THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. McMurray for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, March 14.
Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and St. John and Albert Counties) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer you my congratulations upon your elevation to the Speaker's Chair. You do honour to your race and il therefore join with others who have spoken in congratulating you. I regret not being; able congratulate you. I regret not being able to perfectly understand the French language when it is spoken. I have read the speech of the hon. member for Westmount and St. Henri (Mr. Mereier) and I congratulate him on his eloquence.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried, though in an imperfect way to signalize at the first opportunity I have had of addressing this Chamber, that great wealth which I think
pertains particularly to the Dominion of Canada in that it is so much richer than the rest of this continent in possessing the,
I hope, united efforts of two great races, with two great languages, and, one might almost say, two great philosophies, and two great aspirations. I trust that we may so conduct the business of this Parliament that any shadow of difference that may have existed in the past may be dissipated and that we may go forward with a more happy vision of the future of Canada, our own Canada, which can only be great in proportion as her sons and her daughters know one another and respect each race, each creed, each portion of the country for that which is best in its aspirations and ideals.
I speak, too, from the standpoint of a party which is by no means yet dead in this country, even though its strength in this House does not proportionately represent its strength in the country. I speak as the member of a party that looks back to those great men, Macdonald and Cartier, who in an infinitely more powerful way than I could do, put before the people of Canada the things that I shall humbly try to express to-day. That spirit still lives in the Conservative party, and the country will yet see its strength, because we are a party that holds true to the old aspirations, a party with a definite and a fixed policy, so that the man or woman in this country who is asked to pass judgment upon our professions knows exactly what those professions are. They do not vary with the longitude and the latitude of the place where they are expressed.
I do not wish to detain the House very long; I merely wish to pass briefly in review some of the things that have impressed me in the debate so far as it has gone. I think that there developed during the discussion three principal questions. The main question seemed to be the railways; second, the revenue required to meet our obligations; and third, possibly incidental to one of the others, the reflection upon that general depression of business which unfortunately prevails and the distress which is actually consequent upon it in some localities. I heard my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) call attention to those matters in his discussion of the Speech from the Throne and I awaited with interest the reply which would be made by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the Government. I expected that there would be a fuller disclosure of the purposes of the

The Address
Government than naturally would be made in the speeches, excellent as they were, made by the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply. I expected an amplification of the Speech from the Throne. But, what did I find? I have tried to summarize honestly and fairly the topics touched upon by the leader of the administration. I do not know whether it would be in answer to the comments of my right hon. leader on this side of the House upon the railways, upon revenue, or upon business conditions, but the leader of the Government made as his first important statement, "Quebec is not the only province you lost." Now, really, I do not see how that can dispose of any important question. The people have spoken and this party must, as it does, accept the verdict of the people, and does, as it shall, build for the future to convince those people that they should give a more favourable verdict upon another occasion; but I fail to see how the mere assertion that the party of which I am a member lost the support of any province in the Dominion helps the people of this country to solve the question of the management of the national railways, or tells them particularly what the future of the revenue will be. It may be very good tactics from the purely party standpoint, but it seems to me that this House would perhaps 'be quite as ready to welcome a discussion of the vital matters of to-day, matters which those on this side of the House have been sent here to discuss, matters which have caused unrest among the people, and which must be dealt with, and dealt with rightly and successfully, if our country is to have a future such as we desire. If the leader of the Government wished to place the discussion upon the plane of party politics, if he wished to place it upon the plane of-one might almost say, with all respect-stump speaking, he might at least have balanced the account by informing the House how many actual supporters he himself has from the three Western provinces; and it might not be out of place to make an analysis of the reasons why my hon. friend has not a larger following from these provinces. It is true, members supporting this side were not elected there, but has my hon. friend been. successful? The leader of the Government did enter into a calculation based upon the election returns, a calculation in which,
I think, his arithmetic has betrayed him into a slight error; because if you apply the principle of proportional representation,
n
as was suggested, I think by the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), or some other hon. member during the debate, it will be ascertained that the Conservative party is entitled to a very much larger representation in this House than it pcs-sesses at present. My hon. friend said that the entrance of a third party gave tae Conservative party in many cases the opportunity for victory; but he will find that in many constituencies which his own party carried, their success was very largely due to the same fact-I am told, his own constituency, for example. I do not know whether down by the sea it is only a wraith of political mist, but something drifted to us there in the atmosphere- perhaps it came over from Prince Edward Island-that there would not have been entire sorrow or great heartburning in my hon. friend's party if there had been a minority instead of a majority for him in North York. This appears to be the first point that my hon. friend made in answer to the leader of the Opposition.
The second point he made was when he told the leader of the Opposition: Oh, we should not take campaign literature too seriously. I trust, Sir, that that statement was meant in a jocular sense. If my hon. friend was in earnest it will be well worth the time of this House, and the time of the country, to analyze the statement and to consider what it really means in the political life of Canada. To-day if you go into another chamber in this building you will see upon the walls representations-somewhat crude it is true but still representations-of the power of the printed word; and every member of this House knows that there is nothing more potent in electoral contests than that which appears in the periodical press and in the pamphlets that are issued by the respective political parties. Now, Sir, if it has really come to this, that we should not take these things seriously; if the pamphlets and the newspaper publications issued in behalf of a party are mere trash, and wind, and idle show, then what sincerity can we expect in political life? I will say this, Mr. Speaker-that so far as the literature issued in the last campaign on the part of the official Opposition is concerned, it said exactly the thing that we meant. We put before the people that for which we were standing and what we proposed to do if we were returned to power. It is because of that in a large part of the country we did not get sufficient votes.
The Address


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Under the influences
that were at work the people did not want our policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is so pleasant, Mr. Speaker, to find hon. members on the opposite side in such cordial agreement with me that I will invite them to continue that attitude. I accept that agreement and I trust that my hon. friends in the future will make good -use of it. I will say for the Progressive party that they too used no camouflage and no subterfuge in putting their case before the country. Our party and their party did not agree on vital principles of public administration, and the electors that supported the one group of candidates would not support the other group; we were not standing for free trade, we were not standing for the abolition of tariif barriers.
My hon. friends opposite have welcomed the suggestion I made, that the country did not accept our policy. Let us for a moment examine the reason why the country accepted their pamphlets;-I will not say, their policies, because their leader has told us that these things are only idle words, representations, apparently, for the purpose of catching the votes of the people by a means which does not bind anyone to make good the suggestions or promises contained in the printed word. Now, viewing the case in this way why was it that my hon. friends to your right, Mr. Speaker, did not win in many more provinces and did not win many more constituencies? We had throughout the campaign repeated assurances from the present leader of the Government that there was practically no difference in aim between his party and the Progressive party, or between the platform of the Liberal party and that of the Progressive party. We were told the Progressive party went a little further but that it was a more advanced form of Liberalism; and the other day there was some discussion as to whether this was merely a tendency or an attitude. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely plain. The Progressives did not support my hon. friends opposite because they did not believe those gentlemen would keep the promises they professed to make. If the Progressives had had faith that hon. gentlemen opposite would go so far along the road of the Progressivist doctrine as they claimed naturally they would have sup-

ported them, every man; but I fear tha Progressives knew they could not trust them.
The leader of the Government gave as a third answer to the leader of the Opposition the claim that the present House is representative of the people. I know that we have gone through all the formalities of the ballot, expressing the will of the people in a constitutional way; but I would rather think that this House, in some respects, is perhaps representative of the will of some people who stepped into the campaign at a rather late date and had a very invigorating effect upon it from that time until the polls closed, and I think this will develop a little later on. Though we have been told that we are tc look to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) for a declaration upon the railway question as it affects the country, I think very probably there will be more postponements, and that possibly there may be consultations, and many consultations, with those interests which so greatly affected the result of the elections in the way that I have indicated. I hope the Parliament is representative of the people. I know there are some people who will not fail to have their interests well indicated in Parliament.
My. hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) dealt with the return to the Prairie provinces of their natural resources, an interesting subject, and one which has been before the country for a considerable time. I shall not attempt to emphasize that which has been very well said by my leader, but I would like to deal with this subject for a moment, not from a provincial standpoint, but rather from the attitude taken towards the subject by the people of the provinces. I feel that the subject is one which ought to be approached in a large and capable way. There should be generous appreciation, there should be fair dealing; but, at the same time, unless we are to see an abandonment of the last shred and vestige of Liberalism in this country, we surely will retain that respect for the provinces as autonomous units, which was so much enforced by the Liberal party in Ontario, and by those great men who were sent to this House in times gone by representing the Liberal party. Here is what I find fault with: Whether you call it an arbitration or not, or whether you call it an accounting or not, or whether it is final or whether it is not to be final, the proposition as I analyze it from what the leader of

The Address
the House has put upon Hansard, is simply this: that he or his Government, or someone lor them, shall sit in at an accounting, or an arbitration, or a conference of some kind, with the provinces interested and then submit the result of that to this House for approval. What then becomes of the right to be heard of the old Maritime provinces, by whose sacrifices and contributions the development of the great northwestern portion of our country was made possible. I do not say, from the standpoint of New Brunswick, that anything short of absolute and complete justice should be done to each province or one province- that ought to go in this country without saying; but I do say that, if there is to be a revision of the terms, this Parliament ought not to pass upon what is done for the parent provinces of the Dominion without hearing these provinces. Where, in this proposition, is there any opportunity for an accounting of the burden that has been borne by Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? Where is there a suggestion of any revision of the terms that they are to receive, or that they have been receiving in the past? I know- and I have said it myself once-that I could get along splendidly with anybody, that all I wanted in this world was just to have my own way, and if I got that I did not want anything else. That is all we want in the Maritime provinces-if you will just give us our own way in the sense of giving us a fair, square deal when you are dealing with other parts of the Dominion, and if you will undertake not to decide matters behind our bacKS, but realize that we have a right to sit in with any consultation that may be undertaken, I can see my way clear to be in accord with some solution of this problem. But neither the Speech from the Throne nor the explanations given by the hon. Prime Minister of this particular passage throws any light in the direction I have indicated. I throw out the hint to him knowing his good nature, and I think possibly he will be quite willing to act upon it.
Possibly the fifth point that was made by my hon. friend the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in connection with the dispute with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) on this side of the House as to what took place at a certain conference in London. I
am not going to deal with that. It will be effectively, dealt with probably on some other occasion. I only want to say this: that if we have fair play, if we have that appreciation in public life of the real efforts of devoted public servants, this country, and this House-the three sides of this House-* will join in paying tribute to my hight hon. leader for the stand that he took when he insisted, with respect to the great international matters, that this country and the United States should come together in consultation, and that no world policy should develop unless there was first laid down the principle of harmonious co-operation with our great neighbour to the south. This country has shown an admirable example. For more than a century it has been untouched internally by the ravages of war, and nothing, I think, in the present heterogeneous condition of the European countries will save this old' world from the utter wreck and ruin, and bankruptcy of war, but the great alliance of Great Britain with her dominions, I might say with the galaxy of equal states, and the United States of America joining hand in hand to enforce upon the world the simple law that there shall be no more murder.


Mr. PUTMAN:: And no trade reciprocity.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think I would even go
that for the satisfaction of my hon. friend. His leader referred to the former speeches on the subject of the tariff which he said had not been implemented by action, but at the same time I think it was the boast of the party, a member of which has just touched upon this subject, that now, for the first time in many long years, constitutional government had been restored to Canada. With the realization of constitutional government one would expect, of course, the disappearance of that autocratic mystery in regard to the speeches from the Throne to which my hon. friend so much objects. This was a time for a new beginning. The old autocracy, I will say, has only given place to the new. I will commend that to the judgment of my hon. friend who asked me to refer to this subject. May I ask that hon. friend of mine if he is not really in his innermost heart, or somewhere in the dteep recesses of his mind, just a little disappointed' with the paucity of the Speech from the Throne, and the remarks of his leader upon this subjefct. I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance as yet, but I hope to make it. However I have
The Address

not the slightest doubt he was present at the Ottawa convention, and I have not the slightest doubt that he enthusiastically cheered the platform and that no part of the platform appealed to him with greater force than that bearing on the customs tariff of the country, except possibly the paragraph which bound the party, in the most solemn manner, to put that platform into force at the first opportunity they had of doing so. I have not the slightest doubt that he applauded, either in this House or out of it, the efforts which were made on at least two successive occasions on the then Opposition side to present that platform by resolution in this House and to ask the House to adopt it. This party which has succeeded to power, so suddenly and possibly so unexpectedly, is not like an aggregation of individuals coming together for the first time to shape a policy. They had their policy for more than two years before they got an opportunity of putting it into force. The thing is all ready-made, just as ready-made as one of the nicest suits of political garments in the hand-me-down store of politics. Why did they not bring the article down and lay it on the table of the House at the opening of the session? They did not need any time to stitch it, or alter it, or baste it, or do anything else with it. They had it ready for two years, and if they really meant what they said when they went to the country, then their political literature was not mere camouflage, and they ought to be ready at this very hour to put into force the tariff planks of the Ottawa convention. Another convention is not required to bring that about. We have, however, possibly the first of a long array of excuses that will be offered during this Parliament and several successive Parliaments. We are told that we should not take this class of literature too seriously.
To my hon. friend who asked me about reciprocity, I commend the devious course which the Government that he adorns is beginning to pursue so early in the session. As to reciprocity, I will tell him, as he probably already knows, that the party of which I am a member, does not stand for reciprocity, and we told the people so. There was a celebrated occasion when his party told the people that they were in favour of reciprocity, and at that time the people did not think they were sidestepping; the people thought they were going to bring reciprocity into effect, and

they did not give them an opportunity to do so. I do not see why I cannot do business in my shop, and another man have a right to do business in his shop across the street; I do not see why we cannot compete justly and honourably, each man looking after his own business, each man trying to support from that business those who are dependent upon him, without the one man sacrificing his business to the other to make the latter more opulent and the man who makes the sacrifice more dependent. That is my view of what reciprocity with the United States means; but it is not necessary that people who will not make a treaty of reciprocity should ever contemplate the horrors of war as a means of settling their commercial differences. I might tell my hon. friend that I have a bit of this poor, discarded, rejected literature.	When this whitey-brownish
sheet first came out, probably it was whiter than it is now.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is it not headed
" Meighen or Whom "7 What is the caption of the pamphlet?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend shall have the caption; he shall have the address, and, Heaven help him, he shall have the contents. The caption is " Women and Politics ".	The address is " National
Liberal Committee, 115 Sparks Street, Ottawa." Then there are the names- " Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., Liberal leader, Andrew Haydon, National Organizer and General Secretary, issued October 1921, publication No. 20". This pamphlet makes an appeal to the women of the country. It first takes a hypothetical price for a pair of shoes, and then it says -I am going to give my hon. friends an opportunity to applaud:
Mr. King thinks first of the people and secondly of the industry: All the people are greater than a few manufacturers. Mr. King stands for all the people.
And the phrase " all the people " is in capital letters.
Mr. King is against high protection. In the example of the pair of hoots just referred to, Mr. Meighen would stand for the manufacturer getting 50 cents for himself on each pair of boots. That is the tariff should be 50 cents per pair. But Mr. King would say. No.
A great big capital " No. ", just as emphatic as anybody would want to make it. I commend this to the attention of the hon. gentleman who was so interested a moment ago. Let him listen to these words that follow:
Twenty cents a pair is enough.

The Address
Do not give the bloated manufacturer fifty cents a pair; give him twenty cents. Take it out of the people just the same!
It is a song of degrees. My hon. friends on either side of the House I notice, are not familiar enough with a certain book to appreciate the remark " a song of degrees." The pamphlet continues:
Let the manufacturer have this amount to aid his industry, but let the other thirty cents per pair be allowed to the woman who buys the boots, making the price to her $5.20 instead of $5.50.
Mr. Speaker, just as one man to another, do you not think, and does the House not think, that looks very much like thirty cents? But we get a little further on a bit of the policy of the great party which has come into power. Before I go on to that, let me read this which is even more interesting:
The twenty cents per pair as duty collected against foreign goods will still go to the Government in customs duties. This explains the difference between a tariff for protection and a tariff for revenue.
My right hon. leader has never been able to understand the difference between them, the very thing that has been explained in this pamphlet, so I am going to hand it to him, just as it has been put out by the Liberal party. The difference is just thirty cents. The pamphlet states:
But, someone argues, that on such a reduction of duties the customs revenue will fall and the Government will fail to get money with which to carry on. The answer is reasonable lowering of tariff duties and means a great increase in trading. A great increase in buying by the consumer, because he can get much more for his money and consequently a sure increase in Government revenue.
That is some of the literary pabulum that was distributed amongst the ladies of Nova Scotia as an invitation to vote for the Liberal party, and they did so.
I do not know whether they will be quite so well satisfied when they are told that they should not have taken this too seriously. But they have taken it seriously, because they voted accordingly. Now, let us see what happens. The answer is, lowering of tariff duties means a great increase in trading. A great increase in trading with whom? With somebody beyond our borders; otherwise there could not be any customs duties paid upon these shoes or any other articles that are referred to. Now we have this party, which sought power and obtained it, saying, if they are to be bound by their assertions at all, that it is a desirable thing to have the footwear
of Canadian people made outside of Canada by other hands than those of Canadian workmen. If that is their doctrine, and it seems to be, I for one do not subscribe to it; I am a protectionist in order that there may be industries within our cities. Furthermore, respecting agriculture as undoubtedly I do, I do not conceive it to be in the best interests of the country that we should become merely an agricultural people, without as large an industrial development as it is possible for us to create. I believe that the one reacts upon the other; if you give the proper safeguard to manufacturing industry you thereby stimulate your agriculture and increase your home market thus developing the country within its own bounds. My face is therefore set against any current running in the direction of large imports of those things which we can make for ourselves. Before they get through with the task of squaring the circle, the task of doing the impossible, my hon. friends will hear from the great and powerful industrial province of Quebec, that the industries of that province shall not be destroyed merely in order that a pamphlet like this may be vindicated before the folk in the provinces down by the sea. In the light of that I can understand why the leader of the Government begs and prays my right hon. leader not to take campaign literature too seriously-
We were also given, as the seventh and,
I think, the last point of answer to my right hon. friend, a definition of Liberalism. It was liberal enough to include, I thought, this world and a great part of the next,- of course, there is a certain part of the next world that I wholly expect to be reserved for those with whom I am associated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Hon. gentlemen opposite know, ,of course, that I mean Heaven; I know that there is something else in their minds. Now, we have as an answer to the criticism of my right hon. friend, an extract from a speech made by the leader of the Government at the Liberal convention, a very nice quotation couched in most excellent language and read very mellifluously. But my mind seized, to a certain extent, upon one small paragraph wherein, in accepting the heavy task of leadership, my hon. friend said that he might look for guidance and counsel to the great forces assembled about him. In what I am about

The Address
to say I do not mean to be in the least offensive, nor do I pretend to draw an exact parallel. However, I could not help thinking, in this connection, of a certain hit of historical language that is to be found in one of the most celebrated of British novels. We have all enjoyed reading of, and have sympathized with, the tribulations of poor little Oliver Twist, and no doubt hon. members will all recall the occasion when Oliver found himself in the house of Fagin on that eventful morning when the old man with the red hair and white eyebrows walked up and down the side of the room imitating a gentleman looking in the shop windows. It will be remembered that the old man had a number of articles of value about his person, among other things a stickpin, of paste diamond, in his necktie. The Artful Dodger and Master Charley Bates were on the scene, and the trick was to see how much they could take away from the old fellow without his feeling their touch. Fagin, calling Oliver's attention to this performance, used this language respecting the great forces that were assembled about Oliver: " Make 'em your models, my dear, make 'em your models. Do everything they bid you, and take their advice in all matters, especially the Dodger's, my dear. He will be a great man himself and will make you one too, if you take pattern by him." Now, I do not know who is the Dodger on the other side; I will leave that for my hon. friends to find out. I do not think the Artful Dodger was present at the Liberal convention, when my hon. friend accepted the duties of leadership, I think he appeared upon the scene shortly before the election. Some of us, no doubt, can see the way in which he appeared, and the very useful influence his presence had on the results. But I again advise my hon. friend to take pattern after the Dodger; it will be very useful for him to do so in the strategic policy Which will have to be pursued with regard to some very interesting matters of state during the next few years.
Those sum up, I think not unfairly-I do not mean them to be unfair at all events- the professed answers of my hon. friend to my right hon. leader. But at the outset I said that, as well as I could discover, there were about three principal questions before the House. The first of these is the question of railways. As was said yesterday by an hon. member on this side of the 
House, the act is there; and the machinery is ready to be put in force, what is the use of talking about co-ordination unless you co-ordinate? The power is there to do it now; it does not need Parliament to do it. " Solvitur ambulando " is the best answer to a good many political questions.
In dealing with the railways I want to deal with something that is of peculiar interest to part of the Maritime provinces. I believe that in what I am about to say I shall have the wholehearted sympathy, and, I trust, the support of my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) and also of every other member from New Brunswick who sits on your right, Mr. Speaker. During the campaign a very strenuous attack was made upon the then Government party for its alleged actions with regard to the harbour of Portland, Maine. I felt, in fact I knew, that the newspaper allegations were not based upon facts. I want to say to my hon. friends that the problem now is theirs, a problem which otherwise the preceding Government must have faced. From the standpoint of the city of St. John, where millions of the money of the taxpayers of that city had been expended, as well as many other millions of the money of the Dominion of Canada, for the provision of wharves and railway facilities, I say, that the time has come to do our business through Canadian ports; and if we are to have the obligation upon us of a vast railway system, we should at all events get for Canadian ports, and for no other than Canadian ports, every pound of freight and every passenger that that system of railways can carry. When the hon. Minister of Railways does deal with this subject in the House, I trust we shall have an assurance that this Government will practically cut off the connection between Montreal and Portland, Maine, and will divert the traffic to our two great winter ports-ports that are fairly well equipped, but will stand better equipping yet-the ports of Halifax and St. John. I would not like the Government to think that there is any rivalry between our Atlantic seaboard ports in regard to this question. Our true position is to insist here with all the power at the command of every one of us from the Maritime provinces that Canadian trade, as was said by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, shall flow through Canadian channels; and, to ensure this, we must develop not only the ports of Halifax and St. John but, in time, other ports in these provinces, to take care of the immense

The Address
trade which this country will produce. But when this system of railways is co-ordinated we must not continue to utilize an outlet in the country to the south of us to the detriment of our own ports.
I did not find in what has been said any very definite suggestion as to the raising of revenue, outside of the casual allusion to the customs tariff. I do find in some speeches made by the leader of the Government during the campaign that he estimated the annual expenditure of Canada at about $560,000,000, and he said that it would be advisable to cut it down one-half, or that at least one-
4 p.m. third might be lopped off if one-half were too much. Now, while I want to see a policy of reasonably rigorous economy enforced, I should like at some time a fairly detailed account of the method by which the lopping off of expenses is to be achieved. I fancy that when my hon. friends come down to a minute study of the situation, no matter how vigorous their efforts may be, they will find the difference between the practical necessary expenditure and that which has prevailed in the past is not nearly so great as they were wont to imagine it to be when they were going about the country giving reasons why the people should support them at the polls. If we are to have lower customs duties it will require, as the little Halifax pamphlet indicated, a very vast increase in the quantity of importations in order to raise the bulk of the revenue from the customs, a thing that I shall feel very sorry for, and I think the whole industrial portion of the country will join in my sorrow, because it means that for every dollar raised in customs duties an opportunity will be lost to Canadian workmen to manufacture the needed goods at home. However, I await some announcement as to how the Government is going to curtail expenditure and also increase revenue.
I do not know how it appeals to hon. members, but possibly some have given a little consideration to the state of business in the principal centres of Canada. I do not want to point to any gloomy outlook, I do not want by any word of mine to add to any feeling of insecurity that may be felt in some quarters at present, but as practical, sensible men I think we all know that in the cities throughout the Dominion there are a great many business houses just wavering and supported by the banks in the hope of trade revival than there have been for a great many *years. Considering this, coupled with the
fact that we realize that in every large centre of population, yes, in every fairly large centre of population, there is considerable unemployment, considerable real distress, I would suggest that possibly we have been spending a little too much on frills, laces, fol-de-rols and show, in this very House, in connection with this very Parliament.
While I take the stand on protection that I do-and I cannot see anything that is likely to change my mind with respect to that as a sound policy for the country- I cannot be oblivious to the fact that all ever Canada, outside of the question of the tariff, the plain every day men and women have become dissatisfied with the methods of administration of the past, no matter by what party those methods were pursued, and those people do not want mere glitter and show. We may think them mistaken in some of the views they enunciate, but down at the bottom of all is the desire somehow or other to get for this country a dollar's worth-real worth in the old Scotch sense-for every dollar that is expended, as well as equality of opportunity for every man, woman and child who is happy enough to dwell within our borders. I sympathise with that feeling, I believe that all of us have got to take it into account more and more in the future, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the country will be better and happier the nearer we get down to those old bedrock principles-[DOT] to the homely virtues of ordinary common honesty and decent living.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, will you permit me at the commencement of the brief remarks which I intend to make, to offer my congratulations to you, Sir? You and1 I came into this House many years ago on the same day, and at that time We were, I think, the two youngest members of the House. I regret to say that In this House only three then elected, besides your good self and myself, are with us. Memories have endeared the friendship which existed in a personal way between your Honour and myself, and no one in this House is more pleased than I to see you to-day occupying the position of First Commoner of Canada.
I have listened with close attention to the remarks of my good friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Baxter). He and I have occupied many platforms and addressed many audiences upon subjects dear to our hearts, one of those subjects being the rights of the Maritime provinces, but I regret in
The Address

the eloquent speech which he has just delivered, my hon. friend did not devote some of his attention to the great interests that lie within those provinces, particularly the operation of the Intercolonial railway.
My hon. friend has regretted very much that a line has been acquired, leading to Portland. He states this Government should get rid of the line between Montreal and Portland in order that Canadian seaports shall not be endangered. My hon. friend will be surprised to know that when, in 1920, the Grand Trunk was being acquired by the late Government, and a resolution was moved by a Liberal member of this House seeking to protect the Maritime ports of Canada, his leader (Mr. Meighen) and every follower behind him helped to vote that resolution down.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: He is young yet.


Mr. LOGAN:: Now, when he is out of power, he tells us to get rid of this horrible port of Portland that is going to do so much harm to the Maritime provinces. My hon, friend also told us that the party to which he belongs is not dead. Is there need to proclaim in this House that that party is not actually dead? It was not dead, he said, it was the same Old party of Macdonald ani Cartier.
If I may be permitted to read in that connection part of an editorial published in a good Tory organ last evening, I think the answer will be found to my hon. friend's statement. It is an editorial from a paper admired very much by the Conservative party in years gone by-the Montreal Daily Star.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Loaves and fishes.


Mr. McKENZIE:: You have not got any now.


Hance James Logan: Ti e editorial reads in part:
What brought the Unionist Government to disaster was stupid, inconsistent, un-Conservative leadership. Conservative feeling throughout the country was discouraged, disgusted and dismayed.
I commend that to my hon. friend's attention.
It saw policies which it had always been taught by its great leaders to regard as economic heresy eagerly adopted and warmly advocated by the presumed "Conservative" leader. It saw State socialism preached as Conservative doctrine-
Now listen.
-a flagrant reversal of principle which should have made Sir John Macdonald turn over in his grave.

Yet my friend has the temerity to say this is the party of Macdonald and Cartier.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to devote my attention to a matter which I think is of vital importance. Our good friend the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Crerar) stated, in the admirable speech which he delivered the other day, that we should get down to business and talk about things which are really vital to the welfare of this country. I desire now to discuss the question of the Intercolonial railway, and I shall confine my remarks to the position of that railway in Canada. I do so for many reasons, one being the gross lack of knowledge that seems to permeate the whole country in reference to the Intercolonial railway. When we in the 'Maritime provinces speak of, what we believe to be our rights, we are immediately assailed by people who say we desire to bring back the old patronage system, bring the road back into politics. There is not a member of this House, at least on this side, Mr. Speaker, who desires to bring the Intercolonial railway back into politics, and there is no man on this side of the House who desires it should be operated as it was many years ago.
As far as the employment of men on the Intercolonial railway is concerned the statements made only snow the lack of knowledge of people who discuss this matter, because the facts are that the men on the Intercolonial railway are employed, not at the dictation of a political party or its adherents, not even at the dictation of a minister, but very largely at the dictation of the labour unions of the country. Whoever says that we in the Maritime provinces are anxious that the road should be a political road or that we desire to exercise patronage in connection with it does not know what he is talking about. As far as my experience goes, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties of patronage are never welcome to any member of Parliament supporting the Government.
But there is a vital question for the Maritime provinces, and that is the management and operation of this road. My good friend the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) speaking in this House yesterday and referring to the Canadian National Railway Act of 1919, stated that that Act was passed in view of the fact that we had the Intercolonial railway and others. The hon. gentleman does not know, and there do not seem to be many people in this country who do know, that the Canadian National Rail-

The Address
way Act never did absorb the Intercolonial railway, and never could absorb it under the constitution of this country. Does my hon. friend not know that the Intercolonial railway to-day is operated under an Order in Council? There could not be a statute passed to take over the Intercolonial railway and place it under any company, he it known as the Canadian National Railway Company or any other, because, as I shall show, the Intercolonial railway is part of the pact of Confederation and guaranteed under a section of the British North America Act.
What did the late government do? They passed an Order in Council providing that the managers of the Intercolonial railway /should be-mark you, not the directors of the Canadian National Railway-but the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway, and even afterwards when they endeavoured to put the name "Canadian National Railway " upon the cars, the signs, the paper, etc., of the Intercolonial Railway- not only "Canadian National Railway" but those old and familiar if not always welcome letters "C.N.R."-they found they required to pass an Order in Council, a copy of which I now hold in my hand, showing that the name was simply for purposes of identification. Let me read a part of the Order in Council to which I refer.
Canadian National Railway
At the Government House at Ottawa, Friday the 20 th day of December, 1918	.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor-General in Council:
Whereas the Minister of Railways and Canals reports that by the Order-in-Council dated the 20th day of November, 1918 (P.C. 2654) the persons, from time to time comprising the Board of Directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company (Which controls and operates the Canadian Northern Railway System) were appointed a Board of Management of the Canadian Government Railways;
That as a matter of convenience in connection with the operation of both systems under one management, the use of one name as a collective or descriptive title for both systems is highly desirable, and refers to the established use of the term "Canadian Northern Railway System'' as a descriptive (but not corporative) title for all lines of railway owned or controlled by the Canadian Northern Railway Company and also to the use of the name Canadian Government Railways, which is also merely one of description;
That the use of such a title is a mere matter of description for convenience of reference and does not create a new legal corporate entity or affect in any manner whatsoever the legal status or the rights or obligations of the individual corporations collectively so denoted.
Therefore His Excellency the Governor-General in .Council is pleased to order and direct and doth hereby order and direct the Board of Directors aforementioned to use as a collective or descriptive designation the name "Canadian National Railways," in lieu of the names Canadian Northern Railway System and Canadian Government Railways wherever such last mentioned names are or may be at present used-
And so on. With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, let me trace the history of the Intercolonial railway because it is highly desirable the facts should be brought to light in the discussion of these matters. Do not, I implore you, be carried away by the idea that we in the Maritime provinces are influenced by selfishness. Before I resume my seat I will show you that we are only demanding our rights and not asking for any charity from this country.
What is the history of the Intercolonial? The road was suggested after the Rebellion of 1837. Lord Durham, in his wonderful report of 1838, recommended that this road should be built for military purposes, and in 1849 an Imperial Commission investigated the proposition. In their report it was declared that while the building of the railway might be justified for political and military reasons, its commercial value was doubtful.
From the standpoint of the Maritime provinces let me tell you what the conditions were previous to 1867. We were a very prosperous people. We were dealing with our natural market the New England States of America. From the little province of Nova Scotia went forth three thousand ships, manned by 19,000 sturdy seamen, carrying our goods to the New England States and bringing goods back from those states to our province. Let me give you a few figures illustrating the condition of trade in the Maritime provinces at that time. In 1864 the trade in New Brunswick, that is the per capita trade, was $66; in Nova Scotia it was $46; in Canada that is Old Canada, it was only $35, showing the prosperous condition of our country, at any rate in comparison to the condition of Old Canada.
We did not desire Confederation; we thought the difficulties involved were too great. Probably one of the greatest optimists, as well as one of the greatest leaders of Canada, was my illustrious predecessor in the representation of the county of Cumberland, the late Sir Charles Tupper. But in a speech made in the House of Assembly in 1864 that distinguished statesman, after moving a resolution in favour of Maritime union, said:
The Address

"The difficulties of Confederation with Canada are insuperable." What were those difficulties? They were difficulties of distance, difficulties of transportation. We had a sure market with the New England States; we feared the tariff policies of Canada. We feared that the tariff between this country and the United States might be raised. Our fear never reached the point of thinking the duties would be raised as high as they are to-day, but nevertheless we feared the tariff that might be imposed by the United States against Canada.
Sir Charles Tupper, and the other leaders in the Maritime provinces, called a convention at Charlottetown in 1864 and for what purpose? For the purpose of bringing about Maritime union-that is union of the three Maritime provinces. While the convention was in progress probably the greatest galaxy of statesmen that ever entered a harbour of the Maritime provinces landed in Charlottetown. Who were they? Such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, the great leader of the Conservative party; Hon. George Brown, the illustrious and great leader of the Liberal party; D'Arcy McGee, the incomparable Irish orator and statesman; Sir George Etienne Cartier, the wonderful French leader of Quebec; Sir Etienne P. Tache, the prime minister of Canada at that time; Sir Hector Lan-gevin, and a number of other distinguished public men. They came to our little Maritime Union Convention and said:	Come in with us. We asked why?
"Because," they said, "we have reached an impasse in Canada between Quebec and Ontario. We have not done any business for three years." I think according to the statement made by Sir Etienne P. Tache, which I will read later on, they had had five changes of government in three years They said:	"We desire Maritime ports.
We cannot make of Canada a great country without access to the sea throughout the entire year." They held out the railway bait to the delegates of the Maritime provinces, and after some time Sir Charles Tupper, and the other Maritime province leaders, agreed to discuss the matter with them.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, recall some of the remarks which were made- at that time and which constituted the bait to secure our entrance into Confederation and our forsaking the surety of the New England market. Hon. D'Arcy McGee, in one of his fascinating orations delivered in 1864, pointed out that Canada would give the Maritime provinces direct connection with

the wheat producing regions of the great West all the year round and continuing said:
In this connection if they do not get through Canada, they must ultimately get through the United States, and one reason why I, in season, and perhaps out of season, have continued an advocate for an Intercolonial Railway has been that first, closest and most lasting connection of these Lower Provinces with the Continental trade system, might be established by and through and in union with Canada.
In Nova Scotia, among other things, we were selling to the New England States large quantities of coal. In the Assembly at Quebec Hon. Mr. McGee described in splendid language the extent of the coal fields of the Maritime provinces, and went on to say:
These exhaustless coal fields will, under our plan-which is in fact our Reciprocity Treaty with the Lower Provinces-become hereafter the great resource of our towns for fuel.
And further on he stated:
We consume in this country (Canada) as much fuel per annum as they do in New England, and therefore we offer them a market under the Union equal to that which these theorizers want to persuade their followers they would lose.
Speaking in the Mechanics' Institute in the city of St. John he said:
I am well aware, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot have a commercial league, without other means of intercourse than we now possess.
Further on he said-
Although I have usually put forward defensive, and commercial reasons for the road, I confess to you frankly, that I place as high, or even higher than either, reasons more purely political.
Hon. George Brown had been an opponent of the building of an Intercolonial railway, but during the Confederation negotiations he stated in a powerful speech delivered in the city of Toronto-
It would be better for us to build a half a dozen Intercolonials rather than that the union of the provinces should not take place.
And in Parliament speaking of the proposed road he said:
Have honourable gentlemen forgotten that the United States gladly paid twenty millions in hard cash to have Louisiana incorporated in the Republic? But what was Louisiana then to the Americans in comparison with what the Maritime Provinces are at this moment to Canada?
And further on he said-and let me call attention to this, because this was the inducement they held out to us:
They in the maritime provinces will bring their fish and their coal and their West Indian produce to our three millions of inhabitants.

The Address
Mr. Brown always pointed out that the railway could not be a commercial success, but that it was an absolute Confederation necessity.
Sir George Etienne Cartier, speaking in Montreal in 1866 said

The Intercolonial is the price being paid in order to secure the maritime ports in the Union.
Sir John Macdonald repeatedly referred in his public address and in Parliament to the road as being a political necessity but said that it would never be a commercial success. Hon. Mr. Ross, in the Confederation debates, among other things said-
Upper Canada will do well to build the road on its own account if all the other provinces refuse.
Sir E. P. Tache, Premier of Canada, in the Parliamentary debate February 30th, 1865, referred to the lack of winter ports in Canada and defied anyone to take a map of the world and point to any great nation which had not seaports of its own open at ali times of the year, and proceeded as follows:
Canada did not possess these advantages but was shut up in a prison, as it were, for five months in the year in fields of ice, which all the steam engineering apparatus of human ingenuity could not overcome, and so long as this state of affairs continued we must consent to be a small people who could at any moment be assailed and invaded by a people better situated in that respect than wTe were. Canada was in fact just like a farmer who might stand upon an elevated spot on his property from which he could look upon fertile fields, meandering streams, wood and all else that was necessary to his domestic wants, but who had no outlet to the highway.
He referred to the attitude of the people of the United States and particularly of the . Northern states who believed we were in sympathy with the South. He stated they threatened to abolish the transit system and that reciprocity was to be discontinued. He referred to the passport system, and said the only thing which remained to be done was to shut down the gate altogether and prevent passage through their territory. He continued:
Will we, a great people, coolly and tranquilly cross our arms and wait for what might come next? For my part the time has now arrived when Canada should establish a union with the great Gulf Provinces.
What for? For the purpose of securing winter ports for Canada. Further on, he
said:
Legislation in Canada for the last two years has come almost to a standstill, and if anyone
would refer to the Statutes back since 1862 he would find that the only public measures there inscribed have been passed simply by the permission of the opposition. From May 21st, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, five different governments had been in charge of affairs. The country was bordering on civil strife.
Hon. Mr. Ross, speaking in the Canadian Parliament in 1865, said:
I believe this work a great and grave undertaking but it is one that cannot be avoided-it is a necessity. It is called for by military reasons and a commercial necessity, and the date of its construction cannot be safely postponed. Why, what have we seen within a recent period? Restrictions have been put on goods sent through the United States by the establishment of Consular Certificates to such an extent that you cannot send a bale of goods through the United States without accompanying it with one of those certificates, the cost of which I am told was nearly $2 perhaps more than the worth of the package.
And further:
It, the Intercolonial, will be a costly undertaking, but it is one we must make up our minds to pay for, and the sooner we set about its construction the better.
Sir Leonard Tilley, in the city of Quebec, speaking for the Maritime provinces as one of its great leaders, said if the Maritime provinces could not secure the Intercolonial railway they might as well stop talking about Confederation, and every other political leader of all shades of politics in the Maritime provinces stated that the road must be constructed immediately. And for what purpose? To get over the difficulties of distance, to create and carry on trade between the Maritime provinces and Canada as it was known in those days.
As the result of all these addresses and negotiations, among the union resolutions passed at Quebec was one providing that the Intercolonial should be built immediately, and this resolution containing the reasons for the construction of the road was incorporated in the British North America Act, passed by the British Parliament, being section 145. This section 145 is a section of an Imperial statute, providing for a distinct railway to be built for a certain purpose, and, I contend, we cannot change that purpose by any Act of this Parliament. Changes can only be made at Westminster and not at Ottawa. Section 145 is as follows:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial railway is essential to the consolidation to the union of British North America and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that
The Address

provision should be made for its immediate construction by the Government of Canada; therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement within six months after the union of a railway conecting the river St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practical speed.'*	-
Notice the specific terms of that section. It is not often we see the reason for a section embodied in the section itself.
It must follow that the rates charged on this road must be based, not upon commercial consideration, but for the purpose of interprovineial trade; and rates which prevent that trade are a distinct violation of the most sacred promises made to the people of the Maritime provinces in order to secure their consent to the consolidation of the union. If the people of the Maritime provinces had been told before 1867 that this road, after construction, would have been operated on a commercial basis alone there would not have been any British North America Act, nor any confederation with the Maritime provinces. If it is denied that the Intercolonial railway is to be operated for national purposes and for the creation and carrying on of interprovineial trade, then the assent of the people of the Maritime provinces in 1867 was secured under false pretences.
The money for building this road was secured by Imperial guarantee. That guarantee was given with a condition. Surveys had previously been made for the road leading from Nova Scotia across the centre of New Brunswick, known as the Valley route, the shortest and the best route, but before the Imperial Government undertook to give the guarantee they insisted that a survey made by Major Robinson, a military man, should be adopted. This survey was around the north part of the province of New Brunswick, away out of the direct line to Canada. Why? To get away from the United States border. We had had the Trent affair; we had had the war between the North and the South; we had had some feeling between the North and Canada; so the Imperial Government insisted upon this northern route, and in the Lord Elgin despatch, the following words are used:
The Valley route would deprive the Intercolonial railway of those Imperial and Military advantages, which alone would justify the granting of Imperial credit.
["Mr. Logan.]
The road was built. Incidentally, the people of the Maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, threw into the system railroads already constructed which had cost over three million dollars, and away back in 1867 that was a large sum of money.
Prior to a few years ago the terms of Confederation were maintained. A very valuable trade was developed and carried over this railway. Suddenly the railway was linked up with the Canadian Northern system. It was taken from the direct control of the Department of Railways; its management was transferred to the city of Toronto and placed with the directors of the Canadian Northern railway, and its rates were increased to such an extent as to practically prohibit interprovineial trade, which trade was the very purpose of its creation. Take, for instance, the trade in coal, which is one of the big products of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and from which the Governments of those provinces derive a very large amount of their revenues. Under the old management and the old rates our coal was shipped in large quantities into Quebec, particularly into the Eastern townships and Montreal, and even into Ontario as far west as Brockville. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the remarks of Hon. D'Arcy McGee which I quoted a few minutes ago about the burning of our coal in Canada. You will bear in mind the statement of the Hon. George Brown, which I have already cited, that we would ship our coal to a market of 3,000,000 people. But within the last five years the rate on coal westward bound has been increased nearly 150 per cent, with the result that interprovincial trade in this most important commodity is absolutely killed, and not a pound of coal from the Maritime provinces is to-day being shipped by rail out of those provinces. What is the use of talking about the alluring promise of the Hon. George Brown-"We hold out a market of 3,000,000 inhabitants for your coal"-when the freight rates are placed so high that you cannot ship the coal? That is the situation as it exists today.
We do not desire to make unreasonable requests; we desire, however, to point out that transportation in the Maritime provinces, the wharf of this country jutting out into the broad Atlantic, is a most vital question to the people of those provinces, because they are far away from the big markets of this continent. Our forefathers

The Address
knew that; the forefathers of Confederation knew it. Sir Charles Tupper knew it when he said that the difficulties of Confederation were insuperable on account of the distance to Canada.
Prior to Confederation, another question was raised by people in this country. If you read the debates, you will find that another understanding was reached, namely, that the canal system of Ontario and Quebec was to be increased and the canals were to be deepened and extended. What are the facts? I am not going to detain this House this afternoon by quoting figures in detail; but permit me to say, according to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals, there has been spent on the canals of Ontario and Quebec $35,000,000 more than has ever been spent upon the Intercolonial railway. A few years ago, however, instead of increasing the rates upon these canals of Ontario and Quebec, they were made as free as the ocean itself, and to-day the people of those provinces boast of their 1,200 miles of free inland navigation. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is fair to punish the people of the Maritime provinces who came into Confederation, not only with a promise, but with a distinct Imperial statute in regard to their rights under Confederation, and to allow the other promise to the people of Ontario and Quebec in respect to their canal systems to be kept? As I said a moment ago, we do not ask for charity; we ask only that the rights given us under the constitution shall remain inviolate. We do hot shirk for a moment our obligations in Canada; we are not mendicants at the door of Parliament. In the last twenty-five years a billion of dollars-it is nearer one and one-half billions, but we will call it a billion dollars-has been put into the railways of Canada, either by cash or by guarantees. During these twenty-five years practically all the railways constructed in the Maritime provinces consist of a line between Edmundston and Moncton, N.B., the line in Halifax county running thirty or forty miles east of Dartmouth, and the short line from Halifax to Yarmouth. Yet there has been a billion dollars provided in this country for the purpose of increased transportation facilities, particularly in Western Canada. We agreed to that; we supported it, and when the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental railway projects were put before the people, we sent back to this Parliament a solid eighteen from Nova Scotia in order to provide the middle and
west of Canada with better transportation. Unfortunately, owing to conditions, the Intercolonial operation being one of them, our population has not materially increased, and we come back with only sixteen members; but we are solid just the same as we were before.
We come back to demand our rights under the constitution of this country. We realize that, as regards the interest on that billion dollars, the share of the Maritime provinces taxpayer is probably six or seven million dollars per year. We are paying our share as Canadians. We do not desire to break up this Confederation; we are too proud of the name of Canada to want to destroy the union. We are willing to pay our share towards opening up the great unknown lands of this country. We are willing to do what we can to roll back the map of Canada northward. But we insist, and shall insist, that the Confederation pact shall be kept, and we state to you that we resent, and will continue to resent, the treatment as a scrap of paper of the promise made at the time of Confederation to secure our consent to coming into the union, in order that Old Canada should obtain winter ports and be in a position to carry on in a truly national way.
In conclusion, let me say . my contention is, the Intercolonial having been built for purposes distinctly constitutional, cannot be linked up with any other road in Canada in its operation. I for one advocate that it should be divorced from the illegitimate marriage contracted with the Canadian Northern Railway and be restored to a position where it can be managed from Moncton, the centre of the Maritime provinces, under the control and direction of the Minister of Railways. It is obvious, if the terms of Confederation are to be honoured, this road cannot be operated in conjunction with any other road of a commercial character.
You could not fix rates to be applied to the whole Canadian National Railway to meet constitutional obligations towards the Maritime provinces.
I say therefore that the road must be operated distinctly by itself under the terms of Confederation. It should be operated in such a manner as properly to carry on interprovincial trade and to restore to the Maritime provinces a measure of that prosperity which they enjoyed up to the time of Confederation, when the people were happy and contented.
The Address


Mr. R. M. JOHNSON (Moosejaw):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House on the motion under consideration, I can share quite fully in the feelings that actuated my hon friends yesterday. I speak for the first time, naturally, with considerable diffidence. I should like to associate myself with those who preceded me in expressing congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the high office you hold. I desire also to congratulate ourselves, particularly us who come here for the first time, on the assurance we have, and the evidence you have given us so far, that if, notwithstanding our undoubted desire at all times to observe the best traditions of the House, we sometimes err, as inexperienced members are likely to do, your ruling will always be more in the way of guidance than of reproach. I am not unconscious, Sir, of the honour that has been conferred upon me in being sent to represent my constituency in this House. I have worked for some time towards the attainment of an ideal which I trust will be fully attained in our own province, and I have been selected, with other hon. gentlemen from the province of Saskatchewan and the western country, to uphold that ideal, which we have been preaching for some years and which is something new in the political life of Canada. There have been new developments in this country, and it was my intention at the outset to speak to some extent on political movements and activities. After listening to the exchange of courtesies between the other two parties in this House, however, I feel somewhat at a loss just what to say. I must confess that during a number of years I have been saying things which perhaps may have been interpreted as being somewhat unkind to our political opponents; but so far I have never been able to attain to that degree of feeling which I have seen demonstrated by hon. members of this House. I think, therefore, that I had better follow the example of those of the Progressive party, i)ar-ticularly my leader, - who have spoken in this debate, and get right down to the subject before us, namely, the economic government of the country, a subject in which we are more vitally interested than we are in the attainment of victory by any political party, even our own.
True, there was a reason for the establishing of that party. I think that the reason is well known for the conception and advocacy of those ideals which we here propound. I am not one of those who be-

lieve that parties are necessarily evil. I do not believe that we can have successful government of a country or of a province without the grouping together of those who hold like principles. We must have that combination and co-operation. But while we Lave constituted ourselves a party in thac sense, I hope, nevertheless, that we in this corner of the House, at least, shall always place the ideals which we champion before mere party existence. I have read with a good deal of interest and studied with some care the Speech which was delivered to us the other day, and I want to thank the Government for holding out to us who come from Western Canada, and who believe that we have vast problems to solve and are handicapped in carrying on our chosen occupation, the degree of reform which is promised in the Speech. I cannot agree with those to the right of our group, who have so far spoken, in the statement that there is nothing, or at least, that there is very little, to the Speech from the Throne. We in this group do see a ray of hope. But I must confess that, after a careful study of the Speech, I think it leaves a great deal to the imagination; we are left to guess, in some cases at least, what the specific reforms will be. When they come up in detail to be discussed before the House we shall have something to say about them. I have no doubt that the Government intends to carry out its pledges so far as it is possible for these pledges to be carried out. But just how far that will be possible from their own side of the House remains to be seen. So far as those pledges are in accordance with the declaration of principles which we enunciate in our platform, I want to assure hon. members on the other side that they may count on our wholesouled and hearty co-operation. They may count also, if any section of the Government's side of the House seems to predominate and to exercise any influence that prevents the Government from carrying out these reforms which we advocate, that there shall be just as hearty opposition from this corner of the Chamber.
I desire to deal with a few specific things referred to in this Address. I am glad to note, at the outset, an indication-whether we have all perceived it or not-that the business barometer forecasts a change for the better in business conditions. I believe that is correct. I think it is true that business is improving in Canada and is likely to continue to improve. The experience of those who come from other provinces is that

The Address
the situation could not be much worse; so that if there is a change it is bound to be in the direction of improvement. There are some things in connection with it, however, that cause me to wonder, and while,
I believe, no responsibility can attach to this Parliament, I do notice on behalf of business interests advertisements and propaganda asking for the boosting of business conditions-something, I fear, in the nature of the real estate or business booms which we had in Western Canada some ten years ago, and which were not warranted by the circumstances then existing. When business is improving we want it to be along steady, solid lines so that the improvement will be of a permanent nature.
I come now to that section of the Address which is more particularly of interest to us who are agriculturists. Having been a farmer since going to the West from this province of Ontario some thirty years ago, I think I can claim to know something of agricultural conditions obtaining there. We were not always in our present position. Sometimes in past years we had a large degree of prosperity, but conditions were not as they are now. The great upheaval of the war was responsible in large measure for disrupting business not only in our line but in other lines as well. If we had the advantage of enhanced prices during the war, we also were the first to suffer when prices began to drop after the war. I want to read a few lines from the Speech from the Throne:
The decline In prices in farm products In 1921, as compared with the prices of previous years, has seriously affected agriculture in many parts of the Dominion.
That is true, Mr. Speaker, but I do not claim that the prices of agricultural products are now too low. The difficulty ir that there has not been maintained a reasonable parity of values between the products which we have to sell and those things which we have to purchase and which enter into the production of our crops. I well remember, and I know that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) well remembers, the time, twenty-five years ago, when in the Prairie provinces we were able to sell better wheat than we have ever been able to produce since at as low as 50 cents a bushel and make more money than we are making at the present time. To-day the price of wheat is almost double 50 cents, but the prices of commodities which enter into the production of that wheat and other grains
and cattle are more than double what they were at that time.
I notice reference in this paragraph to restricted markets being responsible for some of the conditions which prevail. It is very true that restricted markets have been detrimental to western agriculture. There is reason for that, especially in connection with our meat products-our cattle and hogs. The market for those products has been very seriously affected by tariff measures enacted in the United States. Wa had nothing to do with that, it is not our responsibility that our friends to the south of the international boundary line have placed those restrictions against imports from this Dominion. Those tariff restrictions have not affected our grain to the same extent because our market is mostly on the other side of the ocean. I do say we were not responsible for that action on the part of the United States. And yet I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that is wholly true. I believe that had the Canadian people in 1911 seen fit to adopt that
5 p.m. measure of fiscal reform which was then offered to them, we today in Western Canada would not be suffering from those tariff restrictions. This is a serious handicap. I think it is false economy that this Dominion, or any other country, so far as it is possible to prevent it, should allow restrictions of that nature to be placed against the marketing of its natural products.
I notice further in this same paragraph from which I have quoted reference to the fact that improved methods of agriculture with better grading and storage of farm crops would help materially the agriculturists of Canada. I think it would, Mr. Speaker. I believe that a great work has been carried on by our experimental farms and expert agriculturists throughout the Dominion. But that is not our whole trouble. I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) when he said yesterday that we are " experted " to death in some of these things. We have received too much free advice. I do ,not know whether hon. members will agree with me in the statement I am about to make, but I think the most severe blow that western agriculture, particularly in its field crops, ever received was the Greater Production Campaign of 1918. On a wave of patriotism-and we responded to the best of our ability-we were asked to produce to the limit of our capacity. We wanted to do it. But those who are familiar with agri-

The Address

cultural methods, particularly in Western Canada, know that nature does not respond to the methods that we were then urged to adopt. They know that just to that degree of efficiency with which we cultivate our farms will nature repay us, and if you attempt to drive her one litle bit you will not only not get the immediate results which were hoped for at that time-we did not get them-but you will be handicapped for many years after.
As to the grading, storage and general physical handling of our products, I have little to say. Some improvement is desirable perhaps in our system of grading and also in our system of marketing, but the system for the physical handling of the product of the western plains has probably no superior in the world. We are not complaining of the methods, which have been carefully built up for the physical handling of our grain. Our elevator system, even our transportation system, both are doing a great work in that respect. We have nothing to complain of in respect to our our terminal elevators. But we are seriously handicapped in the facilities for the marketing of our grain after we get it to the terminal elevators at the head of the Lakes. For many years my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had a part in, and will remember, the fight which was put up some years ago by the agriculturists of Western Canada to establish better marketing conditions for the product of the western farms. Some betterment was obtained it is true, but still our product was exploited, it paid too much tribute, and it has continued to pay too much tribute from that day to this to those who come between us and the ultimate consumer. The war was responsible for introducing a new system of marketing grain; I refer to the system which was in operation in 1919. It had developed through various phases up to that time, which I need not now enumerate, but in 1919 the government of the day took the matter in hand and appointed a board which should be responsible for the marketing of the entire wheat crop of Canada. Quite a little objection was taken to it at the time it was established, but I think I voice the opinion of everyone around me, at least in this part of the House, when I say that after the experience which we had in 1919 practically all opposition has been swept away. I do not think that it is the most perfect system that can be devised. I agree with my leader in the

remarks he made the other day, and which were confirmed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) yesterday, that perhaps a co-operative system owned, operated, and controlled by the producers themselves would be the most ideal. But we are still living in abnormal times so far as the marketing of our grain in Western Canada is concerned, and we cannot wait until we get back to normal times for the building up of that ideal co-operative system which we shall strive to attain in the near future. That means that if the farmers of Western Canada are to prosper-I regret to confess that they are not prospering to-day; I believe that on the Prairie provinces this last year ninety per cent of our farmers produced their crops at an actual loss; I do not believe that is too high an estimate; I myself have seen during the month of November farmers in different sections of the province of Saskatchewan drawing their wheat to market from thirty to fifty miles to the nearest town, with three or four horses to a wagon, and taking from two to four days to make the trip, only to get when they got to town less than eighty cents a bushel for their wheat, which cost them a very great deal more than that to produce. It is very difficult to say what it cost to produce that wheat; the cost would vary, of course, in different localities, and it varies as between new farms and those who are better established, but I have made a calculation which I think would apply to the average farm. I do not believe the wheat of the Prairie provinces this year could be produced and pay a profit at less than $1.10 at the nearest point of delivery. To that you have to add freight and other charges, these amounting to about 25 cents per bushel from about the centre of the Prairie provinces, although the last reduction in freight rates did reduce that a little. That means that the crop of Western Canada to be produced at a profit must bring at the head of the Lakes not less than $1.35 per bushel. At the opening of the season of 1921 the market opened I think around $1.64 for delivery at the head of the Lakes-I speak subject to correction, but I believe that is- correct. That should give us a profit. But immediately the wheat began to move, the price dropped until it touched the minimum of $1.07 at the head of the Lakes. To-day it stands somewhere around $1.40, so that it is probably paying a little to produce wheat at the present time.

The Address
But what have been the conditions? During the period of depressed markets, when prices were falling, our farmers in literally hundreds were forced to sell wheat under the circumstances Which I have outlined, and to take less than eighty cents a bushel for their wheat. Something must be done in this matter, and I was pleased to note in the Speech from the Throne and in the remarks of the Prime Minister that something is promised, though it is not so definite as I would wish. I should like something more definite from the Government at this time as to what they really intend to give us. We were told that an inquiry was to be made, that the matter would be turned over to the Agricultural Committee of this House for discussion. Now, I quite approve of this inquiry being turned over to the Agricultural Committee for consideration and decision as to the best means of providing marketing facilities, but I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the decision whether or not the Wheat Board which the farmers of Western Canada are asking for should be established in the immediate future, should be delayed no longer. The country cannot afford to wait. There is plenty of evidence available at this time that under the present circumstances it is a desirable method of marketing the wheat crop of 1922. From Winnipeg to the Rocky Mountains the farmers of Western Canada have, almost unitedly, repeatedly demanded the re-establishment of the Wheat Board. We had the Wheat Board in 1919, and it was an unqualified success. We do not expect that we shall get anything like the price that was obtained by the Wheat Board of 1919; all we are asking is the world's price to our farmers.
There is something more, and I want to draw the attention of the Government to this, if it is expert testimony they require beyond the demand of the farmers who produce the wheat, and the experience of 1919. During the 1920 session, I think it was, of the Saskatchewan legislature the government of that province appointed a committee to go thoroughly into this marketing situation. Eight specific questions were laid before them to which they were invited to give an answer. I shall not weary the House by reading these questions, but the whole thing is summed up in one short paragraph at the end of that report, which was brought in by two gentlemen who are recognized by all in the Canadian grain trade as being better
8i
qualified, probably, to deal with the subject and to bring good, sound business judgment to bear upon it than any other two men in Canada, and possibly on the North American continent. This is what they say:
In the first place we believe that the most perfect form of a centralized wheat marketing agency at the present time can be created only under the control of a national organization.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the farmers of Western Canada are asking for 1922. I wonder if I am putting it too strongly when I say it is what they are demanding. It is undoubtedly what they demanded before they would elect a single representative from the province of Saskatchewan. I know that we fifteen Progressives in this House from that province stand solidly behind that demand, and I know further that it is in the campaign literature of the Minister of Agriculture in this Government (Mr. Motherwell), and that his supporters in the constituency of Regina made it their chief plea, that the hon. member if elected to the House would secure the re-establishment of the Canada Wheat Board. While it is all very well to make an inquiry, and I believe in getting the very fullest possible information, I say that we have this information before us now.	[DOT]
There is another statement which I wish to make, and I know it will go unchallenged by those who come from the Prairie provinces. If the country does not get almost immediately the promise of the reestablishment of the Wheat Board to handle, as a national selling agency, the wheat crop of 1922, production for this year will be seriously curtailed. Reports coming from Western Canada in the last few days indicate that they are going to have an abnormally early seeding. In sections of the West the snow has gone already and probably by the first of April men will be on the land. All the wheat should be sown in the West during the month of April. If the wheat is to be sown during the month of April the farmers of the three provinces must have this assurance or they will not sow nearly the acreage which they otherwise would have done. I have little more to add. This is the thing which is of most vital importance to us of Saskatchewan, and I am sure to the other two provinces of Alberta and Manitoba.
I would like to make a passing reference to other things contained in the Speech
The Address

from the Throne. The next paragraph that I note refers to the tariff. I do not propose to deal with it at any length; I am not an expert in tariff matters, I am an ordinary farmer claiming ordinary horse sense; and as an ordinary farmer claiming ordinary horse sense I have never yet been able to see any merit in a protective tariff, although I have honestly tried to find it. The word "protection" is, to my mind, a misnomer; I think the word which should be .used is "restriction"; it would more nearly define the operation of a protective tariff as we know it in this Dominion. I think it is false national economy when any section of the community may be allowed by law to exploit the balance of the community for their special benefit. True national economy to my mind attains the highest degree of perfection when the greatest number of the people of the country are engaged in productive enterprises neither hampered by artificial restrictions nor pampered by special privileges.
I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) with reference to the return of their natural resources to the three western provinces. I could scarcely agree with all he said in reference to that subject. When two men are engaged in a business transaction it is beyond my comprehension, Mr. Speaker, why some one else, who in remote times of the past had something to do with it, should wish to butt in -on the .proposition now. This question, I believe, is one which must be dealt with by the Government and by the individual provinces concerned in the return of these natural resources.
Enough has been said for the present, I think, on the public ownership of railways. I want, however, to endorse what was said yesterday by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in his advocacy of the consolidation of the Government-owned railways into one system, one gigantic. Canadian system, of which we shall be proud and to which by means of consolidation we can look for reasonably efficient and economic management.
I have allotted myself half an hour and I observe that my time has nearly expired. I am now going to pass on to the last paragraph of the Speech from the Throne wherein the Government is advocating economy not only in administration but in the appropriations which are to be voted and the undertakings which are to be carried out. With such a policy I am entirely in accord; and I think that sentiment will 
be approved by every member of the Progressive group. We have been too lavish in our national expenditure in the years gone by, and the time has come when we must economize, when we must retrench. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the Government will be ill-advised if it does not take into careful consideration the exact nature of those economies which it contemplates. Certain investments have been made by the people of Canada in the national railways or other publicly-owned utilities. These investments have been made on the strengtl of promises given by our Governments ir the past and they must be safely guarded
I wish to assure the Government again of what I said at the beginning of my remarks-that so far as they can see their way clear to live up to their platform, to their own declared platform which in so large a measure is identical with that which we have advocated, so far as they will live up to the promises which they have made in almost every plank of their platform, they will get the hearty support, I am sure, of the members in this corner of the Chamber. If the Government do not carry out those reforms which they have promised they will have to reckon with us. I believe the . present administration has the biggest opportunity that has ever been within the reach of any Canadian government. We have lived in recent years through strenuous times; to-day we are living in a new world. Civilization has been re-born; people are looking at things in a different way from what they did a few years ago. We are proud of our heritage, proud of the country we have developed; and the responsibility rests upon the Government of the day of seeing that that greatness shall not only be maintained but that it shall be made even greater yet.


Mr. THOMAS LANGTON CHURCH (North Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, as one of the new representatives from the Toronto district I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating you, Sir, on your elevation to the office of First Commoner of Canada. Sir, you are well and favorably known in the province of Ontario, as you are in other parts of Canada and of the Empire, and I congratulate you upon all you have been privileged to do for your country.
Permit me to say at the outset that I am glad to observe the moderate tone of this debate, more particularly as the membership of the House comprises approximately 134 new members. I think it is only fair to say that hon. gentlemen on both sides de-

The Address
serve great praise for the keen attention they have so far given to the discussion.
Sir, in Canada we have in the past been taking our politics too seriously. There has been too much party politics in this country. Ever since Confederation we have been too apt to consider what was for the good of the party first and what was for the [good of the country afterwards. That is one reason why a new party-a new body of men and women-has come into existence.
Let me say explicitly that I am not a farmer; I d!o not know, and I do not pretend to know, anything about farming. But all political parties in Canada have vied with one another in the past in seeking the support of the farmers. All wealth, after all, is derived from the soil; and the backbone of the community is very largely composed of farmers. I have been associated for a quarter of a century with farmers as president of several of the Hydro Electric organizations, which embrace 376 municipalities in my native province.
I have been president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities and am the 1922 president of the Ontario Municipal Union, whose membership is representative of the cities, towns, incorporated villages, county councils, and so on, of Ontario. I have generally found the farmer to be a pretty hard headed man and that when casting his vote at election time he does not need very much assistance from outside parties. We are all here to do the best we can for the people of Canada.
I have known the hon. leader of the Government for many years past, since I was a boy. His father was a professor in the old law school at Osgoode Hall and an old teacher of mine, and I had a great deal of respect for him. I congratulate the hon. leader of the House to-day on his having attained the position he holds. As a sportsman I offer him my congratulations on winning. A winner is admired, but it is a different thing to bear adversity in defeat, and so I want to congratulate the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) because he was a bonnie fighter and a good loser and took defeat like a true sportsman. It was not his fault that his party lost.
If I had had my way there would not have been any Union Government in this country. The Conservative party would have been better off without it and my friends on the opposite side of the House, the Liberals, might have remained in opposition for a quarter of a century. As
for the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, everywhere that he went in the late campaign, closing on 6th December, he preached the same gospel, whether in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario or the West.
I also desire to congratulate my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He is an old friend of mine and a man of his word. I admire his candour on the stump in the recent election, because he said what he meant as to the tariff, and I believe in the House he will stand by his principles.
I do not believe that the U.F.O. members in the Ontario Legislature stood by their principles. Of course, if the Progressives do not stand by their principles, so much the worse for the movement in the House and the country. But I believe the Progressives in this House are men of a different stamp to the U.F.O. official party in Ontario, and will carry out the principles for which they were elected to this House.
I was more than pleased yesterday to hear the leader of the Progressives say that he did not wish to enter any Liberal administration, but that what had been proposed to him was to enter a form of Union Government. Well, I am a Conservative and was elected from a Conservative city. It has always been a Conservative city and always will be. But my constituents also desire me to exercise independence of thought and action, and if the Government will bring forward any measures for the general welfare and good of the country they will have my support and they will receive, I am sure, the support of the party to which I belong. But I will oppose anything that is not in the interests of the people of Canada. I may say that I have supported farmers in many constituencies on the stump for twenty-five years. I did not support them because they were farmers, but because they were the best men. I do not believe in the group system of government. Of course I must admit that the party system has its defects, a great many of them, because the party system leads men sometimes to go to extremes of word and thought and action, as I shall show in a moment. It is sometimes said that in Ontario and in Quebec and in other parts of the Dominion there are race jealousies and religious differences which cause a great deal of discord and bitter feeling. This country is too big to have any more of what we have heard in this House and outside on many occasions. There are some of these people in Quebec and a few
The Address

in Ontario, who have these feelings of jealousy, but I hope the day has gone by when these felings of jealousy will occur, in view of what Canada has done in the war. The time has gone by for religious bickerings and strife in this country. We are all Canadians, and must look at the matters which come before us from that point of view. As I stated, the party system has its defects and sometimes leads men to go too far in thought, word and action. But when you criticize the party system on account of its defects don't forget its virtues; don't forget that under the party system the Mother Country prospered, and they have their free institutions and a great form of government. We have our Liberal party and our Conservative party, and all the good is not in one party. They say that the Liberal party and the Conservative party have both done a great deal to build up this country. I was born a Conservative and a Conservative I will die. That is my politics, and that is good enough for me. We need not be ashamed of the party of Macdonald and Cartier, the party that built the Canadian Pacific railway and opened up the West, the party that created the national policy and did a great deal to help win the war. I will not say they won the war, because I am not boastful sufficiently for that, although people on the other side of the line say they won the war. The Conservative party was sound in regard to the war and made a good war record, and proposed what they did for the war in the best interests of Canada. I do not believe there is any reason why we should have a group system of government. I agree with what the Right Hon. Austin Chamberlain, the great leader in the British House of Commons, said; if the two old parties would carry out the reforms they should have carried out long ago, many of the questions which my hon. friends have spoken about yesterday and to-day would have been settled. We might have had lower freights, and we might have made this country a better country for the working people as well as for others, for those in the rural portions as' well as for those in the urban centres. As the Right Hon. Austin Chamberlain says he does not believe in the group system of government, and, speaking at the Carleton Club banquet in his honour, he said he hoped that system of government would never prevail in Great Britain. I am free to admit that the party system sometimes has its defects.

There is too much party in this country, and we are sometimes too bitter, and sometimes forget that those on the other side of the House have a heart. We should always remember that those on the other side of the House have a heart, and my friends, the Progressives, are good-hearted people too. Therefore, as a young member of this House, coming from the city of Toronto, a city in which there is no bigotry-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh and smile. I think many of you have known me a great many years. I have not a particle of bigotry in my makeup, and what I say of myself is true of the city which I have the honour to represent. As mayor of the city for seven years, and as representative in the council for seventeen years, I may say I have never seen any bigotry in that chamber, and I defy any one to say it. The late Attorney General of the province of Ontario, Hon. Mr. Foy, a Roman Catholic, represented an Orange constituency in the legislature and became attorney general of the province. Hon. A. Claude Macdonell, a member of this House for twelve years, represented South Toronto, an Orange constituency, and he was one of the best members we ever had in this House. I say with reference to the people of the city of Toronto, the Catholics and Protestants -and I speak of Toronto and also of the province of Ontario-that I do not think there is any bigotry there. The people of Ontario are too busy endeavouring to make a living to sit up all night long wondering or bothering what Quebec is doing. I was very much surprised; and if I had known as much as I do now, I would not have wanted to be a member of this House if I thought for one moment that such a state of affairs existed in this country, because, after all is said and done, we are all Canadians, trying to do the best we can for Canada. The leader of the House (Mr. Mackenzie King) lived in Toronto while he was leader of the Opposition; he knows something about the city of Toronto, his father and mother lived there for years; and I do not think he would state, from his seat in this House, that there was any bigotry in that city. I was very much surprised to read an address delivered the other day before the ladies of the liberal club of the city of Ottawa by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr

The Address
Lapointe), who, I hope, will visit us in Toronto soon because, I think, when he comes there, he will change his mind. I understand the hon. member for Quebec East was invited to visit Toronto and address the Liberals of that city. When he does so, I hope he will make the same speech to the Liberals of Toronto and of Ontario as he did to the ladies of Ottawa and the same as he did at the banquet in his honour in the city of Quebec. I should like to read from the Globe the report of. a speech delivered by the hon. genetleman for Quebec East at a banquet. There were ladies present and I dare say the gallant young man was doing his best to entertain them. This is the report of the able speech which he made on that occasion, reported in the Globe of Monday, March 13:
The Hon. Mr. Lapointe spoke briefly, but to the point.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Well it is in the Globe,
the Bible of my hon. friends opposite. The leader of the House was formerly one of the reporters on the Varsity when he was a student at Varsity, and he gave a very good report. I used to read the Varsity at that time, when I think he was one of the sporting editors. I do not know whether there is any vanity in the report of a sporting editor, because he has to write things as he sees them. The Globe goes on to say:
Hon. Mr. Lapointe spoke briefly, but to the point. He contrasted the positions of Liberalism and of Conservatism. He declared that the Conservative party was marked by duplicity and hypocrisy; that its life depended upon the accentuation of race and religious differennea. uibei'ansm thrived upon conciliation. It respected all respectable parties.
That is the first time I have ever heard that I do not belong to a "respectable" party. We try to be a respectable party in this country. The report continues:
It cherished high ideals and sought manfully to realise them.
I might say to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that I am very much surprised, as a young citizen of this country, to read in the Globe, the paper of George Brown, Baldwin, Lafontaine, and men of that description, a report of such sentiments as were expressed that day by one coming from a sister province. I hope the hon. member will visit Ontario and Toronto; and if he does so, he will obtain a different idea of the Liberal-Conservative party. The hon. member should agree with
me that there is some good in all parties. The party whidh I am speaking of to-day was the party that gave the province of Ontario the hydro-electric development; that gave the province the best government, by Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck, that any province has had, a party by the people and for the people, and that did a great deal for the people of that province. At that banquet also, I was very much surprised to learn, the head of the Government said that he must put his foot down "to keep down Toryism." If he would do something to keep down freight rates, he would be doing something worth while, and if he would do something to try, as the captain of the team on the other side of the House, to keep down racial and religious jealousy in this country, he would be doing something better than trying to keep down Toryism. As long as I am in this House, whether that period be long or short, this is the last occasion that I shall have anything to say on this particular subject of Ontario's bigotry, because as a humble citizen of this country, I do not like to hear that kind of talk. I thought one of the lessons we would have learned from the war would have been to realize in all the provinces that we should be for Canada first, last and all the time; that those who had the honour of being elected to this House would do the best they could for the people of Canada, instead of drawing red herrings across the track by bringing up subjects that had nothing to do with the government of the country.
I wish to refer to two or three matters while the leader of the Government is in the Chamber. In the city of Quebec, there is the Battlefields Commission, and I remember a speech delivered by you, Mr. Speaker, on that particular subject. After all is said and done, the people of Canada are not mindful enough of those who have served them upon the battlefields. In Quebec, the Batlefields Commission has done a great deal to preserve the great ruins of the early days of this country and the memory of Wolfe and Montcalm, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that in Ontario and the West a Battlefields Commission should be constituted to preserve the historic ruins there. If you go to the Niagara district to-day, as you enter the mouth of the Niagara river, on the right, there is Fort Mississauga, a mass of ruins. Further up the river is Fort George-where Brock had his breakfast the day he was killed. Further up the river at Queenston are the
The Address

ruins of a house where was published the first newspaper in Upper Canada. The roof and the mortar have all gone to ruin. Further up the river is the Village of Chippewa where the battle of that name was fought. I asked someone there to point out the spot where the heroine Laura Seeord lived, but no one seemed to know. Going further on to Fort Erie you will find the fort there with the roof shot out, but a progressive American manufacturer has pasted all over the walls chewing gum, and tobacco advertisements. I would suggest that the work of the Battlefields Commission be extended to embrace not only the great province of Quebec, but Ontario and, in the West, Fort Winnipeg, Cut Knife, Battleford and other places and sites of the 1885 Northwest rebellion. We have to take a leaf out of the book of the American people when we see how they preserve the memorials of those who have gone before. As Macaulay has said of the heroes in the Seven Years' war:
The various tombs of the captains have been sought and repaired and embellished. It is impossible not to respect the sentiment which manifests itself in these tolcens. It is a sentiment which appeals to the higher and purer part of human nature and adds not a little to the strength of States. A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of their noble ancestors will never achieye anything worthy to be remembered. *
The Canadian people are far behind the Americans in this respect, at Chattanooga, in the valley of the Cumberland river, where there are over thirty miles of battlefields, there are 50 to 60 monuments, one or more erected by each State, in memory of those who served the North and South in those great battles. I have written the Government of Canada a letter about this particular matter, and I hope something will be done on the subject.
I should like to see a conference between the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities on the subject of taxation alone. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said yesterday, one province has Dominion, provincial and municipal income taxes. Taxation should be co-ordinated and consolidated and an effort should be made by all governments, Dominion, provincial and municipal, to reduce the taxes. I have looked into the British North America Act, and I may say that there is a complaint throughout Canada in regard to this question. The Parliament of Canada, by the British North America Act, granted the provinces a cash subsidy along certain lines for definite purposes and to defray the ex-
penses along certain lines of civil government but the provinces are not spending the money for these purposes. They are using it for roads, education and other matters which are not contemplated in the act. To raise money for civil government they assess the municipalities, the cities, the towns, the townships and the villages, in many ways that I hold to be illegal. For example, in Ontario there was imposed by the legislature a war tax of one mill on the assessment of each municipality which had to be paid in every municipality, although, the British North America Act, the question of "Militia and Defence" are matters by sec. 91, which comes exclusively within the purview of the Dominion. There are various forms of assessment in the provinces and different innovations and devices for levying taxation. I trust that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will give this matter his consideration, because, as things stand at present, taxes are being raised in a way that is not legal nor proper. I have had an account prepared as between the city of Toronto-I mention Toronto merely by way of illustration and not for any specific purpose-and the Dominion Government, and another account between the city and the province, and I find that in Ontario there is a large subsidy for certain works within the province; but the money is taken and spent on other objects. Throughout the West, in the city of Winnipeg, for example, and in Montreal, court houses are built by the provinces. Then there are registry offices and land titles offices, which in Ontario are paid for by the municipalities, the cities, the towns and the county councils. In the West, if; is different, according to the returns I have from the city clerks of many places. For good roads, gaols, gaol farms, teachers' salaries and hospitals the provinces are continually assessing the municipalities, though these are purely provincial undertakings towards the upkeep of which the federal government grants the provinces a subsidy. This is a very interesting brief, and a careful perusal of it would be of considerable profit; but I cannot go further into it at the present time. I will give a copy of it to the Minister of Finance, because I think that something should be done to prevent the provinces from usurping the taxes of the municipalities.
In looking over the statutes I was very much surprised to discover that police court fines, under the Criminal Code, belong to

The Address
the provincial governments, instead of to the municipalities. This is something that should be remedied, and General Mewburn, representing the municipalities, waited, I understand, upon the Prime Minister. When you consider that the municipalities have to maintain police forces for public safety, you can realize how unfair it is that the fines from police courts should go to the government of the province. Take the city I have the honour to represent. Our city spends some two million dollars in maintaining a police force, and police court, and yet the fines go to the province. We have built a court house, a gaol and a gaol farm, and maintain judicial offices, registry offices and land title offices, but we do not get the police court fines, they go to the province.
Fees that belong to the municipalities have been given to the province. We have to supply a police force to guard the Parliament Buildings in Queen's Park, build a morgue, erect police stations, and other judicial public buildings, yet the city does not get the police fines. I contend that the police court fines should belong to the municipalities, and I trust that the Government will so amend the Criminal Code as to make this possible.
I confess I was surprised to see the meagre bill of fare given in the Speech from the Throne. Of course, I appreciate the fact that the Government has been in office only a few weeks, but I hope it will introduce some constructive programme. So far, I fail to see anything constructive revealed in the Speech. For instance, no mention is made of the St. Lawrence canal, which I consider the most important question that has come before the people of Canada since Confederation. I regret, too, the absence of any reference to the housing problem. In Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto and many other centres of population the housing situation is extremely acute, and in the city I represent some 16,000 houses short are badly needed. In Montreal conditions are just as bad. Now, this is anything but creditable to the country. I do not attribute the blame to any one, but I do urge the great necessity for action in this matter. In Toronto last year there was doled out $750,000 here and there to the unemployed to buy food and help pay rents. Toronto contributed $400,000 of that sum and the Government of Canada was kind enough to come to its help as well as to the help of other municipalities including Montreal, contributing about
$250,000, the province giving a like sum. Before all the bills are in, well on to a million dollars will have been spent. With so many soldiers out of work, I do not know what the unemployed would have done but for the help from the city and the Dominion and the Provincial Governments. But this million dollars was doled out to people who did not want charity, but work. Many of them were soldiers who had fought for their country overseas. I would suggest a housing policy for the Dominion, such as 'exists in Australia and in England; I believe there is also one in the United States. Some years ago about twenty million dollars was devoted to roads, and legislation was passed through this Parliament. Now, if you capitalized twenty million dollars on a housing proposition, building houses in the larger centres, that would be an act of religion besides being excellent legislation, and I would commend this proposal to the wisdom and good judgment of the Government. The houses might not be up to the standard of those required by the building by-laws, but there should be some houses constructed at any rate. The money might be loaned to the provinces and the larger municipalities or the latter's bonds could be guaranteed. This would largely solve the housing problem that confronts the larger cities and towns to-day, and would automatically solve the unemployment difficulty, which is so serious at the present time.
Talk about the high cost of living! I do not see the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in his seat, to know what he proposes to do, but I may say that nobody knows better than I do what the working classes in our larger centres of population are suffering to-day. To see the misery in the congested districts is heartrending. I hope the Government will still consider the advisability of introducing a housing bill, for undoubtedly it would do a great deal not only to relieve the misery and discomfort of the slums in our large centres of population but would also help solve the unemployment question. Dr. Hastings, the very capable medical officer of health of the city of Toronto, says that if we had a proper housing policy as suggested, it would do away with half the ill-health now so prevalent in our larger cities. I hope that this very serious problem will be taken up by the Government in the interests of good health and good living, so that we may have a rising generation that is sound in both mind and body.
The Address

I was glad to hear yesterday the speeches of some hon. gentlemen of the Progressives regarding economy, because this is a time for the exercise of economy by all governments not only by the Dominion but by the provinces and by the municipalities. I might describe the Parliament as the housekeeper of this young nation. Well, she is a poor housekeeper who will not exercise economy, and when the Estimates are brought down I hope they will show that (the Government is following the policy of retrenchment and economy along business lines. The definition of economy, it seems to me, is the art of spending wisely, not frittering away our means. We all know that a Government lean spend a large amount of money with little to show for it; and it can also spend a considerable amount of money without being at all extravagant, because the money is expended wisely.
I regret very much not to see any declaration of policy in regard to good roads. Away back in 1911 the Government of the day brought down a bill dealing with this subject. I desire to quote a paragraph from the preamble of that bill, but as it is now six o'clock I will, if the hon. leader of the Government has no objection, move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 16, 1922.