Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

I desire to lay on the table a statement of the Auditor General as to governor general's warrants issued since last session, and expenditures thereunder; also a statement of the Auditor General as to treasury board overrulings of his decision. Hon. members of the House will be interested to know that the Auditor General says in his report that there have been no treasury board over-rulings of his decisions since last session.

Hon. J. H. KING (for the Minister of the Interior):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Minister of the Interior I beg to report that there were no remissions on sales of Indian lands during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1926. I desire also on his behalf to give notice to the House that no irrigation regulations have been enacted under the provisions of chapter 61, section 57, of the revised statutes. The Minister of the Interior also desires to give notice to the House that no orders in council relative to water in the railway belt have been passed under the provisions of the statutes of 1913, chapter 45, section 4.

Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):

I desire to inquire from the Minister of Public Works if the repair work on Pelee island cable has been abandoned for the season, and if so is there a possibility of connecting the island with the mainland for the winter months? I wish also to inquire as to how far the work has progressed?

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):

I will be very glad indeed to make

inquiries and ascertain the exact position of the work referred to by my hon. friend and give him the information he desires.

ATHABASKA ELECTION On the Orders of the Day:

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

Will the Prime Minister inform us if we can have the report of the Minister of Justice in connection with the inquiry held1 into the Athabaska election in 1925 tabled within the next few days?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING

(Prime Minister): I cannot say offhand

whether the report is in the Department of Justice, but if it is I will undertake to say that it will be laid on the table of the House.

Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) :

Mf. Speaker, at the outset of the

remarks which I wish to make I think I may say, on behalf of all members on this side of the House, that we concur most cordially in the welcome which has been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), to His Excellency the Governor General and Lady Willingdon. I have no doubt that their sojourn in this country of ours will prove both a pleasure to them, a profit to us and a service to the crown which His Excellency represents. I do not imagine, Sir, despite the report of the Imperial conference committee and the remarks which have been made thereon by the Prime Minister, that His Excellency will find the duties of the office of Governor General in Canada very much increased or very much diminished by the alleged changes mentioned in the report of that committee. The Governor General as a representative of

The Address-Mr. Cahan

the crown is the representative of the king, and as the representative of the king he has not, hitherto, so far as I am aware of his administrative acts, been the agent of any department of the British government or of the British government itself. I think the status, so far as His Excellency is concerned, is the status expressed in the British North America Act and not otherwise. It will be convenient, I think, when this report of the Imperial conference committee comes up for further discussion, that the Prime Minister lay on the table of the House a copy of the commission and instructions to His Excellency, in order that we may ascertain more definitely whether there has been any change in his duties and responsibilities as expressed in those two official documents.

I might say also, on behalf of the Conservative members of this House, that we appreciate more than we can express the consideration which the hon. leader of the opposition has shown to our unanimous request in caucus that he should undertake the onerous and responsible duties of leading the Conservative opposition in this House during the present session, assuming those duties and responsibilities at a great sacrifice to himself personally, I believe, in order that he might give the best of his services to the party who support him in the House and to the House as a whole. I can assure him also, I think, on behalf of the Conservative members of this House, that they will give him a loyal and consistent support in the performance of his duties and in assuming the responsibility of his official position.

I may also express, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Conservative members of the House, our appreciation of the fact that, despite the fatigue of the enormous and extended campaign that the present Prime Minister carried on during the recent election, despite the onerous duties imposed upon him at his assumption of office, he did, from a sense of duty I believe, and from a sense of responsibility to this parliament and to the country, lay aside the home duties of his office and take his place as the Prime Minister of this country, with his colleague associated with him, at the recent Imperial conference at London. I may say that in these days of tumult and turmoil, when our social and political life and traditions are being adjudged and weighed in the balance as never before, I am disposed for one to give to every office of authority, and chiefly to the leader of this House and Prime Minister of the government of this country, every support which is necessary, in or.der

that he may have, as a representative of this country, either in the councils of the empire or in dealing, so far as it is his function to do so, with foreign states, the full support of the parliament of the country, so far as we can consistently extend it to him. Whatever may be our dissensions and differences with regard to our domestic affairs, I believe it is our high duty to uphold the office of Prime Minister and to support the incumbent in carrying out the high duties and responsibilities of that office so far as we may, consistently with our own conscientious judgment of the political necessities of our common country. But to that remark I may add that I do not agree with the Prime Minister, under the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day, with this report of the Imperial conference before us, that any attempt on our part to elucidate clearly the real meaning of the paragraphs of that report constitutes a personal criticism of him, or a personal criticism of the Prime Minister of Great Britain or the prime ministers of the dominions represented at that conference. In the latter part of his address he stated the true position I believe, that that report will be placed before parliament for the consideration of every member of this House, and that it is our duty as individual members on either side to give it our most careful attention, and if we shall find discrepancies or inconsistencies therein, or verbiage which is not clear to our intelligence or to our judgment, to exercise our right to make such omments as may be necessary in order to elucidate the real position in which that report places the country at large.

Now, Sir, in dealing with the debate on the address the Prime Minister-and I may speak of it in this connection-referred to the fact that, after his resignation as prime minister was accepted in June last, certain expenditures were made by the incoming government by warrants of the Governor General, and if I apprehended the meaning and intent of his remarks, they were to the effect that, in his judgment and in the judgment of his colleagues on the government benches, the expenditures so made were unconstitutional and illegal in view of the circumstances in which they were made. I differ entirely from that opinion, and I say to the Prime Minister and to this House that rather than have that opinion go forth to the country as being based upon the facts and upon the law-based it was in part upon the fact that a resolution in the latter hectic days of June passed this House by a majority of one, which was not

The Address-Mr. Cahan

a majority in fact, and that therefore the House had pronounced the position of the new government to be unconstitutional and illegal-a judgment of a divided House which I think does not appeal either to the legal or the constitutional views of the great majority of the members in this House, or of the people in the country; I say if there is any doubt, when we come to pass the supplementary estimates, let the Prime Minister leave aside any single expenditure made by the late government which he deems as an exemplification of the view which he has expressed, and let him go to the courts of this country to procure a decision of that issue. In recent years we have had in this House many expressions of opinion from the opposite side, and even I think from the Prime Minister himself, that in legal matters there should be a judicial decision and not a political decision by the members of this House. I therefore ask him to assert the same dictum now. Let him take any item he may please and have the courts of this country decide whether the Bight Hon. Arthur Meighen and his colleagues acted illegally and unconstitutionally in the expenditures they made during their term of office.

But if I may make one other passing reference to the hectic days of last June, I do think that the Prime Minister might have still further elucidated his own position in this House at the time that he went to the office of His Excellency the Governor General and asked for a dissolution without consulting parliament, and, when a dissolution was refused, resigning the high office which he then filled and leaving this country for the time being without governmental authority. I do not know what truth there is in the report, but I have noticed it in the press, and in view of its having been made and circulated I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is his bounden duty, in order that the facts may be known at no late date, to bring down to this House his own correspondence with His Excellency in the matter of his resignation when it was made in June last, because the report has been circulated from one end of the country to the other, and it is believed by many, that the Prime Minister on that occasion advised, and even urged, the Governor General to seek instructions from the colonial office as to his duty, and then His Excellency is reported to have replied to his prime minister of that day that in Canada he represented the king and the crown, and that he would make no such appeal to the colonial office. If such an event did take place, then I say the Prime Minister in June last assumed a position entirely inconsistent

,

with that which lie assumes to-day on his return from the Imperial conference at London.

Now, with regard to the address of His Excellency the Governor General and the motion which we have before us with respect to an address in reply, I find in the speech from the throne one or two matters on which I may make some comment. First, with respect to the Hudson Bay railway which interests so large a section of the country, and which is supported and approved by such a large body of the members of this House. In the address it is stated that:

It has been decided to submit the study of conditions at the port of Nelson-

-to the careful examination of an outstanding British authority on tidal and estuarial conditions affecting harbours.

I wish that that statement had been somewhat enlarged. I think it is absolutely necessary in order that public opinion throughout the length and breadth of this country may be fully informed that we should have expert reports not only upon the navigability of Port Nelson, but the navigability at all seasons of the year or during any considerable time of the year of the Hudson straits and bay. Certain hon. gentlemen seem to think, and judging from the reports of some of the political speeches which I read during the last election campaign the idea was prevalent in the west, that for selfish commercial reasons the east was opposed to the opening up of the Hudson bay to the commerce of the world. That I do not think is correct. We who were born and bred in seaport towns and villages can count among our acquaintances not only mariners of steamships but mariners of sailing ships who during the last fifty or sixty years have made more or less frequent visits through Hudson straits to Hudson bay, and the current opinion in the east is due largely to our personal intercourse and communication with such men who have been upon the spot and have seen something of the conditions which prevail in that region. I myself have made one trip, not through the Hudson straits but in its proximity up along the northern Labrador coast, and it gave me certain pessimistic impressions. Possibly not being an expert I may be told those impressions were erroneous. This I do say, that if it can be established clearly and definitely that Hudson strait and Hudson bay are navigable for any considerable period of time during consecutive months of the year; if it can be shown with a degree of reasonable definiteness that that port may be opened up to afford cheaper freight rates

The Address-Mr. Cahan

for the products of the west to Europe and for the products of Europe to the middle west; then many of the objections which prevail in the east would be entirely removed. The attitude of the east is not one of hostility to the west. We know that our prosperity, such as it is, depends to a certain extent upon the west being prosperous, and any new route that may be opened, any improved conditions of transportation that may be found which will open up the west and give the people there swifter and cheaper transportation to the markets of the world, will, I am sure, receive a large measure of approval in the eastern sections of this country.

With regard to the ordinary business of parliament, the same bills will be introduced which were discussed last year, and with regard to these I have no comment to make at present. Regarding one'other matter which is not mentioned, but which is of very considerable interest to a large proportion of the electorate, namely, the constitutionality of the Alberta Act of 1905 which is to be referred to the courts for a clear decision, all I suggest is that when that reference is made it should be made as comprehensive as possible so as not only to elicit a judicial determination of the meaning and intent of the clauses of the Alberta Act of 1905 dealing with school funds, but also to secure a definite opinion from the courts as to the meaning and intent of the Dominion Lands Act of 1908, and as to how far the enactment of that measure, after the passage of the Alberta Act of 1905, affected the powers of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan in respect of the distribution of those school funds. I do not pretend to represent a large body of opinion in this country, but so far as I am acquainted with the opinion which does prevail the desire of those who are most interested in the Alberta school question is this, and this only, that under the guise of transferring natural resources of Alberta to the Alberta government, no new rights should be created either for the Protestant minority or for the Catholic minority. They are equally anxious that the old rights which are assured to them by particular clauses of the Alberta Act of 1905, and by similar clauses in the Saskatchewan Act of 1905, should not be abrogated nor diminished indirectly under the guise of transferring the natural resources to either of those provinces. These minorities wish to remain as they are and they are quite willing that the courts should determine what, if any, minority rights subsist to-day, with a view to having those rights preserved and not increased, and with

32649-4J

this further object in view, that if the existing minority rights are to be prejudiced or limited or abrogated, it should be done by direct action on the part of parliament so that there may be a full and clear discussion as to the merits of the case.

There is also in the speech from the throne a reference to the report of the so called Duncan commission. I do not intend to enter at length upon any discussion of that report. I regard it as a mere incident in the assertion by the maritime provinces of certain rights and interests which they think and believe appertain to them. The real problem, the real matter for discussion, will come up when the legislation promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is brought down for consideration in this House. Then and then only, when that legislation is laid before the House, may we determine whether the agitation leading to and the work of the Duncan commission have been successful or not. Eor my own part, therefore, I reserve decision until the proper measures are brought down. But having been born and bred in one of those provinces by the sea I do believe that all parties in this House including, I hope, some hon. gentlemen who are living now in western Canada and who received their education and training in the maritimes, will consider with sympathetic minds whether that irritating sore which does exist in those provinces should not be healed, however great the price, if that price is within the reasonable limits of the competency of this parliament. I do not agree with some who think that the highest political destiny of the maritime provinces was not bound up with that of the other provinces of Canada. If I were again living there and the matter were to come up anew I would say to the people of the maritimes: "Your highest and best political destiny is to be worked out in association, and only in association, with the other provinces of this great country." .

I came of a family whose modest way of living was equal to that of any other family in our surroundings, and I may say that the standard of living in that day was not as high as the standard of living in Nova Scotia at the present time. There is more of comfort and well-being in Nova Scotia to-day than there was in the sixties or seventies. But those provinces have not made an advance commensurate with the progress achieved by the other older provinces, and especially by the western provinces to which the maritimes gave so much, and for the development of which, I repeat-I hope the expression is not an unpleasant one-they

The Address-Mr. Cahan

made so many sacrifices in the early days. It sometimes seems to me that one of the greatest gifts from the maritimes to their fellow-Canadians is that men trained in the legal, engineering and other professions, or even as farm labourers, have left those communities for tfie west and assisted those coming from the old oountry to our Canadian west in establishing those three great prairie provinces on a basis of sound constitutional government and respect for English law and English institutions; they have given of their best endeavours to build up the west. Scotland has done the same thing; her sons have been dispersed throughout the whole British Empire.

Then there is another cause. I remember from my boyhood days that the county of Yarmouth, in which I was born, owned more shipping per capita sailing the seven seas than did any other part of the world. But with the coming of steamships that shipping has disappeared, and there has been no other industry to take its place. There have been many things detrimental to the progress and prosperity of these provinces, but I do believe that this parliament as a whole will give its most careful and favourable consideration to any measures of relief which may be brought before it in the hope of mitigating some of the grievances to which these provinces are subject.

With respect to the Imperial conference, one cannot understand the real position without reflecting somewhat upon the conditions which have prevailed in recent years, dealing with not only inter-imperial relations but also with the relations between the dominions of the empire and foreign states. The British Empire consists on the one hand of Great Britain with her vast aggregation of colonies and possessions which are directly under the supervision, the direction and in a large measure the control of the British government. Then there is India, which is only partially autonomous, for which in recent years the Morley-Minto scheme, the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme, and finally in 1919 the Government of India Act, have provided for a certain measure of self-government for that country, possibly placing it in a position leading to ultimate complete selfgovernment. Then we have the six dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, and South Africa, all of which with the exception of Newfoundland are members of the League of Nations. The constitutional developments *of recent years have tended more and more to distinguish between these six dominions and the dependencies of the British Crown to

which I have referred, and in my own opinion -and I think in the opinion of all-the survival of the British Empire depends upon the continuous co-operation of all the parts in carrying out the common ideals which constitute the standard of possible attainment. These common ideals have not yet fully developed; they have not yet been fully proved, and it is possible that the basis of cordial co-operation has not yet been fully attained. So it must remain the duty and responsibility of this generation of Canadians, and of every succeeding generation, to make its contribution, however meagre, to the living growth of our national life, and to the slow but sure development of our political institutions.

There has been in recent years a more constant development in the direction of a more direct and extended consultation between Great Britain and the dominions. This is no novel method. As far back as the days before the declaration of the independence of the United States, Edmund Burke was for years the agent in London of the state of New York, in direct communication with the British government, while from time to time the state of Pennsylvania sent Benjamin Franklin to London as a special commissioner to adjust matters with the British government. Our older British colonies did the same thing, and were so represented at intervals. In 1880 we sent a high commissioner to London for the first time to provide a source of information between this country and the British government, and although it is sometimes said that our successive high commissioners at London have been somewhat estranged from the ideals of this country, and that in the atmosphere of London they did not clearly apprehend the views of the people they represented, yet I think it is the opinion in this country that without exception our high commissioners have represented Canada in a manner that merits approval for themselves, and in such a way as to facilitate the development of a better feeling of goodwill between this Canada of ours and the mother country in which they were our representatives. I think on the whole they have faithfully and efficiently performed their duties.

Then we have had the development of the Imperial conference, and, as the leader of the opposition stated, we have had this development through various phases during the war down to the recent conferences of 1923 and 1926. But it is clear that in recent years there has not been any overt attempt on the part of the British government to restrain or restrict in any particular the absolute authority of the several dominions in the administration of their domestic affairs. It is

The Address-Mr. Cahan

suggested in the press-I do not know whether the Prime Minister himself would suggest it-that the result of the deliberations of the latest Imperial conference is to proclaim a new Magna Charta for the British Empire, but I think the circumstances under which the original Magna Charta was granted were so entirely different that the use of the term tends to a complete misunderstanding of the atmosphere of the recent conference. The Magna Charta of King John was a demand for the head of the sovereign, unless the concessions demanded should be made. There has been no strife between these dominions and the British Crown or the British government; they have ungrudgingly and graciously acceded from year to year to almost every suggestion made by the representatives of the dominions. For several years, however, two divergent tendencies have been manifest in the direction and control of our relations with foreign states, that is, the direction and control of the relations of this dominion in reference to foreign states. Gradually in commercial negotiations, beginning as far back as when Sir John A. Macdonald represented Canada at the Washington treaty; later w'hen Sir Charles Tupper represented Canada at Washington in the negotiation of the Fisheries treaty, and more recently when Mr. Fielding represented Canada in the negotiation of the commercial treaty with France, we have requested and have been granted the authority to deal in commercial matters and with respect to commercial treaties with all foreign states. But in respect of foreign policy there is still a marked divergence. Claims hitherto made to consultation in matters of common interest have asserted for the Dominion a measure of equality, but only a measure of equality with respect to Great Britain; and such consultation, which is largely dependent upon continued good will can certainly be promoted, to a very large extent, by careful and timely extension or development of the existing machinery of what I may call well-lubricated intercourse and communication. As to this there have been really no wide differences of opinion between the successive governments of Canada and the government of Great Britain. But dominion claims to independent action in foreign affairs imply a demand for equality of status with independent foreign states. That concession is not one for Great Britain to make, and it is one which up to this time no foreign state has ever made. I do not need to go into the particulars but even France, and more recently the United States, -have shown very great reluctance indeed to concede to us, as

a dominion, equality of status in dealing with them as independent foreign states. The implications of this tendency of the dominions to assert independent political action were recognized in Lord Ripon's despatch of 1895, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. He then stated the implications which I think continue down to this day. He said:

A foreign power, can only be approached through Her Majesty's representative, and any agreement entered into with it, affecting any part of Her Majesty's dominions, is an agreement between Her Majesty and the sovereign of the foreign state, and it is through Her Majesty's government that the foreign state would apply, in case of any question arising under it.

To give to the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's government would be to give them au international status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the empire into a number of independent states.

I am reading from the Parliamentary Papers of 1895, C. 7824. And again, particularly in the London conferences of 1907 and 1911, the view has been emphatically expressec by many representatives of the dominions, aw well as by representatives of the British government, that the empire must, be one from the point of view of its political treaty relations with all foreign states. We all remember Mr. Balfour's dictum, I think it was at the conference in 1911, that Great Britain could not share with the dominions the. direction and control of foreign policy; and even to-day Great Britain, with her far-flung empire-dealing if you will and restricting the application of your words to her possessions, her colonies, outside of the dominions- touches a foreign state at every point of the seven seas, and she must have and exercise a large power of direction and control in dealing with all foreign countries whose interests are adverse to hers or to the empire of which she forms a part.

The imperial resolutions of 1923, which were submitted by the Prime Minister to this House for confirmation, contemplated two types of international agreement in some of which only one part and in others more than one part of the empire is concerned, and the procedure in detail was prescribed for the negotiation of these two types of treaties. That procedure was formally ratified by this House. But it is significant, I think, of the incompleteness of the work of successive Imperial conferences that the conference of 1926 has, in my opinion, apparently modified

The Address-Mr. Cahan

referred the questioner to the unanimous approval of the Locarno treaty by the Imperial conference.

The questioner declared that the resolution passed by the Imperial conference on the recommendation of the Premiers' committee on Inter-imperial relations had no solid meaning, and he asked if Colonel Amery had made any representations to Sir Austen Chamberlain. Foreign Secretary, to the effect that Great Britain should not be left isolated in this way.

Colonel Amery replied that he thought the resolution of the Imperial conference expressing satisfaction with the foreign policy of His Majesty's government was a solid contribution.

Leaving the matter there, I invite at a later date an expression of opinion from the leader of the government as to what is the extent and nature of that solid contribution *which we are to give in respect to the Locarno treaty, which has never yet been submitted to this House for ratification or approval.

Now, furthermore, the report of the Imperial relations committee of this latest Imperial conference, speaking in regard to the negotiation of treaties states:

When a government has received information of the intention of any other government to conduct negotiations it is incumbent upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude. So long as the initiating government receives no adverse comments, and so long as its policy involves no active obligations on the part of other governments, it may proceed on the assumption that its policy is generally acceptable. It must, however, before taking any steps which might involve other governments in any aetive obligations, obtain their definite assent.

And then it proceeds:

Where by the nature of a treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the governments of the empire the initiating government may assume that the government which has had full opportunity o'f indicating its attitude, and has made no adverse comments, will concur in the ratification of the treaty.

Applying this declaration to the negotiation of treaties by the government of Great Britain, then when the government of Canada has received notice of the intention of the government of Great Britain to conduct negotiations with Germany or France, or with any other foreign state, though the treaty to be consummated many affect the rights and interests of British citizens wherever domiciled, or British shipping or other property, belonging to Canadian citizens, wherever located, the government of Great Britain, in the absence of adverse comments from the Canadian government, may assume that its policy is acceptable to Canada, and that the government of Canada, having made no adverse comments, is morally and in good faith bound to concur in the ratification of the treaty so negotiated.

Such treaties may involve the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in any part of the world, outside the British Empire. We as Canadian citizens have rights guaranteed to us by the British constitution in every part of the world to which we go, as citizens of the British Empire, rights which guarantee to us certain respectful treatment under the Union Jack wherever it flies throughout the British Empire, or wherever it flies on the seven seas, or on the coasts of any foreign state. Those rights and privileges which we enjoy as British citizens throughout the world should not be easily sacrificed, and should not be compromised readily without very clear and careful consideration as to the effects involved. We recall the declaration of the Prime Minister at the last session of parliament that hereafter no British treaty is to be binding upon Canada, unless it received the ratification of the Canadian government, and we by express resolution of parliament declared that no consent or approval or ratification should be expressed by the Canadian government, except upon the authority of parliament itself; yet we find in this new document the possibility that some default, on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs of Canada, in making adverse comments on any treaty, may result in imposing that treaty upon us, we being morally bound to accept it, simply because one department of this government, through inadvertance or otherwise, fails in the performance of its duty. I find it impossible to reconcile that with the resolution passed by this House last session. Then we have this statement:

Every governing member of the empire is master of its destiny.

I can accept that with modification and restriction. As a platitude for the public platform it is well enough. But as a statement of constitutional right it requires many modifications and restrictions in its application. In a restricted sense Canada is mistress of her own political destiny; but the very existence of Canada as a political entity depends upon keeping inviolate the understandings and conventions embodied in our own constitution with respect to the rights and interests of certain racial and religious minorities, with respect to the rights of certain provinces, such as the provinces by the sea, which have a representation in the Senate that is valuable for the preservation of their specific interests, and with respect to other matters. Those understandings and conventions must be maintained in order that we preserve the political entity and political unity of this country.

The Address-Mr. Cahan

Therefore I am driven back to the assumption that when the Prime Minister was giving countenance to that broad statement, it was not his intention thereby to abrogate the provisions of the British North America Act, which is a statute of the Imperial parliament defining the minority and other provincial rights to which we had agreed by convention and arrangement upon the organization of the provinces of Canada into one great confederation. If there is equality of status, perhaps I may add another term to the definition which was given by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). Equality of status may mean that the Canadian parliament cannot of its own volition override acts of the Imperial parliament; and it may mean, just as it has meant since confederation was formed, that in the last analysis the Imperial parliament has a deciding voice in respect to the nature and extent of the amendments to the British North America Act which are sought by the Canadian parliament or by the provinces of Canada. If in order to achieve our national destiny we wish to abolish the rights of any province, or if we wish otherwise to modify our own constitution, I think we will be driven back upon the old procedure of asking the Imperial parliament to ratify a new agreement, concurred in not only by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, but concurred in also by the provincial legislatures of Canada in so far as their special rights and interests might be affected.

Now, the definition of the office of Governor General and of his status does not give validity to one contention of the Prime Minister advanced during the recent elections. I understood, without quoting his exact words, that not only in this Hou?e in the last days of June, but throughout this country on the platform, he expressed the contention that the life and independence of this very parliament in which we sit may be determined, by the sole and arbitrary will of the prime minister in the exercise of his sole and arbitrary discretion, by the advice which he shall give on each and every occasion and under each and every condition to His Excellency respecting the dissolution of parliament. That I understand to be the new constitutional principle which he announced on the eve of the last election, and on which he sought the verdict of the people. All I can say to that is this. We do not wish, I think, to create a new master; we do not wish that a prime minister representing either party should be invested with such arbitrary power that, whenever his policy meets with the disapprobation of parliament, he can

thereupon destroy its very life and hold possible dissolution, at his discretion, as a weapon of blackmail over the heads of the independent members of this House of Commons. If that new principle is to be introduced into the constitution of this country, it should not be introduced by mere platform utterances or in the confusion of a general election; but first, at least, it should be introduced as a rule and principle to guide His Excellency in the matter of dissolution, a rule and principle that should be submitted to parliament itself, and first be approved of by the members of parliament. I do not think that either the House or the country will vest the prime minister with an arbitrary power that has never existed in English history since the days of Cromwell.

I will not take any more time, Mr. Speaker, but there are other very important matters which the members of the Imperial conference, in their wise discretion, have left for further consideration by committees of the Imperial conference and, I suppose, by their respective governments. These are:

1. The details of methods and forms of communication and consultation between the British government and the governments of the dominions;

2. The scope and application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act;

3. The right of each dominion to legislate with extra-territorial effect, or to give extraterritorial operation to its existing legislation;

4. The scope and application of Imperial Shipping Acts to Canadian shipping and Canadian seamen;

5. The status of Canadian shipping and Canadian seamen and citizens in the event of Great Britain being involved in foreign wars in which Canada may refuse actively to participate;

6. The restriction of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in criminal as well as civil matters;

7. The confusion that may arise by reason of conventions or treaties made by His Majesty on behalf of two or more parts of the empire, which are more or less inconsistent in their terms;

And this is very important:

8. The responsibility of Great Britain with respect to the enforcement of treaties made by His Majesty on behalf of a dominion government, which the foreign state may repudiate or refuse to carry out;

9. The obligations, moral or otherwise, of the dominions as members of the League of Nations, with respect to the treaty of Locarno.

These are not defined.

10. The reservation of dominion legislation.

All these, thank Providence, are left for further consideration and discussion.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we may express our grateful appreciation of the services of the Prime Minister in London, and

The Address-Mr. Cahan

particularly our appreciation of the fact that the great body of these intricate questions have been left, as they have been left ever since Canada was formed, to the consideration of the governments of the respective dominions when particular events arise demanding discussion and decision. And I think, in spite of the concession of this "great charter," we will go on and preserve the unity ' of the empire chiefly by dealing with events only as they arise, after consultation, with goodwill, being ever anxious to conciliate and adopt so far as we can the views of other sister dominions and of Great Britain herself, all to the end of preserving the unity of the British Empire, upon which the peace of this world for years to come must so largely depend.

Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):

Before I discuss the speech from the throne I desire to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on being re-elected to the chair. I am quite sure that with your past experience you will be able to perform your duties with dignity and impartiality, and I have no doubt that all hon. gentlemen will join in wishing you every success in your office. I desire also to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on the position to which he has been elevated. We realize, of course, that he now holds a very important position and an onerous one. I listened to him yesterday with a good deal of satisfaction in that his address was most modest in its tone, and because of that fact he is perhaps an improvement upon leaders recently occupying the position in this House. I had not the privilege of hearing the mover and seconder of the address and so I am unable at the moment to compliment them upon their efforts, but I trust that I shall have ample time to read the report of their remarks and later on to congratulate them personally. I have been told that they made splendid presentations and I shall certainly take occasion in due course to offer them congratulations.

Two of the most important addresses in this House have concerned themselves more particularly with the conference recently held in London. I understand that time will be afforded the House to discuss later on the results of that conference, and therefore I do not propose to inflict upon hon. members at this time any remarks in that regard except to observe incidentally that I trust, as no doubt other hon. members do, that the efforts of our delegates representing Canada and this House at the conference have been successful.

It has been customary since I have been a member of this House to discuss election results on the meeting of a new parliament. For some peculiar reason nothing has been said up to the present moment in regard to the recent election. Everyone remembers no doubt the situation that developed during the last session. A special committee was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Department of Customs and Excise. This committee divulged certain facts which were taken into consideration by the House, and our Conservative friends when parliament dissolved felt they had a sure election cry. They expected to come back in sufficient numbers to control the government. This has not happened. Why? We cannot for a moment suppose that the people of Canada did not take into account the revelations that were made by the committee; we cannot help assuming that these disclosures were considered. There must therefore have been something besides the report of the Customs committee which the people took into consideration when they cast their ballots at the last general election. I have discussed the question with many people in many walks of life, and I can say quite emphatically that, generally speaking, the people were influenced more by the legislative program of the last session and by the budget which was brought down than they were by the results of the Customs inquiry. That program and that budget had, in my opinion, more to do with the outcome of the election than had the inquiry. On many occasions I have listened to members of this House referring to the great leaders of the two old parties in the past. We have all heard hon. gentlemen declaring their acceptance of the principles laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as the case might be. I have often been astonished that men with any intelligence should speak in that manner of the political leaders of the two old parties in decades gone by. No doubt these were great men and they had great problems to face. But let us remember that those problems were incident to that day and the problems of that time are not the problems of our generation. Consequently any government that wishes to remain in power in this country for any length of time will have to apply itself to present problems rather than lean upon its predecessors.

Coming t'o the speech from the throne, it seems to me that in some particulars it is very indefinite; I will mention the points as I go along. However, taking it as a whole, I may .congratulate the government upon the general content of the speech. We view with a great deal of pleasure the fact that the gov-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

eminent intends to introduce the measures that were passed last session but which did not become law, which measures I feel will naturally go through without any great discussion or any waste of time. The most important measures passed last session, in which we are more particularly interested, include rural credits, which is a matter of great urgency. We regret the circumstances which have kept this legislation in abeyance, and we hope that it will eventually become law and so prove of great benefit to the agricultural sections of the country. There is also the legislation dealing with the revaluation of soldier settlers' lands. This is an important piece of legislation and it is absolutely essential that it be pressed through the House as soon as possible in order to afford relief to those men who fought so valiantly for us but who find themselves to-day in a condition so onerous that it is almost impossible for them to stay on the land.

Another important measure is the old age pensions bill which I am glad to see the government proposes reintroducing. True, this particular measure is not of great magnitude; it only begins to touch the question. But to the extent that the government are making an effort to deal with the matter, we should give them our support. I notice also in the speech that the government purpose reestablishing the special committee for the revision of the rules of the House. Those of us who have been members of parliament for any length of time realize that the rules must be amended in some particulars to allow the business of the House to be carried on more expeditiously. When there were only two parties the rules were probably adequate, but with the advent of several parties and groups the situation has altogether changed and consequently the rules should be revised and brought up to date to meet present conditions and to facilitate the passage of legislation.

One of the items in the speech which I consider very indefinite and in respect of which I purpose reserving judgment is that dealing with the coking of Canadian coal. We have no intimation as to how far the government propose to go in this direction. Possibly they have in mind the coal situation in Nova Scotia, but I would remind the House that for decades past, industries in that province have received bounties and subsidies by the million, which bounties and subsidies have only made millionaires of a few people while they have impoverished the many. We therefore reserve our judgment in that regard, waiting with patience for the proposals of the government.

Dealing with the situation which this brings to our minds, that is, the maritime situation, there is one thought which I would like to impress upon this House. Before we start to tamper with this great problem, let us first of all be sure of our ground, and then let us be sure that whatever action we may take will be all-sufficient to meet the conditions as they exist in the maritime provinces. I do not believe wre should deal with this problem in a piecemeal manner; we should do it thoroughly, and it will be more effective. When the report of the Duncan commission comes before the House I trust that we will be in a position to offer some constructive suggestions in that regard.

I also notice that the government propose to make some amendments to the Canada Grain Act. These amendments are not set out in the speech from the throne, of course, but I presume that one amendment likely to be brought forward will deal with the property rights of the farmer in respect to the routing and the destination of his grain. Hon. members will remember that two years ago we passed a new Canada Grain Act in which certain amendments were included which deprived the farmer of his property rights in routing the grain to a terminal of his own choosing. I opposed that amendment when the bill was before the House, and I oppose the situation as it is to-day. You cannot deprive any large class, such as the agricultural class, of their property rights without at the same time opening the door for the demand that other classes be deprived of such rights also, and therefore it is very important that the property rights of farmers in the routing of their grain should be restored at the earliest possible moment. If that right is not restored, we will hiave the situation in Canada of one class being deprived of certain rights while other classes are not so deprived.

There is still another matter touching the grain situation which is very important, and I must confess that we are looking for some way out of the difficulty. Under the Grain Act it is determined how our grain shall be graded, and the certificates of the inspection department are very important. In recent years we have enlarged our inspection system through the creation of new inspection points, and as a result we find that with the larger number of points where grain is inspected, the dissatisfaction of -the farmer in regard to the grading has increased to a large extent. It seems unfortunate that such should be the case, but most farmers to-day feel that they can get a better grade for their grain by allowing it to go through Winnipeg and be inspected at that point. The point I desire

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

more particularly to emphasize, however, has regard to the moisture 'content of the grain. This is a very important matter, and it has become very important to western farmers particularly during the last two years, because of weather conditions. If the House will bear with me for a few moments I will explain the situation. Grain may be given a straight grade provided it does not contain too much moisture. We have nothing in the Canada Grain Act; we have no order in council and no regulation of the Board of Grain Commissioners which determines the percentage of moisture which is allowed in straight grade grain. We have always understood that fourteen per cent was supposed to be the maximum moisture content for straight grade grain, but we found on examination and inquiry that there was no regulation or order in council in force which stipulated that particular percentage. During the last session of parliament we had several interviews with the Board of Grain Commissioners, and when we inquired of them as to how they determined whether or not grain was straight grade in so far as the moisture content was concerned, the chief inspector and the chairman of the appeal board stated that it was determined merely by the inspector feeling the grain, and if in his opinion the grain was fit for warehousing, it went as straight grade. If on the other hand he determined that the grain was not fit for warehousing, it would be graded as rejected, and consequently there would be quite a difference in the price paid. We also received the information from the commissioners that in some years the natural moisture content of grain was much higher than in others; the chairman of the appeal board went so far as to say that in some years the average moisture content ran close to fifteen per cent, and yet that grain would go as straight grade and consequently would be fit for warehousing. The situation to-day seems to be that it is almost impossible for us to set a definite percentage of moisture content for straight grade grain, because of the varying climatic conditions from year to year. Some remedy must be found in order to satisfy the producers of this grain. I noticed a press report some time ago wherein the Board of Grain Commissioners stated that when grain was tested for its moisture content 'by the appliances at their disposal, anything over 14.4 per cent would go as damp or rejected, yet in the same despatch I noticed that the Board of Grain Commissioners stated that any grain with less than 15 per cent moisture content would be put into storage. Naturally we want to know the reason for the difference.

If it is possible for the Board of Grain Commissioners or the elevator companies to store grain with a moisture content of less than 15 per cent that grain should evidently go as straight grade. The only remark I wish to make in that connection is that when the Board of Grain Commissioners hand out these rulings, it would be well for them to explain the reasons for them, so that the farmer who produces the grain will know the intentions of the board in that regard. The information. they give out is so meagre that the suspicions of the farmer are immediately aroused, and consequently he feels that he is not receiving fair treatment. I hope, however, that the government will give us an opportunity to make representations to them when the question of these amendments comes up.

I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the question of railways. The first point I wish to discuss in regard to the railway situation is with reference to the Hudson Bay railway. We note with a good deal of pleasure that it is the intention of the government to finish the construction of this line, so I hope that at no far distant date steel will be laid to the bay. We believe that this railway, even if it serves only for colonization purposes and to tap the ore fields in northern Manitoba, will be a success. When we come to the question of the development of the port, however, we enter into another phase of the situation altogether; and I feel that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has probably done the right thing in securing expert advice before proceeding further. Nevertheless, I trust it is not intended to postpone the time when this port will be equipped with the necessary-facilities. We receive many contradictory reports as to the feasibility of the Hudson bay-route. Personally I think it is feasible, but if there is any doubt about the matter, allow me to suggest to the Minister of Railways what may provide a possible solution. We have in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine many vessels that are now being held' for sale, that is to say vessels that are of no value to the marine service. Some of these vessels have been sold already at a very low-price, or at a price which is insignificant when compared with what they cost the country.. Would it not be possible for the government to take one of these ships and send it up into-Hudson strait, the point where it is important there should be an investigation, run the vessel each summer for a certain period, and' find out the exact situation in regard to ice flowing through this strait. By adopting such: a plan as that we can get some authentic information, and I trust it will be of a nature-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

that will assist this House in determining to what extent it would be desirable to spend the country's money in the development of the harbour of Port Nelson.

Coming now to our National Railway system I believe that we all desire to congratulate the president and his officers upon the splendid financial showing made by that system last year. They have succeeded, to a wonderful degree, in reducing the deficits which have burdened the system from year to year. We hope that that increased prosperity will be maintained, more particularly in the western sections of the Dominion, and that the time will not be far distant when the Canadian National Railways will be able to meet their obligations in full.

I note in the speech from the throne the statement that the government purposes bringing in a three-year branch line programme. I think that those of us who have followed developments in that regard will admit that the last three-year programme has been a success, and it is our belief that it is a good method of carrying out new construction in so far as the National lines are concerned. But there is one point I should like to impress upon the Minister of Railways and it is this: There are many branch lines on the National system, more particularly in western Canada, that are only partly completed. These branch lines are intended to serve well populated districts in the west, and we believe that every effort should be made to complete them. Those of us who have followed the situation know very well that no railway system can make a success of branch lines that are only partially completed. For one thing they are operated under a heavier expense than they would be if the lines were finished. There is no doubt that the completion of branch lines already under way should be the first objective of the National Railway system.

The speech from the throne also intimates that it is proposed to make some arrangement with the debenture holders of the old Grand Trunk system. These debentures, I understand, were issued in perpetuity. I do not know exactly what the government's proposal is, but I can assure them that we will give it the closest possible examination. Any proposals of this character should be fair to all parties concerned, and we hope the government will be successful in adjusting the matter to the satisfaction of the House and the people of Canada as a whole.

Hon. members who sat in this House during the last four or five years will recall that we have had before us what is known as

the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not believe it is necessary for me to enter at this time into any detailed explanation of that agreement. I feel that all I need say is that it was entered into in 1897 between the then government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Under the agreement certain subsidies were granted to the latter corporation in return for which they consented to a maximum rate as regards grain and grain products and certain commodities coming from eastern Canada. At that time grain rates were much lower than the maximum fixed by the agreement but the Great war brought about abnormal conditions resulting in a gradual increase of those rates until they reached the maximum agreed upon. Later on the agreement was suspended by act of parliament. In the year 1922, under another statute, it was restored in part with respect to grain and grain products originating in western Canada and going to Port Arthur and Fort William. I believe, too, that that portion of the agreement affecting commodities coming from eastern Canada was once more brought into force. Subsequently we discovered certain discrepancies as regards the rates applicable to western Canada under that agreement. That is to say certain points at a similar distance from Fort William or Port Arthur were being charged a higher rate than were points at an equal distance on the main line of the Canadian Pacific. The government of the day recognized the disability from which those producers were suffering who were paying higher rates than they should pay, and in 1925 brought in amending legislation. In such legislation that part of the Crowsnest pass agreement which dealt with maximum rates on certain commodities originating east of Fort William was abrogated. It was anticipated that when the amending legislation was passed, the railway companies would naturally apply the rates as parliament expected them to be applied, that is with fairness, and that there would be no discrimination in the application of the rates to points at a similar distance from Fort William and Port Arthur. Soon after this legislation became effective, and it went into force on the 27th of June, 1925, the Board of Railway Commissioners asked the railway companies to file a schedule of tariffs consistent with it. Up to the present time the railway companies have never filed that schedule of tariffs. They have sheltered behind this claim: They say that the rates in

force are, in their judgment, neither unjust nor discriminatory, and consequently they should remain in force. The situation is

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

this, Mr. Speaker. On the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway these rates are in force, but on railway lines south and on railway lines north of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, higher rates have to be paid for a similar distance from Fort William, running from one to five cents per hundred pounds higher, and thus discriminating against those people who live on these other lines as compared with those who live on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway.

In 1904 this parliament by legislation created the Board of Railway Commissioners. The chief function of the Board of Railway Commissioners was to administer the Railway Act, and to see that railway rates were equitable. That was the desire of parliament, but what do we find? We find that when the Board of Railway Commissioners ask the railway companies to file a schedule of rates in conformity with the legislation passed in 1925, the railway companies ignore that order. It was on the 8th day of July, 1925, that general order No. 420 was passed by the railway board, requiring the railway companies to file their schedules, but as I stated before, they have never laid their schedules before the board. The situation, then, is

simply this: Our railway companies are flouting the Board of Railway Commissioners. They go even beyond that; they are flouting the authority of this parliament. We have always understood and believed that this parliament was supreme, that when it passed legislation to remedy any disabilities, its order would be supreme and be given heed to, but here we have two large railway companies practically saying to this parliament, and to the board that was created by this parliament to have jurisdiction over them: We take no notice of what you do; we shall do just as we please. I would ask this House, are we going to allow that state of affairs to continue? Is it not time that something was done to make these railway companies recognize the fact that this parliament is supreme, and that when it passes legislation, its legislation must be lived up to? We cannot for one moment admit that any large corporation in Canada can at its own sweet will do just exactly as it likes and pay no heed whatever to the legislation passed by this parliament. Therefore, I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues that this situation should in some manner be remedied, and that these two railway companies should be made to understand that when this parliament passes legislation,

that legislation must be lived up to by them just as much as by anybody else in this country.

There is another matter in regard - to the railways that I should like to bring to the attention of the House. I have stated previously in my remarks that this House created the Board of Railway Commissioners by legislation in 1904. The membership of the board is six. Recently there has arisen a very peculiar situation on the board, which might have been anticipated because of the even number of its membership. On several important questions that have come before the board, when a decision had to be reached, we have found that the board split three tc three, with the unfortunate consequence that no action could be taken on these important matters where there was no majority decision by the board. We submit that that is not a proper state of things to continue, and that the board should consist of an odd number of members, whether it be five or seven.

Furthermore, we believe that western Canada is not adequately represented upon that board. In view of the fact that the three western provinces and British Columbia are very important factors in providing traffic for our railways, we submit that these four provinces should be more fully represented on the board than they are at the present time.

There is another question on which I wish to speak, which is not mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that is the income tax. The reason why I bring this matter to the attention of the House is because of a pamphlet that I hold in my hand, called The Retail Trade Review, issued by the Retail Trade Bureau of Canada. This is a national organization, and I understand that this pamphlet has been distributed from one end of Canada to the other. The article in this pamphlet is headed: The Vigorous

and Aggressive Campaign Undertaken by the Retail Trade Bureau of Canada Against the Dominion Income Tax to be Continued Until the Tax is Entirely Abolished. That seems to be the purpose of this organization, the abolition of the income tax, through persuasion, or ways and means best known to themselves. Now the basic principle of all taxation has been accepted as being the ability of the person to pay, and we submit that the income tax carries out that principle fairly. The income tax takes more, of course, from those who have the greater ability to pay, and therefore we maintain that it is a fair tax.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Another reason why we support the income tax is because it is a direct tax. We believe that direct taxation is far better than indirect taxation. We believe that if we had more direct taxation the people of Canada would take more interest in public affairs in this country, would watch more closely the expenditures of their various legislative bodies, and consequently we believe that this tax has a beneficial effect all round. I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to the following paragraph in this pamphlet:

In presenting our claims to tile government a large and influential delegation waited upon the members of the cabinet on March 12, 1926, and presented a memorial setting forth our reasons for the necessity of abolishing the Dominion income tax, and we are more than pleased that the government recognized the injustice of the application of this tax and saw fit to substantially reduce it.

What I would like to ask the government is this: Is that a fair interpretation of the attitude of the government on that occasion? We realize, of course, that it is quite possible for delegations such as this to read something into the attitude of the government which the government never intended, but we would like to know from the government very definitely whether that is their attitude and whether it is their intention to gradually abolish this tax. We quite recognize the possibility of there being some inequalities in this tax, and so far as possible these inequalities should be removed. As far as the tax itself is concerned we contend the present percentage schedule should1 be maintained, because it is in the best interests of all concerned. In reading this particular pamphlet, I find that they stress very strongly the fact that in their opinion this income tax prevents more capital from coming into Canada. I am not satisfied for one moment that that is the case. For instance, I believe you will find that the protective tariff is more instrumental in preventing new capital coming to this country than the income tax, because the protective tariff is a tax upon new capital coming to this country. In order to demonstrate that, we must examine how capital comes into this country. In the first instance, of course, it comes in by way of a bank credit, but in the final analysis the bank credit must be followed by goods. In the final analysis the goods that are required for the purposes of production are capital and every high tariff placed on goods coming into this country is just so much of a tax on new capital coming in. I would like to refer hon. members back to the time when we had that great era of prosperity that is often spoken about,

say from 1900 to 1912. That has been looked upon as the time when we had the greatest prosperity in this country, but how was that prosperity arrived at? It was arrived at because new capital was coming into Canada in the form of mortgages which were being placed upon lands which were being abandoned by the settlers.

Mr. BENNETT:

And railway construction.

Mr. GARDINER:

Yes, we had railway

construction it is true. But if you look up the trade returns of that period you will find our imports were always greater than our exports and that substantiates the argument I advance, that when new capital comes into the country it must come in the form of goods. Therefore, I trust the government will not under any consideration think that by reducing the income tax they are going to get more new capital into the country. If the government on the other hand would reduce the tariff, more particularly on those articles which bear high protective duties, they would do more in that way to bring new capital into the country than by tampering with the income tax.

There is another circumstance I would like to draw to the attention of the House in this regard. Last year provision was made for a tariff advisory board. Many applications have come before this board, more particularly for higher protective tariffs. Judging from some reports that have appeared in the press, I understand that the board, when hearing these applications, have gone fully into the question of capitalization, and the overhead that that capitalization means to the particular business concerned. It has been reported that when the business of these particular concerns has been investigated they have invariably stated that their plants were too large for the business available, and the size of their plants has necessitated a larger overhead than otherwise would be necessary. This merely shows that in so far as the manufacturing industries are concerned, we are not very much in need of new capital, but in so far as other industries are concerned, more particularly in regard to those industries which develop our natural resources, there is a possibility that we could do with a good deal of new capital in this country. But after all that may be said about this particular question, I trust hon. members will remember that our protective tariff is a greater barrier to the inflow of new capital to the natural industries than the incidence of the income tax.

During the last session of parliament a motion was placed on the order paper dealing

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

with the transfer of the natural resources to the province of Alberta. For various reasons, or more particularly for one reason, this was not gone on with. It is quite true this covenant had been entered into between the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta. They were both parties to the agreement and signed it. Since the last session of parliament the government has referred the question of the validity of section 17 of the Alberta Autonomy bill of 1905 to the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether the particular clause in this section dealing with the question of denominational schools is valid or otherwise. We submit, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to Alberta, that, in view of the fact that this matter will be decided by the Privy Council, there is no need to further withhold the natural resources from the province of Alberta, and that the natural resources should be transferred to the province, without any reference whatsoever to the school question. In all fairness to the pro-vince we 'believe that is the attitude the government should take. We maintain of course that by the act of 1905 the natural resources should have been transferred to the provinces at that time, but for certain considerations or for certain reasons it was not done. The sooner the natural resources are returend to the province the more expeditiously will those resources be developed. We have recognized that fact, and it has been our experience that long range administration is not very effective. Let me give you one instance, for example. All hon. members are all aware of course that certain developments are proceeding in Alberta in regard to oil. We are all aware that in certain portions of Alberta we have a large natural gas field. Arrangements have been made with certain companies to supply gas to the people of several cities in the province of Alberta. During the development for the securing of oil many gas fields have been tapped, and today millions of feet of gas are going to waste, yet in the city of Calgary, for instance, the people are paying 45 cents per 1,000 feet for gas. That situation should not be allowed to continue for any great length of time. We cannot waste a natural resource in that manner and still feel that we are looking after the interests not only of ourselves but of posterity. I am a firm believer in taking from our natural resources all that we require for our present day needs, but I am also just as firm a believer in preserving the balance for posterity, because after all we have that duty thrust upon us whether we like it or not. Taking these various factors into consideration, then, I submit that in all fairness

the province of Alberta should have transferred to it these natural resources without reference to the difference of opinion with respect to the educational clauses of the act of 1905.

There is one other matter I wish to refer to and it is of importance to the province of Alberta. After the Panama canal was completed trial shipments of grain were made from our Pacific port of Vancouver. We found it to be quite feasible to ship grain by that route. Vancouver is certainly much nearer to the province of Alberta than either Fort William or Port Arthur, and naturally we desire to ship our grain by the cheapest possible route. The government of the day took into consideration the development of this port, and by legislation created a harbour commission composed of three members, charged with the responsibility of providing such appliances as are required to facilitate the passage of goods through the port. The largest single commodity going through that port at the present time is grain, and most of it is produced in the province of Alberta. In view of the situation we submit to the government that the wheat producers of Alberta should receive representation when the present vacancy on that board is filled. We would not like to see such a representative appointed as would look only after the interests of those producers and would discriminate against the interests of other shippers; but on the other hand we maintain that there is always a tendency for a commission of this description to place a higher cost upon the grain going through the port than should rightfully be levied against that commodity. Therefore we urge that it is not only in the interests of Alberta but also in the interests of Vancouver city and port that the wheat producers of Alberta who are providing the largest volume of the business going through that port should have representation on the board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only one other word to say. You will remember that when you were nominated for the position of Speaker I stated that we had created many precedents at the last session of parliament, and that it was very likely we would create some further precedents at this session. I find that I am in accord with most of what is contained in the speech from the throne, but I would not care to sanction some of the items until information with respect to them is available. Now, so far as I am concerned I purpose to create another precedent. If there is a division on the speech from the throne I intend to support the government, with the understanding that the items which are now so indefinite I will be free to discuss

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

and even to vote against if I deem it desirable. It is an unfortunate circumstance in our parliamentary procedure that when the speech from the throne or the budget is before the House we must vote either for or against it as a whole. We all know that in either the speech from the throne or the budget there are some items that every member of the House can support, and it places such members in a very unpleasant position when they find that they must either vote in support of or against the budget or the speech from the throne, as the case may be, as a whole. We give warning to the House that we are going to take a different course. If we find there is more good than evil in the speech from the throne or in the budget, then we will support either, reserving to ourselves the right to speak or vote against anything therein contained which we think is wTrong. That is the attitude we purpose to take, and I trust the House will accept this declaration in the same spirit in which it is made.

Mr. J. S. WTOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister

yesterday referred to the endorsation the government had received in the recent elections. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that our little group here in this corner can boast what no other group can, that we came back fifty per cent stronger-we have one member more.

Last session, owing to the fact that this side of the House was very much crowded, we took our places on the government side, stating to the House that there was no particular political significance in our change, but that there we could hear and be heard to greater advantage. This session, since there are no cross benches and there is more room on this side of the House, we are back on what is termed the "opposition" side with a number of the farmer members, with whom during the past five years we have found ourselves working in very close co-operation. But let me say that we, like the hon. members around us, do not regard ourselves as necessarily being opposed to the government; we rather would emphasize the fact that we are trying as best we may under the existing rules of the House to maintain an independent position. We are thinking in terms of legislation rather than in terms of party. We propose to support to the best of our ability good legislation from whatever source it comes, but we do not propose to give unqualified allegiance to any party irrespective of their legislative programme or of their administrative efficiency.

The desire has been expressed that we ought to expedite the business of the House, anti we in our comer here have every disposition to do so. However, I feel we have a perfect right, even during the few days we are here, to discuss various matters which come before us in the speech from the throne. I might call attention to the fact that two whole days were devoted to formal functions. Surely two or three days may be devoted to a discussion of the business of the country. There is indeed some little danger that we in Ottawa may forget the real business for which we come here. I notice the newspapers announce that we are in for a brilliant social season. In connection with the coming of the Governor General the newspapers of the country sent out a despatch to the effect that Ottawa society was agog over the prospects of a social season of luncheons, dinners, teas and dances. That may be all very well for a few members here, but I would suggest that it does not particularly appeal to the large mass of the electors, our fellow citizens, who sent us here and who are living in the industrial areas or on the prairies of the west.

Our group may be small, but I venture to say that it represents a very considerable proportion of the people across the country who otherwise are not vocal. The point of view of the Labour party is somewhat different from that of the older groups and even from that of the farmers with whom we co-operate. It is true, I know, that some of the members of the older parties claim to represent labour, inasmuch as there are labour people in their constituencies. I do not at all object to their efforts to represent labour, but it is not very frequently that they press what are essentially the principles of organized labour. There are in my constituency in Winnipeg North Centre bankers who probably would agree with me in the statement that I have not during the past five years tried to represent in the House their special point of view. In the same way there are a great many members here in whose constituencies there are labour men and who represent in a general way the views current in their different communities. But these members do not come to give distinct expression to the view-point of labour in their constituencies. It is therefore our peculiar task and duty to attempt to represent labour as best we may. Sometimes I fancy it must be quite pleasant to represent a constituency composed very largely of bankers or wholesalers or manufacturers. In such a case even I might wax eloquent over the "increased prosperity of the country" and indulge in other phrases of that character. However, some of us, if we are to be true to the people who sent

66 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

us here and to the platforms on which we were elected, are forced to try to preserve the point of view of certain sections of the public that feel very differently from that section that receives the greatest publicity in our leading newspapers.

We are very glad to note that there is to be reintroduced the legislation we passed last year. In some of that legislation we have a particular interest and we would give the government full credit for having done its best during the past session to put these measures on the statute book. I would point out, however, that as a matter of fact the legislation which was of special interest to labour went by the board, as did a good deal of other legislation. It is not the law of the land. I know there was a sudden dissolution which abruptly terminated the business of the House, but I would point out that the old age pensions, amendments to the Criminal Code, and amendments to the Immigration Act actually passed the House but were rejected by the Senate. The same conditions, on the whole prevail at the present time, and I would submit very respectfully to the government that if they propose simply to reintroduce this legislation without taking some steps to ensure that it shall become the law of the land, they cannot very well hope to receive the continued support of the country. In this connection I would venture to call attention to a resolution which I have placed on the order paper and which I would commend to the attention of the government, namely, that we be permitted this year to have a special parliamentary committee to consider what changes might be made in the British North America Act, which,

*

while conserving the principles of confederation, would enable us more adequately to cope w-ith the complicated problems which now confront Canada.

It would seem to me that if the government are really in earnest-and I have no reason to believe they are not-in having old age pensions and other social legislation placed on the statute books they should not allow the second chamber to continue to have powers which enable it effectually to nullify the will of the people.

The speech, using the customary phrases, expresses gratitude for a bountiful harvest. I should like to ask what this means in terms of the enjoyment of the good things of life by the ordinary Canadian citizen. Speaking particularly for the west I would call attention to the fact that that section of Canada enjoys only a little over half of the good things it produces. A very interesting study was made a few years ago by the Department of Trade and Commerce and

JMr. Woodsworth.]

published by the Bureau of Statistics with regard to the economic position of the Canadian prairie provinces. The latest figures are for the year 1923 and I presume the proportions will be fairly the same to-day. In fact, if there is a more bountiful harvest at the present time, if there is a greater production on the prairies, it is quite possible that a larger proportion will be sent out of the country instead of being retained in the prairie areas. Owing to certain factors into which I need not enter to-day, it is exceedingly difficult for the statistical department to make a study of this character for the whole of Canada, but in view of our inland position on the prairies it has been possible to make a detailed investigation. Let me quote from the pamphlet:

Perhaps the outstanding result of the investigation is that it shows net exports from the prairie provinces amounting to approximately $270,000,000, whilst imports into this area were approximately $115,000,000. The "favourable" trade balance of this section of Canada was, therefore, in the neighbourhood of $125,000,000.

Now, we may have had a bountiful harvest in the west, but the point to which I would call attention is that the greater part of that harvest or its money equivalent goes out of the country altogether and that we are left in the west to enjoy only a part of the fruits of our labour. Let me ask, where does this $125,000,000 go? That is what is known as the "favourable" balance, though indeed I do not know why it should be a favourable thing for us to send more out than we get in. I have never been able to understand that point of view.

Mr. COOTE:

It is more blessed to give

than to receive.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Possibly; but we

do not generally conduct business on that basis. I suppose we can find the explanation in what is known to economists as invisible exports. As the pamphlet itself says:

Some of the items, for example, which must be included in a complete statement of the "invisible" exports from the prairie provinces of Canada would include (1) payments of interest and sinking fund sent outside the area: (2) payments of dividends on securities of prairie companies to persons resident outside the prairie region: (3) remittances of cash by immigrant residents; (i) expenditures of travellers; students, etc., ordinarily resident in and deriving their income from the prairie provinces, made outside the prairie district;

(5) payments to outside insurance companies;

(6) the export of capital accompanying emigration; (7) capital sent away from the prairies for investment; (8) charges for transient labour recruited mainly from eastern Canada (harvesters' excursions).

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

That may indicate, perhaps, the great outstanding fact that the extent to which we are truly grateful for a bountiful harvest will possibly be dependent upon the proportion of that harvest which we are allowed to enjoy. Let me go on to say that in all parts of. Canada a very large proportion of the production is eaten up by our inequitable system of distribution, and in this connection I would like to quote, not a radical writer, but rather a few sentences from an interview with the late W. J. Hanna at the time he was food controller, when he found himself faced with the necessity of doing something if possible to eliminate some of the profits which went to the middleman. Mr. Hanna at that time referred to:

The supernumerary, unnecessary and inefficient middleman, whose presence in the community is one of the most serious economic wastes of the day,-

And later he goes on to say:

That there have long been too many city people and too few farmers in this Dominion is common knowledge, but it is not so well known that among our city people there are too many mere distributors, too many shippers, packers, carriers, wholesalers, retailers, advertisers, printers, salesmen, brokers, sub-brokers, deputy brokers, assistant-sub-deputy-brokers, and the whole army of people in the services and professions that wait upon the middleman.

Later, in speaking of this inflated staff of non-producers, he says it-

-was and still is dependent for its wages upon' the movement of farm goods to the city and city goods to the farm, and all the over-specialized, over-elaborated processes which a luxurious civilization imagines are necessary to its happiness-

Here again may I emphasize that we have perhaps in this very House a large number who more nearly represent that great class of middlemen, and it is not much wonder that perhaps they rejoice in the bountiful harvest because they are able to secure a very considerable proportion of that harvest. I am reminded of a saying of Mr. Bernard Shaw's, to the effect that man is the only animal that counts himself rich according to the number and voracity of his parasites.

Let me pass on in considering this bountiful harvest to the question of some of the people who actually help take it off; I mean the harvesters. I happened to come down on the train with a number of these men who were returning to the east; some of them were riding in the regular coaches, while some had been riding on box cars. On that very trip one poor fellow had apparently fallen between the cars. In conversation with a number of the men who had been out through the west for the harvest, I found that owing to the rain 32649-5$

which came during harvest time, a very large number of these men were unable to obtain very much as the result of the weeks they spent in the west. I would like to commend to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a suggestion that we might very well make provision for some kind of insurance for those who harvest the western crop. It is undoubtedly a question of national importance that the wheat harvest should be safely garnered in, but we often find that owing to an early frost in one particular region, a hail storm in another region, or an early snowfall in still another, hundreds of men are thrown out of work. It would seem reasonable that the great burden of a disaster of that kind should not be borne by the few individual harvest hands who happen to be located in that particular district. The west is accustomed to insurance against hail and other suoh contingencies, and it would not seem an unreasonable thing that the Agriculture department or the Immigration department, recognizing the importance of the task, and also recognizing that no group of individuals in one neighbourhood or no one district could handle this situation, should bring forward some sort of insurance scheme. The details of this would need to be carefully worked out. The end to be attained is that those men who go from the east or from overseas to harvest the crops of the west may be sure of coming back with at least decent wages for the time they have spent in this very essential work.

Further in this connection might I point out that the ordinary industrial worker in the cities has by no means profited to the extent he should profit by the bountiful harvest, and the added production which has characterized the last year in this country. Let me give a statement from a recent investigator of wages on this continent:

The recent researches of Paul H. Douglas show that the gain in real wages in the United States from 1890 to 1919 did not average one-half of one per cent a year.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions are very similar in Canada, although we have not had a careful research carried on in this country. If during the past 20 years the industrial worker in the United States has gained only something like one-half of one per cent a year in real wages, it would seem to me that it might very well be that we should devote a little more time to asking what this bountiful harvest means to the ordinary man in industry or on the farm.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.