Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

Would my hon. friend permit a question? Reference has been made to the province of Manitoba; would my hon. friend put on the records now the representation from that province in the present parliament, along with that from Saskatchewan and Alberta?

Mr. McPHEE:

I will let my hon. friend

do that if he so desires. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), though not so old in political faith as those to whom I have previously referred, but equally old in conviction, said that fifty years ago the torch of protection was lighted in Canada. If that is the beginning of traditional Conservatism in Canada, traditional Liberalism antedates it by half a century. Traditional Liberalism in Canada had its inception in the long struggle for responsible government against :he old Tory family compact, a struggle simi-.ar to the one the Liberals are now waging for economic freedom in this country. That was a period when, in order to prevent free speech, printing presses were dumped into lake Ontario and Halifax harbour. The culmination of that struggle was the rebellion of 1837, and Canada will never forget the part then played by William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Papineau. I stand here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, a disciple of that traditional Liberalism, and pay my eomplimehts to the grandson of Louis Papineau in the person of the talented member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and I express my gratification and

that of every Liberal in this House and in Canada that the mantle of the late revered leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, fell upon the shoulders of the member-elect for Prince Albert, the grandson of the old rebel patriot William Lyon Mackenzie-

Now, Mr. Speaker, what has been the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite to agriculturists in this country, and particularly those of western Canada? Let me go back to the period previous to the election of 1911, to which I have already referred. In volume IV of the Debates of the Session of 1910-11, at page 7134, I find these words uttered by a gentleman afterwards a member of the Conservative government:

Why, Sir, you would actually think it was this gang of leaders; -

By the way he was referring to the delegation of one thousand farmers who came down from western Canada to interview the government in regard to legislation which the reciprocity treaty would have given them.

-this grain growers association from the northwest that came down here, the same sort of fellow we find popping up in blacksmith-shop statesmanship. Everyone of them a Grit organizer and heeler; not the rank and file of the farmers of Canada, but the men who try to push themselves to the front and whose wives are at home wearing long boots and cleaning out the cow stables and the horse stables, while these fellows are hanging around the blacksmith shops spouting statesmanship for the world over.

That is Toryism with a vengeance. I was going to say it was almost on a par with those statements made in this House a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), quoting from an address delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in which he referred to the good ladies of the province of Quebec. Poor, common, ordinary individuals must not even approach these barons of special privilege without being slandered in the manner which I have just indicated.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the doleful remarks of our Conservative friends are in keeping with the statements appearing in the Conservative press previous to the election on October 29 last. Let me quote just one or two. First I will read from that stalwart journal of Conservatism, the Montreal Star.

Hear. hear.

Mr. McPHEE:

Let my hon. friends say "hear, hear" after they hear the editorials. From the editorial pages of the Montreal Star of October 6, 1925, I read the following:

It may perhaps be as well to say a word about Quebec's alleged narrow-mindedness in thinking of what may be the effect upon its most essential industries and its most cherished institutions if Mr. FEBRUARY 1, 1926 587

The Address-Mr. McPhee

King is given enough supporters in parliament to enable him to sell out to the Progressives.

All we are doing is trying to shake this province awake to the fact that its very life is in danger and that it must come out of the past and vote with reference to pending political issues. That is why we ask Quebec to put only loyal Quebecers on guard, men who will stand with Patenaude in preventing the government- of this Dominion from being handed over holus bolus to the dangerously sincere spokesmen of the west, whose political vision never penetrates east of the fogs of lake Superior.

Again on October 26, from the editorial pages of the same paper, I gather the following:

What, then, will a Progressive triumph cost Quebec? The Progressives will demand the death of protection; they will either get their pound of flesh at once or they will get a big installment with promises of more to come immediately. This will mean either that the industries of Quebec will be decapitated forthwith or will be frightened into a swift decline. We have seen during the last four years what the constant tariff reduction can do. Practically every industry in the province, except that of the American consuls forwarding Canadian emigrants into the United States, has shrivelled, laid off men, reduced hours of work, kept down its pay-roll and spread hard times through the area it once fed. No Quebec manufacturer dared to think of investing new capital or enlarging his plant while a government sat in Ottawa which was always expected to take another slash at the tariff. A govern-mmt dependent upon Progressive votes must carve away at the tariff yearly or the Progressive voters on the prairies would compel their henchmen to turn it out of office. It would no longer be a mere threat, it would be a succession of definite decapitations. Our Quebec industries would stand shivering like the unhappy prisoners of the French revolution, wondering which would be the next to climb the steps of the guillotine. This would turn the flow of the exodus into a torrential rapid. Our boys are now holding on hoping that the tide will turn and that there will be more work next year. A Progressive victory would put an end to that hope. Everyone well knows that capital, always timid, will be far more badly frightened during the reign of the downright Forke than it was during the reign of the trimmer King.

This editorial, Mr. Speaker, must be amusing to my hon. friends th~ Progressives and especially the leader of their party, after having listened to the seductive words of our Conservative friends during the debate which featured the first week of this parliament. What a different picture is painted by the same newspaper in its news items after the election! I have taken a few items from the news pages of the same journal, to show something of the political hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have culled these news items from the Montreal Star, and they relate to business conditions from one end of Canada to the other:

1. November 26, 1925. Bank report shows trade is getting better.

2. November 16, 1925. Sherwin earned 8.79 per cent, outlook bright.

3. November 17, 1925. Declares Canada land of promise.

4. November 10, 1925. Granby Smelting Company reports better year. _

5. November 26, 1925. Upward trend in business is shown. Signs of improved business continue to appear in the reports published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Out of six indicators of basic conditions recently published, five show upward trend.

6. November 26, 1925. October coke output established record.

7. November 26, 1925. Dividends from Canadian mines show big gain.

8. November 26, 1925. Boat loadings break record.

9. November 23, 1925. Pulp and paper export figures up in October.

10. November 14, 1925. Improvement shown in hardware trade.

11. November 13, 1925. Will make plans for Quebec mill. New construction near Beaupre will cost $5,000,000.

12. November 25, 1925. Salt bonds all sold. It was announced by Royal Securities Corporation at noon that the entire issue of $1,200,000 Canadian Salt Company 1st mortgage six per cents, public offering of which vras made this morning, has been subscribed for. Distribution has been made from coast to coast.

13. November 24, 1925. Cheese exports show substantial gain.

14. November 13, 1925. Six hundred employed on Quebec mill. International paper plant, Chelsea, to employ 4,000 by spring.

15. November 26, 1925. Wheat prices soar.

16. November 24, 1925. Many nations send immigrants.

17. November 23, 1925. Increase is shown in border trade.

18. November 13, 1925. Heavy Manitoba butter exports. Shipped to Britain so far more than entire season of 1916.

Mr. Speaker, what do these news items convey to us? They convey the fact that Canada is prosperous, our Conservative peddlers of gloom to the contrary notwithstanding. Let me call a few more witnesses, and these are all in addition to the quotations that have already been made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House; I am not repeating any of their citations. Let me quote first from the address of Sir Vincent Meredith, president of the Bank of Montreal:

There is no question but that the trend of business is slowly but surely upward. As an evidence of this, car loadings are the largest on record, while wholesale and retail business show's a fair degree of increased activity. Textile industries are well employed, and there is more demand in the leather and allied trades. Improvement is also shown in other lines of business, although profits are curtailed in the grocery trade. There is little improvement in the lumber market in eastern Canada, but western shipments by w'ay of the Panama canal have substantially increased.

The prosperity of the country largely depends on the outcome of agriculture, and this year the crop has been a very large one, and at present prices w'ould prove profitable to the farmer. The marketing of the crop would bring at least $500,000,000 of new money into Canada and would undoubtedly effect a liquidation in fanners' liabilities. This new money would flow onto all channels of trade, and be reflected in improved conditions generally throughout the country.

I will now quote the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) himself, as re-

5SS

The Address-Mr. McPhee

ported in a press despatch appearing in the Mail and Empire shortly after the new year:

Although a quarter of a century has passed without 'too great (progress, there is still ample time for the fulfilment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's prophesy that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. In two decades we should double our present population.

The next quotation is from Hon. Mr. Crerar, a former cabinet minister, and the president of the United Grain Growers:

Western Canada has had the most successful year in its history. This, following two previous years of satisfactory progress, is putting western Canada on a sound financial basis.

Next I quote from Sir Henry Thornton:

The Dominion with its present population of 9,000,000 has a greater export trade than the United States had with 76,000,000, its population in 1899. For the twelve months ending last August the per capita export trade of Canada was $125, as compared with $37 for the United States.

The last quotation is from Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway:

For the past .two or three years we have been erecting a new and sounder foundation for our future economic growth. We have learned some of those economic lessons that adverse conditions have forced on our attention, and, finally, aided by a bountiful crop and the slow but sure betterment of the overseas markets for our products, have come to a position where we await an impetus to revivify our domestic trade.

These quotations, Mr. Speaker, substantiate the statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1895, when, after listening to Sir George Foster read from a long list of statistics to prove that Canada was prosperous said:

If the party which I lead comes into power in this country it vyudd not be necessary for any man to read from statistics to prove the country is prosperous. I will simply ask every farmer and every artisan in the country to put his hands in his pockets, and there he will find the evidence of bis prosperity.

Prosperity and Liberalism, Mi. Speaker, are synonymous terms. They tell a story of Sir Robert Borden and the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the great Quebec bridge fell a few years ago, Sir Robert Burden was in the vicinity and delivered an address near one of the terminals. His presence, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the bridge falling, it was just his luck to be present on that occasion a id to have made a speech at that particular time. Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out west on a tour shortly afterwards, and visited the city of Moose Jaw They had had no rain there for several weeks, and the people were praying for rain. The morning after Sir Wilfrid Laurier landed there, the rain came down in torrents. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had nothing to do with the coming of the rain, but it was his good fortune to be present at Moose Jaw when it happened. He went on

to the city cf Prince Rupert, where conditions were just the reverse. It had been raining there for weeks, and the people were beginning to despair of ever seeing the sun again.

But the morning after Sir Wilfrid landed, the sun came out in all its glory. Sir Wilfrid had nothing to do with the sun shining on that day, but it iwas just his good fortune to be present when the sun did come out on that occasion. Our friends opposite say that we do noc give any credit to Providence for what happens in this country, but let me tell them, whether it is a matter of luck or a matter of judgment, the people of this country want a government upon whose work the rains from heaven fall, and upon whose administration a wise and beneficent Providence causes the sun of prosperity to shine.

Our Conservative friends opposite, who keep on telling us that Canada is not prosperous, continually harp on protection as the only salvation for the country. Let me quote from the speech of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) as reported at page 361 of Hansard:

Protection is very far from being dead. Coming from the west, I venture to say that protection is more alive than it has been for a long time. There is general recognition throughout the country, even throughout the west, that protection is necessary for the welfare of the Dominion as a whole.

And the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir Geo. Perley) said, as reported at page 289 of Hansard:

We should protect our growers of agricultural produce by using as much as possible of it in our own country, thus preserving our market for them and keeping our money at home. The only way in which this object can be accomplished is to raise the tariff on our agriculture .produots to the same levels it is in the United States.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MePHEE: I am glad to hear that

"hear, hear" from hon. gentlemen opposite. Again the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), as reported at page 465 of Hansard, stated that:

Fifty years ago the torch of protection was lighted by the Conservative party, and faithfully and loyally it has been handed down from one to another until to-day it shines as a beacon light, a guide, to the people of Canada, burning as strongly as ever.

If the hon. gentlemen are correct in their panacea for our political ills-the ills which they have built up in their own imagination as far as Canada is concerned-why are the Maritime provinces not prosperous? By the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, the agricultural products there were practically confined to the home markets of Sydney, Halifax and St. John. Now, according to hon. gentlemen

The Address-Mr. McPhee

opposite, they should be prosperous. But if the contention of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) is correct, then the hon. gentleman whom I have quoted, and the Tory party are wrong in their policy.

If protection is necessary to this country, as these hon. gentlemen state, would it not necessarily follow that industries which exist without any protection should automatically go out of business? What are the facts? Under the Fielding tariff during the Laurier regime, binder twine, barbed wire and cream separators Were in 1906 placed on the free list. If there is anything in the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite, then the firms which manufacture these articles should long ago have gone out of business. But here are the facts as given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In 1924 five concerns in Canada reported the manufacture of binder twine. It is understood that another concern is being opened in Brantford. In 1924 five firms in Canada manufactured cream separators to the number of 11,155, and in the same year eight firms in Canada manufactured barbed wire to the amount of 19,707,000 pounds.

The point I wish to make is that if these manufacturers can thrive without protection, why is it necessary to increase the duty on agricultural implements as suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Now, let me quote from the Grain Growers' Guide.

Hear, hear.

Mr. McPHEE:

I am glad to hear that expression of approval, I hope it means that I have converted one hon. gentleman opposite by my argument. The Grain Growers' Guide in its issue of October 7th, 1925,. published an article under the caption of "Ramparts of Gold". This article contained the following statement:

We want particularly to call the attention of the readers of the Guide to the very positive statement of Mr. Meighen as to what he would do to the duties on agricultural implements if by some unfortunate turn of events he should be returned to power in this election. He would raise the duties; he would put them back to what they were, when he, to paraphrase a remark of ex-President W. H. Taft, retired from the premiership with the full consent of the Canadian people. That means that he would make the following increases: Mowers, reapers and binders, from 0 to 12J per cent; cultivators, harrows, horse-rakes, seed drills and manure spreaders, from 7i to 15 per cent; plows and threshing machines, from 10 to 17J per cent; wagons, from 10 to 20 per cent; shovels and spades, from 20 to 32J per cent; hay loaders, grain crushers, potato diggers and other implements, from 10 to 20 per cent. Put in another way, Mr. Meighen, if returned to power, will double the duties on farm implements.

Mr. Meighen knows the implement manufacturers do not stand in need of this tender solicitude for their

welfare. He knew it as far back as 1911. He told the House of Commons all about it on January 18th, 1911. He told the government of that day that the duties on agricultural implements was "protection run rampant," and they were continued because the government had "become the slaves of those who helped them into power," and who maintained them there "behind ramparts of gold".

The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that any increase in the tariff means a corresponding increase in price to the purchaser of the commodity without any advantage to anyone save the selfish protected industries. In support of that let me quote from the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition as reported in volume 1 of Hansard of 1910-11, page 1931:

Now, Sir, what are the manufacturers of agricultural implements enabled to do? They are able under this tariff to exact a higher price than they could exact if the tariff were lower. I do not say that a reduction will to any very enormous extent affect the price; I believe it will materially, and I think it will render some relief to particularly the farmers of the west, many of whom notwithstanding any statements that have been made here, are struggling between success and failure avery hour.

To show you how the tariff affects prices, let me quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 3, 1925:

A Theory Bowled Over by the Facts

Persons who listened during the late election campaign to the argument that a higher tariff would not mean an increase in the cost of living in Canada will be interested in what took place at the meeting of the Winnipeg city council held last Monday night. If they came out of the federal election campaign with an idea that the argument advanced by Mr. Meighen and his friends was well founded they might put the theory up against the facts as they came out in an actual business transaction. The Swedish company which tendered on three generators for the city of Winnipeg's hydro plant offered to supply them at a price that was $15,000 lower than the tender of a Canadian firm. Sweden, of course, is a long way from Canada. Before it can get its generators into Canada the Swedish firm will have to pay duty to the Canadian government at the rate of 27 per cent, or a total in this case of about $30,000. The Swedish firm will also have to pay transportation on the ocean from Sweden to Canada and on a Canadian railway from the port of entry to Winnipeg. The firm is to do all these and yet is able to effect a saving of $15,000 to the people of Winnipeg.

Was there any doubt in this case about the benefit of outside competition? By buying this particular machinery outside of Canada at the price quoted the people of Winnipeg are saved $15,000, the Canadian government gets $30,000 duty to help in tax reduction and the railways get the benefit of the long haul from the port to Winnipeg. Faced with these facts, one of the aldermen, a supporter of Mr. Meighen, too, said that he could not vote to keep the contract in Canada under the circumstances. To bar foreign competition, he said, would be to leave the city in the hands of the Canadian manufacturer.

A tariff that would bar foreign competition would cost every Canadian citizen more money to live just as in this case the barring of foreign competition would have cost the city of Winnipeg an extra $15,000.

Mr. STINSON:

Does the hon. gentleman know that the hydraulic machinery to which he refers was manufactured in Canada and not in Sweden?

Mr. McPHEE:

I am only quoting from the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which has not been contradicted.

Mr. STINSON:

That machinery was manufactured in the town of Lindsay, by the Boving Hydraulic & Engineering Company Limited, not by any firm in Sweden.

Mr. McPHEE:

Does my hon. friend undertake to contradict the editorial?

Mr. PRESTON:

Free Press wrong again.

Mr. McPHEE:

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the objection to the appointment of a tariff advisory board as suggested in the Speech from the Throne? I find that on February 8th, 1912, the right hon. leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 2692, volume II, of Hansard:

What is the next objection to the tariff commission. It is that we could get the same information from officials in the department and that if rnstead of taking officers immediately under ithe wing of the minister we choose to appoint a commission we are thereby raising a barrier between the people and the government. Well I can see no difference in principle between the gathering of information by a commission specially appointed for that purpose and obtaining it from officers directly under the control of the minister. But I can see a great difference in .the practicability and the thoroughness of the one method as compared with the other. In the one case we have a body of men specially appointed for the purpose of investigation and specially qualified and divorced in proper measure from the control of the minister in charge. These men are appointed to the specific work and are responsible for the quality of the work they do. I should think, therefore, that we could obtain much better results from the work of a commission of that kind than from officials in the Customs department who could neither be specially trained for that .purpose nor have the same facilities for doing the work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne contains many planks of vital interest to those of us in western Canada. In fact it may be termed western Canada's Bill of Rights-rural credits, widening of markets, immigration, tariff reduction and last but not least by any means the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

Mr. MANION:

What clause refers to tariff reduction?

Mr. McPHEE:

I should have said tariff

readjustment. I should like to read a telegram I received from the Yorkton board of trade, Saskatchewan. It is as follows:

Yorkton, Sask., January 9, 1928.

T. George McPhee, M.P.,

Ottawa.

The Yorkton board of trade much appreciate statement in Speech from Throne that Hudson Bay railway

will be completed in 1926. This will give a new lease of life to western Canada.

I wish to answer a question asked, I think, by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) a few days ago, when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was speaking, as to how the Hudson Bay railway was going to pay the interest on the money invested in it. The investment on the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, Mr. Speaker, will be the carrying out of the solemn obligation made by both political parties to that great body of people living in the three western provinces. In answering my hon. friend's question, let me ask him another: What interest will the investment of the millions of dollars spent by the Conservative government from 1912 to 1918 pay, if the road is not finished and is left in its 4 pun. present shape? In closing may I express the hope that the people of the east and the people of the west will all work together for the common good of our common country. I shall never forget the closing remarks or the parting words of the revered leader of the Liberal party to the people of the west in 1917. He said':

If I am elected I will not be elated; if I am defeated I will not be cast down, I am prepared whether in victory or in defeat, to serve either as a lieutenant or as a private in the grand army of freedom.

Let those of us in this House of Liberal1, Progressive, and Independent thought, adopt the sentiment so eloquently expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; let us stand shoulder to shoulder, pushing on from victory to victory, serving or willing to serve, either as lieutenants or privates, in the grand army for Canadian fiscal and . economic freedom.

Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):

In

rising to make a few remarks on the programme of the government, I intend to follow my usual practice of being very brief. Some few years ago I said that I would always limit my remarks to a half hour, and I intend to do so to-day.

Firdt, may I offer my congratulations to you, Sir, on being selected as the first commoner in this parliament. I offer those congratulations sincerely, but I also offer my congratulations on the good judgment of every member of this House in having elected you to that position. Although circumstances over which I have no control have increased! the distance from rny chair to the Speaker's chair, still my esteemed regard for your dignity and fairness in your position is as strong as it was when I was sitting closer to you.

The Address-Mr. Beaubien

I intend to take up certain clauses of the Speech from the Throne and make a few observations. One of the first which I intend to discuss is the clause which says:

In the o-pdiniion of my ministers the imiproved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in (taxation.

That is a very good clause, and I agree with a good deal that the hon. member for Labe'lle (Mr. Bourassa) said the other day. He said: If taxes are going to be reduced, let the reduction be in favour of those who are the least able to pay; let it relieve the burden from the masses of the people.

Another paragraph which I intend to offer some observations upon is that which says:

With the improvement of conditions throughout the country the government have formulated and ipuit i&to operation a comprehensive immigraition plan.

I would like to strike out that word immigration and insert "colonization" instead. One ,of the great faults of our immigration policy has been that we have brought ,people here and let them shift for themselves, and a great many of them have drifted to the south. I come from one of the finest portions of the Dominion of Canada, a riding with a history, and it came very nearly creating new history by leaving me at home. I have in my district a lot of people who came from central Europe-in fact from all over Europe. They are good, thrifty settlers and will make a success where many of Canadian born would fail. But there are certain improvements required in my district, and right here I would like to get the ear of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) because I wish to make a plea to him, and I am sure he will appreciate my position. In the district where these people who came from Europe live there is a river called the Roseau and a creek called Pine creek. Some people may say that I am trying to be sectional and speaking for my riding only, but I think when I am through they will appreciate that this creek and river have a wide significance. The state of Minnesota, which borders my riding, has spent a great deal of money and drained water from the swamp lands into this creek and river with the result that in the spring, when the flow of water comes, the river which runs through to the Canadian side is unable to carry it away. Last year thousands of acres were flooded, and in a good many parts settlers had to leave their farms because there was no dry place for an animal to lie down. This condition will prevail every year until the Canadian government remedies the situation. I have taken the matter up with the provincial and the federal governments but so far I have had very little satisfaction. I

say to the government that instead of spending millions of dollars in an effort to bring new settlers into the country they should devote some of that money to the urgent task of keeping at home those whom we already have with us. These people were brought here some twenty years ago and they have worked hard and tried to make homes for themselves in Canada, but owing to the drainage in the state of Minnesota to which I have referred, causing an extra flow uf water, it is impossible for them to exist. What are they going to do? They have established their homes, and everything they value is rooted to that spot. There is only one thing that I can see for us to do, and I am sure that the Minister of Public Works will favourably consider the request I have made and give the necessary relief to these people. It is absolutely essential that steps be taken immediately to improve matters. I contend that the question is not purely a local one; it seems to me that it is one that should form the subject of negotiations between the state of Minnesota and the Canadian government, and the two working in conjunction should certainly formulate some plan to relieve the situation Now I mention this matter not for the purpose of trying to catch votes, because I do not expect that we shall have an election for some time to come. I refer to it merely because it is my practice always to keep in touch with my electors. That is why I am here. I know the conditions as they exist and I tell the government that a thorough investigation is absolutely necessary.

Another clause in the Speech assures us that a measure will be introduced to afford facilities for rural credits. Some people in eastern Canada, especially in my native province, try to convey the impression that rural credits are intended to benefit western Canada alone; but I believe, from a personal contact with a good many of them, that the people of Quebec are just as much in need of this form of assistance as are the people of the west. The agricultural industry will not survive unless the Canadian farmer is able to obtain cheaper money on longer terms. 1 hope that the government, in framing this legislation, will give careful consideration to all the necessities of the case. This is an important measure and I have no doubt that the bankers and frenzied financiers in Canada will try their best to put as many spokes in the wheel as they can in order to prevent the legislation going through. I suggest to the government however that they make a thorough study of the subject before bringing in the bill in its final form; I am sure that

The Address-Mr. Beaubien

in doing so, they will be able to give effective relief where it is most needed. They need have no fear, from the standpoint of support, so far as the members in this corner are concerned or indeed, for that matter, from any member of this House who has the welfare of the country at heart.

I want now to say a few words in regard to the proposed tariff advisory board. I do not know how this will work out, but if I had anything to say to the board I would advise them to look very carefully into the financing of our industries in Canada and to find out how much water they have in their stock. I would also thoroughly investigate the financing of what I might call our artificial industries. If we are to pay off our national debt or to reduce it to any substantial extent we must rely on the development of our natural resources. When we favour, with a duty of 25 or 30 or even 35 per cent, an industry whose existence depends upon imported raw materials, an industry that uses none of our natural products, then indeed we are putting a very heavy tax upon the mass of the people to support something that is altogether artificial so far as Canada is concerned. These industries import their raw material, whereas we should endeavour to stimulate the development of the resources that are indigenous to our own country.

The Speech goes on to say that the government proposes to submit provisions for the immediate completion of the Hudson Bay railway. This is long overdue and I am glad to see that action is going to be taken in the matter. We hear a great deal of talk in Canada about the desirability of having a united country; all our public men are earnestly pleading for a united Canada. Well, there is only one way in which we can unite Canada: we must keep our pledged word. Let me assure the House that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway has so far cost nobody one penny outside of the three western provinces; and when we hear people talking about the attempt to bankrupt the country and to get the east to pay for the completion of this railway we know that they are simply ignorant of the facts. On May 25, 1925, a question was asked by Mr. Hudson, at that time the member for South Winnipeg: What was the total area of land disposed of as preemptions under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in the year 1908?

The answer to this was:

12.763,040 acres, approximately, including entries since cancelled.

Some people might say that Hon. Frank Oliver when Minister of the Interior did not

specify in the act that these preemptions were to be utilized in constructing the Hudson Bay railway. But there is no doubt that this was the intention, and even if it was not we are just as much entitled in western Canada to our natural resources as are the people of Quebec or Ontario or any other province in the Dominion. Mr. Hudson asked the further question:

2. What was ithe total price for which these lands were sold?

3. What amount has actually been reecived in respect of the sale of these lands?

And the answer appears:

2. $38,289,120, approximately.

3. To 31st March, 1925, $16,312,959.95.

Then another question:

What is the total expenditure to date (a) for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, (b) for the harbour works at Port Nelson?

The answer was:

The expenditure to March 31, 1925, for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway was $14,902,571.17.

So that in constructing the Hudson Bay railway the government by the sale of these lands has collected almost $2,000,000 more than it has expended.

Is it then unfair for the people of the west to demand the completion of that road? Rather, is it not far more unfair for the people of the east to object to it? I hope the government is sincere in this matter and will carry out the programme and have the road completed. If the Hudson Bay railway is completed it will do more to cement western and eastern Canada together than anything that I can think of.

I am wholly in accord with the proposal of the government to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims of the Maritime provinces. Last year I had the pleasure of visiting the Maritime provinces. The people there are the most hospitable in the world, and I enjoyed myself very much. They live up to the best traditions. Unfortunately they are working under considerable difficulties. But let this commission be absolutely independent. Do not let us have any political old-timer appointed; let us appoint men of open mind, men who will not have to cater to Conservatives, Liberals or Progressives. Let them gather all the facts and then present a report to this House based on those facts. I would say to the people of the Maritime provinces and to their representatives in this House that my sole ambition as a member of parliament is to try to do justice to all parts of Canada, and in forming my opinion on public questions I have done my best to visit every part of the Dominion in order to find out the

The Address-Mr. Bettez

local needs. I can assure the Maritime people that, so far as this group is concerned, we will give their views every consideration; and if there is anything that the federal government can do to help relieve the depression of the Maritime provinces it will get my hearty support.

My half hour is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, I need only add that I am going to vote against the amendment and' for the legislative programme presented by the government. I shall vote against the amendment for the reason that it does not coincide with the principles which I was elected to support. I think that is one of the most logical reasons I can advance. My people sent me here to uphold certain principles, and I must be true to those principles. I am going to vote for the programme, believing that the lesson given the government in the last electoral campaign was one of the most salutary that any political party could learn, and therefore I believe the government will be sincere and endeavour to put their programme into legislation. If they do that they will have my hearty co-operation.

Last session a committee was appointed to reyise the rules of this House, and you, Sir, I believe, presided over that committee. When its report was presented the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested to the government that it should be laid aside until the new parliament assembled. The report recommended some very drastic reforms in the rules. I believe, Sir, that we need such reforms. The people did not send us here at $4,000 a year just to talk; they sent us here to act. Unless the rules are revised-and that revision woidd mean very much shortened speeches-I do not think we are going to transact our business very expeditiously. Consequently I hope the government will take up that report this session and try to put some of its suggestions into effect.

In closing, Sir, I have one suggestion to offer to the House. If we want to promote national unity, if we want to do justice to all sections of our country, we must know our country thoroughly. That is essential. Let us know what Canada means to Canadians. Let us know what Canada really is. There is only one way to accomplish this-every member should make it his or her duty to survey all sections of the Dominion, not from the back of an observation car but by frequent stop-offs and a personal investigation of local conditions. I think the government should take the initiative in arranging for such personal visits so that we may come back here and vote intelligently on the different measures that are put forward to deal with conditions obtaining 14011-38

in the various provinces. That is very essential, Mr. Speaker, to our national unity.

I hope my fellow members will take my suggestion into consideration, for I know that wherever they go they shall be well received and amply repaid for the little time and expense incurred.

Mr. ARTHUR BETTEZ (Three Rivers-St.

Maurice): Mr. Speaker, being a newcomer to this House, I was rather inclined to listen and study than to criticize or make suggestions, but so many unfriendly and untruthful assertions have been made against our good old province of Quebec concerning the last general election that I deem it my imperative duty to protest and deny those assertions, and at the same time to state to the House on what platform the last electoral contest was waged in my province. And. as I desire to be understood by every member, I shall endeavour, Sir, to speak in a tongue that is not my own.

But before I endeavour to discharge this imperative duty I desire, Mr. Speaker, to compliment you. on your re-election to the very important and delicate position the duties of which you have fulfilled with so much tact, dignity and ability. It also affords me great pleasure to compliment the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. My congratulations are also tendered to the distinguished acting leader of the government who has so ably filled that very important and difficult position in the temporary absence of our distinguished chief, which absence, I am convinced, will be of short duration.

As to the platform on which the last electoral contest was waged in my province, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we very carefully avoided any discussion of conscription; we dealt with that subject only when provoked "by our opponents. For the information of the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Doucet), let me say that the first mention of the word "conscription" was made at a mass meeting held in the drill hall of my city by the Conservatives on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Patenaude and his friends-commonly termed by our people at the time, "the Patenaude Circus". It was at this meeting that Mr. Patenaude and his friends accused the Liberals of being responsible for conscription, by reason of the fact that they had voted against the Barette amendment. It was on this occasion that Mr. Patenaude declared that he was no more for Meighen than for King. I may be permitted to quote from Le Nouvelliste, a Conservative journal, published in Three

The Address-Mr. Bettez

Rivers. It contained the following advertisement :

The Hon. Mackenzie King, conscripfciomst.

Voters of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, whom do you want as Prime Minister-Mackenzie King, the con-scriptioniat, ox Patenaude, the man who left the Conservative (ministry on the question of conscription?

This, as I have said, is from a Conservative paper. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if my Conservative opponent in the last election had not given the people the impression that Patenaude had absolutely nothing to do with the leader of the opposition, he would have lost his deposit as did my other opponent. As it was, he succeeded in saving it by a few hundred votes only.

In-regard to the assertions of the hon. member for Kent, N.B., with respect to the character of the campaign carried on by the Liberals of Quebec, I must say that there is in this House no member capable of making such false and unfriendly assertions other than the hon. member himself. Knowing the sentiments of the people of Quebec, I am sure that such assertions would be refuted by them. It is not my intention to go into the matter to the extent of doing that, but I will say that the hon. member is more to be pitied than blamed. I may say that hon. gentlemen opposite who so generously applauded the remarks of the hon. member for Kent, N. B. have continued on the floor of this House the tactics used during the last electoral campaign. But we assure them, that so long as they follow this course they will never receive the support and confidence of the Quebec electorate, who prefer to judge political parties by their deeds rather than by their words. They believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and having been so often deceived by our friends of the Conservative party, we cannot blame them.

The Conservatives have been trving verv hard to use this tariff question as a blanket to hide all the misdeeds of their former administrations, but without success in our province. Do they for a moment think that Canada will soon forget the extravagant purchase

:Le Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway at many times their value, just to suit their political friends? A party which perpetrated such a contemptible deed should at least be decent enough not to ask their successors to pay in four years what it will probably take a century to pay. By this, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to sav that I was against the purchase of these railways at normal prices, but the Conservatives are certainly not justified to-day in blaming a government which is doing its best to make

ends meet so far as the railways are concerned. The least they could do would be to help, and- not hinder. I think the government should be praised for the improvement made to these railways in such a short period. I notice, for instance, that the earnings for the week ending January 31 were 84.210,880, as against those for a similar period a year ago of $3,781,673-an increase of $429,207:

While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the people of my district are wondering what the reason is which prevents the government from extending the line of the Canadian Northern railway to Three Rivers, the distance from the nearest point being only about fifteen miles. The same thing applies to the Grand Trunk railway, which might reach our city with a ferry bv means of a new wharf-the one we have now at Doucets Landing is a disgrace. As Mayor of Three Rivers I may tell you frankly that it is far from an advertisement for the government to have a wharf in such a deplorable condition, especially in a place where the traffic is so heavy and the number of passengers landing is So large. Last session the government voted some millions of money for Montreal and $5,000,000 for Quebec, but their generosity did not extend to Three Rivers. Our city is progressing very rapidly and contributing to the progress of the Dominion. If the lines of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk railways are extended to our district we will not only get justice, but at the same time the Canadian National Railways will get its share of the very heavy traffic now carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway to and from our city, the value of which amounts to eight or ten million dollars yearly. This would not only be a good investment, but would prevent the people from saying that the Canadian Pacific interests rule at Ottawa. So far as I am concerned I have no obiection to other parts of the Dominion receiving what they need, but it is high time we received our share. I would like to remind hon. members that Three Rivers is now the third city of importance in our province. It has a population of 32,000, which is likely to be increased to 50,000 inside of five years if we have the cooperation of the government in the granting of our just request.

As to the tariff, I would like to say that the Liberal policy embraces a spirit of national unity; it is a policy of give and take, giving every province and class of people what they are entitled to receive. The policy of the Conservative party consists chiefly of the high tariff, which favours only one class to the

The Address-Mr. Better,

detriment of all others. Having been elected in my constituency as a Liberal candidate by one of the biggest majorities ever given- notwithstanding the fact that I had another Liberal and a Patenaude candidate as op-ponents-I must say that' my constituency seems entirely satisfied with the present tariff. The proof of that statement is in the fact that during the last few years we have more than doubled our population. Last year alone our population increased by nearly 5,000. Our paper manufacturers have been constantly enlarging and are still enlarging their plants, and the}'' have reached the point where to-day Three Rivers is considered the greatest paper manufacturing centre in America. The yearly output is in the neighbourhood of 400,000 tons, the value of which is from $27,000,000 to $30,000,000. We have also a large number of other industries, such as cotton manufacturing, foundries, and so on, and they all seem satisfied with the present tariff.

The cause of the Liberal success in Quebec has been the insincerity of Conservatives in that province. Our people prefer to give their confidence to a party with only one policy for the whole Dominion, and especially with only one chief and one group. The Conservatives appear to have two chiefs and two groupSs that is to say, Patenaude in Quebec, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) elsewhere. Conservatives claim that they have a majority in the country, but I do not think they have the courage, after what I have just read, to claim as theirs the Patenaude vote in Quebec. During the election, Conservative speakers in Quebec all claimed that Mr. Patenaude was to be the next prime minister, and that a vote for Patenaude was not a vote for the right hon. leader of the opposition. Under these conditions t do not understand how the Conservatives can claim these votes. The actual position is that the Liberal party has a majority over the Conservatives of 72,000 votes. According to the Gazette of December 29 last, each Liberal member represents 12,539 voters; each Conservative 12,535, and each Progressive 11,304.

The government now proposes to appoint a tariff advisory board. I know that in this world nothing is perfect, but from the goodwill shown by the government we are confident that if there is something which should be adjusted it will be remedied after due consideration. Many manufacturers, including the glove manufacturers in my constituency, are complaining of the dumping clause in the tariff, and I hope the new Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). will give this matter his attention. I have been told that in many 14011-381

cases German and other foreign goods are entering this country under the preferential tariff, marked with English labels. We must be very careful to prevent the importation of these goods under the preferential tariff, and if the government will provide against that, I think the manufacturers of this Dominion will be satisfied with the present tariff.

I would ask the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) to do his utmost to repatriate as many as possible of the Canadians who have gone to the United States. The government have demonstrated their good will in the matter of immigration in the past, and I trust that steps will be taken to perfect our present immigration law.

As to railways, I would like the government, and especially the Minister of Railways, if possible to grant our request. I understand that the Canadian National is travelling across a countiy where there is no traffic. We have a branch of that line only fifteen miles from Three Rivers, and the improvement we are asking for would make money for the railway, I believe, as well as serve us. At present we are at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for that is the only line that serves our town.

I must congratulate the government for the improvement they have made in the income tax law, but I would ask that the law be modified, if possible, in such a manner that the wealthy man will pay the tax rather than the salaried man, as has been the case in the past. I am informed that to collect this tax takes pretty nearly half of the whole income tax revenue. One of the things I blame the Conservative party for is the exemptions from taxation that they allowed, and this applies particularly to war profiteers. Tax-exempt bonds were issued by the Conservative government. I believe the people of this country are loyal enough to pay taxes on their bonds, and that is one thing I must blame the Conservative party for. I understand that some of the big companies are making additions to their mills all over the country in order to avoid paying income tax. I would ask the government to see that the tax is not evaded in this way.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I would ask the government to do their utmost to relieve the unemployment that exists at the present time, and also to bring in an old age pension scheme as soon as possible.

I would also suggest a better control of the paid up capital of large companies. I have been told that very often companies have

The Address-Mr. Bettez

watered stock to the extent of two or three times the amount invested, on which they pay dividends, and at the same time exempt themselves from paying a large income tax. Generally, I would ask that the taxation law be improved so that those who are best able to pay will be made to pay, rather than the small salaried man.

It has always been the habit of the Conservative party to contract large unjustifiable debts, and the duty of the Liberal party has always been to find ways and means of paying them. Our opponents have taken advantage of the absence of our esteemed leader from the House to criticize him strongly for the stand he took in holding the reins of power until parliament, or the majority of the elected representatives of the people, should decide who should rule this country. If the majority is to govern in this country of ours, our leader took the only position he could take in the circumstances, in fairness to himself, to his party and to the country at large, and the first vote taken in this House proved that he had the majority behind him in support of his action. Our friends to your left, Mr. Speaker, may pretend that there was no precedent for his action, but are we not here to create precedents? The party that is not able to cope with precedents is not fit to cope with the needs of the country. Now that the electoral fight is over, let us fight the battle for justice, fair play and prosperity for our dear Canada, which we all cherish; and that battle will be fought here on the floor of this House, not on the battlefields of Europe.

I would not like to take my seat before complimenting the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) upon, his very long but interesting address, which was delivered with much less bitterness than characterized his utterances in previous parliaments. I presume that in his case, as with all mortals, time has cured him of that disease, which was so detrimental to the good feeling that should prevail in this chamber.

During the last campaign our opponents went all through our province, and I presume they did the same in other provinces, crying that the country was bankrupt. I think it was disloyal for them to say such a thing of our country, especially when they were responsible for the creation of our public debt. A very great number of Canadians have migrated from this country to the United States largely on account of what has been said by the Conservative party. I trust that the government will endeavour to repatriate as many as possible of these Canadians.

I have before me a copy of the Canadian Economist, published by Mr. Beaubien, of Montreal. Every member of this House knows which political party Mr. Beaubien supports, and instead of lamenting conditions in this country, Mr. Beaubien claims that last year was a banner year. The article is too long for me to read, but I shall be glad to hand it to any hon. member opposite who cares to see what one of the supporters of his own party says. Evidently he does not share his party's views with regard to business conditions in this country.

Before taking my seat I wish to thank hon. members for their very kind attention, and I would ask them to be indulgent in respect to any short-comings in what I may call my maiden speech in this House, delivered in a language that is not my mother tongue. I shall try to do better in any future addresses I may make to the House.

Mr. A. MacGILLIVRAY YOUNG (Saskatoon) :

Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those that have already been offered you on your re-election as Speaker of this House? I have been in this House only a very short time, but having witnessed your very able conduct of debate and your eminent fairness, I have come to the conclusion that no mistake was made in your election. I might add that it is the only thing upon which we have had perfect unanimity in this chamber since I became a member of it.

I wish to congratulate also the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address. I was very glad indeed to know that a lawyer in Ontario had had at one time the opportunity of knowing something about the luxury of farming in western Canada, and I am very glad that he kept at that work for a sufficient length of time to discover that western Canada, in recent years, can produce some returns for what one puts in the ground.

I should like also to congratulate the seconder of the Address. Although I was quite unable to understand all the hon. member said at the time, I have had the opportunity since of reading his remarks and they impress me very favourably. I may say that we in western Canada feel very grateful indeed to the members from the province of Quebec. We have always found them fair in every way, always found them willing to co-operate with other sections of Canada; and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing more than another which we require at the present time in this great Dominion, it is co-operation between the people of all sections of it.

May I also include in my laudatory remarks the leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe).

The Address-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)

Under very trying and difficult circumstances he has conducted the business of the House with great fairness, courtesy, and uncommon tact. We feel very proud indeed that in the absence of the Prime Minister we have as leader a statesman so sagacious and so skilful.

There is a matter which concerns us in western Canada, particularly the people of Saskatchewan, and even more especially those of northern Saskatchewan, which I desire to bring before the House for a few minutes. I refer to the Crowsnest pass agreement. At the outset let me say that the legislation creating the railway commission was, in my opinion, one of the best laws ever placed on the statute books of Canada. I believe the raihvay commission has done a great amount of good, not only for western Canada but for all the other parts of this Dominion, and I do not wish anything I may say in connection with this matter to be construed as reflecting in any way upon the members of the commission. It is far from my intention to make any disparaging remarks whatever with respect to any member of that august body; I believe they are all men of ability, of undoubted honesty, and of great integrity. When the Crowsnest pass agreement was suspended for a certain length of time, we paid thirty-three and a half cents per hundred pounds of grain and flour from the city of Saskatoon, to Fort William. When the Crowsnest pass agreement was re-instituted, that rate dropped to twenty-four cents per hundred pounds. Now it is a fact that the agreement in question originally applied to the railway mileage then existing. In 1897 the total mileage in western Canada was approximately 3,000 miles. Today the total mileage from Fort William and Armstrong to points west is approximately 21,000 miles. There was an enlargement of the area affected by the agreement, although some say it amounted to a constriction, with regard to certain commodities. However, a difficulty arose. We find that in northern Saskatchewan -and I think it practically applies to all that portion of the railway there not under the original Crowsnest agreement-while the rates were reduced remarkably, they were not the same on the mileage to which they applied in north Saskatchewan as they were under the old Crowsnest pass agreement. In other words, a situation has arisen under which we have a discrimination against northern Saskatchewan of two cents per hundred pounds on grain and flour moving eastward'. As a member of the executive of the Saskatoon Board of Trade, and therefore in a position to speak as to its activities, I can say that the matter

was taken up with the railway commission, and was also discussed with the provincial government. An expert from Winnipeg was called in to assist us and the question was investigated very thoroughly. As a result we made representations to the railway commission, but I am sorry to say that up to the present time there has been no hearing of our case. In order to make the matter thoroughly clear to hon. gentlemen I may perhaps be permitted to read a few paragraphs from the order reinstituting the Crowsnest pass agreement, or rather instituting a wider application of it. Among other things it declares:

Provided that notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained rates on grain and flour shall on and from the date of the passing of this act be governed by the provisions of the agreement made pursuant to chapter five of the Statutes of Canada, 1897, but such rates shall apply to all such traffic moving from all points on all lines of raihvay west of Fort William to Fort William or Port Arthur over all lines now or hereafter constructed by any company subject to the jurisdiction of parliament.

"(6) The board shall not excuse any charge of unjust discrimination, whether practised against shippers, consignees, or localities, or of undue or unreasonable preference, respecting rates on grain and flour, governed by the provisions of chapter five of the statutes of Canada, 1897, and by the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, within the territory in the immediately preceding subsection referred to, on the ground that such discrimination or preference is justified or required by the said act or by the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto."

I took the trouble to write to the Board of Railway Commissioners to find out whether it was not possible to get relief for that portion of the province concerned so that the discrimination complained of might be removed, and I wish, at this point, to quote some paragraphs from the letter leceived from the board; I will not quote the entire communication, it is probably too long:

Subsection 6 provides that a charge of unjust discrimination shall not be excused by the board eve& as regards the Crowsnest rates on the ground that, such discrimination is justified or required by th$ act or the agreement.

If the board were not at the time, it became by this subsection empowered to compel the railways to cease unjustly to discriminate against shippers, consignees or localities, if any unjust discrimination were satisfactorily established before the board.

In answer to question No. 3, I may state that these schedules do not show that the rates are equal at all railway points equidistant from Fort William. They show the contrary, and as you are aware, the board issued its general order No. 420 of July 18th, 1925, directing the railway companies to file such tariffs as were necessary to implement the provisions of section 325 of the Railway Act 1919, as amended by 15-16 Geo. V., chapter 52. The railway companies are on record as stating that their tariffs are in compliance with the legislation.

This matter was to have been spoken to at sittings of the board at Ottawa, September 29th, 1925, but, for the reasons mentioned at pages 1983 et s. of vol. 444 of the record, it was agreed not to go on with the complaint, pending the production by the rail-