1919-06-17

CIVIL SERVICE R E-CLASS IFIOATION.

Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: I desire to lay upon the table of the House the Re-classification of the Civil Service as prepared by the Civil Service Commission under the direction of the Parliament of Canada.
I had intended submitting this to Parliament upon the second reading of Bill No. 136, to amend the Civil Service Act, but as the English copy of the report was ready, I thought it desirable to lay it upon the Table so that copies might be distributed to hon. gentlemen, and also that it might be available to the Civil Service for inspection. I regret to say that the printing of the French copy of the report is not completed, hut I hope it will be on Saturday or Monday when I shall immediately lay it upon the table of the House. Copies of this report will be circulated at once, and members will find them in their boxes, I hope, about one o'clock.


Mr. DENIS:: Is the second reading of the Bill to be gone on with before the French copy is distributed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I wish to have the French copy circulated before the Bill is brought down again for second reading.


Mr. ROBB:: Is it the intention of the
Government to proceed with the Re-classification this year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is the intention of the Government to proceed with the legislation at this session. I may ask the House to consider the advisability of submitting the amending Bill and the classification schedule to a special committee. That, however, will be discussed later on.



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment of Mr. McMaster thereto (resumed from Monday, June 16.)
Mr. JAMES McISAAC (King's, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned
last evening, I was making some reference to the state of our country as unfolded by the Minister of Finance. I had just referred to the fact that the expenditure for the current year, all told, including capital and war expenditure, would amount to $620,000,000, and also that after the total of revenue receipts was applied to the reduction of our expenditure for the year, there would still remain a balance of $300,000,000 which would he the war expenditure. I will, in a moment, refer briefly to the ways and means that may be employed to meet this deficit. I also stated that, under all the circumstances, it appeared to me that this would certainly be a most inopportune time to effect any radical changes in our fiscal policy. It surely is a time when, to use the words of the great dramatist, we should rather " bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." It is better for us to go on in our usual manner of raising revenue than to plunge into any_ new, unknown and untried methods of doing so. It certainly was generous on the part of the Minister of Finance that, under all the circumstances and obligations that confronted the Government from the monetary point of view, he made such changes in the tariff as to remit at least $17,000,000 of revenue. Under all these conditions it is our duty as members of Parliament and as representatives of the people, and it is the duty of the people to unite and to show the same generosity, the same spontaneity, the same enthusiasm in assisting the Government in completing the war from a financial viewpoint as Canada showed when she did not hesitate when the tocsin of war was sounded, but went forward and acted so splendidly and in a manner never to he forgotten, on the battlefield. The same generosity might reasonably be expected from the people of Canada under present circumstances.
There are a few other features of this question to which I wish to refer briefly. The question of the fiscal arrangements embodied in the pact, which was entered into in 1911 and which is known as the reciprocity arrangement, is a matter of which our friends of the Opposition have spoken, have harked back to, have lamented. Their lamentations and their regrets that these arrangements had not been carried out were almost as serious and as constant as those of the Israelites in the desert when they wept and lamented over the loss of the flesh pots of Egypt. But the Finance Minister, in the remission of taxes
[DOT]3520

that he has instituted, has gone as far and perhaps in some respects further than was intended by the arrangement of 1911.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are not willing to give the Government credit for having done this. Although we have heard them t-alk about reciprocity time and again in this House before the bringing down of the Budget, they have scarcely referred to the matter since. They might indeed, were they so disposed, take a little credit to themselves and say that the Minister of Finance had taken a leaf out of their book and that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." But even that they are unwilling to concede. Their principal object in this discussion, as in all their conduct in this House, seems to be to handicap the Government by all reasonable means within their power, and perhaps unreasonable means. They never advance any workable suggestions that might be of assistance to the Government in this trying time, when the country is faced with so many serious and difficult problems. They prefer to talk of the high cost of living, industrial unrest and labour troubles. These problems do, unfortunately, exist, but the Opposition offer no solution; they simply make the bare statement that all these troubles are due to our high tariff. If that were so, how do they account for the industrial unrest and labour troubles and high cost of living in free trade Britain? They have no high tariff there, but they undoubtedly have these troubles. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite would not attribute the troubles in England to the Canadian high tariff These problems confront the United States, Australia, and almost every other country. Are the troubles of all these countries to be laid at the door of the Government of Canada? Surely that would be absurd. The present upheaval all over the world is most unfortunate, but history teaches us that such conditions follow inevitably after every great war," and if that be true of other wars, the disturbance is likely to be a hundredfold more pronounced after incomparably the greatest war in all history. It is only accentuating these troubles for hon. gentlemen opposite to make speeches, as some of them have done, exposing the line of cleavage between the lower classes of society and the very wealthy. The effect-can only be to make those who are not blessed with so great an amount of this world's goods look upon those who strut around in wealth as their enemies and the Cause of all their troubles. At this particular time when people are worked up 
to a very high degree of nervous tension it is our duly to do everything We can to bring about a return to normal conditions. At all events, we should refrain from taking any course of action or indulging in declarations that can only aggravate the present feeling of unrest. This is a time when we should all unite in assisting the Government to bridge over this period of upheaval, until in the course of a year or two normal conditions, let us hope, may be restored, and we can proceed as we did in pre-war times with the ordinary business of tih's country.
This brings me to another question to which I wish to refer briefly. During this debate and on- other occasions the question of East versus West has been discussed. In my opinion, it is to be particularly regretted that any such question should be raised, whether it is East versus West or North versus South. There should he only one question-Canada. Canada for the Canadians-and from whatever part of Canada we come we should all unite in an endeavour to promote unity and good feeling between all classes and sections of the country, so that we may help to bring Canada to the place which she is destined to occupy. Can the West exist without the East or the East without the West? Is not the East the complement of the West, and the West the complement of the East? It is within the memory of hon, gentlemen sitting around me when the West was not such a great country as it is to-day, when it was practically unknown and shut off from the rest of Canada to a very great extent. No one would claim that when all Canada united on the project of building a great railway to open up that country that the West, when- the curtain was drawn aside, appeared in all its grandeur of to-day. If this project had not been realized or a railway had not been built into the West by other interests, I am inclined to believe it would have been many long years before the West would have attained to the greatness it now occupies. We are most ready and, delighted to give our meed of praise to the energy, perseverance, virility, and ambition of those of our friends in the West; they deserve the greatest possible credit. They are young and full of ambition, and it is.not uncommon for the young, when they see obstacles in the way of the attainment of their goal, to become exceedingly sensitive and come to the conclusion that those obstacles must at once be swept out of the way.

At the present time, under our onerous conditions, and under the tremendous responsibility resting upon the Government, it would be a pity that any question of east or west should arise, or that any disposition, metaphorically speaking, should be manifested in any section of the country to take the Government by the throat and say: This is oui chance; we are looking for [DOT]something and we think this is t*he time to get it. Whether they have an existing grievance, rightly or wrongly, we shall not discuss at the present moment. We know that the people of the western portion of Canada did splendid service when the call came to enlist for the war, and I am willing to give all possible praise for what they did. There is one thing that I would like to say, however, not with the intention of detracting from the credit that is, due the people of the West, and that is that a great many of those who enlisted in the West belonged to other provinces. Quite a number of those who enlisted in the West were Prince Edward Islanders. At the same time, I am not attributing that as a fault of the West; it was a mere circumstance. Of the adult native born Canadians living in the West I am not sure that very many of them were born in the Western Provinces. However, that is neither here nor there. These are matters that come into my mind when we are discussing the claims of the West. It has been said, too, by a western member in the course of this debate that after the next election there will be an increased representation from the West in this House and that if they do not now get what they are looking for they will then be in a position to demand it. It would be most unfortunate if any idea of that kind should exist in Canada, and especially at this time, when we have done so nobly and so well and when we have sent to the front those who have done such grand work in the war. It would be a pity that we should not go forward as a united and enthusiastic people to complete the task which we took upon ourselves in connection with that war.
I would like to refer fcr a moment to our national debt, which the hon. the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) has told us will be, at the end of the present fiscal year, in the vicinity of $2,000,000,000. The deficit, due to the war, will be about $300,000,000. Two elements that will enter into this debt will be the matter of interest on the national debt itself and pensions. These are heritages that we enjoy as a consequence of our noble and never to be forgotten participation in the great world war. How is it intended to raise the money necessary to meet this great deficit? As already stated, there will be a hiatus between ordinary revenue and expenditure of about $300,000,000. In order to provide for this deficit, it is intended to borrow the money in one way or another and probably largely by means of national loans, at least, some of it will be borrowed in that way. On this point I wish to make one remark. Prior to the war no Canadian loans were floated within the Dominion. When the first domestic, or national loan, was issued, it is quite possible that there were some misgivings as to what might be the success of that venture. But in this, as in every other effort put forth in connection with the war, Canada rose equal and superior to the occasion. The loans thus far floated in Canada were subscribed with great facility and generosity, so much so that in every case they were considerably over subscribed. That goes to prove that not only in war is Canada great, but that Canada is great in peace and in her ability to finance her own burden of debt. If we have to borrow at all-and what Government has not to borrow-is it not best to borrow from amongst ourselves, that we raise the money necessary to place in the hands of the Government from our own people? The people are giving the money to themselves through the Government to carry on the public business. The interest comes back to them, in due time the principal, and principal and interest remain in the country. In that way the country is not denuded of this money; it is not made so much poorer, as it would be were these financial transactions carried on outside of Canada.
In this connection I can scarcely refrain from animadverting briefly on a remark made by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) when addressing the House a few days ago. He advised the Government to stop borrowing. Any government, I suppose, would be glad to stop borrowing were they able otherwise to meet their obligations, but if they have to borrow at all is it not much better to borrow in our own country and from ourselves than to go abroad and negotiate with those outside of Canada who then will be the beneficiaries rather than ourselves? Following this up, I would say that in Great Britain, where the system of government and the fiscal policy presently existing are dear to the hon. member for Red Deer, they are constantly borrowing money for their public expenditure.
Are they not at present negotiating enormous loans? Well, if it is a good thing for

that country 'and for that government which, in his opinion, is an ideal one, surely it cannot be bad for Canada to follow such an example. I have heard it said that the national debt of Great Britain was one of the greatest elements of her financial stability. At first sight I could scarcely understand such an assertion, but its soundness is established upon inquiry, when it is apparent that the money raised is simply handed by the people to the Government and then goes back to the people again, and that it circulates throughout the country, amongst those who have contributed it. Now if such a policy is good for the Motherland, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that a similar policy is bad for Canada. I have already said that the Government is confronted by serious problems. A considerable amount of unrest exists throughout the country and large amounts of money have to be raised for various purposes. Nevertheless, I think we can be assured that all the problems which confront the Government can be solved, that all the difficulties which face it can be overcome, and that all our financial obligations can be well and reasonably met, when we consider the almost limitless resources of our country and the energy, enthusiasm, and patriotism of our people. In my opinion this is the time, above all, when East and West should stand united, when all sections of the country and all our people, whatever views they may entertain, should work harmoniously together to bring about that which we all earnestly desire, the success of Canada, and all lend our assistance so that our country may be firmly and solidly advanced on the path leading to that proud position which she is destined to occupy in the galaxy of nations.
Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'Islet)
(Translation):	Mr. Speaker, the Government have indulged in so much self-praise and- eulogy of their own accomplishments and were so lavishly boasted by some of their followers, that we would be inclined to think that we have reached the millenium. Fortunately, hon. members of this side of the House rose from time to time to throw cold water on the burning enthusiasm of that brotherhood of mutual worshippers, otherwise the members of the Government and their supporters might have thought themselves great statesmen, ready to wear the crown of immortality. However, it looks as though that implicit approval on the part of the followers of the Government has been somewhat less unanimous of late. Never-
[Mr. Mclsaao.1
theless we must admit that the most noisy ones-of course the most interested- continue to bow and cringe more than ever, hoping thereby to make up for the withdrawals that are becoming more and more numerous. No doubt, it is impossible for a man who is used, through better traditions, to assert his independence, to keep on flattering fulsomely a group of politicians who are united under the same yoke by only one bond, that of a common longing for power and the advantages attached thereto.
It is not necesary to be a very astute politician to feel that it is the duty of every honest member of this House to rise and endeavour to stop the activities of a government who are leading the country into bankruptcy through the despotic use of Orders in Council, following the tyrannical gaging of the representatives of the people.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my firet duty will be to stigmatize this anti-democratic policy and to protest against such abuse of power. Hon. members opposite-those who sit in the front seats as well as those who are in the background out of which they should have never come out-never cease to speaK about justice and freedom. Since the inception of the War, they told us repeatedly that one could not make too great sacrifices for the safeguarding of democracy and of its principles in jeopardy. They were ready to mortgage everything to save the world from barbarism. The wealth of the country and the blood of thousands of our brave citizens were not too much for the sake of so sacred a cause. Everything was to be set in motion for the sake of liberty. Very well. All these expressions of patriotism would have looked splendid had they been inspired by something else than political ambition. They asked that the freedom of the smaller nationalities of Europe, Africa and Asia, be respected, and the representatives of the Canadian people have just been denied the same freedom. The men who always claimed to possess the exclusive privilege of loyalty to the Empire are the same men who wanted to break up the parliamentary organization and to ridicule the Constitution. Where is the freedom so often preached by the great unionist saviours? It is now buried in oblivion, hidden under scores of Orders in Council and gags which were set up by some clever artists occupying the Government benches.
Orders in 'Council and censure, such is the constructive, clear-sighted and saving policy of those who hold in their hands the future welfare of this country. I do not exagger-

ate, (Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Champlain, the Hon. Mr. Meighen stated some time ago that there had been as many as 32,848 Orders in Council passed since the beginning of the war. Orders in Council even passed at a time when Parliament was in session, relating to questions on which the representatives of the people ought to have been consulted. That is most unfair and provoking. It is nothing but pure Bolshevism, to use an expression dear to the memDers on the other side of this House. Not only have the Liberal members a right to protest against such bold despotism, but the Unionist members themselves should resent so brutal a treatment. At all events, the Canadian people, the good and honest people of this Dominion will not forget me attempt that was made against their most legitimate and most sacred rights. In fact, how could the people forget the insult offered their representatives? How could the people have any confidence in a Government who gag and ostracize those whom they should hear and listen to? I challenge anybody to come and say that I am not telling the actual truth.
, Is it not a fact thait the Government established a system of censorship as an invidious supplement to the series of Orders in Council referred to? That is not ancient history; it is of very recent date. I am even surprised that in this Chamber they kept the beautiful and noble British motto "Dieu et mon droit." I am sure that if the Government could replace that much respected coat of arms by their own armorial bearings, we would have before us the grotesque and allegorical picture of a huge pile of Orders in Council beside a large muzzle, with these words as a motto "Despotism and Power."
In other countries, ito-day, the people are free to discuss, and so were they during the war. With very few exceptions, did they not interfere with members of Parliament, but popular orators were not in any way troubled when they addressed open air meetings in Great Britain, as well as in Prance and in United States. The powerful British fleet was the subject of some very harsh discussions and out of the critisism offered in the French Chamber sprang up Clemenceau, the grand old man of France.
Some people ask us; "Why did you not protest?" To hon. members on the other side of this House who put such a question, I shall answer, somewhat like that general who said to Napoleon, after a bloody battle: "We had forty-two reasons for not firing
our guns, and the first one is that we had no guns." "That will do," replied the victor of lAusterlitz. Therefore, 'I shall answer to hon. members opposite: "We had a thousand good reasons not to speak, and the first one was that we had no right to do so."
I was anxious, Mr. Speaker, to say frankly and openly what I thought of the policy of extortion to which we were submitted.
I would never get through if I wanted to recall all the absurdities committed by the Government under .the famous "Win the war icry." I could refer to the War-time Elections Act, to the exhorbitant profits made by the profiteers, and to many other topics in which the negligence of this Union Government was fully demonstrated. But that would be going a little too far.
I wish to say a word about the industrial condition of this country, and I wish also to refer to the labour situation and to conditions relating to agriculture. I shall add a few suggestions which I hold as advisable. In showing the evil as it obtains and suggesting oertain remedies, I shall have fulfilled my duty as a citizen and as a representative of the people. That will be my humble contribution to the construction of a truly progressive and national policy.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the policy of this Government as regards our industries? What will be their policy in connection with the tariff? Such is the question for which the eastern and western provinces are anxiously awaiting an answer. Judging by the literature which is 'being circulated by the manufacturers now, the Dominion Government will require, this year, to meet an expenditure, to the enormous amount of $437,679,071. Last year's revenue was 260 millions. Therefore we would be confronted with a deficit of 177 millions. Supposing the Government borrows 85 millions, which would increase our national debt by so much, we would still be short of 92 millions. Then you must add to that the amount of the supplementary estimates, which will make the deficit still greater. Where will the Government get the money to cover the difference? The answer is that the people will be taxed to the extent of $351,785,490, which is a crushing burden. And now comes the most alarming question: "How will these taxes be distributed among the people?" Of course the manufacturers have been long complaining that they were ill treated and that they ought to get more protection. They have made millions and millions during the war, but they would like the farmers to contri-

bute the largest portion of the expenditure. We understand their desire to get rich quick and to pay out the least they possibly can. But there are other people than manufacturers in this country, other classes that the Government is in duty bound not to bleed to death. To consolidate their position, the manufacturers claim that they supply the Government with a revenue of $116,577,066. 24. However, they forget to say that, as a matter of fact, the amount is actually paid by the people. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that the people are paying money each year to maintain certain industries in the lovely fields of protection, where the streams of privilege and favouritism are following?
This tariff of 33J per cent and in some cases 40 per cent may be compared to a wall as intended to protect the manufacturer against any foreign competitor hut unfortunately tending also to restrict our exports. I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, with those who believe that we cannot compete successfully with our neighbours, as far as manufacturing is concerned, because I have enough confidence in the bright and active energy of the manufacturers of this country to assert our ability to compete on foreign markets. The elimination of these taxes would have three immediate results: First, in view of the competition, the manufacturers would increase their production and thus give more work to the labourers; secondly, by increasing their production the manufacturers could export more goods; then, the tax which we cover under the name of tariff instead of paralyzing our industries would he changed into a revenue as ooming from the increased exports.
You need not be a great mathematician, neither have you >
to prepare budgets to understand that the Canadian manufacturer is reaping a double profit, that made by the American manufacturer and the additional amount that the precious tariff legislation allows him to get. Who is paying for it? It is undoubtedly the farmer. Let the Government allow the agricultural implements to come in free during a period of two years, and I have no hesitation in saying that these implements could be got at 20 per cent less than they cost now. The same argument applies to a thousand other industrial products. Consequently, if our manufacturers were producing a larger amount of goods they would require a larger number of employees who could 'be selected from the returned soldiers-these brave men who more than. once have shed their blood to enrich certain manufacturers who were

thirsting for riches or profiteers still gorged with the spoils of war.
Even supposing-that is impossible-that the revenue derived from the tariff would be reduced, why should not the Government make up for that loss in taxing the thousands of acres of land which are held by speculators in the West. According to people who know, we could thus collect a revenue of ninety millions. Why would not the Government, tax these financial vampires who, with the cry of "win the war," have starved the people and speculated on the very lives of our soldiers?
Mr. Speaker, the Government, who favours a policy of naval construction with a view to developing trade, should understand that protection and privilege must he cut down.
If we have a purely protectionist policy the ships will be useless, in fact, if our country is encircled by a wall which will separate us and leave us isolated from other manufacturing countries, we need not spend millions, for we shall have nothing to export.
Such are the different phases of a question which may look complicated in a certain way, but which is very clear when you have but to determine who is paying the cost. The rich manufacturer ox poor Baptiste?
These considerations lead me to speak of the labour question.. Just as I earnestly wish to see our industries prosperous, I desire also that the worker, who is the essential factor of industry, should be able to live in a well deserved comfort. However, the problem is becoming more and more serious -I was going to say tragic. Strikes, lockouts, troubles and acts of violence are noticed throughout the country. When will this dangerous unrest cease? It will continue until we have found a solid basis of agreement founded on common sense and equity. To reduce working hours and increase wages to an exhorbitant rate are two things which will never go together, and that is what we should prevent in the interest of the workers as well as that of the country as a whole. What the worker needs is to be able to secure good food, to educate his children and to live according to his position. If the wages are increasing too rapidly all the commodities which the worker requires will increase also and he will then be in the same position as before. If yo\i reduce the working hours the cost of the commodities will go up and if you add to that the increased wages you will get the result Which we have witnessed with anxiety since the end of the war.

When war was declared Germany had a very large production and was flooding the international markets with her goods which were manufactured by cheaply paid labour. What was the condition in Germany then? The labourers were working eleven hours and more a day and once their regular work was done many of them were spending their evenings in manufacturing various articles.
That is twhat gave Germany its power of expansion. What would happen now should the Government agree to establish a working day of six hours, such as has been asked for, and if other countries with which we have been at war kept up working eleven hours a day? What would happen? In ten years we would have lost most of our gains and we would be left behind in the export trade and in our legitimate race for economic advantages.
Therefore, let us hope that the Government, will honestly endeavour to bring strikes to an end either by a press campaign or by other means tending to enlighten the masses as to their obligations and duties. But, besides the manufacturers and the workers, there is a class of people, Mr. Speaker, deserving more than any other the attention the support and the encouragement of the Government: I mean the agricultural class. And unfortunately, the farmers do not possess the power which is inherent to the labour organization, and the present Government who are well aware of their weakness, did not set fit to grant them the fair treatment they were entitled to.
In the cities, it is customary to complain about the farmers. But the people that they are 'Complaining about are not the farmers properly speaking, but the merchants who come to the market to sell products which they bought from the farmers. Let us talk about the real farmer. I belong imyself to a county which is almost exclusively populated with farmers, and the condition of the "habitants" as we call them, is dearer to me than that of any other class of people. In fact, I regret that there are not any more farmers in this House.
I will give an example which will illustrate my thought. About a month ago, butter was sold 75 cents to $1 a pound. The people in the cities were justly complaining about this high cost of 'butter. But, Mr. Speaker, the butter had been purchased from the farmer in the fall for 42 cents or 43 cents a pound by the cold storage people, who were using the little savings which the farmer had deposited in the bank. Was not the Government aware that there were millions of pounds of butter in these warehouses? What
did the Government do? Nothing. The Government were deceived by the finance mag-, nates who paid over to the election funds the surplus of their dishonest transactions.
If the Government want to make Canada a prosperous country, they must undertake a campaign of education for the benefit of the fawners and the workers. They must suppress the monopolists and the middlemen these blood suckers who are the parties responsible for the increases which led to the high cost of living. If the Government wish to do justice to the farmers let them deal with the pressing problem to which I have just referred instead of wasting millions in the purchase of useless railroads.
Why did not the Government take the duties off chemical fertilizers? We must absolutely give back to the soil what we take away from it for production, especially after a period of over production such as that which existed lately. Therefore it would have been very important to relieve the farmers from duties on chemical fertilizers. The Government have not done it, what do they intend to do?
I would not resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, without making a short reference to what we call the defaulters. I submit that most of these men were ignorant of the many subtleties of the Conscription Act. Practically all of them were acting in good faith, believing they were exempted as farmers' sons according to the solemn promises which had been made to that effect, on the eve of the election. If these alleged defaulters did any wrong, it was in believing in the word of some of the ministers and of other electoral engineers of similar brand. I do not intend to devote more time than is necessary to this question which has been so often discussed in this House. However, I may be permitted to say that the Government having passed over 32,000 Orders in Council since the inception of the war, the farmers were justified in not knowing all these documents by heart!
Who are the members of this House, who never miss an occasion to charge other people with being disloyal? They are always the same great would be patriots, whether they come from Toronto, Frontenac, North Perth or elsewhere. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are practically the same talking machines set in motion by the invisible springs of fanaticism, of narrow mindedness and of yellowism, which deafen our ears with the empty noise of their wearisome music.
Taking after Shakespeare's Shylock, these prejudice mongers are every day in need of their pound of French Canadian flesh to

throw out to their bloodthirsty electors. Were it not for that, those popularity .seekers would not loom large in their constitu-* ency, in their town, or in their wigwam. Their plan is to cast aspersions on everything French and Catholic, We are the people whom they ipake a target for their insults, we the descendants of the pioneers of this country! Let these champions of tyranny spend their energy towards furthering other objects. Let them induce their fellow people in Ontario and the western provinces to treat the French Canadian element as the English-speaking people are treated: in the province of Quebec. It is towards securing such a result that many an hon. gentleman might usefully exert his seething powers.
A few words more, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude. II may sum up my whole view by stating that I sincerely trust that the system of government through Orders in Council is about to come to an end. I trust, moreover, that the gag system will be replaced by the reign of liberty for tne representatives of the people. Besides, it is desirable that the Government should get busy cutting down the customs duties, and helping the labouring classes to peacefully attain their purposes. And particularly, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that the Government shall grant to the farming community all that it is entitled to. We should not concern ourselves quite so much with enriching capitalists, and should endeavour to put the peace-loving countryman in possession of his own. Let an effort be made to enable the agricultural worker to produce more cheaply, and to reap the full reward of his labours. Let us look after our glorious returned soldiers, but at the same time let us keep in mind those who- have sown, ploughed and reaped towards the soldiers' sustenance.
, Now that peace is about to be signed, we should put victory to good advantage. We may as much as we like enlarge on the great ideals which we have vindicated at the cost of our gold and our blood, but we should bear in mind that liberty, a sublime word which has given its name to the Liberal party, should rule not only in the parliaments of Belgium and Poland, but in this very place within the precincts of our Chambers. And liberty is synonymous with justice and equal rights for all. Liberty goes hand in hand with harmony and union between the races.
If Canada is to become great and prosperous, if Canada is to continue advancing

along the wide course opened by the true champions of our national life, Laurier and others, it is necessary that all should respect the traditions and rights of the minority, the opinions, beliefs and speech of those who are bound up in the activities of the country as a whole. Let us have greater generosity, less hatred, greater earnestness, leas politics, more free men, in short, and then we shall see Canada soaring towards those resplendent heights where its past history impels it and entitles it to aspire.
Mr. EDWARD T. W. MYERS (Kinders-ley): Mr. 'Speaker, at this late stage of the Budget debate I hesitate somewhat in asking the indulgence and forbearance of the House. At the termination of this debate each individual member will have to decide whether his vote will be recorded in support of the resolutions before us or in favour of the amendment, with its uncertainties, of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). In stating my intention of supporting the Finance Minister in his proposals, I do so with a keen sense of the responsibility which, as a western member, rests upon me. However, after a careful analysis of the amendment, there is no other choice for me.
There is no doubt, Sir, but that there is a unanimous opinion throughout the Prairie Provinces, utterly regardless of past political proclivities, that there should be a general scientific revision of the tariff in order to obtain redress of certain undue burdens which, it is assumed, are unnecessarily imposed upon us. As a Canadian, I want to see adopted a policy which will build up a great nation-not rend asunder the eastern part of Canada from the great western heritage which is only in the infancy of its development. If our policy is to be provincial, sectional, selfish or in the form of class legislation, then our true Canadian nationhood will suffer; dissension, discord, and industrial chaos are bound to follow.
Before offering any further discussion directly concerning the resolutions and the amendment thereto, I wish to refer to a resolution which I placed on the Order Paper early this present session, but which I did not have an opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House before we reached the termination of private member's day. The resolution was as follows:
That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that some immediate action he taken hy the Dominion Government in order to in some manner control the price of wheat grown in Canada in 1919, both in the interests of the producer and the consumer; and, further to

make immediate provision lor the establishment of the necessary credits and' transportation facilities to insure that our farm products be marketed to the best possible advantage.
When I drafted this resolution, Sir, with the many vital issues pertaining thereto, I did so with a full realization of its many complexities. Viewed, as it is, with such diversity of opinion and such confusion of thought, I felt rather incompetent to intelligently deal with its many angles of difficulty. The subject, Sir, is of interest to every public spirited man as well as to the farmer, therefore, I hope I will not be judged as being prompted by a sectional, provincial, or selfish motive. This is not a question "based on a selfish principle; it should be viewed from a broad national standpoint. To be sure, it relates to agricultural products only, but when we remember that 50 per cent of Canada's population is engaged in agricultural pursuits, and the value of agricultural products in 1918 was $1,100,000,000, then, Sir, I feel that this question commands the attention of every Canadian, and of Canada's Government, if regard for national prosperity is to be seriously considered, for agricultural prosperity means national and Dominion wide prosperity.
A great deal of unrest exists in Canada to-day, brought about by the unsettled conditions following the war-its sudden termination, and the resultant chaotic conditions in the world. No line of industry feels easy or comparatively safe, for where there is no stability, there can be no industrial safety. The knowledge the public has being limited, naturally creates unrest, and an unstable feeling is therefore exhibited. This is particularly true in Western Canada, in those provinces where grain growing is the chief industry. I feel, therefore, as a representative of a purely grain growing constituency, and from the province of Saskatchewan, which holds the proud record of being the greatest wheat producing province in the world, that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not draw the attention of this House to the issues outlined in the resolution I have just read.
My action was prompted by repeated requests from hundreds of Local Grain Growers' Associations in the constituency I represent, reinforced by resolutions unanimously endorsed by the grain growers of Saskatchewan in convention, where delegates of two thousand or more gathered from every remote district of the province. Our local legislative assembly also unanimously endorsed the principles of my resolution.
When we consider the fact that Saskatchewan produces more wheat than Manitoba and Alberta together-from this year's statistics it will be found to be nearly 30 per cent more-I think it will counteract the weak argument brought forward that the West was not unanimous on this subject. I must, Sir, in passing, refute the statement that the farmers of Manitoba and Alberta are unanimously opposed to some action being taken towards the realization of the principles of my resolution. Despite the	fact that	resolutions ofendorsation	of	this	question	were
not carried. I wish to express the opinion that 90 per cent of the farmers who are grain growers of these latter provinces are in favour of fixation or some form of control. The constituency of Kindersley, which I represent, is contiguous to, or borders on Alberta, and I have had many expressions of opinion from farmers to this effect.
Many delegates attending the conventions held in Alberta and Manitoba were strongly in favour of Government action along the lines outlined in my resolution. What influences changed their convictions can only be surmised? I do know that at the convention of the agricultural societies in Manitoba, held shortly after the convention of Grain Growers, they repudiated the resolutions of the latter convention and unanimously endorsed the attitude of fixation. Likewise, Sir, at the district convention of the Portage Plain farmers, the delegates similarly repudiated the decision arrived at in the Grain Growers convention. I do not wish to impugn the motives which actuated the leaders of the Alberta and Manitoba conventions or leave an impression that they acted from ulterior motives, yet from certain press statements, conclusions might be arrived at that selfish interests actuated these leaders through their friendship with certain grain corporations in which their profits might be restricted if open marketing was curtailed by any form of control.
I have many press statements, Sir, but I shall read one only that was given out by the Hon. George Langley, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it is on this statement that I base the expression of opinion that I have just uttered. This is the interview as given to the press:
I only want to say that from opportunities I have had of gathering the opinions of farmers, not only in Saskatchewan hut in Alberta and Manitoba as well, that Mr. Crerar is sadly astray in taking the forced vote of the farmers' conventions of Manitoba and Alberta on the

fixing of wheat prices as an indication of the way the farmers of the west felt in regard to the question. The vote was forced on each of these conventions by the farmers' leaders, and I strongly suspect at the instigation of Hon. T. A. Crerar himself. The vote was manipulated by the officials of the United Grain Growers, Limited, and does not represent the real wishes of the western farmers.
However, Mr. Speaker, the farmers do want action taken by this Government, as in 1917, when the price was fixed and the market stabilized. This is essentially a war year, conditions are not stable, and no one will dispute my statement when I say that fixation of the price of wheat in 1917 did not react to the advantage of {he wheat producers. The price was not fixed in their interests or to encourage production, but in simple language, to hold the price down.
Every member of this House should remember that in May 1917, when prices reached $3.05 in Winnipeg and $3.49 in Minneapolis, and without doubt would have gone higher had no fixation of prices been made, the price realized would have been at least $3.50. The yield in Saskatchewan alone in 1917 was over 130,000,000 bushels. Calculate the difference between $3.50 and the fixed price of $2.24, and you will find, roughly speaking, $150,000,000 of a difference in what was realized by the farmers of Saskatchewan alone in the year 1917.
I have heard the opinion expressed, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeking a bonus. I want to tell the House that we are not seeking a bonus, we are just seeking a square, fair adjustment of conditions brought about by the war.
In 1917 and 1918 the farmers did not complain of the drastic step taken 'by the Board of Grain Supervisors. They received a fair return-or those did who were favoured with a crop-and they were content not to unduly burden the consumer, especially at a time when our Mother Country and her Allies were engaged in a life-and-death struggle. At this critical juncture the farmers put forth every effort towards production and a greater production, always with a view of loyally doing their duty in the way of supplying foodstuffs to the Allied armies.
In passing, let me say we are proud of the part Saskatchewan played in the great war. She not only produced foodstuffs to the utmost of her power, but she sent her quota of men just as freely as any other province-indeed, in a greater ratio, considering her cosmopolitan population-than any other province. You did not hear of many serious objections when the Military

Service Act was amended. Of course, this legislation may have somewhat handicapped production, but the greatest need at that time was men, and our boys went forth loyally. Those left behind kept right on in 1918, producing as best they could.
I need not refer to the. campaign for greater production, only to say that this suggestion also was loyally responded to in the West as well as in the East. Many farmers, at considerable outlay- of capital, broke up more land in response to the call. The cost of labour and of implements was greatly inflated, with no restrictions whatsoever on either; and to-day we find that the farmers have a large acreage seeded at an increased cost, and that conditions are in an unsettled state owing to the uncertainty of market conditions.
Respecting assertions made by some extreme partisans that very little of our 1918 crop has been exported, due to the fact that United States grain was permitted to be shipped to Canadian elevators, I may say that this step was not taken at the expense of Canadian export. I can say without fear of contradiction that it did not in the least interfere with the exportation of Canadian grain, nor will it. Our 1918 crop has all been arranged for by purchasing agencies of Great Britain, and I am confident that it will all be transported before the 1919 crop' is ready for marketing. The question is, to my mind, whether Great Britain may not carry over a large surplus of the 1918 crop and thus affect her requirements for the 1919 crop. The unstable and chaotic conditions in Europe prevent the establishment oi sound credits in many of the European countries. Personally, I do not think it wise financially to extend credits to Governments which are not stable. The advisability of controlling or fixing prices hinges at the present time on the question whether the present purchasing agency of the British Government is to continue active for the new crop or will expire with the clearing up of the guaranteed wheat now in store. If Government buying in Europe continues, then Government selling must prevail. Europe may not be ready for open markets this year. United States is in the position of a grain-buying Government, and therefore must be a selling Government. If, therefore, Canada does not take some action, she will find herself in the unenviable position of carrying on individual buying and individual selling, and I am sure no one would argue that we would have any kind of equitable chance against

organized Government buying and organized Government selling.
The special powers granted under the War Measures Act cease with the proclamation of peace. Special conditions may warrant some special legislation to control unlooked-for events, but up to the present we have heard no announcement from the Government concerning a policy of this nature. Some reports state that the price of wheat may reach $3.50 or over; if it does, what action will be taken by the Government? There is only one sane course to pursue, and that is again to fix the price and thus hold it down. Crop conditions in the West are not any too promising this year; there may be a shortage. If some policy of control is not arranged for and stabilization assured, does any sane man imagine that the banking institutions .of this country are going to finance the grain men? Not for a moment will they risk their depositors' money, having regard to the stability of prevailing conditions. The grain men are bound to take and will take wide margins this fall when buying the 1919 crop, in order to protect themselves in an unstable market. This action will be at the expense of the producers who, through urgencies of financial obligations, are forced to sell at depressed prices. In the spring of 1920 the grain men will inflate prices and thus make huge profits at' the expense of the consumers. This has always been a discreditable state of affairs, and I firmly believe that speculation in the grain trade should be done away with. Why should not the producer get fair and full values from the consumer, instead of so many speculators making fortunes through speculation? In view of the possibility of there being open markets this year, the West is being flooded with circulars from grain men asking the farmers to trade in futures. It is time that was stopped.
Before the fixation of price in 1917 the spread between the price paid in the fall of 1916 and that paid in the spring of 1917 ranged from $1.25 to $2. Any one who knows conditions in the West knows that that has been the order of things; and I feel that such a condition should no longer be tolerated.
I would like to refer to the duty of the Government in relation to transportation conditions. Our crop of 1919 must be marketed at a favourable price, or there will be hard times. If United States has a large exportable surplus and Canada cannot utilize United States tonnage, as before, we must' either arrange for some government 224
controlled tonnage or take the consequence of having to use the tramp market for our transportation, and all that that implies. Therefore it is the duty of the Government, if it has not already done so, to arrange for sufficient tonnage for the transportation of the exportable surplus of our farm products.
I wish to refer for a moment to the work of the Soldier Settlement Board. I have heard the work of this board criticized and statements made that its work would not encourage agriculture. To my mind, its chief aim is to encourage agricultural pursuits by getting the returned men to engage in farming. I have no fear of the ultimate results of the work which it is carrying on. A very encouraging report was given me recently by Major Ashton, the Saskatchewan representative on the board.
I have heard it said that the returned men will not remain on the land. I am sure that they will; but in any case there need be no unrest, for if in all cases where returned men throw up their contracts the opportunity of taking the lands thus given up is extended to civilians, the contract will be gladly assumed. In fact, I would like to see this scheme extended to civilians generally; I am sure that agriculture would thereby be encouraged and that the settlement of our rural districts would be given an impetus. I would urge that the Government consider this suggestion.
Exponents of the system of raising revenue by a graduated income tax must be gratified with the Budget proposals brought down this year. If I had any suggestion to offer, it would be that of urging a more systematic organization for the collection of this tax, for I believe that many who should pay it are not doing so. More stringent regulations should be adopted and enforced. When critics argue that the federal income tax is not sufficiently high they must be overlooking the fact that to-day we have a municipal, a provincial, and a federal income tax. As to the advisability of imposing a tax on lands, in my opinion it would be better if a financial arrangement could be made between the Federal Government and the various Provincial Governments under which the income tax would become a purely federal tax and land taxes would be levied and collected by Provincial Governments and municipal councils. Many provinces have already a surtax on wild lands. An arrangement of this nature would prevent duplication and undue hardship. Unimproved lands held by speculators could thus be taxed by a system of assessment based upon the prices which they are asking for the lands.
REVISED edition

No western member can fail to appreciate the railway policy of this Government. The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) has informed me that from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 will be spent this year in the construction of branch line railways, and this is a sane policy to follow. No single agency is more conducive towards the development of a district than a branch line of railway. I know that certain districts in my constituency will, by the construction of different branch lines this year, progress rapidly and will have an opportunity for greatly increasing production.
I did not intend to speak about the natural resources of our provinces, but as they have been referred to by several speakers, I just wish to state that I am strongly in favour of the return to the provinces of their natural resources, and it is very gratifying to me to see that this is almost unanimously desired. It is almost a love-feast on the part of those who are in favour of this at the present time. I should like to point out to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) that I remember when the ex-Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Walter Scott, stated on a platform that any person who advocated such a policy was a fit subject for an insane asylum. I have always felt that our resources should be under control of the Provincial Governments, and I should also like to point out for the benefit of the Opposition that when the leader of the Government attempted to restore their resources to the western provinces, most of the opposition came from the other provinces. I am sure the Prime Minister did his duty when he attempted to adjust the matter.
Mr. Speaker, for a brief period I purpose referring to the Budget proposals pertaining to the customs tariff and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster). If the proposals are not just as satisfactory as some western members would like, I would point out that there is a great deal of unrest and lack of stability in Canada as in all other countries as an aftermath of the war, peace is not yet declared, and many grave problems pertaining to reconstruction are engaging the attention of the Cabinet. Demobilization will not be completed until August or September; pensions have to be provided for, and many questions of a really	war nature	have yet	to
be solved. The revenue to be raised is enormous, and, therefore, in the midst of these grave responsibilities, with all the industrial unrest and chaotic conditions, I believe the Minister of Finance did 
all humanly possible, without a scientific revision which he promises he and his colleagues will undertake before the next Budget is brought down. Yesterday, we heard from the leader of the Opposition criticism of this proposed revision. He stated that he had his doubts that it would be carried out, pointing out that for the past number of years no revision of the tariff had taken place. We all remember that in 1907 there was a revision of the tariff. I do not think any sane business *man would advocate a frequent revision of the tariff because in that case there would be no stability. That would make the next revision due about 1914 or 1915, and I believe a man would be in the state of Rip Van Winkle if he suggested that a revision should have taken place since 1914. I have every confidence that the Minister of Finance will make a careful, scientific revision of the tariff. From a purely western standpoint, we should like more substantial reductions, but still when one compares the present duties with the duties proposed under the reciprocity pact as regards farm implements, the present duties compare most favourably, and on many articles they are lower than under the terms of the reciprocity pact. To prove my assertion I might cite a few articles. The present duty on farm wagons is 20 per cent. Under the reciprocity pact it was 22J per cent. The present duty on binders, mowers and horse-rakes is 12i per cent. Under the reciprocity pact it was 15 per cent. The present duty on cement is 8 cents per hundred pounds. Under the reciprocity pact it was 11 cents per hundred pounds. With very few exceptions there is no article on which the duty is not just as low as under the reciprocity pact. Small tractors up to a value of $1,400 are to continue free of duty, and this has proved a decided benefit to Western Canada, and I believe a great benefit would be derived if this concession were also extended to the tractors of power known as 15-30, as this is a tractor which is more in common use and more serviceable. Wheat, wheat products and potatoes are all on the free list, and if one studies the customs tariff to-day, one will find that the tendency is generally downwards. This was done under a protective government, not under a government which took office on a policy of low tariff. The tariff reductions aggregate, as stated by the Minister of Finance, $17,000,000, which, added to loss by these reductions, make a difference of $25,000,000. One item particularly pleasing to me is the abolition

of the revenue tariff tax imposed on British preferential rates. I am sure this is a start in the right direction, and I would rather trust a party whose energy was directed during the war in co-operation with our Mother Country, and I believe that through this channel we shall, in the future, always have a most sympathetic trade relationship.
A nation's wealth consists only of a surplus of its exports over its imports, and if the object is to increase 'the imports and to reduce the value of the exports, then we are transferring our wealth to other nations, and, therefore, I hope all our industries will be stabilized through sane legislation.
The leader of the Opposition said yesterday that he was going to support the amendment, but from 1896 to 1911 we did not hear of many amendments along the same lines although we had many, many promises. It seemed yesterday that the leader of the Opposition was grooming himself for a coming very interesting event. He was going to be everything to everybody. He was going to give the West free machinery if we wished it, but would not take away the protection or bounty, as he called it, on iron ore down in Sydney. It is just the old, old story when they are in Opposition.
Briefly analysing the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), let me say first that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) has aptly described it. Expediency is a vague term indeed, and the amendment is most mysterious. I believe it is nothing more or less than political subterfuge, introduced for political purposes only. The hon. member for Brome in this debate has established a reputation for himself as a tariff rhymester, and if I were permitted to reply in the same style I would say that he "works in a mysterious way his camouflage to perform."
In passing, every hon. member knows that we are heavily burdened with our war expenditure, but I wish to refute the statement of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and other hon. gentlemen opposite, that we are bankrupt through an unreasonable participation in the war. Unreasonable participation in the war! In our hour of trial they failed us. I wonder if they are going to fail us now in carrying our financial burdens. It ill becomes them at this stage to snipe and sneer at the work of the Minister of Finance.
In conclusion, let me repeat that I purpose supporting the proposals brought down
by the Minister of Finance. At least we have made a start in tariff reduction, and the minister has promised that within the year a scientific investigation, will be held into the tariff with a view of remedial legislation being introduced later. I shall support the Government, rather than link up with the Opposition and vote for this amendment of political subterfuge. I appeal to the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), whose consistent and undeviating course no man in Canada dare question, whose sincerity is beyond reproach, and whose efforts to secure reform have always been steadfast, whether I am not justified in accepting these proposals of reality, rather than a mere profession of good faith on the part of the Opposition. I have heard the hon. member for Bed Deer use the old homely proverb, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," and I think that proverb is most applicable at this juncture. I may be criticised, Mr. Speaker, but that does not matter, for in the words of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Lang), which were permeated with real sincerity, this is no time to think of one's personal political future.
We have great unrest in this country, as they have in almost every country in the world, and there is a danger of industrial disruption. We are carrying a heavy financial burden, but we are not bankrupt. Bankrupt nations do exist in the world to-day, but I am proud, as a Canadian, to say that the British Empire is not one of them. Optimism should be the key-note of every sane Canadian citizen. We can never atone for the sacrifices of this war, marked by nearly 60,000 simple crosses in France and Flanders, and demonstrated in Canada today by the deformed and maimed, but surely as true Canadian citizens we can shoulder our share of the burden, stand together four-square, make the needed sacrifices, and show to the world that civilian Canada is carrying on. And surely with the great national heritage entrusted to our keeping to be developed and conserved we can finally throw off the financial burdens which confront us to-day.


Mr. HEBMAS DESLAUBIERS (Sainte-Marie, Montreal) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to shed any further light upon the present debate, for I believe the situation of the country's affairs is perfectly elucidated and clearly understood by every one, except the Government. I think, however, that it is my duty to strongly protest against this colossal budget

which, in my opinion, is nothing but a partial and official admission of a blindness without precedent in our history.
The more I consider the present Government's policy, the more I find it like that period in the history of New France under the rule of Intendant Bigot, of wretched memory, whose mission was to destroy the colony. Writing one day to his'friend Verger, he said: "Take advantage, my dear Verger, of your position, trim and clip, you have full power, so that you may soon join me in France and acquire an estate close to me." Later, he gave General Wolfe the key to the Plains of Abraham, his country losing thereby her finest colony. Is not the present Government holding the same language to its friends the profiteers, the monopolists, of the brand Mackenzie, Maim, Flavelle and the like? Does it not allow them to trim and clip, saying to them: "Take advantage of your positions, you have full power, keep hoarding up that you may get titles and acquire estates close to us. And all the while waiting for the opportunity to deliver up Canada, plundered and ruined, to the Americans or others, thereby causing England to lose one of her finest colonies. It is most evident to me that such is the whole policy of the Government. Will they have the time 'to accomplish their work? That is the problem. From ocean to ocean, unrest, trouble and strikes are the order of the day. The Government is compelled, in the very centres which were the most sympathetic, to use those hardly cooled cannons, which helped to save civilization overseas, against the people of this country. The people are crying for bread, for work, and, just as in the days of Bigot, that bread is sent abroad, they are even sending it to those who are responsible for the death of
60,000	of our own, to those who have caused so much mourning among us, who have filled our orphanages and our poor-houses and have bred so much misery, and the Government stands pat, so that its friends may clip, trim and hoard their capital, and you think that can last very much longer? You make investigations, you legislate in order to conjure time and revolution is at our very doors! You pretend that things are worse over in Europe and you are, nevertheless, helping to create similar conditions in Canada.	,
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in this House that I do not see things in that light and that, if it does not make a radical change in its economic policy, the present Government may be deceived in its reckoning. The Government 
must put an end to the excessive exportation of our foodstuffs. It is high time to say to the profiteers and to the monopolists: "You have thriven enough, let the people have its turn." The Government should forbid cold-storage owners, such as Mat-thews-Blackwell, Swift, Davies, etc., whose plants are already crammed with provisions, from sending their agents throughout the country, here they are allowed to monopolize the foodstuffs. Whatever the Government may say to the contrary, those are the men who are oppressing the people.
The price of provisions must be fixed and severe penalties imposed upon those who break the law.
I understand how proper it is to appeal to the people to be thrifty in order to relieve the situation the Government has put us into, but, on the other hand, the Government should be the first ,to set the example. That is not what they are doing. Only recently, they have increased the effective forces of the North West Mounted Police. The Government, through the demobilization of the cavalry returned from overseas, found itself in possession of the equipment needed by the mounted police, saddles, horsewhips, blankets, etc. These goods, the greatest part of which were brand-new, were sold at ridiculous prices-the saddles at $4 apiece. Some time ago, a Mr. Desrosiers-, who had acquired the same articles, offered them to the deputy minister Brodeur, if I am well informed, at a price of $4 for the saddles, and 50 cents for the whips, for the mounted police's use. He met with a bad reception. The Government has friends who supply them at $22 a piece. "Trim, clip, hoard up, you have full power." Is that wise and honest administration? The people will become weary, some day.
On June 22, 1918, the Government held throughout the Dominion a National registration. The law, which should he complied with, allowed $2.50 a day to its sworn employees for their work done previous to June-22, and for that day the sum of $4. I have the Government sworn statements of accounts from employees who have yet received no pay whatever. The law is the law. It stipulated such amounts were granted to them, and I was greatly astonished to hear that the salaries paid them were altogether different. The salary of those employees have simply been robbed. The Government should have kept its own engagements. In that case also, the Government. seems to have said, as Intendant Bigot said: "Trim, clip, and hoard up, you have full power."



IE 19

[Stage Direction]
* 1533
In reference to railroads, the hon. Minister of Finance told us that the Transcontinental was not a venture obtaining his full admiration. I contend that the public is interested in being told why certain sections pay more and others pay less, in order that some remedy may be found, while the others are being further developed. According to a reply made by the hon. Minister of Railways, the people of this country and their representatives have no right to be informed as to these details. I cannot agree with him. I can see no other reason for the 'Government's opposition to giving such information but its criminal negligence towards this national enterprise. In spite of all its adverse dispositions and its ability to bungle railroads, that work is the work of a great man and it shall not perish to-morrow, the Quebec Government will come to its relief by building at its own expense a new line which will develop the Timiskaming region.
Upon another occasion, I asked the Government whether a certain party, Miss Yvonne Lamontagne, had not received a Government bonus and if a similar bonus had not been promised other employees. The hon. Minister of the Interior replied in the negative, although that lady has actually received a $250 bonus and that the same bonus had been promised to others who did not receive it. I do not mean to question his good faith, for he personifies justice on the opposite side of this House, hut he is wrongly informed and he has led the House into error. Would he only grant me a short investigation, I might call up certain witnesses who would certainly convince him. If I make such a remark, it is because I believe the minority have the right to get the facts and to know how the country's money is' being spent.
I might have put. more questions on the Orders of -the Day, but I must state that the present Government, who disregards the rights of the people and of its representatives, have made such questions unpleasant to me. When a member asks the Government a question he is entitled to know the truth. I have, however, found out that, on several occasions, truth was sadly neglected, a fact which may hereafter compel the members to adopt a different procedure. Thus, the Minister of Labour had the information given me, when I had put questions about strikes, that everything was all right, that everything was going well, that everything went better than in the past years. When I asked him to take some kind of a stand in order to prevent the people from being compelled to resort to strikes to meet their obligations, his answer was a report of the strikes up to 1918, without mentioning the period elapsed since the armistice, during which numerous strikes closely followed one another. He replied to me that I was allowing myself to be mystified by circumstances. I do not know whether Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, have not given him in his turn sufficient subjects for mystification. Since, on the very floor of this House, we are charged with letting ourselves be mystified by circumstances, I certainly have the right, to tell the Government to account for all these strikes extending from ocean to ocean. I certainly have the right to ask the Government an account of all the hardships the people are enduring, of their privations, of the thefts caused by want and hunger. I certainly have the right to call them to account for the deaths due to privations, when people could1 not earn enough wages to get the necessary care and food for their condition. I must call them to account for the Bolshevist spirit which is spreading, especially in the West, and of which we have a few samples in Montreal. That spirit of Bolshevism, I must say that they are the ones who have produced it by failing in their promises in every way, and even in creating organizations to show the people how Bolshevism could become a success. I refer to the famous organization paid by the Government and whose leader was Ti-Noir Desjardins. One of the latter's companions was a candidate against me, in 1917, in Saint Mary's. To-day he is afliliated, through his labour council, to the " One Big Union," which is the same as the I.W.W., a most Bolshevist organization. 'It is the Government who have taught them, in the province of Quebec, the way to start an organization that could overthrow authority.
Inasmuch as the working class is now suffering, I ask the Government if they .are able to tell me what they have done since they have been in power to give that class an opportunity to earn living wages. They, claim to be a democratic government, I would .ask them to tell me what they have atempted to do, not to settle the present conditions, not to ward off the strikes, for that would be no easy task, but to attenuate the economical crisis which is the cause of the people's sufferings. They have absolutely done nothing.
I may aisk the Government to tell me what they have done towards relieving the workingman who is being crushed to-day, it would seem, under the burden of misery
[Stage Direction]
and of inadequate wages. It has indeed been reported that they have created commissions. They are experts in the appointing of commissions, that much to their credit. The Government have created a Food Board, not however as they have done in the United States, in Germany, in France and in England, to prevent the speculators, the monopolists from grinding down the people, far from it, it was to give them information and give them legal protection, to befriend them. Why have they resorted to this commission system? You have seen it in Commissioner O'Connor's dismissal when that gentleman wanted to speak the truth. He was put out and his place given to another who did not tell it at all.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at 3 o'clock.
Hermas Deslauriers: I was discussing, at one o'clock, the question of the cost of living. I would like to add a few words upon that subject.
The Government tells us that the high cost of living is due to the abnormal demands of Europe where abnormal conditions are prevailing. Is that a good reason, because the demands land the conditions are abnormal elsewhere, for placing Canada in the same position those countries find themselves? For my part, I do not share that opinion. Is it reasonable that butter should sell this year higher than it was a year ago, for the reason set forth by the Government, i.e., that revolution rages in Europe? If revolution is caused by the scarcity of foodstuffs, it is surely not wise for the Government to create such a scarcity in this country also, for it may produce revolution. The Government propose to spend millions upon millions particularly in the construction of good roads, I admit that is a good thing, but first of all peace should be maintained in the country. Why do they not apply those $25,000,000 to the building of cold storage plants under their own control? By so doing, they might control the farmers' produce throughout the Dominion and sell it to the consumers at reasonable prices, keeping the necessary amount for the management and the salaries of those employees who would be in charge of the plants. Why do they not act with respect to foodstuffs the same way they have done for the pulp mills? They did not hesitate in regulating the cost of pulp. Why have they done it? Because the press, largely kept in pay at the Government's service, demanded it. They granted 
their claims; but when the people's hunger has to foe stayed, they find it impossible to do it.
I have put several questions in this House about the cold storage plants. The Government were unable to give me the names of those who have been rigorously dealt with, the penalties imposed and the places wherein such plants are located. And, meanwhile, I knew that in Quebec, in Three Rivers and in Montreal, the law >was being absolutely disregarded, there being a conviction that the party in power would not start anything against the speculators. I say that this is the true Teasoin of the high cost of living. The Government should have the laws enforced. I do not pretend that they should show the same zeal as in the prosecution of those who transgressed the Military Service Act-men who, in my mind, are innocent- but I ask them to do Tor those speculators only one fourth or half as much as they have done against the others. I am of opinion that the speculators should be in the penitentiaries for the harm they have done, and are still doing to the public.
Why hesitate to amend the tariff, why oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)? I say it is unjustifiable in the present circumstances and, for my part, I shall frankly and eagerly support that amendment. Since I have started asking in this House questions ias to the strikes-a deep-rooted evil which strangles the workman-absolutely nothing -has been done to stop them. It is true the effective forces of the Mounted Police have been increased. Is it to soothe the groan-ings of those who are starving or to protect the profiteer? Probably one and the other. Let us beware, suffering cannot be cured by ill-treatments. To promote hatred is no way to settle the social unrest prevailing throughout the country. In the name of those who, like me, are still capable of being moved and roused by the workingmen's lot, who have at heart their interests and those of every class of people, I ask the Government to act and to act quickly.
You have imposed Blood Conscription. Why should you refuse to impose Food Conscription?.
The war is over in Europe and the terrible prophecy, uttered in 1870, in Colmar, a small village near iStrasburg, by an old Alsatian, has been accomplished. When the Prussian guard had tied him up, the very day he was marrying one of his sons and were torturing him to make him tell what direction the sharpshooters had taken, the old man ex-

claimed: "Frenchmen speak not!" and when they had gone, he added:
Hark ye to me yonder, victors of the hour, Germany cursed, Germany dung!
Hark ye, sooner or later, to-morrow or ten years hence,
France shall go in your homes and marry thy children,
Thou wilt see them tumble upon the bloody soil Insulting thy shame and defying thy sufferings, Their heel on thy throat and their eyes in thine own,
And when thou wilt be alone to mourn over them
When thou wilt be nothing but an immense graveyard,
And thy sons sleeping united as my own,
France shall cry for me: "Blood drenches blood, Thou hast said it, that is the law,
My sons have fallen under thine accursed hordes,
But all thine own are dead, very well, we are quits."
Mr. Speaker, you know what has happened to Germany. That is the way Providence punishes tyranny, injustice, ferocity, barbarity on this earth.
We .may now repeat with the poet who put the words in General Kleber's speech: " Hail, fair Alsace, forever free to go smiling and blooming to thy old altar, the fatherland, arm in arm with thy French redeemer." We see 'Clemenceau covering his aggressor with his protecting cloak. Lincoln proclaimed as free citizens those who had fought against him. We, in Canada, are overburdened with a debt of two billions and over and when the people is crushed under the weight of taxation, the Government are maintaining, at minister's salaries, a whole band of parade officers who encumber this country's finances. And, meanwhile, the sick, the maimed, the widows and the orphans of this war, are most ungratefully treated.
While the Allies are cheering over their victory, the Government keeps us upon a volcano. We are still at war; filled with disgust, the people see the federal police, generously paid, stirring up the population by arresting honourable citizens guilty of infractions of the law, through the Government's own fault. I declare that all this expenditure is needless, with no other object but that of pursuing a tyrannical and nefarious policy and which can only result in trouble, revenge and hatred of the country's authority. The people you are now provoking, together with the elements that have already raised the standard of anarchy, your friends of yesterday, your present enemies, shall cry out to you, as did the old Alsatian: " Hark ye to us, yonder, victors of the hour. Hark ye, sooner or later, to-morrow, we
shall have our turn." I say that the Government are responsible for the offences against the iMilitary Service Act. It is they who have instigated them. Has it not been clearly proven, in this: 'House, that for political motives the Government, had attempted to break down the- volunteer military effort of the country? Had they not that object in view when they sent as a preacher of loyalty and duty to the citizens of this country, a man who, in 1911, had insulted the British flag by saying: " Holes had to be made in the English flag that we might breathe the air of freedom? " I do fearlessly here declare that the Government, by so doing, had no other object but to gain a pretence for imposing conscription upon a peaceful people to whom the profession of arms was repugnant.
Has it pot been proven that, during their whole electoral campaign, as far as the province of Quebec was concerned, the Government, through their paid and servile press, have not for a moment ceased to calumniate and slander that province in order to stir up the English element against the French, and by such means win the elections? God knows .how well they have succeeded!
Has not the War-time Elections Act in its application, demonstrated over and over again that in enforcing conscription the Government had nothing but a political object in view? All these manoeuvres have been paid for by the country. The budget of the hon. Minister of Finance should not take any one by surprise to-day; every conclusion flows from its premises. Did the Government ever believe it was a good, way to have the law observed when they kept, in the barracks and in the training camps, officers who cursed every man who did not understand the orders because- they were given him in a language foreign to his own? The entire population knew those facts. Was that >a good means to attract the general good-will?
Has it not -been proven that the Government never did respect its provinces nor any of its duties towards the soldiers who had laid their lives in its hands. The Government seems .astonished at 'the fact that some farmers' sons did not comply with the Act, after it had filched their votes by telling them ith-ey would be exempted on account of their being more useful here than in the army. If the 'Government want to have the law observed, was it not elementary that they should themselves respect it? It is not in so doing that a Government can inspire respedt for the laws it enacts?
COMMONS *
One of the Government's first obligations was that of protecting our soldiers' health. I will now produce indisputable evidence from authorized men, in order to prove to this (House how little attractive it was for parents to advise their sons obedience to the law.
On April 23, 1917, having reference to the colonial troops, Captain Guest declared before the British parliament: "During the two and a half, or two and three-quarter years of war we have had admitted into the hospital of Engjland over 70,000 cases of gonorrhea, over 20,000 cases of syphilis and over
6.000	cases of another disease somewhat similar to syphilis."
*Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, on April 23, 1917, also stated in the British House of Commons that it was a shame for the Administration to treat our soldiers as it treated them; that it was "a perverse sort of hospitality that had welcomed Canadian troops to this Mother Country. . . . Every Canadian soldier is examined on landing. He arrives here not only a first-class specimen of a fine soldier, (but as clean-limbed and as clean a man as the Creator himself would create." . We had a British hospital in France, 500 cots; we were obliged to place
2.000	cots and even that did not suffice for all the contaminated. "I declare," said he, "that from 40,000 to 50,000 syphilitics went through there and that the gonorrhea cases went 'as high as 150,000 to 200,000." All of this was known in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Arthur Mee, whose book (The Fiddlers) "was prohibited by the Government because he stated what our troops had been forced to endure overseas, frankly declares that, as a result of the authorized selling of alcoholic liquors in Europe, we had lost more men, directly or indirectly, than through the destructive operations made use of by the Boches and by their Allies, that alcohol destroyed our soldiers' endurance and decreased their valour, that alcohol, initial principle of debauchery, had been disastrous for our troops.
If we consult the reports of the military tribunals, we find that officers, responsible for the lives of their soldiers, have 'been sentenced for unpardonable offences due to alcohol.
Sir Conan Doyle, an English physician of high repute, wrote the following in the London Times, of October 16, 1917, concerning the colonial troops;
The harpies carry off lonely soldiers to their rooms, make them drunk, often with vile liquor, and inoculate them, likely as not, with diseases which, thanks to the agitation of well-meaning
[Mr. (Deslauriers.l
fools, have had free trade granted them among us. Our present policy is to shut the museums and keep open the brothels to the lad from overseas who has for the first, perhaps the last, time in his life a few clear days in the great centre of his race, and cannot carry away any recollection of its treasures of art and antiquity, but is forced into contact with what is least reputable of our metropolitan life. It will be poor return to the colonies if we return their splendid lads worse in body and soul.
All of this was known in this country.
About the same date, he further stated, in another newspaper: "If the Germans murder our men, if the Austrians slaughter them, if the Turks butcher them, all of that is tout a part of what men nowadays call the game of war." But the most execrable crime is the free circulation of prostitutes plying their trade in the military areas, in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, toy the tolerance of British law and under the eyes of the British authorities." Had a Canadian, in those days, said as much, I wonder what the Daughters of the Empire would have done to him.
Sir Henry Thornston, an English land-surveyor, expresses himself as follows: "I think it may truly be said that, oftentimes, an advance move, a splendid initiative, whidh might have assured a colossal victory, have failed us on account of mm or beer being distributed as an allowance to our men, beer that stupefied them, alcohol that prevented them from pointing their rifles as they should have done it."
Everywhere one can see that frightful thoughtlessness on the part of the overseas War office. Rev. Father Charron, a Canadian chaplain in England, asserts that spirituous liquors were given to intoxicated soldiers, as long as they had money to pay for their drinks.
Victor Horsley, a famous military surgeon, who was with the Mesopotamia expedition, stated in the Toronto Globe of February 8, 1917; "The most discouraging feature of these campaigns, is that the leaders of military operations1 are mostly whiskey drinkers, and consequently, will let the soldiers drink, here in this torrid climate; they keep on giving them rum allowances in lieu of food or sterilized water; the result is that we are continuously fighting cholera, diarrhoea and dysentery. Our notorious failures had no other cause, in my opinion, but the whiskey, affecting the intelligence and the clear vision of our leaders;, they do not realize that alcohol, even taken in small doses begets a brain fever. It is a disgusting manifestation of our egotism and of our costly unfairness to the country. C'ould not the dis-



TUNE 17, 1919 .1537

[Stage Direction]
graceful capitulation of Kut-el-Amara be taken as a confirmation of this denunciation?
From the Lemberg police reports we gather that, even Austrian women were paid weekly to entice our soldiers under the influence of liquor. The Waterloo highways and even the streets of that town were real ambushes where our men were plundered, poisoned and contaminated, and a newspaper reported-the Times I believe,-that never before had the 120,000 distilleries, in England, made so much money and caused so much injury as during this war.
Mr. Speaker, the parents of our soldiers had heard of all these reliable statements; they knew that alcohol jvas the inciter to passions; they were aware of the fact that venereal diseases were highly contagious and that a few cases, could contaminate every soldier in the same camp; they knew that a contaminated man who was wounded was as good as dead, in the majority of cases. The fathers and mothers of families had been informed that one officer had once stated he had lost 20 .per cent of his men through venereal diseases. All these facts were a matter of notoriety and we have seen
64,000	Ontario women forward to the authorities a petition, stating they had sent their sons to fight for the country, but that they would rather know them dead than to see them return home polluted both in mind and body.
I say that, had the Government arisen to the height of the occasion there would have been no defaulters, nor would the Government have had to create a Federal Public Health Department-which should rather be called the Department of Reparation. The provincial organization was adequate for the country's requirements, and the Budget would have been lightened by so much. We should not have been obliged to create and maintain a whole staff of high salaried civil employees. Through this department, the Government intends to cover their nefarious medical policy overseas, that is a well known fact.
Did not the people know that soldiers were being sent away out to Siberia, without any right, to take a hand in Russia's private quarrels?
Laws are laws and we should respect them, but the subjects are not the only ones who must comply with the laws; the law-makers should set the example. lTo borrow the expression used the other day by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt), one of the first laws, the first one
enacted by the Creator, is the law of protection.
I contend that, in view of all these abominations, in view of these abuses of power it would have been reasonable to make the Military Act an optional law as the Government has done in other cases.
All the facts I have related were communicated to me by fathers, brothers or friends of the soldiers already engaged in that scrape, willingly or otherwise. In the interest of good order, I ask the Government to unconditionally pardon them all by amnesty; to discharge the federal police, thereby lightening our budget by so much; to get rid of all those useless officers, who never smelled fire; to give assistance to all those who are still in mourning for the soldiers fallen on the fields of battle. Should the Government refuse to grant my request, I shall be forced to admit that the Unionist Government which, since 1914, has claimed a monopoly of patriotism, is entirely composed of pigmies as compared to a Lincoln or even a Olemenceau, and I will have to conclude that our premier's long sojourn in England did not help him any to induce him to follow our allied generals' example, but that he has rather been impressed by the Prussian delegates..
For us of the province of Quebec, our country is Canada first, Canada above all, Canada forever; we are attached to her by our past memories and by our hopes, by our dead and by our children, by our immovable gravestones and by our rocking cradles. Never to shrink before an expedient untruth or a beneficial servileness, to aspire to originality in sacrificing one's country on every occasion, to take advantage of one's situation to trim, clip, hoard up and persecute or to have it done by others, all that will never lead the way to our gallery of National Fame. As a last word let me say to those who govern us, as the old Alsatian I mentioned in beginning; " Hark me well, yonder, victors of the hour; sooner or later, to-morrow, the people shall have its turn."
Mr. JAMES ROBERT WILSON (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to the already lengthy debate on the Budget. We have heard in this debate very many divergent and pessimistic views as to what the future of Canada will be if the fiscal policy is not changed to meet the ideas of those who give expression to these views. Some hon. members express the belief that unless this country at once changes its fiscal policy and turns in the direction of free trade we cannot make any progress.

Others express equal apprehension in case anything is done to disturb our heretofore fiscal policy by lopping off here and there some protective or revenue duty and putting our tariff on a more scientific basis, that the country will go to ruin. It seems to me that there is a middle course that might be pursued which will meet, to a great extent, the extreme views of both of these parties. I think that what we require in Canada at the present time possibly more than anything else is less sectionalism and class jealousy. What we require to achieve the national goal is united, productive effort on the part of all sections of our country, that will result in building up a nation to be proud of.
Every man wbo knows Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific must realize that this is a country of immense possibilities. It offers not only opportunities to those millions who wish to come from foreign countries, imbued with the ambition to better their condition, but as well, in its wealth of natural resources, magnificent forests, minerals and valuable fisheries, it offers a varied and attractive field for both the workman and the capitalist, for the one to found a home and for the other to secure a profitable investment. There is no other country in the world to-day that offers equal advantages.
I would say then, in view of this, let there be no pessimism. Our country is established on a firm foundation, and with confidence in our ability to meet and surmount all obstacles as they come in our way, we shall not need to fear the future. To Canadians, falls the task of building up and developing the last and best West. With our knowledge of the successes and failures of our American cousins to the South in the development of similar country, and with our own experience gained during the past thirty-five years that we have been dealing with western development, there is no good or sufficient excuse if we should fail in the task.
The Canadian people have the right to ask and to expect that any Government which seeks their support shall deal with a question such as this in a statesmanlike manner. I think every one admits that it is only by the development of our natural resources that we can hope to meet our heavy obligations as a result of the war. While our financial obligations are great, the possibilities of increasing our wealth are equally great. By developing our natural resources we will distribute our financial burden over a greatly increased population and by so

dcing we will not feel so heavily the financial load.
What Canada needs to-day is more settlers on the land. There have been in past years too many of our young people leaving the land tor the more attractive but uncertain life of the city. The Government is to be commended for its soldiers' land settlement policy. It is to be hoped that greai, numbers of our returned soldiers will take advantage of this policy and establish themselves on the land. As soon as we have the returned soldiers settled on the land, it will be greatly to the interest of Canada for the Government to pursue a vigorous land settlement policy by inducing agriculturists from the British Isles and the United States to settle on our vacant lands. During the past twenty-five years we have made fairly creditable progress in 'the development of our agricultural resources but there still remains much to be done along that line. Agriculture, being our main and basic industry, it should, and must, at all times, receive the first consideration of any Government. I wish to say right here that I think the present Government has made an honest attempt to meet the interest of the agricultural classes. I think that it has possibly done more than any other previous Government has done. We have our other great resources, such as timber, fisheries and the deposits of the mines. Of the world's known deposits of coal Canada possesses seventeen per cent, and occupies second place. Compare these resources with the coal deposits of the British isles which only amount to 5.4 per cent of the total and it is possible to appreciate Canada's position in that regard. In Western Canada also, particularly in Northern Alberta and Western Saskatchewan, there are indications of vast deposits of oil. Since the opening of the Canadian oil fields in the early sixties, there has been a continuous production of petroleum in this country, but for a number of years that production has steadily declined, and it would appear that the industry must be abandoned before many years lapse unless new discoveries are made. The eastern part of Canada, I believe, has been fairly well prospected, and I understand a great deal of exploratory work has been carried on throughout western and south-western Ontario. That part of the province may therefore be regarded as having been pretty well examined, and consequently the future of oil production in Canada lies in the possible discovery of new fields. -In the Prairie

Provinces, particularly in Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, there is a vast and promising field which remains to be prospected. Some borings have been made in Manitoba and Saskatchewan without any result, and in Alberta only small areas have been prospected. Natural gas has been discovered in the latter province in abundance, but as yet no oil flow of any great importance. In the foothills south-west of Calgary oil has been found in limited quantities. In northern Alberta, in the territory known as the Peace River country, very strong indications of oil have been found. A number of outfits are drilling there at the present time, and while some of them have struck oil the production only amounts to from fifteen to twenty barrels per day per well, which the promoters say is not commercially profitable. What I am leading up to is that the Government should take an active part in hastening the development of the great oil wealth which exists in the territory I have mentioned. I would like to see some arrangement made whereby the people as a whole should possess this supposedly great oil resource if it materializes to the extent that some persons anticipate, so that the State will secure the major portion of the profit resulting from its development. It is of vital importance that every effort should be made to strengthen the industrial position of our country by the development of all our natural resources to the best possible advantage, in order that we may be able to ensure employment to our returned men and those who are expected to follow them from the old land. To this end the Government will be expected to use every legitimate means to encourage an inflow of money as well as the immigration of people. In this way we shall contribute to the development of our natural resources in the interests of the nation of which there has been great talk in the past without however anything being done in that direction. With this object in view the Federal and Provincial Governments must give the matter their closest attention and co-operate in their efforts. By so doing they will to a certain extent blaze the way for others to follow. What I have in mind is proper governmental encouragement, through research, as to the existing possibilities and the giving of proper advice as to the conditions and development of our natural resources. I think that if an active interest is taken by our Governments in these matters, Canada
will assuredly occupy a leading position in the industrial world in the very near future.
Coming to the Budget, the speech which was so ably delivered by the Finance Minister, and dealt with in a very illuminating and comprehensive way, disclosed beyond doubt our great financial obligations as a result of the war and outlined the resources with which we may hope to make those obligations good. Personally, I was well pleased and satisfied to learn that notwithstanding the great need for revenue that exists the Finance Minister had regard to the requirements of the West, and other parts of Canada, by taking off $17,000,000 in customs duties which will be made good by increases in the income tax. This, I think, should meet with the approbation of every fair-minded man in Canada. The tariff reductions provided for in the Budget will be a great benefit to the whole of Canada, and some in particular to the western part of the Dominion. I refer especially to the total repeal of the British war revenue tariff of five per cent on all British goods, the five cents per pound under the British preferential, intermediate, and general tariff on coffee, the three cents per pound under the British preferential tariff on British-grown teas, and the repeal of the intermediate and general war tariff of seven and a half per cent, making it no longer applicable to foodstuffs, linen and cotton clothing, boots and shoes, fur caps and fur clothing, hats, caps, hoods and bonnets, gloves and mitts, collars and cuffs, hides skins, leather, harness and saddlery, agricultural implements, petroleum, oils, mining machinery, and bituminous coal. The reductions in the duties on agricultural implements, including the seven and a half war tax amount to twelve and a half per cent on sixteen enumerated farm implements, namely, cultivators, harrows, horse rakes, seed drills, manure spreaders, weeders and completed parts thereof, hay-loaders, potato diggers, feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm, road, or field rollers, farm wagons, post-hole diggers, snaiths, and other farm implements; likewise a reduction of ten per cent on five of the heavier implements such as ploughs and parts thereof, wind-mills, portable engines, and tractor engines for farm purposes, horsepower and threshing machines, separators and appliances thereof. Then there has been the placing on the free list of wheat and wheat flour, and potatoes, from countries which do not impose a duty on such articles produced in Canada. The net result is a
[DOT]'1540

178,200,000	acres. If the cultivated area is worth only an average of $34 an acre in all the nine provinces of Canada, the uncultivated area is of much less value. But for the purpose of making an estimate we will allow the same value for all the surveyed land, $34 per acre. If we levy on that land a tax of only one per cent per acre, as suggested by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the amount of revenue produced would not amount to anything like $75,000,000; but at the rate of one and one-quarter per cent, based upon a valuation of $34 per acre, the tax would amount to forty-two and-a-half cents per acre, or $75,735,000 on the 178,200,000 acres. Of that surveyed area of 178,200,000 acres, 117,000,000 acres are in the Prairie Provinces, which on the basis suggested, would pay a tax of $49,725,000, while the other six provinces, which contain 61,200,000 acres oi this surveyed area, would contribute $26,010,000. You will note, therefore, that the three Prairie Provinces, which contain about one-fifth of the population, would pay practically two-thirds of the $75,000,000; I do not think it is fair or equitable that the three Western Provinces should be obliged to carry a load which is altogether out of proportion to their population. Anyhow, our Provincial Governments and our municipalities, particularly in Western Canada, are imposing all the land tax that the land can stand, and the doubling of that tax would, to all intents and purposes, be confiscation. The national debt of Canada is only about $220 per capita. I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in many municipalities, even independent oi the provinces, the per capita debt is over $300. If you tax that land, therefore, as is suggested-land that is now overburdened with taxation for municipal and provincial purposes-and endeavour to raise a large revenue for federal purposes, you would be practically confiscating the amounts so raised.
I wish now to refer to the matter oi Government taking some action to ensure a market for our 1919 wheat crop. Our people are alarmed, because owing to the unsettled conditions of world finance and transportation, they do not know whether or not we are going to have a market for our wheat next fall. Financial arrangements might be made for the handling of the wheat, but owing to the unsettled world conditions, these arrangements might fall through at any time. In the meantime, our wheat, being rushed on the market in Western Canada, would have to be taken care of by private firms or individuals, and

as a result of this condition, coupled with the uncertainty of the market, the price might be depressed much below what the supply and prospective demand would justify. Some arrangement should be made whereby this wheat can be taken care of by government control, as heretofore. It is of the very greatest importance that the Government should look into this matter at the earliest opportunity and see vhat can be done. Some fear that if the Government took action by fixing a price and handling the wheat, there might be quite a loss to the Federal treasury. But I do not think there is much chance of a loss, because present indications are that there will not be any great surplus of wheat throughout the world this year; as a matter of fact, it is a question whether there will be enough to go around.
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to support the Budget.
Mr. F. F. PAJEtDEE (Lambton, West): Mr. Speaker, as is usual in the Budget debate, the question of the tariff has been taken up. The President of the Council (Hon. N. W. Kowell) has told us that in his opinion the question that must be given attention at this time is not the tariff, but the unrest which prevails throughout the country. I purpose, in the few remarks which I shall make, to give my ideas as to how the non-changing of the tariff and the present unrest throughout the country are linked up.
The question, Sir, is, should the tariff be changed, and is there unrest? Unrest there undoubtedly is; there is no doubt about that. Therefore, if there be unrest in this country, it behooves us as responsible men holding responsible positions to get to the bottom of that unrest and endeavour to find out the remedy or remedies for it. In 1914, the enemy at the gate was the Hun; in 1919, the enemy at the gate is the high cost oi living. In 1914, we took means to meet the enemy, and my question is: What are we doing at the present time to meet the enemy of 1919? In my opinion the only method of making food cheaper is to produce more, and if greater production is desired, the tools with which men produce must be made cheaper. Therefore, my first argument is that the tariff on farm and other implements of production should be reduced to the lowest possible rate. In the second place, all foodstuffs and clothing should be free, and in the third place, there

should be a downward revision of the tariff all round.
It seems to be a debatable matter whether the tariff should be touched this year or not, because it is a war year. If it be a war year, and if the Government in their wisdom had seen fit not to touch the tariff,
I say: Well and good; but if they decided to touch the tariff, then they Lad a right to do so in a way that would have been of some benefit to this country at large. The two courses were open; they took one, and when they made up their mind to reduce the tariff, the very least that should have been done was to knock off the 7i per cent all round, and fish should not have been made of the one and flesh of the other. That, to my mind, is a logical argument. Why did they not do that? There is, in my judgment, only one reason, and that is the fact that they were endeavouring to please the manufacturers. There never was a time when the manufacturers, if approached strongly by a Government determined to reduce the protective duty, were in as receptive a mood as they are to-day. My reasons for saying that are as follows: First, because the manufacturers have made huge profits in the last few years; second, because they recognize the seriousness of the industrial situation; third, because they know that if the industrial situation continues as it is at present, their investment must, of necessity, be jeopardised; fourth, because they knew that for years they have enjoyed the highest of protection, and they should, I think, be willing to-day at least to commence to stand alone; fifth, because as reasonable men, they know they have to make further sacrifices to bring back equilibrium to this coutnry.
There is another reason-and it is only common sense that the manufacturers must surely recognize as business men-namely, the rising tide of opinion throughout the Dominion of Canada that the manufacturers have had a protection far beyond the necessities of the businesses they have been carrying on. That being the case, if they still continue in their stiff-necked position of giving nothing and taking all, is it not reasonably likely to follow that greater ills will come than they have any idea of? We had in 1914 an example of a man at the head of a nation who would not bend, who refused to give, who would have all, even the world itself, who continued in that career until to-day he is the most broken thing in the world. The Kaiser never gave; he wanted all; he would not take timely
and efficacious steps to ward off the evils that were to come, but he continued in his stiff-necked course. What happened to him is history. I do not mean to say that that will altogether happen to the manufacturers, but a parallel may be drawn as between that case and that of the manufacturers that, in my opinion, ought to put the manufacturers upon their best behaviour and make them willing to make .some further sacrifices if they have ever made any. In a country such as this it ought not to be necessary for us to plead for harmony, harmony ought to prevail here; there ought to be the fullest coordination and co-operation between farmer, labourer and manufacturer. That cooperation is absolutely necessary for the successful development of the country, and it must come, because a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Canada must be made one of the nations of the world if she is not already one.
The soldier has a right to expect Canadians to be in time of peace what he has shown them to be in time of war, a nation man for man able to cope with any other nation in the world. He has a right to expect that there will be such an expansion of industry and of production as will bring back to the country that which he fought for, prosperity as a whole. But the soldier wants action; he wants questions settled; he wants matters grappled with in the same manner in running the country as he was accustomed to in France. He has a right to expect that; he is not looking for the onus to be shifted time and again to commissions-and the rest of the people are of the same opinion-but he is looking for this Government to do things on their own responsibility, to be responsible to the people themselves and not, whenever knotty questions come up, to hand them over to commissions and endeavour to shift the burden from their own shoulders.
What are some of the causes of unrest? One of the great causes is that, by reason of the inflation of prices, the dollar bill to-day is worth about fifty cents. In passing, let me say that it appears to be rather an anomalous position that we had one of the ministers of the Crown the other day saying, if I understood him aright-and I am subject to correction-that absolutely nothing is to to done to reduce the cost of living; it cannot be done, practically speaking, any more than you can raise the dead: but at the same time we have appointed by the Government, and sitting to-day in all solemnity in an endeavour to find a way of

reducing the cost of living, a committee which is to report to this House. Is that committee, and is the Bill which has already been drafted, I am informed, simply a piece of camouflage thrown out by this Government in order to give the people the idea that they are really endeavouring to do something, while at the same time one of the most responsible ministers of the Crown from his place in this House states that absolutely nothing can be done and we might as well give up the problem? If that is what the Government really thinks, I think it would be better to call a halt to the labours of the committee, and we might find some remedy altogether irrespective of the Government.
Another reason for the unrest is the profiteering that has gone on. Profiteers roam this country rampant to-day, and have roamed it rampant for many years past. They have taken their ill-gotten gains out of the pockets of the people, and I say that these huge profits should not be allowed unless provision is made for returning to the State a large and adequate percentage of those profits. The manufacturers of this country have reaped huge profits, and there has been no commensurate return to the State from those profits. These two things have added largely to the unrest. Could they do otherwise? I say that the individual or corporation that makes huge profit by reason of the fact that the laws of the State protect him in life and limb and property should return to the State for the good of the whole people everything over and above what would be considered a fair profit on his business.
We have heard it said that you cannot reduce prices. Just let me see for a moment whether that statement by the manufacturers is borne out by actual facts. Why does clothing cost so much? We had an illuminating bit of evidence before the Cost of Living Committee to-day upon this very point, and it all comes back to that much talked of concern, the Dominion Textile Company. Let me read what took place:
When the Roumanian contract was made the yarn known as size No. 10 carded white American was quoted toy the Dominion Textile Company at 71 cents a pound. There is a clause in the customs law which grants a rebate almost equal to the duty on raw material used in good's for export, in order to encourage foreign trade. Manufacturers of shirts and other garments for which this yarn is raw material, decided to take advantage of this clause for their Roumanian contracts, and sent inquiries to the spinners of it in the United1 States. The Dominion Textile Company thereupon dropped their price below 50 cents, and almost as* suddenly raised it to 54 cents a pound, where it

now is. This price of 54 cents is sufficiently low to keep the American product out of Canada, and the assumption is that it is also sufficiently high to give the company a fair margin of profit. The surplus1 of 17 cents a pound was squeezed out of the manufacturers who used the yarn, and consequently out of the consumers of their goods. As there are Probably 5,000,000 to G,000,00-0 pounds of this yarn used yearly in Canada, the difference of 17 cents a pound would -result in an unjustifiable profit at the rate of a million dollars a year.
It is no wonder that, as the Gazette says, "all previous high records in the way of gross sales, profits and final surplus of the Dominion Textile Company are relegated into the background " by this annual statement.
It simply means this: That the very moment the Dominion Textile Company found that yarn was about to be brought in here under certain conditions, and that they would have to compete against outside firms, they dropped the price immediately to the consumers of this country to meet their competitors, but then raised them high, enough to make a profit of $1,000,000 a year. Will any one argue, under these circumstances, that such corporations are entitled to a protective duty which enables them to take money out of the pockets of the consumers of this country? I say that the sooner we get down to that class of case and make that particular child of fortune stand alone unprotected, the better for the peace and prosperity of this country, and t-o its everlasting advantage financially.
Let me give the House this little tit-bit from the evidence of Mr. W. E. Patton before the Cost of Living Committee. I shall not read all Mr. Patton's statement, but he says that for the year January 31, 1919, the profits on his business were 72-9 per cent. Now he is protected. Will any one say that he needs that protection? Will any one say that the people o-f this country should be bled through the nose to give any -corporation, no matter what its capital stock, a profit of 72-9 per -cent? I say, no. There is one other reason why unrest is here: I refer to bank mergers. These have been going on for a very considerable time. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) said last night that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) had stated that a few years ago there were thirty-two banks in this country whereas to-day there were only sixteen. I say that it is not good for this country to have under so few heads the entire management of all the money of this country, for that is practically What it means. In money, as in everything else, competition counts, and banks should not be above it any more than the ordinary merchant.

I now come to the income tax, and I am as glad possibly as any hon. member of this House that it is to be increased, because I recollect making a motion in this House regarding income tax not so very many sessions ago, which the Minister of Finance and the Government considered, but received with no degree of favour whatever. However, after repeated attempts, we finally managed to get an income tax. It is.not as large as it ought to be, but it is higher this year than last. I am delighted that it has been raised in some degree to what it ought to be, but it is not high enough yet. It is not the man with the small income I am after, but the big fellow, and I see no reason why we should not go on taxing the big fellow very much higher than he is taxed under the present proposals. To my mind we should consider not what a man has, nor what he gets, but what he has left after he has paid his tax, and I say that when a man has left over an income sufficient for a comfortable living he should be made to pay very roundly until such a time as the state is again in a,position to lower the tax. I am very much afraid, and I submit that the figures bear me out, that there has not been a wholly sympathetic administration of the Income Tax Act. When you consider -that
31,000	people in the Dominion of Canada have paid taxes on income, and that we have received only $6,500,000 from the whole broad Dominion, with all its wealthy people, I think it will be agreed that there is a cog askew somewhere in -the collection department. Something is wrong; I do not believe that there has been a wholly sympathetic administration of the Act, or why have we not had greater returns? I have only this to say along that line: Speaking for myself, if the figures do not show to a very, very appreciable extent a greater percentage return than they have in the past years, I think the Government will hear something more about it.
There is one other thing in connection with the income tax which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and that is in connection with exempting the bonds from taxation. I am not now, and never have been, in sympathy with that proposition. I see no reason whatever why the man, or the large corporation that buys a huge amount of bonds should have the right to say: "We shall not recompense the state, although we have the greatest security in the world." I saw in the las-t issue of the Sunday World a remarkable advertisement to this effect: " Bring in your bonds. All
bonds will be taken." Why were they advertising for bonds? It was because there is to be a higher income tax, and -the big men and the big corporations are endeavouring to get in un-der shelter and save their dollars by buying, supposedly from patriotic reasons, the bonds that the little men bought in a really patriotic spirit to help tne country. I should like to see legislation enacted-and I do no-t know whether it would be very radical legislation-that fro-m to-day on every bond sold shall be subject to taxation on the basis of last year's income tax.
It only means this and nothing more, that the man who practically pays no income tax has his little bond. He keeps it. There is no income tax. But, some day, if the large corporation, or the rich individual comes to him and says: " Sell me that bond," and he does sell it, from the minute that individual or corporation takes that bond, it becomes liable to income taxation. I would suggest that that is a matter into which the Government might well look and of which they might well take heed. It might be one of the ways- and it would be one of the ways-in which our loss of revenue of $17,000,000, by reason of the remission of the 7t per cent duty, might be made up.
As the Finance Minister has said that thete would he another bond issue of the Dominion of Canada, I sincerely hope and trust that the next issue will not be tax free. I want to say to the Government very frankly that if that is not done, it will meet with the approbation of nobody except tremendously rich corporations and individuals.
How would you make up your loss of revenue? I would say that you would make it up in two ways which I shall suggest. The one is a graduated income tax; another is a graduated tax on corporations. Sir, in the United States to-day, they collect from their taxes on incomes eight times the amount that they collected two or three years ago. Their income tax exceeds by millions of dollars the customs taxes and to-day in Great Britain the very same state of affairs exists. The income tax-we might just as well make up our minds to that-has come to stay. It has to be put on a scientific basis. The man who is most highly possessed of this world's goods has got his wealth through the efforts largely of other members of the community coupled with his own, and if that is so the community has a right to take a percentage of the return. Sooner or later we have to get to the state where we can



recognize the fact that the income tax is no war measure, but a permanent tax which has come to stay, to be with us always, and if that is so we have to get it on a scientific basis. If we want to make up for the loss of revenue we must have a graduated income tax.
I say to this Government, and to Governments that are to follow:	" Tax what
you like but for heaven's sake leave the food and raiment of the poor man alone." Taxes must be get-abable instead of taking them out of the mouths of the people. Unrest. These are some of the causes. In so far as labour is concerned let me say that I believe that for the	labourer there must be a reasonable limit of hours of work and there must be fair compensation. By fair compensation I mean that the labourer is entitled to a scientific percentage of the amount that he earns per day to put into the employer's pocket. I believe that has to come. I believe that it will come, and when it does there will be less unrest. It is said by this Government that " We cannot limit hours; it belongs to the provinces." It is said by the provinces: "We cannot limit the hours; it belongs to the Federal House." All I have to say is that the Federal and Provincial Governments in the past have come to an agreement on such matters as roads, health, and other things. Does any person mean to say that they cannot come to an agreement as to who shall limit the hours of work for the workingman? Is it that neither wants to take the responsibility? The sooner the responsibility is taken by somebody, the better and the sooner will the unrest be lessened.
Capital owes a duty to the State, labour owes a duty to the State. They must be made to recognize that fact, because the community is interested; the community has to have the community's business carried on. Therefore, I say that it does not rest wholly with Governments, but it rests with the people at large to see that these disputes are settled.
I just wish to say one word upon the farming situation in regard to the tariff and I am done. It will be admitted, and it is mere surplusage to say it, that there is not a business industry throughout the length or breadth of this land that during the growing time of the crops, and when -the fall comes, is not making its contracts and its purchases always with an eye and regard to what the agricultural outlook is. If you go to a wholesaler, what will he say: I will

buy when I know how agriculture is doing and how -the crop is getting on this year. We hear that everywhere, it i-s a truism, and does not need any amplifying by me. If that is so, then I have merely this to say that to the farmer must be extended the very greatest consideration. I hold in my hand a book entitled "Wake Up, Canada !" by C. W. Peterson. This gentleman has put the case so strongly and in such a manner that I could not hope to present it more effectively, and I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I read a few things which Mr. Peterson says in so far as the farming industry is concerned. The author of the publication referred to says this:
The Canadian farmer has now enjoyed a few years of -prosperity and has been able to discharge his debts-which he always does when he can. He is able to buy * more freely and eastern industry and business, consequently, are flourishing. It is curious how persistently our minds are focussed upon the present to the utter exclusion of the unpleasant past and all its lessons. . . . Shall we cease sneering at the farmer when he gives expression to his well-founded -anxiety about the uncertain future, and perhaps makes reconstruction -proposals that may not appear strictly ortfiodox? Rest assured, that the situation does not call for supercilious criticism or offensive imputations. Every thoughtful and patriotic citizen, irrespective of trade, profession or political affiliation, will ibe well advised to study the real difficulties confronting this country and to contribute his quota towards the solution of the many vital problems that surround agriculture, in the East as well as in the West.
We cannot, of course, control wind' and weather and ensure favourable crop conditions. That is in other hands. But we can, if we will, do much to ensure that when the farmer has anything to sell he shall get it to market in good condition and a reasonable cost, that profitable markets shall not -be artificially closed to him, that, in fact, the returns from his business shall 'be such that he can survive the lean years and thus keep the wheels of industry moving steadily to the everlasting advantage of every one who call Canada his
home	 Agriculture may
well he termed " the great gamble." The farmer's occupation involves a life of unremitting toil. He must compete in the open markets of the world with farmers of other countries and climates-the -black, the brown, tbe yellow and the white races who have been working at high pressure for centuries, and will probably go on doing so for many more generations. Take it one year with another, our farmer makes a fair living and1 nothing more. And, besides, he has considerable capital invested in his business, on which he draws only a very moderate return. He is at the mercy of the capriciousness of the seasons. , Nothing he can do will enable him altogether to forecast results. Neither can he fix the values of his products. If the season is good in Russia or the Argentine or India, the Canadian farmer must sell his wheat at a discount. The cost of producing It does- not enter into the calculation at all. He comes into the game, but other

people play the cards	It is not a
class question. It is our one, great national problem.
That, Sir, as I said before, so entirely expresses my own view in regard to the farming community that I have taken the liberty of reading it to the House for this purpose, and this purpose only, that in any legislation tariffwards that we make, the farmer is the man that must be considered, he is the man that must be considered if we desire the ultimate good of the Dominion. Sir, we are to-day bringing in a land settlement scheme. I want to ask the people of this country, and I want to ask the House, what purpose is a land settlement scheme to put soldiers on the land without you so provide that the soldiers niter they get on . the land can make a living. So far as the tariff, in fact the whole country, is concerned, the East needs the West and the West needs the East. The tariff and industrial conditions are not the same. Under those circumstances, as wise Canadians, we. have got to recognize the fact that the tariff must be a compromise; it is utterly impossible that it should be anything else. That has got to come because, say what you may, Canada must stand as a united and not as a divided nation. I say, Sir, that there should not be dissention. There should be cohesion so that we may build up in this country a great nationality, and cohesion, industry, and work must be the watchword of good Canadians for many a year to conje. [DOT] Sir, the time has arrived when we as representatives of the people must look matters squarely in the face. We have got to speak of the Dominion as a whole and we must be loyal enough to that Dominion, and fearless enough to see that we shall be men enough to grapple with the many intricate problems that are now staring us in the face and'endeavour to find a sane solution, or solutions, for them. I believe, Sir, that the tariff can do much towards that end. I believe that to-day the tariff, with all its attendant followings, is playing a large part in connection with the existing unrest. The position which I took in the first part of my speech I take now, and therefore it is that I shall have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter).


Mr. EDWARD WALTER NESBITT (Oxford North):: everything in the form of industry goes to make up the high cost of material when you take away the men working in that industry. Another thing, all the European countries were practically destroyed so far as producing foodstuffs was concerned, and they continued to demand, to the very height of their ability to pay, all the foodstuffs they could get, regardless of price. Therefore, we cannot expect to get a supply of foodstuffs adequate to bring down the cost of living in this country until things come back to normal.
I believe that the farmer during tihe time that foodstuffs were so high made no more money than he made during the time before the war when the price of foodstuffs was normal. I can say from my own experience-and I keep an accurate account of the results of my farming-that I know that he has not .been making any more on account of the high prices that he gets for his produce than he made previous to the war.
I do not know how we can expect to bring down the price of foodstuffs in this country until things come back to a normal condition, and they cannot possibly come back to that condition, so far as farm produce is concerned, until such time as we can get more labour and cheaper labour on the farm. It is almost impossible this year to get farm hands. I know from my own experience that the farmers in our section of 'the country have during the past four years worked practically night and day to try to keep their farms cultivated. They have had to get their children of ten years of age and upwards, and their wives, who had never worked in the fields before, to assist them to try to get their crop in and to try to get it off. They have done everything in their power to produce foodstuffs during that time, so much so that they have got tired, that is, so far as the Ontario farmers are concerned.
My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said the other day that there were a good many abandoned farms in Ontario.
I do not know of any myself. But perhaps he thought that where some
5 p.m. farmers had put their farms into pasture and bought stock to graze in the spring, those farms were abandoned. I am not disputing my hon. friend's statement, no doubt he thought he was right, but so far as my experience goes,
I know of no abandoned farms in the province of Ontario, but I do know that a great many farmers have stopped raising grain and keeping milch cows, for the reason that

they cannot get men to do the work and therefore they have turned their farms into pasture land to a large extent.
I know of farms consisting of one hundred acres of which not more than ten or twelve acres are worked, the remaining acreage being turned into pasture for young stock, farrow-cows, and so on. As for the grain that is grown on these farms, it is not even threshed; it is cut up and used for feed for the few cows that the farmers keep through the winter for their own use. I see, therefore, no prospect of a reduction in the price of foodstuffs until & change comes over the spirit of the country and more people are willing to do the hard work on the farm at a lesser profit.
I do not often quote figures in the course of my remarks, but I was anxious to find out what the conditions would be if there were no tariff or no trade restrictions as between Canada, England, and the United States, and how that would affect the price of foodstuffs. I have prepared, from statements published in Canada by the Labour Gazette, in the United States by the Monthly Labour Review, and in England by the National Food Journal, a statement of the average retail price of foods in those countries in February, 1919. The statement is as follows:
	oJ	m a>

Canada. (Labour Gazel	United State (Monthly Labour Revi	England. [National Food Jourmc.	c.	c.Sirloin Steak-per lb.	. . .36.2	41.2	45.6Round steak-per lb.. .	..32.8	38.8	44.6Rib roast, prime-per	lb..29.6	3'2.6	44.6Chuck roast,-per lb..	. . 215.4	27.9	28.1Pork roast-per lb.. . .	. .35.7	-	44.6Pork chops-per lb.. .	. .38.3	37.9	48.6Bacon, breakfast-per	lb.51.6	55.3	56.8Milk-per qt	. .13.7	1'5.5	-Butter, creamery-per	lb. 58.6	57.2	60.8Cheese-per lb	.33.8-35.7 40.9	40.5Lard-per lb	..35.7	32.1	40.5Eggs, storage-per doz..56.6	46.8	1.10Eggs, fresh-per doz..	. .64.7	50.6	1.9 -5Bread-per lb	. . 7.9	9. S	4.6Flour-per lb	
.	. . 6.8	6.7	4.6Rolled oats-per lb.. .	:. 7.7	9.1Rice-per lb	12.0-14.	,1 14.3	8.1Beans, dry-per lb.. .	. .13.9	13.7	12.2Potatoes-per pk	..29.7	31.0	24.9Corn, canned-per can.	. .23.1	19.6	Peas, canned-per can.	. .19.1	19.2	Tomatoes, canned-per can. 2(1.0	17.0	Sugar, granulated-per	lb.12.0	10.7	14.2


Mr. KEEFER:: Does that statement take into consideration the large subsidies paid in respect of. these commodities in England?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Certainly. You can see, therefore, that if all tariff restrictions were taken off as between these countries there would be no reduction of the price in Canada of the commodities which are mentioned in this list.
The Government have been asked, through petitions and that sort of thing, to prohibit the export of such goods as eggs, butter, cheese, and meat. I think that would be a great mistake, because the farmer is making no more than an ordinary profit on his production now, and if the export of these commodities was prohibited he would cease to produce them and they would get dearer instead of cheaper. The Government would be very foolish to interfere with the regular channels of supply and demand, and I hope they will not do so.
During the war a good many commissions were appointed and maintained at the expense of the country. The cost of these commissions, which has to be paid by the people in taxes, tends to increase the cost of living. I think that there were more of these commissions than were necessary, and that they involved the establishment of expensive staffs and departments that were not absolutely -necessary. I venture to say that the work could have been done as well with half the service that was maintained.
Moreover, about the time the war started, the Government, owing to the failure of the Canadian Northern to pay its way, either had to take over the Canadian Northern or advance money year after year to maintain it; and they decided to take it over as a Government road. Though I was opposed to the taking over of the Canadian Northern the Government thought it wise to do so. Recently they had to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific; I saw no other course for them to adopt. But you must bear in mind the fact that when the Government took over the Canadian Northern, freight rates were immediately increased by 40 per cent -15 per cent at one jump and 25 per cent at another-thus largely contributing to the increase in the cost of living.
I am glad to say that most of the commissions have been dissolved but there is still a tendency to appoint commissions. Commissions have been appointed since the Armistice was signed, one to go to England, and one here to keep in touch with the one in England. These commissions will follow the usual practice of building up departments around themselves and employing an excess number of assistants, all of which is expensive to the country. Another commission is now to be appointed,
a purchasing commission, consisting of three men at high salaries, who- will also build up a department around themselves. I said the other night, when that matter was before the House, and I repeat it now, that I could- supply a man, who, with one first-class stenographer and two inspectors, could do all the purchasing necessary for the Government departments, and do it well. I say that the Government are to blame in this respect; they could have cut down this expenditure. With reference to the work of the committee of the House which is examining into conditions in the Civil Service, I may remark that half the number of clerks now employed in the various departments would do the work just as well as it is done now. The Government could, therefore, very easily reduce expenditure, thereby giving an example to the people and helping to reduce the cost of living,
I have always been, and am still, a low tariff advocate. I do not believe it is necessary in the interests of the manufacturers that we should have a very high protective tariff. In the first place, I think it gets the manufacturer into a slovenly way of doing business. By intensifying his organization he could reduce his costs quite sufficiently to make up for low tariff protection. All tariffs are on protective basis; there is no doubt about that. But we must not run away with the idea that the amount- of the duty on a particular article is always added to the price of that article manufactured in Canada. I know something about the way manufacturers arrive at their selling prices, and I know of none who take the tariff into consideration when they are determining the selling price of their goods.
Almost constantly you hear city people say, because of the high price of farm products, that the farmer is making a fortune. In the country and, in a good many instances, in this House, there is a feeling that all Canadian manufacturers are making fortunes; that they a-re all rich. I would suggest to the man in the city who thinks that the farmer is making a fortune, to buy a farm and go on to it himself and see how he comes out-. On the other hand, I would suggest to the man who thinks all manufacturers are making money, to form an organization and go into some line oi manufacturing, I do not care which, and see how he comes out, and then he will have experience to show him how much of a fortune the manufacturer is making in his particular line of business. That will

give him a knowledge that perhaps he does not have at the present time.
I should like to say to those who think that every manufacturer who starts in business makes a fortune, that statistics show that, out of every five men who enter the manufacturing or commercial business of this country, four fail. Some of them profit by their experience and afterwards become wealthy or well-to-do; some are too old to profit by their experience, and some are too foolish and the latter just branch out again if they have an opportunity. Experience teaches us that while a farmer works from daylight to dark, many manufacturers who have succeeded in this country work not only from daylight to dark but for several hours after dark. Many of them put in from eighteen to twenty hours a day for years before they make a success of their business and many of them go without any dividend for a number of years. That brings me to my remarks on the tariff.
A feeling has many times been expressed in this House that if the tariff were taken off agricultural implements, the cost of production would be decreased; that living expenses, at least as regards foodstuffs, would come down. I was curious to know what the effect of taking off the tariff would be, and, therefore, I went to the trouble of getting figures-and again I apologize for using figures-as to just what effect the tariff had on agricultural implements. I took the ordinary equipment of 100 acres of land in Ontario, or as I understand it, the ordinary equipment of 160 acres of land in the West, and I took the wholesale prices because the duty is paid on the wholesale and not on the retail prices. The duties quoted are exclusive of the war tax. The following is what I found:
Article.	Value.	Duty.	*Binder. . . 	.. $2.0-0	$25.	00Mower	. . 77	9.	62Horse-rake	. . 4:5	6.	75Corn binder	25.	00Disc drill. 	16.	95Roller	. . 65	13.	0-0Manure spreader	. . 180	2-7.	00Corn cultivator	. . S7	13.	0-5Disc harrow	. . 44	6.	60Cultivator, spring: tooth..	. . 64	9.	60Seuffler	. . 12	1.	soLumber wagon	. . 103	20.	60Walking plough	2.	55Gang plough.. .. ;. ..	ii.	10Iron harrow	. . 22	3.	30Two double harness.. ..	. . 120	36.	00One single harness.. ..	. . 50	15.	00Tools	15.	00Buggy	22.	50Total	. $280.	4-2

That is at 15 per cent, or the proposed tariff. It is an understood fact that if a farmer takes ordinary care of his tools, the life of a tool on a farm is ten years. The duty paid is $260.42, so that if you take it over ten years, the duty paid is $28 a year. If you take the old tariff, exclusive of the war tax, the duty amounts to a total of $309.62 or $30.91 a year. If you take the tariff off entirely, there would be saved in duty at the proposed tariff, $28 a year. But we have to fill that in with something else, and as the income tax has been increased almost as much as the minister can increase it without driving people out of the country, and as the business profits war tax is certainly as high as he can raise it without driving business out of the country, there would, in any judgment, be only one recourse, and that is a land tax. To provide the amount that -would be lost by the removal of the tarifl would take a land tax at municipal assessments of about two per cent or twenty mills on the dollar, and that tax on 100 acres of land in my county would amount to about $140 a year. If you take the land at a price for unimproved land of $25 to $30 throughout the country, you do not receive any benefit because the lower the assessment, the greater the rate of taxation because you have to raise a certain amount. Therefore, as regards myself as a farmer, I would prefer to pay the duty proposed on these goods to having a land tax imposed. We are all selfish to a certain extent, and I am just selfish enough to prefer paying the tariff proposed on these goods to paying a land tax, because if the land tax were only one per cent, I would be a great deal of money out of pocket. I believe that the proposed tariff will allow a very keen competition from both Great Britain and the United States. It is a fact, I must frankly say, that we get very few agricultural implements from Great Britain because the British manufacturers do not make the class of agricultural implements we require. We buy a large quantity of agricultural implements now under the old tariff from the United States, and the United States manufacturers, owing to their vast market which enables them to employ men day in and day out, for instance, drilling a hole or making a bolt, can pay the proposed tariff of 15 per cent and import goods into this country, and they will do so. It is said that our agricultural implement manufacturers can compete with the world and do export a large quantity of implements to Australia in open competition.

That is quite true. Every man who knows anything about manufacturing knows that if you are turning out every year $100,000 of goods, we will say, and you base your overhead on that amount, if you can increase your output up to $200,000 you decrease your overhead nearly by half, or at all events, by fully a third. So that when you have supplied the home market if you can get an export trade, you can afford to sell at a lower price and still make money because of the reduction in your overhead. That is a simple fact that every man in the manufacturing business in this country thoroughly understands, and which cannot be disputed.
As to the rest of the tariff, there are a number of articles on which the duty in my opinion is too high, but I will come to that a little later on.
I wish to say something on the Business Profits War Tax. This tax was imposed for the war. The reason given at the time was that there were a great many men in this country manufacturing munitions of war who were making very large profits, and it was thought that part of these profits should be devoted to paying the cost of carrying on the war. I think that was quite proper, but we must bear in mind that while this is a war year in the sense that we are paying the expenses and reaping the results of the war, the men who were turning out munitions have had to stop their factories almost entirely or pick up some article here and there which they can manufacture and put on the market. These men will make no profit this year. The ordinary business man had to come under the tax with the munitions manufacturer, because it was thought impossible for the Government to pick out men here and there who happened to be engaged in the munitions business and tax them, and let everybody else go free. So all were taxed. Now my contention is, and was at the time, that it is an unfair tax, because it works out improperly. A corporation that is over-capitalized, for instance, gets off much more lightly than the man who has a small capitalization and is borrowing all his money from the bank in the endeavour to build up a business. That man is practically in the hands of the bank, and it is absolutely necessary for him, in order to build up his business, to put into it whatever' he can earn over and above six or seven per cent to the stockholders. Now while banks are very generous at times if you are engaged in a profitable business, at other times, when money is scarce, they get a little frightened and put on the screws
just when the small man wants money to carry him over; so it is a dangerous thing to depend entirely on banks to carry you along in your business. The Business Profits War Tax taxes practically everything over 7 per cent; profits up to 15 per cent are taxed. 25 per cent; from 15 to 20 per cent, 50 per cent; from 20 per cent upwards, 75 per cent. You might say that 25 per cent up to 15 per cent is a small amount, that a corporation incorporated for $100,000 that made 15 per cent would only pay $8,000. But that same corporation may be borrowing $120,000 from the bank to carry on its business, and not only that, but nine times out of ten when the company borrows from the bank the directors have to put up their personal credit before they can get a loan. It is the small man we want to encourage in this country, not the corporations with large capitalization, although 1 think they are just as fair as the ordinary company if their capitalization is actually paid-up; where it is not paid-up I do not believe in them at all. I do not believe in two or three kinds of stock and two or three kinds of debentures and all that kind of thing. I am pleading now for the ordinary manufacturer or businessman throughout the length and breadth of this land, that he may be given an opportunity of building up a reserve so that he will not be at the mercy of the bank or any one else.
I hope before these taxation proposals are disposed of, the Government will see its way clear to so re-adjust the business profits tax as to provide that on profits between seven per cent and twenty per cent, instead of seven per cent and fifteen per cent, the tax shall be twenty-five per cent, while on profits between twenty per cent and thirty per cent, instead of between fifteen and twenty per cent, the tax shall be fifty per cent. A man starting into business with $100,000. must turn that over three [DOT] times a year, to make a reasonable profit he must make sales up to $300,000. If he is going .to make ten per cent he must turn his capital over three or four times per year to earn that profit. You must remember that he is not making more than two and-a-half or three per cent on his turnover. That amount looks big if his capitalization is low, but it is not very big on the turnover. I would like the minister who is representing the Minister of Finance here this afternoon to call the minister's attention to the point that I am now going to refer to. Farm tractors were allowed in free last year, and of course

the material entering into their construction must also be allowed in free. The manufacturers get a drawback of ninety-nine per cent, but they sometia.es have to wait for six or eight months to get that drawback. I do not see jdiy the Customs Department should not be instru 1 ed to allow that material in free at th<, time it is imported, in place of making th s. n pay the duty and compelling them to lie out of the money for from six to ten months before they get the drawback.
I am satisfied with the assurance of the minister that this is a temporary revision of the Budget. I perfectly agree with the ' proposition that the Minister of Finance, together with some other ministers-not a commission-I am sick and tired of commissions-should travel through the length and breadth of this country and burrow into the business establishments from every standpoint, farming, manufacturing and commercial. Then a tariff should be devised which would be a revenue-producing tariff and at the same time afford a reasonable protection for the manufacturers who require it. It should be a revenue-producing tariff. I am very much pleased with the proposition, and I would like to say to my friends opposite-I think they are all my friends yet-I have a very kindly feeling towards them anyway


Mr. BELAND:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: -that the Government in reference to this tariff proposition, have done the very best they could considering the difficulties they have had to face. The actual fighting, I hope, is done. We cannot tell but I hope it is through. But, we have results worse this year than we had previously. I do not regret, and I do not believe anybody else does, the expendi ture that was made on the war. There is no doubt that a great deal of it was extravagance more or less and perhaps some ol it unnecessary. But it was a peculiar time. The situation was like that in which a man with a great rush of business finds himself; he has not time to sit down and work things out. This country had to do the best it could in the war and I doubt if anybody regrets that it did the best it could. The expenditure was large and perhaps some of it was wasted. I have no doubt that some of it was wasted but at the same time there would be few of us who would have asked the Government to stay their hand. They are only ordinary people like ourselves, they did the best

they could and let us give them credit for that.
Now, in reference to this tariff proposition, I believe as solemnly as I believe that I am standing here, that the Government have gone as far as they can safely go at the present time. I think the farmers will find that the arrangement in regard to freights on their implements will make a great difference. Somebody-I do not remember whom-while speaking here the other day, sort of laughed at the idea of the reduction that, had been made in freight, rates and said that it would be of no benefit. I think he will find that it will make a. great deal of difference in shipping to the West. I have always found, in shipping to the West, that the freight charges were, to speak very plainly, practically horrible when I came to pay them. But, it is necessary because you can see that the railway companies are not making money even under the increased rates. After the increase in freight rates, we had the Government requiring the Canadian Pacific to pay over any excess profits which meant penalizing a successful corporation. I dislike penalizing a man because he makes some money I do not believe in penalizing a successful corporation. I think they are people who should be held up as an example to the rest. They should be encouraged. But the Canadian Pacific were penalized. That is a principle that I object to in so far as I am personally concerned. Although the freight rates were raised some of these roads still do not pay. You will find that the reduction brought about by the Minister of Finance in freight rates will be of material advantage to the people in the West in the shipment of their agricultural implements. I hope that when the vote comes on the tariff proposition hon. members will show their appreciation of what the Government have tried to do in the way of assisting them for this year and which will give them an opportunity to thoroughly study the tariff situation from the standpoint of the interest of the whole people and not that of any {particular class.
My hon. friend from West Lamb ton (Mr. Pardee), in sitting down this afternoon, said that this country, to succeed, must be united. There never was a better example of unity than when Marshal Foch was made commander and put at the head of the allied troops. There never could be a greater example of unity than that. The people of this country, whether they live in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, or the west, have to get over their grouch

-with each other. We have to unite and the people on the farm have to get it into their minds that there is not a fortune in coming to town to work by any manner of means.
I claim, and I think I can prove it, that a single man to-day who is getting $35 per month and his board on the farm is better off than the man who is getting $3 a day in town and boarding himself and who is subject to all the inducements to get rid of his money that he always finds in town.
In the first place his clothes will not cost him a fraction of what they do in town-he is better off in that respect. Then the inducements to spend his money will be less; and I would like to say to you people that have lived in towns all your lives that you may sit behind a desk and worry your soul out how you are going to get money to meet your expenditures the next day when you would be a lot happier even if you were a little dirtier-if you were working as am ordiina'ry labourer on the farm. You can always bear in mind that water is, thank heaven, free in this country, or practically so, and if you get a bit dirty during the day you can easily cleanse yourself at night and you can go to bed and sleep soundly. And the next day all you have got to do is to get up and repeat the same performance-work like a man. I have no sympathy with this agitation for shortening the hours of labour to six hours a day and all that sort of thing-not the slightest sympathy. When I was a boy I had to worft from morning till night. It did me no harm, it kept me out of devilment and did me good. I do not think there is a truer adage in the world than the old one that " Satan finds mischief still for idle hands to do ". As for the man that only works six hours a day and wants the rest of the time for fun, I think that is nonsense-absolute nonsense. When I am at home and have got the time I go out to my farm and work until I can hardly crawl into my buggy at night, but after returning home, getting a wash-up and a real rest, I am just as good and a lot better the next day. I have yet to see hard work kill any body, but hard work and worry will kill everybody. The fellow that works hard really, after all, is the fellow in town that is trying to build up a business, on his own or somebody else's credit, and working from eighteen to twenty hours a day to do it until he has broken down, and he thinks it is inore fun than cleaning horses and milking cows. He never did the latter job or he would know better. The farmer is not making a fortune, I will concur in
that statement, but he is making a living. My hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) said the farmer had to compete with the world, but it so happens that it does not matter what he has to sell, from buckwheat to a pig, his market is always right at his door. He does not need to have commercial travellers going around the country to seU his goods; he has got his market right there, there is no possible question about it. It is too bad when the market goes down and the author quoted by the member for Lambton was quite right when he said that no business in the world is more of a gamble than farming, for the simple reason that the farmer's crops are exposed to the elements. We see that at the present day. I may tell you that in Ontario we had too much rain when we were putting in the crop, altogether too much. The crop went into wet ground, or, rather, it was not entirely wet, but it was too moist, and the consequence was that the ground baked. Now the hot sun is drying it up so that the grain is turning yellow, it has not got the moisture to keep the good solid green; and fall wheat, as to which there was a prospect of the greatest crop Ontario ever saw, is ripening too- fast. I only say that to illustrate that the farmer is up against the elements every day. There is no telling what to-morrow will bring forth for him. As my hon. friend (tMr. Pardee) has said, the farmer deserves all he can get; but I have endeavoured to show, speaking absolutely from a farmer's standpoint, that I would prefer to pay the duties imposed under the Budget than to pay a land tax, and we have got to have one or the other. You cannot raise the income tax any higher without driving people out of the country, or else driving them to buy Victory Bonds. I am sorry to say a great deal of that has been- done. You may have noticed when the last Victory Loan was floated a great many thousand-hundreds of thousands, I think-of people in this country bought those bonds, but many and many a man subscribed for them because he was paying for them by instalments, and before the instalments were due sold the bonds again on the open market in Montreal or Toronto. For weeks there were anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 worth of bonds sold on the open market in Toronto every day, and the same thing occurred in Montreal. Who bought them? The men who would otherwise be paying an income tax. I have no objection to the ten per cent income tax on corporations, I think that is perfectly fair, but I do object to the business profits war tax, which is an en-

tirely different thing. I- think that the corporation has as much right to pay a tax on income as an individual has. a great many corporations will doubtless object very decidedly to paying income tax, but they will have to pay it. I suppose, like every human being, they will do the best they can to evade payment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to appeal to members on both sides to drop class thinking and "locality'' thinking, if I may use the term, even if it is provincial-wide. Let us drop all class thinking and action and join heartily together when it requires all the little brains that the Lord has put into us to successfully carry this country over the next two years. Let us join together as much as we can in producing all that is possible, not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the country, so as to make this Dominion a united and therefore a successful Canada.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in his explanation of the budget stated that in order to balance our finances, we must produce and save. This is undoubtedly a short but comprehensive description of the policy to be followed all over the world during the period of reconstruction in which we are entering now.
There is one thing that I profess to know in the district where I live and more particularly in the city of Hull and in the county which I have the honour to represent in this House, and that is that the people have started long ago to produce and save. They made necessity a virtue. The people had to work and they bad also to dispense with many comforts, and even then while they led such a sober and laborious life they experienced much difficulty in making both ends meet. I think that these directing principles of our life: "Produce and save" are understood much better by the humble working man than by those who govern them. I think I have every good reason to doubt whether the policy of the present Government, furthers production and saving. It seems to me that their policy strangles the producer and despoils the man who saves.
Mr. Speaker, the farmer is first among the producers; he is the only essential one. He produces the bread, and the textiles with

which we are clothed; consequently it is the farmer who produces two essential commodities: "bread and clothes." The real producer is the man who exacts from t'he soil the economic wealth. Well, of all the workers whose hands dig into the land, none more than the farmer can bring out this economic wealth which enables him to live not more comfortably, but just decently.
It is high time that those who administer the affairs of the country gave more attention to this noble worker of the soil. I need not point out the primary importance of agriculture as a factor of this country's wealth. We find the best proof of the benefits accruing from agriculture in the history of the development of this country, from the days of its origin, when our ancestors came from France to economize, colonize and setr tie on the shores of the St. Lawrence up to the prosperous time when nine autonomous provinces fraternally vied with each other to carry on the fruitful works of peace under the direction of a central power.
After having gone through the terrible ordeal of this great war, when every thoughtful Government should direct their patriotic efforts toward creating, extending, and improving out important agricultural industries, there is no proposal before this House in favour of the farmer. The Government, whose duty it is to carry out the work of reconstruction systematically ignores the leading producer of the country.
As an example, I will point out, as did all my hon. friends on this side of the House, that the proposal of the Government to reduce the tariff in the interest of the agricultural class is only seemingly favourable to that class. As a matter of fact it does not relieve the financial condition of our farmers, who finally, as regards the production of cereals in particular, will find themselves in the same position as they are in now. In fact, under the new system, the farmer will have no advantage in producing more than he was doing under the old system.
The reduction of the tariff on certain agricultural implements has only the semblance of generosity. What is offered to the farmers amounts only to a few dollars. iHowmver, the price of the agricultural implements has increased to such an extent that it has now become prohibitive for the small farmers. They whose means are limited deserve all my attention and admiration, because they are the majority, and their work opens districts which were so far unproductive. It is the small farmer, the pioneer who increases the acreage of production and introduces civilization in all the fertile parts

of our great country. I have another observation "to make, on the same subject. The Government were voted millions for technical education. Their intention is excellent, a.s they wish to increase the number of skilled workers in our industries. It is true that ito become a skilled worker, it is not sufficient to go through ordinary daily work, but you must also apply the theory and the professional knowledge. The Government does well to encourage the producers in the industry, but how is it that in the same budget they seem to forget the farmers who are, as I said a moment ago, the leading producers of the country and, strictly speaking, the only essential ones. In fact the Government could have appropriated a few' millions in their budget to increase their number of agricultural schools in the farming districts-I mean the experimental stations which cost very little money. For instance, in my own county there is a very large rural population and there is not one experimental station. In the county where I live, there is the very interesting question of colonization which the Government should not forget -and it would be absolutely necessary for those who come and settle there to have such a station. Many hon. members representing farming districts could offer the same criticism. I think that the Government are not consistent when they ask to increase production and at the same time neglect the first among producers.
I have another suggestion to make. The Government states that in order to stimulate production they vdll adopt a policy of immigration by which .they will endeavour to bring ii^ farmers into the Dominion and more especially in the West. I approve of the .plan, hut here again we notice a gross inconsistence. The Government is ready to spend money to bring in foreign settlers and wdien they have to deal with our own farmers they do nothing but persecute them. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say "persecute them." Is it not persecution and revenge to send police officers in the country to take away from the soil which he cultivates the young farmer or the farm labourer and after the local courts have decided that these young men had a good reason to act as they did to drag them before the military tribunals and to dishonour them by committing them to jail or to despoil them by exacting fines of a few' hundred dollars which they or their families worked hard to earn? Before showing such kindness to the foreign immigrant the Government should first of all give his attention to the sons of Canada.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to point out to .this House some of the vexatious and iniquitous processes which the Government took pleasure in introducing and to favour in my county.
Emissaries of the Justice Department, possessed of a so-called list of farmers who had failed to report for military service, scoured the country places in search of deserters and succeeded in bringing a certain number of them before the police magistrate. Well here is what happened: Among those farmers, some held temporary exemption papers duly obtained by them during the amnesty period of August last, and others had formally asked for such leave of absence during that amnesty .and had been promised one. These facts having been established before the court by means of affidavits and by the evidence of the interested parties, the tribunal decided upon the only thing it could do and dismissed the cases. However, the Government always controlled by a small clan of fanatical persecutors and over-anxious to chastise innocent people, as long as these were conscripts from Quebec, protested against the decisions of the court presided over by [Magistrate Goyette, and* consequently instructed its own police officers what to do-to indict those conscripts before another court, such as are established in different localities of our districts? No, sir, but to arrest those farmers and to take them handcuffed to the Kingston dungeons.
In the spring of 1918, yielding to my constituents' just prayers and entreaties, I have assisted several young farmers in my county in securing them the permits to which they w'ere entitled. Later, when came the amnesty, owing to demand, Colonel Bywater, the commanding officer, to whom I had transmitted two lists of names, granted leave of absence to some and promised to send the same to those whose names were on the lists.
On May 17 last, these young farmers, although holding regular permits of leave, were arrested and taken to the Kingston black hole where they are still imprisoned while waiting their trial before a military tribunal. I demand that the Government put an end to this persecution, I demand that the Government, well knowing the real facts, restore their freedom to these farmers so injustly arrested.
What can they be guilty of when they have regularly obtained from their officer commanding the leave they were entitled to? That leave of absence, through routine

orders, has 'been extended from September 21 to October 30, and from the latter date to November 15, that is to say, until after the armistice.
Would they perchance be guilty for not having reported at the barracks after the armistice in order to obtain their discharge? No, Mr, Speaker, for it is established that these farmers' could either report personally at headquarters or wait till they had received a form addressed to them and to be attested before a local justice of the peace. Now, the officer commanding was notified to send such a form to all and each of them. If he has not done so for the Kingston prisoners, it was no fault of these conscripts and they should not be inflicted the infamous penalty of jail on account of the military authorities' error or oversight.
The Minister of Justice, relying upon false reports sent in by over-zealous inspectors of the Dominion Police, has manifestly rebuked some just decisions given by the magistrate's court- which has always held the respect, the esteem and the consideration of the public. The Government has unjustly attacked the president of that tribunal, without affording him any opportunity to state the reasons he had given from the bench and which justified .him in pronouncing the judgments which have given offence to the prosecutors. I hold no brief to defend this court, I might say that it enjoys the esteem and the admiration of the public, but I cannot help .publicly expressing my disapproval of the Government's proceedings which constitute a denial of justice.
Another word and 1 conclude-in the motto " Produce and Save," fallen from the lips of the Minister of Finance, I find a most precious meaning, and inspiration for every patriot. What- I do wish, from the bottom of my heart, is that your Government be the first to be inspired with such a spirit. Its policy would thereby be improved in more than one department of public interest,
Mr. JOHN A. CAMPBELL (Nelson): Mr. Speaker, while I purpose making a few observations on certain of the Budget proposals, one of the main reasons for my taking part in this debate is to discuss briefly the problem of the development of the natural resources of Canada, or at any rate as far as those controlled by the Dominion Government are concerned, those being confined mainly to the Prairie Provinces and the territory north thereof! The hon. Minister of Finance, after setting out in his Budget speech that we were in debt to the
l"Mr. JTVjrtJftr.l
alarming extent of $1,950,000,000, and are responsible for an annual interest charge of $115,000,000, asked the question, how we were going to look after this immense amount. He said:
What are the resources upon which Canada must depend to carry this huge national debt and the annual charge for pensions and other services which I have mentioned?
And immediately afterwards he put the question:
What are our resources, actual and potential?
And then he made this statement:
We have a country of almost unlimited natural assets, vast stretches of cultivable lands, magnificent forests, regions abounding in mineral wealth, and fisheries the most valuable in
the world	To develop our
natural resources there is required the application of enterprise, capital and labour.
The object, I take it, Mr. 'Speaker, of developing these natural resources is in the first place to create wealth to pay on this national debt; and, in the second place, to provide the raw materials for national industry, which will build up the country and thus indirectly result in providing the means for paying off more of the national debt. An incidental result of such development will be to rectify the trade balances with other countries, particularly with the United States. And, by the establishment of manufacturing industries in connection with the development of our natural resources in the West, it is quite possible that there might result some solution of the tariff problem.
Every one believes, Mr. Speaker, that we have this potential wealth, and all have thought about its being brought to bear in the reduction of our immense burden of debt. But it seems to me that it is necessary to have some definite policy in regard to our natural resources so that the people of Canada can benefit directly therefrom rather than in the indirect and remote manner of . the past. Throughout the whole country the cry arises for action. A short time ago Dr. McLaurin, connected with the Saskatchewan University, addressed a number of the members of this House, at the invitation of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and he has discussed this matter before the Boards of Trade and elsewhere. He has this to say in one of his speeches:
As far as Canada is concerned the solution of many .problems confronting us to-day is greater production of mineral products and the establishment of essential industries. If Union Government fails to realize its responsibility for

inaugurating a policy lor the development of Canada's natural resources and provide for the establishment of basic national industries and thereby insure economic solidarity, posterity will justly censure it with neglect of duty at this critical time in Canada's history.
Another professor, this time from the Manitoba University, now commissioner of Northern Manitoba, Dr. R. C. Wallace, has made a comprehensive study of the subject. In an address before the Greater Winnipeg Board of Trade only a short time ago he discussed this topic. Canadian Finance in reporting this address said:
Professor Wallace very properly pointed out that two objectives are all important to the Canadian people at this time.
One of these objectives is stated by Prof. Wallace thus:
To transform into actual wealth the latent wealth of the Dominion and its provinces; in other words, to pursue a policy of developing our natural resources on a scale that this country has not yet witnessed.
And the Free Press of Winnipeg concludes a recent editorial as follows:
The need for speeding up the development of mineral resources is proportioned to the need of the Dominion Government for revenue and of the Canadian people for work and wealth. But the evils of haphazard methods can and ought to be avoided.
Various boards of trade and public bodies throughout the country have discussed this question and some have gone as far as to say that it is time to create a new department of the Government, or perhaps rejuvenate or reorganize the present Mines Department which is really only an adjunct of another department and does not get the attention which it. deserves. The Saskatoon Daily Star in setting out this idea a short time ago stated:
What is required is some cabinet officer whose whole time and thought would be devoted to realization of the potential wealth whioh the natural resources of this country confer upon it: the application of science to the job of bringing about development of our immense stores of the great prerequisites of economic strength. No branch of governmental activity in Canada has been so greatly neglected as this one. which should be considered of primary importance.
During the session, Mr. Speaker, a number of members of this House from the West have associated together in a committee to look into matters of this nature and to bring to the Government's attention the very great need of further development along the lines I have mentioned. The Canadian Chemical Journal, of Toronto, in its issue of May, 1919, referring to the
work of this committee or association, winds up an article as follows:
We are the simplest minded people in the world, and are worthy to be classed with the Chinese in the way in which we have allowed our natural heritage to be juggled in the hands of governments and capital over which we had no control. We owe little to the past, and the future generations will never praise us if we do not do our share in . inaugurating a scientific national policy which will not only place Canada in an independent position economically, hut which should reasonably result .in making Canada the seat of a British Empire.
The hon. Finance Minister has stated what some of these resources are. The agricultural products are easily of first importance. Governmental attention has been chiefly directed, and rightly so, to the increase of this vast production I said "chiefly," I might have said "practically altogether." We must recognize, and pay the same earnest and systematic attention to the better development of, our other natural resources; find out where they are located and investigate the extent thereof. It is well known that, with the exception of the three Prairie Provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the ownership of our natural resources is vested in the provinces themselves. In these three provinces the Dominion still owns these assets, except such as have already been alienated to private parties. In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) not only referred to the promises of the Prime Minister, but quoted specific statements which were made by him in the campaign of 1911 when 'travelling throughout Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, regarding the handing over to these provinces of their natural resources. I do not propose to go over the same ground again, but simply wish to emphasize the fact that these resources have not yet been handed over to the provinces. Nothing has been done in this respect, although these, promises were made clearly, plainly and distinctly as I understand it, quite a number of years ago.
The question now is: What is the policy of the Government with reference to the resources of these particular provinces? Are they to he handed over to be developed by the provinces, or is the Dominion going to develop them, or are they to be left, as in the present case, to look after themselves? These resources are still vested in the Dominion.' The provinces will make no move because they do not own them; the Dominion Government does not take any action because-of what may take place in the not-too-far-distant future as to trans-

until some time thereafter by those who were actively engaged in mining, the change being that the title to a mining property was changed from a free-hold to a lease-hold. I do not purpose discussing the relative merits of free-hold and lease-hold as applied to mining properties, but if we had a mining Act, this matter would have been thoroughly discussed in Parliament, and possibly the best results would have come from that, but the fact was that the change was made over night by an Order in Council. There are freehold titles in the United States and in Ontario and British Columbia; that is, the counties adjoining the three Prairie Provinces have one kind of title, whereas, by regulations' quickly passed, the Dominion provides for an entirely different title for mining claims. I urge that either these minerals be handed over to the provinces or the Dominion take the matter up definitely itself.
Recently, a scheme was evolved by the Great War Veterans' Association for prospecting mineral areas. I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution passed by that association in Winnipeg, and I will read a part of the resolution:
Now therefore he it resolved by this the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada (Winnipeg branch) that the Federal authorities ibe requested to take up this matter as quickly as possible with a view of tabulating the mineral and other resources' of the unexplored parts
of this country	provision also
being made to see that those discovering valuable resources obtain a fair share of the profits by way of royalty or otherwise in addition to such salaries as they shall receive as Government prospectors.
I should have read also a paragraph preceding which sets out that the scheme is that the Government should arrange to send out prospecting parties which should be made up of qualified engineers and soldiers of whom many have had to do with mining matters hitherto. In this way, certain mineral districts would he covered by prospecting parties, it would be learned what really exists there, and benefits would thereby result not only to the country but to the soldiers whom we are endeavouring to help as far as possible at the present time. This proposition has been taken up by the Mining Institute, and recently gentlemen from this institute interviewed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines in connection therewith, and it is hoped that action will be taken along the lines suggested. I do not intend to go into details; they might be varied considerably; but there is something about the whole scheme that certainly calls for attention 
and earnest consideration, and, further than that, definite action. The Winnipeg Telegram recently had a long editorial in regard to the returned soldier and mineral development. I am not going to read as much as I had originally intended to do, but I will read just one sentence:
The two problems of developing the. mineral resources of Canada and of providing returned men with the means of breaking into a remunerative and pleasant profession are intimately related.
In connection with the development of these mineral resources, I have certain suggestions to make by way of recapitulation; in the first place, as I have already said, the Government should either carry out its promise to the province or definitely state that it is going to proceed with the development of these resources itself. If these resources are handed over to the provinces then there will be certain areas in the north that the Government will still have to take care of besides giving attention to the work generally throughout the whole of Canada. And in case these resources are not handed over to the provinces I would emphasize the fact that there should be a proper mining act passed forthwith. I would recommend here that in any event the Minister of Mines take into serious consideration, with a view to immediate action, the extending of the work of the Geological Survey. I have a great deal of praise for the work which that Survey has already done. It has mapped out areas in the north and various other parts of the Dominion, resulting in discoveries being made, but owing to the few men that have been engaged in this wor* and the time the work takes, very little of the country, comparatively speaking, has really been gone over, and it is very important if we are to have a comprehensive development along these lines that a much more extensive survey be made. I would strongly urge that more parties be sent out and also, incidentally in this connection, that the wages of those who are in charge of those parties be materially increased. Some of those gentlemen who have been doing such good work are men who have the degrees of Ph.D. from universities and who are highly qualified for this Work, and the salaries they are getting are not much more than some common labourers are receiving at the present time. I have already mentioned the idea of prospecting parties, and I shall not discuss that in detail further.
There is another idea which the Government might well consider in connection with the development of these natural re-

sources in order that it may get for the people of Canada some specific share of the results of such development. If I remember correctly, this matter was brought up before by the hon. member for Fort William and Kainy River (Mr. Manion) when he referred to the proposition of the Shell Transport Company. I do not purpose discussing this in detail at all; it would be rather out of order here, but this company made a proposition to go in with the Government on a share-and-share-alike basis, the company putting up the money. The proposition they made, when looked at in its details, may not be such as we could take up at the present time-I am not in a position to say-but the idea is worthy of consideration, and it might be worked out to the advantage of the country; that is a private corporation would do the work of exploration and development and the Government would share in the results on a fifty-fifty or perhaps still better basis.
There is a final method which the Government might adopt in matters of this kind to get results, and that is to develop the resources themselves so that the country would derive any advantage that might accrue therefrom.
Before leaving this question of natural resources, I might be permitted to mention briefly the proposition put forward by Mr. Stefansson, the Arctic explorer. You will recollect, Sir, presiding at a meeting not very long ago at which Mr. Stefansson addressed the members of this House. He pointed out that this North country has hitherto been looked upon as a barren waste, whereas, he said, the prairies of the North are similar in many ways to those of Manitoba and Dakota. I should like to quote a few of his statements in this connection. In referring to the country north of Churchill and up to and including the Arctic islands, he says:
But the main thing- is that vegetation is abundant; it is shown by the fatness of the animals that it is also nutritious.
Referring to the introduction of reindeer in Alaska, he said that in the period of between twenty-five and twenty years ago they introduced 1,280 reindeer into Alaska, and now these reindeer have developed into 170,000. Regarding reindeer meat, he - says:
It is excellent meat. Everybody who tries it likes it, and twenty years from now doubtless some of you will prefer reindeer meat to beef, while others will prefer beef to reindeer. It will be like mutton and beef. to-day ; opinions will vary, but it will be a standard meat.
Regarding the area over which these reindeer can be raised in Northern Canada, north of the Prairie Provinces, he says that this unoccupied territory of Canada amounts to 3,000,000 square miles.
If you allow 2,0'0'0,000 square miles for forest and rooky areas and for lakes, you have at a conservative estimate 1,000,000 square miles of grazing land. That would support, you see, 50,000,0l00 reindeer probably.
With reference to the musk-ox he says:
Just now It seems to me that the musk-ox is the most valuable animal in the world if domesticated. He needs no hay, and no barns to shelter him. He cannot be killed by blizzards, and hardly by wolves. He produces three times as much meat as the domestic sheep, and three times as much wool, and no one .could tell the meat from baef. The- wool is of an excellent quality, and one manufacturer is now engaged In making cloth from it.
As to the breeding of these animals, his suggestion is that a permanent experimental station be started on Melville island. He also suggests a sub-station just north of Churchill, where the musk-ox used to roam, and says:
I think it would be the best place because we know that it is a good musk-ox country. They have inhabited the vicinity within the past hundred years. It is convenient to the Hudson Bay railway, and I have a good deal of faith in Hudson strait. Temporarily I have not much sympathy with the defeatist sort of people who can always see objections to everything. Lord Shaughnessy said-and Senator Nicholls said the same thing, and many of you could repeat it-that he could remember the time when every argument that is advanced against these schemes was 'advanced against Manitoba. It was said that if wheat could be raised in Manitoba, it would be too expensive, and that the climate was too disagreeable. All those arguments are being repeated, and again they will be found to ibe equally wrong. Of course, wheat will not grow much farther north, but this is the coming great grazing country of the world, this and the tracts in the same latitude in 'Siberia. If we continue to be a meat-eating and wool-using people, the vast 'grazing lands of the north will have great value.
I refrain from further comment, and will only say that I am glad that by Order in Council dated the 20th of May, 1919, a special commission was named, composed of Dr. J. G. Rutherford, Mr. James Stanley McLean, Mr. James Bernard Harkin, and Mr. Stefansson, to investigate thoroughly this proposition. It is to be hoped that these gentlemen will get- down to business at once, and that the result of their deliberations will be favourable. Just a word in ithis connection^ and this must pot be overlooked. The effect of the development of these natural resources in this North country will be to give extra work and

calls for the freeing of the tools of production at the same time that the raw materials which go into the making of those tools shall also be free. This, in the light of the oftrrepeated statement that agriculture is a national basic industry, is a sound national policy. The other alternative in order that the farmer may not be differentiated against, is to protect him also. How? A fixed price on grain is suggested! and that the price be such as will ensure a fair profit. All the arguments advanced for the protection of manufacturers are good here. "Such action would stabilize the industry"-[DOT] and remember this is the most important industry; "it would give employment to more men, and pay them better wages, and altogether ensure prosperity." Of course it is probable that some one would have to pay-the other fellow always has to pay for this kind of-policy, and the consumer will surely be the goat.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not in favour of making both the reductions called for by the farmers' platform, and also protecting that producer by a fixed price on wheat, or otherwise. The platform in question does not even hint at such a thing. The logical and simplest method is freedom all around, but if protection, then make it general. In that case the unfortunate consumer is in the position of the innocent bystander. He gets it from all sides.
It was the intention of the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) to move an amendment setting out as definitely as might be, within reasonable compass, the attitude of himself and of certain western members on the tariff, and particularly as to what changes should be made at the present time, but I have been advised that such an amendment cannot be presented. It runs counter to precedent. The precedent I am informed was founded on an error, and is ridiculous on the face of it, in that it presupposes that there can be only two opinions on any Budget proposal. The House or the Speaker, or whoever has the authority, should speedily rectify this anomaly.
The only proposition that is before the House therefore, outside of the proposals of the hon. the Minister of Finance is the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I have read this over carefully. It is expressed in very general language. Certain criticism of this amendment has been made by my hon. friend from Red Deer and my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). In the main, I agree with this criticism and I shall not de-
lay matters by' going over it again. The clause which was referred to specifically is the third clause. In my opinion, it does not mean anything. It should be redrafted or withdrawn altogether. There is no reference in this amendment to the income tax.
I would conclude from that, that the proposals regarding the income tax were acceptable to the hon. member for Brome and that he did not think it necessary to make any reference to it -whatever in his amendment,
With the first, second and fourth clauses of the amendment, I find myself quite in accord, especially with the second clause declaring:
-that the tariff should toe so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof.
There can be no question as to the wisdom of that. Regarding the matter of reciprocity, which is referred to in the last clause of the amendment, certain hon. gentlemen have argued that in view of the fact that the claims of those who supported the reciprocity pact of 1911 have now been conceded, therefore those supporters of reciprocity should be in entire accord with the Budget proposals of the Finance Minister. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tacit acknowledgment from those who so argue that we who supported the reciprocity pact in 1911 were in the right, because apparently they themselves are now in entire harmony with the proposals in that regard which were recently submitted to the House. It may be, therefore, that in the course of another year or two we shall have these same gentlemen coming back here and telling us that we were right in the stand which we are now taking.
The Government is now embarking upon a measure of tariff reform, and I regret that it has not seen its way clear to make more substantial changes, particularly in regard to the necessities of life, and to intimate more definitely what its future programme in this respect will be; that is the general trend of the revision which it is proposed to make -whether it shall be upward or downward, whether it shall be more protectionist or lower tariff-I wish at this time to emphasize my contention that while under normal conditions it would be in the interests of the country to nyike the suggested changes, the faet that conditions are not normal, but very much disturbed, make it still the more imperative that additional relief along the lines mentioned be given
forthwith.

I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to refer to some of the statements made during the course of the debate this afternoon, but I have already occupied longer time than I anticipated, and as there is a laudable endeavour to shorten the present discussion,
I shall refrain from making any further comments.
Mr. THOMAS EDWARD SI'MPSON (Al-goma West): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the House by any lengthy remarks of mine at this particular time, as I appreciate the fact that both sides are anxious to bring the debate to a close, and I join with them in that desire.
I have listened with considerable interest to the debate as it has progressed, and I have noticed that some hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised the Government for the large increase in our national debt, apparently endeavouring to convey the impression that this increase is due to extravagance on the Government's. part, whereas I think it is only fair ,to say that practically every dollar of such increase is due directly to the enormous expenditure which Canada was called upon to make in order to bring to a successful conclusion the splendid part which we took in the war. Naturally, some mistakes have been made, hut I venture to say that no government since Confederation, and no finance minister in the history of Canada have had tc contend with such difficult problems, as to which, perhaps, they had no former experience, than the present Government and Finance Minister, or applied themselves to the task more faithfully.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master), in referring to our national debt, and particularly as to where we had borrowed the money, endeavoured h>
make light of the fact that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House applauded the statement made by the Minister of Finance that no less a sum than $1,500,000,000, or about three-quarters of our total debt, was held by our own citizens. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit this is an achievement of which every citizen may feel justly proud. Canada had raised an army of such numbers as the most optimistic would have considered impossible at the commencement of the war.
The men of this army had already distinguished themselves on the field of battle, and were daily adding fresh laurels to their splendid record, and giving to Canada a place among the nations of the world which she had not hitherto enjoyed. But in order to carry on this huge war effort large sums of money were required. The
financial markets in which we had formerly floated our bond issues were practically closed, and the Minister of Finance decided to appeal to the citizens of our own country to provide the money necessary to carry on our war activities, with the result that every appeal met a ready response, every issue was oversubscribed, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have very good reason to feel proud of the loyal and patriotic efforts of our civilian population, in this regard. Compare our financial standing with what it would be if the securities for those large bond issues were held by foreign interests. But that is not all. Consider for a moment what it means to this country to have the interest on this large sum, which will amount to upwards of $80,000,000 annually, distributed among our own citizens, stimulating industry, and assisting in no small measure to tide this country through the trying periods of reconstruction.
My hon. friend says that these bonds are held by the wealthy classes, the speculators, profiteers, etc. It may unfortunately be true that some of the bonds are finding their way into the hands of the wealthy, but an examination of the record of the last Victory Loan will disclose the fact that the number of subscribers to that loan exceeded 1,067,000, which unquestionably includes all classes of our citizens. Let me give him one concrete example which came under my own personal observation. Of the employees of the Algoma Steel Corporation at Sault Ste. Marie, over 2,500 or approximately 80 per cent of the total number, subscribed to the last Victory Loan to the extent of $750,000 or an average of $300 each.
I am told, and I think my information is fairly reliable, that the majority of these subscribers are still holding their bonds and have no desire to dispose of them. So I think that the argument advanced by my hon. friend is based on supposition rather than on fact.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin) in speaking of the amount required to be raised for pensions, seemed to think that it was very large, and that instead of adopting the pension scheme we should have adopted the policy of insuring our soldiers, taking the premiums for that insurance out of their pay. Well, there may be many good arguments in favour of insurance, but I venture to say that my' hon. friend will not get very much support either in this House or in the country, when he suggests that out of his small allowance of $1.10 a day the Canadian sol-
-J566

dier should be called on to pay a premium for life insurance to provide for his needs in case of disability, or for his dependents in case of his death. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people do not desire that any deduction should be made from our soldiers' pay, and that they will cheerfully and willingly contribute the amount required to provide adequate pensions for those who were disabled and for the dependents of those who fell on the field of battle.
It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the tariff, because I do not believe there is any general demand at the present time for a tariff revision. It is true that some hon. gentlemen from the West think the time is opportune for a general tariff revision; but I believe that the majority of the people are prepared to let the matter rest until after a thorough and scientific inquiry has been made, such as tl]e hon. Finance Minister has promised will be made as soon as conditions warrant. But there have been one or two points raised which I should like to refer to briefly.
First, much has been said with reference to the high cost of living. This condition is not peculiar to Canada, but prevails all over the world, and is naturally an aftermath of the war. It is no doubt caused by a world shortage of foodstuffs on account of the millions of men taken out of production, and it will doubtless continue to a greater or less degree until the supply again equals the demand. Here is an article in connection with the situation as it exists in England:
Anxiety in regard to -price of food and other costs of living, which ceased to 'be grave following the signing of the armistice has revived, and is spreading all over England.
Enquiries by the Daily News show that while practically everything costs at least 100 per cent more than in peace times, many necessaries of life have advanced to more than three times their former prices.
That, Mr. Speaker, is very evident, and goes to show that the high cost of living is not confined within the boundaries o) Canada. But it has been stated by .some hon. gentleman that if you reduced the tariff on foodstuffs you would reduce the cost of living. That would only be a sound argument provided the prices of foodstuffs in the countries from which you would have to import were lower than the prices prevailing in our own country, and as the [DOT]United States is the only country from which we might expect to get cheaper food, a comparison of prices oh a few articles might be interesting,. When home last Saturday I took occasion to interview one

of the leading wholesale produce merchants in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and also one of the leading wholesale produce merchants in the city of Sault Ste Marie, Mich. As hon. gentlemen are aware, these cities are -situated on the St. Mary's river, one being in Canada and the other in the United States, and both are situated very similarly as regards sources of supply, but if anything, the Michigan city has the preference in that regard. So I think a comparison of the prices prevailing in these two cities .should be some indication, at least, as to whether a reduction of the tariff would materially reduce the price of foodstuffs.
Flour, which is one of the prime necessities of life, I found was quoted wholesale in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., at $5.75 per bag for No. 1, while in Sault Ste. Marie Mich., the price was $6.75. Potatoes in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., were quoted at $1.5C a bag; in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., at $1.80. No. 1 creamery butter was quoteS at 55 cents a pound in the Soo, Ont.; at 52 cents a pound in the Soo, Mich. Cheese was quoted at 35 cents a pound in the Ontark city, and 34 cents a pound in the Michigan city-Canadian cheese is of better quality, of course. Pure lard was quoted at 384 cents a pound in the Ontario city, -and 37] cents a pound in the Michigan city. Eggs were 48 cents a dozen on the Ontario side and 47 cents a dozen on the Michigan side. So hon. gentlemen will observe that if the tariff were eliminated altogether, it would not materially affect the cost of living in Canada, if those prices prevail throughout the United States, and, as I have stated, 1 have no reason to doubt that, the comparison is a fair one.
My hon. (friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whose speeches during the past two sessions I have listened to with a great deal of interest and profit, is a free trader first, last, and all the time. He not only would have the tariff removed with regard to foodstuffs, but he would also remove the small amount of protection afforded the iron and steel industry. I must say I cannot agree with him. Onr basic industries, manufacturing our own raw material, should be encouraged and assisted until such time as they can by increased efficiency lower their cost of production to meet the markets of the world. The'hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in 1907, the Minister of Finance in the late Liberal Government, when the question of iron and steel bounties was under consideration, spoke as follows:

I think it will he generally admitted that ii there is any industry in the country which deserves encouragement-if we are to adopt the principle of aiding any industry by protection in the form of bounties or of customs duties or in any other form-it will hardly be questioned that the iron and steel industry should receive the favourable consideration of the House. A country which possesses large resources and fails to develop them -would certainly not be a progressive country.
There is. I think, an erroneous impression that the iron and steel industries are protected to a particularly large degree. I think that is a mistake. I have no doubt that some of our farming friends will be surprised if I tell them that the protection afforded to the iron and steel industry is not so great as the protection afforded to some line of agricultural products, but such is the case.
The hon. gentleman closed that part of his argument by stating that he believed that the bounties which had been advanced on iron and steel would all be returned to the treasury. He said:-
In view of the results which have been accomplished by the continuance of this policy for many years, first under one Government and then under another, even if It had cost the country a very considerable sum of money, I think a good case can be made out to justify the outlay having regard to the importance which the iron and steel industry will always bear to the development of the business of the country. But, I think it is as capable of proof as most things are capable of proof in an argument of this character, that every dollar which has been paid out of the treasury for some years past in connection with the development of the iron and steel industry has come, back to the treasury from the general development of the country in connection with the establishment of these great industries.
I entirely concur with the opinion expressed at, that time by the hon. gentleman, that the expansion and development of this important industry is due to the encouragement and protection afforded by both parties in the past. Let us see what this has meant to Canada. We shall never forget the early days of the war, when the Allies were short of munitions and the Germans were keeping up an almost continuous shelling of our lines-how the urgent call went forth for munitions, and what splendid efforts were made by 'Mr. ILloyd George to encourage the ever-increasing output; and how at that time Canada, without any previous experience in munition making, decided to assist. Many factories were soon busy running twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week turning out munitions of the highest *order, with the result that 'Canada supplied approximately 65,000.000 shells of all kinds, representing about 1,125,000 tons of steel. It was because the steel-producing capacity of thecountry was immediately available that Canada was able to assist by supplying this
vast quantity of munitions. If the steel industry had not been protected by the tariff and had not expanded under that protection, no shells would have gone from Canada. The prosperity enjoyed by Canada during the past few years is due to the fact that every available man and thousands of women in the country were engaged in the manufacture of shell steel and munitions at the highest wages they had eyer earned.
I have some figures with regard to the four large steel companies, the Algoma Steel Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, the Steel Company of Canada, the Dominion Iron and IS'teel Cbmpany, and the Nova Scotia Steel Company. In 1918 the number of employees in these four institutions was about 20,000 and the total wages paid $26,706,451, or an average of $1,403 for each person employed. The total wages paid by these companies for the three years 1916 to 1918, both inclusive, amounted to about $71,775,000. They paid in duties and war taxes during the same period Approximately $7,793,000, and they paid in freights during the same period no less a sum than $25,890,000. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an industry which has proved so vitally essential in times of war as well as in normal times, and which has contributed no small share towards the prosperity of our country, should not be subjected to any tariff changes, but should rather be encouraged to extend its scope so as to provide the iron and steel products which are now imported and which amounted, in 1918 to the large sum of $186,538,000 If this was done, it would not only mean the distribution among labouring men and mechanics in Canada of millions that are now going to the United States, but would go a long way towards correcting the trade balance now standing against us and in favour of United States.
I heartily concur in the Budget proposals. This is a time when the people should unite in their efforts to meet conditions confronting us . during the period of reconstruction, and I hope that all provincial or sectional differences may be cast aside and that the people of Canada will'unite to cope with these difficulties.
Mr. THOMAS MaoNUTT (Saltcoats): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unduly detaining the House, hut as the Budget deals with questions upon which I have always held strong views, I desire, as briefly as possible, to give some reasons for the vote that I intend to register on this occasion.
Previous to the election of 1917, the so-called Laurier Liberal party offered, if re-

turned, a low tariff, but coupled with a method for obtaining military reinforcements which, in my opinion, would have been without results. As the carrying on of the war superseded all other issues, the low tariff offer was, for the time being, rejected by the great majority of the people, although under ordinary conditions it would, in the West, at all events, have been accepted.
As a result of the action taken by all the Allies in calling upon every available man, as well as of the great gallantry of those men, including the Canadians, the war is over so far as Canada is concerned; otherwise the military authorities would not have released the Canadian forces. While it is quite true that the Government have many serious problems to contend with which are directly consequent upon the war, it is now time to deal with domestic matters which have become disjointed as a result of the war. Two important obligations which are largely a legacy of the war should now be attended to. One is to encourage increased production with a view to reducing the cost of the necessaries of life and bringing more wealth to the country, and the other is to raise sufficient revenue from the people to pay the country's very large debts. Each of these obligations, in fact, is a complement of the other.
The question is, will the Budget attain either of these objects; or will the amendment accomplish more in this direction? In my opinion, one of the obstacles to greater production is the cost of farm and other machinery, which is much increased by the tariff. It has been stated that the duties have been materially reduced on these articles, but I can only admit that the reduction is from two and one-half to five per cent, because the seven and one-half per cent was a special tax. Such decreases could easily be made simply by putting a duty on at one session and taking it off at the next, and then claiming a decrease. It is not inappropriate to institute a comparison between the normal tariff of 1914 and the present Budget. The reductions of two and one-half and five per cent are welcome so far as they go, but they will not affect prices materially; and they are made up to the manufacturers by a decrease in freight rates to them, and to the railway companies by a special reduction of seven and one-half per cent on bituminous coal [DOT]-a reduction which should have been general.
Any reduction of the cost of the necessaries of life is closely allied with the reduction of the cost of farm implements,

because to reduce the cost of the latter would reduce, to some extent, the " cost of living," as it is popularly called, to all consumers by encouraging greater production.
The question has been asked, if the tariff is abolished how is the Government to raise a revenue? I do not think there is any obligation on the part of the people to raise a revenue for the manufacturers under the shelter of a tariff, without receiving any adequate value in return. The people of Canada must provide the revenue, but it should be adjusted proportionately. For instance, that part provided by the tariff which the consumer must pay means that the man with a family pays more than the man without, and the former is less able to pay having more to provide for, and generally speaking, the former is the best citizen. The revenue should be obtained from each citizen in a businesslike way according to his financial stake in the country.
Under the tariff plan, the Government receives only about one-quarter or one-third of the money paid by the people, the Canadian manufacturers getting the rest, and this is not offset by any sufficient advantages given by the manufacturers. It is claimed that $45,000,000 was received by the Government through the imposition of the per cent special war tax. This, however, represented at least double that amount received by the manufacturers, in round numbers, say, $100,000,000, which would have remained in the pockets of the consumers had this increase not been made. Supposing that the Government had by direct means collected this money, the treasury would have received $145,000,000, and the people would be no worse off; had $100,000,000 been collected instead of $45,000,000 the people would still retain $45,000,000, and the same principle would govern with regard to the tariff generally.
Revenue and protection should not be mixed up. The people owe the money necessary for the country's needs and must pay it. I wish, however, to commend the Government for accepting the principle of obtaining a part of the revenue by a direct tax on incomes and business profits. This is a recognition, even if only temporary, of direct taxation as a proper means of raising the revenue, and should be supplemented by a tax on land values, both urban and rural, and all natural resources in private hands, of course, by using proper methods of collection.

An example of the ease and economy by which a land tax can be collected is furnished by the supplementary revenue tax of one cent an acre on farm property imposed principally for the benefit of Tural schools in Saskatchewan. The collection was handed over to the secretaries or other officials of the local districts and municipalities. The local improvement and municipal collectors had an extra column headed, "Supplementary Revenue" in their rolls and they collected the tax along with the general tax, forwarding it to the provincial treasury at a cost of only five per cent commission. Unorganized districts were handled by the Government direct. As we have a complete municipal system extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the federal tax could be collected very much along these lines, and the customs taxes gradually decreased . until they were entirely eliminated, all incomes not derived from land to be assessed proportionately.
It is sometimes claimed that the tariff is not taken advantage of by the manufacturers to raise their prices but that it only gives them the home market, and that their profits are not increased by the tariff. I will give an instance that recently occurred to myself disproving this assertion. I do not care to discuss my private affairs on the floor of this House, but this is a striking instance. In 1917, I de

cided to purchase a small tractor which I would not require until the spring of 1918. I found, however, that the price would increase by over $200 after the 1st of November, and, therefore I purchased one for, I think, $1,500, in order to save the rise in price. After 1st November the price for the same tractor was advanced to over $1,700, but as an Order in Council was passed in January or February making small tractors free, the price was reduced to less than $1,500 which more than counterbalanced the former increased price, so that on account of the change in tariff, had I waited, I could have obtained this machine at a lower figure and saved the interest on the amount paid down between the date of purchase and say the first of April. This is an instance to show that the duty has a great influence on the cost of farm implements as well as of other articles. The tariff is protective, it increases the cost to the consumer and adds to the profits of the manufacturers, or why should they be so anxious to retain it?
I will now refer for a few minutes to the amendment. I agree with the first two
clauses, but the third is objectionable. It reads:
To take off or substantially reduce as speedily as may be expedient or just to all interests, the duties on all other necessaries of life.
I believe the time is "expedient" and "just" to take off or substantially reduce the duties on other necessaries of life now. It might not be satisfactory to all interested to do so at any time, but it would be just and certainly expedient when we consider that the unrest throughout the country is partly directly attributable to the cost of the necessaries of life which is increased by means of the tariff.
I regret that the rule of the House do not permit a sub-amendment or a second amendment, provided the first is defeated on the present motion.
A feature that is absent from both the Budget proposals and the amendment is the increase in the British preference which would do much to lower the cost to the Canadian consumer, of certain foodstuffs, clothing, hardware and other imports from Great Britain. I intend, by my vote, to register a protest against the Budget proposals, not so much for what it contains as for what it does not contain. I would have been glad to support an amendment that would cover a substantial immediate reduction on all the necessaries of life, but as such an amendment cannot be introduced under the rules of the House, I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote for the amendment as it goes further than the Budget along what I consider is the right line.


Mr. SIMON FRASER TOLMIE (Victoria city):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with a great deal of interest to the discussions regarding the Budget speech, and particularly to the different arguments in favour of and against free trade. As one who has attended only for the second session, I must admit that the debate has been rather bewildering to me. After listening to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and then listening afterwards to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) I feel that I shall have to learn a great deal more concerning the tariff before I am able to form a fair opinion upon it. I do not, therefore, purpose taking up any of the attention of the House discussing this particular phase of the question as it has been gone over very carefully already. I will say however, that while the discussion has taken into consideration the possible competition from the United States and from Europe it has

almost entirely overlooked that great competition which we might expect from the Asiatic side of the Pacific in the event of the tariff wall being taken down. The Asiatic countries, particularly Japan, have been making wonderful progress- within recent years. Japan a few years ago did not possess a mercantile marine that amounted to anything, and the ships she did own were constructed by either British or foreign yards, and were officered by Britishers. A few years ago, however, she introduced a policy whereby her ships were subsidized on condition that they were officered by Japanese entirely, and now Japan has a splendid mercantile marine in addition to a very strong navy. It was only last summer that I had the opportunity of stepping on board the 20,000-ton Japanese steamer at Victoria, the Fushima Maru. The ship was constructed and officered and manned entirely by Japanese. Even the engine room did not boast a Scotchman, although it has been usual to find one Scotchman on board, and he was generally in the engine room. This ship was splendidly equipped for carrying freight and doing a first-class passenger service. It possessed a fine library, and the decorations were just as fine as on'any European ship. In addition there was a Japanese orchastra, which to my astonishment played Scotch music. This is just an indication of what we have to expect from these very energetic people on the other side of the Pacific. An ordinary labourer over there will do his work at the rate of 50 cents a day and board himself. In addition to that they have sweat shops, employ child labour, and use women to a very great extent. in their factories. This will enable them in the event of our lowering our tariff to bring to Canada a competition that we cannot possibly meet. Possibly this might be considered a little exaggeration, but I base these views on an experience of many years spent in British Columbia, where I have had the opportunity of watching the Asiatic in competition with the Canadian. I remember when we had but one Chinese store in the city of Victoria. Since that time they have occupied a large area of the city and are now scattering their stores in the outlying residential districts. They have taken up and practically captured the truck farming business, and are engaged in various lines of manufacturing. We have noticed that the Japanese are now controlling about ninety per cent of our fishing on the Fraser river and other parts of the Pacific coast. We have noticed the Asiatics travelling up into the interior of British Columbia taking [Mr Tolmle.]
up the irrigated lands on the big cattle ranches, and working their way down the Okanagan Valley and putting up a competition the Canadian cannot possibly meet. So in British Columbia we are thoroughly imbued with the feeling that before lowering the tariff the Asiatic competition should be taken into very serious consideration.
The mere fact that we differ so much in what we want regarding the tariff is but an indication of the vast extent of this great country and the varied conditions that are to be found in it, and I feel that we will have to come together and establish a better feeling between the East and the West-, and that in deciding upon a tariff policy it will have to be one of compromise, so that we can meet the wishes as nearly as possible of all the people in this country.
I was very much impressed with the statement made in the Budget speech by the Minister of Finance with reference to the development of our natural resources. I think this is most important. We should immediately look into our natural resources, find what we have on hand, and then adopt the very best possible method for placing them on the market. In this connection, I think it advisable that we should secure the services of the very best experts to be obtained in the world on market matters. Our Boards of Trade, our business men, and our farmers, should be provided with the most up-to-date information in connection with market matters, so that Canadian products can be placed on the market to the very best advantage. We should also carefully study the methods adopted by our successful competitors, and in that way we might secure very valuable information. We have a very large home market here, and when looking into market matters we must not forget this: The more of our resources that are developed in British Columbia, for instance, the greater the market for the products of the farms of the prairies. Every time we develop a saw-mill outfit or a logging camp or mine, we immediately establish a new market for prairie products. We might also look forward to the further development of the market to the south of us in the United States, a market with which we are in very close touch. But I do not. believe it is a safe proposition to leave all our eggs in one basket. We should develop the market across the sea in Great Britain, and then we will have a safeguard in the event of tariff regulations being placed in force in the United

States at some time that might interfere with the sale of our goods. Looking across to the other side of the Pacific, we find that there are large markets in that direction that have not been developed to any great extent. First of all, there is Australia, which will take a large amount of our lumber, fish, fruit, and so forth. Then we have Mexico, to which we can ship a certain amount of our goods. In the past we have been accustomed to export to that country paper, lumber and a certain amount of wheat, and have imported from that country hides, fruits, nuts, sulphur, and so forth. This trade can be extended to a considerable extent, but owing to the unsettled conditions prevailing in Mexico we will not make progress as rapidly as might otherwise be expected.
Then we have a market in Japan, in India, and China. Perhaps it will give the House some idea of what the United States is doing in this direction and what great value she puts on the prospects of this trade when I say that for some time past they have bedn educating their young men in the languages of the other side of the Pacific and teaching them about the currency that is in use there, so that the United States will be able to trade successfully with these countries. At the present time they are doing a business with these countries oi something over one billion dollars a year. They think so much of this business that at the present time they are considering the construction of a new cable across the Pacific to facilitate this trade.
On making an analysis of the articles that are shipped back and forth across the Pacific we find that the balance of trade is in our favour. We export between 220 and 230 different articles, while we import only about 180. But even though we have the finest articles in the world to sell, just as long as we depend upon some other country to furnish our ships we can never hope ,tc get a full measure of success. In 1915 we sent away fifty-two cargoes of lumber from the Pacific coast during a period of nine months, and fifty of these cargoes went from the United States. Much of it was lumber cut out of British Columbia logs which were sawn in American mills. The Americans controlled the shipping; the ships they do not own they control by charter; and we could not secure vessels under any conditions whatever to get rid of our product. By adopting a system whereby we shall establish a Canadian mercantile marine, the Government is moving in the right direction, and I wish to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the action he has taken in this direction. Furthermore, we shall be establishing a valuable industry when we embark upon a policy of shipbuilding. Conditions are particularly favourable for ship building on the Pacific coast. In the city of Victoria, for instance, the average temperature in winter is only 40 degrees and in summer 60 degrees.
We have an average bright sunshine throughout the year of five and a half hours per day, and a rainfall of only 27 inches annually. Shipbuilders can work outside practically every day of the year. We can launch a ship every day in the year; our harbours are always open and never closed by ice as they are in the colder parts of the country. If we establish a first-class merchant marine we will place the Canadian trade in an independent position so that we can take advantage of the markets when we are ready to sell the goods. But there is one point in connection with shipbuilding which is rather disappointing and that is that we are compelled to import our ships' plates and other materials for the building of these ships from the Atlantic coast. We have to pay on this material $27 a ton for freight alone. This is in face of the fact that on many parts of the coast of British Columbia we have very large iron deposits, first-class coal for coking purposes, and large supplies of limestone for fluxing purposes in . the manufacture of iron and steel. We have water-powers for electrical smelting also. I feel that the Government at no distant date should look into this matter very thoroughly with a view to giving certain bonuses to assist in developing these iron properties out there so that we can make our own pig iron and steel plates for shipbuilding and manufacturing purposes.
I cannot understand how it is good business to buy sixty per cent of our manufactured plates from the United States when we possess such immense quantities of raw material of first-class quality. I feel that if we spend a certain amount of time and money in developing that industry we will soon have it well established and we will build up homes in our own country instead of building them up in the state of Pennsylvania. I would go a little bit farther and suggest the subsidizing of ships to open up new markets if the prospects of trade are good.
With regard to the labour unrest, that is a condition that is prevailing all over the world, not peculiar to any country at


Mr. WILLIAM HENRY WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will pardon me if I do not in any way comment upon or attempt to reply to the first part of his speech. The conditions that he then spoke of are conditions that prevail in his own province only, and of which I have no knowledge. There was one thing which impressed me, however, and made me curious, and I think I would be justified in questioning him with regard to it. If trouble exists in British Columbia owing to yellow or Asiatic labour, what is the cause of it? I would imagine that any difficulty of that kind could be settled very easily by the employers of labour in that province. If those people do not wish to employ yellow labour the difficulty would vanish if they ceased to employ it. That was the idea which occurred to me while the hon. gentleman was speaking.
The hon. gentleman referred to the cattle industry and urged in particular that the embargo should be removed from Canadian cattle entering Great Britain. I entirely

agree with him on that point. I also concur in his view that care should be exercised in the matter of improving the live stock industry, which will some day reach great proportions in this country and is at present in our western country perhaps the most considerable of all.
I do not purpose on the present occasion to discuss the tariff question at any great length, as I expressed myself fully on the subject when a resolution was introduced here over a month ago, on which occasion I explained what my attitude was. 1 have risen to-night more with the object of complaining that some people who hold a higher position in federal affairs and in the West than I do', did not deem it worth while when discussing the Budget to offer any remarks upon that subject. I refer particularly to the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton), a gentleman who at one time had the honour of holding the exalted position of Premier of our province-a man who was looked upon as a leader in the West, and who certainly assumed the full responsibility of that position and did not care to share it with any one else. Although the minister has been charged with being a little shifty on the tariff question-which is not worth while talking about to-night, and therefore I am not going to comment on it- he did not once during his speech the othei evening use the word "Budget'' or refer to the province of Alberta from which he comes. That was a disappointment to the people of that province, and particularly to an organization upon which he depended more than anything else for his support while leading the Provincial Government in Alberta, at a time when the farmers' organizations of Alberta were eaid to be dictating the policy of the Liberal party. To-day, the'hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst that organization, so much so that since they have become convinced that the Union Government does not intend to do anything for them they have decided to take the responsibility on themselves of forming a party of their own to elect representatives to Parliament. They were not satisfied with the Liberal party, although they appreciate what was done by that party when they were in power. On the other hand, they had the promises of the Conservative party before that party came into office that there were to be certain changes in the tariff, but those pledges have not been kept. Then, when winning the war was the slogan of the party, they had the pledge from the leaders of the
[Mr. W. H. White. 1
three Prairie Provinces that they stood on a free trade platform and became supporters of Union Government on its war measures. Such a pledge was given by the former Premier of Alberta, the present Minister of Customs, That pledge was also given by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) in Saskatchewan.
It was the pledge given by the leader in the province of 'Manitoba, but he, at least, redeemed it. I might say that a few days ago, while in Alberta, I found nothing but dissatisfaction with the way the Government was carrying on the affairs of this country. We find the cities crowded with people, who are so dissatisfied that they are striking. Strikes have resulted because the people think they have been unjustly dealt with; profiteering has been carried to such an extent in that country that the labourers are disheartened and do not feel like working and creating more wealth for those who are getting the larger share of it.
The Minister of Customs, since coming to this House, has made two speeches. He spoke last year when the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) charged the officials of the Government, or those in charge of the elections, with the most serious offences that a government could be charged with. The hon. minister rose to speak from the other side of the House, told a little story, made a little joke, and sat down. I remember he said that he was informed that three men who had voted for the Liberal party had to be put in the guard room for fear that their comrades would mob them. He did not explain why or how they came to know that the three men voted for the Liberal candidate. The Government must have had pretty good control of the ballot boxes to know how* those three Liberals had voted so that they needed protection. I have no doubt the Government knew pretty well how all the ballots were marked, but they did not take much time to ascertain how those three individuals voted when they put them in the guard room the, same night.
When coming through the province of Saskatchewan the other day, I -found that considerable interest was taken in the actions of a gentleman who at one time was director-general of the Liberal forces in that province, and I found a good deal of amusement was caused by some references the Minister of Immigration (Air. Calder) had made in his speech as to how he might have become a hero. Those acquainted with the hon. gentleman were surprised, and became curious to know how it was possible

that he could ever be a hero. Like myself, they had known him for a great many years, and they believed, perhaps, as I do, that a hero is a	bold	kind	of man,	the *manwho comes	out	in the open and fights.In the old days, I understand, they used to have a trumpeter to warn the people	that	the	hero was	about todo something very brave. I do not think that the hon. Minister of Immigration, although he	has	won,	perhaps,	as many
victories in a political way as most men who sit dn this House, ever sent out any herald to tell when he was coming or how he was coming. No one knew when he was coming, not even his victim, until it was all over. Many met political death at the hands of this man who tells us that he might have been a hero. Unfortunately for those on this side of the House there may be found pretty nearly as many Liberal scalps in his belt as those of his natural enemies, the Tories. I can understand my hon. friend in any other capacity but that of a hero.
A- few years ago, I think it was in the year 1912, the most interesting election that ever took place in the Western country was fought out between two great political gladiators, one at that time Minister of Elections in Manitoba-a man well known in this House-who never had been unhorsed or "trimmed" up to that time. Tired, no doubt, of his conquests in Manitoba, he looked for wider fields to conquer, he looked for someone worthy of his steel. He found him in the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan. There was a great deal of advertising and a great deal of talk. Everyone knew how the Manitoba knight was going to fight, everyone knew the forces he bad brought into the province. But the still, mysterious champion of Saskatchewan said nothing-he waited. The other came, met the mysterious champion in battle, and passed quietly away. Since that time the great Conservative leaders of this country have not had much use for the defeated champion, and I think it must have been suggested that he had better be supplanted by somebody who had shown himself his superior in political strategy. Consequently we find the hon. the Minister of Immigration, who might have been a hero, holding one of the highest positions in this Union Government. I want to say to my hon. friend that possibly he might become a hero if he would change his tactics, and I would suggest something to him. If he wants to become a hero, let him go out into Saskatchewan and contest a seat. The
people will look on him then as "some" hero, "some" champion, and will admire him. But I think that even those who now admire him would never have suspected that he possessed that form of courage. Looking over a paper called the Moose-jaw Times, which knows my hon. friend better than we do, I find that it makes some comments on his attitude in this House. The reason I am bringing this forward is not-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in introducing any newspaper article commenting on or dealing with any matter or statement made by an hon. member in this House.


William Henry White: What I was going to read was rather of a complimentary nature.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. My ruling had
no reference whatever to the circumstance that the article is complimentary or otherwise. The rule is very clear.


William Henry White: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a reason for bringing this forward was the newspaper reports that appear in the Eastern papers. They describe the little controversy the other day between the ex-Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Immigration as a duel between two Western leaders, and they go on to describe their attitude and their methods of fighting. It was on that account that I wanted to take my hon. friend's local paper to prove that the hon. minister, at the present time at least, has no right to be considered a political leader in that country. We Western men that are a unit on tariff and other questions take an interest in the hon. minister (Mr. Calder) and when he gets up and says that he does not believe any changes should be made in the tariff, we do not want the people of any part of Canada to believe that he is representing the sentiment of the West. The hon. minister knows as well as we do what the West is standing for. The West is standing on a low-tariff platform, the platform that the hon. gentleman himself framed in 1917, a month before he went to the elections.
That year was a busy one for my hon. friend; there was-if I am in order, Mr. Speaker-some trimming and some fast turning. The campaign of 1917 began by the presentation of a free trade platform, but the real "Big Bertha" of the campaign was a resolution placed on the Order Paper of this House by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), concerning aliens, and

particularly affecting the province in which the present Minister of Immigration was then in charge of political affairs. Many members may not know what this resolution was; some hon. gentlemen have, perhaps, never heard of it. But the Minister of Immigration knows it very well, because copies of it were printed and distributed throughout his province and the election was won chiefly through that resolution to disfranchise alien enemies. The resolution reads:
A.	Any person who votes for any person, for any public office, or who takes'any active part in any election for any public office by becoming a candidate, speaking, writing, canvassing or driving voters to the poll, who was or is a citizen of any country, now or at any time during the past five years at war with Great Britain or her Allies; or who was a subject of any country not allied with Great Britain or her Allies, which does not permit its citizens the rights of expatriation, or holds the doctrine of dual citizenship or who was exiled or banished from any allied country, even though such person may have been granted naturalization in Canada or Great Britain, or may have his or her name on the Voters' List; shall be deemed guilty of an offence under this Act, and on conviction before a court of competent jurisdiction shall be liable to Imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, together with forfeiture of civil rights and all property to the Crown.
B.	The above provisions shall not apply to any person who is serving or has served in His Majesty's Forces, or has been a naturalized British subject resident in Canada for twenty-five years. The burden of proof as to such exception shall rest upon the Voter.
C.	Any person giving such information as will lead to the conviction of any such person shall he entitled to one-third of all fines and forfeitures.
Prior to the provincial election of 1917 an Act was passed in the Provincial House under which women were given the vote, many being of alien birth. Everything was staged for the election, and my hon. friends carried it; they had the advantage of the alien vote, and they had the female vote as well. But that was not all. When the aliens found that the Conservative Government was making an attempt to take away their franchise and their rights of citizenship, they naturally resented it and supported the Liberal Provincial Government. These unfortunate people were deluded. They thought the Liberal party would protect their rights. But the 'Conservative Government at Ottawa disfranchised them in the autumn of 1917 in order to win the federal election. First, they were offered a low tariff platform, so that a provincial election in Saskatchewan might be won; then they were disfranchised before the federal election came on so that they should not be able to vote. And now the Minister

of Immigration has gone back on his friends, the farmers, and the organized grain growers, and declines to stand behind then! on the platform that he himself framed. I make this statement not because I want to do injury, political or otherwise, to my hon. friend-he is well able to do that himself. I have told him how to become a hero; how to appear before the country as one of the bravest of men in political life and how to regain the confidence of the people. But the minister no longer stands in the position of western leader; his attitude in this House is no longer supported by the people of the West. He is feting on his own initiative; he has no supporters out there. I could read a resolution passed at Moosejaw by a body of farmers who condemn his action in this House and say that he is no longer entitled to their support and does not express the sentiments of the people whom he represents in that country. I have nothing to say against the minister personally; I simply want to make it clear that in the position which he takes he does not represent public opinion in the West. The position taken by the ex-Minister of Agriculture' (Mr. Crerar) is one which expresses the views of the people in the West, and it was expected that each of the three western ministers would do as the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) did. It has been said that the Minister of Immigration and the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the two western leaders, have been matched in a duel. But there was no duel; it was simply a case of one man standing up for his principles, keeping a pledge, and the other standing on the defensive and making an excuse for not fulfilling his pledge.
The Minister of Immigration says that this is not the time to deal with the tariff; that we have bigger things to do. Why then, did the Government touch the tariff at all? Why do they make a few little reductions that do not cut any figure? Why-do they merely try to satisfy certain members of the Union Government by cutting off a little here and there? If this is not a time to deal with the tariff, why did hon. gentlemen not leave it alone until the proper time should come? When the famous resolution was put through the Provincial House in Saskatchewan in March and drafted, no doubt, by the Minister of Elections at that time-we were in the midst of the war, and if this is not the time to deal with the tariff, then certainly that was not the time to deal with the subject matter of that resolution. The minister may

say that he has changed his mind. But he owes something to the western farmers. He owes his political prominence in the West and in this fHfouse to the farmers; he owes his position to them. I tell my hon. friend that many political victims have fallen without warning by the same hand and the farmers of the West have "got it" surely, but silently, and when they least expected it. Moreover, they got it in such a manner that I do not think they will ever forget it.
I wish to congratulate Manitoba and the grain growers of that province on having at least a leader in their grain growers' and farmers' organizations who has sufficient honour to keep his pledge. I can look any day upon those seats in front of us and see amongst the front benches many men who have sacrificed principles for position, but I have to turn to-day to the cross benches to see the single individual who has sacrificed his position for a principle. There is the difference between men. There have been unfavourable comments by the press supporting the Union Government, speaking about that hon. gentleman's clumsiness in debate and saying that he was not as skilful or as experienced as the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). I thank God he was not, and I hope he never will have the experience that makes a man a party politician, that leads a man to trim his sails both ways, to step into a Government on a solemn pledge given to the people that he has been amongst, and then to turn down those people. If that is what they call experience, then the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) was lacking in political tactics and experience, and he will do very well without it. The hon. gentleman has served his purpose in this House; he has served his purpose in the country; he has done something that has proved that he was one man who adhered to his principles when he went into the Union Government, when he stepped away from his party- 1 had never any faith in any one who did so. but I am wrong in one particular, and I am pleased to know that there was one man who conscientiously stepped out and took the position he thought he should take and who, when he considered that his work was done, stepped down and went back. He had finished his work nobly, and every western man, no matter whether he comes from Alberta, Saskatchewan or any other province, will remember with pride that there was one western leader who came 227
down from the West, who joined forces with the Union Government, who did what he conscientiously thought was right and did it to the end, and who, when he found he could not agree any longer with the Government, stepped away from that organization. I say that we have nothing but respect and honour for him. I thank him particularly in the name of the West; I thank him on behalf of the farmers' organizations. and I thank him as a loyal citizen of this country, that when the time caiiie he was big enough to go out and give his best efforts to his country, and that when his work was done and when he found he could no longer keep his pledge and retain his honour, would rather sacrifice the high position he held in this country than sacrifice his principles.


Mr. IRA EUGENE ARGUE (Swift .Current) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
occupy many minutes to-night discussing the Budget question. I was surprised tonight that the hon. member (Mr. W H. White) seemed to be extremely anxious about the welfare of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He was also very anxious about Saskatchewan, and I should like him to understand that there are fifteen representatives here from Saskatchewan, and they feel they are quite capable of speaking for that province, and I think when the vote is taken on the Budget proposal that possibly there will be as many standing behind the Minister of Immigration and Colonization as there will be supporting the amendment. The hon. member has made the assertion that he has no faith in the Liberals who crossed over to this side of the House.
Mr. W- H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta): I beg your pardon, I made no such statement.


Ira Eugene Argue: With the exception of the exJMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar).


William Henry White: I was referring to those who had taken positions in the Government My hon. friend must not think that I had any one else in mind at all, although the seat of the ex-Minister of Agriculture was vacant.


Ira Eugene Argue: I will accept the hon.
member's statement, but as regards Liberalism, some of us who are standing on this side of the House, who left that side of the House, are just as true Liberals as ever sat in this House. I want to tell the hon. member that I held the Liberal nomination for two years and one-half in



my constituency, and I resigned it because I could not follow the late leader of the Liberal party. I handed in my resignation before the Union Government was formed, and I informed the Liberal Association that, so far as I was concerned, the coast was clear and they could do just as they pleased. When the nominations for the Union Government were called, mine was the only name that was put forward at the convention, and I carried the constituency with about 2,800 of a majority.
I believe I have some right to speak for the West on this Budget question, as I have lived in the West for thirty years, and I know the feelings of the Western people probably as well as most of the members from that part of the country. I want to say frankly that this Budget will not suit the West because it does not go far enough. I do not believe it goes far enough in the direction of relieving the high cost of the necessaries of life. The high cost of living is pressing very heavily on the Western Provinces, and, rightly or wrongly, we believe that during the last number of years we have been paying more than our fair share of the tariff revenue that has been raised in this country. I have seen settlers coming into the West for the last thirty years under the two different forms of government, Liberal and Conservative, and I have never seen any difference between the two Governments. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to bring immigrants into the West; we dumped them down on the prairies; we gave them 160 acres of land, and we left them to sink or swim, instead of having a fatherly care over them and helping them for two or three years to get onto their feet. We built a tariff wall around them and allowed them to be bled by every manufacturer in the country. That is the way we treated them, and one Government was not any more to blame than the other. The consequence was that hundreds, aye thousands of them, moved out before they had spent two years there, and thousands of them, when they got their papers, mortgaged everything they had, went across the line and became American citizens. For those of us who are left behind, I want to say that ninety per cent of the people who live in Saskatchewan, regardless of politics, deep down in their hearts, have the feeling that they have been unjustly dealt with as regards the tariff. We are not all free traders; we are reasonable people; but we are determined to have a revision of the tariff, and all we ask is for the eastern people to meet us on a fair, square basis. We are willing to meet them [Mr. Argue.l
around any table; we are willing to discuss the question with the manufacturers of the East,, and see if we cannot come to some satisfactory conclusion. That is the only way in which this country is ever going to be built up. When you speak to the man in the West about your home markets and building up your cities and home markets here, that does not appeal to us because eighty per cent of the products we raise on the farm go out of the country; our market is the foreign market, and when you talk about home consumption, it does not appeal to us.
Another question to which I wish to refer to-night is with reference to our wheat. I want to add one word to what has been ably put before the House with reference to the 1919 crop of wheat. In the three western provinces we have under cultivation today 18,000,000 acres of wheat, there being 9,250,000 acres of wheat under cultivation in Saskatchewan alone, and if we get a fair yield we should have in the neighbourhood of 360,000,000 bushels in the three western provinces. That would mean 300,000,000 bushels to ship out, and the thing that is bothering us is to find a market for that wheat, and how to get it out. In past years sixty per cent of our wheat went through American ports, but to-day those ports are closed, and in all probability will remain closed during the season. In that event, when we are pouring our wheat on the market at the rate of 3,000,000 or 5,000,000 bushels a day in the months of November and December, the price will sag down probably to 60 cents a bushel, and then when it is out of the farmers' hands and into the hands of the speculators we shall be in the same position we were in in 1915, when the great bulk of the wheat went into the market at 70 cents a bushel and the following June was sold at $3.40. Those are the conditions we are anxious about, and we want the Government to do something.
I do not care whether the price is fixed, oi what is done, so long as the Government controls the market in some way, in order that we can get a fair average price for our wheat.
There is one more thing I wish to say with reference to the grain growers of the West. We are working and striving to build up in Saskatchewan one of the grandest provinces in the Dominion, and there are concessions that we want. The other day a convention was held in my city, attended by something like 700 delegates. They sent me a wire asking me to keep up the fight for tariff revision. I have fought

all my life for low tariff, and I am not going to quit now. I am going to stay on this job till we get a revision of the tariff, till the load we are carrying is adjusted, and till a fair proposition is put before us so that we can carry on and make good in that country.
I am going to support the Government for three reasons. Something happened the other afternoon in this House when the hon. President of the Privy Council was describing this as a war year. He said that if the Minister of Finance had also taken that stand, and that if had not meddled with or touched the tariff at all every member of the Cabinet would have stood by his side. I noticed when he made that statement the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was in his seat on the cross benches and made no objection to it. We must therefore assume that the statement was correct, and if it was correct why quarrel with the Minister of Finance because he did make some reductions in the tariff? The Minister of Finance knew the sentiment of the Western members. We had expressed our wishes to him; he knew that we were asking for a revision of the tariff, and he came part way to meet us, and I am not prepared to quarrel with him because he did. Another reason why I am going to support the Government is that the Minister of Finance has promised to give us a revision of the tariff. He has promised that during recess a commission will be appointed to go from Halifax to Vancouver, and that every industry will have an opportunity of appearing before the commission and stating their views. The farmer and the labouring man, the consumer and the manufacturer, are all to appear before the commission. But there is one thing 1 want the 'Minister of Finance to do, and one thing we in the WTest- will insist on, and that is that everything shall be free and above board, that every man who asks for assistance by way of the tariff shall be compelled to lay his books on the table and show the reason why. More than that, I want them to squeeze every drop of water out of their stock. Let there be protection or a bounty, or whatever you want to call it, on the capital invested in these industries, but not on watered stock. I believe that the commission will go a long way towards solving the problem that is troubling us to-day. The other reason why I shall support the Government is because I see no alternative. I see nothing in the amendment which recommends itself to me, and I see no reason why I should support it. I noticed 2274
the other day that when the leader of the Opposition was discussing the question he qualified his support of the amendment by saying that he would go as far as he possibly could in support of it. I am prepared to stand by the Government and give them one more opportunity to make good their promise. If they do not, then in the next session of this House we will have our fight on the tariff question..


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: The proposals of the Budget under discussion are far from satisfactory to me. On the other hand, I am not desirous of an election or a change of Government with matters in their present position. I am told that such being my views I have no right to vote for the amendment under consideration, that I must be either for or against the Government, that if I wish the Government to retain office I must vote for all its measures whether I like them or not, whether I believe them to be right or wrong. The acceptance of that doctrine would certainly relieve a representative of an unpleasant responsibility. It would reduce our duties to that of rubber stamps, or at the outside of being ready to consult with the Government whenever the members of the Government wished to consult us. But I must confess that pleasant as that doctrine is, it does not look sound to me. If the doctrine is to be accepted, I fail to see the need for members remaining here for from three to seven months each year. All that would be needed would be for the Government to call us together for a few days during each year for consultation, or better still we might arrange that a vote be taken, every five years to decide what party or what set of public men should have charge of the affairs of the country. That would do away with the great expense of holding yearly sessions.
But so long as we are elected to represent the people of the country, so long as our constituents select us to voice their views, and we are called here for the purpose of considering and discussing public measures, it seems to me w.e are bound by our voices and votes to give effect so far as we are able to the desires of our constituents, at least in so far as w*e are able to understand those desires and can conscientiously support them; and when we reach the stage where we feel that our own views and convictions are so far from being in accord with those of the majority of our constituents that we cannot properly represent them, we should resign and allow our constituents

to select representatives who can represent them.
The threat has been held out that if we insist on voting against the Government proposals or in favour of the amendment, the Government will resign. Let me read the following extract from the Toronto World:
Premier to resign if Westerners Bolt. Commons Will hear Startling Announcement if Dissenters-Persist.
Special to the "Toronto World''-Ottawa, June 10th.'-The political situation precipitated by the Budget speech, and threatened bolt of Western Unionist members is receiving careful consideration, and may soon receive decisive treatment from 'he Government. Every effort is being made to bring the dissenters into line. If, however, these efforts prove unsuccessful an announcement may be made in the House that will carry something like consternation to the insurgents. It is rumoured that before the debate closes the House will be plainly told that any considerable defection from the Government on the Budget will necessitate the resignation of the Prime Minister.
Few members on either side of the House desire an election and few Unionist members would care to take the responsibility of overthrowing the Union Government. It is believed that a formal announcement by the Prime Minister that this Government will be unwilling to "carry on", unless it can command practically the united support of its followers in the House, will cause the great majority of the Western Unionists to vote against the McMaster amendment and accept the assurance of the Government that a general revision of the tariff will be made in the near future.
Talk about autocratic rule! I don't wish the Government to resign but after all there is no good reason why this should happen unless a majority of the members of this House believes that a greater reduction should have been made, and if a majority takes that view there seems no other course left but one of two-the Government should either meet the views of the majority or give way to a Government that will meet those views. It is not fair to insist that the minority must rule or that the elected representatives of the people must by their vote give the lie to their own views or those of their constituents. That is what is being demanded. But, if I rightly understand the situation the threat in the Toronto World, and the threats we hear around this House, are not made from fear of an adverse majority but in order to frighten us from taking such action as shall reduce the Government majority.
The threat is made that if things are not exactly to its liking, the Government will not "carry on" as the Toronto World puts it. I wonder what the people making those threats would have thought, were our boys in the front trenches during the war, to 
refuse to "carry on" unless everything were to their liking, and what would nave been the result had the Allied soldiers generally adopted the policy which we are told our Government may adopt, unless it can command practically the united support of its followers. If such policy is adopted the responsibility must rest on the Government. And if there should be a majority of the members of this House who believe the reductions are not such as should have been made, the Government must take the responsibility for introducing a Budget not commanding the support of a majority. We did not introduce the Budget and I for one refuse to accept the responsibility for it.
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), on this question said:
The real question at issue that underlies the situation that we have at present is, as to whether or not this* Parliament is desirous that this Government should continue in office and carry on.
No doubt the minister sincerely believes that is the real question at issue and that this belief justifies him in supporting the financial proposals, but I am unable to come to the same conclusion. The minister says, "Every member of the House is the keeper of his own conscience." I agree with him in that, though I cannot agree with him as to what the real question at issue is.
It seems to me we are now asked to show by our votes, which wre prefer, the principles laid down in the Budget proposals before us or those enunciated in the amendment. This question is raised at a time when it can be properly raised and should be raised. The main objection raised against the previous amendment of my honourable friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) cannot apply in this case. On the debate on that previous amendment when I objected to the time at which that amendment was brought forward I was asked by my honourable friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) to suggest any other way by which the matter might be brought before the House. I then suggested that it might better be done when the Budget is brought down. That has been done. I cannot conscientiously support the Budget proposals and I can support the amendment though were I drawing it I would prefer the wording suggested by my honourable friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). But, as has been explained, an amendment to the amendment cannot be moved on this occasion; so we are limited to a choice between the Budget proposals and the amendment, and following the rule laid down by
.TUNE 17, 1919
*3581
the Minister of Immigration, that each member must be gulled by the dictates of his own conscience, I must cast my vote for the amendment.
There are reasons for this that appeal very strongly to me. One is that, though I do not believe free trade is a sure cure for all our political ills, I believe it would at least alleviate many of them and I believe that the so-called protective system is the chief cause of many of those ills. It appeals to all that is selfish and cowardly in human nature, while free trade develops manliness, self-reliance and courage, all qualities sorely needed at this time. We are told that the tariff is not in issue at this time. Still the Manufacturers' Association is spending fortunes in trying to build up protectionist sentiment. Naturally, the friends of free trade have tried to keep up their end of the fight, and they feel that the representatives of agricultural constituencies should be working in their interest in this House. If we fail them now, if we let our desires for partisan, or political advantage stand in the way of desire to promote sound fiscal principles, it will mean a serious set-back to the advancement of those principles.
T lunderstand that the Manufacturers' Association has been sending a document around to the different manufacturing concerns in the country and I propose to read the heading of it as follows:
Whereas employment must be found for our returning soldiers, in addition to the large number of employees who have been engaged. in the manufacture of war munitions,
And whereas In order to furnish the maximum employment for our workmen it is necessary to stimulate the activity of industrial enterprises of every description,
And whereas values of all commodities are in process of adjustment and any changes in the present fiscal policy would tend to delay the return to normal conditions,
And whereas the present demand for tariff revision is creating uncertainty, retarding initiative and will result in serious conditions of unemployment,
And whereas Great Britain, France and other countries are restricting imports to conserve their own resources for the employment of their own people.
We, the undersigned employees of	
hereby request that, as our representative in Parliament, you will protect the interests of Canadian labour by the use of your influence in preventing, at this critical period, any change in the present fiscal policy under which the country has progressed and prospered.
There is a blank left, I suppose, for the signatures of the employees of the manufacturing institution but the particular firm and employees from whom I received this instead of attaching their signatures to it,
filled up the space with the following typewritten comments:
We think industrial activity would be better stimulated by lowering the price than by raising it.
If values are in process of adjustment downwards the lowering of the tariff would assist instead of delay the return to normal conditions.
Terminate the uncertainty regarding the tariff by lowering it and take the initiative -in doing so and encourage initiative in others along this most worthy line as well as increase employment and abolish unemployment.
And since Germany was the worst protected country in the world and look at the hell of one mess she is in now, let us avoid same by finding employment for our returned soldiers and war munition hands by cutting the ''fit" out of the profiteer, and enlarge trade by taking smaller profits, for the employment of cur own people and the opening up of the resources ol our own land.
And whereas Russia is introducing a system at variance with our practice it behooves us to meet it by reducing prices and profits and increasing employments and production.
And whereas production exceed consumption in home industries right now due to the high price and consequent constriction of trade, and the most legitimate way to increase production is to enlarge consumption, and the easiest and safest and best way to enlarge consumption is to reduce prices, and whereas the price of home manufactured goods at the present time is based on the addition of the duty to the cost price, therefore if a revenue is required it would be advisable to charge on home manufactures an excise duty equal to the customs duty on Imported goods of similar natures and devote the money thus acquired to establishing returned soldiers on prairie farms- otherwise the best interests of the home manufacturers would be best conserved by increasing home consumption of home manufactured goods by reducing the prices, which can be achieved by cutting out the addition of the tariff to the cost price, by reducing the tariff 10% per annum until a duty of 7J% was reached.
And whereas the views typewritten here are preferable to those printed thereon your petitioners pray you to wake up and act and get a hunch that move is required before the Bolshevists expose the manufacturers.
You will see 'that all our manufacturers, are not protectionists.
. Mr. COCKSHUTT: Who is that signed by?


Levi Thomson: I presume the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) wants to get after these people but surely they have a Tight to express their own views.
It is rather amusing to hear protectionists accusing free traders of being sectional. I think it was Sam Slick who said he hated to hear an everlasting almighty sinner quoting Scripture. It seems to me quite as objectionable to hear protectionists condemning sectionalism. What is tariff protection but sectionalism?-each section trying to get all the assistance it can from the public. Free trade is just the op-

posite, it asks that all interests shall have a fair field and no favours. Surely this is not sectionalism. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) evidently thinks tariff protection is in the same class as the protection we owe to our families. It is our duty to protect our families from things that are harmful to them, but is trading with our neighbours harmful? If it is we should shut it out. If it is good for us we should encourage it, and interference with it should not be called protec tion, but obstruction. The hon. gentleman condemns the "open door" and thinks we should close our doors against our neighbours. But perhaps he will ask, like one of old, "Who is my neighbour"? The Divine answer to that question is very hard on the tariff protection doctrine. My hon. friend who spoke the other evening on the question of western sentiment, claims the majority in Manitoba in 1911 against reciprocity to have been over 5,000, and that what obtained in Manitoba also obtained to a lesser extent in both the other western provinces, by which I suppose he meant Alberta and Saskatchewan. His figures as to Manitoba are, I believe, correct, except that he ignores the vote cast for independent candidates. I believe that all independent candidates in the Prairie Provinces were supporters of reciprocity, only they wanted to go further. In any case, he is all wrong as to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Even if we ignore the votes cast for independents, there was according to the Parliamentary Guide, a majority for reciprocity in Alberta of 7,533, and in Saskatchewan of 17,224. I believe my honourable friend, the Minister of Finance, made an honest effort to frame a tariff which could be accepted as a compromise by his protectionist and low tariff supporters, but he has apparently failed. And when he fails, I fear the task is hopeless. It looks as though sooner or later the people of Canada must divide into at least two parties on this issue, but when the cleavage does come, I hope it will not be on the old party lines, but that, we will have the real low tariff men on one side, and protectionists on the other.
I wish briefly to notice a subject referred to in this debate, that, is the question of taxation on incomes from Government bonds. If I correctly understand the way in which the exemption operates, it will cause a much more serious loss to the revenue of the country than is apparent at first glance. A citizen with sufficient money to have an income of 120,000 a year

would pay under the new proposal, an income tax of $1,990. But if he invests sufficient money in Government bonds to bring him an income from that source of $10,000, his income tax will be reduced to $590, making a saving to him and a loss to the country of $1,400. So that while the poor man, not being subject to income tax, only receives 5J per cent on his investment, the rich man would receive either by way of exemption or otherwise, nearly 6| per cent. Under the circumstances if I am correct in my understanding of the facts of this exemption, it seems to me to be utter nonsense to suppose that the rich man will not in a very short time, get in his hands a very large portion of the Victory Bonds that are issued, for they are of much greater value to him than to the man who is exempt from taxation on income. If it is possible I think the minister should still make provision that the bonds already issued shall only be exempt from taxation in the hands of the original purchaser or his personal representatives, and I hope we will have no more issue of Government bonds exempt from taxation.
I have been told that we should not oppose the Government on any measure until not only the war is over but reconstruction has been completed, or in a fair way to completion. Speaking for myself personally, when my name was suggested as a Government candidate, I frankly told the hon. Minister of Immigration what my position would be. I told him I was prepared to give an honest support to the Government, but that I would not give a slavish support to any person or any Government. Now in view of my fixed opinion on fiscal questions, and in view of the fact that I believe the greatest possible aid to reconstruction would be the elimination or great reduction of protection, I feel that I w'ould be giving a slavish support, not an honest support, were I to vote against the present amendment.
Mr. HOWARD H. HADLADAY (Bow River): Mr Speaker, I do not purpose to make a speech to-night, but merely to offer a few observations. The first thing I have to announce is that I am going bo support the Government when the division takes place, and in the next place that I make po apologies for the stand I am taking. I have been in my day a red-hot Grit and I have not changed my views on the tariff question in any respect. The question for me to decide now is where I am going to get the benefit which I desire. I am between the devil and the deep sea in

. deciding:	I find the high tariff party on
one side of this House, and a higher tariff party on the other side.


Mr. McCREA:: Which side is the higher?


Mr. HALLADAY:: The leader of the Opposition spoke of his programme, but with me performances count more than programmes. I followed him and his late leader for a number of years, and I obtained no relief. On the other hand I see a shadow of relief coming from this side of the House. The Finance Minister has made a few reductions in his Budget. They do not satisfy me. But he has gone a little further and has told us that a scientific revision of the tariff will be made next session. That is what my people want- a scientific reduction of the tariff. That is why they sent me down to plead for their interests and that is what I am going to do. If the findings of the Tariff Commission show that any industry in the country needs more protection than, it is getting to-day, my people are big enough to realize the fact-they are pure Canadians and they are going to stand behind me when I vote for that proposition There are a good many topics that could he rehashed-II have heard them discussed some four or five times already-but I do not intend to take up the time of the House by any re-hashing. I have already stated my views and I believe the House thoroughly understands them.


Mr. HUGH MURRAY SHAW (Macleod):: I desire but to make a brief contribution to this debate. When I accepted the Unionist nomination for my constituency, I stated that on all questions other than the prosecution of the war I intended to use my own judgment, and I propose to do so. My judgment on the present occasion is that I am justified in voting against the amendment and giving the Budget my support. I am taking that course because I have confidence in the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet. I believe they are honest and sincere and that they are governing, as they see, in the best interests of the people of Canada as a whole. As -long as I have confidence in the Government I intend to support it.


Air. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, like hon. merbbers who have preceded me, I do not purpose taking up very much of the time of the House tonight. I feel, though, that I should declare myself at this time, and follow the dictates of my conscience, and in so doing take a stand
in the interests of the country as a whole, rather than of one particular section.
I think the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated in having taken' a step in the right direction in his Budget proposals-He has gone a long way, I believe, towards giving us relief, and I feel that we should appreciate what he has proposed to give to the people through a reduction of the customs tariff. The 'Government had no mandate from the people to tinker with the tariff. This, as has been said, is a war year, and I do not think that any one would have been disappointed if the Government had done nothing towards a reduction of the tariff. But some of the western members, including myself, pressed on the Government the necessity for a reduction. The Government have seen fit to give us that reduction, and I feel that they have done all that they could do at the present time and I purpose to give them my very hearty support. I trust that when the revision takes place next year further substantial reductions will be made. I would like to see, as some others have stated, larger reductions on certain lines, particularly on woollen and cotton goods, and on boots and shoes-things of that nature which are indispensable to the working people of this country; and it seems to me that a reduction in that direction would go a long way towards satisfying them.
I have listened with interest to many of the speeches made since this Budget was brought down-. Many of the speakers attempted to deal with the unrest and to tell us what were its causes, but I do not think that any one has really struck the right key. It seems difficult to say what the cause is- We have been keyed up so long under war pressure that a reaction seems to have taken place, and it is manifesting itself in this way. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe some of the speeches made during the debate are responsible for the present unrest. Some members have been telling of the downtrodden condition of the workingmen and of the pleasures of the rich men, and things of that nature, well calculated to create further unrest. I would point out that the great strikes which are taking place all over the Dominion at the present time are not strikes because living conditions are bad or because food prices are high; they are largely sympathetic strikes. The strikers are not asking for more money or for better conditions. So that I feel in the face of these facts we cannot say that the unrest is
[DOT]1584

due to the down-trodden condition of the working men. The solution of the whole difficulty, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, lies in production, and I think it is the duty of this Government to encourage production as the only means of allaying the prevailing unrest. We must go back to normal conditions as soon as possible. The high cost of living is wholly due to the war. Previous to the war living conditions were reasonable, wages were fairly good and prices were not high. The customs tariff is not to blame for increasing the cost of living, as I see it.
Now, there is another thing which is due directly, of course, to the war-I refer to the loss of ships and of the cargoes which they were carrying. I would like to quote from an article taken from the Saturday Evening Journal with respect to the amount of shipping lost during the war:
Precise figures on the shipping losses of the Allies and the United States were given out by the Ministry of Shipping some days ago. In gross tons Great Britain's loss was 7,638 000 [DOT] Prance's, 696,000; Italy's, 742,000; Japan's', 120,000; the United States', 341,000.
The great loss of foodstuffs as the result of the sinking of ships was due to the war. So that on the whole it is apparent that the high cost of living is due to the war conditions of the past five years, and I am satisfied that the Government can do very little at the present time to decrease that high cost. It is true that profiteers have made fortunes, but the conditions which existed made it possible. I do not think the Government is to blame for those conditions, because, as we all know, in such times we always find men ready to take advantage of abnormal conditions to enrich themselves.
Now, with respect to the tariff, I feel' as I said before, that it is not the cause of the high cost of living. With regard to a reduction of duties, I want to say that I am not a free trader, Mr. Speaker, I stand for a substantial reduction of the tariff along certain lines, but I do not think that 'Canada can be a free trade country at this time or for many years to come. So long as other countries protect their industries by a tariff and impose customs duties upon foreign goods, it is practically impossible for Canada, or, indeed, for any other country, to become, strictly speaking, a free trade country. In my estimation it is absolutely impracticable to have free trade in Canada until all the other nations of the world agree to have free trade.
The sentiment of many countries at this time is drifting towards protection of their

own industries. I notice that in Britain _ there is a feeling that protection should be afforded to the industries of that country.
A prominent party in the United States are advocating higher protection there, and Australia is moving along the same line. I quote the following article from the Ottawa Journal with regard to Australia's attitude in this .respect;-
W. A. Watt, the acting Prime Minister of Australia, according to an Exchange Telegraph despatch from Melbourne, told the Industries Protection League, Thursday, that the Australian Government intends to introduce a tariff measure to protect industries created during the war at the approaching session of Parliament.
The acting Prime Minister said it was the intention of the Government, if Parliament approves, to pass an effective tariff.
These countries are beginning to realize that they cannot encourage their home industries without affording to those industries a sufficient measure of protection, and I think they are taking a very wise stand.
I do not use this as an argument that we should have higher tariffs or more protection; I simply wish to point out that the trend of the times in the different countries of the world is towards the protection of industries.
I wish to refer to a statement made by the ex-iMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Grerarl with regard to the settlement of soldiers and immigrants upon the land. During the course of his speech, referring to the returned soldier, he said:-
It is useless to put him down on a homestead and say: [Now, here you are. He cannot grow grain nor raise cattle with his hands alone. He requires equipment, agricultural machinery, horses and harness to put on those horses. But when we ask him to do that work, we immediately say to him, on the other hand:	You must, however, in the purchase of
the equipment that goes into the production of the stuff you hope to produce from your farm, pay to the State twenty per cent of the value of the equipment you get. What does that mean? If a returned soldier or an immigrant has $2,000 and wishes' to go on to the land to develop it, he first buys his equipment. If he could buy It tax free, so far as customs duties are concerned, he could buy it for $1,600, and he would have $400 as a working capital to start upon, to carry on his operations.
Let us examine this statement for a moment and see whether it is absolutely correct. What equipment would a homesteader or an immigrant, starting out on a farm, require? First of all, he would require a building in which to live and to house his family; I think we could fairly say that this is a part of his equipment. The ex-Minister of Agriculture says that he would have to pay twenty per cent on

his equipment by way of customs duties; let us see if that is the fact. The material which would go into the construction of his house-the rough lumber, the finer grades of lumber, lumber dressed on one side, and shingles, come into this country free of duty. I cannot, therefore, for the life of me see how this part of his equipment is going to cost him an extra twenty per cent. If he had to fence his farm-he would have to if he settled in the portion of Manitoba from which I come-the wire that he would need, and which would comprise a considerable part of his equipment, comes in free of duty. The binder that he would require in order to take in his crops, the mower and the ploughs which would be part of his equipment, are subject to a duty of twelve per cent. I understand that horses and cattle, if brought into this country for use on the farm, come in free of duty. I cannot see, therefore, how the ex-Minister of Agriculture can say that an immigrant or farmer starting out on a farm would be handicapped to the extent of twenty per cent. '
With respect to the returned soldier and his settling upon the land, the assertion of the ex-minister is unreasonable, particularly having regard to the source from which it comes. If the returned soldier settles on the land he does so under better conditions than the ordinary immigrant does. According to a statement made by the Soldiers' Settlement Board, the returned soldier who settles on the land gets the benefit of reductions in the price of lumber, machinery, and other equipment necessary to his starting out; so that such an assertion as the ex-minister has made is very misleading indeed.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that it was not my intention to take up more than a minute or two of the time of the House; I think I have said all that is necessary for me to say. Any further remarks I might make along this line would simply be a re-hash of arguments that have already been advanced. In conclusion, I may say that I intend to give my hearty support to the Budget; I believe that the financial proposals brought down by the Finance Minister are the best that could be expected from the Government at this time.
Mr. H. O. WRIGHT (Battleford) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House adjourned at 11.48 p.m.
Wednesday, June 18, 1919.