Mr. ROBICHAUD:

I was quite amused

when the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Dou-cet) made his first appearance in the county of Gloucester. What doctrine did he preach there? He stated that the government had announced that it intended to stop illegal fishing in the Maritime provinces, and my hon. friend announced that it was bad pdlicy to do so. He argued that it was bad policy to stop poaching and other illegal practices. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the fisheries in the Maritime provinces need some protection, but instead of co-operating with this government in doing that hon. gentlemen apposite tried to throw slurs in the faces of their opponents and endeavoured to make the people down there believe that poaching should be allowed, that the fisheries are practically inexhaustible and that no restriction should be enforced. Why, Mr. Speaker, our effort has been to make our fisheries more productive, and to perpetuate them for all time, if we can. In that connection I mention especially the lobster fisheries.

My hon. friend made a reference to the mounted police. It ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to make such an allusion in

view of the prosecutions to which the good fishermen of the county of Gloucester were subjected by the Conservatives between 1911 and 1921. For what purpose did the hon. member for Kent indulge in this denunciation of the mounted police during the campaign? For no other reason than to secure his election to this House and at the expense of one of our most precious industries.

While I am on the subject of fisheries, I think I should explain to the House the great advantage that my people in the constituency of Gloucester have derived from this industry. We have in Gloucester one of the finest, if not the finest, fishing fleet in the . Dominion of Canada. I believe that in intelligence and in capacity of every description the French Acadian fishermen excel almost any other class that I know of. The French Acadian fisherman is the pioneer of the fishing industry in this country. Long before the creation of this Dominion, fishermen from Normandy, on the other side of the ocean, fished on the great banks of Newfoundland, Mowing the example of the Norwegians and other fishermen from the northern parts of Europe. The French fishermen from Normandy migrated from the coast of Newfoundland and 'have settled, for "the first time in history, in my constituency of Gloucester, in my own native parish. To give to the House a further evidence that the fishing industry was introduced at an early date in my constituency of Gloucester, I may say that the first business man who came across the ocean to engage in the fisheries of the Maritime provinces was an English gentleman by the name of Robin. He came from the Old Country, opened up fishing posts on the shores of Baie de Chaleur, and later on his firm settled at Shippegan and now occupy the very fishing plant which these people possessed some two hundred years ago. When my friends opposite carried on a contest in the constituency of Gloucester and described the representative of that constituency as a traitor to his fishermen friends, I say that they were not loyal, nor were they fair to the fishermen and to myself. I serve notice on my hon. friends from the province of New Brunswick that when they visit my constituency for the purpose of campaigning, they must be careful what words or phrases they use.

A great deal has been said about freight rates. It has been pointed out in New Brunswick that this parliament should legislate in regard 'to freight rates. Members from the province of Nova Scotia have taken the same ground. It has been demonstrated time and time again on the floor of .this House that this

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

government was not doing its duty because it was not legislating with a view of reducing the freight rates on shipments to and from the Maritime provinces. I wonder if this is in accord with the belief of most hon. members of this House. Is it in accord with the position taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition when he opened his campaign in Nova Scotia, when he most em-9 p.m. phatically declared that this parliament should not, could not and ought not to legislate in regard to freight rates; that that should be left to the railway commission? I have before me the very words of the right hon. leader of the opposition in this respect. They are as follows:

I believe in the integrity of the railway commission. The judicial status of that authority must be maintained, and it is the proper body to fix rates. Parliament should not be permitted to interfere with the commission's jurisdiction because of the demands of any one section of the country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. leader of the opposition bad obtained a majority on the 29th of October last, my hon. friends from Nova Scotia would have demanded that he enact certain legislation in order to fix freight rates for the Maritime provinces, and my Tight hon. friend would have said, "I cannot do this, I cannot do that, because I made a solemn declaration that this parliament should not interfere with freight rates."

A little further on he Stated that the railways of this country should be subsidized. If the business interests of the country had approached the government and obtained subsidies for the railway service, and thereby obtained reduced cost of transportation, I say the country would then be embarking on a very dangerous precedent. If we were to legislate in this manner for the Maritime provinces, then the province of Quebec, with its extensive territories covering the large peninsula of Ungava; Ontario, with its immense tract of land to the north; Saskatchewan and Alberta, with their large areas of land, and British Columbia, which extends away up north to the region of Alaska, would demand the same rights; and where would we find ourselves? There would be no limit to the drain that would foe made on the treasury of this country.

The problems and the conditions in the Maritime provinces would not be so bad, after all, were it not for the wailing in regard to hard times by these pseudo-Maritime righters; and I believe that conditions would be much better, much nearer normal, in that section of the country. Business is increasing by leaps and bounds. Much has been said about the business which passes through the ports

of St. John and Halifax, and it has been suggested that these ports have not been getting the business which should have gone to them. But let us see, for the sake of comparison, what the port of Halifax is receiving to-day and what it was receiving under the Conservative regime in 1913, the year before the war commenced. I have before me an extract from an editorial in the Regina Leader of January 1st, 1926 which deals with an article published by a newspaper in Halifax, referring to a report of Mr. E. A. Saunders, Secretary of the Halifax board of trade. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that these words, the utterances of the Halifax board of trade, should be considered as authentic. They should be considered as disclosing the conditions as they exist in Halifax. According to this gentleman, the business of the port has increased considerably since 1913. Let me quote from the editorial in question:

The 'business of the port for the past year, in comparison with that of earlier years, is reviewed. In 1913 the shipping tonnage of the port was 4,000,000 tons, in 1925 it was 11,000,000 tons. During last year the port had 213 calls from ships of over 10,000 tons, and from thirty-five to forty of the largest steamship lines operating on the North Atlantic use the port. The inward and outward tonnage of freight has increased enormously over any previous year except those in which munitions and war supplies were being carried. Halifax, too, as a city, does a greater business than ever before. Her bank clearings increased from 96 millions in 1910 to 154 millions in 1925. The exports and imports of Halifax were 28 millions in 1917 and were last year 64 millions. The customs receipts of the port were 2J millions in 1913 and well over 3 millions last year.

This goes to show that business is after all not so bad in that part of the Maritime provinces as hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe. And as regards New Brunswick, is there anything the matter with that province except perhaps the fact that a Conservative government is in power? Hon. gentlemen opposite profess to have Maritime rights very much at heart, and yet. they sent down from this House the Hon. Mr. Baxter, a man whom I admit I admire for his capacity and intelligence, to defeat one of the most progressive and capable governments which the province of New Brunswick has ever had.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Oh, oh.

Mr. ROBICHAUD:

My hon. friend laughs, but he cannot deny that in the Foster-Veniot administration New Brunswick had one of the most progressive, one of the most successful and one of the most honest governments it ever had.

Mr. HANSON:

Has the hon. gentleman read the provincial financial statement published on Saturday last?

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

Mr. ROBICHAUD:

I have not read the last financial statement but I still profess to know a little about the finances of New Brunswick. If I may be pardoned for so doing, I may remind the hon. gentleman that I was a member of that government for seven years, and I can assure him that during the Foster-Veniot administration the province of New Brunswick had a sound, a progressive and an honest government, and that every ddllar that was responsible for the increase of the provincial debt during that time was devoted to the improvement of conditions in order to place the province on an equal footing with any other province or state in North America. Neither my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) nor the leader of the opposition can refute that statement. But what happened? A galaxy of gentlemen came down from Ontario right into my own constituency and held a conference with the industrialists of the province. My hon. friends opposite will not deny that. That conference took place and the Hon. Mr. Baxter, the present Premier of New Brunswick, assured1 the lumber lords that he would do certain things if they would support him. They promised to do so and he told them he would endeavour to carry out his undertakings. But he went further. The province was ready to embark upon one of the greatest enterprises which it could possibly have undertaken, an enterprise of greater importance than any that it has gone into since confederation. We in New Brunswick wanted to keep pace with the rest of the worid, we wanted to develop our water power; and Mr. Baxter promised the lumber lords that if returned to power he would put a stop to such development. Strangely enough, however, he turned round and promised the electors of New Brunswick that in the event of his attaining office he would see that this development should continue. It appears, therefore, that my hon. friends from New Brunswick are between the deep sea and that gentleman whose name I should not care to mention in this House. Mr. Baxter, as I say, promised the lumber lords that he would put : stop to hydro enterprise in New Brunswick while at the same time assuring the electors that in the event of his being returned to power he would continue along the lines advocated by the Foster-Veniot government. And this is one of the facts that accounts for the little hardship which is now being experienced in New Brunswick among the lumbermen. Another promise was made: the Conservatives declared that if

the Liberal government in the province were defeated the lumbermen would receive an

enhanced remuneration for their labours. Well, that government was defeated and today our poor lumbermen in New Brunswick are receiving scarcely a dollar per day while the bushmen in the province of Quebec are getting anywhere from $75 to $90 and $100 a month. Is this depression in the lumber industry in New Brunswick due to the mismanagement of a Liberal administration, or is it due to the fact that the lumber lords have put a stop to hydro development in the province in order to prevent competition from outside? Clearly the explanation for the present condition is to be found in the latter fact. The lumber lords want to monopolize the industry there, and where there is monopoly there is hardship to the common people. This is the situation in New Brunswick to-day and hon. gentlemen from that province cannot deny it. Nor can they deny that the lumber industry is the only one in the province that has been badly hit, for the fishermen during the past year have witnessed the best times since confederation. My hon. friends know that the farmers too are doing well. In spite of all this however they come here and paint a very gloomy picture of conditions in New Brunswick.

I desire once more to appeal to the House on behalf of my fishermen friends of New Brunswick and more especially in the interests of my fishermen supporters and the fishermen electors generally of the constituency of Gloucester. It is true that the finances of the country will not permit the expenditure of large sums of money, but that industry, which flourishes to-day in the Maritime provinces, must be maintained. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe that they are anxious to see the Maritime provinces attain to the level of other parts of Canada. Well, I tell them that unless we can make for improved conditions among the fishermen of the Maritime provinces we need not hope to make any great headway in that direction. During the past year particularly the Maritime provinces have been visited repeatedly with storms which have devastated such relief and accommodation as were temporarily afforded not by my hon. friends opposite, but by the parliament of Canada when the Liberal party was in power; for I cannot point to anything that the Conservative party ever did for the fishermen of my constituency. This may sound rather harsh, but it is true. Our fishermen need a share of the public funds in order that they may be provided with the necessary harbour facilities and transportation service to enable them to carry on their industry successfully as in the

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

past. I therefore hope .that this government will do all in its power to meet the requirements of the Maritime provinces in this respect, and I sincerely hope than in place of the lack of unity which was so sadly apparent in the last parliament among members on either side of the House representing Maritime constituencies, we shall see hon. members from New Brunswick, from Prince Edward Island and from Nova Scotia, whether they sit to your left, Sir, or to your right, joining hand in hand to obtain for the Maritime provinces a just share of the public expenditure necessary to alleviate the burdens that always press so heavily on the shoulders of our fishermen.

Appeals have repeatedly been made for national unity, but judging by the good spirit that prevails throughout the Dominion we must admit that there is no occasion for such appeals. National unity does exist to-day; it is implanted in the very heart of the nation. But unfortunately attempts have too frequently been made to undermine that unity which is so essential to our existence as a nation. How can we expect real national unity; how can we expect all classes and all sections of the country, to work together harmoniously for the promotion of our diversified interests, if our legislation is dominated by Montreal and Toronto to the great detriment of the country generally? The more I study the situation, Mr. Speaker, the more I am convinced of the vital importance of our adhering to the Liberal policy until such time at least as Canada shall have completely emerged from the chaos into which it was precipitated by the deflation and consequent depression following the war. By so doing the nation will accomplish a duty towards itself and towards the coming generations for whom we are paving the way. It is my confident hope, Sir, that by following Liberal traditions we shall go down to posterity as having accomplished something for Canada- something far greater than I can describe.

Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):

Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members I wish to pay my respects to you and to join with those who have preceded me in congratulating you upon your appointment to the position you now occupy.

During the debate I have been much interested in the figures quoted by some hon. members of the votes polled in the last election and the deductions they have drawn therefrom. If I followed a similar course of reasoning I should have to come to the conclusion that in the particular constituency

which I have the honour to represent there are no supporters of the official opposition. During the campaign my opponent and myself apparently stood for exactly the same platform. We were agreed on what the tariff arrangements should be; we were agreed practically on immigration; we were agreed also on branch line railway construction; in fact I do not know of any question on which we disagreed. However, we were brought before the people by two different conventions, and it was a matter of the electors deciding as to who should represent them in this House.

There is one paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that has not yet been touched upon; it is this:

Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population, to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on crown lands.

Several hon. members have dealt with the question of immigration. I intend for a few minutes to deal with one of the causes of people leaving the land-the settlers we already have there and whom we want to retain. After the war hon. members will recollect that legislation was passed providing for the establishment of a Soldier Settlement Board, and also for settling soldiers on the lands of western Canada. The first act, as a matter of fact, was passed in 1917, followed by the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919, under which the board that was constituted was authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire land; ito reserve crown lands for soldier settlement; to make grants to soldier settlers up to 160 acres. That act was amended from time to time in 1920, 1922 and 1925. The provisions of the original act provided either for payment of all cash, or ten per cent cash and the balance in twenty-five equal annual instalments with interest at five per cent. The board was also authorized to sell stock and equipment on the terms that it might be paid for all cash or in four equal annual instalments, commencing not later than three years from date of sale, with interest at five per cent. In 1920 the terms of payment on live stock and equipment were extended to six payments. In 1922 the indebtedness was consolidated and made payable in twenty-five or fewer instalments, the principal bearing no interest from the date of consolidation for two, three or four years, according to whether the advances were made within twelve months prior to October 1, 1921, 1920 or 1919 respectively. In 1925 an amendment was passed by

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

parliament providing that in case the settler had not repaid his indebtedness, and his agreement with the board had not been terminated, the board should credit his account with an amount in reduction of his indebtedness determined as follows: 40 per cent of the purchase price of live stock advanced to the settler and purchased prior to October 1, 1920; 20 per cent of the purchase price of live stock advanced to the settler and purchased on or after October 1, 1920 and prior to October 1, 1921. All the amendments to that act were made in the interests of the soldier settlers, and the soldier settlers of western Canada appreciate the attempt of the government to help them. They also appreciate the leniency extended to them by the amendments made from year to year. But a number of them in scattered districts of western Canada are not able to live up to the terms provided in the act. In many cases land was bought at too high a price, even as land was valued at that time. In many of the districts where land was purchased and turned over to the soldier settlers crop conditions have been extremely bad, and the settlers found themselves with a big indebtedness and with no crops to meet the payments. Complaints have been made from time to time and letters are continually being received from soldier settlers in scattered parts of the country. I am speaking now more particularly of the district which I represent, because as hon. members may know, during war years and the years immediately succeeding the war that particular part of Canada was not producing paying crops. The people there, although they lost on crops at that time, have learned a lesson. Necessity is the mother of invention, and these people learned that they must conserve their resources and develop a method of marketing their products which would bring the highest prices. What they learned during those years is now standing them in good stead. Referring to the soldier settlers, however, I have in my hand a letter received from one of them, from which I will read a paragraph:

I took up the land in 1919 and now see the hard results of same action. At that time the country generally did jts best to returned men, but owing to war reaction it seems to me everything was at a high price; land according to now, 1926, from $7 to $10 too much per acre; horses and implements away too high-and in my own individual case take notice our sul pervisors paid and passed bills for seed whest grain $2 2o per bushel. Personally, being beginners in life after war, can we honestly repay such debts?

He adds:

In closing my quarter section cost me close to $4,000. To-day, with arrears, etc., so far as I can make out

on their slip and up to date bookkeeping, I owe them close to $7,000.

Another soldier settler from a different district writes as follows:

Owing to the scattered locations of the soldier settlers it is hard to gather material respecting their various problems, but it is safe to say that every settler who purchased land in 1918, 1919 or 1920 has an over-capitalized farm, a great enough hardship without the usual risks of the farm. Some are located in districts where the best yields on summer fallow have only been ten or twelve bushels to the acre for years, some buying raw crown lands at a price greater than is asked to-day for improved farms with buildings, etc., and with large fields ready for crop. Others in the north find they are unable to clear and break land fast enough to meet even the payments to the board. I have met men of the finest type from that country recently who are buying government lands and who are this year unable to meet their store bills, and these are mostly native-born sons of Canada. What then of the new Canadians, who are unacquainted with climatic and working conditions. I will but briefly state my own case. I owed the board at the start $7,300. On a quarter section of school land with but 100 acres of arable land, the remain8er being alkali and unfit for cultivation, but for which the board paid $22 an acre from the Department of the Interior. I am endeavouring to pay for a similar quarter from the department with the same proportion of inarable, at the same price, allowing the usual third each year for summer fallow. What hope have I from the balance, of suitably providing for my family, meeting my increased payments to the board, and my overdue payments to the Department of the Interior from a farm which is penalized with a valuation three times its worth to-day? I will gladly welcome investigation by the opponents of the revaluation plan which has already been before the House, but was sidetracked in 1924.

I have another letter from which I will read an extract.

Upon my return from overseas, after serving four and a half years with the Canadian forces, I decided to take up farming and purchased land through the Soldier Settlement Board. The quarter section I purchased was valued at $6,000 by the board's inspectors. During my five years farming I had two fair crops and three poor crops, consequently I dropped behind in my payments. At the present time this land which I purchased at $6,000 is valued at $3,000. To prove this, the adjoining land was recently sold at $16 per acre.

Now the position is this: We who live in western Canada know that many of the western soldiers acquired land through the Soldier Settlement Board at prices which were too high even with conditions as they then existed. There may have been collusion in some places between soldier settlers and vendors of land; I do not know. We have heard that suggested, but in any event the neighbours of these soidier settlers will tell you that the land was sold at too high prices. We know that during the years subsequent to these lands being allotted, other farmers who were in fairiy good financial circumstances, with a full equipment of stock and machinery, found it almost impossible to weather conditions, and some of those well equipped

The Address-Mr. BothweU

farmers are finding it extremely difficult to carry on. I think the whole tone of the addresses made during this debate shows that hon. members believe that the agricultural industry is the greatest basic industry of Canada; that it should be fostered; that we want to get as many settlers on the land as we possibly can and that we want to retain those already there. If this is so, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have to do something for these soldier settlers in order to keep them on the land. All we can do is to revalue, in some way, all the lands allotted to them. I do not want to suggest any radical or drastic action along that line. I do not believe that we would be justified in revaluing all soldier settlers' lands, because many other persons in this country purchased land at the same time from the School Lands Branch at high prices, and they have found it impossible to pay for them. Others have purchased land and have been able to pay for it. A number of the soldiers have also been able to pay for their land and do not need a revaluation.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington); Does the hon. gentleman suggest, or would he care to suggest, a percentage of reduction in valuation on the lands of soldier settlers?

Mr. BOTHWELL:

No. I think it would

be a mistake to suggest any percentage of

reduction. I believe each individual case will have to be dealt with on its merits. The facts, so far as soldier settlers are concerned, are these: A total of 30,804 returned soldiers

were established under the Soldier Settlement Act. Of that number 24,148 were granted loans aggregating $103,150,098. Of these 727 have repaid their loans; 5,203, or 21.5 per cent, have abandoned their land altogether; 1,863 farms have been turned over to other settlers. The position is this: In addition to that 21 per cent who have abandoned their farms, unless we make some adjustment for numbers of these returned soldiers, we are going to have possibly another 21 per cent of abandonment, When that land is abandoned, it means that the board will resell i.t to other settlers at the price obtainable to-day. Now those soldiers who have done everything they could, not only during the war but since, to try to re-establish themselves should not be penalized to any greater extent than a new settler coming into the country now would be. If they abandon the land they drift into the city, and in some cases possibly become a charge there. If the Soldier Settlement Board, then are going to resell the llands which are taken over from the settlers at to-day's prices, surely it should be possible for us to devise

means whereby an adjustment can be made and the soldier allowed to retain his land. I am suggesting that enabling legislation be passed vesting discretion in the Soldier Settlement Board in revaluing individual parcels of land, and that they use their discretion the same as any other owner of land in western Canada has to do and compromise on the price at which the land shall be sold. We know of many cases in western Canada where men during a time of -high prices have sold land at a high price, and who in recent years have had to compromise at possibly half that sale price in order to retain the man on the land. Surely we can do the same thing for the soldier settler. I cannot do any better, in closing this subject, than to read the words of the mover of the resolution on this subject adopted in the Saskatchewan House:

I make this motion in the interests of the men who served the nation well, and who have made an effort to come back with some contribution in the days of peace. I make it in the interests of the fanners of the country, whose induslry will suffer to the extent in which these men fail. I make it in the interests of our municipalities, vitally affected by every gap made by an abandoned farm. I make it in the interests of the Dominion, the best asset of which is a contented and happy people, and I make it remembering 1914-1918. "Lest We Forget."

There is another matter in regard to which I wish to make a correction. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), speaking in this debate on the question of rural credits, said:

The difficulty in our western provinces, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, is largely due to the fact that we have the misfortune in Saskatchewan and in Alberta of having had Liberal governments for many long years. In fact the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have never yet had an opportunity to know and to understand the real value of Conservative government.

The impression may have been left on the House by that statement that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta particularly are in dire stress. I do not believe that rural credits are needed any more in those two provinces than in any other part of Canada. I believe that a rural credit scheme is in the interests of Canada as a whole, and will be of benefit to other parts of Canada as! well as the provinces referred to. In comparing the province of Saskatchewan with that of Manitoba I would draw the hon. member's attention to this fact, that although Saskatchewan has never had the benefit of Conservative rule, it is in a much better position financially than Manitoba. In the budget address delivered in the Saskatchewan legislature in 1924 a comparative estimate was made of the

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

indebtedness of the different provinces in Canada, as follows:

' Gross per capita Net per capita debt ddbt

Manitoba

9114 $53Saskatchewan.... 66 33

The Canada Year Book of 1924, also comparing the two provinces, shows the total principal assets of the province to be:

Principal Assets Liabilities

Manitoba

$64,795,506 $78,900,821Saskatchewan .. .. 62,521,001 51,448,807

These figures show clearly the comparative financial position of the two provincea The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in discussing the Speech from the Throne, referred to an address made by Sir Herbert Holt, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and quoted a portion of his address. But here is a portion that he did not quote, and I shall read it in order to put the House right on that matter. Sir Herbert Holt says:

The national problems that confront ns are complex, but inter-related. They are accentuated by the contiguity of the wealthiest country in the world. The physical geography of our country and the sparsity of population tend to a regional rather than a national outlook, and while both easterner and westerner are alike in their loyalty to the Dominion and to British traditions, the more immediate political dangers seem to lie in the intensification of provincialism, with its separate outlook and local economic interest. Our interests throughout Canada keep this question constantly before us. The Royal Bank has its roots in the Maritime provinces, where our business was inaugurated; it owes a good measure of its prosperity to the development of the central portion of Canada, and in the western provinces our business to-day is extremely important. Our contact with affairs in the various provinces has served to impress on us very deeply the close relation between the prosperity of one section and the prosperity of the others. Fundamentally, the interests of the different sections are identical, and our problems can be solved if only we bring to the discussion of them a friendly spirit of give and take. What is needed is a united Canada, closer cooperation between east and west in a national programme that will promote national development.

In describing general conditions in Canada, he takes the whole country from west to east and explains that conditions have been and are improving.

Other questions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne-the tariff, the Hudson Bay railway, immigration-have already been dealt with at some length by various speakers. I merely wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the people of western Canada, according to the figures that were quoted to the House to-day, are in favour of a lower tariff; in fact the great majority of them, if it were not for the interests of other parts of Canada, would favour free trade absolutely. They cannot see that there

is anything to be gained by a tariff at all so far as they are concerned. To them the tariff means that they are paying to Ontario and Quebec millions of dollars each year and deriving no benefit therefrom, because the price of everything they have to sell is fixed in the world's market. From the expressions of opinion so far advanced here, we seem to be all agreed that it is impossible for us at the present time to have free trade; but if we in western Canada are contributing some millions of dollars yearly to the manufacturing districts of eastern Canada we believe we are entitled to reductions in the commodities that we require as great as can be obtained. We believe it is only fair that Something should be done towards completing the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; and we appreciate the legislation along that line announced in the Speech from the Throne. If the position assumed by us is correct, surely the people of the east are willing to concede to us the amount of money necessary to the completion of that railroad as a colonization project. Apparently all governments for years past have been in favour of this enterprise; and it was with considerable interest and gratification that the members from the west learned the intention of the government to bring down legislation this session towards that end.

I do not intend to deal with the other questions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but I do wish to offer a word or two on the subject of immigration. I do not believe that we are going to benefit to any material extent by a great influx of foreigners into western Canada. First of all we must place conditions on a sound basis. We must develop our agricultural industry in the west to^such an extent and in such a way that the settlers now on the land will become happy and contented. Therefore the problem before us is hardly one of immigration, it is rather one of colonization. We need a contented people in the west, and to contribute to that happy result we want branch railway lines. When you consider that there are districts in the west that were settled as long ago as 1883, and that the settlers in those districts are still hauling grain to market from points thirty-five to forty miles away, you can realize that they are not very well satisfied with conditions as they are. They are not at all contented when they consider that people in the eastern parts of Canada have rural mail delivery whereas they cannot get it. We in the west feel that we need colonization legislation; and if the government will only give to the people out there some of those things that are

The Address-Mr. Howard

being enjoyed by the farming communities of the east, contentment will come to our people and there will be no difficulty in attracting immigrants to our shores. I Dotice that Australia is spending some eleven million pounds in colonization projects along the same line. This money is being spent under the emigration agreement entered into between the Australian Commonwealth and the British government upon railways^ highways, water supplies and other schemes for settling and developing the land. Were we only to spend some money in similar ways I believe we should make a great advance in the settlement of our immigration problems.

Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, on the occasion

of my rising in this House, as the representative of one of the most interesting counties of the eastern province of Quebec, it. behooves me to pay a just homage to my French Canadian electors, by first expressing myself in their native tongue. However, having an intimate knowledge of the generous disposition and the spirit of fairness which animates the population of the county of Sherbrooke, by having been honoured by them, and knowing that the English language is more familiar to the majority of the Canadian representatives in the nation's parliament, I deem it advisable to proceed in the English language.

As a new member, making my first speech in the House of Commons, I wish to couple my words with those who have spoken before me in congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment for a second term. I had long heard and read of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, but I never realized, Sir, how well you were fitted to fulfil the duties of the speakership until I saw you presiding with such dignity over the proceedings of this House.

I wish also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am sure from the ability both these hon. gentlemen displayed that they will be decided acquisitions to the debating talent of this House.

I was going to refer in my own words to a matter which gave me a great deal of pleasure, but the other morning I picked up the Montreal Gazette, whose politics we all know, and I found there an editorial which expresses, in better language than I could employ, the sentiments of this House with respect to a fact which all of us must have noticed. The Gazette says:

Several of them-

Referring to our French-Canadian friends.

-have shown that they are well able to sustain the handicap of speaking in a language with which they are

less familiar than their own. The Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, for example, has made this session his first important effort in English, and old parliamentarians predict that he will take his place among the first debaters in this House. Hon. George Boivin must henceforth be regarded as one of the most formidable speakers on the Liberal side. The Solicitor General, Hon. Lucien Cannon, is thriving on his new responsibilities and giving a good account of himself. Fernand Rinfret and J. J. Denis of Joliette have earned the admiration of all the parties by their able contributions.

If the French members cared to exercise their privilege they could employ their own language, but as Mr. Rinfret observed at the commencement of his speech the other day, they prefer to speak in the tongue that will be understood by everybody. Mr. Bourassa sometimes addresses brief remarks to the chair in his native tongue, but for the most part the debate is entirely in English.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to me to return a compliment that has been paid to this House by our French-Canadian fellow-citizens by delivering my address in. Franch, but I must refrain from doing so because my remarks would not foe as well understood.

I had not intended to take part in this debate, and perhaps would not have spoken had not certain remarks about the county of Sherbrooke been hurled across the floor. When the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) delivered his notable speech, in which he made accusations against the entire province of Quebec, mentioning specially the county which I have the honour to represent, I could not resist the temptation of indulging in a reply.

I could not let those accusations pass without telling the House the history of the last campaign in Sherbrooke, and1 what is true of Sherbrooke is true of practically every seat in the province of Quebec. If there is one province in this great Dominion that is more generous than another, if there is one province that is more considerate of minorities or that is less fanatic than another, it is the province of Quebec, and to have such statements made as were made by the hon. member for Kent is simply to heap insult upon my electors. I stand here, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the generosity of the province of Quebec: I am an English-speaking Protestant, elected in a county in which two-thirds of the electorate are French Canadian Catholics. I was chosen in a properly called convention of Liberals, where my French-Canadian fellow citizens were in a majority of four to one-a straight Liberal candidate, a supporter of the government of Mr. Mackenzie King. My predecessor, the first Liberal ever elected in the county of Sherbrooke, gave fourteen years of splendid service to this House, but when the electors of Sherbrooke knew that he dis-

The Address-Mr. Howard

agreed with the government on the tariff issue and on the budget, they refused to give him the convention. Again, the members who have been sent from Sherbrooke in the past- only two-should prove to this House that prejudice does not exist in that county. I only came into the election the night before nomination. It was a three-cornered fight, with an independent Liberal-protectionist, a Patenaude candidate, and myself as a straight Liberal, in the running. I discussed at every meeting, including the first one on nomination day, the four great policies of our great national leader as expressed in his speech at Richmond Hill. Never in my presence, was the conscription issue mentioned, except at one meeting, and that was at Rock Forest, when my Patenaude opponent tried to injure me by accusing me of having been in favour of [DOT]conscription in 1917. Does that not sound a little different from the words quoted by the hon. member for Kent? Instead of the Liberals raising the question of conscription in Sherbrooke, my opponents resorted to that issue to beat me, the Liberal candidate. The hon. member for Kent did not come to Sherbrooke during the election, and if he knows as little about the rest of the province as he does about Sherbrooke, you know how to value his statements. I do not intend to quote circulars and newspaper clippings to prove that the statements made by the hon. member for Kent were ridiculous. The

10 p.m. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) has ably refuted his statements and shown to this House that the campaign in Quebec was just as clean as, if not cleaner than, the campaign in Ontario or any other province.

At the opening of the session, in the first week of the debate, our party was accused of usurping power, but by its vote of confidence this House pronounced definitely that, our leader had followed the right course and that decision was reached more on the basis of common sense judgment than of precedent. At the commencement of the debate I regretted very much that different members of this House referred in belittling terms to the indemnity paid to members. I want to state that I am proud to draw $4,000 from this country as my indemnity, and if I am able I intend to render a service the value of which will be far in excess of the amount of the indemnity.

Returning to the Speech from the Throne, I am not surprised that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) proposed an amendment of only eight lines. There is no doubt that it would be very difficult for any

party to criticize such a Speech from the Throne as has been brought down to this fifteenth parliament of the Dominion. Certain figures have been already quoted in the House, but I cannot help repeating them. To show the difference between the conditions prevailing when this party took over the reins of power in 1921 and those which exist to-day, I call attention to the fact that Bank of Montreal stock was quoted in 1921 at $215 a share; in to-day's market it is quoted at $262, and last week was quoted at $271. Royal Bank stock in 1921 was quoted at $205 and to-day it is $255. Bank of Commerce stock was quoted in 1921 at $184, and to-day it is listed at $224. We will turn now to industrials: Canada Cement was

quoted in 1921 at $67 a share; to-day it is selling at $106, six dollars above par. Canadian Pacific Railway in 1921 was quoted at $125; to-day it is quoted at $150. Perhaps some hon. members would say that these figures are not conclusive, but if they take them in connection with the progress of Canada during the Liberal regime since 1896 they are conclusive. Those who are older than I can easily remember-I myself can recall the days when I was on the farm, ten years old-when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, and none of us will ever forget those fifteen years of prosperity from 1896 to 1911. In 1911, when our honoured chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier decided to negotiate, in the interests of the common people and the farmers of this country, the greatest trade agreement the country had ever known- reciprocity-our opponents went through the country, waved the flag and told the people of Canada that this would be the thin end of the wedge; that if we accepted the finest trade agreement ever made with the United States we would soon become annexed to that country. Our people were afraid; they turned down the agreement, and they have been paying the bill ever since. When you look at the ten years from 1911 to 1921, when our debt increased from $500,000,000 to $2,500,000,000, or $2,000,000,000 in ten years under Conservative regime, you can easily realize the joy of the people of Canada when our party came back to power in 1921. It took two years for our leader to get hold of the reins and get started; the Liberal party had only two years of administration before the election of 29th October last. But in those two years what did they do? The operating deficit on our Canadian National Railways came down from over $80,000,000 to $30,000,000. Throughout this country one of our

great newspapers published that wonderful propaganda which has come to be known as the Whisper of Death, probably the most injurious piece of advertising that has ever been given any country in the world, to the detriment Of this Dominion. And inside of three years, indeed, inside of two years, they have had to take it all back for the simple reason that this newspaper and the press generally are daily publishing the most extraordinary reports of progress which any country could possibly dhow to the world at large. The "whisper of death" has been changed to a "shout of triumph." During my campaign in Sherbrooke my adversaries, the Patemaude interests-I do mot blame the Conservatives-stated to the electorate that if they did not put this government out of power the country would be ruined. But the electors of Sherbrooke did not fall in the trap, nor did they help those who wanted to put this government out of power. During the time that these views were being expressed in my home town of Sherbrooke one of our industries, which employed 190 men in the period of depression after the war, had in its employ, on October 25 last, four days before I was elected, 425 hands. Eighteen months ago an industry in Sherbrooke which was then absolutely at zero, comprising one man and the office boy, was employing, on October 25, four days before my election, 78 hands, while to-day it is putting up a building in Sherbrooke 197 feet long by 94 feet in width, 3 storeys high. Another company which lost $187,000 three years ago and $85,000 two years ago came out square last year, and this year will make their first profits since the Liberal government came into power. And at date October 25 they were employing 900 hands day and night and Simdays occasionally.

Mr. BOYS:

Has that industry got any protection, and if so what is the rate?

Mr. HOWARD:

I will come to that in a minute.

Mr. BOYS:

This would be an opportune time to give us that information.

Mr. HOWARD:

Another industry in Sherbrooke which has a protection of 25 per cent is putting up a 5-storey building, doubling the size of its plant and doubling the number of its employees, who to-day total! 425. That industry is making silk stockings to ship to England.

Mr. LADNER:

Does the hon. member think that the progress of that industry is due to the low tariff policy of the Liberal government?

The Address-Mr. Howard

Mr. HOWARD:

Hear, hear.

Mr. HOWARD:

Very well, applaud this:

The government, with an unexampled hardihood, -has bought the support of the shrunken Progressive group and has thereby assured itself of a narrow parliamentary majority; and the purchase price is a legislative programme devised for no other purpose than that of restoring the Liberal-Progressive death knell alliance.

I absolutely take exception to these statements. I stand here as a Canadian, backed by a Canadian party, the Liberal party, and I declare that we are not running this country for the advantage of either the province of

The Address-Mr. Howard

Quebec or the province of Ontario, but that it is our intention to give such a government as is just and right to the common people, to the middle classes and to the big interests of the country alike, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In view of the figures that I have quoted, does any hon. gentleman seriously suggest that we had to buy the Progressives? No, most assuredly we did not; and all honour to them when I add that it would be im-i possible to buy them. They are not the kind that sell.

When hon. gentlemen opposite read the Speech from the Throne I ask them, do they object to the building of the Hudson Bay railway?

Yes.

Mr. HOWARD:

Well, we do not. The

head of one of the biggest financial institutions in the world to-day, addressing his shareholders made this statement:

I am convinced-

This man is speaking in Montreal, where the head office of his company is.

Don't tell us his name.

Mr. HOWARD:

You will recognize it from what he says.

I am convinced that the consolidation of our two great railway systems for the purposes of administration and operation on a basis that would not penalize , the past efficiency and economy on the part of the privately-owned railway is the only practical means of eliminating the present enormous loss.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Hear, hear.