the proprietor of one of the leading papers in Montreal-and that is in Canada-had never until a year ago visited the great West. To me that does not seem right. May I say in passing that I believe it to be the duty of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, to became conversant with the requirements of every province in this Dominion, in order that we may legislate intelligently.

The three provinces have, as I have said, a great deal with which to contend-much more than have any of the other provinces of this Dominion. The beautiful province of Nova Scotia, down by the sea, is not entirely dependent upon one thing; it has lumbering and fisheries, and apple-growing. The apples grown there are, in my opinion, the best in the world. And the people of that province have other industries besides. There is certainly a good deal of agriculture. Coming to New Brunswick, you find a similar condition. It has the fisheries; and the lumbering industry is quite extensive though it may not be as great as it formerly was. New Brunswick is a fine province. Quebec is not only a great agricultural country, with a splendid class of farmers, but it has also wonderful industries. I knew very little about Quebec until, through the kindness of one of our most respected members, I had the privilege of visiting some of the industries of that province last year. Any man from the West who has had the opportunity of visiting the great industries of Ontario and Quebec will agree that they are wonderful. They surpass any conception I ever had of them; and if any remarks of mine convey the impression that I am opposed to those industries, then I am not saying what I intend to say. I am in favour of industries. We cannot get along without them. I am not quite so much in favour of industries as the honourable leader of this House (Hon. Sir James Lougheed), if I understood his words. If I asked him what he meant, he would probably answer that he meant what he said. His opinions as to the manufacturing industry in this country were a little too strong to suit my mind.

The great industries of Ontario and Quebec have a foreign market, I admit, but I would ask this House to consider for a few moments what a market of 2,000,000 people may mean to these provinces, whether for agricultural implements, boots or shoes, harness, wagons, buggies, or whatever it may be. I remember on one occasion I visited a carriage factory at Brockville.

Without making myself known, I said to the owner: "I suppose you sell your goods in Ontario." He said: "No. If Ontario were our only market we should have to close up in three weeks." "Where do you sell them?" I asked. He told me a large proportion of his output was sold in what he called the Northwest. The, Northwest is certainly the source of a great revenue to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

In the three prairie provinces our only industries are grain growing and cattle raising, although there is considerable manufacturing in Winnipeg. It has been said that there is no market like the home .narket. The home market means much to the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, but I do not think I am far astray in stating that it is of very little service to the people of the Prairie Provinces. The province of British Columbia has the lumber industry, the fisheries, and minerals. We in the Prairie Provinces have minerals to some extent, I suppose. I am glad that British Columbia possesses those resources, for I really do not know what we should do without them.

To give you an idea of the importance of lumbering to the province of British Columbia, I may say that the total value of the forest production in that province for the year 1919 was no less than $62,000,000, as compared with $54,000,000 in 1918, according to a preliminary survey. Water-borne shipments of lumber show an advance over the preceding year of 17,000,000 feet, while the value of pulp and paper sold increased from $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 last year. We in the West have been hearing a great deal recently about the pulp and paper industry and do not feel well disposed towards it, for our newspapers, even in the great city of Winnipeg, had to suspend operation for a week.

I am glad, I say, that British Columbia has lumber resources. In every one of our numerous towns in the three Prairie Provinces is to be found a lumber yard, and I will venture to say that in not one of them will you fail to find a large quantity ct British Columbia lumber or timber. It is the same with the fish; you cannot go into the smallest butcher shop in any of those provinces without finding fish from British Columbia, so I claim that if today we are a little restless it is because of the way we believe we have been treated, and I mention these facts so that some honourable members of this House who are not familiar with the conditions may know what they are. Even as

hesitation in saying that for forty years we in this country have been living under class legislation. That is not Mr. Crerar's statement, but it is what I believe, and there ought not to be class legislation on either side or the other. It is clear to me that the time has come when there should be in Canada a greater unity for national work. It is high time that the class legislation which the big industries are imposing upon this country should cease, and I can assure you that the three western provinces are going to see, in so far as they can, that it does cease and that they receive fair treatment. On the other hand I believe that they are introducing class legislation and I tell them so. I believe in moderate protection. Some of the profits that have been made are amazing, and in this respect, later, I shall offer a little criticism of Union Government, if I do not forget to do so. As I have said a dozen times, I believe in the importance of manufacturing and other industries, but it does seem to me that there has not been the effort made that ought to have been made to bring the industrial and agricultural classes of the people together. The privileged class which has been developed by the large industries has had its way for so long that it has apparently failed to consider the other side of the question. Therefore it will do no harm to have some farmers in Parliament. In my opinion there will be many from the West. And I am glad of another thing, honourable gentlemen. There is to be in Ontario a combination Farmer and Labour government, and the tendency of the oldtime Liberals and the old-time Conservatives is to give Mr. Drury a chance to show what his government can do. I believe that there is justification for the farmers' movement, particularly in the three Prairie Provinces, and I lay the blame largely upon the big interests, which do not like this agrarian movement. I do not like to use the word, but it seems to me that there has been a good deal of hoggish work going on among the big interests of Canada. For some reason or other-I do not know why our Government does not seem to be able to control to any great extent these big interests, such as exist in the United States.

I read last night the remarkable statement-and I give it for what it is worth, without knowing whether it is true or not -that the five great packing institutions of the United States have been found by the courts to have made in the years 1915 to 1917, inclusive, a profit of $192,000,000, whereas during an equal period prior to

1915 they made $59,000,000. The point I desire to make it that this increase was due mainly to the war.

Our Government has been unable, so far as I can see, to get hold of the men who have been making tremendous profits. It makes no difference who they are. I say

it is the duty of the Government to do what is being done in England, that is, to get after the individuals or firms who have been making excessive profits at home while our soldiers were fighting to defend our lives and property.

Hon. Mr. NICHOLLS: May I interrupt the honourable gentleman? He says he wants to be fair in his statements. He has compared the profits made during a certain period of the war with those of a pre-war period, but he does not tell us the percentage of profit. For instance, the larger amount of profit might be a lower percentage than that of the pre-war perioa, there has been so much larger investment. Not only Great Britain, but every European country that was fighting on the side of the Allies, had to draw nearly all their meat supplies from those packing houses in the United States. It is altogether likely that if the figures were inquired into, there would not be shown a very much larger percentage of profit, although the gross profit has been increased because of the enormous increase in the volume of business. I think it is the percentage of profit, not the gross profit, that should be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: The honourable gentleman is in exactly the same position that I was in. He says that a larger investment has been made. It has not been made. And he has no authority for saying that it is a matter of percentages. I am simply stating the profits made. I say that they increased their profits to such an extent that they had no right to them. That is the sort of thing that has given rise to a good deal of the unrest in the country to-day.

Hon. Mr. GIRROIR: Can the honourable gentleman tell me whether owing to the increased price of wheat, the grain growers of the West have not made very large profits? Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: That may have happened in individual cases,

Hon. Mr. GIRROIR: Why not get after them?

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: If the honourable gentleman had been listening to my remarks he would have heard me say that

if a man has made these tremendous profits he should be taxed whether he was a farmer or not. But I will tell the honourable gentleman that because of things to which I have already referred the farmers, as a class, have not made large sums of money. Because last year we expected to have a splendid crop. The outlook led us to believe that there would be a yield of 35 bushels to the acre. But what was the average in Canada? According to the statistics of the Dominion Government it was ten bushels to the acre. In some placés no doubt the yield was greater; but in many places it was not more than 3 bushels to the acre.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: Ten bushels?

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: Ten bushels, according to the statistics.

Hon. Mr. FOWLER: That was bad farming.

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: It may have been, I am simply giving the facts.

Then there is the labour problem. Because the cities have adopted the eight-hour system, daylight saving, and a few other fads, it is almost impossible for the farmers to get help. The farmer, or his wife, or daughter has to milk the cows. If he does get help, when the afternoon comes along, the hired man, because he knows that men in the cities are working only eight hours a day, wants to stop work, and it is difficult to retain him. I do not know what is going to happen. I believe that the farmers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have a better opportunity of making money than the farmers of the Prairie Provinces.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: That is right.

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: But in spite of their opportunities, no one can deny that the rural population in Ontario is decreasing. Even the small town population is decreasing; the people are going to the large centres. Nothing counts like experience. If the farmers of this country are making the amount of money that some people think they are making, then, why do they leave the farms, even in the province of Ontario, and move into the cities? An Hon. SENATOR: A good many retire.

Hon. Mr. SCHAFFNER: And can you blame them after they have spent forty years on the farm? When a man is sixty years old can you blame him for wanting to retire to the beautiful city of Winnipeg

from which the honourable gentleman comes?

To a certain extent 1 agree with the leader of the House when he says that we require manufacturing; but I say that the manufacturers of this country have not treated the three western provinces fairly. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. If there is a market of 2,000,000 in those provinces, it is worthy of the consideration of the manufacturers. I have said many a time, from my place in the other House, during my political campaigns, and privately, that I was in favour of union. I have stood for the slogan, Get together." It Canada is to become a great country it will be through union and compromise, and I cannot state that too strongly.

In opening I said that I would have the presumption to say a few words about the machinery of the Senate. Last year the honourable gentleman from Sydney (Hon. Mr. McLennan) moved for a committee to consider the machinery of Government. I am glad that the honourable gentleman got his committee, because, if for no other reason, it gave this honourable body something to do. Another Committee of the Senate considered the question of the navigability of the Hudson Bay. The committee secured a great deal of very intering and valuable information, and during the recess I had much pleasure in reading and re-reading the evidence. The chairman of the committee was the honourable member for Sussex (Hon. Mr. Fowler), and although he comes from the East, I must say that his judgment and fairness were all that could be expected, even from a man hailing from the West. I compliment the honourable gentleman upon the way in which the inquiry was conducted. The honourable gentleman from Sydney (Hon Mr. McLennan) talked about the machinery of Government. He might have stopped nearer home, and talked about the machinery of the Senate. He talked about the Cabinet, and the difference in the problems of running a Government and running a private institution. He was well answered by the leader of the Government, and the honourable gentleman from Montreal made a good speech upon the question; but, in my opinion, the honourable gentleman from Antigonish (Hon. Mr. Girroir) did more than any one else to refute the argument advanced by the honourable gentleman from Sydney. They say that he is a poor workman who quarrels with his tools. I do not think that the machinery of Government is too bad if it is properly

managed. The honourable gentleman forgot that it was war time and spoke of the large size of the Cabinet. He talked about a Cabinet of twenty members. What occurred in the Mother of Parliaments in England? In 1915 they had a Cabinet numbering twenty-four members, and in 1917 there numbered nearly ninety. These things are peculiar to war times and will right themselves.

In my opinion, we have had too many commissions at work in this country. Parliament is here to represent the people. In that connection, I am going to say something that perhaps you do not know. The Senate is to-day perhaps not the most popular institution in the country. I believe, however, that it can be made popular, and that it can be made exceedingly useful. When I suggest changes in this body, I am reminded of the men who used to come to the House of Commons to attend their first caucus. They stood up and told us what they were going to do. To hear them, one would have thought that we were fools. After they had been here a while they settled down and found that others had been there before them. I remember one particular case. A man, a big man, came to a caucus and told Mr. Borden, "If you do not do things right, I am going to vote against you." This was in the days of party Government. This gentleman sat two or three seats behind me in the House. Towards the end of the Session I went to him one day and said: "This is a fairly good Government, is it not?" He said, "Why?" I said: "At the first caucus you told us that if things were not done right you were going to vote against us, and on every division you have voted with us." Perhaps I am something like that man. I believe, however, that we adjourn too often and for too long periods. There is one subject at least with which I believe a large committee of the Senate could profitably employ itself for a considerable period of time. I am sure that a committee to consider our natural resources could do good work, work that would be in the best interests of the country. One hardly ever hears a public speech which does not contain some reference to the glorious resources of this country. I believe that if more work were done along the line I have suggested, the Senate would be well on the way to becoming more popular in the country.

I have already said that I was very much pleased with what had been done by the Union Government, and, in spite of the

criticism of the Opposition, I think that they have conducted the affairs of the country very much to the satisfaction of the people. They were unpopular, it s true; why? One reason, I thnk, was Conscrption. The criticism has been made that the Government went to the country in 1917 and told the farmers that their sons would not be conscripted. Perhaps they did. I rather think that promise was made. Even supposing it was, there is just as much reason why a farmer's son should go to the war as anyone else. What was the condition when that promise was made? At that time production was just as important as sending men to the front, perhaps more so; but in April, May and June, 1918, as my honourable friends well know, the situation at the front was exceedingly serious. We were not at all too sure who was going to win the war. We felt very restless and uneasy. Under those circumstances, men became more important than production. As Sir Robert Borden said, "What is the good of production if we lose the fight?" We had to have men. When matters became So serious, notwithstanding the fact that the promise had been made not to conscript farmers' sons, the Government changed their minds or broke their promise, if you will, and in my judgment they were justified in doing

So.

There is one matter in which I think the Government has failed during the last three or four years, namely, in securing money in the form of taxes from the wealthy corporations. I say that they have not sufficiently taxed the big interests and the moneyed men, I care not whether they be farmers or any other class. In this country that work has not been done as well in any sense as in the little colony of New Zealand or in Australia. If it could be successfully done there, I see no reason why it could not be done here, if proper efforts had been made.

A moment ago I spoke of the farmers' platform. They believe in direct taxation, but they do not believe in free trade. Mr. Chipman and his lieutenant told me, "No, we do not believe in free trade." They propose taking the duty off a few articles which they want. That is what I call the height of class legislation. I will just read from their platform:

And whereas the protective tariff has fostered combines, trusts and "gentlemen's agreements" in almost every line of Canadian industrial enterprise, by means of which the people of Canada-both urban and rural- have been shamefully exploited through the elimination of competition, the ruination of many of our