February 7, 1928

IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

That is a matter of

opinion. I am simply saying-and every thoughtful Englishman and Scotchman is my witness-.what is being uttered every day in Great Britain, where liberty of speech exists in fact and not merely in theory. I was in England last year, not for the first, the second, the third, the fourth or even the fifth time, and I made new acquaintances and was confirmed in the opinion which I held long before the war. that you have in England people of the right kind who want to send to the dominions-or the colonies as they still term them-the right kind of settlers; but you also have people, especially those belonging to the wealthy classes, who want to get rid of the poor and who say: We will send them to the colonies and let the colonial governments and parliaments deal with them.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

No.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

It has been told me by some of the leaders of public opinion in England. From their point of view it is patriotic, they feel they are doing t'heir duty in the best interests of their country. Let us be as careful of the welfare of Canada as'they are of the future of England.

With regard to dealing with immigration wholesale, as has been suggested by the leader erf the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I beg to differ with him also as to the means. I have had occasion in the last thirty years to find out that all great schemes of immigration, all tremendous policies of wholesale immigration have failed, whether under a Liberal or a Conservative government; while on the contrary every small and energetic enterprise conducted by the right kind of men, either in this country or in Scotland or in England or in the United States, to organize small settlements of the right kind of people, whom they lead to the place where they are to live' and obtain for them there the conditions that will make them happy settlers,-those settlements to my personal knowledge have done wonders. I can speak of three in the west, that I have known in the last thirty years, one French, one German and the other Scottish. The French settlement-I mean from Quebec-was made in the neighbourhood of Gravelbourg. Two or three men with a set idea of accomplishing something went there and secured a tract of

land, made arrangements with the Department of the Interior here, and made an individual canvass of the right kind of people in the province of Quebec, brought them out, saw that they were properly settled and that they received what they had been promised, that is, the administration that they wanted, a municipality organized, and a church and a school built. To-day, after only fifteen or twenty years, you have there one of the finest settlements of the w'est. * In the old days- I mean some twenty-five years ago-two or three gentlemen came to my room. They were delegates from certain German inhabitants of Dakota, born Americans, who wanted to come and live in Canada. They explained to me the manner in which they were organizing the settlement. They took up a tract of land somewhere between Regina and Prince Albert. I traversed that section many years ago. Previous to settlement it was a perfectly wild country and absolutely dry. I well remember the old railway from Regina to Prince Albert was in such a bad condition that they had to cut the train in two, and I saw antelopes near the track gazing at us and apparently thinking: What kind of beasts

are coming to take our place? Those settlers found they could have that territory irrigated, and they brought in a whole colony of some two hundred people all farmers with the exception of a blacksmith and two or three mechanics. To-day that is one of the finest settlements in Saskatchewan between Regina and Prince Albert. I know of another one, although I have not visited it personally. It is a Scottish settlement that has been established near St. Paul de Metis, somewhere in Alberta. This again was organized by a Scotch priest and a few delegates in the same manner as the first Scottish settlements that were established in Prince Edward Island a few years after the conquest of Canada, and out of which practically arose the province which exists to-day. That shows that private but well reasoned initiative, if properly helped by the government, will operate in a much more practical way and will produce more enduring results than a wholesale policy of immigration inaugurated by such founders as the North Atlantic Trading Company of ill-fame.

But, sir, if we want to preserve our people, if we want to bring in from all countries the right kind of people, and induce them to stay in Canada instead of passing over to the United States after they have remained here sufficiently long to comply with the requirements of the quota law enforced by our neighbours to the south, there is something

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

more to be done. We have to put Canada on a proper economical and social basis, and there I come back to the point I spoke of at first. It is all very well to deal at this session with the tariff, at another session with the income tax; but as long as we do not develop in the minds and hearts of all Canadian men and women, fathers and mothers of families, that all in all-morally, intellectually, economically, socially and politically- their children will be better off in Canada than in the United States, or better off than they were either in England, Germany, Russia, France, Italy, or any other country they may come from, it is useless for us to talk of having a tremendous immigration policy to people our country. We will go on as we have done since confederation, under all governments, under all policies, not filling the country, but making of Canada the sieve through which the best of our blood, and the best of the foreign imported blood, goes to the United States.

But, sir, there is something more. If we want to attract the right kind of Europeans- and here I refer especially to the good people of Britain, to the right kind of Englishmen, of Welshmen, and of Scotchmen-it must be made clear to them that when they come to Canada they leave aside the quarrels and the war stress of Europe. It must be made clear to them that under this much disputed equality of status, upon which much discussion will take place for years to come without any solace for the common people, that Canada is not at war every time England may be at war. It means that Canada, situated as she is and occupying one-half of the continent of North America, having lived in peace for a century with the country to the south of us, is determined to maintain peace with all countries on earth, with all countries on both sides of the two oceans which wash her shores. In that respect I fully agree with the policy pursued by the present government in enhancing, gradually and not in any hurry, the position of Canada in the international world. They do it, and I know this to be the case, not only with the full assent but with the full sympathy of the best minded Englishmen. That is shown by the utterances of Mr. Ponsonby, who was quoted yesterday by the hon. lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), but there are many Englishmen-not only radicals, not only Liberals, but some of the best Tories, some of whom I had the honour of meeting again last year- who want to see the dominions, but- especially Canada, force, so to speak, the whole British Empire as a world power to impose a policy

of peace upon the world. In that respect the presence of our representative on the council of the League of Nations is worth, to my mind, much more than many of the other emblems of liberty or of domination, of which we have boasted for many years in the past, because there can be no doubt that, on the council of the league, Canada is not sitting as a tool of the British government; Canada ' is represented as a nation. I said last year, and I repeat it to-day, that neither Sir Austen Chamberlain nor any responsible English statesman, would ever state that the British Empire was represented by two voices on the council of the League of Nations whilst other nations have only one. Of course, they know that Canada is there for her own sake, and they want her to be there as such. There is this further fact: In view of the present conditions of things in the world, England is the power which is most interested in making peace as permanent as it can be. I have said it in my own province, and I repeat it now, that I have the deepest admiration and the fullest sympathy for the attitude taken in the last six years by the British government, and I am prepared with my humble voice and through the influence of the Canadian government, to uphold that policy. Not as the slaves of England, but as free Britishers talking in the name of a free British country, we should take this position in face of the representatives of that magnanimous country: Now that you are talking peace,

now that you are working for peace, we will help you out. The moment you unmuzzle your guns and work for war again, we will be against you. We are prepared not to leave you but to accompany you on the path of peace, never on the path of war. If we do that, if we do it at Geneva and elsewhere, we shall not only accomplish our duty to Canada but we shall have rendered a service to Great Britain, to the true Britain, to the Britain of the masses, to that great nation which has done so much to enhance ideas of liberty, properly balanced methods of government, ideas of social justice in spite of so many obstacles put in her way by some of her own people. If -we do that we shall have accomplished our full duty as Canadians and as associates of the British nation.

In that regard again, I fully commend the policy of the government in appointing representatives of Canada, not only as trade commissioners, but as foreign ministers or residential ministers-the title is nothing to me. Because, take Europe for example. It is all very well to have a representative in France, an official representative, who now for the

240 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)

first time in half a century will have the right to step in at the Quai d'Orsay and have a heart to heart talk with the foreign minister of France, a thing which he could not do before because he was considered only as a sub-clerk of the High Commissioner's office in London. I know as a matter of fact that both Mr. Fabre, and Mr. Roy, have been prevented from communicating with the French government because the Foreign Secretary of the time at London did not want them to be known as representing Canada. Now, however, they will be able to talk and exchange their views freely. If you have a representative in Berlin-

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to interrupt

the hon. member, but his time is up.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

I think I have three

minutes yet, Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the clock.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

Very well, Mr. Speaker, if my time is up I shall reserve the rest of my remarks for another occasion.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):

It is difficult at any time to address this house with confidence. That difficulty is intensified when one has to follow such a brilliant orator as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). For the nice things that hon. gentleman said about the maritime provinces we are duly grateful. We had the honour of a visit from him last summer, and we all look back to that visit with a great deal of pleasure. The hon. member addressed several meetings in the maritime provinces, and although we do not agree with everything he says, we must all regard him as having a great deal of reason for the faith that is in him. It was evident that at least some of his remarks this afternoon were not receiving unanimous assent, particularly from members on this side of the house, but his remarks on immigration will, I believe, receive the commendation of a great many. The subject of immigration is a somewhat difficult one. Even our Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), in his speech yesterday, admitted that he had many things to learn with regard to immigration. From press reports in the various parts of this country it would appear that that opinion was fairly generally shared, and possibly the minister's statement was the only thing required to make it unanimous. I think we can agree with the hon. member for Labelle in regard to at least two of his grounds, first, the great desirability of retain-

ing Canadians in our own country. That, I think, should be the first aim and object of an immigration department. The second, and one of equal importance, is the desirability of selected immigration. I, for one, am not in favour of throwing down the bare and allowing everybody to come to this country. We have at the present time three or four examinations of intending immigrants, one before they leave, one on the boat and one when they arrive. There should be but one examination, an examination before the immigrant breaks up his home' and makes all his preparations for leaving his own country. That is the time when the one and final examination should be made.

With regard to the observation of the hon. member for Labelle that if England ever goes to war again, we shall be able to stand aloof, I think very few in this country will subscribe to that view. If England is at war, we are at war and there is no escape from that fact. We are either a part of the British Empire or we are not. If we are a part of it, we must bear our share of the responsibilities of that empire, and I believe that at the present time we are not bearing our full share of our responsibilities towards the empire.

With reference to the observation of the hon. member that in inducing immigrants to come to this country, it would be a greater attraction to them to hold out the higher moral ideals we have here than our material resources, I fear that many of us, who have not the same lofty ideals as the hon. member for Labelle has, will find it difficult to subscribe to that doctrine, and I am afraid that from a practical standpoint, when you endeavour to induce anyone from the old country or any other country to come to Canada, the material inducements will weigh more heavily with him than any moral inducement we can offer him.

The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has on this occasion taken a very wide range. It is, of course, customary in a debate on the address to allow the widest latitude and to permit hon. members to discuss questions of interest to any part of Canada. This year for the first time in our history we have placed some restrictions on that, and although a member is allowed the widest latitude, he is circumscribed somewhat by the fact that he is obliged to confine himself to forty minutes. The debate on the address has already gone far enough to indicate that the wisdom of the rule which we adopted last year has been justified. It is pleasing to note that throughout all the speeches very kind references

The Address.-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)

were made and deservedly made to the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address. I did not have the pleasure of hearing but I read both addresses, and I want to join in cordially congratulating both the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) on the way in which they discharged their duties in that respect. With regard to the mover of the address, it may be said that a sort of maritime clannishness would make our congratulations to him a little more cordial; but in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Cantley), I fear that the house might regard with considerable diffidence any observations I might make lauding the clannishness that should distinguish maritime members. Although, however, we may and in all probability will hold divers political views, we can all rest assured that the hon. member for Hants-Kings and the other members from the maritime provinces will all be united on any matter affecting the interests of their home provinces.

In looking over previous debates of this character I think one strain, one general criticism, will be found to follow through all the speeches of the opposition, and that is that the speech from the throne contains very little to commend itself to the House of Commons. It is possible that, in days gone by, that criticism was not wholly warranted, but I do not think there is very much doubt that the criticism in regard to the present speech from the throne is that it is to be regarded as not much more than a curtain-raiser. There are in it some things that deserve consideration, and the first matter is the reference to the good results that flowed from the conference that took place last year between the various provinces and the federal governmnt. I am glad of that; I think the conference was a very wise move, and in years to come it will be found desirable at certain periods to hold such conferences, because with the growth of the newer provinces and the changing conditions throughout the whole of, Canada, readjustments of relationships between the various provinces and the federal government will be found necessary. Of course, the various provinces are not all of the same political faith as the federal government, and it is very desirable that that should be the case. It is said that the view was held by Sir John Macdonald that it was very desirable that the various provincial governments should be opposed politically to the federal government because, if they were all of one political faith, he 56103-16

believed there would result a gigantic political organization that would be a menace to the state. Whether that is true or not, I think most of us on this side will subscribe to it, particularly as long as the present government remains in power.

It appears that several recommendations of the Duncan report are receiving consideration. The Duncan report which will no doubt take its place, Mr. 'Speaker, as one of the most important political documents in our history, has already done considerable good. It has given new life to the people of the maritime provinces and I think, if I might be allowed to say so, that the psychological effect of the Duncan report was of considerably more importance to those provinces than the material benefits that have so far flowed from it. Some over-enthusiastic admirers of the present government have gone to the length of saying that the recommendations of that report have been fully implemented by the government. This is not the case, and do not let us for one second imagine that such is the case. I am going to read an article from a magazine published in the maritime provinces entitled " The Busy East," reporting a speech made by Mr. Simms, who was president of the maritime board of trade and was largely instrumental in framing the case for the maritime provinces before the Duncan commission. Among other things in his address at St. John he said:

The Financial Post of November 18 published a fair and accurate synopsis of the Duncan recommendations with what had been or left undone in the case of each. The synopsis in question shows that up-to-date, but two of the 30 recommendations have been fully implemented, i.e.:. The passing of legislation to bonus coke ovens and the total payment of the immediate interim lump sum grants. Only one-half of these grants was paid as at July 1 last. However, at the recent Ottawa conference of premiers, the immediate payment of the other half was secured.

Then five of the recommendations have been partially implemented. In the case of other 11 no action has yet been taken. Possibly, the remaining 12 may receive later attention.

While not unduly impatient, and recognizing that such chronic and far. reaching troubles do not often lend themselves to speedy adjustment, it is not unreasonable that the maritime provinces should be anything but satisfied with the action to date regarding the Duncan recommendations. Most maritime people fully appreciate that a lot of hard and unselfish work has been done by their ministers and members on both sides of the house have given our cause loyal support. This is so obvious that we see no reason why anyone should shrink from facing the facts of the case as they exist to-day.

Surely no patriotic Canadian would deliberately make statements calculated to mislead the public as to the position of these recommenda-

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

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

In taking part in the debate on the address I do so more particularly for the purpose of referring to certain matters that apply more

especially to my own constituency than to Canada as a whole. I was interested in the speech from the throne in its reference to prosperity. Whether Canada is prosperous in the degree we have been told in this house by various hon. members, or whether, as the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) has endeavoured to make us believe, it is not prosperous, I still feel that in the part of Canada from which I am fortunate enough to come and which I have the honour to represent conditions are nothing like those described by that hon. gentleman. When he refers to thousands in his district being in dire distress, I think that every hon. member will agree with me that there is no such distress in western Canada, notwithstanding that we have matters there which we feel call for some remedy.

I should be remiss in the discharge of my duties if I did not add my voice to the general congratulation which has been tendered to the mover and seconder of the address on the splendid way in which they presented the motion to the house. The reference which was made by the mover of that address to the part of the country which he represents, and which I believe is in the vicinity of the district represented by the last speaker, stressed the prosperity of the Dominion. I believe that the past year has been a most memorable one in Canada's history. Last year the people of this Dominion had brought to their notice more pointedly than ever before the stage of development which we have reached. The celebration in July served to bring to the attention of the Canadian people quite forcibly the fact that we had gone possibly further than any other country in the world in a shorter time, and I think that all evidences point to the fact that Canada as a whole is in a prosperous condition. I do not intend to deal with that phase of the situation. I want to refer more particularly to certain situations which have arisen in western Canada.

If you go back a number of years you will realize that the early pioneers in 'the west settled at great distances from railways, and these pioneers made it possible for the western prairies to be opened up for settlement. They made possible the adoption of a great immigration policy, as has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). These pioneers in many districts in western Canada are still living great distances from railways and I believe that this is one of the reasons why we have an immigration problem on our hands. During the two sessions that I have had the honour of representing my constituency in this house, this being my

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

third session, many bills for branch line railways have come up and been passed, providing largely for construction in the northern parts of the western provinces, opening up new territory, which is of course necessary; but only in some instances have they taken care of the older settled parts of the provinces where the pioneers are entitled to some consideration. I have in mind a district in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There the settlers have been for some twenty-five or thirty years, and they are still hauling their products to market for distances varying from twenty-five to thirty-five miles. It is said that the territory belongs to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, whose main line runs through it. This company may build branches there without coming to parliament for a charter, but it has not yet seen fit to do so. The Canadian National railway, however, is within twenty miles of Swift Current and a few more miles from the district I speak of-a pioneer district containing probably as fertile and productive land as is to be found anywhere in Canada. As I say, the Canadian National railway is only a little more than twenty miles away, and while the territory may be described as Canadian Pacific territory, nevertheless I feel that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not take advantage of the situation, the Canadian National Railways should have an opportunity of building a branch line without subsequent competition from the Canadian Pacific. If it were possible for this house to take such steps as might be necessary to shut a railway company out of a district, if it will not give that district service, in order to let another railway company supply the transportation needs, I think it would be the part of wisdom to do so. We do not want any more paralleling of lines, but if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company does not see fit to build into such a district, then I believe it is the public duty of this parliament to see that the pioneers in such a district are served with proper transportation facilities, so that the country may be made available for settlement, and the boys and girls of the pioneers, instead of becoming disheartened and going to the cities or to the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, will be satisfied to stay at home and settle the vacant lands. You cannot expect them to do so today when those vacant lands are twenty-five to thirty-five miles from a railway.

We in the west were all happy to see the decision made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) last summer in selecting the port for the Hudson Bay railway. I think he is to be congratulated on the stand he then took. The investigation apparently was fully

made, and any person who reads the report of Mr. Palmer will, I am sure, feel satisfied that every reasonable precaution was taken to make the proper selection.

The railway into the Flin Flon area I also believe will be an advantage to the people of the west, and I feel that the government is to be congratulated upon their action in that connection. But at the same time I want to ask the minister, who has shown that he is able to take the initiative, not to overlook the district to which I refer; its transportation needs have been brought to his attention on many occasions. Only this morning I received the Swift Current Herald dated February 2, in which the following reference is made to the railway situation:

With both the provincial and federal parliaments in session, and absorbing as we do the daily reports of proposed legislation, we are again moved to feel vituperative in connection with the situation existing in this district in the lack of railway accommodation. The board of trade has held indignation meetings with monotonous regularity; delegations from the outlying farming territory unserved by railways have come and gone; resolutions in hamperfuls have been forwarded to Ottawa; floods of oratory have been loosed-we have been sadly neglected, discriminated against, so on and so forth-and in the end we find ourselves in the same old position, and farmers are still hauling their grain the odd twenty-five miles or so.

And further on occurs this passage:

A lot of people feel that if the government were given an indication that the voters, regardless of'affiliation, are ready to stand up and protest emphatically-and protest by force of the ballot-this district would undoubtedly be given consideration without undue delay. When hard-shelled voters, who have voted the same party ticket since being granted a franchise, feel that way about it, why something's going to happen sooner or later.

I read that simply to show the feeling of the people in that particular district. A few years ago the Minister of Railways was the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan. In that office he realized some of the financial difficulties of the city of Swift Current, and now when we have an opportunity of getting concerns such as the Cockshutt Plow Company, the John Deere Plow Company and the International Harvester Company to establish branches in the city, but find them hesitating to do so because of lack of access to the territory contiguous to Swift Current that should be served with railway facilities, I think he should take this into consideration, remembering what took place a few years ago in that particular city and district.

Another matter that I propose to deal with concerns the Post Office Department. When

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

a change was made in the postal rates it necessarily brought under consideration the scale of postmasters' salaries, as many of our postmasters are paid on a commission basis. The present schedule provides for payment of only $60 per year for the postmaster of an office whose annual revenue is under $100 That means that a postmaster out in the country is paid some S3 a month-hardly enough to clean the kitchen where the people of the district gather to get their mail. I know many hon. members have districts in their constituencies in which it is almost impossible to find anybody to look after the post office. When a man does take on the duty it is simply that the district may not

lose the post office, not because he feels ha is being adequately paid for his services. Now, the post office is a public service, and whether it is paying or not I submit does not matter; the people are entitled to get service. Therefore when the revision of salaries is being dealt with, I trust the Postmaster General will take into consideration the representations which have been made by the Dominion Postmasters Association. They asked for slight increases, and for the benefit of the house I should like to give the following comparative table of salaries paid these officials in this country and in the United States. The statement is as follows:

Revenue Present salary Proposed salary American salary Revenue Present salarj' Proposed salary American salary$ S $ $ $ $ $ $100 60 100 160 . 2,200 860 1,475 2,100200 100 200 320 2,300 890 1,525 2,100300 150 300 480 2,400 920 1,575 2,290400 200 400 565 2,500 950 1,625 2,290500 250 500 650 2,600 980 1,075 2,290[DOT] 600 300 575 735 2,700 1,010 1,725 2,480700 350 650 820 2,800 1,040 1,775 2,480800 400 725 895 2,900 1,070 1,825 2,480900 450 800 970 3,000 1,100 1,875 2,6701,000 500 875 1,045 4,000 1,400 2,375 3,0501,100 530 925 1,120 5,000 1,700 2,875 3,4001,200 560 975 1,195 6,000 2,000 3,275 3,6001,300 590 1,025 1,270 7,000 2,300 3,675 3,9001,400 620 1,075 1,345 8,000 2,600 4,075 4,4001,500 650 1,125 1,420 9,000 2,900 4,475 4,9001,600 680 1,175 1,530 10,000 3,200 4,875 5,4001,700 710 1,225 1,720 20,000 5,200 7,375 8,4001,800 .740 1,275 1,910 30,000 7,200 9,875 10,9001,900 770 1,325 2,000 40,000 9,200 12,375 13,4002,000 800 1,375 2,100 50,000 11,200 14,875 16,0002,100 830 1,425 2,100

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

Does the statement indicate or show that it includes commissions on post office orders, postal notes and stamps?

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

Well the American salary

is fixed, and no commission is allowed. That is the difference between the two systems.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

There may be some

allowance, but so far as the country offices are concerned the amount derived from the sale of money orders and postal notes is very small.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

There is another matter in connection with the post office situation

to which I should like to draw your attention, and that has to do with the railway mail clerks. I am only going to make one comment with respect to them and it is this: In Canada railway mail clerks work on Sundays and on holidays, and are called on at night. The maximum salary, as I understand it, in Canada, is $1,800, whereas in the United States the maximum salary for railway mail clerks is $2,600. Then, too, the minimum salary of the Canadian railway mail clerks is SI,140, as compared with the minimum in the United States of $1,800. I think it would only be fair to say, however, that our mileage allowance is higher than it is in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
?

Clarence Joseph Veniot

Mr. YENIOT:

There is no mileage allowance in the United States. The railway mail clerks there are allowed a lump sum for expenses.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

Yes, that is quite correct, but the mileage allowance 'in this country reaches a greater total than is allowed in the United States. Application has been made to Ottawa for a revision of salaries, and when the salary schedules are being arranged by the Postmaster General I hope he will take the claims of the railway mail clerks into consideration as well as those of the postmasters, particularly postmasters in the smaller offices.

Again in connection with the Post Office Department it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that some arrangement should be made whereby officers in the postal service of this country who are interested and efficient might be transferred from province to province, or from town to town, if health or family requirements make such a change necessary. We have some postmasters who are most interested and most efficient. We have some postmasters in small offices who have brought about tremendous increases in the postal revenue by reason of the interest they have taken in their work. To illustrate what I mean I may say that I have here a circular that was drafted and sent out by a certain postmaster last year after the reduction in the postal rates. This man is greatly interested in postal work, and if I read a portion of the notice he sent out it will serve to demonstrate the great enthusiasm which he entertains for his work. For example I would quote these passages:

There is no safer method for sending money than by post office money order, no matter how large or how small the amount may be. Because the public is learning more and more to appreciate the dependability which can be placed on the services rendered by the post office, explains why instances are increasing where people send thousands of dollars by post office money orders. This public confidence is growing, because:

1. The post office benefits everybody, and is absolutely impartial. It does not favour any one at the expense of anybody else, the rates being exactly the same to everybody, for whatever service may be rendered.

2. The post office carries your message or money safely, promptly and cheaply, and is at your service continuously.

3. The post office is your institution. It belongs to the public. The more you patronize it, the more will you help develop and extend its usefulness. Please remember, it does not operate with a view to create a surplus, but all its earnings are employed in improving the service. As you help create benefits, you likewise share them.

4. The post office is used by everybody in some way. Therefore, the surest way to reach anybody with a message or with money, is to employ the method which reaches the most people.

The cost of mailing a letter has been reduced to two cents. Think for a minute what a two-cent stamp will do for you. Everybody is benefited by this reduction. However, it means a tremendous reduction in the revenue of the post office, which can be off-set only by making greater use of all the different kinds of service which it offers, such as:

1. Writing more letters.

2. Sending out more advertising matter.

3. Sending more parcels by mail.

4. Taking advantage of the security offered by having parcels insured for a very small additional fee.

5. Registering all important letters or other items which affords added protection in handling.

6. Sending merchandise c.o.d. which secures prompt payment.

7. Sending money by post office money orders (these cover the globe) or, for small amounts payable in Canada only by using postal notes.

If you want to pay your taxes, or mortgage, or an account at some other point, or make a payment on land you have bought, or send money for any other purpose, remember, there is no safer method than by post office money order. If for any reason it should be lost or accidentally destroyed, you can obtain a duplicate, without one cent of expense.

These are some of the ways by which the post office serves you. You will admit it is a very good and useful service, and the way to maintain good service is to use it extensively. Therefore, use the post office in every way you can, and as often as you find it necessary to transact any kind of business which it can do for you.

I submit that a man who takes interest enough in his post office to get out matter like the foregoing is very much needed in the public service, and when it becomes necessary for him, through health or family reasons, to move to some other part of the country, surely it should be possible, under the Civil Service Act if you will, to have that man transferred in accordance with his own wishes. Corporations such as railway companies, banks and trust companies seem to shift their best men around from one province to another, or from one city or town to another. Why should not the same policy be pursued in the public service?

There is one other matter I should like to touch upon, and that is the question of federal grants for highways. Hon. members will recall that in 1919 an act was passed, making provision for an appropriation of some $20,000,000 to the various provinces in Canada to be expended in the construction of highways to be approved by the federal government. The latter was only to contribute some 40 per cent of the money re-

The Address-Mr. Bothwell

quired for building these highways, the provinces putting up the balance of 60 per cent. In the older settled parts of Canada, certainly in some parts, there are good highways, but that grant of $20,000,000 gave western Canada only a start because we have a tremendous mileage with a comparatively small population. The United States have made federal grants to the extent, I believe, of about $725,000,000-too much, I believe, judging from reports received from the United States as to how the people there feel they are taxed. I believe an appropriation such as was made in 1919 is within reason and would assist materially in regard to highways. As we hear from almost every speaker in the house we have on our hands an immigration problem. If we have good roads, we have practically on our doorstep about 120,000,000 people, many of whom are looking to Canada. With good roads and with the number of motor cars that are being used now, it is easy for these people to cross the line and to travel through Canada, but they are not coming in the numbers they would come if we had better roads. Interprovincial highways, transcontinental highways, highways north and south, which might be assisted by the federal government would be of inestimable value in settling the country. A visitor to the south of the line just a week or so ago, a man who is now controlling some thousands of acres of land in western Canada and a man who knows the type of farmers that are needed for the west as settlers, has this to say in speaking of the United States farmers:

When the unrest and discomfort of the agricultural class is so freely admitted by the press, the politicians and the large land dealers in the cities, one may be sure it exists among the farmers to even a more intensified degree. I had the opportunity to learn this first-hand, not from chronic kicking individuals, but from highest authorities in the land business as well as from our own Canadian government agents.

In speaking about immigration to this country, he says:

It is a large subject and no attempt will be made to touch its many aspects, but I am reliably informed by two Canadian government agencies as well as by colonization agencies and private conversation with some individual farmers that there is considerable immigration interest.

That is south of the line.

While we maintain sixteen Canadian government agencies, and some of them are doing good work, it looks as if more could be done to promote the immigration of seasoned and experienced farmers with equipment to settle upon our lands: there is a class of such farmers available and they would bring no assimilation

problem with them, and are even more adaptable to conditions here than our English cousins.

The average American prospective immigrant is fully equipped with horses and machinery, stock, household effects, and enough money to take care of himself for perhaps a year, and would be prepared to rent or buy on a very easy payment plan.

My contention, therefore, in connection with grants to highways is that by good highways we would open up the country to such an extent that we would induce more settlement from across the line; we would induce more people to come from there, and travelling through the country as tourists, or in whatever way they come, they will make the best kind of immigration agents for us.

Coming again to railways, I think it was in 1926 that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) referred to the 1908 strike of railway shopmen in this country. I have been informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are now laying off men when they attain 65 years of age, and because they took part in that strike of 1908, the company are refusing to pay their pensions. If this is a fact-and the facts are true in at least one case so far-I believe this is a matter with which parliament should concern itself. The railway companies, as I view the situation, have been paid in freight rates by the people of this country sufficient money to take care of their pension schemes. The money has been received by the railway companies but it is not being paid to those persons who have become entitled to it. I have in mind one instance of a man who worked for forty-five jjears for this company, and I am told that there are no black marks against him in connection with his service with the exception of the fact that he was out on strike in 1908. He went out on strike with the shopmen not knowing beforehand that a strike was about to be oalled; as a matter of fact he was acting in that particular capacity for only about eight days before the strike was called. On attaining the age of 65 years a few months ago he was laid off and a pension is refused. As I view that situation, it seems to me that the government of this country should take the matter up with the railway companies who have received the moneys that are payable by way of pension. I do not know what effect an appeal may have, but if an appeal does not have any effect, I hope and trust that action can be taken whereby such a condition cannot arise in the future. The

The Address-Mr. Jellijj

1908 strike, as I understand it, was a legal strike and the men are not entitled to be penalized to the extent to which they apparently are under the ruling made by the company.

There are many other matters which might be dealt with, but they can be discussed better on the budget debate and I just wanted to bring to the attention of the house at this time the matters to which I have referred, particularly in connection with those districts -the constituency which I have the honour to represent is not the only one by any means-which are apparently being discriminated against in regard to railway construction, when other portions of Canada are being served in order to bring in settlers from other countries to populate our country.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
UFA

Lincoln Henry Jelliff

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour and the reception which I understand is being held for Mr. Kellogg, I suggest that you call it six o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
UFA

Lincoln Henry Jelliff

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in reference to the subject which is now before the house, I wish first of all to conform to the polite conventionalities which attend this occasion. I wish to extend my heartiest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Ilsley) and seconder (Mr. Beaubien) of the address in reply to the speech delivered at the opening of this session by His Excellency the Governor General. Congratulations have been showered upon the hon. members who performed this function, and very justly so; they carried out the task committed to them with credit both to themselves and to the constituencies which they have the honour to represent. But as I sat here quietly, reading the speech from the throne and listening .to the eloquent comments upon it which were being made by the mover and the seconder, I could not help thinking that they were employing a great deal of rhetoric and exerting a very considerable effort in spreading their decorations over a barren fig tree; for I must admit that I am quite in agreement with the comments of a good many members who have spoken in this chamber as to the paucity of legislation forecast in the speech from the throne. This, to my mind, is particularly notable, and perhaps particularly open to criticism, when one has in mind the

things which have been occurring throughout our country during the last year, especially the events in connection with the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. All over this great land of ours from one end to the- other, from the capital to the little school house away out on the prairie, we were eulogizing the magnificent efforts of the fathers of confederation who brought together the far-flung provinces of this Dominion into one great federal whole and gave us the opportunity for the development of this northern part of the north American continent. It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of ail those celebrations, of the inspiration which comes from recounting the achievements and accomplishments of the great fathers of confederation, and of the manner in which the various booklets and publications issued in connection with the celebration have brought home to our people the wonderful development which has gone on here, that that inspiration should have been so great as to bring us, in our legislative program for this year, to a feeling which would raise our level infinitely beyond what it was before, and thus advance materially the development of the land we all love. That is the criticism I have to offer in reference to the speech from the throne, and to the absence therefrom of so many matters which have been discussed pro and con throughout the 'ength and breadth of this land during the last year. It seems to me there should have been in the speech from the throne an indication of the measures which the government propose to lay before parliament during the present session.

As I have said, that is by way of criticism. There may be reasons for the omission of items of legislation with which I am not familiar. I have no desire to be unjust to the government in the matter; I have no desire to utter a single word which will embarrass them in carrying on the great work committed to their charge. On the contrary, I think it may fairly be said of me that in all things I have wished to uphold their hands and to help them. That, I believe, is the attitude to-day of every member in the group with whom I am associated, and also of those who sit on your left, Sir, in regard to the coal proposition, to which I wish to refer later.

I have referred to the mover and seconder of the address; I do not wish to omit mention of the newly selected leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I want to associate myself with the remarks made on the opening day of the session by the leader of our group. The leader of the opposition is a citizen of my own province, one of whom we are all proud and who is qualified in every

The Address-Mr. Jelliff

bushels of wheat to the market was doing us a pretty good service. Later on larger cars, which conveyed 1,200 to 1,300 bushels, were built. They were succeeded by cars carrying from 1,500 to 1,600 bushels, and to-day oars are operating on those lines that carry 2,000 bushels of wheat to the market. Also in place of the inferior engines of thirty years ago we have the great mogul engines of to-day. Transportation is developing; it is not at a standstill. I believe that these railway companies, with their efficient presidents and with the inventive genius which must exist in the ranks of their employees, can find a way of moving that coal, and moving it at a rate which will enable us to use Alberta and Nova Scotia coal in central Canada and thus be independent of outsiders in the matter of our coal supply. I am urging this matter on the Minister of Railways, and urging it in a friendly spirit. I believe that if he were to introduce a bill this session fixing a rate for the carriage of Alberta coal there is scarcely an hon. member who would not vote for it, -in fact the vote would be almost unanimous, because the people of Canada are insisting upon the solution of the coal problem, and so far as I can see this is the only way to solve it.

So far as the speech from the throne is concerned, there are one or two other matters upon which I should like to toueh. Mention is made in the speech that the appointment of ministers to Japan and to France is contemplated. I am in hearty accord with that proposal. I believe the appointment of such representatives to those foreign countries with which we desire to do business and to extend our commerce can be of immense value to Canada. In that connection may I say, that when this matter came before me I was trying to recollect whether I had ever seen any report as yet as to what our representatives at present in foreign countries are doing. It seems to me that we should have reports from our representatives in foreign lands so that we may know exactly what they are accomplishing towards the expansion of our commerce. It does not seem to me to be essential that we should have at foreign capitals men who are simply representing us in a social and a political sense; that was fairly well done under the former regime. What we want is the appointment of representatives who can help to extend and increase the commerce of this country and afford further opportunities for marketing the products of Canada. We have had an ambassador at Washington now for almost a year, and I am rather curious to know what he

has accomplished. I have seen no report of his activities, and I doubt whether any other member has done so. I do not doubt at all that Hon. Mr. Massey has been rendering useful service in Washington, but I believe it would be a good thing to take parliament and the country into the confidence of the government and give us each year a report as to what our representatives in foreign countries are doing to advance our business interests in the countries in which they are located.

For instance I have here a statement to which I should like to refer for a minute or two-and I am sure this will interest my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). It deals with an industry as regards which, it seems to me, something might have been accomplished on the other side of the line. I refer to the cattle trade. We were complimenting ourselves very highly here a few years ago on the fact that the embargo which restricted the importation of our cattle into Great Britain had been removed. Almost everybody who had anything to do with it was given the credit for helping to .raise that embargo, but I do not think it was ever definitely determined to whom the credit really belonged. However, we expected that with that embargo removed a great trade in cattle would spring up with Great Britain. What has been the result? I have here a report, which I secured a day or two ago, from the Bureau of Statistics as to our exports of cattle to the United Kingdom. In that publication the number of cattle exported in 1923 to the United Kingdom is given as 57,672 head. In 1924 the export of cattle amounted to 79,435 head, and in 1925 the total was 110,868. We boasted that year a great deal as to what we had done in the way of securing a market in the United Kingdom for our cattle, In 1926, however, the exports fell off to 79,985 head, and for 1927 they dropped to 8,203 head. There may be a reason for that which I do not understand. Of course there have been strikes in the old country but I do not believe their beef-eating stopped to the extent that it would cause a fall in our cattle importations into Great Britain from 110,868 in 1925 to 8,263 in 1927. I am not finding fault with the government in regard to that although I am calling the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to it. I am suggesting, in connection with this proposal to send ambassadors, representatives, high commissioners and trade agents to foreign countries, that they exert themselves to see that the trade of Canada is not only maintained but increased.

The Address-Mr. MacNutt

Let us look on the other hand at the importations into the United States. These are the exports of cattle to the United States for the same year:

Year ended

December 31 Number

1923 120,947

1924 133,025

1925 149,067

1926 158,295

1927; 283,004

That is in spite of a tariff against Canadian cattle entering the United States.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order.

Topic:   ADDRESS JN REPLY
Permalink

February 7, 1928