Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my address to the House last night, I made a reference to the Australian treaty and its effect on the price of butter and, I believe, on the price of cream. I wired the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta on Wednesday, asking him how the price of cream to the farmers in the fall of 1925 compared with prices in the same months of the previous year. I did not receive his reply in time to quote it yesterday and I, therefore, take this opportunity of doing so. This is his reply:

Cream prices during October, November, December, 1925, approximate 20 per cent higher than for corresponding period of 1924. Prices of butter this month six cents lower than in October. Unable to say exact cause controlling world condition.

Georgh Hoadley.

I quote that to illustrate further my contention of last night that it is exceedingly difficult to prove that a protective tariff or

540 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)

the lack of one is responsible for a certain movement upward or downward in connection with the price of a commodity, and that many other factors must be taken into consideration.

Last night I referred to certain statements made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in regard to the need for the construction of a coast outlet for the Peace river country. We in the Peace river country are indeed1 gratified that our leading citizens have come to realize the need for that outlet and have expressed themselves so definitely regarding that need and the advisability of doing something, as we hope in the near future. As I have already said, the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and leading officials of the two great railway systems of Canada are committed to that proposal. The Liberal and Conservative candidates in the last federal election were also very enthusiastic regarding the proposal. I said last night, the attitude taken by those candidates was one of the factors in my nearly losing my constituency, and therefore I wish to read, especially for the benefit of the leader of the opposition, the position taken by the Conservative candidate in the Peace River constituency, because I should like to show him what the people of the Peace river country were led to believe he and his policy stood for in relation to the railway needs of that district. I quoted last night a statement of the leader of the opposition in a speech which he made at Edmonton in regard to this matter, and I will read part of it again because he was not here when I quoted this statement last night. He said:

I have always urged that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as the Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated that he was going to give railway relief to the north country and nothing has been done. This great question has been sidetracked by Senate reform, which subject has been discussed for forty years.

Then there is a quotation of a statement made by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King at Calgary, and this pamphlet continues:

Compare the statements of the two leaders. Mr. King criticizes Mr. Meighen for amalgamating two bankrupt roads, the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Mr. King states he is going to colonize the north country; he is going to make it a spear head. I wonder why he did not do this during the last four years with all the Progressive party behind him. He further states that the people of the north will get their coast outlet when they have tonnage and population to warrant same, which is the same old argument you have heard from every politician wishing to evade the real issue of the north.

Mr. King has disregarded the Throne Speech of this

year which contained railway relief for the north, and on the eve of the election he does not even go as far as he did in the Speech from the Throne, but he tells you that as soon as the north country is settled up and has sufficient tonnage, his government will then consider giving you a coast outlet for your products, but for the present the land should be colonised along the lines already built. This means-no coast outlet.

Mr. Meighen states that he will never amalgamate the Canadian National railway with the Canadian Pacific railway without the people of Canada, through

their ballots, instructing him to do so; that he will permit the directors of the Canadian National railway to run the railway and do the directing; that he will support the building of essential branch lines which the west urgently needs, which means, if Meighen is returned to power this puts your entire railway question in Sir Henry Thornton's hands as far as the government is concerned.

Mr. Meighen was the first man on the floor of the House to support the claim of the north for railway relief.

In connection with this pamphlet there are three charts. Chart No. 1 shows the railway service that is given to the three prairie provinces between Winnipeg and Edmonton.

In western Canada from Prince Albert south to the American border, and from Winnipeg west to Edmonton, there is 14,000 miles of railway, or one mile of railway for every seventeen square miles of country. If this mileage ran in straight lines it would start along the American border and cross a distance equal to that from Winnipeg to Edmonton seventeen times, and the line be only twenty odd miles apart, and the last line would be north of Prince Albert.

Let me now quote from the second chart. This chart shows:

The result of the McArthur-Liberal railway administration and four years of Progressive rule.

It indicates that in 65,000 square miles of territory in the Peace River riding north of Edson, only 500 miles of railway have been constructed under the McArthur regime and under four years of Progressive and Liberal administration. And chart No. 3 shows:

That if you had received the same railway development as other portions of western Canada you would have a coast outlet through the Pine pass on the north side of the Peace; you could have a connection to this outlet from Spirit river; you could have the Grand Prairie cut off to Brule, and still have enough mileage left to cross the province of Alberta east and west twelve times, as illustrated by the twelve parallel lines.

The pamphlet goes on to say:

This language is not election language, it is not political tin-horning; it is altogether too mild to represent the true facts of the case, and I challenge any man in the Peace River riding to refute the facts of the neglect and robbery of the north.

Do not get carried away by oratory or platitudes, or rainbow policies of either of the three parties on what Canada needs in the shape of remedial legislation. You confine your thoughts principally to your own riding and think of what the great Peace River riding requires in the way of help, and you vote for the man whom you think is best fitted to intelligently lay your problems before the House at Ottawa.

JANUARY 29. 1926 Ml

* The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)

I pledge myself if elected to use my best endeavours, first, to secure a coast outlet for the north immediately; secondly, to secure branch lines to feed the coast outlet; thirdly, to secure railway relief for the settlers in the district lying west of the Pembina river and for settlers in the McLeod river and Shining Bank districts, and for the riding generally which I consider shamefully neglected, as shown by my charts.

In another circular letter the Conservative candidate had this to say:

As I pointed out in my railroad pamphlet, you have only one-seventh of the railroad mileage to which you are entitled as compared with the mileage which other parts of western Canada are enjoying. Yet Premier King pledges himself to spend $30,000,000 to complete the useless Hudson Bay railway and apparently did not even think about your railway needs. He did not give you any encouragement for a coast outlet nor for the 'building of a railroad through the Mosside Belvedere and Fort Assiniboine district, both of which problems will be given my personal consideration.

Another letter deals with the question of the Edmonton, Dunvegan railway and claims that it should be taken over by one of the two great railway ss'stems, the Canadian National being the preference of the writer. Let me quote. This was the programme:

Five million dollars at least must be spent on betterment work on the Dunvegan system when it is taken over by either the C.P.R. or C.N.R. Would taking out the crooked steel and laying new steel increase the payroll? Would giving the whole line a two-foot life of ballast from Edmonton north take any man ofF the spare-board or give them back their rights? Would the construction of a proper telegraph line, up-to-date in every respect, advance and better the position of linemen, operators, etc., and would men be employed in constructing this? Would the necessary alteration of the entire water system be of any importance to McLennan? Would the construction of proper engine-houses, trainmen's quarters, enginemen's quarters, sanitary living quarters for operators, all of which railway employees through America enjoy except the Dunvegan, be of any importance to McLennan? Would the construction of 2.500 miles of new railway anywhere in the north country be of any interest to the railway crews of McLennan and to their wives and families and to every man, woman and child in the north country?

Now I was not ready to compete in promises of that kind with the candidate of the Conservative party. I took the ground that we required one outlet, the best that we could possibly find, and I still believe that the construction of that outlet in the near future is sound from the point of view of the Dominion as a who-le. The Peace river district is a proven country, a country capable of large development, and it is a country of rich soil and splendid climate where mixed farming is making rapid strides and where the people are producing the best grain as well. In 1923 we raised and shipped out of the country about 3,000,000 bushels of wheat and other grain. The years 1924 and 1925 were not quite so good owing to the dry weather that prevailed. In 1924 we shipped over 5,000 head of cattle

and 10,000 hogs from the Grand Prairie district alone. The total shipments of all stock north of Edmonton ran close to 3,400 carloads. In five Alberta creameries operating or tributary to the Dunvegan system the provincial dairy commissioner computed the production at 763,723 pounds being an increase of 68 per cent over the production of the previous year, while the factory value was estimated at 30.7 cents per pound. Including Pouce Coupe and the 'Canadian National lines there was 8427,800 worth of creamery butter produced north of Edmonton last year. Dairy butter and home consumption would run this well over the half million mark. We have in this country a class of settlers who went 300 miles from a railway to establish themselves. They faced the difficulties inseparable from the hauling in of supplies that distance from railway communication, and they endured hardships for a good many years. They fought against a freight rate disadvantage of almost 50 cents a bushel on grain but they were able to establish themselves and to hang on until railway construction came closer to them, so that the whole Peace river country in Alberta is, for a new district, fairly well supplied for the time being. But right across in the province of British Columbia there is a large area that is not supplied at all with railways having to depend upon the road running through Alberta. We have half a system, which runs northwest for a distance of about 500 miles, but we need the other half running southwest to the Canadian National in order to develop the province of British Columbia and give a good railway service to the people there especially in Pouce Coupe and the district lying west of that in the Peace river block. I understand that the whole project can be completed for approximately ten or fifteen million dollars. There is a difficulty in the way, of course, in the ownership and operation of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, but I believe that in the near future this difficulty will be cleaned up, and in my opinion the best interests of all will be served by the operation of that system in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways.

Now, the right hon. leader of the opposition in his amendment states that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne-

-designed to enlarge the volume of employment in Canada.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is. Last night I tried to show what railway construction meant in employment and general prosperity so far as the ordinary people were concerned from 1900 to 1913; I tried to

542 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)

show later how the cutting down of that programme-which of course was necessary to at least some extent-was one of the great factors in the unemployment which prevailed during the latter part of 1913 and the following year. Completion of the Hudson Bay railway means something in enlarging the volume of employment. Surely the fact that steel will be required for that purpose will have something to do with improving the condition of our steel industry. I submit that the policy which we have been following for the last few years is altogether too drastic in relation to the needs of the settlement of the northwest. Last night I showed that we spent about 1800,000 a day in capital undertakings of this kind up until about 1913, when apparently we got frightened and said, "We won't spend any more." It may be that the programme of 1913 was too ambitious, but the abrupt cutting down of development along that line was a little too drastic. Then of course the war came and we had another period of free expenditure, followed by another sudden cessation. It seems to me, Sir, that from the standpoint of the employment needs of the Dominion a reasonably steady programme of construction of new lines of railway that may reasonably be expected to be succesful undertakings from the economic standpoint is something that is not only in the interest of the Peace river country but of the Dominion as a whole.

Mr. McGIBBON:

Would the hon. member allow me a question? What interest does he think the Hudson Bay railway would return on the capital investment?

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

I invite the hon. gentleman to ask some of the members from Saskatchewan, who are more familiar with that subject than I am. I will say this to the hon. gentleman, however, that we hear a great deal about the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway being a losing proposition, but though that railway is not paying as a unit, I would remind the House that the long haul traffic originating on it is estimated to be worth about a million dollars a year to the Canadian Pacific Railway.

I wish to refer again to the report of the Ontario Commission on Unemployment. In section 2 of their report I find the following: In the opinion of your commissioners, it is desirable that Dominion, provincial and municipal authorities should co-operate in dealing with the unemployment which develops in all periods of general business depression.

Such periods occur with considerable regularity. During the last half century, no ten consecutive years

have passed without one or more years of general depression. No proposal for meeting unemployment is complete unless based on a frank recognition that these cycles of trade stagnation will recur.

To plan necessary public works and expenditures, for such periods, in order that public employment may compensate as far as possible for a lessened private demand for labour, is, in the judgment of your commissioners, one of the most effective methods of dealing with the problem of periodic unemployment.

It is not proposed that unnecessary expenditures should be undertaken; but your commissioners are of the opinion that the public works and other requirements of several years should be planned in advance as a programme, and this should be carried out, when and in proportion as the returns of unemployment show a subnormal demand for labour.

I would commend to the government the desirability of keeping before them this question of a direct outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast. While I am not pleading now that the government should bring down a bill authorizing an expenditure of ten million dollars, I am arguing that if there is anything in the contention of the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to unemployment conditions in Canada, and of our being unable to absorb newcomers to this country, that here is a means by which at least we can do something to enable immigrants to establish themselves in a country where settlers can be expected to make good if they can make good in any part of the world. I believe that the Peace river outlet to the Pacific coast is a sound proposition, because of the proven merit of that country for raising high class farm products; because of the possibilities of development in farming, lumbering and mining; because of the need of a wider home market for our manufactured products, which wider market would be offered by the settlement of the Peace river territory to a greater extent, perhaps, than is possible anywhere else in the Dominion; because of the bearing such a project will have on unemployment, and consequently on immigration, for undoubtedly the opening up of the Peace river country would help the success of any scheme of immigration.

I wish to offer a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the coal problem, but I shall not attempt to deal with it at any length as I understand that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is taking steps to bring it before the House, and I believe he is more conversant with the subject than I am. I may say that at every coal mine in my constituency where I spoke during the election I opposed the interpretation, given by his supporters, of the proposals of the right hon. leader of the opposition to encourage the coal industry of this country. That interpretation was that he would impose a duty

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

of three dollars a ton on coal coming into Canada. Now, I do not believe that that proposal is sound, and even if it were put into effect that it would be permanent, because I do not believe you can impose such a duty without sending up the price of coal, and it is extremely doubtful if the people of Ontario and Quebec would be willing to bear that burden for any length of time for the sake of the coal mines of Alberta and Nova Scotia. I believe that the solution of this problem must be approached from the standpoint of transportation-unless it be possible for the right lion, gentleman to guarantee that the price would not rise with the imposition of the proposed duty, something which I asked him to explain last night. A few years ago we voted about two hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of making experimental shipments of Alberta and Nova Scotia coal to the central provinces, but so far we have not been able to demonstrate what is the actual cost of transportation of coal in trainload lots from the ivest and from the east to Ontario and Quebec. The right hon. leader of the opposition said something about not taking the National Railway directors by the scruff of the neck when he was discussing the other day the coal situation in Nova Scotia, but I believe that if there is no other way of doing it the government may have to take the directors of both railways by the scruff of the neck and find out what are the actual transportation costs. It may be possible to ascertain this through the Board of Railway Commissioners. If it requires a vote of two or three hundred thousand dollars to demonstrate this, I would be willing to support it. I cannot see why such a vote would not be justified just as well as a vote of a million dollars or more to increase agricultural production. But I believe that the very basis of our policy must be a searching inquiry into the actual cost of transportation and of the proper mining of coal. It would be unfair of course to ask the railways to pay the whole shot in connection with the proposal, and I believe if we are going to foster the industry we will have to do it in connection not only with the railways, but in co-operation with the mines, employees and the employers.

There are several other questions dealt with in the Speech from the Throne upon which I have not touched, but I think I have occupied the time of the House long enough. I have offered these suggestions to the government and to the party known as the official opposition, in the hope that my suggestions may be of some value, and that the government and the opposition will seriously consider some of these proposals, and will be able to work out a solution that will be in the interests of my constituency and the Dominion of Canada as a whole.

Mr. BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, before taking into consideration the Speech from the Throne and the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), I briefly wish to say a few words, in our own tongue,-one of the official languages of this country-with reference to a short paragraph in the Speech from the Throne:

Canada has been signally honoured by the selection of a member of its Government as President of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations.

We all agree, I presume, in recognizing that the selection of Hon. Mr. Dandurand, as President, not of the League of Nations -as it is said sometimes, possibly for the sake of brevity-but of the sixth assembly of the League of Nations, redounds assuredly to the credit of Canada and does us all honour. I shall, nevertheless, suggest to the present administration. and to any that may replace it. not to allow themselves to be too much dazzled by the pomp of our international relations and to pay a little more attention to our national problems than what has been done in the past. It is very fine, indeed, for us, to have ministers who travel about and take part in numerous imperial or international congresses; however, I think, especially in the present circumstances, after the thinning out which took place last autumn, that we need all our ministers at home to do household work and keep everything clean and tidy.

I wish to take up the Speech from the Throne and the amendment proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the most orderly manner, were it only to correct the impression created by my previous ramblings, and to show that I may have some of that "practical touch" that the hon. member for South We'ington (Mr. Guthrie) has accused me of lacking. I do not propose, however, to acquire that kind of practical touch which consists of getting the best of all parties alternately.

Now, let us take up the programme of the government as put in the mouth of His Excellency, beginning with those paragraphs which deal with "practical" matters The first announces "substantial reductions in taxation" and so on. This is very alluring, but in the actual situation of Canada, with its increased debts and fixed charges, can any government

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

really make good the promise that taxation will be reduced in the near future in any substantial manner? Frankly and humbly, without posing at all as a financier, I do not believe it, and I will immediately give warning to this government, or to any government that may succeed, that it would be a great mistake, in order to win easy favour with the people, to reduce taxation and increase the debt of Canada. But I think what could be and must be accomplished, is a readjustment of our whole fiscal system. This will come with the budget. For the time being, in the name of those who have sent me here, I humbly suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that, in the preparation of his budget and the readjustment of taxation, he ought to think first of the fate of those ratepayers who are fathers of families. Whether we look upon it from the point of view of population, or from the point of view of economics, I claim that the best Canadian citizen, the most substantial ratepayer, the individual upon whom the future of Canada rests principally, is the one who rears a family, who shoulders the primary responsibility of giving us new citizens and increasing the basic population of our country. Therefore I suggest that in fixing the amount of the income tax, the exemption in favour of fathers of families be increased so as to apply to dependent children up to the age of twenty-one years.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I hope the hon. member will address his remark to the Prime Minister.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Mr. EULER:

The exemption is raised to

five hundred dollars.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Yes, but limited to

eighteen years of age. Secondly, I call the attention of the House to a point which was first brought out, I think, in a journal of which I have the honour to be a director; that according to the interpretation of the income tax laws by the Department of Finance, married couples, under the regime of community of property, are under an injustice as compared with those who have separate property. As the lawyers in this House know, the basic law of the province of Quebec is the old French law, under which married couples without a previous contract of marriage are by law common as to property; whilst in the English provinces, they are separate as to property. What are the results? All over English Canada, and in the province of Quebec as regards those who have made marriage contracts, married couples enjoy two margins of exemption, while the mass of people in the province of Quebec, married under the basic law of the province, are entitled to only one margin of exemption. ,1 claim that this is an injustice, an unfair disposition of the law, and that it ought to be corrected at once.

It may be said that these two suggestions, if acted upon, would mean a decrease in the income tax receipts. May be. I have already spoken of readjustment. That decrease could be amply covered by an increased taxation of the profits and revenues arising out of the investment of capital, as compared with fixed salaries. Again, this is an injustice and an unsocial principle contained in our income tax law. It is unfair, it is unjust; I claim it is absurd to consider the earned salary of an employee, of a functionary, from the same point of view as the perpetual revenue produced from invested capital. I think both in England and France, and in the United States as well, they have made a difference between these two classes of income. I know they have in England, and I think it is a sensible distinction to make. Take, as a concrete example, an employee with a salary of three or four thousand dollars, a man raising a family. He is taxed upon that so-called income. He will pay his taxation this year, but next year he may fall ill, or his salary may be reduced; in either of those contingencies the state will not recoup him for the amount of taxation he paid the year previous. On the other hand, here is another man drawing from invested capital a revenue equivalent in amount to the salary of the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

former ratepayer. His revenue goes on accumulating year by year. That "rentier," as the French say, will be treated by the Department of Finance in exactly the same manner as the ratepayer whose earning capacity is taxed year by year, irrespective of the future, irrespective of the risks of life, illness, unemployment, and so forth.

Second, I claim that the dividends drawn by individuals from investments in various companies should form part of their taxable revenue, irrespective of the tax that is taken from the profits of the company. It may be said that this is duplication of taxation; but we have not hesitated, either in this parliament or in the local legislatures, or even in some of the municipal bodies, to duplicate and even triplicate some forms of taxation. If a company derives profits high enough to be reached by the income tax law, and if after that the shareholders of that company draw dividends which increase their revenue, why should not those individual profits be taxed in the same manner as the salaries of employees of those companies are taxed year by year, irrespective of the profits or losses of the company?

Third, I claim it is immoral as well as unjust that the profits arising from stock exchange operations should go untaxed. It may be said that this is a haphazard sort of thing; you lose one day and win the next. Well, what do you do with regard to other sources of revenue? What do you do with regard to the salary of the employee that is reached by the income tax? Do you stop at the idea of collecting his tax this year because he may in poverty next year? Will you, next year, if he is stricken with illness and thrown on the street, reimburse him for the amount of taxation he paid the year previous? I claim, Sir, that if one source of profit should be taxed, and heavily taxed, it is that immense organization, I was going to say of theft, known as the stock exchange. Such operations should be reached by the Finance Minister in the most effective and strongest manner that he can devise, without going beyond the point where the tax gatherer loses all power, because of fraud. With only those three sources of increase, you could amply cover those reductions which I have mentioned, and which natural law and the best interests of the country command this government and this parliament to offer to the honest ratepayers who pay honest taxation to the state, and who, besides, work hard to raise honest families to make the country greater, more populous and more enduring.

I pass to the second paragraph: reduction of expenditure. Well and good. I heard of that at almost every session when I was here before, and I find records of similar declarations in the Hansard of previous parliaments. All governments, especially those who are in a difficult situation, make virtuous professions of economy and honesty. I stand in favour of reductions in expenditure; but again, may I humbly suggest to the Minister of Finance, that-in what I was going to call the Caesarean operation he is preparing to perform on the budget of Canada-there should be intelligent discrimination? A small expenditure may involve a loss of money utterly unjustifiable; a large expenditure may be commanded by the best interests of the country, and may' be a remunerative investment, both for the state and for the people. It my excellent friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) were here, I would be tempted to refer him to a good British precedent. When Mr. Gladstone, that great man whom so many Liberals on both sides of the water have renounced, but to whom I have remained faithful, perhaps because I have renounced Liberalism-when Mr. Gladstone was first appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, his first action was to conduct a very searching inquiry into the use made of note paper, pencils, pens and so forth, in the various departments of the state and in the Houses of parliament themselves. Naturally he was laughed at by great statesmen. His first budget was called the pen-and-pencil budget; but Gladstone was not disturbed. He saved, I do not remember how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, as it would be expressed in our currency, during the first year of that small economy; but what was much more important, he had the concrete fact to show that in matters of public expenditure, as well as in the governing of a corporate budget or the humblest family budget, small economies accumulated one after the other result in real economy. You can empty a barrel or a tank by a large number of small holes just as quickly and efficiently as by taking out a stave or by breaking the wall.

Another point of view has to be considered. Discrimination must be made between useless and useful expenditure. In the past, and not very' distant past, a great deal of money has been squandered on post offices in towns of various sizes or on drill sheds that are of no more use to the militia of Canada than they are to anybody else. I know that in Montreal the drill shed is mainly used for motor shows; in Quebec, it is of utility in permitting the pontiffs of the various parties of Canada to

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

come once in a while with a great display of oratory, with much applause, sometimes with votes and sometimes with none; but I do not think it is absolutely necessary to keep up a budget of that nature whilst that money could be put to much better use in the construction of such enterprises as the one which was so ably defended a moment ago by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).

Take railway matters. Without exercising any undue pressure upon the board that has been constituted to manage our railways, I think it could be suggested to both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway that they had better spend a little less money on luxurious cars, and try to solve the problem of transportation by cheapening the rates on the necessary commodities of the people of Canada and thereby in fostering trade exchanges between the various provinces. '

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

And perhaps in cutting out duplication.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Quite so.

Now. I pass to the third paragraph, "simplified forms of account." Well, that is quite inoffensive. Perhaps, under the circumstances, His Excellency the Governor General might have been spared the task of giving a neat little lesson on book-keeping to the officials of the Finance department.

But the following paragraph, which deals with immigration and repatriation, is a very important one. Sir, in that respect may I say that, from my humble point of view, the only satisfactory declaration I heard on that subject was the very sensible argument made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), leader of the Progressive party. I may tell him right at once that the argument he made the other day with regard to emigration and immigration, and the means to be taken to counteract, if possible, the terrible leakage to which our population has been subject for some years past, is entirely coincident with the view prevailing in my native province- not as expressed through party organs, but as developing in the minds of all true and disinterested observers of things. The population problem of Canada will be solved by making the economic and social conditions of this country-as much as a parliament can do; parliament is not omnipotent-by making the conditions of this country to the masses, especially to the farming community, such that they will find themselves happy here. It is not by any change in the tariff, one way or the other; it is not by any huge expenditure of money on this enterprise or the other, that

you are going to convince the millions of the people of Canada that they are happy and prosperous. Neither is it by a large scheme -an organization of so-called repatriation agents-that you are going to bring back to Canada the hundreds of thousands of people who have quitted the national soil during the last ten years to go and work for a better living in the United States. I have visited the French-Canadian centres of New England almost yearly during the last forty years. I know those Franco-Americans just as well as I know my own fellow-citizens of this Dominion. One might just as well tell the truth. The idea that you can bring back to Canada any number of those French-Can-adians who have gone to the United States rests on a fallacious basis. Of course, there are a certain number who go to and fro every year; we have had that movement ever since the two countries have been alongside of each other. I well remember Sir Wilfrid Laurier telling me once of his maiden speech, when he entered the legislature of Quebec in 1872, a Conservative government being in power there and a Conservative government in power here. That first speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on the subject of emigration. It practically contained the gist of the argument made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), and all his candidates in the last election, against the present Liberal government. But I repeat; if you follow the line indicated so sensibly by the hon. member for Brandon; if you demonstrate-not by speeches, not by so-called missions to the east and west of the United States, but in fact-that conditions in Canada are such that if those departed Canadians return to this country, their condition will be improved, very well. Likewise I refer to such emigration from Europe as may be desirable and possible to get.

Now, Sir, I go one step further and the hon. member for Brandon indicated the point in a slight manner. He reminded the House that Canada had been at war. Other hon. members have reminded the House that the financial situation of Canada, as compared to that of the United States, operates tremendously against the keeping of our population and against the repatriation of such Canadians as may desire to come back. Let us view that aspect of the situation in its true light. Beyond and above the small formulas and parrow recipes for governing this country, let us declare for a bold policy of nationalism, a policy meant to keep Canada for the Canadians, and also to keep the Canadians at home. No more imperial ventures. No more undertaking to send our sons to shed their blood

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

on all the battlefields of the world. No more spending of billions of dollars in time of war to depopulate this country, and then other billions of dollars in time of peace to bring foreigners in to take the places of native sons, sent to be killed on the battlefields of Europe, to enable one set of grabbing nations to get the better of another set of equally grabbing nations. No more "Ready, aye ready" speeches. Likewise, no more so-called Liberal circulars distributed through the country to disguise the members of a so-called Liberal government as a troop of imperial masqueraders. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition having given the impression that he was looking at the other aspect of things, that the experience of the war had .opened his eyes, the other party thought it necessary to imitate his imperialistic tendencies and to raise their hands in horror at the idea that should .Mr. Meighen come to power Canada would be absent from the next imperial war.

I do not want to dwell at length upon that. Some occasion will arise during this session, I hope, for the discussion of this whole question of imperial relationship, of the participation of Canada in wars foreign to her interests, to her duty, and to her future as well as to her past; in wars that have not for their motive and object the defence of truth, but the simulated truth to disguise the sordid ambitions of war-mongers in Europe or Asia. We should have a sound and1 dear declaration that we want to bring back the .happy condition of things which existed1, socially, politically, and economically, some years ago, when Conservatives as well as Liberals stood by Canada before they stood by any other country and were not afraid to proclaim that in order to make Canada safe, solid' and prosperous from an economic as well as from a political point of view, they were prepared to run the risk of breaking British ties. That was good, old, sound Conservative doctrine fifty years ago, but I have not heard it for some time past in any declaration of principle emanating from the other side of the House. .Neither have I found on this side of the House the same courage to stand by the principles of Liberalism in Canada or England as against the encroachment of Toryism and imperialism in the ranks of popular opinion.

With regard to population, there is no use denying the fact that the neighbourhood of the United 'States is a standing factor which will always operate against a quick development of Canada and also against the preservation of our population in this regard. I would zommendi to members of the House the read-14011-35J

ing of a short article which appeared in the latest issue of the Saturday Review of London, signed by a Conservative member of the British parliament, Captain Victor Cazalet.,-a French name, but a thorough Englishman.-regarding the causes of the slow development of Canadb. It is childish to deny the fact that geographical and climatic conditions are against us. The country to the south of us has a territory extending from near the northern hemisphere well into the regions of the tropic. It has every variety of agricultural production. It possesses all the mineral resources which you see scattered throughout the rest of the world. But Americans have something more. They are the masters of their destiny and of their policy. I will go further. Every Britisher, every true Englishman, Scotchman or Welshman, who abandons the Old Land, attached as he may be to the British flag, prefers going into a country where he will find under a new nationality the same power of public influence and public vote that he has left at home; while the Englishman, Scotchman or Welshman who comes into Canada knows that he will have a right to vote and thereby control the internal policy of this country, but that as a British subject he loses his imperial citizenship; that he has not the chance, every second or fourth year, to vote for or against Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in approval or disapproval of those great policies which may throw the kingdom or the empire into war or may keep them at peace. The eight million people of Canada have less say in the destinies of the empire, less say in the framing of such imperial policies, which our forefathers had the wisdom to avoid, but into which we have thrown ourselves up to the neck since the South African war, than the humblest sweeper in the streets of Liverpool or the poorest cattle drover on the roads of Scotland. After wars are over, the Britishers at home go and cast their votes in approval or disapproval of the policy which has brought their country into war, or which has kept their country at peace. But we, the citizens of this so-called nation, have no more right in framing those policies, for which we have stood an expense of about $2,000,000,000, for which we have enlisted 500,000 men, 60,000 of whom lie dfead on the battlefields of France, than the negroes of the protected possesions of the empire in Africa. I reserve for another occasion the development of this aspect of our situation; but I want to impress immediately upon the thoughtful minds of those who are not carried away by formulas of broad and undefined imperial

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

policy, the fact that this is in itself a deterrent to the development of Canada. It is also a deterrent to the development of that virile sentiment which you find in the citizens of any free country, whether they be English, French, German, Italian, or even Swiss, Dutch or Belgian. Go to the smallest, the humblest country, even to one of those that are excused from those great paraphernalia of so-called international policy, and you will find they have a more dignified sense of citizenship and national rights than we, self-willed vassals of a foreign power, have in the framing of policies for which we have crippled for many generations to come the economic development and1 the moral unity of this country.

In connection with the problem of immigration and emigration, I think can be considered the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne relating to co-operation of railway companies. May I in this respect humbly advise the members of the government not to look too much for co-operation from the railway companies, but to think rather of cooperation with the provincial governments in order to frame up a comprehensive policy of colonization applicable to all parts of Canada, and to see to it that no agent of the federal government will think it necessary, as others have done in the past, to think only of the settlement of the three prairie provinces under the pretence that in those provinces crown lands belong to the federal government, and to speak in disparagement of the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, because they consider they have no business to encourage settlement there? It seems to me that something much more fruitful of results than the co-operation of the federal government and the railway companies would come out of a round-table conference between the federal government and the various provincial governments in ordter to find out the areas that are capable of settlement in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario as well as the western provinces, and to direct the immigrants, not according to the arbitrary decision of an agent of the Department of the Interior, but according to the needs, temperaments and habits of newcomers to this country.

Last fall I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting in friendly intercourse the delegates from the Scottish Weekly Press who visited this country. I advised them strongly not to take a through train to Winnipeg and the coast and then return and go on board ship. I told them there was a little province down by the sea, the mother of parliamentary institutions in .this country, the jealous pre-

server of noble traditions and of the spirit of tolerance and social amity. I advised them to go to Nova Scotia where perhaps they would find still some spots on which Scotsmen of the Old Country could come and settle among their kith and kin, some of whom still sneak the Gaelic tongue. I shall wait for the proper occasion to develop this idea of a rural colonization policy framed and put into operation, necessarily through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments; for, given the conditions under which the public lands of this country 'are disposed of, there must be co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities.

Now I come to rural credits, and here I find myself quite at home. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when I mention his name you will instantly recall that humble servant of the House of some thirty years ago to whom my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has referred as a philanthropist and whom I may describe as one of the best informed economists of America, Mr. Alphonse Desjardins. He had put himself in communication with some of the most eminent cooperative economists of the world: Luzzatt-i, the saviour of Italy through means of rural banks; Raiffeisen, the author of those magnificent popular co-operative banks which were the means of rescuing Germany from the follies of the imperial war of 1870; H. W. Wolff in England and Sir Horace Plunkett in Ireland; from all of whom he had1 acquired invaluable information. After years of very careful study devoted to a mastering of his subject, Mr. Desjardins submitted to the authorities in this country his proposition with regard to rural credits. All through tho.se years I had worked with him, having myself also endeavoured to master the subject as well as I could; and I may say that I was instrumental in bringing him in contact with our then Governor General, Lord Grey, who at that time showed considerable interest in these matters. But what came of it all? A special committee of the House was appointed, and naturally all the pontiffs of high finance came to deride the project. They skilfully made use of the fact that Desjardins was a French-Canadian of Quebec. What good could come from Nazareth, in matters of finance? They spoke of the scheme as threatening the financial fabric of Canada; if we allowed peasants, ignorant individuals, to manipulate our money there was no telling what would happen. In the minds of some people there are only a few institutions, self-ordained, I was going to

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

say ordained of divine right, that are fit to dictate our financial policies, individuals who take as much as they can and give back as little as possible to the people. And it was these institutions who succeeded in 'blocking that proposed legislation, session after session, until finally Mr. Desjardins had to turn to the provincial government of Quebec to have his scheme looked into and put into effect. It was by means of provincial legislation that he was enabled to establish his rural banks. Now, after years of experience, on a small scale it is true, those banks, I dare to affirm before this House, have proved not only from the standpoint of honesty and good management, but even in point of efficiency in the employment of their funds, that they are in a position to teach many valuable lessons to the Bankers' Association of Canada. And the few of those banks that have failed have not wrought one-tenth of the damage to Canadian credit and to Canadian honour which many of our chartered banks, under the aegis of the Bankers' Association, have been responsible for within the last fifteen years alone. I say therefore to my hon. friends to the right that if they want to make sure that this legislation will pass and be effective, and that these sources of rural credit shall not be dried up, they had better beware of the politicians and especially of the Bankers' Association.

Now a word as to the tariff advisory board. This is excellent in itself but it seems to me that the government would have been better advised had they gone a step further and proposed the establishment of a 'fiscal' advisory board. It is obvious that through a tariff advisory board you will get only partial information; you cannot hope for any comprehensive study of the whole field of taxation if you instruct a few technicians of long experience along one line of inquiry to study only one form of taxation in use in the country. If by a readjustment of taxation generally we want to accomplish something, not only at election time but permanently, something that will endure from year to year and serve the interests of all classes in the country; if we want to press on towards that goal which we all desire to reach:-a sound economic balance in Canada as between producer and consumer, as between rural and industrial producers, as between capital and labour- it is not sufficient to study the operation of the customs tariff alone but to study the whole question of taxation in all its intricacies. We must ascertain whether we can derive more or less revenue through customs,

more or less revenue from income, more or less revenue from excise, and so on. To inquire into these matters is the business of the British exchequer. There they have officials of long experience who have seen ministry after ministry go down to defeat and who still keep on investigating these things. I admit of course that they are imbued with certain narrow and conservative ideas and very often they are apt to think themselves infallible, which of course is no more true of them than it is of any other body of men. Nevertheless these officials are of invaluable service to passing chancellors of the exchequer, because, with a lofty sense of their duty, with the assurance that they can express freely their opinion to every transitory ministry, whether it be supported or defeated by popular favour, they are able to make proposals which otherwise they would not venture to suggest, leaving it to the full responsibility of the government to accept or to reject their views in toto or in part. They therefore form a tremendous basis of safety, not only for the public but for private and corporate finance as well. I would therefore suggest to the government that they enlarge the scope of the board, making it a true bureau of information which shall be charged with the study of various forms of taxation to which the country is or might be subject. The government, I think, should always have regard to something more than the raising of money. In their relations with such a board as this, they should carefully consider whatever views are brought forward, modifying the opinions of the board when perhaps it is too coldly technical in its findings. They should have regard to what I mentioned a moment ago, to the fate of the families of this country, to the fate of those taxpayers, who are the best contributors to the increase of our population; also, they should always have regard to that elementary truth, so ably put before the House by the member for Brandon, but so easily forgotten by politicians of all shades in spite of their professions of faith, that the basic industry of this country is and must remain agriculture. The great error which both parties have committed, for the last fifty years, is to have always an eye upon the money monger, upon the industrialist. I should not like to narrow too much the scope of this debate; but there is no doubt that one of the reasons explaining the influence of that class of men is that they are easily brought together; they are in a position to present their interests; and also for

The Address-Mr. Bourassci

the further reason, that in times of dire electoral contests they are very generous subscribers to the funds of both parties-an eye-opener to party leaders.

As regards industries proper, I would humbly suggest to both parties that a national policy does not consist in favouring the development of all sorts of industries regardless of the raw materials they make use of, or regardless of their capitalization. I have always considered that any national policy should not bear that name unless it had for its sole object the industrial development of the raw materials that can be found in Canada, not the development of artificial industries that have to go outside the Dominion for their raw product. I simply mention a couple of those raw materials, so far as the soil is concerned. Wood, of course. I think the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc), if the press is right, will give us, before this session is over, occasion to discuss the question of how we can make the best use possible, in the interests of Canadian capital, Canadian labour, and even Canadian farming, of the wood which is exported in such large quantities to the United States. Next, nickel. This is renewing an old subject. I well remember in this House-not in this chamber, of course, but in the one that was burned-having raised that subject close on twenty years ago, and pointed out that Canada possessing, according to the testimony of all the mining authorities of the world, 85 per cent of the world's nickel production, had allowed foreign capital to come here, extract the mineral and send it to the United States, to be there made into the various forms to which nickel is adapted.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

And to England.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Not only to England, too, if my hon. friend will allow me. I should not like to open up that vista upon our so-called imperial policies, but I suppose my hon. friend knows that not a German war ship could have been finished, not a German cannon could have been hardened to the point of usefulness, had it not been for the Canadian nickel controlled by the international company-

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Hear, hear.

M,r. BOURASSA: -in which Vickers-Maxim and Armstrong's-two of the great armament firms of England-in partnership with the Krupps of Germany, the Schneiders of France and the great steel industries of Italy and Austria, participated in the profits; so that every German cannon which was hardened with Canadian nickel and loaded with shells similarly hardened, which helped to kill sixty

thousand of our sons, brought tremendous dividends to the numerous bishops, lords and members of parliament of England, who drew their dividends from the German weapons as well as the Germans did from the English weapons.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt him there, because I will not have a chance otherwise. I desire to say that, from a fairly intimate knowledge of the matter of the export of our nickel and its control, the hon. gentleman has been grossly misinformed.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Mr. Speaker, I should not like to develop this theme at too great length now, as I hope to have occasion to do so at a later date. I may say, however, that all my information was secured in London from high officials of the Naval department, from gentlemen connected with the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and fiom people who have traced the capitalization of the armour trust under which all those companies drew their dividends. Of course it was done in a very apt way. The company which imported our nickel was an American organization; but its shareholders were all individuals representing those various armament firms of England, France, Italy, Germany and Austria, and their dividends were distributed to the members of those allied companies. I am sorry to say to the right hon. gentleman that I think my information is much more complete than any which he may have. Now that he has gone to his reward-brave Britisher and grand old seaman as he was- I may add to the written testimony which I gathered in London the absolute and unequivocal declaration of Lord Charles Beres-ford, who confirmed every one of the facts that I have adduced to-day; he confirmed them in his own house in London in the month of June, 1914, one month before war was declared.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

How could the hon. and gallant gentleman in June, 1914, confirm facts which have transpired since?

Mr. BOURASSA:

They go back far before that.