Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon) :

(Resuming) Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the tariff we are always confronted with the question: If we have freer trade relations with other countries where is the revenue to come from? This question is always raised by those who desire a tariff high

enough to prohibit the entry of any goods on which duty may be collected. One hon. member to my right said last night that the tariff was needed to protect Canada against the influx cf American goods from the factories of New York and Massachusetts, as well as to provide revenue. I wonder how he expected to collect revenue on goods prohibited from entering this country! But that is about the kind of reasoning and logic that we have become accustomed to from those who favour a trade restriction policy. I, on my part, may well ask: Where are the earnings of our people now going? Taking my figures from trade reports in the Canadian Year Book, I find that the average production of manufactured goods for the five years from 1910 to 1914 inclusive-this was before the war and when trade conditions were normal- amounted to $1,400,000,000; the average consumption at home during that time was $1,350,000,000. On the average, there'was exported $50,000,000 worth each year. That is, twenty-seven times as much manufactured products were consumed at home as were exported. So the situation, so far as the Canadian consumer is concerned, stands thus: The tax that went into the federal treasury was on the average $92,000,000 for those five years; while the total tax due to the tariff on Canadian manufactures amounted to $497,000,000-$405,000,000 of which went into the pockets of the protected interests. The amount we are now getting in revenue from the tariff is only a small portion of our yearly requirements; this year, I believe, it will amount to only about one-fifth.

Now, some manufacturers protest that the tariff does not bring about higher prices to the consumer. Obviously, in that case, the tariff does not protect, and they will not suffer from its removal. But, take one industry alone for one year before the war, when, of course, conditions were normal. I find that, in the boot and shoe industry we paid because of the tariff over $3,065,000 in excess of the total wages and salaries received by all those employed in that industry. If we were, then, to consider the interests of the country it 'would have paid the people to scrap every boot and shoe factory, hand over to the workers their full wages, and pay a diretet subsidy to the Government of $3,065,000 instead of the paltry half million which went into the treasury from that industry in that year. Or, to be more explicit: We paid that year on boots and shoes alone, because of the

The Address

duty, $10,763,890.61; the customs, duty amounted to $585,996; the enhancement in price to the Canadian consumer was $10,177,893,90; the wages and salaries paid to all those employed in that industry in that year amounted to $7,698,333, being less by $3,065,557 than what the manufacturers received owing to the tariff. And further, the tariff, we were told, was needed to maintain higher standards of living among the workers of the land. If you divide $7,698,000 among 17,227 employees, you get an average of $446 for the year, or of $1.46 for the day. I think you' will agree with me that in a country where the price of every article of food and clothing is enhanced by the tariff, $446 a year will not permit a worker's family to live under very comfortable conditions; nor would it do so even in pre-war days. But we must not forget that this average of $1.46 per day really does not indicate the average amount received by the workingmen, because the salaries of higher-paid officials is included in that calculation.

After all, Sir, I am not sure that the tariff as it stands to-day is the greatest economic evil militating against the workers of this land. But it is the basis or foundation upon which the structure of privilege is built. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) spoke of the Anti-Dumping Act as being the saviour of some Canadian industries. That act, which was passed in 1904, closed up the last gap of liberty for the consumers of this land; it put a lever in the hands of the protected manufacturers which they have used fully to their own advantage. As a specific instance, I want to point out that the United Grain Growers Company, to whom no manufacturing concern in Canada would sell for co-operative distribution, were forced to seek their supplies from independent companies in the United States. But those supplies were brought into Canada under the dumping penalties of this Act. The invoice prices of the goods were disputed, though the goods were purchased in the regular way; and on the implements which were imported the company paid from 52 to 68 per cent of the total cost by way of duty. In 1916 the price paid by this organization for a gang plough was $87, but the customs appraiser valued it at $103.79. The regular tariff rate then was 27J per cent. The ad valorem duty, including war tax, on $103.79 amounted to $28.60, and the dumping duty was $16.79, or a total of $45.39, equal to 52 per cent ad valorem on the purchase price, although

the regular tariff rate was 271 per cent. I think it is plain to us all that in many instances the Canadian consumer is forced to submit not only to the imposition of rates as shown in the tariff schedules of to-day, but to the addition of arbitrary rates as well.

Now, I have before me an article from that old champion of liberty, the Montreal Witness, setting forth an incident which occurred some time ago in the city of Montreal. The protected milling combine of Can [DOT] ada put up its prices to such an extent that the bakers had either to increase the price of bread or to seek their flour elsewhere. They took the latter course; they sought their flour in the United States, and after paying the duty on it and the heavier freight rate, were able to maintain the usual price for bread. And then what took place? They were brought under the penalties of this Anti-Dumping Act, and the consumers of that city were handed over to the tender mercies of the protected combine. As I have said, the act closed up the last gap of liberty that had been left open to the consumers of Canada.

We in the West have been trying in every possible way to lower the cost of production on our farms so that agriculture may live, but we have been met at every point. We have been thwarted in every way by the ramifications of the great O.B.U.-One Big Union-which, because of the protective tariff inaugurated in 1879, is now able to control the distribution of every commodity in the land. In fact, Sir, the threat was made some time ago that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which was described as a young athlete not knowing its own strength, was able at one blow to close every industry in the land, and in a short time to bring millions of workers to the verge of starvation. _

I wish now to return to the railway question in order to show, as I have already in some measure tried to do, how this system of privilege is the cause of most of the trouble in our national problems of to-day. Under the bounty legislation of 1897-99, plants for the manufacture of steel rails were installed at Sydney, Cape Breton, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Both these companies were of American promotion. In 1900 an amendment to the Railway Act was made providing that equipment made in Canada had to be used, by all railways subsidized by the government. This measure was opposed at the time even by the Conservative party, particularly by Sir

The Address

Charles Tupper, whose name, I believe, is still reverenced by that party. He opposed it on the ground that it was contrary to freedom, but the measure was adopted on July 12, 1900. Although it was 1904 before either of these companies produced any rails, a contract was entered into with the Sault Ste. Marie Company just before the election of 1900 for the delivery of 25,000 tons of rails yearly to the Intercolonial Railway. Neither the government, nor the opposition made known to the public this contract, and not until the new parliament met in the following April were the contract audits terms made public. It then became known that the price of these rails was $8 a ton above the price in England and the United States. The actual figure was $32, with a bounty of $7 added, which made $39 a ton. The world's price for rails at that time was $24 per ton delivered. Yet this kind of thing was defended by the government of that day, on the ground of the national policy. Then in 1903 an act was passed giving the government power to impose by Order in Council a duty of $7 per ton on rails, and this duty came into effect on August 12 of that year. We sometimes wonder why our railways do not pay their way, but when they are capitalized according to the cost of construction in this way, it is not so much to be wondered at. When we built the government section of the National Transcontinental we paid $32 per ton to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, with a further bounty of $7 per ton, making $39 per ton for the steel rails that we used on that section of the road, and at the same time that company was delivering rails in the southern Punjab for $24. The amount of bounties that these two companies got, particularly between the years 1904 and 1911, amounted to $17,-

250,000.

Up to 1897 the Liberals, who had long been in power, persistently and vigorously opposed the old national policy in all its features. But democracy in no Englishspeaking country ever suffered a more dis

astrous setback than in 1897 when official liberalism capitulated to this new feudalism. Since that time there has been no dividing line between the Liberal and Conservative parties, and there has been no education carried on among the people of this country along the lines of democracy except by the organized farmers of Eastern and Western Canada. That there is no dividing line in principle between the two old parties has been confirmed in the House

during this debate when hon. members of both parties have declared that they still adhere to the Laurier-Fielding tariff. Today the Progressive party is the only body in this House representing true democracy in Canada as it affects the people. While there was only a small number of this party in the last Parliament we are now a unit of no mean proportions, and if the Laurier-Fielding tariff is maintained for another four years I venture to predict that we shall come back in still greater numbers. The Progressive party is not looking for any privileges. All we ask is a square deal.

Oh, oh.

Mr. EVANS:

Some hon. gentlemen to my right seem to doubt that. I repeat, we are not seeking any privileges, that all we ask is a square deal. You cannot protect the farmer. My question to the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Sheard) last night is still unanswered, and it is as incapable of being answered as it was seventeen years ago, when Sir Richard Cartwright asked it in the House. We seek for ourselves only what we desire for every one else, and that is liberty, but under the old national policy in all its ramifications as we know it to-day the people of Canada have no liberty. If we had complete free trade with the whole world so that we were free to buy and sell where we chose, we would still have no privilege, because the same opportunity would be open to all. I repeat, we are not asking for any privileges, but only for a square deal. The evil day on the farms [DOT]-and I can speak more for Western Canada than for any other part-has been postponed thus long only by the industry of our people and the fertility of our soil, which we have exploited to satisfy the greed of those who have the privilege of absorbing our earnings. Now the time has come when we can no longer pay monopolistic prices for our commodities and sell our products at prices to compete against the product of the cheap labour of Europe and Asia.

Perhaps the worst feature of the agricultural situation to-day is the effort of the returned soldier to make good under conditions which are driving hundreds of experienced farmers off the land. How can we expect our boys who have been to Europe and faced death to preserve the liberty of this nation, to come back and be satisfied on farms in this country under such conditions of bondage? I say "bond-

The Address

age," and I am using the word in exactly the same sense that Sir Wilfrid Laurier used it in 1893, when he declared that protection was bondage, and he illustrated his meaning by saying it was bondage just as slavery was bondage in the United States. Many of these boys are to-day walking off their farms in despair, and their last state is worse than their first. I say to this House that when these boys fail to make good, it is we who are responsible, and we are in duty bound to see them settled in some way so that their living is assured. No question is settled until it is settled right, and we may as well set ourselves now to solve in a practical way this great twentieth century problem of equity of distribution. It is justice, not privilege that will make this a prosperous country.

Mr. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimou-ski) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending to you my most respectful and at the same time most sincere congratulations on your election to the eminent and important post of Speaker of this House. Your remarkable talents, your long parliamentary experience, the noted services that you have rendered to your country designate you plainly for the high post of honour and responsibility that you at present fill with such dignity and nobility and I feel convinced that you will continue in your new duties to do honour not only to your race and your province but to the whole of Canada.

I am also happy to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion to the Address for the excellent speeches they made. The speech of the hon. member for Westmount-Saint Henri (Mr. Mercier) pleased me the more, because in addition to being eloquent it was given in the French language. Ever since I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House I have taunted the late government for ignoring the rights of the French language in this Parliament, dispensing as they did with a member to second, in the French language, the motion for an address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. I also rise at present to offer the Government, whose eminent leader is the Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, my most sincere congratulations, not only on my behalf, but also in the name of the French race and [DOT] that of the province of Quebec for having acknowledged that the

French language has a right to be heard in Parliament. It may be said that it is a hobby of mine to insist at each session, in order that the rights of the French language be so recognized. It is of little consequence what may be said, I hold that I have accomplished my duty towards myself, my county, my race and towards my province, each time I register a protest. I have been sent here to represent the electors of Rimouski and those of all Canada, and when I rise in this House I always believe that I am fulfilling a duty and whatever certain members of this House may think or say, is of little importance to me.

Since the sixth of last December, Canada has secured at last a constitutional government elected by the people and for the people. I am confident that this Government, whose distinguished leader is the one who was found worthy amongst all to wear Sir Wilfrid Laurier's mantle, will follow the policy that Laurier preached all his life, a policy which has given between 1896 and 1911, an era of prosperity, peace and happiness unknown until then in Canada. I feel that not only the rights of the French language will be shown deference within these parliamentary walls but that in all spheres, in all the departments and in all things which relate to the administration of public affairs, the French language will maintain its rights; and it affords me pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to particularly congratulate you in having given the example yourself in repeating "adopte" after carried; and moreover for having been so thoughtful in having a bilingual calendar placed on the table of the House of Commons. The rights of the French language are in safe hands, that we all know; your patriotism is well known, so is your love for your race and that of your mother tongue and I feel assured that the French language will more and more recover its rights in this Parliament.

On the sixth of December last the province of Quebec did not vote against the late government with the idea of revenge; but united itself to all provinces of the Dominion to sweep from power an autocratic government, which from 1911 to 1917 had governed the country in a most despotic way, and the province of Quebec, as well as all the other provinces of Canada, felt that it was more than time to sweep this government from power, so as to place at the head of the destinies of Canada, a government which would know

The Address

how to respect the opinions of every one, a government which, whatever be our faith and language, would recognize that every one in this country has equal rights and would treat us all as Canadians. If I have placed my trust in the present Prime Minister, it is because he has always given proof that he was a true Canadian. I express the hope that he will continue to be a Canadian, that he will show himself an anti-imperialist so as to contrast with the Prime Minister who preceded him; that he will remember first of all that our common country is Canada and not England.

I was glad to learn that the Government had decided to economize and to do so specially where it was most needed. We hear that the budget of the Militia Department is to be reduced. So much the better, for if all military expenditure could be wiped out we would be the better off. I trust the Government will continue in this right path. I also notice with pleasure in the Speech from the Throne, that the Government has also decided to make special provision for the farming class. I have the honour of representing in this Parliament an essentially agricultural county-and I am proud of it-each time the Government will promote the interests of the farming classes, it will necessarily be doing something for the county of Rimouski, and invariably when doing so shall receive my hearty approval; however, if on the one hand it reduces the miJitia expenditure, I hope it will not reduce the budget of agriculture, but on the contrary will increase it if possible.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of prolonging this debate much longer, my aim for the present, is not precisely to discuss the Speech from the Throne, but specially to point out that I was quite consistent when I blamed the late government for ignoring the rights of the French language. This is the reason why I thought it my duty to congratulate the present Government because it had acknowledged that the French language had undisputed right to be heard in the Council of the Nation.

Mr. JOSEPH HENRY HARRIS (East York) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a good deal of trepidation to address the House for the first time. Should I err in not observing parliamentary iraditions I entreat your indulgence, Sir, and also the indulgence of hon. members generally.

The Speech from the Throne refers to a great number of questions which doubtless

20J

are of great concern to the people of this Dominion; but these references are vague in their nature and have not as yet been amplified in the speeches which up to date have been made by Ministerial supporters. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) did, perhaps, enter to a certain extent upon an exposition of Liberal and Progressive thought, as the Prime Minister is wont to say; but I fail to see where my hon. friend's line of Liberal and Progressive thought harmonizes with some of the arguments advanced1 by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). The hon. member for Westmount-St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) spoke in a similar strain to that of the hon. member for Brantford when he said "We Liberals know the part which industries, large or small, play in the activity and the future of this country." When we compare such remarks as these with the utterances of the hon. member for North Winnipeg in favour of a reduction of the duties on certain commodities, I fail to see that the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite can be regarded as in any way stable. Such utterances recall some of the campaign literature issued during the late election by my hon. friends, which we are now asked "not to take too seriously." Under the circumstances we on this side await with considerable interest the trade policy which is shortly to be announced by the Minister of Finance.

In the absence of the Prime Minister I refrain from making any remarks which might better be said when he is present; but I cannot allow to pass unchallenged his statement, to be found on page 53 of unrevised Hansard1, to the effect that the Government will truly represent all shades of Liberal and Progressive thought. I do not for one minute think, if that were the case, that hon. members to my left, Sir, would pay their own railroad fares to the city of Saskatoon and there debate for ten hours the question of whether or not they should be taken into the ministry as pure Liberals. I do not think any such understanding would have caused them to hold the prolonged conference referred to; I am rather inclined to accept the statement of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Cre-rar) who has declared that he did not understand the approaches made to the Progressives in that light.

The ground with respect to immigration has been pretty well covered, from all angles, during the present debate; but to my mind, Sir, the great essential with re-

The Address

_ g'ard to immigration to Canada has been entirely overlooked. That essential, which is an important- one, is this: it is not only right and ! proper that the immigrants wlho come to Canada from European countries should have a clear bill of health, but ,We should require the further condition that they possess a clear conception of British institutions and of British ideals; and it should.be made known to them that they must, to the fullest extent, abide by our Canadian law and our Canadian statutes. There are in the country at the present time a large number of Europeans -and a large number more are wanting to come to our shores at the present time [DOT]-who will not, if they can avoid it, follow agricultural pursuits. I think that during this session legislation should be brought down to take care of this particular class of immigration. We have in this country a large number of labouring Canadian men and women. We have also these European labourers. The Europeans, Sir, as you know, and as hon. members know, can live on a i piece of rye bread and perhaps a red pepper or Spanish onion each day. Our Canadian men and women live more respectably and pay municipal, and perhaps provincial and federal taxes. It would be well if by legislation, an income tax of some description were imposed on immigrants who are wont to live in European fashion, and this tax should be commensurate with the municipal taxes paid by our Canadian labouring men and women. I would place the onus of collecting this income tax on the industries who employ such labour.

A great deal has been said by the hon. gentlemen to my left with regard to the railroad policy of this country, and the policy we ought to pursue. I cannot see where there has been anything very constructive in their remarks up to the present moment. If hon. gentlemen opposite are going to be guided in their administration by the Progressive thought which has been expressed in this House,, I submit, they have an abundance of such thought in hand already to guide them. But in reviewing the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Forke) and the hon. gentleman from King's county P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) and also the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), I cannot see where the suggestions are going to help in any way to solve the rail-*way problem. They said-and I am sorry to

say that there was considerable applause in this House when they said it-that the natural trend of trade in this country should be north and south. It is to be regretted if the minds of this House are to revert to the generation of Goldwin Smith; if we cannot see within our fair country the possibility of a nation here, and a nation within the British Empire. Having in mind. Sir, that the solution of our railway problem is to get tonnage for our railways, I couple with that the suggestion that we should use our endeavours as far as possible to make trade flow, not north and south, but east and west across this continent. The hon. gentleman from North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) quoted Kipling, which intimated in a short space of time there would be no East or West. If my hon. friend to the left and my hon. friend from King's county have their way as to how the trade channels shall go in this country, I venture the opinion that within another generation we shall have an East and we shall have a West in this fair Dominion of ours, and what is more, Sir, I prophesy that the prophecy of the exPresident of the United States in 1911, as to what would happen to us would be fulfilled. That suggestion I do not need to more than mention on the floor of this House. It was that we would be an adjunct to the United States. There is only one policy for this country, and that is unity of the East and the West. If we want to become one great nation within the British Empire, we must keep our freightage going across this continent, in order that the lines of steel might have something to carry. That might solve the railway problem.

We have in this country a number of Canadians who do not get their living from the top six inches of the soil. In this connection, I will make a personal allusion; I am more or less of a farmer. I was raised on a farm, and the biggest part of my life has been spent on the farm. I know what it is to follow the lonely furrow. But I recognize also that we have in this fair dominion of ours 700,000 workers who are sustaining perhaps 2,000,000 of people, and I submit their point of view must be taken into consideration, as well as the point of view of the agriculturists.

Mr. KELLNER:

Does the hon. gentleman recognize the fact that the Labour group is on this side of the House?

The Address

Mr. HARRIS:

I recognize the Labour

group, but which faction of the Labour group is on this side of the House I am not in position to state. There are labour groups and there are labourers.

It is to be regretted, perhaps, that in the course of this debate on the Speech from the Throne a number of perhaps half-true statements have been made. I have in mind' more particularly a reference made in the late hours last evening to a tendency on the part of some of our manufacturing institutions to buy all the raw material that they possibly can in other countries. Referring to page 314 of unrevised Hansard I find the following statement:

Our agricultural implement companies today import large quantities of Georgia pine for the tongues of their binders, drills, mowing machines, and other implements, while our forests abound with timber suitable for that purpose. The old national policy is a failure.

I cannot see the connection. The hon. gentleman also intimated that 75 per cent of the raw material used by the firm of Massey-Harris comes from other countries, this statement being in the same paragraph as the statement with regard to lumber. I take issue with him. I hold no brief from the Massey-Harris Company; I do not know any of their executive or any of their officers, I will admit I have bought binders, mowing machines and rakes from them in the past, but other than that I have had absolutely no connectioin with them. I submit for the consideration of the hon. gentleman from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) the following:

At least 75 per cent of the lumber used by the Massey Harris Company is Canadian material, and our policy absolutely is to purchase everything possible in Canada, and more particularly Canadian lumber, whenever possible.

I was very much taken with the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) when he said that the best policy for Canada to pursue was a policy which would make for unity. I agree with that statement in its entirety, and if we are to have unity in this country, I say there is room for expression of all shades of thought, but we must not strive to serve simply our own provinces.

I would suggest that, in order to pursue an immigration policy which will make Canadians out of those who come to our shores, tve must first , adopt a railway policy which will make trade channels run across the continent, so that, in the course of time, eastern thought and western thought may get more closely together. As a result of this we shall have a more united country. We must have a trade policy that will provide all classes of work for the minds and hands of all classes of people to do.

Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester) r Mr. Speaker, without undue egotism, perhaps I may lay claim to the full average timidity which comes to us who for the first time essay to address this very august chamber. If I violate any of the standards of discussion, I crave in advance that you will not hold it against me as mortal sin, because it will not be deliberate. I join in the general pleasure at your elevation, Mr. Speaker. In honouring you, we have greatly honoured ourselves. Apart from this incident, your public career has long since stood you forth as an outstanding national figure; and a part of your effort and, indeed, not a trivial part, for I have carefully and constantly read the speeches you have delivered in this House, has been devoted to the promotion of a real spirit of fraternity as between the different provinces of this Dominion. Elementary though it may seem to have sometimes to say so, that, of course, is the corner stone which the Fathers of Confederation have predicated upon which to build their great structure, knowing too well that it could subsist upon no other. Mr. Speaker, may I say something with a personal touch now that you are elevated to your high position as First Commoner? For your patriotism and loyalty you have been penalized by the visitation of the messenger of sorrow. It is a sorrow which is softened arid subdued by the recollection of duty magnificently performed; and in common with thousands of other parents in this Dominion in every walk of life, some of them in this House, you have the experience that, when you think of those who, in the glory of their youth have entered into untroubled rest, the mind is prone to wander and to linger amongst the flowers of Flanders. Honour to them! Eternal honour to their names!

May I speak just one word of my admiration of the appropriateness of the speeches of an hon. member from the West and another hon. member from the East, who respectively moved and seconded the Address in reply to His Excellency's Speech? These hon. members were setting a standard by which they tried to approximate the advice of the poet, to forget, sometimes, that there is any East or West at all. With you yourself in that Chair, that

The Address

elevated Cliair, and with the honour of a lady member companioning amongst us in these humbler seats, I think we have the circumstances under which there is particular likelihood that these discussions will be carried on with d'gnity and with a spirit of sweet reasonableness, however animated the debates may sometimes become.

Somewhat careless of the order in which I might touch on a few topics, I want to give my tribute of praise to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) the leader of the Progressive party, for the excellence of the contribution which he made to this discussion. I am sure, if he will allow me very humbly to say so-perhaps he is not in his seat, but I can say it to his followers who are present-that his presence, so far as I am concerned, is abundantly welcome. That speech of his must 4 p.m. have justified in full measure the expectations of his friends in the qualities of fairness, lucidity and ability which it exhibited; and without discounting, for one moment, the talent, the spirit that inspired his remarks, it is true that he was in a position more favourable than that of those of us in this House who practise a pretty steady allegiance to the old party system, to make a speech absolutely judicial in its tone. Perhaps, that is one way of saying that the party system has its defects, as undoubtedly it has; but it is, perhaps, a platitude on my part to say that I consider, although I will not develop this argument for many moments now, that the benefits very greatly outweigh the defects. Those of us who adhere, in the main, to the party system, and who belong to one or other of the two historic parties, will find it difficult to obey what seemed like the extremely good advice of the hon. leader of the Progressives, that we should get right down to business, because we conceive that there is a certain duty attaching to us to tell the country or the public of the good record or the good works that we perceive in our own side and of the defects that we think we perceive in the other side, a privilege which, of course, is entirely mutual. In this way, we carry forward these debates and if our fires sometimes burn a little too fiercely, or if our bias carries us a little too far, the great public will make proper allowance for that and will render the verdicts which, after all, are nothing less than steps in our national life. Thus both the House and the country expect, and even await, [Mr. Putnatn J

something of the discussion which we have been having, of which the speeches of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition were virile examples.

After all I wonder if we cannot detect in the attitude of the Progressives some evidence of that party spirit against which they do not altogether hold up the finger of scorn. In all friendliness I would remind the hon. leader of the Progressive party that his followers did not obey with any slavish alacrity his suggestion that we should immediately "get down to business;" on the contrary they have made very valuable contributions to this debate. And we welcome them. It was interesting to hear those hon. members recount their local conditions, even though those conditions were sad and sometimes bespoke profound depression. Out of the welter of opinions expressed we hope, Mr. Speaker, that there will follow a serious study on the part of us all to solve our national problems, keeping always in view the greater good of the greater number.

Now, the hon. leader of the Progressive party, with whom I happen to have a slight but very pleasant personal acquaintance of a couple of years' duration, declared that in so far as this new administration did what he conceived to be right, he would support it. I take that to be, not a platitude, but a reasonable statement made in good faith, and, so far as I am concerned,

I reciprocate it; if I find the Progressives adopting an attitude which I believe to be right and feasible I promise now to support them, and although of course I am not the spokesman for the Government, I think it is likely jl can say the same on its behalf.

While I listened to the speech of the hon. Prime Minister-who, I regret, is now passing through the Valley of the Shadow,

*-I could not help thinking that to his courageous, courteous and brilliant platform work in the memorable campaign just closed is due in large measure the verdict which we so abundantly obtained. In a qualified way I can congratulate the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and I do so very sincerely. I humbly con- . gratulate him upon the good voice in which we have heard him in this discussion, and upon his apparent good health, after coming through a campaign which must have thrown an immense tax upon his powers of endurance. I can congratulate him and his supporters upon having immediately prior to this session, discarded a garment which was clumsy and ill-fitting and which

The Address

bore the trade brand of "National Liberal and Conservative Party." I hope that it is but the beginning on their part of the complete renunciation of camouflage. I congratulate him on the unanimity and enthusiasm with which his supporters are saying that he will make a splendid leader of the Opposition. But I would not be entirely frank if I should also state that their verdict upon him as leader of the late government was similarly enthusiastic and unanimous. However within recent times, rightly or wrongly, the office of leader of the Opposition has been given judicial notice in this House. It is one of the most important offices in our parliamentary institutions. Therefore we patriotically hope that our Conservative friends are right in thinking that their leader is going to fill that office so well. When the great Laurier adorned it, he was the same contented patriot, the same happy warrior as when for fifteen years he had led a government whose record is written in letters of fire from one end of the country to the other.

The right hon. leader of the Opposition was gracious enough to say a kind word to all who came to this House for the first time, and I think we all esteemed this graciousness from a man of his prominence; but I am sorry that later he spoiled its effect because as to those of us who were elected against his government he poured out his condemnation, protesting that we were here because we had misrepresented the issues and humbugged the people. I can try to understand the mentality which could produce that right about change in one speech of an hour or so in length, but as to the ethical standards involved in that change I confess I am utterly at a loss to understand, because it seems to me that I would be best preserving my selfrespect by refraining from congratulating any honourable member whose passage to this House was stolen by the ugly medium of fraud and wholesale misrepresentation. For myself I may say that I am not aware of having deceived the people, and if I wanted to argue it on a lower plane, which is not remote from a testing of the probabilities of the case, I would say there was no need to deceive the people, but that the indictment founded upon pure fact against the late government was so conclusive that no human imagination could strengthen it by resorting to deception or fraud. There were two elements upon which we depended for our victory,-the undisputed facts and the common sense of the people.

Now, there are many problems confronting the country at this time, but without disrespect to any hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, I doubt if we have yet received any real practical suggestions. For instance, the problem of immigration compels our attention. If we get a man to come to this country and become a producer of food, and stay contentedly upon the land, he is at least one of the humble units that will help to solve this problem, with which is so closely interwoven the complex railway problem. Can we in time multiply such a human unit by millions? But it is suggested, perhaps insisted, that the immigration be of a drastic selective character; and there you have another difficulty.

On the question of the tariff-and I say it with no disrespect-it is hard for any hon, member to add anything new. And for my part I do not propose at present to try. It is sufficient to say that in my humble view, if there is one man who can bring this country of ours out of the mire into which it has fallen; who can lay down some policy which will tend to do away with the estrangements between labour and capital; who can produce a budget which will relieve the feeling as between East and West; who will keep before him steadily the motto: "The greatest good for the greatest number"-that man is, of course, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I know, too, that m the way of suggestion we shall have the help of the Progressives. So far as they make suggestions which are well-founded I will keep my promise to support them if I believe they are right. Of course1, we have to remember what the apostle Paul said, that "all things may seem possible, but that not all things are expedient."

The railway problem is a tremendous one, Mr. Speaker. It has always been a mystery to me why a government elected primarily and by common consent as a union government to finish the war should insist upon taking over some twenty thousand miles of railway. To ask us now if we believe in it would be about as sensible as asking us if we believed in an invasion of small-pox after every house in the community had been quarantined because of its arrival and because of its ravages. I do think that, if the late Government had taken the people into their confidence by consulting them before embarking on these steps, almost infinite in their magnitude, the people would have hastened to vacein-

The Address

ate themselves against the introduction of any such disease in the body politic. But in the happy phrase of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), government ownership of railways is upon us, and it will have to be given a fair chance.

I could not regard with levity the suggestion of my able friend the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that as regards the operation of 1,600 miles of the Canadian Government-owned railway in the United States it was possible to foresee that there might be international entanglements. The ex-Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) told the Progressives the other night-this is merely by way of illustration-that if they had got their reciprocity pact in 1911 it would never have survived until to-day; the Farmer bloc in the United States, he said, would have seen to that. Well, I think he is entirely wrong. If that reciprocity agreement had been adopted it would have proved so popular with the people of both countries that there would be no reasonable fear of its revocation for long years to come. But I was amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the positive dogmatism of the hon. gentleman. The poet said that he "peered into the future, far as human eye could see"; this hon. gentleman goes further. I hope he is the only man in the . House who says positively that the reciprocity treaty would not have survived until this day. Why was he so positive, why was his government so positive, then, that to run 1,600 miles of government-owned railway in foreign territory could not possibly lead to any revocation or any entanglements; that it could continue until Gabriel should blow his trump, the crack of doom? But I have an open mind as to that; it is a legal question. Having regard to what befell some of the efforts at legislation on the part of the late administration, particularly by Order in Council, at the hands of the highest courts in the land, I am. not disposed to accept their ipse dixit for the legality of the proposal that they put forward with respect to the operation of railway lines in foreign territory. But in any event it is a fair matter for serious consideration. I do not think the other hon. gentleman from Toronto was right, either, when he said that co-ordination of the railways could be completely consummated in a time hardly longer than would be required for one of his own marathon speeches in this House.

The question of the Intercolonial involves a tragedy so far as the people of the Maritime provinces are concerned. Come with me, Mr. Speaker, back to the time when Confederation was in the making. The proposal for maritime union was then under way. Our markets lay with the United States, and those markets were dear to us. I admit that the reciprocal arrangements had been temporarily abrogated. But there was more than a fair chance that the New England states would have been only too willing to deal with our Maritime provinces as an entity, in view of the maritime union which we then were on the verge of adopting. But down come the Fathers of Confederation from farther west, Sir, and they say: "True, you have these American markets; true, reciprocity is a potential factor in your relations with those markets; we see the point at once; but come into the larger union and we will build you a railway through which you will obtain a substitute reciprocity with the great and intelligent provinces of Canada." We took them at their word, Mr. Speaker, and we want the understanding fulfilled in letter as well as in spirit. It was never intended for one moment that that road should pay, or that it should be a commercial road in any sense of the term. Scores of Reasons could be advanced for reaching that conclusion, but perhaps it is a short-cut to say that the very fact that it was to be a government-built and government-owned road was proof that the Fathers of Confederation thought it was never intended to pay. I know very well they had no data before them in those early days which would make them think that a government-owned railway would be a paying investment for the country. If you read the speeches of Sir Charles Tupper, that outstanding figure among the Fathers of Confederation, you will see that he said time and again, and developed the argument with his usual brilliance, that there was an infinitude of difficulties in operating a government road economically as compared with its operation by a private company.

But, shades of the Fathers of Confederation ! When the Railway Commission met at Halifax some weeks ago, delegates from an indignant populace down there went before them and said: "Please give us rates which will not stifle our traffic, which will not destroy our commercial ambition; please give us reasonable inter-

The Address

provincial rates as well as reasonable rates for our local traffic," what were they told? "We will not entertain any suggestion in regard to freight rates unless the proposal is based upon purely business considerations." It is true that that statement was somewhat modified the same day by the chairman of the board when he said that, after all, the Railway Commission had nothing to do with rates concerning those lines which belonged to the old Intercolonial Railway. But by some device they do assume control over those rates, which are very trying to business in the Maritime provinces. They are discouraging our people in a marked degree, and accelerating in a considerable measure the exodus to-day of our young men and young women to the United States. My opponent in the last election, the Minister of Public Works in the late Government, saw the blunder, the tragic unfairness of this as the campaign wore on, and in his campaign literature, in a newspaper under date of December 2, 1921, there appears this, "Vote for McCurdy and I.C.R. Headquarters at Moncton." Now, "I.C.R." has for railway men throughout this Dominion only one meaning, and that is is the Intercolonial railway, as it is so named in the very Act of Confederation, and if there is anything in the principle of Cabinet unity, I say that my opponent there pledged the Government of which he yvas a member to give us, if returned to power, nothing short of what my hon. friend the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has asked for, namely, the divorce of the Intercolonial from the Canadian National railway system.

The hon. leader of the Progressive party has asked, and very properly, and in a spirit of perfect fair play, what advantages there would be in such a change. I wish to supplement the answer that was given to him by my hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald). In the first place, if we get that local management at Moncton, to which the Minister of Public Works in the late Government pledged himself in the last campaign, we shall, of course, expect to have there a manager and staff fully and perfectly acquainted with the local conditions. Now, is that something merely academic, or is it something which is intensely practical? Let me give you an illustration. Only a few weeks ago we had a few periods of snow storms, and I am informed by old men in the servfce of the Intercolonial whose judgment and

whose integrity and carefulness in what they say upon any railway question I would not question for a moment, that because of the lack of knowledge of local conditions on the part of the men who were sent down from Toronto,-and I am saying nothing disrespectful of them personally; the same thing would have happened if men had been sent up from Halifax to take charge of the Toronto lines,-thousands upon thousands of dollars of the people's money was absolutely wasted through bungling in trying to keep the road clear of snow, and a great deal of valuable time was lost to the travelling public. You can see at a glance that on a single-track railway one blunder may effectually tie up the whole system and easily run away with ten or twenty thousand dollars or whatever it may cost to rectify the mistake. Well, in this case the blunder was made, and it was made because we did not have local management by maritime trained men who knew every mile of the conditions and exactly where the snowdrifts assert their most treacherous strength. That is only one example; I could give others.

I also put forward as another advantage in having local management by men who know minutely the local conditions, that the men on this road have been railway men and their fathers and grandfathers before them ever since Confederation, and their sons after them. The road is of the genius of their life. With it they grew up, and I will pit them for competency, so far as their territory is concerned, against railway men in any part of the wide world. They have been used from Confederation down, to have managers over them who knew their business and were perfectly acquainted with the local conditions. They worked under such managers in harmony, and their labour was of high and excellent type. But to-day when we are professing so much solicitude for the welfare of labour, we are insulting these men by putting over them bosses and managers and commissioners, and what not, whose bungling orders, much against their better judgment, they have to obey. I think if William Jennings Bryan were here he would say in this case, "You shall not press down upon the brow of Labour this crown of thorns." The London Times, referring once to an engagement in which some British troops had suffered a reverse because of the incompetency and bungling of the officers in command, said editorially, " Here is a case of lions, led by asses," and when

The Address

I see the humiliation to which our own men have been subjected by these people who have been imported, and who know nothing of the local conditions, I am vastly tempted to use the same figure of speech.

What other local advantages would there be? Heretofore, as our men grew up with the service, if an office worth while fell vacant, it was their reasonable ambition to secure it as a reward for duty long and faithfully performed; but now, if an office falls vacant,-and I could cite only too sadly instance after instance,-a man is rushed down from Toronto, perhaps an outcast of the defunct Canadian Northern, and he gets that prize which by all the rules of ethics and by all the rules of railroading, to my thinking, in a democratic country, should go to one of our maritime trained men.

Then, if we had a local management who knew the local conditions, surely in the future as in the past the supplies for the road would be fairly apportioned along the line. At the front door of this building only yesterday I was talking to a lumberman who lives in the constituency of my hon. friend from Cumberland, and he told me that when immense quantities of ties were rushed down from Ontario and laid by the side of the road in vast quantities he had asked, "Gentlemen, what price do you pay for such and such? We will supply them right along the road for you as cheaply or cheaper than that. Our lumbermen are idle, their horses are idle, we have had a hard winter. The wood I would select for those ties is very much better than the wood which appears in these Ontario ties." But no, under this Czar-like management in Toronto, we are bereft of the privilege of selling anything to the road except actual perishables and such coal as we can force upon them after a great deal of bickering, and after the most determined stand that wo shall have at least partial justice in the Maritime provinces.

As to freight rates we have enjoyed our own rates up to a comparatively recent period in accordance with the spirit and the terms of the Confederation Pact,-such terms as permitted us, with reasonable profit and security, to compete in interprovincial trade, and we also enjoyed reasonable rates in the matter of local delivery of our freights. But those rights have vanished. The new Czars who came into control of the railways linked up our rates with the blanket freight rates that obtain in Ontario, and I say that was done in com-

plete defiance of the spirit of the Confederation pact. What we require is local management by men conversant with local conditions: and we entertain the hope that ere long that Confederation pact will again be given effect to and that we shall once more enjoy these reasonable rates which formerly prevailed. Have we the right, as representing the people of the Maritime provinces, to expect anything less than that? Why, Mr. Speaker, we cannot run an excursion train for any purpose- for pleasure or for any other object-even for a few miles, without having to appeal to the powers at Toronto. The other day a trackman was killed at Halifax under sad circumstances, and application was made to Moncton for a pass to enable the widow to accompany the remains to the burial ground. That application had to go to Toronto, and to the distressing circumstances from which the family naturally suffered was added the suspense of having to wait for transportation. It was not until ten minutes before the train left with the dead man's remains that there was handed to the poor widow, on a rush order through the mail, the pass which enabled her to go to the funeral of her husband. Is there another road in Christendom whose rules would have subjected a woman in that sad position to such needless anxiety? Sir, I believe that if the door of a stove in a little rural railway station down there should be found to be broken, a new one could not be substituted for it until slavish, formal and tedious application had been made to the great powers in Toronto. And further as a colleague sitting near me suggests, the article itself would have to be bought in that city. Why, if we had local management of the Intercolonial railway we would be enabled to obtain the return of the proper equipment of that railway which was so shamelessly looted when the line was absorbed into the great national system in which hon. gentlemen opposite seem to take such remarkable pride.

The conditions which have resulted from the change I have described are arraying' the people of Nova Scotia against the people of Ontario, because the latter are being blamed for what has taken place. I am sorry, Sir, that under what I might almost describe as a system of slavery they are trying to impose, the natural result is being produced in the minds of the people of the Maritime provinces, a spirit against the people of Ontario which sometimes borders upon hatred. After all, we people down there are free men and have as much

The Address

right to stand in an honourable position as any other section of the community before the great Jury of this Nation, and we shall strive to maintain our rights inviolate just as we would expect the people of Ontario to do were there any issue in which they were directly concerned.

The leader of the Opposition said he did not blame the Canadian people for putting them out of office, but he did blame the Liberals who deceived them. That is a pretty fine distinction and one not entirely complimentary to the intelligence of the electors. However, I do not wish to be understood as speaking in any unfriendly way of the people of Ontario. I blame the autocratic government, which the Canadian electors so recently dismissed with scorn, for bringing about the state of affairs complained of in the Maritime provinces. I entertain the hope that the fairminded men of this House-and I have faith in the absolute fairness of many of our Progressive friends-will join in investigating our case from their detached and impartial position, and that if it is ultimately found that our claims are j ustly founded, we shall see in the future a scrupulous observance of our confederation rights.

I was not present when an hon. member from the far West stated what we in the Maritime provinces wanted was the privilege of free passes. I think it was scarcely worth the hon. member's while to indulge in such a sneer as that. I am not aware that the system of granting passes was ever abused in the Maritime provinces. I know that I was in close touch for a good many years with hon. members who represented those provinces on the Liberal side of the House, and I am sure that they at least never received any excessive favours in that regard. I regret very much to observe in the Toronto Globe a comment in regard to the deputation from the Maritime provinces which waited on the Government a short time ago, to the effect that we wished to have a restoration of the good days when the conductor went through the Intercolonial cars and had very little to do except gather up the passes. I desire to say that the young man who penned that comment did not know what he was talking about and that there never was such a state of affairs as alleged. I resent the statement and assert that the evidence does not support it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was severely taken to task by hon. gentlemen opposite because he made an observation which to me seemed to be

nothing more than a bit of good-natured philosophy. The Prime Minister's remark was that campaign literature during election time should not be taken too seriously.

He meant Tory literature.

Mr. PUTNAM:

The ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Baxter) pointed a very menacing finger at the Government benches and said that for his part he would absolutely stand by the campaign literature of the Tory party. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) read the Prime Minister another lecture in the same direction. Well, I am going to ask my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) if he supports the campaign literature of his late colleague (Mr. McCurdy) as thus embodied in the Truro campaign literature of his party, "Vote for McCurdy and I.C.R. headquarters at Moncton". When the hon. member arose the other day and registered the unctuous resolve that he would stand for the rights of the Maritime provinces I was disappointed that he did not frankly say that he, -with his splendid intellect and great influence, would range himself with us who are trying to bring the Intercolonial back to its former status; but plainly and impliedly he did, he said he would stand by it all. And this is what the former Minister of Public Works circulated by the thousands in the homes of intelligent and honest electors of my county.

Mr. HANSON:

What does the hon. gentleman mean by wanting to get back to the old Intercolonial days? Does he want a return to the halcyon days of the late Henry R. Emmerson, when it was a political machine pure and simple?

Mr. LOGAN:

It was no such thing.

Mr. PUTNAM:

No. The hon. gentleman should not give my words a meaning that they do not reasonably bear. We want the ordinary conditions that should enter into the management of any government road. I think our people are reasonable and intelligent, but as between the days of Mr. Emmerson, and the tyranny and stifling of trade and ambition that obtains now, why give us back those good old days.

I am going to deal with this question of the authenticity of campaign literature just a little further for the benefit of those two hon. ex-ministers of the late government. I have here a circular. I had not intended to refer to it at all, because to do so might smack just a little of ungenerosity

The Address

to a fallen foe, which, perhaps, is more prevalent in politics than it should be. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to see how sincere those men are-perhaps the word is not too strong-in their references to campaign literature. This letter was circulated broadly throughout my good county of Colchester, bearing date November 26, 1921, and at the top there is a real good portrait of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and at the bottom it is signed with his autographic signature. It was very widely distributed in the closing days of the campaign. Here is one paragraph which I particularly submit to the attention of those hon. gentlemen who preceded me:

Reports from all parts of Canada indicate that Mr. Meighen's government will undoubtedly be sustained.

But I shall forget all that, and come to something better-

It remains for you to say on 6th December whether Colchester shall continue to hold the honour and he represented in Parliament by a cabinet minister, or by a member who will sit on the back benches.

That is from a cabinet minister, holding no less a portfolio than that of public works. If it were physically possible that he and I could now be both in this House I would love to discuss with him the good or bad taste of saying that my county would hold the honour of being represented by himself. But I pass that by, and I ask any hon. gentleman in this House if he thinks there is a government having a cabinet minister within the realm of democratic institutions anywhere who would make an appeal like that over his own signature

not to vote for a man for no better reason than that he would be a back-bencher. I submit that to the good democracy of my hon. friends the Progressives, most of whom conducted their campaign with very little hope, or very little sordid ambition, that when they came here they would immediately become cabinet ministers. But, Mr. Speaker, you occupy a plane above the rest of the commoners, by common consent, by the traditions of this country, which obtained in England for hundreds of years before. We have this form of government in Canada. But surely no hon. member is to be subject to any such stigma as this because he is not in the Cabinet. Now, the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works might have found a great many legitimate reasons which he could ha.ve advanced, why \ should not be elected. However, Mr.

Speaker, what do you say to this as an indecent and sordid reason-that I was to be voted against simply because I would be a back-bencher? I am very glad my lot has fallen to these back benches literally and truly, because of all the pre-election statements which the .former Minister of Public Works made, that is the only possible one that came true. If the whips had not placed me here, I would have been generous enough to insist upon taking a back bench, to break the hon. gentleman's hoodoo. This is the letter which the hon. ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) say they will back up, and I leave them to their fallen idols.

Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo) :

Mr. Speaker; as a new member, I will not take up the time of the House with any preliminary remarks, further than to say that I feel honoured to belong to a party which has within its ranks the first lady member who has had the honour of a seat in parliament. Since the opening of Parliament I have taken a keen interest in the different speeches that have been delivered, and one thing I remarked in particular was that the first eight members who spoke in the House had not one word to say in connection with that portion of this country which is to Canada what California is to the United States-British Columbia, the land of sunshine-nor did they have one word to say about the unemployed. They did not have one word to say about the oriental question which is to British Columbia the most vital question that will come before this House at the present session, and last, but not least, they did not have one word to say about the men who stood between us and tyranny, the men who ennobled Canada on many a bloody field, the men who withstood the German onrush and accomplished that which was never surpassed in British history.

I say that they did not have one word to say in connection with the oriental question, which 'is one of the most important questions to the people of the West. It would seem to me that we in the West know more about this question than do the people of any other section of Canada, because, we have to live amongst, and to associate with, these orientals. The people of British Columbia, with their destiny on the Pacific coast, are more exposed to oriental competition than the people of any other portion of Canada, and the effect of oriental immigration is, at the present

The Address

time, costing this country millions of dollars. We cannot get away from that fact, and the effect it will have on civilization in the future is something we cannot afford to ignore. Experience has proved that they refuse to adopt our standard of living; the white race will never assimilate with them; nor will it want to do so. Therefore, I say that the two races should not be brought together. Why should our boys and girls have to compete with oriental labour that is contracted for in Yokohama and such places? They should not have to do it. It is true that the Federal Government receives a revenue from the Chinese entering this country; but why should the people of Canada and the country itself not come before revenue? Why should these orientals be brought in to compete with the white people of this country? Mr. Kabura, a very prominent Japanese in Vancouver, made this statement a short time ago:

It is nothing hut the ignorant class that is opposed to the Orientals coming into Canada.

He added:

Wise men wish to suppress such manifestations of ignorance. .

That statement is not correct. Some of our eminent statesmen know that the two races will never assimilate; it was never intended by nature that they should assimilate, and they should never be brought t>

gether.

The people on the Pacific coast know what the orientals are, because the orientals who come to Canada, as a general rule, remain on that coast owing to climatic conditions there. People in the East do not have the experience that we have in British Columbia, but you may have it if this condition of affairs continues. Let me point out how the oriental population increases. In 1910, there were 20 Japanese children born in British Columbia -not a very great number-but how many were born in 1920?-657. Last year, the birth increase in the white race was seventeen per thousand; but what was it in the Japanese race?-69 per thousand. Is that increase not sufficient, without allowing any more of those orientals to come to our shores? If this state of

5 p.m. affairs continues at the present rate, where shall we find ourselves in another twenty-five years? Every one who has a vision of a greater Canada should be interested in this problem.

Why should the people on the Pacific coast have to build schools to educate the

oriental? They cannot afford to build schools to educate their own children as they would like to do, but they have to build schools to accommodate those orientals who come in. Let us see what a school inspector, a man who is not affected by racial prejudice in any way, says along those lines. This school inspector was asked to give a report, and he said:

Mingling of Chinese with white hoys and girls in the public schools constitutes a growing menace, and it has to he stopped.

He does not say "it should be stopped;" he says: " It has to be stopped," and he knows what he is talking about. He continues :

There is a danger in these Chinese boys, many of whom cannot even speak English, the coming from their unsanitary quarters and mixing with other children. We know that it is not only a tendency with the Chinese to live in unclean quarters, but a practice. In four public schools in Victoria there are 216 Chinese students.

That is what the taxpayer is up against on the Pacific coast. Why should this state of affairs continue? Why should we, as I have already said, have to provide facilities for teaching orientals, when we cannot educate our children as we would like to do? We must realize what we may expect in the future if this state of affairs is to continue. I am told that last year it cost the taxpayers in Vancouver $60,000 to teach orientals. Oriental immigration should be stopped and stopped at once; it has a tendency to lower not only our standard of moral life, but of labour and of civilization. We cannot get away from these facts. Why should the oriental be allowed to supply cheap labour for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many? Is there any man in this assembly to-day who would like to see his little girl, eight or nine years old, having to sit in a school beside an oriental boy, fifteen or sixteen years of age, and that oriental boy having an opportunity of associating with that child of his? If there be such a person, I would not have very much respect for him, and I do not think there is any one here who would entertain such views. Then, why are the laws of this country such that we have to put up with such conditions on the Pacific coast? This state of affairs should be stopped and stopped at once. Why should we not rather try to have this country a country of homes, homes that would be a source of happiness and contentment, homes which will help to build up this country of ours, for there is no teaching to

The Address

equal that which the child gets in the home? But we can never have home life as it ought to be, as long as the oriental competes with the labouring men of this country. Why should the laws not be such that they will help to make home life what it ought to be? The Government ought to stop, and stop at once, this oriental immigration.

The question of the returned soldier is one that I prefer not to have very much to say about, because so much has been said and so litle done, that it must become pretty tiring to those men who did so much for Canada and for civilization. I need not tell hon. members what the man who went on the land and purchased a farm with borrowed money is up against; I need not cover the ground which has already been covered. We know that at least 95 per cent of our farmers and stockmen did not make a dollar last year, and personally I do not know a farmer or stockman in the district that I represent who has made a dollar from farming. Under such conditions, how do we expect these men, having to pay interest on borrowed capital and taxes, to make the success in life which they ought to? It is up to the Government to appoint a commission to investigate this matter and then to bring in an act whereby those men will get a fair and square deal. That is all the boys want; they are not asking for charity; they do not want it. They made good overseas, and I have no doubt that they will make good on the land if they are. given a square deal. In my opinion, those men who are on the land should get a revaluation of their land, stock and implements, and the inflated values at the time of purchase should be squeezed out, and that done at once. Give the men a chance. As for the men who are receiving pensions, a man who was injured overseas and who came back to Canada, should not be obliged to come before a board every month or two in order that the board may see whether it can do something to lower his pension. He should receive a pension, and it should not be lowered simply because he tried to improve his condition through a little work. There is no doubt in my mind that as these men advance in years their war wounds will cause them still more trouble. Therefore I say a minimum pension should be set and those men should be encouraged to improve their condition. Why should a

man be divorced from his wife and family simply because he went overseas to fight for his country? Yet that is exactly what is happening to-day, and I see -a report in the press that the Government expects to put more of these men into hospitals. V/hy not try to provide them with homes of some kind, humble though they be, where they can live together with their wives and families? I see no reason why it should not be done. A scheme has been under consideration for some time to take a portion of an Indian reserve near Kamloops and build cottages on half acre plots, where these men could enjoy the comforts of home life and work on their land when they felt fit to do so. This project has been discussed for the last four or five years, but nothing has been done. Why cannot we carry it out? Let me read to the House a report from Dr. Irving of Kamloops in connection with the proposal. I may say that he is one of the most prominent doctors in the West and is recognized as an authority on the treatment of tuberculosis. He reports:

For many years we have all found that our apparent cures of T.B. on leaving the sanatorium almost always break down when the men take up the struggle for existence in keen competition with able-bodied fellows.

When these men leave the sanatoriums they have to make a living. They are not supposed to be discharged until they are cured, but it is practically impossible to entirely restore them to health and strength. Dr. Irving proceeds:

Thus the money spent and work done in their case becomes a loss to the country and to themselves.

In order to overcome this economic loss, the plan of Mr. Denison-

I might say that Mr. Denison has no axe to grind, he is above reproach. He has taken a keen interest in the welfare of our returned men back from Prance:

Dr. Irving said the plan of Mr. Denison would work out admirably is the opinion of those who have done T.B. work or have lived under climatic conditions where tubercular work is carried on. I am quite sure there is a wonderful opportunity to develop a scheme that will fill a long felt want in our system of treatment and at the same time do much to eliminate much sorrow and suffering that now exists among these returned men.

Cannot the Government do something to carry out this scheme? The late Government, I understand, did take some action, and here is what one of their ministers stated:

The Address

I know nothing to prevent the officials going ahead with the work directed by the committee to establish the model city on the edge of Kamloops.

Apparently the details of this project have been worked out to a certain extent, but nothing has been done to put it into effect. Cannot we get some action? Cannot those men who did so much for Canada obtain some relief? Before I came down here I went out to the Tranquille Hospital to talk to some of them who, I know, had comfortable homes before the war; but they let country come first, they went out to fight Canada's battles. Now they are at Tranquille, unfit to go back to the Coast where their wives and families are, and in some cases I know those dependents are getting no help except from charitable institutions. Surely this state of affairs cannot exist very much longer; it is not in the interests of the country that it should; those men who did so much for us are entitled to better treatment and, I repeat, something should be done and done at once.

I am not going to take up the time of the House talking about the elections and election tricks. I do not see why our time should be wasted reading extracts from the press and manifestoes and going over the same old campaign ground again. That is not what we are here for; we are here to make laws for the betterment of the people, and that is what they are paying us to do. Then why should we not get away from that old political game? I should like to know what the Government is going to do with the National railway system. It seems to me that a board of managers should be appointed to take charge of it, but I do not think it should be a board composed of politicians; it should be composed of practical railway men who have a life study of railroading,-have worked themselves from the ground up and know railroading from A to Z. I have no doubt that if such a board is appointed there will soon be a different tale to tell in regard to the conditions of our publicly owned railways.

And what are the Government going to do with respect to the returned men? Are they going to treat those men honestly and fairly? It seems to me that in honour and justice to those men that is the only thing the Government can do. If they do not we shall have met the test of peace far less nobly than those boys met the test of war.

What is the Government going to do about the unemployed? There is scarcely anything said about that question in the

speech from the Throne. Have they no scheme of relief? I do not believe this country owes any man a living, but I do believe it owes every man who is willing to work a chance to earn an honest living. I believe the Government should start some work of a practical character that will help to relieve unemployment and at the same time be for the benefit of the country as a whole. There is no reason why such a scheme should not be started, for there is lots of work to do here and Canada has a bright future. For instance, why should we not start the building of a trans-continental highway? Some say that is work for the various provinces to undertake. I do not think so. I think it is up to the Dominion Government to start such an undertaking and carry it to completion. There is no reason why such a scheme could not be carried out, and if properly carried out it should not cost the taxpayers of this country one dollar. Last year over two hundred and fifty thousand tourists came from the United States to British Columbia. If such a highway 'were built these tourists could be required to pay toll; the cost of the road would thus be met, and the people in the vicinity would have the benefit of it. The carrying on of such a work would also go a long way toward relieving unemployment, and it would give the people of other countries confidence in Canada. I say that it is up to the Government to carry out this work.

As to oriental immigration, what are we going to do about it? I must say I was disappointed that m hon. member who took part in the debate had anything to say on this subject. It was not my intention as a new member to address this House, but I feel it my duty to bring this question to the attention of hon. members. We on the Coast feel it very keenly; we feel what you people in the East will feel within the next twenty-five years if oriental immigration is not stopped. There is no getting away from it; the orientals do not go into the outlying districts to assist in the development of the country. They flock to the cities, and they are more than anything else responsible for the unemployment at present. Why should we encourage the immigration of that class of labour? Why not close our gates against it? I say that we should close our gates against it, in the interests of humanity.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House any further. I simply wish to say

The Address

that if we have confidence in this country and in our people-that unwavering confidence that we had in our boys at the front even during the darkest days of the war- Canada has a bright and prosperous future.

Mr. CLEMENT ROBITAILLE (Maison-neuve) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I would not be performing my duty if I did not join with the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending to you my congratulations and those of my constituency (Maisonneuve) which had the honour in the last Parliament to be represented by you and which I have the honour to-day of representing. The title of Speaker is most appropriate, for you are one of the most eloquent speakers of this country; the duties attached to the post are specially suited to you because your talent, your experience, and your uprightness have placed you in the Speaker's chair by the unanimous choice of this House. However, if the post is admirably suited to you, on the other hand it deprives us of the pleasure of listening to your eloquent speeches on the important political questions which interest this country, and by mockery of fate, you are called upon to listen the most and to speak the least.

I must also equally congratulate the hon. members who have moved and seconded the motion to the address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. It is not my intention to discuss all the momentous questions contained in the . Speech from the Throne. But I shall simply state that the county which I represent is one of the most important in Canada. As you are aware the division of Maisonneuve is a manufacturing, farming and working centre. It is a country where there exists big and small industries and nevertheless, on the 6th of December last, all of these interests united together to give their support to the Liberal candidate, because they had faith in the Liberal policy, because they had full confidence in the Liberal programme which aims at establishing an equitable tariff for all concerned, including the consumer; at re-establishing the finances of the country, at restoring industrial and agricultural activity and providing work for the labouring classes, who have been idle for a number of years. One might be led to say that the late government, in a desperate effort, wished to provide work for your old county, Mr. Speaker, by granting a contract to the Canadian Vickers Company, of Maisonneuve, for the construction of an ice breaker. This matter had been urged prefMr. McBride.]

viously for many months by the metal workers; many requests had been forwarded to the late government demanding this enterprise; but all in vain, when suddenly, two or three days, I believe, after nomination, in November last, the hon. Minister of Marine of the day, Mr. Ballan-tyne, granted the contract to the Canadian Vickers for the construction of this ice breaker. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that the whole thing was but a put-up job.

So far as to state ownership of the railways, I am very willing to give it a trial, but my personal opinion is that it will never be a success, because first of all the State cannot manage nor promote traffic as well as a private company; another probable cause of failure is due to progress in other spheres, for often progress is made in one sphere to the detriment of another. I refer to the development of the automobile and to road improvement. Without pretending to be an expert on railways, I believe that the largest returns, that is, what is most remunerative for a railway company, is its passenger traffic and freight transportation on short hauls. Now, within the last few years, we have noticed motor busses and motor trucks transporting passengers and goods from large centres to remote places in the country. What therefore happens, is that railways cover the same road without any passengers or freight; consequently without earning any returns. This new development is but in its infancy. However the farmers and the country dealers own their motor trucks and motor cars and carry their products and goods to the large town markets.

Mr. ^Speaker, another question which I wish to discuss is the one raised by the hon-member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) when he spoke on the soldiers' return home from the front. He stated that we should not stick strictly to the letter of the law with reference to the Pension Act, because too often injustices are committed. I approve the remarks of the hon. member on this subject. In fact, we are aware that wrongs have been committed. In ray own county there are a great number of soldiers who have seen service at the front; some are in poor pecuniary circumstances and cannot obtain an indemnity proportionate to the sacrifices made, or sufficient to provide for the essential necessities of their family. Only a few days ago I received a letter from one of these returned men. He is a South African war veteran and receives a pension

The Address

of 48 cents a day; in 1915, he joined the Canadian army and he was demobilized in 1919. Here follows what he says:

885 Lasalle Ave..

Maisonneuve, Montreal, Que., March 6, 1922

Hon. C. Robitaille, M.P., for Maisonneuve.

Sir,-I am putting my case in your hands as a Canadian citizen.

1. I am a veteran of the South African War on a pension of 48 cents a day. Am residing in Montreal seventeen years, never heen in a police court in that time.

2. When the Great War broke out in 1914, I volunteered my service with the P.P.C.L.I. met with accident on Mountain street and did not proceed to Ottawa with that Unit.

3. In October 1915, joined the CVG.G. without medical inspection, only eye test. Served Canada, England, France and Belgium. Demobilized February 28th 1919 without medical inspection.

4. I have been going through treatment at the D.S.C.R. Montreal from Dec. 1920 until August 1921, and judged as incurable by Doctor Keenan, Chief Medical Adviser D.S.C.R.

Montreal.

5. Have been recommended for a 100 per cent disability for increase of South African Pension. I was boarded again and recommended for 20 per cent for Canadian Pension. Was told by Canadian Pension Board I was not entitled to Canadian Pension as I was getting full compensation from the Imperial Government. Imperial Government says they are not accountable for my present disability as I have served with the Canadian Forces.

6. I have been strongly recommended for Pension by Doctor London, Chief Medical Adviser for the Province of Quebec, -also Col. K. R. Marshall, D.S.O., Toronto, Ont., whose documents are attached to my medical papers. Now I have been thrown down for the second time by Dr. W. A. Burgess, Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, Ottawa who over-rides the Doctors in Montreal. I am a Canadian citizen, my wife is Canadian born, my children are Canadian born, I am electrician by trade, cannot follow my occupation through disability; how is my family going to live on 48 cents a . day, after me giving my services for my country. Am I to starve also?

I remain, Tours truly,

H. A. Gibb,

885, Lasalle Ave.,

Maisonneuve.

No. 177133,

87th Batt. C.G.G.

1st Leinsters Regt.

Late Royal Canadians 100th Batt.

Born April 28th, 1872, at Limerick, Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, this man who on two different occasions served his country is referred from the Imperial to the Canadian Governments and vice versa; nevertheless his pension remains at 48 cents per day, when it is clearly established by all the medical authorities that he suffers from a disability of 100 per cent. I would feel very grateful if the law on pensions was applied in a more humane way, and in a

spirit of gratitude for the soldiers who so well defended our country, instead of having it applied too strictly.

Mr. L. J. LADNER:

(Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise with a natural diffidence to address for the first time the Parliament of Canada. I wish at the outset to tender to you, Sir, my congratulations quite sincerely, from a personal knowledge of your long career in Parliament and from having read, as many young men do, diligently and conscientiously the fine debates in Hansard. I must say, however, that in your elevation to the first place in the Commons we are losing one of the greatest and most powerful debaters in Parliament. .

It is not for any personal satisfaction or honour that I take part in this debate. I do so because I believe it is a duty I owe to my constituents, as it is the duty of all members of this House who come here with a definite proposal or some concrete matter to lay it before their fellow-members, who may, perhaps, not be so well informed as to the views of his constituents.

We have here, Mr. Speaker, four parties, and I have no doubt but that the addition of two of these parties will have a salutary effect upon the business and legislation of this Parliament. One calls itself the Progressive party. Notwithstanding the scathing denunciations and somewhat exaggerated terms which have been applied to our party by hon. gentlemen opposite, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while we do not have the word progressive in our name, in all the deeds and acts of the Liberal-Conservative party as found in the pages of our country's history, progressive is expressed. Right down through our history until the 6th day of December, 1921, we find this to be so. I exclude the 6th day of December, 1921, Mr. Speaker, because I do not consider that a day to which the word "progressive" can be either conservatively or liberally applied. The 6th day of December appears to be free of political phenomena-just progressive.

I should like in the few minutes that I shall take part in this debate to avoid as much as possible covering many of the subjects, which have already been discussed at great length and in very general terms, but I cannot in duty to my own province permit this occasion to pass without a reference or two to the question of the tariff.

We are four parties in British Columbia, but we are a solid thirteen, irrespective of

The Address

party, for a protective tariff. The members from British Columbia have always supported the Macdonald Liberal-Conservative national policy, modified to that of the Laurier-Fielding policy as it has been called in this House by certain hon. members. I submit, however, that at this stage, on this 22nd of March, after listening to the various debates upon that question we can now apply the real and correct name to the tariff policy of this Government. I think the proper name would be the Gouin-Fielding tariff policy, which we heard explained a short time ago. If, however, the opinions and the sentiments of the hon. members from British Columbia, thirteen in number, are not sufficiently convincing to this Government, may I be permitted to read the words of one who leads the Liberal party in the province of British Columbia? I refer to the Liberal premier of British Columbia, "Honest" John Oliver, who has been there for a number of years. On a certain occasion he came to Ottawa, and some hon. gentlemen now present will remember that he made a keen analysis of, and somewhat denunciatory remarks upon, the proposed Liberal tariff as drawn up at the convention held here in August, 1919. It may perhaps be wearisome to hon. members to be continually listening to the reading of newspaper clippings, but this one is so pertinent, the remarks so true as they affect British Columbia, and the ideas so soundly expressed, that I believe it would be informative to the House if I read a few paragraphs. I quote from the Vancouver Province of the 7th of August, 1919; the same quotations are found in the Globe of that day. Addressing the great Liberal convention here in August, 1919, Mr. Oliver says, with respect to the tariff policy enunciated there:

If you pass this resolution as it is reported from the Committee, you are furnishing, not a weapon of defence for the Liberal party, hut a weapon of attack by which the Borden Government will successfully attack the Liberal party. In 1911 I went down to defeat in defence of the reciprocity pact. I went into that fight with my hands tied, and this resolution will have the effect of tying my hands behind my back and the backs of a great many other Liberal candidates in the next election.

And surely enough when the next election took place we found a Liberal Government in control of the legislature of the province and not participating in the election to any extent whatsoever. I am not saying that under the influence of any party bias, or prejudice; I say that to indicate to hon. members that so far as

British Columbia is concerned this is a matter of real importance. I trust, therefore, that the Government will take cognizance of the attitude of the thirteen members as well as of the Premier of the province. In the same speech Mr. Oliver continues with respect to the tariff policy which more strongly appeals to hon. members to my left:

The reasons I call this class legislation and why it is sectional and why it will put a club into the hands of our opponents, are these: Let us take one item-farm tractors. They should be on the free list, but is a tractor any more an implement of production than the power that goes into your factory or the gasoline engine that goes into the fishermen's boat or any other object? Is a plow more an implement of production to the farmer than the machinist's tools to the mechanic or the plumber's tools to the plumber? Is any one an article of production more than another?

And then Mr. Oliver continues:

You have no answer. It is not a square deal and is not Liberal.

Referring to the tariff also he says:

It is a get-by proposition and the Liberal party in this crisis should not put any get-by proposition before the people.

I think all hon. members who look at this matter frankly will realize now that the tariff platform of that time was a get-by proposition, and hon. gentlemen opposite hold their seats by virtue of the pledge of their leader at that convention. Now I find it necessary to quote one or two more lines from Mr. Oliver's speech:

You want free cement. We have three immense plants in British Columbia, all of them idle. Why put cement on the free list and not the reinforcing iron that goes into it? Is it consistently logical? What answer can you give? You have no answer.

Then he concludes with these words:

If this Liberal party has a policy at all it is a policy of justice to the masses of the people, and if you have to resort to taxation it must be put on the men who can bear the burden. I can not go before these returned soldiers who came to my office and demanded that I give up the reins of Government (and I told them I wouldn't and that I was going to give them a square deal) and say to them that I voted for a resolution that would give free gasoline for millionaires and leave the tax on the little boots and clothing that the veterans kiddies have to wear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is perhaps wearisome to some hon. members to listen to these quotations, but I desire to make the point that the hon. members from British Columbia and the official leader of the Liberal party in that province are against the policy enunciated by the

Standing Committees

Liberal party in that convention and which seems to have some considerable support in this House, and are in favour of the policy which they have supported consistently from the beginning to the end.

On the motion of Mr. Ladner the debate was adjourned.

At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.

Thursday, March 23, 1922.