NEW MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk of the House had received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Joseph Rodolphe Ouimet, Esquire for the Electoral District of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.


[Stage Direction]
Joseph Rodolphe Ouimet, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, introduced1 by Sir Lorner Gouin and Hon. J. A. Robb.

Mr. PAPINEAU (Beauharnois) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the following report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committee of the House during the present sessions.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Acting Prime Minister) moved the adoption of the report of the Special Committee to prepare lists of Select Standing Committees, as follows:
No. l
On Privileges and Elections Messieurs:
Johnston (Last Mountain),
Laflammey Lapointe,
Maclean (Halifax), Macphail (Miss), McKenzie,
McMaster,
Morrison,
Porter,
Ryckman,
Sexsmith,
Stewart (Lanark), and Vien-28.
21*

On Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines Messieurs:
Anderson,	Lanctot,
Archambault,	Lapierre,
Arthurs,	Lavigueur,
Baxter,	Lewis,
Beaubien,	Logan,
B61and,	Lovett,
Binette,	Low,
Bird,	Lucas,
Black (Huron),	Miacdonald (Pictou),
Blackadder,	Mackinnon,
Boivin,	MacLean (Prince),
Bowen,	Maclean (York),
Boys,	McBride,
Bristol,	McConica,
Cahill,	McCrea,
Campbell,	McDonald
Cannon,	(Timiskamingue),
Carroll,	McGiverin,
Casgrain,	Mclsaac,
Chaplin,	McMurray,
Charters,	McQuarrie,
Chevrier,	McTaggart,
Chisholm,	Manion,
Clifford,	Marcile (Bagot),
Copp,	MVirler,
Crerar,	Martell,
d'Anjou,	Maybee,
Davies,	Mercier,
D6ch6ne,	Mewburn,
Delisle,	Milne,
Denis (Joliette),	Michaud,
Denis (St. Denis),	Mitchell,
Desrochers,	Morrison,
Drummond,	Morrissy,
Ethier,	Murdock,
Euler,	Murphy,
Evans,	Parent,
Fafard,	Pelletier.
Fansher,	Power,
Forke,	Putnam,
Fournier,	Rankin,
Gardiner,	Robinson,
Garland (Oarleton),	Robitaille,
Gendron,	St. P$re,
Gould,	Savord,
Graham,	SSguin,
Grimmer,	Sheard,
Guthrie,	Simpson,
Halbert,	Sinclair (Queen
Hocken,	P.E.I.),
Jlodgins,	Speakman,
Hoey,	Spence,
Hughes,	Stansell,
Jelliff,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Johnston (Last	Stewart (Hamilton),
Mountain),	Stewart (Humbolt),
Kay,	Stewart (Lanark),
Kellner,	Stork,
Kennedy (Essex),	Sutherland,
Kennedy. (Glengarry	Tobin,
and Stormont),	Vien,
Kennedy (Edmonton).	Wallace,
Knox,	Walsh,
Kyte,	White, and
Ladner,	Wilson-126.
And that a quorum of the said Committee	
consist of Twenty-five	Members.
No. 3	
On Miscellaneous Private Bills	
Messieurs:	
Anderson,	Bancroft,
Archambault,	Binette,
Baldwin,	Bird,
Baxter,
Black (Yukon), Bureau,
Cannon,
Copp,
Demers,
Elliott (Waterloo), Findlay,
German,
Gordon,
Gouin (Sii Lomer), Guthrie,
Hammell,
Hudson,
Jacobs,
Standing Committees

Boucher,	Lucas,
Bourassa,	MacKinnon,
Bowen,	MacLaren,
Boys,	McGiverin,
Bureau,	McKillop,
Charters	McMurray,
Chew,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Church,	Marcile (Bagot),
Clark,	Mercier,
Davies,	Morin,
Denis (St. Denis), Pacaud,	
Deslauriers,	Papineau
Drummond,	Porter,
Ethier,	Power,
Findlay,	Pritchard,
Fontaine,	Putnam,
Forrester,	Raymond,
Fortier,	Reed,
Garland (Carleton), Robitaille,	
Gendron,	Senn,
Hammell,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Harris,	Stein,
Jones,	Stork,
Kennedy (Edmonton), Thompson,	
King (Huron),	Tobin,
Kyte,	Walsh,
Laflamme,	Ward,
Lafortune,	Woods, and
Lewis,	Woodsworth-64.
And that a quorum of the said Committee do	
consist of Ten Members.	
On	No. 4 Standing Orders
Binette,	Messieurs: Lafortune,
Black (Huron),	Lavigueur,
Black (Yukon),	Leader,
Chaplin,	Lfiger,
Chew,	Le Sueur,
Clifford,	MacLaren,
Deslauriers,	Maclean (York),
Desrochers,	Mclsaac,
Duff,	Mercier,
Duncan,	Michaud,
Euler,	Munro,
Evans,	Parent,
Gervais,	Rickman,
Gould,	Sfiguin,
Harris,	Steedsman, and
Hughes,	Woodsworth.-33.
Kyte, And that a quorum of the said Committee do	
consist of Seven	Members.

On Printing Messieurs:
Baldwin,	Malcolm,
Cardin,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Charters,	Michaud,
Chevrier,	Pr6vost,
Coote,	Raymond,
Euler,	Rinfret,
Fansher,	Robinson,
Hocken,	St. P&re,
Humphrey,	Thurston,
Jones,	Turgeon, and
MacKelvie, McConica,	Wilson.-23.

No	.. 6
On Public Accounts	
Messieurs:	
Archambault,	Lewis,
Beaubien,	Logan,
Blackadder,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Boys,	MacKinnon,
Brethen,	Miaclean (Halifax),
Bristol,	McCrea,
Brown,	McGiverin,
Cannon,	Mclsaac,
Cardin,	McMaster,
Casgrain.	Manion,
Chisholm,	Martell,
Clark,	Meighen,
Coote,	Mewburn,
Crerar,	Michaud,
Demers,	Mitchell,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Pacaud,
Duff,	Papineau,
Elliott (Dundas),	Parent,
Forke,	Power,
Gardiner,	R'yckman,
Gauvreau,	Sheard,
German,	Steedsman,
Gordon,	Stewart (Lanark),
Guthrie,	Stewart (Leeds),
Hanson,	Thurston,
Hudson,	Tobin,
Humphrey,	Tolmie,
Jacobs,	Trahan,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Vien and
Kyte,	Wallace.-61.
LeSueur,	
And that a quorum of the said Committee	
consist of Twenty-one	Members.
No. 7	
On Banking	and Commerce
Messieurs:	
Baxter,	Kellner,
Bird,	Kennedy (Essex),
Boivin,	King (Huron),
Bristol,	Ladner,
Caldwell,	Laflamme,
Cardin,	Lavigueur,
Carmichael,	Logan,
Carruthers,	Low,
Chaplin,	MacKinnon,
Chevrier,	Maclean (Halifax),
Clifford,	Maclean (York),
Coote,	Macphail (Miss),
Crerar,	McCrea,
d'Anjou,	McKay,
Demers,	McMaster,
Desaulniers,	McMurray,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	McQuarrie,
Duncan,	Malcolm,
Elliott (Dundas),	Marler,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Maybee,
Fafard,	Meighen,
Fielding,	Mewburn,
Fortier,	Mitchell,
German,	Murphy,
Good,	Pacaud,
Gordon,	Papineau,
Hanson,	Porter,
Harris,	Rankin,
Hatfield,	Reed,
Hodgins,	Robb,
Hubbs,	Robitaille,
Hudson,	Ryckman,
Hughes,	St. Pfcre,
Irvine,	Sales,
Jacobs,	Shaw,
Johnson (Last	Speakman,
Mountain),	Spencer,

Standing Committees
Stein,	Trahan,
Stevens,	Vien,
Stewart (Hamilton), Walsh, and Stork,	Woods-82.
Tobin,
And that a quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.



POWERS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Library Mr. Speaker and Messieurs:
Bfiland,
.Carmichael,
.Deslauriers,
Drlayton (Sir Henry), Euler,
Gauvreau,
Gouin (SirLomer), Irvine,
Johnson (Moosejaw), King, Mackenzie (York),
Lapointe,
Lovett,
Lovie,
Maclean (Halifax), Meighen,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston),
Ross (Simcoe),
Sheard,
Sinclair (Oxford), and Walsh-21.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding, the Select Standing Committees of the House were severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; with power to send for persons, papers and records; with the exception of the Committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.
Motion agreed to and report adopted. Tjjjj GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: That Messrs: Anderson, Bancroft, Gordon, Logan, Macdonald (Pictou), Pacaud Papineau, Wallace and Wilson be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Stevens Fielding: That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs. B61and, Carmichael, Deslauriers, Drayton (Sir Henry), Euler, Gauvreau, Gouin (Sir Lomer), Irvine, Johnson (Moose-jaw), Mackenzie King (York), Lapointe, Lovett, Lovie, Maclean (Halifax), Meighen, Robinson, Ross (Kingston), Ross (Simcoe), Sheard, Sinclair (Oxford) and Walsh, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a Committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Stevens Fielding: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, namely Messrs. Baldwin, Cardin, Charters, Chevrier, Coote, Euler, Fansher, Hocken, Humphrey, Jones, MacKelvie, McConica, Malcolm, Marcil (Bonaventure), Michaud, P'revost, Raymond, Rinfret, Robinson, St. P&re, Thurston, Turgeon and Wilson, will act as members on the part of this House on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Me-Murray for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Wednesday, March 22.
Mr. LADNER (resuming) :: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment of the House last night I had made some casual observations relative to the tariff question; and now I refer to the railway question. We on this side of the House desire that the Government should fulfil their promise of the 13th instant given by the hon. Prime Minister that before this debate closed an expectant House, and no doubt an anxious country, would be made aware definitely and concretely what the proposal of his Government was with respect to our national railways. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in this connection, I should like to read to hon. members the words of the Prime Minister on that occasion :
The reference may not have been necessary on the ground that it did not involve legislation, but it was necessary that the country and Parliament should be informed at the opening of Parliament exactly as to the purpose of the Ministry with respect to the National railroads which are in our possession at the present time.
Then the Prime Minister continued:
But I would remind my right hon. friend that the proper person to discuss railway policy is the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), and I would prefer, until he has had an opportunity of addressing members of the House to defer saying anything further with respect to the meaning of the co-ordination as set forth in the" Speech from the Throne. I think the language must be perfectly clear to hon. members. If there is any doubt as to what is in the Government's mind, that doubt will be cleared up by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals himself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is very grave doubt on this side of the House as to the

The Address
policy of the Government in this respect, and I put it again to my hon. friends opposite that it is only fair and right that the people should know now, before this debate closes, the railway policy of the Government. I observe that the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) is in his seat, and he will no doubt, as we say in court, " take judicial notice " of our request.
There' has been a noticeable absence in this debate of reference to our returned soldier problems. I do not take it, however, to indicate apathy on the part of hon. ministers that we have had very few observations and even fewer concrete suggestions from the Government on this important question. The Government does say in the Speech from the Throne:
The work in connection with the re-establishment, medical treatment and vocational training of former members of the Canadian Forces is being sympathetically and energetically prosecuted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing which should be considered-and which the people will expect hon. members to consider -in a non-partisan spirit, it is this question, and I submit that there are many changes which must and should be brought about in our pension and land settlement regulations. I desire to bring to the notice of the House two instances of the injustice that is wrought by the present pension regulations. I know of a case here in Ottawa where a soldier died some time after he returned from active service overseas. Because his widow could not prove to the satisfaction of the Pension Board that that man acquired the disease to which he succumbed as a result of his war service, she was deprived of the pension to which she should be entitled. Her husband died of cancer, and the onus of proof is so severe and difficult that the Widow cannot establish positively that the disease was a result of his war service, although there were indications that it was. I know another case in British Columbia of a young lawyer who went overseas, served faithfully, never cared to admit that he was in ill health or did not feel very well, and got a one hundred per cent discharge, but to-day tuberculosis has become noticeable in him. However, the regulations governing soldiers' civil re-establishment do not permit him to have the advantage and benefit of the assistance which he ought to receive. The poor fellow is in a very bad state of health and has a widowed mo'-her to support. I give those two instances to show how necessary
it is that something should be done to modify the regulations which at present result in such injustice and neglect of most deserving cases. I hope the House will appoint a special committee to go into these things, because if there is one matter that is dear to the heart of every true Canadian it is that which pertains to the welfare of the dependents of our soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice overseas. In that connection I would commend to the Government the suggestions made by the Great War Veterans' Association a few days ago through its Dominion Command. Many of those suggestions are practical and sound, as I know from observation and experience.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in the course of his speech on the 17th instant stated that he would like to see the Royal Northwest Mounted Police removed from British Columbia. I would suggest that he speaks only for himself, not for his colleagues from that province. If there is one body of men which gave us comfort and a feeling of security at a time when our constitutional system was in danger, it was the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, whom everybody respects and only revolutionists fear, and I think it would be a terrible mistake if this fine body of men were to be eliminated. It would seem that the proposal of the Government is to reduce this force.
Now I come to the real point of why I am taking part in this debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member says "Hear, hear." Maybe he made a better point, but I will do the best I can. In the Speech from the Throne reference is made to the handing back of their natural resources to the Prairie provinces. It is stated in very general language, and as the matter is so important I shall read the statement:
The long standing question of granting the control of the natural resources of three Western Provinces to their respective Provincial Governments has engaged the attention of my Ministers. Sympathizing with the desire of the authorities of these Provinces, which have now advanced to maturity, to have the same control and management of their resources as is possessed by the older Provinces, my Government have made a proposal to the Governments of the several Provinces concerned, which it is hoped may lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question at an early date.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not very explicit, and the Prime Minister was asked by the
The Address

leader of the Opposition to give a fuller explanation. On March 13, as will be found at page 45 of unrevised Hansard the Prime Minister explained that portion of the Speech from the Throne in these words:
May I read from the letter which I sent to the Premiers of the different Provinces. The opposite paragraph is as follows:
"If, however, the Governments of the Prairie Provinces would not be satisfied with such an arrangement-"
That is the one similar to the offer that had been previously made.
"-but would prefer an accounting between the Dominion and the Provinces from the beginning, by an independent tribunal, we would not object to such a plan. In any agreement that might be come to along these lines it would be, of course, necessary, that adequate provision be made for crediting the Provinces with all money received by the Dominion and charging to the Provinces all outlay by the Dominion, directly or indirectly in relation to the management of the resources. Any award duly made by the tribunal should be binding on both sides. Any sums found to be due by the Dominion to a Province or by a Province to the Dominion might be capitalized and interest adjusted in connection with the annual Provincial subsidy."
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are very few questions of greater importance to the Prairie provinces, and there are none of more importance to the other provinces, than the relationship of those provinces to the Dominion with respect to their natural resources, with respect to the land which has been alienated, and with respect to the various cash contributions which have been paid from time to time; and if there is an objectionable feature in what is now contemplated it is the proposal under which the Government of Canada, the federal authority, proposes to enter into a direct and separate transaction with the Prairie provinces in complete disregard of the rights and claims of all the other provinces. I submit to hon. members here that that policy is not only unfair and unsound, but is calculated to accentuate the differences which already exist between the several provinces. I propose to show, Mr. Speaker, that the proper course and policy to be pursued on a matter of this kind is the one which, when it settles the rights and claims of the Prairie provinces, will also settle the rights and claims of the other provinces of the Dominion who voluntarily came into Confederation; and surely it would not be right for the federal authorities to deal with the public domain to the disadvantage of those provinces who when they entered Confederation pooled 
their resources with the public resources of Canada. Take for example the Maritime provinces. They have on a number of occasions expressed their claims. They say they want compensation and an equivalent for lands reserved for school purposes for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They also claim compensation for the cash subsidies paid to Manitoba and Alberta purporting to be in lieu of lands, and they also want compensation for the lands granted to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in which the people of the Maritime provinces, in common with the people of the other parts of Canada, have a proprietary interest. In short, they claim that they have contributed large sums of money to make and develop Canada; that there were placed in the hands of the Dominion Government, as trustees of the Canadian people, certain great areas of land, certain resources, in which these original provinces have a proprietary interest, and they declare that the Federal Government acts in a fiduciary capacity in that regard for the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these claims advanced by the province of Nova Scotia and other provinces have a great deal of merit. Under the circumstances, is it fair for the Dominion Government, in total disregard of such claims, to enter into a separate and distinct transaction with the Prairie provinces? The same question may be asked, as I think I can show conclusively to the satisfaction of hon. members, with respect to other provinces in the Dominion.
When Confederation was formed the six original provinces contained an area of approximately five hundred million acres. In addition to these five hundred million acres, there was a vast area of two billion acres which constituted the common domain of the federated provinces of the Dominion. But in 1898 and 1912 the Dominion Government increased the grants of natural resources and of lands to the province of Ontario to the extent of 115 million acres thus making Ontario's total 261 million acres, or in other words practically doubling the original area of the province of Ontario. When we come to the province of Quebec we find that its original area was 124 million acres, but subsequent grants in 1898 and 1912 increased the total acreage of Quebec and her territory now consists of 452 million acres, so that that province to-day is four times the size it was at the time of Confederation. Today when the provinces of Ontario and

The Address
Quebec, which exercise a great political influence in Canada say: " No, the Prairie provinces cannot have back their natural resources; we have a proprietary interest in them and we want an accounting tor the money they have received"-surely when that takes place the Prairie provinces can say to Ontario and Quebec: "We have a proprietary interest in 440 million acres of the common domain given to you since Confederation, and we are also entitled to an accounting." The point I wish to make is simply this: Any province which desires to make a separate transaction between the Dominion Government and that province without at the same time taking recognition of the proper claims of the other provinces-any policy of that kind is unsound and narrow and is calculated, as I said before, to increase rather than diminish the differences that exist between those provinces.
Now, what do the Prairie provinces say: They say: "We want back our natural resources, we want an accounting for the land that has been alienated, and we want the original annual subsidy of $562,000 that we received for several years past." And they repudiate the right of other provinces in connection with their claims for proprietary interest in their domain. In other words, the Prairie provinces ask for the original grant of lands within their boundaries which the original provinces of the Confederation got at the time Confederation was entered into.
Now, Sir, it would be an oversight on my part if I did not speak upon the very just and very moderate claims of the province of British Columbia, a matter which has been one of great concern in our province for many years. Many hon. members will remember that Sir Richard McBride fought for a long time to bring about an adjustment of this question, and I deem it well to quote a few lines from one of his speeches, towards the end of his career. Speaking on the subject of better terms on 19th July, 1907, he said:
I say again, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a party question. I am not talking as a Con

servaf ivi: to .Conservatives. but as _a Canadian to Canadians, I say to the people of British Columbia that they should legitimately follow up their grievances and carry them to Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members from British Columbia are to-day, once more, presenting the grievances of their province on that question. But we do not want those grievances settled apart from the rights and claims of other provinces; we want
to eo-operate with the other provinces and decide upon a policy which will bring about a fair and proper adjustment of all these claims at the same time. When our province joined Confederation, one of the terms of union was-
And the Government of British Columbia agree to convey to the Dominion Government, in trust, to be appropriated in such manner as the Dominion Government may deem advisable in the furtherance of the construction of the said railway, a similar extent of public lands along the line of railway, throughout its entire length in British Columbia, not to exceed, however, 20 miles on each side of said line.
At the time of Confederation the province of British Columbia had a proprietory interest in those lands, and conveyed a belt 40 miles wide and 500 miles long to the Dominion Government in trust, Mr. Speaker, to be appropriated for the purposes of railway construction. The point I wish to make is that the trusteeship has failed. Those lands were never used for railway construction, and, the trust having failed, we are entitled to a return of the lands because we had the reversionary interest in them. In that area there is something in the neighbourhood of $35,000,000 worth of timber alone, taking the price of $1 a thousand. A few days age the hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), told us that the province of Nova Scotia came into Confederation also under the terms and understanding that they should have a railway. The province oi Nova Scotia got the railway, and paid nothing, but the people of Canada paid $100,000,000 for it. In British Columbia we had a distinct pact, but the Government of Canada, on account of other influences, failed to carry out that pact. Before we got our railway we had to give the Dominion Government what is known as the Peace River block, three and a half million acres of land, conservatively valued at $35,000,000. We had to give a vast quantity of land on Vancouver island, which we should not have been obliged to do under the terms of Confederation. That land was conservatively estimated at a value of $25,000,000. Then, unlike some of the other provinces, British Columbia, since ' Confederation has contributed to the Dominion Treasury the large sum of $40,000,000 in excess of what it has cost the government. So that when you add together the value of those lands, the cash contribution, and the timber in the railway belt you find that British Columbia, in order to have the Canadian Pacific railway-a national and imperial railway-constructed
The Address

across the continent to Vancouver, has paid in lands and money the enormous sum of $130,000,000.
I ask you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to contrast British Columbia with the other provinces. A moment ago I mentioned Nova Scotia. They got their railway and the Dominion Government paid $100,000,000. Ontario secured an area of land out of our common domain double her original size. Ontario has received an appropriation of money grants for canals and things of that kind from the Dominion Treasury, far in excess of $125,000,000. Quebec is to-day four times the size she was in 1867, and has acquired natural resources of great value-timber, mines and lands. Quebec has also received large appropriations from the Dominion Government. The claims of British Columbia are these: we say that the railway belt, given in trust for railway purposes, and not used for such purposes, should be given back to the province. We have paid enough without that. We say that the 2,000,000 acres on Vancouver island should be handed back or that we should have an accounting. We claim that the Peace River block, still intact and of great value, should be returned to us. A large quantity of Indian lands were also conveyed by the province of British Columbia, when she was a Crown colony, to the Dominion Government in trust for the Indians, to be taken care of by the Dominion as guardian for the Indians. We claim that large portions of those lands, which have been practically abandoned by the Indians, should be handed back to British Columbia. On that point I would like to quote a few words from the terms of Union, section 13:
To carry out such policy, tracts of land of such extent as it has hitherto been the practice of the British Columbia Government to appropriate for that purpose shall from time to time be conveyed by the local government to the Dominion Government in trust for the use and benefits of the Indians.
Therefore, we claim that, the trust being at an end we are entitled to a reversionary interest in those lands.
Now I ask the hon. gentlemen to turn their attention for a moment to the question of subsidies. We find that Ontario, as of the 31st March, 1921, received annually $2,400,000; Manitoba $1,470,000; Saskatchewan $1,753,000; and Alberta, with a population of
582,000,	has received a subsidy of $1,162,000. British Columbia, with almost the same population as Alberta, received the sum of $623,000, about one-third of what

each of the Prairie provinces received. Hon. gentlemen will surely see that the policy of a government which makes a separate and distinct transaction with the Prairie provinces, and neglects and ignores the claims of other provinces, is not one which is calculated to meet with the approval of the public of this country. We are told that the Prairie provinces, unlike the province of British Columbia, have cost the Dominion of Canada since Confederation something like $40,000,000 in excess of what they have received. British Columbia, on the other hand, has contributed the sum of $40,000,000 in excess of what the province has received. I desire to draw to the attention of those who, perhaps, have not travelled in British Columbia the fact that we have also important physical disabilities. We have great expense for our administration, for the police, for government agencies, for schools, for roads, trails, bridges and for other things-an expense which other provinces do not have to face. The province of British Columbia perhaps may not interest all hon. gentlemen present, but, so far as the policy of the government is concerned, I wish to repeat, and I hope the hon. ministers will remember this -and I am sure that my views are shared by every member from the Prairie provinces-that any settlement of this very important question of provincial rights and of better terms must be made in a broad national way, all at one time, and not piecemeal as has been proposed by the Government.
I trust and hope that when the policy of the Government in this matter is announced in detail, we shall find manifested that spirit of co-operation by my hon. friends to my left, the Progressives, which they profess in their speeches, and which I am sure they will practise in this parliament; and even though they may have the advantage of securing a separate deal with the government, because of their strategic position politically, that in the spirit and understanding of the ideals which they have professed in their eloquent speeches during the last few days, they will be consistent and will refuse to accept from the government the temptation of their natural resources, to the prejudice and the injury of the other provinces of this Dominion.


Mr. ALFRED STORK (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as this debate is coming to a close, I should like to take up the time of the House for a few moments in order to make some brief observations in connection

The Address
v.-ith matters pertaining to British Columbia. The constituency which I represent is, I think, one of the largest in the Dominion of Canada, and in view of the fact that many members, whose particular constituencies are not so large as mine, have spoken at great length, I will trespass upon your generosity. May I be permitted to state that my constituency embraces an area of 164,600 square miles, and, with the possible exception of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black), I travel, perhaps, the longest distance of any member to attend a session of this House. My constituency is larger than England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Holland and Belgium all put together, so that ' I think such a territory alone should justify my being given an opportunity of voicing, for a few moments, the aims and ideas of the people who have sent me here to represent their particular interests.
I am perhaps, a little late in arriving here. In the year 1917, the people of the constituency of Skeena elected me by a "home" majority of something like 600; but due to the conditions under which the election took place, I was declared counted cut by the overseas vote. I am not here to hold post mortems; we have had sufficient of those up to the present time; I wish merely to say that I regret that I have not been able before to take my seat in this House, for the reason that a great deal of misrepresentation has taken place in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I do not believe the fortunes of any particular individual are an issue in this Dominion of Canada; but owing to the fact that, since 1911, that branch of the present Canadian National Railway system, known at that time as the Grand Trunk Pacific, has more or less fallen upon evil days, I have regretted exceedingly that, prior to the present session of Parliament, there has not been in this House some member to correct, from time to time, misrepresentations which have appeared, in the press and upon many platforms throughout the Dominion. In that con-_ nection, let me say that the railways, known now as the Canadian National Railway system-known at that time as the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific-running west from Edmonton as far as Red Pass Junction, run practically parallel, separated by, perhaps, only a few yards.
A great deal of energy has been spent in attempting to discredit the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the country through which it passes, in order to make it appear
that the construction of that railway was not justified but that the construction of the Canadian Northern down to Vancouver was the proper thing to do. A great deal of energy has been spent along that line, and I, therefore, wish to compare, just for a few moments, the territory through which these two railways run. I know no better method of comparison than to state to the House that the territory through which the Grand Trunk Pacific passes is a country immensely wealthy in agriculture, timber, minerals and other natural resources. As I said before, the two railways run practically parallel from Edmonton to Red Pass Junction. The Canadian Northern runs from Red Pass Junction down the Thompson River to Kamloops, and then parallel to the Canadian Pacific from Kamloops into the city of Vancouver. The schools-and I think this is a fair criterion,-built in the years 1916 to 1920 on the Canadian Northern railway in British Columbia are twelve in number; on the Grand Trunk Pacific the number of schools built is 46. In the year 1921, one school house was constructed on the Canadian Northern and 22 on the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway is now a national proposition, and there is perhaps no railway on the continent that has such a mileage and at the same time that is not supplied by feeders or supplied with spurs. In connection with this railway running from Edmonton into the port of Prince Rupert, if we had a twenty-mile spur built to Stewart lake, it would open up a vast new agricultural country. A seven-mile spur built into Francois lake also would open up a vast new agricultural country. A seven-mile spur from Telkwa would open up immense coal areas in that particular region. One hundred and fifty miles of a spur line to the Ground Hog country would bring into the market a vast quantity of anthracite coal. Twenty miles of a spur line into the Copper River country would tap a great and very valuable deposit of iron ore. As this is a national road, the country must get behind it, and we can do ncT better than develop the natural resources which lie contiguous to the national railway system. I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his idea of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, had the proper plan. It was built with an imperial viewpoint; it was part of the "All-red" route. It opens up, I believe, the best country that you can find in the whole Dominion of Canada. In connection with
The Address

this railway which runs westward to Prince Rupert, let me cite to you what I find in "5,000 Facts About Canada". The editor states: ,	,	*
Prince Rupert-436 miles nearer Orient than any other Pacific ~ port. Population, 8,000. Assessment, $17,138,492. Single tax. City owns telephone, water and electric light systems. Five schools, including high school.
I may say that we have just opened up a new school at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars.
Greatest fishing port on Pacific coast. 20,000 ton drydock; largest cold storage plant on Pacific coast, with magnificent harbour, ranking third in world harbours.
I believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier had the proper idea when he decided to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific railway as a national asset.
Before I take my seat, there is one phase of British Columbia life which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. British Columbia entered Confederation in the year 1871, and the agreement under which she entered was that a railroad would be built to link up British Columbia with the rest of Canada. But in that particular bargain I do not find any clause stating that British Columbia must harbour within her borders an oriental population, which is designed for the whole of Canada. The people of British Columbia have no desire to be sacrificed upon the altar of international goodwill. The oriental question in British Columbia is reaching a most acute state. The oriental has absorbed the salmon fishing industry of the province, and the truck farms of British Columbia are very largely in his hands. He is also spreading into the timber industry, and I understand the mercantile industry is controlled to the extent of thirty per cent by the oriental population. If we continue at the rate at which we are going we shall very soon find that the whites will have a very small place in British Columbia. The birth rate of the white population in that province is seventeen per thousand, while that of the Japanese is 69 per thousand, or four times that of the white people. The birth rate in Russia is 46 per thousand, in Germany 26, and in Great Britain 24-quite a difference as compared with 69. The oriental question presents another aspect, which is a serious one indeed. We are troubled to-day throughout Canada with the unemployment problem, and as a Canadian I believe that this question should receive the earliest attention of this particular Parliament. I should like to see Canadian resources in

the West, and, for that matter, in the East as well, developed by Canadian labour. It is not a pleasant thing to see the vast and ever-increasing oriental population prospering in our own country, while the men who fought overseas for the safety and well-being of this Canada of ours, now that they have come back, have to stand idly by and see the work of the province carried on by orientals. I believe that the country would understand its problems better if people travelled somewhat more. There is nothing like travel to give a man a broader vision. Members of Parliament will soon rise from their session. Instead of taking a trip to Europe to visit some foreign country, they should go to British Columbia. In fact, I invite every hon. member of this House to take a trip to that province. There is no country in Europe that can compare with it. The mountains of Switzerland, the sunny skies of France, and all the varied and beautiful scenery that you can find on the continent of Europe cannot, I assert, compare with the magnificence of British Columbia. Its rivers, its lakes, its mountains, and its forests are inviting. Let hon. members spend their vacation in that province and we in British Columbia will lay before them the problems incident to that great country. If that were done this House could better understand our point of view, and I am sure that its members would return from such a trip very much benefited in health, besides having a clearer knowledge of our problems.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this late stage unduly to prolong the debate. Were it not that certain documents have come into my hands during the past few days touching a matter of vital importance to all who are interested in agriculture, a matter on which I think we should have a clear understanding as to what this Government's attitude will be, I should not have spoken at this time; and I do so now only at the request of some of my fellow-members. The matter I refer to is the question of the British embargo upon Canadian cattle. Perhaps I may say first, however, that I have listened with a great deal of interest and amusement, and, I hope, not altogether without edification, to the controversy that has gone on across the floor of the House; and I confess that in my unregenerate days, that is, before I became a member of the Progressive party, I might have enjoyed taking part in such an

The Address
exchange of courtesies. However, I passed a self-denying ordinance for myself which I will try to observe, and I trust that I shall not unduly transgress it in this debate.
I heartily concur in what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) has said, that it would be well for us to visit other portions of the Dominion. For my part, I intend to avail myself of the invitation that he has given, and I should also like to visit the Maritime provinces to see if I could get their point of view in regard to the Intercolonial railway. Possibly they might not give it to me, but I should be glad to go there in any case.


Mr. LOGAN:: We will give you our point of view.


John Livingstone Brown: my steers, my name and address having been on their ear tags. He said: "We like your Canadian cattle; they are good feeders, and we want to get them." Mr. Speaker, if they want to get them, we want to sell them, and in spite of all that has been said about the necessity for trade lines running east and west, there is a trade in respect of which the lines must run north and south. If they do not, then there can be no trade.
An hon. gentleman opposite spoke the other day of Canada's being an absolutely self-contained nation. I was reminded of the remark of the countryman who went to the fair and saw a giraffe for the first time: " There ain't no such animal." It is futile to talk of a self-contained nation in this year of grace when the absolute interdependence of nations is being shown as never before. There is not and cannot be such a thing as a self-contained nation.
I think I have shown the necessity for our having access to the United States market for a certain class of cattle. It is the market that has absorbed the class of cattle which are not suitable for export to Great Britain, even under the most favourable conditions,-even if the embargo were removed. At the same time, the necessity for the removal of that embargo is apparent. Hon. members undoubtedly understand the situation as it has prevailed for nearly thirty years. The embargo was originally imposed ostensibly for the purpose of keeping out disease, but really to protect certain British interests. It is now recognized that there is no disease, and the embargo is being continued purely for the purposes of giving protection to British interests. In this connection I want to acknowledge, on behalf of the organized farmers, the debt we owe to the Hon. Manning Doherty, a member of Mr. Drury's government. By the way, I was amused when one of the members from Toronto sought to appeal to the Progressives by intimating that Mr. Crerar might be satisfactory to certain interests, but that Mr. Drury was not. We in the West, however, were told during the campaign that if we only had Mr. Drury, everything would be satisfactory in regard to the Progressive party. Well, we are satisfied with them both, and I want to pay every respect to Hon. Mr. Manning Doherty for what he did in connection with the cattle embargo; he brought the matter before the British authorities in a way in which it had never been brought before.

Unfortunately, there seems to have grown up an impression in Great Britain that the official attitude of the Canadian Government toward the question of the embargo is one of indifference. I have before me an extract from The Canadian Gazette, published in London, dated February 16. I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to this paragraph. I cannot think it correctly represents his attitude; indeed, I am prepared to believe that the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture would be in perfect harmony with my own in respect to this matter. But here is an indication of the impression that has grown up:
"We are sorry, of course, but it is really your business, and not ours." That, in a sentence, is the impression which Canadian cablegrams bring to us of the Canadian reception of the decision of the British Government not to remove the cattle embargo. Mr. Motherwell, the new Dominion Minister of Agriculture, says in effect: "This is essentially a question for the home authorities", and he adds: "Since we ourselves in our own interests have now imposed an embargo on British cattle we have little to say on the subject." Of course, the embargo abolitionists may reply: "Yes, but Canada's embargo on British pedigreed cattle is because of admitted disease; Britain's embargo on Canadian store cattle is, on the other hand, in spite of the admitted absence of disease."
I think our position would be well expressed in that last sentence. There is a very great difference between our attitude in excluding pedigreed cattle because of admitted disease and the attitude of Britain in excluding Canadian cattle when there is admittedly no disease. I am prepared to recognize that in any event this is a matter to be dealt with by the Imperial authorities. I am prepared to recognize also that we who have imposed protective tariffs against British goods are not in a very strong position to protest against their imposing protection. But I think it would be very unfortunate if we should in any measure countenance the impression that we are indifferent in this matter. There has grown up in Britain during the last few months a very strong body of public opinion in favour of having that embargo removed. In an Associated Press despatch in to-day's paper it is announced that there is shortly to be called by the Lord Mayor of London a national conference on live stock at the Guildhall, which representatives from many large cities will be invited to attend. I deem it my duty to express, Mr. Speaker, as I believe I have a right to do on behalf of the organized farmers, the view that this

The Address
question of the removal of the embargo is by no means a matter of indifference to us. Great uncertainty exists as to where the market for our live stock is going to be; we are not sure of the American market, and we are not sure of the British market. I shall not undertake just now to discuss the relative merits of those two markets, but if we do not get one or the other, then the live stock trade, it may almost be said, is doomed. It would be very unfortunate to allow that impression to prevail over here, and I trust that the Government will make it very clear that so far as their official attitude is concerned it is in harmony with the views that I have expressed.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations in this debate I wish, in common with hon. members who have preceded me, to offer to you my sincere congratulations.
I know that your rulings will be fair and impartial and that we shall all receive every courtesy from the Chair. I wish also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address who were to me perfect strangers, but who have become my personal friends since my coming to this House.
Each member in presenting his views has spoken largely from his own local viewpoint, and I think that I may be pardoned if I follow somewhat along the same lines. Indeed, it seems to me to be the duty of a representative to ascertain the wishes of his constituents, to interpret them to the House, and to endeavour to have them embodied in legislation, if such legislation is not detrimental to the country as a whole.
I do not know that I should have taken any part in this debate but for some remarks made by some hon. members who have preceded me. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) the other day made the following statement, and although I cannot say that I have caught the true significance, of his remarks, I wish to read it to the House. Referring to the Prime Minister, h said:
My hon. friend said that the entrance of a third party gave the Conservative party in many cases the opportunity for victory; but he will And that in many constituencies which his own party carried, their success was very largely due to the same fact-I am told his own former 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.
Now, I fail to understand what my hon. friend means. If he has any reference to the county of Prince, which the hon. Prime Minister represented in this House for two years, and which I have the honour to represent at the present time, I may say that he is altogether astray in his supposition. If there is one constituency in this Dominion more than another where the Prime Minister is regarded as a personal friend to whom the people wish to pay every tribute of refpect and wish every success, it is the county of Prince, P.E.I. Further, if I may be pardoned any personal references, at the time that the hon. Prime Minister was chosen leader of the Liberal party I, along with some other local men, was spoken of as a possible contestant for the seat, but we were only too glad to make way for our leader and allow him to enter this House through the portals of the county of Prince. Again, when the general election was on this fall, a delegation came from the province and waited upon our leader and again offered him the opportunity of allowing his name to go Before the Liberal convention. I heartily concurred in that action. If the hon. member for St. John has reference to our attitude in the province of Prince Edward Island, I wish to tell him that he is drawing on his imagination, and that is equally apparent if we apply his reference to the Dominion generally, for throughout the length and breadth of Canada the election of the Prime Minister in North York was hailed with delight.
Reference has been made from time to time to the province of Quebec. Down in Prince Edward Island we are sometimes termed "Little Quebec", because we are pretty strong Liberals in that part of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What about Nova Scotia?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Nova Scotia is all right. We elected one hundred per cent of our representatives to this side of the House at the last election, and I believe that if we had had the six members that were conceded to us under Confederation in that province we would today have two more members on this side of the House to swell the Liberal ranks The county I have the honour to represent contains a large percentage of French-Acadians, and a more loyal and more patriotic people cannot be found in any
The Address

part of this fair Dominion. Their war record can safely be put in comparison against that of any other part of the country, and their patriotic services on that occasion brought forth plaudits from the whole of Canada. Personally, I am very proud to represent one of the constituencies of Prince Edward Island whose people of every class proved themselves so patriotic and so true to our national ideals. In this connection I would pay special tribute to our noble women. I do not say that the people of the island are all Liberal, they are divided in their political allegiance as are the people of every other province; but whether Liberal, Progressive or Conservative, they have high ideals and take a great interest in the government of the country.
Possibly I should be over on the other side of the House with my farmer friends. I happen to be a farmer, and in that capacity I represent largely the viewpoint of the agriculturists.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: You are in the right place here.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Previous to the election some of my Progressive friends did me the honour to suggest that possibly I might let my name go before their convention as their candidate. I appreciated the honour very much, but believing that possibly within the lines of the Liberal party we could achieve our ends and get as good legislation in the interests of our agriculturists as in any other party, I could not accede to their request. I was only too glad to take up the fight for the good old Liberal party again, and I am glad to say that in a three-cornered contest we were able to win with the largest majority that was ever rolled up in the history of that constituency.
Now, Sir, I have every sympathy with the views advanced by our Progressive friends on the opposite side of the House. I know they have their own difficulties, and I understand their desire to improve their marketing conditions. They are to-day, I believe, asking for a Wheat Board, and if I understood the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) aright yesterday, I think he tabled a memorandum on that subject. We are willing to give our Progressive friends every assistance. If the establishment of such a board is equitable, just and right, it is only fair that they should have it. I am not conversant with every phase of the subject, but I am eager to

learn, and I shall be glad if our Progressive friends will give us on this side of the House every information in relation to the subject so that we may be able to discuss it intelligently and endeavour to understand their viewpoint.
Down in the Maritime provinces we have our own difficulties to overcome, as has been pointed out by previous speakers in this debate. Our natural market is the New England States, and we would naturally desire to sell our products there whenever possible. Just to give an illustration of how we are handicapped in the matter of trade at the present time on account of the Emergency Tariff which was put in force by the United States about a year ago, I might cite one or two experiences that have been encountered. First of all let me say that I have pointed out to our people at home that no party in Canada can remove that Emergency Tariff; it is up to the United States to say when they will remove that barrier and let our products enter that market, and we can hardly expect them to do it until they are good and ready. But here, for example, is what we are up against in the province of Prince Edward Island. We enjoy a large trade in potatoes, but this year we are obliged, when shipping potatoes to the American markets, to pay a duty of 25 cents a bushel. This money had to be paid at the port of entry in American funds before the produce would be received for shipment. Yet in the face of that handicap the Seed Potato Growers' Association shipped to the United States over 160 carloads of potatoes. We also produce in Prince Edward Island a large number of lambs which we are obliged to market each fall; and last year we could get a better price for our lambs in the American market, even after paying $1 per head duty, than we could elsewhere. I think these illustrations should cause our friends who opposed the reciprocity agreement in 1911 to realize what an injury the rejection of that agreement was to the Maritime provinces at least. If there is any province in this fair Dominion that would be benefited by such an agreement it is the province of Prince Edward Island. I think the same thing applies with equal force to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
It has been said on different occasions that our channels of trade should run east and west, but for our province the natural channel is in the other direction; and we

The Address
have lost money every year when we could not sell our surplus products in the United States market. Despite this fact various politicians have been making efforts to divert our trade from its natural channel. Of course, the law of supply and demand exercises an important influence in trade matters, and in years when there is a crop shortage at home we may find a market in Canada. Generally speaking, however, when we have a full crop there is no possibility of our selling our surplus products in the home market. Past history therefore has not substantiated the theory that the building up of manufactories in Canada can be depended upon to provide a home market for our products.
I do not know that I need to discuss the immigration question at any length. I believe this country of ours has within its borders at the present time about all the people that we can handle and support to the best advantage. There is one thing, however, that I would like to touch upon: For some years past we have had railway harvest excursions from the Maritime provinces to the West which have induced a large number of our young people to leave home. In the West they obtained a few months' work, but I am sorry to say that our Progressive and farmer friends there do not go in for mixed farming to the extent that they perhaps ought to do, and failing to get employment upon the farm many of these young folks from the East have drifted to the large cities of the West and joined the great ranks of the unemployed. The result of this process is that the Maritime provinces are being, to a certain extent, depopulated. Hence I question whether this policy of running excursions from the East to the West is one that should be continued; perhaps the western provinces might find labour closer home and the present policy of draining the eastern provinces of young men might be discontinued. As to immigration I think the immigrants brought to this country should be very carefully selected.
It would seem that one has to be very careful in making remarks upon the Civil Service Commission-it is a very delicate subject to speak about. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) brought the hon. members for Halifax to task for having appointed a committee from their constituency to deal with civil service organization. The civil service system is possibly a good thing carried too far, but the question is, has it in the past been fairly administrated in the best interests of the
country? Our friends opposite, when they came into power, indulged in wholesale dismissals. The vacancies thus created were not filled upon merit but in accordance with record of the appointees as good party workers and good party men in their respective ridings. Immediately afterwards, when all positions were filled with their friends, the Civil Service Act was invoked and the lid was nailed down with respect to future appointments, which was not a fair deal. To give fair effect to the Civil Service Act all public positions throughout the Dominion should have been vacated and refilled on the basis of merit, after passing a successful examination.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Civil Service Commission should be an independent tribunal.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Certainly it should be. If the appointments were made in the impartial way which I have suggested there would be no dissatisfaction with the civil service. The people may not want all the patronage system back, but there is considerable dissatisfaction with the manner in which appointments have been made in the past.
With respect to the railway question a peculiar position obtains in our own province. There, the question is not so much one of co-ordination of the whole railway system of Canada as it is, perhaps, one of standardization. It may not be clear to all hon. members just what is meant by that. Let me explain that in Prince Edward Island we have a narrow-gauge railway. A few years ago the car ferry was put into operation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, which enabled mainland cars to be brought over into our province. As a result, part of our railway system was standardized to allow the standard-gauge cars to run over our railway, but there are still large portions in the eastern and western districts of Prince Edward Island which have not yet been standardized, and over which the wide gauge or standard trains from the mainland can run. With reference to the question of shipping potatoes at the present time, we can only ship them over the standardized portion of the road, or the main feeders. Only in the spring months can our farmers get cars and ship out potatoes safely, and the farmers on the narrow-gauge section of the railway are handicapped and are unable to ship their potatoes at all till the spring of the year. I say it is very unfair to oper-

The Address

ate this road in this way. We had the Minister of Railways down there, and, after seeing the conditions, and looking at it from a business standpoint, I am sure he is convinced that it would be in the interests of the railway system, even from a business standpoint-because it would save all the transferring of freight-to standardize that road immediately, and put each section of the province on an equality with respect to the railway accommodation. I have every confidence that that matter will be taken up and brought to a successful conclusion at a very early date, and also that improvements needed at Alberton and Cape Traverse will be made.
Regarding the Intercolonial railway, I am entirely in accord with everything that has been said by the members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Immediately upon the headquarters being moved from Moncton to Toronto, we in the East began to get the worst end of the deal, and ever since then freight rates have not worked to the advantage of the shippers of our province. No doubt the other members that are here from Prince Edward Island are in the same position as myself. They are flooded with telegrams from merchants down there, asking for reduced rates on shipments of potatoes. The market for potatoes is so limited, and the freight so high, that it takes almost one car of potatoes to put two others on the market. The people down there are asking that a special freight rate be arranged to allow us to ship out this year's crop. Our friends in the West are asking for a Wheat Board. Wheat can be kept over the season, it is not a perishable product. We have a perishable product; if it is not shipped out within a month or so, it is an entire loss to the producer. I think if this matter is brought fully before the Minister of Railways he will see that we get some relief. We are all at one regarding the lowering of the freight rates substantially on all products. The fisheries of the Maritime provinces are a very important question, which I will not touch upon, but I think, in view of the large amount of money spent yearly on agriculture, that more assistance should be given to fisheries in the Maritime provinces, and I trust this Government will use their influence in that direction.
The tariff has been discussed from different angles, and we have heard some people say they want a tariff for revenue purposes, and some say they want a protective tariff. And some contend that a

protective tariff and tariff for revenue purposes are the same, thing. To my mind, there is all the difference in the world between a tariff for revenue purposes and a protective tariff. A protective tariff, to my mind, defeats the object for which it was intended-that is if it was intended to produce revenue-because once you put a tariff as high as 25 or 35 per cent, which shuts out importation, you get no revenue; you protect the manufacturer to a certain degree, and any extra amount on the price of the article you buy goes into the pockets of the manufacturer, instead of into the revenue of the country. A tariff for revenue purposes should be a low tariff, say 10 or 12 per cent, or as low as it could be made, which would allow the people of this country to import goods from the United States if they required them, at a reasonable price, and, at the same time, contribute a reasonable amount to the revenues of the country. I believe that our Progressive friends are with us to a large extent on that question. I do not think that they believe the time is opportune now for introducing free trade in this country, because they realize that the financial conditions of the country are such that we should move very carefully. But we want a revision of the tariff. I think if any company cannot now compete with a foreign company on a tariff of 10 or 12 per cent, or a low tariff, it would be better for that company and better for the country that the company should go into some other line of business than for us to have to pay the increased price and so keep them in business, at the expense of the consuming public.
I come now to a question which has received some attention from members on the opposite side of the House, and I think I shall be pardoned if I refer to it. That is the question of the natural resources of Canada. The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in speaking the other day, did me the honour to refer to the campaign literature that was used in my constituency at the last election. He said-
Why, the leader of the Government elected one of his supporters in this * House, even the hon. member who succeeds him in the representation of the county of Prince, by advancing a claim on behalf of Prince Edward Island that' that province had millions of dollars of interest in the resources of Western Canada. I read from an advertisement published under the heading "Why vote for MacLean?" Among other reasons, none of which appeal very strongly to those who have had experience in this House, the following is given:

The Address
"Because by doing so you will be upholding your birthright in the public domain of the western provinces, in which millions of dollars are involved and justly coming to us, in spite of Mr. Crerar's contention and assertion to the contrary, and we can surely do with that money now."
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this is not true in its entirety, I can surely say that the last portion of the paragraph is absolutely true, that we can do with that money now, because in Prince Edward Island we have to pay fairly high taxes as a province. The candidate of the Opposition in the last election, a gentleman for whom I have every respect, was one with me on this question, and he had helping him in that campaign an outstanding constitutional lawyer, who elaborated this claim to a very large extent, and pointed out that the Maritime provinces certainly had an equity in those lands. Referring to the article which appeared in the paper down there, it is news to me if the Conservative party are taking the opposite stand to-day. I feel that in our province it is not a political question. Both Liberals and Conservatives down there are one in regard to this question. I may tell my Progressive friends that the candidate representing their party, a very intelligent gentleman, took the stand that we had an equity in these lands, and that he was very sorry the leader of the Progressive party had taken the stand he did in regard to the western lands, and that it would be his duty, if elected to this House, to try to show them that the leader of the Progressive party was wrong in his attitude as far as the eastern provinces were concerned, and that he would use his best endeavours to make his Progressive friends see eye to eye with the eastern provinces on that question. I was glad to hear the hon. gentleman who has just spoken develop the claim of British Columbia on this question to some extent. The Maritime provinces-Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-take the same stand, and I wish to also give some attention to this question. I wish to quote from an article prepared by a gentleman in Nova Scotia, a member of the local legislature there-Mr. Tory. This is a good Conservative name, and one would suppose that his compilation of the facts would be fairly conservative. He sets forth a claim somewhat as follows, and with which I am in accord:
Compensation as an equivalent for lands reserved for school purposes for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Compensation as an equivalent for cash subsidies paid to the provinces of Manitoba, Sas-
22i
katchewan and Alberta, purporting to be in lieu of lands.
Compensation as an equivalent for land granted to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in which the people of the Maritime provinces had a proprietary interest in common with the people of the other provinces of Canada.
Compensation for the nonfulfilment of certain obligations respecting the Maritime provinces, clearly set forth or implied under the terms of the British North America Act.
I do not wish to quote at too great length from this article; but on March 26, 1919, certain questions which had been put on the Order Paper of this House with regard to those western lands which were received, were answered, as per Order Paper No. 17,412, as follows:
1. How many acres of land have been set aside by the Federal Government for school purposes in each of the provinces of Canada?
The answer was:
Manitoba, approximately, 7,993,600 acres; Saskatchewan, approximately 8,421,000 acres; Alberta, aproximately, 7,798,600 acres.
In answer to question No. 2, it was stated:
Provided, that on a township being surveyed, should such sections or either of them, or any part of either, be found to have been settled on and improved, then and in such case the occupant or occupants, conforming to the requirements of this Act shall be confirmed in such possession.
Question No. 3:
What is the amount to the credit of each province on account of school lands with the Federal Government?
In answer to this question, we find that there is to the credit of the three Prairie provinces the following amounts in round figures: Manitoba, over $4,000,000; Saskatchewan, over $7,000,000; Alberta, over $4,000,000; making a total, in round figures, of about $16,000,000.
Then question 4 reads:
What amount has been paid by the Federal Government to each of the provinces to date on account of school lands?
The answer being:
Manitoba	$2,576,568	52Saskatchewan	
2,397,978	45Alberta	
2,108,440	35Total	$7,082,987 32
Of course, interest at the rate of 5 per cent is all that is supposed to be paid on that amount.
The fifth question reads:
What is the average amount received per acre in each province on account of school lands?
The Address

The answer is:
Manitoba. . . . Saskatchewan. Alberta	
Per acre $ 9 72 17 92 13 54
Question No. 6:
What is the approximate value of the school lands unsold in each province?
And the answer is:
Including- the unsurveyed territory, and estimated at $7 per acre in Manitoba, $10 in Saskatchewan, and $9 in Alberta, which is considered a fair valuation, the approximate value of unsold school lands in each province is as follows:
Manitoba	$49,778,000
Saskatchewan	 69,672,000
Alberta	 55.408,000
If those answers are anything like correct, it will be seen that a very large amount of money is involved in these western lands. I do not say that possibly this money can be realized, but that is the price that was set upon those lands in the answers to the questions put on that occasion.
Coming down to the question of what proportion should go to each of the Maritime provinces, I have the following figures: Nova Scotia, with a population which is 6.8 per cent of the population of Canada should be credited on actual credits, with $8,000,000, and on contingent credits, with $65,000,000; New Brunswick, with a population which is 4.9 per cent of the population of Canada, should have actual credits of $6,000,000, and contingent credits of $46,000,000; and Prince Edward Island, with a population which is 1.3 per cent of the population of Canada should have actual credits of $1,710,000. On this item alone, at 5 per cent, the province of Prince Edward Island should receive $85,531 annually. Therefore, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who took exception to this little editorial that appeared in a Prince Edward Island newspaper, will see that in view of the facts given in this House when his government was in power, he cannot complain too much regarding this article:
Coming to the claims of Prince Edward Island, I think we have outstanding claims other than those outlined in the remarks that I have made so far. When Prince Edward Island entered Confederation, we were credited with $50 per head of the population or $4,700,000. Prince Edward Island was building her railroad at that time, costing in round figures $3,000,000. Immediately upon our entering Confedera-
[Mr. A. E. MacLea' "
tion, that railroad was handed over to the Dominion Government, and the cost of the railroad was deducted from our credit at Ottawa. If we had been paid 5 per cent on our first credit allowance, we would be receiving $235,000 annually, as a subsidy from this source alone; whereas, on account of the cost of the railway being deducted from this credit allowance and then the railway handed over to the Dominion-although this railway may not have been a great asset to the Dominion, it cost the province that amount of money *-along with other withdrawals that were made from capital account, our credit balance was reduced to $775,000, on which we received five per cent, or the small sum of around $38,000 annually in subsidies. I leave it to my hon. friend from British Columbia who made a case for his province, if that is a fair proposition. If it is fair that land in British Columbia, which, they claim, was handed to the government before they could get their railways built should be handed back to the province of British Columbia, now it is equally fair that this $3,000,000, which we paid for the railways of Prince Edward Island, should be put back to our credit and we should receive 5 per cent on that amount.
Another question is this, that we received a subsidy of $20,000 some years ago, and Sir Charles Tupper advanced the claim then that we should receive that on account of large developments of railways and canals throughout other parts of this Dominion. That being the case, what is the situation to-day when the Dominion has taken over the Canadian National railways and become responsible to all the provinces for their huge railway obligations, that it has wiped oif the slate and taken over those obligations along with certain other obligations to the banks of our country? If it was true back in Sir Charles Tupper's time that we should receive $20,000 annually on that score, what is our position to-day when we consider the tremendous expansion of railways and canals throughout this Dominion?
Another question is with regard to population. When Prince Edward Island entered Confederation, we were to receive fifty cents a head of our population up to 400,000. It was anticipated then that the population of Prince Edward Island would increase to such an extent that we would receive this fifty cents per head on
400,000,	and Quebec and Ontario were

The Address
in the same position. This agreement worked out splendidly for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, because their population kept increasing by leaps and bounds, and we find that after reaching a population of 400,000, those provinces came back, in 1905, and had all those limitations swept away and the population limit set at 2,500,000, on which they were to receive 50 cents per capita in subsidies.
What do we find with regard to Prince Edward Island? Prince Edward Island's population has remained practically stationary since her entry into Confederation, and on account of not being able to retain her population on the whole, her participation in the Canadian Confederation has not been greatly beneficial to her; in fact it has been detrimental. In the matter of population we are, if anything, rather in a worse position than we were in 1871 before going into Confederation. Prince Edward Island, as well as Quebec and Ontario, was allotted 80 cents per head of population up to a population of 400,000, but that little province, far from attaining that population, has, as I have said, remained stationary and her sons and daughters have gone to the western provinces to swell their population on which they secure $1.50 per capita in subsidy. When Quebec and Ontario reached the limit of 400,000 they applied for an increase, and the subsidy for those provinces was fixed on a new basis, the limit of population being increased from 400,000 to 2,500,000. Where does Prince Edward Island come in on that score? We undoubtedly have a strong claim in this matter that cannot be controverted, because it is overwhelmingly obvious that Prince Edward Island has not benefited to the same extent under the Confederation as the other provinces have done and should claim consideration. I submit that this question is one that should receive the most careful attention. I do not wish to take up too much time of the House, but I am fully in accord with what has been said by hon. members from British Columbia, that when the question is opened up it should be given sympathetic consideration and that a fair and equitable adjustment of the whole matter ought to be made, having regard to the peculiar claims of every province. I believe that our friends have a right to their natural resources, and I suggest that they should be equally fair to other provinces, especially to Prince Edward Island, the little sister of Confederation. On the question of natural resources, as on the question of the tariff,
I take exactly the same position as I took during the recent campaign.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo) :: In my first address in this House, Mr. Speaker, I purpose being very brief; but I cannot let the opportunity pass without extending to you, Sir, my sincere congratulations on your elevation to an office which I know you will fill, as you are so eminently fitted to fill it, with dignity and satisfaction. I also desire to congratulate the younger men who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They acquitted themselves splendidly in their maiden speeches, and in the discharge of a difficult duty.
As regards the lady member who represents Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), I hope she will find political life pleasant and will exercise a refining influence on our assembly. Some mention was made of the fact that the Conservative party had extended the franchise to the women of the country. I may say that a great many of us in the West did not at one time view with pleasure the granting of the franchise to women. We had, as we still have, a profound respect and regard for them, and we thought, perhaps in an old-fashioned way, that it might detract from their charm if they entered the field of politics. We believed that the sex for whom we have so much admiration and love were temperamentally not fitted to cope with the intricacies and the intrigue of public life, and at that time we would rather have seen them engaged in an occupation less open to unpleasant influences.
But I come from a part of this great Dominion which has, perhaps, a greater proportion of British-born people than any other; and while I am not going to "wave the flag," I may say that when the call came from the Motherland, our country was denuded of its male inhabitants. Even men as old as I am dyed their hair and moustaches, locked their doors and boarded up their windows, and went to the war, without any flag-flapping. The younger women went as nurses, and those that remained at home donned the clothes that their fathers or their husbands had left, went to work in the fields, and even performed the hard task of cleaning cowsheds. I 'have seen women of gentle birth, Sir, toiling all day long in the fields in male attire, and, at night, making bandages and knitting socks for the men who were away. When we witnessed these things we learned a tremendous lot about our women folk
The Address

of which we had no conception before, and we concluded that there was nothing that we would not willingly concede them. We therefore gave them the franchise unreservedly. In contradistinction to this class of people, we have in our Western country a disturbing element of Socialism. We have men waving the red flag, men without any patriotic instincts, men without regard for country, frustrating our efforts; and while these noble self-sacrificing women did all they couid to further our cause, these other people put every obstacle in their way. If therefore you can give such men the vote, then by all the rules of the game, the ladies ought to have it.
I was much impressed with the eloquent remarks of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Manion) in his appeal for tolerance and a better feeling among the people. That is what we feel in British Columbia. We have no sectional animosities there. In the district I come from there are many 'French Canadians, who are among the best men I have known, and they work as heartily as the rest of us do. They did all they could to promote the great things that happened a few years ago. We have the best wishes in the world for them, and I wish we had thousands more like them.
Now, as you know, we have in our province of British Columbia a little railway trouble such as exists in other parts of the Dominion. We have a railway known as the Pacific and Great Eastern, and I understand that quite recently the Premier of British Columbia paid a visit to Ottawa to try to induce this Government to round out in some way the national system of railways so as to take over our road. We in British Columbia were led to believe that this was one of the reasons of his visit; but so far as we were able to learn, he went back with his Pandora's
5 p.m. box intact. I have not heard that he accomplished what he sought to have done. As a resident for many years in British Columbia, although I might look at this matter purely from a parochial standpoint and might contend that it might not be in the best interests of that province that the request of its Premier should be acceded to, at the same time, considering the matter in a broader light, from the standpoint of the whole of Canada, I would offer no objection to the Dominion Government's taking charge of the Pacific and Great Eastern railway. The railway policy has been dealt with by men who are better qualified to speak upon it

than I am. I intended to say somewhat harsh things in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but I have been in a way disarmed by the remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), whom I have known for a long time. I have known his city since its inception, and its people have striven hard to advance its interests. No one who has not been in that northern country knows what men have to confront there, the obstacles they surmount in their supreme optimism and the great efforts they make to develop the potentialities of that country into a realisable asset that will benefit the whole Dominion.
The Grand Trunk Pacific was a tragedy. However, geologists tell us that the great Laurentian plateau is the greatest mineralbearing area in the world, and it may in time make all these railroads profitable. You can see what has resulted from the little development that has taken place in Northern Ontario, and the Laurentian plateau embraces the largest body of preCambrian rocks in the world, in which we might expect to find greater mineral deposits than anywhere else in the world. There may come a time, Mr. Speaker, when that northern unknown section of Canada may be our chief asset. There is every reason to believe that we have wonderful potential riches in that country, and who can say whether or not the Grand Trunk Pacific railway will become one of the most important railways in this great country of ours at some distant date? We certainly hope it will.	[DOT]
I may say, however,-and in doing so I am not going against any of the tenets of the Conservative party-that I hold very strong views with respect to government ownership of railways. I do not think it is possible for a great railway system to prosper under government ownership. I have seen a great deal of it in my time, and I know you do not get the same loyalty from the officials of a government-owned road; you do not get a hundred different things that are necessary to the success of a railway and that are found in efficiently managed private enterprises. I will not go any further into that question for fear I should say something which would embarrass the people who occupy higher positions than I do. But if the time ever comes when these roads can be turned over to some other competent management, I say, let them go. We in Canada are big enough to exercise proper supervision over any corporation, no matter how big it may be. Parliament is supreme in the land,

The Address
and can say: "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." If every part of Canada sends to Parliament its broadest and most able men, we need not fear monopolies or anything else in that line; we can look for what is great and good and best for all the people.
Our manufacturers, without whom we cannot exist, seem to be entirely ignored by the good people to the left of me. And I am not going to sugar-coat any pills for these gentlemen, as is done by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
I have not heard from members of the Progressive party a word of anxiety for the welfare of our great manufacturing class, and our great labouring class, who depend upon those manufacturers for their livelihood. Hon. gentlemen to my left seem to say: "If we can get our machinery a little cheaper, we do not care what becomes of the manufacturers." Let me tell you that if the tariff were completely abolished on all mining and agricultural machinery- we have in mind the doleful picture which members of the Progressive party have presented of themselves-they would not be made prosperous. The whole country is almost in the throes of despair, and in the United States it is the same. Hon. gentlemen say we have restricted markets. Well, what have we to do with the restricted markets? They are due to the action of just such a body of men as my hon. friends to my left, except that they are on the other side of the imaginary line. The Fordney tariff is designed to protect farmers; it was forced on the United States Government against the wishes of the consuming classes by a great body of just such earnest gentlemen as my friends of the Progressive party are. And I admit that they are very honest and very earnest gentlemen. Why, one hon. gentleman, speaking this afternoon, blamed the late government because men out west could riot ship their cattle, owing to the restricted market for cattle. What have we to do with that market? How can we control the situation? We should be pleased to send our cattle across the line, but we have nothing to do with the Fordney tariff. You may come back and say: Well, the Conservative party is to blame for not accepting reciprocity when it was introduced by the gentlemen whom we all admire and who are now in office. But there was a proviso in that pact to the effect that it would be terminated in two years, I believe, on the wish of either party.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is quite mistaken; there was no proviso of that character. It was not a treaty at all; it was an agreement for mutual legislation, which either party could abrogate at any time. No particular time limit was mentioned.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I thank my hon. friend for the correction, but that makes it all the worse.


William Stevens Fielding: It is all the better.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I have spent many happy years with our friends across the line. I know them and respect them. You can deal with American corporations and with American individuals amicably and pleasantly; they are among the most pleasant people in the world. But when you submit to that great country a pact or treaty which has to go before their Senate, you are confronted by the most cold-blooded men in the world, men who talk in United States terms and United States terms alone. Unless therefore, your pact or treaty was such as to be regarded favourably by that Senate, I do not think it would amount to much. I am sorry indeed that such troublous times prevail in the West, but you hear the same story from the farmers in the United States. The farmers are as hard up there as they are in our Northwest.
The manufacturers of Canada are not ri aking any profits. People cry out and say: This and that concern; this manufacturing interest, is away over-capitalized. What, Sir, does it matter whether the capital is $1,000,000 or $10 if no profits are being made? Very few corporations in Canada to-day are operating at a profit.
Now, I wish to say just a few words with respect to the province in which I reside. I thought when I came here that hon. members would speak as representing the whole of the country, but I find that each man is talking for the particular district he represents. Hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces-that weird, spooky land-have spoken of nothing relating to matters beyond their own confines. I could not help thinking, when listening to some hon. gentlemen from that part of the country, that past eminent statesmen must have turned in their graves and that their shades are walking nightly over that cou.ntry as a protest against political actions at the present time-which may account for the spooks.
The Address

We have in the district in which I live, and in that politically lawless region of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), the most important coal mines in the West. Unfortunately, owing to the nature of the geological formations, the mining of our coal is an extremely expensive operation. It could be mined at a profit until petroleum or fuel oil came down to $2.75 a barrel. Three barrels of fuel oil represent in heat units one ton of coal, and our coal cannot be mined and put on cars at less than $8 a ton. The result, therefore, is detrimental to the development of our coal mines. I realize that the use pf fuel oil is of great advantage on steamships, and I should hate to see the duty upon it placed so high as to keep it out of our country, much as some of my constituents would like to have that happen. I remember some years ago in a trip across the Pacific that one day we were going very slowly. I happened to be well acquainted with the captain, and I said to him: "What is the matter; we are not making time?" He said: "I am not running this ship, Dickie; the Firemen's Union of San Francisco is running it." That is what was happening on that ship; when the firemen wanted to work a little harder they could speed her up, and vice versa. I understand that the same condition applies in many cases to coastwise vessels, if you go down into the engine-room or stokehole of a steamer on which fuel oil is used, everything is clean and in order, and no effort is required to keep the ship going at full speed. Now, when that Quebec manifesto was given out as to what the Prime Minister was going to do with other matters, it was stated that fuel oil was to be placed on the free list. My opponent in Nanaimo, the editor of a paper, immediately took the matter up with the present Prime Minister. You can understand that the announcement created a great deal of anxiety among the coal mining population of twenty thousand people; because if the duty were taken off fuel oil all these people would be idle, and the result would be a menace to the country. Mr. Booth undoubtedly wired for some consolation on the subject, and the hon. Mr. Mackenzie King replied as follows:
Replying to your wire I would say that in any revision of tariff under a Liberal administration in the interests of producers and consumers as proposed, our first consideration will be the position and needs of our own industries as related to competing industries of the other countries. This applies, of course, to coal mining operations on Pacific coast in relation to fuel

oil industry, as well as to all other branches of industry in Canada. Tariff revision under a Liberal policy will take due account of both consumers and producers and such revision as may be necessary will be effected only after most careful investigation of the probable effects in every direction.
Well, this telegram was spread broadcast. We simply laughed at it and remarked that it did not say anything,- which was pretty nearly right. Another message apparently came here, and another wire was sent in reply by Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, in these words:
Tour wire received respecting statements being made by supporters of the present Government that if the Liberals are returned duties will be removed on fuel oil thus destroying the Nanaimo coal industry. Such statements cannot be too vigorously denied and you have my full authority to give them the most explicit denial, I have repeatedly stated in the present campaign that no legitimate industry earning a legitimate profit need have any fear of the consequences of a Liberal tariff revision.
That was right straight from the shoulder, Mr. Speaker, and it allayed the fears of that coal mining population, and undoubtedly added to the votes which my opponents received, but it gave us a better feeling all round, because, although we have decided views on politics, we want to see done that which is best for the country. If that coal mining industry had been prostrated it would have been most disastrous to our western country, for we were at our wit's ends with fellows waving the red flag and crying out for this and that, and I do not know what might have happened.
There is another matter I wish to speak on very, very briefly now I see the genial face of our Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe). As you know, we have on the Pacific coast immense fisheries. I can remember years ago when I used to go to Alaska and knew the coast very well, from Alaska down; you would see nobody but Indians fishing, and they were fairly good fishermen. A little later the white men came along, and they and the Indians did all the fishing, making good big pay at the work. Whether or not they became lotus eaters in that mild climate I do not know, but they did not exert themselves quite as hard as they might have. Later on we used to see a few Japanese at each cannery. But now you can go in that north land, as my hon. friend from Skenna (Mr. Stork) has said, and you will see nothing but Japanese. They control absolutely the fishing all the way down the coast. You may look at the returns and say that they have not all the

The Address
fishing licenses, that there are fishing licenses-given to white men. But the comparison does not disclose the actual condition: the Japanese absolutely control the fishing on our coast, which is a very serious thing when we come to take into consideration the thousands of white men we have out of employment.
I am not speaking against the Japanese evil from the standpoint of Labour leaders or of any other class. I am speaking against this evil from the standpoint of all the white people in British Columbia. I have made a close-up study of the Japanese. I have been in their country and have seen the myriads of men in the streets of their cities, and the thousands of bright eyed children going to school; I have seen men come in and take away the filth on their back and pack it up to the terraced spaces on the snow-capped mountains. They have a crowded population, and they must expand in some direction. You are treated with civility wherever you go in Japan, and the people are just as law-abiding as our own people, notwithstanding what some travellers may say. These Japanese came to our country as they had a right to do, but now they are pouring in and are increasing all the time although we do not know just where they come from. I know at the present time they are negotiating the purchase of immense timber holdings; I know they are negotiating the purchase of one of the largest sawmill plants in British Columbia; I know they are interested in our fruit lands and are buying more land everywhere. This is a shame, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a case for the diplomat, not for the demagogue, and it must be settled one way or the other and settled quickly. Our discontented white people cannot see these Japanese making money and rearing families while they themselves and their dependents are starving for the necessaries of life.
It is a sad admission to have to make, but the white man on our Pacific coast in the fisheries and some other occupations cannot compete with the Jap; he is a virile little fellow and will live on one-third of what the white man requires and yet do just as much work. It is impossible for the white man to compete with him under these conditions, and, moreover, the Jap is very industrious. You can easily see that with a little agitation what might take place on the Pacific coast to-day. Therefore I was very sorry indeed to hear my hon. friend, the eloquent member for
Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-where political questions are formulated on the ouija board-I was very sorry indeed to hear him advocate that the Mounted Police be taken away from our province. We have a big socialist population-I have four thousand red flag fellows in my constituency, and he also has a large number -and we all know that but for those brave fellows working quietly, with their finger on the pulse of those fellows all the time, there would have been a very serious condition of affairs in British Columbia when we were at war across the sea: I know it.
Another matter that must be gone into very thoroughly is the condition of the returned soldier. We have heard from the farmers that they cannot succeed in the Northwest, and they are all good practical men-you can see it by looking at them. I am not saying it to get their votes, because eight out of ten of them would be Liberals if they were not Progressives. But when those gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, are a unit in saying that it is impossible to succeed in the Northwest country that they are familiar with, and they are young and virile, how can you expect to put returned soldiers on the land anywhere in the Northwest and have them succeed? That condition prevails pretty much in British Columbia. We have tried, God knows everybody has tried, to do what was right for the returned soldier, for he is dear to the heart of everybody. We have those poor fellows there who came back looking in the best of health, but now they are beginning to fade away with this miserable tuberculosis due to their having been gassed. We are doing the best we can for them. We have settled them on land under the same conditions, but they cannot succeed. Why should they when trained agriculturalists cannot succeed? There is an era of everything bad sweeping over this country at the present time, it embraces those engaged in manufacture, in mining-as I have been for many years -and everything else. The depression is not confined to this country. I do not know any of those men who are making money, unless it is the colonies of Danes we have in there, good law-abiding men, but they work harder than we would like to see our men work, and they are used to living very poorly in their own country. Without exception they are succeeding in the chicken and strawberry business.
There is just another point I wish to make in respect to the Japanese. I had to
The Address

pay a visit to a district outside the great city of Seattle in the state of Washington. There were fine farm buildings everywhere and good farms, but every farm was occupied by a Japanese. The farmers that formerly lived there had leased their lands to Japanese, and were making more money out of their leases than they could by cultivating the land. I saw farms on which those Japanese were raising strawberries and whitemen were picking these strawberries. Can you not see what that means to our country? Can you not realize what the influx of such a nationality, with a birth rate such as they have, means to us? Can you not understand what will happen a few years from now, providing we do not have action in the meantime on the part of an unsettled element in our province that will precipitate international trouble? We want no trouble with Japan because tha+ country at the present time affords a splendid outlet for our lumber and we have big dealings with it. If only our diplomats could go to the very decent and notable representative that Japan has in Ottawa and could talk matters over with that gentleman he, wise and subtle as he is, would understand that conditions cannot continue in British Columbia as they are at the present time without working to the detriment of Japan as well as of Canada.
We cannot gloss over the facts and I must speak frankly, although perhaps in doing so ,1 may incur the hostility of some big interest in British Columbia. I do not know that I will do so if everybody out there takes a broad view of matters. After all no body could take any objection to the statement I am now making unless perhaps it might be the cannery men. I have talked plainly with the cannery men as to the existing conditions. Last year was to be one of the big years for our canners. As you know the salmon run every fourth year is supposed to be a big one. Last year it was a complete failure; and I may say that nine cannery men out of ten lost money; next season we expect the same thing. You will see, therefore, that just as soon as the cannery men can sell out their canneries to the Japanese they will do so. The Japanese will make the canneries succeed where' white men cannot, by resorting to different methods and working for less profit.	[DOT]
Our salmon fisheries are practically being depleted. I remember the time they were so prolific that we could supply the world. Salmon when coming in from the Pacific ocean to the Fraser river go very close 
to the coast of British Columbia. Then they cut out into deeper water and touch Point Roberts in American Territory. The Americans erected big traps there and the salmon would come round the point and enter those traps-there was no escape for them. We protested and held conference after conference with those gentlemen asking them to abolish the traps for unless they did so it would mean that the Fraser river salmon fishing would go like that of the Sacramento and other rivers to the south. However we could do nothing with them. Then we made representations to the authorities here in Ottawa and said:	"These Americans are
catching all our salmon. Why should we in British Columbia be deprived of that privilege?" So traps were allowed at this point I speak of, the coast of the Island, part of which I represent. This resulted in immense catches of salmon; so between the traps and the Japs the salmon will be so nearly extinct that it will not be a profitable industry to try and can the sock-eye salmon from this time forward. So we are told by our Fishery Commissioner Mr. Babcock, and I think there is no man who is more familiar with piscatorial life in Canada or elsewhere than is that gentleman. So we see what has been the result of intensive fishing by traps and by Japanese.
There is another fish in our province whose importance I would like to draw attention to-what we call the ground fish. In all our island waters there are cod fish, salmon and other choice fish. Only a few years ago poor people who came down to the coast to spend the hot weather could get a living by going out fishing and catching these fish in abundance. Now you can go there and you would not catch one. That is the result of fishing operations carried on day after day by the Japanese. I have been there and seen them fishing the bottom of the sea just as carefully as they would pick strawberries on the soil. They would fish at one point and then by just a movement of the oar move to another place and would use live bait. If the Minister of Fisheries were here I would tell him it was one of the curses of that method of fishing to use live bait. The result is our cod banks and other fishing banks have been completely cleared out. Whereas formerly hundreds of people could provide themselves with valuable food fish and live a great deal better than many other people in the world, none of those fish can now be obtained. That is another thing the Jap

The Address
has done in our country. I appeal to you gentlemen when this question comes up for consideration, as it will come up on a more appropriate occasion, to give it your best judgment. It is a matter upon which I feel very, very strongly, and I can safely say I represent the sentiment of nine people out of ten in British Columbia.
There is, another question to which I desire to refer although I do not consider myself very competent to deal with it. As you know we have a dry dock in our country. There has already been expended upon it about a million and a quarter of money, and when completed it will be one of the biggest dry docks in the world. That dry dock is in my constituency and if work on it is suspended now it will mean that at least 500 people will be prevented from obtaining the necessities of life. When I last came through the port there were actually at work 280 persons. We have had the fear that perhaps operations on the dock would be suspended after the last of the present month. I certainly hope that in the interest of economy, to say nothing of good politics, work will not be discontinued on this dock at the present time with the unemployment situation as it now is. On a distinct promise that the dry dock would be constructed an important shipbuilding firm was brought out and they are extending their operations from day to day so that they may be in a position to do work on any ship that floats on the Pacific. For it must be remembered1 that there are many vessels operating on the Pacific which cannot be accommodated in our dock at Esquimalt. It must be remembered too that there are sixteen docks farther down the coast in American territory; and if ships needing repairs cannot enter British Columbia docks they will cross to the docks on the other side. Ships like the Manila Maru have been obliged to leave our ports and seek the other side of the line for dock accommodation which has meant a loss of thousands of dollars to Canada. Under the circumstances I ask you gentlemen to consider very seriously before endorsing the discontinuance of operations on the dock in question. I have had very many requests for money to be expended in needed directions in my constituency but I have replied that the time is not opportune to make public expenditures for such purposes. My position has been: Let us get the country on a paying basis in some way before we ask to have any money expended that we
can possibly get along without. Therefore I am not going to ask the Government to expend money on a great many undertakings. I suppose I shall disappoint a great many people by that course, but I hope that I shall never be willing to sacrifice national interests to political expediency. The work on the dry dock in question should however he proceeded with at the present time.
Now in respect to the Progressives. I think, perhaps, I have said all I can say for and against these gentlemen, but I have this further utterance to make: Some statements that have been made on this side appear to have been received by the Progressive's with disrespect. I have heard good arguments advanced by our party jeered at by the Progressives. I hope my hon. friends will not jeer at anything that I say. I have worked just as hard as any hon. member among the Progressives. I have never been a farmer but I have lived and worked in the mountains and it seems to me that life up there gives men a broader outlook than does life upon the plains. I hope that in my consideration of questions in this House I shall view them from a national point of view rather than from any mere narrow local outlook. I would advise our good friends from the prairies to take a trip through the great manufacturing plants of Canada and see the thousands of workmen to which they give employment. In the province of British Columbia we have some 500 manufacturing industries that I can assure hon. gentlemen would not exist for one month if we removed the duty now levied upon goods coming from the United States. That is our position in British Columbia. I do not know whether we want the Laurier-Field-ing tariff exactly, but we certainly want nothing less than it provides for at the present time. I can tell my hon. friends that as a minmg man and a man familiar with lumber we have been very hard hit by the duty on implements. We have to pay the duty on grain, and have to buy expensive logging machinery and other things. These machines are manufactured in the West, but they are for a particular kind of logging, which does not exist in this country. However, we would rather pay more for our machinery, and we do pay more, and many thousands of dollars go out of the western country both for logging and mining machinery. I think we are broad enough out there-because I have heard no serious pro-
The Address

test-to realize that we have to stop this flow of gold across the line into the coffers of United States manufacturers, if we are going to succeed. We are willing to be handicapped, even considerably, if the manufacturing industries of this country can be made to succeed, and I think they should succeed. There is no reason why they should not manufacture the implements cheaply, and if they are not doing so, I think the Government should say to them " Thus far shalt thou go and no further." I can assure hon. gentlemen that the Government has very effective machinery for dealing with manufacturers who make excessive profits.


Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (Saint Denis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, representing one of the large sections of the metropolis of Canada, I deem it my duty to express my feelings and especially my views on the all important questions referred to in the Speech from the Throne. For some-fortunately the small number-little is found of much importance to satisfy their curios-' ity; for others-and they comprise the greater number-it is the enunciation of a policy essentially Canadian of a nature to bring about beneficial results as regards the future of our dear Canada.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to join with those who have preceded me in this debate-and to extend to you my most sincere congratulations for the honour just bestowed upon you when selected Speaker of this House. It is an honour which reflects on all the citizens of the province of Quebec, moreover it is an homage paid to our race, of which you are one of the most distinguished and esteemed citizens. Your long experience in political life and profound knowledge of the rules and regulations of this House are a sure pledge that you will fulfil with dignity and impartiality the important duties which now devolve upon you. I must also convey my congratulations to the hon. members who moved and seconded the motion to the address in answer to the Speech from the Throne; they acquitted themselves of their task with an eloquence, ability and clearness worthy of the most tried parliamentarians. Although young, they have shown that courage is not born with years. To our colleague from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) I wish a cordial welcome.
I shall now discuss, Mr. Speaker, the important questions which are to be considered by the hon. members of this House. Unemployment is one which specially needs

our consideration. I congratulate the Government for having helped to relieve the hardships which were brought on by the lack of work. I trust they will carry on so that in the near future, our poorer classes may obtain work so as to allow them the means of providing for their families. Hard times are here and we must act. Representing a division made up of workmen, this question is of the utmost importance to me and I shall be greatly obliged to the Government for whatever they may do toward helping the working classes.
Incidentally, I come to the question of immigration, referred to in the Speech from the Throne. If we do not wish to increase unemployment, I believe we should, for some time to come, restrict immigration. What we are in need of at present is settlers, good settlers to clear our land which only requires strong arms to produce rich harvests. I shall now take up the tariff question. I have listened with much interest to the several speeches which have been made on the subject. Some lean towards a high protective tariff, others favour free trade. May I, Mr. Speaker, express my humble opinion? I believe that these two theories will not promote success nor help in the progress of our country, and if we truly wish to see Canada prosperous, we must give it a tariff consistent with its needs and with the necessities of its commerce and its industries; it must have a tariff for revenue, shaped on the whole upon the one which the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of happy memory, gave to this country. It is the Laurier-Fielding tariff, the same which the leader of the present Government intends to adopt by applying it to the needs of the day. I place my trust in the Government, and this confidence is the more strengthened by the declaration which the Prime Minister made in this House, that he intends to govern this country with a truly Canadian spirit and that he does not wish to have his policy dictated by people across the ocean. Mr. Speaker, there are still other questions that I would have wished to express my opinion upon, but knowing that the Government will give them its special consideration and that its policy will rally all parties in the general interest of the country. Such is the hope expressed by the member from St. Denis and by the 34,000 electors whom he has the honour of representing in this House.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Address
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps, necessary for me to offer an apology for rising to speak at this time, because this debate is nearing the point where most of us would like to see the end of it in order to take up other business. I have, however, a few observations that I desire to make. I wish to congratulate you, Sir, on having been chosen to fill the position of Speaker of this House, as I think there could have been no better choice. I was very much impressed with the remark you made when you took the Chair, that: "At this moment I cease to be a party man." I was glad to hear you say that, and I am sure every one who heard you believes that you meant just what you said. I desire further to congratulate all my colleagues, because I consider it one of the greatest privileges that a man can have to come to this House to serve his country. It seems to me that greater satisfaction and pleasure could come from that position than could come from any other position that a man might be chosen to fill.
There is a reason why there has been such a large increase in the ranks of the Progressive party. The people of my constituency felt that they wanted to see their member come to Parliament as free and independent as it was possible for him to be. Considerable interest was aroused in the campaign, and throughout the campaign this political view was held and presented, that they wanted their member to come to this House to serve them, to assist in the administration of the affairs of this country and in passing such legislation as was necessary in the interest of the people. They gave me to understand, all the way through that campaign, that they did not expect me to spend my time here talking politics and working for party interests; they expected me to serve them, and they were very free in telling me all the time that they would attend to the electing part and that, when the next election came around, if I had served them properly, they would see to it that I was elected again. They wanted that job themselves; they did not want to see me spend my time here setting up a machine that would get me back into office again. No doubt there are many in this House who would not agree with that point of view; but we have been thinking new
thoughts, and we have been trying to do new things. Our idea of doing new things is growing and after the next election, Parliament will either be more Liberal in its view along party lines, or have Progressives enough in it to take control of this House. That is my honest conviction.
During this debate a great deal has been said from all points of view. The Farmers have, I think, presented very well what they have had to say, and they have, I believe, spoken as clearly and logically as any hon. member, on the other side of the House or to my right, who has taken part in this discussion. This debate has, perhaps, served to acquaint us with each other and, as a result, we shall know each other better.
I have tried to listen as best I could to the speeches that have been delivered; I have tried to take every one's point of view and to consider it, and it seems that some hon. members feel that the farmers would not be satisfied no matter what they got or what the conditions were. We have, however, some idea as to what we want. I reside and have resided for practically a quarter of a century in a community where, as regards natural conditions and the handiwork of our Great Creator, wonderful opportunities have been afforded for people to live and thrive; but after a quarter of a century amongst those people, 1 am amazed at the condition that some of them are in, although there has never been a year in which we did not have enough for man and beast as well as something to ship out. When such a condition prevails in a country like that, there must be something radically wrong.
We are not asking for any special privilege; we object, and we intend always to object, to special privilege. The farmers have had to put up with a condition that has been almost intolerable. A great deal of the time they have been just able to make a fair living; and they have not been able to accumulate any great wealth. There are many reasons why the farmers have not prospered better than they have, although they are industrious, work longer each day than any other class of people, and work throughout the year. In the community in which I live they follow the mode of farming which is supposed, and which I believe, to be the best, namely, mixed farming; the raising of a certain number of cattle and hogs. Possibly our conditions are similar to those that obtain in other parts of the country, but I say
The Address

this because we have good reason to believe that the farmers have not had a square deal compared with the advantages that have been enjoyed by some other classes in Canada.
We have a freight rate that absorbs so much of the profit to-day that it takes more to ship grain to Fort William than the farmer gets out of it himself. Our hogs and cattle are subject to about the same conditions. Our people are getting quite discouraged, and personally, I do not believe it is in the interests of other classes in Canada that the farmers should carry the burden they have to bear to-day. Perhaps this is an old story; nevertheless it is absolutely true. There has been a suspension of the Crow's Nest Pass agreement in order that the Railway Commission could fix a higher freight rate than could be charged under that agreement. We hope that this suspension of the agreement will be revoked; it has nearly everything in Canada in the air at the present time. Business cannot settle down, and transportation will not pick up unless people can ship at a profit; and while conditions are such as exist to-day people certainly cannot buy enough to pay the manufacturer what he is asking. We hope that the Government will weigh the matter seriously before disposing of this question of the Crow's Nest Pass agreement, because we believe that freight rates can come down to pre-war level at least if the agreement is once more put into effect.
_ Now, we have an immigration problem in Canada which demands careful consideration. It is a very important problem. I think that the whole welfare of Canada is bound up in the immigration policy which we pursue. We have too few people in Canada to exploit our natural resources, and unless we can develop the country we cannot pay off the heavy debt which we have. I quite agree that in considering the immigration question regard must be had to the proper sort of immigrant. We want people who not only know how to farm, but who will farm. But there is among the farmers a condition that is not very conducive to the encouragement of this sort of immigration to the country, and this condition must be ameliorated. The Government must realize that the first step towards securing proper immigration is to better conditions for the farmers who are already in the country.
When I came to this country, nearly a quarter of a century ago, there were coming into Canada a class of people against

whom there were some complaints, and I myself rather questioned the advisability of admitting them. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, however, that I have been among those people and have observed the progress which they have made, and I have come to the conclusion that they are good settlers. They have proved a good asset to Canada. Of course, I do not say that, once in a while, there is not an objectionable one among them, but those who came here twenty or twenty-five years ago and settled on new land have done as well as farmers could be expected to do under the circumstances they have had to cope with; and it is due to them that Canada has reaped so large a profit from the soil. There was an element about the election of 1917 that was not very satisfactory. Those people were berated, and many of them were condemned without personal reasons. Now, Sir, I can quite conceive the feelings, under such condemnation, of any man or woman, who has taken the oath of citizenship in this country. I took that oath myself. I made the pledge that I would be a good citizen of the Dominion of Canada and that I would do the best I could to uphold its dignity and promote the welfare of all its people. I think, therefore, that any naturalized citizen who has observed the laws of the country and has played his part in developing its resources is entitled to the consideration of its citizens.
In the election of 1917 many Canadian citizens who are just as good as I am were disfranchised. I do not say that we should throw our doors open to the extent of allowing into this country people who will not be patriotic, who will not be faithful to Canada and her traditions. But I want to tell hon. members of this House that when I became naturalized it was as an individual, not as an American. Everyone who becomes naturalized in this country does so as an individual, and if he keeps his pledge; if he is a good citizen, honest and honourable, it is no credit to Canada to take the franchise from him. I am not complaining, but I myself came very nearly being disfranchised at that time. One of the improvements that we ought to bring about in this country is to make our naturalized citizens feel that they share all the privileges common to the other good citizens of Canada. When I became naturalized I felt that the Canadian people were giving me all they had to give; that henceforth I should be on an equality with every other Canadian or Britisher in whatever part of the Empire

The Address
he might have been born. I felt that I got that privilege, and I want to feel that I still have it. That is one thing the Government must do: make a man feel that he has good cause to be patriotic; that he has ample inducement to be a worthy and useful citizen.
Once we have the foundation prepared, then an immigration policy should be embarked upon that will bring as many good people to this country as can be assimilated; as many as we can find homes for. But we want the ground well prepared; not until those who are already on the land are living under the best possible conditions can you hope to bring in people from other countries, no matter whether they are farmers or labourers. If you pour water into the middle of a basin, it will spread out and find its level. If you make conditions on the land attractive to those who are now working there, others will be very glad to take up farms and produce. All we ask is that something be done along this line, and that the Government do the best it can to find markets for the produce of the farms. We do not ask that we be paid more for our produce than it is worth, but we do ask the privilege of getting it to a market and getting out of it all that is possible, less transportation to that market. We believe that it is possible for the Government to obtain for us some sort of regulated market, to inaugurate some sort of co-operative, consolidated marketing scheme through which we may sell our produce without being fleeced as we have been in the past.
Speaking before the Kiwanis club of Montreal, or Toronto-I have forgotten which-Colonel Dennis, immigration agent for the Canadian Pacific Railway company, said that it was up to this Government to inaugurate an immigration scheme and get all the immigrants that it was possible to bring into the country. I agree with Colonel Dennis to this extent: we want these immigrants after we have the foundation laid. You cannot build a structure unless you first lay the foundation, and I have pointed out what that foundation must be. But if the Canadian Pacific would forego part of their guaranteed ten per cent dividend when the rest of us are making nothing, it would be as good an immigration policy as I know of. I am not suggesting that the Canadian Pacific should do business without profit, but many of the rest of us have been doing business without profit for quite a while, and at
such a time we do not like to see the Canadian Pacific earning ten per cent and more.
I want to say something further about the tariff. Our friends on the right are a pretty good-looking bunch of men, and I believe they are reasonable fellows. Let me say to them: We are not asking for any privilege; we are simply asking that they and their friends get off our necks. If they are helping their friends, the manufacturers, because they are patriotic enough to keep the manufacturing of Canada going, that is all right. But we are not asking for tariff; it can do nothing for us except keep us poor. Of course, if we got too rich we might be just a little bit too hard to manage. The manufacturers are asking for special privileges. Their raw material is not on the free list, but they get a ninety-nine per cent drawback on it. We simply ask that our raw material, farm implements, be placed on the free list. We are not asking for special privilege; we are asking for equality.
But I want to say further to my hon. friends on my right that we will support them in a protective tariff on one condition. The country needs revenue, we want the country to have revenue, and if they are patriotic enough to help us to this end we will stand for a tariff. I am only speaking for myself, but I think I can speak for my colleagues also when I say that if my hon. friends on my right will stand for an excise duty on all goods manufactured in Canada, as well as a tariff on all imports, we will support them in a protective tariff, but we want the Government to get that duty instead of the manufacturer; that is what we want. Now, if those hon. members are patriotic enough to get protection on those terms and so give the treasury the money needed to meet our national expenditure, we will stay with them. I did not intend to talk tariff at all when I started in, but my hon. friend' who was sitting behind me before we adjourned brought this into my head, and I want to tell you what I think. I think if our manufacturers continue their present protection policy there is going to be a sentiment strong enough to say to them: If you have protection you are going to pay the excise duty. And I will help make them do it. Then the country will get the full benefit of that duty instead of its going into the pockets of a few manufacturers.
In order to show the difference in condition between the farmers and the manu-
The Address

facturers, I am going to repeat a statement that I made all through the campaign which was not refuted; and I do not believe it can be refuted. Among our farmers 16,652 paid income tax amounting to $611,735. Now, that is not very many farmers when you take into account the total number. That was for the year 1920 when we had a fair crop in most parts of the Dominion. During the same year 277 manufacturers paid an average income tax of $29,087 apiece. If you take the amount of income on which their income tax was assessed compared with the income on which the farmers were assessed, you will see the great disparity, and you will also see who has been getting the money away from the farmers.
I wish the hon. member that brought these things into my head was here. I should like to tell him that he may some day be thankful to the farmers for stopping special privileges before it shall have caused the waving of more red flags in this country. The waving of the red flag I think has been caused more by special privilege than any other thing that I can remember. The hon. member, it seems to me, hinted that the Farmers were waving the red flag. I want to tell him and other hon. members that we do not see it. We want to be absolutely sure, and we are absolutely sure, that we are not asking for anything that is not best for the whole Dominion. We are not asking for special privileges that will cause the waving of the red flag. We are anxious to have better conditions, but we are not asking for those better conditions for ourselves alone; we are just as anxious for all the people to share in them.
Without going into any detail I am trying to review a little of what has been brought before this House by my hon. friends to the left. We have a banking institution that is going to be talked about, and it is going to have to be dealt with during the next year or so, and I hope this Government will see fit to amend the banking laws in such a way as will permit of the money of the country serving our people as the first consideration. That is what it was created for, to serve the people of Canada. If it is used to enrich the corporations that are doing our banking business, then I say that we are only willing for them to have a fair amount of return on the business they do and for the service they render. We want a banking system that will serve our people; that

is to say, a banking system so that we can trade with all the other nations and have them feel safe to trade with us. We do not want to upset our banking conditions, but since I have been in this country on two occasions I have seen our money, or our credit, go across the line for speculation in Wall Street when we needed that money to do business. I do not believe it is conducive to the welfare of Canada to allow trading in futures and in short call loans in another country when we need that money here to carry on our business.
I have just one more suggestion to make. I referred a short time ago to taking the franchise away from a part of our people. We had an Election Act that lent itself to the most unfair conditions in 1917. Although amended for the last election, it was not yet satisfactory and it brought hardship on a great many people. We want to discard that act. I have tried to figure out how we could amend it to make it satisfactory, and I have made up my mind, after carefully studying this piece of legislation, that the best thing to do is to throw it away and enact a new measure. I believe we can have an Election Act that will permit every individual who is eligible and entitled to vote to cast his or her vote without any undue difficulty and trouble such as the present act causes, and I believe at the same time that we can embody in this new Act such restrictions as will curtail fraudulent voting and still give every citizen a chance to vote under conditions fair and just to every one.
I have talked at greater length than I intended, and it is time I brought my remarks to a close. Let me say in closing that the opportunity afforded every one of us to serve the country has never been surpassed. I believe we have problems to solve and that we should apply ourselves forthwith to the solution of them. That being the case the sooner this debate is brought to a close the better it will be.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Webster Warner: The manner in which hon. gentlemen have received that statement looks like an invitation for me to resume my seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, go on.


Daniel Webster Warner: We are here to do the business of the country and I feel that in speaking at such length I have imposed upon the patience of the House, but I pro-

The Address
mise to do better in future. On resuming my seat I wish to thank hon. members for the attention with which they have listened to me.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss some of the subjects which are referred to in the Speech from the Throne, I desire to associate myself with preceding speakers in extending congratulations to you, Sir, on your elevation to the high position which you now hold, and to say that I am fully of the opinion you will discharge the duties appertaining to the chair with distinction to your self and tc this House. I also desire to express my regret for the cause which has necessitated the absence of the Prime Minister from the House at this time.
Public ownership and operation of the national railway system is a question of outstanding importance which is now engaging the thoughts of the House and of the country. The Government proposes to continue the policy of public ownership and operation, and has stated that the policy will have a fair trial, carried out under the most favourable circumstances. One of the most favourable circumstances demanded, I think, is the confident and undivided attitude of the Government that will stand behind the policy. This, I take it, is lacking. It is an inherent weakness and therefore it appears to me that there is not proper justification for using with respect to this trial the term "under the most favourable circumstances." Mr. Speaker, public ownership and operation of the national railways should be viewed from a strong, broad national standpoint. The interests of all sections of the country are to be considered; and the very breadth of the Dominion adds to the difficulties in meeting the diverse requirements of the various sections of the country. What adds to the prosperity of one section adds to the prosperity of all; what creates adversity in one portion of the country has its effect on the rest. Therefore there is an interdependence, a community of interest, involved which should stimulate us to arrive at the most perfect arrangement which can possibly be reached so that all portions of the country shall receive equitable treatment.
This being the ease, I deem it my duty to my constituency and to my country to draw attention to the uneasiness and dissatisfaction that now exists in the Maritime provinces concerning the railway question. This, I may say, is not due to local feeling; it is not sectional; their vision is not restricted. I am glad to be able to affirm that no portion of the country is freer from narrow prejudice or sectional feeling, or more truly inspired by patriotic and national ideals, than are the Maritime provinces. It will be admitted that for the administration of the country to be successful all portions of the Dominion must receive equitable treatment. But a feeling of uneasiness and dissatisfaction exists in the Maritime provinces; it prevails among people of all shades of politics and is reflected in the press representative of all political views- in a word it is general. Much regarding this matter has appeared in our newspapers; and the comments of the press of other provinces, principally of the Liberal press-the press supporting the Government

have been such that the condition of uneasiness to which I refer has been greatly increased.
There are two phases of the railway question on which I desire to make some remarks. The Government has taken over the Grand Trunk railway and a portion of that line runs to Portland, Maine. The question that arises is what shall be the policy of the Government regarding this portion of the Grand Trunk which runs to the seaport of Portland? Shall governmental control, to the extent that it can be made available, be directed toward the development of our own ports, or shall it partially or completely assist in the building up of Portland, or other foreign ports, to the detriment of the cities on our own coast? This is a question that is now engaging the attention of our people, especially the Maritime provinces, because it is a matter of vital interest to them and it also greatly affects the interest of the country at large. I propose to read to you extracts from some of the newspapers dealing with this subject wihch will illustrate public opinion; and I shall quote from papers supporting the present Government for the reason that they cannot be credited with any desire to embarrass the present administration, and also for the reason that hon. gentlemen opposite will give more attention to the utterances of those journals than they will to expressions of opinion by other newspapers. I propose first to quote from some of the Liberal newspapers in the Maritime provinces on this subject, and I shall now read from the St. John Globe

The Address

of March 7, an article in reply to an editorial in the Toronto Globe which has not viewed the situation in the same light. It is stated here:
On another page to-day will be found a Toronto Globe editorial on Portland and the Canadian ports. The article, intended as a reply to the insistent demand of this paper that in working out the national railway problem the ports of the Maritime Provinces must be protected against government operated competition through Portland or any other foreign port, takes the broad general ground that if the government does not do this business somebody else will.
This refers to the Toronto Globe editorial:
The answer is obvious. Let them try, but do not use the resources of Canada to help them. The Dominion of Canada by and through a government commission must not own and operate a railway designed to carry to and from a foreign port trade that could and would go through the ports of the Maritime Provinces if the national system was devoting all its energies to the building up of trade through those ports. The long haul on which our Toronto contemporary lays so much stress is by no means the important factor it is represented to be. Gradients on the national system to New Brunswick are so much better than to Portland by the Grand Trunk that mileage advantage is nullified. That national system was built to keep Canadian trade in Canadian channels, but will be made to do so only if the administrators of the road are very plainly told what must be. Only a few weeks ago, when a United States Congress committee was considering a proposal which would have compelled the use of American shipping for the American carrying trade representatives of British steamship lines now doing business with the Grand Trunk at Portland declared they would have to transfer their ships to Maritime Province ports. Is it not the business of Canada to study ways and means to help them to do that very thing? The Maritime Provinces can be built up and developed only if there is Canadian co-operation. Competition by the Canadian National Railways system through Portland, with Canadian money spent to improve the terminals there, to encourage trade there, and with every Canadian National Railway employee from Montreal west to the Pacific an agent for Portland business, means stagnation in the Maritime Provinces. Canadian National co-operation with the C. P. R. in developing trade through the home ports means continued prosperity and steady development. The national idea must ever be kept uppermost in mind in the working out of the national railway scheme.
Then the same paper on March 4, says:
The fact that business has been done through St. John and Halifax is the proof that it can be done. What share will the Maritime Provinces have in Canada's trade if under the National Railway system Portland is made the national winter port? Neither the long haul nor the shipper's routing is a matter of the great importance which is so often suggested by the special pleader. It will always be for the shipper to route his freight as he likes. What is required in the Maritime Provinces is full pro-

tection against the government agents-the railway officials-routing via the competing port. The question of real importance is whether Canadian government interest is to centre in the development of home or foreign ports. Everything in reason must be done to prevent the Canadian development of a foreign port in competition with the ports of the Maritime Provinces, and everything in reason must be done to keep Canadian trade in Canadian channels.
And then it says,-and it is a Liberal paper:
That was the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which must not be departed from by any Canadian Government.
Might I say it was also the policy of the Conservative party. The Daily Telegraph, of St. John, a well-known Liberal paper- in its issue of January 4, says:
There is a new government at Ottawa. In the near future it will be developing policies in connection with the great system of railroads under public control, and one feature of the railroad situation of sharp interest to St. John and Halifax is the Portland complication in connection with the Grand Trunk. Existing conditions would seem to demand strong co-operation by the Maritime Provinces, which are now well represented at Ottawa, in order to present the need for systematic development of Maritime ports in accordance with the policy of all-Canadian transportation.
I therefore, desire to draw the attention, especially of the Government, to the views expressed in various papers supporting their policy. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of Canadian trade for Canadian ports be confirmed, and that the Government, so far as it is concerned, shall not be instrumental in carrying trade to foreign ports to the detriment of our own. This is vital to our interests and our prosperity.
The second phase of the railway question which I desire to deal with is that regarding the Intercolonial. We have heard speeches from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and other members on this subject. The railway was built as a condition of Confederation, and it is so stated in section 145 of the British North America Act. It surely will be conceded that in the construction of this railway is involved its operation, and its operation under favourable circumstances, so that the provinces may do business with each other and with other portions of the Dominion. The very high freight rates which now exist are so many barriers against the profitable operation of the railway. In many cases they restrict the trade, and in some cases even prohibit it. I shall read another extract, dated February 7, which deals with an article which appeared in the Toronto Star written by an

The Address
Ottawa correspondent. The Daily Telegraph says:	*
Political blackmail is the description applied by the Toronto Star's Ottawa correspondent to representations made by maritime members of Parliament to the Government in connection with Intercolonial freight rates, and the relation of that railroad to the development and prosperity of this part of the country.
I think I should state that we are informed through the press that a deputation of Liberal members of parliamemnt from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick interviewed the government recently with a view to establishing headquarters of the railway in Moncton. I am not aware of the exact request that was made, but, in general terms, I understand that it was a request that the headquarters be restored to Moncton. Then the Toronto Star's Ottawa correspondent makes some comments. The article reads as follows:
The Star's correspondent lectures the Maritime M. P.'s at some length, and then proceeds to threaten this part of Canada with the expansion of Portland at Canadian expense-expense to which we would contribute-for the purpose of reducing the people of the Maritime division to what some people in Toronto regard as a proper state of subjection. Having declared that nearly every community in the world is to-day complaning of industrial depression and high freight rates, and having dwelt upon the need for national thinking and national unity, The Star writer proceeds as follows :
"Furthermore, the Maritime Provinces should be the last to begin the game of political blackmail in Canada, for they are the worst equipped for playing it with success. After the next redistribution their political power will be considerably less than half the strength of either Quebec, Ontario or the West, and their proportionate weakness will steadily increase. If they set this fashion, the West or Ontario may imitate it with demands which the Maritime Provinces acutely dislike. What if Ontario and the West combined to insist that in order to save paying heavy freight rates, Portland should be made more use of as a winter port?"
There is something further that I shall not detain the House by reading. I do not know what the Liberal representatives from the Maritime provinces who waited on the Government think of this article from the Toronto Star, a paper supporting the present Government, has written regarding the nature of their views and actions. I would think questions of such moment should be discussed in a reasonable, tolerant way, so that the matters could be fairly and equitably dealt with.
The fact of the headquarters of the Intercolonial railway being situated in Toronto, a distance of something like 800 miles from the seat of operations, has proved anything but a success. I would have my hon. friends from Toronto under-
23J
stand that the objection is not any more to the headquarters being in Toronto than it would be to their being in Hamilton or any other town in that vicinity, but it is to the distance which separates the headquarters from the field of operations. They are simply not in touch with the wants and needs of the people using the railway. The proper place for the headquarters of a railway system is in the midst of its work. What then do the people desire? I take it that their desire is the restoration of something like what formerly existed; that is divisional control at Moncton, in order that officials might be in close communication with the business people and the industries of the locality, so that business might be done in an understanding way and that difficulties that always arise might be promptly adjusted.
It is important for us to remember that the right hon. Prime Minister of the preceding government (Mr. Meighen) made a pronouncement on this situation. He stated that, on the reorganization of the national railways, his policy would be to found a grand division of the national railways for the Maritime provinces, with headquarters at Moncton. That, I believe, would satisfy the people of those provinces and would add greatly to their prosperity. I would commend the policy of the right hon. the Prime Minister of the preceding government to the careful attention of the Government which is now in power. So much for these matters.
I wish to refer very briefly to the question mentioned in the Speech from the Throne of granting their natural resources to the three Prairie provinces. There can be no objection to that; it would seem a proper thing; but it is stated that there will be an accounting and other investigations in reference to this matter and that, on the completion of that, a report will be brought down to the House. I regret that apparently no provision is made for there being a reference so far as the other provinces have claims. The other provinces have claims. It seems to me that it is due to the provinces to be granted an opportunity of presenting those claims; and when the report comes to the House, surely it is desirable that we should have a comprehensive report rather than only a partial one concerning the Prairie provinces. I would, therefore, urge that when this matter is taken up, it be taken up in a thorough and comprehensive way, so that all questions bearing on it may be con-
The Address

sidered properly and a comprehensive report made to the House.
I have just one subject further to refer to, and that is the question of the returned soldier, and more especially the disabled soldier. It is a matter of great gratification to all Canadians to be aware of the fact that Canada has led the world in its care of returned soldiers; but we also understand that there can be no finality in a measure of this kind, because experience is of value and experience teaches that new problems arise occasionally to be settled, and naturally, from time to time, these will, I take it, come before the House for such readjustments as are found necessary and proper. In all cases and events, I assume that these matters will receive the very sympathetic attention of members of the House.
Mr. MILTON N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with those who have preceded me in expressing to you my congratulations on your elevation to that high and honourable office that you now hold. In congratulating also the mover and seconder of the address, I wish to state that I heartily concur in the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) regarding the inequalities in the franchise. Let me say that if we are ever to make good Canadian citizens of the many races that come to our shores, we must frame our institutions to command their respect and appeal to their sense of justice.
I regret exceedingly that, through an incomplete knowledge of the French language, I am not in a position to discuss the speech of the hon. member who seconded the address (Mr. Mercier), and who spoke in French. It is one of the principal regrets of my life that I have not a full and complete knowledge of the French language, and I think the time has arrived when we of the Anglo-Saxon race must give to the French language the prominence that it deserves in our national schools. I would like to live to see the day when every school child in this Canada of ours would have at least a reasonable knowledge of the tongue of our brethren of Quebec.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. members of this portion of the House, particularly our honoured leader (Mr. Crerar), for the high moral tone, the mild and conciliatory nature of their remarks and the lack in their speeches of that acerbity, so noticeable in those from the other benches. But I may assure you that a legion of

avenging angels with flaming swords will not be more terrible in their wrath than will this mild and domesticated looking group if no relief is granted the farmer during this session of Parliament. Like the dame of the nursery rhymes, who went to the cupboard in search of food for her starving canine, we have come from the rural districts to see what the legislative cupboard contains for our suffering and impoverished tillers of the soil. I tender no apology to the farmer of the prairie for comparing him to that much abused, long suffering and highly intelligent animal of domesticity, for at the hands of those possessed of power, and lacking in appreciation and sympathy, the treatment accorded him has very often been singularly similar.
I do not believe that the financial position of the western farmer is fully appreciated in Eastern Canada to-day. Never in the history of the country has his burden of taxation been higher, and never before has the purchasing power of his products been lower; and I would point out that a reduction in tariffs and freight rates, and better marketing conditions, are not only necessary for a return of prosperity to the West and, incidentally, to the whole country, but are vital to the very existence and continuation of the farming industry in the Prairie provinces to-day.
Each increase in freight rates during the past four years has added a 5-degree angle to the backs of our farmers, and, in all, has moved the West a thousand miles further from the East. Tens of thousands of acres of grain stand rotting in our fields to-day because, after threshing, it would not realize the freight to ship it out. The farmer's overhead expenses have been heavy, and for the past two years he has operated at a tremendous loss that in a great many cases has meant complete ruin; and many thousands to-day, after a life time of hard work, self-denial and privation, have not sufficient assets to equal their liabilities. To the hon. members of this House, I would say: that their hands are extended in supplication to you to-day and I trust that history, in this case, will not repeat itself, but that the family cupboard will contain some small morsel essential to the preservation of the life of that most important of all industries.
I must apologize to this House for any distinction I may draw between the East and the West. I would be the last to raise any geographical discriminations. But nature has created them, our Governments have fostered and intensified them, and it

The Address
is only by a reduction in the tariffs and freight rates that the work of man can be undone; and we will be left with only nature's handicap, under which we are quite satisfied to labour to the end of our days.
The question of freight rates brings into the limelight the whole railway situation, which is a problem so great as to be staggering in its immensity; and I would say to the honourable leader of the Government, (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the place that will be accorded to him in the future history of this country will be largely determined by his ability to lead us out of this railway wilderness.
Perhaps it will be considered presumption on the part of an obscure and inconsequential individual like myself to offer suggestions to this House as to how this difficulty could in part be met, but I have the word of President Wilson that the suspicion is beginning to dawn in many quarters that the ordinary man knows the business necessities of the country just as well as the extraordinary man, and emboldened by this suggestion, I now go so far as to risk some proposals of my own.
I do not wish at this particular juncture to inflict on this House a lot of wearying facts and figures. I will leave that for a future time; but I am convinced that handled in a business way, our railways can be made to pay, and I heartily agree with many hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject before that to this end our first duty is to consolidate, under one management, the existing roads held by the Government in order to eliminate to the fullest extent any duplication of service, either passenger or freight.
Prom my personal observations, and I may say that I am a practical railroad man, I am convinced that the whole system is overmanned and overstaffed, particularly at the official end, and a ruthless wielding of the pruning knife, and the total elimination of all deadwood and surplus timber, is absolutely essential to put these roads on a paying basis.
Attempts have been made to convince the public that the increases in freight rates were made necessary on account of the wages demanded by the men; but in so far as the wage of the men in charge of the rolling stock is concerned, freight can be moved more cheaply to-day than twenty years ago on account of the heavier types of engines in use, and coal consumption is less by about 70 per cent on account of improvement in the modern locomotive.
Now it is not my desire to inflict my opinions on the Government, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a more scientific handling of freight could eliminate a lot of waste and loss on the Government railways to-day. Any practical railway man will admit that from April 1st to November 1st freight can be handled for less than half the cost of moving it during the winter months, and in revising our freight rates we should give the summer customer the benefit of at least a part of this saving and have in effect a winter and a summer tariff which will encourage the handling of our heavy freight during the summer season. From this source alone many millions of dollars that are sacrificed to nature could be saved to humanity. By creating more steady employment this plan would also materially assist in solving the wage question. I am not unmindful of the many difficulties in the way of holding part of our grain until the following spring, but to effect the saving, farmers would soon provide extra storage, and credit conditions would in time adjust themselves to the change. We need the most competent railroad manager that North America can provide, and no salary is too big for the right man. We went to the United States to get a Van Horne; let ns not stop outside the planet Mars for what we need for this big man's job. It is needless to remind you that this type of man will brook no political interference and must be given a free hand. A Roman emperor once said: "It is the fate of princes to be ill spoken of for their good deeds," and whatever policy is followed by the Government they must expect criticism. But the organized farmers are not destructionists, but constructionists. Their mission is not to destroy but to build up; and I can assure hon. gentlemen that the criticism that shall come from this portion of the House shall not be hurtful but helpful, and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that in the handling of this gigantic problem he shall also have the cooperation of the group to your immediate left.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Kings, R.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), and had I been dozing or been sitting behind a screen I would have thought that the hon. member was a Progressive. At all events, he gave a Progressive speech, and I am sure he is Progressive in sentiment. I therefore take this opportunity of advising him -I am sorry he is not in his seat, but this
The Address

remark will no doubt be brought to his notice-that if at any time he finds the atmosphere of the Government benches rather frigid, and the surroundings not quite as congenial as he would like, there will be a light in the window for him in this portion of the House, and the latch string will always hang on the outside. In fact, we have been seriously considering the advisability of making room at this end of the chamber for the whole Maritime group. I was also greatly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). I regret that he, too, is absent. It was very eloquent and very lucid; in some respects it was one of the finest speeches we have listened to during this session. One thing I must give the hon. member a great deal of credit for is his frankness with regard to his stand on the tariff. There is nothing particularly wrong in that, Sir; I admire the man who will come out and tell you just where he stands, whether he is against you or not. The hon. gentleman's opinions happen to be diametrically opposed to mine, but that makes no difference. But in hearing him through I was quite convinced of the truth of what one of the hon. members of the official Opposition told me in the corridors the other day: that the hon. member for Brantford had been elected because he was more consistently protectionist than the Conservative candidate. I was surprised to hear the hon. member quote from John Bright. If I understand John Bright correctly, he would have had little sympathy for the high tariff and protectionist doctrines of the hon. member for Brantford.
I was also very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), particularly where he described the conditions under which the Maritime provinces entered into Confederation. It is something, Sir, that I have always known but which I had earnestly tried to forget, because I wished to pass on to my children the idea that the Fathers of Confederation were actuated by higher and nobler aims than those described by the hon. member. If you will excuse a personal reference, Sir, I may say that I, too, come from the Maritime provinces; my parents still reside there, all the cherished traditions of my boyhood days cluster round the land of Evangeline, and, if you will pardon my unpoetic language, the land of the potato and of the herring. What the hon. gentleman told us was, in a few words, that

in entering Confederation the Maritime provinces sold their birthright,-otherwise their fiscal freedom-for a mess of pottage, -otherwise a railway built for military and not for commercial purposes. British Columbia has a similar tale to tell and that province was on the point of withdrawing from Confederation when the promised railway was not built within the time prescribed and guaranteed by the Dominion Government. Quebec and Ontario conceived the idea of having "colonies", as one hon. gentleman described it,-I hate the word, Sir, in that connection, but I feel that I must use it,-colonies in which they could sell their manufactured goods under a protective tariff. After sizing up the situation from every conceivable angle we must frankly admit that the whole structure of Confederation was erected not on the solid rock of national unity but on the yielding sands of provincial selfishness, and I have seen enough, Sir, in the short time I have been in this House to convince me that this spirit dominates our public life to the same extent that it did in 1867.
I wonder if all hon. gentlemen actually realize the financial position that this country is in at the present time. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) in his speech the other evening mentioned the fact that our national debt is now $2,300,000,000, but I would add to this the debts of our provinces and the bonded indebtedness of our towns and cities, which brings it up to the enormous and staggering total of over $4,000,000,000. It takes about $15,000,000 more to pay the interest on our national debt to-day than it took to run the whole country before the war. Our railways are losing us, or were until recently, nearly a quarter of a million dollars a day. I was doing a little figuring while one of the hon. members for Toronto was speaking in the House the other evening-he spoke at a considerable length-and I came to the conclusion that during the time he was speaking in this Chamber the interest on our national debt had accumulated to the extent of about $125,000. I trust, Sir, that the hon. gentleman will be presented with a bill for that amount and be asked to settle it before the end of the session.
Hundreds of our schools are closed today for want of money to run them. Tens of thousands of working people are walking the streets without work and without any immediate prospects of getting it, while their families are insufficiently provided with food and clothing, boots and shoes.

The Address
Thousands of our farmers do not know where their seed is coming from; many thousands more do not know where they are going to get the supplies necessary to put them through until the next harvest. And yet,. Sir, there is a tendency on the part of the best intellect and statesmanship of this House to waste time in pugilistic, and, shall I say, gladiatorial exhibitions for the amusement of the galleries. We are fiddling to-day, Sir, while Rome is burning, in a manner worthy of Nero himself. Let us away with these petty animosities. Let us turn our backs on the past and set our faces toward the future; and may the fate of Lot's wife befall him who looks behind.
I have in my hand a letter addressed to the Progressives in Parliament from one of the grand old men of the organization to which we belong and whose insignia I am proud to wear on my lapel. I refer to Mr. E. A. Partridge, of Sintaluta, Saskatchewan, who with the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), called in 1901 that historic meeting at which was formed the Territorial Grain Growers' Association, the forerunner of all that we represent at the present time. In part, this is what he says:
Does this Progressive movement now propose to take on all the characteristics of a parliamentary party, dub its nominal chieftain, "Official Leader of the Opposition", and proceed to perpetuate the old party struggles under new party names? If it does, the clock of progress will be set back at least a quarter of a century, a most unseemly act for men calling themselves "Progressives". With solemn earnestness let it be urged that the Progressive members go to Ottawa . prepared to treat the Premier-elect, not as a political opponent to be harassed and thwarted at every turn, but rather as the regularly elected chairman of a convention of two hundred and thirty-five delegates assembled to find solutions for grave national problems, chief among which is the problem of providing every honest citizen with the opportunity of making a decent living.
Further he says:
There are exceedingly grave conditions to be dealt with by the Fourteenth Canadian Parliament.
Unemployment is rife and increasing.
Farm products are selling below the cost oi production.
Many retail merchants are in financial difficulty.
Debts, public and private, are piling up, because outgo exceeds income.
The cost of decent living is beyond the means of a majority of the people.
Interest rates are so high, an involved debtor must remain a debtor or become a bankrupt.
Freight rates have gone so high that commerce has been in many cases crippled and in others actually killed.
Home markets are narrowing. Seemingly the same people possess both the goods and the money. The majority of would-be customers are too poor to buy. It is a case of under-consumption, not of over-production.
"Dirt"' Lord Palmerston said, "is only matter out of place. The good food from your dinner table becomes dirt when it touches your clothing; it is simply matter misplaced." I would ask you if we have any statesmanship left in this Canada of ours? Have we any of it in this House? 1 am quite convinced, Sir, that we have an abundance of it, both on the Government benches as well as on those of the Opposition, but it is misplaced and misdirected and its efforts destroyed. Let us display some of the spirit manifested by our boys in France when they went over the top. They did not wait to ask whether the next fellow was from Nova Scotia or British Columbia, whether from Prince Edward Island or Alberta. They did not waste their time in petty animosities, but, animated by a single idea, they went over the top and they emblazoned the name of Canada on the heavens of fame, where it will remain as long as the Anglo-Saxon and Gallic races shall last. If we have any of this spirit-and I am assured that we have-let us get down without delay to a solution of our grave and serious domestic problems. The situation is not hopeless, Sir. We have the intellect; we have the ability, we have the statesmanship, but like our railways they need consolidation. Let them be consolidated and made one great driving force for the good of the country; then we need have no fears for the future.
We can make of this Canada of ours the happiest, the most prosperous and the wealthiest country on the face of the globe. Let me quote from a speech delivered in the British House of Commons over a century ago which, although referring to a different country and to different conditions, is equally applicable to Canada today:
God has blessed Canada in soil, position and in climate; He has not forgot his promises nor are they unfulfilled. There is still the rain and the sunshine, still the seed time and the harvest, and the affluent bosom of the earth yet offers sustenance for man. But man must do his part -we must do our part, we must retrace the blunders, I might even say the crimes of our past legislation, and then, and only then, will we find that Labor, hopeful and remunerative is the only sure foundation on which can be reared the enduring edifice of union and of peace.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. mem-
The Address

ber for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) I rise at this late hour in order to relieve the pressure on the necks of hon. members to my left. Let me say that I am not unfamiliar with the art of riding, but I never did feel that I could get anywhere with a mount that persisted in travelling in a circle.
I wish to associate myself, Mr. Speaker, with the many kind and complimentary things that have been said in connection with your elevation to the high office which you now occupy, and which have been expressed by other hon. members in a much more eloquent manner than I could hope to do. I will only say that I am most heartily in accord with the sentiments they have given expression to.
So many hon. members have prefaced their remarks by stating that they were new members and craving your indulgence on that account, and then have delivered such excellent and eloquent addresses, that I hesitate, Sir, to declare myself a new member lest too much should be expected of me. But I am a new member and, of course, am under the disadvantage of that ignorance of parliamentary procedure which is natural to a new member. However, I sincerely desire to extend credit where credit is due, no matter with what party that may be associated, and in this connection, despite some references to the contrary, I should like to compliment hon. members on the Government side for their prompt action on two questions that are of pressing moment to this country; I refer to the extremely critical railway situation and the tariff policy. My congratulations are the more hearty and sincere because so far as we have been enlightened, 

I refer to the remarks of the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) and others-they evidently are going to carry out the policy of the late government.
Some time has been spent during the last few days in attempting to give a definition of party names. This practice has been indulged in by members on both sides of the House. I have been very much charmed with some of the definitions offered, but I noted that while hon. members opposite seemed to be willing to name those in this corner Tories, there was no reference made on either side to any similar name that hon. members on the Government side were once known by. I was very much pleased with the defi-

nition given, I think by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). He described the elements of sweet charity that were to be found in Liberalism, but I must observe that those elements are much more conspicuous in his definition of charity than in his demonstration of its qualities. Now, Sir, I believe that what we on this side of the House are most concerned in, indeed, I think I can safely go further and say what the majority of the people are most concerned in, is not the definition of the name, but the policy of any party and the way in which that policy is implemented by legislation. I believe this is what the country is calling for to-day,-a party not of a certain name, but a party that is known by its performances and the way in which it keeps its pledges; not a policy that is like the wind, subject to change without notice. And I might say that in some respects the policy of hon. members opposite has been similar to the wind in another important respect, and that is that while for months past we have heard the sound thereof we do not yet know whence it cometh or whither it goeth.
I have been struck by the reference made by hon. members on my left to certain matters, and I must say that I am very much in sympathy with the statement of their situation. I can appreciate that situation very well, although not a western farmer. The situation that they so eloquently described is the more easily understood by me because I happen to be a farmer myself. I am much more familiar with the handling of a plough or a herd of dairy cattle than I am with the Rules of this House. I believe that hon. members to my left have presented the situation just exactly as it is, and I sympathize very much with them. I should like to point out, however, that the farmers in Ontario- and I believe most of the references have been to the farmers of the West-the farmers of Ontario, and I speak from experience, during the past year, have been operating their farms also at a loss.
Now, perhaps because I am a farmer it may seem to hon. members to the left that I could not be a protectionist. Well, Sir, I think I can explain my position in a very few words. I am a protectionist for this reason: I have given some study to the question, and the conclusion I have arrived at is applicable to conditions now prevailing. Since coming to this House I have been confirmed in my conclusion because the leaders of all three parties have ex-

The Address
pressed themselves along the line that at least some basis of protection is necessary. Some difference of opinion has been expressed as to how it should be described; whether it should be called a protective tariff, a tariff for revenue only, or a tariff such as I believe the leader of the Progressive party would characterize at the present time as a tariff of necessity. No matter what name it masquerades under I prefer to call it just what it is; and so long as the tariff is fixed at a certain rate it matters not whether you call it a protective tariff or a tariff for revenue only. As I view it at the present time that is the main difference between our policy on this side and the policy of the hon. members opposite-but it is a difference in name only. As an Ontario farmer I am a protectionist and possibly I take a selfish view because my constituents, owing to their geographical location, are mainly protectionists. Perhaps the views entertained on this question by hon. members from the Prairie provinces are due to the same influence. I have no quarrel whatsoever with any person who holds such views; I believe it to be the duty each hon. member owes to himself and to his constituents to fairly represent their views.
During the debate reference was made to the cause of the defeat of the former government; but very little has been said respecting what I believe to be, in the opinion of members on both sides, the real reason. It is a matter of history, and a well known fact that hardly any government ever passes through the period of a devastating war' without later suffering defeat. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during that great struggle the strain under which the members of the late government laboured was simply tremendous; and those who indulge in criticism should recollect that burdens were placed upon the shoulders of the members of the Cabinet greater than were ever borne by any previous administration in Canada. I would like to say too that 1 do not believe any group of men in this House or elsewhere, or any group of self-constituted critics, could have carried the public administration through those trying times more creditably to themselves than did the late administration, and in my belief no government would have fared any better at the hands of the electorate when the election took placj. In my opinion it is
only fair to give credit where credit is due.
In connection with the work of the late government, there was one man who, more than any other in Canada, sustained the burden and the heat of the day-I refer to the right hon. gentleman I have the honour to acknowledge as my leader (Mr. Meigh-en). From all sides have come expressions of satisfaction at his return as a member of this House; and I believe, Sir, that the majority of people in Canada, no matter to what party they belong, share in the satisfaction that this capable leader, who went through those trying times with such distinction, is still in a position to give his services to Parliament and to the people that are so proud to claim him as a fellow citizen. We on this side have unbounded confidence not only in his ability, but in his candour, his courage and his desire to serve his country to the limit of his power.
A good deal has been said in this debate with respect to economy, and many expressions on the subject have been uttered by hon. members to my left. That is one question, Sir, upon which we cannot lay too much emphasis. Economy under present conditions should be practised not only in the home but also by the municipalities, by the provincial authorities, and in the federal arena. I am bound, however, to say with respect to certain hon. members on my left who have talked somewhat on economy that they do not extend the application of this principle to the department of the King's Printer.
Allusion has been made to the cattle embargo. That question is one in which members of the House in general are intensely interested. Unfortunately the decision of this question is in the hands of the British Government and not in ours. Were it possible for us to raise that embargo I believe we would unanimously agree to do so. Let me point out, however, that efforts to have the embargo removed have not been confined to the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario. To those hon. members who have expressed themselves as so well satisfied with the work of the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario towards removing the embargo, I would suggest that the provincial minister be also sent to Washington there to make an effort to bring about the removal of the Fordney tariff.
Much has been said on the existing railway situation in Canada. I do not propose for one minute to take up time
The Address

in endeavouring to solve such an intricate question, one of the most important issues before the people of this country to-day. There is one thing however that I would like to point out, and before doing so I must make a confession that were it possible I would be inclined to favour private ownership rather than public ownership. But there are many things to be considered and the situation to-day in Canada is the result of private ownership. I am not an authority on the railway question but I believe this phase must be carefully considered for this reason. Immediately after my election I became the recipient of certain papers-I may say they were published in Montreal-containing articles on the railway question showing the awful consequences that would come to the country from public operation. No doubt other hon. members received copies of these articles which were marked in pencil so that the reader should not overlook them. I have also received various circulars, apparently emanating from the same source, all dealing with the awful results consequent upon public ownership. Now, Sir, are we to suppose that this propaganda is being financed and directed by some greathearted benevolent and patriotically minded citizen who is doing it all for his country's good? If so, I expect that we shall receive pamphlets and other literature, from the same source pointing out the horrible consequences that will flow from private ownership by reason of the situation that has developed in connection with the Merchants Bank. Now, Sir, while I do not profess to have mastered the railway situation I believe I am safe in saying-* and I commend the thought especially to hon. members on my left.-that all this propaganda must have something behind it, that it is more than the work of a mere patriotic citizen, and should be taken with more than the usual grain of salt.
Allusion has also been made in this debate to racial differences. That such should exist is a surprise to me but let me say that condition will exist just as long as hon. members of this House, or people elsewhere, continue to use the question for selfish or political purposes and no longer. I trust hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will rise above any such suggestion. Now I reach a point which, possibly more than any other, was the cause of my taking part in this debate, although there has not been very much said in regard to it yet. I have felt, Sir, that since the war we, as a Canadian people, have been so

troubled with the many perplexities and difficulties that have arisen out of that great struggle, that we have forgotten our duties and responsibilities as Canadian citizens and that we have developed a sectional and provincial spirit rather than a national one. This has been exemplified by the debate in this House. Almost every question that has been brought up has been discussed almost entirely from the point of view the particular member represents. I appeal to all hop. gentlemen in this House that, at this stage of Canada's existence, while it is quite right to have our personal convictions, it is only possible for us to progress if we are able to approach the questions of the day in a spirit of compromise and unity. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Parliament, having aired our views in a political way, shall manifest that spirit of unity and compromise, in order that we, as representing the Canadian people, may help Canada to achieve that destiny that she, by reason of her great natural resources and the indomitable spirit of her people, is justly entitled to attain.
The motion of Mr. McMurray for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General agreed to.
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Min-' ister of Finance) it was ordered that the said Address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the Hon. Privy Council.

On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House will on Monday next resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Defence
Friday, March 24, 1922