Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, if we are precluded from giving quotations from a former debate, I should just like to add this. My only conclusion was that instead of remarks of that kind, it would have been better for any party to have placed before this House the policy on which they were asking support. Had that policy been placed before us, we might have had some opportunity of knowing what we were being asked to support. But, Sir, in connection with this

matter perhaps I may be permitted to quote something that was not said in this House. In another way we may get an idea how things are sometimes done in Tory circles. I had the pleasure, not so very long ago, of running an election in Saskatoon, in the course of which my Conservative opponent, Mr. F. R. MacMillan, discussed the Hudson Bay railway. Before that time he had said:

I am not saying that the Hudson Bay railway is not feasible but it is silly nonsense to proceed with that project when the country is already staggering under a heavy load of debt. Even 'to prove the feasibility of the Hudson bay Toute will involve the expenditure of, not ten millions of dollars, but more probably fifty millions. The fact, in my opinion, is that Winnipeg is boosting the On-to-tlie-Bay movement because if equalization of rates becomes effective, Winnipeg would then occupy the peak position in freight rates for the country, the position of Saskatoon today. In other words, the On-to-the-Bay cry is a red herring introduced by Winnipeg to draw attention away from the remedy that is the obvious one to apply at the present time.

The Hudson Bay railway was conceived as a political football, and has been carried along as such ever since, and will continue on as long as the people permit thetn-selves to be hoodwinked. .

Is that the policy of my hon. friends of the Conservative party to-day?

Mr. ROGERS:

What paper is my hon.

friend quoting from?

Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

Mr. W. A. HALL (South Bruce):

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of variety may I be palrdoned if I forego the customary congratulations to Your Honour as well as to the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address. The congratulations are perhaps becoming somewhat monotonous, and doubtless you are weary of hearing them.

Being a new member of the House I make with hesitation and diffidence this first attempt at addressing hon. members. However, the new members will doubtless sympathize with me; nay, more, the older members will doubtless be as indulgent as they have been with previous speakers.

I wish first to make reference to some of the things that have been said. In the first part of this session a good deal was said about the manner in which the general election was conducted. We have not heard so much of that from Ontario members; it has been more particularly from Quebec. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) gave a very lucid description of the Patenaude campaign as carried on in the province of Quebec, where millions of dollars were spent in support of a certain railway policy looking to the amalgamation of the two systems with the Canadian Pacific railway in control, thus effecting a huge railway monopoly the evil effects of which no one can imagine. Coming from Ontario I can assure hon. members of this House that the same sordid means used in the province of Quebec were practised in the province of Ontario.

Some hon. members opposite have tried to make us believe that the defeat of so many of the Liberal candidates in Ontario was due to two things: first, the bad effects of the Australian treaty; and second, the lack of a sufficiently high protective tariff, especially for the farmers. But such was not the case. An enormous amount of campaign funds was expended by our political opponents in Ontario, abundant evidence of which was seen in almost every constituency in the province. Together with this, a most scurrilous campaign was carried on by some of the Tory papers in Ontario, especially the Toronto Telegram. These no doubt are the Tory tactics which have always been practised. We had another example of it in the first debate this session, but it was a somewhat different case. To hear speakers on the Conservative side talk about constitutional practice and time-honoured precedent being ruthlessly violated by the Liberals would almost make one unacquainted with the political history

The Address-Mr. Hall

of Canada believe that they were the only body of one hundred per cent pure patriots. But what did this same body of constitution worshippers care for our constitutional practice and time-honoured precedents when they robbed hundreds of thousands of the people of Canada of their constitutional rights in 1917, deprived myriads of Canadian citizens of their votes, gave votes to people who had neither moral nor legal right to them, used the votes of soldiers in Europe to elect themselves in constituencies which would otherwise have rejected them, and then unblushingly stayed in power without a mandate from the electors of Canada to do so?

Still another example of these same constitution worshippers casting constitutional practice and time-honoured precedent to the four winds was the passing of the Conscription Act of 1917, more properly called the Selective Conscription Act of 1917. The latter name more accurately describes the intention and purposes of the act, namely, selection and exemption. Hence, I need not elaborate it; the name is self-explanatory, but the memory of that act will remain as a dark spot in the history of our country. May I add parenthetically, that a book which the whole world could not contain might be written on these two words "selection" and "exemption" as applied to this act of 1917. It should have been indiscriminate conscription, not selective conscription. Wealth should have been conscripted as well as men. and lastly I would add that the Militia Act of 1904, ns amended, should have been used instead of the Conscription Act of 1917.

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the many flagrant examples of the total disregard of constitutional practice and time-honoured l>recedent by the Conservative party. Many more might be cited, but these will suffice to show that in this respect they are lacking in loyalty and patriotism to their country, notwithstanding their loud and emphatic protests to the contrary, especially before every election. Many of you will remember the reciprocity election of 1911. You remember how they waved the flag and shouted their slogan, "No truck or trade with the Yankees!'' Needless to say this won the election, to the everlasting disgrace of the Canadian people.

Now turning our attention to what the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) stated, that the King government had not reduced expenditure, had not lowered taxation, had not decreased the national debt, and had not increased trade, what are the facts? Before making a comparison may I state that, to be fair, we must omit a consideration of

the railroads during the Liberal administration, as in the comparison they are not included during the Tory administration. Let me give some figures in this connection:

Expenditure

1921- 1922

$464,000,0001922- 1923

434,000,0001923- 1924 370,000,0001924- 1925

350,000,000

So during the time of the Liberal administration the expenditure was reduced in four 3rears by $114,000,000; in other words, the Liberal government last year spent $3 for every $4 that was spent in 1921-22.

Now let me deal with the question of the reduction of taxation. In 1920-21 the total amount of taxation was $369,000,000. In. 192425 it amounted to $294,000,000. This shows a decrease in taxation of $75,000,000. In other words, in 1920-21 the taxation amounted to $41.99 per head; in 1924-25 it was reduced to $31.38 per head, a decrease of over $10 per capita. How was this reduction in taxation accomplished? It was accomplished by reducing the tariff, especially on agricultural implements and on other implements of production; and by lessening the sales tax or by wiping it out entirely as was done on many household articles, as well as articles of food.

I wish now to deal with the national debt. In the last year of the Tory administration, 1921-22, the national debt amounted to $2,422,000,000. On 31st December, 1925, the total national debt was $2,381,000,000, a reduction of over $40,000,000.

Now I come to a consideration of the trade situation. During 1920-21, the last whole year of the Conservative government, the entire foreign trade in Canada totalled $1,450,000,000 with an unfavourable trade balance of $29,000,000. But under Liberal rule conditions were greatly changed. In the twelve months ending December 31, 1925, the entire foreign trade was $2,161,000,000 with a favourable trade balance of almost $393,000,000. Does not this show a phenomenal growth of trade? How otherwise should we characterize a growth of $711,000,000 in five years and an increase of $422,000,000 of exports over imports for the same time?

Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), we notice that he is very solicitous about the welfare of the farmer and apparently shows no concern for his friends, the manufacturers. Doubtless this is a blind. This promise of building a tariff wall brick for brick with that of the American tariff wall, to protect the fanmer, will doubtless be followed by a like structure to protect the

The Address-Mr. Hall

manufacturer. Has there not been a tacit understanding between the right hon. leader of the Tories and the manufacturers to this effect? Why? Did not the latter contribute large sums to the campaign funds to secure for the Tories the government of this country? But, alas! they failed.

When I read of the right hon. leader of the opposition going over this country telling the farmer that he would build up a high tariff wall around this country and thus benefit the agriculturist in the general price of farm products, I often wonder what he thinks the Canadian farmer is. It reminds me of the expression of Thomas Carlyle regarding the com laws of England, in his work entitled Past and Present, when he said:

Impartial persons have to say with a sigh, that for so long hack, they heard no argument for it, but such as might make the angels, and almost the jackasses weep. [DOT]

But, Mr. Speaker, I shall in a few minutes refer in some detail to various arguments used by the right hon. leader of the Conservative party in his pre-election speeches, arguments that possibly might make the very crocodiles shed tears. I may say that about seventy-five per cent 'of many of the farm products such as wheat, live stock, dairy products, and so on, are exported and sold in the open world markets where the price is fixed for the domestic market. So that no tariff, however high, can increase the domestic price of a product when there is a large exportable surplus of that product. In regard to the fruits and vegetables that come into this country in early spring, much has been said by our Tory friends about this injuring the farmer, but we must remember that these commodities are subject to a tariff of 30 per cent. That I think is sufficiently high.

Now let me say a word or two with respect to the trade treaties. These treaties, although only recently made, with several countries, have already shown beneficial effects on our foreign trade, and this trade has greatly increased. For the twelve months ending December 31, 1925, it was no less than $2,161,000,000. Our exports to many of these countries have also increased very much more than our imports from the same countries. I give these figures to illustrate the increase which has occurred:

To New Zealand exports increased in two

years over $ 4,000,000

To Belgium exports increased in two years

about 8,000,000

To Netherlands exports increased in two

years about 12,000,000

To Russia exports increased in two years

about 12,000,000

The trade treaty with the West Indies will be mutually advantageous. The West Indies need the products of Canada-such as wheat, flour, dairy products-as well as Canada needs the products of the West Indies, including tropical fruits, and so on. This treaty will also have the effect of increasing trade through Canadian ports and the business of Canadian railways. I expect the right bon. leader of the opposition will say with respect to this treaty what he has said about the other treaties negotiated by the present government -that it is a disaster to Canada.

And here let me pause to consider what the right hon. gentleman said on his general election tour last autumn. In his many speeches delivered during his trip over Canada, he made a very strenuous effort to convince the farmer that he should have protection, as well as that he was being seriously injured by the shrinkage in the home market caused 'by the exodus to the south. These two points were largely emphasized. Indeed, they were the central thoughts df the right hon. gentleman in every speech, and he practically made the one speech, using the same illustrations and figures. In his speech at Wingbam, Ontario, on September 9, the opening speech of his campaign, the right hon. gentleman said:

When 200,000 people leave Canada, about $100,000,000 of market is lost to the farm producers of Canada.

Speaking at Chatham, Ont., three days later, he said that:

Two hundred thousand people had left Canada for the United States, and this number was consuming $100,000,000 worth of produce. This money thej' were now spending on United States farm products.

Some days later at Charlottetown, P.E.I., he said, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian:

When Nova Scotia loses 40,000 people that loss means a loss of $20,000,000 of products, part of which we lose in the sale of farm products. Now the American farmer sells them instead.

Notice that he modifies his statement, but maintains the same ratio between the number of people and their purchasing power.

At Calgary, on October 10th, the Albertan reports the right hon. gentleman as having said:

While we don't know how many Canadians slipped over the border, we know that the United States Department of Immigration reports 200,000 Canadians as entering the borders of our southern neighbours during the last year. Not only did we lose this tremendous population; we lost that which they took with them, a purchasing power of $100,000,000 which is being spent on the eggs, butter, honey and other products of the farmers on the other side of the line.

What does the right hon. leader of the Conservative party mean when he tells the farmers of this country that they lost

The Address-Mr. Hall

a $100,000,000 market last year? Why, he simply means that every Canadian consumes farm products at the rate of $500 a year, or almost $10 a week. In other words a family of six would require $3,000 to keep them in dairy products, flour, meat and vegetables, not including groceries, such as, tea, coffee, rice, sago, and so forth, or manufactured goods, such as clothing.

Let us analyse this further, Mr. Speaker. The net value of everything produced in Canada in 1922, according to the Canada Year Book, 1924, page 184, was $2,950 millions, say $3,000 millions for ease of calculation. On the basis of the calculation of the right hon. leader of the Conservative party, the 9,000,000 people of Canada ate $4,500,000,000 of farm products, in 1922, or $1,500,000,000 more in value than was produced by all the industries in Canada engaged in farming, manufacturing, lumbering, fishing, hunting, trapping-everything. But in 1922 the agricultural products amounted to less than $1,500,000,000; so that there would be a deficit of $3,000,000,000. In other words there would be $3,000,000,000 worth of farm products less than were required for home consumption-a very melancholy condition indeed. The Conservative leader must now realize from this analysis, though dreadful to relate, that the Canadian people consumed all the products produced in Canada and had to import twice as much from other countries. Now what about the poor? The sad tragedy of it all is that the Conservative policy of sky-high protection would so boost the price of farm products that the poor among the labouring classes, amounting to many thousands, mud die of starvation, and this would cause a further shrinkage in the home market. Where would it end? What a vicious circle would thus be established! W'hat a mournful, doleful tale!

Mr. MACDONALD (Glengarry):

What are the crocodiles doing?

Mr. HALL:

Sir, they are shedding tears.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. HALL:

Before recess I had concluded my analysis of the statements which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) had made in his campaign speeches. From the analysis of those statements one would infer that the Conservative leader had established the fact that protection to the farmers of Canada would be of immense value to them, seeing that

Canada had to import twice as much as she raised of farm products. This would place the Canadian fanner in the same position as the manufacturers, with a monopoly of the home market. Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the opposition realize that this is not so? And by the way is this the man of his word, the man of veracity, the man of high purpose? And then did he mean to mislead the farmers at Wingham, at Chatham, at Charlottetown, and at Calgary? Was it to make them believe that Canada had no exportable surplus of farm products and, if so, that they would then acquire a monopoly of the domestic market if they were protected by the high tariff wall which he promised them in the event of his being returned' to power? Surely the right hon. gentleman knows that this is not the case. I need scarcely repeat here that 75 per cent of many of our farm products, such as wheat, live stock, and so on, are exported and sold in the world markets where the domestic price on these products is fixed. For example, last year we raised in Canada 422,000,000 bushels of wheat, of which it would require 54,000,000 bushels to feed the Canadian population of 9,000,000, and this would leave an exportable surplus of 368,000,000 bushels. Add to this all the foodstuffs represented in our exports of live stock and dairy products such as eggs, butter and cheese, besides many other articles, and it would take all the people of Canada all their time, day and] night, all the year, to consume these supplies. So that when the farmers come to realize that the Conservative leader's statement in his campaign speeches in regard to the shrinkage in the home market was, to say the least, very misleading-and that is a mild term'-doubtless they will marvel at some of the eulogies pronounced upon him by some of the members of this House. And mark you, this gentleman is one of the leaders of the Once great Conservative party.

Mr. MACDONALD (Glengarry):

Who are the other leaders?

Mr. HALL:

Why, Sir, do you not know?- Mr. Patenaude of Quebec, and possibly, I may add, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). But please do not let the right hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) know this.

Now a word in regard to the tariff board. In my opinion this board should, as its name indicates, simply give advice on tariff matters after a diligent search for information and a careful study of the problem of taxation in its relation to industry and revenue, but it should in no wise exercise authority nor express any

eos

The Address-Mr. Hall

final judgment. It should function only as the servant of the ministry or government, the Finance minister being fully responsible for all the board's acts. In this way the board would be responsible to parliament.

Before concluding I want to say a few words on the proposal to complete the Hudson Bay railway. As this proposal implies, it is not for the construction of a new railroad but rather for the completion of a road that is now almost completed. This road nms from The Pas to Hudson bay , a distance of 424 miles. The steel is laid on 332 miles and the whole distance of the road graded, the bridges being all built. So that all that has to 'be done now is to lay the steel on 92 miles. Apparently there are steel rails enough to cover about one quarter of this distance, so that there is no reason why the cost should stand in the way of the completion of the road. From all' reports it seems to me that now is not the time to cease construction; to use an Irishism, that time was before construction began, not after the expenditure of about $21,000,000. This route seems feasible, and if perchance it cannot be utilized in connecting the western prairies with the European markets, why, then, the money for its completion has not been squandered, because this road will open up thd country west of Hudson bay, a country highly mineralized especially with iron, not to speak of the wealth that will accrue from the fisheries of Hudson bay. Besides, the money for this project has been provided by the sale of crown lands in the west. So it seems to me that parliament will be fully justified in completing the road.

Mr. STEVENS:

Does the hon. gentleman

consider that, it would be desirable to build terminal facilities at Port Nelson? And are such facilities included in the phrase, "completion forthwith?"

Mr. HALL:

I understand that a good

deal of the terminal work has already been constructed. I understand also that a company has offered to build an elevator of sufficient capacity to make a trial of whether the port would be really successful or not as an outlet for grain.

Mr. McGIBBON:

Does the hon. member

know that a committee of this parliament advocated the scrapping of those terminals?

Never.

Mr. HALL:

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

let me contrast a period of Tory rule with a like period of Liberal rule-or a period of high protection with a like period of moderate tariff.

Free trade?

Mr. HALL:

If I meant free trade I would

say so. A great deal has been said about immigration and emigration by hon. members on the opposite side. I may say at the outset that it ill becomes anyone living in a glass house to throw stones. Do hon. gentlemen opposite not know that the policy of high protection is no new experiment in Canada? This was the fiscal policy of the Conservative party from 1879 to 1896. Do the same gentlemen not know that during that time the trade and commerce of Canada was at a low ebb? None of our industries was thriving, not even manufacturing, although this high protective tariff was to be a panacea for all ills, more especially those of our manufacturing industries. The increase of population, probably the best barometer of the prosperity of the country., was the lowest from 1881 to 1901, being only 11.44 per cent. This is the smallest increase of any like period in the history of panada under British rule. What about immigration and emigration during this period? The answer is, only 11.44 per cent increase of population. Mark you, this was under Tory rule with a high protective fiscal policy. Indeed, several of the then leading Conservatives confessed in parliament that high protection had not accomplished what it was intended to do-in other words, it had failed. This period of Tory rule, of depression, of lack of development, of lack of prosperity, of lack of increase of popidation was followed by a period of the greatest development, of the greatest prosperity, of the greatest increase of population that has ever taken place in Canadian history-a percentage of 34.17. This was achieved under Laurier with a moderate tariff for revenue only. This same policy is the fiscal policy of the King government. Look ahead for increased development, for increased prosperity, for increased growth of population, and for increased national unity!

Mr. ROBICIIAUD (Gloucester) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few

comments upon the subject matter, at present under consideration, in the language understood by all the members of this House; however, before broaching the subject, may I be allowed to offer you, in our mother tongue, the expression of my heartiest congratulations on the occasion of your re-election to the Speakership of the Canadian parliament. In the discharge of your duties, in the course of the last parliament-duties in the discharge of which the spirit of fairness, the dignity and sense of duty of the public man are constantly tasked to the extreme-

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

you have the more strengthened yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the confidence, the esteem and even the affection of all Canadians. I feel certain that especially your Acadian friends of Gaspe, who are also mine, and who for ever so long have placed their faith in you, a faith both revered and unshaken, are proud of their eminent representative.

I must also give full vent to my thoughts and follow the traditions of this House in expressing my highest appreciation for the able and loyal manner in which the mover and seconder fulfilled their respective tasks. The mover, with the force of conviction and trusted fairness which characterize the people of Anglo-Saxon stock in the beautiful province of Ontario, has certainly done justice to 'both the traditions and soundness of the political party to which he has lent allegiance, while upholding energetically the common and indisputable rights of the whole nation. The seconder of the Address, a worthy offspring of the Franco-Latin race, in America, by uniting to a perfect diction an eloquence both persuasive and fascinating, showed us to >

a greater extent what the beautiful province of Quebec has in store for us in respect to public men of the first order. These two hon. members, Mr. Speaker, are valuable recruits to the parliamentary life of Canada, and we cannot too strongly urge them, at the outset of their career, to take strong resolutions of perseverance, zeal and activity, resolutions which, I have no doubt, would assure to the country the advantage of the great knowledge they have given us proof of.

A great deal, Mr. Speaker, has been told the House about the campaign methods of the two main parties in various sections of the country during the recent general election. From what I saw of the Tory campaign in my own constituency, I have come to the conclusion that it was one of underground, rubber-gloved manoeuvres in an attempt to undermine the electorate by the most unscrupulous agencies. Those agencies were active throughout the whole province Of New Brunswick. Money was flowing so freely that at one time I wondered if I would be submerged and if the time-honoured reputation of my constituency as a Liberal stronghold would be destroyed by my opponents. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that so far as my electors are concerned, my hon. friends opposite have been served with a most emphatic notice that they will not allow themselves to be misled by these campaign expedients. Three attempts have been made during the past twelve months, and three times my hon, friends opposite have been 14011-39

taught the lesson that the intelligent electors of Gloucester would not allow themselves to be caught by Conservative expedients. I need not tell the hon. member for Kent N.B. (Mr. Doucet) what sort of campaign was witnessed the opening of last year in the constituency of Gloucester. He knows all about it; he was almost in full charge of the war chariot in the first attack against that Liberal fortress. I leave it to my hon. friend to judge for himself if this was not a campaign of prejudice, and everything of that kind.

Mr. HANSON:

Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he referring to Mr. Rand's by-election?

Mr. ROBIGHAUD:

I am referring to the Rand by-election in the constituency of Gloucester, when the campaign was opened by my hon. friend from Kent, N.B., and where a campaign of prejudice was carried on, in spite of which Mr. Rand was elected with a plurality of some 1,600. I need not dwell on this subject. A campaign of this sort is as detrimental to our welfare as it is disagreeable. I will content myself with reminding hon. members that no wardrobe is considered clean and sanitary unless all the linen has received a thorough cleaning. The hon. member for Kent should not take too seriously the utterances made by campaigners in the course of an election. Our party workers are sometimes rather ingenious in inventing some of these statements which are spread around in most of our constituencies.

My hon. friend told this House the other day that had the right hon. leader of the opposition been returned to power in the last election, thirty days later Canada would have been at war with Turkey. That' reminds me of a little controversy I overheard in my own constituency. One of my workers was arguing with one of the workers of the opposite party, and his reasoning was something like this: Had there been an election in August, 1922, and had the right hon. leader of the opposition been returned to power, when a telegram was received from Downing street in England, Canada would have sent troops to Turkey, and we would have been at war with Turkey. That was one way of reasoning it out, and after all it is not the fault of our friends that it is reasoned m this way. The declaration of the right hon. leader of the opposition at Toronto, before a meeting of Conservative ladies of that city, called for this way of thinking on the part of our electors. My hon. friend the member for Kent should pass by such petty political campaign utterances when used by election workers.

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

I have listened with no little astonishment to the efforts of the hon. member for Kent to belittle our compatriots of the province of Quebec. Although I feel like offering to this House, in the name of my French Acadian compatriots, some sort of apology for the attitude taken by the hon. member, yet I have absolutely no apology to offer for the campaign expedients put into practice by the Liberal party machine in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has defended his province and its people in this respect, and it is needless for any ether member on this side of the House to dwell further on the subject.

A great deal has also been said since the opening of parliament about the popular vote registered during the last election. Around this subject has pivoted to a great extent the claim, of the right hon. leader of the opposition of the right to carry on the business of this country. I have not the least doubt that the 116 members on the other side of this House elected in support of the Conservative policy have all pledged loyal support to their leader and his policy. It would not be logical to think otherwise. But the contrast between the pledges of the hon. members before their election and the engagements they appear to be making following their election is perhaps worthy of passing notice. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt), for example, during his campaign issued a manifesto in the form of an election card which I believe should be construed as the platform upon which some eleven members were elected from the province of Nova Scotia. The campaign in that province was based on the question of the so-called "Maritime rights," and it was on that question that they profess to have been elected. I believe that if I should read to this House a part of that election card, I would give a fair idea of the platform upon which the eleven Conservative supporters were elected in that province. The hon. member for Colchester published in the Halifax Herald of September 26, 1925 what I construe to be his election card. Among other declarations he said the following:

In accepting this nomination, I wish to make it plain that if I am elected, I will not be a political partisan.

I will stand four-square for the rights of Nova Scotia and the rights of the Maritime provinces. And if the time should ever arrive when I must choose between the interests of my party and the interests of my native province I pledge my word to the electors of Colchester and the people of Nova Scotia that the interests of my native province will always come first.

This is very plain, Mr. Speaker. It is an appeal for Maritime rights and nothing else, TMr. Robichaud.]

and I will show my hon. friends opposite that they cannot and never will secure the recognition of what they regard as Maritime rights so long as they adhere to that fossil-iferous galaxy of men from Toronto and Montreal who occupy the front row. Further on the hon. member for Colchester said:

The Prime Minister, at Kentville, asked for a definition of Maritime rights. If he does not know the meaning of the term then he is about the only person in Canada who does not know.

That was a fine thing to say of the Prime Minister of Canada 1

I will tell him some of the things we stand for in these provinces, some of the things we demand as our rights in confederation.

I have before me the speech delivered to this House by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who was elected on the same policy and pledges as all his colleagues from the province of Nova Scotia, because, if I mistake not, he has just applauded those statements of the hon. member for Colchester Let us compare the declarations of the hon. member for Cumberland after the election with those of the hon. member for Colchester before the election, in order that we may see how hon. gentlemen can stand on the same ground and adhere to the policies of the Conservative party in this country, and still claim for the Maritime provinces what they term "Maritime rights." In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Cumberland, alluding to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) and the speech he delivered, said:

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we are Maritime righters; It is true that we place country before party, as all loyal citizens should, and especially all parliamentarians, but the Solicitor General omitted to say that we were of one mind on two main, outstanding and salient points; namely, first, strict adherence to the policies of the Liberal-Conservative party as enunciated time and time again inside and outside this House by the right hon. leader of the opposition; and second, unswerving loyalty to the leader of the Conservative party.

The electors of this country heretofore have given unswerving adherence to the policies of the Conservative party, but have we in the Maritime provinces benefited from those policies? Speakers in my constituency, as well as speakers in other constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, have proclaimed the right hon. leader of the opposition as a modern Sir John Macdonald, the sponsor of a new national policy. Well, we have had a national policy in Canada from the early seventies up to the year 1896, and what have been the results? Have we benefited by that policy? Have we not lost the market to the south of us for the products of the farm and

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

of the sea? Have we not laboured and laboured, yes, have we not crawled along, under the burden of that national policy in the Maritime provinces for half a century? Yet to-day speakers opposite proclaim the right hon. leader of the opposition as a modern Sir John Macdonald, the sponsor of a new national policy. If the leader of the opposition is to be regarded as a second Sir John Macdonald, we might well say that while his father chastised the Maritime provinces with a whip, he would chastise them with a scorpion.

What we in the Maritime provinces need is a world-wide market; we need the markets of the world. This has been proven time and time again, but unless we have the required facilities to ship the products of the farm and of the sea across the ocean, to the West Indies, and to the country to the south of us, we cannot hope to progress in the Maritime provinces. Are the policies of the right hon. leader of the opposition in accord with the needs of the Maritime provinces in this respect? I cannot see how they can be. If we are to legislate for the big interests of Toronto and Montreal, as represented by that galaxy we see on the front benches opposite, how can we expect to legislate in the interests of the Maritime provinces? The Maritime provinces must have the markets they had under Liberal rule, under the Laurier regime, under Liberal policies. We must open up trade with the West Indies, with Australia and the Mother Country, with Italy, France, Germany and the central powers of Europe. There is in those countries an almost unlimited market for our fish in a preserved condition, and unless we adhere to the policies of the Liberal party, policies enunciated time and again, whereby we can open up new avenues of trade for the products of our farms and of the sea, we cannot hope to prosper.

In order still further to show that those 'who profess to stand for Maritime rights cannot really stand for them by adhering also to the policy of the leader of the Conservative party, I might quote the view of the Halifax Chronicle, in an editorial published on the 21st of January last. I shall not read the whole editorial, as it is rather long and would only cumber up Hansard, but in part it says, speaking of the " Maritime-righterS," so-called, who have been elected in the province of Nova Scotia:

They should be ashamed to squeal at the consequences. Had they even taken the precaution to safeguard themselves and their local interests, as the Progressives of the west did, by organizing an independent and distinct partisan group, they might have 14011-39i

accomplished something useful. But while shouting "Maritime rights" they bound themselves hard and fast to the Meighenite chariot wheels. Those w'heela are now sunk deep in political mud, and the "Maritime righters" with them.

Our elected Tory representatives have the additional, but apparently gladly accepted, humiliation of seeing a much smaller group from the west holding the balance of power and virtually being conceded all that they ask, while there are less than half a dozen representatives from the three Maritime provinces to speak a word for this section of the Dominion.

I believe this truly represents the position of those members who have been elected from the Maritime provinces in opposition to the present government. We have had experience in the past of the effect of Conservative policies in Canada. As I stated before, a Conservative government administered public affairs in the Dominion from the early seventies until the month of June, 1896. Were conditions in the country favourable during that time? Did not the Canadian people labour under extreme hardships, and was there not considerable depression under what is called the National Policy? Again, from 1911 to 1921 the Conservatives were in power. Were conditions any better in the Maritime provinces? Were the good people of that part of Canada better satisfied? Did it indicate satisfaction with the Conservative administration that a solid representation of sixteen members was elected in Nova Scotia in 1921? In regard to the railway employees, to whom so much reference has been made by hon. members from New Brunswick, were those men satisfied when the hon member for Westmorland, who was the candidate in 1921, was defeated by an adverse majority of some 7,500 votes? No, the people were not satisfied. Times were hard, unemployment was rife throughout the Maritime provinces, and yet there was a Conservative government in power from 1911 to 1921.

During the last election campaign it was stated in the Maritime provinces that the right hott: leader of the opposition had a new policy to offer. Well, if that policy is going to benefit the Maritimes, I should like to know how. If an increase in the tariff is going to benefit the Maritime provinces I should like to know it. If an extra tax upon fishermen of the counties of Gloucester, Resti-gouche and Kent is going to help those good people, I should like to know it. How can those hardworking fishermen support the burden of an extra tax, of a high duty on all those articles of production which under a Liberal government are admitted into Canada free of duty? I ask, how can our fishermen subsist under a policy such as hon. gentlemen opposite enunciate?

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

During the past two or three years hon-gentlemen opposite have presented a solid front in opposition to any expenditures intended to relieve our fishermen in their trying situation. Only recently-I think it was during the last session of parliament-money was voted for that purpose. Hon. gentlemen opposite from New Brunswick know that our fishermen cannot get along without some aid of this kind, but what has their conduct been? Those hon. members pledged themselves at a meeting of the maritime representatives held during the session of 1923 to support any measure that would be beneficial to the Maritime provinces, and yet only eight days afterwards the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones), the then hon. member for what was the constituency of St. John city and counties of St. John and Albert, Mr. Baxter, who now occupies the high position of Premier of New Brunswick, rose in their places and said that this government should not spend another dollar to help the Maritime province fishermen.

A great deal has been said about the question of freight rates.

Mr. HANSON:

Before the hon. member leaves the question of the fishermen, would he be good enough to say if he approves of the policy of this government in sending the mounted police into the counties of Kent and Gloucester to enforce the fishery regulations?