Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Explain, please.

Mr. NEILL:

This is the bill I introduced last year, but owing to its being near the end of the session it did not go beyond the first reading. To be brief, it presents a simple and yet complete and unassailable method by which the people of Canada can exclude any form of undesirable immigration that they desire without at the same time becoming involved in any dispute with any foreign nation or government whatsoever. In the past the trouble has been that by endeavouring to exclude any particular race or body of people by name, you immediately involved yourself in objections raised upon legal or treaty, or even sentimental grounds, by the government of the people you sought to exclude. That has always been the trouble. This bill gets round that situation without any quibble, trickery or freak legislation whatever.

Like most effective things, it is simple. The vital clauses are sections two and five. Section two provides that any immigrant from wheresoever he comes, wishing to enter Canada, shall first ask permission to do so from his country of origin. Section five prescribes that the Minister of Immigration on receiving the formal application shall arbitrarily and without question decide whether or not that particular immigrant shall be admitted. He has to give no reasons to the government under which the intending immigrant lives, and therefore there cannot be raised the objections I have alluded to.

I may mention that in New Zealand, which is always the forerunner of advanced legislation in almost any regard, this act has practically been in force for two years, and the Prime Minister of that country in introducing some report on its working made the comment that it had proved so superior to previous legislation of a similar nature-because hitherto in New Zealand they had proceeded along the lines of imposing an educational test-that he was thoroughly of opinion that its provisions would finally have to be adopted by every possession of the British Empire.

As I said, this bill hits at no one in particular, yet it is applicable to all, and can

The Address-Mr. Lucas

involve us in no international troubles. It is a very important bill so far as the interests of this country are concerned, and I might go further and state that in respect to the ultimate destiny of British Columbia hardly any more important bill could be introduced, and therefore I earnestly submit it for the favourable consideration of the government and of this House.

Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Victoria, Alta.):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations in this debate it is my wish first to join with those who have preceded me in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The manner in which those two gentlemen acquitted themselves reflected credit upon themselves and brought honour to this House and to the constituencies which they represent.

It is not my intention to take up the time of the House by making any extended remarks, but in view of the serious condition that prevails to-day throughout this whole vast Dominion, and believing as I do that we have responsible government in Canada, I feel it is our duty as representatives of the people to place the viewpoints of our various sections of the country before -the government so that they may be fully seized of the true conditions and endeavour to meet them in framing their policies at this time.

In crossing over half a continent in proceeding to this capital city, I came in contact with a great many men from different parts of the country, and in every conversation that I entered into I was particularly struck with the serious note that was interjected in regard to present conditions in Canada. I am not a pessimist, but I believe we would have been a good deal better off in Canada if we had had a little more pessimism in our make-up, and if the persons known as "boosters" had been classified as undesirable and rejected at the gates of our Dominion. The true optimist, in my opinion, is the man who really sizes up the situation, who

does not underestimate his enemy, and who makes provision accordingly.

I would like to comment upon what might be termed the unfair criticism that has been levelled at hon. members in this comer of the House. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) referred to it in the opening remarks of his address, and reference was made on different occasions last year to the Progressives leaning on the government. While I am speaking only for myself, I believe I express the view of the majority of hon. members in this corner of the House when I say that the people having at the last election placed the reins of government in the hands of new men, this new and untried government should be given a fair chance. Those who believe in British fair play will not condemn anyone without a trial. Personally I am not supporting the government, nor am I opposing it if they bring down legislation in the interests of the country.

I did not want to introduce this subject, but reference has been made to the matter of our organization, and we have been criticized by the press and in this House from the point of view of our representing a class. I am soriy that the two old parties which up to recently had represented this country since confederation did not deal with national questions in a national way, and thus compelled one class of the people to organize in order to present their views before this House-indeed, in order to protect their very existence. I say without fear of contradiction that the agricultural viewpoint was never fairly placed before the House until the Progressives sat here in large numbers.

Since confederation we have had, as I have already suggested, two parties, one known as the high tariff and the other as the low tariff party. In my recollection there has never been an election in the course of which the political football of the tariff has not been hauled out and made the main issue before the people. We were told last year that the government, being new in office, could not at that time make sweeping reductions in the tariff, but that they had taken a step in the right direction, and we were given to understand that when another session came around a further similar step would be taken. I was greatly disappointed, therefore, to note that in the Speech from the Throne no mention whatever was made of the . tariff. Irrespective of what party has been in power in the past, we have been governed by the same national policy that was promulgated in the early days of confederation. The

The Address-Mr. Lucas

argument was made last year-and it may not have been without force-that our attitude in respect to tariff might be influenced by the attitude of our neighbours to the south when they practically placed an embargo on our goods. I do not believe that we should go down on bur knees to men who will not deal with us, but I do think that the government lost one of the greatest opportunities they ever had when they did not at that time make a greater increase in the preferential tariff with Great Britain. I have here a press despatch which shows who our best customer is. It is dated August 26, 1922, Canadian Press, and says:

The United Kingdom was a better, customer of Canada than the United States for the twelve months ending with July. The total exports of Canadian produce to the United States for that period were $304,000,000, and to Great Britain and Ireland were nearly $307,000,000. These figures are the monthly summary of trade issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

The American people have practically slammed the door in the face of the Canadian farmer, leaving us with only one market that is sound, stable and steady, and that market is Great Britain. In 1922 about seven-eighths of our farm produce found a market in that country, and I think it is the duty of the government to endeavour annually to increase that preferential trade with Great Britain by building up an export trade-in other words, the task of the Dominion government should be to find new ways of promoting our inward trade with Britain as well as our outward. If we buy twice as much from the Motherland we enable her to buy more of our farm products.

We heard a great deal in this House both this year and last in regard to farming conditions. The hon. member for King's, N.S. (Mr. Robinson) last night said that he presumed that the House had to listen with patience to the tribulations of the farmer. I think it is the duty of every man who is acquainted with conditions in his own part of the country to place them before the House in their true light. I am not going into the subject of farming conditions in any detail, but I should like to place a few facts before the House regarding conditions in the province from which I come.

Of 80,000 farmers in Alberta it is said that

20,000 are insolvent at the present time. The minister administering the Drought Relief Act has 3,000 live accounts of farmers who have placed their financial affairs in his hands. This indebtedness averages $5,000 a quarter, or a total of $15,000,000. The interest average is between eight and ten per cent, and at eight per cent the yearly interest amounts fMr. Lucas.]

to $1,200,000. There is a debt of $5,000,000 for feed and seed, and $2,000,000 in unpaid taxes. As I said before I shall not go into any detail in speaking of farming conditions, because others will no doubt add something during the course of this debate, and the House will in that way get a pretty fair view of the true conditions under which the Canadian farmer works.

Lest anyone should have the idea that these lamentable conditions ejdst only in the province of Alberta, I should like to give a few figures, taken from the Bureau of Statistics, in regard to those who pay income tax. I find that 93 per cent of the farmers of the entire Dominion who are assessed for income tax are in western Canada; 46 per cent of the whole are in Alberta, and 33 per cent of the whole in Saskatchewan. The figures by provinces are as follows: Ontario, 396; Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 12; New Brunswick, 4; Quebec, 30; British Columbia, 79; Manitoba, 1,654; Saskatchewan, 1,084; and Alberta, 2,822.

To give an idea of the prices we have to pay for our manufactured goods in the West in the line of farm machinery, I will mention only one item. In 1911 we could purchase an eight-foot binder for $180; to-day the cost is $276. Those are the conditions in which we find ourselves. It is not that we are kicking so much about the prices of our goods coming down, as against the fact that the other fellow has not come down in the same proportion we have been forced to reduce.

One of the great questions before parliament and the country to-day is our immigration policy. It seems to me, in view of the conditions that now face us, it is rather a poor policy to invite other men to come in and work under the same difficulties. We hear a great deal about our immense national debt, and when you consider the combined Dominion, provincial and municipal debts, amounting to $4,000,000,000 of funded debt, and $200,000,000 of floating liabilities no one can deny that we are living under a great burden, and I would ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart)-for I notice that the government intend launching a big advertising scheme for immigrants-if they intend to include in their advertisements that statement of our debt and say that the men who come here must share that load with us. We have been spending millions in the last number of years to induce settlers to come to this country, and yet, acording to the statistics that have been compiled by our own

The Address-Mr. Lucas

government department, in the last ten years over two millions of people have left Canada. Would it not seem to be a good business proposition, before spending further money to induce immigrants to come to this country first to spend a little in trying to find out why these people are leaving the country? If we pursued that policy, I do not think we should require the huge sums that have been spent to bring in new settlers. I was talking to a gentleman this fall about our immigration policy, and he told me that very often a quarter section near him becomes vacant, and as he has a brother in the Old Land his wife has often said to him, "Why don't you invite John to come and take up that quarter section, and have him for your neighbour?" But the man said: "I have lived in this country for the last twelve years, and my conscience will not let me advise my brother to leave a fairly good position over there and come here and put up with the conditions he would have to face at the present time." I say that if we can bring about a condition that will make our farmers prosperous and contented it will be better for this country than any immigration policy that any government can bring in.

Some startling figures were given yesterday as to the number of people who are leaving Canada. I have not compiled any for my constituency, but I can give the figures for the little village in which I live and the immediate vicinity. From that district 113 people left last fall, and among them are many of our good Canadian-born men whom I have known from boyhood and who understand farming conditions as well as any man. Yet they told me this fall they could not stay here any longer, that they had stayed up till then on the strength of promises that times were going to get better, but now they had to pull out. It is bad enough to lose the immigrants brought in from outside, but it is a much greater loss when our own Canadian-born boys, who have been reared and brought up in this country, and on whom we have spent our energies educating and raising them up to a position where they are ready to go out and take their place in life, leave this country for some other.

I see by the Speech from the Throne that the decennial revision of the Bank Act is due, and I trust that when the legislation comes down it will receive the very serious consideration of the committee that will deal with it and of the House. I am not a financial expert, but I have looked over some figures and I find that in October of 1920 our entire circulation was $249,000,000 and in the following three months it was reduced by $43,000,000-and remember, that was the period when in other years it was always felt that circulation had to be increased. By June of 1921, the circulation had decreased by another $10,000,000. It seems to me, when we consider that in 1904 we had 34 banks in this country, and that that number has dwindled to only 17, that our financial system is becoming centralized in the hands of a small group of men who are able to dictate the financial policies of this country to the detriment of the masses. It is often said that we have the soundest banking system in the world. But does anyone claim that there exists anywhere in the world a banking or financial system operating for the best interest of the average person? There are many problems confronting the people of Canada to-day, and for which they are seeking a solution. You will scarcely meet a man but will agree that those problems are difficult, that we are facing serious conditions; and I think it should be the duty of the government to endeavour honestly to try and find a solution for the existing difficulties and put into force the necessary remedy.

To my mind one of the remedies for the existing situation is the development of our transportation system in such a manner as will afford an easy exit for our products from this country. In that connection I would like to say that we in western Canada, especially in Alberta, are looking forward anxiously to the time when the western route for our grain, via Vancouver and the Panama canal shall be developed. Previous to 1921 very little of our grain was shipped by the Panama canal, in fact the movement was in the experimental stage. From January to October, 1921, a trifle over half a million bushels, to be exact 563,065 bushels, were shipped by that route, but during November and December of the same year the shipment was 565,699 bushels, or a total for 1921, of 1,128,764 bushels. At the end of June, 1922, that amount had increased to 7,101,802 bushels; and it is hoped that this year more than twice that amount will have been shipped by that western route through Vancouver. One of the criticisms of the Panama canal route that we hear is that there are no bottoms available at Vancouver to take care of traffic. In view of the figures I have placed before the House showing that tonnage has been available to take care of the already large shipments developed in such a short space of time,

The Address-Mr. Lucas

I think it is evident that when the freight comes there will be tonnage to meet it. With further reference to the amount of grain shipped let me quote a brief item which I noted in the press the other day, and which reads as follows:

Winnipeg, Man.-Seven thousand cars of grain have been loaded since September 1, 1922, for the western coast by the Canadian Pacific railway, it was announced here. This represents 10,234,000 bushels of grain for export from Vancouver.

Actually over ten million bushels of grain were shipped by the Canadian Pacific railway alone, so that I was well within the mark when I anticipated that the export of seven millions in the first half of 1922 would soon be doubled. And here I would like to say to the hon. members from British Columbia that I was glad to see them acting as a unit last year on one particular question. On the subject of oriental immigration they forgot their politics and worked unitedly together. I would like to see the same unity, exist in respect to this particular matter. If they are in earnest in desiring to develop this western route, and at the same time develop their own province, I hope they will assist us in seeking to increase the British preference so that when we ship grain to Great Britain, those vessels may return loaded with merchandise.

In further consideration of the western route I would like to cite some of the comparative grain rates that are in force at the present time. The average rate from Alberta to both Vancouver and Fort William is around 27 cents per hundred pounds. So that, under the present tariff, the rates to Vancouver and Fort William are on the same basis. From Vancouver to the United Kingdom the average ocean rate is 25 cents per bushel; the all-rail route from Fort William to St. John or Halifax is 35i cents per hundred pounds, or 21 cents per bushel; the ocean rate from Atlantic ports to the United Kingdom averages 15 cents per bushel, or a total rate via the eastern route of 36 cents, showing a difference in favour of the Vancouver route of 11 cents per bushel. Now, previous to this year the lake-and-rail rate from Fort William to Montreal averaged about 14 cents per bushel; but owing to the grain blockade on the lakes this fall that channel was denied us and we paid the allrail rate. In any case we pay that during the winter time, and the fact that Vancouver is a port which is open all the year round should make it apparent to the government that this subject should be given the most serious consideration at the earliest date possible, in order that when our crop has to be shipped

next year we may be able to reap some advantage from the reduced rates.

Another matter that interests us out there very greatly indeed is the differential that exists on the mountain freight haul. Now, the people of Canada have assumed the control of our National Railway system. Whether we consider eastern Canada or western Canada, we are all assuming the burden of that great debt, and under the circumstances I do not see why the people living in western Canada, taking the territory from Alberta to the Pacific, should be paying a double burden in the shape of that differential rate to the coast. If that rate were equalized with the rest it would mean a further reduction of about 4 cents a bushel in the cost of shipping our grain. We are quite well aware that we cannot raise the price of our grain in Europe., Therefore we must follow the example of any business firm which, when it finds the price of its goods limited, immediately endeavours to reduce its overhead cost in getting its goods to the market. A great deal has been said in this House about reducing the high cost of production, and one of the things that would be of the greatest possible advantage to the farmers in the West would be some assistance in reducing the overhead expenses entailed in getting our products to their ultimate destination.

Another remedy, and perhaps one of the most effective in bringing about a change for the better, would be placing the administration of government on a strictly business basis. We have heard a great deal about economy, and it is undoubtedly one of the greatest needs of the country to-day. But how are we going to effect economy unless we work along busines lines? Take the Canadian Pacific Railway and the other large corporations which have been conducted with so much success in this country. What has been at the bottom of their success? Has it not been the fact that they have been conducted along sound business lines? We know very well that unless that system is adopted any business will sooner or later go to destruction. Whilst talking on the subject of economy and the conduct of the affairs of government on business lines, it seems to me it would be hard to expect economy under present conditions when our governments appear to be out for political rather than for business efficiency.

Since confederation we have had what is known as the National Policy, and I am free to admit that at that time, as the country was young, it was perhaps the best policy that could have been adopted for Canada. But we must admit that times are changing.

The Address-Mr. Lucas

that we have developed into a vast agricultural country, and what Canada needs to-day is a * new national policy that will not only meet one section but will meet all the interests within the country. Just as any business firm would do, we have to change our tactics to meet the changed conditions. We hear of a great many schemes being advised in many parts of the world to-day, and in fact there are so many that we often become a little alarmed and scarcely know what to do. We find that many sensible and intelligent people very often become alarmed and refuse to consider these schemes. I think when we look back over our history we will realize that we have always been changing, and that we have had to make changes to meet those changing conditions. Our life, to my mind, is like a mighty river flowing to the sea. Sometimes its course will be across wide level prairies and its advance so easy and gradual as to be almost imperceptible; again, it tumbles over rocks and waterfalls, and dashes up great clouds of foam and spray. So it is with this river of civilization. For generations, our ancestors may at times have appeared to be standing still, but they were never standing still. They were gradually adapting themselves to changed conditions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was born and brought up in Canada, and I think I have always been led to believe that we have had two parties in this country. But, as I stated before, irrespective of which party has been in power, we have had the same policy of protection administered to the people of the country. Owing to the very serious conditions that we are confronted with at present, I think this is the time for plain speaking, and that we should come out and face that serious situation as true Canadians. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), towards the close of last session, stated that the time had come when a show-down would have to be made. The people of Canada elected a new government last year on the platform on which they went before the country, and they are anxiously waiting to see how that government is living up to its platform. If you intend to keep the people of Canada along the old party lines, with the prejudices and the hatreds that we have had in the past, you have got to eliminate the educational system we are working under to-day. We have a compulsory educational system, whereby we are forced to educate our children. Are you going to educate the child to develop his brain, and then tell him he is not to use his brain? To my mind, under our old party system with its prejudices,

there was very little intelligence used in our voting; we were either Liberals or Conservatives-our grandfathers and forefathers were the same. But we are living in a different age and the people of to-day are thinking as they never thought before. If any government think they can go before the people of Canada to-day with one platform, and come down to this House and carry out a different platform, they are vastly mistaken. I have heard it stated by our public men-and I have seen it in the press-that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in our government. I believe with the hon. member for Brome that the time for a show-down has come. I think that the amendment which the hon. member from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) has placed before this House is going to force a showdown that will make hon. members in this House place themselves in their true position.

The right hon. Prime Minister has done a great deal of talking throughout the country in regard to the rights of the common people. He will have an opportunity to declare himself and to show where his interests lie. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who comes from those western provinces and knows the true conditions out there, will also have an opportunity of placing himself on record and of stating whether he is in favour of the reduction of the tariff, as we have always been led to believe he was. In regard to the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin)-being a director-

Mr. GAUVREAU:

Be careful, now.

Mr. LUCAS:

Being a director of many large companies, I presume he will have no interest in the common people anyway.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

Very small interest.

Mr. LUCAS:

In regard to my hon. friends to my right, I have a hazy recollection that I heard an hon. member say not many hours ago that they were dead.

Mr. STEVENS:

False information.

Mr. LUCAS:

If that is a fact, I think the least the hon. members can do in this House is to perform the last funeral rites to that "dilapidated" portion of a once great party.

I am speaking in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I say that conditions are serious in this Canada of ours, and I trust every member will come out in his true light and place himself in the position in which the country expects to find him. What Canada needs to-day is a bold statesmanship and men who will come out and fight for the

The Address-Mr. Carroll

same principles in this House as they advocate before the people. In conclusion let me say:

God give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor, men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue,

And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty, and in private thinking;

For while the interests with their thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds- Mingle in selfish strife, lo, Freedom weeps,

Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.