REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraphs.-Mr. Cahill.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of correspondence, applications and other documents respecting licenses to export electrical energy.-Hon. Mr. Low.
Report of the Department of Customs and Excise containing accounts of revenues, with statements relative to the imports, exports and excise of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Cardin (for the Minister of Customs and Excise).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911.-Mr. Church.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Shaw be substituted for that of Mr. Leader as a member of the special committee appointed to consider the resolution to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates by confirming the agreement between His Majesty and Sir William Petersen, K.C.B.E., as set out in said resolution or by any other method that offers effective control.
Questions


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Did the special committee appointed by parliament February 28, 1923, to inquire into agricultural conditions, make a report in regard to ocean freight rates during the session of 1923?
2.	Did said special committee in their seventh and final report state that, owing to the impossibility of digesting and properly weighing the evidence submitted to them in the time at their disposal before prorogation of parliament, recommend that a similar committee should be appointed at an early period of the next session of parliament?
3.	Was the recommendation referred to carried out by the government?
4. What was the date of the appointment by the government of W. T. R. Preston to make an investigation into the alleged discrimination in ocean freight rates covering Canadian shipments from Atlantic seaports referred to by the special committee referred to in question 1?
5.	Was parliament in session at the time the appointment was made? If so, was parliament consulted in the matter?
6.	What was the date and contents of the order in council authorizing said appointment?
7.	From what time did Mr. Preston begin to draw pay and allowances under the order in council referred to?
8.	What amount has been paid to him, or is due him in connection with the investigation referred to?
9.	Is he still on the pay roll?


Hon. Mr. GOPP:: 1.	Yes, the fourth and fifth reports referred to ocean freight rates.
2.	Yes.
3.	Recommendation referred to was made to parliament and no action has as yet been taken.
4.	February 28, 1924.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
6.	February 28, 1924.
7.	February 28, 1924.
8.	Expended to January 31, 1925-
Travel	$ 864 85
Remuneration (Feb. 28 to June 1, 1924)-(94 days less=87
days at 115)	 1,305 00
Living allowance (Feb. 28 to Oct.
24, 1924)-(239 days at $10).. 2,390 00 Sundries	 310 23

Accounts on hand, pending supplementary vote-
Travel	 208 68
Remuneration (June 2, 1924, to Jan. 23, 1925)-(236 days less 32 = 204 days at $15)	 3,060 00

Living allowance (Oct. 25, 1924 to Jan. 23, 1925)-(91 days less
18 = 73 days at $10)	 730 00
Stenographic services	 216 00
Sundries	 17 77

9.	For such additional time as he may be actually engaged in the work of the ocean freight rate inquiry.


MAIL SUBSIDIES AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS
Mr. McTAGGART:: 1.	In what year was the payment of subsidies to steamships instituted in Canada?
2.	What amount has the government paid in subsidies in each year since that date?
3.	What was the total amount so paid up to the present time?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The Public Accounts of Cianada show that payments were made on account of mail subsidies and steamship subventions from 1867-68 onwards.
2.
Local	Foreign
Services	Services
			$ 177.349 33
			253.746 67
			288,999 02
			286,098 97
			242,107 98
			363.447 98
			285.882 29
			2S7.772 40
			261,588 89
			314,941 50
			257.534 08
			257.701 51
			235.833 34
1880-81 .			201.503 34
1881-82 .			210,930 00
1882-83 .			237.500 79
18S3-S4 .			238,054 01
1884-85			261,778 S9
1885-86 .			271.457 20
1886-87 .			273.496 65
1887-88 .			342.613 33
1888-89 .			304.254 1?
1889-90 .			286.315 13
1890-91 .			321,117 96
1891-92 .			273,207 37
1892-3 . .	.. $ 53,644 26	$ 360,294 33	413.938 591893-4 . .	70,196 00	460.500 66	530,702 661894-5 . .	.. 74,934 71	438,333 32	533.268 031895-6 . .	.. 73,850 00	461,066 63	534.916 631896-7 . .	.. 75,703 76	478,108 32	553 812 OS1897-8 . .	.. 85.881 79	503.891 42	589.773 211898-9 . .	.. 98,029 58	486,026 73	584.056 311899-1900	. . 83.296 19	516.535 73	599.831 921900-1 ..	. . 96,005 33	532,203 85	629.199 181901-2 . .	.. 88,102 87	536.853 38	624.956 251902-3 . .	.. 102,72030	696,565 69	799.285 991903-4 . .	.. 139.983 68	777.464 29	917.447 971904-5 . .	.. 146,160 88	880.913 85	1.027.074 731905-6 . ..	.. 171.483 77	1,056,076 42	1.227.560 191906.-7 . ..	.. 150,679 24	978,197 48	1.128.876 721907-8 . ..	.. 181.790 94	1,408,593 02	1.590.383 961908-9 . .	.. 189,763 40	1,560,620 04	1.750,383 41
Questions
	Local	Foreign	
	Services	Services	
1909-10	
210,325 55	1,591,747 31	1,902.072 861910-11	.. .. 228,356 25	1,756.284 98	1,984,641 231911-12	.. .. 253,671 46	1,667,267 45	1.920,938 911912-13	.. .. 262,744 35	1.687,872 97	1,950,617 321913-14	.. .. 289,754 09	2,091.336 83	2,381,090 021914-15	.. .. 301,506 13	1,858,533 72	2.160,039 851915-16	.. .. 311,322 35	1,454,582 61	1,765,904 961916-17	.. .. 280.904 55	1,707,199 41	1,988,103 961917-18	.. .. 279.518 14	1,572,202 91	1.851.721 05*1918-19	.. .. 243,90637	1,145,686 74	1,389,593 111919-20	.. .. 303,729 49	1,325,664 03	1,629 393 521920-21	.. .. 329,663 87	761,241 34	1.090,905 211921-22	.. .. 379.640 84	722,539 01	1,102,179 861922-23	.. .. 455,077 36	611.716 49	1,066.793 851923-24	.. .. 396,16693	628,774 96	1,024,941 891924-25	to	March 20, 1923 448,148 13	348,811 07	796,960 20$ 6,857,653 56	$33,063,712 99	$46,756,599 35
3. $46,756,599.35.


IMPORTATION OF KRAFT WRAPPING PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Hon, Mr. STEVENS:
1.	What amount of kraft wrapping paper was imported during the last calendar year?
2.	What amount was imported from (a) Norway and Sweden, (b) United Kingdom, (c) United States?
3.	What is the duty on kraft wrapping paper? .
4.	Is the government negotiating a commercial treaty with Finland or other European countries which will naturally affect this rate of duty? If so, to what extent ?
5.	Has the government investigated the condition of paper mills in Canada manufacturing kraft wrapping paper?
6.	How many mills in Canada manufacture kraft wrapping paper and what was the total output last year?
Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	and 2. (a), (b), (o):	Imports of kraft
wrapping paper into Canada during the calendar year 1924:
Countries whence received Quantity Value
Lb.	$
1.	Total imports.. .. 889,710	52,749
2. (a) From Norway.. .. 52,003	2,990
From Sweden	 428,132	19,053
(Norway and Sweden) 4S0,135	22,043
2. (b) From United Kingdom	
45,724	2,8072. (c) From United	States..	262,225	23,323Other countries	
101,626	4,5763.	Rates of duty on kraft wrapping paper: General tariff, 25 per cent ad valorem; Preferential tariff, 15 per cent ad valorem; Intermediate tariff, 22 1-2 per cent ad valorem.4.	A treaty of commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and Finland was signed on December 14, 1923. Ratifications were exchanged on July 4, 1924. Article 23 of the treaty provides that the stipulations of the treaty shall not be applicable to any selfgoverning British dominion unless the said dominion so desires; but it is provided that the goods of such dominion shall enjoy in Finland the same treatment as would be enjoyed by similar goods if produced in the United Kingdom so long as the. goods produced in Finland are accorded favoured nation treatment in such dominion. The customs tariff of Finland provides for a reduction under the conventional tariff on certain products of interest to the Canadian trade. At the last session of parliament, a bill respecting trade between Canada and Finland was passed in the Canadian House of Commons but in the Senate the committee rose without reporting the bill. As the trade between Canada and Finland is considered of advantage to Canada, it is proposed to introduce a similar bill in the House of Commons at this session.
A bill will also be introduced in the House of Commons respecting a certain trade agreement with the Netherlands. This agreement will provide for favoured nation treatment.
The French convention provides for a discount of ten per cent, on the amount of duty under tariff item 197, "Paper of all kinds, n.o.p." Goods from all countries entitled to the benefit of the favoured nation clause will receive the benefit of this reduction.
5.	No, special investigation has been made concerning the condition of the paper mills in Canada, but it is ascertained tLR three-fourths of the production of kraft paper is exported from Canada to twenty-six different countries. The value of kraft paper imported into Canada from Finland during the ten months ended January 31, 1925, was only $2,777, while the total exports to all countries of Canadian kraft paper for the same period amounted to $2,677,268.
6.	Information for the calendar year 1924 is not yet compiled. During the calendar year 1923, nine mills manufactured kraft wrapping paper. The total production was 42,851 tons, valued at $4,464,198.


PURCHASE OF LIGHTSHIP GROS CAP NO. 1
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	In what year was the lightship Gros Cap No. 1 (formerly the St. Julian) purchased by the government?
2.	What was the purchase .price and from whom purchased ?
3.	Where was this boat built, for whom and for what purpose ?
4.	What amount has been spent by the government in remodelling and refitting this boat since the date of purchase?
5.	Was the Gros Cap No. 1 stationed during the season of 1924 at a place called Gros Cap in lake Superior?
6.	Was this place formerly served by a gas buoy?
Questions

7.	What was the average cost of maintaining the gas buoy at this point during the season of navigation?
8.	What was the total cost of maintaining the lightship Gros Cap No. 1 during the calendar year 1924: (a) wages of crew; (b) supplies, including fuel, food and clothing; (c) repairs; (d) all other expenses?
9.	How many members of the crew of this boat are paid for the season of navigation only; how many are paid during the full year; how are the latter employed during the winter season?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1. 2 and 3. Vessel was built in 1917 at Toronto, by Poison Iron Works, Limited, for war purposes and was transferred by Department of Naval Service to Department of Marine and Fisheries in 1920 without cost.
4.	$26,458.65.
5.	Yes. The establishment of this lightship was authorized by order in council P.C. 2762, 5th August, 1921. The order in council recites that the Lighthouse Board of Canada had received a request from the Dominion Marine Association for improved aids to navigation on the Gros Cap shoal, the information received by the board showing that Gros Cap shoal is a dangerous spot very close to the main track of heavy traffic between lake Superior and Sault Ste. Marie, numerous accidents having occurred. The Lighthouse board recommended the establishment of a
lightship.
6.	Yes.
7.	About $300.
8.	(a) Wages	$10,322	09(b)	Supplies	
2,352	80(c)	Repairs	
448	36(d)	Sundry	expenses	
232	77Total	$13,356 02
9. (a) Seven.
(b)	Two: captain and chief engineer.
(c)	Keep vessel clear of snow and prevent damage by ice, make such repairs as it is possible for them to make by themselves and to take care of the vessel generally.


MR. E. LAFLEUR, K.C.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	On what date was Mr. E. Lafleur, K.C. retained by the government to prepare the contract between His Majesty King George V represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
2.	Is Mr. Lafleur still under engagement on this contract or any part of it?
3.	If not, on what date did Mr. Lafleur complete his services in connection with the contract referred to in question 1 ?
4.	What amount was charged by Mr. Lafleur for his services during the period referred to in questions (1) and (3), and what amount was paid, or is to be paid, to Mr. Lafleur?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	December 3, 1924.
2.	No.
3.	December 11, 1924.
4.	No account has yet been received from Mr. Lafleur in this connection.


PARK ST. CHARLES COMPANY, LIMITED
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has any payment been made to the Park St. Charles Company, Limited, for land occupied by the Quebec Harbour Commission, as per verdict of the arbitrator in the case?
2.	If so, what sum has been paid and on what date?
3.	If more than one payment was made, to whom were they made and on what dates?
4.	If no payment has been made to the Park St. Charles Company, Limited, or their agent, has any settlement or payment been made with any other person or firm and having any reference to the said claim and if so, to whom?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	and 3.
1920.-To Park St. Charles Company, January 17.-Interest on award, $3,092.37; 1921.-To Park St. Charles Company, January 18.-Interest on award, $3,092.37; 1922.- To Park St. Charles Company, January 18.- Interest on award, $3,092.37; 1923.-To Park St. Charles Company, January 19.-Interest on award, $3,092.37; August 24-Interest on award, $1,872.35; August 24.-Award, $51,539.58; Total, $65,781.41.
The two last mentioned amounts have been paid by cheque to the order of La Banque Nationale and La Cie. Park St. Charles.
4.	Apart from the above amounts, the Quebec Harbour Commission has paid for legal fees of their attorneys and those of the Park St. Charles Company, arbitrator's fees, notarial, surveyor's, stenographer's, witnesses', court fees, travelling expenses, premiums on security bonds, an additional sum of $10,732.33.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Mr. NEILL:: What amount of revenue was derived by Canada from the United Stated under the provisions of the Pelagic Sealing treaty in each year to date since the coming into operation of the said treaty?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: *1913		.. .. S 34.672 13
*1919		.... 193,610 41
*1920		.. .. 215,622 89
1921		.. .. 61.529 21
1922		.. .. 47,345 43
1923		.. .. 69,148 81
1925		.. 28,274 89
Total receipts.. ..	.. .. $ 650,203 77

Unopposed Motion for Papers
*The above amounts were credited against the advance payment of $200,000 plus $10,000 per year during the close season provided for in the treaty until they were recouped.


EXPENSES OF MEMBERS TO WEMBLEY EXHIBITION
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What members of the House of Commons attended the exhibition at Wembley, England, during the past year at the expense of the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What was the expense to the Dominion government in the case of each member?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Geo. W. Kyte, L. J. Papineau, J. Fred Johnston.
2.	$1,400 for each.


EXPORT OF POWER BY CEDAR RAPIDS POWER COMPANY
Hon. Mr. MANION:: According to the contract which is subject to examination by the Department of Trade and Commerce, what is the price per horse-power paid by the Aluminium Company of America at its Massena, New York state plant, for power exported from Canada by the Cedar Rapids Power Company?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Although the act provides that such export contracts are subject to examination by officers of the department, this authority has never been exercised. A copy of the contract has never been submitted to the department, therefore the department has no information on the matter.
The department has the right to ask for a copy of the contract but is of the opinion that it would be unfair to the company exporting to make public the confidential contents of the contract.


BUCTOUCHE, N.B.-PUBLIC BUILDING SITE
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has the government purchased a site for public building at Buctouche, Kent county, New Brunswick?
2.	Does it propose to erect that building in the near future or is it the intention of the government to dispose of that site?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes, in 1913 from C. J. Collette, for $500.
2.	Nothing in contemplation at the present time in either respect.


ADMINISTRATION OF COPPER BOUNTIES ACT, 1923
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What has been the cost each year of administration of the Copper Bounties Act of 1923?
2.	What amount has been paid in bounties?
3.	To what companies have such amounts been paid?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	1923-24, $591.73; 1924-25, $180.90.
2. 1923-24, Nil. 1924-25, $14,551.75.
3. Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd., Trail, B.C.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and communications passed between the hon. member for Skeena, and any minister or official of the government, in relation to the halibut treaty *with the United States; also, all letters, telegrams and communications of whatsoever kind, passed between the said hon. member for Skeena and any minister or official of the government relating to the close season for halibut on the Pacific; also, all petitions, letters, and communications from other persons iorwarded by the said hon. member for Skeena, to any minister or official of the government, relating to the said halibut treaty or the close season for halibut.


POSTMASTER AT GLACE BAY
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Civil Service Commission and all other persons, relative to the appointment of a postmaster at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.).
For a copy of all correspondence between the New Brunswick government or any member thereof and any minister or department of the Dominion government, with reference to the taking over by the Dominion government of the St. John and Quebec railway.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	There is no objection
to the motion if W'e understand clearly what is required. There .was undoubtedly a good deal of correspondence before the construction of this railway in reference to the work being undertaken by the federal government, but I presume my hon. friend wants the correspondence, since the construction of the line, as to the taking over of the construction by the federal government.
Mr. DOUCET:: Within the last five or six years. After the taking over of the present line.


Mr. GRAHAM:: With that understanding.
Motion as amended agreed to.


PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET
[Stage Direction]
On. the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: Does the Minister of Railways and Canals think there is a probability of the heads of the Canadian National and the Canadian

The Budget-Mr. Neill

Pacific coming together in a joint agreement regarding the Peace river transportation problem?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I would not like to
say that until I got a reply to that question or something to the same effect from the gentlemen themselves. They were, if possible, to agree on a joint report or suggestion. I may say this, that if some suggestion does not come shortly, I will, I think, ask them to join in another conference to discuss the matter again.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS RURAL MAIL ROUTES
[Stage Direction]
On the Order's of the Day:
Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland):: On March 16, a question standing in my name with reference to the establishment of rural mail routes was passed as an order for return. I should like to know when it will be brought down.
Right Hon. W. L, MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	It will be necessary to
direct the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) to the question, and I will ask him to give my hon. friend an answer at the next sitting of the House.


MR. PETER HICKEY
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: On
April 14, of last year an order for a return was passed for the correspondence, etcetera, re the dismissal of Peter Hickey as lighthouse keeper at Fish island light, Prince county, Prince Edward Island, and if an investigation had been held, for a copy of the evidence and report. That return has not yet been brought down. As there is no reason in the world why it should not have been brought down before this, I would ask the government when it is to be brought down.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be pleased to make
the necessary inquiry and see that the return is brought down as soon as possible.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 31, 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.
IMr. D. M. Kennedy.]
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, the few changes in the tariff which are indicated in this budget are of a character which will give satisfaction to the interests concerned in the district which I represent. The principal ones are those dealing with coal. It so happen!; that both the increase and the decrease indicated by the budget will be of benefit to the mines in my district. These mines, as the House generally knows, are in a very desperate condition owing to the competition of fuel oil, and our principal market is in the United States. There is a reciprocal item in the United States tariff by which the duty on Canadian coal going into the United States rises or falls in the same way as our duty on American coal coming into Canada. Consequently, the reduction of duty on bituminous coal from 53 to 50 cents a ton will be of advantage to us in the American market. Three cents is not a very big reduction and it might well have been more. It amounts to only six per cent, but six per cent of a reduction in the tariff is always better than nothing. On the other hand, the increase in the duty on slack coal also benefits us because we have practically no market for slack coal, in the United States. We produce very little of it in any case, and a considerable trade has been growing up of late years in slack coal coming from the United States into Vancouver. I judge from the change in the tariff that this will be entirely done away with.
There is a matter in connection with lignite that I should like to draw to the attention of the government. I have done so already, but I want to impress it upon them once more. Some years ago the government made a change in the duty on lignite, putting it on the free list in order to facilitate the sale of coal from southern Alberta into the United States. At that time there was no influx of lignite from the United States into Canada on the Pacific coast. Lignite and bituminous are more or less comparative terms. You cannot say precisely by looking at coal that this particular coal is lignite and that bituminous. The question is one of analysis, and the Customs department, in order to arrive at some basis on which to gauge the entry of this coal, agreed between the two nations that if coal went over six per cent of moisture, it would be considered as lignite. The result of that ruling was that there started up a trade in lignite coal going into Vancouver from the Bellingham mines in the state of Washington to the south, a trade that had never been thought of or contemplated, before. The coal for that purpose was analysed and it went 6.1 per cent of moisture, or just one-

The Budget-Mr. Neill
tenth of one per cent over the amount at which it would be allowed in free. At my suggestion last year the government had it analyzed again and it came to 6.7 per cent of moisture, bringing it apparently well into the lignite class. I submit, .however, it is not lignite and should not be so classified. I have in my hand a bulletin of the Washington Department of Conservation and Development in which they deal with these Bellingham coals and they distinctly say:
It is often referred to as lignite, but more properly it should be classed as a low grade bituminous coal.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: What is the percentage of carbon in the coal?


Alan Webster Neill: I have here an analysis, but it is defined merely as moisture, ash, F.C.- whatever that stands for,-and B.T.U.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the "F.C."?


Alan Webster Neill: It does not give the carbon apparently, but the moisture,content; the bulletin gives its moisture as well below six per cent, so that, in the opinion of the Washington Department of Conservation and Development, the coal should be classified, not as lignite, but as low-grade bituminous. Yet we are allowing it to come in as a lignite coal. I have also in my hand a statement showing the quantities that have come in. In 1923, the quantity of lignite coal that came into British Columbia from the United States was 2,331 tons and, in 1924, the trade had grown, owing to this favourable tariff regulation, to 25,763 tons. On the other hand, the benefit that we looked for has not taken place. The quantity of lignite coal going out of Alberta into the United States in 1923 was over 21,000 tons and, in 1924, it was only 12,302 tons. Therefore, for the sake of getting a sale of 12,000 tons of lignite from Alberta, we are sacrificing the British Columbia coal industry to the extent of 25,763 tons of lignite coming in from \V a^iington. And when I point out, as I have, that this is not really lignite but low-grade bituminous, I think it will be very proper for the government to raise the point of analysis from 6 per cent to 7 per cent moisture. That would cut out the imported coal coming into Vancouver and possibly prevent some of the lignite coal going from Alberta. But even if it did prevent it all it would be better to do so than to build up a trade which would be more antagonistic to British Columbia than beneficial to Alberta.
Turning now to another item of the budget, I would deal for a moment with the reduction of the duty on engines used in the pro-112i
pulsion of fishing boats. This is something that will be very acceptable to the fishing population of the Pacific, and no doubt to those on the Atlantic. The previous tax was 15 per cent on engines of British origin and 27| per cent on those coming from the United States, and that has been cut down to 10 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Coupled with the reduction in the sales tax last year, this represents a substantial saving to those who buy these engines. Taking the average price of one of these fishing boat engines, which probably would be $160, the total reduction in the duty now would represent a saving of something like $35.50 on each engine which is a substantial amount to a poor man buying an engine for his own use. I am also pleased to see the way in which these engines are now exempted from the sales tax. Last year the exemption provision read, "Gasoline engines to be used in boats, etc.", and that has been struck out now and the provision stated in a different form referring to item 453e. Hon. gentlemen will appreciate the significance of this when I say that many fishing boat engines do not use gasoline but distillate and coal oil. Diesel and semi-Diesel engines are coming into use now and they are using a low grade of crude oil, and under the change I Have indicated it will enable the sales tax to be taken off all these engines which are used for practically the same purpose. Heretofore they were not eligible under this class inasmuch as they did not use gasoline. These are practically all the tariff changes that affect my district.
I have been asked by a body of my constituents to urge upon the government the raising of the duty on eggs from 3 cents to 8 cents in order to make the Canadian duty equal to that imposed by our American friends.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought that would raise applause from my right. Well, that brings up the whole question of tariff on the one hand and low tariff on the other.


Mr. LADNER:: Does not the hon. member's judgment warrant his urging upon the government personally such an increase?


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member will wait a little I will reveal what my judgment is in the matter. As I -was saying, this opens up the whole question of tariff and low tariff. I have sat in this House for four years and I will undertake to say that sixty per cent of that time has been spent by members on both sides in an utterly fruitless, useless,
The Budget-Mr. Neill

unnecessary attempt to convince the other part of the House as to the merits of the tariff question. I do not propose to be led down that enticing but bewildering vista; I decline to be drawn into it. Our friends to the right, as they have just indicated, will applaud this request that I have just brought to the attention of the House, in the conviction that it will increase the price of eggs to the producer in British Columbia. On the other hand, no doubt, the low tariff men would say that an increase of that kind would raise the cost of living and also probably result in a reduced demand, and that in the case of an article of such common and universal use it would only require the individual householder to make a small restriction in their use to materially affect the demand, so that the reduced demand would so bring down the price that possibly the result would be no better than if the tariff had been left alone. I will leave the subject in that way without expressing any opinion. But I will say this, that the situation as regards the importation of eggs has been materially improved in the last few years. When this government came into power they found some measure of egg inspection but it was of such a weird character as to prove futile against the importer of foreign eggs, while it was a real 'nuisance to what we may call the domestic importer, that is to say, the person importing from one province to another. The government changed that system to make it apply to the importer of foreign eggs, whether from China or from the United States. I recall the investigations that took place at that time, when there was an enormous influx of Chinese eggs. I remember one shipment alone of 50,000 cases which were traced to Montreal and some to Ottawa. Since then, owing to the rigid enforcement of the system of inspection, the situation has greatly improved, and although it is a source of annoyance to some country storekeepers, the results in the main have been beneficial. In the first two years since the inspection system has been applied the importation of Chinese eggs in 1923-24 was absolutely nil. In this last year there has been an importation of some 75,000 dozen, of which 30,000 have been rejected. This will help to discourage their entrance and will also, I hope, tend to keep up the quality. As regards the importation of eggs from the American side, the figures are also son ewhat encouraging. In the year 1923 the importation of eggs in dozens from the United States was 8,256.000 and in the following year 6,454,000 while in the year ending March 23 last, only a week short of the year, 
the importation was only 2,429,000. It is apparent, therefore, that instead of becoming more acute the situation is rather improved. Now, for the consolation of my friends who can see only through one glass, namely protection, I would suggest another method of assisting our egg producers in British Columbia-and I know that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) will be peculiarly interested in the fortunes of egg producers seeing that he represents a city constituency. Here is -what I suggest as something that would materially help the situation. When the government bring down their policy in connection with the regulation of freight rates, if they will see to it that the exceedingly unjust discrimination that exists to-day in the freight on wheat from the prairies is done away with, it will be of great benefit to egg producers. When a farmer in the prairies ships No. 1 wheat, worth probably $2, to Vancouver and it is going to China or to Great Britain, he pays a rate on it of 22J cents a hundred, but if the same farmer ships No. 6 wheat which is worth perhaps only $1 he pays, or the consumer in British Columbia pays, a rate of 414 cents. Now, if there is any possible way of justifying such a discrimination I should like to hear it, for I have not found anyone who is prepared to defend it.


Mr. FORKE:: It exists elsewhere; the same discrimination exists in shipments from Winnipeg to Fort William.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member is prepared to sit down and see that injustice continue in Manitoba that is no reason why we should have it in British Columbia. I was pointing out that there is a discrimination of $3.80 a ton or $133 a carload, and it is claimed by the British Columbia Poultry Exchange- whose membership I do not know, although I know that it does not embrace all British Columbia-that there is a loss of $75,000 a year in connection with this one item alone. If the railways can carry 20,000 carloacfs of wheat at 21 cents per hundred-and I do not think it is denied that they carry it at a profit -surely they can carry 2.000 more at the same rate for local consumption in British Columbia, and so for once place the British Columbia farmer on a par at least with his Japanese and Chinese competitors or with the consumer in Britain. For it is when the wheat is exported, no matter where it goes, that the low rate applies; when it is used in British Columbia the high rate must be paid. If the government can adjust this matter it will be doing a lot for the egg producers of British Columbia, and it would not involve

The Budget-Mr. Neill
any tariff alterations. Certainly the present injustice, which cannot for a moment be defended, should be done away with.
There is another matter affecting British Columbia. I refer to the protection of the west coast,-I am not now talking about naval defence, but about protection against shipwreck and the like. I wish to congratulate very heartily the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) for the success of the development on the west coast of the direction-finding apparatus that he installed there some years ago. It is located at a point called Pachena. It was very carefully located, the men in charge are thoroughly efficient, and the apparatus appears to be of the very finest. The files of the government offices are full of letters of warm thanks from captains and shipping companies for the benefits they have secured from being able to receive the location of their ships by means of this apparatus, because the west coast where the station is located is a place where it is peculiarly easy for ships to go wrong; the currents are rather variable, at a certain point -navigators have to make a sharp turn to get into the straits, and at night time or in foggy or dull weather they are very liable to overrun their reckoning and be on the shores of Vancouver island before they know it. During the past winter there has not been a single wreck on that coast, which in itself is a tribute to the efficiency of the installation and to the efficiency of those in charge of it. I think it was last year that the Americans, who maintain two or three similar stations along their coast line, initiated a competition to see-which station would be most accurate in giving locations of vessels, and they warned their own stations that they were going to have this contest, but they did not warn the Pachena station, although they took it into the competition. In the result the Pachena station beat all the American stations in accuracy. I think its fraction of error was only something like three per cent over a long series of contests. That alone, I think, is a striking tribute to the efficiency of our Canadian staff.
In this connection there is another matter which I should mention, in the hope of obtaining further action. A couple of years ago the Minister of Marine and Fisheries installed at Bamfield for the four winter months a boat equipped with wireless that would be always available with steam up to go to the succour of any vessels in distress. It was an excellent idea and saved both shipping and human life. But the best boat available was one of the fishery patrol boats, and while, as I say, it did good work on several occasions, yet emergencies might easily have arisen to cope with
which that boat would have been absolutely useless, its insufficient breadth of beam and lack of power rendering it unsuitable for such operations. But still we were glad to get that boat. Now the government have for some years been subsidizing to a considerable amount a salvage company which keeps a salvage boat always under steam at Esquimalt in the vicinity of Victoria. But 'Esquimalt is too far away from the west coast; it is like having a fire apparatus for Ottawa stationed twenty miles out in the country. This company has had built at enormous expense a very fine type of boat; indeed it is the very last word in improvements for succouring boats in distress. That boat has been brought out to Victoria. Now, I would suggest that the government should pay the company a slightly larger subsidy for the purpose of having that improved boat kept at Bamfield during the four winter months, for there it would be of the very greatest service to west coast shipping. This boat is even superior to the American boat Snohomish which has been maintained for the same purpose by the United States authorities, and has long been our envy and admiration. It would be an inestimable boon to the west coast if the minister could see his way to give a little extra subsidy and have the boat stationed at Bamfield. Then it could be said indeed that we had a first class wreck protection service on the west coast.
Another item I would call to the attention of the government is in connection with our soldier settlers. The committee that reported on this last session recommended that there should be a flat reduction of sixty per cent and forty per cent on the stock purchased by these settlers in certain years. That portion of the report was concurred in by the House and by the minister, who specifically stated that he approved the proposal. I trust that that recommendation will be carried out. It is a good one, because we are all aware that the stock was purchased at too dear a price at that time and it would be no use trying to have a revaluation of it ito-day. Therefore a flat rate would be perfectly equitable to all and sundry, and I hope the government will carry out the recommendation this year. In fact they are almost pledged to do so. The other feature has to do with revaluation of the land. The committee's recommendation on this subject was left in abeyance, not being concurred in bv the House, but the minister assured us it was going to receive his consideration during the recess. Now, a flat rate of reduction on the value of all these lands would be absolutely useless, indeed I think it would be positively wrong, for this reason: There are a large number of farms on which no
The Budget-Mr. Neill

rebate is required at all; if they were revalued they would probably show a value higher than when bought. To give a flat rebate, it would have to be necessarily very small, perhaps ten per cent, which would be absurd, for it would be giving ito a large number of soldier settlers something they do not require, and on the other hand it would be denying 'justice to a number of other settlers who need assistance very badly. An average rebate of ten per cent would be of no use at all to this latter class, whereas if the rebate was confined only to those soldiers applying for it, of course they would not seek it if they thought the valuation of their property would be raised, and so the government could afford to give a reasonable rebate to those whose land was undoubtedly purchased at too high a price. When the Prime Minister and his party were in British Columbia last summer they did the Comox-Albemi district the honour of visiting it. We were very proud to see him and his party, and he was kind enough to give an interview to a deputation of these soldier settlers, and he was further good enough to go out and see for himself some of the uncleared bush land from which had been taken all the merchantable timber, leaving stumps running perhaps twenty or thirty to the acre and from three to four feet through, and which could not be cleared at less than $10 to $15 apiece; and in some cases the second growth has covered the land. The Prime Minister was told that that land was bought for the soldiers in the early days of their return at $45 an acre, but the current value of similar land alongside, both then and now, was between $5 and S7.50 per acre. It matters not now whether there was graft or mere mismanagement; there was a rush in those early days, and something had to be done in a hurry. Here is a case where an investigation should take place, and these men should get a substantial reduction on the original cost of their land. It may be asked: What is the use of always asking the government to spend money and then passing resolutions denouncing them for it. But this is not a case of spending money at all; it is a case of throwing out these people and then taking in others to fill their place to whom you will have to sell the land, not at the original price but at its present value. The original purchase money is gone; it was gone when whoever was in charge bought this land at six times what it was worth. It is now a question whether you are to throw out these soldier settlers and sell their land to other people-perhaps orientals-at its present value, and take the loss; or let these men stay on the land at its present value and (Mr. Neill.]
take the loss; the loss will have to be taken in any case. I would suggest therefore that it would be a very proper thing indeed for the government to go very thoroughly into this subject and have a revaluation of all the soldiers' land where required.
There is' another matter I would like to touch on, and that is the question of old age pensions. I was very much pleased to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) give notice that a committee would be re-appointed this year to deal with this matter. I trust that the personnel will be the same as that of last year, because we understand the subject and are in a position to deal with it easier than it can be dealt with by others starting afresh. The resolution that that committee brought down last year was a recommendation to the government to devise a scheme on a very modest scale of old age pensions, with the understanding that each province that wished to take it up would pay half the cost. The idea was that the provinces are now compelled to meet the whole cost of aid to destitute people, and although under the new plan they would pay half of the larger sum involved, they would probably pay no more in the long run than they are paying now, and the pension system would be a suitable one to all concerned. The question of destitute relief is getting acute in some of the provinces and this would be a method of dealing with it. I understand that the government consulted the provinces in the recess to find out what their attitude was, and I suppose the answer of the provinces will be submitted to this committee and I hope we will be able to arrive at some conclusion and make some recommendation to the government by which this question may be dealt with. It is an all-important matter; it is a phase of social reform in Canada that should be brought more to the front in the political programme of both parties in the near future.
Having talked to-day and last night for an hour and a half without mentioning the oriental question perhaps I may be permitted to refer to it now. I do not intend to discuss the principle involved; I consider that that was well defined in the resolution passed by this House in May, 1922. Public sentiment since then has crystallized into the belief that that resolution expresses the situation, not only as it was but also as it should be, in regard to governmental action. It is very brief; I will quote it for the sake of getting it on Hansard:
That, in the opinion of this House, the immigration of oriental aliens and their rapid multiplication is becoming a serious menace to living conditions, particularly on the Pacific coast, and to the future of the

The Budget-Mr. Neill
country in general, and the government should take immediate action with a view to securing the exclusion of future immigration of this type.
It was moved by a member of the government that the word "exclusion" be struck out and the words "effective restriction" be substituted therefor, which was done. But it was done with the assurance of several members of the cabinet that the words "effective restriction" would be held to mean, although for diplomatic reasons the idea was otherwise expressed, the same as exclusion. That was the resolution that was passed at that time, and it was strengthened by the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the debate on July 11, last year, in which he used this language-I will quote only one sentence:
If we find that we cannot get effective restriction in the manner I have described, the government will be prepared to consider any further restrictive measure which my hon. friend or his friends from British Columbia may bring to its attention.
Now, I wish to deal wdth the situation since, starting, as it were, from that resolution; with what has been done by the government to implement that resolution and that pledge, and what yet remains to be done. The government have done three things, which I will deal with individually, In the first place they passed the Chinese Immigration Act, which to my mind has been an unqualified success. I asked for returns the other day and I find that in the calendar year past practically no Chinese immigrants have come to Canada: only two members of the diplomatic service, two of their servants, no merchants, no students. Seventy-four came in under permit, which means that they may stay not longer than six months. Out of the seventy-four, thirty-five were Chinese actors under permit, and these were compelled to put up bonds to ensure their going out within the specified time. The rest of those who came under permit were of the classes that none could take exception to- clergymen and their wives, consular service and immigration agents; Chinese passenger agents, and so on. So it may well be held that this act has dealt effectively with the exclusion demand so far as the Chinese are concerned. I may say, too, that much of the success of it was due to the efficient manner in which the immigration officers administered the act. I have been to some trouble to check them up; I cross-examined them, almost, in the matter, and I am well satisfied that they are enforcing the act very rigidly, but still in a fair and reasonable spirit. I think it may also be said that the results in a political sense are highly satisfactory. There was a little friction at the time with the Chinese, but that has died out and I firmly believe there is a better feeling between Chinese and the white men in British Columbia than there ever was before. The Chinese know just exactly where they are, and what their limitations are. The white man, when he is brought in contact with the Chinaman by competition, is able to say: "Well, you are there, but no more of you will come in," and he is satisfied, so to speak, to leave the Chinaman where he is. So much for that phase of it.
Then, the second thing that the government have done in fulfilment of this pledge is to place restrictions upon orientals in the fishing industry. This is a subject that requires a little consideration. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier), I think, was speaking somewhere in Ontario the other day, and I saw in the paper that he made the comment that it was noticeable how the habit of " propagandering ", if that is the right word, has increased since the -war. We learned it during the war days, and, as he pointed out, every big industry, almost every large organization, now maintains a press agent for the purpose of disseminating propaganda. I had noticed that myself, and' I look upon it as a regrettable thing. I think it was much better in the old days when news *was collected by reporters, employees of the press. They were reliable, intelligent and unprejudiced men, and what they collected and prepared for publication was generally pretty nearly accurate. If it was left to them to-day it would be the same thing. But now the press agent sits in his office and writes out a dozen, yes, two or three dozen, little news items, varying them a little from time to time, and he sends a few of them out to this paper or that magazine at the last minute. The editor has usually no reason to suspect there is anything wrong with them. Perhaps the main idea of the article or news item is true, but it is skilfully perverted to educate the public along one particular line and to convince them that something is true which is not true-because that is the main idea of propaganda. Now, that has been done in this matter. There has been a very skilful and, I should imagine,

I hope so at any rate-well-paid propaganda in connection with these restrictions upon orientals in the fishing industry in British Columbia. It has been widespread; letters and telegrams have poured in to the minister, some from this angle, some from that angle, in order to concentrate upon him and to give the impression that there is a general feeling
The Budget-Mr. Neill

in British Columbia in connection with this matter. The idea is to show that the whole thing was a mistake; that it had misfired and should be corrected. But this is all propaganda; it is "bunk" of the plainest description. Any man with a printed letterhead that did not too plainly betray his connection with the Japanese, and who was unpatriotic enough to do it, was invited to write to the minister expressing his views. I traced some of these to their source and in almost every case I found that if they were not in the direct pay of the Japanese they were obliged to them in matters of business relations, and so on. There was another feature I noticed, too, in this white propaganda, so to speak: it was how wild their remarks were; how inaccurate their statements. The Japanese put in petitions of their own, but at least they knew what they were talking about and kept within the bounds of moderation in their arguments. But these men who did not know the first thing they were talking about simply let themselves go to please their oriental allies and made some of the most ridiculous statements you could imagine. The press was not lost sight of, either. Little news items were sent to this newspaper and to that; or articles occasionally appeared.' They were usually, however, in the form of letters to the editor, signed by "Tom Smith" or "Bill Jones". I was particularly impressed by one contributor *-I forget his name-who, in order to make good his case and to earn his money, in the course of a violent attack upon myself made the statement that he was able to produce individual Japanese who had done more for the progress and prosperity of British Columbia than the whole tribe of Neills from creation down. Mr. Speaker, I would like if I had time to get in touch with that gentleman. I admire the research he must have made to trace my pedigree back as far as that. So far as my family records go, I can only go back a couple of hundred years, when one of, my ancestors met a violent death. The democratic wing of our family says that he was hanged for sheep stealing, but the more aristocratic members claim that he was beheaded for intrusion into the politics of the day. We all know that at that time it was quite an honourable thing for a worn out politician to be beheaded; they had not discovered the Senate in those days!
I would like to point out, in justice to mj^self and also to other members, that this restriction on Japanese fishing in British Columbia is not the work of one member, or of two or three members, at all. and it did not originate entirely in British Columbia.
'Mr Neill.]
It was the recommendation of a commission -I have its report here, but I shall not read it

a commission composed of six members of parliament, of all political parties. Two of them came from the east, and so were quite untrammelled by our local prejudices; they saw things for themselves. And the resolution recommending this restriction was passed unanimously by the commission. Further than that-the members who came from the east are in the House and can bear me out- the conditions so surprised them, hit them so much harder than us who were used to them, that when we came to consider the restriction clause they were prepared to go much further than we were. They were prepared to make it a whole sweep of one hundred per cent, but we, knowing the local conditions, said: " No, let us go slow, and then we are likely to go further." But certainly that recommendation was not the idea simply of one or two members from British Columbia.
Now the only support of any importance, the only reputable support that this propaganda has received from what I might call any semi-public body, has come from the Canners' Association of British Columbia, and curiously enough, theirs is the only industry in British Columbia that has not suffered from direct competition with the Japanese. I hey have suffered from competition in London, because there the Japanese from Siberia compete with them with Siberia-put-up salmon; but the Japanese have no canneries in British Columbia, and so the British Columbia canners do not suffer from their competition there. There is no other class or industry in British Columbia that does not so suffer. The farms, the logging camps, the mines, even the stores and hotels, every class of industry in British Columbia, suffers from the direct competition of the Japanese, except the canning industry, and the canning industry is the only one demanding that this restriction be taken off the employment of Japanese. And they do not only ask it, they demand it, and they are emphatic in their demands. They go so far as to say: If this is not done, we shall have to shut down;-and when an industry with a capital of $11,000,000 invested in it uses language of that kind we can only conclude either one of two things, either that a really desperate situation exists which deserves investigation, or that some one is putting up a bluff on the people of Canada. Let us consider which of the two it is, for that point is worthy of consideration.
This commission to which I have made reference did not deal harshly with the cannery

The Budget*-Mr. Neill
men of British Columbia by any means. They recognized that they might be put to some loss, or to some inconvenience at least, by this restriction on Japanese, and they considered this in making their recommendations. For that and other reasons they made recommendations that there should be a material reduction in the taxes paid by the canners. The tax on purse-seines used to be S300; the tax on drag-seines at that time was $150; and the government's license on canneries was $500. The commission recommended that all these taxes be brought down to $20 each, and they were all so reduced. The government carried out our recommendation in that respect. Further than that, the commission recommended that the tax of one-half of one cent on each salmon caught in drag-seines, purse-seines and traps be abolished. You can imagine that with the enormous amount of salmon caught, a tax of even half a cent on each individual salmon would amount to a very big sum. The commission recommended that that tax be done away with, and that was done. So the commission did not deal harshly with the canning interests on that occasion.
Now let us deal with the results-not nebulous statements by people who do not know anything about the situation, vague statements that it is going to kill the industry, but cold, hard facts collected from the government returns, not prepared at my suggestion, but issued in the regular way.
I have here a statement of the total pack for the last four years:
Total Pack in Cases
1921		 603,548
1922		 1,290,316
1923		 1,341,677
1924		 1,745,313
This reveals the fact that the 1924 pack of canned salmon in cases was the largest of any year in the history of the industry, even larger than in the bumper year of 1919, just after the war, and which bumper pack was the result of a tremendous effort to stimulate production, and when everything that had a tail that could wiggle or a fin that could shake was jammed into a can and sold. Last year the output was greater than in any previous year. It was 30 per cent greater than in the previous year, it was 36 per cent greater than in 1922, and it rvas S7 per cent greater than in 1921. There is the record of this industry for the last four years-30 per 4 p.m. cent, 36 per cent, and 87 per cent greater than in 1921. You might say: Well, you might catch a lot of fish, and
the more you catch the more you lose. I have heard that statement made by the cannery men.


Mr. DUFF:: Was 1921 supposed to be the big year?


Alan Webster Neill: No, 1919. Here is an extract from a trade paper, the Pacific Coast Fisherman, dealing with the British Columbia salmon market. It is taken from its March issue this year.
The British Columbia market continues in very satisfactory shape. Bookings of new-pack sockeyes for Great Britain are already reported at between 75,000 and 80,000 cases, at $14 per case for Skeena and $15 for Fraser river goods; and the tendency of values is strongly upward.
These sales of new-pack sockeyes mean that they are contracting to-day, in March, for delivery of salmon that are still in the water, aind that will not be taken out of the water for four or five months yet, and that will not be on the market for eight or nine months to come. Yet they have already sold 80.000 cases, at a good price, and the prices are tending strongly upward. I go on with the statement:
The only danger seems to be that prices will be advanced too far above the level of Siberian goods, which would invite more competition from the latter. New-pack Pinks also are receiving considerable attention.
Now listen to this:
The only 1924 pack stocks remaining in first hands in the province are Chums, of which there are about 50.000 cases in strong hands. These are firmly held at about $4.25 per case.
I want the House to note that. Out of a total pack of 1,745,000 odd cases, only 50,000 remain in their hands at this season of the year, or less than three per cent. I have often known the canners to be obliged to go on packing their new pack with more than half of the old pack still on their hands; but here we find a situation entirely different. With a pack 87 per cent greater than it was three years ago; with a better price, a cleaned-up market, and selling already a considerable portion of next year's crop; with less overhead,-because, mind you, their contention is that with the lack of Japanese they could not get enough fishermen-and with the cannery license reduced, with the seine license reduced, and with the tax on salmon caught in purse seines abolished; with the industry in that condition they say: " Give us Japs or give us ruin."
Now the argument they use is that white men have not come into the industry in the same proportion as the Japanese went out- that is their whole argument-and that they have consequently suffered from the lack of efficient fishermen.
The Budget-Mr. Neill


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Has the hon. member ever seen an advertisement in any of the newspapers asking for white fishermen?


Alan Webster Neill: Never, and to tell the truth, I never expect to, and I see all the coast papers. Let me quote one of the subtle little news items:	,
Statistics show-
They are given to making statements they cannot bear out.
Statistics show that notwithstanding the heavy reduction-
These people have not signed this. It is just a news item and is all part of the propaganda-
-in the number of Japanese licenses in the past three years the number of licenses to white men and Indians has increased only eighteen per cent.
The Japanese reduction was forty per cent.
Canners claim that any further reductions in Japanese fishermen would compel them to apply for the privilege of using traps or to go out of business.
Let us examine that. I will quote some more government statistics. I have before me a statement prepared by the department in the usual course, of licenses issued in 1922 and 1924, before the forty per cent cut came in, and after. It shows the number of licenses issued to Japs in 1922 was 2,933; the number issued in 1924 was 2,241. Deducting the one from the other shows a reduction of 692 licenses in the two years. The number of licenses issued to w'hites and Indians in 1922 was 4,660, I am quite satisfied in including the two together, for the Indians have as much right to employment as we have, they are good citizens and spend their money where they earn it. I have in my hand a notice issued from Tokyo, Japan, which reads as follows:
Remittances home by Japanese working abroad are an appreciable offset to the country's adverse trade balance for the year 1924. For eleven months these have amounted to 33,800,000 yen.
Adding on the proportion for the odd month it comes to nearly twenty million dollars that goes home to Japan every year. I am justified in including the white men and the Indians in the same category.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that all from Canada?


Alan Webster Neill: No, it does not say what
amount is from Canada. It is from all different places. The number of white men and Indians who got licenses in 1922 was 4,660, and the number in 1924 was 6,402, showing an increase of 1,742. The total number of licenses

issued to everybody, whites, Indians and Japs, in 1922 was 7,593. The number issued in 1924 was 8,643, or an increase in the total of 1,050.
I want to explain a point there. While I have been adhering to the numbers given here I have been more than fair. People say a man can twist figures to suit himself, but I do not need to do that, because I have a strong case wdthout doing so, and I could use the actual figures and make a much stronger case than I am making, because no one who has not the local knowledge would be able to analyse the figures. But I have taken 468 off the 1924 licenses, because they referred to cod hook and line and grey fish fishing; they were not licensed in 1982 and they were licensed in 1924; therefore if I included them I would be giving an unfair advantage to my own case, so that I do not include them. The net result which I wish to show i3 that the total number of licenses in these two years increased-not decreased-1,050.	Thi
whites and Indians increased 1,742, while the Japs only decreased 692. Surely that does away with the argument that they are being handicapped by the redaction in the Japanese licenses, because they cannot get others to take their place, when not only have the total number increased, but the white men and Indians have increased to the number of 1,742, as against the Jap reduction of 692. But I have Pther figures here going into more detail.
The way the canners do their figuring is this: they take some isolated inlet, and show a reduction there and build up their argument, I am going to show the fallacy of that. Here is one district up north. The total numbei of licenses issued in that district has decreased 14.8, practically fifteen per cent. I admit that That is what they build their argument on They say the white men have not come in, to replace the Japanese. Not only did the white men not increase in that place but they went down thirty-eight per cent. The cut in the Japs in that place was forty per cent. But this return shows that the reduction of Japanese licenses was practically fifty per cent The reason is due to some local condition. Perhaps the salmon did not run that year, or a cannery was shut down. But the whole thing was reduced. If they had been short of men they would have employed their whole quota of Japs, but here they have not employed their whole quota, because the reduction is fifty per cent instead of forty. Here is the district in which they say the white man is going down. Certainly he is going down, because the law of supply and demand enters into it. Here is another case which was featured to the Minister of Marine and

The Budget-Mr. Neill
Fisheries. Take the district of Skeena. In that district they show the licenses had gone down 150, practically fifteen per cent. The number of licenses issued to white men last year in the Skeena was 248, which is an increase of fifty-six per cent. The Indian licenses increased six per cent and the Jap licenses went down forty per cent. The white man goes up fifty-six per cent, the Indian six per cent, the Jap goes down forty per cent and the question is asked, how could there be a reduction in the total? The reason i3 that the Japs outnumbered the white men in that district four to one, and that forty per cent reduction of the Japs came to more than fifty-six per cent increase of the white men. But in an industry where the wdiite men increased fifty-six per cent in two years, surely it cannot be said the white man is not coming in to take the place of the Jap.
There is .another reason I want to give why that reduction occurs, on the top of the reason I have given. That 1922 commission went all over the province and amongst other places we visited Skeena, and there the cannery men and managers came before us and said "We have too many boats on the Skeena". I must say that the cannery men almost entirely provide the gear, the boats, and some expensive nets and give them to fishermen, on shares, and the outlay is considerable. They said, "There are something like 1,100 boats and licenses on t'he river. That number is too many. We would like to go back to the old system of the exclusive privilege where the waters were allocated to the different canneries and each cannery got so many boat licenses." But the late government changed that policy, and this commission could not see their way to do anything different. However, by cutting down the number of Japs we did decrease the number of licenses on that river. The number went down from 1,100 to about 800, and what was the result? The result was that they caught more salmon with a fewer number of boats and with a largely decreased overhead expense. They found they had had too many boats and too much expense. The ruling of the commission in regard to the restriction in the Jap licenses was a perfect God-send to the canners because it enabled them to do what business jealousies had prevented them doing before. Formerly they would not cut down their overhead expenses; they all knew they had too many boats, but one man would not cut down the number of his boats for fear another man might perhaps catch a few fish more than he had. They would not stand for that. The result was that .they kept on this competition until they were on the verge of ruin. They found this was the case and this
reduction was satisfactory as they caught more .salmon at a smaller overhead cost.
But what happened in the next year? The reduction of 40 per cent was in 1923. There was no' reduction in the number of Japs in 1924. So, in 1924 the .cannery men got together and they said: "We have had an object lesson. This thing can be extended. We will agree to cut down the white licenses now because we have still too many." They made what is called a gentleman's agreement amongst themselves, and they cut down the number of boats which they would take at each cannery with the result that they still caught as many fish but naturally they did not employ as many white people. I vrant to quote just a sentence from two or three letters I have here on this subject. This is one from an Old Country fisherman, just out from the Old Country, who went around trying to find employment. I do not know him and will not vouch for him. He wrote to the Vancouver papers complaining of his troubles. I will quote only his last sentence which is this:
However, it is no business of mine to argue the matter, but I would like to question Mr. Rhodes' statement that there are no white men to take up the vacated licenses of the Japs.
Can he tell me why, to all my applications for a net at the different cannery offices in Vancouver, I have received the same reply as I did last year. Full up?
This is another letter from a man I can vouch for, a returned soldier. I know him well and his word is reliable. I quote this from his letter:
I wanted also to state that I was turned down cold at Rivers inlet for a fishing gear. My reason for telling you is because I have heard that there is some fool talk about Japs coming in as of old, on account of a shortage of white men. I happen to be only one of the white men who were refused this past year. British Columbia Packers, Bell Irving and Gosse Millard canneries are the ones I tried. That includes five canneries on Rivers inlet. That was as many as I thought likely and had been told by different parties the others were full up. If I had been a green hand I wouldn't have minded so very much, but I have fished on River's inlet since 1919 and also before I was in the army. Being a British subject is the biggest farce ever pulled as far as fishing goes.
This is the complaint of two practical, white fishermen as to their trouble, that they could not get gear because the canneries had very naturally decided not to employ as many as before. I am sorry the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in his seat, but I think I see the minister without portfolio, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin), and he will recall in Vancouver, before a delegation of the cannery men who interviewed him, that I gave this explanation of the situation on the Skeena river; that I invited contradiction if my statements were contrary
The Budget-Mr. Neill

to the facts in any way and that I received no contradiction. I will give the real reason why the cannery men prefer the Japs. The reason is two-fold and very natural too. One is that the Japs are much more convenient to deal with. The white men are unfortunately not amalgamated; the cannery men cannot deal with them in a body. They ought to be amalgamated. But the Japs are; the cannery man sends for the boss Jap, and in a few hours he can complete the whole arrangements for his season's work. He says to the boss Jap: "I want so many Japs for fishing licenses. I want so many to work in the canneries. I want so many to make a contract to fill the cans and pack them," and so on, and that is the end of his troubles for that year. The boss Jap attends to all the rest. If a Jap dies or disappears, the white employer never hears about the event. Another one is put at once in his place. This saves the cannery man a great deal of trouble, I quite admit. The other reason is that the Japs are probably Cheaper, in this way. The white man demands better accommodation. He will not live in a shack let alone permit his wife to live in one, as the Japs will. A Jap and his wife and eight or nine children will live in one small shack and be quite happy under sanitary conditions that a white man would not tolerate. I well recall the surprise on the faces of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) when they went into a cannery one day and saw Japanese women, with babies from three weeks to nine months old strapped on their backs, putting up the salmon in cans. We were used to this, but it was a revelation to them.


William Duff: I sent the babies home.


Alan Webster Neill: People in the east say: It is a funny thing that virile white men cannot compete with the Japanese in British Columbia. That and similar reasons are why we cannot. We do not want to subject our women and children to living under such conditions of life and work. For that reason, it is naturally cheaper for the cannery men to employ Japs because their quarters are much cheaper in that regard.
The cannery men are primarily interested in getting Japs 'back to use gill nets. They are not at all interested in the herring branch of the industry. There are 1,179 Japs who got gill net licenses last year. They are all allocated to different canneries pro rata. There are something like sixty-five canneries, so that they would average from nineteen to twenty Japs to each cannery. They do

not always get that number, but that is an average and the department is proposing this year to impose a further restriction on these Japanese of only 15 per cent. Fifteen per cent out of nineteen or twenty comes to less than three, but we will call it three. That is the extent of the trouble and embarrassment that is proposed to be imposed upon these canneries-to replace this year three more Japs with three white people. The canning industry supports, it is said, 17,000 people in British Columbia. We ask to cut down these gill net workers by 180 this year, or only three to each cannery, and that is what all the trouble and fuss is about, all this propaganda and talk of ruin of the canning industry, because of employing three fewer Japs in a cannery on an average and three more white men. I have more data that I could give that would be illuminating, but I will not give it now because I think I can contend that the cannery men have not made out a good case for the increased use of the Japanese.
These cannery men, as I quite admit, have their own troubles. I believe they are oppressed by a case tax which, I think, is too heavy, and I would also like to see the sales tax taken off, not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of all the working people, because canned salmon is the poor man's food. I have, time and again, urged and I will again in the future urge that change on the government, particularly a reduction of the case tax which is very unjust to the cannery men. I would be delinquent in my duty as a representative even from the district, let alone from the province, if I did not do everything I could to advocate the interests of the canning industry and of these same cannery men about whom I have been talking. I realize they have an enormous investment. As regards their business and the employment they give, their industry is of the greatest importance. I do not minimize in the least the consideration they ought to get; I am prepared to support them in every legitimate manner, and I have done so as the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) knows. But there is such a thing as being fair to both sides, and the cannery men should recognize that they owe something to the people of British Columbia by trying to help to make this industry a white man's one in years to come.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman has made out his case against the cannery men, but in the representations which some of us have received, the question is not so much

The Budget-Mr. Neill
of keeping the Japanese out of the province or out of one industry, as, having excluded them from one industry, what is to become of them? The representations which I have received are that the government, by interfering with the business in the hardships of which they naturally engage, are forcing these men to go into some other industries more congenial to white men, such as the growing of small fruits, and I have communications from various sources complaining that the government are driving them out of the fishing business; driving them off the high seas and forcing them into the more congenial atmosphere of the small-fruit business. The hon. member made a considerable study of the question and other hon. gentlemen would be interested to know his views on this point: the Japanese being in the province, where will legislation cease in directing their activities?


Alan Webster Neill: I should hardly like the
hon. member to leave the impression that I had made out any case against the cannery men; I am here simply to say that they have not made out their case so far as the restriction is concerned. As regards the other points to which the hon. member has alluded, I shall deal with them shortly. But I will say that I, too, have received suggestions that these men are being driven into the berrygrowing business, but I have traced the allegation to its source in one instance and I find that it does not come from the berry men themselves but from a paid lawyer of the Japanese. And that naturally vitiates to a great extent any weight it might have. It is all very well to contend that they should not be allowed to compete with the berry growers, but that objection should come from the berry growers themselves and not from the Japanese; otherwise it loses all its force. It is like the man who went to the council of a certain town and put up a strong plea to have the place made a horseless town. The town council were much impressed but the representation lost a good deal of its weight when it was discovered that this man was the garage owner in the town. The same principle applies in this case. Let us wait until the berry men complain and then I will pay more attention to the representations that are then made. I want to be sure, not that the man who is making those reresenta-tions is speaking on behalf of the berry men but that the berry men are actually complaining themselves; I want the berry men's
O.K. to the complaint.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Although the hon. member has not ascertained the facts himself, he must
know that if you take five hundred or a thousand Japanese from the fishing industry they must find work somewhere else. My question is, how does he propose to handle that phase of their activities?


Alan Webster Neill: I shall deal with that question later. As regards the herring business, that is in the hands of a totally different class of .people. I may observe here that they do not can herrings to any great extent out there; they dry-salt the fish in a very primitive way. The herring packers were told last year that they would have to employ twenty-five per cent of whites or Indians in their crews on the seine -boats on the east coast of Vancouver island. On the west coast for nearly ten years all the employees on herring seines have been white men and no disaster has occurred. I can recall the time the Japanese were taken off the salmon seines some years ago; they were removed one hundred per cent in a single season, and although disaster was prophesied nothing untoward happened. In the present case the trouble arises from the fact that the Japanese have been told that twenty-five per cent of their employees on the herring seines on the east coast of Vancouver island must be white men or Indians. There has been some propaganda in that connection but I shall not delay the House to discuss it. However, the Japanese sent in two petitions in that regard both of which I have studied with considerable care. The stuff that I got from some of the white men I threw into the wastepaper basket as being unworthy of consideration; they were talking nonsense. But the Japanese put up a reasonably worded plea and I gave it all the attention it deserved. They stressed two main contentions, the first of which was that only Japanese could, fish profitably in this particular spot on the east coast of the island. They stated that there was a place where the tide ran so strong that it called for the greatest skill in handling the boats. There was a frequent change in the tide, one current below another, and that it was impossible for anyone to man a boat there unless he had thorough experience as a fisherman. It was stated further that the bottom was rocky and required very skilful and experienced men. And so on. At this particular place which it is said is so exceedingly difficult to navigate, a spot called the Gap in the constituency of my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), there is never any very great catch; some years they have taken no more than fifty tons per net in the whole season. So that it would not much matter if that place were eliminated. Now, I admit that in these particular waters, as in every
The Budget-Mr. Neill

industry, experienced men are required. But the point with which I take issue is the implication that white men or Indians cannot be taught to fish in this spot or anywhere else. The Indian has been all his life more or less on the water and there is no reason under the sun why he should not gain experience enough to handle boats here or anywhere else. Is there some peculiar fetish about that one particular spot in all the wide world that white men cannot learn to fish there? That is the Japanese argument and it falls to the ground the moment it is stated. The fact is, of course, that the Japanese employers do not want to get rid of their countrymen, and last year they complied with the law nominally; twenty-five per cent of their employees were white men. But they took these men on and never gave them any opportunity to get into the hang of handling the nets under these particular conditions. White men in a similar situation would have looked to the future and seen to it that the inexperienced fishermen should learn to handle the nets so that the following year they might be able to do the work properly. But the Japanese did not do that; they kept these white men on the pay roll in order nominally at least to comply with the law while their Japanese countrymen continued fishing. They were able therefore to say to the fishery officer, "We have tried the white men and they have proved a failure". And naturally the white men failed under those conditions; they were not given a chance to acquire the local experience. I want to quote a few sentences from a letter I received from a man who gave evidence before the Fisheries Commission over which my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) so ably presided,-and I remember that the hon. gentleman as chairman of the commission commented on the intelligent way in which this man had given his evidence. He says:
Enclosed please find clipping from a Vancouver paper.
The clipping reads:
The weight of evidence shows-
And there is no weight of evidence at all.
-that neither whites nor Indians can handle herring nets successfully on the rocky east coast of Vancouver island, it is stated.
This correspondent goes on to say:
I enclose clipping which is an outrage and entirely untrue, and no doubt you will agree when you read it. It practically says that a white man or Indian don't know or cannot catch herring by the purse seine method on the east coast of Vancouver island. Well, sir, for your information I would say that the white man taught the Jap how to catch herring there many years ago, and myself was one of those that they learned from by watching us. And also in regard to the new

law passed last June making it compulsory for the salteries and seine owners to use 25 per cent whites or Indians: it is a good law and will ultimately give back to the white fishermen and Indian that which they have been gradually edged out of for years. I have been identified with the fisheries over 35 years on this coast and am absolutely fed up with the way the white man has been edged out of his inheritance, namely, the fishing industry of British Columbia and compelled to go to the States to get a living on account of the Japanese. We want that law pertaining to herring fishing and salting left just as it is. Give the white fisherman a chance and he will soon show them whether he can catch the fish or not.
I have also a telegram which I should like to read. I wrote to a man, sending him a copy of the Japanese petition asking for his opinion. This is his answer:
B.C., 30-31 March, 1925.
A. W. Neill, M.P.
Sir, your letter just been read to me over the wire am on my way fishing will be gone two weeks can contradict all statements made by Japanese and supply proof we have fished salmon successfully in those very waters under the same conditions I will write full statement upon return.
This I think answers the contention that they cannot use whites or Indians; they can. The other contention has somewhat more weight: it is urged on behalf of the boss men or packers, not the individual fishers; it is said that they were the pioneers and it is unfair to freeze them out. That is an argument that appeals to any white man. I considered that carefully too, but it is untenable, in this regard: we are not seeking to drive out Japanese capital; we are not seeking to drive them out of the business at all. In fact, we are quite willing they should remain. It is true they cannot get individual herring net licenses in their own names, but they can do what a good many of them have already done -form a company with a few white men at the head and by mortgage or some other control continue in the business. All we ask is that they employ white men. That is not an unreasonable request. On the west coast they have employed for years all white men on these herring boats owned by Japanese, these boats taking their fish into Japanese plants. So there is no trouble in that respect.
Another contention they made was that they are best qualified to deal with this trade, that it is in a way peculiar to them because they understand the oriental market and handle the trade over there. I want to explain that. The market for these herrings is not in Japan at all,-if it is it is for a very small amount; the ultimate market is in China, principally in southern China, and these Japs ship the herrings over to Japan, I suppose, and tranship them to China. In reply to the implication that if we interfere with them too much we may lose this very important business, let

The Budget-Mr. Neill
me quote a telegram which I received the other day from a government official:
Student class in southern China prevent any dried salt herring of Japanese origin being marketed there, and correspondence and newspaper despatchs from Orient mention destruction of shipment suspected of Japanese origin.
When they find there any of this dry-salted herring coming in which they suspect of being handled by the Japanese they take it out and burn it. I have an extract from a letter written by a Chinese merchant to his agent in Vancouver, expressing the same idea. He practically says: For heaven's sake don't let it be known they are handled by Japanese. Let me quote one or two sentences:
In case you cannot secure space of direct steamer you should tranship the goods to us either through Hongkong or Shanghai. This commodity should not be shipped in a Japanese steamer as we do not like its name appeared in the bill of lading and other documents.
In order to remove suspicion, we wish you to mark the boxes according to the sample which we sent you on July 5, 1924. It should be also marked "origin of Canada" on the box. The seal of the government should be used if possible.
We believe that you will be pleased to help us from difficulty. We wish you to write a letter to the British Consul and ask him to remove the difficulty or suspicion *of your product as Japanese goods. The Chinese officials and the chamber of commerce should be made to understand that the fish is a Canadian product not Japanese product.
It is evident that the ultimate market for this commodity is in China. The Chinese merchants are willing to buy it from white men, and they are very much afraid that any shipment should be suspected of being of Japanese origin. So I do not think we need put much weight on the Japanese contention that the market may be lost if they do not get the privileges they are asking for.
Now I come to the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), the argument advanced by the Japanese, that these men who will be taken out of the fishing industry will go into the berry industry.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not wish it to appear on record that the Japanese have advanced this argument to me. The argument has been advanced by people interested in the fruit and other industries. They say that already the Japanese who are being driven out of the fishing industry are crowding into these other industries. What solution does the hon. member suggest for this trouble?


Alan Webster Neill: I entirely disclaim any suggestion of making a personal reference to the hon. member. My mind was so full of the correspondence I have received that I was applying it to these correspondents and not
in any way reflecting on the hon. gentleman himself. I have no doubt that he has letters of the character he indicates. Now I want to deal with that argument. I have heard it stated that some of the Japanese have gone north to Siberia to engage in fishing there. I do not know what weight may be attached to the statement, but I think practically little. I am willing to admit that most of these Japanese must find other occupations. But there are 60,000 orientals in British Columbia, and taking 200 out of the salmon industry each year is not going to create any particular hardship when they are spread over the 60,000 engaged in other industries. What is of far -more importance is the constant importation of orientals. The restrictions do not run quite so high in number as he thinks, but what is the use of restricting a couple of hundred from the salmon industry if the Japanese are coming in by their thousands every year? There is where the leakage is, and that is where we want to stop it. But I want to deal with that point still further, and to draw particular attention to the first two paragraphs of a resolution passed by the British Columbia legislature. The resolution itself is a long one and I will ask permission of the House to place it on Hansard. I think it may be fairly stated that when the legislature of any province passes a resolution lit pretty well represents the provincial point of view on the subject matter dealt with. This is the most drastic anti-oriental resolution that I ever saw the British Columbia legislature pass, and I have seen them pass a good many in years gone by.
Therefore be it Resolved. That this House go on record as being utterly opposed to the further influx of Orientals into this province, and further, that this House places itself on record as being in favour of the enactment of such amendment to the "Immigration Act of Canada," as is necessary to completely prohibit Asiatic immigration into Canada.
Be it further Resolved, That this House is also of the opinion that the field of industrial and commercial activities of all Orientals now in Canada, particularly British Columbia, should be restricted by legislation.
And be it further Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that he cause a copy of this Resolution to be transmitted to the Hon. the Secretary of State or other proper official at Ottawa, for presentation to His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
Be it further Resolved, That the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to grant adherence on the part of Canada to no treaty or binding international obligation in any form whatsoever having the effect of limiting the authority or power of Provincial Legislatures in respect of the regulation of social and industrial activities within the provinces; and, further that the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to forthwith take the action necessary to bring about the denunciation of any and all treaties in so far as the terms and provisions of the same have the effect of
The Budget-Mr. Neill

depriving the Dominion of Canada of the power of regulation, control and prohibition of Asiatic immigration?
You see, they recognize the continuance of this restrictive policy in all lines of business. This resolution was passed by the British Columbia legislature on December 17 last, and I want to point out the peculiar conditions of the vote. If you look at the records of the British Columbia House, you will find that something hatppened which I never heard of before in any legislature in the world. There was a vote forced-we know how that is done-and the vote as it appeared was 43 yeas; against, nil. A number of people all of the same mind, 43 of them, forced a vote in order to have it recorded that they were there and voted in that way. The journals of the House go on record that there were three members absent, and they named those men, bringing the -membership up to 46; there was one member deceased, and there was the Speaker in the -chair, these accounting -for the complete membership of 48. It shows the determination of those men to get themselves on record when they compelled a vote on a matter in regard to which there was no opposition. I think you will find the politician in British Columbia always has his ear to the ground and knows what his constituents at home think about the matter. I also draw attention to the fact that those -members were in (favour of further restrictions at that time. Still it may be held that I have not completely answered the objection of the hon. member for Vancouver South in regard to the berry growers. Perhaps he -will accept the evidence of the berry farmers themselves. On February 17 and 18, 1925, the United Farmers of British Columbia met at Revelstoke and passed -a lon-g resolution, which I want to place on Hansard:
Whereas the Oriental population in B. C. is estimated at 60,000 owning or leasing 26,000 acres of land, and if allowed to continue uncontrolled will surely soon force the remaining white vegetable growers off the land, and in so doing strike at the very base of the structure of the white population, and
Whereas the refusal of the Orientals, excepting the majority of the Japanese, who are good co-operators, although supplanting white people on the land, to join the co-operative marketing organizations on the success of which the best hopes of the vast majority of the white fruit and vegetable growers are centred, nullifies the efforts of these organizations, and
Whereas in fishing, lumbering and retailing and many other lines of business they are, by industry and pricecutting, ousting white competitors living at Canadian standards, and
Whereas it is estimated that Orientals export to their home countries through banks and post offices $16,000.000 annually, thus robbing Canadian trade, and
Whereas a homogeneous and not a dual population is in the best interests of Canada, both for strength of the nation in war and its institutions in peace.

Therefore, be it resolved by the delegates of the United Farmers of B. C. in convention at Revelstoke, February 17 and 18, 1925, that they support the resolution on exclusion of Orientals sent to Ottawa by the B. C. government, and earnestly urge the prohibiting of the owning or leasing of land in Canada by Orientals, and the passing of such further legislation as will tend to eliminate Orientals from competitive business in Canada.
I would direct the attention of hon. members to the concluding paragraph. Far from wanting this restriction on Japs cut out, they want it extended, and they say, "Eliminate orientals from competitive business." Further, they want the same principle extended to the holding of agricultural land in Canada. I think that goes far enough. Vv hat they want is the same restriction as was passed in California, a law prohibiting orientals from owning or leasing -land for agricultural purposes. That of course is a provincial -matter, and I only quote -it to show that the United Farmers of British Columbia are not unwilling to restrict oriental participation in the fish industry; only they wa-nt the restriction applied to them further.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the hon. member
made any inquiry as to the right oi a province to pass such legislation, in view of the existence of the Japanese treaty?


Alan Webster Neill: That, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat beside the subject, and I am taking up a good deal of time, but I suppose I am in order to answer. Yes, I have made investigations in that regard, and I believe it would be entirely intra vires of -the province to pass such legislation. Here is the Japanese treaty referred to; section 4 says:
They-
That is, nationals of either race.
-shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories. . . . and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes, in the same manner as native subjects.
It has been held by legal luminaries that that extends to the buying or leasing of land for any purpose of business, factories and so on. The next section is the one which I think applies to agricultural land. It says:
They shall, on condition of reciprocity, be at full liberty to acquire and possess every description of property.
And so on. I would call attention to the words "on condition of reciprocity." That is to say, "You can do what we do." Now, the Japanese law does not allow a white man to lease or own land for agricultural purposes in Japan, though he may do so for industrial purposes. So that it is thoroughly competent for us, since they do not allow us to do it,

The Budget-Mr. Neill
to prevent their doing it in British Columbia.
I took this point up with one of the best legal advisers of the crown here, and he expressed the opinion that the point was well taken. He said it could not be finally decided, however, until appeal was taken to the Privy Council and he suggested I should try to get some local interest in British Columbia stirred up in the matter. I am glad to say that I have interested one of the local members of the riding I represent and he has promised to bring the matter up in the British Columbia legislature at the next sitting. I have taken too long, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this matter, but I wanted to show that these restrictions, which were applied on the recommendation of an impartial commission, were conceived in wisdom and have been carried out with fairness and moderation and without doing injury to any industry.
I said earlier in my remarks that I wanted to deal with the record of the government in this regard, and I was pointing out what the government had done in fulfilment of the resolution and the pledges they gave. I said they had passed the Chinese Immigration Act, which is all to the good and most successful. I said they had passed the restrictions to which I have referred, and which are good so far as they have gone. The third thing they have done is to reduce the quota. Now, there is a clause in the gentleman's agreement-I have it here, but I shall not bother reading it-that says that not more than 400-at that time-agricultural labourers or domestic or personal servants shall be allowed by the Japanese government to come into Canada per annum. The quota, it will be noted, applied to these two classes only. Last year the government of the day cut that number down to 150, but unfortunately the door is still wide open for some classes other than these two, such as women and children, and families, to come in practically without any limitation. I shall not waste the time of the House in debating this subject. It is almost an established fact that in that regard the gentleman's agreement is now at any rate a failure. And I may say that while I was praising the officials a moment ago for the manner in which they handled the Chinese Immigration Act, I cannot say the same as regards the Japanese. They seem ito look upon Japanese immigration, coming, as it does, under the gentleman's agreement, as something that does not interest them. I do not know that they even have a copy of the gentleman's agreement, and they do not seem to understand its vague provisions very clearly. At any rate they do not seem to pay the 113
regard to its enforcement that they have given to the restrictions under the Chinese Immigration Act. Last year the quota was put at 150. The returns I got in the House the other day show that 146 came in, but that is not the whole story. If I took the time I could show that on the face of it at least 37 of the 146 came in illegally. But what is the use of arguing about that when 262 women came in, and one or two more hundreds in the way of families? Boys of seventeen, as many as you like, can come in-and you cannot tell whether a Jap boy is seventeen or twenty-one-under the guise of being members of families. A Japanese boy can say: "lama member of the family of so and so that was here twenty years ago," and he has to be admitted. So I shall not take the time to deal with that phase of the subject; there is no doubt the condition is far from satisfactory.
Now, these are the three things that the government have done. They have all been good, and they have constituted a wide departure from the record of previous governments in this regard. But I hope the government wiil not think me ungracious when I say that while these provisions are good, they are not enough. The people of British Columbia have become aroused. This propaganda has attracted attention and ha's created a sort of reaction. The people are beginning to sit up and take notice; they are saying they want these things looked into; they demand action. I have numerous telegrams and letters, but I shall refer to but two of them. Here is one from The Native Sons:
We look for definite action on Japanese immigration at the present session.
That is the key-note of their demand- action; action this session. Here is another one from 607 Canadian women meeting in Vancouver-I am glad to see the women of Canada interested in this subject. They say, "Enthusiastically endorse stand," and they demand that during the present session action be taken. That is the key-note of them all. They refer back to the resolution of 1922 and to the assurance given us on July 11 of last year by the Prime Minister, and they ask that action be taken.
Now, as regards a method, I will suggest one simple method for the consideration of the government. It would be quite easy. Any Japanese coming to Canada has to have a passport signed by a Japanese official in Japan; that, I believe, is the law to-day. All that is needed, therefore, is a small addition, one more regulation by agreement with the Japanese government, to the effect that when

The Budget-Mr. Neill

a Japanese arrives in British Columbia he must produce a passport not only signed by the Japanese official in Japan but also vised by the Canadian consul there as well, with the understanding-the latent understanding, if you like-that the Canadian official is never to put his vise on it. There is the thing in a nutshell. It would have the advantage of not requiring legislation. It would save the face of the Japanese; there is precedent for it; it could not be called offensive; they could agree to it, you might say, in an informal manner, and there would be no need for the strong terms employed by the United States which gave so much offence to the Japanese. If something of that kind were passed I believe it would absolutely meet the case. One addition, perhaps, that I would suggest to it would be this: If possible some system of registration should be adopted such as we had when the Chinese Immigration Act came into effect. When the Chinese registration was being carried out it was discovered that 25 per cent more Chinamen were in Canada than there should have been according to the records. I do not say we should do that with regard to the Japanese with any idea of making trouble for those who are now in Canada; I would leave them at liberty, but I would use it to prevent smuggling, to which there would be great temptation following the making of any such provision as I have suggested.
Now is the time, as never before, for action, and I believe I am speaking in the interest of Japan as well as of Canada when I say so. It is not wise to wait until there is a flaring up of public opinion, like there was in the United States, and then to pass, in a moment perhaps, some drastic measure of exclusion which the Japanese would consider of an insulting character. It should be explained to them quietly and determinedly that if they will not agree to some measure of effective restriction of this character, then they must expect that sooner or later we will follow in the footsteps of the United States. Other nations are tightening up in the matter of oriental immigration. I have been in communication with other dominions and other countries and I find that increasingly the case. In Africa, where the conditions are much worse than here, long-years ago the situation got so bad that they absolutely excluded any oriental immigration. But they have come to the stage now where they have a system of what they call voluntary repatriation. The Asiatic problem there is not Japanese, but has to do with the natives of India. They have a system by which in some provinces particularly those in which IMr. Neill.]
the orientals are so numerous that they outnumber the white people, they say to any Indians who want to go home to India: "We will pay your fare from the centre of Africa, if need be, to the point of embarkation. We will pay your steamship fare to India. We will pay jrnur railway fare to even the most remote part of India when you get there, and when you have arrived at your native village we will give you 850 in cash, and our blessing." That has been in force some years. The official who wrote me that remarked dryly that they had almost arrived at the limit of the success of that plan. They had repatriated as many as would go voluntarily, and there was talk of making it compulsory in the future. There is the situation we are coming to if we do not take time by the forelock.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an election in the air; I can smell signs of it. This is the period in the life of this parliament, as in all parliaments, when it becomes good politics for an independent party or an independent member to attack the government. The time is arriving when not much more can be expected from the government in the way of needed legislation or government grants-and it is always popular to attack a government anyway. If a member is independent and supports the government, of course he is called a truckler, if he opposes it he is called a patriot, and they say that is a sign of his sincerity. Sometimes it is; sometimes it is only a sign of his moral weakness. I recall the case of a magistrate who told me that he had a case before him in which his brother was concerned, and he said that he had given the decision against his brother, although he thought he was in the right, because he did not want to be accused of favouring a blood relation. He thought by that he showed his independence and his courage. I thought he showed his cowardice and moral weakness. It was just as bad to be afraid of popular opinion as to be influenced by his domestic relation. I could follow in the footsteps, perhaps, of the Progressive party when they moved an amendment the other day expressing their opinion of the government. I have it here, and it is a very drastic expression indeed. Of course it was out of order, but if I believed that the government of this day were as bad as this represents them to be, I think I would long ere this have been actively engaged in some line of action calculated to overthrow them. I could very easily draw up an amendment with the knowledge that you will rule it out of order, Mr. Speaker, and that it would not unduly embarrass the

The Budget-Mr. Duff
government. I could outline in that amendment a number of policies that would be very popular in my district, and could add a fiery denunciation of the government for not carrying them out. In that way I might obtain some cheap publicity for the moment among a few unthinking people. But the bulk of my constituents are not unthinking people, they are hard-headed, clear-thinking people, and I do not think they would fall for that sort of thing. They are not interested in long-drawn-out, fine-spun debates of theories and academic questions. They are not easily caught by claptrap oratory.


Robert Forke: You have spoken for three
hours now.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman says I
have spoken for three hours. Would he inform my ignorance as to how the remark is applicable?


Robert Forke: You mentioned long-drawnout debates.


Alan Webster Neill: I said long-drawn-out debates of fine-apun academic theories, such as I have heard so often from- his side of the House. That is a very different proposition. I do not think any hon. member who has heard me- and I have not spoken three hours; the hon. gentleman might at least be accurate when there is a clock right in front of him-I do not think any hon. member who has heard me will say that I have gone into any academic lines of thought. I have not been debating whether the French should get out of the Ruhr or whether the government should have expressed their opinion on the Seven-power treaty. I have been dealing with matters of practical concern to the men and women of British Columbia and of the district I represent. To go back to my constituents-if my hon. friend will allow me to deal with them a little longer, and after all they are mine, not his-I find that my friends in Comox-Albemi suffer from what I might call a measure of political astigmatism in that they can see only one thing, and that thing is- Results, and it has to be spelled with a great big R. But when they do see results, I will say this for them; they have the good sense to recognize those results and the wisdom to appreciate them.
Now, instead of condemning the government for not acting as quickly as I and other members from British Columbia would like them to have acted in the matter of oriental exclusion, I am going to take a chance on the government and say that I believe they and more particularly the Prime Minister, are
sincere in this matter. I believe that he will at this session carry out the mandate given by the resolution of 1922, emphasized by the assurances he gave us in the debate of last July. If they take action in some form along the lines I have indicated, but not on the lines of an extension of what I might call the elusive possibilities of the "gentleman's agreement", for that would not be satisfactory -if they will take action along the practical lines I have suggested, then in that event, and in that event only-and I must emphasize that -for the time has gone past for promises and action is required now-the people of British Columbia I am firmly convinced would recognize that the government had done a great thing for our province, a thing that would be of more and more benefit as time goes on; and then in that event, and in that event only, I believe the people of British Columbia would show their appreciation of the government's action by the way they would cast their votes at the polls in the next election.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) on the excellent address which he made not only this afternoon but last evening. Whilst I agree with what he said about the fishery situation in British Columbia, I find myself not in entire agreement with his remarks last night in regard to what should be done in the defence of our shores, both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. However, I am sure that the hon. gentleman was sincere in his opinions with regard to the defence of the sea coasts of this country, and consequently I am not going to raise any objection at this late hour to what he said in that connection.
With regard to the fishery situation in British Columbia-and the hon. member for Comox-Albemi deserves the congratulations of this House for the able manner in which he presented his opinions-I, as chairman of the commission which went out to British Columbia some two or three years ago and made some recommendations to the government, should like to say a few words with regard to the other gentlemen who were on that commission. Being chairman, my whole duty was to sit in the chair and see that the other commissioner's kept order; it was these other gentlemen who did the work, Mr. Speaker, and I have very much pleasure even at this late date in saying that the commission, comprised of five other members besides the chairman, did good work for the fisheries of British Columbia, and I might add that it cost only about half as much as any other
The Budget-Mr. Duff

commission which investigated fishery conditions in that province.
Now may I deal for a few minutes with the budget and with matters which have been taken up during the debate. The only matter with which I intend to deal is in regard to what the government has endeavoured to do for the province of Nova Scotia, and the announcement which the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) made in that regard in presenting his budget. In this budget, Sir, the government in a very practical way has endeavoured to show the people of Nova Scotia that it is in sympathy with them, and the legislation which was introduced by the government with regard to the coal industry of this country,-and of course this applies to the coal industry in other provinces of this Dominion as well as Nova Scotia-certainly deserves from this parliament and the people of this country the highest commendations they can give. It will be remembered, Sir, that not only this year, but last year, the government tried to do something for the province of Nova Scotia. Last year this House voted the sum of S200,000 towards reducing the freight rates on coal, so that Nova Scotia coal could be taken to the 5 p.m. markets of upper Quebec and Ontario. The people of Nova Scotia Were able to take advantage of that grant made by the government to the extent that Nova Scotia coal was able to be carried one hundred miles farther west than it had been carried in previous years. The government this year have gone one step further, and have introduced a resolution with regard to using slack coal for coking purposes. 1 do not know whether I am in order in dealing with this question, but I wish to say in [DOT]passing that the people of Nova Scotia, and In fact the people of all provinces where coal 3s mined, should certainly express thanks to the government and this parliament for introducing and passing that legislation. In addition to that, when the tariff was brought down, the government increased the duty on slack coal from fourteen to fifty cents a ton. Whilst I am a great believer in low tariff-and if it were possible I would like to see no tariff in this country-yet as long as we have a tariff I see no objection to raising the duty on slack coal and putting it on a level with the duty on the other coal. I think the government has in a practical way shown the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Cape Breton, where most of the coal is mined, that they believe in dealing with these questions in a practical manner, and they are not carried away by what they read in the newspapers 
or what they hear, but they sit down, I might say, in conference with the members from the Maritime provinces, who in the newspapers for the last several months have been criticized for not going out every day and giving interviews and telling what they have done. It is only fair to say that the Maritime province members and especially the members from Nova Scotia have for the last two or three years endeavoured to get the government to do something in regard to this coal question in Nova Scotia, and I think the government, with the legislation which they have introduced and are now introducing, have shown in a practical manner that their sympathies are with the coal miners of Nova Scotia as well as the coal miners of other provinces of the Dominion.
We listened last evening to a speech made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, what the remarks of that hon. member had to do with the budget; but in view of the fact that there were perhaps sentimental reasons why you did not want to call this hon. member to order and let her proceed, I trust you will, treat me with the same courtesy and consideration this afternoon, as I think it is only fair that the other side of this question should be given, not only to this House but to the country. There is no question, that during the last few weeks there has been a great deal said pro and con regarding the coal situation in Nova Scotia, and the situation in mining areas of that district. I was very much struck with a remark made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey last evening. You will perhaps remember, sir, that in the course of her address, when speaking of conditions in Cape Breton and the situation of the miners there, she mentioned the fact that the miners were a proud people and did not wish to aocept charity or help from anybody. That is quite true. It is a matter of history that the Scotch are a proud race. But it must not be forgotten that not only are the miners of Cape Breton a proud race but the people of Nova Scotia are a proud race. Whilst we are a hospitable people and welcome anybody within our gates, yet as I said a moment ago we are a proud people, and we resent undue interference from outsiders. I have no desire whatever to criticize the hon. member, in view of the fact that she is alone in one regard in this House-


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the hon. member mean to say that the people of Nova Scotia would resent the charitable contributions of the

The Budget-Mr. Duff
people of Canada in this particular case of the Nova Scotia strike?


William Duff: I am going to deal with that in a minute. I will explain that and show conclusively that in my opinion, while the . people of Nova Scotia appreciate any sentiment that may be expressed or anything which may be done for them if it is necessary,
I say that the time has not yet arrived when the people in other parts of Canada need worry themselves about the people of Nova Scotia without consulting, first, the province of Nova Scotia, and secondly, the duly elected representatives of that province in this House.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the hon. gentleman mean that the subscriptions collected in Ottawa to relieve the suffering are inacceptable or that we have been unduly interfering in this matter? Is that the meaning?


William Duff: I think that is the meaning. I think the people of Ottawa had better look after the poor within their own gates, with the money which they have subscribed for this so-called destitution in Cape Breton. There is no question about the good faith of these people, and they subscribed with the very best intentions. However, I say, that the people who subscribed the money would have been better advised if they had consulted the people who knew conditions in Nova Scotia and knew what could be done in order to give relief in that province. They would have been better advised if they had spent that money in their own city. There is no question that there is some destitution and suffering in the Cape Breton area where this strike is in force, and the member for Southeast Grey last evening portrayed certain conditions-


John Livingstone Brown: Might it not be urged that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave us a splendid lead in that matter when he gave a private contribution?


William Duff: My hon. friend must certainly know that the Prime Minister has the biggest heart of any man in this country. That is one reason why he is Prime Minister, and I presume that is the reason why he gave this subscription. I repeat that the people of Nova Scotia are a proud people, and it ill behooves anybody or any association, to send subscriptions to the people of Nova Scotia when every day the newspapers are saying that the representatives of the people of Nova Scotia and the legislature of that province are not doing their duty in this regard. I have no objection to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) or anybody else who so
desires, sending $50 or $1,000 to the people of Cape Breton. That is their business. But I repeat that the people of that province are a proud people, and as far as this matter has gone they are able to look after their own troubles and distress.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey gave some individual cases and told us what she had seen in the Cape Breton area. It is quite true a strike has been in progress there for some time, but even if a strike were not in progress there would necessarily be some destitution and some poverty in an area of that size. But the hon. member comes back from her trip and endeavours to impress upon the people of Canada that conditions in Cape Breton are very much worse than they are in other parts of Canada. Now after hearing her remarks and reading what she said,
I say you can go to any large city in any part of this country and find far worse conditions than the hon. member found in Cape Breton, although a strike is in progress.
What did she say? I do not want to be too critical, but she told us herself that the person who met her at t'he station when she arrived at Sydney on her way to Glace Bay -and I presume she went there on the invitation of this gentleman-was the mayor of Glace Bay. Now who is he, pray? She said also, in denouncing the provincial government and in denouncing the parliamentarians, that the Labour party had no representative in parliament. Evidently, this hon. member did not get in the right company or was not told the correct story in the right company, because the mayor of Glace Bay is a member of parliament in the province of Nova Scotia and is known as a Labour member of parliament. There are also two other Labour members from the county of Cape Breton in the parliament of Nova Scotia and, if I am not mistaken, one from the county of Cumberland. This lady was imet by the mayor of Glace Bay, and evidently from what she tells us, the mayor of Glace Bay, who is the Labour member from that city, put her on the track to find out where all this destitution and poverty existed. What does she find out? She finds but that people are hungry after a three weeks' strike. It is quite natural that some people would be hungry after a three weeks' strike, but she did not go into the particulars and find out how many people in that district were not hungry after a three weeks' strike. She did not find out that the heads of twenty families, who are getting relief from the relief committee in the town of Glace Bay to-day, had $5,000 each in tin-bank. She did not find out this, for instance.
The Budget-Mr. Duff

and this is something that hon. members will rather enjoy. The hon. member for Southeast Gray spoke about the school (children, and it will ibe remembered that she said she saw children of four years of age in school with hungry looks on their faces. Although she has been a school teacher for a number of years, she has not studied the Nova Scotia law, because under that statute no child can go to school until it is five years of age. She said that she went into this school; that sin saw many hungry children there, and that it was necessary for a soup kitchen to be established to give those children lunch in the middle of the day as they could not get any at home. A very amusing incident happened in one of those soup kitchens last Thursday. Mr. Alexander S. McNeil-I do not think he will mind my mentioning his name

is Superintendent of Mines for the whole Cape Breton area. He has sprung from the common people. He went in as a breaker boy, as I think they call it, and he worked himself up to the position which he now occupies. He is one of the finest characters I have ever met, as I think will be conceded by everybody who knows him. Last Thursday at aibout 12.30 p.m. Mrs. McNeil became worried because her three children had not turned up from school. She called up her husband and asked him if he had heard anything about them. He said: No. At half past one she telephoned the school to find out if they had left. Word came back saying that the three children had gone to the soup kitchen to iget soup with the other school children. Therefore, all the stories we hear about the soup kitchen must be taken with at least a grain of salt in the soup.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Does the hon. member for Lunenburg actually want us to believe that the social workers and others on the spot who are giving relief find out nothing of actual conditions or that the incident he mentions is at all typical?


William Duff: I said a moment ago, I think, before the hon. member came in, that there is no question that there is destitution and poverty in Cape Breton. But there was destitution there thirty-five years ago when I went there for the first time on a sailing vessel. There is still destitution and poverty there and there would be even if this strike were not on. It is quite true that there is more destitution and poverty there now owing to the fact that, although these poor miners in 1924 paid $240,000 into the United Mine Workers' fund, that organization has not come 
across with one dollar, so far, to relieve the suffering in Cape Breton.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. gentleman aware that, according to the rules of that organization, it is several weeks before strike pay becomes due?


William Duff: That is a nice organization for a poor miner to belong to. That is my answer. If they have a regulation or rule on their books to that effect, are they going to stand there in Minneapolis or somewhere else in a foreign country and let the miners of Cape Breton starve, and the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Lisgar and the rest of us support these miners with private contributions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. member aware that in 1919 in district No. 18 the government co-operated with the United Mine Workers of America to smash the local organization which tried to organize in opposition?


William Duff: That has nothing to do with what I am saying at all, and I am not going to hark back to that. These imen whose families are suffering have in the last few years paid $2,000,000 into this fund; last year they paid in $240,000, and the hon. gentleman is complaining about this government, the local government and the municipality not doing anything, when money belonging to the miners themselves is not sent forward for their relief and to relieve distress in that district.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the hon. member is not aware that the courts of Nova Scotia backed up the United Mine Workers of America when the local miners two years ago tried to retain their own funds and to select their own officers; that the United Mine Workers of America appointed provisional officers, and that the company dealt with the provisional officers and not with the officers the men themselves had elected?


William Duff: I am not arguing about the law with regard to this matter. In this, I am perhaps a friend of the United Mine Workers. This is the situation: As regards these miners whom the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Southeast Grey pretend to think so much of, although he knows they are starving, he does not raise his voice to say to the United Mine Workers of America: For heaven's sake send them a part of this $240,000 which they paid into the fund last year. I do not care about the law. The situation is beyond the law. The question is whether these men, women and children are suffering and whether they should be looked after

The Budget-Mr. Duff
Aa hon. MEMBER: With their own money.


William Duff: With their own money, yes. The hon. member for Southeast Grey told us some awful stories last night about one or two particular cases. She told of homes where there were only two bedrooms, a kitchen and a sitting room. How many members in this House-and I hope I am not going to say anything now that will offend anyone-and how many of their grandfathers or forefathers were raised in any bigger houses than houses with two bedrooms, a kitchen and a sitting room? How many fishermen in British Columbia or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick have homes with more than two bedrooms on the second floor and, perhaps, an attic for five or six children? How many people have only two bedrooms, a sitting room and a kitchen? It is silly for anyone to come into this House and talk about conditions like these. These conditions prevail everywhere. These people do not live in palaces; but if they had been a little more economical, maybe they would have been able to add an L to their kitchen or another bedroom over the L. The hon. member for Southeast Grey told us about an awfful house on the bluff at Glace Bay where she said a man and his family were living under terrible conditions. She said that there w'as practically no roof on this house; that it was leaking, but that this man had to pay $20 a month for it. I do not wish to say anything with regard to the statement by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, especially for a certain reason; but she is certainly gullible and she must think we are gullible when she says in this House that any miner or fisherman or lumberman or workingman in Nova Scotia can afford to pay $20 a month for the best house that can be obtained. Instead of paying $20 a month, the most these miners pay is about $2 a week. Twenty dollars a month is $240 a year. Yet the mayor of Glace Bay, who is a Labour member for Cape Breton, assisted by his truant officer-and I do not know the particular reason why the mayor of Glace Bay put the hon. member in charge of a truant officer-told her that this poor fellow had to pay $20 a month for his house.
What other awful things did she tell us? She told us about visiting one family where there was tuberculosis; the mother was suffering from this dread disease, and the hon. member deplored the fact that a woman with tuberculosis should be allowed to sleep in the same room with the rest of her family. Now. I would suggest that before the hon. member undertakes to give us the pleasure of her presence in Nova Scotia she should
at least take the trouble to study to some extent the legislation of that province so far as it relates to the matters she investigates. There is no reason whatever why anyone with tuberculosis in an advanced stage should remain at home either in Glace Bay or anywhere else in the province. We have a splendid institution at Kentville and if this doctor to whom the hon. member referred, or the great friend of hers, the mayor of Glace Bay, or the truant officer, had done their duty by themselves and by this poor woman they would have had her sent to the sanitarium instead of having her remain at home with her children.
The hon. member also talked about the terrible condition of the streets, about the sewerage and about other things of that nature. She said1 there was no electric light in the town; whilst there were lights and a few sidewalks in the centre of the town there was no light on the outskirts. She also told us that there was a lot of mud in the place. Well, we are told that there are good roads in Ontario; but going through the province the other day I spent some ten hours gazing out of the car window, and as my eyes turned from one side of the landscape to the other, this being the first time I had passed through that part of the country, I beheld very muddy roads indeed. And are there not muddy roads in Quebec and in every other province in the Dominion just as there are in Nova Scotia? Surely it is nothing out of the way to see muddy roads in the outskirts of any town especially at this time of year. Indeed, we have a clause in the Road Act in Nova Scotia prohibiting the running of automobiles at this time of year, the reason being I suppose that owing to weather conditions the roads are too muddy. Yet the hon. member tried to impress upon the House the other evening the awful condition in which she found the roads in that Nova Scotian town.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the hon. member read the reports which during the last four years have been presented by boards of conciliation and by royal commissions with regard to the insanitary conditions in the mining towns?


William Duff: I have read some of the reports. But who is to blame for those conditions?


William Irvine: You.


William Duff: I? No, not I, but the Labour mayor of the town of Glace Bay, just as the Labour mayor is to blame in the town of

The Budget-Mr. Dufj
New Waterford and the Labour mayor in other towns of that section. But I do not say that the conditions are worse in those sections than they are elsewhere as regards sewerage and other things of that kind. I think the hon. member had| better learn something about the conditions that prevail in Nova Scotia. Is he aware of the fact that the British Empire Steel Corporation is assessed 70 per cent of the whole total assessment of Glace Bay, 60 per cent of the assessment of New Waterford, and 65 per cent on the average of all municipalities in which they have property?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. member aware that these figures have been definitely denied by officials?


William Duff: They have not been denied by any reputable officials, and it is a very simple matter to prove conclusively, as anyone with common sense can, that in a mining town, where the mining operators have large property, the fact must be as I have stated in this case.. There can be no other conclusion, as everyone who knows the situation will agree. I say without fear of successful contradiction that if the Labour mayor of the town of Glace Bay, who is the local member representing labour in the province of Nova Scotia, had any spunk ot courage, instead of using this situation for propaganda purposes-and that is all it is done for-he would have called a special session of the city council to remedy the present situation.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Does the hon. member know that the mayor of Glace Bay did do
that very thing and that the sum of $5,600 was voted for relief? Does he know further that they had to pledge everything they had even at that?


William Duff: There is more in regard to the province of Nova Scotia that the hon. member should have learned before coming back and trying to slander that province. Let her get some more information first. She suggests now that the mayor and council of Glace Bay raised all the money they could when they voted only $5,000. If my hon. friend would look at chapter 70 of the revised statutes of Nova Scotia she would see that the town of Glace Bay, or any other town in the province for that matter, can without any special legislation borrow one half of one per cent of the total assessed value of the town.


William Irvine: How much have they already borrowed?


William Duff: I mean for purposes of this
kind. In any such case any city, town or municipality in the province of Nova Scotia can go to the bank and borrow one half of one per cent of its total assessment; and the total assessment of Glace Bay would be in the vicinity of $3,500,000. Yet my hon. friend who interrupts me suggests that the mayor of that town did his full duty when he called a session of the council and voted $5,000 for the relief of four or five thousand suffering people-a dollar apiece.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the hon. gentleman's strictures on the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in this regard, I would ask him whether he does not think that the company, as the landlord of these miner tenants, also has some responsibility for the sanitary conditions in the town?


William Duff: They are responsible for the
sanitary conditions in the tenements which they own, but they have no right to install any system of sewerage in the town, to provide electric lights, or to do anything of that kind. Those things are under the control of the town and there is no reason why the company should look after them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
member know that throughout the years the company has largely dominated the municipal councils?


William Duff: I regret that my hon. friend
has been so gullible; certainly he does not know anything about the conditions that obtain down there. The hon. gentleman gets up on the floor of the House whenever he has an opportunity to say something about Nova Scotia, and it seems to me that before he does that he might give the conditions of the province some study. Why should any hon. member go to a truant officer in the town, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey did on this occasion, instead of consulting responsible citizens with a view to ascertaining the facts as they are? Let me say that the company has never dominated civic conditions in any districts in which it operates. But there is a Labour mayor and there is a Labour council in Glace Bay as there are in New WTaterford and in all the other places where the labourers predominate, and the company certainly does not control affairs there. Now, I admit that the company has its faults and I shall refer to that aspect of the question later on; I am not here to take sides.


William Irvine: May I ask a question?


William Duff: I want to get through at six
o'clock.

The Budget-Mr. Duff


William Irvine: The hon. gentleman' has
taken exception to the report made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). I wonder if he would be prepared to make at Glace Bay the speech which he is now making in this House?


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, anybody who
knows me knows that I would make a speech anywhere. To use the picturesque language of the hon. member for Southeast Grey last night, I would not care a damn where it was.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I never said that last
night.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, she used similar
language.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Duff: , I will withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker; it is not parliamentary.


Hewitt Bostock: Thank you.


William Duff: It was not parliamentary,
but it was "snappy," to use the word of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. Now, Sir,
I do not ask the Labour group in this House to take my word for conditions in Cape Breton. Let me read something which has been said by	a very prominent lady in
Toronto. She has close associations with the mining district and goes down there every year to spend the summer. Here is what she says:
Aroused by the letter appearing in Saturday's Globe from Miss Agnes Macphail, M.P., relative to conditions in the mining areas of Nova Scotia, Mrs. Florence Fraser, Tyndall Avenue, a resident of Sydney for a number of years, who spends each summer with relatives in Nova Scotia, declared yesterday that she could "show Miss Macphail conditions much different from those described in her story." Mrs. Fraser insisted that the reading public was obtaining highly colored stories, favorable to the miners.
"From what I read, Miss Macphail is not thoroughly conversant with the conditions under which miners are living in Nova Scotia," said Mrs. Fraser. "There are houses built by the company, containing seven rooms, with hot and cold water, electric lights, and a garago with every second one. These are not described to the people of Toronto, nor is it told to them that the rental is from $5 to $7 a month. Neither are they told that numbers of miners own their own automobiles.
"There is another matter," continued Mrs. Fraser. "The miners are not forced to deal in the company's stores. There is a fine co-operative store there, as well as other retail stores. There is no difference in prices as between the company's and the retail stores. If anything, they are lower in the company stores."
Mrs. Fraser said the shacks referred to by Miss Macphail were never intended for families. They were built, she said, for transient labor from Newfoundland.
So I think Mrs. Fraser, who, I presume, is a responsible citizen of Toronto-she does not
hesitate to give her name-should be listened to by the people of this country just as much as should the hon. member for Southeast Grey, who in my opinion came back with a prejudiced story because she was guided around Glace Bay by the Labour mayor and the truant officer.
Now, Sir, in her peroration the hon. member was not satisfied with discussing conditions in Glace Bay, she must have a crack at the provincial government. She said that that government was not doing its duty in this matter and was, to use her own choice language, afraid of Besco. I cannot see why anybody who wants the votes of the people of Nova Scotia should be afraid of Besco.
I cannot see why the government of Nova Scotia, whether Liberal or Tory, should not stand in with the miners in this district in preference to standing in with the company, and for this reason:	The situation in Cape
Breton not only affects the immediate district, it affects the whole province, and if the hon. premier, Mr. Armstrong, does not do what is right and proper in trjdng to settle the strike, and use his best efforts in the premises to improve conditions in Cape Breton, not only the people there but the people in every other constituency will certainly have something to say to him when he appeals to the province in June. So I would say that Hon. Mr. Armstrong and his government and the legislature certainly have more interest in this matter than has either the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) or the hon. member for Southeast Grey. Premier Armstrong lives in Nova Scotia, he has everything at stake; and when the hon. member for Southeast Grey states that he and his government are not doing their duty, it seems to me that it requires a good deal of assurance on her part.
But, Sir, it has been contended that this government and the provincial government should come to the relief of the distressed people in the mining districts of Nova Scotia. Let us see whether they should take action. I understand that legislation with regard to looking after the poor is different in some of the other provinces to what it is in Nova Scotia. In our province, where we have as good legislation, and perhaps in some cases more advanced legislation than, in some of the other provinces, there is a statute dealing specifically with poor relief. Chapter 50 of the revised statutes of Nova Scotia distinctly sets out that poor relief must be paid through the organization created either by the city council, the town council or the .municipal council for the locality; the .province has
The Budget-Mr. Duff

absolutely nothing to do -with it. Each city, town or 'municipality must provide its own relief, and the act sets forth how this should be done. At the sitting of the town or city council every year a poor committee is appointed from the members. They have full power to deal with any and all oases of distress which come to their knowledge, and have power to assess the municipality to cover the cost. As I said a moment ago, the British Empire Steel Corporation are assessed about seventy per cent of the total assessment in the mining districts in which they have their mines. Now, if this gentleman, the mayor of Glace Bay, was so anxious to alleviate this horrible suffering, as detailed and retailed by the memlber for Southeast Grey, all he had to do was to call a special meeting of the city council, pass a vote for the money required from time to time, put that money in the hands of the poor committee of the .municipality, and see that it was expended. Because, as you will observe, Mr. Speaker, after all, this horrible Besco would pay about seventy per cent of the cost, and about two-thirds of the remaining thirty per cent would be paid by the citizens of Glace Bay, the professional and commercial men and others who are not miners and do not want relief, and the miners themselves iwould pay only ten per cent of the total amount required. And yet the friend of the hon. member for Southeast Grey sits down and does nothing except vote j$5,000. A wonderful man he is to relieve t'he situation in the city of Glace Bay! All he has to do if he thinks this combination, this B-e-s-c-o, is such a horrible thing, is to go out and make it pay seventy cents of every dollar he wants for the poor and hungry in Glace Bay and the surrounding district. If that is the fact, then until that is done why should the provincial government interfere, or why should my good friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) get up every once in a while in the House and ask the government as to the situation	in regard	to	the coal	strike	inNova Scotia? I am sure my hon. friend, who is	possessed	of	a great	deal	of
this world's goods, has done his full duty by the poor and suffering of his province. While I have not seen his name in either the Halifax or the Ottawa papers indicating that a large subscription had been made either by himself or the bank which has done business with these miners in Nova Scotia and of which he is a director, I am sure the hon. junior member for Halifax has done his full duty. And if he has done his full duty, there 
may be an excuse for his asking the government why they do not d:o something. The hon. member is evidently very much interested in the strikers and their dependents in Cape Breton. He is perhaps the best known shipping man in the Maritime provinces, and he has always had a fine business. I remember -and I am not very old-a longshoremen's strike in the city of Halifax. As hon. gentlemen know, longshoremen are hired to load and unload steamers and vessels and handle freight on the wharves. On the occasion of this strike, of course the loading and the unloading of the cargoes of vessels which came to the wharf of the hon. junior member for Halifax were affected. While my memory, perhaps, has become a little defective, I can remember that the hon. junior member for Halifax showed no great desire at that time either to settle the strike or to look after the wives and children of the men out on strike. Yet he gets up in has place now and day after day asks the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald)-I presume because he is the cabinet minister from Nova Scotia-what is being done with regard to these poor women and children in Cape Breton.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the hon. member if the positions in connection with these two strikes are at all comparable?


William Duff: It is only a matter of degree.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not at all.


William Duff: It is only a matter of degree. If fifty women and children were affected by the longshoremen's strike in Halifax and 20,000 are affected by the strike in Cape Breton, what is the difference so far as the position I have stated is concerned?
Now, what I say is this: The hon. member for Southeast Grey was good enough to say that the mayor of Glace Bay and the council there had voted the sum of $5,000; and I also noticed in the press this morning that this gentleman, who was a member of the local legislature, had hied himself to Halifax and asked for a special act 'to vote $5,000 for teachers' salaries,-you will remember that the hon. member for Southeast Grey told us last night that there was danger of the schools being closed because there was no money to pay salaries. Again I say she is not acquainted with Nova Scotia legislation. Anybody who knows anything about Nova Scotia legislation -and a school teacher, above all, should study legislation with regard to schools in

The Budget-Mr. Duff
other provinces as well as her own-should know that the school legislation in Nova Scotia provides that certain moneys shall be voted each year for the upkeep of the schools. For instance, in the town of Glace Bay some [DOT] time in February the council meets; they go over their requirements, and when they come to the question of schools they call in the school board, which is a separate organization from the city council, and they ask the school board how much money they require for the year. The school board tell them what money they require and the council put that amount in the estimates. I simply wish to make this point to show that somebody- now, I almost made a break that time-that somebody unquestionably fooled the member for Southeast Grey, because this money which was voted in February for the upkeep of schools provides for the upkeep of the schools, the payment of teachers' salaries, fuel, janitor and everything else, from the beginning of the school year in September until the next June. And she says this because the truant officer, in whose charge she was, or the mayor of Glace Bay, told her that there was no money to pay the school teachers.


William Irvine: Did my hon. friend notice
a report in the press this morning that the council of Glace Bay had just voted another $5,000 with which to pay school teachers this month?


William Duff: No I did not, but I am glad
to hear it. Instead of voting another $5,000 they should vote $50,000 if necessary, because this poor Besco, this terrible organization, have to pay seventy per cent of it, and I shall be glad to see them pay it rather than that the women and children of Glace Bay should suffer. They ought to pay it because they are as much to blame for this strike, perhaps, as the miners are. I have no sympathy with Besco. All I want to do is to protect the good name of Nova Scotia and to see that no outsiders come in to interfere with us. Until such times as the town of Glace Bay does its duty by these women and children; until such time as the municipality does its duty by them; until such time as the province comes to their relief, it is not for anyone to get up on the floor of this House and ask for money or subscriptions from anybody.


William Irvine: How can my hon. friend
protect the good name of Nova Scotia by casting aspersions on one of its chief citizens?


William Duff: Who is that?


William Irvine: The mayor of Glace Bay.


William Duff: I did not know that he was
one of its chief citizens. Anyone who will deliberately, for his own political purposes, allow women and children to starve, is no good citizen of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask what
about the vice-president of Besco, who said that the people could not stand the gaff; that they had to come to the company?


William Duff: I want to say that if I was
on the directorate of Besco I would have kicked Mr. MoLurg out of Cape Breton the minute he said that. He had no right to say it, and we will never have proper conditions until men like McLurg are kicked out of the company. But I say that is no reason why the hon. member for Southeast Grey should have made the reference she did last night to the three directors of the company who are members of the Senate and good citizens of this country. Let them clean up the mess; let them send McLurg about his business. He is not fit to have charge of anybody; I would not have him in charge of a henyard, let alone 12,000 miners in the county of Cape Breton. I have no sympathy with McLurg, not half as much, perhaps, as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has. Let him get out; let them put him out; the quicker the shareholders of the British Empire Steel Corporation get together and reorganize, the quicker we shall have industrial peace in Nova Scotia. All I am trying to do is to show that there is no necessity for all this political propaganda. It is not necessary for the hon. junior member for Halifax to come here and blow off every day about conditions in Cape Breton when there are fifteen other members from Nova Scotia in this House who are just as good men as he is and who have the interests of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton at heart. We are looking after this situation, and I for one will noit stand for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest that in this House we are all Canadians. Might I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if as a
Canadian I have not the right to protect the interests of other Canadians?


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. member rising
to a point of order?


William Duff: No, it is just a stray remark.
The Budget-Mr. Duff


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am asking a
question, if I may, of the thon. member who has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
ask it with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


William Duff: There is no question about
it, Mr. Speaker, that this is a free country and the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has the right to get up, if he wants to, and talk about conditions in Ottawa or Prescott or L'Orignal or any place back in the woods. He can talk about anything he wants to. But the member for Prescott, (Mr. Binette), who represents in this House the people of that district, has the right to object to my hon. friend's interfering with anything concerning that constituency. That is what we resent in Nova Scotia. We feel just as keenly about this matter or more so than does the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. What I say is that we are looking after this matter. Of course the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg comes here and says he represents labour. Who told him that he represented labour, except the labourers in the constituency which he represents? I represent as many labourers as he does, and if they earned the wages that some of the miners in Cape Breton earned they would have ten or twenty thousand dollars in the bank and homes of their own. I have fishermen and lumbermen in my county who work only six months in the year, yet who own their own homes, have money in the bank and are comfortable. So I say it is all nonsense to talk about Besco being wholly to blame for the present condition of affairs, because the miners are to some extent to blame for it themselves. The hon. member for Southeast Grey said last night that these people could not get out of Glace Bay and Sydney. Does she know that 50 per cent of the miners in Cape Breton are unmarried, bachelors? I am surprised that she did not stay down there. She tried to say that these people could not get away from Cape Breton. If anybody else in this country gets out of work, be he a lumberman, a fisherman or anything else, whether he lives in Alberta or any other part of the country, he soon hunts for work somewhere else. Let me also tell the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg that these young bachelors earned anywhere from $90 to $100 in one single week in the month of February. This condition spoken of by the member for Southeast Grey does not exist all over the coal mining area,

but in some of the coal mines they worked 234 days last year. Now working 234 days in a year, at wages of from $3.50 to $6 a day, it seems to me they should not be in the condition in which they were represented to be by the hon. member for Southeast Grey and the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the hon. member not know very well that these are not the people who are asking for relief? Some of the miners draw big pay, it is true. They are not on the relief lists at the different stations.


William Duff: My hon. friend perhaps was not here when I said there w'ere twenty families the heads of which had $5,000 in the Royal Bank in Glace Bay, who were lined up every day at the soup kitchens and the relief stations.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I doubt it very much.


William Duff: Of course you do. You were in the charge of the truant officer when you were there. You were in bad company when you were with the mayor of Glace Bay, who for political purposes-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member must address the Chair.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, we have another lady who is very much worked up about the distress in Cape Breton, a lady by the name of Mrs. Charles Archibald. I think she is vice-president of the Tory organization in the city of Halifax, and this Mrs. Archibald has been worked up into a great state over the things Premier Armstrong and his government are not doing for these poor distressed people in Cape Breton. This lady is the wife of a gentleman who was manager of a mine in Cape Breton some few years ago known as Port Morien, and now Cow Bay. This Mr. Archibald closed down this mine in the winter of 1894, although the poor miners pleaded with him to keep it open until spring. He closed it down and from seven to eight hundred miners were thrown on the street, and now, of course, Mrs. Archibald, when she has no responsibility, can come along and say: Mr. Armstrong, you and your government must come to the relief of these poor people.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he is aware that ten thousand people are being fed from Glace Bay proper every day, that ten thousand) people are getting their rations three times a week from the relief station there.

The Budget-Mr. Duff


William Duff: More shame for the mayor of Glace Bay when the British Empire Steel Corporation are assessed 70 per cent, and he could raise the money to feed these people in their homes. Then they would not have to go to relief kitchens or anywhere else.
Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps nothing else I can add. There is no question that it is a serious situation that exists in Cape Breton. My only purpose in rising was to protect the good name of Nova Scotia. As far as the coal situation in Cape Breton is concerned, I am not prejudiced in any way. I have no coal mines in my district, but we are vitally interested in the progress of Cape Breton and in the other counties west, to which we sell a -great deal of goods. In addition to that, we benefit from the royalties which the provincial government collects from the -mines in Cape Breton, and Cumberland and other places. There is no distress around the mining districts of Pictou and Cumberland. There are poor people there, due to the strike, of course, but the difference between the -mayor of Glace Bay and the mayor of New Waterford, and the mayors of Trenton, Stellarton, Westville, New Glasgow and other places, is that they have a proper love of humanity in their hearts, and they are not trying to get elected at the next election.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask if the
hon. gentleman has not read the appeal that has come from Springhill in the last day or two?


William Duff: It is quite possible that somebody in Springhill may be sending in an appeal, like they do in Glace Bay, somebody who is not responsible and 'has no business to do it. But I say the people of Springhill and these districts can look after their own poor. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not at all prejudiced. My only interest in discussing this matter is to see that the good name of Nova Scotia is upheld, and until such time as every resource has been exhausted in these cities and towns, which can be assessed for the purpose of looking after these poor people, I say there is no need to -appeal to this government or to the provincial -government. If the mayor and council of Glace Bay should come to this parliament or to the provincial legislature and say: We have exhausted our resources, we have raised every cent we could to look after our poor;-then I say it is time, after the United Mine Workers have sent back the two and a half million dollars, for anybody in this House or in the provincial legislature to say that this government or the provincial government should vote any sum
for the relief of this state of affairs in the county of Cape Breton.
On motion of Mr. Manion the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, -pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 2, 1925