all respects as far as western Canada is concerned. I particularly congratulate the Minister of Railways for his efforts in that regard.
The next matter I wish to discuss is the question of immigration. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition dealt with this question, but I propose to bring before the house the viewpoint of the western farmer. I desire to read to the house the passage in question from the speech from the throne; the leader

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
of the opposition has done so already, but I wish to place a different interpretation upon it. It is as follows:
A flow of immigrants commensurate with Canadian requirements and selected strictly for their ability to promote the general prosperity of the country is being satisfactorily maintained.
I am going to turn my attention now to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). I remember that when he sat in our group he always maintained that more people were required in this country, and evidently he still holds to that point of view. But prior to his acceptance of his present high office his view might have been put in these words: "If you create conditions in Canada which will give the masses of the people an opportunity to make a good livelihood, you will have no need for an immigration policy. They will come here of their own accord." Indeed, I have heard him say that the great trouble would be to keep t'he people out. Does the minister still believe in that policy, and if so, what is he doing to bring it into effect? What efforts is he making in the councils of his colleagues to make conditions in Canada so good that people from all over the world will be rushing to this country and we will have great trouble keeping them out? Later on he will have the opportunity to give this house some idea of his efforts in that regard, but it seems to me that the present immigration policy is not satisfactory to anyone. I do not know of any person who is pleased with it, although I may say that since I have been a member of this house I have not known of a government policy, whatever the party in power, which was satisfactory to everyone. We must admit that the question of immigration is most difficult, and after all I think if we went back to the policy held by the Minister of Immigration before he accepted his present high position, we would be on safer ground than is the case at present.
I wonder very often whether the people of Canada, and particularly the members of this house, realize how quickly Canada has recovered from her post-war troubles. There is no question in my mind' that, considering the length of time we took part in the war, Canada has recovered from her post-war difficulties to a greater extent than almost any other country so engaged. In my judgment the reason for this is very obvious to any person who will give the matter a little consideration; the reason is that we have tremendous natural resources in relation to our population. Taking into consideration Canada's present population we have wonderful natural resources on which the attention
of ithe people has been focussed in the production of new wealth, and this to my mind has been the large factor in our remarkable recovery. In these circumstances we must realize that if we bring in a great volume of immigrants and the natural resources of the country become controlled by private individuals, it is quite reasonable for us to expect that we will not have even to the present extent the prosperity which would be ours with a smaller population. I am one of those who believe in letting this country grow naturally; I think the big trouble with Canada to-day is that people are always^ tinkering with it. If they would let it grow in its own way I believe everyone would be satisfied with the situation in a comparatively short time.
There is one point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister ami his colleagues, and more particularly the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). While it is quite true that British immigrants of all classes are permitted to come into this country, provided they can pay their fares and are mentally and physically fit, yet, in so far as the great bulk of the efforts of the department are concerned, there are three classes in which they are trying to secure new immigrants. These are domestic servants, farm labourers and agriculturists. Personally I am quite willing to compete against any farmer who cares to come to this country, but I do not want to be placed at a disadvantage in so far as that competition is concerned. I would like to see all other classes admitted to this country on the same terms as the agriculturalists. I do not see any reason why we farmers should be subject to the competition of new agriculturists coming into this country while the professions and even the working classes of Canada are being protected against such competition. We maintain that the time has come when this immigration question should be treated in the broadest way, and I take this opportunity of raising my protest against farmers being subjected to competition which other classes are not subject to.
Something has been said this afternoon with refeTenoe to the miners from Great Britain. The Prime Minister, in replying to the leader of the opposition, stated that the real reason why the government brought these miners in, or allowed them to come in, was that they might assist in harvesting operations in western Canada. I accept that statement as being the correct explanation of the situation. I would like to mention a little experience I had with a man who was working for me. This man came from Greau Britain some seven years ago. He came out

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
as a youth and worked in Ontario. After he had been here for some time he thought he would come to the west. He told me he was in Great Britain last winter and he saw all kinds of _ placards saying to the people of Great Britain, 1 Come to Canada and secure $5 to $7 a day for every day you care to work. ' I maintain that is misleading and if it is within the power of the Immigration department to stop that kind of propaganda, it is the duty of that department to stop it a<s quickly as possible. We know there is no possibility, unless the circumstances are exceptional, of people coming from Great Britain and securing So to $7 per day. The average man is not worth that much because nobody can afford to pay it; they have not got the money.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Was it not paid all over the west last fall, $5 to $7 per day; it was in my district.


Robert Gardiner: You speak for your own district and I will speak for mine.


James J. Donnelly: That is not answering my question.


Robert Gardiner: I said that this propaganda was spread about in Great Britain, that if they came to Canada they would receive from $5 to $7 per day for every day they cared to work; that was my statement. It is this propaganda in Great Britain that I object to.
These miners were brought out long before the harvest was ready. In our particular district the crops were coming in a little earlier but they were there even before our crops were ready. If you went down and said to these fellows, "Look here, our crops will not be ready to harvest for ten days. We will give you a job and pay you $2 or $2.50, give you your board and room and washing and everything," what was the reply? They said, Before we left Great Britain we were promised 15 to $7 per day for every day we worked, and we are not going to work for any less." We were merely trying to help them out of their trouble. I am complaining about the propaganda which was carried on in Great Britain, and I trust the minister, if he possibly can, will see that that is rectified at the earliest possible moment.


Robert Forke: I do not like to interrupt, but I think the hon. member will excuse me when I state that no such statements were ever given out by the Immigration department, nor do I think they were given out by the British government. You cannot prevent peopie

putting up statements of that kind, but I do not think any of the governments responsible had anything to do with them.


Robert Gardiner: I do not blame the
department as I feel it was probably the transportation companies that were responsible. But that being the case I would suggest to the minister that his department publish the actual truth and let people in Great Britain know that statements such as I have alluded to are untrue. Then, when they come to this country, they will be better satisfied because they will know what they are up against.
I would like to take a few moments to deal with the railway situation. We expect this year a branch line program from probably both railways. I would like to draw to the attention of this house, the different methods of dealing with the two railway systems, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. When the Canadian Pacific desire to project a branch line, they bring their bill before this house and the house grants them a charter. They state in that bill where they are going, and they secure two years' time in which to start that branch and five years in which to finish the work. If the work has not been completed the charters are renewed from time to time.
But the Canadian National system has not the same privileges as the Canadian Pacific. They cannot come to this house except when they make an actual proposal to build, and they receive the consent of parliament and the sum of money necessary to build that particular branch line. I maintain that under these circumstances the Canadian National is not being treated fairly by this house; that the time has come when these two railways, in so far as charters are concerned, should be placed on the same plane. It should then be left to the house to determine, where the two companies are competing for the same territory, which company should go into that particular territory. I know of several cases in western Canada where branch line programs were turned down by another chamber years ago and where the other railway has gone in and secured a charter and preempted the territory which, to all intents and purposes, the Canadian National was building into. I merely make the suggestion that the two lines be given equal opportunities in that regard.
Branch lines are badly needed in the west, and I believe they are badly needed in other parts of Canada as well, but I can only speak for the territory with which I am familiar.
I merely say that the time has come, in mv

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
judgment, when the branch line program should give the people the service that is required.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit a question regarding that branch line matter? Do I understand him to advocate that the Canadian National should also be given charter rights in advance of the actual money bill passing this house? Does he mean to go back to that system with respect to the Canadian National?
M,r. GARDINER:	I would prefer to see
the matter handled either way; that until such time as the Canadian Pacific are ready to build they should not receive any charter rights any more than the Canadian National. You can use whichever method you like, but I would prefer the same system for the Canadian Pacific as is now used for the Canadian National, provided that system could be used effectively.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the difficulty.


Robert Gardiner: I am going to take the rest of my time to deal with a matter of vital importance to the farmers of western Canada, namely, the question of the Canada Grain Act.
The first statement I wish to make is that while the crop of last year is the largest ever grown in western Canada, it is my huimble judgment that that crop was not produced at a profit. I am' not going to say that it was produced at a loss, but the margin received by the farmer was so close to the cost of production that we can say that the crop was not produced at a profit. I think I can say that the crop was probably the greatest disappointment of any crop that has been grown in the west for many yeans past. This was due to climatic conditions, frost, hail and so forth, and consequently we cannot blame any one in that regard. The idea, however, seems to be prevalent, particularly in eastern Canada, that the farmers this year made a tremendous amount of money out of wheat. If you go into the small towns in western Canada the merchants there will tell you very quickly that the farmers at the present time have no purchasing power and consequently they could not have made a great deal of money out of wheat. Indeed, I am satisfied they did not make any money at all and if they broke even, they were lucky.
In a year like this it is only natural that the grading system should come under review and criticism by the person who produces the commodity. This year has been no exception to the rule. I have (heard more criticism
this year than I have ever heard before directed against the grading system and the farmer feels that the time has come when some better system should be evolved in regard to grading his wheat. The farmer maintains that the present system does not determine to any great extent the milling value of his product and it is on the basis of the milling value of his product that he receives a price for that commodity in the markets of the world. In view of the investigation of the agricultural committee last year into this question and the possibility of the matter arising again out of their report, I am not going to suggest any particular method or any particular change. I hope, however, that something may be done. The farmer of the west feels that just so long as the personal element enters into the question of grading his product, he will never have a satisfactory system, and I hope that ways and means will be found by the agricultural committee of bringing in a system that will be more satisfactory in determining the milling value of this particular commodity.
The greatest criticism, however, is being levelled at the present time in western Canada against the Board of Grain Commissioners and it is my purpose to deal for a few minutes with this commission. The Board of Grain Commissioners was appointed to adteninister the Canada Grain Act. That is its duty and function. The farmers of the west claim that the commission has not been administering the act as it should be.
Before I proceed further, let me inform the house that all the expenses of the grain commission in regard to inspection weighing and all the services which it provides, are paid for by the farmers themselves. Certain charges are levied against each car of wheat, to the extent of two dollars, I believe, and those charges cover the expenses of the grain commission and all they have to do in connection with the administration of the act. Therefore the administration of the act does does not cost the people of Canada anything. Under those circumstances we say that we want a board of grain commissioners that will interpret and administer the act as the House of Commons intended it should be administered.
The greatest criticism of the Board of Grain Commissioners is with regard to what they call this " hybrid " or " high-powered " ticket foT special binned grain. This ticket has been issued and forced upon farmers even though they have refused to accept it. The Board of Grain Commissioners in letters that I have seen have stated to farmers who have
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

objected to this form of ticket that the board thought the ticket was all right and that the farmer should accept it. I challenge any member of this house to show where the board ever received authority from the Canada Grain Act to make such a statement.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I will answer that question, but not at the moment.


Robert Gardiner: Do I take it from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that the government have passed an order in council permitting such a ticket to be issued?


James Malcolm: Yes, and I will explain the whole thing when I speak.


Robert Gardiner: If that be so, it is news to us. We would like to receive some explanation as to when this order in council was passed.


James Malcolm: I would like my hon. friend to continue his speech. I will answer him when I speak.


Robert Gardiner: Well, I will continue to discuss the matter as I see it. I have before me a letter received by me this afternoon from the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce. I requested him to send me copies of all orders in council dealing with the special binned ticket. I have his letter and the reference before me, so I take it that in so far as this "highpowered" ticket is concerned-


James Malcolm: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to. Will he explain that word?


Robert Gardiner: In western Canada we call it a "highpowered" or "hybrid" ticket. That is a pet name we give to it. To explain more clearly what I mean, may I say that in the schedule of the Canada Grain Act dealing with those tickets, you will find that the special binned ticket reads as follows:
Received into store from

Then there are inserted the name of the farmer from whom the grain was received, so many bushels, pounds and so forth. The ticket which the companies have been issuing and which .the farmers take exception to, reads as follows:
Received into store on account of the Alberta Wheat Producers, Limited-
If an order in council has been passed permitting such a ticket .to be issued, of course the government will have to be responsible for that. But in view of the fact that the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce sent to me this afternoon all .the changes that

have been made in these tickets, and as I do not see in the correspondence any ticket which is at all like the one that we call the "hybrid" ticket, I must assume that no order in council has been passed in that regard.


James Malcolm: Has my hon. friend the orders in council?
. Mr. GARDINER: I have them here.


James Malcolm: I do not know what ticket he refers to when he uses the word "hybrid". I never heard the expression before.


Robert Gardiner: I am dealing with the special binned ticket. An order in council was passed amending the special binned ticket in order to bring it into conformity with the amendment of 1927 known as the Campbell amendment, but in this list there is no order in council granting companies power to change the form of a ticket.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is quite right. The orders in council simply brought the ticket into conformity with the act.


Robert Gardiner: That is satisfactory. Now that we have the explanation I want to deal ijvith the matter. I take it there is no order in council passed which would permit the Board of Grain Commissioners to authorize a ticket to read:
Received into store on account of the Alberta Wheat Producers,1 Limited...


James Malcolm: I do not know what my
hon. friend is referring to in that particular instance. The order in council passed by the government simply brought the wording of the ticket into exact conformity with the wording of the Campbell amendment which was an amendment to the grain act.


Robert Gardiner: That clears the air.
That is quite satisfactory. The Board of Grain Commissioners have gone outside of their power in permitting this "hybrid" ticket to come into existence and be forced upon the farmers and under those circumstances they are not worthy of the position they hold and we demand their removal. Let me explain the reasons why.


James Malcolm: I have never seen the
ticket that my hon. friend claims is illegal. I want to be fair to the board.


Robert Gardiner: That is very easy to
explain. This special bin ticket which was provided for by order in council to bring the act in conformity with the provisions of the Campbell amendment, states:
Received into store from-

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
Then there are inserted the name of the farmer who delivers the grain, the number of bushels and so forth. This hybrid ticket reads as follows: "Received into store, qn account of the Alberta Wheat Producers Limited,'' instead of receiving it from the farmer. Consequently, -the farmer is prevented from sending the grain to a terminal of his own choosing, because it 'has been received on account of the Alberta Wheat Producers Limited.


James Malcolm: 'Is my hon. friend pointing out that there has been substituted for the name of the farmer the name of the Alberta Wheat Producers Limited?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.		
Mr. board?	MALCOLM:	By	consent of	theMr. board.	GARDINER:	By	consent of	theMr.	MALCOLM:	And	the board, I	presume, gave their consent to that 'because the Alberta Wheat Producers Limited control the grain of the farmers who belong to the pool.


Robert Gardiner: No, no. I have before
me the contract which I signed, and so far as that contract goes, I defy any member of this house to show that I have to deliver my grain to the wheat pool at any given point, except under special instructions from them. It is within my power to deliver to a local elevator, if I so desire, or to ship in carload lots to a terminal elevator of my own choosing, or to deliver to the terminal of the pool. There is nothing to prevent my delivering the grain at any point I choose, except upon special request of the pool. That is the whole matter that is under discussion at the present time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Gardiner: Mir. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the administration of the Grain Act by the Board of Grain Commissioners. As I have only another two or three minutes at my disposal I merely wish to make this concluding statement.
After reading the order in council passed by the government to bring the Grain Act into conformity with the amendment of 1927, I absolve the government of any responsibility for the "high power" tickets that were in use in western Canada last fall, and I place responsibility where responsibility belongs-on the Board of Grain Commissioners. Referring again to the special binned grain ticket, 1 would merely call the attention of the house once more to the part of the ticket which we believe the Board of Grain Commissioners are responsible for bringing into use:
Received into store from-[DOT]
Then follows a space for the insertion of the name of the farmer who delivers 'the grain. The "hybrid'' ticket which I have seen reads as follows:
Received into store on account of the Alberta Wheat Producers Limited.
We maintain that by virtue of such change being allowed the farmer was deprived: of the right of controlling the destination of his grain, and to that extent the change is a violation of the Canada Grain Act. We submit that the Board of Grain Commissioners are responsible for this violation, and therefore we ask that the present board be dismissed-no question about that-and that a new board be appointed. We suggest that the board be increased from three to five members, and1 that one of those members reside in Alberta and another in Saskatchewan. We recognize the influence of environment. Two of the present grain commissioners live at Fort William and the third at Winnipeg, and in their environment we believe that they are likely to be impressed by the grain trade to too large an extent. Consequently, for safety, we maintain that the board should be increased to five members, one of whom should reside in Alberta and another in Saskatchewan.
My time having elapsed, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to add that we farmers in western Canada hope that this house and the government will assist us in preserving our rights under the Canada Grain Act.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temi-scouata) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, my
first duty is to extend to you my sincerest congratulations for the magnificent series of -lectures which you have lately delivered at the Sorbonne. Indeed, sir, although a great number of eminent lecturers were heralded at the time, your lecture was always looked upon as "the lecture". Each week your audience comprised the "elite" of the French people because your course bore the symbolism of the great fresco of Puvis de Chavannes and the realism of "tableaux vivants." You have given proof to France that French Canada never forgets. At the same time, your experience as a statesman has enabled you to point out the close connection of events, the why and the wherefore, the relation existing
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

between the cause and effect, and there lies the reason of your splendid success in the "ViUe Lumiere."
I have only two matters to bring to your attention to-night, Mr. Speaker. One has to do with a statement made in Montreal by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)>
who on December 15 last spoke at a dinner given to the mayor of Montreal, who is also the member for Ste. Marie in the Quebec legislature. I would not take any notice of the statement but for its reflection on the Quebec members of this house. The first paragraph is very interesting. I am quoting from the Mqptreal Gazette of December 17, 1928, at page four:
Though the Conservative party suffered a disastrous defeat in 1896 from which it has not yet recovered, because of its efforts to maintain the spirit of the confederation pact in the matter of the schools of the province of Manitoba, yet the Conservative representatives from this province at the recent Conservative convention in Winnipeg, again secured the unanimous adoption of a resolution maintaining the traditional policy of their party in the matter of the schools of Alberta. That in itself indicated what you may accomplish by cordial cooperation with the Conservatives of other provinces of Canada.
For the benefit of argument, suppose for a moment we admit that the Conservative party is more friendly to French-Canadians than any other party. Now let us see what this martyr has to say about the way he has been treated by his own party. The hon. member continues:
Nevertheless there are tens of thousands-
Not only the member for St. Lawrence-St. George but several others.
-of English speaking Conservatives who have
voluntarily sacrificed all hope of personal political preferment

And I direct this to the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).
-by reason of their persistent efforts in defence of your traditions,-
That speech is addressed to French-Canadians.
-your rights, your privileges and your interests, of which the Conservative party in times past has been the chief support and stay.
Here is a strange contradiction. In the first part my hon. friend' says that the Conservative party is the party which is friendly to French-Canadians, and in the second part of his remarks he declares, "Well, we ourselves have had trouble with the same party because we have defended your rights". This is inconsistent. I Should not have believed my hon. friend had said it had it not been quoted

in a Tory paper. If it is true that the Conservative party is the party which is friendly to French-Canadians, how is it that so many Conservatives have suffered preferment because they have defended the rights of French-Canadians? If it is true that my hon. friend suffers now because he is supposed to have defended French-Canadians, how can his party be friendly to French-Canadians? That seems rather inconsistent and illogical in one of the brightest minds in this house. Let us continue-and here is a slur on all French-Canadian members from Quebec and even English members from that province who represent constituencies in this house. The hon. gentleman goes on:
What is the result to-day of the maintenance of the Liberal political bloc? Numerically, the Liberal representatives from the province of Quebec form the majority upon which the present government of Canada depends for a continuance of its political existence; yet, nevertheless, they are bound hand and foot to another, western, bloc, which actually exercises complete control, and whose economic theories and economic policies are subversive of your obvious material interests, and they the Liberal representatives of this province, are so obedient to the crack of their party whip that they always become dumb and speechless when issues, pregnant with dire import to you, to your province, to your ideals, to your traditions, are under discussion in the parliament of Canada.
I do not understand how one of our colleagues in this house can use such language in reference to sixty-one members from one province. I do not share the views of hon. gentlemen opposite; they have their own views and we have ours. But we respect each other. I do not believe we are all saints; no one of us is a saint, but we do our very best, and I believe my hon. friends opposite do the very best they can with a bad cause. I give them credit for their efforts. But no one has ever heard a member from Quebec say that all the members from Ontario or from any other province are not doing their duty in the House of Commons. Who ever heard such a statement? I find this very strange, and I could hardly have believed that this speech had been correctly reported had I not heard it myself on the radio. I was astounded to hear a respectable member of this house directing such remarks against sixty-one members who, while they do not share his political views, nevertheless hold him in respect.
May I quote one of the contemporaries of my hon. friend, the member for St. Lawrence-St. George-a man who, it is true, died some time ago. I refer, sir, to St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the fifth

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
century A.D. On one occasion St. John Chrysostom, quoting the scriptures, said: "The wounds of one who loves are better than the kisses of one who hates." The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George-I am sorry he is not in his place-kisses the province of Quebec, but he tries to wound the members of that province. Let me add, however, that like the old mortars the noise is great while the range is short. And perhaps the unsuccessful Tory -candidates in Quebec at the last general election owed all their troubles to the fact that they had, as an amulet for good luck, one hair of the Prophet's beard. I think this closes the incident.
May I now say a few words with reference to a matter of momentous importance. I refer to a question of principle which was brought up in the house last year and which I now bring forward again with the support of six of the nine premiers of the provinces of this Dominion-the question of public offices held by aliens. I have prepared a brief memorandum on the question. It reads:
In virtue of subsection 25 of section 91 of the British North America Act, aliens are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament.
The first paragraph of section 123 of -the Cities and Towi^s* Act of Quebec (revised statutes of Quebec, 1925, chapter 102) enacts that aliens cannot be put in nomination for -nor elected to the office of mayor or councillor nor can they be a-ppoimted to any other municipal office. Article 227. paragraph first, of the Quebec Municipal Code is to -the same effect.
In 1926, in an act to incorporate the City of Arvida (16 Geo. V, Quebec, chap. 78, sec. 36) the legislature of Quebec enacted the following section:
''36. The following section is added for the city of Arvid-a, after section 123 of the Cities and Towns' Act:
. '123a. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 123, aliens may be appointed to and hold the office of -manager and the offices to be filled by appointment by the manager'."
During the last session, the legislature of Quebec passed an act to incorporate the town of Racine. Said act was assented to the 22nd of March, 1928. (18 Geo. V, Quebec, chap. 105).
Section 36 of said act is exactly the same as above mentioned section 36 of the City of Arvida Act.
By section 11 of 18 Geo. V. Quebec, chapter 105, Messrs K. B. Bolton and J. Reidy Smith are appointed aldermen of that city.
On May 25th ultimo, I was informed by the Department of the Secretary of State that those two people have never been naturalized, and in fact they are not.
This is the memorandum which sets the question before you, Mr. Speaker. I sent copies to the premiers of all the provinces, and the first reply came from Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Premier of Nova Scotia, who said:
Absence from my office in other portions of the province has prevented me from making earlier acknowledgment of your letter of June 26th.
The ground you take with respect to the holding of office by aliens is, in my opinion, undoubtedly sound.
That is the Rhodes scholarship in constitutional law that the Attorney-General of Quebec gets from Nova Scotia. Then I had a reply from the Premier of New Brunswick, who seems to be very friendly with the Premier of Quebec, since he has copied his liquor law. He evades the question, which is on public rights; there is no question of private rights. Any man in this country can hold private property and is entitled to the protection of our laws; a man from China or a man from the United States can hold private property here and be entitled to the full benefit of Canadian law. When it comes to public rights, however, it is entirely different; private rights may be vested in any individual, but public rights belong only to British citizens by birth or by naturalization, and when a man wishes to hold public office in this country he must comply first with our laws. That is most essential; our consti-ti-on contains this provision, and I am sure that statement cannot be contradicted. Here is what Hon. Mr. Baxter said:
With reference to your correspondence about the government of Quebec allowing Americans to be appointed to public positions without naturalization, I do not think I quite -agree with the legal interpretation in the memorandum -attached to your letter. The Dominion parliament, and that alone, can enact the conditions un-d-er which a foreign-born person may become a Canadian citizen. I do not think, however, that it is incompetent for a provincial legislature to provide that aliens may hold property of any description which the legislature may see fit. As a matter of fact, it was done years ago in New Brunswick.
The main track is my reference to Americans being appointed to public positions without being naturalized; the siding is in the words "I do not think, however, that it is incompetent for a provincial legislature to provide that aliens may hold property of any description," and the open switch is in the words, "it was done years ago in New Brunswick."
In a letter dated June 30, 1928, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, Hon. Albert C. Saunders says:
Let _ me now say in reply to the matter of your inquiry, that we have no Americans in our province and, consequently, we are not interested in the matter referred to in your letter.
This answer reminds me that Prince Edward Island is the province where they breed foxes.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

In the absence of Mr. Ferguson, who was abroad at the time, I have a letter from Hon. William H. Price, acting Premier and Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario, under date of June 11, 1928, as follows:
I am very glad indeed that you have brought this matter to the attention of the public. Canada should not at any time give away citizenship papers to those who have not complied with her laws. I do not think there has ever been a case in the history of this province where a foreigner has been confirmed in any municipal position. I think it would be much better if the province of Quebec had confirmed one of its own citizens, whether of French or British stock, to act as mayor of these new municipalities. I am sure it would have had a radiating influence on the American who comes in here for the purpose of making money and developing our country. I quite appreciate the point you have brought to the attention of the public and I am sure you have given a very valuable public service.
Then from Winnipeg came the answer of the Premier of Manitoba, Hon. John Bracken, who said:
I have read with interest the communications you enclosed, with reference to the towns of Noranda, Arvida and Racine. I have every sympathy with the position you take, on the general principle involved; but as to whether there are any special circumstances in these eases which would warrant a departure from that principle, I am not sufficiently informed to express an opinion. However, we shall watch with interest the outcome of the legislation.
Then we have a letter from Regina giving the answer of Hon. James G. Gardiner, Premier and1 Attorney General of Saskatchewan, who says:
We shall wateh with considerable interest the developments in your province and draw any lessons which can be drawn from any actions which may be taken.
Then we have a letter from Hon. J. E. Brownlee, Premier of Alberta, who writes as follows:
Edmonton, 6th July, 1928.
Dear Sir:
I have your letter of the 26th ultimo and note you ask me to express an opinion with regard to the action of the government of Quebec in allowing Americans to be appointed to positions without naturalization.
I am sure you will appreciate at once that it would not be fitting for one engaged in the administration of the affairs of this province to offer any word of criticism of any action taken by another provincial government, especially when not fully conversant with the facts in each case.
The general question of appointment of persons to positions in the civil service who have not been naturalized is, of course, one of very great interest which can well be considered by the public men of Canada.

As I go from the Atlantic to the Pacific I come to my friend the new Premier of British Columbia, Hon. S. F. Tolmie, who says:
I note your request for my opinion on legislation of the province of Quebec permitting aliens to hold municipal office in certain places. I am strongly in favour of maintaining the supremacy of British subjects for all public positions in Canada. At the same time, I must remember that Quebec and British _ Columbia are very far apart, and as local conditions may differ widely, 1 would certainly hesitate before condemning the legislature of a great sister province for actions connected with their own affairs. Nevertheless your vigilance in bringing the matter to public attention is commendable, and I shall wateh the outcome with interest.
The heads of six provinces say that it is of the utmost importance to see that aliens shall not hold public office in this country. I have a letter from a man who stands very high in municipal affairs in this country, and especially in the province of Quebec. The member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bettez), who is also the mayor of his city, and who was elected president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities last year, wrote me on May 28th last, as follows:
I have been very much interested in reading in Hansard the very appropriate remarks which you have made in the House of Commons Friday last, the 25th instant, with regard to public rights bestowed by the legislature of Quebec during its last session to Americans who have not been naturalized as British citizens.
In Canada, public office, whether municipal, provincial or federal, belongs exclusively to British citizens born in this country, or naturalized.
In my opinion, legislation such as that which you have denounced can bring the most serious grievances and I sincerely congratulate you upon your stand on the matter.
If this matter has to be put before the House of Commons it should be brought up by a French-Canadian.	I have nothing
against Mr. Taschereau. He has his good qualities and he has his defects. We cannot expect him to be perfect but it is wrong to enact legislation which encroaches upon the constitution. Americans are entitled to fair treatment in this country, but I do not believe they should 'hold public office unless they are first naturalized.
When a stranger comes here he is entitled to the protection of our laws, which laws are drafted by the British citizens of this country. But are we to comply with regulations drafted by people of a foreign nationality? I do not think it is fair, and that is why I ask if it is the intention of this government to veto that law. The power to veto such legislation has not expired yet.

The Address

Mr. Woodsworth
Some of the heads of the other provinces have stated very plainly what they think of the matter. I am sure that this question will be brought before the next interprovincial conference, should one be held in the near future. I do not think it is any better for the French-Canadians to be Anglicized than it is for the English-speaking people to be Americanized. People should live according to their customs and their traditions, and individuality should not be lost in the melting-pot.
We have the greatest respect for the royal house here in Canada. In this country, as in every other British dominion, people prayed for the recovery of His Majesty the King. The King of England is a great symbol of authority. The royal family has occupied the throne of England for centuries. In the United States presidents come and go, while British royalty remains forever. I greatly admire the high ideals of the British people who put royalty above everything. They have great respect for His Majesty the King and all the members of the royal family. They are respected because they are human; they understand the needs of the people and they do their very 'best to help them. The prayers which were offered up for the speedy recovery of the stricken member of the royal family show that admirable reciprocity of feeling.
I have given to the house some very important documents and my friends on both sides of the house will be able to read them to-morrow in Hansard. I am sure that the Premier of Quebec will say in the Quebec papers to-morrow, "As soon as I have the full text of Mr. Pouliot's speech I will answer him." But the answer never comes because these facts are in conformity with truth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, there is very little in the speech that would indicate any very constructive program on the part of the government. It would seem almost as though the government, being fairly well entrenched, were going to repeat what occurred in the years 1921 to 1925, when the sessions were almost barren of real legislation. I would respectfully submit that anyone glancing over the notices of motion as put in by the private members will find a more constructive program than is contained in the speech itself.
We hear a great deal about the unprecedented prosperity of the country. I would suggest that much of this so-called prosperity is fictitious. We have had considerable gambling in stocks and shares, and although there has been prosperity in certain lines, for
instance in mining, the cream has been taken by a few individuals who control our great corporations. It is said that scores of millionaires have come into existence as a result of the rise in the stocks of simply three or four of these leading companies. As one, however, goes through the country, one fails to see any evidences of this much heralded wealth. In Saskatchewan, where I spent some weeks last summer, I was told in various districts that not since the pioneer days had 'land been as low as it is to-day. In Ontario it is very difficult to sell any farm that one imay wish to get rid of, and one has only to go down to the maritime provinces to find abandoned farms on every side.
When we come to our industrial life I would suggest that prosperity has not yet been made manifest in any larger wage being paid to the ordinary wage earner. There are no very recent figures with regard to this matter, but at the census of 1921 some very interesting figures were taken as to the distribution of our wealth. With respect to my own city of Winnipeg there is a table which shows the wage earners of ten years of age and over. This includes managers, bankers, brewers, doctors, clergymen, also some twelve judges and justices, these latter earning an average of $8,111 each. Altogether including these there are 46,223 male wage or salary earners and their earnings amount to $63,520,716, or an average of only $1,374 each. Any careful computation of the cost of living in this country will put the cost, in order to maintain a decent Canadian standard, at two-thirds as much more.
As regards labour, from 1917 to 1925, the figures for which are the latest available, the efficiency of production has increased 28.5 per cent, but in 1925 the number of employees relative to -the number in 1917 was only 87.5 per cent. Those are very striking figures- increased production but decrease in the number of employees. During that period the real wages advanced by only about 10.2 per cent and the prevailing percentage of wages to -total production was not much larger. The average wage in all the manufacturing establishments in -1925 was only $971. Again let me remind the house that according to evidence presented before a committee of the house it was said to take almost twice that much in order to maintain a Canadian family according -to what we regard as Canadian standards of living.
I would point out that employees of this government are receiving considerably less than $1,000 a year. If we are so prosperous and if we are able to reduce our debt at such
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

a rate as our papers tell us is the case, it would seem that the least we can do is to see that our postal workers and others of that class receive a higher wage than they are receiving to-day.
But the trouble is not merely with the wages, but with the fact that there is such a large measure of unemployment. The departmental figures do not at all show the volume of unemployment, and as the superintendent oif employment service said, in evidenoe given under oath before the committee last year, during periods of depression a smaller percentage of the total number of unemployed was registered in our offices than in periods of prosperity when opportunities ' for securing work were greater. This simply means that when there is very little work to be had, the men refuse to go to the employment bureaux, and so the figures that are often quoted do not really mean very much. Let me give some idea of the situation by quoting a news item from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 9 of this year. Let me say that the superintendent of employment service verified these facts for me. This is the clipping:
"Some of them are suffering .actual hunger," said J. A. Bowman, this morning, superintendent for Manitoba of the Dominion employment service, in reference to a portion of the 600 unemployed men who haunt his office daily asking for work. The majority are single men and most of them are willing to take any kind of a job anywhere, he said, but no work is available.
That is true in most of our cities to-day. I turn to Vancouver, for example, and I find this warning issued by the city of Vancouver to the unemployed [DOT]
Unemployed Men Take Notice)
You are warned to keep away from the city of Vancouver this winter. No Work, No Doles. This corporation has laid down a plan to deal with the unemployed relief as follows:
(1) That absolutely no doles be given;
_ (2) That work such as breaking rock, clearing land, cutting wood, and moving dirt be provided for extreme eases of indigents only, after investigation, and as a relief measure, at two dollars per day for married men who are bona fide residents of the city, and one dollar in the form of meal and bed tickets per day for single men.
By order,
City of Vancouver.
That does not look like abounding prosperity for a very large and important class of our citizens, the transient workers, who have done an immense amount of the hard work of building our roads and cutting down our forests.

I come further east and recently the Montreal papers have been giving quite a bit of publicity to the health survey Which was made a short time ago. I give a summary of this from the Montreal Daily Star:
The survey revealed:
That the amount of money officially expended on public health in Montreal is lower than that of any of the twelve large cities with which comparison is made, being little more than one-half of that spent in New York city on a per capita basis and less than one-third of that of Pittsburgh.
That the infant mortality rate, although showing signs of betterment probably due to the improvement of the milk supply-is far greater than that of any of these twelve large cities, being more than twice that of New York and approximately 30 per cent higher than any other.
That the number of deaths from diarrhoea and enteritis in children of two years and under is the highest of any of the twelve large cities of the continent with which comparison is made, having a larger number of cases than New York with a population more than five times greater, and being more than twenty times higher than Rochester, nearly four times as high as Boston and nearly three times as high as Philadelphia and Detroit.
That the general death rate in Montreal is higher than that prevailing in any of the twelve large cities compared.
That the number of cases of diphtheria-a wholly preventable disease-was 1,854 last year, with 219 deaths, and that for the last fifteen years the number of diphtheria cases has never fallen below 1,000 and the number of deaths below 130.
That the inspection of school children is inadequate and inefficient and that educative work throughout the city, while showing an awakening in recent years, is still far below the standard of cities of similar size.
While it may be all very well for us to pass resolutions expressing our gratitude for the restoration to health of the King of England, it seems to me that this house has some responsibility for those thousands of preventable deaths in our own country.
Let me go still further east, if you like, and take another set of conditions that actually exist. A report was recently made by the City of Sydney Ministerial Association with regard to the long working hours and the wages paid in that great industrial plant in that city which has received a very high degree of protection and very great consideration from this parliament in times past. I quote a few paragraphs from the report of that committee:
For the continuous operations, consisting of the coke ovens, blast furnaces and open hearth departments, involving approximately one thousand men, the day term is eleven hours, and the night thirteen, throughout a seven-day week; that is, the men in these departments work an average of eighty-four hours every week-66 for the week on day duty and 102 for the week on night duty.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
Again, the report says:
We believe that the plight-it can scarcely be called other-of the some one thousand men in the continuous operations is a scandal and a shame. To be on light duty, under the most favourable working conditions from eleven to thirteen hours were trying enough, but when we know the necessarily almost intolerable conditions in which these men have to work, heavy manual labour in gas, smoke, heat, and in some eases exposure to the elements, summer and winter, the situation is nothing less than appalling, and their treatment utterly abhorrent to the dictates of humanity. The only argument advanced by the management is the financial one-we are not in a position to give a general increase in wages nor the eight hour day.
Remember, this is in a time erf overwhelming prosperity. The report goes on:
Should the condition of the men with respect to wages and hours not be the first charge upon the profits of the industry?... Of the operating surplus $2,000,000 has been retained for depreciation.
And this query is put:
Should $2,000,000 of the profits of the industry, which the men at least had helped to make, be set aside, not for repairs, for these were taken care of in course of the operations and charged to them, but for future replacements, while not a cent o>f this amount has been allowed for the better condition of the human element in the industry? Unfortunately, it costs the industry little or nothing to replace men-there is nearly always a surplus of labour.
I do not think I need to add any further comment.
We are told in the speech from the throne:
A flow of immigrants commensurate with Canadian requirements and selected strictly for their ability to promote the general prosperity of the country is being satisfactorily maintained.
I shall not go outside the official statement of my own city of Winnipeg, in its report on unemployment relief for 1927-28. It seems that Last spring the Department of Immigration and Colonization registered the unemployed in Winnipeg. Out of 837 registered, 453 came to western Canada between December, 1925, and January, 1928, and of that 837, only 84 were Canadian bom. Although most of these immigrants came for farm work, 507 of them were unwilling to take up that work. Now I quote the report itself:
The spring unemployment situation brought to light the fact that country jobs are not being placed with the employment service of Canada, but that the Immigration department and the two large transportation companies and the land companies are obtaining them direct from the farmers through their very active work along this line as compared with no activity so far as the employment service is concerned.
The report proceeds-and I would ask the house to pay attention to this sentence: 78594-4
In consequence, in so far as country work^ is concerned, the man in the immigration office in Europe has a better chance of getting a job in western Canada than the mian in the employment office in Winnipeg.
That is a most serious state of affairs.
We have no mention whatever in the speech from the throne of what seems to be the most important problem before Canada to-day, and that is our relations with our great neighbour the United States of America. In recent years we have had two events at least of vast importance-the world war, which has reconstructed) what we used to know as "modern Europe," and released forces the effect of which cannot as yet be determined, and secondly, the rise of what might be termed the American United States Empire. Throughout a little more than a century the United States was united and consolidated and extended, and then during the past forty years it 'has become a great modem empire, changing the centre of gravity of the entire political world. Glance at some of the steps of this development.
Cuba, to all intents and purposes a protectorate. The Philippine Islands, under American tutelage, a strategic base for operations in Asia; China, the open door policy affording opportunity for economic penetration. The gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean sea, -almost an inland sea pf the United States, over which it exercises economic and political sovereignty, Panama and Central America, virtually under United1 States sovereignty. And then, through a sort of revised Monroe Doctrine, the United States is claiming hegemony over the western hemisphere with the exception, I may say, of Canada.
But what about Canada? Already the American investments in Canada are S3,313,-512,000, or 13 per cent of the estimated natural wealth of this country. If it were proposed that the border line between us and the United States should be moved a few degrees further north there would be a tremendous hubbub in this country, but the same patriots who would raise an army in such a case v'T -only look with equanimity upon the Americanization of this country, but further, they are glad to welcome any amount of this foreign capital for any purpose so long as they secure a certain proportion of the loot.
The United States, I say, is extending long arms to the north, and since the world war it has dictated the financial policy of Europe until, as a recent writer has put it, Germany is in danger of becoming an American colony. We have the Americans to-day sitting in Paris



The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
and dictating European policy. What is to be Canada's attitude to this 'increasingly powerful neighbour of ours?
First, let me say a word with regard to trade and the tariff, since that is the topic which we hear most frequently discussed when we are discussing our policy with regard to the United States. The indications, as we all know, point to the raising of the American tariff. Should Canada attempt to retaliate? That is a rather important question. I would say personally that it seems to me that Canada has in her hands a better card than that -the St. Lawrence waterway. The relation between this project and the American high protection policy were referred to in rather guarded language in the letter transmitted last year by our minister at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States. I would think that so long as the Americans are anxious to build the St. Lawrence waterway, there is no particular reason why we should not be in a position to bargain very successfully to prevent the very substantial increase in the American tariff that is now threatened.
But with regard to the economic principle involved let me refer the house to a speech delivered by Sir Herbert Holt at the annual general meeting of the Royal Bank. He was dealing with the United States, but surely the economic principle which he enunciated ought to apply equally to Canada; so when he mentions Canada I have substituted the United States, and vice versa. Sir Herbert Holt's advice as an economist-I use his very words, but, "mutatis mutandis",-is:
-would seem that those who propose such tariff changes fail to realize that checks upon foreign (e.g. U.S.) prosperity automatically check the volume of goods which can be exported by Canada, and that on the other hand continued improvement in foreign conditions (e.g. U.S.) bring corresponding increases in the volume of goods which we can export. From this viewpoint it might be considered economic statesmanship for Canada to discover means to increase our exports (e.g. to U.S.) rather than to consider measures which will constitute new trade barriers.
. That, as I have said, is the principle enunciated by Sir Herbert Holt, but of course he applies it to the United States. By reference to the bank's annual statement it will bo seen that I have simply made the necessary changes to make the principle applicable to Canada.
In corroboration of this economic principle, so well stated, let me quote from the tariff manifesto issued in 1926 by a large group of European manufacturers and financiers. Unless I am greatly mistaken there was a 
reference to this very passage in the speech of Sir Herbert Holt. The manifesto contains the following:
There can be no recovery in Europe till politicians in all territories, old and new, realize that trade is not war, but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbours are our customers, and that this prosperity is a condition of our own well-being. If we check their dealing, their power to pay their debts diminishes, and their power to purchase our goods is reduced. Restricted imports involve restricted exports, and no nation can afford to lose its export trade.
This is preeminently true of Canada, and I hope we shall not allow ourselves to be stampeded by the threatened upward revision of the United States tariff. You might as well tie a tourniquet around your arm to stop the flow of the arteries and then expect that the veins would not be at all affected.
Now let me speak of another phase of our relationship with the United States-what I might term international neighbourliness. I regret exceedingly that the speech from the throne gives no forecast of any legislation affecting the control of the liquor traffic between this country and the United States. Some of us several years ago supported the report of the special committee on customs and excise, and at that time we took it for granted that the government would loyally carry out the recommendations of that committee. What did that committee recommend? Let me quote section 10 of the report of June 18, 1926:
The committee further recommends that as soon os possible regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo sailing from a Canadian port to a United States port, such regulations to make an exception in favour of liquor being imported into the United States in accordance with the laws of that country.
The report of the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise followed on October 15, 1927:
We also express our entire concurrence in the recommendation of the special committee of the House of Commons as contained in paragraph 10 of that committee's report. An effective method of carrying out the intent of the treaty referred to would be to prohibit clearances to vessels or vehicles of all kinds carrying a cargo of liquor to the United States contrary to the laws of that country.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is very poor policy indeed to do that which we know is a source of friction between us and the great and friendly country to the south of us.
But, further, our relationships with the United States are complicated by our relationships with Great Britain-another great im-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
perial power. The Kellogg pact, which we are to have brought before us according to the speech from the throne, was stated by the Prime Minister to-day to be without American reservations. Well, I think he must admit that if there are no reservations, there is at least a very definite American interpretation. Mr. Kellogg said:
There is nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs
in any way the right of self-defence	
Every nation is free at all times, and regardless of the treaty provisions, to defend its territory from attack or invasion, and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defence.
I may be permitted to give the very pertinent comment of Mr. H. N. Brailsford. He says:
But what is the use of outlawing war if each nation is left to decide for itself whether circumstances require recourse to war in selfdefence? Did any one ever hear of a nation declaring -war without insisting that its war was essentially a measure of self-defence?
And then undoubtedly there were British reservations. Sir Austen Chamberlain said:
There are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest of our peace and safety. His Majesty's government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered.
And so on. Mr. Brailsford again comments:
The extent to which, without the sin of "war" one may trespass on one's neighbour's territory, bombard his tovms, slaughter his citizens, blockade his coasts, and coerce his government to do that which it would not spontaneously do is one of the most surprising discoveries of our refined civilization.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put some questions which I hope the Prime Minister will take an early opportunity of answering:
1.	Why has Canada not renewed the Rush-Bagot agreement?-to which the Prime Minister referred in such laudatory terms in his speech at the ninth annual session of the assembly of the league.
2.	Why has Canada not intimated to Great Britain that she wishes to sign the optional clause of the Peace treaty? On July 28 last Premier Baldwin in the British house stated that there had been no intimation of this character from Canada. Why not?
3.	Why has Canada not adopted the genera! act for the pacific settlement of international disputes as drawn up by the ninth assembly of the League of Nations?-again an act which the Prime Minister, on the scene at the time, lauded in very high terms.
I would venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, 78594-
that before having the Kellogg treaty brought directly before parliament we might very well have it referred to the committee on international relations which was set up several years ago. No question of international relations has ever yet been referred to that committee. Why not now set a precedent, and in that way allow the members of the house to become more fully informed concerning the details of this treaty, so that they may have a more definite voice in determining the foreign policy of Canada.
Now I come to another matter with regard to our relationship with the United States- the Anglo-French naval compromise. The Liberal amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the British parliament declared that the Franco-British naval compromise endangered the prospects of peace in Europe and of good relations with the United States. I take it that is not a jingo statement. And Mr. Lloyd George said that the Anglo-French pact was a complete reversal of the Locarno attitude. He is reported :
The treaty of Versailles and the covenant of the League of Nations contained undertakings by which the allies were bound to a general reduction and limitation of armament. Germany alone had fulfilled the undertaking. Where is the spirit of Locarno? Since Locarno the British, French and Italian armaments have increased.
Now I ask, was Canada consulted? You may say that this pact between Great Britain and France was not a treaty. No; but it definitely involved Canada. Was Canada consulted? Surely, if she was not, and if we are to be dragged into European complications through secret treaties, it is time we knew it. And if Canada was consulted I should like to know what advice Canada gave in the matter.
It seems to me that the least this house can expect is to have a very full statement from the Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity, as to what the situation is with regard to Canada and this discredited compromise. If the imperial conference declarations meant anything they surely meant that Canada has a right to express herself with regard to the foreign policy of the British Empire.
Had I time I should like to read a very interesting article on this point from Interdependence, the publication issued monthly by the League of Nations Society of Canada, in its November issue, in which this question is discussed in detail. Now it does strike me that the apparent policy of the Prime Minister and his government-Do nothing and sit tight-worked well in the Turco-Grecian affair. I had every sympathy with and com-

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
mendation for the position of the government at that time. That affair did not immediately affect Canada and therefore there was no difficulty. But this same policy might easily have meant disaster in this more recent ease, when American interests and hence ultimately Canadian interests were so vitally affected. Indeed, it seems to me that the Canadian government's policy at this time played directly into the hands of the big navy crowd in the United States. Again I ask, was Canada consulted? And, if so, what advice did Canada give, and why did Canada not rise to the occasion and prevent the fiasco which occurred and which had to be condemned by the Liberal party in the present session of the British parliament?
I wish to speak for a moment of the menace of Anglo-American naval rivalry. I will not quote here what possibly might quite rightly be termed the jingo speeches of Coolidge, or Birkenhead, or the Dean of St. Paul's. I will quote, however, a statement by Norman Angell, who says:
We get, therefore, immediately following the solemn outlawry of war, a nearer approach the old alliance and balance of power situation than Europe has known since the armistice; a worsening of Anglo-American relations and what would seem to be the beginning of an Anglo-American naval rivalry to follow the Anglo-German of a quarter of a century ago; a worsening of Anglo-German relations; an all but complete breakdown of the effort to secure even a conference about disarmament.
Or let us take the Manchester Guardian, which is not a jingo paper. That organ speaks of:
-ill feeling, suspicion, misunderstanding estrangement between the two nationsand affirms that:
and
,, no*, many years have the Americans and the British been on terms as bad as they are now.
Mr. Fred A Britten of Illinois, chairman of the house committee on naval affairs, who made a well-intentioned if perhaps rather improper move a little while ago in his effort to secure better relations, recently said:
America's desire for the free use of the seas cannot be assured by paper agreements alone. Steel ships with big guns accompanied by airplanes speak with much greater force than timeworn words of friendly treaties.
I submit that the hush policy is no good. I think Ramsay MacDonald gave a lead in courageously facing the actual facts in the world situation to-day. What is the real difficulty? Personally, I would say I am one of those who believe that fundamentally the trouble is that there are conflicting economic
fM.r. Woodsworth.]
interests between these two great imperial powers. That I will not now discuss. But so far as the political and diplomatic side is concerned, the trouble seems to be due to differing conceptions of the freedom of the seas. I would call attention to the very carefully stated position of the New York World:
Beneath all the wild talk on both sides of the Atlantic there is this cardinal fact, which is the root of the whole controversy. The British Admiralty, and that part of the British nation which shares its views, holds fast to the claim that Great Britain shall have the power to say who shall and who shall not sail the sea in ships. It is a claim which would put the interest of all other powers in jeopardy whenever Great Britain is at war. It is an impossible claim, looked at from any non-British point of view, for it amounts to saying that the interest of mankind upon the seas shall in law and in fact be subject to the will of the British Admiralty. It is resistance to this claim which explains the whole controversy.
And from the British side, in his recent work, "Freedom of the Seas'', Commander Kenworthy says:
The British will have to envisage now the eventual renunciation of the right of independent blockade instead of, as now, tacitly recognizing that in future it will be impossible to enforce it without American approval; while the Americans will have to envisage now, eventually recognizing, that freedom of the seas and sea law cannot be guaranteed without an Anglo-American convention which will have to be brought into relation with the covenant of the league.
I ask again, what is Canada's position with regard to this very important question, the freedom of the seas? We ought to have some definite policy in the matter. In case of war between Great Britain and the United States what would happen? We hate to contemplate such a contingency. We say the thing is impossible; and yet men, both in the United States and in Great Britain, are speculating with reference to this and in both countries the building of huge navies is inexplicable unless, in the background of the minds of some at least, there is an idea that conflict is possible.
And what about Canada in the event of such a war? I should like to quote an editorial which recently appeared in the Western Producer, a paper which has a wide influence in the west and whose editor cannot be called either unpatriotic or pusillanimous. He discusses this matter at some length -I am afraid I have not time to read the whole editorial-observing in conclusion:
There is only one way for Canada to retain her independence and her self-respect and that is by being decent and unprovoking. Canada

The Address-Mr. Adshead
cannot possibly engage in hostilities with the United States, on her own account, or in alliance with any possible combination, British or otherwise, without encountering complete disaster. It might be just as well to realize this and admit it, and to shape our national course so that it cannot happen.
As M. Briand said, peace is proclaimed; it remains necessary to organize it. Instead of spending so much of the time of this house in quarrelling about local matters of comparative unimportance, we should spend more time in discussing some of these larger world problems for the solution of which Canada cannot escape responsibility.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: in which the railway companies actually defy this government and refuse to obey an order of the Department of Immigration. On October 2 last we had a number of harvesters in Calgary and we had to keep them; the government disclaimed all responsibility. We had to take up subscriptions and hold little concerts in an endeavour to do our best for these men. I presented their case to the Department of Immigration who wired me as follows:
Replying yours date have harvesters apply to local .agent of company bringing them out. This will adjust matters.
In other words, those harvesters who came by Canadian National Railways should apply to the 'Canadian National Railways to take them back, and those who came by Canadian Pacific Railway were to apply to that company, the government having made arrangements for their return. Two days later I discussed the matter with Mr. Carnill, superintendent of the Calgary Labour Bureau, who wired Mr. McGuire, of the Canadian National at Edmonton, who said he would have to wait for word from Winnipg. Then he wired as follows:
Winnipeg advised unable authorize free transportation or subsistence ifor men you phoned me about.
And1 I received by telephone the same message from Mr. Colley, of the Canadian Pacific. In other words the railways said they would neither keep these men nor take them back to where they came from. Fortunately I did not stop there. It seemed to me that the whole situation had changed; it was not now a question as to whether the harvesters should be returned, but the question was *whether or not these railway companies were to govern Canada. I simply wired the Department of Immigration as follows:
C.N.R. wire me they will not grant free transportation and subsistence to 15 harvesters you wire me about. What now?
I am glad to say that on receipt of this wire the department took heart and showed a little more backbone; they got in touch with the officials of the railways and told them they had to take back these immigrants.


Robert Forke: I do not think the hon.
member is making a very fair statement of the case. Does he think the Immigration department could wire to Calgary and have these men taken care of immediately? They had to take some steps to get the railway companies to act, and they did so. Nowhere in Canada were harvesters left stranded. They were sent back to England just as soon as 
the Immigration department knew they were stranded. The hon. member shows only a few days' delay.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I wired the Immigration
department and received a reply by wire that matters had been arranged and that these companies were to take these people back.


Robert Forke: Yes, that is so.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They wired the companies to take them back, but the companies themselves wired me that they would not take them back, neither would they provide sustenance.


Robert Forke: They did it, though.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But not until the second telegram; not until they were told that they were not going to govern Canada.


Robert Forke: If the hon. member thinks
he was the man who did it, I do not begrudge him that idea.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If the railway companies had it their way they would .have defied the government more than they did, but I am glad to give the hon. gentleman's department credit for the action they took when they found the railway companies were defying the department.


Mr. BROWN:: That is a pretty good
tribute to the government.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If we allowed them to
do so, the railway companies would govern the Immigration department. I have a letter from my friend the mayor of Calgary, who
is a very good Liberal, if that counts for anything.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not a thing.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: He said that these men
had "ome into Calgary, that a number of them had had to be sent to the hospital for treatment, and that he wanted to know who would pay the bill. The only answer we could get from the Immigration department was, "Our ledger has no column for that item, and we are not responsible." We, being human could not see the men lie down and starve in the streets, so we had to put our hands in our pockets and help to keep these men for whom we had no responsibility and who had not come into the city by our asking. The mayor asked me to endeavour to have some provision made for repayment to the city of the expense incurred through these men having to be placed in the hospital.
I now come to the question of immigration itself. My friend the leader of the opposition

Supply-Ways and Means
said that Canada's pressing need is immigration. I entirely differ from him in that view.
I am glad to see that the United Farmers of Alberta and the labour people also differ with that proposition.


Miss MACPHAIL:: That makes another
one.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Canada herself should
decide who shall and who shall not come within her borders. It has been mooted that we hold this land in trust, that we have a certain responsibility to those people whose borders are crowded, and that if we do not open the doors some means will be found to force them. As a man whose adopted country is Canada, and as a man who has Canadian boys, I want to say that Canada is going to decide who shall and who shall not come within her borders.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is time she did.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Baldwin told Canada to go slowly, for there was plenty of time for immigration into this country of the proper sort. I am opposed to the spending of over two millions of dollars, as we did last year-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Three millions.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: -the spending of this amount to coax immigrants into Canada. The Leeds Mercury of England has the following to say on this subject:
But "spoon-fed" emigration by costly schemes on the grand scale is not the most likely to succeed. Assisted and stimulated emigration may be a good thing, but the best emigrant is the man who is convinced that he will have a better chance in another country and is willing to make an effort to get there.
Spending a couple of millions of dollars to induce people to come to Canada is not the way Canada will settle the distant parts of her territory. It is not the way the east was settled, neither is it the way the west was settled or should be settled. If we have immigrants coming to Canada they should come voluntarily, and they should be possessed of the proper information. The Department of Immigration has recently issued an atlas, which shows the settler under the most laudable, praiseworthy conditions. First, he has a little shack; by and by he has grown a little crop, then he has a larger crop, and finally there is a beautiful mansion.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: He never has the frost, by any chance?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But it omits to say that his crop may be destroyed by frost, or any of those things which go to make agriculture
undesirable. It is not a fair presentation of the case, and these immigrants coming to Canada should be given the other side of the picture. They should have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is another side of the question I would like to mention, and that is the character of the men that come into Canada. If a man is physically fit and has a considerable amount of muscle, and perhaps the amount of money required, we will allow him in. We had criminals in the city of Calgary this year who, when their history was traced, had committed the same crimes in the countries they had left to come to Canada. Then there was the case of the magistrate in the old country who told a criminal brought before him that if he would go to Canada he would not have to go to gaol. That is a deplorable state of affairs. Canada is not going to be made into another Botany Bay where criminals from England or elsewhere may be shipped in order to be rid of them.
I am opposed to the spending of so much money to coax people to come to Canada. The provinces should be consulted in these matters, but they seem to have no responsibility at all. The immigrants are left to shift for themselves, and they should be told of the hardships and difficulties as well as the pleasures. We want the class of men who will come on their own initiative and be willing to face the difficulties as well as to enjoy the successes.
Motion (Mr. Cayley) agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Robb, it was ordered that the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this house will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Alexander Robb: That this house will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 9.45 p.m.
War Reparations
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 12, 1929