1922-06-06

IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly & Vercheres) :: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I beg to move:
That the Special Committee to which were referred for consideration Bill No. 16, to amend the Immigration Act, and Bill No. 17, to amend the Criminal Code, be given leave to malte a special report in reference to the first mentioned Bill, No. 16.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 5, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) addresses the House, he will kindly allow me to give my ruling on the proposed amendment of yesterday.
The Order of the Day being read for the Committee of Ways and Means and Mr. Fielding having moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie King, and the question being proposed: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." an amendment was moved by
2520	COMMONS
The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
Sir Henry Drayton, seconded by Mr. Meighen:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"The Liberal party assembled In convention in August, 1919, adopted a resolution which, after reeitiing its professed purposes, contained the following specific and unqualified pledges:
" 'That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principle articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors; mining, flour and saw mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets twines, and fishermen's equipments ; cements; fertilizers, should be free from custom duties, as well as the raw material entering into same.
" 'That the British proference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
" 'And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.'
"That such pledges were restated as the policy of the Liberal party in an official handbook issued just 'before the general election, namely, in October, 1921, under the authority of its leader, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
"That candidates Contesting on behalf of the Liberal party in the said election, used widely the promises therein set out as a means of securing support.
"That the Liberal party having been returned to power the budget proposals of the Finance Minister now brought down, constitute, on the part of the Government, an utter failure to implement such pledges by legislation.
"That the making of such solemn pledges, the utilization of them to secure support, and their flagrant violation after the attainment of office reveal a disregard of political honour and tend to lower the standard of public life."
Mr. Crerar moved, seconded by Mr. Hoey:
That the said proposed amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "support" at the end of the third last paragraph and substituting the following therefor :
"That the Liberal party having been returned to power, the budget proposals of the Finance Minister now brought down, based as they are mainly on the principle of protection in respect of the tariff, are wholly -inadequate to Implement such pledges by legislation.
"That while recognizing that changes in fiscal policy should be made in such a way as to give industries affected a reasonable opportunity of readjustment, this House is of the opinion that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound and not in the best interests of the Dominion."
A point of order was raised by Mr. Fielding on the ground that there cannot be two amendments on a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has submitted that we should conform to British practice in this case and he has contended that we could do so under our Rule I., which reads as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by Sessional or other Orders, the rules, usages and
[Mr. Speaker. 1
forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Br-itain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed.
The very first words of this rule; "In all cases not provided for," must be taken into consideration.
The House has provided for the case at issue by adopting precedents against moving more than one amendment on the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker Smith, cited by the hon. gentleman, has given two divergent decisions on this point. On June 22, 1858, he ruled that "An amendment to an amendment to a motion for the House in Committee of Supply is out of order." That was his first ruling.
And on April 27, 1860, he ruled that "But one amendment to a motion for going into Committee of Supply can be made, although the amendment itself may be amended."
This is the only decision allowing a second amendment which has ever been given in the Canadian Parliament, and it is anterior to Confederation and apparently self-contradictory.
On June 14,1864, Mr. Speaker Wall'bridge ruled that "But one amendment can be moved to a motion for the House going in Committee of Supply." (Vide Journal, pp. 388-389).
Since Confederation our practice has been consistently against such an amendment.
On May 1, 1867, Mr. Speaker Cockburn, upon ruling out of order a very complex amendment to a motion for the Committee of Supply, said:
The House could in general, according to precedent, order a complicated motion to be divided. But that could only be done by amending the motion, which cannot be done now, for but one amendment can be moved in going into Committee of Supply. (Vide Journal, pp. 268-270).
On May 2, 1873, whilst the House was debating an amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, Mr. Tupper (later Sir Charles) moved to leave certain words out of the said amendment and insert certain other words instead thereof.
Mr. Holton (then the recognized authority on such questions in the Canadian Parliament) objected to this proceeding, and Mr. Speaker Cockburn again decided that "No amendment can be made to the amendment to the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply." (Vide Journal, p. 262).

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
On February 29, 1876, Mr. Speaker Anglin over-ruled Mr. Workman's motion in favour of Protection, being an amendment of an amendment of Mr. Irving to the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. (Vide Journal, p. 89).
Since the last mentioned date, the point has been considered as definitely settled and no second amendment to such a motion has ever been allowed in this House.
On April 9, 1878, Sir John A. Macdonald, then Leader of the Opposition, stated from his seat, that he intended moving an amendment on going into Supply with regard to "the Quebec crisis."
Mr. Mackenzie, then Prime Minister although admitting Sir John A. Macdonald's right to make such an amendment, took the ground that if it were made on the motion to go into Supply it would prevent sub-amendments. He said that Sir John A. Macdonald's amendment should not be confined to an occasion when there can be no sub-amendment because it simply meant asking the House to conform to the mover's own view of a particular transaction or else vote it down.
"Whilst the House might concur with a certain portion of the motion but not with the rest" said Mr. Mackenzie, "we are obliged, on a motion in amendment on going into Supply, to accept whatever the 'Hon. Member chooses to offer us, or to reject It."
In Hansard it reads " or to neglect it". The reporter evidently meant the word " reject".
"The Hon. member will place his motion in such a way that it will be impossible for the House to give any opinion at all on it except to accept at or to vote it down."
Sir John A. Macdonald here interjected " Exactly." Mr. Holton, speaking on the question, then said:
The Right Hon. Gentleman intended to adopt a form of words or submit it to the House in a connection in which it was not susceptible of amendment and whatever shades of opinion there might be and whatever choice there might be as to the form of expression, the Hon. Gentleman practically said to the House: "take this or nothing."
Mr. Blake also concurred in this opinion.
I think the above precedents are binding on me, especially when supported by the opinions of such experienced parliamentarians as Macdonald, Mackenzie, Blake and Holton.
The honourable member for Marquette has quoted Bourinot to show that these precedents are based on a misunderstanding of a Canadian speaker as to the English practice. Bourinot made that statement in a foot note of his third edition, but he did not include this note in his fourth edition. It is, as a matter of fact, an obiter dictum which has no bearing on the principle accepted by the Canadian House of Commons. Bourinot recognized this fact in his fourth edition in which he lays down the practice unequivocally as follows:
Only one amendment can be moved to the question that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair. If that amendment is negatived .... no other motion can be proposed.
And he adds as a note on the same page:
This limitation is peculiar to the Canadian Commons (p. 420).
The same question arose in 1917, and was decided upon the same principle. In this case an amendment moved by Mr. Turriff on the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White for the Committee of Ways and Means (the budget) was negatived on a division. Thereupon, Mr. Robb (Huntingdon) moved a second amendment, and it being late at night the debate was adjourned.
But next day, 11th May, 1917, the Deputy Speaker stated to the House that the second amendment was irregular and should have been declared to be out of order. He ruled that the main motion was the only question before the House and might be debated, but no further amendments could be moved. (Hansard, 1917, Vol. II, pp. 1317, 1319: Journals, 1917, pp. 188, 193).
In 1917, on a similar occasion, a second amendment was intended to be moved, but on being informed by one of my predecessors, the hon. Mr. Speaker Rhodes, that he would be ruled out of order, Dr. Clark, then member for Red Deer, desisted from his intention, thus accepting our well established practice.
I am not unmindful of the views expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and also by my predecessor the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) whose long experience in this House gives weight to their opinions on questions of Parliamentary procedure.
In Great Britain, more than one amendment may be moved on the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, but it is done on conditions quite different from the practice in this House. In England, whenever an amendment is
2522	COMMONS
The Budget-Speaker's Ruling moved striking out all the words after ''that" from the main motion, the Speaker puts the question "That all the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question". If this is voted in the negative, amendments and sub-amendments are allowed; but if it is voted in the affirmative, they are not.
The practical meaning of this peculiarly British procedure is that the House grants leave to move the amendment. In another sense, it is nothing more nor less than the previous question. I cannot see my way to following the British practice.
As to the suggestion to give the hon. member for Marquette and his supporters the opportunity of expressing their views upon the budget proposals, I must say that the Speaker, in his interpretation of the rules, is not at liberty to recognize the existence of parties or groups in the House. Although he has to observe certain amenities in giving precedence to leaders in debate, he presides over an assembly of the people's representatives where every member has an equal right of using the rules and usages to express his views on public matters.
In England, although the Home Rule party under Mr. Parnell and his successors consisted of a large group, it never was given an official status in parliamentary procedure. Even to-day, there are at Westminster several groups or parties, but they are all subject to the same rules of procedure. All the members are on an equal footing. I think our rules and practice based on precedents, traditions, and usages give every hon. member ample opportunity to put himself on record upon any question. I therefore rule that no amendment can be moved to the amendment proposed to the motion that I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means. The sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Marquette accordingly is out of order.
I may add that the same rule applies whether the motion is for the House to go into Committee of Supply or Ways and Means.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize at once the weight of the authorities which you have quoted in support of your ruling, notwithstanding that our practice has developed from a misunderstanding by Mr. Speaker Smith in 1858, and under ordinary conditions I would be the last member to question your decision. I submit, however, that the con-
ditions which obtain to-day in this House justify a departure from our customary practice. We are the second largest party here, and I think we should have the opportunity of formally expressing our views in the manner I suggested yesterday. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest possible respect for your person and for the high office which you so ably fill, I wish to appeal against your ruling to the judgment of the House.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to make a comment on what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says, I would remind him that, being the second largest group in the House it was his undoubted right to take the place of the official Opposition, if he had so desired. Of his own motion and for good reasons, satisfactory to himself and his friends, he elected not to take that position. There is an advantage under the British practice in occupying the position of the official Opposition. My hon. friend waived his right to that advantage, and I do not think he ought now to complain of the consequences of his action.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, for whom also I have a very great respect, that his argument is not sound. The same condition would apply whether or not this group which I represent and speak for to-day were the third instead of the second largest party in the House. I submit that it should have the opportunity of expressing its opinions in this formal way.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Although I think I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to state my position on the point of order. In so far as the sub-amendment is concerned, I need not say that it has no embarrassment for me. At the same time your ruling, Sir, appeals to me as being undoubtedly in conformity with the rules and practice of this House; indeed, so clearly is this the case that there does not appear any room for dispute at all.
The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) urges that new conditions have arisen. If so, those new conditions must be met, and the way to meet them is to take the regular course to amend the rules of the House; not to appeal against what is manifestly a sound judgment that you, Mr. Speaker, could not possibly avoid giving. Consequently, if it comes to a vote I shall support the Chair.

Besides, may I point out that in the British House the closure rules are very different and much more drastic than ours, applying to motions in amendment to supply? Therefore they can afford a latitude there that we could not very well allow here, for without the intervention of a closure rule we have unlimited opportunities of moving amendments to supply. Consequently the leader of the Progressive party is not debarred at all by your ruling from moving his amendment to Supply or Ways and Means, and he will have many opportunities to do so.


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker's decision having been sustained, the debate will now proceed on the main motion and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton).


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it has become the custom in this debate to make reference to a circumstances rare in our history, that of the same minister presenting to Parliament a sixteenth budget. I have not the least hesitation, indeed I join gladly in the tributes paid to the personal worth of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). His standing as a citizen and as a public man is well recognized throughout our country. He has earned that place by an unusually long public service-by nearly fifty years of unwearied and assiduous toil.
I differ from him in the articles of his financial policy; the differences I have found in the past exist to-day. I cannot
The Budget

Mr. Meighen

congratulate him on his budget; I do not think that situated as he was he made the best of his circumstances. His budget speech was an eloquent contribution to debate, it was an interesting and mostly appropriate though superficial commentary on our trade and fiscal position; but it will be searched in vain for any full or useful analysis of our finances as a nation, for any examination of value into our trade history and our trade prospects. It is mostly in the nature of a newspaper commentary on the politics of the day.
There are features of our financial position that are not wholly encouraging. In the main, though, having regard to the accomplishments of this country in recent years, there is little of which to complain. It is true, as the Finance Minister stated, we have a debt of about $2,427,000,000. Our debt increased last year by, I think, $86,000,000, and the year before by $92,000,000. But not one other country has been cited that has succeeded after the ordeal of war in really reducing its obligations. If it is true that Great Britain has in a sense reduced, Great Britain's reduction is due merely to another method of
4 p.m. bookkeeping than that adopted here. Great Britain made her investments in war munitions and war materials; all were added to the debt, and what afterwards came to her credit by sale or otherwise appears as a reduction. In Canada, for the most part what would have appeared as a reduction never in the first place was incurred as a debt; consequently what appears there to be a reduction of debt has no such appearance here.
Last year the debt of Canada was increased by $86,000,000, but last year we paid out of our $381,000,000 of revenue all our ordinary expenditure, composed precisely as it has always been, and paid as well all the regular capital expenditure of this country, and paid as well some $9,000,000 under demobilization. We did this, and had a small surplus besides. The $86,000,000 is made up mainly of advances to the railway systems of this country and constitutes an obligation by them to the country-advances that took care of anterior obligations of those systems, mainly the Grand Trunk-and that found their way into capital investment in those systems, bringing them to that standard of efficiency where they are to-day. By virtue of such efficiency they render service to this country comparable with that rendered by any other system in the world. The re-

suits of those investments we are reaping in dividends of service every hour, and none are reaping them more rapidly or more clearly than those portions of our country in the far west into which those improvements and extensions have to a great extent gone. Those investments were essential; they comprised some $115,000,000 inclusive of equipment. Even some of those have been taken care of out of the year's expenditure, with the result that only $86,000,000 of an addition to the debt has been entailed. These facts are not wholly discouraging-by no means are they discouraging. We are past the stage where large investment for that purpose is necessary. We shall have some deficits to take care of, but as the years advance and as the abnormal expenditures that attach to the war and its aftermath cease, we shall be able to address ourselves to achieve reductions provided right policies are pursued.
The main feature of the budget presentation was that which had to do with fiscal policy. This debate falls into two divisions. There is, first, the question as to what is the sound fiscal policy for Canada; and, second, the question, in what character does the Government appear in presenting to the House such policy. These are distinct and separate subjects.
As to what is the true taxation and fiscal policy for this country, I do not think I need inform Parliament what my own opinions are. On at least two former occasions in budget debates I took occasion to make them as clear as I could in English words-in the session of 1921 and in the session of 1920. It became my duty as I saw it then to declare fidelity, continued fidelity, to a system of protection in this country, protection applied in moderate degree, within limits clearly defined in those addresses. I do not need on this occasion to go elaborately into that argument. I can rely pretty confidently, I think, throughout this Parliament oi my hon. friends opposite me supplying the arguments that it was necessary for me to supply in previous years. I can well recall how cold a reception my words received at their hands in the debate of a year ago and of two years ago, and I can remember how vociferously and how vigorously they applauded the speeches and the theories of the then small party of fourteen that sat in the seats now to my left. I could not help but contrast how feeble was the applause that similar language drew forth this year from hon. gentlemen opposite.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
Indeed, I felt rather sorry for some members of the Progressive party and particularly, may I say, for the hon. lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail), when I recall utterances, similar to those they made this year, sounded in those two previous contests, and thought how if they had only been so fortunate as to have made on those occasions, the speeches that they made in this debate, they would have received as a meed of praise from the Liberal party those thunders of applause with which we were so familiar then.
Yes, I can leave for the present the defence of the cause of protection to hon. gentlemen opposite. Their policy is quite clear. It is embodied in the tariff they have presented to this House. It is the policy described in an election address by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) as the very " same that we have pursued for forty-three years in Canada." It is the policy described by the present Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) in many of his speeches as the policy pursued by the Laurier government and by all governments since 1878. That is the policy that they have advanced, and that is the policy for them to defend. There has not, indeed, in my judgment-and I say it with all deference to hon. gentlemen to my left-been any serious attack upon its soundness in this debate. There have been the usual charges advanced, there have been the usual appeals against monopoly, the usual sectional appeals, the usual assumption that this system is designed to oppress the many and to enrich the few; but there has not been much delving to the heart of the question in an endeavour to show that any other policy would give this Dominion a better or any chance in the commercial race of this world.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) endeavoured to argue by comparison. So far as I know, he was the lone sparrow across the floor who dared to say a word for the free trade principles of yore. He endeavoured to argue by comparison, and he described the results of the tariff impositions of certain countries of Europe. I do not think he got to anything larger than the Netherlands. He confined himself to very small countries, countries that by virtue of their geographical position, by virtue of their compactness, by virtue of their comparative absence of basic natural resources, are wholly different
from ours. But he did not give the whole facts regarding them. I mention only one, and the corresponding argument would apply to all. He gave us the revenue from customs of the Kingdom of Belgium, and its total importations, and he said: There is virtually a free trade country.


Mr. McMASTER:: A very low tarilf country.


Arthur Meighen: A very low tariff country;-because its importations are so large and its customs revenue is so small- only one and a fraction per cent of the total importations. Well, a country might have a tariff that only brought in half of one per cent, and still be a protected country, still be a country that followed the principle of protection and'abandoned the principles of free trade or revenue tariff. A country, on the other hand, might be one whose proportions of customs revenue to imports would run from twenty to thirty per cent, and still be a country without any protection to home industries at all. It all depends on the nature of the articles upon which the duty is imposed. Belgium, for example, not having natural resources in degree like Canada, resources of the mine, resources of the soil-


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the right hon.
gentleman will permit me, does he suggest that Belgium has not great resources of the mine?


Arthur Meighen: Nothing comparable
with Canada. She has not the variety of natural resources that this country has. Therefore, she does not need to apply her tariff to ensure the development of her natural resources. She only needs to apply it to the protection of those industries of her own that compete with other countries. It is obviously to her advantage to admit to her shores free those raw resources she has not at home. She needs to apply only to a few-but she does not neglect those few-the principle of protection. Take, for example, the clothing that she cheaply produces, ladies' clothing, men's clothing, hats and so forth. On these she applies a duty of 20 per cent. On sugar, one of the greatest of her industries, in which for her population she is one of the foremost producers of the world, she imposes a duty of 20 francs per hundred kilo grams, or 220 pounds, which is a duty very close to 2 cents per pound, higher than the duty we have in Canada.
The range of goods upon which it is to the advantage of Belgium to apply protec-
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

tion is narrow compared with that of this country. The range of goods upon which it is to her advantage to let them in free, because they do not compete seriously with her industries at home, is large, and that accounts for the reduced percentage that the total amount collected bears to the total value of her imports.
In Great Britain, on the other hand-* even before the Safeguarding of Industries law-her average of duties to the whole value of importations was about 8 per cent; so at a time when Great Britain undoubtedly was a free trade country, imposing duties only on goods that did not compete with home production, her average would be four or five or six times the average in Belgium. But Belgium was a protected country because Belgium laid her duties on goods that did compete with home production. There comes the difference between the principle of protection and the principle of no protection.
For this Dominion of ours to abandon that system, applied in careful measure as we have it to-day, would be to invite, in competition with other industrial nations, undoubted disaster. Hon. gentlemen say, "Oh, there is this industry, there is that, where we have conditions in Canada enabling them to compete with the conditions of our chief competitors across the line." Well, it is sometimes easier to make such proposition before one gets all the facts than it is afterward; but assuming it to be true where are we then? You find a competitor over there that has a market closed, or partially closed, by a protective tariff; you find him with an advantage of 110 millions of a market. You find the competitor here with what? You find him with eight and a half or nine millions of a market; and you find him building to a scale to meet the restricted market of his country. Assume even that the other country opens its market; no industry in this country could be sure that such market would remain open for longer than four years. Therefore the manufacturer cannot lay down his plant on a scale to meet the large scale production of his competitor. Therein lies the basis of the protective theory. It is bound up in the very system of nations that we have in this world. When the existing system of nations is abolished, and when markets external to our country are under a common control, then there will be some reason in the theory of free traders.
So, I adhere still to the principle of a moderate protective tariff for our country.

Further: I believe generally in a system of reciprocal trade with countries of the world in which we can expect to find a market-a real market-not a mere intermediate market for our surplus. That applies to almost every country in the world. But Canada is peculiarly situated. Canada is in a position as to which no just comparison with any other country in the world appears. We lie on the North American continent, alongside a nation with a population of 110 millions, undoubtedly the most highly developed industrially of any country in the world. We are virtually their only neighbours in an industrial sense. The weight of their commercial influence is almost overwhelming. They are a nation that produces everything that we produce and, except for one or two things, produces a surplus, and a large surplus, of everything that we produce. Consequently though we may find a market-we do now find a market-there for much that we bring to maturity in this country, such market is of this character: It is intermediate, it only adds to the surplus that that country has of the same products for sale to the outside world. Therefore, the United States becomes a mere intermediary between us and the outside world. My hon. friend opposite shakes his head, but such undoubtedly is the fact. Here in our country, if we permit no considerations of nationhood to exist, or to have weight at all we would have certain portions of Canada trading almost exclusively by the geographically natural route through the United States. There is such trading now, I do not dispute it and there will always be, but I do not think it wise, farsighted policy that the all but universal practice should be for distinct sections of Canada to trade by themselves with those states immediately to the south; such states in turn pressing on their surplus farther towards the seacoast; and those in turn pressing their surplus, so augmented, of the same goods on to the ultimate consumers of Europe and Asia. Would such a condition be for the good of this country? Would it be possible by following that path to build up a nation here? This is the problem that faced the Fathers of Confederation. This is the problem that has faced the statesmen of this country every year since Confederation. This is one of the tendencies that our country must have the virility and the tenacity to overcome if we are to remain a united nation on this North American continent.



C, 1922

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Meighen
Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not true that in spite of all tariff barriers our trade with the United States has been growing almost from year to year, without affecting our national spirit?


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt it, not at all; but at the same time we have set ourselves to maintain our east and west routes of trade. We do not divorce one portion of the country from the other as would result if we were to wholly abandon our task, which is the real task of Confederation and let all trade take its geographically natural route. Oh, these things appear so easy to the minds of those who approach responsibility lightly; 'but when men get into positions of responsibility they do not appear to be matters of quite such light consideration. Many a political leader in this country, including the leaders of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster)-one I know whose memory he much reveres- has come through the process of thought and of experience to exactly the view that I have expressed. Therefore, I feel now, no matter what the political consequences may be, that the right course for this country is not to enter into any extensive reciprocal arrangement with the United States.
Enter into such arrangement, and what results? First of all, the power to terminate though it may nominally be mutual, rests in fact with that country. In proportion to the life of the time such arrangement operates, in proportion as well to its magnitude, the whole commerce of our country adjusts itself to the new conditions. The natural routes are found and as they are found then we become practically at the mercy of legislation of the United States for the continuance of legislation upon which the currents of our commerce must more and more depend. We would have cultivated, and are at the mercy of our neighbour to the south. Our trade follows north and south routes, and as a consequence the mere threat of the abrogation of a treaty puts us in a position, most undesirable to say the least of it, with respect to the United States of America. We do not stand in the same relation with any other country of the world; there is not the same condition of affairs at all. I hope the day will never come when the fact of that relationship, unique as it is, will be lost sight of in the determination of the policy of this country.
It has 'been the habit of certain people to bewail the rejection by Canada of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1911. Canada rejected that Reciprocity Treaty just because
of the truth that I have sought to expound to this House. It is just as much a truth, just as vital a truth, to-day as it ever was, and the spirit of this country is as true and strong to-day as it was in 1911. I venture to say that if such a treaty comes, in the form it did, or in anything like so extensive a form, before the people of this country again, and they have time and opportunity to see to the centre of it, to know its meaning and to know its purpose, the verdict will be just the same as in 1911, and just as firmly pronounced. Hon. gentlemen argue as though, had that treaty been made, it would have been permanent like the laws of the Medes and Persians. I, as a Canadian, loving Canada, loving our association in this Empire; I, as a Canadian and a British subject, would not welcome the treaty in the least even though I believed it was going to be permanent. But I know it never can be permanent; I know the permanency of it rests chiefly with the stronger power, the stronger commercial weight-that is to say with the United States of America. Oh, we have had reciprocity treaties, and this country took years to recover from the effect of their cancellation, and went through a period of suffering that it would never have had to endure if it had not travelled that way at all. As regards the pact of 1911, we would have met to-day, only under more unfortunate circumstances which would have still more emphasized the unfavourable conditions of this hour, had that reciprocity treaty passed. What is the explanation of the Ford-ney Tariff? What has brought about that feeling in the United States which has driven the government now in office to adopt the measures it has put through, and to propose those now under debate? Is it not chiefly the effect of the importations from this country, the effect there of the large surplus of our agricultural products. Is not the feeling strong, particularly among the farming community, that their farmers have a right to greater advantage in the American market which they themselves have contributed to build? Would that cause have been removed if reciprocity had passed? Would that cause not have been intensified? Would its results not have been accelerated? Are you going to postpone the effect of a cause by emphasizing that cause? They would have had still more of our products if reciprocity had operated at all; we would have seen the adverse feeling grow there just that much sooner.
The Budget-Mr. Meighen

Have we not had instances enough to awaken this truth in the mind of even the most perverse? We accepted' the American offer of free trade in wheat and the products of wheat and potatoes. This was not very extensive: I never had very much hopes from it, I expected just about what resulted. At the time we accepted this offer, there was a stringency of shipping conditions that made the export of our grain by the regular routes very difficult, and there was the main cause of the acceptance of the offer. We were, no doubt, affected as well by a desire to meet what had become, in the minds of people in the West, the outstanding grievance. We sought the more to meet them because at that time we were engaged in a terrible conflict. What resulted? Was there an addition to the prices of those grains? An examination of the figures shows that the very day after the acceptance went into effect,thehigher local prices for hard wheats in Minneapolis dropped right to the level at which they had been before in Canada. There was no increase in the Canadian price at all. But what I am seeking to show now is this. The operation of that arrangement, by which for admission here the United States gave us admission there of our wheat and our wheat products, deferred as it was by necessary war restrictions and embargoes due to government control of the crops, was in effect only about six months, and then what was its fate? The United States government, exercising its undoubted right, imposed a duty of 35 cents a bushel against our wheat, cancelled the whole arrangement; put a 25 per cent duty on flour, and virtually barred both commodities.
We are now at the heart of this question. Is there any reason why the same results would not have followed the reciprocity pact of 1911, if it had been accepted? The United States government did precisely the same with our acceptance of their potato offer. There followed this consequence in each case, that the routes of traffic had to be reversed and there were certain markets that had been cultivated of which we lost the advantage by virtue of the turning of our trade in a contrary direction for a very brief period of time. Nothing fatal is to be apprehended from entering into a very restricted form of reciprocity of that kind, but if we enter it on a big scale, on an extensive scale, this country, as years go on, reaches a position of virtual subjection and subserviency to the legislation of the United States.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his speech used language which I really cannot understand. He said that there was a time when we had reason to complain of the conduct of the United States, when its fiscal legislation was unfriendly to us; but that now we have no reason to complain of unfriendly legislation. I do not know, first of all, why this word " unfriendly " is applied to tariffs. I do not feel in the least unfriendly to the United States, because I believe in a fair protective tariff. The United States, when they put their tariff against us, thirty-five, forty and fifty, yes, one hundred years ago, acted within their rights. What cause had we to complain? Does any one know? I do not know wherein our right of complaint existed. The same right which they exercised then, they exercise now; they make their tariff to suit the changing circumstances of the United States of America; they make their tariffs, as they believe, in the interest of their own people. They have nothing to fear of a national character from any reciprocity with us; its continuance or its cessation means relatively little to them; our trade with them is merely an incident to the United States. We must remember they are eleven to fifteen times commercially the magnitude of us. It is a different thing when the figures are turned the other way. We are small compared with them, and if we follow the path of unrestricted reciprocity, we adopt a course that may, indeed is certain to, result in serious detriment to, if not in the humiliation of this country.
I have stated, without equivocation, as clearly as the very limited time I allot to myself will allow, where I stand on this question, I hope hon. gentlemen will admit that at least I have been true to the principles I followed in Opposition before, and in power when in the reins of power I had some share.
I come now to the amendment that is moved in this debate. The amendment recites, first of all the position occupied by hon. gentlemen opposite when they took office. It specifically recites definite,, concrete, unmistakable engagements which hon. gentlemen opposite made with the electorate of this country. With those pledges I do not agree. I believe the fulfilment of those pledges would have been disastrous or, at least serious, to this country. I would not have supported their fulfilment; neither would I have given the pledges. But the fact is the present government needed

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
them for the purpose of getting votes in Canada, the votes of those who believed that such was the right policy for Canada to pursue. Is there in this House any hon. gentlemen who doubts the truth of the assertion that those pledges were given in the most formal way, in the most solemn way, or, to use the language of the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King), in the most "democratic" way, in which pledges were ever given to a nation? They were given in the same democratic way that elected him leader of the party and that gave him, in his opinion, a title to leadership far transcending that of other men. Were those pledges ever reversed? Were they ever revoked? Were they ever modified to make clear to the people of this country that they were not still in existence? I know there was hedging; but I know there was a distinct and consistent determination, evident everywhere, never to let anybody be able to say that those pledges were not still in effect. What did hon. gentlemen opposite pledge themselves to do? They did not bind themselves merely to a principle and then abandon the principle under a screen of words-which is usually their course. They adopted a different course in this instance. They stated, as related to seventeen named articles and classes of articles: "If we are returned to power, we will make these free." Can any one comprehend the mental texture of a man who can look upon that distinct pledge to make seventeen classes of articles free as a mere "chart of direction?" Can any one understand the intellectual constitution that pledges seventeen classes of articles to be free and then talks about carrying that pledge out in the spirit as differing from the letter? I fall before the problem; I cannot comprehend cerebral contortions of that kind. Of those seventeen articles, ten were free when they passed the resolution, and all this they knew. I leave it to hon. gentlemen to the left now to divine why the party of the present government inserted such padding in the resolution? Seven were dutiable at that time and ten free, of these specific articles; and now that they are in power and have brought down the budget, seven of them are free and ten are dutiable. By virtue of the American legislation putting our wheat and wheat products on the free list, those articles are now dutiable which at the time they passed the resolution were free. Not one gesture has been made to make good the covenant. There has been
no apostacy so brazen in the history of parliamentary government.
The next pledge is to increase the British preference to 50 per cent. Hon. gentlemen will recall the oft-quoted doxology, with Which this platform ends: "The Liberal party pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power." As regards this promised increase to 50 per cent in the British preference, they have taken off 2i per cent on certain goods of which we get a portion from Great Britain; but if hon. gentlemen will examine the main articles in this list, they will find we did not have 33& per cent British preference before. Woollens, for example, once had a one-third British preference, but in 1904 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) came to the House and stated that with a 35 per cent duty on woollens and a one-third preference it only made a duty of 23i per cent against British woollens; and, he added, " I find certain industries in this country cannot sustain the competition with such rate of duty". He therefore raised the duty to a minimum of 30 per cent. Now he comes to Parliament and reduces it by 2J per cent, or not yet by one-third, which is supposed to be the relation between the preferential tariff and the ordinary tariff. Aside from the effect of the sales tax, aside from everything, what is to be thought of the microscopic reductions made here in relation to the pledge of the Liberal party, a pledge endorsed by the present Minister of Finance himself?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has no authority for that statement; I may tell him, he ds mistaken. I have never voted for the tariff items of the Liberal platform and never concealed the fact that I did not approve of the platform in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I accept the minister's word without the slightest reservation, but I fancy that this is the first time, after hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power for five months, that any one in this country outside the walls of that convention knew that the present Minister of Finance dissented from the tariff plank of the Liberal platform.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is the first person to make that statement, and I therefore now correct it.
The Budget-Mr. Meighen


Arthur Meighen: One would think that the minister would not need to wait until I should make the statement to make his position clear in the matter. The Minister of Finance went to the convention a contestant for the leadership of the party.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is hardly correct, but we shall deal with that later.


Arthur Meighen: I was only following the words of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) who was there. But if the Minister of Finance differed from the platform of the Liberal party and refused to be bound by it if returned to power, lit was his duty distinctly to say so, to state wherein he disagreed with the platform, to make his position perfectly plain so that no one might be deceived. I know that the hon. member owns a journal;-I presume he owns it-and it was stated therein, shortly afterwards, that the convention had gone too far, and that it was the habit of conventions to make platforms to get in on rather than to stand on. But I do say to the Minister of Finance that he should have stated clearly and definitely, not through the medium of a journal, but with his own lips, precisely in what respect he differed from that platform and toy what he proposed to be bound. Even though he did not vote for it, is he not, as a member of the party and the convention adopting such platform, bound by the pledges therein set forth until he severs himself from that party and that convention? And what is to be said of other hon. members opposite? How many members of the Government of the day will follow this example and stand up and declare that they were never parties to this tariff resolution at all? We are getting revelations now. Are there any more? Was the Prime Minister a party to that resolution? Did he support it? We will expect him to tell us when he speaks-but he will not. Was the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) a party to it?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I will tell when I
speak.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member takes care not to tell before. I venture to say that we shall have more dissentients now in this House than confessions from those who agree. I need scarcely ask the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) . I have not the least doubt the
[Mr. Meighen.1
latter hon. gentleman was a party to the pledge. Will he tell us why he abandons it now? Those of us who have read some of his speeches of recent months on other matters will understand that his one time allegiance to this pledge may be the chief reason why he now refuses to put it into effect. I believe it was the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) who, the other day, enunciated some theory in this House and expressed the pious aspiration that some time that theory would find its way into the platform of the Liberal party. Well, I am sure that if he loves his theory he will not wish for it a fate like that. There will indeed be a dark outlook for any policy that ever finds its way into the platform of the Liberal party.
Hon. gentlemen opposite were pledged to an increase in the British preference to 50 per cent if returned to power. At the rate they are going, I have computed that the building of this 50 per cent preference will be something like the building of a temple by the Romans whieh was completed by the Emperor Hadrian, in the year 135 A.D, seven hundred years after it was begun. Nor is there promise of anything more. The Government has brought down its revision, and the Minister of Finance distinctly intimated that he divides the changes of the tariff into two classes: The first is in the way of general reductions, and the second is in the way of detailed adjustments, some up, some down, to meet changing circumstances. He says, " We are dealing with the first now; the other requires time." So that, so far as the general reductions are concerned, he has led us to believe that he has gone as far as he is going to go in the fulfilment of the Liberal platform.
These resolutions were passed-they were embodied as well in the official literature of the party published two months before the last election, literature given into the hands of speakers throughout the Dominion, who were commissioned to preach this doctrine throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I know that many of their followers who supported them did not want such resolutions enforced at all. I am quite aware of that. But hon. gentlemen knew, when they adopted them, that there was a large section of their followers in this country, and perhaps some outside the ranks of the party, who did subscribe to these tenets and wanted these articles free. They, therefore, adopted this plank to get the

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
votes of such people. They preached it to obtain their votes, and reaffirmed it in their literature. And they got their votes. Now they take those voters into camp, and every one of them is betrayed. And without those voters hon. gentlemen opposite would not be in the seats of power to-day. Are they there by any just right? Or are they there by false pretences? Are they there by usurpation?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: No; by the will of the people.


Arthur Meighen: By the will of a deceived people,-and by a minority at that.
They adopt these pledges, they covenant with the Canadian people to put them into effect if they are returned to power. Their return to power makes the contract. They break the contract.
I refer now to what the leader of the party opposite said a year ago; I know an attempt will be made, indeed, it has already been made, to show that less concrete, less binding language was used later; I read the language of the Prime Minister in this House only last session. Hon. gentlemen will note as I read how he contrived to vary in part-at the same time to keep the general appearance the same-the language of the resolution adopted at the Liberal convention. I read a quotation from the Toronto Globe which the present Prime Minister himself read and approved at the last session of this House, as the latest revised policy of the Liberal party on the tariff, a policy by which he was prepared to abide and which he declared as the fulfilment of the Liberal platform adopted at the convention. This is the quotation.
We believe that the time has come, indeed that it is already long past, when a downward revision of the tariff is necessary. In this revision we believe that there should be substantial reductions of the duties on the necessaries of life, in other words, on those articles which go to make up the food, the clothing, the shelter of the Canadian people; that certain specific articles required for the purposes of consumption and other articles essential to production should he placed upon the free list;-
They are not named, but I ask hon. gentlemen to remember those words in the light of another sentence which follows from the Prime Minister's lips.

and that in regard to the implements of production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering'and fishing, there should also he a substantial reduction of duties. It is not a question of free trade or protection.
All this is his own language:
In revising the tariff to this end care will be taken of the position and needs of all the industries in our country, but such tariff as may be necessary in this connection will be, under Liberal policy, a tariff for consumers and producers, and not a tariff to further the interests of combines, monopolies, or of any special or privileged classes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is veiy good.


Arthur Meighen: If that is very good, what becomes of the budget? The tariff he now advances, differing from the last, is one I suppose that does not favour "combines, monopolies or privileged classes." The old one did; this one does not. The old one was for monopolies and trusts; this is for producers and consumers. Such is the ineffable caricature of common sense which the right hon. gentleman asks the House to accept. But will he say this is very good? He proceeded:
There should be substantial reductions of the duties on the necessaries of life, in other words on those articles which go to make up the food, the clothing, the shelter of the Canadian people.
"The food, the Clothing, and the shelter of the Canadian people." Now, I pause to ask-because this is the last revised edition, affirmed by the Prime Minister-what has he done to "substantially reduce" the duties on "food," or to reduce them at all by even a fraction? His convention platform called for the making free of all the principal articles of food-in addition to the seventeen specific articles there mentioned. After the platform was made I asked the right hon. gentleman across the floor to be good enough to tell me some of the principal articles of food so I might know what they were. I asked him if fruit was one; I asked him if sugar was one; I asked him if flour was one; 1 asked him if bread was one; I asked him if meats were included- all the range of the common articles of consumption of the people of this country, but I could not get a yes or a no; I could not get even a nod as to what were the "principal articles of food." But, as quoted, he came along again last session and stated in the House that there would be a "substantial reduction" in "food" duties. He had by that time apparently abandoned the use of the word "free." Now, what are the principal articles of food the duties on which are reduced by this tariff? Are the duties on meats reduced? Not by a fraction of a fraction; they are not even touched. Is the duty on bread reduced? No. Is the duty on flour reduced? No. Is the duty on fruit reduced? No. The duty on not one article of food is reduced. But I want to be fair. Do hon. gentlemen know what has become of the "principal articles



The Budget-Mr. Meighen
of food" now that the budget has come? The only articles that they touch are cocoa and liquid medicine. Those are what my right hon. friend apparently had in mind when he promised in his platform that the principal articles of food were going to be made free, and, subsequently, that they were going to be "substantially reduced."
Then we come to clothing; against the chief competitor of this country I do not think there is any reduction in the duty on clothing. As against Great Britain, which is much less a competitor to-day, yes, only a fractional competitor compared with the United States, there is a very small reduction of 2i per cent, and that under the circumstances I already stated, all is accompanied by a virtually equal addition to the cost of the same goods by the imposition of the sales tax.
Let us come to "shelter." Now, may I ask again what has been done to implement this pledge made only a year ago, committing the then leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, and his party, to a substantial reduction of the duties on goods that go to make the "shelter" of the Canadian people? Can he name one article that is touched? I fail to find any. We had a promise of free cement. Where is free cement to-day? Have we had a "fulfilment in the spirit, but not in the letter." Can there be a fulfilment "in the spirit" of a promise of free cement? No reduction whatever! The duty has not been touched. Lumber goes into "shelter"-what has been done to lumber? Dressed lumber has always been protected. Lumber and cement are the chief articles of "shelter," but neither of them is touched at all. Nothing in the world has been attempted to make good the word of the Prime Minister to this House only a year ago.
Then he says:
That certain specific articles required for the purposes of consumption and other articles essential to production should he placed upon the free list.
Such is the way he stated it to the House a year ago. The free list was definitely named in the platform. The free list here is described as "specific articles necessary for the purposes of consumption and certain other articles essential to production;" those are to be made free. Will any hon. gentleman tell me what has been made free? What were those articles to which the right hon. gentleman referred? The only thing made free that I can find is the "porcelain parts of pumps." These

must be what the right hon. the Prime Minister had in mind. I venture to say that he does not know to-day-I do not, I admit -where porcelain comes in in a pump. Such is the performance presented now as the fulfilment of these pledges by the Prime Minister; and as I speak he is reflecting in triumph on how this gigantic hoax worked on the Canadian people, and smiles in self-satisfaction. The present Prime Minister was then asked by a member across the floor if he would adhere to the policy of the Liberal party as outlined in the convention of 1919 favouring a British preference of 50 per cent, whereupon he replied:
The statement I have just read to the House is intelligible to every hon. member, and I think my hon. friend has quite enough intelligence to see whether there is anything that is inconsistent, in what I have just read, with the platform laid down by the Liberal party at the Liberal convention.
He thus led the House to believe that in the general terms he had chosen he had only repeated in other words the convention platform of 1919.
What is to be done about it? Some hon. members have suggested we on our part had better let the whole performance go. Because, they argue, if we rebuke conduct of this sort it will be equivalent to opposing the protective principle. That was argued by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey); it was argued by several hon. members to my right-that is to say, that the practice of entering into covenants with the people to get their votes and callously violating those covenants after getting the votes must go unrebuked except at least at the hands of those who believe in the principles which those covenants embody.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to make a correction? In reply to a question put by the right hon. gentleman, I said I certainly did not endorse the breaking of covenants. I made my position on that point perfectly clear, and I reiterate it now.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly the hon. gentleman did; but he said he could not vote to rebuke the practice. That is what I am talking about.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I said that, putting myself
in the position of the gentlemen to my right, I could not ask a party that had made a wrong promise to follow it by wrong action, and find any ethical basis for my attitude.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen


Arthur Meighen: Let us take the hon.
gentleman's position; it is exactly as I stated it. He says no one can censure the practice of making promises and breaking them save those who believe in the promises.
He says:	We the official oppo-
5 p.m. sition who do not believe in the promises must never censure the breaking of them. Is that not what he says? Does he claim logic for such a position?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I see the logic of my own
position.


Arthur Meighen: Is this practice I repeat to go unrebuked except at the hands of those who want that policy enforced? Even those who want it enforced apparently will not censure. But the practice is just as distasteful to me as it is to the hon. member.


Mrl HOEY:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The practice is as distasteful to those who have no part or parcel in the Liberal policy as it is to hon. members to my left. Its viciousness appeals just the same to those of one fiscal view as it does to those of another. The hon. gentleman however does not need to put himself in our position; let him reflect on his own.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I am just as anxious to
be clear on this point as my right hon. friend is. If he argues that a wrong promise should be followed by wrong action, he simply argues that two wrongs make a right.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not seem to see that it is the practice of making a promise and violating it that we are striking at, and that is all we are striking at. He has searched the recesses of his mind in vain to get some excuse for refusing to vote a censure on the Government of the day, though that Government, he admits, has followed demoralizing practice-a practice that he says he reprehends.
Now, let me turn for a moment to the position of hon. gentlemen to my left. They are not on very strong ground to chide the Government. Indeed, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) has a large share of the responsibility for the course the Government has pursued in this budget. The leader of the Progressive party early in this session gave the Government notice that if they turned
161i
their backs on their fiscal pledges he would refuse to call them to account. He indeed held out an invitation to the Government to abandon the pledges they had solemnly made to the people of this country. The first sign of such conduct on the part of the Government was when they turned away from their pledge to make additional cash grants to returned soldiers -turned from it without a quiver, without a sign of hesitation, and declared they did not intend to fulfil it or any part of it. The leader of the Progressive party then asked all his followers to vote against a censure of the Government for the guilt of such conduct. Well, were they any more bound by the one pledge than by the other? Once you put the seal of your blessing upon that kind of conduct you take the whole consequences and those consequences the leader of the Progressive party and his following are taking now.
" Oh," he said, " I cannot vote for this amendment because it says that the budget proposals constitute an utter failure to implement the pledges of the party by legislation." Such language is too strong, he says.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to correct my right hon. friend. He is indulging in a good many excursions this afternoon, and I want as far as possible to keep him to the line of truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, Mr. Speaker, if 1 am out of order it certainly was unintentional on my part. I will say, to keep him to the correct line. He can read my remarks of yesterday and he will find nowhere that I made the statement he has just attributed to me.


Arthur Meighen: I have Hansard before me, and I will read exactly what my hon. friend said:
The terms of the amendment are very simple ; they state that the budget proposals brought down constitute on the part of the Government an utter failure to implement its pledges by legislation. Well, while I have been pretty severe in my criticism of the Government, I do not think those words are justified by the actual facts of the case.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That is precisely what I said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it was not.


Arthur Meighen: Hansard will be my
vindication. He could not support the

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
amendment because it declared that the budget proposals constituted an utter failure to implement those pledges by legislation. Well, do they not constitute an utter failure? The hon. member said he could not go that far, but his own amendment goes that far; it declares that the budget proposals are wholly inadequate to implement the pledges by legislation. The leader of the Progressive party refuses to vote for our amendment because it says that the proposals are an utter failure to redeem pledges, but he is ready to vote for his own, which says they are wholly inadequate to redeem them. I would suggest a study of the two phrases to the linguistic experts who sit around him.
The reasons the hon. member gives for saying that these proposals are not an " utter failure " but in his opinion are " wholly inadequate," are these: The exchange provision, and the marking provision, and the dumping provision, of a year ago, are wiped away, and these changes are a partial fulfilment of the pledge. But the pledge was made over a year before these provisions were ever enacted therefore it could have had no relation to these provisions at all, for they did not exist at the time the pledge was given. May I ask what has led the leader of the Progressive party and the chief whip of the Progressive party and that stalwart Liberal (Mr. Hoey) who sits to his left-what has led them to induce their following not to vote rebuke against the Government for conduct which they themselves condemn? How will they explain that to their constituents?
I often wonder, when the proud day comes that hon. gentlemen to my left return to their homes to lay at the feet of their constituents the legislative trophies they have won, what they will say in respect of this amendment. These hon. members came down to Parliament, with hopes high and language loud and strong. They came for a wheat board-they came to a Liberal Government for a Crowsnest pass agreement-for a reduced cost of living- for their tariff platform. And they will go back and have to say: No wheat board, nothing of that; no Crowsnest pass agreement, nothing of that-if I read the countenances of hon. gentlemen opposite aright. Cost of living? Worse than nothing! there increased and heavily increased, on all the people of this country. The tariff? Nothing there. The Hudson bay railway, did I hear someone say? I do not know that

the railway was so prominent, but if so, nothing there. All nothing. What they can say to their constituents is this: We have nothing to bring back .for you, but we remembered our old party-the home of 5 out of 6 of us and we kept the Government in power. We refused to censure them for anything. They were guilty of conduct that one and all of us decided was wrong, guilty of dishonouring their plighted word to the people-but we let the performance go-we really could not join in with the Tories to condemn them. We have been the parties, to the extent of our power, to relieve the Government of the obligation of carrying out the programme in which we-ourselves professed to believe. That is the story they must carry back to their constituents.
For my part, were the Government tc introduce the legislation to which it pledged itself a year ago I, not believing in that legislation, would vote against it. But. in addition to not believing in those concrete acts of policy, I do not believe in duplicity, I do not believe in betraying the people; I do not believe in deceiving the electors of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: What a change.


Arthur Meighen: It is a change from the hon. member. If we are to follow the practice in this Dominion of making concrete pledges to the country, of going to the people and saying, this is what we will do if returned to power, and then coming into office and callously repudiating those pledges, where is responsible government? Hon. members who vote against this amendment vote to declare that when electors hereafter decide on any proposal of public policy, they are not to know or have any idea at all what is to result from their vote. Such a consequence ends responsible government.
Now I come to the sub-amendment so called.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Before dealing with that, would my right hon. friend inform the House whether he will vote for the budget?


Arthur Meighen: I shall not vote for the budget, and I shall give my reasons in a very few minutes. The hon. member for Marquette said, though-and this is really illuminating as to his attitude: You have reduced ploughs only 2i per cent, binders 21 per cent, but if you had even said that you could not afford to reduce any more because of the needs of revenue, then I would have accepted it.

The Budget-Mr. Meighen


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think my right hon. friend will find that remark in my statement yesterday. What I did say was that it would then have received consideration from the House.


Arthur Meighen: To save time looking it up, let us assume it was put that way;
I do not see much difference; the hon. member expressed an attitude of favour if those words had been spoken. Why, the Minister of Finance might just as well have spoken those words as not. He could have said in perfect truth that the needs of revenue were such that he could easily justify 125 per cent, and, I venture to say, 20 per cent. The needs of revenue to-day are four times what they were when his Minister of Customs in his own hearing declared that 175 per cent was not enough on these same goods. There was nothing in the world to hinder the Minister of Finance giving the hon. member for Marquette that assurance, and I do not hesitate to prophesy that the Minister of Finance will give it yet, and I shall find no fault with him if he does. If he had only done so first then the gentle breath of this subamendment might never have disturbed the Government.
Hon. gentlemen point to where we have voted with the Government of the day. Our principles do not vary because the Government of the day comes over and adopts them. If hon. gentlemen can show that we vary from the principles followed when in office well and good-let them try. But hon. gentlemen to my left take good care that on any matter of consequence, on any vital matter before the people of this country, they do not became parties to any resolution that seriously reflects on hon. gentlemen across the floor.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was not true on the freight rates resolution.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did what he could to acquiesce in the Government's course of putting that question oif from day to day, knowing that the putting of it off means additional freight rates daily to the people of this country, freight rates from which they should have been relieved before this.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Where does my hon. friend find any warrant for that statement?
Mr. MEIGHEN; He refused to support our motion which demanded that the Government announce its policy. Once the Government's policy on the Crowsnest
agreement is announced, that is all the Railway Commission needs, and the Railway Commission is delaying now because of the failure to adopt that resolution which demanded an announcement of Government policy.
Now I state that while the budget follows the protective principle, while no one could honestly dispute that it does-follows it as the Old budget followed it-it is not in my judgment, without faults, and some serious faults. There are phases of the proposals of the Minister of Finance that I think carry with them menace to our business, our production and our trade. Indeed, I venture to suggest that we will find in committee the Finance Minister coming pretty much to the views that I shall now express and making some very considerable changes in these same decisions that are so loudly approved by hon. gentlemen to my left. I hope so.
I believe the absence of all special restrictions due to the depreciation of German and Austrian exchange is a mistake on the part of the Minister of Finance, and a mistake that he ought to correct. Germany to-day is one of the highest protected countries in the world, as is the United States, and Germany to-day is making marvellous progress. German minds, inventive as ever, have devised a plan by which they are able to maintain the mark value in their own country at a standard several times higher than it reaches for purposes of exchange; that is to say, the working men and the people of Germany are able to get more in goods proportionately for their money than that money is worth in the exchange markets of the world, more by many times over. They do it first of all by multiplying mark production, a tremendous inflation of currency. They do it as well by the stabilization of certain of their essential articles of consumption. By these methods they have contrived to put the working men of Germany in circumstances far more advantageous than those in other countries. That truth is recognized the world over. This condition has to be met; it has to be met by special provisions here. There may be another way of dealing with it better than the method heretofore adopted, but I do suggest to the Minister of Finance that something should be done, because if it is not done, the penalty is going to fall on large masses of the workmen of this country and to the practical advantage of none.
The Government asks as well that instead of the marking provision by which

The Budget-Mr. Meighen
Parliament set out definite requirements for the marking of imports with the country of origin, it be given power to place such imports as it likes within the category to be marked. I do not think this is a right provision. I am surprised that it comes from hon. members who once worked themselves into fury denouncing Order in Council government. This Government wants the right to exercise a tremendous power by Order in Council unrestrained. Do hon. gentlemen realize the lever thus to be given them? They can say to one industry in this country, "You are not our friends; no marking required of the goods that compete with you." To another industry they can say "You are our friends; we will demand the marking of goods that compete with you": In a word it places it in the power of the Government on tariff matters-where above all others subjects it should not be in the power of the government to impose restrictions at all-it places in its power the distribution of favors among the industries of this country; it places in its hands a power of discrimination that I do not think the Government should ask this House to bestow. I do not say that it is not done in other countries: It may be that some similar power exists in the United States, but their system of government differs from ours. I am free to admit that the regulation on this matter, in the way it passed Parliament last session, was so broad that modification is essential; but it should be possible by this time to make such modification or to restrict the power of the Government within narrower limits than those suggested by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
As regards various other features of the budget I think there should be important changes. What I mean to say by my vote against the budget is this: That having in mind certain matters particularly the question of exchange and its effect on valuation, the question of marking as well, and also the question of the abolition of last years dumping clause 

a proposal that to certain industries of chis country is injurious and seriously so,
I do not feel free to vote for the budget. There may also be reductions that should not be made. There may be other reductions that could be made, I am ready to wait for the explanation of the Finance Minister in those regards. If he can show that he has made some reduction to the consumer without injury to the people of this country, without injury to the working 
man

at least with no uncompensated injury to the working man-well and good; I want reduction if it can be made in that way. I am ready to wait for his explanation. I believe he will find that in relation to implements he has done something which very probably will injure the manufacturer and his employees, very probably will turn working men on the streets in various cities of this country; but will not reduce by one cent the cost of the implement to the consumer in Canada. All the saving that is effected on implements of a hundred dollars value is 36 cents; against this also the increase in the sales tax will result in another practice- that implement manufacturers who distribute by means of agencies and heretofore have absorbed the small sales tax themselves will find it impossible to absorb the larger tax, and the full extent of that sales tax will fall upon the consumer. I would not be surprised therefore, if the budget should result in a slight increase in cost-even the article whose duty is lowered. And the sales tax addition is general.
But, what is to be said of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) who contested his seat on the distinct and unique platform of opposition to the reduction of duty on implements? What is to be thought of him if he submits to this budget? Particularly having in mind the Finance Minister's assertion only a few days ago that he was hopeful there would be no reduction of revenue owing to the 2i per cent reduction of duty? If there is no reduction of revenue it simply means more importations; it means that this reduction is made at the expense of the workmen of Brantford; it means more people on the street and more charity levies in the cities of Brantford, of Hamilton, of Toronto and of sixty other places in this country. If the Finance Minister's logic is right that is how it will result, and all without advantage to the consumer of this country.
I should not sit down without saying something as regards certain other hon. gentlemen who, in the face of the pledges of their party, made wonderful commitments to their constituents. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is absent, but I hold in my hands something of the special Pictou platform upon which he appealed for election He denounced the late government for not taking care of the trade needs, in a fiscal way, of his province, particularly in relation to coal and

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
in relation to steel. Having paid special attention to me for daring to say that I had been instrumental in reducing the higher duties, by five per cent on farm implements-having done that he makes this statement to the people of his constituency at Stellarton on October 28, last:
And so, my friends, I am not like Col. Cantley

unwilling to give pledges. I tell you, if I go to Ottawa, I shall urge parliament to put a duty on coal that is a real duty, and not a fake duty.
And speaking of steel he said:
X pledge myself along the lines and in the way I have indicated, and I am prepared to say to you that when the Liberal party comes into power after December 6 th they will find a solution for these difficulties. We will create conditions under which we can once more bring sunshine and happiness and prosperity to the homes where there is nothing but despair.
How was he going to do it? Further he said:
I am here to pledge that when I go to Ottawa I shall move a resolution in the interests of Nova Scotia that the duties on the steel products produced here would be increased in order to enable them to be effective.
So there will be reason on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite for opposing the Government, if they intend to be faithful to the special platforms that they contrived to manufacture for their own special benefit in their constituencies. Similar comment applies to many hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not think that in the history of Canada a government ever sat in office whose position was more impossible, more indefensible, more unenviable than the position of hon. gentlemen now. Some talk about the difficulties of the Government and sympathize with the Finance Minister. Why, their position is impossible because of their own conduct, because of the situation they have got themselves into by the pledges which they deliberately made and which they cannot fulfil; which they knew, or ought to have known they never could fulfil. The scourge they bear was made by themselves; their difficulties are of their own creation. The fields of revenue had been explored. There is no new field found in this budget-none at all. There is simply the traversing of the old ones. That does not present the difficulty that the Government is in at all. The difficulty the Government is in is this: It is impossible to act in consonance with its own official commitments, wholly impossible, and do justice or save disaster to Canada. It is impossible, as well, to act in consonance with the commitments of one score of
its supporters without violating and destroying the commitments of another score sitting somewhere else in the House. That is the reason the Government is in difficulty. The people of Canada, if I read aright the tenor of the debates on this budget, have evidently succeeded in getting rid, and very probably for good, of trade theories that are fallacious, unsuited to our country, and that could carry us Only to disaster. Such theories are probably gone 

smothered by those who gave them birth. The next duty of the people of Canada, a duty which we on our part proceed to discharge by this amendment, is to visit punishment on those who pledged themselves to policies in which they had no belief and who after deceiving a large electorate by so doing and thus gaining the sweets of power violate those pledges cynically and with indifference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, despite
all the criticism to which we have been obliged to listen during the last hour and a half, and what has been said against the proposals contained in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), if evidence were needed to show that the proposals that have been brought down to the House are, everything considered, the wisest and best, having regard to the conditions of the country at the present time and the circumstances under which this Parliament deals with the budget, that evidence will be found in the conflicting character of the two amendments which have been proposed, the one which has been rejected, the other which remains; and the speeches which have been made in support of those amendments. If we take a broad view of the budget proposals, what do they disclose? They show that the Government has made an effort to relieve the burdens of taxation where they bear upon the great body of the people, and that the Government has recognized the superior obligation of the well-to-do to bear a larger measure of the taxation which is necessary in order to raise the required revenues of the country. It is impossible, in any budget proposals, to attempt to satisfy the different shades of opinion in a country as large as this is. It would be folly to assume that even in the same political party, men, no matter to which degree their views inclined in one direction, would all necessarily see eye to eye as to what is best in the way of tariff revision, coming, as they necessarily
2538	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
must, from different parts of the country, representing different needs and different requirements. I submit as I have already intimated, that, in the proposals which the Minister of Finance has brought down, he has succeeded in relieving taxation, as it bears upon the great mass of the people, t and shifting the burden of taxation to a more considerable extent upon the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it. He has done this in a manner which avoids the raising of any sectional consideration in this country. That, above all others, is the most important objective in dealing with financial, fiscal and, indeed, all other problems in Canada. If, in our budget debate or in any other debate, we are to put forward a distinctly sectional point of view, or any class point of view, in arguing from that point of view, instead of binding the nation together as one in a strong and united way, we will be helping to make separations and divisions, which it should be our supreme aim to avert. That, the Minister of Finance has succeeded in avoiding; he has brought in a budget, which helps to reconcile (differences, not to exaggerate them. Indeed, as I have already said, the conflicting character of the two amendments would seem to show that the Minister of Finance has succeeded in avoiding extremes.
If you compare the speech of the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Crerar) with the speech of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), they indicate two extreme points of view. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) places his emphasis in one direction; the leader of the Opposition places his emphasis in another direction. The Minister of Finance seems to have succeeded in discovering the happy mean and in avoiding the extremes which these two hon. gentlemen are advocating at this particular time. It would be unreasonable to expect that the Government, in dealing with a question of this proportion at the first session of this Parliament, would go far in any direction; it is only reasonable to expect that the Government should be guided by caution, taking only those steps which are most in the interest of the country as a whole, and avoiding anything which would tend to have a disturbing influence on the country's affairs during this period of reconstruction.
May I touch first of all upon the amendment of the hon. member for Marquette which was ruled out of order only a few minutes ago by yourself, Mr. Speaker? As I understand the matter, the abjection 
which the hon. member for Marquette has raised to the budget proposals is that they constitute, to use his own words, a protectionist budget. I fail altogether to discover where my hon. friend finds grounds for such a contention. There is not a single protectionist feature in what the Minister of Finance has proposed to this House. The budget proposals, if you divide them, fall into two groups. The first are in the nature of a repeal of certain pieces of legislation that were enacted by the recent administration. The hon. member for Marquette admitted that that legislation was all of the nature of disguised protection, and he himself congratulated the Minister of Finance on wiping out this disguised protection. What is the nature of the rest of the proposed legislation? All the rest of it is in the nature of a reduction of existing duties; there is not an increase anywhere. Under those circumstances, how can it be contended that fault should be found with the Government because its budget is a protectionist budget? Actions speak louder than words. The only way in which it is possible to judge a budget is by the direction taken in the proposals which it contains. Every proposal that has been made by the Minister of Finance is in the direction of freer trade, not at all in the direction of protection, and my hon. friend cannot point to a single instance to the contrary.
Let me pursue this in another way. Assume that the Minister of Finance had adopted an opposite course; that instead of repealing legislation which he said, and rightly said, was in the nature of disguised protection, he had supplemented that legislation by further legislation of the same kind, and that instead of reducing the duties on some fifty different commodities he had increased the duties by the same amount on the same number of articles; would the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) have been jutified in saying that this was a free-trade budget, because it was heading in the direction of additional protective regulations and increased duties? The logic of the facts is the answer to the amendment which my hon. friend from Marquette has moved. The budget proposals are a sincere effort to carry out the purport, purpose and spirit of the Liberal policy in tariff matters, as it has always been understood and officially stated. The question is not one between protection and free trade; that is not the issue at the present time in dealing with the fiscal proposals that are be-

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
fore the House. The question is one of revision of the tariff; how the existing tariff can best be revised in the interest of all classes in this country, having regard to the conditions of Canada at the present time, having regard to our relations with our neighbours to the south and to all other countries. In that regard, I think it will be found that the most careful, thoughtful and moderate judgment has been exercised, and exercised in a manner which will be entirely to the good of this country.
May I take up the amendment of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), to which the leader of the Opposition has spoken for the most part? I shall not try to follow my right hon. friend into any theoretical discussion of the merits of protection, or of free trade, nor into any discussion of reciprocal agreements and their advantages or the reverse. That is not the question before the House at the present time. The question is whether the budget proposals, as made, all circumstances being considered, are the wisest and best for this Parliament to adopt in its first session, the session which we are holding at the present time.
Let me point out that both the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment which has been rejected, have this in common-and it is something to be considered owing to the nature of the criticisms that have been made of the budget proposals-that neither of them has anything constructive about it. Neither the hon. member for Marquette nor the leader of the Opposition, in the amendments which they have placed or sought to place before the House, offers a single suggestion in the nature of an amendment affecting the existing proposals. That surely constitutes one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Minister of Finance has succeeded in bringing down proposals which, on the whole, and considered altogether apart from party politics, are the wisest, the most prudent and the best, all circumstances being considered.
The burden of the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and supported by the leader of the Opposition is in the nature of a condemnation of the Government on the alleged score of having disregarded political honour. Well, my hon. friends had a try at that a little earlier in the session, and if the House will compare the two amendments, it will see that not only were they drawn by the same hand, but that the one so far as it goes is a copy from the other. The amendment might as well have been moved on going into supply at any time as by way of an amendment to the motion concerning the budget. It offers nothing in particular that bears especially one way or the other on the budget. But let me suggest to the hon. member who has moved the amendment, and to his associates, that people living in glass houses should not throw stones. They will do well to remember the Scriptural injunction: "Judge not that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete it shall he meted to you again." My right hon. friend, in seeking for the mote in his brother's eye, has forgotten entirely the beam in his own.


Ernest Lapointe: "Beam" is the right word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some two years ago, on May 18, 1920, in point of exactness, the hon. member for West York, who at that time was Minister of Finance, professed to give to the House what were the tariff proposals of the party to which he belonged. What did those proposals set forth? They will be found in Hansard at page 2491 under the date I have mentioned. He said:
Our policy calls for a thorough revision of the tariff with a view to the adoption of such reasonable measures as are necessary:-
(a) to assist in providing adequate revenues,
Ob) to stabilize legitimate industries and to encourage the establishment of new industries essential to the proper economic development of the nation-to the end that a proper and ever increasing field of useful and remunerative employment be available for the nation's workers,
(c)	to develop to the fullest extent our natural resources,
(d)	to specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country, the sister dominions and colonies and Crown dependencies,
(e)	to prevent the abuse of the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer.
(f)	to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people in the existing world struggle for commercial and industrial supremacy.
That was the statement of the tariff proposals as given to the House by the then Minister of Finance on May 18, 1920. Within a month and a half after these proposals had been set forth in this manner, the hon. gentleman, together with other hon. members opposite held a caucus in which they took into consideration the position of their party and the platform on which they would appeal to the country later on. In that caucus they discussed the
2540	COMMONS
The Budget

Mr. Mackenzie King
tariff among other matters and drew up a platform which has become more or less notorious in discussion, the platform of the National Liberal Conservative party, so called. What do we find on a perusal of that platform? We discover that it is a copy almost to the letter, of what the then Minister of Finance had stated in his speech to the House as being the tariff proposals of his party. I have said it is an exact copy of the minister's speech, it it that with but one exception, a very important exception, which I shall read. I have in my hand the platform of the party which my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) leads, and it fails to include, as a part of the policy of that party, this very significant clause:
To specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country, the sister dominions, the colonies, and Crown dependencies.
That was dropped out of the context in the declaration of the platform.


Mr. STEVENS:: The right hon. gentleman made exactly the same statement last year and I corrected him on that occasion. I beg to be permitted to do so again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He will find that clause, which he says is omitted from the platform, in a different part of the platform as set out in the pamphlet he holds in his hand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend will have some difficulty in discovering the clause in the platform. The policy of the party is set forth in this platform, and the tariff is printed in heavy dark lettering, in sections "A, B, C, D, E, F."


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman made the same statement last year, but he is wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That part of the platform to which I have referred contains no reference to furthering trade with the Mother Country, and I will leave it to my hon. friend when he speaks to point out where, in any other part of the platform, this policy is referred to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I may be pardoned for interrupting the right hon. gentleman, I merely wish to state that he is inaccurate in saying that there has been dropped out of the platform the clause to which he has made reference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I state again emphatically that my hon. friend will

not find anywhere in this tariff platform that clause I have quoted. I challenge him to find in the platform the following words:
To specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country, the sister dominions, and the colonies and Crown dependencies.
I say he will not find that statement in the document.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my right hon.
friend send the pamphlet across the floor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By all means; but my hon. friend will not find in it that clause for the reason that the caucus to which I have referred, in arranging its programme, decided to omit the clause when appealing to the people. Now, if that is not a case of disregarding political honour I should like to know what is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I read in this platform
the following words:
The principle of trade preference between the different members of the Britannic Commonwealth should be maintained and extended from time to time to such a degree as may be found practical and consistent with Canadian interests.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
very different statement from the one I have read.


Arthur Meighen: Wherein does the difference consist? Explain the difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is
no difference between the two statements, then why was the change made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And this is
the party that professes so much loyalty to the Mother Country, and stands so strictly for consistency!


Henry Herbert Stevens: You will admit that
that plank is contained in the platform.


Mr. DUFF:: It is not there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, per.
haps we might pass from that to something else, if there is any doubt as to whether the party opposite have always kept their pledges. I hold in my hand the Speech from the Throne delivered in this Parliament on February 14, 1921, and I quote the fallowing, the most solemn pledge that could be given to a Parliament. His Excellency, at the opening of Parliament read:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for a revision of the customs tariff. In order

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend says "Hear, hear". Does he cmean that the time has still to come for action in that matter?


Arthur Meighen: The time would have
come all right. We made no pledge whatever to submit those conclusions at that session.


William Stevens Fielding: Then why did you
make reference to it in your sessional programme?


Arthur Meighen: For reasons which the hon. gentleman knows and which he has confirmed himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is very logical in these matters. Will he tell us then, why he takes exception to our not putting our whole programme into effect this session?


Arthur Meighen: Because you pledged
yourself to do so when returned to power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend think that this Government is in power only for one year? If he does he is mightly mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister say that he intends to put all the platform into effect? Does he intend implementing the convention platform in its entirety?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend lives long enough he will live to see what this Government will do in the matter of this platform; hut one thing he will never live to see is this Government putting words into the lips of His Majesty's representative which it does not intend to translate into action.


Arthur Meighen: But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says he is against that matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice my right hon. friend still jumps up each time he is hit.


Arthur Meighen: That joke is too old.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now my right hon. friend condemns the Government for not putting its platform into effect at this
particular time. Why has he not moved his platform in an amendment to the budget proposals now before the House?


Arthur Meighen: What would be the use of moving a protectionist platform to a protectionist budget?


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend is going to vote against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me pass to the more serious aspect of this question, which relates to whether the Liberal party has or has not carried out its pledges of tariff revision. Take, first of all, the platform of the Liberal party as drafted at the convention in 1919. My right hon. friend is fond of alluding to that particular platform.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He knows as well as 1 do that at the time of being selected leader of the Liberal party I spoke before the convention which drafted that platform and expressed my views in regard thereto. Broadly, I stated that I would regard that platform as a chart which indicated the direction that the Liberal representatives assembled expected the party to take if returned to power, but that I would be guided as to how far it was wise to go at any particular time by the collective wisdom and the judgment of the ablest men whom it might be possible to bring together to direct the affairs of this country. I made that statement, not at some remote gathering, but at the very convention which enacted the platform.


Arthur Meighen: Does the right hon. gentleman suggest that he had the right or the power to amend or vary his party's platform?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that it is most distinctly the duty of the leader of any party, if he wishes to take a particular position, to state that position immediately to those who belong to his party, and if they take exception to his stand, then is the time to discuss further whether or not matters shall be further amended. I contend that every Liberal who was present at that convention heard that statement and accepted it, and there is not a single Liberal throughout the country, so far as I am aware, who has taken exception to that interpretation. That is what I am concerned about-the view the Liberal party takes of its own platform, and of the interpretation put upon it; and when there is no exception taken within the ranks of
2542	COMMONS
The Budget

Mr. Mackenzie King
the Liberal party itself, it matters very little to me what my political opponents think or have to say.
But I might go a step further. Apart from that interpretation, the Liberal party at the last session of Parliament stated its position on the tariff very emphatically. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to this circumstance, that that was done before the Liberal party made its appeal to the people. Between the time the Liberal Convention was held and the time of the general election, the Liberal party as represented in this House of Commons, were sitting opposite, where my right hon. friend and his supporters are sitting at the present time, and there the Liberal party stated their position on tariff revision as it was to be considered when the time of the elections came. I have in my hand the amendment moved. Here are the essential features of it, and I contend that every one of them has been carried out in the proposals of the Minister of Finance-not in full, perhaps, but that every proposal is in accordance with what is here laid down.
That while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a Customs tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the Government that the tariff should be based on the principle of protection ; the tariff is a tax, and the aim of legislation should be to make taxation as light as circumstances will permit;
That the aim of the fiscal policy of jCanada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises giving promise of enduring success.
That such changes should be made in the Customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion;
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
There is the position of the Liberal party as stated in the House of Commons, and that was the position which members of the party took throughout the campaign in setting forth their stand on fiscal reform and tariff revision.
But I might go a step further. Let us come to the campaign itself. There, it seems to me, is where we are to be judged, as to whether or not we appealed to the people on one particular ground or another. It is not honest to say that the platform as laid down at the Liberal Convention was the basis of our appeal; indeed the charge

made over and over again by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition throughout the campaign was that the Liberal party had thrown its platform to the four winds of Heaven. That was given as a reason why the party should not be returned to power. The right hon. leader of the Opposition is pretty good at hunting up speeches that have been made in the past, and he has plenty of assistants working for him who are busy gathering and assembling this kind of material. He has not called attention to one single speech or utterance of mine made throughout the last campaign which in the slightest particular conflicts with the budget proposals now before the House. I submit that that is the best evidence as to whether or not there was any deception of the electorate. There was no deception of the electorate, as a matter of fact. I did not hesitate to state where I stood and where the Liberal party stood on the tariff, and throughout the course of the campaign I stated it not in a single province but in every province, with the exception of one, where however I had publicly stated it in the preceding year.


Arthur Meighen: Did it differ from the
statement made by the right hon. gentleman in the House last session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It did not
differ in any particular in one province or another or in one city or another.


Arthur Meighen: I did not ask that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it differed in any particular from what my right hon. friend has just read I am sure he would have drawn the attention of the House to it.


Arthur Meighen: Did-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: All right. Did it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
right hon. friend is quite able to find that out for himself, and I am prepared to give him that opportunity. He will recall that when the campaign opened last September he led off in a speech which sounded what he believed was to be the dominant note throughout the campaign. He (said in so many words: Let us make it a protectionist campaign. True, before the contest had run very far we did not hear very much about the iprotectionist proposals which he made at the start. But he was very definite in putting the question to me

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
as to -where I stood, and that question I never failed to bring to the attention of every audience I addressed. I propose to read it to the House and ask hon. members, in the light of it, when on this occasion we are talking of a disregard of political honour, of betrayals and deception and the like, how the country will view the amendment moved by the party opposite to the budget proposals now under discussion. An amendment, mark you, Mr. Speaker, which condemns the Government for not putting that platform into effect in its entirety. Speaking in London, Ontario, on the 1st September last my right hon. friend said:
To-night I put on record the question-Does Mr. Mackenzie King stand pledged to put that platform in effect if returned to power? That question admits of two answers, and two only, one is "yes" and the other is "no". He cannot refuse an answer.
Let the answer come. I state my position now. Put that convention platform in effect and you add enormously to unemployment. As it is we have enough, and far more than enough; but we have the least for our population of any country that went through the war. Put that platform in effect and you cripple the industries and darken the horizon of many a town in this country. Put that platform in effect and by wiping away the small barriers we have to the influx of foodstuffs of the United States you make more hazardous the market and more burdensome the lot of every farmer in this country. If Mr. King answers "Yes", I say he should not have power because his platform is unsound and un-Canadian, false to the interests of our people of every class and occupation. If he answers "No", which I shall not presume until he says so, then I say he is unfit for power because he deliberately contemplates bad faith. If he refuses to answer at all, then he is unfit for high office as lacking in frankness and candour.
Well, that was boxing the compass very successfully on the part of my right hon. friend. But I did not hesitate to answer. I read that statement and I stated very frankly to every audience that I addressed that I did not stand for the Liberal platform literatim et verbatim in the manner in which my hon. friend would like to have the public believe I did.


Mr. BOYS:: Was the right hon. gentleman a party to the insertion of the platform of 1919 in the handbook of 1921, which bears his photograph?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me just deal with that for a moment. The platform of 1919 was certainly inserted in the handbook, and it would have been an extraordinary thing if it had not been. But the platform of 1919 was not put forward throughout this last campaign as a pledge or promise on the part of the Liberal party of its proposals if returned to power.


William Alves Boys: My question, if the right hon. gentleman will answer me, is this: Was he a party to putting it in that handbook?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. I think hon. gentlemen opposite have discovered for themselves just how far the Liberal party in the campaign through which we have just passed made the platform of 1919 a pledge and promise to the electorate.


William Alves Boys: Why not answer the question directly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have
alluded to the fact that earlier in this session an amendment was moved by an hon. gentlemen opposite the member for Parry Sound, on a motion to go into Supply, condemning the Government for not having carried out, as it said, certain resolutions forming part of that platform. The amendment which is now moved is in the same language, almost the same words in every particular, but the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) had in it certain words which have been dropped from the present amendment-why? Because hon. gentlemen opposite know they could not sustain them. The resolution of the hon. member for Parry Sound read:
That the policy embodied in such resolution so adopted was continuously thereafter held before the people of Canada, and in an official hand book issued in October, 1921, by the Liberal party under the authority of its leader, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the said resolution was quoted and reaffirmed.
You will find that phraseology in both these amendments; but here are words which follow in the amendment proposed in regard to the soldier question which are not in the present amendment in regard to the tariff:
And the promise and pledge embodied therein declared to be the policy of the Liberal party.
These words are not in the amendment respecting the tariff proposals which has been moved, in this debate and which is now before the House and their omission is very significant; it proves of itself that hon. gentlemen opposite know very well that throughout that campaign no effort was made to say that the Liberal platform as drafted in 1919 would constitute a promise and pledge to the electorate if the party were returned to power.
Now, I am sorry to have taken up so much time on this matter, but when charges of duplicity and betrayal and the like are made, it is, I think, only proper
2544	COMMONS
The budget-Mr. Mackenzie King
that they should be answered in a sufficient degree at least to enable the electors to decide for themselves whether such charges are true or false.
Let me ask, in conclusion,-because I do not wish to go over a lot of ground that has already been covered in this debate or may be covered before the motions are put-what was the position taken by the Liberal party as respects the tariff in the last election? On what appeal did we get from the electorate the support which we received; and by which we are bound at the present time? We stated first of all -and may I for the moment use language that I used in the different provinces? -that the Liberal party was not a free trade party, as my right hon. friend would have had the electorate believe when he was speaking in some of the urban centres; secondly, that the Liberal party was not a protectionist party, as my right hon. friend tried to urge when he was speaking in the rural centres. I pointed out that the question that was before the people was not a question as between protection and free trade, but was a question of the revision of the tariff; that the Liberal party had stood for tariff revision on the basis of a tariff for revenue; that that had been the historic and traditional policy of the Liberal party; that we believed that a tariff was necessary for the purposes of revenue, and that that was the basis which we would keep in mind in revisions of the tariff.
It was further stated that the revision should be downwards, in the interests of producers and consumers, and that in such downward revision we would seek to lower the duties on the instruments of production in the basic industries and on the necessaries of life, with a view to increased production and the lessening of the cost of living to the masses of the people. Finally it was stated that in the changes to be made there need toe no fear of injury to any legitimate industry earning legitimate profits as a consequence of the revisions affected.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that in the budget proposals as introduced those pledges have been fulfilled, not only in spirit but in the letter, and this, not at the last but at the first session of this new Parliament.
Let me point out further that all this has been done without any flare of trumpets, and what is of even greater importance at this time, without cost to the country of tariff commissions travelling to and fro

across the land, conducting make-believe inquiries and compiling voluminous abortive reports.
Finally, may I make mention of one further representation. The country was led to believe that if the Liberal party was returned to power the work of tariff revision would be entrusted to that much revered, and greatly trusted public servant, the Hon. W. S. Fielding. Through the providence of God that all-important hope and pledge of the Liberal party has also been fulfilled. Many hon. gentlemen opposite have joined with others on this side of the House in expressing their pleasure and pride in having been privileged to witness the presentation, of his sixteenth budget in Parliament by the present Minister of Finance. May I say that their kindly references in this regard are not less appreciated by the Minister of Finance himself than by those of us who, through longer or more intimate association with him, are even more favourably situated than hon. gentlemen opposite to judge of his great personal worth and inestimable public service. It is not alone the Minister of Finance who is to be congratulated upon the achievement we have witnessed, but the whole of Canada. And in recording their votes upon the resolution and the amendment thereto which is before the House, I would ask hon. members not to be unmindful of that fact. The measure of tariff revision you are asked to support is what, in the light ot his mature and wide experience, has seemed wisest and best to the one man upon whose judgment more than that of any other living person the people of Canada are ready and willing and desirous of relying in tariff matters.
It is to the benefit of all classes and parts of our Dominion that, if possible, there should be stability in tariff matters and confidence in the judgment by which that stability is secured. All circumstances considered, stability and confidence alike will, I believe, be secured in greater measure by the adoption of the resolution the hon. the Minister of Finance has moved, than by any amendment that can be offered to it; and on this all-sufficient public ground as well as because of what it may afford of more than merited recognition of the wise and prudent counsel of the veteran statesman of this House of Commons, I hope its hon. members will accord to his motion an overwhelming if not a unanimous support.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. NEIL H. McTAGGART (Maple Creek) : Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the question before the House I deem it a privilege to associate myself with other members who have congratulated the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the clear and lucid way in which he delivered the budget speech. I am not ashamed to say that my earliest recollection of Canadian politics is closely identified with the name of the Minister of Finance, as well as with the name of his late chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I well remember the pilgrimages made from this country by the Minister of Finance in order to try and secure wider markets for Canadian produce, as well as the removal of the restrictions to Canadian trade. Because of those efforts I looked forward to very substantial relief in the directions indicated in the present budget. I am sorry to say that in this anticipation I have been very much disappointed. Let me remark in this connection that I am reminded of a prediction made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the early days of the session, in which he stated that the Progressive party would be sorely disappointed when the budget proposals were brought down. It would seem that the reputation of the leader of the Opposition as a forecaster of coming events has not suffered very much by reason of that prediction.
I understand that it is the custom in this House to make references to the speeches of preceding speakers. As a new member I am sorry that it is possible I cannot pay the due meed of credit to the two splendid orations that were delivered this afternoon. I am not going to attempt to do so, but I have just this to say: I listened with deep interest to those speeches but was disappointed in that I could not discover in either of them any solution to the problem which confronts Canada to-day. If protection is a good thing for this country ought we not to expect that the speeches of the leaders of the two great political parties would contain some substantial proof of the benefits which Canada has derived from a protective policy? I can say in all sincerity, that although I listened with deep interest to both speeches I could not discover that they contained any proof of the benefits derived by Canada in the past or the benefits which she might expect to receive in the future from a protective tariff.
The debate on the budget has had a very wide range and the ground has been, I believe, almost completely covered. I would not attempt to project myself into this debate at all, were it not that I believe I can treat this question from a new angle. I am not going to attempt to repeat the arguments that have been already advanced, and particularly those brought forward by my honoured chief, the leader of the Progressive party. I will, however, say this-that the situation in Canada at the present time is not encouraging. We have a huge national debt, we have a rapidly increasing taxation, we have idle factories and thousands of unemployed, we have depopulated areas and a rapidly increasing number of abandoned farms. When I think of this situation, and I do not wish to indulge in any levity, I am reminded of the ground hog which was travelling rapidly in the direction of the nearest tree. Some one said " What is he running to the tree for? Surely he does not hope to climb it?" The friend of the observer replied, " He will be compelled to climb it, the dogs are after him." Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as Canada is concerned, the time is rapidly approaching when she will be compelled to make readjustments of her economic structure, to put her house in order so to speak, and to make it possible for all classes of her people to establish comfortable homes. Of course, when mention is made of the situation as it now exists in the Dominion, the war is always blamed; and I will admit that the war has imposed upon our people a heavy burden. But the responsibility does not rest so much upon the war as upon ourselves; I maintain that the war is not wholly responsible. It is my conviction that the people who are to-day engaged in the work of developing the natural resources of this country are carrying a heavier burden than they can bear, and that substantial advances in that direction will be impossible in the future until we have a readjustment and a revision downward of the customs tariff. It is also my conviction that on December 6 last, the people of Canada made a definite pronouncement in regard to the customs tariff. It is my opinion that the verdict cast by the people on that date was that the policy of protection as enforced in Canada for over forty years had failed all along the line, and I would say this further-that unless this burden is removed at an early day the future of this country will be seriously jeopardized. As regards the present budget I am in sym-

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
pathy with the removal of certain restrictions to trade. With these, I am not going to deal; they have been fully dealt with by previous speakers. One objectionable feature, however, is the increase in the sales tax. I believe that this increase will render heavier the burden now resting on those who are engaged in developing our natural resources. I have wondered ever since it was introduced where the idea originated of having this sales tax increased, and I am going to read for the benefit of the House a recommendation made iby the representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to the Government on February 23 last. These recommendations are contained in a little booklet entitled " Statements in regard to matters connected with Trade and Commerce presented to the Government of Canada by a deputation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association." Now on page 11 of the booklet we find these recommendations:
That duplication of taxation be avoided as much as possible.
That the Income War Tax Act as regards corporations shall be repealed.
That the present Sales Tax shall be adjusted so as to provide additional revenue.
As regards the new budget which has been brought down, I am in sympathy with the statement which has been made that this is a protective budget. I am not surprised that Conservatives, who have been so much interested in "morganatic alliances", refrain from criticising the taxation proposals as outlined in this budget. The minister, in a statement which he made when he brought down his budget, intimated that Canada's expenditure for the current year would be very large, and that the revenue would scarcely meet these burdens. It was also intimated that there was expected to be a reduction in the amount derived from the customs tariff, and this is the particular feature of the budget to which I wish to refer. It seems at least a strange thing that a reduction in revenue should be contemplated from the customs tariff, notwithstanding that the tariff, generally speaking, has not been changed to any appreciable extent. It is my opinion that industrial and commercial institutions in Canada of an international character have found a means to circumvent the tariff. We learned in this debate from the previous speakers that large amounts of American capital are invested in Canadian industries, and the point I wish to make is that this outside capital

which is invested in Canadian industries, has been used to exploit the Canadian consumer. I am going to endeavour to give the House a case in point, and I believe that what I am going to describe applies to many other articles of commerce in Canada to-day. I have in my hand a package of cut tobacco, and I believe this article of commerce is sold to-day in almost every community throughout the Dominion of Canada and the United States. I purchased this tobacco in the city of Ottawa a few days ago, and this is the trade mark on it:
The genuine Durham Smoking Tobacco ; W. T. Blackwell and Company; Blackwell and Durham Tobacco Company, Successors, Durham, N.C. Manufactured by the Imperial Tobacco Company, Limited, Montreal, Que.
This package contains, according to the stamp on the package, one-fifteenth of a pound, and on the tag which is attached to this package, we read this slogan: "None genuine without the bull on each package." What I have to say about this package of tobacco is this. When I purchased this package of tobacco on Sparks street, I asked the salesman if this package of tobacco was made in Montreal, and he stated that he thought it was. I asked him if he could sell me the same tobacco imported from the United States, the American make, and he said that he could not. I asked him if he could procure the American Bull Durham tobacco, and he said that he did not know; that he thought it possible that he might. I want to give the House some figures in connection with this tobacco from the constituency in which I reside. I paid 20 cents in Ottawa for this package, and it retails in my constituency at 20 cents. What we might call the American Bull Durham tobacco is put up in packages of 1J and 11 ounce sizes. This tobacco contains Ills of an ounce of tobacco and sells wholesale in Saskatchewan at $2.38 a pound. This same tobacco sells wholesale in the state of Montana at 80 cents a pound- The retail price of this tobacco in Saskatchewan figures out at 181 cents an ounce; in Montana, the retail price figures out at 61 cents an ounce.
When my friend in Saskatchewan called my attention to this particular feature of the customs tariff, I asked him: "Why do you not import this tobacco from the United States?" I understand the duty on this tobacco is 95 cents a pound. If he purchased it at 80 cents a pound in Montana and paid the duty of 95 cents, that would make $1.75, and that would still leave 63

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
cents, which would be more than enough to cover sales tax and other charges. I was, therefore, surprised that my friend did not import this tobacco. I want to give the answer of that friend in Saskatchewan in regard to the matter, and it is that it is impossible to import this tobacco into the Dominion of Canada because the Canadian authorities refuse to put a revenue stamp on the American pack because it does not conform to the particular value of our revenue stamp. There is a diiference in the weight of the two packs of 7-120ths of an ounce; but the American tobacco cannot be imported today into Canada, for the reason that the size of the American pack does not conform to the particular value of the revenue stamp as it at present exists in Canada. I said to my friend: "Surely there is a way to circumvent even that. Why not write to the American Tobacco Company and have them make a pack conforming to the Canadian revenue stamp?" My friend had forestalled me in this, as he had already written to the company on several occasions. There are two replies, which I am going to read because they are more or less evasive. This is one dated October 18, 1921:	i i
F. O. Barnstad,
Shaunavan, Sask.
Dear Sir,-We are just In receipt of a reply from the American Tobacco Company, in regard to putting up the 2 oz. package of Bull Durham which you requested that we try to order for you from them.
They state that they put up a ljth oz. pack only, which is the one that we carry in stock at the present time.
We regret our inability to fill your order on the particular sizes that you request.
Yours very truly,
Minot Grocery Company.
This is another letter:
Re your letter September 15. Replying to above letter on Bull Durham tobacco, we carry the ljth ounce bag, put up 24 in a carton, and 12 cartons to the shipping case. This l|th ounce bag costs $.96 per dozen and is retailed at ten cents here.
We do not carry cigarette papers in stock.
This is an argument in favour of the statement I made that American industrial and commercial campanies of international character are finding a way to circumvent the tariff, and Canada does not secure the revenue. I hope the House will understand that I am not finding fault with the high price of tobacco in Canada, or in Saskatchewan. I would be perfectly willing to pay those high prices for that tobacco, provided I used it, if I knew that the excess price which I was paying over and above
the legitimate price was going into the Canadian treasury. This is another letter, from the same gentleman by the way, dealing with some of the abuses of the customs tariff on goods coming in from the United States. He says:
I enclose herewith facts in regard to a shipment that I just received to show you how charges are piled on to a shipment so that It is almost impossible to import tobacco.
I enclose bill of lading to show that shipment consisted of 54 pounds, cancelled draft shows that I paid for same $47.63 plus $2.42 American exchange or $50.05. This is what I paid the shippers for the 54 pounds prepaid to Shanil a von.
I also enclose my expense bill from the Canadian Pacific Railway who cleared this shipment through the customs at Weyburn. Their bill calls for $64.64, or a total of $1.19 per pound, whereas our tobacco duty is supposed to be 95 cents per pound.
There is another letter which deals with the duty on cigarettes. It is as follows: Shaunavon, Sask., March 21st, 1922. Neil McTaggart, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear 'Sir,-I attach a price list that I just received from the J. R. Reynolds tobacco as I desire to call your attention to the ridiculous rate of duty charged on cigarettes. You will note that I can buy Camel Cigarettes freight paid for $3.65 per thousand list price (They allow 10% discount from this list) but call the cost freight paid $3.65 per M.
Our rate of duty is $4.10 a pound on cigarettes plus 25% of invoice price, also at present there is a surcharge on account of exchange and a 4% sales tax on the duty paid value of a shipment and a charge by custom officers for attaching revenue stamps.
For figuring duty charges the customs department, figure in the weight of the package that the cigarette comes in, this is shown in the list as 3.5 lbs. per M.
If you will figure out the duty you will find that on a thousand cigarettes that cost me freight paid $3.65 I will have to pay over $16.00 duty, etc. I am told that the Canadian manufacturer of cigarettes pays a little less than $7 per M; as to that I cannot vouch but I believe it about correct.
Instead of a per pound charge why would it not be best to have duty figured on the invoice price of cigarettes, I would suggest 100% duty on the invoice price, this certainly should be sufficient protection for any industry and would stimulate the Importation of these Camel cigarettes and other lines as well and our government would get 100% duty on each invoice, whereas now the practically prohibitive duty keeps us from importing.
This is a particular phase of the customs tariff, as it exists to-day, which is worthy of attention, and I hope the Minister of Finance will give this question serious thought. I believe there are abuses of the customs tariff, in the direction I have indicated, in many lines of industry. For instance, I should like to know why the Eastman people of Toronto sell cameras



The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
in Ottawa or Quebec at $25 when they can be procured at Niagara Falls, New York, for $14.50.
I want to say a word in regard to what has been stated in the debate touching the alleged danger of reducing the tariff. It has been said in this House on several occasions that Canadian industry cannot compete with industries in the United States. W ell, in this connection I am going to quote again from this booklet issued by the Cana-' dian Manufacturers Association. At page 12 there is an article entitled "Preferential Tariff, Australia and Canada," from which I shall read a paragraph, because I believe it proves conclusively that Canadian industries generally can compete with the world:
The Customs appraisement laws of Australia now stimulate importations from the United States instead of from Canada. The Australian law applies ad valorem duties on values which are based upon the "home" market value of the goods in the country of export. The application of the Australian duty on values based upon the home market price in the country of export results, as a rule, in the Australian luties being greater on goods made in Canada than on the like goods made in the United States. Let us illustrate: Because of revenue duties on materials of a class or kind not obtainable in Canada, which must be imported by the Canadian automobile manufacturer, the "home" price on a Canadian-made car is higher than the United States "home" price on a similar car. But the Canadian manufacturer, under the Customs drawback regulations, can sell his car for export at prices which approximate to the United States price. Thus a United [DOT] States automobile, on importation into Australia, pays duty on the basis of the "home" selling price in the United States; and the same automobile made in Canada and shipped into Australia (although the export price based on drawback would compare favourably with the United States export price) would be valued for duty in Australia at the higher "home" selling price in Canada,-resulting in the payment of greater sums in duty than would be payable on the like car made in the United States.
I think that this admission on the part of the Canadian Manufacturers Association is an admission that Canadian industry can and does compete in the markets of the world, and does so favourably.
Now, when I began I said I would endeavour to be as brief as possible, and so I shall now conclude. Before doing so, however, I should like to say a word in regard to the speech of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter). I was very much surprised at the outburst of the hon. gentleman. He seems to think that in heaping ridicule upon the Progressive party he is rendering the public some service. He expresses the view that the Progres-
CMr. McTaggart.)
sive party would not be fair to the Government in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). Well, let me say that we do not want any morganatic alliance between the Progressive party and hon. members to my right in regard to that amendment.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) :: I am sure it must have been very gratifying to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) during the past week or ten days, after listening to the battle of words and wits over this budget, to find that no substantial dint has been made in the fiscal armour with which he has surrounded his tariff proposals. While a few pinpricks may have been made in these proposals during the debate, they can easily be ironed out when the resolutions are before the committee. I observe, too, that the criticisms levelled against the Government during the debate have been chiefly of one character, that is, the making of allegations, charging dereliction of duty on the part of the Liberal party and this Government with respect to the non-fulfilment of pre-election promises, and the carrying out of pledges and platforms. We are familiar with these things, Mr. Speaker. Ever since I can recall anything of Canadian politics, particularly since 1896, I know we have always been charged with dereliction of duty in the matter of carrying out pledges, promises and platforms. If there is anything in this surely the people would not have trusted us anew last December. However, I am going to try once more to dispel the idea that there is anything in these allegations with respect to either the tariff platform of 1893 or the platform of 1919. On a hot evening like this, some hon. gentlemen opposite may think that this is a big contract, but I do not at all feel that way; I am perfectly confident that I can undertake and successfully carry out the proposition I have in hand.
I shall hurry along because I want to deal briefly with other matters of an agricultural nature, but there is one point in regard to the question of platforms that I desire to take up now. I have in my hand the platform of the Liberal party of the year 1893. Now, I do not desire to go back into ancient history, but this matter has been dealt with in the debate and I shall refer to two features of the platform which will serve our purpose. I will read the pledge, with regard to the tariff. It is as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
That it should be so adjusted as to make free o'r to bear as_ lightly as possible upon the necessities of life, and should be so arranged as to permit freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United States.
With respect to free trade with Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, surely there is not a single member, no matter how violent an opponent he may be of this Government, but must concede that we have carried out this pledge to the letter and the spirit. A preference of 331 per cent was granted on a large number of commodities from Great Britain. It is quite true that a part of that preference has been absorbed by the higher ocean rates, but that again will be picked up by the increased preference that the Minister of Finance now proposes. I do not think there is a single member but will concede that that pledge of the 1893 platform has been carried out in toto. The preference has not gone to 50 per cent yet. But give us a little while longer. We were in power fifteen years last time, and if you will give us another fifteen years, or a half or even a quarter of that term, see where we will be then.
As to the other plank of the platform, that in regard to reciprocity, I can recall as a boy about six years old when the original reciprocity treaty of 1854 was abrogated. From 1867 to 1911 all parties in this country had both hands up-had both feet up if it was necessary-for reciprocity. Then when it was brought down in 1911 an agitation, started by the Opposition in conjunction with certain manufacturers, the principal ones being in Toronto, was directed against reciprocity and carried to success by means that we are all familiar with. In a word, they defeated the reciprocity pact. Here is the pledge in regard to reciprocity:
That a fair and liberal reciprocity treaty would develop the great natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase trade and commerce between the two countries,-
and so on. That is pledge No. 2 of the 1893 platform. Did the Liberal party carry it out or die in their tracks? Of course, we all know that the party died in their tracks trying to carry reciprocity. Surely further proof is not necessary of their sincerity.
Let us see what the reciprocity pact meant. I have the draft here. You do not find very many people carrying this around nowadays-only the Liberals. On the first page I see a large number of articles, in fact all the natural products of Canada, on the free list, carrying out that pledge
of freer trade. I wonder if our farmer friends, when they taunt us with failure to fulfil our pledges, ever think that there are dozens of articles on the free list of the reciprocity pact. Did we try to carry out that arrangement? Why, did we not give up our political life in the attempt? And what more could be expected of any political party? Do you want to hold us responsible for our failure after we were defeated in 1911? I remember being at a political meeting on one occasion where two or three gentlemen actually took that ground. I draw attention to that to show the utter absurdity of the stand they took. What more could we do? What dereliction of duty has the Liberal party been guilty of in regard to that platform since the 1911 defeat? Well, then, if there has been no dereliction of duty, why cannot every one who supported us in respect to reciprocity at that time support us yet? Especially, why did they not support us at the last election? There must have been some reason. Well, if every hon. gentleman is prepared politically to die on behalf of the platform of his party, what greater sacrifice can you wish for in the carrying out of political pledges? No man can do more than that; that is the supreme sacrifice. Then if that be so, why are we charged with failure to fulfil those pledges at the present time? I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) actually suggest that we were pledged to free trade. That is not so. But even if we had been pledged to free trade there was a very large and substantial measure of free trade embodied in this reciprocity pact. Then we have the hon. gentlemen opposite finding fault. And I must say that in one respect I admire them, for you always know where they stand. I wish I could say as much for all groups in this House, /but we cannot have everything always our own way. However, I compliment my hon. friends upon that feature.
I am going to point out how differently the 21 per cent decrease in the tariff is regarded now compared with the reception which was accorded our proposal originally to make that reduction in connection with the reciprocity arrangement. At that time the Farmers and the Conservatives made a lot of this 21 to 5 per cent concession. On the first ten pages of the agreement I find fifteen articles on which the duty is reduced by 5 per cent-they are nearly all agricultural implements-and twenty articles on which the duty is reduced 21 per cent. We went to the country satisfied

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
that that was a pretty good bargain. It will be remembered that included in the arrangement was free trade in natural products. To-day our Progressive friends make light of that 2J per cent cut in the tariff, but they thought it was all right in 1911-most of them at any rate, except those 'who opposed reciprocity and are now shouting because they cannot get it.
How did our Conservative friends take it? They talked as though we were going to the bow-wows-they told us that we would go to bed as Canadians and wake up next morning whistling Yankee Doodle if we entered into this reciprocity agreement. At meetings you would see the American flag on the one side and the Union Jack on the other, with the question: Under which flag are you going to live? I myself was turned topsy-turvy at one time, and have been mad with myself ever since. In 1891, when we proposed unrestricted reciprocity-reciprocity as wide as a barn door, everything free between us and the United States, I wonder how the farmers of Ontario voted when this country was nearly 80 per cent rural and the proposal was defeated. Well, we will forget it.
But I nearly went wrong myself in 1891. I was very much disturbed about what I had heard regarding the evil effects of reciprocity with the United States. I remember I went to a meeting-and if Senator Turriff is anywhere within hearing he will recall the occasion-in a little school house at Kenilworth, which he was conducting. Of course, he was Mr. Turriff in those days. I was reading reasonably good papers, for instance, the Montreal Witness, but I had missed it for two or three weeks, and I very nearly lapsed during that interval. I was told that reciprocity meant annexation, and that was dinned into me so frequently that I was actually beginning to believe there was something in it. Of course, I was young in those days and believed a good many things that our Conservative friends used to tell us as facts. I found at the sehoolhouse every blank space plastered with great big posters indicating annexation to the United States. Here you saw doleful scenes depicted, the men were signing mortgages, the hens were flying in the direction of the 49th parallel, and even the cats had their tails in the air. When the meeting was opened I was visibly impressed, and I remember in my innocence when Mr. Turriff finished speaking on behalf of the Liberal cause and Mr. 
afterwards Senator Perley-an old war horse from the maritime provinces who knew nearly as much regarding politics as my innocent Progressive friends over the way- I asked Mr. Turriff in open meeting-what a foolish thing!-It showed how little I knew of politics in those days; and I am told I know less now-I asked him if there was anything in this allegation that reciprocity meant annexation. I actually embarrassed him with my question. I have not done it since; I try not to commit the same offence twice. But that kind of campaign, Mr. Speaker, has been continued from that day to this; in fact, that is what defeated reciprocity in 1911. It may be said that the people should, in the ordinary course of events, get wise to these things, but you must remember that every ten years we have a new bunch of people ready to be deceived; and that is the hope of the Conservative party-the deceiving of the new elector. If it were not for that, they would not be in power in this country. I do not know when they are going to get in again, because the campaign of education that has been conducted by the Progressives during the last three or four years has educated the people in these matters as nothing else has ever done; and I will give them credit for it. I want to make some candid admissions; I do not find myself very far from their ideals, their hopes and their ambitions with respect to tariff matters, though I do differ with them very seriously on the question jhow to bring these ideals and reforms into effect by legislation. But that is about the only place where I do differ.
Now, let us see what else was involved in this reciprocity bargain. Why did the manufacturing interests so strongly oppose it? It was not, surely, because 2J per cent or 5 per cent was taken off agricultural implements. It was not, surely, because the farmers were going to have a better market, were going to realize more on their goods and be able to buy more manufactured articles-and not only to buy them, but to pay for them, which also is an important thing. I have never been able to understand the reason for the opposition of the manufacturers to the proposal; I have not been able to see what species of absolute madness could have tempted them to oppose it-because I want to say that they will never get as good a bargain again, any more than the farmer will. Under this proposal the farmers would have got the benefit of a market consisting then of 100,-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
000,000 people-it is more now. Some of my hon. friends say that even if the reciprocity agreement had been adopted, it would in time have been abrogated. But suppose it had been adopted and had remained in force for ten years from 1911 until 1921, surely ten years of a market at our doors of the wealthiest people on earth, wanting our goods and prepared to pay for them, would have been worth while. Ten years is at least one-fifth of a man's active lifetime; fifty years is a long period for any one to engage in active business or farming. Well, we would have had one-fifth of that business or agricultural career under the conditions laid diown by reciprocity; would not that have been worth while? Moreover, we would now be in a better position to push on under the conditions of hard sledding which prevail. Why, when reciprocity was formerly in force, we had it for only twelve years, from 1854 to 1866, aijd we all know bow Canada prospered, how the maritime provinces prospered, how we all prospered during those years. Would it not have been worth while to have another ten years like that?' Taking it, therefore, at the discount suggested by my hon. friends, it would have been well worth while.
But there is one thing which I myself overlooked when this campaign was on. I have before me a long list of articles included in the reciprocity agreement as arranged for by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and his colleague the late Mr. Paterson. Under this provision access was to be obtained to the large market of the United States, not only by the farmers, but by the manufacturers of Canada for their manufactured wares. But they did not know enough to take advantage of it. In this list thirteen articles are included, with various reductions, ranging from 25 to 50 per cent, and nearly all on agricultural implements. The farmers were not interested in this; it was an oppor-unity for the manufacturers to get the very thing they wanted, an opening for their products. The arrangement was, therefore, fair to all concerned. I say it was the most tragic mistake ever committed by any country when Canada turned down that offer. The Finance Minister made the prediction at that time that if the reciprocity agreement were turned down Canada would see the day she regretted it, and we have been regretting it, Mr. Speaker, ever since. As a matter of fact, the cause of reciprocity has gained
tens of thousands of friends since that day.
I will not deal longer with that phase of the question, Mr. Speaker; I think I have shown with respect to the platform of 1893, or the two outstanding features of it, that we have kept to the one-that is, preferential trade with Great Britain-and we went down with our flag nailed to the masthead in the attempt to cafry out the other. If anybody is prepared to do more than that, he should not be in politics; he should be on the other side of Jordan.
So much for that. I want to say a word about protection, and I would like the attention of the leader of the Progressives so that he can see how near I come to him on that subject. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) made a statement something like this: that protection could not last indefinitely, especially on the prime necessities of life. With regard to the kind of protection that we have now, I am opposed to it. I do not say that we should not help new industries-I will deal with that in a minute. I do say that we should help new industries in some ways, but there are many ways of doing it besides the protective system under an import tax. The trouble with the customs tariff as a means of assisting infant industries is that these industries insist upon being infants for all time; at any rate, they have done so ever since this policy was inaugurated. They are now forty-four years old-whiskers on them as long as your arm, and still insisting that they are infants.
Now, that is the objection I have to it. If we are to apply the principle of protection, particularly to the implements of production, then it could well be argued that we should pass protection all around, if it is so good. Now, what would that mean? I do not advocate that course, which would involve a second mistake to correct the first; for you cannot correct one wrong by committing another. The way to correct the evils of protection is to remove them; remove the cause of your difficulty; do not substitute a fresh cause as a corrective, or counter-irritant, if you like. But what would it mean if we invoked the remedy that the farmers of the United States are invoking? They have ceased the fight against protection: they are tired of fighting it, and they have said in the agricultural bloc: Pass it all around.
What would that mean in Canada? There is no doubt about it-you can philosophize as much as you like about the percentage

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
of our farm products that we consume in our own country, but so far as western grain is concerned we have to rely upon a foreign market for 90 per cent of our output. So that protection so far as it affects us in providing a home market is a minus quantity. That being the case, how are you going to protect these articles? How are you going 'to proteci the farmer if we decide, like they did in the United States, to pass it around? Now, I am just giving this as a hypothetical case, but there is no way to protect your grain, which seeks an open market in competition with the world, except by putting a bounty on it of 10 or 15 cents. We have many precedents for that in Canada, in respect to steel and other articles. Imagine what it would be like-taking out of this pocket the protection on the article and putting in the other pocket a bounty on our grain. Yet that is the only way that you could protect the farmer in the growing of grain.
Who would be so mad as to propose such an awful nostrum as that? But I have met people who have actually proposed it. I was in Toronto after the defeat of reciprocity, and they had some slight contrition even there, and they asked me if something could not be done for the farmer along that line. There are other products, like butter. Yes, we could put butter up another six cents, equal to the Fordney bill rate. How would you like that? We could do the same thing with eggs, and all along the line. But would that reduce the cost of living? Is that the solution? Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the logical solution unless we remove the element of protection, especially from implements of production, just as soon as it is possible to do it. I do not know when that will be, but we have taken a step in that direction, and a substantial one. If I were five steps from the edge of a precipice, and I took one step towards it, I would be substantially nearer the edge of the precipice than before. Some hon. gentlemen over here, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), for instance, think it is a substantial step. He thinks so because he does not like it. It is a substantial step. It is 20 per cent off the protection that was on there.
It is not fair of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to say that this is a protectionist budget. It has protectionist features, but every change the Minister of Finance has made was a direct

and deliberate step away from protection. Is there not hope in that? Rome was not built in a day. We have had the tariff a long while, running away back to 1878, but I see evidences on the horizon to-day that the movement in the right direction is going to be accelerated in the very near future so far as the implements of production are concerned. How can we develop the natural resources of this country without cheaper implements? How are we going to pay the national debt unless we develop our natural resources? Surely that is evident, and requires no demonstration on my part.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the hon. member inform us whether he is arguing for or against the budget?


William Richard Motherwell: I thought I
made it plain that I was arguing for it. I even tried to illustrate my position so that he who runs might read. I said that if I were five steps away from the edge of a precipice and took one step towards it, I was substantially nearer the edge. I thought that was plain enough even for my hon. friend.
At the Liberal convention in 1919 we crystallized our thoughts and our views and got as near as we possibly could to a platform, and there it is. Of course, you cannot get a body like that all of one mind. Some have reservations. As a matter of fact, there was another statement made, and I want to say this much: Every member of this House last session spoke another word with respect to his attitude on tariff. Now which holds good? If you or I, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else made a will last year, and we decided to make another one this year, which would hold? Is it not the last one?


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is this the Government's last will and testament?


William Stevens Fielding: No, we will have an opportunity of making others.


Mr MOTHERWELL:: If you take the opposite view and say that the first expression of opinion, no matter whether it was given forty or fifty years ago, should hold to-day, do you call that progressive? We have a precedent furnished by our Progressive friends themselves. I am speaking entirely from memory, and my hon. friends will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that a year ago the Canadian Council of Agriculture revised their platform. You will remember it had a plank calling for 50 per cent British pre-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
ference, and free trade with Britain in five years, but at a meeting of the Council of Agriculture last July the words "in five years" were eliminated. The platform was modified absolutely, and they had a right to do that. Which is their last will and testament in that respect?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to correct my hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: I would be very glad to be corrected, because I remember it quite distinctly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to keep my hon. friend on the. right track if I possibly can. He has wandered far from it. His statement in respect to that change is not correct.


William Richard Motherwell: Then set me right. I do not know whether my hon. friend was present at the meeting or not, but I had a clipping with respect to it, and I have given it as I remember it. Unfortunately, the clipping got lost in the mix-up of the election. Nearly everything but the counting of the votes had disappeared by that time.
I said a few moments ago that there would always be individual opinions. Do you mean to say that they do not exist over there? I will say for the Conservatives that they are absolutely at one in regard to what they think are the
9 p.m. benefits of protection. I do not know whether it is a detriment to a party to have a diversity of views within itself. I hold views with respect to helping young industries. I absolutely oppose the present system, because you cannot get rid of them when they grow up. Do you think that Sir John A. Macdonald, who introduced the system, would declare that what were infant industries in his time were still infants? The thing is ridiculous. It was my privilege to have the opportunity of assisting a young industry, the dairying industry in Saskatchewan. It was not by import duties that we assisted it but in various ways, by loans, by guarantees, and by a certain amount of office staff. At the end of ten years we had a flourishing dairying industry on our noble prairie, and we handed it over to the farmers and said: "We are going to wean it. Take the industry over and run it yourselves." But our friends of the Manufacturers' Association, who have been on the nursing bottle forty-four years, do not want to be weaned, and the longer you leave them there the less they will want to be weaned, but we
must do it now if we ever expect to do it, or as soon as possible. I am going to show you how it can be done. In common with the Minister of Finance I may say that there were features about our platform that I did not approve of. Not being here, and not taking any part in the resolution that was adopted last session, I feel I am in honour bound by the convention. There was another expression by the leaders of the Liberal party in this House, which has a right to take precedence. But I am not going to take advantage of that. Here is what I said in my nomination address in Regina City on the last day of September:
Large amounts of revenue are raised under the excise duty on home manufactures in England, and the adoption of a similar policy in Canada, varied to suit our circumstances, would not only permit of a substantial reduction of customs taxation on articles of common ware, consumption, and for the purpose of more production, but also supplement the much needed revenues of the Crown.
Two or three speakers, including the chief Liberal Whip, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Kyte), dwelt on the prevalence of the excise duty in Great Britain. There are hundreds of millions of pounds raised by excise duties. If the import duty was reduced to 121 per cent or 10 per cent, if you like-some of the duties are down to 10 per cent, binders, harvesters and mowers; no, I do not think mowers are, but some of the implements are down to 10 per cent-but supposing the import duties were reduced that far and an excise duty put on, that would take out the protection. What is the use of my hon. friends in the Progressive party talking about a revenue tariff unless it also implies an excise duty? Take a 10 per cent duty, or a 121 per cent duty, or a 15 per cent duty-no, I will not say 15 per cent, that is getting on dangerous ground-but say 10 and 121 per cent-there is incidental protection. There is protection if the duty is only 5 per cent -it is only a matter of degree-unless you invoke the principle of the excise duty. Is that sound doctrine? I say it is.
Well, let us talk right from the shoulder now on this matter. I 'believe there is a solution to be found but it is not in a list of free implements'. Why not? 'Since 1919 our financial situation has changed immensely; we cannot get revenue by means of a free list. Is that hearsay? Is that going back on our platform? Will the leader of the Progressives not agree with me that a substantial duty on articles not made in Canada, and an excise duty on things that

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
are made in Canada, are not incompatible with the principle of free trade. I do not think I said that very well, so I repeat the statement: I say that high duties on articles not made in Canada, as well as excise duties on things that are made here, are not incompatible with the principle of free trade-that is better. Is that not right? Well, I thought we had in the present budget a start-off in that direction with motor cars. I am not sure whether that is the ease or not, but if it is the case that there is an excise duty on motor cars that would be the principle to which I have reference; and we have the same principle, of an excise duty, in the tariff in a dozen places. It is not new in this country or *any other country that I know of-it is simply carrying out the thing to a logical conclusion, and you would have a revenue from the best available resources. So much for the revenue tariff.
My hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) would like to know if I am talking for or against the budget. Not only am I talking for the budget, but if my hon. friend followed up the attitude which he took previous to the election last fall he would be supporting the budget also. I am willing to make all kinds of allowance between the time my hon. friend was looking for votes and the present time. Like many another man, he was seeking to indulge in a little bit of a stunt that would read well. We all have to, I suppose, to use legitimate means to save our faces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, making these admissions. Speaking about a first instalment of tariff reduction, if we do not get any more instalments think of what I shall have to face next year and the year after, as a result of putting on Hansard these statements. However, I am going to take chances. I am now going to quote statements made by my hon. friend from Marquette before the last election. These statements are taken from the Globe, a newspaper that was not unduly favourable to the Liberal party last fall. The first statement from the issue of October 31, is as follows:
Mr. Orerar gave some applications of bis economic views to the local industries of coal mining and steel. He repeated that the Progressives had no intention of sweeping the tariff away over night, but he hoped to see the day when the principles of protection would be abandoned in Canada's fiscal policy.
He hoped! He was not going to sweep it away over night! Has my hon. friend the

Finance Minister swept it away over night or even over day? He has complied with the requirement laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar). What did that statement mean, if it did not mean that the tariff should be reduced gradually? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of Canada, outside of the prairie provinces, would support us in not touching the tariff this session at all-I believe that. The tariff was not touched in 1896, the first session of the Laurier government. It was substantially amended in 1897 when the British preference was brought down. Can my hon. friend recall any period, in the history of this or any other country, where the tariff was in issue, when a new government came in and modified the tariff in its first session more than this government has done? I cannot recall such an occasion; I would like to be set right if I am wrong in that statement. Now I want to continue; and I do not want to do so in any spirit of petty criticism. I merely want to show why my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) should support this budget. I quote again from the Globe:
Sumimerside, Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Orerar agreed that the tariff could not be swept away over night.
My hon. friend is very much like the rest of us; we all make one speech of pretty much the same type all along the line. When we get it off it seems good to us, and we repeat it although not exactly in the same terms. We have repetition here showing that the reporter has reported my hon. friend correctly. Now here we have another extract. This is dated November 11:
Mr. Crerar said that the tariff reduction on the necessaries would reduce the cost of living.. Premier Drury-
I think that is the wrong quotation.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: -spoke briefly at both meetings, urging that the best policy for Canada was the policy of the National PVogessive party.
I have no marginal note with respect to this extract

probably it was not of so much importance. Well, they are all very much alike. Mr. Crerar wanted to know where the campaign funds came from. That was another topic of discussion but I will not recall it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: You had better not touch that.


William Richard Motherwell: However, my hon. friend goes on, right through these ex-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
tracts, to speak about moving gradually in the matter of tariff reduction. Well, is not the present budget a case of moving gradually? "Gradually eliminating the protective features"-is not this gradual? My hon. friends on the Progressive side ought to have no difficulty in supporting us on the basis of moving gradually and permitting "the industries to adjust themselves." That is another term of my hon. friend. "Permitting the industries to adjust themselves" -to temper the wind, as it were, to the shorn lamb. Well, the lamb is having lots of time to adjust itself; I am sure that my hon. friend, in view of his repeated pronouncements against our doing this over night should not find any difficulty in supporting us. I repeat that my hon. friend will not be able to put his hand on a single illustration in the history of this country where a new government has taken up the question of tariff reform and dealt with it any more vigourously, or thoroughly or to a greater extent, than we have done in this case. If that be so, where is the justification for heaping ridicule upon us and indulging in all kinds of criticism?


Robert Alexander Hoey: The hon. gentleman speaks of a gradual process. Is it the intention of the Government to announce this gradual reduction?


William Richard Motherwell: Well I have no authority to speak for the Government. The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon and dealt with the unfairness of taking the ground that we should be judged as not having carried out our pledges after having been only five months in office. I repeat that statement. We shall let next year take care of itself. A certain hon. gentleman who at one time was in this Parliament used to say: "Just see us next year." I am not justified in saying that with respect to the matter which is under consideration.


Mr. LEWIS:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?
Mr. MOTHERWELL No, I have no authority. Next year will take care of itself. I am going to read another extract, and it must be remembered that I made this statement in the city of Regina before a city audience, one of the best gatherings that I was ever at in my life. I made it where I would be least likely to get support and approbation, and yet they both came. This is what I stated:
The more general adoption of the excise, a strictly revenue tax, as above suggested, will
get at the past beneficiaries of protection, and relieve the poor man correspondingly, and has the further very obvious advantage that if any attempt is made to pass such a tax on to the consumer, t'he corresponding foreign cheaper article would immediately displace it on the market..
I can recall the time not very long ago in the city of Swift Current, when the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) made a speech in which he spoke just as favourably of this way of dealing with protection as I am doing to-night. I have not heard him say anything of it recently; but I want to tell him and to take this ground that I do not believe there is any way of eliminating the protective element from the tariff except by the invocation of the excise tax, although I am willing to be enlightened on that point. We could, of course, abolish the protection altogether; we would have no revenue, and at a time like this, we need revenue. It seems to me, however, that every man should, at every opportunity, consider the matter of dealing with this question of finding a remedy for the evils of protection as soon as the time is opportune. I will go further. There are times when we should not take any drastic attitude, and I have pointed out a number of excuses that I might offer. We might take the ground that inasmuch as the Americans have increased their tariff, we should not do anything. I am not taking that ground; but 1 would take the ground that this is not a propitious time for making a drastic inroad into our protective system. Is it not right to take that ground? Everybody knows that the businesses of Canada, whether farming or our various industries, are not in a healthy condition at the present time. I might say that they are more or less sick; their morale is low. Is it right to wean an infant or a domestic animal when it is sick? If it is not, then this is not the time to make rapid inroads into the protection that our industries have been enjoying all these years. But what is this tantamount to saying? If I were Minister of Finance, the chances are that I would say this: "You manufacturers of the implements of production can surely get on your feet in a few years; things are going to look brighter in a little while, and you had better get your house in order and be prepared to see whether you cannot stand on your own feet." As for those of us who are family men, what a delight it is to our hearts when our child first walks or even toddles along! After forty-four years of waiting, would it not be a

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
delight to all our hearts to see this thing toddling along on its own feet?
I am going to give some of the reasons why I think those industries can at least toddle if we give them a chance. When the war came on, the flower of Canada rushed to the colours, a civilian army; they went to the battlefront and measured themselves with the standing armies of Europe. Did they ask for protection in the front line or the rear line? Did they ask to be covered by the British or the French guns? Did they crawl down into the trenches and say: "We want to be protected; we cannot stand up, if necessary, above the parapet and take the chance." No. They stood out there with the standing armies of the world, and they came back home with the laurels of victory on their brows? Is that not the case? Do you mean to say that those men who returned, leaving their comrades on the field of battle, and those who remained at home, cannot compete in peaceful avocations? I think more of Canada than to believe that. Do you mean to tell me that, because there is an invisible line along the 49th parallel, men who have acquitted themselves well in military avocations cannot acquit themselves equally well in peaceful avocations? I should like to see the experiment tried out before I would believe that. It would not, of course, be wise to try it out all along the line; but we might do what we did with cream separators and binder twine. Try it out if you like on Toronto- we cannot lose much there anyhow.
I promised not to speak very long on the tariff. As a new man in this House and one in charge of probably one of the most important departments of government, a department which is connected with an industry on which the country is going to rely possibly more than on any other to help to pay this war debt, I want to say now that there is no royal road to paying this debt. We have to pay it in the same manly way that we contracted it; we must go at the task with our coats off. As the one for the time being in charge of this department, I wish to make a few remarks regarding what I think should be the objective of the Department of Agriculture in the immediate future. How are we going to assist in this great task of getting this country on to its feet? This must be done through the medium of our natural resources, with labour and capital applied to them. How are we going to go about the task? These are some of the things that I would like to see started just

as soon as we have the finances to take care of them. 1 should like to build fairly rapidly upon the foundation so well laid by my predecessors, the hon. member for Victoria city (Mr. Tolmie) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), with respect to the matter of accredited herds.
For the last year or two we have been spending annually half a million dollars in connection with the extermination of tuberculosis amongst our cattle. We are doing this for two purposes. I think, in the hearts of many of us, it is primarily for taking care of the youth of Canada. It is known that tuberculosis is extending rapidly throughout practically all civilization, and the "White Plague" is to-day one of the great problems with which the nations of the world have to deal. One of the most prolific sources of contagion, especially amongst infants, is from cows' milk. There has been laid down by the government and by the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred, the accredited herd system, and it is the only way of dealing with this matter. Only about seven years back not much stock was taken in this system; but during the last seven years an accredited herd was started in this quarter, another one in that quarter, and another one elsewhere, and all intervening was more or less tubercular. The result was that if you did not have an active follow-up policy, the infection spread back until it covered the whole territory again. The time has now come when we should have a broad policy as regards the elimination of tuberculosis in Canada. This would mean more money. We have had representations made to us to block out and to clean up certain whole territories, so that the infected area in between the present accredited herds would be removed and would not be a source of contagion to the adjoining accredited herds.
There is a suggestion that if you want to do that safely there is a splendid opportunity of doing it afforded in the two islands that lie at the extreme east and west of Canada. We have Prince Edward Island, with its water boundaries, where we could establish a herd and entirely eliminate the disease, with the minimum possibility of contagion from adjacent territory. Then there is Vancouver island in the West. I was talking recently with Premier Oliver and he informed me that the method they had adopted, of picking out herds, whether adjacent to cities, or from other places, was not showing any progressive results. He said that the work was not meeting with the success they had hoped for, simply be-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
cause they lacked the necessary money, equipment and men for carrying out a proper continuous policy. I am convinced that the time has come when we should select blocks of land, establish herds, clean them up entirely, and then pass on as rapidly as possible to other areas. After it had been demonstrated by the Government that this was practical, we might have then some system whereby the municipalities or the provinces in which the territories were located could co-operate with the Federal Government in eliminating tuberculosis from the herds. I think the people are ready for a forward movement in the direction I have indicated.
There is another matter I may refer to, and I am taking no credit to myself in respect thereto, because while I did to a smaller extent assist it along, I was in no way primarily responsible for what was done. I refer to the matter of cold storage. Canada to-day, and especially Eastern Canada,-I trust hon. members will forgive me for saying this-is a long way behind the times in regard to cold storage facilities. I believe that some of the propaganda that was spread broadcast during the war is in a degree responsible for this. I think the Board of Commerce made some report in reference to packers and cold storage plants ; and a gentleman whose name I will not mention, but who has been in the lime-iight, made some remarks about the evils of cold storage. I remember that we were just establishing a chain of cold storage plants in Saskatchewan at that time, and this propaganda nearly knocked the business out, because we could hardly sell the stock. The people were alarmed, and one would have thought that all the evils that were talked of were attributable to the cold storage plants. Now, the fact is that a properly conducted and adequately supervised cold storage plant is one of the greatest of modern institutions, and it is one of the best media by which you can develop the live stock industry, and other industries as well. The late Hon. Sydney Fisher, many years ago inaugurated a system of subsidizing cold storage plants. During the war the regulations were changed so as to apply only to municipalities, and no doubt there were good reasons for the change. Since that time very little has been done under the system. As a matter of fact, I do not believe the system is a proper one, although there is not much money spent under it because there are not many applications for assistance. I think the regulations under that act should be
changed as speedily as possible. The assistance given formerly of 30 per cent is, I believe, too much; it is more than is required to encourage the establishment of cold storage plants, because the people know very well the benefits that are to be derived from these institutions. All that is necessary is a reasonable aid to encourage the erection of these plants in the various parts of the country, and at as early a date as possible we ought to reintroduce the system of assisting co-operative institutions to establish cold storage plants. There should be many of these plants in the eastern provinces. I was very much surprised to discover how few facilities there were in that part of Canada in this respect. In my opinion half the subsidy of 30 per cent that was given in the early days would meet the present requirements, and a comparatively small amount of money would go a long way towards promoting the establishment of these greatly needed institutions throughout Canada, not only for the handling of dairy products, but also for the storage of fruit. There is no industry *in Canada that requires more legitimate assistance right now than the fruit industry. We are all aware that decomposition sets in very easily with fruit that is not pre-cooled. Apples, for example, are picked at midday and are put away in warm buildings, and before the chill of night gets into the barrel bacterial action sets in and decomposition rapidly ensues, so that before the fruit reaches its destination across the water it is in bad shape. Pre-cooling therefore is absolutely essential, and this can be provided by a system of cold storage warehouses for that purpose alone. I hope to be able to get on the right side of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) before many years, if not months,-at least, when the financial situation of the country warrants it-in order that I may be able to do for Canada what I was privileged to do for Saskatchewan, where there is a chain of eight cold storage plants, the finest in the Dominion. The sooner we get that done the sooner we shall be able to develop not only the dairy and live stock industry generally, but the fruit industry of the country as well.
Just a word now about the experimental farm system. I see that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is in his seat, and I am sure that he will sympathize with some of the remarks, at ail events, that I am going to make in this respect. I have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when, instead

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
of establishing very many more experimental farms, we should strive to improve those that we already have. Hon, gentlemen will recall that in the course of the discussion on the estimates I intimated that possibly one or two more farms might be established which my predecessors had had in mind. But we have 22 now, and instead of going on and extending the system further I would strongly advise that we go about putting those 22 into proper shape. There is no question that that is the right policy to adopt in this matter. I am not familiar with all the farms yet, but from what I see of those that I do know I can say that as a result of the conditions brought about by the war, and the necessary tendency towards retrenchment in consequence thereof, a number of these farms have been starved to the point where they are not more than 50 per cent efficient. We are not blaming any one for that condition, but it is the condition that exists nevertheless. It will be necessary to spend more money on these institutions in order to obtain any benefit from the money that has already been invested in them. Hon. members will no doubt have noted by the press that Dr. Charles Saunders, who has figured so conspicuously in research work in the cereal world, has left Canada for a trip, broken in health. Now, the facilities for carrying on the work which he has been doing are of the most primitive kind, and it speaks well for him that he has been able to achieve the results which he has achieved in spite of that handicap. But you cannot always find that class of men who will so devote their energies and their talents to their work notwithstanding the lack of even fair facilities. We had a flax plant at the Experimental Farm, but it was burnt about a year ago; and the botanical building, an important building in which is carried on the experimental and research work in connection with the diseases of plants, is now 30 years old. All the work related to the investigation of plant disease and the hybridization of plants, which has been conducted by Professor Gussow and Dr. Saunders, has to be done in a wee little building in which two or three members of this House, if they tried to turn around, would upset things. That building was erected thirty years ago, and while no doubt it did good work in the pioneer days, it has long since ceased to serve the purpose for which it is now required. The work that is being done in connection with the discovery of 
plant diseases and their remedies cannot be over-estimated. For instance, we have to discover the remedy for that scourge which is known as rust. Our crops in the West some years are cut in two by the ravages of this plague; and just as we discovered a remedy for smut in grain, and found a new kind of cereal called Marquis wheat that will ripen earlier, being worth millions to the country, so we have possibilities of finding remedies to cure the other diseases that exist in our plant life.
We have the possibility of discovering the best varieties of grasses and grains, for the foundation work is already done, and all we need to do to-day is to continue and extend that work. If we could only develop Varieties of grain resistant to rust it would be worth all the money that has been spent during the last thirty years in the maintenance of these experimental farms. But we cannot accomplish this with inefficient equipment and low-salaried men. You cannot get men to work under these conditions, for every man in the research world that is worth his salt does not want to work indefinitely without showing results. I have ' almost come to the conclusion-this may sound like economic heresy-that there are circumstances under which it is desirable, if we are to pay off our debt, to equip ourselves properly for the task by going into further debt. Take any business that is suddenly confronted with disaster; for instance, supposing a man is burned out, does he sit down helpless and despondent, or does he take off his coat and with courage and vision and determination apply himself to restore his broken fortune? Of course, he goes ahead and gets results. The Chicago fire, the Halifax disaster, the burning of our oM Parliament buildings1-all these losses were quickly made good by courage, energy and resourcefulness. Well, the world was on fire for four years. We know Canada was solvent when the war broke out, and we know we have $2,000,000,000 of debt now. What are we to do, sink under the burden? Or are we going to vow that we will not increase that debt by another dollar? I think the Minister of Finance and the Government are taking the right course now in making just as few capital outlays as possible. That is right, because we want to do some national stocktaking to see where we stand. But I am of the opinion, with all deference to those who think differently, that once we get established again we must make wise investments that will develop our natural

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
resources. That is the way to pay our national debt. Wise investment is often true economy, and the refusal to invest will leave this burden of debt on our shoulders indefinitely. I know we are absolutely sound as a nation, and I would be sorry if we spent even modestly before we have completed this national stocktaking. But once that is done we ought to go full steam ahead. My colleague, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), will have to help out in this connection by means of a wise immigration policy that will encourage desirable immigrants to come here and help in the upbuilding of this country. I think the Immigration Act needs some amendment to remove certain of its restrictive features; and the regulations will also need further amendment.
If the Department of Agriculture is to function, it must have equipment, it must have men. Look where we are at the very outset when I speak of men. I want a good cerealist, a good entomologist, eleven butter graders and twenty hog graders, but I cannot go to suitable men and say: " Here, I want you to come into the department. I will give you so many dollars." And then if they refuse I cannot add, " I will give you so many dollars more." We have not got that system, unfortunately. It is said that being in public life in the smaller provincial sphere fits you for the larger federal arena. In the matter of equipping my staff, manning my ship with the best men, the freedom I have exercised in the past in the provincial field has spoiled me for the federal under present conditions. If these conditions are to continue with respect to facilities for selecting my staff, then, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that inside of two or three years the efficiency of my department will be diminished 50 per cent. The public practically forced the then government to establish the Civil Service Commission away back in 1908. In 1918, I think it was, the late government in response to a pledge demanded by the people to destroy what was known as patronage, resorted to a rather ingenious way to destroy it. One of the Liberals on the old commission they let out, and appointed two good Conservatives. That is one way to destroy patronage. It simply transferred patronage from the crowd to the few, by whom it is looked after properly. I think that a Civil Service Commission is only possible, unless it is to partially destroy the public service, when that commission is friendly to the government. I am of opinion that the
members of the Civil Service Commission should go out of office with the government that appointed them. I believe we should have a civil service commission, but not one that has no interest in my department- not one that is more interested from a political standpoint in something else than trying to man my department with good men. It is not possible for men who have been in politics, as we all have been, to be put on the Civil Service Commission, to be transmogrified overnight, and then to search the earth for the best men dn each department. I know what I am talking about. I have been on bended knees before that commission and have stayed bended and got up without getting what I wanted. Are the judgments of these hon. gentlemen with whom I am privileged to be associated to be subordinated to that of an extraneous body responsible to nobody? Is that the way we are to conduct the affairs of this country? I do not care how good the members of the commission are, they are tied up by the Civil Service Act. They are handcuffed; they are hobbled; they have to abide by the terms of the act under which they were appointed. I am not making any particular statements against them; I am simply taking the ground that the system is bad. If in the selection of men I have to subordinate my judgment to theirs, then my staff will be just what they make it, not what I make it. I accept the responsibility, but they have the power to do or not to do. How can we pay a war debt in that way? The people of Canada have asked us to assume the administration of the affairs of Canada, but we are denied the right to man our own ships. I never heard of such a proposition. I had heard of a civil service commission; we had one and it worked all right-there was only one man you had to deal wiith and he was all right; he did good work. Nobody suggests that we can go back to no civil service commission, but I do take the ground that the key men in the various departmentsr- well, I will speak only for my own, the key men in the Department of Argicul-ture-should be chosen by the deputy minister and his minister. Let me be fair; in the working out of this thing the head of the department sometimes gets what he wants; in fact, I think in most cases we do get what we want. But that is not the only difficulty; it is the time it takes. Why, I ran across Mr. William Graham, Indian Commissioner, who wanted a farm

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
foreman to replace a man on one of the Indian reserves who had died or resigned, I forget which; he was not there, anyway. Well, look at the rigmarole he had to go through; it takes nearly four months, with good luck, to run that gauntlet. But he wanted that farm foreman right away. Spring would not wait; the land was ready for seeding, and there was no farm foreman. Well, I did not go down to the Hunter Block this time -I had such poor luck the first time. So one of the staff was good enough to come to my office. I pointed out to him that spring would be gone and the harvest reaped before a farm foreman would be obtained under the present system, and he was good enough to tell me that he would make arrangements for a temporary appointment. Now, how would any farmer like the idea of starting out in the spring, With all the difficulties of seeding in a year like this, and then be told that some other body, especially if that some other body was a rival of his, would select his men for him, taking all summer to do it? Will the spring wait while that kind of humbug and nonsense is going on? That is far worse, Mr. Speaker, than getting the wrong man; it is the interminable time it takes to get any man. I admit that the commission are doing their best now; they are trying to get over the difficulty; in fact, I think they got a little bit wised up lately, and here is what they are doing. Instead of making a selection four or five months after the application for the filling of the position has been made, they are making temporary appointments. Well, just see the difficulty you are up against in that respect. Take the case of a butter grader, who has to be a man of the highest type, of first-class ability and absolutely honourable. A butter grader always has a good job; he is not knocking at your door every day in the week and twice on Sunday looking for employment; you have to offer him better money, and when you tell him that you want his services for only a month, why, he simply Will not come. That is why I say that if this thing keeps on for three or four years you are going to degrade the service. I will come nearer home than that: I have been trying to get these butter graders for a number of months-ever since January, in fact; that is six months; and I have not got them yet. It is not all the fault of the commission, but if my deputy and myself had been in a position to go ahead and get the men, they would all have 
been on the job at the drop of the hat. The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) had a motion on the Order Paper-it died on the roost-asking for information with regard to these butter graders, and had that resolution come up I was going to make a statement in the matter. But it has come to the point where we have to have temporary appointments; the same applies to the hog graders. Then, in the case of temporary appointments you have to go through the whole rigmarole again to get the men appointed permanently- "It's a long, long way to Tipperary"; it is a long, long way to get anything from the Civil Service Commission, and when you get it, it may not be the right thing. Am I exaggerating this?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: The Lord forgive me if I am, because I have not intended to. The truth is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, without making it worse. I had hoped that the House would wake up and see the folly of perpetuating this system. Of course, every one who knows nothing about it will tell you to-morrow morning that I am asking for a return to the vicious patronage system; that I want to get back to the loaves and fishes; that I am preaching the doctrine that to the victor belongs the spoils. No; I am preaching this: You have given me the responsibility; for pity's sake, give me the power to serve my country. I would be almost afraid to say these things if it were not for the fact that if I have a reputation that is looked upon as commendable at all in any particular line in connection with my public life it is that I have always sacrificed everything to secure the selection of good men. It is more important to have a good staff than it is to have a good minister, you can administer a department better with a good staff and a second-rate minister than you can with a third-rate staff and a first-class minister.
Well, what are we going to do? The Conservatives, of course, will oppose any change. They know they have got us up against it; they know the best way to trim us is to keep us just where we are- with responsibility, but without authority. And I do not blame them; they are up against it themselves. They will never see daylight in the next fifty years, so the best thing they can do is keep us here. The hope, Mr. Speaker, lies in the direction of my hon. friends the Progressives. What are they going to do

The Budget-Mr. Charters
about it? Are they going to play the game, the way they were doing on the amendment to the budget? I do not blame them if they play the game, but I will blame them if they pretend not to play it, but play it just the same. The hope of betterment is with the Progressives until we get a majority, and I appeal to the Progressives, are you going to allow agriculture to struggle on under this handicap, handcuffed, shackled, hamstrung, and expect it to be one hundred per cent efficient?
If I were dealing with the matter myself I would call in the recess a conference of business men and the press, because you cannot get anything under way until you convert the press, and I would take counsel with them how best to deal with this question of appointments to the Civil Service. I would show them how the work is now handicapped, and I am satisfied that it would not take long to convince them that the remedy for patronage that has been in vogue now for some time, perhaps with the best of intentions, is a hundred times worse than the disease it was designed to cure, and I say that with a desire for bettering the conditions. This Parliament of Canada, we here in these beautiful buildings, are actually handicapped in our service twenty-five or forty or fifty per cent as a result of this load on our necks that we cannot get rid of until a majority of this House introduces something better. I hope the day is near at hand when we shall buckle on our armour and bring about the proper conditions, so that we can give the very best service at our disposal.


Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel) :: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate will not occupy very much space in Hansard. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Motherwell) as he is altogether too elusive for me. When I learned that his election literature was headed "Vote for Motherwell and the Wheat Board," and saw that when he reached Ottawa he opposed the Wheat Board, I knew that he was somewhat versatile, but I never thought he was equal to the performance he has given in this House to-night.
Two weeks ago we were told by no less an authority than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is a free trader in everything except butter. Tonight he is a protectionist in supporting the budget presented by my hon. friend. He tells this House that no government has done more to implement its pledges than this Government has done in the first session of this new Parliament. My hon. friend and those associated with him knew very well what should be done four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, one year ago. They believed then that implements should be on the free list, that all foodstuffs should be free of duty, that all articles of clothing should carry a greatly reduced duty, yet when they come to Parliament and are asked to put into force the pledges they made they say, "We have not had time to get ready." I would remind the hon. member and the House when he says that no government has done better in implementing pledges, that in 1878 the Conservative party laid before the people their policy, and in the very first session of Parliament, in 1879, they brought that policy down into the House and had it confirmed by Parliament, and that is the policy in force to-day with the variations that have taken place under the different governments that have ruled the country.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture tells us in one breath that the infant industries in this country are forty-four years old, with patriarchal whiskers and all the rest of it, and therefore they should be able to provide for themselves, and in his next breath tells us that they are infants still, and have not yet acquired sufficient strength to justify their being weaned. Could anything be more absurd or ridiculous? I suppose he wants to circulate in one part of the country the idea that he is a free trader denouncing the bloated manufacturers, and in another part that he is not so difficult to deal with after all.
Then he said that if a man made a will last year there would be no trouble about changing it this year. I thought that was a peculiar illustration to give, and there came to my mind the lines:
A mericiful Providence fashioned us holler.
In order that we might our principles swaller.
I think if any hon. member has done that, it is the Minister of Agriculture.
I am in favour of the amendment, because I believe the failure of the Government to put into force the policy on which they secured power deserves the condemnation of the House and the country. The budget wo are debating, and the
10 p.m. record of the administration during the few months it has been in office, furnish sufficient evidence, I believe, for the most interesting breach of promise action in the history of this country. If the thousand-times repeated solemn promises of members of the present

The Budget-Mr. Charters
Government and of their supporters, and of some of their allies in this House, if the solemn pledges of the Prime Minister and the leader of a political party are to be disregarded and the men and women of Canada are to be indifferent to such deception, to such political dishonesty, then I say let us remove from the archway at the entrance to this building the Scripture text and substitute for it the one word "Ichabod", for assuredly the glory will have departed. In saying that I am only saying in other words what has been said by a prominent member of this Administration, one who is in the habit of saying frankly what he believes, and saying it without any danger ot' being misunderstood. Addressing a meeting of women at Milton on November 25, 1920, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) made use of this language:
Repeated breaches of public professions not only dishonor those who are guilty of them, but, what is far worse, they destroy those standards of public morality which the people have been accustomed to associate with men in public life. And what are the results? The first result is that when those whose duty 'it is to set an example in political integrity fail to do so, there is a progressive decline in public morality among the people themselves. The second result is that with the decline of public morality there is a corresponding decline in private morality that operates to the injury of the State no less than it does to the injury of the individual.
That was the statement made by the present Postmaster General. Does the present Government come under the implied condemnation in the statement of the hon. member? Let us look for a minute or two. We were told that the late government should be condemned because it was an autocratic government, governing by order in council, and forestalling action by Parliament. We expected that when the new Government came into power all that would be changed, but what are the facts? They were very well presented last night by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who said:
We criticised the Conservative party that .ived by order in council, and made our battle cry the question of orders in council, and "down with the government that insists upon governing by order in council," but when we came into power, we lapsed into the ways of the Philistines.
Not only did they lapse into the ways of the Philistines, but they went ninety per cent or, at least, a very great deal further, because we have had the statement made in this House that in the three months of this year there were ninety more Orders

in Council passed by this Government than were passed in the corresponding period last year. All of which goes to show that that is just another pledge broken by this Government.
We were condemned last year for abolishing the business tax and the luxury tax. Why are they not restored this year? The Minister of Finance says that we need revenue more and more. Why does he not secure some of it in the way he advocated last year? We were condemned for not recovering some portion of the wealth of what were called the profiteers in food and so on, and we were told by the Prime Minister that:
Mr. Murdock has exposed the manner in which, as respects the necessaries of life, the food, the clothing, the articles required for the shelter of the people, associated businesses with their trade agreements, combines and monopolies, have been permitted, with the assistance of a protective tariff, and to the detriment of consumers, to reap their excessive profits through unrestrained freedom of action.
What has happened? The hon. gentleman who exposed all this trouble is now the Minister of Labour in this country. What has he done? I am afraid-to use one of the expressions he is familiar with -that he is "loafing on the job"; because so far there is no evidence of any action whatever. Let me give you one item, an item which was brought to the attention of the people last year

that is the quantity of food in cold storage. In 1921 there were three million dozens of eggs in cold .storage, and complaint was made that these should be liberated in order that they might be made cheaper to the public. On May 1 of this year, just a year afterwards, there were upwards of four million dozens in cold storage; and my hon. friend is not doing anything to bring that condition before the public at the present time. That is an illustration of what is being done, or rather not being done.
Then too, we were told that taxation was oppressive, that it was too grievous to be borne. The Government has answered that by increasing the taxation, thirty or forty or probably fifty million dollars. Hon. members opposite condemned the action of the government in imposing the sales tax day after day, and they redeemed their pledges by increasing it 50 per cent. The public debt was to be provided for in a way that nobody had been informed of and the action of the late government was condemned. Furthermore we have just had, in the address of the Minister of Agriculture, some reference to patronage. His

The Budget-Mr. Charters
reference could only mean one thing, and that was that at the earliest possible moment the Civil Service Commission would be abolished and patronage would he returned to the boys who are supporting the Government. That statement was applauded more vigorously than any other statement the minister made in his speech. But the Government has not simply been confining its attention to	the party
workers. Let me remind you that no fewer than five defeated candidates have been appointed to judgships in this country, and several good appointments have gone to others who have been defeated and to others who are prominent party workers. In the United States, in order to become a judge a candidate must be elected, but in Canada to become a judge a candidate must have been defeated; that is the difference between our system and theirs.
The Minister of Agriculture talks of the absolute folly of perpetuating "this system"-that is the Civil Service system. Well, all over the Dominion-at least I will say all over the province of Ontario- in the literature of the Liberal party it was announced that the abolition of patronage was part of their platform, and so with my hon. friends of the other section of the Opposition at that time; they had on their cards, on their literature, the same slogan "Abolition of Patronage". Well we know what is the position of the Government-that is if the hon. gentleman does not change his mind over night as be has done so frequently in relation to that question. Now these are a few of the points as to which no man living can say that any action has been taken along the lines suggested. Has anything been done to improve the standard of public morality to which the Postmaster General referred in the speech alluded to? Furthermore, if anybody can say that anything has been done to lessen the burden of the people, to increase the employment of the workmen *of the country, or to lessen the cost of living, then all I can say is "I have not seen such great faith, no not in Israel".
It would be very unwise, I think, for me to undertake to discuss anything in relation to the tariff at this time after it had been so exhaustively dealt with this afternoon, but I want to refer to one or two things. At every session -of the Parliament that expired last September the question of protection and free trade, or higher protection and lower protection was presented, and in every case the position taken by the present Government and its followers was
that we should have as near an approach to free trade as possible. Some of them were in favour of absolute free trade until we met together in the House this time. For instance in 1919 the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was the financial critic of the then Liberal opposition. He was a real free trader and he spoke very lengthily and very learnedly in favour of the adoption of that policy. He told us about getting up in the morning to perform his ablutions and commencing to dress, and his difficulty in doing so because of the tax on his boots and the tax on his clothing- the tax on everything that he wore. The member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert), who is not here to-night, took up the song and made it a little stronger. He said that even the coffin in which he would be buried was taxed. Well, the hon. member for Brome is still wearing the clothes that are taxed and he will wear them a long time because this Government continues to levy a tax on them; and my hon. friend from North Ontario, who is looking for free trade in coffins, will have to wait a long time before he will get it from a government of this kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not while he is
living.


Samuel Charters: Not while he is living, that is true. Then in 1920 the member for Brome came forward again. I will give him credit, he has been the one consistent man who has discussed the question in this House, and I have no doubt he will carry that consistency into his vote when it is recorded on this motion. In 1920 my hon. friend said:
Protection as a policy for this country is not only dead, but, after the next election, it will, as Disraeli said, be damned.
Well, protection is not dead. I suppose my hon. friend can say of it as Mark Twain once said of his reported death, "That the report was very greatly exaggerated;" and up to this time there has not been sufficient obstruction placed in the way of a protective tariff to constitute even a respectable "tinker's dam".
A statement that has not been put upon the records of this House, and which I think should be placed there, is one made by the Minister of Finance himself who, during the Laurier regime, was the real authority, as he is the real authority to-day. I made this statement several times, as did other candidates, during the election: I said over and over again that I believed that my hon.



The Budget-Mr. Charters
friend was absolutely sincere. I also stated my belief that the leader of the Progressive party was absolutely sincere, and that if the opportunity came they would put into effect the declarations they had made before the electorate. Now on May 10 last year the present Minister of Finance in the course of his speech on the budget, said this:
You may depend upon it that a tariff built up on the protective principle, a tariff designed to protect industries merely because they are industries and without regard to the economic conditions of the country, cannot and should not succeed. If there are people in Canada who are contemplating the establishment of new lines of business in which they feel that tariff protection is necessary I do them a friendly service when I say; "Don't do it," because anybody who counts upon the continuance of a protective policy is bound to find that he is pursuing a delusion. If any outside capitalist purposes coming to Canada to start some industry which he believes can only be kept alive by protection again I advise him not to come.
Further on in the same speech he said:
They think that Canadian industries need to be protected by glass houses. Protection like conscience makes cowards of us all. We lose faith in our country; let us get away from that.
That was the statement of the Minister of Finance last year. Then we had this statement in the manifesto of the leader of the Progressive party:
Our goal is the ultimate elimination of protection in our fiscal system.
The (budget now before you tells whether or not that policy has been adhered to. I have said that I have stated several times that I believed in the sincerity of these hon. gentlemen. People from the district from which I come believed it also; they believed that the policy they advocated would be put into effect. They did not approve of it, they voted against it; and in the rural municipalities in the country which I represent there was a majority against the policy, a majority against the Progressive candidate, a majority against the Liberal candidate, showing the feeling of the farmers of that district in relation to that policy.
Now the tariff changes are not very many, but whatever their number they are not calculated to benefit the public. As to implements we have the assurance that if there is a great deal of importation it lessens work in the Dominion; and experience of the past shows that such changes have not reduced prices. Then as to the fruit industry, it is one in which my district is very much concerned. My hon. friend from Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) has explained

very fully the effect which the changes are likely to produce. According to the beliei of the men who have studied the question most closely the changes will operate injuriously to the people of Canada.
I was surprised to find the readiness with which the budget was at first received, not only by my Liberal friends, but by those to my left on this side of the House. There was a little element of dissatisfaction; but the majority of those who took part expressed a good deal of gratitude. The Minister of Finance was congratulated and commended in certain quarters. We were told that the reduction of 2i per cent was a step in the right direction; that a half loaf was better than no bread, and this 2i per cent reduction was repeated so often and emphasized sd strongly that almost expected that some of our clerical or ex-clerical brethern might be induced to quote the words of the familiar hymn:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene ; one step enough for me.
But latterly they have changed their attitude, and hon. gentlemen have got away from that somewhat. One hon. gentleman told us in a very dramatic way how he and every member of the party with which he was associated were going to vote. He said that he was going to vote as his conscience dictated. That was all very well a few days ago; but latterly I am convinced, in view of the attempt to introduce a second amendment, that it will be caucus, not conscience, that will dictate the vote of hon. gentlemen in this matter.
As regards fruit in Ontario, there are no less than 280,000 acres in orchards, 13,000 acres in small fruits, 85,000 acres in vineyards, and 65,000 acres in vegetables. The value of the apples produced last year was more than $12,500,000, and of the other fruits almost an equal amount. In spite of the tariff which we have at the present time, we imported upwards of $31,000,000 worth of fruits and vegetables. My contention is that, instead of reducing the tariff in order that greater quantities may enter Canada in competition with the fruit grown on our own farms in our own districts, the Government should increase the duties on fruits and vegetables and products of that nature. If any country imposes a duty upon goods that we are sending to that country, we should meet it in the same way and thus protect our interests and our industries.
Before taking my seat I want to say just a word or two in reference to-I was

going to say the wail; somebody used the expression "wail" this afternoon-that has been going on, not only in this House, but out of it, during this debate and in recent years, about the awful conditions under which we are living. I thought, if this went on much longer, the Hansard of 1922 would resemble the modern edition of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. I think it was the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Tur-geon) who talked about reciprocity, about which we hear so much and which everybody knows we cannot secure even if we want to secure it. It must not be forgotten that the only time when the question of reciprocity was submitted to the people of C anada, they voted it down, and the majority in favour of the government was secured as much from the rural constituencies as it was from the cities. The hon. member for Gloucester said-and this was after reciprocity was defeated:
At once we saw the industry and commerce of Canada decline in every direction from its prosperity to a state of dilapidation.
That is a very easy statement to make. It has been made so often that I have no doubt some people believe it. Of course, it is not true. The population of Canada increased more in the last ten years than in any other ten-year period. As regards rural depopulation, there has been a constant repetition of an unfair and untrue statement made by certain journals that were supporting the Opposition during the last few years. What are the facts in Ontario? The rural population in 1919 was greater than that of 1918; in 1920, it was greater than that of 1919, and again in 1921, it was greater than that of 1920. In the latter year the increase in rural population is 31,135, not a very bad increase, while the increase in population in the towns and villages in the same year was only 20,467.
We have heard statements about nobody going to schools, and this is a statement from the Minister of Education of the province of Ontario. The report of the Minister of Education just issued contains the information that the increase in the rural school population of 1921 over 1920 is 5,000. Surely that is sufficient. A gentleman whose name is very well known throughout Canada, Mr. T. Albert Moore, is writing a series of articles to the Globe ' and I think they are appearing in other newspapers-on this very question. He has been deputed by his people to investigate the matter. Let me read one or two
163J
The Budget-Mr. Charters
paragraphs from a letter which appeared under his signature two or three days ago:
In a school section in Waterloo county, in 1884, there were 160 children in the families represented in the public school, and the average attendance was about 60 scholars. In 1922, with six more farm houses occupied, there were only 29 children with an average attendance of 23 at the school.
Mark that, with six more farm houses occupied than in the former year, there was this great reduction in the number of children. Is the tariff responsible for that? This is another paragraph. Listen to this:
In 1884 in two homes there were 13 children; in one, 12 ; in three, 11; in one, 10 ; in two, 9 ; in one, 8 ; in two, 7 ; and in one, 5. To-day in these same houses, two have four children ; one has three; three have one, and the rest are occupied by childless couples or bachelors.
I do not think it is unwise to put that on the records, for the reason, first of all, that the tariff cannot be blamed for that.
In the next place I would like to say this____
and I hope attention will be given to what I am going to say-that if the present generation in the rural districts and every other district would pay greater heed to the Book that tells them "to increase and multiply and replenish the earth," and less to the doctrine that is being preached by destructionists throughout Canada, there would be greater happiness and no talk about rural depopulation.
I should like to place upon Hansard the following statements in regard to the value of occupied farm lands in Canada in the years 1910 and 1920:
Value of occupied farm lands in Canada per acre
Canada	
Ontario	
Quebec	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia. .	. .
Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick . .	. .
Nova Scotia	
1910	1920
$33	$48
48	70
43	70
29	39
22	32
24	32
74	175
31	49
19	35
25	43
Not a very bad showing for a farming country that has been going to the dogs for the last forty years. The output of wheat in 1910 was 132,000,000 bushels; in 1920, 263,000,000 bushels. The total farm production in 1910 was $663,349,190, and in 1920, $1,946,648,000. This year was very significant, notwithstanding the statements that have 'been made in this House and elsewhere that nobody could live on the farms any longer and everybody was in a state of despair, if nothing worse. The statement was that the acreage in crop

The Budget-Mr. Charters
this year is 25 per cent greater than it was last year. I do not know any explanation other than that the people are trying to do their best honestly and fairly.
Let me give one other illustration. In Canada, there are 415,000 automobiles, and that is quite a few. If you average them at $1,000 apiece, which is not too high, that means an investment of $415,000,000. Somebody says, of course, that they are not luxuries. I am not going to argue what they are. There is the investment, and if a man puts $1,000 into one specimen of equipment, he may not be able to put it in another; but if a man buys an automobile In order to help him do his duty on the farm and elsewhere, and he is unable to buy a binder, he must make the choice; but the country must not be condemned because he makes that choice. The following table will show the number of motor cars registered in each province and the number of persons to every one car in the province.
	Total Motor	
	Vehicles	Persons
Provinces	registered	per vehicleAliberta. . . 	. 38,462	15British Columbia.. .	. 28,850	21Manitoba	. 37,571	16New Brunswick . . .	. 11,216	34Nova Scotia	. 12,635	45.5Ontario	. 177,561	16Prince Edward Island	. 1,419	62Quebec	. 47,159	41Saskatchewan	. 60.314	12Canada	. 415,187	21That, I take it,	is an evidence not of	
decay but of growth, when people can invest to that extent in equipment, if you like to regard the motor cars in that light, or in pleasure vehicles, if you prefer so to consider them. Canada is the second largest purchaser of automobiles in the world in proportion to population, as will have been noted in the table I have quoted. We have one to every twenty-one of the population; in the United States there is one to every fourteen, in England one to every 268; in France one to every 402; in Germany one to every 684, and in Italy one to every thousand. Saskatchewan, as I have pointed out, has one to every twelve. I do not think that this is any indication that the country is going to the dogs.
I may quote an extract or two, which I think will be accepted very readily by hon. members to my right. A short time ago the Ontario government issued what is known as the "Handbook of Ontario, Canada," intended primarily for distribution in the United States and England, I presume, although no doubt it was sent to other places, the object of the publication being
[Mr. Charters. 1
the encouragement of immigration to the province. The book is issued, with the endorsation and approval of the Hon. Mr. Drury, by the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, and has been widely circulated. In regard to conditions in Ontario, this handbook quotes certain newspapers. At page 201, the following is taken from the Farmers' Sun:
Experienced farmers with moderate capita! can find here farm homes in which they can enjoy all the comforts of a matured civilisation. Men without capital, but willing to work, can secure employment at wages which give an assurance to the farm labourer of to-day of becoming a farm owner in the not distant future. Inexperienced farm help command $20 to $25 per month with board. 'Single men with farm experience are paid up to $50 per month with board. Married men are paid as high as $700 a year with free house and other perquisites.
The Farmers' Magazine, another paper circulated in the interests of the Opposition parties, has something to say on the subject too. Listen to this, in regard to a country which it was stated in the election was going to the dogs:
The province of Ontario stands at the porchway of a glorious future. Ensconced in the strategic centre of our vast Dominion, with the best wealth of soils, the clearest fresh water lakes and streams, and an understratum of minerals, the importance of which Is yet little guessed, we have here all the requisites for a population of many millions, a land of real homes under skies that mingle sunshine and shadow in the best of proportions. Agricultural life in the past has been filled with a wealth of association in every township, and while the population in the rural districts has been shifting in recent years, the reasons are by no means as derogatory to agriculture as a first glance would indicate.
It goes on to speak of the value of machinery, the adoption of electrical power and so forth, and then proceeds:
Such a movement among the maple lanes of our land bespeaks a busy, prosperous countryside in this province, snuggling as it does so contentedly in the arms of the big, fresh water lakes. A land of peaches, and pulpwood, of red apples and cobbler potatoes, of sleek cattle and Wiltshire bacon, Ontario will double her billion annual agricultural production in the very near future.
Take another one:
To the young man looking out on life, to the parents who would "set up" a boy or boys in farming, to the Old Countryman coming to this new country, we would say, behold what good old Ontario offers:
A home-brick and stone houses with all that makes for a home, ready and sufficient income, pleasant environment, trees, water, varying scenery, neighbours, convenient schools and churches and market centres, travel opportunities, daily mails, culture, accessible entertainment.
Food in abundance, varied to one's taste.

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
These statements-and they can be multiplied a hundredfold, have been sent out by the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario with the approval of the Premier of that province, who was elected to remedy all the evils that exist in that province. They have been sent across to England and over into the United States, and if they are true then they disprove many of the contentions that have been raised in this debate. On the other hand, if they are untrue, surely the Prime Minister of Ontario and his Minister of Agriculture would not vouch for something that is unworthy of them or of the province. Now, the attractive conditions which are set out in this book are the result of 40 years of a protective policy, which has been approved by the majority of the people every time there was a straight vote upon the question. And that policy would be approved to-day if there were a vote upon the one question of protection. Under the circumstances those who pretend to oppose the Government at the present time, if they live up to their professions, must vote for the want of confidence motion before the House. I have no fear for the future of Canada. This country has prospered and will continue to prosper notwithstanding the mistake it made in December last. And it will prosper all the more rapidly if its affairs are placed again in the hands of those who believe in the protective policy and have the courage and determination to stand up and say so, not only when an election is in progress but when they come to the House to administer the affairs of government.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Na-pierville) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is always listened to with much interest by this House, and it appeals more particularly to the people of this country, for if there are new taxes levied on the great majority of the people, there is also some disappointment expressed by those who expect reductions on many articles mentioned in the budget. The hon. member (Mr. Charters) who preceded me in this debate will, I trust, pardon me if I but answer a few of his remarks. Amongst other observations, he said that a defeated candidate had been appointed judge or senator. He is not teaching the old politicians of this House anything new, because this has always been the practice of both political parties, and those who are so chosen to sit on the bench or enter the Senate, never comjplain.
So far as the budget is concerned, I have very little to add. Nevertheless I would have -been better pleased had not beer been taxed. Beer drinkers are to be found almost everywhere in the province of Quebec. It is the poor man's beverage at the present time, because spirits are so highly taxed that it is almost out of the reach of a workman or of a humbler farmer like myself to purchase a bottle of scotch, gin, brandy or rye, and as I am in favour of temperance and should like to see it spread more and more amongst our Canadian parishes in the old province of Quebec, I wish to plead its cause and I therefore beg of the hon. Minister of Finance to find some possible way of dispensing with this tax of 15 cents per gallon on beer and soft drinks. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would in no way object to an increase on Scotch and other liquors so as to compensate for the loss sustained by the removal of the tax on beer, and those who come as our guests from Ontario or elsewhere, even from the United States, will pay for the increase, and we shall be able to drink -beer at reasonable prices.
As I have previously stated, Mr. Speaker, I find very little fault with the budget delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I have, in the past, approved the late minister of finance when he proposed to this Parliament new taxes. I even previously upheld, when we took part in the war, in 1914, that the government of the day should have taxed the people so as to pay at least one-quarter of these war expenditures; but I understand that the far-seeing statesmen of the day did not wish to let the people know how much money was necessary to keep up this conflict; they needed men and money for the war. It would have been far preferable to tax the people at that time, because they had the means to pay such taxes; but to-day times are harder. Nevertheless, we must stand the racket. I am glad to see that the people at least realize what war costs, for I myself, I have heard people tell me in my county, "Why, you are against the war and we are making money while it lasts." They even lent money out at 51 per cent with tax exemption. This was to their gain; but now the Government is going to tax them, and these same people who are receiving dividends from the Dominion of Canada, will, on the other hand, have to pay back. This, however, a little against their wishes, so as to liquidate this mania for war. If there is a person in

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
that House, who has a right to find fault with these new taxes, it is certainly your humble servant, because I was opposed from the outset of the second year to this senseless and immoderate policy followed by the two parties in this House.
Everybody must now acknowledge that in entering the war we went into it blindly, without knowing where it would lead us to; we foolishly squandered the people's money without helping very much the cause of the Allies, but rather to enrich the Canadian manufacturers and those engaged in making munitions of war. These same people invested the millions made during the war with the fate Minister of Finance and were exempted from the tax on some hundreds of millions of dollars, and we, the poor people, who have a yearly income of three or four thousand dollars, we are forced to pay an income tax, while these gentlemen who have amassed wealth during the war, who have well sheltered their millions under the country's guarantee, who will be reimbursed cent for cent, receive, for two millions lent to the State, about $110,000 of yearly interest, and they are not taxed a cent on the above amount. That is what these people call patriotism.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): Commercial patriotism.


Roch Lanctôt: As the hon. member for Hoehelaga has just called it, commercial patriotism. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I do not relish this kind of patriotism.
In the course of this session, my right hon. friend, the late prime minister, alluded to the policy which I enunciated in my county in reference to the National Railways. As I have not had an opportunity to protest, I take advantage of the means offered to me this evening to reopen the discussion on this question with the leader of the Opposition. Not only have we foolishly participated in the war, but we have also foolishly purchased railways; that is to say, that those at the helm of the government of that day knew no limits; they threw away hundreds of millions, nay billions of dollars. Money was no object, anything went. It was even then admitted that the end was an unknown factor, that any extravagance was permissible, that we would always have money on hand. Well, is it not the contrary which happens? I discussed this railway question in my county and I wish to broach the subject once more this even-

ing. First let us see how the railways started. I may say that it was a ruinous undertaking, and we are now wrestling with the consequences. In 1911, previous to the general election, the Laurier government was then in power; there existed in this country a company under the management of Mackenzie and Mann. They were the cause of many people doubting the honesty of numerous politicians in and out of this House. One of them was supposed to be a Tory, the other a Liberal. I came across them in this House, in the lobbies, in the railway committee room, and here and there. I was then a young man, having-been in this House but a few years; my experience was limited and I was not aware of all that was going on. I was undergoing a business training. Nevertheless, I thought it proper to advise one of my leaders that the best thing the Liberal Government could do would be to close their accounts with that firm of Mackenzie and Mann, adding that if I had any say in regard to Canada's policy, it is what I would do without the least hesitation; that I would not give this guarantee of $35,000,000, so as to ensure the construction of the Canadian Northern between Port Arthur and Montreal, but that on the contrary, I would discontinue the building of this railway, expropriate its different western branches and hand over the traffic of such branches to Laurier's National Transcontinental. I was told that it could not be done. I did not then understand the ins and outs of politics; however, later, I became familiar with them. The opposition of that day, led by Mr. Borden, put up a weak protest but I suppose Mr. Borden had to reckon with Mr. Mackenzie, who guaranteed the party funds to beat Laurier; and that is what happened: of the $35,000,000 voted by the Laurier Government, a portion found its way into the Tory candidates' pockets all over the country, so as to defeat Laurier, and we certainly well deserved it. I regret nothing, because we acted wrongly on this occasion.
The leader of the Opposition several times, and all through the country, bitterly reproached the Liberal party for our extravagance in having built so many railways. Should I ever meet him on public hustings I would prove to him without the shadow of a doubt that the Conservatives are more to blame than we are, although I admit that we have to bear our share of this responsibility. If our project of constructing the Canadian Northern

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
between Port Arthur and Montreal1 was considered impracticable, why did the Tory party, five weeks later, when they assumed power, put the project to execution? It was their duty to remedy the blunder. Not only were they satisfied to take up our scheme, which was a poor one, but they also came to an agreement with Mr. McBride, then Prime Minister of British Columbia, and if the country had not come to the rescue of British Columbia by purchasing the Canadian Northern, that province would have been bankrupt owing to this senseless policy of building a third line so as to cater to a population of 376,000 people. I see to-day, on the order paper, that an hon. member is asking the Government if they have the intention of paying to Mackenzie and Mann the amount thus guaranteed. We, belonging to the province of Quebec, have been more fortunate than the other provinces of the Dominion.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation) : More business-like.


Roch Lanctôt: More business-like. Yes, we were fortunate enough to have as administrators more practical men whose thoughts went to ensuring the welfare of the province they represented, rather than to preparing and winning elections as Bob Rogers used to boast about when he was a member of this House.
Now, I stated in my own county of La-prairie-Napierville, and I fought the election on that point, that if I were returned to Parliament, as far as I was concerned, I would be willing to sell our National railways if I could find a company to purchase them. However, I put down conditions; I would not sell to a "Toronto ring." I would not even consider the offer of a "Montreal ring," but I would sell to a company called the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a responsible company and well able to pay us. I would sell them the whole system of railways for one dollar. This is cheap; however, if Rockefeller, who is in a position to purchase our railways, and to pay for them cash down-for he is considered worth two billions and a half, and we have property to the extent of 1,652 million dollars, according to the statements made by Sir Joseph Flavelle, who manages part of our railways-if Rockefeller, I say, owned these railways and obtained the results we are at present getting, do you suppose for a moment that he would like to hold them long? He would simply say: let us get rid of them,
I shall slightly increase the price of my oil and I shall get out of it. We have built our railways in this country 50 years ahead of time. Notwithstanding the ability of a company to pay for the whole system, it would never make a success of it. I shall prove my contention. We have at present a population of 8,700,000, people spread over an area as large as the whole of the United States of America. Now this latter country has not made a success of its railways, although it has a population of 110,000,000 inhabitants. With practically three transcontinentals which spans from ocean to ocean a territory as vast as ours, what can the solution be to the problem? Should the Government wish to carry on this policy which is not to my liking and which costs us enormous sums each year, there is but one thing to do and that is to discontinue operating one of these lines, that one which extends between Ottawa and Port Arthur. If, there are a number of settlers scattered here and there, for 25 or 30 miles along this railway, we can satisfy them by allowing them, the use of a kind of so-called local train. That is due to them because it is the building of this railway that drew them to those parts. Let us come to an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway so that they will operate this railway line, and, if necessary, grant them a certain amount of money for a number of years. 'Let us do more, if we find the same state of affairs exists in other parts, let us repeat this arrangement. I am told that in British Columbia, from the prairies to Vancouver, there are but few houses scattered here and there along the line of the Canadian Northern, and that the upkeep of that line is a clear loss to the country of no less than $8,000,000 per year. Why then not put a stop to such loss? Why do I wish to sell our railways for $1.00 to the Canadian Pacific Railway? Because they have an efficient staff, because they have a board of directors who are past masters in railway affairs.
This company would do away with all duplications which at present exist on the lines, and, within five years it is the people of this country who would benefit the most, because if the Canadian Pacific Railway succeed in making the National Railways pay, when we fail to do so, the country will benefit by it, let it be in five or ten years.
What do we hear every day: With the present freight rates life is unbearable. If we cannot exist with the present rates, we

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
the farmers, must cut them down. But how can you expect a government to do so when it acknowledges a deficit of $72,000,000 yearly, simply to keep the trains moving, without taking into account what is expended each year for the maintenance of these railways and charged to capital account and therefore bearing no interest. We must not only take into consideration the actual deficit that the Minister of Railways admits each session in his statement, but we must also consider what we spend yearly for maintenance. Our National Railways cost the country last year $165,000,000 which the late Minister of Finance advanced. If we are already losing money with a smaller capitalization, how can we expect profits by doubling this capitalization? We have sunk enough money. Let us put a stop to it.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that should we persist in operating our railways, it will lead this country to positive ruin. I am always astonished to hear partisans of nationalization tell us: "For Heaven's sake keep quiet, let those who are in favour of nationalization have their way, and we shall make a success of it; time means nothing, wait until we have doubled our population." Do you expect to draw many useful immigrants to this country with the policy which has been expounded in this House during the present session by grumbling that one cannot exist in Canada if the tariff is not lowered on all articles?
Have not the Progressives proclaimed high and low in this House that it is impossible, at present, to make a living in the West, and that we must not encourage people to immigrate there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is worse in other places.


Roch Lanctôt: I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, that intelligent men, such as I know many in this House, try to compare our vast system of railways with an electric tramway located in a small town of Ontario, Quebec, or any other place. I have the honour of sitting, in this House, not very far away from a highly intelligent gentleman, who gave as an illustration which to my mind is not at all comparable to a situation such as that of 22,000 miles of railways in a country like ours having a population of 8,700,000 inhabitants. He said, in this House, that the small town he comes from possesses and operates with profit an electric tramway. It is quite evident that in such a case the
filr. Lanctot.]
municipal council establishes the rates so as to meet the expenditures, not for profits but simply to make both ends meet each year. Well, I put it up to those who, in this House, are in favour 6f nationalizing our railways, to follow that example, and I, for one, shall put up my share. If you insist on nationalizing our railways and all public utilities, pay for it gracefully and do not bitterly complain and call upon the Government to lower the taxes. For my part, I contend that it is the only policy to follow for a party in power and for the country at large. Many of my hon. friends in this House protest against the taxes; they even contend that banks should not be taxed. These hon. gentlemen are no doubt forgetful of the fact that we have just emerged from a mighty war; they forget that our politicians, such as the hon. leader of the Opposition for instance, were in favour of sending even our last man and spending our last dollar for the war. He succeeded very well, and he was supported by a large majority of members in this House. That is evidenced by the results of the 1917 election when the Progressive party, who are now opposite to us and the Ontario party who sit on both sides of this House, were in favour of ruining the country to win the war. Has human blunder ever been more evident? Do not try to make believe to an intelligent people such as Canadians are, that 300,000 men were of any account in that war when there were 43,000,000 men already engaged in the European conflict. It is impossible for me to believe such a thing. I say that our boys did their duty during the war; but we must not forget that our politicians of the day-who ruined us-kept within our boundaries during that whole time, 172,520 men so as to give chase to our conscripts of Quebec. They held back about 50,000 men in England. They were calling for conscripts when the United States had just made its entry into the war, backed by all the gold and silver in the world. Yet they had not sufficient vessels to transport the American troops. Why did they want conscription in this country? To hammer on the province of Quebec and say that we had not done our duty. When I speak in this House, I assume all the responsibilities of what I say, and do not drag in others. I have already declared in this House, and I shall do so again, that had I been, at the time, twenty-two or twenty-three years old, never would I have gone to fight in France, but on the contrary, I

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
would have remained in this country to fight for my race, because we do not enjoy our full rights, we have never had them. We were asked to go and battle in France for the freedom of nations, to have Belgium's neutrality respected. We have our own little claims which deserve consideration as much as Belgium's neutrality- such as, for instance, those of our compatriots in Ontario or in Manitoba.
I will make a statement here this evening. I am not of the same opinion as the leader of the Opposition who still wishes to prepare soldiers for future wars of the Empire. Well, as regards the Empire, I agree. However the Empire is still standing and we are crushed, we are completely ruined; the Empire is discharging its obligations since the termination of the war, while we, ever since that date, are increasing them. Let the Empire take care of itself and let Canada look after her own interest, such is my motto. No, we have had too many humbugs in this country. Even now, at this very time, there is a small group, in the corner over there, who expound their senseless policy and which is entirely out of proportion to our means. They make comparisons. They contend that we spend 17 cents per head for a navy in Canada, while England spends $10 per head for its navy; but there is a vast difference between John Bull and the colony of John Bull, which by name is called Canada. We all know that England has still money lent all over the world, some say ten billions, others eighteen or twenty billion of dollars; let us put it at fifteen billions. England is in need of a merchant marine to reach the products of the whole world, to carry back to her islands what is needed to feed her population and to gather the interest due to her. Moreover she needs a fleet to protect her trade throughout the world. There lies the reason why Germany declared war on her so as dispute her supremacy. Engand said: Never! She was the top dog; so much the better. We took part in the war and I extend my congratulations to those who volunteered to take part; let those who wish to fight for the Empire do so. But let it be understood, the Empire must pay, it will look after our soldiers as they did for the African war and I shall not hinder any one from taking part. I do not say that I shall myself shoulder the rifle, I am getting old and I do not intend to join.
Now, I support this Government because I am a Liberal. I am a Liberal of the old school, not one of those who have come in at
the last hour, at the last moment, who were simply shoved in, but a descendant of Mederic Lanctot and others like him. I have always been an anti-militarist and I had cause to be so, because if we have made preparations for the war they were never an asset to us. Is there an hon. member, in this House, who can say that our navy-if we ever had one, and we did, it was made up of the Rainbow and the Niobe, the Conservatives had a good laugh over it, nevertheless there was a time when they seemed very proud of it-I ask, is there a member who can say that our navy was of any use ever since we have been a British colony? Our militia did us a good turn in 1812; but what has it done since? When Uncle Sam wanted a portion of our territory, did he not take it? I am speaking about the state of Maine. In regard to Alaska, did our delegates, who went over to defend our case, return satisfied? They were hoodwinked by John Bull, and Uncle Sam returned satisfied.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): What about the embargo?


Roch Lanctôt: The embargo! I have nothing to say in regard to what England is doing; I would be the last to rise and claim that the embargo should be lifted. If England has not the courage to impose a tax on the importation of cattle from foreign countries, and if she wishes to obtain the same result by using other means, it is her undoubted right. But if, as it is said, England had promised during the war to our statesmen that she would lift this embargo once the war was over, I say that she follows in the footsteps of Germany, and she does not honour her promise. That is all I have to say. I do not know if it is true, but if it is, such is my answer.
We have a debt that is enormous for a small population like ours, and a country so little developed. The hon. Minister of Finance informs us that this debt amounts to two and a half billion dollars, but it is nearer three billions, according to the Official Gazette, and I consider that the gross debt of any country is its real liability. I am satisfied that none of those who owe us will ever pay us; governments are not always paid what is due them, especially the government whose seat is at Ottawa. Moreover, there is the railway indebtedness which is already enormous and which ere long will be as high as that of the country. People lose sight of the fact that this is a real indebtedness. If our rail-

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
way brought us any revenue, it would be different, we would then have an asset, but there being no revenue, it is a real liability. I would like to know how much the minister pays annually for our guarantee bonds for Mackenzie and Mann, the Grand Trunk and all the companies we recently purchased. We must face all those obligations. According to me, the remedy is simple, I think we should try and sell our railways as soon as possible, either for one dollar, or for more if we can. I am not difficult to please as to the amount, provided we are rid of that white elephant.
I do not know whether the people of the West and of Ontario are actually in favour of public ownership of railways, but their representatives in this House are. I therefore believe that I shall not please these gentlemen in speaking as I do this evening, but I am always ready to express my thoughts openly. During the war, I received letters from a great many people in the province of Ontario, whom I did not know, and who wrote to me saying: Sir, we have not the honour of your acquaintance, but we are happy to congratulate you, because you are not afraid to speak out what others dare only whisper.
I do not wish to detain the House very long, as it is already late, but I have another subject to discuss, it concerns lawyers. Those gentlemen are not always pleased at what I say, but, as my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Charters) referred a while ago to a lawyer who had either been appointed to the Senate or to the Bench, I also wish to speak of another lawyer. This gentleman was a lawyer formerly, but now he has given up law for something quite different, as I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am an eonomical man. I preach economy and practice it as well. I proved it at the time when the parliamentary indemnity was increased. And if I opposed it, it was not for the purpose of acquiring political friends in my county, they had all been my supporters before that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They are intelligent people.


Roch Lanctôt: That is it, as my hon. friend from Brome has just stated. There are here, in Ottawa, a parliamentary counsel, two chief-assistants, two special assistants, clerks, stenographers, in fact, quite an organization which costs $24,260. Before 1913, its cost amounted to only $12,000, and now that we are ruined, it costs
	*
double. I do not see the reason of it, because I wonder what they can find to do when the session is over. Yet, everybody to-day is employed by the year. Well, I shall show in a moment what my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) did when he was Prime Minister, with the aid of my hon. friend, Mr. Charles Doherty, of Montreal. The former Minister of Justice, the hon. Mr. Doherty has made several trips to Europe. At the time of the dissolution of the National-Liberal-Conservative government, in October last, Mr. Doherty had not yet returned from the Geneva conference, and during his absence, the hon. Prime Minister had replaced him by a Mr. Bennett from Calgary. After the arrival of my hon. friend, his Montreal friends informed him that he was no longer Minister of Justice. You will admit with me, Mr. Speaker, that he cannot have slept very soundly after that. A few days later, the then Prime Minister left for the Eastern Townships to deliver speeches in support of protection. He had to pass through Montreal on returning to Ottawa. I am informed that the minister who had been dismissed from office met the Prime Minister and that the latter was compelled to appoint him as a lawyer in a certain case to be settled between Canada and Newfoundland concerning Labrador, at a fee of $10,000.


Mr. RINFRET:: Per annum?


Roch Lanctôt: I am told that it is not per annum, but .for the preliminaries of the case. I do not know much about a lawyer's work. However he must do something since his fees amount to $10,000. But Mr. Doherty accepted on certain conditions. He immediately received $5,000. He came back, they say, broke, from the other side. He had to have money by all means. Therefore $5,000 was given to him. I have had a conversation about this affair with a very good friend with whom I have had excellent relations both in and out of the House. He lives in Toronto, and was once Minister of Justice, I may add that he is both a gentleman and an honest man. I am told that this lawyer of Toronto deals with governments as he does with private clients; when he works, for instance when he prepares a brief for a case, he charges the government exactly what he would ask from a private client. You will admit Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Doherty is not ar. ordinary lawyer, and I shall prove it to

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
you. He has become a white elephant whose upkeep is most expensive. Sometime ago, I had a question inserted on the order paper concerning this gentleman. This question mentioned the date of May 11th, 1855; I could not go back any further than that date, as my friend was born on May 11th, 1855. Here is the answer which I was given. First of all, as judge he received $78,147.50; as a state pensioner, $70,893.33 -this is sometime ago, it is more to-day, he continues to receive $4,666.66 per year- but this is not all. He has travelled as a judge, but it amounts to very little, $282.90. While a member of the House of Commons he received as parliamentary indemnity, the sum of $40,555. Furthermore as Minister of Justice, he was paid $76,636.20. Now, during his term as Minister of the Crown, he received for travelling expenses, the sum of $3,196.25. Lastly, as counsel for the arbitration between Canada and Newfoundland concerning the boundaries of Labrador, he was paid in advance, the sum of $5,000. The department has no further knowledge of his receiving any thing more. He got nine thousand and a few hundred dollars for trips to Europe during the war, one of which was to represent Canada at the Peace Conference, at Versailles. My hon. friend from Wellington South (Mr. Guthrie) also took a few little trips-I hope he had a good time-for the amount is but a bagatelle, $9,000.
I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, if according to the act amended in 1920, Mr. Doherty, as attorney of the Justice Department was entitled to draw his full salary. The amendment for which I was sponsor and had adopted in 1920, was to the effect that the pension of a retired judge must be deducted from his indemnity, when he becomes either member of this House or of the Senate or a Minister of the Crown. I should like to know from the present Minister of Justice whether the law has the same effect when applied to the Government's attorney. I do no+ ask for an immediate answer, how'ver, I trust that one will be given me in the course of this session. While I am on the subject, you are aware that we, the farmers, are usually men who practice and preach economy. We should very mr-h like to know if it is not too late to remedy this state of things. What do we see here, at Ottawa, in all the departments. There are it seems, law officers in eleven departments. It is not mentioned whether there are one, two or three in each case, but there are lawyers
in eleven departments. In the Department of Justice there are quite a number. In the House of Commons, we find four, I believe. I ask the Minister of Justice, who is a lawyer and a business man of the very highest standing, if it is not possible to improve on this state of affairs and to establish an office of legal experts which would advise all the different departments. We could provide offices for these legal men in some building in Ottawa, and when a department would wish to proceed with a case, they would submit their case to these officers; because, as I understand it, there are lawyers who specialize in procedure, others in the preparation of statements, still others as barristers,-finally others who are very little use. This office should be under the direction of two lawyers who could be got in Montreal or Toronto, men chosen amongst the best legal luminaries of this country, should it be deemed necessary, they would be placed in charge fit a certain staff. Instead of paying as it happened about $180,000 to Winnipeg lawyers when certain famous cases took place in that city, I contend that we could have saved by these means for the country an amount which I am not in a position to give, but which must be very considerable. Ever since I have been a member in this House, I have seen a great number of lawyers come from all parts to ask favours and cases and all t' is must have been very expensive to the country. Tomorrow, it will be said that Roch Lanctot is an enemy of lawyers. No, I am not against the lawyers, but let us act in a business-like manner, because we are called upon to pay; it is the people of this country that have to foot the bill. When you think that we farmers have not had a crop for two years and had to buy the feed for our cattle, that we are calLJ upon to pay larger taxes every year, when we realize that if we desire to-morrow to draw $500 from the bank, we shall have to put on our cheque ten two cent stamps-and I assure you that you cannot get much from a lawyer for that amount; they require much more than that-I say: For mercy's sake, let us adopt now a policy of economy.
Note the point which I am trying to make. It those who hold the higher posts would show the way to the people, what would it mean? You would not see such things as are happening now at the offices of the ministers and hon. members from the city of Ottawa. Every day hon. gentlemen are visited by people who are asking for an

The Budget-Mr. Lanctdt
increase of salary. They are only following the example set by men of higher rank who are drawing pensions which they never earned. Do you consider, for instance, that Mr. Doherty has earned the pension which he is getting? No. If this policy is to be continued in the future, it must be subject to certain conditions. Do you know, for instance, who was responsible for the Eolsheviki regime in Russia? It was the Czar himself. I say that we must abandon such a policy, which, in my opinion, is a policy of extravagance and one which is detrimental to certain classes of the community. Instead of that, let us adopt a policy for the people as a whole.
Now, take our railways. Why shall they never be a success? Is there a government in the world that can do what a private company can accomplish? Right here, you can not do it with the civil servants. You must give them a bonus, against your will. Can you reduce the wages of the railway employees?
Let us see what took place during the last election. They say that patronage has been abolished and that the Government do not interfere with the management of our roads. Well, it as been shown very clearly that the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Labour intervened to procure work for the unemployed in some constituencies. But there were unemployed men everywhere and the same thing should have been done in every constituency. A government cannot act as firmly and as wisely as a private concern, and that is why I say: Pray, let us rid the people now from all these burdens and that everything be set up again as it was before the war, if possible. Thus you will see that a government such as the one we have now, composed as it is of honest ministers who have already administered the public affairs, will be able to pull the country out of the mire it is in now.
Mr. THOMAS S.4LES (Saltcoats): Mr. Speaker, I am a little differently situated to most of my friends; I have a personal matter with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) He has enlarged a tax which seems to be rather unpopular, and unfortunately I am the only man in the House who bears the same name as that tax. I find that even hon. members are coupling that tax with my name. So what is going to happen to me from the less intelligent of the community outside I do not know. Probably if I cannot persuade the minister to change the name of this

tax, I shall have, to seriously consider entering an action against the Government for defamation of character.
But to deal with the matter seriously, if I cannot persuade him to change the name of the tax, I certainly would like to appeal to him tc change it so that it will bear more lightly upon the working man. We are rapidly getting the reputation of being the dearest country of the civilized world in which to live. My hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. McTaggart) was talking about tobacco this evening, and it brought to my mind a little trip I had to Niagara Falls on the 25th May. While there I found I could buy a package of Tarryton's English tobacco twice as big as the package I can buy on Sparks street at the same price, and I bought a box of matches for six cents very nearly as big as the box that I have to pay fifteen cents for here.
In appealing to the Minister of Finance to reduce the sales tax on the necessaries of life I want to relate a little incident that I witnessed last winter. A poor man was in a store and was trying to buy for his family felt boots, stockings, mitts, caps and other articles that they absolutely must have for the winter He had with him only $50, and when he had expended this sum he had but half the number of purchases that he needed. The big, strong fellow cried because he could not clothe his children to withstand our very severe climate. I am sure that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance could only understand how this sales tax bears on the poor man they would certainly remove it, say from boots costing $5 a pair or less, and on mitts and other articles of clothing which are absolutely necessary for winter wear.
With regard to the rest of the sales tax, I have no objection. I fulW agree with my hon. friends who say that the man who can afford to pay $5,000 for a motor car can afford to contribute $1,000 to help run this country. I fully agree with them that the luxury tax was the best tax we ever had. Certainly the man or woman who can afford to pay $300 for a fur coat can afford to help towards the expenses of governing the country.
I am sorry that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) is not in his seat. He will ever live in my mind because of two favourite phrases of his. He speaks very glibly of thirty cents, and I wonder whether he knows what thirty cents feels like when he has not got it. I do not believe that this House has had enough mem-

The Budget-Mr. Sales
bers in it who know what thirty cents feels like when they have not got it. His other favourite phrase that I shall never forget is a " morganatic alliance." He appears to know more about morganatic alliances than any other member. I do not know exactly what he means by the term. For my part, I have been satisfied with one wife, regularly married at church. But I think we saw this afternoon a " morganatic alliance " of a slightly different kind, and I suspect that we shall see a few more of them before this session closes.
I noticed that my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) referred to his domestic affairs. The last time I ventured to refer to mine the House laughed uproariously for some reason or other, which makes me somewhat afraid to return to the subject. But as my hon. friend has spoken of his family, and as I do not intend my French-speaking brothers to have all the honours on this occasion, I may say that I have the hon. member for Swift Current beaten by two. So that when it comes to thirty cents on a pair of shoes, which the hon. member for St. John so glibly speaks of, and I multiply it by eleven, it is not thirty cents any more, it is $3.30.
I should like to remind the hon. member for St. John that while he speaks of the traditional thirty cents, we have it on record by a greater authority than he that the difference between happiness and misery is only twelve cents. Charles Dickens in the person of Mieawber says: Income, one pound, expenditure, one pound and six pence-misery; income one pound, expenditure, nineteen shillings and six pence-happiness. So you see it is only a matter of twelve cents difference between happiness and misery. But the hon. member for St. John says, "It sounds like thirty cents." I shall reserve anything further I have to say on the sales tax until we get into Committee of the Whole.
I have been a little amused at the difference of opinion among our friends on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) is not quite as lonely over there as I thought probably he would be. And even our good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) this evening found something in common with him; they both used the same happy phrase of a tariff for revenue, providing incidental protection.
The fear has many times been expressed that if we do not pursue this policy of protection our industries will go to the
wall. I had intended to deal at some length with matters affecting the twine business, but I shall not do so tonight. The association with which I am connected out in the West has bought a large quantity of twine from the Brantford factories, and I know they say they do not need protection; they stand on their own feet. It is a strange thing that the large number of persons mentioned by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) are unemployed in that city because of the closing of their factories, while factories which are working under free trade are operating full time and over time. I am really afraid that the protectionist doctrine leads to this- and I am going to quote only one thing which a manufacturer of binder twine says:
The success of the Brantford company is found to depend on quality of production and hard work, on good management, courage and efficiency. The company commenced business with the single idea of making the best binder twine on the market. It carried out that idea, and at a cost as low as its competitors, because the company's management was willing to work 24 hours a day if necessary. Flung on its own resources, with no tariff protection to shelter behind, the company substituted for that protection a constant striving for efficiency in buying, in manufacturing, in selling.
A manufacturer said to me in this House this very week that if the protection were taken away from our manufacturing plants they would have to stand on their own feet, and that it would be the best thing that ever happened to them; as long as they have protection they are going to lean on it. We have proved that our manufacturers can stand on their own feet. In fact, the manufacturers of farm implements are invading the very field which they say they are afraid of. I find that since 1914 a considerable number of agricultural implements manufactured in Canada have been sold in the United States. In 1919, $3,131,584 worth of agricultural implements and parts were sold in the United States, and in 1920 that trade was increased to $5,123,889. On looking up the figures I find a number of interesting things. For instance, in 1920,	12,094
ploughs and cultivators, amounting to $1,666,461, were sold in the United States, and 1,026 threshing machines at about $800 each., amounting to $850,375, were sold in that market. I cannot help wondering whether our agricultural machinery made in Canada and exported to the United States is sold cheaper in that country than it is within our own borders, because I

The Budget-Mr. Sales
do not know of any kind of threshing machine that I can buy for anything like that amount. All this talk of protecting these forty-four year old bewhiskered infant industries of ours is rubbish. The Minister of Agriculture is becoming quite an authority on infant industries. As those gentlemen who were with us when we took that very pleasant trip to Quebec will remember, the Minister of Agriculture stated there that there was only one way to make farming pay, and that was to have a large family so that it would not be necessary to pay wages and so that you would be able to keep all your money at home. I said to him on the train on the way back: " Mr. Motherwell, you have started a new infant industry ". The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) read such glowing reports to-night from that Ontario book that I wondered that there was a man left in the towns and cities; judging from the character of those reports, they should all be attracted to the farms. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray)-and I have heard doctors, lawyers and merchants, everybody except the farmer, say the same thing -spoke of the glories of farm life. All those who speak from this point of view agree on two things: first, that what this country needs is more people on the land; and, second, that it is the other fellow who should go. I sometimes think that I should be better off if I gave up living on the land; if I left the farm and lived off the farmer and joined in the universal chorus of " Back to the land " as the finest, freest, and most independent life there is.
There is just one other point I want to deal with-and I shall not detain the House very long-because I think this question is one of the most important we have before us, and it is one which has not been referred to very often during the course of the debate. I refer to the question of the distribution and marketing of our products, which was alluded to briefly by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke).
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not altogether the price we get for our product that counts; we may get 80 cents a bushel for our wheat, but it is what we can get for that 80 cents or for that bushel of wheat that is important. I am going to give you a few illustrations to indicate why the western farmer, at any rate, is finding it very difficult to make ends meet.
I marketed my wheat in October, the price then was 80 cents a bushel. My good wife !Mr. Sales.]
asked me to bring home some apples, and I went to the store to get a box of apples. Now, I got 80 cents for 60 pounds of wheat, and to my surprise I was asked $4 for 40 pounds of apples. When the storekeeper said: "How many do you want?" I said: "I do not want any at that price." "But", he said, "These are Macintosh Reds." I said: "I don't give a darn if they are Cochin-China Yellows; I don't want any. I will not give 300 pounds of food in the shape of wheat to buy 40 pounds of food in the shape of apples; neither would any other man in his senses." Under our wheat board we had the control of flour- I have stated this in the Committee on Agriculture-and for the price of 3 bushels of wheat I could get a 98 pound sack of flour, but the moment the control was taken off and the millers were left free it cost me the price of 5 bushels of wheat to buy that same 98 pounds of flour.
I was dealing with some of these matters during the recent campaign, and in that connection I had another strange experience. Take soda biscuits, for instance. I do not know what else is in them beyond flour, which is made from the wheat I grow, water, and perhaps a little shortening, yet it costs me sixty pounds of wheat to buy two small packages of soda biscuits, containing a little over two pounds- sixty pounds of wheat to buy two pounds of soda biscuits. To buy twenty pounds of rolled oats, it ccs.ts me over one hundred and forty pounds of oats. I could not carry enough hides on my back to buy a pair of boots. We have heard of the man who took his sheep to market, and when he had paid freight and marketing charges got only thirty cents apiece for them, then he went into the hotel to get a mutton chop for his dinner, and that cost him the price of three sheep. I have friends in Regina and Winnipeg who tell me they cannot afford to buy my beef. -They told me that last fall. I could not give it away, and I was afraid to ship it to Winnipeg for fear it would not pay the freight.
What is wrong with this country when such conditions prevail? If there is one thing to which this House should devote its attention, it is to finding out what it is that stands between the man who grows the stuff and the man who wants to eat it. Whether it is combines, watered stock, the paying of millions cf interest on watered stock, or whether it is that big business is strangling this country, I do not know, but that is the situation, and I believe that this House should take early steps to ascer-

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
tain and make the public aware who is the guilty party. We cannot keep men in this country, and we cannot expect wages to come down unless we can find a remedy for the present situation. I do not know exactly what the remedy should be. Everybody seems to be able to prove an alibi pretty well. Ic makes me think sometimes of a patient who is being sucked to death by leeches. I remember as a boy going into a horse pond in the Old Country and having the leeches get on my leg, each one drawing out a litt'e blood. I think the consumer to-day is in pretty much the same position as a patient who is being sucked by leeches. He pushes off one little leech, and it says, "I am only getting a little bit, only thirty cents, perhaps. I have to get my living." He pushes off another, which also says, "I am only getting my little bit," but all these little bits, a little bit by the tariff, a little bit through watered stock, a little bit by this, that, and the other, soon bleed the victim white, and a remedy must be found.
I apologize for detaining the House so long, but if my words have any effect in bringing about appropriate action, I shall be very pleased.


Mr. JULES EDOUARD PREVOST (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the speech on the budget as given by the Minister of Finance has many remarkable aspects. Looking at it from all possible angles would be a great task beyond my sphere and which, moreover, would tax too highly your patience, however boundless it may be. But allow me to dally, for a few moments, over certain phases of this important speech.
First, have we not all been filled with admiration at the intellectual powers, the profound knowledge of his subject, the clear and lucid mind, the sound and unimpaired judgment of the Minister of Finance, the cleverest Canada has ever produced? His return to the post he occupied during fifteen years, from 1896 to 1911, recalls the unparalleled prosperity which so well marked the administration of Laurier's government. The member for Queens and Shelburne, after a lapse of eleven years, is again chosen to watch over our finances. May it please the Almighty that with his advent the order and prosperity of days gone by may return.
The Minister of Finance has a most important part to fill and, I might say, decisive part to play in times of crisis such as we are passing through. Ever since the
end of the war, it is on this department that the heaviest burdens and the most serious tasks have fallen. Although the Railway Department has a difficult problem to solve, the complexity of which is undeniable, yet the Finance Department is the organism of the Government where is met all that pertains to the economic life of this country. If, according to a celebrated saying, good politics bring financial success, it is no less true that, at present, the financial factor predominates in many ways the political factor, or, at least the latter must give way to the former. Therefore, the Minister of Finance must have the power to impart a character of unity to the financial policy followed.
It is indispensable that he should have a free hand in the preparation and the making up of the budget, that he should display the aggressiveness of the watchdog, a quality which should ever be present in a minister of Finance. Ever on the alert, he makes it a point not to give in when favours usually granted as a matter of course are being sought on every side. His supervision must extend over the receipts, watch that they be not neglected, as it happened under the late government. His labours do not end here. There remain many other jobs to successfully carry out. We must prepare to reimburse little by little the debt incurred by our country.
Then, in the midst of all this, appears the great needs, both foreseen and unforeseen, of the treasury, put to a specially hard test by the commitments and expenditures inherent to the nationalization of railways and the merchant marine that make up the major part of our budget. To meet these difficulties the Minister of Finance must have a definite policy, resting on a comprehensive and clear view of things. Through the critical times we are experiencing we must in the administration of our finances adhere to a consistent policy, raise revenues by the means of taxes justly assessed, practise economy in our budget expenditures, and forward the expansion of our foreign trade.
The present Minister of Finance gives ample proof of his consistency and of the loyalty of the Liberals to their programme, through the changes he brings about in our tariff.
By lowering, as much as circumstances will permit, the duty on numerous articles, the minister returns to the Liberal policy of 1897, when the customs duties were cut

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
down on 147 articles. The present policy conforms to the one which was followed up hy the Laurier government in the changes which it made to the tariff not only in 1897, but also in 1904, 1907 and in 1910; it is likewise in harmony with the changes which were proposed in the House of Commons by the Liberals ever since 1911, namely, on January 28 and February 10, 1914; March 16, 1915; February 23, 1916; May 23, 1917, and at the national convention in 1919. It is true, events took place which have changed the financial state of our country, and as the tariff must not be the outcome of an unrelenting doctrine, but, on the contrary, must adapt itself to circumstances, and safeguard above all the general welfare of the country, the present Liberal Government is not adhering strictly to all the reforms asked by the Liberals within the last years. Nevertheless the spirit is unchanged; the tendency remains the same; the Liberal party is still led by the cardinal principle which has been the mainstay of its policy in the past.
Confronted with our public debt seven times larger than it was previous to the war, in the face of the interest which we have to meet yearly, with railway deficits staring us in the face, and called upon to meet the demands of the country's administration, the first duty which devolved upon the Minister of Finance was to meet our current expenditures, our maturing debts, and provide for the pressing needs of Canada. It was impossible for him to discharge such large obligations without levying taxes. This is what he cautiously did, although, I admit, a closer scrutiny might wisely modify a few of these taxes.
All the theories in regard to taxes are embodied in general rules, indicating the aims sought: that is, to raise the most funds in the easiest possible way, from the ratepayers, at the same timie interfering the least with the productive power of the country. It would not be a matter of surprise for any one if the Government found themselves under the necessity of imposing new taxes.
The Conservative and Unionists governments, whidh followed one another within the last ten years, bequeathed to the present Government as a legacy the heaviest task which has ever burdened a parliament. Our predecessors squandered money and, whatever may say their panegyrists, this unconstraint, this squandering have enormously inflated the already large amounts which the war demanded so that

accounts for our public debt reaching, not millions, but billions of dollars. Who will figure what, first the Borden, then the Meighen governments have cost the country? And then these governments after recklessly squandering and deepening the chasm of our deficits, have left to their successors the heavy task of paying the formidable bill of their extravagant expenditures.
The new Government is fully aware of its immense task. Those who are responsible for such a state will not miss the chance to make the best of it. They will denounce before a roused public these new taxes which the Government will have to impose so as to restore order in the finances left by them in a state of confusion.
Mr. Speaker, the people responsible for the taxes are not so much those who establish them, but those who made them necessary. The country was made aware of the administrative squanderings, pillaging of public funds, frauds, enormous benefits of the profiteers, the scandals of war contracts, for which the late government is responsible, and that is why they were judged and condemned.
On the other hand, while imposing new taxes the Minister of Finance, so as to relieve the high cost of living and relieve as much as possible the ratepayer, lowered the customs duties which, after all, are paid by the consumer. Taking an interest in the welfare of the masses as well as that of our national industries, the King government seeks to lower the high cost of living, by cutting down the duties on a great number of articles of daily use and on the necessary implements for the development of our national resources. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the tariff is the greatest source of our revenue. However, the tax and tariff should not and must not overstep a certain limit otherwise they become detrimental to the people who bear them; we must watch so as not to destroy the source of our economic life and paralyze our commercial and industrial development. Therefore, another duty imposes itself on the country, on the Government, and the Minister of Finance reminds us of it. It is not enough to have removed from power those who by their poor administration have so seriously imperilled the finances and credit of Canada. The people demand that those in whom they placed their trust not only redeem the extravagances of the past, but also show an honest desire to maintain the financial equilibrium

by putting into practice a rigid policy of economy.
In fact, the increase in the yield through taxation cannot suffice. The budget cannot find its bearings ; the treasury is empty, the deficit enormous.
Our national debt which amounted to $300,000,000 in 1914, to-day amounts to more than two billion dollars; the interest alone figures up to $140,000,000 per year, compared with $14,000,000 in 1914; we pay out in pensions and assistance to disabled soldiers more than $60,000,000 yearly; our railways leave us with an annual deficit of $70,000,000. Even now, I have not enumerated the whole of our heavy obligations. So as to follow a firm policy of adjustment of our finances, the strictest economy is necessary: it constitutes a whole political program and becomes absolutely indispensable to the proper balancing of our finances and to the economical uplift of our country.
The Government is therefore right in restricting as much as possible our expenditure. Would it not have seemed mor^ than strange, for instance, that three years and a half after the war, when disarmament is preached everywhere and to attain that end conferences are held in all parts of the world, would it not, I say, have seemed more than strange to behold Canada voting large sums of money for its military budget, out of proportion to its needs, to its population and especially to its revenues? I might say that the same argument applies to the naval service or war navy expenditures. Would it not be a disgrace if the public service remained encumbered with this large and unnecessary staff which was brought in under the late administration? The Government must not hesitate in applying the hot iron on all the abuses. It is with that understanding that the Canadian people will accept and joyfully put up with the new burdens. I
I mentioned, at the outset of my remarks, that Canada must expand its external trade.
To insure our economic revival and the restoring of our financial state, no way appears more effective than to increase our exportations. On the increase of our external trade depends indeed the wealth of Canada, the disappearance of the crisis which forces the heads of certain factories
The Bridget-Mr. Prevost
to close their doors or to lower their production which brings on a sad unemployment for the workmen.
Outside trade which, at all times, played an outstanding part in our country's affairs, is at present becoming of primary importance. On examining the latest statistics relative to our commerce, we become aware that our exportations have considerably decreased. In 1914, our exports amounted to $455,437,224. In 1918; they reached the fanciful figure of $1,586,169,792.
This rapid increase is without doubt due to the war which gave Canada an opportunity to sell to the allied nations of Europe products of all kinds of which they were in need. There is to be found the main reason of the prosperity which favoured the country during the four years . that lasted this war so disastrous for many other countries.
However, the conditions have changed. Canada's whole export in 1921, amounted to $1,210,428,119, which means about $400,000,000 less than in 1918; and in the ' course of the fiscal year ending March 31st 1922, our exports amounted only to $753,927,009.
It is in Canada's interest to find means of preventing this continuous decrease of its exports. With that end in view, it must adopt a firm policy and right methods so as to secure new markets and a steady external trade.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, in a speech which he delivered some time ago, at Montreal: We must direct all our efforts to bring back the prevailing conditions to their normal state". That is one of the essential conditions for the future and prosperity of our country. Canada will only develop providing we further extend our export trade. All must cooperate with that end in view, because a country cannot attain a genuine prosperity unless all put their shoulder to the wheel." That is a fact. It is apparent that the rapid increase in our trade during the war was abnormal; the cause was transient and ephemeral. It was a momentary gain but this magnified prosperity caused by extraordinary circumstances which changed almost suddenly, was rather detrimental to our industrial development. How many of our industries dazzled by the sudden foreward leap of our commerce, took too much for granted, plunged too soon and too far into extravagant expenditures and thereby over produced, and, now they see their



The Budget-Mr. Prevost
success imperiled by the sudden ups and downs of our commerce. Canada which is and should remain an essentially farming country or, at least, should restrict its efforts to the development of its natural resources, evolves rapidily, too rapidly indeed towards industry. This course will only lead it to true prosperity if its evolution towards industrialism proceeds rationally and by degree.
It was truly remarked lately: First, the industrial evolution of Canada must be the result of the normal expansion of our markets and not promoted by a purely momentary and casual demand or protected by tariff measures or others, of too artificial a character.
An undeniable truth, is that the Canadian market is insufficient for the consumption of our farm products, the absorption of our mining products and a great part of our manufactured goods. Experience teaches us that an industry which limits its scope of action to its home market leaves itself open to dangerous crises and, to escape the , too sudden fluctuations of the home market, it must throw outside strong feelers.
Our duty is therefore to open up new markets. Such was the aim of the Lau-rier government during the fifteen years it presided over the destinies of Canada. The increase of our sales went hand in hand with the development of our output, under the Liberal rule. In 1896, Canadian exports amounted to $110,000,000; in 1911, they reached the figure of $274,316,000. Our manufactured goods exported, which by themselves amounted, in 1896, to $7,000,000, reached the figure of $35,000,000, in 1911; eur agricultural exports which, in 1896, amounted to $40,000,000, climbed to $82,601,000 in 1911.
Modeling our policy on that of the Lau-rier government to insure the progress of Canada towards prosperity, we must seek new openings for our export articles. In an essentially producing country like ours, we must have for our products numerous markets, easy of access.
The countries to which we sell the most are Great Britain and the United States, since 82 per cent of our external trade is carried on with item.
It is of the utmost importance for our commerce to find new openings and to expand our foreign markets. The total exports of Canada to the United States in the month of March last reached the amount of $1,283,942, against $9,488,589 for the same corresponding month of last year. The total exports for the period of

ten months ending on March 31st, 1921 and 1922, respectively reached the amount of $157,141,786 for 1920-21 and of $35,954,735 for 1921-22.
This large increase is due to the effects of the American tariff (Fordney bill) adopted and put into force in May, 1921.
Under such circumstances, it is evident that Canada must seek in other countries markets which the Americans refuse us.
In fact, it is dangerous for Canada to export most of its products to one or two countries. It is impossible to speak on imports without touching the question of our transport system, that is to say, the merchant marine and the railways.
I have not the intention to even touch upon these different subjects, it might lead too far. Let it suffice for me to say that I am convinced that the King government cannot escape-neither does it seek to evade its responsibilities in the administration of the affairs of the country. So far as it concerns the means of transportation: merchant marine and railways, its heritage is of a complex nature, an unhappy situation which is not of its making.
He will do the best he can. However, by all means, he must secure for the producers of this country the necessary means of transport so as to insure the development of our natural resources, to help the expansion of our commerce both internal and external. If Canada wishes to grow, to extend its horizon, to spread its name and its products over the world, it needs a vast interior system of communication by water and by rail, also a merchant fleet; however, this great undertaking can and must be realized without the state spending hundreds of millions each year. Individual and private initiative, guided by its own interest and responsibility, plays a part here which the state must not encroach upon. Whenever it has attempted to do so, in whatever country it may have been, the experiment was disastrous.
Our waterways linked to our great lakes, our railways converging towards our maritime ports, our merchant marine, the whole of our transport system, which improves from day to day, is well adapted to the necessities of exportation. But this is not sufficient and if we do not organize in a scientific way the foreign sale of our products, it would be useless to urge upon the Canadian merchants the duty of economic expansion.
I mentioned just now that we should open up new markets, I may add that we should also establish, with the country re-

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
ceiving our goods, direct business intercourse, and with that aim in view make a serious study of the conditions prevailing in those countries where we wish our commerce to penetrate, establish a perfect system of informations for our merchants and manufacturers.
To export is a science. It is not as easy as the man on the street is apt to think to find a market abroad for the surplus of a country's output. There exists differences in languages, currency, custom, taste, transactions, etc., which one must be acquainted with. Moreover let us not forget that competition is very close. We have, it is true, at our disposal a whole commercial organization which is expected to render great services. But it is not yet working perfectly and the Minister of Trade and Commerce whose mind is wide open to progressive ideas and business enterprise, should without any delay work at completing the organization of our commerce abroad. Everywhere, in all the countries of the world, large and small, they are preparing for commercial sway. All have consular agencies entirely composed of men well prepared for the services they are called upon to render, numerous and competent commercial attaches. Almost all possess commercial museums, information bureaux organized by the state. In the United States, England, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark and Japan, the governments are represented by consuls and trade agents spread over the world, having information bureaux, publishing booklets which give out data for the guidance of exporters, and to expand more and more the commerce abroad of these various countries. In the worldwide competition where Canada wishes and must battle, it must arm itself with the same weapons and use the same tactics to which have recourse the other countries desirous of succeeding and which do succeed in extending their commerce.
Where is, in Canada, our commercial museum, our official information bureau that place at the disposal of our merchants and manufacturers, samples of raw materials and of industries of all the countries in the world, collections showing the modifications which take place in goods in the manufacturing process; maps and photographs showing the localities of production, the transportation methods, packing and other useful details; notices explaining the chances of doing business in foreign countries, the customs, the means of transportation, the different weights and
164i
measures systems, currency, customs duties, banking systems and numerous other precise information, practical advice, well timed warnings, used as a guidance for private initiative and landmarks to the Government in its negotiations with foreign countries? I only know, in this country, the Ecole des Hautes etudes commerciales of Montreal which possesses a commercial museum now in course of organization. I may remark, by the way, that this institution, the foundation of which is due to the far-seeing mind of the Minister of Justice, when he was Prime Minister of Quebec, is becoming one of the best schools of its kind in America.
In this country, as in all others, the Minister of Trade and Commerce should possess a commercial museum and a bureau containing very complete commercial information gathered from the best official sources such as in the year books, reviews, statistical and geographical publications, and others. What valuable services such an organization could render to our traders?
These institutions which exist in almost all other countries are not to be found in Canada.
In the same way, our service of commercial agents is very limited. We possess about twenty trade commissioners recruited in a very wretched way. In reference to this, I notice that in the list of our commercial agents, there is but one French-Canadian, Lt.-Col. Hercule Barre, at Paris. If it was part of the late government's policy to eliminate the French -Canadians, in the choice of our commercial attaches, I know that such a practice will disappear. Now, I would like to know what valuable services can our trade commissioner, in Belgium, possibly, render us if he is not conversant with the French language? Do all our commercial agents, a list of whom is in front of me and who represent Canada in twenty different countries, fulfil their duties efficiently, do they correspond with our business firms, our producers, our traders; do they truly keep the Minister of Trade and Commerce well posted on the possibility of doing business in the parts where they have been sent? We have cause to doubt of the efficiency of the services of these trade agents when we know how they have been recruited in Canada. On the admission of Mr. William Foran, secretary of the Civil Service Commission, we are content with requiring from candidates a common school education instead of a diploma from a tec'n-
The Budget-Mr. Prevost

nical institution of a high order, as the thing is done in other countries. By so doing not only would we secure for the State competent commercial representatives in all parts of the world, but we would also be opening up a new and fine career to the young Canadians who graduate in commercial schools.
Mr. J. A. Cooper, who was trade commissioner, at New York, during the war, lately said before the members of the Export Club, at Montreal, that at present it is difficult to gather details regarding the import and export trades. This is due to the shortage of commercial representatives. Great Britain has 115 commercial agents in the United States, Argentina 25, Belgium 60, and the other countries are better represented than Canada. I heartily [DOT]approve the hopes expressed by Mr. Henry Laureys, director of the Ecole des Hautes etudes commerciales, at Montreal, during a lecture given on Canada's external trade, and I trust that the Government will bring on the necessary changes m the mode of recruiting these important officials who are our trade agents, so as to endow the external trade service of Canada, with an efficient staff who will in no way be handicapped as compared with that of other countries.
Fairs and exhibitions are also a powerful weapon to advertise the products that we wish to sell in foreign lands. In this connection, I must congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having asked a credit of $50,000 to give effect to the project put forth by Senator Beau-bien in order to have circulated in France, and I also hope in Belgium, an exhibition train showing the raw material and the manufactured articles that we have for sale.
Mr. Speaker, we are passing through a critical political period, we have to face serious problems. We are confronted with the question whether in such a juncture the government in charge of the country's affairs, is in a position to make a success of it: this is what the House must decide; that is what the people expects from the government. We certainly have no reason to lose hope and distrust the future. Let us recall the example of the United States. In 1860, our neighbour's debt amounted to $64,000,000. After the war of Secession, in 1866, their debt increased to $2,733,000,-
000.	In twenty years the United States wiped out half of their debt. In 1866, the United States only exported $300,000,-

000 worth of goods while Canada, in 1922, exported more than $700,000,000.
What the United States were able to accomplish, Canada is able and must accomplish; and it will do so.
Never, in any case, was it more necessary for a Parliament to avoid these foregone conclusions, these inconsiderate voters, these obstinate attitudes from which the prestige of the House would suffer and the Government would find itself weakened.
All ministers, for a long time .to come, will have to take serious precautions, decisions which will not always be popular or may astonish an unprepared public. These necessities are the results of the intimate nature of things and events. It is in such cases that a government needs the support of Parliament. It is equally in such cases that the House must decide and choose, refuse or give its confidence and by all means support the government which it has resolved to sustain.
Now' comes into play the making of alliances to which in the past we have not been used. New ideas, extraordinary circumstances demand that three parties should have numerous followers in this House. We are witnessing what has never been seen: The House divided into three important groups. The Government must necessarily count upon the support of all those who have confidence in it. Those who wish to contribute to the moral uplift and to the restoration of our finances must perforce become its allies. Such an alliance the Government far from rejecting, loyally welcomes it, as long as it does not obstruct its liberal policy nor its aim which is the country's salvation. In the critical period we are passing through, the question is no more one of conflict between political parties, it is a struggle between the Canadian nation and the Tories. I know that the Government is not ready to sacrifice the general welfare of Canada, the broad views of the national policy, in a word the national strength, to alliances, and it must not do it otherwise it would be a deceitful game.
If it is true that an alliance gives strength to the Government we must also admit that it is the confidence in its programme, as also the ability of its statesmen which draws to it allies.
We must return to our Canadian traditions, to the respect of the constitution, to the pride of our autonomy, and invigorating thought of responsible government, we must forever create, maintain and

Questions
develop a Canadian national spirit which will be our safeguard against the allurements and snares of imperialism; we must strive to restore our shattered finances and this through economy and the expansion of our commerce; we must rebuild a healthy, laborious, robust, peaceful Canada and deferential to all the races and creeds, united and trusting in the future. If the Government remains faithful to this great programme and accomplishes this noble task, it will prove itself worthy of the alliance which, more than any other, will strengthen and make it invincible:	the
alliance with the whole Canadian nation for which it will have realized her most cherished hopes.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.	[DOT]
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Wednesday.
Wednesday, June 7, 1922