1917-05-23

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Military Hospitals Commission.-Sir Robert Borden.
Copy of correspondence with Sir Thomas Tait respecting his resignation as Chairman of the National Service Board.-Sir Robert Borden.
Copy of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition respecting proposals for the extension of Parliament.-Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has Gedeon Gravel, of the City of Levis, acted as recruiting officer or in any other capacity in the active militia of Canada?
2.	If so, what was his rank, how long did he act in that capacity and how many recruits did he obtain?
3.	Has he claimed any pay for services of a secretary or stenographer?
4.	If so, how much?
5.	What sums have been paid to the said Gedeon Gravel as salary, travelling expenses and other expenses, respectively?
I Mr. Sinclair.!
6.	Has his wife drawn any separation allowance?
7.	If so, how much per month, and during what period?
8.	Has the said Gedeon Gravel gone overseas? If not, why not?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Lieut. G. Gravel acted as regimental recruiting officer while on the strength of the 171st Overseas Battalion, C.E.F.
2.	Lieutenant. This officer was appointed to the 171st Battalion on March 25, 1916, and resigned his appointment on November 22, 1916. No record of recruits obtained as he was regimentally employed.
3.	There is no record that he claimed any
pay for services of a secretary or stenographer.	[DOT]
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	$807.80-including subsistence allowance; travelling expenses $236.85.
6.	Yes.
7.	$30 per month-March to November,
1916.	.
8.	This officer did not proceed overseas. He was struck off the strength of the battalion upon the recommendation of Lt.-Col. Price, officer commanding the 171st Battalion, on account of reduction of establishment when the battalion proceeded overseas.


QUEBEC AND ORIENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. CHARLES MARCIL:: May 11-1. Has the Government received a resolution from the municipal council of the Township of Mann, County of Bonaventure, ebmplaining of an alleged absence of any sort of fence along the right of way of the Quebec and Oriental Railway in that municipality, and that for that reason farmers are precluded from producing as they would like?
2.	If such resolution has been received, has any action been taken by the Government? If so, what action?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NO. 8 CANADIAN HOSPITAL,
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who has been the Senior Medical Officer in charge of No. 8 Canadian Hospital, St. Cloud, Paris, since October last?
2.	Has the unit and equipment of No. 6 Canadian Hospital, Laval Unit, been handed over to the French Government nince October last?
8. If so, when?
4.	If not, were they returned to the C.A.M.C. ?
5.	If so, when?	.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Lt.-Colonel E. A. LeBel, C.A.M.C.
2.	Unit is under the command and administration of British authorities in, France

Equipment remains the property of Canada.
3,	4 and 5. Answered in No. 2.
, DOMINION LANDS OFFICIALS.


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What is the number of the following officials employed in the Edmonton land district north of the Saskatchewan River and west of Range Twenty-three, west of the Fourth Meridian, viz.:	homestead inspectors; timber inspectors ; forest rangers ; fire rangers; and fishery inspectors?
2.	What is the number of the above classes
of officials employed in the Slave Lake, Peace River and Grande Prairie land agencies, respectively?	.
3.	What is the number of the following officials employed in connection with the forest reserves lying west of Range Twenty-three, west of the Fourth Meridian, and north of the Saskatchewan River in the Province of Alberta, viz.: superintendents; timber inspectors; fire rangers'; game guardians; fishery guardians, and other officials receiving pay from the Dominion Government?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Interior-Homestead inspectors, four; only a small portion o-f two of these districts included in the tract described; timber inspectors, three; forest rangers, seven; fire rangers, thirteen.
Naval Service-One inspector of fisheries, whose jurisdiction extends over Northern Alberta. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries for Alberta and Saskatchewan also , has jurisdiction over the sections named.
2.	Interior-High Prairie: Homestead inspectors,	one;	forest	rangers,	one; firerangers, two. Peace River: Homestead inspectors,	one;	forest	rangers,	none; firerangers, five;.	Grande	Prairie:	Homesteadinspectors, one; forest rangers, none; fire Tangere,	seven. One timber	inspector
covers the three agencies mentioned.
Naval Service-Answered by No. I.
3.	Interior-Supervisors, four; timber inspectors, none; forest or fire rangers, eight; game guardians, none; fisheries guardians, none; clerks, three.
Navial Service-None.


BONAVENTURE RECRUITING OFFICER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any persons been employed to do recruiting in the County of Bonaventure, Quebec?
2.	If so, who were they?
3.	What sums have been paid them


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Lieut. A. N. LaBreque.
3.	Pay and allowances of his rank, viz., 8615.


DUTY ON GASOLENE.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What is the total amount of Customs duty collected on gasolene under .725 gravity at 60 per cent temp, imported into Canada during the years 1915-16 and 1916-17?
2.	What is the total amount of Customs duty collected on gasolene over .725 specific gravity imported into Canada during the years 1915-16 and 1916-17?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Free of regular duty. Customs war tax collected was as follows: 1915-16, 8231,093.30; 1916-17, 8249,037.35.
2.	Gasoline over .725 specific gravity is not separately enumerated in the Customs Classification of Imports.


CAPTAIN JOHN ROBINSON.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Has Captain John Robinson of Kamloops been paid any sums in connection with his -work as Recruiting Officer for the 172nd Battalion, C.E.F., by the Government or'any Department of the Government, either as salary or expenses?
2.	If so, how much?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	Is he still employed?
5.	If not, when did his services cease?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I would refer the hon. member to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 14th instant.


J. J. WALSH.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What is the salary paid to J. J. Walsh sub-agent of Dominion Lands at Edson, Alberta?
2.	What were the dates on which his salary cheques were forwarded to said Walsh since January 1, 1916?
kr. ROCHE:
1.	Nil.
2.	Salary, October 4, 1915, to January 31, 1916, forwarded January 25, 1916; salary February, forwarded February 24, 1916; salary March, forwarded March 25, 1916; salary April, forwarded April 27, 1916; salary May, forwarded May 26, 1916; salary June, forwarded June 29, 1916; salary July, forwarded July 25, 1916; salary August, forwarded August 25, 1916; salary September, forwarded September 26, 1916; salary October, forwarded October 25, 1916; salary November 1-10, forwarded November 25, 1916.


HEALS STATION RIFLE RANGE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Before we leave
questions, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to a reply given to a question with reference to a rifle range at Heals Station, British Columbia, asked by the member for Rich-
167*1

mond (Mr. Kyte), and answered on Monday last. The answer given was:	.
Sir Edward Kemp:	It is not clear what
rifle range area is referred to. If the hon. member will more clearly designate the property referred to, the required information will be furnished.
May I ask what more my hon. friend wants in the way of designation? Is there no rifle range at that place?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am advised by the officers of the department that there is no rifle range at that place. They want more definite information as to the place itself.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. BOULAY:: For a copy of the Order in Council, if any, providing that preference in appointments to the Civil Service should be given to returned soldiers.


Mr. KYTE:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, recommendations and other communications relating to the dismissal of Hector Urquhart, as lineman on the Dominion Government telegraph line between Grand River and Enon, Cape Breton County, Nova Scotia, and relating to the appointment of Dan A. McLennan to said position.


Herménégilde Boulay: For a copy of the evidence on the inquiry held by Commissioners Wigle, Barkley and Ostell upon the matter of the insults alleged to have been offered by French Canadians to soldier passing through the Province of Quebec.


CROSSING AT INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	'
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to certain conditions existing along the boundary line between the state of Maine and my constituency. The American immigration agents are closing up international bridges between St. Leonard's and Van Buren and between Claire and Fort Kent. Canadian citizens are not allowed to cross the international bridges, or to come across on ferry boats, the operations of which are suspended at 7.30 p.m. The result is that medical doctors, who are often called upon to deal with urgent cases, are not allowed to cross by bridge or ferry. May I ask the hon. minister if this can be remedied?


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of Interior):: I am not sure that this is not a matter

entirely under the control of the American immigration officers. However, I will read my hon. friend's remarks in Hansard, and, if the matter is one over which the Dominion immigration authorities have jurisdiction, I will make inquiries into it.


Pius Michaud: The minister must
remember that these are international bridges, and that the ferry boats ply between the two countries.


PAY OF MILITARY OFFICERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE:: In my address to the House the other day, I stated that colonels at home were receiving $10 a day, while colonels abroad were receiving $5 or $6. The Minister of Militia made a statement in the House yesterday, in which he gave the figures of the pay of the officers of the expeditionary force. In my address I referred not to officers of the expeditionary force, but to lieutenant-colonels attached to the permanent corps, many of whom are receiving from $3,000 to $4,000 a year, but never intend to go to the war. I think the minister will admit that this is true.
COMPULSORY SERVICE-MINIMUM AGE. *
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. S. FRANCIS GLASS (East Middlesex) :: I wish to direct the attention of the House to a communication which I have just received from the Local Council of Women, of London, Ontario, and which reads:
London, Canada,
May 21st, 1917.
Dear Mr. Glass :-
I have been requested to bring to your notice a lettergram sent to the Premier from the above association, consisting of some fifteen women's organizations pnd membership of about 6,000, which was sent this evening, and to ask you as our member to give the request your kindly assistance and consideration. We do heartily endorse the stand taken in favour of conscription, but deem the age of 18 years too young, in the interests of our boys, both physically and morally unfitted for the hardships-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does tlhe hon. member
purpose asking the Government a question? There is no objection to his laying the ground-work for a question, but otherwise he is not in order.


Samuel Francis Glass: I will follow this up by a
question; I have just about finished. The letter continues:

-and temptations they have to encounter, therefore pray the age will be raised from IS to 20-21 years.
Thanking you in advance for the kind assistance we know you wiil give.
Tours truly,
(Mrs.) E. Tarker, Secretary.
I have a similar communication from the Current Topic Club of London, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if a communication to this effect has been received- by him. We shall know when the Conscription Bill comes down what the intentions of the Government are as to the age limit.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I do not remember having my attention directed to the matter', hut very likely a communication has been received. I may say that it is not the intention to make the age limit as low as 18 years. It will probably be not lower than 20 years.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Questions such as that
asked by the ihon. member for East Middlesex are not of such urgent character as to require their being brought up on the Orders of the Day. I see no reason why such questions should- noit ibe placed ton the Order Paper in the ordinary course.


PROPOSED CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of -the Day.
Mr. NESBITT:: May I ask the Minister
of Justice whether he is going to amend the Criminal Code along the line of about a million petitions that we are all getting? I have no doubt that he himself has received several of them; I get them every day.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I have not received quite a million petitions, but I have received a very large number which deal with a great variety of subjects. Will the hon. member [DOT]mention the subject of the petitions to which he refers?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: With reference to consent by young girls.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question raised by these petitions is at the present moment under consideration, and I am not in a position to give a definite answer to-day, but I hope to be able to do so within a very short period.


EMPLOYMENT OF ENLISTED MEN ON FARMS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia whether or not he proposes to permit any of t'he soldiers at present in training in the camps in Nova Scotia to engage in farm work for the spring season. I have received some requests from the people of my county who are desirous of having their boys home for a couple of weeks and who wish to ascertain if leave will be granted if they make application. Last year permission was given. In Nova Scotia the farm work has hardly 'begun yet, and the desire is expressed that the boys might be given leave to assist in it.


Albert Edward Kemp: This year the conditions in reference to giving leave to members of the Canadian Expeditionary force to engage in farm work are entirely different from those of a year ago. Last year we had a great many soldiers in the country; this year there are not many left, and most of them have been warned to prepare to embark for overseas. We have had a few requests similar to that to which my hon. friend refers, hut owing to existing conditions we have not been able to see our way clear to grant permission. The time when our soldiers are expected to embark for overseas is not very far distant, and there will be very little time for them to go on the farms. In addition, the granting of leave for such work tends to demoralize the force, and also a great deal of difficulty has been experienced because of men contracting contagious diseases, such as mumps, measles, and so on. For all these reasons we have not been able to grant leave to our soldiers, and in that respect we have laid down one rule to apply throughout the Dominion. Many of the troops at Aldershot will be going overseas shortly.



WAYS AND MEANS.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) for the second reading of'the resolutions reported from Committee of Ways and Means.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, before the resolutions are read the second time, in pursuance of notice given some days ago, I desire to -move an amendment, but before doing so, I wish to make a statement of my reasons for moving my amendment. In presuming to discuss the Budget proposals laid before the House by the Minister of Finance, I consider the outstanding fact is that the revenues dur-

heavy to be borne. In looking over the Labour Gazette, published by the Department of Labour, I find estimates of the cost of the weekly food supply for a family of five at different times. The estimate has increased from $6.95 in 1910, to $10.45 in
1917-in round numbers an increase from $7 to $10.50, that is $3.50, or fifty per cent. If there are a million and a half of families in the Dominion of Canada, this increase would mean that besides the $60,000,000 of additional taxation that the Government is levying upon the Dominion of Canada, the people are bearing an additional burden of $275,000,000 in the increased cost of living as compared with 1910.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is that money going
out of the country?


Frank Oliver: No.


John Hampden Burnham: How then can the
people be bearing an additional burden?


Frank Oliver: Because they are, that is
all.


John Hampden Burnham: It is only changed from one shoulder to the other.


Frank Oliver: They have to pay the
money. The people who are getting the money are not complaining, but the people who are paying it, and there are more people paying it than getting it. For instance, the Davies Packing Company have $2,800,000 worth of food products in their storage, and the people who buy it have to pay for it. But the Davies people are not complaining.


John Hampden Burnham: I understood the hon. gentleman to speak of the people as a whole.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of the
people in the large majority. The statement of the Minister of Finance on increased taxation, and the statement of the Department'of Labour on the high cost of living, indicate that the people of Canada are paying approximately $330,000,000 a year more than they were paying in 1910.
I do not consider it remarkable, under these circumstances, that there is not a satisfactory development of the basic industries of the Dominion. I call the attention of the Minister of Finance to these facts with a view to suggesting to him that, instead of heaping up taxation without regard to its incidence, it is certainly for him to study the condition^ and adjust the burden of taxation so that it shall be in accord with the ability of the people to bear it.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, being from Western Canada, the conditions as applied to that

part of the country appeal to me more directly than the conditions in other parts. May I be pardoned if I occupy a few minutes of the time of the House in dealing with the conditions there particularly? Whatever may be said of the great natural resources of Canada, its mines, its timber, its fisheries, or whatever else may be counted, it is admitted now that the great resource of Canada upon which the development and the greatness of Canada as it is to be must necessarily depend, is to be found in the Prairie West. In the thousand miles of fertility lying between the Red River and the Rocky Mountains, and in the development of that fertility and bringing it into a state of productiveness, will Canada find her greatness. So, it is a matter of deep interest to every citizen of Canada, wherever he may live, to know whether development is progressing in that part of the country or not and if it is not, why, and what can or may be done to improve or increase that development. The facts, shortly, are that in the Prairie West, in 1910, according to the Census and Statistics Monthly, there were practically 13,000,000 acres of land under cultivation. Inl911there were 16,500,000 acres of land under cultivation, an increase of 3,500,000 acres as compared with 1910. In the year 1912 there were 18,318,000 acres under cultivation, an increase of 1,750,000 acres over 1911, and in 1913 the area under cultivation was 18,398,000 acres, an increase of less than 100,000 acres over the previous year. In 1916 the area under cultivation was 19,910,000 or an increase of 1,500,000 acres over 1912, a period of four years. We have an increase of
3.500.000	from 1910 to 1911, an increase of
1.750.000	acres from 1911 to 1912, and an increase of 1,500,000 from 1912 to 1916. To use a favourite expression of.the Minister of Finance, the slackened development in the Northwest synchronizes with the application of his financial policy to the affairs of this country. I am bound to conclude that there is a most intimate connection between the two circumstances.
If I may be permitted to deal with a feature of this development that is not directly connected with the tariff but which is, I submit, most intimately connected with the Budget, that is to say with the development and revenues of the country,
I would like to mention this fact. We have heard a great deal about the price of wheat that prevails at the present time and it is largely understood that the farmers of the Prairie West are practically holding up the rest of the Dominion and the British

Empire in the matter of foodstuffs, particularly wheat. The Prairie farmer is supposed to receive $3 a bushel and the price of flour in the Maritime provinces is, I think, $15 a barrel as a result. The suggestion is that the Maritime province man is paying $3 a bushel to the Prairie farmers. As a matter of fact, the wheat crop of last year, except a few million bushels, left the farmers' hands at a maximum price, so I am credibly informed, of about $1.75 per bushel. That w.as the utmost he got and it ran down from that to possibly $1.30 or $1.20 - a good price, a price that was satisfactory to the farmer at the time, and he is certainly not complaining about it. Because of that price he is doing everything he can to extend his farming operations. The price of $3 a bushel for wheat is the price that fixes the cost of a barrel of flour in the Maritime Provinces and the farmers did not get the difference between the $1.75 and the $3. That w,as the result of market manipulation. As a result of market manipulation on the officially estimated amount of 70,000,000 bushels of wheat of last year's crop in dealers' hands, not in farmers' hands, and acquired by the dealers at a maximum of $1.75 a bushel, somebody pays a bonus to somebody of $70,000,000 and over, and the Maritime Province man who has to pay $15 a barrel for his flour is helping to pay that ' $70,000,000.


Mr. THOBURN:: Are the consumers in the Maritime Provinces paying more for a barrel of flour than they are paying for a barrel of flour in any other country in the world?


Frank Oliver: I could not tell my hon. friend anything about that; I can only tell him that the farmer got $1.75 for his wheat, that the man who bought it was selling it at $3 and over, and that it was the selling price of wheat that fixed the price of flour.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House the amount of grain in the hands of farmers on the first of May, when the $3 price obtained?


Frank Oliver: No, I cannot, nor can anybody else.


John Allister Currie: I notice that hon. gentlemen from the We3t are 'always clamouring for cars to move out the grain and claiming that the farmers in the West have not been able to get .their grain out.


Frank Oliver: Nobody can tell how much grain there was in the farmers' hands at that time. There may' have been much or little, but we know what was in the
dealers' hands and we know how much that grain appreciated in value. And we know that that appreciation is what fixes the price of flour, and that the farmer does not get it. If I am within the rules I wish to carry this matter a little further, and perhaps my remarks may be slightly aside from the Budget discussion; but when $70,000,000 are in question and when the people of Canada are paying their share of that $70,000,000, they are entitled in this House of Commons to any information that they can get on the subject., It is an abnormal condition, it is a tremendous addition to the burdens carried by the people of the country, and they are entitled to know something about how it occurs that such burdens aTe being carried. To follow the suggestion of my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), if the farmer got the $3 and the Maritime man paid the price for this flour, the money would be in the country just the same; but when the farmer does not get it and the Maritime man pays the price for the flour, then the farmers, at any rate, are interested in knowing who gets it and how it happens.


John Hampden Burnham: Is it not a fact that
on analysis of the statistics of the United States Congressional Board that was appointed for investigating these very things, also of the Minnesota Board and the New York Board, and of the Fruit Associations of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, ' Florida, California and Oregon, also of the Wheat Boards of Kansas and the Northwest, it has been ascertained that the farmer, allowing for the steadiest possible conduct of the trade in agricultural products, receives only from 57 per cent to 61 per cent of the final price of the grain after it has been manufactured?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I Tegret very much to
have to intervene, but the rule is that the discussion should be relevant to the resolution, especially on the second reading, and I would ask the hon. member to bring his remarks to a close as conveniently as possible.


Frank Oliver: I should think that very
probably my hon. friend is correct. While I made my apology, I would ask your consideration, Mr. Speaker, because in the conclusion of my argument I want to assure you that the point I desire to make has the most direct possible bearing upon the condition of the revenue of this country, pre-

sent and future, .if that would bring one within the rules of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member directs his remarks so as to make them relevant to the question, he is in order.


Frank Oliver: I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that on the conclusion of my . argument it will be found that I am absolutely speaking to the point; though it may seem that in laying the foundation of my remarks I am somewhat aside from the
4 p.m. question. It is obvious that, if the consumers of Canada are paying an abnormal price for the first necessity of life, and the producers of that necessity of life in Canada are not receiving that price, an undue advantage is taken of the consumer on the one hand and of the producer on the other, and that the burden militates against the ability of both producer and consumer to carry on the ordinary affairs of life. The question of grain prices in western Canada depends largely upon transportation' and manipulation, and when the exigencies of transportation can be turned to account by those whose business is manipulation, as they are systematically turned to account, then all the people of this country, both producers and consumers, suffer, and the well-being and the welfare of the country, and the revenues of the country, suffer correspondingly. Last fall, in the province of Alberta, served by three competing railroad lines, there was a grain embargo for a considerable period on all these lines, the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern. Those who are familiar with the conditions will know'that when a railroad is unable or unwilling to transport the farmers' grain to the market, the result is a depreciation in the price of his grain. That must be obvious. And I am saying here in my place in Parliament and on my responsibility as a member, that in the earlier part of the last market season, 1916, those three railroad companies refused to haul grain from points in Northern Alberta. I am not saying anything about the rest of the country, I am speaking of what I know.	And because they refused to haul that grain, the price of grain to the farmer was seriously depreciated. From time to time during the market season the newspapers have , noted that one railroad company or the other, and frequently the three, had placed an embargo upon the transportation of grain to Fort William or to Minneapolis.
[Mr. Oliver.7	v
They were willing to take the grain of Alberta to the storage elevators in Calgary or Moosejaw or Saskatoon, but they had placed an embargo upon the transportation of grain to Fort William or Minneapolis.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Railways, and the Government of this country to the fact that, so far as I know, last season was the first season in the Dominion of Canada, or in the British Empire, when railways simply set the common carriers law of Britain at defiance, to the detriment of the farmers of the West in the price that they received for their produce. In the season of 1915 there was a very large production, and it was not possible for the railroad companies to carry that grain forward as it would be desired. They therefore placed embargoes, so-called, upon the carriage of grain. But these embargoes were of necessity. The embargo, of last year, on the other hand, was not an embargo of necessity; it was an embargo of defiance of the rights of the people of Canada, a defiance with the authorization, I believe the active authorization, and knowledge of this Government. By no other means could it have been. effected, We	have in
Canada three transcontinental railroads- -that is, if the Government has not already tom up the rails of one or two of them. The Transcontinenal Railway was built for the sole purpose of providing an all-year-round market for the grain of the western farmer by giving him an all-rail haul to an open ocean port all the year round. The grain there, would not be held back in interior elevators under the control of professional manipulators, thus depressing the price to the farmer and making possible an increase of the price to the consumer. The interior storage elevators at Moosejaw, Calgary and Saskatoon were used last winter for the express and sole purpose of enabling the manipulation of grain prices.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Were held by whom? Who were the manipulators? I do not follow my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: Those who manipulated
the grain prices were able tp hold quantities of grain in the interior elevators, thus keeping down the price to the farmer, while holding the grain against the eastern buyer.
I repeat that that was the only purpose that these elevators were used for last winter. There was no shortage of railing stock for the carrying forward of that grain as it should have been carried forward. No condition warranted the refusal of the railroad

companies to carry the farmer's grain to any point that he wanted it carried to. It is the first time in Canada's history that a railroad company has dared to take that position. Certainly no railroad company ever dared to do it under the administration of the preceding Government.


William Thomas White: Did the Railway Commission not order the railways to take the action which they did take? I do not follow my hon. friend's argument.


Frank Oliver: The Railway Commission must have consented to it.


William Thomas White: Does my hon.
friend seriously suggest that the members of the Railway Commission were engaged in a conspiracy with the grain manipulators to prevent the farmers from sending their grain forward to the markets of the world?


Frank Oliver: I am not making accusation against anybody; I am making a statement of facts. The Railway Commission, the Government and the railway companies can divide the responsibility among them, as suits themselves.


John Allister Currie: Was it not better for the
farmer not to be allowed to sell his grain last fall at SI.75? Was it not better that he should have to hold it until this spring, when he is getting S3 for it?


Frank Oliver: Surely.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What about the consumer?


Frank Oliver: Of course the farmers would have won if they had been able to keep that 70,000,000 bushels. But they were able to keep only a trifling portion of it; the
70.000.	000 bushels were taken out of their hands by the manipulators.


John Allister Currie: How could they take it
out of the farmers' hands? They had no power.


Frank Oliver: Because this good Gov>-
ernment built convenient storage elevators in which they could hold the grain at their convenience. It was said that this grain was not carried to Fort William because there was no storage capacity at that place. The returns of the Department of Trade and Commerce, however, show that the number of bushels of grain in storage at Fort William in October was 9,000,000; in November, 14,000,000; in December, 12,000,000; in January, 21,000,000, and in March,
23.000.	000, whereas the capacity of the elevators is 41,000,000 bushels.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the bulk of the storage at Fort William is owned and held by the Grain Growers' Grain Company? Why did they not give accommodation to the farmers? Why did they not ask the farmers to bring the grain there for storage?


Frank Oliver: I know nothing about the Grain Growers' Grain Company; I do not know why they did not do as my hon. friend suggests. I am telling the House what happened to the farmer, and how it happened.


John Allister Currie: Why did the Grain
Growers' Company not help them out?


Frank Oliver: The farmers of the West expect the Government to exercise in their behalf the authority which they possess. I am drawing the attention of the Government to these facts, and the Government, I am sorry to say, does not seem to be very sympathetic or receptive.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Are not the farmers of the West entitled to store their grain in these interior elevators?


Frank Oliver: They are, if they want to.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would that not be exactly the same thing as storing it in Port Arthur? I do not see any difference. They did not have to sell.


Frank Oliver: If 1 want to ship my grain to Fort William I have a right to ship it there. When the railway company says to me: we have put an embargo on the shipment of grain Ito Fort William; we will take your grain to Saskatoon, but not to Fort William-I say that that is trespassing upon my rights. Further, that trespass is committed in somebody else's interest; it would be nonsense to argue anything else.
I have been referring to the enormous burden laid upon the people by reason of the appreciation of $70,000,000 in the price of grain. This increase was made possible because of the holding back of the grain. There was no reason why the grain should not have gone forward, because ample facilities existed for that purpose. This country has put hundreds of millions of dollars into the construction of railroads for the purpose of facilitating the transportation of grain. One of these railroads has for years been under the absolute and direct control of the Government. Held back, (therefore, in the interior elevators or at Fort William, this grain was made the subject of manipulation against the interests of the farmers-and somebody gets $70,000,000 to which he is

not entitled. Certainly tlie farmer dees not get it. If the crop of Ithe prairie West were carried forward from day to day to the Atlantic seaboard, as it can and should he carried forward, such stupendous manipulation of prices as took place last year and as has taken place in other years would not be possible? All that the farmer has asked is that he get the Liverpool price. Under present conditions the man in Liverpool ought to get his wheat at the price at which the Canadian farmer sells it, plus carrying costs and charges. When we permit a condition under which $70,000,000 is taken from the consumers, whether in Canada or in England, we are certainly not properly appreciating our responsibilities. The railroads have been built for the purpose of carrying the grain, but we refuse to use them for thai purpose. When such abuses as this occur it is desirable that the country should know who is responsible.
If we find a lack of development, or a failure to develop, we must put the responsibility where it belongs; we must let it be known that it is because the money that was paid for that wheat did not go to the producers of the wheat to enable them to expand production, to increase development, and to increase the ordinary and regular revenues of this country, so that instead of having stagnation we would, to that extent, have development amongst our own peoples, or our Allies and friends in England would get their grain at a lower price.
The question of railway transportation is of enormous importance; it is as important as the tariff question; but the tariff question is the one that is most intimately associated with the resolutions before the House, and I desire to move an amendment to those resolutions having relation to tariff matters, believing that the time has come when it must be apparent to every man, no matter on what side of the House he sits, or what particular faith he professes, that we are in this country pursuing a fiscal policy that is absolutely to the detriment of the country, and that is liable to lead to the financial ruin of the country when the present abnormal conditions give place to those of ordinary life. We shall find ourselves then with the tax-paying power that we had before the war of $120,000,000 to meet interest charges on a total debt of $1,000,000,000. That is an impossible situation, and there must be some other recourse; we must devise some other means of increasing our development in order that we may increase our revenue, and we are not

increasing our development under the fiscal policy that the Minister of Finance has imposed upon this country in the past five years. I believe we cannot expect to increase our development under that policy and the time has come to change that policy, to give our policy another direction that will lighten the burden of taxation upon our people and that will increase our opportunities for the development of the country, as the only means whereby we shall ever be able to carry the enormous burdens that are being laid upon us.
I will say just another word in regard to this matter. Having in view the enormous obligations that we must necessarily take upon ourselves in connection with the war, I must point out that the Government have not taken cognizance as they should of that fact in cutting down the ordinary expenses of the country. What is the answer when the Government is criticised for expenditure? Why, they say: We are spending only a little more or a little less than we did last year; we are spending only a little more than v;e did a few years ago. When this country is going behind at the rate of half a billion dollars per year for war purposes, is it a time to make comparison with what we did in time of peace? Is it not a time to enter upon a policy of economy in regard to ordinary expenditures such as was never thought of in time of peace? This Government do not seem to know that a war is on or that war conditions have to be met. So long as they can borrow money, they are satisfied to spend in any way that is convenient to them. The expenditure of Canada was about $120,000,000 in 1911, when there was no war, and when the country was enjoying a very high measure of prosperity. In this past year we have spent, if I understood the minister correctly, in the neighbourhood of $150,000,000 on current and capital expenditure exclusive of pensions, interest on war debt, and war expenditures, that is, we have spent nearly $30,000,000 more on ordinary accounts than we spent in the year 1911. When we spend more in a year when we are facing a war debt of over $1,000,000,000 than we spent in a year when we were enjoying the highest prosperity and when a war was absolutely unthought of, I submit that under those circumstances the Government are chargeable with absolute neglect of duty and lack of recognition of the terrible circumstances in which the country finds itself. While I urge upon them a policy of economy in the matter of ex-

penditure, I desire to place before the House certain suggestions in regard to a change of tariff policy that, may and I hope, will meet the support of our friends on the other side. I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Carvell:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
"In ;he opinion of this House it would be in the rublic interest if the Customs Tariff Act wen- so amended as to provide:
1.	That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
2.	That farm implements and *machinery'! farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of, any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British Preference be increased
to fifty per cent of the general tariff."	'
In regard to the different items of this amendment, may I speak in regard to item No. 1? I am speaking for myself as a representative from the West, and in regard to item No. 1, the position that I would desire to see the House take is this: In the Prairie West we are producing the great basic food products of the world. We are producers of that product for export, as well as for home consumption. In eastern Canada there is no great production of wheat, but it is in eastern Canada where the bulk of our population is situated, where there is the greatest amount of industrial employment, and where the cost of food, and particularly of flour, the basic article of food, is the most important matter in the economy of the worker's family. Those who think with me are prepared to see that basic product admitted into Canada free of duty without regard to the action of any other country; that is to say, in order that our fellow citizens in eastern Canada may have bread as cheap as we can give it to them, we are willing to produce the wheat irrespective of the duties imposed against it by any other country.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman think that the free importation of wheat would greatly lower the price of western wheat?


Frank Oliver: I dio not know whether it would or not; I am not arguing that. I am merely stating the position we take.


REVISED
John Allister Currie: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman proposes to put coal on the free list too. It takes coal to make bread as well as flour.


Frank Oliver: It takes salt and water
and elbow grease, and a lot of other things top. One thing at a time. My hon. friend and I are moving this particular item of the resolution on the principle that as this is our basic product, as it is the basic necessity of our fellow-citizens in eastern Canada. We desire to show good faith in our demands for a lower tariff by asking that this article be placed absolutely on the free list without regard to the duties levied upon it by any other country. Having taken that position, we then ask our friends of eastern Canada to consider this; that in producing wheat in competition with the whole world, which is our position, we must use machinery in very large degree, that without machinery we could not produce the wheat in quantity or at a price, that our wheat fields are situated in .the heart of the continent, that our haul to the sea-board is longer than that of any other export wheat producing area in. the world, that we have that handicap to overcome. We must have machinery in order to produce in quantity, because unless we produce in quantity we cannot produce at a competing price. So we ask our friend in the east to go so far with us as to give us these articles of basic necessity in the production of wheat free of duty, and as cheaply as they can give them to us.


William Thomas White: Why did my hon. friend not place these articles on the free list when he was a member of the late Government?


Frank Oliver: I really fail to see what
that has to do with the case.


William Thomas White: I am merely asking a question. If my hon. friend does not choose to answer, all Tight.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to say that I cannot answer it. I do not think it has anything whatever to do with the case. I may point out this, however: When the late Government was in office the production of the Prairie West was increasing at the rate of from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 acres per year. Conditions were to that extent apparently satisfactory. To-day, under present conditions, production is not increasing, and I think it will appeal even to my hon. friend that under those circumstances, what might not have been necessary six


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
years ago blight be very necessary to-day, as it certainly is.
Item No. 3 reads:
That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, he admitted into Canada free of duty when coming- from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such-country free of duty.
That is a simple statement of trade for trade. We believe that the principle is sound when applied to the basic necessities of life. We believe that both east and west in Canada stand to benefit by that -proposal, and that no part of Canada stands to lose.
Ws ask that substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada excepting luxuries. We are asking the minister to reverse his policy. His policy has been to pile taxes upon taxes, to put tariff increase upon tariff increases, <tto hamper tra^te and increase the burdens jof the people. We have shown him that under his policy there has not been that development of our basic industry which the country needs and we ask him to change his policy, not because this is our policy, but because it is in the interests of Canada that there shall be a change in policy.
Finally we ask that the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff. It may 'be suggested that the British preference is a jug-handled arrangement-* that we give, but we get nothing. I maintain that we do get, and we get for everything we give. I read just to-day that a careful calculation of the effect of the British preference upon our imports shows that it has lightened the burden of taxation upon the Canadian people by over $5,000,000 in 1910, by over $8,000,000 in 1913, and I think by nearly $8,000,000 in 1914. I submit that any feature of our tariff that lightens the burdens on our people to-that extent is an advantage to us. The British preference is not something that we are only giving; it is something that we are taking for ourselves, and I maintain that an increase of that preference to 50 per cent would be a still further benefit to ourselves. And if it should be a benefit in anj degree to the people or the industries of the "United Kingdom, are we here to object to that? When we get our share of the benefit, surely we are willing that they should have theirs.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have considered the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). May's Parliamentary Practice, 12th edition, p. 495, says:
An amendment to the question that a resolution (from the Committee of Ways and Means) he now read a second time, must be relevant to a matter contained in the resolutions that await a second reading.
The subject matter of the resolution is the imposition of taxation upon profits, and the resolution has to do with that subject only. The amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) has to do with the general question of the tariff. It is, in my judgment, not relevant to the resolution and therefore not in order, and I so rule.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that my amendment is not in order?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have ruled that it is not in order.


Frank Oliver: May such an amendment be moved at any stage of the proceedings?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will, I think, be other opportunity.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I have not occupied the time of the House in this debate up to the present time, but I wish to go on record in favour of the ideas advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), not because they are ideas that are favoured very strongly in western Canada so much as because I believe they are of national advantage. We must remember that we are here representing all parts of Canada. I do not want any legislation to be passed in this Parliament that would be of injury to Canada as a whole. At the same time, I want to see the part of the country from which I come given proper attention by this Parliament, and legislation adopted that will be helpful in the development of that section of the Dominion, and advantageous, at the same time, to Canada as a whole. I think I can advance some reasons why the tariff should be reduced, and certain articles placed upon the free list, because-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to be obliged to interrupt the hon. member. If I properly apprehend his remarks, he purposes addressing himself to the subject matter of the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). That amendment I have ruled out of order, and consequently the remarks of the hon. member would not be in order.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I will try and meet your wishes as best I can, Sir. The taxation

proposed by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech follows lines with which I do not agree. In my opinion we should reach everybody in this country with forms of taxation properly adapted to that end; .at the same time, I believe, that we should relieve the great body of the people from taxation as much as possible. In the West, from which I come, there is a continued demand for relief from some of the burdens of taxation that now exist, and that demand is inspired by a desire to improve the conditions of the farmer of the West and of the western people as a whole. We want to increase production in that country. We want immigration into western Canada to be increased; we want contentment to exist among the farmers of the western prairies. And we believe that the best way to increase immigration, to develop our resources, and to bring about contentment is to relieve the farmers from some of the burdens of taxation that now exist and to adopt other means of raising our revenue. Efforts have been made by the Government to increase production. You cannot increase production by taxing the implements of the farmer. Let me quote an instance from the city of Lethbridge. During the present year about 200 tractors were purchased by farmers in that district, usually through agents in Lethbridge. These machines are to be used for the purpose of increasing production at the call of this Government. In their efforts to increase production the farmers had to pay $60,000 in duties on these two hundred tractors. I say that is unfair to the farmers of western Canada. I have a letter here from a farmer in my own constituency. I do not say I am in favour of all the arguments advanced, but the letter will give some idea of the obstacles the farmer in the West has to face and of the ways in which, according to Ithe opinions of those farmers, there obstacles should be dealt with:-
If the Government is going to set the price of wheat, let them take off the duty on farm machinery and regulate the price of farm labour. Labour is $70 per month and hoard, where we formerly paid $35 for the same thing, and nobody knows what it will be by the day at harvest. Engines are so high we cannot afford to have them. I have a case of ourselves. We want to get an Aultman-Taylor 18-36 engine. It costs in the States $2,400; in Canada, $3,600. Is that right? They claim the duty and freight make up the $1,200 difference. Now, if the Government are going to tell us at what price we shall sell our wheat, let them take off the duty on all our engines and implements and regulate the price of farm labour.
The farmers are paying these exorbitant taxes on productive implements, and at
107 i
the same time they are urged to be loyal and to increase production. I think it is generally the opinion of the people of western Canada, and I know it is the opinion of the organized farmers there, that our system o| taxation should be changed so that we should raise most of our revenue by other methods. They are in favour of an income tax, they are in favour of a land tax and so am I.
I am in favour of an income tax because I believe that is the fairest method of raising the revenue. Under the present system very many men escape taxation who should not be permitted to do so. During the war we are endeavouring to raise money by compelling corporations to pay higher taxation, but we are not getting at people we should get at and those are the wealthy individuals of this country. It has been my experience during patriotic fund campaigns in the southern part of Alberta to find some of the greatest shirkers with regard to patriotic giving to be men of the very greatest wealth. These men are not only shirking patriotic giving but they are not contributing the amount of taxation that they should. The only way they can be reached is by a form of income taxation. In the city of Calgary it was almost impossible to reach one of the wealthiest property owners for the first two years of the patriotic fund campaign or to get a cent from him for any patriotic purpose. That man was not being reached by the taxation of this Government as he should have been reached.
I am in agreement also with the agitation in favour of a land tax. We want the lands that are to-day undeveloped in western Canada developed and we1 can only have them developed by making the speculators who own them release them at a fair price and not hold them for a large advance. We can force them to release that land by imposing a tax on all undeveloped land.
We, from the West, come before this House frequently and advocate certain changes in the form of taxation. As a western representative I want to say that I do not want any taxation to be adopted by this country which is unfair to any other part of the country. In the minds of eastern men, on account of their association day in and day out with the industrial life of the East, there is the idea that the East would suffer if in any way industries were affected by a different form of taxation, or if there were greater freedom of trade, or a reduction in the tariff. But, they should get in touch with the conditions as they
.1683

exist in the West. Many members of this House, members of the Government I know, have visited western Canada in Tecent years but most of their visits have been to the large and populous centres of the West. How many of them have gone out and visited the farmers in their prairie homes? How many of them have come into actual touch with the conditions that the farmers have to face in western Canada? I am afraid that not one member of the Government knows the things that the farmers have to face. If the members of this House got into touch with the conditions that the farmers have to face there they would be more liberal in their views towards the claims that the western farmers are presenting here, through their press and through their organized bodies and more sympathetic with them.
We must adopt some policy that will relieve the burden of taxation upon the farmer especially where the farmer is taxed so heavily on his productive implements. We must do these things to increase production, to add to our immigration and to bring about contentment amongst the people of the West. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure, that the cheaper the articles of production are, and the cheaper the cost of living may be, the stronger is the appeal to people to come and settle in this country or any other country for that matter. We want to have conditions that will appeal to people to come from other lands and settle in western Canada and help to develop our as yet undeveloped resources. That is one reason, and a very strong reason, for the views which we have been presenting in this House from session to session. I find the sentiment growing in the east in favour of a change in the present method of taxation. I find a newspaper of the standing of the Financial Post calling attention to the fact that there is a great sentiment in favour of the lowering of the tariff and the raising of revenue by other means. I will read just a paragraph from a recent issue of that paper dealing with the Budget recently brought down by the Minister of Finance. The Financial Post says:
On the other hand, the decision in favour of free wheat is an admission of the growing strength of the low tariff element, and that element must be recognized to a greater extent in the future than in the past. ,
That is not frtom the Grain Growers Guide, that is not from a western publication, but it is from a strong financial journal in eastern Canada which supports pro-

tection through and through. It says that the sentiment in favour of a low tariff is growing, it gives as an evidence of the strength of that sentiment the action of the Government in putting into effect free wheat and it says that the Government must pay attention to this particular agitation. Then it goes on to say
This brings the country face to face with direct taxation as a practical solution of raising the heavy revenue which will be required in the future during the period of liquidation of the war debt. This would seem to suggest income tax. Sir Thomas White avoids it, but there is reason to believe that he-or his successor-will in the future employ it.
We must pay attention to the opinion which exists, and which is increasing not only in the Bast but in the West, that we will have to raise revenue by different means from those which we have employed in the past when this war is over. We will have great obligations to meet and we will have to meet .them, but we cannot meet them :by increasing the tariff because if we do we will have an absolutely prohibitive tariff. If we increase the tariff we will discourage production and immigration and Canada will foe in a worse position in the future than it has been in the past. So, we must resort to other means. The present system of taxation as proposed by the Minister of Finance has its good points and it has its bad points, but it will only last for the period of the war. As I understand the position of the Minister of Finance, it is that he objects to bringing into effect an income tax because it will be difficult and costly to operate, but I am of the opinion that if he is in his position as Minister of Finance when the war is over he will have to adopt an income tax and he will have to adopt the principle of direct taxation. That will be necessary and we might as well face the fact at the present time. Let us abandon the policy of increasing the tariff because it is unfair. It is favouritism for the few, and it is a burden for the many. Let us adopt a tax that will compel the people of this country of moderate and large means to contribute their share to the cost of maintaining the Government of the country. It is my view and I believe it will foe the view of this Parliament in a very short time, that we must come to direct taxation in order to meet our obligations. Those of us who have had experience of larger markets in western Canada know that they have been to our advantage. One thing I would like to see provided for by the Fin-

ance Minister is greater accessibility to the markets lying alongside of us. The Government has gone as far as to provide an entry for free wheat into that country, but we want that enlarged because we have found that when we have had an opportunity to enter that market in other cases it has been to the advantage of the western farmers.
It is not my intention to say more on this subject than to emphasize my belief as a western member that the changes in our method of taxation which I have suggested would not be injurious to any other part ,of the country. I want at all times to take that stand; I want to be a member of this House always standing for national.unity. And remember this, that we in the West have been criticised in times past-it even has been insinuated that our people were disloyal, that they were advocating things not in the interest of Canada or in the interests of unity or of our attachment to the Empire. But no part of this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific has done its duty as have the western provinces since the war commenced. Those who have gone to the front were the very men who were called disloyal in times past because they favoured some methods of taxation that were not considered to the advantage of interests throughout the length and breadth of this country. I say that, knowing what I say. There have been men who have come to this country from other lands, who have left Alberta and gone to the front, men who it was said owed allegiance to other lands rather than to 'Canada; but some of these men left Alberta with every one of the contingents, and some of them have given their lives for the Empire. They are true Canadians. There is just as strong a patriotic spirit in western Canada as in any other part. We have proved it during this war, and we will continue to prove it until the war is finished. I ask this House, I ask the men who represent constituencies east of the Great Lakes, to try and become acquainted with those conditions they will become more liberal in their views toward the demands of the people of western Canada. It is .only by a policy of give and take in this Parliament and this country that we can expect unity to exist between East and West. It is only by a policy of give and take that this can be attained, and I am prepared to favour a policy of that kind in order to have unity, and at the same time to relieve what I believe to be some of the [DOT]burdens of the people of the West.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution Tead the second time.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White that the House go into Committee of Supply:
Frank Oliver: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move formally the resolution placed in your hands.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Oliver moves in amendment:-
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
In the opinion of this House, it would be in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide:
1.	That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
3.	That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
4.	That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
5.	That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff.


William Thomas White: Do I understand that my hon. friend does not intend to speak on this amendment?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Thomas White: In order to meet the wishes oi the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I thought it advisable that the remarks which I purposed making upon the second reading of the resolution should be made upon this amendment, which he now moves on going into Supply. My hon. friend, in the course of his remarks this afternoon, traversed a very wide field indeed. In many ways it was one of the most amazing speeches I have ever heard in this House. There is one thing for which I am really obliged to him, and 5 p.m. that is that he did not accuse the Government in general, and myself in particular, of having been the cause of this war. He certainly attributed to us most of the consequences that have flowed from the war, so far as Canada is concerned. My hon. friend, in the course of 'his remarks, dealt with the situation

existing in the West, and, as I understood him, he seriously suggested that the Board of Railway Commissioners, presided over by Sir Henry Drayton, was in conspiracy with wheat manipulators in Canada, or in Canada and the United States. I think that was the most amazing statement I ever heard in this House. My 'hon. friend did not make it in express terms, hut undoubtedly that was the inference to be deduced from his remarks. I need not say that it is nolt my intention to answer any such argument on the part of my hon. friend from Edmonton; it requires no answer. Knowing the character of the Chairman of the Railway Commission of Canada, who was called upon last winter to meet the most trying conditions of traffic that have ever affected the Dominion, owing to the war and to the movement of munitions and supplies in Eastern Canada, the members of this House will not for one moment credit the statement of the member for Edmonton that the Board of Railway Commissioners were actuated by any other considerations than those of the public interest and the public welfare.
There is another matter to which both my hon. friend from Edmonton and the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) have referred on more than one occasion. My hon. friend from Edmonton referred this afternoon to the fact that we have taken up rails on the Grand Trunk Pacific or National Transcontinental railway, that this Government has torn up the rails of these railways and has had the temerity to send them to France. Well, that is true. But why have we taken such action? We have taken it at the express request of the Imperial Government, who need those rails in order to carry on their operations at the front. I have never been more surprised with regard to any statement made in this House in the course of my experience within its walls, than to hear the leader of the Opposition and the member for Edmonton, by implication, blame this Government for tearing up 100, or 200, or 300 miles of rails on the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern railway to send them forward at the request of the Imperial Government in order that they may be laid behind the lines to bring up munitions needed at the front. I am amazed that any responsible member of this House should blame the Government in any way for the action taken at the express request of the Imperial Government.


Frank Oliver: The minister says "taken at the express request of the Imperial Government." Did the Imperial Government ask this Government to tear up the rails of the Transcontinental railway?


William Thomas White: The Imperial
Government requested this Government to furnish 300 miles of rails.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Without the
slightest hesitation we said: We will find the rails.


Frank Oliver: Sure.


William Thomas White: How did we proceed to find them? We asked the Chairman of the Railway Commission to determine which rails should be taken up.


Mr. GERMAN:: Is it not a fact that at least 200 miles of rails of the Hudson Bay railway at Port Nelson are not in use, and will not be in use for some considerable time?


William Thomas White: I am not sure as to that, but I imagine there would be great difficulty in getting these rails down, because the Hudson Bay railway is not completed.


William Pugsley: You could get them down by water.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows the difficulties of navigation. The fact remains that responsible members of the opposition, including the right hon. leader of the opposition, criticised the Government for taking action asked for by the Imperial Government on account of high imperial necessities.


Frank Oliver: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


William Thomas White: How did the Government proceed? When the request came for rails, the Government did not hesitate for a moment. So far as I am concerned, I would take up half the rails of Canada if they were required at the front. We asked the Chairman of the Railway Commission, a judicial body commanding the implicit confidence of this House and of the Canadian people, to determine from what sections of Canadian railway lines the rails required could be taken. We have acted on their advice, and the rails have gone forward. These rails may be of sufficient importance to determine the issue of

battles, or even the destiny of the Empire. I am not in the slightest degree overemphasizing the importance of steel rails at the front; I defy any man to deny their importance. One thing that has been brought to the attention of this Government and of individual members of the Government who have been at the front is the supreme necessity for steel rails behind the lines, in order to send forward the munitions necessary to win battles under conditions of modem warfare and ultimately to end this war. I hope that we shall hear fewer complaints against the Government for taking the action that we took.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did you not take rails from the Quebec and Saguenay railway? '


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. I say, then, that we took this action at the request of the Imperial Government with a view to furnishing means of communication behind the lines. What other position could Ithe Government have taken? Whom should we have asked to advise us as to the railway lines'which could best spare rails?


Frank Oliver: The Canadian Pacific Railway have a double track along the north shore of Lake Superior which is not in use.


William Thomas White: I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Railway -Commission is just .as well aware of the lines along the north shore of Lake Superior as is my hon. friend. I have no doubt that the Commission took the whole position into consideration and that the conclusion they reached was actuated by only one motive, that of taking action with due regard to transportation conditions in Canada and to the high Imperial necessities to which I have referred.
My hon. friend seriously suggested this afternoon that the Government of Canada, or the Board of Railway Commissioners, were engaged in a conspiracy with manipulators in Winnipeg or Chicago for the purpose of preventing the farmers of the West from getting out their grain. Did -any hon. gentleman in this House ever hear such a suggestion as that? He says that the farmers of the West got only $1.75 a bushel for their grain and that somebody got $70,000,000. What impression will the public obtain from that argument of my hon. friend? The impression will be created that the farmer had been paid only $1.75 a bushel for his grain; that somebody had bought that grain at $1.75, held it until the price reached $3 a bushel, and then sold
it all ait a profit of $70,000,000. But my hon. friend overlooks the infinite number of transactions that take place on exchanges, ait Winnipeg, Minneapolis, Chicago. He suggests that by connivance on the part of the Government some individuals have stepped in and taken the difference between $1.75 and $3 a bushel for the grain. I appeal to the common sense of members of the House as to whether my hon. friend had the slightest vestige of reason or logical argument to support the contention which he put forward. The argument has only to be stated to be refuted.
My hon. friend this afternoon made the Government responsible for all the consequences of war. I opened my re-marks by congratulating ourselves that the hon. gentleman had not so far-although I do not know what he will do to-morrow or next week-charged the Government with responsibility for the war itself. He may endeavour to transfer the blame from the Kaiser to this Government or to the Minister of Finance, who is humbly endeavouring to do his duty in this great crisis. My hon. friend referred to the fact that we had a revenue this year of $100,000,000 more than we had in 1915, and he said that was no subject of congratulation. Well, I think that it is a real subject of congratulation; it means that the credit of Canada has been maintained. My hon. friend overlooks the fact that of all the belligerent countries at war, with the -single exception of the United States, the credit of Canada stands the highest. Would our credit stand as high as it does if our revenues were the same as they were in 1915? We have taken such measures since -the war broke out as have increased our revenues to $232,000,000. We have paid all current expenditure, all capital expenditure, all increased interest charges, and all pension chargee, and in addition have paid $60,000,000 on account of the principal of our war expenditures. My hon. friend says: You deserve no credit for that; there is no cause for congratulation in that fact. What, then, would call for congratulation? Upon what set of facts or conditions could congratulation be offered? I venture to say that any country of the world in which this financial statement was presented would s-ay that Canada had done well. And they are saying in New York and in London that Canada has don-e well. The highest tribute has been paid to the financial methods employed by this country since the war broke out, which are recognized as being of a most scientific character. They are saying this in Canadian

financial circles and among the public generally; the only place where it is not toeing said is among hon. gentlemen opposite. I am content to take the judgment of London, of New York and of the financial and business community and the general public of Canada, even as against the criticism of the hon. member for Edmonton.
My hon. friend says that there are no evidences of development in cities, and he suggests that the Government does not realize that we are at war. What does my hon. friend expect of a country at war? Does he expect to see buildings going up, when the price of material is 50 or 60 per cent higher than it was in times of peace and wihen the prices paid for labour are as high as they are at present? Take the city of Toronto as an example: every house, so far as I know, is rented at a good rental. Not much building is going on, because the energies of the country are directed to the prosecution of the war-and this is true not only of Canada, but of the other allied nations as well. Is this Government to be held responsible because real estate booms are lacking in the cities of Toronto and Montreal-engaged, as we are now, in the greatest war in history? Is that a fair argument, I ask my hon, friend? He says that agriculture is not developing. He says: you had a certain acreage under cultivation in 1911, an increased acreage in 1912, a diminished increase in the acreage of 1913, and, at present, a diminished increase in the acreage under cultivation in the West.
What would you expect with a war on calling for the man power of the country, with 400,000 men in this country called to the colours? I want to say to the hon. member for Edmonton and to every other hon. member and to every man in the country that, notwithstanding everything that can be said, this Government and, in particular, the people of this country deserve the greatest possible credit for the mighty effort which they have put forth in this war. In Canada, over 400,000 men have enlisted. What would be the corresponding effort in the United States which has thirteen times onr population? The corresponding effort on their part would be the enlistment of 5,000,000 men. We have raised those 400,000 men in a country geographically as large as Europe and with a population of 8,000,000 people of diverse nationalities. That has been the effort of the people of this country under the administration of this Government, and there is absolutely no room for national self-depreciation. I say that

to all times it will be a matter of pride on the part of the people of this country that Canada, in the three years of this war, has put forth the mighty effort in men that she has put forth.


William Pugsley: Why then, do gentlemen on the other side encourage people to say that Canada is in default?


William Thomas White: 
William Pugsley: Then it must be so.


William Thomas White: I will not say it must be so, but it is very strong evidence that it is so if I said it.


William Pugsley: That is what I was attempting to emphasize.


William Thomas White: I am sorry I would not be able to .pay quite the same testimony to my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: I will not mind that.


William Thomas White: If I made that statement it is very strong prima facie evidence that it is true. My hon. friend said: You have nothing to congratulate yourself on the fact that you have a total trade of $2,000,000,000. Why not? Is it not real money? Before this war broke out the Balance of trade against Canada was between two and three hundred million dollars a year. That whole situation has since been reversed, and in terms of money. The balance of trade to-day is in our favour to the extent of $400,000,000. The point I make is that if our exports are worth more money the people have that money. My hon. friend seems !to hold the view that if the prices of commodities are higher than they were in normal times there is no advantage derived from that by the producer. But that, I believe, is not the case. Therefore, as I have stated, the argument of my hon. friend that the country is not to be congratulated upon its increased financial strength, upon its increased international trade and upon the increased value of its production generally, must fall to the ground. When this war broke out members of this Government, including myself, impressed upon the people of this country the necessity of production, more production and yet more production. That necessity has been continually drawn to the attention of the people of Canada, and I am happy to say that they have realized that necessity, and I think they would have realized it quite apart from the admonitions we gave them. But we did impress upon them the value of production, more production and again more production, and I believe it is by increasing production and by the exercise of national economy and national thrift that Canada, notwithstanding the war and the consequent increase in her national debt has been able to accomplish what I have mentioned to the House.

My hon. friend speaks of the tariff. He wants the tariff revised downwards. He has no belief in the tariff. He wishes to supply the revenues of this country by direct taxation. The inference from the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton and my hon. friend from Medicine Hat is that -we could practically do away with the tariff and raise all the money that is required for the expenditure of this country by direct taxation.


Frank Oliver: I understood the minister to say that I and the hon. member for Medicine Hat had taken the position that there should be no tariff. I think the minister will find that that statement is not borne out by what I said.


William Thomas White: Possibly my hon. friend did not say that there should be no tariff, nor do I recollect that I said he said that. I said that my hon. friend has no belief in the tariff. He brings forward a resolution for the revision of the tariff downwards. But his utterances in this House to-day and for a long time past go to convince me that he would rather the revenues of this country were raised by direct taxation, and that we practically had no tariff at all. Let me say that no matter how desirable that might be to my 'hon. friend we need not seriously consider it, because we simply could not raise the money that is required for the purposes of the Government, unless we had the tariff. The tariff is the main-stay of the revenues of this country, and must continue to be so, so far as I can see for an indefinite time to come.
We were speaking yesterday about income taxation, and my hon. friend from Medicine Hat has referred to it again to-day. It is easy to say that we could raise large sums of money by income taxation. Last night I sent a telegram to Mr. Bradshaw, Commissioner of Finance for the City of Toronto, I asked him what was the income assessment in the city of Toronto and how much they derived from it last year. Now, the city of Toronto is the second city in Canada, and there would probably be more income there liable to assessment than in the rest of the province of Ontario, and possibly also in one or more of the western provinces. We must remember that income is subject to taxation by the municipality of the city of Toronto with an exemption, I think, of $1,000, to a municipal tax of 20 to 25 mills on the dollar which is a little over 2 per cent. The reply I got from Mr. Bradshaw was that Toronto's income assessment in 
1916 was $19,500,000, and the amount of income tax raised was $440,000. I lay those figures before the House without comment. They seem to be very illuminating as to the possibilities of income taxation. I stated yesterday, and I repeat again to-day, that I think it very probable that the Dominion Government may have to resort to income taxation if this war goes on, and at the present moment there does not seem to be very much evidence of an early conclusion.


Charles Marcil: Will the income taxation displace any other taxation?


William Thomas White: I do not think it well to make announcements with respect to taxation so far in advance. I stated that if the war went on we should have to consider new modes of taxation, and that we might resort to the income tax.
My hon. friend has referred to the production of munitions, and he did not seem to think that the industry was of very much consequence to this country. I can tell him that from two standpoints the production of munitions is of the utmost consequence. In the first place the munitions business in Canada has reached dimensions that exceed, I believe, those of any other business on this continent, excepting possibly one or two of the largest American businesses and I do not know that I should except those. There are some 650 establishments in Canada making munitions. It was of the utmost importance to the Imperial Government that they were able to lay under requisition the industrial establishments of this country for the purpose of supplementing the British supply of munitions. The economic justification for the establishment and promotion of industries in this country has often been referred Ito. The industries which were of economic value in time of peace become real bulwarks of national security in time of war. All the industries of this country have been laid under requisition by the Imperial Government, and have been sending forward munitions on an increasing scale for the last two years. I think it is nolt too much to say that the supply of munitions which has gone from this country in an unending stream for the last two years has had much to do with the successful operations pn the Somme, at Vimy Ridge and other points on (the western front. So it was a great thing for this country from the standpoint of the prosecution of the war, that Canadian industrial plants were able to send forward in increasingly large quantities the munitions so urgently required at the front.

But apart from that, there is the economic value to Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in the munitions business in this country; they are paid for their services, -and in that way there has been a large distribution of money in Canada which has had a very considerable effect upon our economy. These munitions were needed; the British Government was willing to pay for them, and the business has been developed to the extent I have indicated. From an economic standpoint the industry has been of great benefit to the people of this country, but I consider that of secondary importance. The main thing is that we had the industrial plants to supply the Shells and other munitions so urgently needed at the front.
My hon. friend seems to censure this Government; he has no word of praise for what the Government has done. I am indifferent whether we get praise or blame, so long as the work is done, but I will put forward for the consideration of the House that we have financed in large measure the expenditure which has made possible the manufacture of munitions in this country on such a large scale. The hon. member for Edmonton has said that we have no industries in process of expansion in Canada. Well, the country is engaged in war; the manpower of the country is being organized. In those circumstances, how can my hon. friend expect an expansion of business other than in industries connected directly or indirectly with the war? Was that a reasonable criticism of the Government? I submit not. My hon. friend says that we get too much from the tariff, and we are not taking enough from excess profits. Last night hon. gentlemen opposite censured the Government because the excess profits tax was too heavy. To-day, the hon. member for Edmonton says that the excess profits tax is much too light. Instead of raising $12,500,000 in 1915, and $20,000,000 in 1916, he would probably "guess," like my hon. friend from Dauphin, that we should raise $100,000,000 from excess profits. He had no figures to support his argument. He simply made the statement that we were not raising enough money from the excess profits, I would point out that this Government must not only raise revenue to meet its ordinary and capital expenditure, the interest upon its increasing debt, and the pensions, but we must have a large revenue in order to maintain our credit.
In 1916, we raised the tariff 7i per cent and 5 per cent. It was stated at the time, and actually moved as an amendment in the Budget debate, that the House should put itself on record as declaring that the tax would not be productive. So productive has that tax been that I was able to say yesterday that the increase due to the war tax had been last year $38,000,000, and for the previous year $25,000,000. If ever there was a prophecy that was not fulfilled, it was the prediction of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1915 that we should realize no additional revenue by the increase in the tariff. To-day we find ourselves in th^ position, as to credit, as to financial standing and power, which I have indicated, and this is due largely to the fact that we met conditions as they arose from time to time, that we imposed the measure of taxation necessary in order to meet our coming requirements.
I would point out to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that in the United States Congress to-day there is a measure to increase the tariff all around by ten per cent. I do not know what progress that measure has made. It was introduced, I believe, by the Ways and Means Committee, or at least it was the proposal put forward by the Ways and Means Committee for the raising of additional revenue for the United States to meet the requirements of the war.
The hon. member has asserted that this Government has increased the burden of taxation on the people of Canada. He puts that forward as a serious indictment of the Government. Of course, we have increased the burden of taxation on the people of Canada. Why? It certainly is not because we desire to increase the people's burden for the mere sake of doing so; it is the result of necessity arising out of the war. The measures we have taken have been such, I believe, as command themselves to the judgment of the people throughout the country.
The hon. member seems to think that the Government is not interested in the West. He spoke of the duty on agricultural implements. When I asked him, pointblank, *why it was that when he was a member of the late Government he did not take the duty off agricultural implements, his answer was, "I don't know." I do not believe that is a sufficient answer. In the tariff of 1914, we reduced the duties on many of those implements in which the West is particularly interested-" harvesters, self-binders,

reapers and parts thereof," to quote the tariff item. The duty on these machines was cut down to 124 per cent. During all the time when the Government of which the hon. member for Edmonton was a member was in power the duties on these implements had been 174 per cent. And he thought he had worked wonders because under the reciprocity agreement the duty was fixed at 15 per cent. This Government, which the ;hon. gentleman says has no interest in the western farmer, fixed these duties, not at the 174 per cent at which he was quite content to have it when in power, %not at the 15 per cent fixed by the reciprocity agreement which he has never ceased to praise in this House, but at 124 per cent. And when we raised the tariff two years ago the increase did not apply to these agricultural implements. I think I have proved that my hon. friend is not quite sincere in bringing forward this motion. If he indicts this Government for not dealing with the question of agricultural implements he must explain to his constituents why, when he was in power, he did not do what he now says this Government ought to do.
The hon. member spoke about the wheat. He said that the farmers in the West had sold out at $1.75 a bushel. When he was asked how much wheat the farmers had in store, either on their farms or in elevators, he said he did not know. He had taken no trouble to inquire. I believe, in fact I know, that it is incorrect to say that the farmers of the West sold out all their wheat at $1.75 a bushel.


Frank Oliver: I did not say they sold it all out at $1.75.


William Thomas White: If the hon. gentleman did not say so, at least he created that impression. He was asked how much the farmers had in store-


Frank Oliver: I said that nobody knows.


William Thomas White: But the hon. gentleman created the impression that the farmers of the West by reason of a conspiracy-which he practically alleged-between the railways, the Board of Railway Commissioners and the grain manipulators, were actually deprived of the difference between $1.75 a bushel and $3 a bushel. If he did not intend to create that impression he succeeded in doing that which he had not intended to do. That is the impression he created in this House, and I think it is the impression he intended t'o create. He left out of account the myriad transactions in wheat in Chicago, in Minneapolis, in

Duluth. He said somebody made $70,000,000. Why, all interests throughout the world are concerned in, the buying of that grain from the time it leaves the farm to the time it leaves the elevators. Yet he blames the Government by implication, because we did not stop that mysterious somebody from making that $70,000,000. Who have been the great buyers of this grain? The British Wheat Commission. The British Government. It was the buying of the British Government that was particularly the cause of what has been called the corner in wheat.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


William Thomas White: I know it.


Frank Oliver: It was the selling by men who had not the wheat.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman is wrong. The British Wheat Commission bought in perfect good faith and with no intention of creating a corner-


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


William Thomas White: The men who
bought wheat in the ordinary course sold in the ordinary course, by what is known as "hedging."


Frank Oliver: They sold wheat that they did not have and could not get.


William Thomas White: But the hon. gentleman knows that in the course of business that is done.


Frank Oliver: That is what they did.


William Thomas White: They bought the grain and they were obliged to "hedge"- that is, they were obliged to sell. They sold in the ordinary course that is pursued in this country, in the United States, and, so far as I know, in every other country. They sold expecting that if tne contract grades could not be supplied, they would be allowed to substitute grades at millable value. But the British Government, for reasons that I have already referred to, wanted the grades 1, 2 and 3, and not the lower grades.


Frank Oliver: Anybody who buys as the British Commission bought expects to buy nothing but contract grades.


William Thomas White: I understand. But these men sold, as I have stated, in good faith.


Frank Oliver: They had no right to sell
anything but contract grades.


William Thomas White: Let me show my hon. friend that he is quite wrong. When

this corner was formed-due, as I have said, to the buying iby tihe British Wheat Commission in perfect good faith and in such immense 'quantities that the ordinary laws, so to eay, went by the board-and wheat attained the price it did two or three weeks ago, we took the matter up at once with the British Wheat Commission. I cabled Sir George Perley asking him to take the matter up with the British Wheat .Commission. I took it up with the representative of the British Wheat Commission at Washington. I know what I am talking about. Just as soon as it was determined that they would accept the lower grade in lieu of contract grades, which they were entitled to demand, the corner came to an end.


Frank Oliver: And the Government arranged to let the wheat speculator out.


William Thomas White: Now, my hon.
- friend puts that forward seriously in this House. Here were the British Wheat Commission buying millions and tens of millions of bushels of wheat for the sustenance of the people of the United Kingdom. As a result of that buying, and as a result of innumerable contracts made on the Winnipeg exchange, and in Minneapolis and Chicago, wheat goes to a certain price and yet my hon. friend says that the Government, or the Railway Commission, and the railways are in a conspiracy against the farmers of the West. If that is not an absolute reductio ad absurdum I do not know what it Is.


William Pugsley: Under the circumstances, seeing that a comer had 'been created, did this Government take any steps under the War Measures Act to control the price?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
puts forward his usual insidious question. My hon. friend has a lot to leam about wheat if he does not know the dependence there is between wheat on the Winnipeg Exchange, wheat on the Chicago Exchange and wheat on the Minneapolis Exchange.


William Pugsley: I know very well that this Government have the power, and that they had the power then, to control the price of wheat and k-eep it within reasonable limits.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
puts that forward and if the Government had done it my hon. friend would have come forward and suggested some other line of action, so that we are perhaps as far ahead in any event. The Government
took the only action it could take in respect to the situation. The Government cannot control the world prices of wheat. My hon. friend knows that.


William Pugsley: But it could control
the Canadian price.


William Thomas White: The Government of the United States could not control the world price of wheat.


William Pugsley: They could control the price in their own country.


William Thomas White: They cannot even do that. The only possibility of controlling the minimum or maximum price-and the subject is full of difficulties-would be by joint action on the part of the two governments. That is recognized in the United States just as it is here. We might as well talk sense about this.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend not get angry if I ask him another question?


William Thomas White: Could any one get angry with the hon. gentleman?


William Pugsley: If the Canadian Government could not control the price of wheat in Canada, how is it possible for Canada and the United States to control the price of wheat in these two countries when we know that wheat is produced largely in Argentine and other countries of the world?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend had an open mind I would have no difficulty in answering his question but he has a mens clausa, a closed mind, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. gentleman the answer that he wants. However, I shall try to reply to my hon. friend. My hon. friend knows the close connection geographically between this country and the United States and the tonnage situation on the Atlantic which affects Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and all other sources of supply-
Now, I come to this amendment. The amendment suggests a revision of the Customs tariff. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) acquiesces in that and he says: I want a revision now and I want a revision downward. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when it was unwise to revise the tariff, it is this present moment. What is the condition? The condition, Mr. Speaker, is that owing to the unsettled values of goods in all foreign countries, it would be -absolutely impossible to prepare a customs tariff that would meet the situation at the present time and for a period

after the war. A proper revision of the tariff to-day would be an impossible performance, and would lead to the most profound dislocation of business in this country at a time when the last thing we want to see is the dislocation of business. Yet, my hon. friend from Edmonton seriously suggests that this Government, in the midst of this war, should revise the tariff. The wholesale values of two hundred commodities in the United States have increased by 65 per cent up to March, 1917, in comparison with the prices in July, 1914. I pointed out that the present Customs tariff is producing a very large revenue. That revenue is needed and it is going to be needed in increasing amount until the war is over. We shall have to face, as the United States had, the problems arising out of the war, an enormous increase in the national	debt,	interest	charges
and pension outlays and my hon. friend suggests that you can practically put the tariff out of consideration in dealing with these questions. How did the United States meet the situation, and no country ever recovered from a great war so successfully as the United States. How did the United States put herself upon a gold basis after the war? A dollar in 1863 was worth only about 40 cents in gold.. How did the United States bring her dollar to parity, how did the United States not only meet the interest upon her great national debt but pay off that debt in a few years? She did it by the tariff. This country cannot dispense with the tariff at this time. I do not say that the tariff is perfect. I do not say that at the proper time the tariff should not be revised, but I do say that it is idle to suggest that you can get on without a tariff. At this time it would be unwise in the extreme to revise the tariff.
If it is unwise to revise the tariff, we need not seriously consider the question of revising the tariff downwards. The tariff was increased in 1915 by 7| per cent and 5 per cent. In the course of time, I should imagine when the war is about over, it will be necessary to revise the tariff. I do not say it should be revised upwards, I do not say it should be revised downwards, but I say it should be revised having regard to the conditions that exist at the time of its revision. If a tariff revision takes place it will have to be necessarily in the light of the Situation which exists as between the- Allies in this war. There may be trade conventions; there undoubtedly will be treaties between the Allies.

That is the general opinion and, if so, why should we revise our tariff now when the war is moving, we hope, towards its close, and when the situation that I have indicated will confront us at the conclusion of the war? What we should do is to maintain our tariff because it gives the revenues which are necessary for the purposes of the country and the prosecution of the war. At the proper time, on the conclusion of the war, and having regard to the situation which then exists, including the international situation between the Allies, be proper for us to revise the tariff. We shall know the labour and the industrial situation and the fiscal measures we take will be such as are in the public interest. I shall not discuss the question of placing wheat, flour, and wheat products on the free list. That has been done as to-


William Pugsley: Oh, no, products such as bran, shorts and middlings are not free.


William Thomas White: No, but wheat and flour.	-
My hon. friend's amendment reads that:
Wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat he placed on the free list.
Wheat, wheat flour and semolina have been placed on the free list.


William Pugsley: Your order does not place bran, shorts and so on, on the free list.


William Thomas White: I understand that is to be covered by another amendment. I think the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) brought that up, and I shall not have to discuss it now.


Mr. CARVELL:: That was ruled out of order.


William Thomas White: Will it come up again?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It may.


William Thomas White: Then I shall leave it until it comes up.


William Pugsley: The minister says he is going to concede what Mr. Robb asked for.


William Thomas White: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has gone further; he has taken a very far-reaching list of important commodities and articles which are subject to customs taxation, and he proposes to place them all upon the free list. As I said, this is not the time to revise the tariff. That being so, it is not necessary for me to discuss the particular amendments

which my hon. friend brings forward with respect to the articles covered by the tariff.
My hon. friend has referred also to the British preference. Well, it is not expedient to deal with the tariff at the present time or with the British preference; but, when the war is over, when this question of preference, about which the Prime Minister spoke the other day, ,and which has been under consideration by the Imperial War Cabinet, is before the Government, and when we know the industrial situation that confronts us and the world, and when we have before us the agreements made between the Allies, we can deal with this and all other questions in such fashion as the interests of Canada and the Empire may require.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the r House for a short time this evening to discuss what I consider to be one of the most important resolutions that has been proposed to the House in recent years. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance will not feel that I am discourteous if I do not follow him through all the by-ipaths and by-ways that he trod this afternoon, because, for some unexplainable reason, he took occasion to deliver to-day the same speech that he has repeated four or five times during the last three weeks. Possibly he felt sufficient justification for the performance; I hope that he is satisfied with the results. Before I enter upon a discussion of the real question involved in the amendment, however, I desire to refer very shortly to a few of the more outstanding statements made by the Minister of Finance.
When the history of this country is written, one thing that my hon. friend will not be charged with is a lack of due appreciation of his own services and of the services of his party. Outside of winning the war, I do not know of anything for which the hon. gentleman did not take credit this afternoon in a speech of one hour's duration. The Minister of Finance even went so far as to say that the successes in the battles of the Somme and Vimy Ridge were contributed to very largely by the immediate action taken by the Government in the matter of furnishing rails. One can almost say, therefore, that the hon. gentleman is taking credit for the winning of the war, as
well as for almost everything else in the world. He said that the Government deserved very great credit for the mighty efforts that they had put forth towards the winning of the war. Mighty efforts? Well, he and his Government have done a great many things since the war started. I assume that my hon. friend is willing to take credit for everything that has been done,, but for some of those things he is not entitled to a great deal of credit. Let me refer to a few of the things that he has done and for which he takes to himself so much credit.
The minister says that the Government have placed the finances of Canada in a better position than those of any other country in the wprld except the United States. He glories in the assertion, which he has made a great many times during the last three weeks, that when the Government wanted money from the Canadian people they were able to get it. When they wanted $59,000,000 they were offered $100,000,000; when they wanted $100,000,000 they were offered $200,000,000; when they wanted $150,000,000 they were -offered$260,000,-000. He said that he did not believe $5,000,000 could have been raised by loan in Canada before the war. But he did not tell us that no other Canadian Government had ever tried to raise -an internal loan. He did not tell us that during the years from 1867 to 1915 the successive Governments of Canada deliberately and persistently went outside the borders of our country in order to raise money. This matter was discussed when my hon. friend's predecessor held office, as well as since the present Government came into power. I myself have more than once asked why the Government did not attempt to raise money by internal loan, and the answer was always the same: in <a young country like Canada it was better to borrow money from outside than to tie up money of our own which was needed for the country's development. Accordingly, up to the year 1915 the Government never offered more than three ,per cent for money obtained in Canada; yet under the system of paying three per cent interest on savings bank deposits, hundreds of millions of dollars were deposited to the credit of the Government. But pne of the most gigantic efforts for which the Minister of Finance takes credit is the raising of money in Canada. And how was this wonderful feat accomplished? By raising the interest rate from three per cent to five per cent and then selling bonds cheap enough to give

the broker a small commision on the sale of bonds. Nobody but a real wizard of finance could do that. Does the minister realize that hundreds of millions of dollars were lying around this country before he took charge of the Finance Department? Does he realize that nearly $100,000,000 were deposited in the Dominion Savings Bank, and much more than $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 in the chartered banks at three per cent interest?' Does he realize that hundreds of millions of dollars, earning no interest at all, were in the chartered banks, and that there were in Canada securities to the value of hundreds of millions of dollars bearing only 3, 3J or 4 per cent interest? Does he realize that the moment he raised the rate of interest to 5 per cent every woman who had money in a savings bank, every investor who had money lying round for which he was not receiving 5 per cent interest, came to the conclusion that by placing their money with the Government at 5 per cent, backed by the security of the Government, they would be making a pretty good trade? The minister admitted that one night last week when he said that a variation of one-tenth of a point would have defeated his purpose. He admitted that the money was obtained not by his financing but by his offering an increased rate of interest and a method of investment which caused the people to come fofivard with their money. Yet he says that the Government is entitled to the very greatest credit for the raising of $300,000,000 through internal loans under these conditions.
My hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) says, also, that the Government deserve an enormous amount of credit because they attracted such large sums of money into the country in connection with the manufacture of munitions. Well, the Government are welcome to all the credit they can get for the money that has come in for the manufacture of munitions. The late Minister of Militia takes all the credit for that to himself, but I happen to know something about this matter; I spent some time trying to find out about it. The Government so mismanaged the thing that the British authorities said: if you cannot manufacture these munitions at reasonable prices you shall not be permitted to manufacture at all. So they had to take the matter out of the hands of the Government, and put it into the hands of a board constituted by themselves. The British Government have spent, perhaps, a billion dollars in Canada since the outbreak of war for the purchase of munitions, but I

do not see how the Government can take any credit for that. The allied armies were suffering from a lack of munitions of war more than anything else; they had to have them; they paid two prices for every dollar's worth of munitions they got from Canada, except, perhaps, for the munitions which they have obtained during the last six months or year. Many people in Canada are hiding their heads in shame because they had the nerve to charge the British and allied Governments the prices that they did. They charged such prices that the British Government were compelled, as I say, to send their representatives here and take the business out of their hands. Yet, hon. gentlemen opposite claim to be entitled to all credit for the manufacture of munitions in Canada.
My hon. friend says, further, that the tariff should not be revised during a period of war. But it did not bother my hon. friend to revise the tariff in 1914, when he added a few million dollars to the taxes.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: That was upward.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but he revised it just the same. It did not bother him in 1915, when he raised the tariff 7i per cent and 5 per cent. It did not bother him a year ago, when his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, wanting a better price for his apples, put 75 cents duty on each barrel of apples coming into Canada, making the farmer of the West pay that much more for his apples than he had ever paid before. It is a simple matter for my hon. friend to revise the tariff upwards, but when he is asked to revise the tariff downwards and relieve the almost impossible burden upon the poor man who is trying to make a living he says that it is impossible to do it until the war is over.
The minister says that we have raised $60,000,000 or thereabouts by way of special taxes. It is a very simple matter to raise $60,000,000 in special taxes when you add 7h and 5 per cent duty to the price of everything that the people bring into the countrv.
It is not only five and seven and a half per cent duty that you add. When you consider that the articles which are being brought in to this country are not very much greater in volume than they were before the war, but that they are in some cases twice the value and in some cases even three times the value, and when to the tariff as it was before the war, you add 5 per cent in one case and 7i per cent in the other on a value in dollars two or three times as great as it was before, you are not doing

a wonderful feat of financing in order to get additional revenue out of the people of Canada. I do not think the Minister of Finance is entitled to as much credit for raising this money as he thinks he is; but, of course, I know he has a right to his own opinion. I want, however, to point out some of the ways in which I feel he would be benefitting the people of this country if he were to adopt this amendment in his method of raising a revenue.
The Minister of Finance *told the House the wonderful things the Government had done in stimulating production, but he failed to tell us the manner in which they had endeavoured to stimulate production. He said that they were constantly preaching production and more production. What have they done? Have they done anything towards producing more grain, more food, more cattle? The only thing I know which they have ever done was done within the last two months, when they put wheat on the free list, but up to the present time there has not been very much result so far as increased production is concerned. We hope, however, that measure will have; in this coming year and in later years, the effect of stimulating the production of wheat, and so far as that is concerned, we are willing to give the minister full credit for what he has done. That, however, is a matter which, properly, I think should have been discussed upon the Budget and which was discussed upon the Budget by my hon. friend and by many other members of the House; and as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am not going to take up time discussing matters which should have been discussed on the Budget, but I am going to confine my remarks to the resolutions and the amendment before the House.
In asking the House to adopt this amendment we are raising a very vital question in Canada; we are raising a question of principle, which I am sorry to say has not been discussed in this House during the last fifteen years as much as it should have been. It is a question of principle that has been forgotten in Canada for a good many years and that should be revived now on account of the war, if foT no other reason. My hon. friend saye:	You
cannot revise a tariff during the war; you have to havie more money and you must raise it by means of a tariff. There never has been a time in the history of Canada when you can revise the tariff downward as well as you can to-day. There has never


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
been a time when you can discuss the question. of the tariff with the people of Canada as well as you can to-day. Down to the beginning of the war things had been going fairly well; the people were fairly prosperous; we did not have to raise very much money; our taxes were low; we did not know as much as the people of other countries do about raising money; and when you discussed the question of direct taxation, there is no doubt that a great outcry would be raised against it, but the people have learned that you cannoit raise a very large revenue by means of a tariff, notwithstanding that my hon, friend says that a tariff must, for many years, be the great means by which revenue shall be raised. He himself has adopted a policy of raising money in other ways than by a tariff. Supposing any Minister of Finance had before the war attempted to raise money by a business tax, as my hon. friend is doing now, one can quite understand what an outcry there would have been against it. My hon. friend, however, is raising money by means of a business tax, >and the only criticism I have heard in regard to' it is (that he is not raising enough by it. For the last month we have been persistently telling the Minister of Finance that he must raise money by means of an income tax, and he has been, until this afternoon, persistently telling us that he cannot do it. Now he says: I am wrong. I think I can raise money by means of an income tax, and I guess I shall have to do so. That shows that even a hidebound tariff politician like the Minister of Finance has lucid intervals, and if you im press truths upon him long enough and persistently enough, even he comes to his senses and has to admit that these matters are not so entirely theoretical as he would try to lead the House to believe.' This afternoon he said: Yes, we shall have to impose an income tax, I am fraid, but iit will not produce anything, because I sent a telegram to the controller at Toronto and that gentleman replied: "We collected only half a million dollars or a little less of an income tax last year." My hon. friend certainly, looks upon the members of this House as being very unsophisticated in the methods of taxation for municipal purposes in Canada. He speaks about collecting only half a million dollars from an income tax in the city of Toronto. I do not suppose that one-half or one-third of the incomes in the city of Toronto that are above $1,000 are taxed at all. If they are, Toronto is different from any other city or town in Canada
edition	^
[Stage Direction]
that I know of. In my own province of New Brunswick we have an income tax for municipal purpose's, and in that province there is not a man but, when he looks at the item of income tax on his tax bill, simply laughs in his sleeve to think of the small amount of income upon which he is assessed, and what is true of my province is true of the province of Ontario. The minister also admits that the tax only amounts to 2 per cent. A man with an income of $50,000 is assessed as having an income of $2,000, and then he is charged 2 per cent on $2,000 or a tax of the paltry sum of say $40. My hon. friend knows that if he went after the big incomes of this country as is done in Great Britain, France, and many other countries, he would be taxing the rich man, not 2 per cent of his income, but from 30 to 40 per cent of his income, and he knows that in Great Britain there are people who are paying as high as 40 per cent of their incomes. Let my hon. friend adopt a system of a graduated income tax as has been done in other civilized countries, and let him take the matter up in a big way and he will collect, not half a million dollars from Toronto, but three .or four million dollars, and he will collect proportionate amounts from every other city and town throughout the Dominion. My hon. friend might just as well come down the whole way on this question of income tax and admit to himself and to the country that an income tax is coming; that it is a proper method of raising a revenue, and that it is not a serious matter at all, because it is not a novelty; it is not something that has not been worked out. It has been worked out to perfection in many countries in the world, and all that my hon. friend has to do is to adopt that method which in his judgment best applies to the condition of affairs in Canada and to apply it. If he does that, he will get money just as easily and much more fairly than he is doing by raising the duty 7} per cent on the poor man who can barely make both ends meet and at the same time buy sufficient food and clothing for his family.
There is, however, another side to this question which, in my judgment, the Minister of Finance fails to consider, and which I think, my hon. friends opposite fail to consider when they are discussing this question of tariff. They say: Oh, but if you reduce the tariff, you will not have any revenue; you have to have a revenue in

order to carry on this war, and the only way to secure that revenue is to keep up the tariff. I want to tell my hon. friend, in the first place, that that has not been the history of Canada, nor of any other country in the world. We know that in 1897 when the British J preference was introduced in this country, j which meant an enormous reduction in the tariff, the tariff revenue did not decrease, but went up by leaps and bounds at the rate of $10,000,000 a year. It is all very simple. The moment you take the duty off any article-I do not ask that everything be put on tlhe free list, but I say reduce the duty-the moment you reduce the duty on an article of ordinary consumption, that moment you make it cheaper, and you put the average consumer in a better position' to purchase. If he purchases more, then more goods come into the country, and more revenue comes into the coffers of the Government; that is a general principle which I do not think anybody will dispute.
But there is another side to it. My hon. friend fails to tell the House, though he knows it as well as any man in Canada, that our tariff with the 7j per cent added to it, is in many cases so high that it absolutely prohibits the importation of the necessities of life; that is the difficulty. Instead of getting revenue you get none at all, because the duty is prohibitive, and at the same time you are increasing the burdens of the people by-100 per cent I was going to say, and I believe in many : cases it amounts to that. You get no revenue, and you increase the cost to the consumer, because you have built up the tariff wall to such an extent that the consumer j cannot import, and is compelled to buy j from the local producer at a price which j is just a cent or two below the imported | article. I think perhaps the most glaring instance of that in the whole of our trade returns is the item of cement. I was amazed in looking over the trade returns for the year ending March 31, 1916, to see the figures for thifl item. I was not able to get the returns beyond that date, and .therefore any figures I may quote this evening will have reference to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1916. According to the trade returns, we neither bought nor sold cement with the rest of the world; we simply lived within ourselves. Hon. gentlemen opposite said in 1911, " Let us trade within ourselves; do not let us go beyond our own borders; do not tear down the flag; do not become disloyal by trading outside

this country, but let us just live within ourselves, and keep this little circle going," and, if ever there was an item where this idea was worked out to perfection it was in the case of ,our trade in cement last year, because the whole of Canada imported only $45,000 worth of cement, and we exported only $5,000 worth. We paid in duty the immense sum of $11,227 and if you add the 74 per cent you have $2,000 more. Altogether we paid abput $14,000 duty on cement. I do not know how many million dollars worth of cement is produced in Canada annually, but I do know that it would be a very great amount. I am very much of the opinion that it must be $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 worth; that is only an estimate, but the figure must be very, very large. But no matter whether it is $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 we are paying the manufacturers of cement in Canada practically 60 cents a barrel more than we should have to pay if we could import cement duty free. If the duty were taken off, the country would lose practically no revenue, but the consumer would be able' to buy cement for 60 cents a barrel less. I think that is perhaps the most glaring case in the trade returns, but there is another case nearly as bad. It is an article which every man and every woman in this country consumes, and the poorer the man the more he consumes of it. I refer tp canned vegetables. Perhaps there is no item of food in the Dominion to-day that plays a bigger part in the homes of the poor people than the tw.o canned vegetables which are bracketed together in the trade returns, tomatoes and cooked com. You would hardly believe it, Sir, but last year we received in duty on these two great articles in the diet of the common people the sum of $6,454 .only; in addition	to	that
straight duty, there would be the war tax of 74 per cent, provided the goods came from any country outside the British Empire, which I presume they did. In this case again, the tariff is so high that we cannot import canned goods into this country. We simply have to pay the canners' combine the price which they ask, and that price is just a fraction of a cent below what the goods cost in any other country plus the duty. The poor man is accordingly compelled to pay to these people, I do not know how many hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars more than he would have to pay if these goods were on the free list, and if they were on 1084
the free list the revenue of Canada would only suffer to the extent of $6,454.
The next item is pretty nearly as important, but perhaps not so glaring as the two items of cement and canned goods. I come next to boots and shoes. Why, Sir, you cannot buy a pair of shoes in Canada to-day for your baby at less than $2 or $3 a pair, or for your child at less than $5 or $6, and you cannot buy a pair for yourself at less than $8 or $10. I realize that this is due in some measure to the increased cost of labour and production and to war prices; I want to be fair in arguing this question, for if a man is not fair in logic his argument amounts to nothing. We pay 374 per cent protection on the boots and shoes we buy in Canada. The duty is so great that only a mere bagatelle of the boots and shoes we use in Canada are purchased from outside. I do not know exactly what the consumption would be, but there are about 7,500,000 people in this country, and I think about $5 a head is a very low estimate for boots and shoes; in fact, I think that is away below the actual figure. But at $5 a head, we are paying $40,000,000 a year for boots and shoes, and yet, according to the trade returns, we imported only $2,120,000 worth, and these would all be shoes of the higher grade, slippers and things of that kind from England, although a large quantity come from the United States. But 90 per cent of the boots and shoes used in Canada are made at home. Under our tariff we are compelled to pay 374 per cent to the manufacturer of these boots and shoes, and last year we only received in revenue $775,000, including the 74 per cent. Just think of it! Only three-quarters of a million dollars of revenue on a consumption of $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 worth of boots and shoes ! Yet hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that we have to have this tariff to raise money to carry on the war. The Minister of Finance knows these things as well as I do. He knows all about these glaring inconsistencies, and how the poor man is being mulcted to make the rich man richer and to multiply our millionaires, but in discussing the tariff he very conveniently conceals these facts from the public. I could give illustration after illustration of the same thing.
Last year we imported $19,664,000 worth 3f woollen goods-practically twenty millions of -dollars' worth. The duties paid on those goods ran up in some cases to 40
[Stage Direction]
and even 42 per cent, and this on goods which the poor man must buy to clothe 'his family in this rigorous climate; without these goods, people can hardly live in Canada. And this is done in order to keep a _ few one-horse factories going in Canada. It would be better to close up every woollen mill in the country than to tax the people at this enormous rate for goods without which they cannot get along. But I do not want to close up any factory; it is not necessary. I would not advocate the placing on . | the free list of any article if I believed that | by so doing we should close up an industry I in Canada; but I would not allow any industry to exist, producing goods of vital ! necessity to the poor people of this country, if it were necessary to its existence to ^ compel the people to pay a fine to the manu-| faeturer of 40 to 45 per cent. If a woollen factory in Canada cannot get along with a protection of 15 to 20 per cent, I do not think that factory is very much good to this country. The only good reason for the Minister of Finance maintaining such a condition of affairs is the need of revenue.
I admit that by the duty on woollen goods we raise a large revenue-last year it amounted to practically $6,500,000. I realize that if you reduced the duty to one-half or one-third of what it is to-day, you might not get so large an amount, but you would import more woollen goods. We have reached a point where woollen goods are practically out of the reach of ordinary people, they simply have not the money to buy them. But put those goods at reasonable prices and you will find that many people will buy them who cannot buy them to-day. I have strong reason to believe that if you had only one-third of the duty that you have to-day you would get nearly as much revenue as you do under the present rate of duty. There would not be so many woollen factories that would have to water their stock in order to cover up their earnings. Nor would these watered securities be selling at the price they are^ to-day. But that would only make the millionaires a little less millionaires than they are now, while it would be a wonderful benefit to the consumers of this country.
There is another side to this whole nefarious transaction, and it is being emphasized in the conduct of this war more than it has ever been emphasized before. It brings us back to the item of cement, one of the most glaring instances of all. It is well known that there are securities of the Canada Cement Company in the 
form' of bonds. These are all right; they represent actual money on which interest should be paid. Then, there is a certain amount of preferred stock. This is in the doubtful class. But give it the benefit of the doubt; say that it represents cash- though I am very much of opinion that there is a good deal of water in it-and that dividends should be paid on it. Then you have $13,000,000 of absolute water in the form of common stock, which did not cost the promoters of the Canada Cement Company one dime. Up to the time of the war this stock was practically worthless. There was a little professional trading in it at around 21 and 22, but very little of the stock was filtering out on the market. The Canada Cement Company got a contract for manufacturing munitions; they got it under peculiar circumstances, circumstances which ought to make every member of the Government and every supporter of the Government hang his head in shame. The company wanted to manufacture a certain form of shell at $55. The powers that be said: we can't do that, but if you will take $68, we will give you a contract. The Cement Company said they did not want it at that, that they could manufacture the shell at profit at $55, and they wanted the contract at that figure. They had to take that to the Prime Minister of this Dominion and the representatives of the British Munitions Board in Canada, and, after putting up a fight for some weeks, they finally succeeded in compelling the powers that be_ to give them a contract at $55. And they have made so much money that the common stock is selling at 59 and 60; it has even been above that-I have not looked at the quotations for the last day or two. Large quantities of that stock are being sent broadcast over the country. It gets into the hands of men and women who have money to invest, and the company is earning so much money that it is beginning to pay dividends upon that watered stock. But wait until the war is over; wait until you want to reduce the price of cement; wait until you wish to take the duty off cement, when things are not in the flourishing condition they are in to-day, and see what the owners of this watered stock will say. They will say: We paid good cold cash for our stock, and if you take the duty off cement you are going to reduce the price of that stock to such an extent that we cannot pay dividends. In other words, you will 'be wiping out money which these people have paid in good faith, which they paid not knowing the conditions, which they paid

because of the fact that the Parliament of Canada is keeping a duty of sixty cents a barrel on cement. I cannot conceive of a greater crime to be perpetrated on the investing public of any country than to continue a condition of affairs such as I have described. And you have the same principle in boots and shoes. You have $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 of absolutely watered stock in Ames, Holden & McCready. That stock, before the war, was not worth two cents; you could not give it away; no man would pay for it what it would cost to transfer it in the books of the company. But this concern has contracts with the Government to furnish shoes by the million dollars' worth, and to-day this watered stock is filtering out to the ordinary investor 'at 15 and 16 cents a share. There is not very much going out yet, but it is going out, and if the present condition of affairs continues very much longer you will find a million dollars' worth of this stock scattered broadcast over the country. Then, when the time comes when you wish to take the duty off boots and shoes, the holders of that stock will say that you are making worthless a stock for which they paid money in good faith. So you are providing in advance a strong argument in favour of maintaining the duty on boots and shoes. If ever there was a time when these things should he grappled with firmly to-night is that time. There never was a time when you could introduce a system of direct taxation as easily as you can to-day. There never was a time when the industries of Canada were as flourishing or were making as much money as they are to-day; there never was a time when as much watered stock was being scattered broadcast over Canada as to-day, and there never was a time when it was more fitting that Parliament should take this matter in hand and make it impossible for these companies to sell for good money that which represents nothing to them in the way of money, that which is merely watered stock.
There is another very far-reaching principle involved in this amendment, one that has been discussed to a great extent in this House during the last three or four weeks, one On which the hon. gentlemen opposite have turned naarejolitical somersaults than in all their experience since the inception of the National Policy. I refer to their action in regard to wheat and flour. It is not a year ago-why, it is not two months ago-that the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) stated that the agitation for free wheat was nine-tenths political and one-tenth bad economics. And he even says
that now. I want to ask him, or to ask the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) why it was that, believing this statement of the hon. gentleman, they accepted the principle of free wheat. They told us that the adoption of free wheat was going to tear down the Union Jack from every flagpole in Canada and raise the Stars and Stripes in its place; that it was going to convert our railways into streaks of rust; that it was going to drive the trade of Canada to run north and south instead of east and west. If they were right in their contention, or even if they believed what they said-and what the Solicitor General says even now-what are we to think of men who will make such a volte face as that which they have made, and without any reason for it?
But, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they did not believe in it in 1911. They knew that it would not remove the British flag from a .solitary flag pole in Canada, they knew it would not throw anybody out of employment and they knew they were putting *up the greatest hoax upon the people of Canada that was ever put up upon the people of any country. They knew it would ;not turn the railways into streaks of rust and they knew that it would not divert traffic from the railways running east and west to railways Tunning north and south. Hon. gentlemen opposite knew it, the railways knew it, the manufacturers knew it but yet they fooled the people and by that means they succeeded in getting into power. They had to pay back the people who put them in power by adding 7J per cent to the cost of everything that they produced when this war came on instead of trying to raise money by more modem and scientific methods. When you. ask them to do something to Temove that iniquity they say:	You cannot do it; you can only
raise money in war time by means of the tariff. But, they did remove the duty on wheat and I am very glad they have done so. I have reason to believe, from the intimation made by the Minister of Finance, that they intend to go farther and remove the duty from wheat products.
William Thomas White: I made no such statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, it is well to have the record clear. The minister certainly left the impression on my mind that he was going to implement his Order in Council.


William Pugsley: Did not the minister
state that he was going to amend the Order which was passed?

Sir THOiMAS WHITE:	My hon. friend
(Mr. Pugsley) is surely not putting his question seriously?


William Pugsley: I am.


William Thomas White: The amendment before the House covers wheat, wheat flour, and wheat products.


William Pugsley: No, seminola.
Sir THOMAS W/HITE: Wheat products -that is the amendment before the House of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). What I stated was that the Government had placed upon the free list, wheat, wheat flour and semolina. That is done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is well to have this matter cleared up and to know that the minister does not intend to put wheat products on the free list by Order in Council. It is well that the men in this country who are trying to produce more should know that. The minister says: Production, and still more production; we want you to raise more cattle, more hogs; we want you to increase production if possible, hut we are going to make you pay $3, $4 or $5 more per ton for the food of these animals than you would have to pay if we took the duty off. It is well that the people should know also that the keeping on of that duty does not add one dollar to the revenues of ithe country. It is well that the people of this country who havie livestock should know what the attitude of the minister is to-night. He is going to make these people pay to the millers, the men who are producing these goods in Canada, $4 or $5 a ton more than they would pay if he would, by Order in' Council, remove that duty and let them come in free.


William Thomas White: Does my hon.
friend not know that it was admitted by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr, Robb) that these products are cheaper in Canada to-day than they are in the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All I know is that my hon. friend from Huntingdon wanted to propose an amendment to make these products free and he was ruled out of order, I am afraid, at the instance of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


William Thomas White: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. I am sure that he would not wish to make a statement that is entirely incorrect. It never occurred to me that the hon. member for Huntingdon was out of order, nor did I expect to-day, when

I came to the House prepared to discuss the amendment of which I had received notice, that it would be ruled out of order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I accept that statement from the minister, but that does not alter the fact that my hon. friend from Huntingdon has not had an opportunity yet of presenting his amendment, and anyway I do not think it alters the fact, that wheat products cost more in Canada to-day than they would cost if the duty were removed. If I am not right, if the millers are not making a profit out of the consumers in this country that they ought not to make, if wheat products are not $4 or $5 a ton more than they would be if the duty was removed, why does not the Minister of Finance remove the duty? He could remove the duty on wheat and flour because there was such a demand in the western country that he could not resist it, and I feel satisfied that that political nine-tenths was the thing that removed the duty from wheat and flour. If he could remove the duty from wheat and flour, why could he not go further and remove it from wheat products? The very fact that the minister does not remove that duty, when he has removed the duty from wheat and flour, answers the whole question and answers it in the affirmative, that if the duty were removed the men who use these goods would be getting them cheaper than they are to-day. I do not think it needs any argument because men do these things for reasons.
The next important matteT has been, so ably discussed by my hon. friend from Edmonton that I feel that I would be only uselessly consuming time were I to seek to devote much attention to it. My h,on. friend the Minister of Finance, with his usual sophistry when discussing tariff questions, says: " Why did you not do these things when you were in power; look at what we have done; we have reduced the duties'from 17J per cent down to 12 per cent on mowers, reapers, binders and harvesters." If my hon. friend ever did very much farming he would know that mowers, reapers, binders and harvesters make a very small item in' the list of machinery which the ordinary farmer uses.


William Thomas White: Not in the West.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, in the West, in the East and all over Canada. I know what I am talking about now because I buy some of this machinery myself. If this was all I had to buy I would not care very much whether there was a duty on at or not. If a

man wants to raise potatoes you have not touched the duty upon the implements that he requires. You are making him pay 20, or 25 per cent on the machinery which he has to buy. Mowing machines and binders are very small things, hut take tractors, manure spreaders, potato planters, cultivators, diggers, sprayers and all those things costing from $75 up 'to $125 and $150, articles which every man in the East must buy if he is going to raise potatoes in a modern way and which will cost from $500 to $700 per farm; the minister has not touched a cent of duty on these and the farmers down East are paying all the way from 174 to 25 per cent on these goods. They are paying that no matter whether they are manufactured in Canada or not because, if they are not manufactured in Canada, they are paying to the revenue, but if they are 'manufactured in Canada they are paying not to the revenue hut to the manufacturers. No matter from what source they come the farmer pays the duty because he has to pay it to somebody. Yet, my hon. friend has not touched this duty. My hon. friend has not touched the big machinery.
He has not touched the thresher; he has not touched the steam threshing outfit; he has not touched anything except three or four of the most ordinary and the cheapest articles which the farmer uses on his farm, unless you count hand forks and rakes, etc. So, after all, I do not think the Minister of Finance can take much credit to himself for having reduced the duty on agricultural implements. There, again, he is trying to get from the farmer a little credit to which he is not entitled. I should like to know by What logic you can say that the dhty should he kept on farm machinery in Canada when you realize that every man who has been in the business, outside of a certain circumscribed territory in the province of Ontario, has absolutely been driven out of existence-and I speak again as a man who knows, as I paid some thousands of dollars in order to see if I could not manufacture a certain kind of farm machinery in competition with the Massey-Harris people, and I failed. I learned to my cost that they could drive me and everybody else out unless he was a man of their substance. I will tell you how they did it. They did not sell much cheaper than I did, but they would give the farmer three years1 time without interest. We could not compete against that, and they drove us out of business, and they have done that with hundreds of people in Canada. We wanted
to manufacture farm machinery and to manufacture it fairly and to sell to our neighbours at a reasonable profit, and, the moment these large concerns drove the smaller man out of business, up went the price and the interest, and to-day, if you buy a thresher down East-and it was threshers that I attempted to manufacture- you pay 7 per cent interest. But when they had some competition down there you could ' get three years' credit without interest. It is all very well for a little clique in a certain portion of Ontario to say: We manufacture farm machinery and we want protection; hut I want to tell you that there are some millions of people who do not live in Ontario, who cannot manufacture farm machinery, and who do not want protection, that is, who do not want a protective duty, but who do want protection from the Government as against these men who are compelling them to pay two prices for machinery. There are a lot of us in Canada in that position.
And then take the trade returns. Last 7 year we imported altogether, of agricul- ) tural implements and parts thereof, everything which you can possibly imagine, ineluding scythes and hand rakes and all / the little things used on the farm, only $1,673,000 worth. I have again 9 p.m. no idea how many million dol- j lars worth are consumed in Canada, but there must be a great many millions, tens of millions of dollars worth of farm machinery consumed and yet we imported only $1,673,000 worth in Canada on which the Government received only $309,000 in duty, a mere bagatelle. And yet, Sir, we paid from 12 per cent to 174 per cent and 25 per cent on all these millions and tens of millions of dollars worth of machinery used in Canada. We paid this, not to the Government, but to a little co-terie^of manufacturers in Ontario, and that . same little coterie of manufacturers in Ontario were able to sell to the rest of the world practically $4,000,000 worth of these same articles. The exact figures are $3,- I
854,000.
Does any man tell me that you must have protection on farm implements in Canada when we are able to sell to the rest of the world from two to three times as much as we import, in addition to manufacturing for our people at home? We sold these goods all over the civilized world ex- , cept in the United States. where the, sales were practically nothing, we sold them in the Argentine Republic, in Australia, in New Zealand, in Britain and in France,

and before the war we sold them in Germany, Austria and Russia. I myself saw Massey Harris machinery in Germany and in France, and at a fair in Ipswich, in England, I saw their machinery for sale cheaper than you could buy it in Canada. I went there and purposely priced the machines to see. They are selling these goods all over the civilized world in competition with the rest of the world, and they can manufacture for home consumption and compete with and under-sell the rest of the world in the foreign markets, and then they will tell you:	We must have protection on these goods; otherwise we will have to close down our 'factory. I was very much interested not long ago in discussing this question with a gentleman on a train. I very seldom talk politics on trains, but I overheard a conversation and finally took a hand in it. Years ago we used to hear the story: Oh, but we can not compete with the rest of the world, we are not in a position to compete with the world; and if you throw down the duty to any appreciable extent, let alone making goods free, we will have to close down our business, we will have to close up our shop and our men will be on the street. There has not been an election in Canada in my day that that argument has not been used, and, I am bound to say, used very effectively in certain parts of Canada. Of course, the whole thing was a farce from the beginning. Nobody believed it excepting the poor labouring man over whose head the bludgeon was held. But now a different idea has come in. These gentlemen realize that this thing will not go any longer. There is no use in the Massey Harris people saying: We can not manufacture in Canada without protection, when it is said that when the war broke out there was $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 owing to them in Germany alone, and when they are able to sell in every part of the world that requires farm implements. They can not say that any longer. But these gentlemen have another story entirely. They say: Yes, it is true that we sell in foreign countries, but we -have to slaughter our goods to sell them there, and if we do not lose money we barely come out alive. But we have to keep our overhead expenses down, and in order to keep these expenses down we are compelled to manufacture in large quantities, and by selling to the home consumer at a good big price and by selling to the outsider at cost or a little 
less, we keep down our overhead expenses and are able to keep our factories going. That is the latest reason I have heard advanced, and a good many times in the last few years. When that is exploded it will be something else.
That brings us back to the main question, why on earth should the Canadian farmer be compelled to pay toll to the man who manufactures his machinery when that same man can supply the home market and compete with every other manufacturer in the world, in the foreign market, successfully? I believe that the Canadian manufacturer is doing a bigger business to-day in many foreign markets than all the rest of the manufacturers of farm machinery in the world combined. That is the real practical question, and that is the question that this House has to decide to-night, so far as that branch of the amendment is concerned. That is a question which I quite understand my hon. friend the Minister of Finance can vote down without any question at all, because he is constituted that way. It really comes natural to him, and I do not think he is violating any principles when he is voting against it. But I want to appeal to some of my farming friends on the other side, some of the men whose constituents are buying these articles; I wonder how they can vote down an amendment of this kind. It may be possible, but it seems to me that they will have to do a good deal of figuring o'n it in order to square this matter with their own consciences, let alone the best interests of the people whom they represent. I want to say again that I am the last man in this House who would by my vote advocate a tariff policy which would drive any man out of business. I do not claim to be a free trader; I do not claim to be a protectionist;
I claim that, in a new country like Canada, it is the proper policy to meet conditions as they exist; and if you find that a certain manufacturer or firm of manufacturers has reached such a point of excellence, if they have made so much money that they can manufacture as cheaply as in any other place in the world, if they can exclude the foreign products from our markets, and are able to and do so manufacture and do so sell that we get no imports and get no revenue from customs duties on these articles, then, Sir, I can see no reason why that concern should be allowed to mulct the common people to the extent they are mulcting them. If you cannot make these articles free, then bring the tariff down as far as you

i
can, so that it will give the manufacturers sufficient protection to enable them to live, but not sufficient protection to enable them to become multi-millionaires at the expense of the common people, who are compelled to-buy their wares. I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the duty on farm machinery should be absolutely wiped out. No man need tell me that these people can in ordinary times sell their goods to Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Russia and France at less than cost; they are not fools enough to do that. No man need tell me that they are not making bigger profits out of the Canadian consumer than they have any right to make, or than this Parliament is justified in allowing them to make.
What is true of farm implements is true of the rest of the items enumerated in the proposed free list contained in this amendment. I have discussed cement; I wish, for a moment, at the expense of being tiresome, to discuss a matter which is of greater importance to my constituency, to my province and to the province of Quebec than almost anything else in this list, and that 13 fertilizer.
Before the war broke out we were buying the best grade of fertilizer-what we call 4, 8 and 10-; that means 10 per cent potash- at about $40 a ton. On account of the duty the price has gone up. To the credit of my hon. friend, I may say that he did not apply the 7h per cent duty to fertilizers, but a duty of 10 per cent still applies. We cannot successfully grow potatoes without fertilizers. While a few years ago the potato industry was carried on more largely in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, to-day the greatest producers of potatoes in Canada are the people on the St. Lawrence river, in the counties of Rimouski, Gaspe, Temis-eouata, Kamouraska, Bonaventure. My hon. friend who sits opposite (Mr. Boulay) will bear out what I say in this respect. Hundreds of thousands of bushels of the finest potatoes in the world are grown in these districts. But to-day we cannot get fertilizer, containing potash; we are compelled to pay $55 a ton for fertilizer without potash. In view of the small revenue the minister gets from this source, he is not justified in compelling the producers of potatoes to pay the present duty upon fertilizers. He talks about production, and more production. He says that the Government have taught the people to produce more; yet he piles up the cost of producing that staple article of food by the imposition
of a duty of 10 per cent, resulting in the farmer being obliged to pay from $5 to $10 more for fertilizers than he would otherwise have to pay. Perhaps I am speaking more warmly on this subject than is becoming, but I know the conditions. I buy the article myself; all my neighbours and constituents have to buy it and I know that they cannot produce without it. Yet we are told to produce more. When I was home last week, the great cry of the people was: we cannot get fertilizer on account of the enormous price which the minister makes us pay for it. The removal of that duty would be a great benefit to the people of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Quebec. If for no other reason, therefore, I am compelled to support this amendment because of the vital importance of this matter to my province.
Another principle which is set forth in this resolution is dear to my heart. I shall not call it trade for trade, as my hon. friend did this afternoon; I shall call it reciprocity. When the House met after the election of 1911 it was stated by some hon. gentlemen opposite that reciprocity was dead. J said (that reciprocity was just as much alive as ever. Call it reciprocity, trade for trade, or what you will; the principle involved in reciprocity was good in 1911, and it is better to-day. The Minister of Finance has admitted that he has gone back on every word that he uttered on reciprocity. He has eaten crow with the best face of any man that I ever saw in my life, and he smacked his lips over it. He said, I know I was wrong in what I said in 1911; nothing is so good for this country tas free wheat. And he has admitted that the member fpr SB Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) was wrong when he said that if wheat be made free, the very cornerstone of our trade is removed. The member foT St. Antoine a few weeks ago, meek as a little boy, said: free wheat is all right; we have to take it; it is a good thing. These hon. gentlemen, by advocating the adoption of free -fliheat, have said in effect that reciprocity is good in 1917 and that it was good in 1911. Millions of people in Canada say that reciprocity is right. In this amendment is embodied the principle that food and food products, animals and the foods therefor, should be admitted into Canada free of duty from any country which makes similar tariff provisions. Some gentlemen contended six years ago that if this policy were adopted, you would not be able to sell cattle. I dp not

know whether I could tell you what some gentlemen argued in the We-st at that time- they told so many different stories in different parts of the country-but one thing they said in New Brunswick was that if we had reciprocity, the Yankees would come over and steal our lumber. They are ' coming over now and paying $35 -a thousand for out lumber, which we used to sell at $12 and $14. Of course, I do not say that that is entirely because the duty has been taken off lumber, but a large part of the result may be attributed to that cause. We have secured a certain amount of reciprocity by the removal of duties by the United States. I am going to watch some of my good Conservative friends with a great deal of interest so that I may see the wry faces they will make if the Americans put back the duty of 10 per cent on many of the articles going into their country from Canada. You will find out then whether hon. gentlemen opposite believe in reciprocity or not. It will also be a matter of interest and curiosity to me-possibly I may be animated by another feeling-to watch some of my good friends and see how they take the imposition of say $6 or $7 on a two year old steer, $3 on a thousand feet of lumber, and various amounts on other things now going to the United States and for which we are receiving magnificent prices. I am glad, Sir, that my hon. friend has included this principle in his amendment. I repeat that the principle is just as good to-day as it was in 1911. The items mentioned in the amendment are just as deserving of consideration as was free wheat. Free wheat is good for the farmer of the West. It is good for the farmer of the East, because it gives him cheaper bread, but free wheat does not mean so much to him as the removal -of the duty on some of the items included in this amendment would mean.
The fourth paragraph of the amendment provides for a general reduction of tariff on all artiles imported into Canada except luxuries. Wiih that principle I heartily agree. But one article which, in my judgment, has ceased to be a luxury-which, as a matter of fact, has become a real necessity to the farming community-is the automobile.
I realize that down to a very recent date automobiles were a luxury; and while I think a duty of 42J per cent is outrageous, still there is no doubt there was a time when that duty was justifiable. The time, however, has now come when in the West and in the East and in all the farming

communities of Canada, the people not only want the automobile for the pleasure of the thing, but really demand it and regard it as a necessity on the farms. Probably nothing has made farm life in Canada as pleasant and attractive as has the automobile and also, the rural telephone, and I know of no greater pleasure than to see a farmer, after he has done his day's work, take his wife to town in his car and perhaps go to a picture show or a theatre and return home by ten o'clock. The automobile has become a necessity for a farmer taking trips into town for repairs for his machinery and for a hundred and one things that are required around a farm. When one realizes that an automobile which costs $1,000 in the state of Maine, ten miles from my home, would cost $1,425 on this side of the line, one can hardly credit it. I can go ten miles from my home and buy a car for four or five or six hundred dollars less than I can buy it in my own town. I would not mind paying a reasonable duty on an automobile because I know that we must raise a revenue, hut why an automobile should be worth $100 more on this side of the Detroit river than on the other is something that I can not understand, and why on earth a better class of car costs $200 more in my town than in the town of Houlton in the United States ten miles away, is, something also that I cannot understand. There is another thing that makes the tax even more burdensome. This old story about infant industries is becoming practically exhausted in Canada. Up to a few years ago, one heard it said: You must encourage the infant industries. But some of those infants have stuck to the bottle for many years, and some of them will die upon the bottle, let alone live on it. I find, as regards the automobile industry, that not only do we manufacture a very large percentage of the automobiles which we use in Canada, but last year we exported $9,431,000 worth of automobiles' and we shipped them to all parts of the world. When I first saw those figures I thought they referred to motor trucks and cars of that kind that were sent over to Great Britain on account of this war. That is not the case. A very small proportion went to Great Britain, but we shipped automobiles to the Argentine, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the West Indies, and other countries. Therefore, we are able to manufacture automobiles, not only for our own market, hut to compete

with the rest of the world, and yet you tell me you require a duty of 421 per cent to-day iff order to keep a few little automobile factories running in Canada. The Ford factory is the only one in Canada that is making automobiles; the Other so-called automobile factories are only assembling the parts which are imported from the United States. I will admit that they manufacture a few bodies, but outside of factories manufacturing bodies and assembling parts, I know of no concern in Canada except the Ford which manufactures automobiles. There was one in Toronto, but it was sold out to an American firm which is now using that plant only for assembling parts. It is true that the parts that are imported are subject to a duty of 42i per cent, but in the whole realm of commerce there is no article that is more susceptible of manipulation than an automobile part. Take, for example, the rear axle containing the differential. You take an ordinary $1,000 or $1,200 car, and you want to bring in that axle, and the factory will charge you $125 for it, but they will bring it in as a casting, and it will cost them only $15 and they will pay the duty on the value of that article as a casting. They bring these parts in at a nominal figure, and they pay duty only on that figure; they assemble the parts in this country and they sell them to*our farmers adding 42J per cent on the total value. For instance, they might pay $100 in duty on the parts of an automobile that they assemble, and they will charge the people $400 for doing so. That is a matter which comes as near to me as anything in the whole realm of commerce, and it is something which I am, in the most serious possible manner, calling to the attention of the Minister of Finance. It is true we get some revenue on importations of automobiles, but we shall get a good deal more revenue if you will cut the duty in half or even cut it down to a third, because in that case you will find that the people will import more automobiles. The farmer on the western prairie who cannot afford to buy a car now will be able to have one then, and a man down East who has saved up $500 or $600 and who says that he cannot afford to pay $1,000 for an automobile will be able to buy one. In that way, more automobiles will be imported and the Government will get as much revenue out of those importations as they will under present conditions, but the man or the American company who has a factory over in Canada assembling automobiles will not make as much money out of the business as he is making out of the people of Canada to-day. There is no doubt about that. As far as I am concerned-and I think I am voicing the sentiment of every man in this House, no matter on which side he sits-I am sure we would all like to see the ordinary farmer, and even the labouring man, if you will, be in a position to buy an automobile, rather than to see the dollars piled up in the pockets of the American manufacturer who assembles parts in the Dominion of Canada.
The last item of this amendment refers to the British preference, and I know there is nothing in the whole list which is so distasteful to the Minister of Finance as is the proposal to increase the British preference.
I do not think my hon. friend feels that way towards it because he has any real objection to trading with Great Britain. I am not charging him with anything like that; I never charge any one with die-loyalty, because I think the meanest thing on earth is for one Canadian to say to another: You are disloyal. I am not intimating that for one moment. The minister knows that there is no greater blow to high protection in Canada than the British preference. He knows that the British preference works out, not in one way, but in three ways. He knows that if you increase the British preference to 50 per cent, then any article which can be brought into Canada from Great Britain or any of the Dominions that have the same arrangement, will come in by paying half the duty which the same article will pay if imported from a foreign country, and if the matter would stop there, the minister would not feel so badly about it; but he knows there are two other phases to this question. He knows that if the foreigner wants to bring that same article into Canada he must sell it at a price which, with the duty added, will not make the cost to the consumer any more than the British article will cost with one-half the duty added, and he knows that he will probably derive less revenue unless he has a bigger importation. There is, however, a third phase of the question which is still more important to my hon. friend and to Canada, and that is that the home manufacturer must sell his goods at a price low enough to compete with the article which comes from Great Britain, with one-half Oif the duty chargeable against it, or with the foreign article cut down in price so as to meet the British preference. Therefore,

every time you increase the British preference on an article you make that article cheaper, whether it comes from Great Britain or from a foreign country or if it is manufactured in Canada. You will find you are not only making it cheaper to the consumer, but you are stimulating importations, because if it is cheaper, people will be able to buy more of it; more of it will be imported and the result will be at the end of the year you will have just as much revenue with the British preference increased to 50 per cent as you have now with the British preference around 33 per cent.
I have gone over the paragraphs of this amendment a little more in detail perhaps than was necessary, but it is a very important matter to me. I do not want to leave this subject before trying to answer in a very hurried way the question which my hon. friend put this afternoon, and I knew it was coming, /because It'he very moment you talk about reducing the tariff hon. gentlemen opposite ask:	Where are
you going to get the revenue? I tried to take down the minister's exact words this afternoon. He said: "We could not raise the money without the tariff; it is and must be the main source of revenue." He said the tariff could not be revised in war time, and that we could not get along without it. I have not asked him to do without the tariff. I have never asked and never will ask a government to remove the tariff on any article if by so doing they would prevent the article being manufactured in Canada under ordinary conditions. But I say and shall continue to say until common sense methods prevail with the government of this country that when an article is manufactured so cheaply in Canada as to prevent the importation of the foreign article, that article requires no protection; it is paying no duty, and it requires no protection. In the case of such articles I ask the Government to remove the duty entirely, so as to allow the people to get the benefit of the amount of money they are now paying to the Canadian manufacturer. When I find that the duty on an article makes the people of this country pay more than they should for their boots and shoes and many other items I might mention, then I say it is the duty of the Government to cut that duty down to such a point that the people will not be compelled to pay an jexhorbitant price, and the country will get some revenue by the importation of the foreign article.
I have already pointed out jhat in the case of boots and shoes the duty 
amounts to less than three-quarters of a million dollars, including the 7i per cent. I would cut the duty down so that the people would have the choice of bringing the article in at a fair price or of buying from Ames, Holden & McCready at a fair price. I would put those people where they could not sell their watered stock for good money and they say later on: You must not touch the duty on these goods or you will render valueless the stock for which good money has been paid. And similarly with regard to cement and many other items, such as farm machinery and automobiles to quite an extent. My hon. friend will say: We must have these duties in war time, because we cannot raise money in any other way. I do not think my hon. friend does himself justice when he makes t'he statement that he cannot raise revenue except by the customs tariff. My hon. friend has a pretty good opinion of himself as a financier, and I admit that he knows quite a lot about finance; he understands the question pretty well.


William Thomas White: Not any too well.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Fairly well. He knows more about it than I do, if that is any consolation to him, and I cannot understand why a man who knows as much about finance as he does, who can keep the finances of this country in a better condition than the finances of any other country in the world except the United States, cannot find some other method of raising the revenue except by customs tariff. My hon. friend has found out something:	He has
taxed the business interests of Canada. He has taxed the banks. My! but he hit them a gentle blow, one of those beautiful love-taps that my hon. friend reserves for the big interests. He has learned how to tax the common people on every letter they send across the seas. He knows how to do all these things, and now he comes and says, I can do no more, I am done.


William Thomas White: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is taking all these taxes out of the common people anyhow, and no matter whether he has to raise $230,000,000 or $330,000,000 in the future he realizes that it has to come out of the pockets of the people of Canada in some way or other, and does he mean to tell me that with all his knowledge of finance he knows of no way of raising the revenue except by custom duties? Never for a moment.


Michael Clark: He is too modest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is not as modest as all that. I will not go over the question of an income tax, as we have discussed that time and again in this House. I will not discuss the land tax, though personally I believe there is no tax in the world that is so equitable and just. They tried the experiment in the province of Ontario last year, imposing only a small tax,about 2 mills I think-it was a nominal sum any way-and they got more money than they knew what to do with. I am sure that the Minister of Finance by imposing a moderate land tax could raise half the revenue he now raises from the whole Dominion. But he only wants a tariff revenue, and he says that he knows of no other method. I can tell him that there will be some man in his seat before very long who will know what to do, and how to do it, and just as soon as the people of this country get a chance they will show him what to do. I want to tell him that all is not well in Canada, notwithstanding the very 'glowing statement he made this afternoon. Go and talk to the labouring man in the towns and villages in any part of Canada. I grant you that he is getting more money than he ever did before, perhaps $2.50 a day, Or if he is a munitions worker from $3 to $5 a day. But go into that man's home and ask him what he thinks of present conditions. You will find that he has to pay.$7 or $8 for a pair of boots for his wife which formerly cost him only $3.50 and $16 a barrel for flour and 13 and 14 cents for a loaf that used to cost him 10 cents. He cannpt buy woollens at all, because the price has gone up out of sight, and my hon. friend has imposed a tarifi of 35 or 40 per cent. Every trticle pf food and clothing that the poor man uses in his home has been multiplied in price until he does not know how to make ends meet. The common people of this country are thinking deeply about these matters. To the ordinary labouring man or the clerk in the store, the man working for a daily wage or for a small salary, the problem of the cost of living is becoming-I was going to say almost a greater problem than the war itself, and it is men of this class who are winning the war; it is not the plutocrats who have shed their blood and spent their money to win this war. I:t is the common everyday people, the labouring man and the farmers' sons who have volunteered and gone to the front, and the question which is agitating the common people of this country to-day is the high cost of living. Wherever three or four women are gathered together, whether they be rich or
poor, high or low, after discussing the latest hats you will always find them talking about the cost of living. The question is in everybody's mouth; the problem is with every man who has to earn a living for himself and family. No matter how my hon. friend may draw his cloak around this question, no matter what sophistries his monopolistic friends may preach to him, I : can tell him that the common people are i thinking of this question as they never i thought of anything before since 'Canada \ was Canada, and the people will find a way if my hon. friend cannpt; they will find a way, and they will find the man to get rid of this burden on the necessities of life. They will show my hon. friend how to raise the revenue, and 'how to make the man who has grown rich out of tariffs and out ,of the present war pay his fair share into the treasury of this country, not only while the war is on but after the war, when I believe terrible conditions will exist and additional taxation will have to be raised.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand the argument of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) to be that duties have very much effect upon the prices of goods. I desire * to call his attention to several items with which I am familiar. * First, I take agricultural implements-I speak particularly of the mowers and binders used in the west. The reduction of duty that has been made in agricultural implements has been made almost wholly by the Conservative Government. The duty was at first 35 per cent. A Conservative Government reduced it to 20 per cent. The succeeding Liberal Government reduced this duty to 171 per cent, and under the Conservative Government it has been cut down to 121 per cent. Yet we are paying more for agricultural implements to-day than we paid when the duty was 171 per cent. Take the case of flour. The duty on this article has been removed altogether. We are paying more for flour than we did when a duty was charged. The hon. gentlemen referred also to boots. The duty under the Conservative Government was 25 per cent. Our friends on the other side, though they talk so much of low tariff, increased that duty to 30 per cent. I did not rise for the purpose of making any extensive remarks, but I wished to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to these facts, which he cannot dispute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why did not you ask
the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) to make that statement.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I make my own statements without reference to any other man. It happens that the hon. member for St. Antoine sits beside me, but that has nothing to do with the matter. The question is, are these facts or are they not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the hon. gentleman asking a question or making a statement?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I was correcting the hon. gentleman's error.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then he does not expect any reply from me.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: No resolution has 'come before this House which it has given me greater pleasure to support than this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). The reduction of the tariff is an idea very dear to the hearts of the people of that part of the country which I represent, and for that reason as well as because it commends itself to my own judgment, I strongly support this amendment. The Minister of Finance this afternoon took great credit to the Government for the raising of 400,000 men and sending them overseas to take part in the war. From my knowledge of the methods of recruiting and equipping the Canadian army, I take exception to the hon. minister's statement. I come from a city which, I believe, has done more for recruiting, according to its population, than any other in t(he Dominion, and I think the same applies to the province of Alberta as a whole. I say that our success in raising a large number of men for the front was not owing to any action taken by this Government, but to the extremely patriotic feeling which pervaded all classes of the people. When the war broke out no government could have stopped the men in my province from volunteering and enlisting; in fact, when it was first known that war was on, the difficulty was to prevent- men from going. I venture to say that if the Department of Militia had used business-like methods in recruiting the first contingent, and, later on, the rest of the men required for overseas service we should not to-day be confronted with the problem of conscription.
The Minister of Finance also took a great deal of credit to the Government for the way in which the Canadian war loans have been subscribed. I admit that these domestic loans were a new departure in finance, and the minister is entitled to credit for his acumen in resorting to them. But he must not overlook the fact that there is no in-
vestment in Canada which offers equal security and equal return on investment with exemption from war taxation. It would be poor business on the part of any man or woman in Canada who has money to invest not to buy a bond or more as their circumstances permit.
I was much disappointed when the Budget was brought down to find that no tariff changes were made. We are confronted with the terrible difficulty of providing foodstuffs for the Allies in spite of obstacles to transportation. We are urged on all sides to increase production and to do everything	to	enable the Allies to
feed and care for the men at the front. In my province, where agriculture is a basic industry, and where conditions are	excellently suited for
the raising of all kinds of grain, one of the first problems confronting our farmers is the duty on agricultural implements. We believe that the western prairie provinces are bound to be the greatest grain-producing section in the whole Dominion. We believe, therefore, that it is absolutely essential that everything should be done that can be done to make production there as economical and as efficient as possible. For that reason I am strongly in favour of the amendment, which declares for the reduction of taxes on implements required for use on the farm. A commission has been appointed to investigate the high cost of living, and to learn what can be done to ameliorate the conditions under which the masses of the people are struggling at this time. We have also had a discussion in this House within the past few days as to price agreements which are to-day in effect as between the manufacturers and wholesale dealers. I understand that this commission, appointed by the Minister of Labour, has been investigating these matters from coast to coast, and that they have in their possession copies of such price agreements as were brought to the attention of the Ho'use by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) a few nights ago. And yet we are not informed that any action has been taken by the Government, or even by the Minister of Labour, to bring the parties to these agreements to time, and thus to effect a saving in the cost of the necessaries of life for the people. The combines between manufacturers and wholesalers have been in existence for a great many years.
One particular combine which I have seen in my province is the sugar combine. The sugar refining industry is in the hands practically of three or four firms in Canada.

The British Columbia Refining Company operate from Vancouver east as far as Brandon. From there the eastern manufacturers control the price and it is a straight combine price in every city and town between Vancouver and Montreal. The question of value apparently does not enter into the computation at all. Sugar is sold cheaper in Brandon than in Regina and yet it may be supplied from Vancouver. Sugar is sold cheaper in Yorkton than in Edmonton and yet the distance from the shipping point is from 300 to 500 miles greater in the former case than in the latter. The same thing applies with respect to a great many other lines of stable goods which are absolutely required by the people of this country. Yet, the commission which was supposed to deal with questions of this kind and to find a solution, if possible, has done nothing to alleviate conditions and to-day we are confronted with a terrible rise in prices of all food commodities. Prices have gone on increasing until we have reached a stage where it is practically impossible for people to live with any degree of comfort.
Another question in regard to which the Government has 'been derelict in its duty is that of supplying seed to the farmers for the increased production which hon. gentlemen opposite have been advocating. The cultivation of potatoes is a matter of very great importance to the country at the present time. I suppose there is no food product which is in more common use and which is of greater importance to the people of any country than the potato and the importance of a plentiful supply of this commodity is obvious to every one. The Government, through their Minister of Agriculture, or through the commission appointed to investigate the high cost of living, must have known that the supply of seed potatoes was very scarce and that the price was skyrocketing. Yet the Minister of Agriculture did nothing outside of making a few inquiries in the different' provinces as to the number of bushels of potatoes which were available. The result of this inquiry must have shown him that the situation was extremely serious inasmuch as he was informed that only in three provinces had they a surplus. He took steps to provide seed wheat, oats and barley to the farmers of eastern Canada and yet he neglected to arrange for a supply of seed potatoes which his department could have secured fcr the farmers of Ontario,
Quebec and other provinces who required that seed. The result of that policy of inaction is that to-day -when planting is on, a large acreage which otherwise would have been planted with potatoes will go without the necessary seed being put in to ensure a satisfactory crop to our own people. Any one planting potatoes has to pay such an exorbitant price for the seed that it is very questionable, even if he has a good crop, whether he will get a sufficient return in the fall for the cost of the seed and his labour.
Last year a duty was added to a food necessity of the western provinces particularly which is obtained from British Columbia and the western states. I refer to apples. Apples have become a necessity of the prairie provinces. We are not able to grow them ourselves and it is absolutely essential that we should import them. This Government in its wisdom, last year, raised the duty on. apples until to-day the duty is 90 cents a barrel. This was done at the request of the growers in British Columbia. I think that is a fair statement. I do not think that any growers in eastern Canada particularly urged upon the Government that this duty should be increased. We, in western Canada at least, thought that we were being mulcted for the benefit of the fruit growers of British Columbia. The result of that duty has teen this: We were told at the time that the duty was put on that we would get as good a grade of fruit as we had been getting, that we would pay no more for apples, that the British Columbia growers would be able to produce and ship at a profit, and we would be en-cpuraging industry in our own country and not doing ourselves any harm. What has been the result? I have lived in western Canada for twenty-two years and I have never yet seen as poor a quality of apples put on the market in Alberta as we had this year and we have never paid as high a price. The argument may be put forth that the apple crop was a failure in Ontario last year and that that was the reason why our apples were higher in the West. As a matter of fact, we do not bring apples from eastern Canada farther west than Regina or Moosejaw. The apples consumed in Alberta come from British Columbia or from Oregon. In spite of the fact that a duty of 90 cents per barrel was put on apples, importers were compelled to buy from Oregon and Washington quite a large quantity on which a considerable duty was paid. In answer to a question I put on the

Order Paper I was informed that the total amount of duty collected from the importation of green apples imported into Canada from the United States during the fiscal year ended March 1917, was $250,155.90. That was the import duty on apples coming in from the United States. I also asked what was the total amount of duty collected on green apples imported into Canada from the United States at the ports of Calgary and Edmonton respectively during the year *ending March, 1917, and I find that in Calgary we paid duty to the amount of $17,373.60 and in Edmonton to the amount of $20,038.90. When this duty of 90 cents a barrel was put on it was generally stated, by gentlemen representing British Columbia constituencies, that it was not a duty for revenue. It was absolutely a protective duty imposed explicitly for the purpose of shutting out American apples from Canada, yet, in spite of that fact, we in western Canada, in the two ports of Calgary and Edmonton, were forced to pay duty on American apples from the state of Washington and the state of Oregon to the extent of nearly $40,000, protecting the whole British Columbia crop to the extent of 90 cents a barrel. The way in which we were served was that we received the poorest stuff. The grading was the poorest it has ever been in my experience, and I question very much if the British Columbia grower is much better off than he was a year ago before that additional duty was put on. If the Minister of Agriculture were in his place I would call his attention to the way in which his inspectors have been marking and classifying apples under the pure food laws. The grading of apples coming in from the American side, I was told by importers who had no object in telling me this that except that it was the absolute truth, is entirely unsatisfactory; I am told that no matter what the grade of apples coming in from the other side might be, the inspector on the Canadian side marked the fruit number two. It is well known that the grading of apples on the American side in the Western States is higher in standard than on the Canadian side, and the object of marking all the stock number two is something that I do not understand.
Upon the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I want to make a few remarks, even at the risk of repeating many of the arguments that have been so ably advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for Carleton, N. B. (Mr. Carvell).

The subject is so dear to my heart, that I feel it my duty to discuss this question, even at the risk of such repetition. The first clause is that wheat, wheat flour and other products of wheat be placed upon the free list. This policy has been adopted by the present Government to a large extent, with the exception of bran, shorts, middlings and other products of wheat. The principle has been accepted by the Government, so that in asking that this clause be enlarged to include bran, shorts, middlings and other products of wheat, we are not asking anything which should not be granted if the Government are sincere in.placing these art-
10 p.m. icles of wheat, wheat flour and semolina on the free list by Order in Council a few weeks ago.
The second clause relates to farm implements and machinery and farm tractors. I have gone into the amount of duty which we have collected on the different lines of farm machinery during the .year 1915-16, the last period for which returns are available, and I find that on nearly all the lines of farm implements that might be used ,on a western farm, including binders, cultivators, drills, rollers, harrows, hay loaders, hay tedders, horserakes, manure spreaders, threshing machines, ploughs, reapers, mowing machines and parts thereof, other agricultural implements and parts thereof, the total amount of duty collected was $446,111.-49-less than half a million dollars collected on all those different items of farm machinery, articles which have got to be used by every farmer, not only in western Canada but also in eastern Canada, on which he is mulcted to the amount of that duty, no matter whether it is 12i per cent or 25 per cent, although we are toeing urged, not only by the Canadian Government but by the Imperial Government as well, to conduct a policy of production, and yet more production, nothing is done on the part of the Government to assist the farmer in any way or to induce him to cultivate more land. It is well known that a farmer cannot bring additional land under cultivation in a day, or a week, or six months; if he is a business man, he must look ahead and see that he will have a market for his produce, that if he breaks up or acquires additional land and puts it under cultivation the transaction will be a profitable one to him, and that it will be to his advantage to raise more cattle, sheep, grain or whatever he is producing. If the Government had heen anxious to assist in procuring more production, the removal of the duty on farm im-

plements would have been a great assistance. It is what the farmers have insistently ashed for for many years, and it would have had more effect in .stimulating production than almost anything else that I know of. In relation to farm tractors, it is difficult to ascertain the exact amount of duty paid. These tractors are included in the customs returns with large and heavy tractors and it is almost impossible to find out the duty collected on these particular items whidh would be affected by this resolution.
As for flour-and saw-milling machinery, the amount of duty collected on these items is not very great, and if we place lumber and flour on the free list, it is only fair that the machinery which is used in the producing of these articles should also be placed on the free list. The amount of duty collected on sawmilling machinery for 1915-16 was only $36,825.27. The amount of duty on mining machinery, much of which is already free, including ore crushers, with which -are included rock crushers (which are not properly mining machinery) -was $90,587.
In going over the entire list, I find that on coal oil, kerosene oil, the amount of duty collected in 1915-16 was $160,534.41; and on the products of petroleum, which would include lubricating and fuel oil, another $155,993.63, which makes a total duty collected of $316,528.04. When you consider that practically every one in Canada occupying a position in the rural life of the country and every labouring man in many parts of the cities of Canada is a user of kerosene oil, it is surprising to find that we are forced to pay to a combine a duty of two and one-half cents a gallon, the Government receives only $316,000 from that -source of revenue. While the duty of 2J cents does not seem to be very high, on an ad valorem basis it means a protection of 45 per cent or over. This is a tariff not for revenue, but absolutely for protection. It is put on for the purpose of preventing the importation of oil, and it has the effect of enhancing the price to every user of oil in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the duty on the raw product?


James McCrie Douglas: The raw product is free, with the exception of 7J per cent war tax. The hon. member for Carleton has gone into the question of cement, showing that we received less than $10,000 during the year 1915-16 from the duty on that article.
From the duty on fertilizers we received $59,986.25. I have given the amounts received during the year 1915-16 by way of duty upon the items included in the second section of the - amendment -submitted by the hon. member for Edmonton, the total of which amounted to $959,418.74. It would not unduly press upon the revenues of Canada to give relief to a large number of people and to aid production by the removal of these duties, (because the revenue would -be affected only to the extent of less than a million dollars.
The next principle set forth in the reso- . lution is:
That staple foods and food products, other than wheat and flour, domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
This is the principle which was advocated in 1911 in the reciprocity pact. I was firmly convinced,at that time that the principle was correct, -sound and logical, and I have since had no reason to change my mind.
That substantial reduction be made in tbe general tariff on all articles imported into Canada except luxuries is another principle which we, as Liberals, stand for. I hope that the Government will, by adopting the amendment, carry that principle into effect.
I was able to observe some of the benefits of the British preference when it was first introduced in 1897. I was engaged in business at that time, -and I saw the practical workings of tbe reduction of a straight 33 1-3 per cent in the- duties upon all articles imported into Canada from Great Britain. From the consumer's standpoint, no -act of any Canadian Government was ever of greater value than the putting into efieet of the British preference in 1897. We were enabled to import manufactured goods of good quality -at reasonable prices, giving to the consumers an opportunity of obtaining the finest line o-f cotton and woollen goods ever brought into the country. We were able to give more trade to the Mother Country than we have ever given since; our present trade returns with the United States show that that is the -case. When the Liberal Government changed the British preference of 1897 they made a great mistake.
If they had left the preference at a straight 33 1-3 per cent the consumers of Canada would have derived from it an untold benefit. I want to see that preference re-established and enlarged so that we shall be able to purchase cotton and woollens from the



country which leads the world in the manufacture of those articles. While certain lines of manufactured goods in Canada would be adversely affected, we must not forget that the large body o* consumers must be taken care of or they will not stay in the country.
I should like to make a few suggestions as to how the Government might raise the amount of money which would be taken away by putting on the free list the articles enumerated in this amendment. I am living in a part of the country which has a tremendous amount of unimproved farm lands. I am quite in accord with the view expressed by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise) that the Government would be well advised in putting a direct tax on all unimproved lands in Canada. I have not gone into the figures as carefully as the member for Dauphin with regard to the amount which could be derived.from such a tax, but I am convinced that it would be substantial, more than enough to compensate any change made in the tariff to alleviate the condition of the working people.
I would advocate, also, a graduated income tax. I would exempt incomes of $2,000 and less, for a man who earns $2,000 a year is not earning any too much. The tax on incomes exceeding that amount would, if properly looked after by the Minister of Finance and his department, result in the raising of a very large revenue. He has imposed a graduated tax on corporations and firms; I do not know that I would go any further than he has gone along that line. He is probably looking into the question carefully, and is, perhaps, getting as much money from that source as he can get.
As to the question of free wheat, I would urge the Government, if they do not accept the amendment of the member for Edmonton, to make the measure providing for free wheat a permanent tariff change. In the growing of wheat it is absolutely essential that the producer shall have some guarantee that his market will not be interfered with by the mere whim of any ministry which may be in power.	'
If he wishes to ensure permanency and stability on the part of the grain grower in western Canada, he can do that in no safer and better way than by enacting the legislation which he has brought into force by Order in Council so as to make free wheat a permanent item in the tariff law. I would also urge upon him the necessity of putting oats, barley and flax on the same level as he has put wheat. If he will grant these requests, he may even get a few

votes from his Conservative friends who otherwise might vote with the Opposition.


Mr. THOMAS MAGNUTT (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not support this amendment, as I, amongst others, received in 1911 a mandate from the people to support a policy along the same lines, and this mandate has not yet expired. This amendment, however, goes somewhat further than the reciprocity proposal, and I only wish that at that time the reciprocity proposal had gone as far, because although it was defeated, it would have suited me a great deal better had its scope been wider, as I have always felt that the development, not only of the West but of the whole of Canada, which it is always claimed depends upon the development of the West, depends on freedom of trade -with the United States to a large extent. We, however, failed to obtain a majority in 1911, and vve have been fighting for freedom of trade with the United States ever since. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has now brought the matter up again. There are, in his amendment, one or two features which are not exactly as I would like them to be, and I will refer to them later. I would have been pleased had the amendment gone a little farther. The Minister of Finance -stated to-day that this is a bad time to revise the tariff, but -some hon. members have pointed out that the tariff has already been revised, although in an upward direction, with the exception of wheat, wheat flour and .semolina. Why the Minister of Finance or the Government did, as the hon. member for Carleton stated, " eat crow " in this respect, I do not know. Some reasons have been given, one of them being that the United States are now our allies, which they were not before, and that we must pool our wheat with them. If that is good with regard to wheat and flour, it must hold good with regard to other food products.
But so far as wheat is concerned, wheat for export was always free, that is, it could be shipped through in bond and milled either in the United States, or in the old country, but under this Order in Council, we now have that great American market and we appreciate it very much, no -matter what the motive may be. It is just possible for us to . feel that the motive might not have been along the lines of the reasons given, and it is not an illegitimate conclusion to come to that there were other influences at work. The Financial Post, on April 28, 1917, says:

Further consideration of the free wheat legislation brings the conviction that it represents a change of policy brought about not so much by war conditions as by the influence of that growing force in Western Canada to which reference has several times been made in these columns. The recent tour of Hon. Arthur Meighen probably did more than anything else to open the eyes of the Government as to the importance of meeting the Grain Growers' demands.
In another article the Financial Post makes the statement:
Over all prevails the impression that western Canada is a growing force in politics.
Whatever the motive may have been, we are very glad to have wheat on the free list, but we would like to see a good many other things on the free list. In this regard we are not asking for a special favour; we are asking that our protection be taken away from us; we do not want it; we do not ask for it. We say: Remove the obstacle from our path; if we have anything to sell, allow us to sell it, and do not throw obstacles in the way that will prevent us from selling it. If it is important that the best market be obtained for manufactured products, why is it not important that the best market be obtained for natural products? Let us find the man who wants to buy our food products, and let us endeavor to get them'as rapidly as possible to this man, whoever or wherever he may be. We do not ask for any favour; we simply want the privileges that are unjust to be taken away from those who have no right to them. We do not ask this as class legislation. The West is a new country; we have what was once Rup'ert's Land attached to Canada and it is now considered that it will become the most important part of Canada; but while it has millions of acres of fertile land which should be productive, that land will never produce as it should until some inducement is given to the people to go on the land and until they are made to realize that they can do so profitably. A man who has a family and responsibilities is entitled, when he engages in a life occupation, to some reward if he can secure it legitimately. It is all very well to say to a man: Go to the West and go on the land, but you must show him that he can make a permanent home there, make a living, bring up his family properly and become a good citizen. I would like to read a couple of extracts with regard to this question: In the Forest Free Press of February 1, I find this, referring to the appeal made by the Minister of Agriculture for production and more production:
In the tremendous strain yet to come a vital factor will be an ample and unfailing flow of *0. England and France. No matter what difficulties may face us, the supreme duty of every man on the land is to use every energy in the direction of producing more, and still more.
Now, we hold the same view. * The Government apparently does not. but at the same time they are appealing for more and more production. I have another quotation here along the same lines:
In the three last fiscal years the duty paid on imported farm implements was over six million dollars, while the taxes on home-manufactured implements was over twenty million. In the same three years Canadian manufacturers exported seventeen million dollars worth of farm implements. During these same three years the manufactures were refunded over five million dollars of the duty they had paid on their raw material. Of this amount nearly two million went in aid of the manufacturers of farm machinery and tools sold at home or abroad. The last official census shows that the total value of farm products in that year only 15 per cent on the capital invested, while the product value of farm implements manufactured was 46 per cent, on capital invested.
Under this odious and discriminating policy agriculture has become so unprofitable and has languished to such an extent that the Dominion and Provincial Governments are spending this year some two million dollars, (mostly contributed by the farmers themselves), in frantic appeals to the farmers to produce more food stuffs. The Barons are very much interested in keeping up production, for several good reasons-the Railway Barons enrich themselves in carrying those products at extortionate rates; the Implement Barons want the home market kept up, while both want the farmer to continue to pay their taxes as well as his own.
And it concludes by showing that Ontario is affected as well as the West. Mr. J. H. Pettypiece says:
The great need in this connection is the removal of every vestige of the fiscal taxation which is depopulating our Ontario farms.
That surely is not in the interests of production. It is the opinion of one who is particularly well qualified to speak on this subject. One of the worst features in connection with the tariff is that it allows the establishment of combines. There is a law against combines, I believe, but the only case that was ever proceeded with that I know of was some years ago against a lumber company at Edmonton. Combines have continued to flourish notwithstanding and to a considerable extent they are the cause of the high cost of ^living, and they can only exist. and take shelter behind a protective tariff. I have here the opinion of Alexander Macdonald, head of the A. Macdonald Company, wholesale grocers, Winnipeg:
109i

I am surprised at the statement in the Free Press, attributed to Mr. Carpenter, local secretary of The -Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in which he says that he does not know of a single instance where any manufacturer dictates what price the retailer shall sell to the consumer for. This seems strange, particularly, coming from a gentleman in ^Ir. Carpenter's position, who should be, but is evidently not, conversant with the facts of his office.
The Shredded Wheat Company, an American concern with a Canadian factory, not only dictates what the wholesaler shall sell shredded wheat at, but they stipulate what price the retailer shall charge the consumer, and if he does not adhere to their dictated price, they notify all wholesale jobbers that they are not to supply said retailer with shredded wheat, or if they do, they cannot procure any more shredded wheat from them. The margin of profit in this case is 40 per cent between the price paid by the jobber and what the consumer has to pay.
Then the Edwardsburg Starch Co., and the Borden Milk Co., of New York, which controls certain milk canning factories in Canada, dictates to the wholesale trade not only what price their goods shall be sold at, but goes so far as to say that if other lines of syrup and canned milk made by other manufacturers are not sold at prices dictated by them, they will not supply the wholesaler with any of their goods, which is, to say the least, a highhanded proceeding. The difference in the cost of the Canadian and the American syrup delivered in Winnipeg is 58 cents per case, or 18 per cent. The freight rate is about the same, but the duty on the American syrup, tins and war tax, is 32 per cent, and still it costs 18 per cent less than the Canadian. Then there is the Crystal White syrup, which shows even a greater margin, but we will not go into the details for the present. The wholesalers' profit on canned cream is over 16 per cent, and on Edwardsburg starch nearly 18 per cent.
The E. B. Eddy Company at Ottawa fixes the price at which the jobber is to sell their goods at and distinctly states in the agreement that if any wholesale grocery house sells matches other than those made by the Eddy Company, they will refuse to supply them with their goods. Said goods carry a profit of 20 per cent to the jobber, or over double the profit that any well conducted wholesale grocery house should get.
We understand there is in this city what is called a "Grocers' Guild," composed of jobbers, who are to some extent responsible for present conditions. They are always trying to get the manufacturers to make fixed selling prices and to refuse to sell to wholesalers who do not buy exclusively from them. When they meet the manufacturer, the question usually is, not what the manufacturer is going to charge for his goods, but what margin of profit the jobber is going to get. The manufacturer left to himself no doubt takes a good profit and in many cases allows the jobber a very liberal discount, and all this is done through the combines.
I believe that every manufacturer has a right to fix his price and terms, but I do not think -he should have the right to dictate to the retailer what he shall charge, neither should any manufacturer be allowed to dictate to the jobber what he shall sell a similar line of goods for. As long as a wholesaler
[Mr. MacNutt.l
adheres to a manufacturer's selling price and terms, the manufacturer should be compelled to supply the jobber with h:s goods.
Canned goods just on the market furnishes a fair sample of the benefit of protection to the manufacturers and accounts in part at least for the high cost of living. Canadian tomatoes, 21's, -cost $3.76 per case delivered in Winnipeg; California tomatoes, 2J's, cost $3.67 per case delivered in Winnipeg, or 9 cents per case less than the Canadian, notwithstanding that the American goods paid duty of 69c per case, or equal to 30 per cent; war tax d71c, equal to 7* per cent; a difference in freight rate of 18c, or equal to 8 per cent, totalling in all 45i per cent.
Liquid veneer, another United States product, shows a margin of 97 per cent between the price paid by the jobber and the price paid by the consumer. No wonder though our friends to the south put in a small cheap plant as the duty pays for the cost in less than two years.
Of course these small plants should be protected as they are of such importance not only to Canada but to the Empire.
Clause 2 of this .amendment refers m.ore particularly to farm implements and machinery and other articles of that kind. I have only two faults to find with it. In the first place, I should like to .see wagons included. I think also that, as a matter of principle, raw material for the manufacturers affected should be provided for. I think it is only fair, when we,,are putting the products of these manufacturers on the free list, that their raw material should be placed on the free list also. While I criticise the clause in these respects, of course I support it, as it goes in the right direction and nearly as far as it is possible to
go.	-
Clause 3 says:
That staple foods and food products t other than wheat and flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of, any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
I supppse that would cover barley and oats, and potatoes as well, coming from countries that admit such articles from Canada free of duty.
The Council of Agriculture, which represents not the West only but at least the province of Ontario as well, considered very carefully this question of tariff, and after full, deliberation produced a proposal somewhat similar to this amendment. They go a little further in some respect, and probably not iso far in others. These men represent the great farming interests of Ontario and the West. They are able men, men who have the interests of the country at heart. Many of them have 'been heretofore supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite.

To-day, I do not know that that is their position; they are taking a_ thoroughly independent stand. They believe that the most important matter outside those matters relating to the war is a very considerable reduction in the tariff. But they believe also that this has a very direct connection with matters pertaining to the war. I need not enlarge upon that. We hear it from every platform, we see it in every newspaper we know it ourselves, that it is as necessary to provide shells and munitions, and to provide food, as it is to send men into the battle line. There appears to be now a very great shortage of food throughout the world. 'Crop failures have occurred in many food-producing countries. And even when food is produced, there is great difficulty in getting it to the seat of war. Still we have every faith that if the food is produced means will be found to carry it to the places where it is needed.
Now, surely it will be recognized that in this matter the farmers are not advocating merely that which is in their own selfish interests. It has a much wider significance than that. It is only common sense to say that the Government should encourage in every way the occupying of our vacant land and greater production from the soil by the people now on the land. But there is no great encouragement to men to go upon the land at the present time. Prices of farm products are high, but we know that these are war prices, that they are abnormal, and only temporary. The farmer must consider not merely the conditions during the time of war but what the conditions are to be in the future. It has been often pointed out, and is easily understood, that a great burden will rest upon the country after this war is over. Our people are perfectly willing to bear that burden, there is no doubt about that; they are ready to
sacrifice themselves in all ways, and to make every effort possible to put the full strength of the country into the winning of the war. There will be no complaint with' regard to the taxation that the country must bear after the war, so long as that taxation is the result of efficient administration and, is equitably levied. Undoubtedly the best way to meet these burdens in the future is to encourage the people to go on the land and produce. We have the land, and with great population, an increase in the production of wealth, and a condition of general prosperity throughout the country, there will be no difficulty in meeting the obligations which we are now incurring. I am satisfied the farmers will never complain, no matter what the burden may be, provided that the weight of that burden be equitably distributed.
I revert for a moment to the platform of the Council of Agriculture in order to mention one matter which seems of importance. That platform has this clause:
That the reciprocity agreement of 1911 which still remains on the United States statute book be accepted by the Parliament of Canada.
There is one point that was evidently overlooked when that clause was adopted. The reciprocity agreement only reduced the duty on agricultural implements to 15 per cent at the lowest. That fact was probably overlooked in the consideration of this matter. Of course, the whole is modified by the clauses in favour of placing a great variety of articles on the free list.
Now, I have some figures here compiled from the official reports and courteously furnished me by the Dominion Statistician. They relate to production. As I understand that the general wish is to adjourn very soon, I will go over these figures as quickly as I can:
Wheat.
1912
1914
1916
Oats.
1912
1914
1916


MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Acres.	Acres.
3,094,833	1911	3,094,8332.839.000	1916	
2,305,9002.804.000	
2.616.000	Decrease	 788,933
2,754,400
2,305,900
Acres.	Acres.
1,307,434	1911	
1,307,4341.348.000	1916	
1,271,0001.398.000	
1.331.000	Decrease	 36,434
1,326,800
1.271.000
[Stage Direction]
MANITOBA.-Concluded.
Barley.
Acres.
1911		 448,105
1912		 481,000
1913		 496,000
1914		;	 468,000
1915		 569,500
1916		 614,000
Decrease:
Wheat, oats and flax	903,132
Increase:
Barley	 165,895
Total decrease	 737,237
Yield 1916.
Bushels per acre.
Wheat	 12
Oats	 323
Barley	 22 J
Now, I want to refer to Saskatchewan, where we get somewhat different results. There was an increase in that province. I will just read some of the totals:- Saskatchewan.
Wheat.	Acres.
1916	 7,352,000
1911	 5,253,836
Increase	 2,098,164
Therefore, it will be seen that an increase took place in the acreage under wheat in Saskatchewan.	That	increase	was particularly in the two war years. The increase, under normal conditions, between 1911 and 1914 was only 90,164 acres, showing that there was evidently not proper encouragement given to the farmers to increase their areas	under	wheat.	There was
a sudden jump in 1915 to 8,425,600 acres from 5,344,000 acres in 1914, and in 1916 there was an almost similar amount under cultivation. This goes to show that the farmers made a greater effort. There were not as many farmers in Saskatchewan in 1915 as there were in 1914 or 1913. A great many young men had gone to the front and many settlers had left the country. Many families said: In the United States we can get our implements cheaper, we can get a larger market and we think we can make a better living there, and they went away. Notwithstanding this, there was really a greater area under cropv In oats there was a similar result. I would like to have these figures on Hansard, hut there is not time to read them. There was a considerable increase in the area sown to barley. There was a sudden jump in 1914. Between 1911 and 1914 there were increases in the acreage of wheat, oats and barley. fMr. MacNutt.l
Acres.
1911	  44S.105
1916	 614,000
Increase	 165,895
Total	increase	barley	
165,895Total	decrease	wheat	
788,933Total	decrease	oats	
36,434_Total	decrease	flax	
77,765
Total value all grains.
1911.	1916.
Wheat	$41,747,000 $33,918,000
Oats	 19,212,000 24,559,000
Barley	'	7,176,000	11,052,000
$68,135,000 $69,529,000	,
Increase	 394,000
William Pugsley: I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. MacNutt) says he would like these figures to be placed on Hansard, as he has not time to read them. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would allow that.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member should read them.


Thomas MacNutt: I understand I must
read them to have them placed on Hansard?


William Thomas White: May I- ask my hon. friend what they are?


Thomas MacNutt: 'They are comparative figures from the official returns, showing the number of acres under crop in each of the years from 1911 to 1916, and also from 1911 to 1914, showing what increases or decreases there were in normal years, and also the sudden jump in Saskatchewan and Al'berta in 1915, though the farms were operated by a less number of farmers. My argument is that these men had risen to the occasion, but that in previous years, there was a comparatively small increase in acreage. We know very well that there was a less number of farmers in the West in 1915, but notwithstanding that the farmers who were-there increased their area for war purposes. Are these men not worthy of being encouraged?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend desires to put that on Hansard, unless it is contrary to the rules of the House, I would be very willing that he should do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Thomas MacNutt: It will take me fifteen minutes to read them and there is a little more I want to say.


John Allister Currie: Is there anything there that is not contained in the blue books or the reports which have already been laid before the House?


Thomas MacNutt: There is nothing on
Hansard. The blue books are not put on Hansard.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) put the same facts on Hansard this afternoon.


Thomas MacNutt: Well, I will read them, and I will move the adjournment of the debate if necessary. It will only take up more time. There are some other remarks that I desire to make and some conclusions that I desire to draw; therefore, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN COAL MINES.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for the adjournment of the House:
William Pugsley: What business will be taken up on Friday?


William Thomas White: Either this
debate upon the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), or Supply.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, may 1 crave the indulgence of the House while I bring to the attention of the Government a matter of urgent importance. I simply want to read a telegram bearing on a very important matter in connection with the coal strike.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman
would not be in order in bringing up a matter of that kind on the motion to adjourn.


William Thomas White: Perhaps it would be sufficient if the hon. gentleman would bring the matter to the attention of the minister privately, and thus obviate any violation of the rules.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suggest that the minister withdraw his motion, because the adjournment motion is not debatable, and I do not wish to establish a dangerous
precedent by allowing a debate on adjournment to arise.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member is not endeavouring to open a debate; he is simply calling the attention of the House to a matter of urgent public importance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House-


John Allister Currie: No, it has always been the custom of this House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Allister Currie: I wish the rules of the House to be observed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) desires to bring a matter of urgent public importance to the attention of the House. If there be the unanimous consent of the House he may be permitted to do so, [DOT] hut if there is a single dissentient voice he cannot proceed.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I would be the last one to knowingly infringe on the rules of the House. I want merely to read this telegram which I received a few moments ago:
Calgary, Alta.,
May 23, 1917.
W. A. D. Buchanan,
House Parliament,
Ottawa.
The following wire has been forwarded today which is self explanatory. Hon. T. W. Crothers, Ottawa, Ont., having read your statement in the House, Monday, that coal strike would be settled in forty-eight hours, the Policy Committee of district eighteen, U.M.W. of A., respectfully inform you they have no information of any move of that kind, and being the only body authorized by the men on strike to negotiate a settlement, they are the only parties who can arrange the same.
Wm. Graham,
Chairman Policy Committee.
The reason I am bringing this up is that an announcement was made that the strike would be settled within forty-eight hours, and the parties concerned say that they know nothing about any negotiations in that direction.


William Thomas White: I shall be glad to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to the statement of the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.05 o'clock. '
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 25, 1917.