PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, to incorporate the Knights of Pythias of Canada.-Mr. Maybee.
Bill No. 39, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).
Bill No. 40, respecting The Ottawa Electric Railway Company.-Mr. Chevrier.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I lay on the table the supplementary report on agricultural credits by Dr. H. M. Tory. I move:
That 450 copies in English and 150 copies in French be printed for distribution, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move the motion
of which I gave notice two or three days ago:
That, a special committee consisting of Messrs. Black (Halifax), Sir Henry Drayton, Duff, Sir Eugene Fiset, Halbert, Johnston, Kennedy (Glengarry), Leader, McKay, McMaster, McMurray, Rinfret, Sinclair (Queens), Stevens, and Stork be appointed to consider the resolution to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates by confirming an agreement between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen, K.C.B.E., as set out in said resolution with power to call for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time.	*
Before submitting the resolution, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my attention has been drawn to the fact that some hon. members of the House feel that the resolution as drafted is not worded in a manner which would permit the committee to inquire into any other method that offers effective control of ocean rates. The government had assumed that it would be impossible to decide on one method without considering other methods as well and therefore that the resolution was sufficiently broad as it stood. However, to remove any possible doubt as to the scope which the committee will have I should like, with the permission of the House, to add after the words "set out in said resolution", "or by any other method that offers effective control".


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: The addition of these words by the Prime Minister gives me an opportunity to speak to the resolution now before the House. I had intended if that opportunity did not come to me in this wray that I would try and get it by moving an amendment to the proposal as has been the practice hitherto in this House; and if hon. gentlemen will bear with me I will try to show-and I will not take very long-why the scope of the committee should be widened in the direction of getting greater control of ocean rates, and having other means suggested to
Ocean Shipping Rates

the committee than the means contained in the resolution. To bring that out I am going to take the liberty of presenting my views to the House on this occasion, and to shorten the time I propose to read, with the permission of hon. gentlemen, a few observations. I have taken some time in preparing these observations, and I hope the House will pardon me if I read them. I will be prepared at the conclusion to answer any questions that may be put to me by any hon. members. I begin to read:
At a previous stage of this debate, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked approval of the Petersen contract in the matter of ocean freights, I took occasion not only to dissent to that proposal but to suggest on my own responsibility what I thought was a much better plan of getting control of freight rates on the north Atlantic and a much better means of disciplining this north Atlantic combine.
My suggestion was for the Canadian government to take the necessary steps to secure the consolidation of the Canadian Pacific and all its steamship services with the Canadian National railways, which latter was in the control of the Canadian merchant marine, a consolidation which would secure enormous savings to the two railways, as well as give to the people and shippers of Canada improved transportation, not only on land but on the high seas and our other waterways.
The House heard me in silence, but two days later the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) rose in his place and did me the honour of saying that my plan was the most feasible scheme he had yet heard for dealing with this great problem of sea and land transportation. Some other hon. members spoke in the same strain, and on March 19, the Toronto Globe which is certainly more than friendly to the administration, had a leading article dealing with what they called my "bold proposal of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways being consolidated into one system '' and quoted still further in the editorial from the speech of the member for North Waterloo, that I have just mentioned. It said that " Mr. Euler had declared that he had it on the highest authority that if the two systems could be combined a saving of from fifty millions to seventy-five millions a year could be effected," and I believe the hon. member for North Waterloo had good authority for that view. And then the Globe went on to say that if there could not be immediate consolidation of the two systems, there was no reason why some kind of pool as between the two could not be

effected, not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of Canada, and said further:
If amalgamation is regarded as impossible at present, why should there not be co-operation? Why should not the two systems pool their advantages for , their own benefit and that of Canada? Why not cease wasteful competition and useless duplication, and spend money on constructions only where it is needed for development? The interrats of the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway need not conflict. The bond of union between them is national service. They can prosper only as the country prospers and grows. A new era of prosperity for Canada might dawn if the two transcontinental systems were working heartily together for the common cause.
Sir Henry Thornton has made good. He has completely answered those who contended that a railway publicly owned and operated could not be managed as successfully as a private concern. The National Railway System can now stand comparison with its rival in every respect. Rivalry in service, so long as it is not merely for show and prestige, is healthy. Rivalry should not interfere with co-operation which might save money for both systems and for the country.
But this is not all of the approvals of my plan. While I spoke in silence in the House,
I knew that the members and country were with me both in scheme and in effect; and I continued to receive many words of approval in the lobbies and by mail and otherwise; and wdiat strengthened me most of all was a letter from a very close observer of public affairs in Canada, who said:
I should not be the least surprised if the future should vindicate your policy as to the fusion of the. Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific; I see many signs that the Canadian Pacific are getting very nervous over the competition which they are experiencing from the Canadian National: and I should think it quite possible that the time will come when they will demand that the government take them over.
And another witness appeared in this House last Thursday in favour of my proposal to consolidate the Canadian Pacific with the Canadian National, namely, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), leader of the Progressives. In his speech on the budget, he brought up the question of the finances of the National Railways and advocated amongst other things the fixing of a fair amount as the capitalization of the Canadian National and then, passing on, he came to my suggestion of the merging of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific systems; and while I take it that he declared himself in favour of some kind of working arrangement as between the two roads, the thing he had in his heart was the complete merging of the two and the immense saving that would accrue from such a consolidation. Hon. gentlemen who wish to know exactly what he did say will find it in Hansard, page 1581.
And now I want to quote another newspaper that, like the Toronto Globe and the

Ocean Shipping Rates
Winnipeg Free Press, believes in some kind of merger, and that is managed by a man veiy well known in this country and very well known in Montreal which city is supposed to be the home of the duplex system of railways; I refer to Mr. John R. Dougall who, in the Montreal Witness of the date of March 25, came out with this editorial:
Reductions of the cost of needless duplication of railway service seems to be looming up in the Commons as a live question. As the big railway batne usually conies during the sessions of the committee on National Railway estimates, much may be heard of this problem in a few weeks. Mr. Maclean, of Toronto, has won a new disciple in the person of Mr. Euler, for the cause of railway amalgamation. The latter is quite certain that sixty millions annually could be saved by this course. Other members from the west tell of train after train leaving Winnipeg with only thirty passengers aboard. In the provincial arena, Mr. Taschereau asks, " How long must the people pay the cost of running nine trains per day between Montreal and Quebec when three or four would do? " It will be remembered that Mr. Beatty, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in a speech at Boston last fall mentioned consolidation as a possible solution of the problem. He emphatically added, however, that he did not believe the country would consider this procedure at present. He is in an excellent position to know. But if there is no general approval of either consolidation under public or private ownership there most certainly is a demand for immediate elimination of expensive and needless duplication of service. Few are so blind or so thoughtless as to fail to see that, regardless of who owns the lines, the country pays for all extravagance in the end. Canada has faith in the efficiency of the Canadian Pacific. There is now confidence that the National management is determinedly meeting a difficult situation. For these reasons there is all the more reason to expect that the heads of the systems can get together and agree on a programme of drastic curtailment of needless extravagance, which neither road could make singly without losing business to its rival, but which if effected would benefit both as well as the country in general.
And if I must quote another witness, I am going to put E. W. Beatty, president of 'the Canadian Pacific, on the stand. He spoke of economy in Canadian public affairs; and in an interview given out at Toronto be is thus reported:
If business principles prevailed, the national policy would be to render the discharge of all our obligations that are proper and possible, with due recognition of the necessity of the individual and corporate thrift.
Now these last words about "corporate thrift," if I may interpret them, ought to mean thrift on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway, so as to fit in with the situation which confronts us, namely, the inability of this country to maintain two great transcontinental roads working in every province of Canada, in a condition of expensive, heedless and altogether unnecessary rivalry, when one system would be much better and would save the country seventy million dollars a
year. This is not the day for duplex railways.
And while I criticize Mr. Beatty, I admit his outstanding ability, and that as a railway executive he is the equal of anyone on the continent; and, furthermore, he is a graduate of my own university and won his spurs by his own abilities; and I admit he 'believes in mergers; but he wants to be the one who does the merging and the one who takes the hand of the lady; while my view of it is that the Canadian National, Which is absolutely a Canadian enterprise, should merge the Canadian Pacific, and that the Princess Eddy should gladly offer her hand to Sir Henry. And, speaking of Mr. Beatty in the personal sense, I can compliment him, if I may, by saying that his eyebrows are almost as pronounced as my own. He, too, may have "big eyes" as others have said of myself.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. A routine motion
is debatable, but I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that a debate on the subject matter which the committee to be appointed will have to consider is not permissible. The committee will have .to consider the question of establishing control over certain ocean rates, and that committee will study any other methods that will establish effective control. I hope the hon. gentleman will be able to connect the actions of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway with the question at issue. I do not say that he wild not be able to do that, but he should not adopt a too circuitous method in demonstrating it to the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I certainly intend to do that, but I have to frame up a case.


Hewitt Bostock: May I observe that
"frame-ups" are debarred?


William Findlay Maclean: With all due respect to your correction, Sir, I stand by that. 1 will soon make the connection, but I want to come to it in such a way that the public as well as this House can appreciate it.
As for the Canadian Pacific itself, I have always been favourable to that railway, and, as a member of this House, and before I was a member of this House, I knew its chief promoters, Lord Mount Stephen, Lord Strathcona, Sir William Van Horne, Lord Shaughnessy, when they were ordinary men without title, but when they had the ability, the foresight, or shall I say the vision, to plan that great road and to make a splendid success of it, and it is with us to-day.
Ocean Shipping Rates

But the transportation problem now before Canada and before this House is bigger than the Canadian Pacific, and all I say is that it would be to the interest of the country, and I think, the interest of the shareholders of that company, that a merger of all the services of the Canadian Pacific with the Canadian National should take place to-day before there is more raiding of a good Canadian security on the New York stock exchange. The main weakness of the Canadian Pacific is that its stock to-day is owned outside of Canada, and kicked about the New York and London stock markets whenever they like, and the control thereof might pass any day into the hands of an American railway. The Canadian National is absolutely owned by the people of Canada; it is subject to our policy and our policy as a nation only, and finally we cannot keep up a duplex system of railways, one-half of which might be held in Canada and the other half outside of Canada.
But, as I said, you will not find in Canadian papers now anything about things like these that are going on in the United States. You will hardly find one telling in its financial columns what has really been going on in the New York stock exchange more or less for a month back, and that is that the great railroads of the United States, including the Union Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the New York Central and the Canadian Pacific, have had a significant fall in prices. The Canadian Pacific has probably dropped ten points within almost the same number of days; other American roads have 'come down much lower, and apparently the end has not been reached. So, I ask this House and the country why the newspapers of Canada do not tell of things going on in New York in regard to railway shares and mergers of the railways of America and Canada.
When I am speaking of the newspapers of this country and this proposal for the merging of the two great railways into one, I am reminded of the fact that we now have in Canada what are called "chain groceries." Extending that idea, I say there are some people who think we have chain newspapers in this country and that they are pretty well "chained" at the present time. They say even that one man sitting in a big job-printing establishment in Montreal, doing the printing for both the railways and some other big interests in this country, after he is through with the job-printing propositions before him, also undertakes to operate a chain of newspapers from the Atlantic to the Pacific with a duplex line of editorials to suit the circum-

stances of the locality in which the appeal is made. Great is the duplex idea in Montreal, as to railways, as to press, and as to sports and sport clothes for .men and women. Public economies do not count these days.
Now I want to come to the question of mergers of railways and to deal with the innuendo that I am proposing something new. I want to tell the House and the country that the consolidation and merging of the railways of the United States is the most pressing question there to-day; that it is the fixed policy of the Coolidge administration, as it was the fixed policy of the McKinley administration and even of the Wilson administration, to wipe out hundreds of the smaller lines of the United States and to merge them at the most into eight regional organizations, some of them covering more than six or eight states of the union, in one consolidated system. This work has been going on for years and1 is pretty nearly completed. The duty has been imposed upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to effect these consolidations and they are at the work now every day. One of these consolidations is that of the Nickelplate with the Chesapeake and Ohio, which is now not only before the courts for decision, but also before the Interstate commission. But that is not all. As a matter of fact, the New York Central has completed its proposed regional system, so has the Pennsylvania, and in the New York World of March 26 there is a special from Washington which says:
Special dispatch to the World, Washington, March 25. Comprehensive railway legislation-the most far-reaching undertaken since the passage of the Esch-Cummins Transportation Act-will be begun at the opening of the next session of Congress, leaders on both sides of the Capitol admitted to-day.
Senator A. B. Cummins, author of the present act, already has a bill prepared calling for compulsory consolidation of the roads into a series of major Streams, while the House committee on Interstate Commerce will start hearings early in September to prepare a bill for presentation to Congress as soon as it convenes.
The tax reduction bill and farm relief legislation will be submitted at the same time, confronting the administration with its three most difficult and embarrassing problems the moment Congress assembles.
Besides compulsory consolidation, other railroad questions are the completion of valuation of the roads and a determination as to what will be done with the huge fund now building up and available to the government under the recapture clause to bolster up weaker roads with loans.
A tentative system of consolidations was worked out by the Interstate Commerce Commission, but railroads which object to being hitched up with weaker lines have made the tentative plan abortive. Whether the administration will approve any plan designed to compel the railroads to amalgamate has not been made known.

Ocean Shipping Rates
And in its leading editorial of the same day, the New York World criticizes the Nickel-plate consolidation; its opening sentence is: Congress has approved the policy of railroad consolidation by voluntary agreement and before long a plan for the first of the great consolidations will be submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission for its approval. It is being promoted by the Van Sweringen brothers of Cleveland. They propose to put together the old Nickel Plate, the Erie, the Pere Marquette, the Hocking Valley and the Chesapeake and Ohio.
On the general theory that consolidation of strong and weak roads is desirable there is now general agreement; there is, in fact, strong opinion in favour of making consolidation compulsory. It is all the more important, then, that the first practical test of the policy should be above serious criticism.
And the last sentence reads as follows:
The Van Sweringen merger needs looking into, not only as a matter of justice to the Chesapeake and Ohio stock holders, but also because it is important to establish sound methods at the beginning of this era of railroad consolidations. Anything like a scandal in this, the first great merger, would disgust the public with the policy of mergers and would deeply injure the railroads as a whole.
From now on mergers either voluntary or forced will be the big question in railroad America and railroad Canada.
Now, I want to come to my proposals. I have re-written this very carefully, andi it is what I desire to present to the House and the country in dealing with this merging of railways so as to reach a solution of the question of regulation of ocean freight rates. This is my proposal in a word:
Proposed consolidation of the Canadian Pacific and subsidiaries with the Canadian National, involving:
1.	Such re-routing of main lines and1 branches as might be dictated by the better grades, mountain passes, bridge-crossings, tunnels, approaches to stations, etc., held by one or other of the companies;
2.	The consolidation of the cartage, telegraph and express services of the systems,-perhaps taking over the parcel post, postal and money orders of the post office,-thereby cutting out all unnecessary services and buildings, rents, etc., and perhaps using local post offices at places as aids to these national services;
3.	The cutting out of all unnecessary trackage, bridges, tunnels, stations, buildings, tanks, plants, etc., and thereby releasing material for any double trackage required, or other additions that the traffic thus re-routed and consolidated might call for;
4.	Also cutting out all unnecessary executives and staffs, officials and offices, headquarters, and attendant expenses;
5.	Also cutting out and selling any unnecessary engines and unnecessary official sleeping, dining, passenger, postal, freight and



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
other cars and equipment that the consolidation permitted;
6.	Also cutting out all unnecessary printing and advertising charges and other propaganda; and all unnecessary solicitation and canvass for business caused by the present needless rivalry of branch and main line services.
All of which would involve:
1.	Some system of half pay or pensions for men let out by this consolidation; and,
2.	A better system of pensions for long service men generally;
(3) And further involving a revaluation of these consolidated services and a reorganization of their securities now in existence, as fast as present commitments will permit and improved financing might suggest.
Hewitt Bostock: With all due deference
to the hon. member, I fear he is not discussing the point. I have too much respect for the hon. gentleman to lecture him, but I do think he might come to the point; I am waiting in expectation that he will reach it.


William Findlay Maclean: I am sure Mr. Speaker's hopes will be realized. Further, there would be involved the general bringing about of greater efficiency, better service, lower freights and fares, increased economy, ending forever all extravagant and unprofitable rivalry.
The Canadian Pacific has been generously treated by the Canadian people and parliament in the way of legislation, charters, plans, surveys, monej'' subsidies, land grants, rights of way, exemptions of many kinds and protection by a fair and just railway commission maintained at the public expense; yet this great beneficiary and ward of the nation, notwithstanding its enterprise and devotion to the work and service called for in its franchises and contracts, has at times shown a spirit of ingratitude and at other times developed an attitude that the Canadian Pacific was more than the nation and parliament which had created it; and that it even now enjoys or thinks it enjoys a free hand to crush out or interfere with any right of the nation to engage in public ownership in the way of transportation and other services; in a word, that the created company is greater than its creator and benefactor, the nation. This public servant must not set up to be the master rather than the servant of parliament and the people; each must be fair to the other.'
The Canadian Pacific can claim to have made a success of its railways and other services and is entitled to full recognition therefor; but, on its part, this great company must



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Ocean Shipping Rates
[Stage Direction]
recognize that besides all the successive aids and grants to it from the country, it has from the very first secured for its chief promoters and owners of its shares, peerages, baronetcies, knighthoods and other honours, fortunes for themselves and friends; and that the country was equally generous to the promoters and bankers of rival railway lines that ultimately became bankrupt; and that these later promoters and bankers also shared in the baronetcies and other honours and profits and appointments of various kinds and had all their company debts taken over and paid by an overtasked and overtaxed public.
Notwithstanding all which the public and the people found and are finding most of the money-outside of the Canadian Pacific's shares and bond issues-and all the traffic for these railways, at high rates; and therefore, in a word, that company must listen to a public demand for consolidation and unified operating costs when it comes up as it does come up to-day in this House and in the country; and the public likewise must be fair in the matter of compensation to the hitherto successful Canadian Pacific.
The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul and many other railways now under fire on the New York Stock Exchange are a warning even to the successful Canadian Pacific. Great moneymaking propositions and successful services are ever threatened by scrapping. All transportation is being scrapped to-day. The automobile, the autobus, the motor truck are taking the local passenger, freight, cartage and express business from the big railways; and the aeroplane will soon reach for the long distance travel, mail and express business; the sleeping and dining car business is in danger, even a lot of the hotel patronage is threatened when business men and others come to know that interview's over wire or wireless are as efficient as personal visits involving long jumps by rail or road and the accompanying inconveniences. The new world may take a lot of the present rush out of business, and sanity take its place-overstraining may be at its peak.
There may be a wise time to sell a successful private-owned railway property, especially if in the near future the traffic were limited to long hauls of freight by land and sea; and if the Canadian Pacific should determine to sell, a commission of three men made up of the presidents of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National and one other arbitrator ought to be able to fix a fair amount for the consideration of parliament as compensation to the Canadian Pacific shareholders for the transfer of all their services and assets to the 
National Railways. And such a consolidation of these roads and services might suggest to parliament the creation of a new corporation to be called National Canadian Carriers, an organization that would include these railway, ocean, express and telegraph services and other services on highways and waterways, said carriers being further empowered to take up, as need may call for, any coming developments in such service and communications of all kinds by radio, beam, wireless or cable, as inventors or promoters may be prepared to submit or the policy of the new consolidated directorate might determine or parliament order. All such common carriers in the widest sense to be national or under national control and in no way dictators to parliament or the nation. This is where the tragedy that is now at our doors will end and national prosperity begin afresh.
This programme of mine is, I hope, plain to all, and I ask hon. members to read it and I ask the country to read it. The outstanding deduction from it all is that Canada under her present financial strain cannot afford to maintain these two competing railways and other services, when one joint management and ownership would) give a much better and more economical service. Is it not absurd, for instance, that there should be two enormous headquarter buildings and headquarter staffs in the city of Montreal, one for the Canadian Pacific and another for the Canadian National, when one building would house both, when one set of officials could administer both systems and do it much better and for less money. Of all the pieces of extravagance before the world to-day, this is one that ought first to be put an end to and reason and economy govern in its place. It is not only an extravagance, it is a crime and there is not a member in this House that does not admit I am right, that does not think it should end now and forever.
Now as to how this consolidation could be effected, I have already hinted at it in my previous speech that it could be achieved in a very short time and that the economies effected would permit not only reduced freights by land and water but would bring about other economies in the telegraph, express and postal branches and that the whole of the financial commitments of the two systems could be met by these consequent savings and by re-arrangement of the securities involved. Members may laugh at the extent of the proposal and the commitments of it; but because it is large and because it is sweeping, it may justify itself. The real enormity is in the existence of two unneces-

Ocean Shipping Rates
sary systems at great cost when one would do much better and give immediate relief to all interested in transportation and communications.
I do not propose a single thing that is not what might be called an investment proposition; and I challenge the best financial authorities in this country or out of it to deny the conclusion which I have reached in favour of the consolidation. All our railway proposals were for the expenditure of further money of the taxpayers of Canada. For the first time I am proposing something that would at once lessen the burden of the Canadian taxpayers; and I want to say, that the First Minister has himself declared in this House that he has already approached the Canadian Pacific-to what extent I cannot at present say-but what he said is most significant, and what the Globe says for itself and its party is also significant, and what the others that I have quoted have said is also significant. Canada is at a crisis to-day. What it wants is courage in the government and in this parliament to deal with that crisis and by a new departure start our country and our people again on the up grade. Desperate conditions call for radical use of the knife and the stern orders of the dictator of retrenchment in times of the wildest extravagance. If the cure doesn't come a new Cromwell will; and even now you can almost hear his horses champing in their stalls, and later on in the lower corridors of this House.
And, finally, let me say to the House and to this parliament in the. matter of duplex services: Coming in at our centre door, under the tower, what do I see? Duplex post offices double-manned with two postmasters and two deputy postmasters-one set for the Commons and one set for the Senate-and double sorters in the two offices; also a duplex system of accountancy and a battery of clerks as timekeepers on members and senators, and a double staff of writers of indemnity checks for the two houses; also duplicate barber shops; duplicate Hansard staffs; duplicate messenger staffs-
Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member's remarks with respect to two railway systems and ocean rates were in order, but when he begins to discuss the internal organization of the House of Commons and the Senate he is absolutely out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was amply trying to show that this extravagance which is common to transportation also prevails in other quarters, and if we start to cure it in our 109i
own House we will the sooner cure the duplication in connection with our railways and our ocean services. That completes my argument anyway, Mr. Speaker. My .point is that you cannot deal effectively with ocean rates by establishing such a one-horse system as the government now propose. But if we have the enterprise to take over the Canadian Pacific Railway and its steamship service-and it is one of the best in the world-and merge them with the National Railways and our merchant marine, we shall at once secure absolute control of land and ocean rates. This consolidation would effect very great economy of operation-upwards of $70,000,000 a year- and would give us an ocean service under our absolute control. If the government want to arrive at a real settlement of the problem they must do something along these lines. Then Canada will publicly own all her transportation facilities, and so give 'the people service at cost. We dh not want to have anything to do with the north Atlantic conference or combine. I admit that it is one of the worst combines in the world, that it is trying to fleece the people of Canada-everyone admits that now-and that it should be disciplined. My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the only way to discipline this combine is by consolidating our two railway systems and their steamship services into one transportation system under one national management, absolutely owned1 by the people of the Dominion. Once you have done that you will be able to say for the first time to those whom you invite to settle our vacant lands: "We invite you to a country of hope, to a country where you will have the cheapest transportation by land or sea for the products of your farms and of your factories." I hope the government will accept my suggestion. I also hope that they will widen the scope of the committee and allow anybody to appear before it, I am going to appear before that committee and express my views in a much more pronounced form than I have to-day. I hope my friend down the line, the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) will also go there with his representations.
I believe that the people of Canada to-day are determined to finish for all time extravagant expenditure wherever it appears, especially in connection with transportation. While I was quite properly called to order by you, Mr. Speaker, when I pointed out the duplication of workers right in these houses of parliament, I only pointed out that what has taken place in connection with transportation in this country, has also occurred
Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed further with this motion I would call the attention of the House to the composition of the proposed committee. It is to be composed of eight Liberals^ four Progressives and three Conservatives. Why is it that the Progressive party with practically the same membership as the Conservative party is allowed one more member on the committee? I would remind the House that there are thirteen members in this part of the chamber who do not pay allegiance to the Progressive party, and they have no representation on the committee. Under the circumstances I presume that the Progressive party is to be represented by four members because of the fact that the thirteen members to whom I have referred are included in the party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that in order to give all the elements in this House proper representation on the committee he should1 increase its membership by two or three at least, because it is not fair that our thirteen members should have no representation on a committee of such importance. Some few days ago there appeared in the press an announcement that there had been born in this House a new political party. I contradict that statement emphatically. We thirteen members who do not belong to any of the three major parties in this House met together for the purpose of seeing to it that we got proper representation on any special committees that might be appointed from time to time. That is all we met for; consequently I wish to deny the suggestion that a new party has been born in this House. I would request the Prime Minister to take into consideration the representations that I have made in this regard

and try to provide representation on this committee for these thirteen members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the constitution of the committee the government has followed the usual procedure. As to increasing the number on the committee, the unanimous consent of the House is required; but if that is the ivish of the House the government does not mind if the committee is made larger. But as to the personnel, I simply wish to point out that the government is following the practice that was adopted when this parliament came into being and that was followed at the beginning of this session in striking the general committees of the House. Unless some substantial reason to the contrary can be offered, I question very much whether at this stage in the life of the present parliament it would be wise to depart from that practice.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how the contention advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) can be logically disputed. Nor does it seem necessary that the committee be enlarged in order to meet it. The committee has fifteen members now. Eight are from the government side, four from the fifty hon. members to my left and three from the fifty-one hon. members here. Obviously the committee is out of balance: the elements are not fairly chosen. That can be remedied by dropping one of the four selected from the fifty to my left and choosing one from the thirteen. I do not favour large, cumbersome committees. I have always felt that because of the new composition of this House an injustice has been done the Conservative party in the small representation it has on committees, and still more so, indeed, in the very small opportunity it has to participate in debate. Members of the Conservative party have only one opportunity in four to take part in debate, although the party represents, as hon. gentle-ment will admit, even from the figures of the last contest, a close approximation to half the people of the country. However, I know the difficulties that in this respect come to the surface and I have never made any complaint as to representation on committees. I do think, though, that the representation in debate is distinctly unjust and should be remedied. But as respects this case the obvious remedy is to have one dropped from the fifty who are over-represented and have one come from the thirteen who are not represented at all.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the position taken by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner). We who represent Labour here have no complaint whatever to offer as to the treatment we have received from the House; I believe we have been represented fairly on the committees. But sometimes we are placed in a rather awkward position by the practices which have prevailed. For example, when it comes to debate we have no whip through whom we can speak when arrangements are being made as to the programme which I believe it is the custom to place in the hands of the Speaker. On account of their being only two in the Labour group we have had difficulty in finding a place on some very important committees. We are intensely interested, for example, in railway matters, since a very large number of railway men rather look to us in that connection; but I felt that our numbers-two-hardly entitled us to any representation on that committee. In respect to the committee that was formed the other day to consider the revision of the rules we felt that we had hardly fair treatment, although nothing was said at the time. My colleague (Mr. Irvine) suggested that revision and asked that a committee should be appointed to carry it out. The member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) also had a resolution with regard to private members' day. The member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) had a resolution with regard
4	p.m. to the consideration of the estimates. The member for Brant (Mr. Good) had still another resolution with regard to the size of standing committees. All these four resolutions were referred to the committee on the revision of the rules, but strangely enough not one single member of the four who proposed these matters was placed on the committee. It seemed to us at the time that this did not show any very great courtesy to those members; indeed, it was not altogether in accordance with the general practice of this House, namely, that of placing on committees those who are particularly interested in the subject concerned.
Now, with regard to this committee on the control of ocean freight rates, the Prime Minister says that he has been following the recognized practice of the House. But the House should know that within the last few weeks, or few months at most, the conditions in the House have entirely changed. We two members of the Labour group now feel that we can unite with these other groups in seeking representation. There is one Independent member and some ten members who formerly were united with the recognized Progressive party, so that including the representatives of Labour we number thirteen. I think I hear someone say, "unlucky number." Well, we are willing at any time to enlarge our group by including others who care to come in. But numbering, as we do, thirteen, and having regard to the proportion that number bears to the number of the remaining members of the House, we ought to be entitled to representation on a committee of this character.
May I say this, before I take my seat, just to put ourselves straight with the House and with the country at large: We who are elected as Labour representatives remain Labour representatives, entirely responsible to our Labour groups. I believe the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) is quite right when he says the farmer representatives remain entirely responsible to farmers and the independent member remains responsible to the people who nominated and elected him. But for the purposes of the conduct of the business of the House we have found ourselves forced into co-operative effort of this kind, and we think it is only fair that the government should recognize the changed conditions and grant us representation on the special committee.	%


Mr. R. H. HALBERT (North Ontario):: As one of the committee who at the commencement of the session struck the standing committees of the House, I wish to say just a word lest a wrong impression may have gone forth from what has already been said. It will be noted that those who include themselves in the group numbering thirteen have always been on the standing committees since the commencement of this parliament. No objection was taken when ten out of the thirteen were placed on the Banking and Commerce committee, representing the Progress sives. If they have formed a separate group I would like to know who the leader is, and I would like to know what their name or designation is. Moreover, they are occupying Progressive seats in the House. I simply rose to explain, as one who was on the striking committee, that the group of thirteen is overrepresented because of its members being counted as still within the Progressive group for the purposes of the standing committees of the House.


Mr. GOOD:: Does over-representation on
one committee justify no representation at all on another?
Ocean Shipping Rates


Robert Henry Halbert: This is a special committee, I am not speaking of the standing committees. 'The group in question is overrepresented on the standing committees of the House. As the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, if these thirteen members have left this party they are not entitled to a representation of more than three. However I, as one of the four Progressive members named would be perfectly satisfied to be left off this committee, but we want the actual facts to be thoroughly understood.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): I have listened with some interest to the politically-minded member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert). He thinks that if people get together for the purpose of endeavouring to secure what they deem to be their proper representation for committee purposes that consequently there must be a political group, that the group must have a leader, and that they must have all the attributes of a new party such as the one that he belongs to.


Robert Henry Halbert: I rise to a point of order. I did not mention any political group at all.


Mr. SHAW:: I beg the hon. gentleman's
pardon.


Robert Henry Halbert: I did not speak of any political gfoup.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I was calling the Progressive
party a political group. They may not call themselves a political group, but they are. I have no desire to take part in the organization of any political group, and I do not propose to do so. I think we have already got too many political groups in this House. More than that, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied that when the electors get a chance at this political group they will see to it that there will be one group in this House of which there will be but a sad remnant left after election day. That group is the group to my immediate right. I have no complaint whatsoever to make personally. The situation does appear to me as perfectly clear. The regular Progressives, or the reactionary Progressives, or the Regressives whatever you call them, are over-represented on this committee. If they did not know that fact before they certainly must be fully aware of it now, and the proper thing, the just thing, the reasonable thing, to do is to withdraw their excessive membership on that committee and see to it that the committee represents fairly the opinion of this House.	[DOT]


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I have listened with some interest to the discussion [Mr. Good. 3
that has taken place. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Shaw) has referred to the members who sit to his right as likely to be taken to task by their electors at some time. I do not know exactly to whom he is alluding, because looking at the composition of the members to his right I do not know whether they are all included in the Progressive party or otherwise.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I referred to the members
to my immediate right.


Robert Forke: When the hon. gentleman
first spoke I did not know to whom he was alluding exactly but now he has made it plain. I hope the hon. member is not as good a prophet as he imagines himself to be. Sometimes, perhaps, we are mistaken when we enter into the field of prophecy. I should like to say-and I think I can speak for the Progressive group, or political party, or whatever you like to call them; I am not one of those who quibble over names-that we are a group associated together for certain purposes, and I understand that one of them is the good government of this Dominion of Canada; that is the main principle for which we stand. I for one never imagined for a moment that everyone was not getting a fair deal in the matter of representation on committees. Parliament has been in session for nearly two months now, and this is the first intimation I have had that anything was wrong, that there was any trouble. I for one imagined that everything was going along smoothly as far as committees were concerned. The hon. member for North Ontario has just pointed out that this group of members or whatever you might call them, are over-represented on all the standing committees. It has usually 'been the custom for representations to be made to the Progressive group to suggest the members who should appear on these standing committees. There has been no complaint as to that, and we followed the same custom in regard to this select committee. I did not know there was going to be any complaint or that hon. members would assume the position they now take. If they want separate representations it is quite reasonable on their part and they are entitled to get it; and I am quite willing to bow to any arrangement the House may come to in that respect. There is no intention in the world, I am sure, for anyone to take any undue advantage in this matter. These hon. members should certainly get the privileges to which they are entitled in this House, and they will be given the rights they are entitled to on all the committees. I do not want to

Ocean Shipping Rates
quibble over trifles and I will not say that these hon. gentlemen in question are overrepresented on the regular standing committees. I do not want to stir up trouble at this stage of the session and I am quite willing to leave them where they are as far as I am concerned. I think, however, it is rather ungrateful to use language such as has been resorted to this afternoon. I think these members must realize that they have been accorded every courtesy by hon. gentlemen in this part of the chamber. With special reference to the Labour members here I am astonished that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) should say that he has not got all the privileges that other hon. members in this House have received. If ever-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement. I said I had no complaint to make with regard to the privileges enjoyed, that we have been treated with the utmost courtesy by this House. I did say, however, with regard to a certain committee that on account of the smallness of our number we had found ourselves somewhat at a disadvantage and that when the opportunity offered to co-operate with other members we would gladly avail ourselves of it in order to have on the committee representatives who would be perfectly satisfactory to us. I want that to be quite understood; I am not complaining at all of the treatment that the House has accorded to the two Labour members.


Robert Forke: There is just another matter I should like to call attention to. I want those hon. members who have been complaining that they have mot been accorded all the privileges to which they are entitled to take up the order paper and find out who have had the privilege of indulging in discussions that have taken up the time of this House. If they will do that they will find that the time of the House has been largely occupied by members who are now complaining that they have not enjoyed enough privileges.


Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: Oh, let him ask it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like to ask if the resolutions to which the hon. member refers were not put on the order paper in perfect order, and whether they have been taken up in their turn?


Robert Forke: I have no doubt they were put on in perfect order, but I hope that some rule will be adopted by the House to prevent the same thing from occurring again.
I have this to say in conclusion: I do not want any hard feelings in connection with this matter, but I think when people are treated decently and fairly there is no justification for getting up here and complaining of bad treatment. I want those hon. members who have been complaining to get all the privileges and rights that belong to them; I am sure no complaint has ever come from any member of the party I have the honour to lead that they were getting too many favours. The situation which has arisen oocurred quite incidentally without any scheming or manoeuvring on our part, and I hope it will be remedied so that there will be no more trouble.


William Charles Good: I want to throw a little light but not any more heat upon this discussion. I am in a position to throw some light upon it, and I crave the attention of the House while I do so very briefly. The Prime Minister says that the customary practice has been followed in this respect. I beg to differ with him very definitely with regard to the appointment of members on the committee under consideration. I will admit that up until this time the practice has prevailed; but in this case the thirteen members, including myself, were definitely informed that we could not possibly secure any representation through the Progressive group on this committee. I therefore went to the government whip; I went to the Conservative whip; I went to a number of members of the Progressive party including the leader; I went to some of the government members; and I endeavoured to secure only simple justice. I did so privately hoping to have no trouble, hoping that it would not be necessary to raise the matter on the floor of the House.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In doing all this, was the bon. member acting as the whip of the group?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Charles Good: The question is perfectly
proper, and I will answer it very definitely and frankly: I was acting at the request of those who had no other means of securing repreisen-tation.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is my hon. friend from
Brant (Mr. Good) the leader of the "Ginger group"?
Ocean Shipping Rates


Hewitt Bostock: The question is not relevant.


William Charles Good: I do not think it is necessary to deal with a lot of irrelevant matter. We are not dealing with the matter of a new political party. It does n'ot exist. But there are thirteen members of this House who could not get fair treatment in any other way, and were forced to take such action 'by the declaration of Progressive members.


Mr. CARROLL:: When my hon. friend
came into this House he allied himsblf, as I understand, with the Progressive party.


William Charles Good: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Did the hon. gentleman not take part in electing the chief whip of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston).


William Charles Good: I did not.


William F. Carroll: Has the hon. member or his group from that time to the present intimated to either the government whip or the opposition whip that they have chosen another whip?


William Charles Good: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Forke: The hon. gentleman has referred to a conversation he had with me. I entirely repudiate any such statement, or that I made any such remark to him as he imputes to me. I think what I told the hon. member was that he had better go and see the government in regard to getting representation. I could not authorize him to get representation; I told him that it was a matter about which he should see the government. I hope he will not deny that.


William Charles Good: I may possibly have been misunderstood by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Forke: No misunderstanding.


William Charles Good: I will say again most emphatically that I was given to understand' by the hon. gentleman that none of the thirteen gentlemen mentioned couldi possibly secure appointment on any committee through the Progressive party. I am sorry iif I misunderstood the hon. member, but that was my understanding of what was said, and that there was no other way out of it-if we wished to secure representation we had to take such action as we have taken. I wish to state to the House most definiteily that, acting at the request of other hon. members, I did everything possible to secure a friendly arrangement an this respect in order to avoid any trouble or friction in the matter. I even went to a member on the government side the latter end of last
(Mr. Martell.]
week and made representations, and I understood from what he told me that he made an effort to secure a friendly adjustment so that there would be no dissatisfaction.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Does the
hon. member desire to intimate to the House that he has ceased to be a follower of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Parke)?


William Charles Good: I should like to answer the question though it hardily relates to the matter under consideration; however I may say-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, yes it does.


William Charles Good: I may say very frankly, so far as "leading" is concerned, yes. Up to the present time the member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) has acted as chief whip for the Progressive party; and) since last year we thirteen members are not represented by him in the negotiations of the House. That is the situation and I thought it was fairly well understood in this House.


William F. Carroll: Has the hon. gentleman representing the thirteen-which is rather a peculiar number-told the government whip or the opposition whip, or the whip of the Progressive party, that they were disallied-if that is a good word-from the three groups and desired to form another group in the House?


William Charles Good: Yes, I so stated a few minutes ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. gentlemen on both sides to discuss the motion before the House. We are losing much time this afternoon.


William Charles Good: I have been asked questions,
and) as I do not wish to appear discourteous to any hon. member, I desire to answer these questions. I think some of them however have not been entirely relevant.


William F. Carroll: I should like to ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: I stated yesterday, and
have stated on different occasions, that whilst questions may be allowed with the consent of the hon. gentleman who has the floor, yet when the debate degenerates into a discussion of this kind the Chair must intervene and stop it, otherwise the debate will be interminable.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rose some time ago
to a point of order. We all know well that when we appeal to the electors in this country

Ocean Shipping Rates
there are two recognized parties, we have the old-fashioned Liberal party, the old-fashioned 'Conservative party, and of late we have had the Progressive party. Since they came to this House they have divided themselves into various factors. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is the leader of the Progressive party; my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the leader of our party; and the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) is the leader of the Conservative party. That constitutes what we understand in this country as the two-party system. Now a third party has come in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: When the Speaker calls
me to order I will sit down. Then the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) says he is the leader of a group, the Labour party so-called. He has been recognized by Your Honour on divers occasions as the leader of the fourth party. Now in the name of Heaven-
Mr. SPEAKER; Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: -are we going to have a fifth and sixth group in this House? I may ask you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize me as the leader of the Liberal Constitutional party, bceause I do not always agree with my party on constitutional questions. I might be called an old-fashioned Tory, because I believe in keeping up the British connection.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman rose
to a point of order. I understand his point of order is 'that the Speaker can only recognize two or perhaps three groups in this House. The Speaker ignores the parties as parties; but there are, as all constitutional authorities state, amenities which cannot be ignored. For instance, when a debate is proceeding in the House the Speaker must alternate; he must see one on the ministerial side, then one on the opposition side, and then the third group, the Progressive party. He must see them as he must also see others who do not belong to that third group. Hon. members wild remember that once in the House of Commons in England besides the historic Liberal and Conservative parties they had the Irish party, and there was also 'a group of four very eminent gentlemen, Mr. Balfour and Lord Randolph Churchill being of the number, 1 have forgotten the names of the others; yet recognition was given by the Speaker to any of those eminent gentlemen. Of course, this is not strictly part of the law, but it forms
part of the amenities of the debate, and it seems to me I should be remiss in my duty as Speaker if I did not recognize those members who do not officially belong to either of the three larger groups. Last year I applied that principle in the case of the Labour group, because that group is quite a factor in the country. I had to take notice of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), who represents Labour and I think I was right in doing so. Therefore the point of order of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martel!) is not well taken, although I think it is we'll to draw the attention of the House to the apparent anomalies which exist. Might I remind the House that a motion has been passed to give precedence to the debate on the budget over all other questions? We have been discussing this motion all! afternoon. The suggestion was made a moment ago that things could be arranged by one member of the Progressive group dropping out of that committee and being replaced by a member of the other group. If that suggestion were adopted, the House might proceed with the other business of the day. The time is going fast.


William Charles Good: I would have been through
long ago if I had had an opportunity. All I wish to say in conclusion is that a suggestion was made by me to the government whip several days ago in order to avoid the embarrassment of anybody dropping out. The situation might be remedied by the addition of four members to the 'committee, one from the Conservatives, one from our section, and two from the Liberals. This would make an exact and fair representation. That is one way out of the difficulty. The other way out is that which has been suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am sorry if I have said anything to hurt the feelings of any hon. member present, but I will not willingly submit to injustice, and in this particular case, I believe a grave injustice was being done. I, for my part, strove patiently for a number of -days to get the matter adjusted privately without any unpleasantness, and I would like to appeal to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) as witness of what I did in this connection to get an adjustment. If a way out is secured, either by increasing the membership to nineteen, or by the other method suggested, I shall be quite satisfied.


Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: Who should be consulted in the hon. member's group of thirteen in future on questions of this kind arising as to who should be appointed from
Ocean Shipping Rates

that group to represent them? What position does the hon. member hold? What is his status in the group of thirteen-leader or whip?


William Charles Good: I do not know how many
times I must answer this question. I have answered it two or three times already. I have stated distinctly that twelve other members asked me in writing to secure committee representation for them as they could not get it in any other way. I gave that document-or a copy of it-to the government whip. Surely that is plain enough.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie) :: Mr. Speaker, in order to settle this discussion and clear the air, if I am in order, I am going to make a suggestion. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) has said that there are two ways of settling this, either by increasing thes representation on the committee, or by some one who is already on dropping out. My official resignation is now in the hands of the Prime Minister, and while I wish to thank the members of the Progressive party, of which I am proud to be called a member, for selecting me to represent them on that committee, if I am in order, I would suggest that my name be dropped and some other name substituted. I could make a suggestion, but I will not do so. I will leave that to them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member did send me a note a moment ago saying that if it was in order, he would suggest that his name be dropped from the committee and some other suggested, if that would help to clear the way for other business. The House heard the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) a moment ago make a similar offer. There seems to be a disposition to see that all groups are represented. I would suggest that the motion as put be carried, and that hon. gentlemen opposite to-morrow notify the government what substitution of names they wish, one of the gentlemen who has just been mentioned retiring and thus permitting a member of the thirteen to take his place on the committee. I think it would be better to keep the committee of the size it is. It would require the unanimous consent of the House to enlarge it. I would submit that would be the quickest way to dispose of the matter.


William Charles Good: With that understanding-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
fM. Cahill.]

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, so that members may know officially with respect to the adjournment at Easter, though I mentioned it the other evening, with the consent of the House, I had better make the motion formally. I move:
That when the House adjourns at six o'clock on Wednesday April 8, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 14.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: moved:
That the first report of the joint committee on Printing except the section thereof referring to sessional papers numbers 49. 98, 99 and 100, be concurred in.
He said: In explanation of this motion, I wish to state that the Senate has already passed a motion similar to the one now being proposed. It has been discovered after the meeting of the committee that sessional paper No. 49, being the rules adopted by the province of Quebec relating to appeals against convictions or sentences under the Criminal Code, are for the special use of the provincial tribunals and there is no necessity for the House of Commons to pay the cost of having the same printed and distributed. They are needed more particularly by the members of the legal profession in the province for which they were adopted.
As to Papers Nos. 98, 99 and 100, the House has decided prior to the meeting of the committee that they be printed without being referred to the committee.
It was by inadvertence and for lack of proper information that committee decided to print the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. F. KELLNER (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move a motion of which notice was given last Wednesday:
That on and after next Tuesday, the thirty-first day of March instant, until the end of the present session, if the hour from eight o'clock, p.m., to nine o'clock, p.m., on Tuesdays and Fridays, which under the rules of the House is devoted to the consideration of Private Bills, is not wholly taken up or used for that purpose, such part of the hour as remains after Private Bills are disposed of, shall be devoted to Public Bills and Orders, which shall be called by the Speaker in regular sequence as they appear on the order paper.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I would think

Hour jor Private Bills
that was a question that should go before the committee which, under your direction, is dealing with proposed changes in the rules of the House. I do not think it is within the scope of a private member to move such a resolution at this stage without notice.


An hon. MEMBER:: Notice was given.


William F. Carroll: Even if notice was given, I do not think such change as is proposed should take place. The fact that an hour is set aside after eight o'clock on certain evenings to take up private bills does not necessarily mean that the whole hour must be taken up with or allotted to private bills. The moment private bills are disposed of, necessarily other government work comes up.


Arthur Meighen: The House may have had notice of this motion, no doubt it had; but I did not observe it, and consequently it is a surprise to me. I do not concur with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), who feels that it should be a subject for reference to the special committee in that it contemplates a change in the rules of parliament. It is no more a change in the rules of parliament than are a large number of motions that are constantly made by the government either for the appropriation of certain days or for the appointing of special committees for certain purposes, or motions of a similar nature. This is merely a motion that could have effect for this particular session, applying to the rules as they exist to-day. It so happens this session that there are a number of very important subjects that have been precipitated into "Public Bills and Orders" and which will find there a permanent resting place unless some means is found to enable discussion of them. It would not take a very great deal of time, if after private bills have been disposed of, between eight and nine, the rest of the time were devoted to the discussion of these questions and especially to the consideration of certain bills which have drifted into the category of public bills and orders. I have always felt as respects bills introduced by private members that after having got so far, landing in the bog, it was scarcely fair treatment for the member who had special legislation which he wanted to advance to shelve it in this way. Something can be said, as well, for this residue of resolutions, but the argument cannot be advanced quite so forcefully as in respect of bills which are held up in this way. I would suggest that the House give serious consideration to the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Kellner). For myself, I see no objection to its application this session.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I do not understand
what my right hon. friend means when he says that there is no rule of the House governing the matter.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what I said; the minister misunderstood me. I know he will agree with me when I explain the point. The motion is not in the nature of a change in the permanent rules of the House. There is of course a permanent rule of the House which applies to the present case, but this motion is no more a change of any standing rule than is the motion which is frequently made that Wednesday or Thursday be taken as government day after a certain period, or that a special order shall have precedence, such for instance as the special order which is now first on the order paper. The present motion, I say, is no more a matter for relegation to the committee which is considering changes in the permanent rules of the House than would be just such a motion as I have mentioned.


Ernest Lapointe: What my right hon.
friend alludes to is the suspension of the rules in regard to one particular subject. That happens, not very frequently but occasionally; while the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Kellner) would mean the immediate permanent suspension of rule 25.


Arthur Meighen: Its suspension for this
session; and so does the motion to take Wednesday mean a permanent suspension of a particular rule for the period of the session.


Ernest Lapointe: But that is a matter of practice, whereas this motion if adopted would establish a new practice which has never been known in this House, and that at a time especially when there is a committee sitting for the purpose of considering the advisability of changing some of the rules of the House. I trust that the committee will not accept any such innovation as suggested by my hon. friend inasmuch as it would lead to confusion. I do not see how the House could very well devote, of one hour, forty-five minutes to the consideration of private bills and fifteen minutes to the discussion, let us say, of race track gambling or something of that kind. I do not think it would be of any advantage to the House to adopt the motion. While personally I am not averse to the changing of some rules in the House, and elsewhere for that matter, I do feel that so long as the rules stand we should respect
Hour for Private Bills

them; and moreover while there is a committee actually considering the question of changes in the rules, I should feel disinclined to accept the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: If no other hon. member
desires to speak, the mover of the resolution will close the debate.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: If we are to accept the policy that no rules are to be changed in this House, then it seems to me that the committee just now studying the rules of parliament might as well cease its activities. And the minister will I think appreciate the fact that, whatever the committee may do, it does not expect any changes which it may propose to become effective this session. The motion now before the House is one that applies entirely to the present session. As regards subjects that are now on the order paper, there are quite a number of very important matters under the heading of "Public Bills and Orders" which it would be desirable to take up, and it would seem to be a question whether or not the government and the House desire to smother discussion of these questions or to give hon. members a chance to have them fairly brought before parliament. There is no question whatever to my mind that the procedure now proposed is almost identical with that followed by the government when they ask the House to give to government business the time that otherwise would be due private members. We are merely asking now for reasonable length of time in which to deal with important matters on the order paper. As for any resolution on race track gambling coming up for a fifteen minute discussion, I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether he seriously thinks that the mover of such a resolution would take fifteen minutes if it were offered him to discuss that subject. Why, it would be altogether impossible for him to get anywhere in that length of time.


Ernest Lapointe: I have seen some surprising things happen.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Possibly the Minister of Justice looks for surprises. But there are many days when private bills and orders are disposed of in about ten or fifteen minutes, and if we had the rest of that hour to take up public bills and orders, many important matters would be disposed of. It is undesirable that these matters should be deferred to a subsequent session, because it seems to me that this will only make for an effort on the part of members to beat the rules of the House; if they cannot get a fair chance to

deal with the subjects they are promoting they may try to get ahead of the rules.


William F. Carroll: Why not make it a
permanent rule of the House?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am not suggesting anything as a rule of the House either permanent or temporary; we are simply asking that a certain space of time which is now devoted to private bills be given to public bills and orders when that time is not consumed in considering such private matters.


Hewitt Bostock: Under the rules of the
House-


Mr. BELAND:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call to your attention thart the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) was in his seat and did not vote.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Air. CHAPLIN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). Had I voted I would; have voted for the motion.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Mr. Speaker, I
was paired, but I certainly understood that no pairs counted. I may say that when I saw that some hon. members did not rise I at once sent over a note to my hon. friend the chief government whip (Mr. Kyte) asking him to vote because he is paired with our chief whip (Mr. Boys) who is absent.


Mr. DUNCAN:: I did not know this motion was opposed by the government. I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm).


An hon. MEMBER:: You voted.


Matthew Robert Duncan: I did not know -that pairs counted.


James Alexander Robb: M-r. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Air. Stevens). Had I voted I would have voted
against the resolution.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to call your -attention to the fact that the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) voted.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. These explanations will be entered in the proceedings, but the vote cannot be changed.
There being an equality of voices, rule 6 puts the Speaker under the obligation cf casting -his vote and he can state his reasons to the House. I vote nay. My reason is this:	There is a special committee, only
appointed -a few weeks ago by the House; it is presided over by the Speaker and sitting twice a week to discuss the advisability of aimending some of the rules that are obsolete. That committee has not yet reached rule 25, which is affected by the principle involved in the present motion. Therefore I think it would be wise not to anticipate but to let the committee fully consider this question and report on it. The House can then adopt or reject the motion. I declare -the -motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Kellner) negatived.



PUBLICATION OP THE STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, respecting the publication of the statutes.
He said: The object of this bill is to determine the manner in which the statutes enacted from year to year by the Dominion parliament shall be printed and bound, and distributed. The principal reason for the bill is tha-t a revision of the statutes is now in progress, and the sections of the present statute determining the manner in which acts of parliament shall be printed and bound are couched in terms not now in common usage and not precisely in accordance with the practice which has been pursued for -many years. A consultation with the Department of Justice resulted in- the present measure being drafted as a new and complete statute rather than as an amendment of the existing statute, and it has the approval of the Department of Justice.
Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I am
Toronto Viaduct

clear on the explanation of the hon. minister. He says that the present statute contains language that is not now in common use. What does he mean? If he would give us the statute to which he refers hon. members could refer to it.


Mr. MURDOCK:: An act respecting the
publication, of the statutes. It is on the orders of the day, and my right hon. friend-


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. minister
misunderstands me. What is the statute now in force?


James Murdock: An Act Respecting the
Publication of the Statutes.


Arthur Meighen: That is not on the orders of the day, if it is the old statute.


James Murdock: That is it exactly.


Arthur Meighen: How would the old statute be on the orders of the day?


James Murdock: It was found necessary
to revise in several particulars the present act respecting the publication of the statutes.


Ernest Lapointe: It is really an amendment of the present statute.


James Murdock: It really contemplates
the amendment of a number of sections, and the Department of Justice thought it would be better to repeal the old act and pass a new statute, which is being done.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TORONTO VIADUCT-IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) to complaints that are appearing in the Toronto papers the past few days, by letter, by editorials and otherwise, in reference to advertisements said to be appearing in British newspapers that 5,000 workers are needed in Toronto to work on the Toronto viaduct, when none are, as a fact, needed. I would like the minister to be kind enough to look into these complaints; to ascertain whether they are well founded or not, and, if so, who is responsible for the effort to induce immigrants to come to Canada on the basis of such wilful misrepresentations as these.


James Alexander Robb: I will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the
hon. member quotes from an advertisement

in some English paper, the purpose of which is to induce immigrants to come to Canada on the assumption that there is work for them on the Toronto viaduct. I just wish to point out to my hon. friend that under the law of England it is a criminal offence to use English newspapers for the purpose of inducing immigrants to come to Canada under false pretences. I think that should be brought to the attention of the public generally.



EXPORT TAX ON POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, during the budget debate I did not fully realise that the change in the law so as to provide for the export tax on power referred to by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), had been carried out by order in council and that we will have no resolution under which an opportunity would be afforded to discuss the matter in the ordinary way in committee. Under these circumstances it seems reasonable to request that all applications for the right to export power and all correspondence having regard to the matter, the order in council itself, and the recommendation of the department on which the order in council is based, be tabled during the pendency of the debate.


James Alexander Robb: I think the order in council has
been published in the Canada Gazette. The act is administered by the Trade and Commerce department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure mv hon. friend will realize that the order by itself does not mean very mudh. I think the House is entitled to know what steps were taken by the government with regard to the imposition of this new tax-that is, unless the matter is to be kept from any intelligent review by the House. We should have the correspondence, the recommendations and the like. I should not think there wobld be any difficulty about it.


James Alexander Robb: If there is any correspondence relating to it I will bring it down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The applications and the recommendations.



NATURALIZATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR L.BKAUBIEN (Provencher): May I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) if he intends to bring down any amendment to the Naturalization Act this year?

Canada Grain Act
Hon. a. B. OOPP (Secretary of State): The present intention is not to bring down any amendment to the Naturalization Act.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. II. E, SPENCER (Battle River):	I
*would like to ask whether the attention of the government has been directed to the following resolution which has been unanimously agreed to by the legislative assembly of the province of Alberta:
Resolved, that this House continue to urge on the Dominion government the necessity for a federal farm loan scheme, and request that action be taken at the present session of parliament to make the necessary provision to make such a scheme effective.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be very difficult to answer my hon. friend. A number of these resolutions that are passed by provincial legislatures are sent in to the government, but it would be necessary to inquire of the Clerk of the Privy Council or of the Secretary of State whether this one has been received. I will make the inquiry and try to give my hon. friend an answer.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day: [DOT]
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) if he will intimate to the House why the government decided1 not to bring down any amendments to the Grain Act this year.
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There are no other reasons than those stated yesterday. It is desired to give hon. members ample opportunity to study the report of the Royal Grain Commission. If the House so desires we have no objection to introducing the bill and upon second reading referring it to the Agriculture committee. I am sure Mr. Justice Turgeon would be glad to appear before that committee and explain fully his report and the bill that he has drafted.


Mr. GOULD:: I would suggest to the minister that the farmers of western Canada do not wish to market their grain under existing conditions any longer than they can help, and would like to see the bill passed in its amended form this year.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, we have
some interest in this matter too. I thought it was a new proceeding in parliament that the
government should leave a bill on the table for a year in order that it might properly soak in. The session of parliament is for that purpose; the various stages of the bill itself are for that purpose. I dto not know anything more difficult to understand about a grain bill than about any other. If there was any bill that this premonitory procedure should apply to it was the Petersen bill. I do not see that the government has any reason at all for this extraordinary procedure, especially in view of the fact that already three or four sessions have elapsed since the matter was first undertaken. The reports have been delayed month after month-indeed, year after year. Surely we should not have to rest on our oars for another year before we have the legislation.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend does
not suggest that for several years no action was taken on the report of the Royal Grain Commission?


Arthur Meighen: No. I said the report
had been delayed for months and even years.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not the report of the Royal
Grain Commission that was appointed a year or two ago?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The government in its Speech from the Throne of 1924 offered the expectation to the House that the report would be down in time for legislation a year ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: The report was received only shortly before the session opened.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Thomas Andrew Low: It was tabled immediately
following the opening of parliament. We realize that this is a very important matter. It has been intimated to me on more than one occasion that some members would like an opportunity to study the report of the Royal Grain Commission more fully. But if it is the wish of the House that the government should proceed with the bill we are ready to introduce it, give the bill its first and second readings and then refer it to the Agriculture committee. As a matter of fact, if the Agriculture committee is prepared to recommend its adoption we are ready to proceed with the bill this session.


Arthur Meighen: I think I see now the
reason why all this precaution is to be taken. The government is apparently going to rest its destiny on the Agriculture committee with respect to this bill. I was in no disagreement with the minister as to the delay to date,

Fishing Licenses to Foreigners
but surely he does not suggest that that is a reason for leaving the bill on the table for a year. Suppose there is a general election; next year there will be new members. Will the House then have to have another year until the new members study the bill, too?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Speak for your own side
of the House.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I am doing.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I inquire when the government propose to bring down the Australian treaty for ratification?


James Alexander Robb: I think that question was answered
a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: Could the government
lay that on the table too, so that we may think it over?



FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGNERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to give some information to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) in connection with an inquiry he made yesterday, in which he drew the attention of the House to an answer that had been made to a question put by him on the 25th of March. There were six enumerations; three had been answered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I find that this is what happened:	Part of the
question relates to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and part Of it to the Department of External Affairs. The External Affairs department sent its answer in to the Department of the Secretary of State, where the questions were assembled, but it had not reached1 the House, so that the answer as given to the House contained only the reply of the Marine and Fisheries department. That is why all the questions were not answered at the same time. That is why the whole question was not answered at the moment. Now the part referring to the Department of External Affairs, which remains, is the fourth question:
Is it true that the Japanese government has refused to make any modification in the agreement subsisting between Canada and Japan, as to the number of Japanese subjects to be allowed entry to Canada yearly ?
The answer is No.
Has the Japanese government made any proposal to the Canadian government in reference to the matters referred to in the preceding question?

The answer is No.
If so, what are the particulars thereof?
The reply to this is: Answered by the preceding answer.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to call the attention of the government to several questions put on the order paper on 25th February. After being allowed to stand some days the questions were converted into an order for return. The questions were concerning certain transactions with the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners. They do not involve any research, it is a matter as to which the government should have information at hand here in Ottawa, and I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if the return could not be expedited.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I shall be pleased to make the necessary inquiry and see that the return is prepared as soon as possible.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that we have had a somewhat interesting afternoon. We have had a review of the past and present railway situation in this country from the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). We have also learned that no new political party has been bom in this country, which fact I am sure will come as a measure of relief to many of us as there will be no swaddling clothes and feeding bottles necessary.
May I at this time .congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) on attaining another mile stone. I am sure that I voice the feelings of alii at any rate in this part of the House, when I say to him that we hope he may have many happy returns of the 'day.
In addressing myself to the resolutions now before the House I wish first of all to draw attention to the proposal of the government to create what is termed a tariff board. In this connection I want to read from the resolu-

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
tion relating to the board in question the following words:
The remaining members will be persons specially qualified to advise upon such questions, and will give continuous time and attention to these and kindred matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the appointment of this board but I want to point out that the farming interests of this country will expect to be represented on that body. I think I may say to the government that this board will not foe received with favour by the farming interests of the country if one of their number, one in whom they have absolute confidence, is not included in its personnel.
Another matter I intended to draw attention to was the amendments to the Dumping Act, but I observe the Acting Minister of Finance gave notice yesterday that when we reach the proper stage of the proceedings he will withdraw this proposal. I am pleased that foe is going to do that, but it is still a matter of wonder why those amendments were ever proposed. I am sorry they were brought down but I am glad, as I have said, that the acting minister now proposes to withdraw them.
I wish to say a few words regarding the budget of 1924, and the reductions in the customs duties that were given effect to at that time. It is a well-known fact that our friends to the right have claimed that those reductions, along with other policies of the government, have resulted in the closing of many factories in this country. I have in my hand a publication issued by the Liberal Conservative organization committee at Ottawa, dated February 19, 1925, and I want to say to my hon. friends to the right that this publication came into my hands in a legitimate way.


Arthur Meighen: Glad you got it.


John Frederick Johnston: My right hon. friend
probably will not be so glad before I have finished.


Arthur Meighen: It will not hurt.


John Frederick Johnston: In this article it is
stated that " a seven-foot binder with no attachments in 1921 cost $235; the price to the farmer to-day is $237. But the sales tax of 3 per cent existed in 192'l and does not exist to-day." The House will note immediately that the figures quoted here are for the years 1921 and 1925; there is no consideration given to the intervening years. But anyone having to do with the agricultural implement industry, or the buying of these implements, will 110
know that in that interval between the years 1922 and 1923, there was a very material increase in the price to the user by the manufacturers. No consideration is given to that at all. The idea conveyed in this article is that as against the price of 1921 there was an advance in 1925 which may be true as respects the figures submitted. But the list given in the article goes on to enumerate different machines-five-foot heavy mower, ten-foot rake, single-disc drill, six-foot 12-tooth cultivator, and so on. I made it my business after this publication came into my hands to write to one of the large implement firms doing business in western Canada and ask them for their prices for each of the years 1921 to 1925 inclusive, showing what reduction, if any, had been made by the lowering in the customs duties and sales tax as of last year, and I wish to submit these figures: An eight-foot binder in 1921 cost $331; in 1922, it cost, $267, in 1923, it cost $274, and previous to April 11, 1924, it cost $308. Immediately after the reduction in the customs duties and sales tax the price was reduced to $293, or a saving to the farmer of $15. Further, the price for this year is $283, or a total difference, between the price in 1921 and the present price of $48. I mention the last price in order to explode the old theory of our protectionist friends that any reduction in the customs duties does not reach the consumer but is added by the American manufacturer to the price.


Arthur Meighen: What about the 5 per
cent sales tax taken off, is that not worth mentioning?


John Frederick Johnston: I have given the prices for the years 1921 to 1925 inclusive.


Arthur Meighen: You missed the point
altogether.


John Frederick Johnston: Now on a 20-shoe drill the price in 1921 was $260, in 1922, it was $200, in 1923, it was $207. Previous to April 11, 1924, the price was $230. After the reduction in the sales tax and customs duty the price was $210, or an immediate reduction of $20. The 1925 price is $185, showing a net reduction this year over 1921 of $75 on these implements.
Mr. LEWI'S: In order to make the situation quite plain was there an increase in the price in 1924, before the budget came down, anticipating that the duties were going to be lowered?


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend will have to ask the manufacturer that, I do not know.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston

I do know, however, that there was an increase by implement firms in this country in the fall of 1923, applicable to the prices sent out in the spring of 1924, but it was a general increase. Now I have the prices of two other implements in very general use in western Canada. On a 16-16 disc harrow the price in 1921 was S90, in 1922 $72, in 1923, $76. Previous to April 11, 1924, the price was $85. After reduction in the customs duty and sales tax the price was $80, or a reduction of $5. To-day that implement costs $79, or a total reduction of $11. On a 10-foot hay rake the price in 1921 was $66, and in 1922 $55, in 1923, $56.50. Previous to April 11, 1924, the price was $65, and after the reduction of customs duties the price was $62, or $3 attributable to reduction in customs duties and sales tax. To-day the price of that machine is $60, or a reduction of $6. These figures are authentic and are from one of the largest implement companies doing business in western Canada. I have a letter from the sales manager of that implement company to show the correctness of my statements.
It is not my intention to dwell very long on this matter of protection. I have said in this House before, and I re-state at this time, that in my opinion protection breeds trusts and tends to distrust in government. We heard from the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) a short time ago in regard to the manufacture of wire fencing in this country, and I think it is worth while repeating some of his statements. We have different firms manufacturing wire fencing in Canada. Some of them, also manufacture the wire or raw steel rods. In this particular instance the manufacturers who weave wire fencing also manufacture a fencing of No. 10 wire, on which there is an import duty of 20 per cent. These other people who only weave wire are forced to pay that 20 per cent duty to their competitors, with the result that they will either be put out of business or we will have another trust in this country. My hon. friend at that time spoke about manufacturing in the small towns of Ontario years ago. I remember very well as a boy in this country, that in the town where I was brought up we had many small manufacturing establishments. We had a foundry employing fifteen or twenty men, a tannery employing about an equal number, and a woollen mill, three different firms that manufactured wagons, sleighs, buggies and so on, but all these had disappeared, before 1896. And why? Probably because something similar to what I have stated in connection with the wire 
fencing obtained-that the big fellow was able to freeze them out. I think it can be safely said that protection has failed to make Canada prosperous. I do not wish to burden the House with a long array of figures to sustain this statement I have made as to the failure of protection to make Canada prosperous, but there are a few to which I should like to call attention. Take for example the comparison between the growth of Canada and the United States during comparable periods in their early development. In 1790, the United States had a population of 3,929,000, which compares with 3,689,000 for Canada at the time of confederation. In the first fifty years after 1790 the population of the United States rose to 17,063,000; while in the first fifty years of its history the population of this Dominion only reached 8,361,000. I have taken the United States figures from the Encyclopedia Britan-nica and the Canadian from the Year Book. In the first fifty years of its existence, or thereabout, the United States increased in population more than four-fold, while the population of Canada during a similar period was only a little more than doubled. This does not look as if Canada had in the last forty odd years enjoyed, under protection, the growth that it was entitled to in the normal course of events.
Or, if more evidence is desired of the ineffectiveness of protection as a national policy -that is a policy that will build up Canada- we have only to look at the figures of emigration to the United States, which our Conservative friends have been so fond of citing of late. I do not need to quote them here, for they have been brought before us quite lately by the right hon. member -who leads the official opposition (Mr. Meighen). Any one who is curious can find the figures up to recent years in The Monthly Labour Review, published by the United States Department of Labour, -which showed an annual exodus of 117,000 in the United States fiscal year 1922-23.
Instead of quoting these figures of the United States government, however, I prefer to cite a table from the last issue of the Canada Year Book 1922-23, page 149. In that table the Bureau of Statistics reviews the movement of Canada's population in the last two decades-1901 to 1911 and 1911 to 1921. In the first of these decades the numbers added to the population of this country by natural increase and by immigration were 2,701,217; while the actual increase in the population was only 1,835,328. In the second decade the numbers added by immigration

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
and by birth were 2,879,580; while the actual increase in the population was only 1,581,840. In other words in the first of these decades, one of the most prosperous in the history of Canada, and under a fu|ly developed protective policy, there was an exodus from the country of 865,000 and in the second ten year period the loss of population was 1,297,000. Surely the existence of such figures as these after thirty or forty years of protection is evidence that there is something wrong in that " heaven-born " system as a national policy. And I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the figures pertaining to the last decade I have mentioned cannot bring much comfort to my hon. friends to my right, because it was they who were in office from 1911 to 1921, under a highly protective system, under which Canada has lost so many people to the United States.
Now what about these factories that we hear have been closed? What is the truth in connection with that matter? Everyone knows that during the recess the hon. leader of the opposition went about Canada telling the people that two thousand factories had closed, and many of his lieutenants echoed those words. I have in my hand a clipping that reports a statement given at a conference held in the city of Ottawa in the fall of last year with respect! to employment. At that conference a .representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association stated that during the past two years thirteen hundred and fifty-one factories in Canada had closed, not two thousand, but he did not stop there, as the right hon. gentleman does. I might say that Mr. Shaw, the gentleman who made this report, stated that the new companies that had been formed during the past two years do not make the picture quite so dark. The following is the list of factories closed and new factories opened in the past
two years:
Classification	Closed Opened
Food products	
240	153Tobacco, cigars, etc	
24	12Fertilizers and fertilizer materials.. 19	5
Oils, chemical, drugs and industrial
minerals	
85	59Pulp, paper and printing	
43	68
Lumber and wood products, exclusive
of pulp and paper	
271	169Furniture and musical instruments..	49	19Building materials	
81	49
Agricultural implements and tools and
equipments, tractors, etc	
31	6Carriages and wagons	
18	10
Iron and steel and metal products and
machinery	
172	134Leather	
13	8Leather products	
10	13Footwear and findings	
24	21Rubber goods	
6	4
tlOi
Classification	Closed Opened
Autos and equipments	23	27Toys	7	1Glass products	6	4Textiles and apparel	
Miscellaneous including brooms and	156	108brushes, tents and awnings, jewellery, corks, etc	73	641,351	934
This shows a total number closed of 1,351, a total number opened of 934, or a net loss of 417. That is somewhat different from the statement that has gone broadcast over this country.
I think a question that many people in this country would like an answer to is whether or not industries can live in Canada without protection. I now draw attention, Sir, to two industries that are living in this country without any protection. One is the cream separator industry that has been spoken of frequently in this House, which does business in an international way and which shows no signs of closing its doors. I hold in my hand an announcement by the Brantford Cordage Company, of Brantford, Canada, that they are offering to the purchasing public of Canada
80.000	shares. I want to give to the House some of the particulars with respect to this industry. The issue is termed "first preferred sinking fund cumulative participating stock -125 par value." Of the first preferred shares -$25 par value-100,000 shares are authorized and 80,000 shares are now being issued. Of the second preferred cumulative shares-$25 par value-34,000 shares are authorized and
34.000	shares are now being issued. Of the common shares-no par value-100,000 shares are authorized and 80,000 are now being issued. Underneath the summary of the capitalization there is a note that this company has no bonded debt. Still it has been doing business on a free trade basis in Canada for many years. Mr. C. L. Messecar, president of the company, summarizes his information to the public as follows:
Business and property-The company is the largest manufacturer of binder twine in the British Empire and owns and operates a plant occupying seven and a half acres at Brantford, Ontario. There has been completed and put into operation last January a third mill with the most modern equipment, which increases the productive capacity of the company approximately SO per cent.
Not only can business carry on in this country on a free-trade basis, but it can increase its business.
The business is largely domestic, but the company's product is also exported to practically all the graingrowing countries of the world. Owing to its low manufacturing costs, the business has been able to meet all competition.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston

In the month of August, when grain begins to move in the prairies, there was an increase of nearly a million over July. The figures for September are $4,581,103; and when the big rush of grain is on from the -prairie section in October we find the net earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway running up to $7,090,615. The total for the twelve months, as will be seen from' the foregoing table, is over 837,000,000. An analysis of these figures wili reveal some interesting results. It will be noted for instance that the net earnings for the month of October alone, when the rush of grain was on, was but $16,053 less than for the first five months of the year. Again, the net earnings for the months of September, October and November are but $1,949,448 less than one-half of the total. And if we include December we find that the four grain .months exceed in earnings the other eight months by $7,158,64-6. These' figures I think should receive the serious consideration of every hon. member who will have to pass judgment on the rates question when it is before the House. In further support of my contention that the handling of grain in the prairie sections is the most lucrative end of the railway operations, either for the Canadian National or for the Canadian Pacific, I shall quote from the report of a speech delivered by President Beatty in the city of New York a dhort while ago.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Before the hon. member proceeds, I should like him to answer a question. Are the figures which he has givers those of net earnings of the railway in ques-

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
tion during the time the Crowsnest pass agreement was in force?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes; these are for the
year 1924 when the Crowsnest rates on wheat and wheat products were in full force. I would read now the following press despatch;
Would be Canada's Richest Men To-day E. W. Beatty Says Canadian Northern Builders Should Have Served Prairies Alone
New York, February 22.-Over sixteen hundred members of the New York Traffic Club, and the largest gathering in the history of the organization, were present at the annual banquet in the Commodore Hotel here last night, where E. W. Beatty, K.C., president and chairman of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was the chief speaker. The guests included the executives of many of the larger United States railroads. W. A. Schumacher, president of the Club, was in the chair.
Mr. Beatty was accompanied by W. R. Mclnnes, of the C.P.R. Mr. Beatty largely devoted his remarks to a review of Canada's railway history, which was, he said, the story of the great achievement, mistakes, failures and political and economic complications ending with the most unique situation existing in the world to-day. He traced the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and said that the success of the company had provoked similar but over-ambitious enterprises. He referred to the Canadian Northern which, he said, while a great conception, carried to physical completion, had failed because it was built before its time and could not be operated successfully through the dislocation of war time.
"If," said the speaker,-
And I would draw the attention of the House to this.
"If", said the speaker, "instead of turning its prairie lines into a portion of a transcontinental system the owners had been content to make as their termini the mountains on the west, and the Great Lakes on the [DOT] east, they would have been the wealthiest men in Canada".
There is only one inference to be drawn from the foregoing and it is, that the handling of grain in the prairies to-day is the most lucrative traffic in which the railway companies are engaged.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was discussing transportation rates in Canada, (particularly railway rates. I also mentioned lake and ocean rates. As the latter subject is coming before a special committee of the House of which I am a member, I shall refrain from discussing it now. With respect to lake rates, in my opinion, judging from the information I have, the producers of wheat in western Canada have been harder hit by the
exorbitant tolls levied by the lake carriers than they have been by ocean rates. In this connection I think it is not too much to say that when the rush of grain is on, and the rate to Buffalo is one-half cent lower than the rate to lake ports, our coastal laws should be suspended.
Now I come to a matter which probably is somewhat irrelevant to the motion before the House; nevertheless, I think it is of sufficient interest to occupy the attention of hon. members for a short time. I refer to the appointment by this House last session of three commissioners to visit the Wembley exhibition. I happened to be one of those commissioners, and as there has been some criticism of the vote, I wish to state my position in regard to it and to justify the expenditure. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) told us the other day that he had discussed this vote on the stump, and when he discussed it in the House he said that the cost of the commission was covered by a vote of $20,000. He would have been more fair had he said the cost was smothered by a vote of S20.000, for the total cost of the commission was $4,200, or $1,400 for each of the three commissioners. It is not my intention to try to justify the vote upon its smallness; if it will not stand on principle, it will not stand at all; but when we take into consideration that this House voted over a million dollars to place Canada's products on exhibition at Wembley, I think there was some justification for sending a small delegation from parliament in order that they might bring back a report.


Mr. JACOBS:: Particularly as all the members were also Canadian products.


John Frederick Johnston: Our report is now in
the hands of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb), and a perusal of it will show that it contains a recommendation that Canada should participate in the exhibition for 1925. Whether our recommendation had anything to do with the government's decision I do not know, but I am glad that they have decided that Canada shall again take part in the exhibition this year. I do not intend to deal with the matter in detail on this occasion; my remarks in that connection will be more appropriate when the minister's estimates are before the House; but it may be of interest to hon. members to know that all men of affairs in this country did not support the official opposition in their stand against the vote in question. I have in my hand a letter from a well known figure in Canada, and I will read that part of it which applies to the matter I am discussing:
The Budget-Mr. Johnston

J. Fred Johnston, M.P.,
Bladworth, Sask.
Dear Mr. Johnston,
May I congratulate you on the substance of the interview you gave the Saskatoon Star and which appeared September 24th, on your visit to Wembley? I have just drawn the attention of my different editors to some phases of the interview and have sent the article as a whole to the editor of The Financial Post, suggesting that he reproduce it in next week's issue.
We supported the govement in the expenditure on the exhibition, believing in it just as you do; and we also supported the action of the government in giving a grant for M.P's to go abroad. We believed that both appropriations were very good investments.
Faithfully yours,
J. B. Maclean.
Mr. Maclean, is publisher of Maclean's Magazine.
Those of us who did go to Wembley were very sorry indeed that the chief whip of the Conservative party (Mr. Boys) was unable to go. The House knows that he supported the vote and was anxious to go, but for personal reasons be could mot get away. I hope the government will see its way clear to let the hon. member go this year; and I think he should be accompanied by one or two other members of this House. I believe they could do good work for Canada by visiting the Wembley exhibition. It was our privilege the second day, I think, after we arrived at Wembley to welcome to the Canadian building 'Certain members of the Imperial government, and the occasion was a source of great satisfaction to us.
From the opening of the exhibition in April until the time we left, an average of twenty thousand school children a day passed through the turnstiles to visit the exhibition. These children were alii at the age when their minds were most receptive, and they could not but be impressed by the splendid exhibit of our products in the Canada building. I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that if the government or the House would accept some of the proposals and 'recommendations contained in the report of the commissioners the cost of sending them to Wembley would be returned to this country many times.
A particular phase of the matter that I wish to emphasize is the effectiveness of the manner in which Canada was placed before the Britisher who travels abroad. It was my pleasure to meet many who intended to visit Canada. One trip through the Canada building could not but create a desire to see the real thing, and I am informed by the officials who were in charge of this end of the work at Wembley that long before the exhibition closed last Ml many travelers from England were touring our country. I do think we

give too little attention to this matter of tourist travel. It is estimated that last year the revenue coming to Canada from tourist travel was over $136,000,000, and the only money we spend in a direct way to induce tourist travel is a vote of $35,000. Of this amount $12,000 is used for salaries, 'leaving $23,000 for what may be termed propaganda. I have made the assertion, and I stand by it, that the total cost of Canada's exhibit at Wembley will be returned to this country, not by ordinary tourist travel but by increased tourist .travel in a very Hiort time. Other countries are paying a great deal of attention to the matter. In 1919, I think it was, France created a department of government under a minister whose business it was to look after tourist travel in that country. We know what Italy and Switzerland do in this connection; they almost live on the revenues derived in their respective countries from this source. I will try to give to the House some idea of the benefit that is bound to come to Canada and what we may expect if we extend our energies a little. I think they are more alive to this question out on 'the west coast than here in the eastern parts of our Dominion. Vancouver has a publicity commissioner who gives a great deal of time to this matter, and here is something he says:
According to estimates carefully worked out by Mr. Davison, Publicity Commissioner for Vancouver, approximately one-third of every dollar left in the country by tourists finds its way back into the pockets of the rural districts. In the year 1924 it is estimated that one million tourists visited British Columbia. According to Commissioner Davison these visitors consumed-
I am not going to give the total in pounds, but it is remarkable. What I want to get at is how this money is distributed and who gets the benefits. Canadian food products consumed amount to $30,000,000; foreign, $14,000,000. The other $92,000,000 is made up in this way: transportation, railways, steamships, $28,-000,000-that is where our National railways come in; hotel accommodation, personal services, $56,000,000; equipment, clothing and so forth, $3,500,000; amusements, souvenirs and so forth, $3,500,000; miscellaneous, $1,000,000, making $92,000,000. This, added to the food consumed, $44,000,000, makes a total of $136,000,000 as the estimated revenue coming to Canada last year. As I have pointed out, all we are spending in this connection is, at the most, $35,000. It goes without saying that in no other activity do we get a like revenue for such a comparatively small expenditure. There are some things which are necessary if we are to increase tourist traffic in this

The Budget-Mr. Johnston
country. We are pretty well equipped so far as railways are concerned, but we must have motor highways. I was pleased that the Minister of Railways moved to amend the Highways Act of 1919 by giving further time for the provinces to earn their grants under that statute and I hope that another year he will see his way to further supplement the vote for this purpose. Tourist travel comes to our country largely in motor cars from the south and if we have trunk roads, particularly in western Canada, to connect with the state roads we will take many thousands of people into the mountain sections that we would not get otherwise. I have here a comparative statement which should be of some interest to the House. If we were to compare the value of our four highest exports during the fiscal year 1921-22 with what I might call our "export of scenery" they would be seen to rank as follows: Agriculture and vegetables, $317,000,000; wood and paper, $179,000,000; animal products, $135,000,000; foreign tourist travel, $100,000,000; iron and its products, $27,000,000. That means that the "export of scenery" comes fourth in the list, and in selling our scenery to tourists all they take away with them is an eye-full and the food they consume, we have the scenery left to sell over again. I feel that there is a wonderful field for increasing this traffic in the Old Country, and I would suggest to the government that they send to Wembley this year the same man who was there last year. He is an expert photographer, and an expert also in handling moving pictures. Last year he went out into the country week ends and displayed his pictures, and the number of visitors he had in his office at the Wembley exhibition was remarkable. The cost of doing this is very slight if we compare it with many of our other activities, and it involves no new scheme of taxation:	It is simply a
matter of spending a little money in a direct way to induce more people to visit our country.
I am not going to detain the House much longer except to deal with this further point: We hear to-day rumours of an election, and one wonders what the issues are going to be. We heard the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) say the other evening that back in 1911 he was in the councils of the Conservative party when it was decided they could not defeat the government of the day by attacking their policy but their only chance was by raising the loyalty cry or starting a flag waving exhibition, and they did not hesitate to do so. Now, I was rather amused on taking up the morning Citizen
of March 27 to read this from a speech by the right hon. leader of the opposition to west-end Conservatives:
If this country wishes to maintain British citizenship on the North American continent, it must turn right about from the way in which it is being led by the Mackenzie King administration.
I was just wondering whether that was the beginning of the Conservative campaign for next election. But horn, gentlemen to my right will find1 a vast difference in public opinion in this country from what obtained formerly. We had the remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin who at that time was attached to the party of whom I have just spoken, and a few weeks ago we had the words of the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) with respect to the reciprocity pact. The House will remember that he said at that time that he was sorry he had voted against reciprocity in 1911, and hoped that he would get the opportunity to vote for a similar pact at an early date. There you have an expression of opinion from Ontario and another from Manitoba. I do not believe the Progressive party is going out of existence at the next election. It received support in 1921 from many of those who opposed the reciprocity pact in 1911, and who have seen the light. My Conservative friends will have a much harder task in winning public support for their policies than they had in 1911. I have here another reason why western Canada would not give much support to the Conservative party. Here is a Canadian press despatch from Halifax dated September 3:
Meighen Not in Sympathy With Prairie Provinces
Halifax, N.S., Sept. 3.-Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, speaking here Tuesday on the rapidly growing movement of the various provinces of Canada to secure better treatment under the confederation agreement, declared that while Canada was a "hard country to govern" the various problems would largely be solved if a more human touch was established with the extremities of the country.
The ex-premier said the prairie provinces think they are the only ones who have been denied the rights of the confederation pact.
"I am going to tell them," he said, "that I am not in sympathy with their grievances."
Now what are their problems and their grievances? We remember very well the attitude of the right hon. gentleman in 1922 when we were striving to get the Crowsnest pass rates re-established on wheat and wheat products in that western country. Both he and his party opposed us as vigorously as they could. If that is one of the grievances he is going to tell western Canada he does not sympathize with we already have that information. With respect to tariff matters

The Budget-Miss Macphail
neither the right hon. gentleman nor any person else need expect to make any headway in western Canada on a protectionist platform.
In conclusion let me say this:	I believe
there is a tendency in this country on the part of many people to look for governments to do for them that which they might better do for themselves. Personally I am opposed to what might be termed paternal legislation. Canada's problems to-day are not those of production. We can produce, and as a matter of fact are producing, more per capita than any other people in the world. That is established b3^ facts. Our problems are rather those of distribution and markets. In connection with these the government certainly has a responsibility, a big responsibility, and I hope it will address itself to their solution not only with vigour but with determination.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I wish at the very
beginning of my remarks to offer my congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) on this his sixty-^sixth birthday. I think I am not going outside the bounds of truth when I say that I believe he is the most loved member in this whole chamber, loved not only by me but by all hon. members. It is something to be able to control or lure to oneself affection and regard as the Minister of Railways and Canals is able to do. It is possibly after all a greater success than any other kind of success that could come to one.
I am going to deal with a particular question, namely the condition that we now find in the area of the colliery towns of Cape Breton. I remember when I came to this House four years ago one of the first debates-at least the one which stays in my mind most vividly -was the one precipitated by, I think, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) on a motion to adjourn the House to debate an urgent matter, which was then the proposal of the company to cut the men's wages thirty-seven and a half per cent, as I recollect, and a delegation came from Cape Breton asking that a royal commission be appointed to look into the matter. The British Empire Steel Corporation-shortly called "Besco"-is, as everyone in this House knows, a huge merger that absorbed twenty-four companies with a capital of eighty-three million dollars. They went into the merger that way, and as one company came out with a hundred and two million dollars of capital. This company is a very excellent example of pampering. They have received almost everything-subsidy, bonuses, protection by tariff

and militia. They have had almost everything any government could give them. I think when I am through hon. members will conclude with me-at least if they believe anything I say-that 'it is an excellent example of the pampering of industry and the neglect of humanity.
I wondered before I went to Glace Bay and the towns in the vicinity of Glace Bay where the strike occurred, at mines Nos. 2, 4 and 6, how it was that people, after just three weeks of unemployment, found themselves at once on the hunger line, and almost in fact unclothed; that is unclothed when one thinks of the cold wind. I wondered how that could occur in three weeks' time. I had of course an idea that surely it could not be just the result of three weeks of not working, and I find-and my visit confirmed me in this-that the condition now existing is an accumulation, and that the cessation of work three weeks ago has merely brought the matter to a head. For four years the men have not had regular work. For a year and a half they have had almost no work. In the Dominion mines Nos. 2, 4 and 6, affecting 2,200 men, 85 per cent of whom are Canadians, and many of the younger men of whom are veterans and returned soldiers, the men worked seven days in December, six days in January and four days in February. One man said to me, "Oh we make big pay when we work". But work is the difficult thing! They get fairly good pay all right, but they were not getting much work and by the time everything was checked off that had to be checked off their pay envelopes there was almost nothing left. One woman expressed it in this way to me, "For a year and a half we have just had enough to eat. We have let the stores of furniture, of bedding and household necessities go down. We have just been getting enough to eat." So that, when the credit given by the company's stores was cut off a little over three weeks ago and they ceased work, they not only had1 nothing, but most of them had much less than nothing: that is, they were deeply in debt to the company's stores. Whether the miners themselves are right or are n<ot right, their idea is this: that this little work and cutting off of credit was all a means to an end, a means of forcing the men to accept the ten per cent reduction in wages proposed by the company for the 1925 rate. I can quite realize how the very beautiful province of Nova Scotia, with all the fine hospitality and fellowship of the people in that province, resents the amount of

The Budget-Miss Macphail
unfavourable publicity that is being given to it. Everyone who has talked to people from Nova Scotia knows how tremendously proud they axe of Nova Scotia, and so I understand and sympathize with their feeling of resentment that so much is being said about the trouble there. Still, Nova Scotians as such are not to blame for this condition, because this company is not a Nova Scotian concern, but it has the ambitious title of the British Empire Steel Corporation. It is far outside the bounds of the province. Many of the directors live abroad, some in England and they are entirely absentee. Three of them sit in the Senate.


George Perry Graham: Hard on the company.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Tremendously hard on the company. I went by train to Sydney and of course one cannot go any further than Sydney by train. Then I took a street car and went to Glace Bay. It took an hour and ten minutes to get there. I was accompanied by the mayor of Glace Bay and the representative of the Great War Veterans' Association. When I got there I tried to be fair. I am sure some hon. members will find it hard to believe that. I visited some of the representative places. I visited the Young Men's Christian Association, which is the central relief station. I visited some of the sub-stations of New Aberdeen, and other places. They have funny names down there. They call one place the Hub, and another the Table 'land, these are different suburbs. I visited the headquarters of the United1 Mine Workers. I went through the hospitals accompanied by one of the 'leading surgeons there. I visited all the rooms of the school, and went through the school with the truant officer, a gentleman who had held the position of truant officer for a long time and had been a teacher before that. I met at least two . thousand miners at a mass meeting in the Savoy theatre in Glace Bay. I read in a paper to-day the statement that I had said, that if I lived in Glace Bay I would always eat at the Savoy theatre. That was a funny thing. I did not see anything to eat there, but that is where the mass meeting was held. I talked to preachers, teachers, nurses, and miners, every one I met there. I met the wives of doctors, and all the friends of people that one meets in such a centre. I met the moderates and the reds, and by the time I had spent two daj'S in Glace Bay nobody looked red to me. I think if I lived there long I would be a lot redder than anything I saw. The schools did not show the amount
of hardship that the hospitals and the homes and the relief stations showed. I took this to mean that the people were exceedingly anxious to keep their children in school and to put their best foot forward. They put on whatever clothes they could wear and whatever boots would fit, and the children were sent to school in that way. The British Canadian Co-operative Company has been doing a really excellent work in supplying a nice dish of warm soup for the children at noon, knowing that the children are not getting sufficient food at home, and they want to keep them in good health and mental condition, so that they can continue their studies undisturbed by the strike that is now on.
I do not want to exaggerate nor to overpaint the picture. I would much rather understate than overstate the conditions, because hon. members will get tired of it. Hon. members will think it cannot possibly be true. If any of my hon. friends take that view, I have only one thing to say-go and see. It is quite noticeable that people who say there is no hardship are not on the ground, they are at a comfortable distance from it. I believe if anybody, whether director of that company or a shareholder, or a member of this government, even the member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll); will go to that district and stay there for a week or two, he will come to the conclusion that very real distress and human misery is found in those colliery towns. If anyone wants to spend an Easter recess in the interest of humanity, let him go and spend it-and I shall not be afraid of what he will find in contradiction of my remarks -in Glace Bay, Sydney Mines, Mine No. 6 or any of the colliery towns in that district. I saw some cars there and we went in one of them, a Ford sedan that succeeded in getting through the mud. It spluttered and stuttered but it got through. Four of us went in it-the little woman I spoke of before, the truant officer, a Great War Veteran official and the man who drove the car, who, they told me was a red, and myself. He was an exceedingly modest, pleasant fellow and I do not know Whether he was red or not. The first place we went to was a house of the two-family type-two families living in a nonpainted wooden house. The first door we went to, we were kindly invited in. There were five children in that home with the mother and father making seven. There were two bedrooms, a little sitting room with nothing in it, and a kitchen. The kitchen was small and had the usual kitchen furniture, two Chairs, a

The Budget-Miss Macphail
taible and a stove. It had never been a home for at least twenty years. If it ever had been a house that could have been made into a home, that was a long time ago. It was a most dilapidated place. There had been decorations on the wall once, but they were not intact. I went into the bed rooms. I saw the bed clothing, and1 you would hardly believe it, but there was just one blanket and one quilt on one bed, which clothing, as the woman told us and as the truant officer had told us the day before, came from the relief station, and on the other bed, there was just a quilt. That was all. They were at their meal when we went in. They bad been late in getting to the relief station, and as the demand is greater than the supply, they were only able to get a meal of bread, potatoes and milk, and that was a good deal better than nothing.
In the next home we visited' there was a family of four including two children, one of whom was at school.~ This was a tidy looking place. The house was not in good shape, but it was as clean as it could be under prevailing circumstances. One child was in bed quite sick, and it had not eaten anything for a week. It did not like eating the food that was placed before it. I do not know whether it was dangerously sick or not. I fancy it was not dangerously sick, but it was miserably sick. I can give the names and addresses of any of these people if anyone wants me to do so.
The next house was that of a returned soldier with six children, five boys and one girl. This was all in the newspapers. His house was not a company house, but it was a very poor house for which they paid twenty dollars a month. It was such a poor house that they were using only the downstairs, because the roof leaked and the plaster was falling off, so that the father and mother thought it was not safe for the children to be upstairs. The upstairs was not finished; it was just one room. Downstairs, there was the kitchen and one bedroom, in which the eight people, the mother, the father and the six children slept. The baby was four months old and the next one two and a half years who had never walked. The mother told me-and I am saying just what she told me-that the child was normal when born, but was now suffering from rickets and was not in good health. It never walked and it had spindly legs, like a thumb, not like the legs that a child of two and a half years should have. By the way, the place I have just finished telling about was on the edge of the sea, only a few yards from the wholesome sea that is at our
IMiss Macphail.]
eastern gate, as we read when we come into the entrance to this building.
The next place we visited was in New Aberdeen, the home of the widow and family of a veteran. The father had been killed overseas. There were six children, one under sixteen years of age and the mother did not get a pension for him. There was another one about twenty years Old who was married to a girl, both of them children to look at. They had two children and she was an expectant mother. The mother of the young man told me that she did not think it was too much to say that they bad had only one solid year's work in five. That may be overstating the fact, but that is exactly what she said. She looked around at us, so helplessly. Any woman with a heart at all would feel like striving to do something. She turned around and said: "What is wrong? What is the matter? We used to be able to work and have very good times." She was a miner's wife, who had been bom and raised in a mining town; she knew absolutely nothing else; but compared with her past experiences, what they were going through now she considered terrible. To me it would be unbearable, but to her i't did not seem as bad as that. These places were not chosen for me, because many times when they would want to go into one house, I would want to go into another and I went into the one I wanted to go into.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I see the joke. I did go into the houses I wanted to go into. We passed some fairly good-looking houses up towards the business section of Glace Bay that were not on the hunger line. That is certainly quite true. The next place we visited there was a man, his wife and two children. The place Was very clean and small, possibly the neatest place we were in. The clothing was clean; the whole house was clean. When we came out, the -truant officer said to the representative of the Great War Veterans' Association and myself: "I gave that man the clothes he is wearing" and the representative of the Great War Veterans' Association said: "Do you call them clothes?" That is about what one would say. He had on a red sweater that did not have any sleeves below the elbows. Still it was a sweater. I have worn one that was as bad, but I have had another. The hard part of it is that that was the only one he had. The wife was wearing a clean calico dress, which was ail she had. There was nothing back of that. A little child that she told me was seven, but that did not look over four, was wearing a coat, a very decent

The Budget-Miss Macphail
old coat, but no dress, and a pair of stockings that the mother had made out of cloth. She was warm inside, but she could not go outside. That is an actual condition.
I have some of these men's pay sheets. People wonder why they did not get out. They ask: What do they stay for? I wondered that too. This man worked four days, earning $14.80, but the check-off comes in: Rent, $2.14; coal, $1; attorney for his back store bill, that is for how much he is indebted at the store, S2; U.M.W., SI; relief association, 30 cents, church 40 cents, hospital 25 cents; and he had left $6.51 for a week's work.
This is what they call a bobtail. I was at relief store No. 2 and I aslked a group of very fine Scotchmen who were there if they could give me some bobtailed pay sheets. They said that was one of the things they were plentifully supplied with. This is one that I was given. This man worked two days, earning $7.40. Rent was $2.88; coal, $2.30, attorney for his back store bill, $1.02; hospital $1.20. There was nothing left. This is another one, and I will not go over the items. In this case the man worked three days and had $5.02 left. In another case the man worked two days and had $1.61 left. In another case the man worked three days and had $2.79 left. These are all from the same man. The man told me he would be glad to go away and he would be delighted to get work. He would walk out if he 'could not get out any other way. ' He had no money to pay train fare. But he said: "If the company knows that I have left them and am dissatisfied with conditions and possibly a publicity agent against them, my wife and children will be turned out of the company's house," because it is a company's house he is in. He said: "I am hopelessly in debt. I once just got out of it." He told me how he once owed $143 to the company's store and had just got out of that debt when cessation of work occurred again.
It will be seen therefore that these people are actually fettered as securely as though the links of the chain that bound them were visible. Let me take another family. These people came originally from Newfoundland, the family comprising the man and his wife and two children. The woman had been in hospital for a long time suffering from tuberculosis, as I learned from Dr. Macdonald- and when I say Macdonald you will understand that it might just as likely be McLean or McLaughlin or McNeill, for these are the prevalent names. He told me that this man was unable to support his wife in the private ward of any of the hospitals and they could not take the risk of keeping her in any of
the public wards. After awhile she was able to walk around and her case was really arrested. But she was instructed to procure eggs and milk and to take lots of fresh air, and in the endeavour to get the eggs they found it necessary to keep hens in the back kitchen. These people told us further that they were doing their very best to get milk and we were astonished to find that they were paying 10 cents a pint. So surprised were we at this that we took the trouble to have the statement verified and we discovered on inquiry that she was really paying 10 cents a pint for milk which was an absolute necessity in her case. And here is one feature of this case from which we simply cannot turn away our eyes: these four people, man and wife and two children, were actually obliged to sleep in one three-quarter bed, although as I have said the woman was suffering from tuberculosis.
I was in another home where the 9 p.m. inmates had not so far accepted relief-and all those whom I have cited were living off the relief stations. But these particular people, whose name is dear to me, a family of five, were suffering severely. The man is an electrician by trade and of course was out of work, but they had not yet accepted any relief. I had a conversation with the woman, who told me that although they had so far refused to take any help it would not be long before they would be obliged to do so. Let us remember that these people are haughtily proud, as I learned from one man when he drew himself up to his full height, blowing out his chest as politicians do. He said, "My name is Macdonald and I will never ask for relief". And that represents the spirit of the people. These people are not craving relief and they resent others sticking their noses into their houses; but they resent more haughtily the condition that makes that necessary. To convince the House that I am not making this up out of my head, I may say that I copied from the list of sub-station No. 2 in New Aberdeen, one of the worst districts where some 228 families are being fed, the names of one family numbering seven, as well as others. Some of these names I copied are, McNeill, McMillan, McDonald, McKinnon McIntyre and Munroe. This is the order in which I found them. I had a pleasant chat with two women at the relief station, one of whom although not an old woman in years was quite old in appearance. And that is the tragedy of womanhood there. She told me that her husband had had no steady work for a year and a half and although they were

The Budget-Miss Macphail
trying to do as well as they possibly could they could not help running into debt. There were seven children in the family, of ages ranging from ten months, to sixteen years, a few of them being at school. That woman came to the station in an old sweater and skirt, without any shoes, and with a very bad blister on her heel as a result of having to wear old rubbers. How anyone could keep rubbers on in Glace Bay without strapping them on is more than I can tell. There were no number fives to fit her at the station and she was asked to come back the next day. Her name too was McDonald-I will not give her Christian name to distinguish her from the other McDonalds. And mark you, Mr. Speaker, our own neighbours in the province of Ontario are called by these very names; to hear them one would imagine one was in Priceville or Glengarry. Another woman named McGillivray had three children who could not attend school, having no shoes; it was so wet in Glace Bay, as it is everywhere at this time of year but particularly there, that they were bound to stay at borne. I took her name and address for I intend to have some relief sent to this family and the one I mentioned a moment ago. This woman whispered in my ear an admonition not to forget herself and her husband because they were simply out of clothes. They had provided for the children rather than for themselves and they had positively reached the limit beyond which it was impossible for them to go. One could not help being struck by the fact that children of four years and under showed the miserable condition they were in. The children over that age are healthy but under that many of them, in the hospitals, in the junior rooms of the schools and on the streets as well, show plainly the malnutrition from which they have been suffering.


Mr. DUFF:: Did the hon. member say that children under four years of age were in the schools?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I did not say that, I referred to children over that age.


William Duff: That is what the hon. member
said.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am glad the hon. member has expressed himself.


William Duff: I want you to tell the truth.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have great regard for the truth, but these children I saw in the primary rooms would be only two and three years of age when the hard times struck them three or four years ago, and they had been under-

nourished for the last two or three years. I do not say of course that this is true of all the children there but the fact is that the hospitals are filled with such cases as I 'have described. And I want to say in passing that the hospitals are excellent institutions. I went through St. Joseph's and the General hospital and they were exceedingly sanitary and well kept. The matron who showed me through the General hospital and the sister with whom I went through St. Joseph's are fine types of women. I did see little babes particularly that were quite unhealthy looking as the doctors and nurses informed me. I took their word for , it, for I suppose a casual visitor would not be able to tell that there was anything organically wrong with them, from a passing visit. And they were all suffering from more or less similar conditions-ulcers, ricketts and all sorts of anaemic disorders; and there was one little baby with a paralyzed face, an infant about three days old. This of course was something that might be found anywhere else, and I was glad when the sister told me that the little thing would soon be going on. In the hospitals I noticed that all the doctors and their wives as well as the nurses and everyone connected with these institutions were very much concerned over the situation, because the hospitals depend upon the miners who contribute about 60 or 70 per cent of their upkeep. As a matter of fact, the miners are the population and they keep the hospitals and everything else going. One doctor who accompanied me on my visit of inspection expressed himself in no uncertain terms, and not as mildly as I am repeating them to-night, with regard to people who through the press and in their public utterances would Itead Canadians generally to believe that no distress existed down there. He told me that a week ago yesterday he was called to see a patient in a home where he found a family of eight, six children with their parents, in absolute destitution and entirely without shoes. He went to the relief station and obtained three pairs and out of his own money he bought five pairs at stores in Glace Bay.
The relief organization now existing there really grew out of a temporary and voluntary relief group of seven people, among them a very noble Jewish woman and a reverend gentleman, Mr. McAvoy, the wife of the mayor, and the little deaf woman who showed me about-the others I do not know; those were four of the original seven. They started this relief organization before the cessation of work three weeks ago because they knew there were children who could not go to school as they were not getting enough

The Budget-Miss Macphail
to eat, and there were adults in the same unfortunate position, so these seven persons busied themselves in gathering up from those who had to give it to those who had not. You see, the public opinion of Glace Bay, in fact the public opinion of the whole of Nova Scotia for the first time is supporting the miners. I am sure those who are familiar with Nova Scotia will admit that public opinion to-day is very much stronger on the side of the miners than it has ever been. It is becoming apparent to all who live in the colliery districts that their living is being sucked away by this process of strangulation of the miners. And so you find the whole middle class-I suppose you would call them professional people; I do not know whether in Canada we have lower, middle and higher classes, or not. I am not quite clear as to that-but at least doctors, merchants, ministers and their wives, have thrown themselves without reserve into this relief work. I saw in to-day's papers, and have no doubt other members also noticed the paragraph, that Mrs. Macpherson, the Salvation Army woman who has worked there from the first, says that the schools are likely to be closed because the salaries of the teachers cannot be paid. I now recall that when we visited one of the schools there the principal told me that they had not got their salary for last month. Although she said it in a joking way, it shows how dependent everybody is on the miners.
I want to make it clear for the sake of the real workers, I mean the miners themselves, that it was on the advice of these noble professional people who have interested themselves in their condition, that they turned down the gift of S5,000 sent to them by Russia. I said outside the House of Commons, and I want to say it here, that I think it is a very dubious compliment to Canadian intelligence that the miners of Nova Scotia and those who are working with them thought it necessary to turn down such a substantial gift in order that those people and their wants might remain respectable in our eyes. We are indeed a smug, self-righteous people.
You can imagine how chained these people feel. Surely we can get something of their sense of not 'being aible to get out of a hideous situation when we find that they cannot even get representation in parliament because their constituency is pocketed in a larger one which they cannot influence-or at least by reason of the methods employed in elections they cannot influence it. I am sure this House, I am sure members of the government, and I am sure the members who
sit for those constituencies have no idea how deep the resentment is, how intense it is, and how quiet it is. These people are not broken; do not ever think that. They feel that they have not got justice anywhere. Whether they are right or wrong I am not saying, but that is their feeling, and1 after all it is this kind of feeling that makes such a situation as exists there now a very dangerous one.
I want to describe the town so you will know how I felt when night came on. Up town are electric lights and! a sewage system, there are some paved streets and sidewalks, there is the Savoy theatre and there are some stores and rum shops-these are closed now. That is, there is a town there. But when you go back where the great majority of the people live there are no electric lights, there are no sewers, only open gutters flowing on each side of the road; there are a few houses where there is a way of getting water in, but for [DOT] the most part there are absolutely no sanitary conveniences at all. Just now in the springtime it is a bog hole, and when night comes, whether in the springtime or not, unless there is good moonlight the place is plunged in absolute darkness. After we had seem all this, after I had seen these women whom I have described, and after I had visited the hospital and met the relief workers and eaten my lunch in the relief headquarters, I said, "Is there anybody really red in this locality, red, red, red, the redder the better?" And they said there was one man. You know his name, it has been bandied about from time to time-J. B. Maclachlan. Then I said, "Take me to J. B. Maclachlan; I should like to see him." We went to the Labour Herald office. You know it prints wild things-and we too would print just as wild things if we suffered what they have suffered. I said^and I repeat it now, for you cannot arrest me- I said, "What is the worst thing Maclachlan ever said?" One man replied, "The worst thing I ever heard him say was 'To hell with them.' " I said I will add to it, "and make it snappy." You know that old joke about "sedition". Really it would be just as well if we never again charged a man with sedition in Canada. Do you know who Mac-lachlan reminded me of? Well, you would be surprised-J. J. Morrison; and I doubt if I can pay either of them a higher compliment than to compare them one with the other. Why, he has a beautiful home life. He is endeavouring to break the bonds, he is endeavouring to save a little money to buy a plot of ground and a home, he is endeavouring to get some culture. He has a beautiful family, a rosy-cheeked wife with a rolling

The Budget-Miss Macphail
Scotch tongue. And he is a man who has always stood for good citizenship. When I think of some of the things said by those who call themselves "good" citizens, I wonder really where we are going. Of course, these men say wild things. Naturally they do. They say awful things. But no one could blame them. Anyone who went to the same place and lived through the same conditions would,
I am sure, say the very same awful things. And I want to make this clear, because I think members of parliament are human- that means I have great faith in them-I believe they are. Mr. Maclachlan told me this story, which he did not intend 1 should repeat in parliament, and I am sure he will be horrified to read it. He told me that years ago, the very first time he ever came to Ottawa to negotiate between the miners and the company-just about the beginning,
I suppose, of this Besco concern, I cannot say whether it was before this or not-but at least, it was some years ago, when the company's representatives and the miners' representatives entered the Chateau Laurier-he had forgotten its name and I had to tell him-when the}7 sat down in the rotunda and looked at the luxury around them, he said, "I wanted to say something nasty, the nastiest thing I could think of, and I turned to the company's men and remarked, 'If you could bring the miners of the colliery district of Cape Breton into this place, you would not settle this wage dispute as you intend to settle it, and as you will.' " I appreciated that statement of his. Do you know, I am often struck by the fact that people who live at places like the Chateau Laurier pass the bill down, and the peopie who pay for it are never there? You see, my sympathy is very deep for these people, because they are primary producers, and their problems are just our problems only possibly in a more aggravated form.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: And because they are
mostly Scotch.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, I sympathize with them also because they are mostly Scotch. Other people -corroborated this very story. One man, not Maclachlan, but a very moderate man, one whom the government would do well to encourage, said, "When some of our men went down to Truro last year to the annual convention, for days after they came back they could not talk about anything but the beauty of Truro." They said, "We did not know that such towns, with such homes for ordinary working people, existed." These are the facts. It seems almost ridiculous to think it could be true that anybody had not travelled that far away from

home in this advanced day of civilization. One woman told me she had not been out of Glace Bay for twelve years because she never felt she could afford the money that would take her over to Sydney and back-seventy-five cents. On the other hand, I do not want to suggest for a moment that miners, when they have money, are not good spenders; I rather think they are. I think that when they were making money they possibly spent it freely. Indeed, I am sure they must do so in order to forget the barrenness and dreariness of their lives as much as they can. It would be but natural to think that, when you consider how utterly lacking in beauty this place is. I never saw anything so devoid of beauty as Glace Bay in the spring. I wish you could see it-those bogs for roadways, with open gutters at the sides of them; those squatty, painted houses, row on row; the bleak winds of the sea; no vegetation, no trees. I can quite believe that when these people get money they buy a car; they go to the Savoy theatre twice a week or as often as their funds w7ill allow. They cannot make their homes comfortable; they are in the grasp of circumstances too great for them. And just a quarter of a mile away, up town, there are at least paved streets, bright lights, rum shops and the Savoy^do you wonder, then, that they flock there, where they can get at least what they think is some little pleasure?
It would seem to me that the best safeguard of citizenship w'ould be to strive to make the miners help themselves; not to try to break their union, but rather to encourage them sanely to get themselves on such a basis that their standard of living will be equal to the standard of living of other Canadians. I thought Mr. McLeod, president of the United Mine Workers for District No. 26, an exceedingly sane man. He is a moderate; in fact, they accuse him of being too moderate. At least he is anxious for the best things for the men. He knows that if there is any outbreak on the part of the men, it will be the men, not the company, who will suffer; he knows that there will be men thrown into prison, as was done before, and that they will come out with broken, embittered lives, the very worst influences in the community. So he is striving to teach the people and to get them to see that if they could once get out of the clutches of the company's stores and into a co-operative store of their own; if they could only get houses which they partly owned and could continue to pay for and try to beautify; if they would strive to work together through their unions for the good of all-that that is the way out, not in raid-'

The Budget-Miss Macphail
mg stores, breaking windows, and that sort of thing. His influence is all for the good. This government, the company, or anybody else concerned in the affair, ought to be glad to encourage the continuance of a union under the leadership of Mr. McLeod.
I would not like the company to think that if they break the union which exists now they will have broken everything. What I think will happen-and many people have voiced this opinion to me-if the union is broken, as has been done among the steel workers in Sydney, is this: a much more radical organization will take the place of the union, an organization that possibly even we would not want to see.
I could mot help but be struck by the tragedy of womanhood in that place; because to be a woman in a colliery district is a tragedy. Their youth is brief; there are many children; there is poverty, age coming quickly; dependency, and death. I do not know how they have kept the little spark of life that their faces still show: there were some young men and some young women who were hotly resentful of the conditions and not afraid to voice their feelings in the matter. But for the most part, especially if they had many children, their attitude was subdued, pathetic -I can think of no other words that so well describe it.
I would like to ask this government, have they an immigration policy? Or is it true that it is people like Besco and the railways and organizations of that kind that have an immigration policy? We find that Besco has been bringing in immigrants, even during the worst times; they have agents stationed all over the world who are bringing in immigrants, dumping them down where there is no work for them and doing absolutely nothing for them after they get them here. Do you wonder that labour resents that sort of thing? Do you wonder that all the resentment that these years have built up is directed against that company? No, you cannot wonder that they are resentful. Much money is spent to bring immigrants to Canada. These Scotc'h-Canadians-with the exception of some Scotch-Canadians-are the very best citizens we have; yet the women who give us these good citizens are not cared for; they are ldft to shift for themselves. What about them? This is the attitude that seems to have been taken by all governments, provincial and federal up to date.
It did not seem to be difficult for the company to get protection on coal, but the government gives no assurance that that protection is to go down to the worker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Was that the thirteen? It looks to me as though the very great distress of the miners of Cape Breton to-day has been used by the company for their own protection. While the papers of the east heralded the announcement in the budget as a great thing, I did not find the miners thinking that-and I was in the town the day the budget came out; they felt entirely hopeless regarding anything that protection could do for them. They knew where that protection would go, from past experience.
When you think of it all-and I have almost finished with this tale of woe-when you think of it all, do you wonder that these miners have come to the conclusion that industry is heartless, that the courts are unjust, that all politicians are rascals? Do you wonder?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is what they think.


An hon. MEMBER:: I hope they did not think that of you.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not a politician. One cannot but be surprised at the attitude of the Nova Scotia government, one of continued indifference, apparently, to a very grave situation, a situation which at any moment may break out into something really terrible; because we are only depending for relief on the generosity of Canadian citizens. It is hard to explain the attitude of the Nova Scotia government unless it be that they are afraid of this industrial monster; that they are more anxious to court its smile than they are to save to happiness and good citizenship many thousands of our fellow Canadians. One can almost imagine them asking themselves: What to them is environment for miners that will produce strong men, happy women, and healthy children; what to them the final destiny of our country, so long as power remains intact? Of course the government here can say there is a technical difficulty and that that prevents them from doing anything. They cannot send relief; they cannot inquire into this thing, because the Nova Scotia government, which lies closer to the miners, has done nothing. But I have seen this government find its way round technicalities before to-day. If the heart of the government was really anxious to do something 'to relieve the great distress among the people in the island of Cape Breton, they would find a way round the technical snag.
Really to my mind the whole cause of it all is this: We have put the commercial value
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

of making dollars and cents above the making of human life and creating comfortable conditions of living. I cannot think it is due to anything else. Our citizens will go on I am sure doing what they can to supply the needs of Cape Breton. Down there they are looking with great gratitude, almost with amazed gratitude at the wonderful things the city of Ottawa has been doing for them. Other places are following suit, and I am sure that the desired relief will come pouring in. But it is a peculiar situation that the governments concerned-the local government and the federal government-cannot come to the assistance of these people; that they can do nothing for the miners but leave it to private people to tax themselves to provide the necessary assistance.
I have nothing more to say. I leave the problem to the government. For it is a problem, and its solution, possibly, will demand something more than direct relief. It may be that there will have to be a genuine shaking up before long. I do not know whether that time is now or not, but I do know that when Canadian public opinion is aroused, and it is being aroused in this case, it is not going to stand any more fooling on the subject. I really feel sure of that.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that any words of mine may seem commonplace after the eloquent address by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to which we have just listened. However, I am going to put a few common sense arguments before the House in an endeavour to do something to alleviate the condition that prevails in Canada to-day. My remarks are going to be brief. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in eloquent speeches have pretty well diagnosed the existing situation. It only remains for me to touch simply the high spots. These hon. members, with their actuarial minds and brains, have handled the problems before us in a much better manner than I can do. Suffice it to say that extricating the situation from the maze of clerical and arithmetical intricacies in which it is involved we find that in Canada to-day we are $100,000,000 poorer than we were a year ago. I think we will all admit that the liabilities of Canada are greater by $100,000,000 than they were at this time in 1924, a very serious state of affairs.
Now, what is the remedy? It seems to me that in discussing the tariff there is one vital phase that is lost sight of, and that is the necessity of keeping our money in Canada. I

remember in speaking before in the House on this subject but the point did not seem to be appreciated to the extent to which it should be. We are sending out of Canada every year $300,000,000 to our friends across the line. Three hundred millions from a population of nine millions of people means about $33 for every man, woman and child in Canada, how can we pay that huge amount and succeed? We must stem the outflow to some extent; we cannot do it entirely. After paying our interest debts to England we have a fair balance of trade of about $92,000,-
000.	We take that and we hand it over to our American friends, and our total contribution to them to-day amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. WTe cannot succeed if we continue doing this, and the remedy for this state of .affairs, is, I consider, to keep our people from buying so much from the United States. We have to trade with these people; we know that they are good friends; they buy from us and we buy from them; but still it seems the acme of nonsense that for iron and other metalliferous and non-.metal.lic products we sent $265,000,000 to the United States last year. We also sent $78,000,000 for agricultural products, a total of $343,000,000. This sum that we sent to our neighbours across the line we could very well cut in two and thus save Canada a million odd dollars. The remedy is to import fewer goods. Last year we did not import quite as many as have been imported in years gone by. The reason was that we were not able to do so. Another reason was that many of our people are now living and working in the adjoining republic and are making their purchases there.
We talk of the hard times. It is pitiful to hear a tale such as has been told by .the hon. member for Southeast Grey. On the other hand we were assured by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) that times were better in Canada than they were in the United States; that in the latter country there were 20,000,000 of people out of work. We were also told by the Prime Minister that the factory whistles were blowing at midnight throughout Canada. The factory whistles are not blowing at midnight in the town of Woodstock as instanced by the Prime Minister. The Bain Wagon Company had a little rush order on sleighs and they worked for a while at night but the factory whistles are not blowing there at night now. It has also been proved that they are not blowing at night in the case of the factory in Orangeville. What is the good of tiying to tell people that times are good in Canada. We would like if that was

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
the case, but times are not good in Canada, and they have not been good for some time. It is almost impossible to enlist capital in any industrial enterprise in Canada to-day because manufacturers are distracted by taxation, not knowing which way to turn. One reason is that the people have not the confidence in the government that they should have, although I am not going to emphasize very strongly that feature of the situation. We have our frightful railway problem, that "old man of the sea," bestriding us, and I do not know what the outcome of the situation is going to be. We must stop this drift to the country to the south if we are going to succeed. We are told that our people are coming back from the United States. In 1924 there were 41,000 returned but there were 161,000 that went, so that we cannot attach undue importance to any reported repatriation movement. Our people are still going to the United States where times are better and the opportunities are greater. It is just possible that in the adjoining republic, where they have had a period of uprecedented prosperity, things are now a little quiet, that they have passed the peak of the anticline. We in Canada have been wallowing in the trough of syncline; we have never got to the same stage as our neighbours as far as prosperity is concerned. In years gone by when they had prosperity on the American side it was sometimes reflected in Canada ; we had a certain degree of it here. When it was a case of our people leaving Canada and going to United States it lessened our population; and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would have been the experience in the case of our bread lines if a portion of our population had not gone? Instead of having thin bread lines we would have had bread battalions, and the burden would have been too great for Canada to bear. Strong virile men have been leaving this country and going to the United States instead of staying here and swelling the bread line. It is a great pity. I remember going back a few years ago into the county of Oxford through the country that I was familiar with as a boy. In those early days at every prominent four corners you could see strong, husky Canadians tossing the caber or indulging in other athletic exercises. Where are those men now? The government says that we must reduce the cost of living. In those days one could live for $2.50 a week. Living was as cheap in Canada as in any other country in the world. Those strong men to whom I refer have left the country but did they go to other countries where living is cheaper? Are they living in equatorial countries where bread fruit grows on the trees and 111
when the tide is out the table is spread? Not at all. Some of them went to the great west to Deadwood, Dakota, to Leadville, Colorado, and others again to the Yukon where ham and eggs cost a dollar or two a plate. They were not looking for cheap living. Cheap living is a fallacy in any country. You can always go some place and live cheaply. The thing is to have such a living that the agriculturist, the market gardener, the poultry man, the fruit man, the produce iman, and everybody else can succeed. It is impossible for a small farmer to succeed in the neighbourhood of, say a great city, if living is unduly cheap. It is the ability to purchase, not cheap living that we want. Daniel Webster once said:
A well-employed and prosperous community can buy and consume; an ill-employed community cannot do so. This is a solution of the matter. The whole science of political economy is not one half as important as this.
What we want is earning power. We want a chance for our people to earn money, and when they have earned money they are willing to pay decent prices. I have every sympathy for our friends the Progressives. Personally they are gentlemen, but I think, Sir, if they persist in the fallacy of free trade that prosperity for Canada is absolutely impossible. I do not think there is any chance for Canada being prosperous under such a policy.
An bon. MEMBER:	Cheer up.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I dio not need cheering up. I am cheerful. The only remedy for Canadians is to buy more in Canada, and the only way we can induce them to do that is to keep the people from buying across the line. I believe in an adequate protectionist policy that will make the people buy at home. If necessary in order to make them buy at home, I would not hesitate one moment to put our tariff wail one brick higher than the tariff wall of the country to the south of us. Why should we be guided by these people, they having a population of a hundred and ten million, and we a very small population? Why should we govern our action by their policy? Our small country requires much greater protection than the great country to the south of us.
I have very little sympathy with the talk of secession. We are Canadians, and I think if we buckle on our harness and put our backs to the south we can make this country one worth living in. We have wonderful potentialities. In the great Laurentian and pre-Cambrian plateau, we have the greatest potential region in the world to-day and the greatest possibility for gold1 mining. We have in the west our

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

wonderful forest resources not yet exhausted. We have wonderful potentialities, but we must have a spirit of compromise. No country can succeed if its industries do not succeed', and our industrial institutions cannot succeed in Canada without an adequate tariff. Our friends to the left of us here desire a good price for their wheat, and when wheat goes to two dollars a bushel every man, woman and child in the country is glad. Of course the cost of living goes a little bit higher because of the rise in the value of wheat, but we are glad that one part of the country is successful. However, when we ask them to stand a little tariff, and perhaps pay a little more for agricultural implements in order that thousands of people may be enabled to live in our industrial centres, they fall back upon the old cry of "Free trade, free trade." I say that free trade is the curse of England to-day. If it were not for a lot of economically silly old college professors with peculiar ideas they might have had protection in the Old Country. Why, Mr. Speaker, should we say that all the rest of the world is wrong and we are right-all except England-poor old England with a million and a half unemployed, using goods made in France, Belgium and Germany made by men who are working for cheaper wages than those paid in the Old Country? England wants protection and wants it badly, although no country in the world is better situated to succeed under a free trade policy than England.
I am going to worry the House a little with another question of which I am sorry to say no mention is made in the budget. I refer to the export of our raw material from Canada. Editorials have appeared in many of the papers in Canada with respect to this question. A pulpwood commission was appointed in 1923 and travelled through the country at an expense of 875,000 and collected a lot of useful information, which was well compiled. There were two practical men on the commission, and against whom or the other members I am not saying anything derogatory. Mr. Anstie, from British Columbia, vice-chairman of the commission whom I know well is quite heavily interested in timber, and it would be to his advantage to prevent saw logs leaving British Columbia. I know it to be a fact that the other gentleman, Mr. McLellan, from New Brunswick, is or was very largely interested in the export of pulpwood, and it would be to his interest that pulpwood be exported. This commission travelled! through the country listening to testimony in all parts of Canada,

but the evidence was absolutely one-sided. The commissiou compiled a fairly good report and made very sensible recommendations to the House of Commons. Wherever they went the people wjho were interested in exporting our forest products saw to it that their case was well presented by able lawyers. The general public was apathetic. I know that was the position in British Columbia. [DOT]I stated last year on the floor of the House and repeat to-day that although the evidence [DOT]of British Columbia was against the export of our raw forest products, if a plebiscite were taken I think seventy-five per cent of the people of British Columbia would vote to prevent our sawlogs being exported to the sawmills on the other side. The commission did a good work, and their findings were fairly reasonable, all things considered.
The investment in the pulp and paper industry of Canada in 1917 was 8187,000,000. [DOT]In 1923 we had 8417,000,000 invested, which shows the wonderful strides the industry has made. There were at that time 29,234 men on the payroll, the amount paid out being
837.243.000	annually. In 1924 we exported [DOT]1,444,093 cords of pulpwood, for which we received $14,322,714, and the manufactured value of a cord of pulpwood was $63.44. Had this 1,444,000 cords that we exported been manufactured in Canada it would have had a value of $91,651,313, less the amount received, $14,322,714, making a loss to Canada of $77,328,599. If pulpwood exports were [DOT]manufactured in Canada, this 1,444,000 cords [DOT]would justify an expenditure in a pulp and [DOT]paper plant of $125,000,000, and would mean the employment of approximately 10,000 men, with a payroll of $12,000,000 a year. That is what we are losing by shipping the pulpwood out of Oanada. In the year ending March 31, 1924, Canada exported in pulp and paper to the American side, $144,030,679.
When the question came up in the House a year ago the Prime Minister said he would not favour any duty or embargo on pulpwood that would interfere with the farmers or settlers who were taking wood off their wood lots. The farmers export sixty-five per cent of the total export according to the report of the commission. That would amount to 938 thousand cords. For this they receive $9,380,000 less freight charges. If this pulpwood had been manufactured in Canada the value would have been $59,469,000, less amount received, $9,380,000. Canada's loss would be $50,089,000. The farmer's average receipts per cord of pulpwood amounts to $6. For these
938.000	cords in 1924, the amount that the farmers and settlers received was $5,628,000

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
It must be borne in mind in connection with the commissioner's report that many bogus settlers take up land in the clay belt just for the sake of the timber. After the timber has been taken off or is depleted, they abandon the property. The report mentions these bogus settlers, but in the premises I am stating at the present time I am assuming they are all good, legitimate settlers. If they were compelled to sell in Canada, they might get 25 per cent less than they get on the American side. This is quite a substantial reduction, and supposing the market existed, the farmers loss would be $1,400,000. Therefore, Canada loses $50,000,000 in order that the settler or farmer should make $1,400,000. I defy anyone to contradict these figures.
The total exports of wood, wood products and paper to the United States in 1924 were $230,000,000. From this, one can realize what our adverse balance of trade with our neighbours to the south would be were it not for our exports of wood, wood products and paper. Still, we are recklessly depleting our forests and shipping our raw wood to our friends across the line instead of having them come into Canada and do the manufacturing here. It is not only wood that enters into the manufacture of pulp and paper. Many men are employed outside. Let us take the materials used in the pulp and paper mills in the Abitibi district. In 1923, a record was kept of the number of freight cars that passed in and out of the yards of the Abitibi Power and Paper Company at Iroquois Falls in -northern Ontario. The total was 30,801 cars, of which, 5,923 cars contained paper, 2,052 cars, coal; 6,169 cars, pulpwood; 148 cars, sulphur; 178 cars, limestone; 88 cars, alum; 24 cars, oil; the balance being empties. That shows the immense traffic that is furnished to our Canadian railways by these pulp and paper companies.
In British Columbia the logging exports in 1924 amounted to 240,000,000 feet B.M., and from government lands, licensed lands, 46,000,000 feet B.M. Sawlogs from licensed lands are not supposed to be exported from British Columbia, but the law is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The reason is that, if there is a greater supply of logs than is required in the mills, because of conditions which exist there, the principal one being that our logs, if they lie in salt water too long, become infested with the toredo and are a loss, the privilege is accorded of shipping the surplus supply of logs across the line. That is just the same as if we had no barrier at all. We have enormous camps there under American capital with their railways extending 111*
into our forests, and as long as the British Columbia mills can secure all the logs they need, the balance is exported.
Last year we cut in British Columbia 2,550,000,000 B.M., twenty-five per cent greater than the cut of any previous year. In British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, it has been recognized that the last great stand of timber exists on the North American continent, and we are going through it as a reaper would go into a field at the present time. We still have a great deal of timber in British Columbia and should conserve it. We do not want to ship it to the American side and see our men following it. I am sorry to say that if you go, as I have had many times to go through these camps, you will find very many workmen who can scarcely speak our language. They are Russian Finns, Scandinavians, a splendid type of men who do our logging, but unfortunately, most of them are single and they are what we call a floating population. When wages and opportunities of employment are better in the United States, they go to the other side of the line. When they can get better wages in Canada, they come to our side. They are not the class of people we like to have, not because of any question of merit, but because they are a nomadic people. In British Columbia, I do not know whether our Anglo-Saxon people have been contaminated by jazz music and rotten Hollywood shows, but they do not take kindly to logging camps.


Mr. BROWN:: Do I understand the hon.
member to be advocating a tightening up of the embargo on logs?


Charles Herbert Dickie: If the hon. member will
give me a little time, I will suggest a remedy.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon, member dealt with that already and I was not very clear just what he had said.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am dealing with the saw-log question now. A little later, I will suggest a remedy, and probably my hon. friend will agree with my suggestion. At the present time I am dealing with the appalling depletion of timber in the west. I remember distinctly the condition of affairs in Michigan in the early days. In those days I was privileged to go through a good deal of that country, being a log scaler. I remember standing in those virgin forests as a boy and thinking:	Well, here is timber for the
world for a thousand years to come. Wherever you looked there was a splendid stand of virgin timber. Ten years from that date they were importing sawlogs from the
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

Georgian bay to keep their mills going on the Saginaw river. They went through that forest as a reaper would go through a field of grain; The woods were filled with industrious, capable, cheerful men from the province of Quebec, men for whom I have a great admiration, whom I have envied, men always happy and industrious, with whom one had no trouble at all and who were quite satisfied if they were accorded fair treatment, I do not know where that race has gone now. We have but few of them in the west. Even in my time that section of Michigan has been entirely depleted of timber and they are importing lumber from British Columbia into Michigan every day. In Wisconsin, the same condition exists. In northern California, in the counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte, where the red woods used to come down to the Pacific shores, the forests are shoved up the rivers into the mountains. The forests there are being depleted very rapidly. People will say that the forests will grow again. In Oregon it has been demonstrated that it takes fifty years to grow a tree one foot through, and that applies pretty well in all parts of the Pacific coast where growth is really prolific. If any hon. member cares to go out and count the rings on the cross section of a tree in the grounds adjacent he will easily be able to prove that what I am saying is correct. I will guarantee he will find fifty annular rings in the first foot and no more, but if you count them for two feet, you will find that there are 150 rings. That means that a tree two feet in diameter is 150 years of age. The larger the tree, the slower it grows, and consequently you have to figure on 150 years to get what we call a good British Columbia sawlog. People will say that the annual increment keeps up with the depletion and they use every argument they can in order to defeat any restriction being placed upon the export of sawlogs. In northern Ontario, and, I know, in British Columbia there are great areas of_ what we call mature forests. Trees, as with leaves, have their time to fall. They live only a certain length of time. I have walked through those silent aisles of the forests with great columns rearing themselves on all sides, and have seen dead tops in all directions, trees ripe and dying. There is no annual increment in mature forests but there is an annual decay. After the trees have become ripe, and once they have reared their crests heaven high, the trees begin to die and when they die there can be no increase in forest growth until after a fire or destruction.
TMr. Dickie.]
I come now to the question of hardwood logs. I am not very familiar with this question but with the permission of the House I shall read again from the Financial Post an extract which I quoted a year ago. I do not like reiteration but I have not seen the point disputed and the article I am about to read shows the necessity for some action.
The Ontario legislature will be asked to approve of legislation placing an embargo on the exportation of hardwood from the province. The measure is designed to force United States plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin to cross into Ontario to manufacture their products if they desire to use Ontario hardw'ood. The measure is similar to the pine embargo of some years ago. That measure resulted in many saw mills locating in the north. There are about 1,300 hardwood plants located in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Henry Ford entered the area and purchased practically all the available reserves. The estimate made to-day is that the end of seven years will see but 100 to 110 of these plants remaining because of the exhaustion of their supply of raw material. Realizing this there has been a rush into Algoma, United States concerns have eagerly sought control of the available limits on the Canadian side. It is understood that one American concern made a contract to ship 100 million feet of hardwood across lake Superior. This was to have gone to the Iron Mountain plant of Henry Ford. Ontario's reserves of hardwood are limited. The estimate is that the small area in which hardwood thrives contains 6,500 million feet. This includes the big forest reserve and runs north to the border of the clay-belt. In discussing the embargo, Hon. James Lyons, Ontario's Minister of Lands and Forests, pointed out that some years ago the numerous saw mills around Saginaw and Bay City, Michigan, were importing Canadian logs heavily. An embargo was placed on their exportation with the result that there is $75,000,000, invested in saw mills around the Soo to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway line, Soo to Sudbury, is studded with them. He also points out that in 1900 there was an embargo in regard to pulp with the result that $190,000,000 are invested in the pulp plants of the province to-day.
The forestry department's statistics claim that there is in Canada of pulpwood 871,-
720,000	cords, 65 per cent being first class. Of' this, merchantable spruce and balsam amount to 580,000,000 cords. In Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there are 280,000,000 cords of which approximately 5,000,000 cords are cut annually. The forestry department estimates that cutting, fire, insects, winds and decay deplete the forests to the extent of 40,000,000 cords annually. In the last ten years it is reported that the spruce bud worm has destroyed 100,000,000 eords, and Mr. Sebrecht, a forest authority, puts it at 150,000,000.
Mr. Barnjum, rightly or wrongly, has been traduced all through the west, it being alleged that his motives in this matter are not unselfish. I have heard propaganda which has been inspired by people who were anxious to export our pulpwood and who declare that his actions are actuated by 6elfish considerations. They impute unworthy motives to him; but I
MARCH 31, 192o
The Budget-Mr. Dickie
know that he has spent a fortune in trying to impress upon the Canadian people the advisability of preventing the exportation of our forest products. Now, with regard to the growth of trees, in order to emphasize the facts I desire to quote from an article that comes from Nova Scotia:
"Most extravagant ideas exist as to the rate of growth of trees, observations of single trees growing in the open being taken as a basis to be translated into performance by whole acres of trees. The idea prevails that Nova Scotia spruce in the Nova Scotia climate is growing at an extraordinary rate. As a matter of fact, while it can be stated that the climate is most favourable to reproduction, i.e., to the establishment of young growth, the rate of growth of trees in the forest is not very different from the ordinary rate to be found in the New England States under similar conditions.
"Some 550 trees were analysed as to their rate of diameter growth, and a number of sample plots were measured to arrive at a conception of growth conditions. From these measurements it appears that to produce a spruce tree, 12 inches in diameter on the stump, may require from fifty years for the most favoured trees, to one hundred and seventy years for trees which had for a long time to compete for light with their neighbours. The unusually rapid-growth trees are, to be sure, found only occasionally; the much more usual rapid growers require eighty to ninety years to make the 12-inch diameter.
That shows how long we might expect to look for a new forest. I know mountain sides that were logged or burned forty-10 p.m. years ago in British Columbia where now there is little sign of any new forest of the Douglas fir type. Usually when a Douglas fir forest is destroyed it is re-seeded by hemlock or broad leaf trees. There are of course new growths of fir forests in different places where the conditions are ideal but as a general rule this does not occur. After severe fires, for some reason or other we get a growth in many instances of hemlock instead of fir. Anyone who has been through the southern Kootenay country, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) has been, knows that around Eholt, Grand Forks, Greenwood and those places where there was formerly a good growth of pine there is now little but poplar. The remedy is to prevent the exportation of our raw material and otherwise to conserve it as much as possible.. But what I have read may not appear alarming unless I read something else- the recommendation in the concluding part of the report of the pulpwood commission:
So far as this commission is concerned, we have clearly pointed to the fact that some steps must most assuredly be taken whereby the annual drain on the spruce and balsam supplies of eastern Canada must be very greatly reduced. In some parts, this object may possibly be attained by the complete elimination of fire and insect losses; in other cases, it can only be attained by the elimination of such losses plus the reduction of the amount of spruce and balsam used either in local industries or in export. It has been
thoroughly pointed out that in the Maritime provinces the timber supply situation is extremely serious. On the theory of "ultimate exhaustion"-
And just a word on that phrase "ultimate exhaustion." Long before that time comes manufactories close down and all you find is
the wreckage of saw milling towns and camps.
On the theory of "ultimate exhaustion" there is only thirty-one years' supply of the pulp species. On the same basis, in Ontario and Quebec combined, in which provinces the pulpwood industry has its highest development, there is fifty-one years' supply.
This, however, does not take into consideration the losses by fire, insects and decay which are 40,000,000 cords every year. It is only a matter of a few years before the Maritime provinces and Quebec will be short of pulpwood, and I cannot see why we should persist in sending this raw material across the line. The argument is that the Americans will not come here but will	go	elsewhere for	their	pulp	andpaper if we put on an embargo. There may	be	something in	that;	but	thejare coming here rapidly now as we know We all know that United States investors have immense fortunes tied up in the pulp and paper industry of Canada. I have too great faith in the American people to think that they will adopt any policy of reprisal or retaliation. In fact there is no way in which they can retaliate in kind. And besides, what have we to thank them for in their treatment of us on tariff matters? They have said to us, "We don't want any of your canned goods, we don't want any of your western cattle, we don't want anything you manufacture; but we do want your raw products, your men and your money." That is exactly what is said to us, and we have been falling for it for yearn. The Fordney-MeCumber tariff says that plainly-a tariff characterized by one of the gentlemen to my left as having been brought about by the manufacturers of the United States. But as a matter of fact that tariff was put into effect just to suit a group of gentlemen similar to my admirable friends to the left, only living across the line. Our western farmers were sending their cattle and farm products into the States, and the American farmers said, "We don't want	any of	your competition." It
shows that business more than sentiment actuates the agricultural portion of our community, admirable as they may be.
As to the Americans retaliating or not coming over here to establish mills, I may say that up in the Soo region, on Manitoulin island, a big pulp mill is being constructed by the Fox River Company of Wisconsin. A few miles from where I live in British Columbia
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

we have what will be the last word in efficient saw mills, a mill that will cut a million feet every two days, and the company will employ four or five hundred men in the mill and about two hundred and fifty in the woods. They are going to cut logs into lumber there instead of sending them across the line. They are making a model town and will employ white labour, and some of the arguments used against saw mill owners do not apply to this 'company. Recently we saw in the newspapers the following article regarding the Canadian newsprint industry:
New York, March 6.-The newsprint industry is going to Canada, according to A. It. Graustein, president of the International Paper Company. Dispatches from Montreal yesterday announcing purchases of lands, mills and water power by the company, means nothing less than the transfer of a large part of the United States news print industry to the Dominion, Mr. Graustein said to-day.
When the new Canadian development is completed, he said, the International Paper Company would be able to produce 1,000 tons of newsprint per day in its mills in the Dominion. Outlining the plans of the company, Mr. Graustein said that if a contract with the newly organized Canadian International Paper Company, Limited, was ratified by stockholders, the Riordon and Gatineau properties in Quebec would be acquired.
"In order to preserve the position of the company and to insure its growth as a newsprint producer," he said, "it is necessary for us to develop in Canada. In the last twenty years the Canadian newsprint industry has come up from nothing to a point where it equals American production, showing unmistakably that the future of the industry is in Canada.
"We intend to build on the Gatineau river, near Ottawa, a big newsprint mill with at least the same capacity as our Three Rivers mill," he said.
Altogether the company intended to spend $27,000,000 for the Gatineau development, about $20,000,000 of which was for the mills, water powers and timber limits.
Another expression of the better class opinion which I claim prevails in the States is to be found in the Manufacturers' Record of New York. It says:
No country on earth can get rich shipping raw materials. Raw materials are simply the basis for the employment of labour, and labour creates the wealth which comes out of the use of raw materials. Wherever raw materials can be utilized at home, whether that be the United States or Canada, whether, so far as this country is concerned, it be the utilization in Alabama, for instance, of coal and ore, carrying the raw materials through to the finished product; whether it be in Louisiana in the utilization of gas or oils and sulphur, the Manufacturers' Record is heartily in sympathy with the policy of using these raw materials at home to as great an extent as possible. It does not believe that we can by legislation prevent the shipment of raw materials from one state to another. That would be unwise under our form of government. Canada has a perfect right to utilize its raw materials at home if it decides to do so. We have a perfect right to utilize our raw materials of all kinds at home for the production of manufactured goods, preferring to ship the finished product into Canada or other countries rather than send the raw materials abroad. It would be better, for instance, for this country if we could turn

all of our wheat into flour and ship the flour rather than the wheat, but that point has not yet been reached.
I am afraid I am tiring bon. members-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, go ahead.


Charles Herbert Dickie: -but I have this subject very much at heart and I am trying to show where Canada can make millions of dollars. We know we have not illimitable timber resources. Every other country is beginning to conserve its forest wealth. Finland only allows such a limited amount of cutting as is compensated for by natural growth each year; Sweden the same way. They are reforesting, as is every other country in the world, they are all paying attention to their timber resources, while we are simply depleting our lands of all forest growth. The people who are opposed to any restrictions on the export of pulpwood have issued statements that the annual growth to-day is keeping up with the depletion of our forest resources. Let any man go up the Ottawa river, the Gatineau or anywhere else where timber is grown and see if he will assert that our forests are not being depleted. It is utter rot to say so. It is said only by men whose personal and selfish interests inspire them to make such unfounded statements. There is not an iota of argument against preventing our raw resources from going across the line. I have shown where we would save $70,000,000 or $80,000,000. And we need have no fear of lack of markets. The American newspaper men have already gone to Washington to try to head off what they know to be a sensible movement on our part, but they are getting little encouragement. They must come to Canada for their paper, and no doubt they will. As for any attempt at retaliation, they would be simply retaliating against themselves. In British Columbia it has been asserted, that 70 per cent of the timber lands alienated from the crown belong to American investors to-day. Those men are not going to see their investment hazarded by retaliatory measures, even though the minority of the people of the United States insist on reprisals; and, as I say, I have too much respect for them to think that they will ever attempt such a policy. I have seen editorials in other American papers corresponding with that which I have read from the Manufacturers' Record. Hon. members will remember that not very long ago President Coolidge made a notable speech with respect to preserving the forest wealth of his country. I remember when in Virginia, Louisiana and parts of Texas there were immense virgin forests; to-day they

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
are practically all gone. Many of these lumbermen have come to British Columbia to do what they did in their own country. The people of Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota are all bewailing the reckless depletion of their forests.
It is perhaps useless for me to suggest a remedy; I do not favour an embargo, I do not think it is the right step to take, but I favour something pretty nearly the same. In British Columbia, if because of business stagnation, we had large quantities of logs in salt water, I should not like to see them destroyed. I would suggest that by order in council or some other way they should be allowed to be shipped out of the country. My idea would be that on Nos. 1 and 2 grades of fir, spruce, pine and cedar logs and on all hardwood logs an export duty should be imposed of $5 per thousand feet board measure; on all other logs, $2 per thousand feet; on all pulpwood exported by actual settlers and farmers from their land a duty of $250 per cord, and on all other pulpwood $5 per cord, to take effect January 1, 1927. I may be asked, why defer the imposition of these export duties to that date. I reply that Canada must act in a gentlemanly way. We have immense amounts of American capital invested in this country in our forest reserves, and I would give them a chance if they want to come over here and establish mills. They have millions of dollars invested on Vancouver island alone, and I do not wish to work any hardship on those gentlemen, so I would give them time. What I suggest is that in the interim the above duty shall apply on all raw forest products as above specified in excess of the 1924 exportation. That would prevent any attempt on the part of our friends to make a Roman holiday with our pulpwood; to come in and devastate our forests, piling the wood over on their side of the international line before 1927. In that way we would be protected.
With regard to the settler or the farmer taking wood from his wood lots, I submit that this country could pay those men to sit right at home and could still make $50,000,000 more than is being made to-day. We could make it up to them in some way. Possibly we should not say to the pulp and paper manufacturers, "You will have to pay so much a cord;" but there are ways of putting pressure on them and at the same time treating them fairly. Even though there should be no market at present for their pulpwood, I am sure the farmer-settler would make money by conserving it, by allowing it to grow for the time being. The value of timber will increase
by leaps and bounds in the next ten years; there is not the slightest doubt about it. This is the age of paper and pulp, and the farmers and settlers will make more by letting their timber stand than they will by cutting it. Up in the clay belt thousands of acres have been cut over by bogus settlers who have abandoned the property after cutting the pulpwood off and shipping it across the line.
I know that my hon. friends to my left are free traders just as strongly as I am in favour of adequate protection. But they must recognize that during the last two or three years many Canadian industries have gone out of business. It may be that times are improving just a little, but when you consider Canada's immense resources, its potentialities and the virility of its people, you will realize that we should go ahead by leaps and bounds rather than stand still or perhaps gain a little here and lose a little there. In this connection a matter was to-day brought to my attention which is worth mentioning. We have at Burrard inlet, Vancouver, a creosoting plant which represents a cash investment of $450,000. There is no duty on creosoted piling coming in from the American side. This company has a payroll of $30,000 a month, but the conditions now are such that they are seriously thinking of dismantling their plant. With a little protection they would be able to carry on; that payroll would continue and they would have a much better feeling toward British Columbia than they have at present. It is another case, very largely, of dumping from the American side. Over there they have enormous establishments; they sell to their own market, but they have a surplus lying in their booms and they use this when the opportunity offers itself, as in the case of a recent contract which came to my attention, in connection with the foundation of the dry dock at Prince Rupert. The Seattle creosoting plant underbid our own people; they offered a price much lower than it was possible for the British Columbia firm to quote for the supplying of creosoted piles. But the Northern Construction Company decided to pay more for creosoted piles from Vancouver than the price at which they could have got them from Seattle, and they were actuated by pure patriotism. Now, this is a condition which should not exist. The Americans simply dlough off their surplus piles to our city, at prices our people cannot meet, but when they have put the Canadian creosoting plant out of business then the price will go up, as has been the case in many other instances. So that if this industry is assisted something is done for Van-
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

couver, and the people will pay no more for creosoted piles than they are paying to-day.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) asked me if I would support him in connection with the subject matter of the resolution he has on the order paper dealing with naval protection on the Pacific coast. I do not know exactly what his viewpoint is; he had not concluded his argument when the discussion was adjourned. But it sounds well to me, as far as he has gone, and I would1 be very much in favour of the taking of some action along this line. The great naval headquarters at Esquimalt are in the district which I am humbly trying to represent, and I would like very much indeed to see a warship there, belonging to Canada or to Great Britain, upon which our young men- could be trained. My idea is that we should make a substantial contribution to the British admiralty and let them look after our ports. When those magnificent ships of the British navy were in our waters on both coasts last year, I in common with many Canadians felt a keen sense of humiliation. Here were those wonderful ships of war ready to protect us at any time, yet we were contributing hardly anything to the upkeep of the British navy. I know that we are in economic straits, but, Sir, as I said with respect to other matters, Canada should play the part of a gentleman, we should1 and we can afford to be a little more liberal than we are. Some people are saying to-day: Why should we want warships to protect our coasts with no war in sight. Sir, war is bound to come, we who live there know it must come-why should we require ships, when we are protected by the Monroe doctrine? Well, I have very little use for the Canadian who will wish to avail himself of the elastic provisions of the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine, as you know, is applied by the United States to suit their convenience. It is an admirable doctrine. Let me relate just a couple of incidents, Mr. Speaker, and I am through. Early in the war, as will be known to many, two German cruisers, the Nurem-burg and . the Scharnhorst, were in the waters of the northern Pacific. The people of Vancouver and Victoria were very much perturbed; some of them became panic stricken and left these cities, thinking that an attack might be made upon them. We weTe almost defenceless. We did have an old, obsolete boat and a couple of submarines- as to the submarines, when they submerged they never knew whether or not they would emerge again-but those who manned them were willing to live up to the best traditions

of British seamen. We knew, though, that they could have little effect on these large, up-to-date German cruisers. I remember talking to an American friend at that time, and he said:	"Would it not be very nice
if two or three of our vessels happened to pay Victoria a friendly visit at this time?" I said, "It certainly would." However, no American vessels paid us even a friendly visit. What we did see was a Japanese cruiser, stripped down to the decks, swarming with brown men, lying off our coast, ready to offer its protection.
The other instance I want to mention is this: When Dewey captured Manilla he was lying with his fleet in Manilla harbour. Admiral Diedrich came sailing in with a German fleet greater in strength than that of Admiral Dewey. Dewey pointed to a place for him to anchor, but Diedrich said he took his orders from His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and he chose his own anchorage. Diedrich then paid a visit to Admiral Chichester of the British fleet which was in the vicinity, and in the course of conversation with him he said: "What would be your attitude if I decided to attack the American ships?" Chichester said, " That is a secret between Admiral Dewey and myself." This is a matter of history; it is not hearsay. Diedrich knew what it meant. He left the British ship in a huff, and returned to his own vessel. The next morning when he came on deck he saw that during the night a British cruiser had steamed in and anchored between his warships and those of Admiral Dewey. As my American friends would say, " That was nice."


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the budget, I should like, with the permission of the House, to conclude the remarks I was making on the resolution I introduced some weeks ago to the effect that " Canada should consider the question of the defence of our sea coasts and of our ocean borne lines of commerce ". I am sorry that this resolution will not come to a vote under the rules' of the House, but perhaps when the naval estimates are being discussed hon. members, especially those from British Columbia, will take an opportunity of expressing their views, and perhaps the Minister of National Defence will take the opportunity of expressing the policy of the government in that regard.
The House will recall that when I was speaking on this subject last I had shown or tried to show, that our coast, our property, and especially our shipping in British Columbia were entirely defenceless and that there

The Budget-Mr. Neill
was great need of defence, and I was examining what we had in the way of defence ourselves or what we would be likely to procure from outside sources. But before I go on with that I should like for one moment to go back to the question of the Disarmament conference and make a point that I omitted to make when I was talking on this question before. I suggest, Sir, that all the Disarmament conference did was to bring about an agreement among the nations of the world to do what they fully intended to do anyhow. In other words they made a bargain to do what the experience of the Great war had shown them was the most advisable thing to do; they made a solemn treaty to carry out what they had every intention of carrying out of themselves. For instance, the war had shown clearly that big dreadnoughts were not the most useful type of ship to use. Consequently the Disarmament conference made a solemn bargain to limit the size and number of dreadnoughts, or what they call capital phips, in future. It is true that they went further and made a limitation in regard to the size and armament of what they called auxiliary ships, otherwise cruisers, but I notice they were particularly careful not to limit the number of these boats; and while they did put a limit, in regard to the maximum size and tonnage, the limit was so high and the tonnage was so large that in reality it encouraged all the nations of the world to increase the size of their cruisers. For instance the average light cruiser, before this conference ran to seven or at the most eight thousand tons. Japan had building at that time four boats of seven thousand tons. The Disarmament conference decided that the maximum tonnage of cruisers was to be ten thousand tons and the limit of armament, I think, eight inch guns. So naturally the Japanese immediately redesigned the ships they had been building. They raised the limit of these cruisers to ten thousand tons and they increased the armament of those vessels so as to bring it just within the maximum laid down by the conference. Other nations followed the same course naturally for it would be foolish for them to have [DOT] smaller ships than their competitors. The result is that the Disarmament conference has actually increased the size and cost of light cruisers without in any way limiting the number of them that can be built. What will be known in the future as the "treaty" cruiser has arrived, and at the present moment the five signatories of that conference have laid down no less than thirty of these new cruisers. And that conference was only held
a couple of years ago! The treaty cruiser of the future will be a thirty-five knot ship with a battery of eight or more eight inch guns capable of developing a volume of fire of about thirty rounds a minute, and discharging a projectile weighing somewhere in the neighbourhood of two hundred and fifty pounds. In a word I think it might be justly said that the Disarmament conference, by virtue of its actual results, appears to have brought about a revival of armaments.
Now I shall describe the ships, or the means of defence, that we have on the Pacific coast. I said that we had a cruiser that was of very little value except for training purposes. We also have two mine sweepers. It is true that we have no mines, and no means of laying mines-no mine layers-and it is extremely unlikely that an enemy that might come and blow up or ransom any of our forte and towns would be likely to bring mines and lay them for us to sweep out,
[DOT] because that would be quite unnecessary. So that these mine sweepers are not of any particular value as regards that purpose. I admit, however, that they would be good for the pursuit of submarines.
Now I should like' to give two instances of what actually occurred in the war, and in making this statement I shall not be disclosing any secret, so as to give an idea of how acute the conditions were out there in the way of lack of defence. During the war a passenger boat was running up north to Alaska. It happened to have three funnels, rather an unusual thing, and the general cut of it in some ways rather suggested a light cruiser. That boat was taken off its regular merchant service-it had no armament-and was bolstered and painted up to make it look as much like a cruiser as possible and started out on the Pacific ocean in order to head off, if possible, German raiders and cruisers; and from a diary discovered on the body of one of the German officers killed in the battle off the Falkland islands it was actually discovered that on one occasion, at least, a German armed raider had fled from this boat believing it to be a British cruiser. That is one of the pretences we had to take refuge in.
Here is another instance:	The terminus
of the Pacific cable, which is a very important point during a war and still more important if the war happened to be on the Pacific, is at Bamfield on the west coast of Vancouver island. During the war this station was defended ostensibly by a handful of men with rifles. You can imagine what use such a force would have been against an armed raider. But it had the further pro-
The Budget-Mr. Neill

tection, or was supposed bo have, that the channel of five or six miles leading into Bam-field was suitably protected by mines; and every time a boat required to come in a pilot had to go out and guide the vessel through the mine field into safety and out again, the plain fact being, Mr. Speaker, that there never were any mines there at all; it was all a figment of the imagination calculated, or supposed-or we hoped it would-to mislead any German vessel from coming in to blow up the cable station. To put our whole dependence, in future wars, in artifices of that kind is surely not the part of reasonable and responsible men.
I have led up to the suggestion that we have no defence and that we need defence. Having no defence of our own there are only two outside sources by which we could attain it. The first that we would naturally turn to in an emergency is the British navy. In 1914 the British navy had 126 heavy and light cruisers. They could only spare a few of these for the Pacific, and we all know the enormous damage that was done by the Emden which, if I remember rightly, was not a cruiser at all but merely an armed merchantman, an armed raider. The fact that the Emden did an enormous amount of damage was not due to her armament, or anything of that kind but simply because there was no vessel bigger than herself able to get into contact with her. The record of that single boat, and the damage she did in the Pacific, ought to be enough to convert anybody to the idea that we out there ought to have some protection. I noticp that since I brought this matter up there was a. debate in the British House when the first Lord of the Admiralty pointed out what trouble the German sea raiders caused in the Great war and asked if it took seventy cruisers to round up these few German raiders, with almost the whole German fleet bottled up, what would be the prospect in a future war if British commerce were attacked by some other power.
There are two further matters I desire to mention. During the war a condition existed that will never exist in any war on the Pacific, and that is that the two great powers against us, Austria and Germany, practically had both their fleets bottled up in a port or in some channel, and the British fleet kept them there. Occasionally one would break away in the darkness and do a great deal of damage, but for the main part they were kept bottled up, and it was comparatively easy for the British fleet to concentrate their vessels and keep them there. But on the Pacific it would be impossible because the ports are all

open, and the British fleet would have to be much scattered, and their efficiency naturally very much reduced in that way.
I would point out also that owing to the Disarmament conference having induced Britain, to bring down her naval power, from a three to one to a one' to one basis, it means that in 1928 the British fleet of heavy and light cruisers, instead of being 136 will only be 57, and they will certainly be all needed to police the main trade routes of the Pacific if a war occurred on the Pacific. I think therefore, it is proved that we cannot hope that Britain can do any more than guard the main ocean routes, and it will be quite impossible for us to expect her to detach ships to guard what might be called the local coasts, of British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand and so on. These other dominions have realized the truth of that contention as we see in the fact that New Zealand has embarked on s policy of naval defence of her own shores so have Australia and South Africa. It is somewhat significant that the policy of the naval defence of South Africa is advocated by and going to be carried1 through under the leadership of Charles Hertzog, a man who, in the Great war only a few years ago, was in active rebellion against Britain, and it cannot be supposed that he is animated in this matter now by any great feeling of imperial enthusiasm. He is actuated by the conviction that if South Africa is not in a position to defend herself, she will be in a helpless condition.
So much for the idea that we can expect the British navy to protect the British Columbia coast or the Atlantic coast.
The other source from which we might hope to get some relief is the Monroe doctrine. That is a very much over-rated doctrine at the present time. I will quote the best definition of it that I have been able to obtain in one sentence, as given by President Adams. I will give you his interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, at the time of its inception. He says:
Considering the South Americans as independent nations, they themselves have the right to dispose of their condition. We have no right to dispose of them either alone or in conjunction with other nations. Neither have any other nations the right to dispose of-them without their consent.
That was the doctrine as it was formulated over a hundred years ago, but between that time and the present, conditions have changed entirely. The very evil which it was intended to prevent-that is the abuse or the coercion of the small American states by European countries-has been changed into a very much greater dread, not any more of the European

The Budget-Mr. Neill
powers but of the United States themselves. I should like to quote a sentence or two out of a very well written article on the Monroe doctrine by an American writer in an American journal, which cannot be supposed to be anti-American or pro-British. Here is what this writer says, talking about the diplomats of the United States:
To them the doctrine has become a diplomatic top bureau drawer, into which anything may be put and from which, after due pawing, anything may be produced.
I think that is a very good expression "after due pawing". The Monroe doctrine, from time to time,' has been used, added to and pared away, according as the emergency suggested and, in the interests of the United States only. Thus on one occasion it had an annex hitched on to it, .called the Doctrine of Paramount Interest, a lovely amendment, which allowed the United States to go into a foreign country -and do what they thought would be in the best interests, not of that country, but of the United States. Later on, when they encouraged a rebellion in a Central American republic, they invented another extension of the Monroe doctrine, and it took the form of the Doctrine of Preventive Intervention, by virtue of which the United States claimed, the right to intervene in the affairs of any of the Latin American states whenever in its opinion a state of affairs threatens to arise which may produce European intervention, which may in turn produce occupation of territory, which may ultimately produce annexation. If this is a doctrine of non-intervention, of protecting other states' national independence, then of course black is white. In spite of that language "we have no right", we find that, under the Monroe dioctrine, Texas was annexed against its will, to the United States, California, New Mexico, Porto Rico and Cuba, and there has been interference in Panama and Columbia. In other words, the modern interpretation of the Monroe doctrine is that no nation is to be coerced except by the United States. That is so openly feared that at a pan-American conference some years ago they endeavoured to get the United States to go back to the original meaning of the Monroe doctrine, but the United States would not do so, and the word " suzerainty " was quite openly used in reference to its relation to some of the smaller states; so that it is to this doctrine, with its cold-blooded indifference to the interests of any nation except the United. States that we are asked to appeal for protection and for defence in case of war. Moreover the doctrine does not apply to British possessions.


Mr. POULIOT:: How much does my hon.
friend say Canada should expend yearly to protect her shores?


Alan Webster Neill: I will deal with that in a few moments. Moreover the Monroe doctrine does not apply to British possessions, and it only applies to where the independence of states is threatened. It does not forbid attacks on shipping or the collection of an enormous indemnity, or the collection of a war indemnity in the shape of large supplies of raw material for years to come, as was suggested would be one of the terms if the Germans had conquered in the late war. Then if we were driven by our defencelessness to ask for the application of the Monroe doctrine by the United States, what price would we pay for it? Scripture tells us that the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, but in that case the word " shall " is used. " Shall " suggests futurity. We do not know when that period will arrive, but history records no instance where the lion and the lamb have lain down together with any real satisfaction to the lamb. Take the record of Britain herself. There is no country in the world which has been so magnanimous in its treatment of vanquished nations, or so .generous in its rule over conquered natives. No nation can compare with Britain in that regard, and yet taking the record of Britain herself, where she has gone in very often with the most emphatic declaration that it was only temporary occupation for the good of the particular state, and with the fervently expressed intention of pulling out in a very short time, there are very few records of where she has ever pulled out again. It has drifted, perhaps, into a suzerainty; it has always become more or less permanent, I admit, very often, for the good of that nation or race, but still Britain has remained there, a permanent, unwelcome and uninvited guest. If we are driven by the misfortunes of our defenceless condition to seek the assistance of the United States under the Monroe doctrine, we are practically inviting that we become an appendage in some form or another of the United States. Some mention is made of the cost. The costliest way of all of defending ourselves in case of an attack would be by inviting the aid of the Monroe doctrine. It would be goodbye to our dreams of national existence. We would get requests which, by-and-by, would become demands, and by-and-by we would have absorption, or .control, or at least, that peculiar thing, known and already practised on other nations, as " preventive intervention."
The Budget-Mr. Neill

Moreover, it is quite possible in case of war that the United States would not be able to afford us any protection. A very able writer the other day made the prediction that, in case of war, if the Hawaiian islands were captured by an enemy, the whole coast of the north American continent would be at the mercy of the enemy. I submit the question is not: Can we afford to defend our coast? but, can we afford not to defend it? Take the case of a man owning a big business block and going to a mortgage company to ask for a big loan. The first question he would be asked would be: "Where is your title?" He could produce that. The second question would be: " Where is your insurance policy, and how much is it?" Supposing his reply was: "Well now, I want to tell you about that. I do not believe in fire. We are not going to have any more fires. I have joined an association to disown fires, and consequently I have not insured my building and do not propose to do so." Would that man get his loan? I do not think so. Are we in any better position as regards our national existence? Is naval defence not the premium on our national life insurance policy? I should like to ask this House, and through this House, the people of Canada: Can we afford to neglect to pay the premium on the policy of our national life insurance? I should like the House to think over that.
There are just two other points in this connection and I have done. One is that my advocacy of this suggestion will lead to militarism on a large scale. That is a very unfair unjust criticism, so unfair, unjust, untenable and indeed, inapplicable, that I think it can be put forward only by those who wish to confuse the issue, who want, not to face the issue, but to shut their eyes to the plain facts, and who think, by calling it militarism, they can dismiss the obvious situation I have presented. If I were arguing for or suggesting, even in a remote degree, a big fleet and army, they would be quite correct. But there is all the difference in the world between militarism and defence, between defence and defiance, between protection and aggression. Have we ever tried to stop crime by dismissing our police force? I do not think so. Will an absolutely helpless nation not invite the aggression of a truculent neighbour? I therefore repeat-and I wish to be so careful about this that it cannot be misrepresented that I have written it down-that what I am asking for is only-that the Parliament of Canada should consider and devis.e a policy for the defence of our shores and of our shipping, a policy within our means and to be carried

out as our financial condition allows us. Is that jingoism? Is that militarism? Is it not rather the sober, sane action of a business man who protects his business against loss by fire or his family against his own loss by sudden death?
There is just one other point in this connection. It has been suggested to me, not, I am glad to state, by any hon. member from the prairies, that the prairie members will take no interest in the consideration of a case of this kind. I do not believe that, and even putting the matter on the most material grounds, they are bound to take an interest in it because they are as much concerned ultimately as we are. The freedom Of Calgary and Winnipeg will be fought for, not at the gates of those cities, but on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast. What will be their condition if they are cut off from the sea for three or four years? I know we in British Columbia would suffer first. Our coal mines which, heaven knows, are in a bad enough state now, would be the first to suffer. Our fishing industry would disappear. Our lumber industry would be at a standstill. But as the shipping disappeared the trouble would spread on to the prairies, and once they had no outlet for their grain, there would be a complete tie-up of the business conditions of Canada. It would paralyze every feature of the trade of Canada. Let us not forget, for we forget so easily, how nearly Great Britain was brought to her knees during the Great war, not by any lack of men or food or munitions, but by the threatened inability of being able to convey that food and those munitions to the men at the front.
I want to answer my hon. friend's question about the cost. I said at the beginning of my remarks the other day that I was particularly careful to define no detailed scheme for defence, because there are so many different ways, and to suggest one would only promote divergence of opinion upon the main issue. The particular line adopted would have to be decided by technical experts and largely governed by our financial ability at the moment. ,1 quite admit that, and I am suggesting that we go into no expensive scheme whatever. I will make this suggestion as to the cost. We have the skeleton of a very considerable standing army in Canada to-day. I should like to know, ini case of a sudden need for this army:	What nation could we use that
army against suddenly and quickly? There is only one nation that we could use it against in a hurry and that is the United States. The prospect or the possibility of war with the United States is so remote-and

The Budget-Mr. Neill
I hope it always will be remote-that it is quite unnecessary for us to consider it to-day and for many years to come. Therefore, if we have no need for a standing army, why have we one? The danger to Canada will come on our coasts long before there will be any need of an army. We spend roughly on the permanent force and on the active militia, if not on the active militia alone, somewhere in the neighbourhood of four million dollars a year. For instance, in the city of Ottawa, there are the skeletons, at least, of four different regiments, and I suppose the same is true in a greater or lesser degree throughout the whole of eastern Canada. You can make a soldier of sorts in six weeks; you can make a first class soldier, a fighting man, in six months; but it will take at least that many years to make a first class naval man. First of all, he has to be a seaman, and that is not done in a day or a month. Then he has to be a naval man, and this means a finely trained mechanic of a kind which you do not get in civilian life. The ordinary time for training a first class naval seaman would be six or eight years. Would it not be better to spend less on the militia, and what is saved on that might be spent on a nucleus, at least, of a scheme of naval defence? I am only throwing out a suggestion that would minimize the cost of any naval scheme that might be adopted.
I have spoken only about the Pacific coast because that is the one with which I am familiar. I am not ignoring the needs of the Atlantic coast, but I leave it to men more capable and better informed than I am to deal with that. I would suggest that the government consider, if not at this session, at the next one, the advisability of appointing a committee of a non-partisan character to study this question. Its importance can hardly be overestimated. I would conclude by summarizing in half a dozen sentences the arguments I have endeavoured to present tonight and the other evening:
1.	That our sea coasts are defenceless.
2.	That the need of defence is evident and urgent.
3.	That we cannot logically demand, nor can we reasonably expect the British navy to furnish that protection in case of war.
, 4. That it is highly undesirable that we should be driven to seek the protection of the Monroe doctrine.
5.	Let our motto be, aggression against none and defence against all.
Therefore, in the words of the resolution, I would shbmit that Canada should consider the question of the defence of our sea coasts
as well as of our ocean borne lines of commerce.. That, Mr Speaker, concludes this phase of my remarks.
On motion of Mr. Neill1 the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion:
Second reading of Bill No. 24, an act to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911.-Mr. Church.
Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Church) wishes to withdraw this bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that he shall have leave to withdraw it?
Bill withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.55 pirn.
Wednesday, April 1, 1925