1922-06-09

KINGSTON ELECTION PETITION

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Middleton and the Hon. Mr. Justice Lennox, two of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario selected for the trial of election petitions pursuant to the Dominion (Controverted Elections Act, a report and decisions of the said judges relating to the election for the electoral district of Kingston.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Hosie.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ila Cameron.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Hamilton Bawden.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Alexander Smith.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate), for the relief of Allen Richard Morgan.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mildred Emma Blachford.-Mr. Chew.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the following
LMr. Logan.]
resolution be considered at the next sitting of the House:
That it be resolved, That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Protocols of Amendment signed on behalf of Canada at Geneva on May 20, 1922, of which copies have been laid before Parliament, embodying certain proposed amendments to Articles 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 26 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which were adopted by the Second Assembly of the League at Geneva on October 3rd, 4th and 5th, 1921; and that this House do approve of the same.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like as a matter of privilege to bring to the attention of the House a news item in the Montreal Daily Star of June 8, in which it is stated that the Progressive members declined to cut down the list of their speakers and wiill not consent to sit all night. I am not so much concerned with this article as with the opinion that seems to be pretty generally held by members of other parties in this House that that is the fact. In this connection I would point out that this debate has been adjourned on ten evenings, and that the Progressive party have supplied the last speaker on five of those evenings. The total number of speakers of all three parties taking part in this debate is 26 Government, 21 Opposition, and 26 Progressive, or 73 in all. It will be noted on reference to Hansard that it took 173 pages to contain the remarks of Government members, 153 pages for the official Opposition, and 132 pages for the Progressives. We had an equal number of speakers wi'h the Government and five more than the Opposition, but as the figures I have given show, it has taken considerably less space in Hansard to contain the views of the Progressive members. So I think the charge that we have been delaying this debate is not well founded.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: But you are not through yet.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 8, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that

The Budget-Mr. Brethen
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. G. A. BRETHEN (East Peterborough) :: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is customary in the debates of this House to devote some time to the remarks of previous speakers. No matter how distant those remarks may be, that is no obstacle to having them brought before the House and placed side by side with their utterances of to-day in order to prove the inconsistency of opposing parties or of members of those parties. It is not my intention to engage at any length in that practice. I shall rather devote my time to questions of the immediate present and the very near future.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in the course of a very excellent address, made reference to the annual statement of -the United Grain Growers of Canada and to a report which was made to that company advising against their going into the agricultural implement business in view of the Dresent situation of manufacturing concerns in the United States and Canada. The hon. member drew the conclusion that the members of the Farmers' group were inconsistent in their attacks on protection for manufacturing concerns in this country. I have no objection to the hon. member drawing those conclusions. That is his privilege. But I think every hon. member of the House will agree with me that in view of the present financial stress in the West and conditions generally throughout the country, the company was well advised in taking the course it did in that matter. It is in keeping with the action of the Minister of Public Works, (Mr. King) who has set his face sternly against any new construction in these times. I think the company showed wisdom in their decision.
The hon. member also made reference to the income tax and laid special emphasis on the question as to who pays the income taxes of Canada. The statement Jias frequently been made in this House and to the public that the residents of urban centres have paid 99S per cent of the income tax collected in this country, while the rural district has only accounted for the remaining two-thirds of one per cent. I should like to deal with that for a moment because the statement has been made and emphasized so often. I do not think
171 i
any hon. member will say that the vast army of unemployed in the cities are contributing any of that 99 i per cent of income tax. Nor is it contributed by the vast number of average citizens. I presume that it is only a very small percentage of the people in the cities who account for that 99J per cent. I do not suppose that the citizens in the rural districts have any monopoly of brains, or courage, or skill in evading the income tax collector. Therefore, we can assume that the people in the cities who have paid the 99J per cent have done so because they had the incomes.


Mr. McMASTER:: No income, no tax.


George Arthur Brethen: If, after forty years of a fair trial, the fiscal system of this country makes it possible for 48 per cent of the people in the urban districts to pay 99S per cent of the income tax collected in Canada, while 62 per cent in the rural districts, as a result of their small incomes, contribute only two-thirds of one per cent, I think any fair-minded member of this House will agree that that system is not equitable or wise, or likely to produce happiness, prosperity and contentment in this country.
Time and again, so often indeed that it has almost become a matter of history, have we seen these circumstances in the rural districts. Two brothers are growing up together on the farm, Tom and James. Tom, the elder, is taken early from school to assist his father in the work upon the farm. And, because he has done his part so well, James, the second boy, goes on to high school and university, and almost inevitably becomes a resident of the city, possibly one of those who contribute to the 99)s per cent of income tax collected in the city. Time goes on, the scene changes, and James, because of his superior educational advantages, becomes the representative of his community in the Parliament of this country. The Jameses evidently who have come to Ottawa have legislated well for the Jameses of this country when it has been possible for them to pay 99i per cent of the income tax collected. James has evidently forgotten good old honest Tom on the farm, with the result that the Toms of this country have been so legislated against that they are only able to pay two-thirds of one per cent of the income tax collected from the whole country. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that although I come from a rural district some of my dearest friends reside in the urban centres: I am not making any attack upon individuals, but upon the
The Budget-Mr. Brethen

system that makes it possible for these evils to exist. Though the Jameses are not, perhaps as plentiful in the House of Commons as formerly, the Toms are here, and as there is something radically wrong in the system of which I complain they will do their best to right it.
With much in the budget speech of the venerable and honourable Minister of Finance I am in hearty agreement. In the Minister's desire for economy, so forcibly expressed, I believe every member, at least in this part of the House, will agree. But I would draw the attention of the minister, as well as the attention of every other hon. member, to the fact that economy, like charity, begins at home; and I believe that - if we are ever to create confidence in the public mind, and show that we are sincere in our preaching of economy, we should be ready to favour some substantial reduction in that part of the cost of government which affects each one of us personally. With the statement of the Minister of Finance in relation to the method of raising the current revenue I am also heartily in accord. I believe it is highly desirable that the revenue raised should cover current expenditure, but something further is needed to which I invite the attention of the minister:	I believe that
at an early date steps should be taken toward the reduction of the national debt. I do not agree with the opinion expressed by some hon. members that it is always advisable to raise money for the public needs by domestic loans. On the contrary, I quite agree with the Minister of Finance that under certain circumstances such would be very inadvisable. For example, where such loans would result in the flow of the public coffers of such a large volume of money that legitimate and desirable businesses would be crippled, and practically annihilated in some instances, I believe it would be very undesirable to raise money by domestic loan. Possibly we are in such a position at the present time, and so I quite agree with the Minister of Finance in his policy of raising this first loan at least, outside the country.
I was very pleased to hear the statement of the Minister of Finance regarding his renewed efforts toward making the reciprocity agreement of 1911 effective. I must confess to the House that I was born a Tory and, up to 1911, adhered to that political faith; and generations of my family, as far back as I have any knowledge

of them, also belonged to that party. However, in the year referred to, the principle of reciprocity appealed to me so strongly that I left the party fold, and I have since had no reason to change my opinion respecting the wisdom of my course. The argument is frequently advanced, whenever trade arrangements between this country and our big neighbours to the south are suggested, that because of their great volume of business, and because of the keen competition they could offer, Canadian industries would be overwhelmed and would face ruin. That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of an incident that happened many years ago in the history of the world when certain twelve men were sent by their people to inspect the Promised Land. Upon their return and all reported "The land to which thou ser.test us is surely a land flowing with milk and honey." But ten of the twelve brought in a majority report and it was this "But the people be strong that dwell in that land and their cities are walled and very great, and the children of Anak are there, the children of the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers and so we were in their sight." Looking back ever the years we now recognize the fact that in that case the majority were wrong, and the two were right. May I be permitted to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the majority are not always right. In one of the darkest days in the history of this old world a truly great Man was brought before a certain judge who said of Him "I find no fault in Him, see ye to it." A majority took Him ana crucified Him. Again the majority were wrong. In 1911 two men were sent by this House to Washington to investigate and report upon a certain trade proposition. Their report was favourable. The country was asked and gave their verdict. The majority pronounced against it. After eleven years in the wilderness I believe there are thousands of people in Canada to-day who, like my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), frankly confess that they were misled and mistaken at that time an! who would to-day support that trade proposal. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, tha1- we are likely to get reciprocity to-morrow. Nevertheless I believe that to-day it is not only a very live question in Canada, but when that vast army of consumers in the adjacent cities of the eastern United States begin to realize that they are being cramped in their desire to get better food and get it more freely, I believe they will exert their power in trying

The Budget-Mr. Brethen
to have some such agreement as the reciprocity pact renewed. As to the argument, to which I referred a moment ago, that Canadians will be overwhelmed in competition with the United States, I would like to cite an actual experience as to how trade *with the United States works out in the case of pure-bred cattle. In 1918, three men were sent by the Holstein-Priesian Association of Canada to meet the Holstein-Friesian Association of America regarding a reciprocity agreement in records and registration. The fact that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), who was Minister of Agriculture in what is recognized as a protectionist government, was one of those three men does not detract from my argument. The result of their visit was that the agreement in question was put through, so that as a result we not only have reciprocity in records but every barrier against trading in Holstein cattle between Canada and the United States was removed. As an argument against the removal of trade restrictions between the tv/o countries it is claimed that because of the fact that there are 526,000 Holstcins in the United States and only 100,000 in Canada, a ratio of five to one, the Canadian breeder would be overwhelmed by reciprocity-that his market would be destroyed and that he would face a great financial loss. But what are the facts? I believe 1 am quite in accord with the facts in stating-and hon. members can correct me if I am wrong -that for every Holstein-Friesian animal that came into Canada in the past year, at least fifty Canadian animals entered United States. Not only that, but these animals have sold much above the values in the Canadian market, up to the point where the Hon. A. C. Hardy, now a Senator in this Parliament, sold a five-months Holstein calf for the world record price of $106,000 at St. Paul. This free trade agreement in registered Holstein cattle was so successful that practically every live stock organization in Canada followed suit, so that we had shorthorn breeders, swine breeders, and sheep breeders all doing the same thing. I think this argument proves, as far as Holstein and other pure-bred animals are concerned, that, instead of we Canadians losing and suffering from this trade, it has opened to us one of the widest and best markets in the whole worlds I believe the same argument would hold good with regard to many other things, if people would only lose a little of their hysteria and consider more the fact of the wider market
which is thrown open to us and less the competition that .they feared they might have to contend with. We have in the city of Toronto Mr. T. A. Russell, who is head of a large automobile factory there. He will be remembered by many people as one of those very strong advocates, some time ago, of the doctrine "No truck or -trade with the Yankees." Mr. Russell has also a shorthorn breeding establishment near Toronto, and I have observed that, while he is very strong in his condemnation of any trading in auto-mobiles by Canadians with the United States concerns, he does not assume the same attitude when it comes to selling shorthorn cattle. As a reader of the Breeders' Gazette of Chicago, I have noticed that, when Mr. Russell had cattle to sell, he had a very large advertising space in the Breeders' Gazette, in order to induce American buyers to come to his sale. If they came, as they often did, the success of his sale was assured, and these American buyers took back with them the highest price cattle offered at his sale. I do not blame Mr. Russell for trading freely with United States in shorthorn cattle, |but-"Consistency thou art a jewel."
While I have found several things in the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the support of which has afforded me great pleasure, I cannot as strongly support the budget itself. I will mention some ways in which I not only have no desire to support it, but I am strongly opposed to it. I am not going into all of these things, but I will deal lightly with them in passing, as I desire to draw the attention of hon. members to my position in regard to them. I oppose the increase in the sales tax for the same reason as given by many hon. members, that it bears too heavily on the persons least able to bear it. My hon. friend from Vancouver centre (Mr. Stevens) yesterday sought to support the doing away with the business profits tax, and he stated it was inadvisable-I believe he made the statement that it was wrong -to tax a man on his profits in order to raise this revenue. As I understand the excess profits tax, it concerns only that man's excess profit. In view of the fact that, not only in the west but right here in the vicinity of Ottawa, there are many men who have been unable to pay their taxes-and if it is wrong to tax the excess profits of any man, it is a crime it seems to me, to tax the man who has no profit and is not able to pay the tax-I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the business
The Budget-Mr. Brethen

profits tax and luxury tax be introduced as a source of revenue. I desire to draw attention of the hon. minister to a tax on unimproved land values, as suggested by my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) the other day, for two reasons: first as a source of revenue, but I have no intention of giving the last word in this matter because I have not made the study of it that some hon. members have. I say that a tax on land values might possibly have the effect of decentralizing the population of this country and avoiding that great evil which we see in any country where they have a few very large cities and a few small towns. If we can do anything to discourage industry going to a few big cities, through higher taxes on the land values there, and can induce or force them to build in thousands of medium-sized towns, we will have a better country. We will have a home market that will be right at the doors of the farmers, and the transportation question will be settled. That will be a real home market. I think the income tax might well be revised on similar lines to those adopted in Great Britain, that the medium or moderately large income would be taxed more heavily. It is all right in theory to tax a big income at a higher rate than they tax in England, but it does not work out very well in Canada, because they are so very scarce, and, as a source of revenue, I think a revision might help some. In the unrevised Hansard, on May 23, page 2910, the hon. minister, in making his budget speech, stated that on cars sold for under $1,200 an excise tax of 5 per cent would be levied and on cars sold for over $1,200 a 10 per cent tax would be imposed. Taking that word "excise" as I read it, I believed it was a tax upon home manufactured cars, and, in view of the fact that these cars were already being protected with the 35 per cent duty, it seemed to me that a prosperous industry highly protected was going to be forced to pay something into the revenue of the country. But what was my sorrow, upon reading more closely, to learn that this 5 per cent excise tax was merely another sales tax applied on imported cars as well as domestic cars, with the inevitable result of any sales tax, that it was passed back to the consumer, and the manufacturer of cars went free. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that to-day the light car is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is a necessity to the business man as well 
as the farmer, and it is a profitable investment. I am quite in accord with the proposal that the duty should be smaller on such a car for the good of the greatest number; but I believe the luxury car could well be taxed much higher than is shown in the budget, because a man who can afford to buy a luxury car should certainly contribute more to the Dominion treasury. In discussions in regard to the protective tariff, the argument is always brought forth that it is a good thing to establish new industries in this country, thereby giving employment, providing more wages and developing for the farmer a home market in which he can sell his products. I should like, for a moment, to deal with this question as it affects the automobile industry in Canada, and as the argument applies equally well to other manufacturing industries, I am going to go into the matter in sufficient detail to make it quite clear. In the Canada Year Book for 1920, the latest edition, it is stated on page 332 that there are in Canada ten automobile manufacturers with 4,668 employees. I may say that the figures are given for the year 1918, and I am using all the figures for that year so that my comparisons will be correct. They pay wages to the extent of $5,558,042, and the total value of the product is over $66,000,000. On these cars there is a protective duty of 35 per cent; that is the Canadian manufacturer is protected to that extent. This works out that Canadian manufacturers of automobiles are protected to the extent of $17,332,217. I want to draw two deductions from this. In other words, we in Canada pay over $17,000,000 to establish industries which pay wages to the extent of about $5,500,000. It seems to me that we are paying rather dear for our whistle. In other words, we might pay the wages of every man employed in the automobile industry in Canada, give him a holiday, ibuy imported cars, and the people of this country would be ahead each year to the extent of some $12,000,000. The argument has been advanced-and it was questioned by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) the other night-that under some circumstances, under the protective tariff, for every dollar in revenue that comes into the country, two or three or four dollars go into the pockets of the manufacturer. Taking the figures which I have given, I find that, in the year 1918, the government drew in revenue on imported cars sold in this country $3,961,000, or, in round

The Budget-Mr. Brethen
figures, $4,000,000, and they protected Canadian manufacturers of cars by over $17,000,000. In other words, for every dollar that went into the government coffers, some $3 went into the pockets of the automobile manufacturers.
I understand that Mr. Ford, in reference to his Detroit cars, stated that he was well satisfied to make $20 dear profit on every car; but owing to the workings of this 35 per cent duty in this country, there is a difference between the price of the American Ford and that of the Canadian Ford of anywhere from $140 to $175 per car, with the result that the Ford Motor Car Works, according to the press the other day, are paying $215 revenue per share. From 1905 to the present time, starting with a capital of $125,000 and returning dividends they to-day have a capitalized industry worth $30,000,000. I believe the Minister of Finance would be well advised if, instead of placing another sales tax on a protected industry of this kind, he would impose an excise tax that the manufacturers would have to pay. In that way, I believe, we would be getting some real money from an industry that is well able to pay. I am a free trader in theory, but under conditions as we have them to-day where revenue has to be raised, I do not pose as a free trader. I am, however, absolutely opposed to the principle of protection as displayed in many cases in this budget. I do not object so much to the protection that, according to the bud'get, is being afforded to agricultural implements; it is getting down in the right direction. But I believe there Should be a material reduction in this 35 per cent duty on automobiles, and similar duties on boots and shoes, woollen goods arid many other things that the bulk of the people use. Or, if it would break the hearts of some of my hon. friends opposite to reduce the tariff to any material extent, I think it would be a wise thing at least to impose an excise duty and get some of that protection into the public coffers as revenue.
I believe that "Every tu'b should stand on its own bottom." I believe a manufacturing industry should arise because of a demand. In our local town, we 'have a couple of small industries, large comparatively to the town. One of these is a cheese 'box factory. In former times cheese boxes came in from outside points. The man who started that factory discovered that there was a need, a demand. He started his factory, and he to-day is making cheese boxes for 87 factories. He is making them at a
satisfactory profit to himself, and selling them lower than the cheese box trust, which is after him for cutting prices. That is a manufacturing industry established on a man's personal initiative and capital. It is not bonused by a municipal, government or any other bonus, and it is a success.


An hon. MEMBER:: Without protection?


George Arthur Brethen: Without protection. I believe this is the principle upon which industries should be established. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) the other day stated in this House that the whole success of his constituency depended upon the protective tariff being afforded to agricultural implement industries in his riding. In the city of Toronto there was a large manufacturing business of the same kind which also had its warehouses full, and it found it necessary to turn its 5,000 employees into the streets. This was done under the operation of a protective tariff. It was not due to the abolition of protection by any means; the sole cause was the inability of this manufacturer's customers to buy his goods owing to the high prices that were being charged for this class of articles. He was not getting money for his stock and therefore could not carry on. The old binder, the old mower, and the old horse-rake had to do another year on the farm, while the new ones remained in the warehouse in Toronto. Now, if the manufacturers of these implements had taken their losses as the farmers of this country have had to take theirs, there would have been a different situation in the warehouses of Tononto; every one would have been satisfied and there would have been less unemployment there.
I do not agree with the conclusion of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low), who asked the question, facing the members of this group, whether they would be prepared to suffer an individual loss of $9 or $10 each to prevent the agricultural implement manufacturing industries of this country going out of business. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that the people whom I and other hon. members in this corner of the House represent are just as much interested in the successful operation of the manufacturing industries in Canada as he is. But there is a difference between the hon. member for South Renfrew and the gentlemen who form this group in the House, and that difference is not in the direction he suggests but merely
The Budget-Mr. Brethen

as regards the means we would employ in making the various industries of the country successful. We would regard the manufacturing industries as secondary, making their success dependent on t; e prosperity of the primary or basic industries. He, on the contrary, would make the secondary industry a success at the expense of the basic industries.
The question of the home market has often been introduced, and I do not think there is a member in this group who does not realize the importance of that market. But I would draw ibis to the attention of the House: While we value the home market, the fact is that the prices of goods which we sell at home are set in the markets of the world. Only a year ago milk products were selling at satisfactory prices in Canada about this time, or a little earlier. Suddenly there came a slump in cheese in the British market, and as soon as the cable reached Canada the price here fell. The prices of the goods we sell are not set in Toronto. The bulk of the produce which the Canadian farmer places on the market is disposed of at the prices which rule in the markets of the world; and I am one of those farmers who believe that, given a fair chance, we can compete with any nation on the face of the earth. Last fall a little cheese factory in the Belleville district sent 4 p.m. some exhibits to the great British Dairy Congress, and in competition with cheese from all parts of the world those exhibits carried olf the blue ribbon, winning the grand championship. Time after time, competitors from the agricultural colleges of this country have gone to international shows at Chicago and carried off the prizes. We have had them from the Ontario Agricultural College, the Macdonald College in Quebec, and the Manitoba Agricultural College, and time after time they have gone to Chicago and in competition with picked teams of the United States have brought home the bronze bull. Time and again, Jimmie Leask of Greenbank has gone to Chicago and won the grand championship in shorthorn steers; time after time J. D. MacGregor has repeated the victory with his Aberdeen Angus; year after year, Graham Brothers, of Claremont, have taken their string of Clydesdales and won the chief trophies. It is now a matter of history that whenever Graham Brothers of Canada compete at the International they sweep the boards. America has her Luther [Mr. Brethen. 1
Burbank, but Canada has her Seager Wheeler.
Now, I do not claim that the rural districts have a monopoly of the brains, the skill or the pluck of the people of Canada. 1 believe that the people in the cities of Canada, as the war has proved, are quite the equal of the people on the farms, although I do not admit they are superior. I do think, however, that they are equal to the people on the farms, and in the realm of sport they have admirably acquitted themselves. The Falcon Hockey team, of Winnipeg, a couple of years ago, at the Belgium Olympic, in competition with the hockey team? of the world, licked the Yankees, winning the championship not only of America but of the world. And I would not have hon. members forget this afternoon what the Canadians did during the last great war. At Vimy, in the second battle of Yyres, when others were falling back in the face of shells and poison gas, the Canadian boys gasping, bleeding, dying, held and barred the way to the Channel ports. During the recess a couple of weeks ago I took a trip to the northern part of my riding, one of those places of rocks, and lakes and sparkling streams,-and, at this time of the year, mosquitoes;-one of those places where agriculture is carried on under very great disadvantages but where manhood excels. In this place, one day, a little Yankee horse buyer came upon the scene and stepped into a field where a big brawny Scotchman was picking up boulders-the field was literally covered with them-and placing them in position in a fence he was building. The Yankee horse dealer asked: "What do you grow here, MaJ" And the big Scotchman reached down and took up a huge boulder, placed it on the fence and replied: "Men, my friend." I think it is fair to say that in these days of depression the farmers of the country have taken -their loss standing. I would like to compare what we see in this Parliament from day to day with the cond tion when Rome was at the height of her glory:
Then none were for the party; then all were for the state,
Then the rich man helped the poor, and the poor man loved the gTeat.
I want to say that we, as Canadians, are proud to refer to our great national resources, to our wealth of mines and fisheries, woods and fertile soil. But the greatest wealth we can leave this land of ours is a nationhood of bright-eyed, rosy-cheeked boys and girls with the will to do

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
and to serve in this God-given country whose chiefest heritage should be " an equal opportunity to all and special privilege to none."


Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weyhurn):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak but briefly this afternoon. I realize that the House is weary of this debate, but I have a few figures which I think should be put before hon. members for their consideration. I want the House to get a true perspective of what the western farmers are really up against in selling their wheat and buying their implements.
The constituency of Weyburn, which I have the honour to represent, extends along the international boundary for sixty-six miles, and the farmers there, particularly those who live near the line, have a living demonstration every day as to the opportunities of Saskatchewan farmers compared with those of the North Dakota farmers. I am going to give a comparative statement which I think is a fair one for the three prairie provinces, for I live in central south Saskatchewan, with Manitoba to the east and Alberta to the west. I have the comparative prices of wheat in Fortuna, North Dakota, and Tribune, Saskatchewan, thirty miles apart; also the retail prices of farm implements of average size, such as I use on my own farm.
1	got the daily prices of No. 1 and No. 2 northern wheat at the elevators at Fortuna and Tribune for the months of November and December, 1921, both heavy wheat marketing months, and I find that the Dakota farmer received 71 cents a bushel more than the Saskatchewan farmer during those months for the same quality of wheat, and that he received 31 cents more for the same grade. But, Sir, No. 2 Canadian wheat makes an American No. 1 wheat. I hold in my hand a copy of the report of the grain trade of Canada for the crop year ending August 31, 1921, on page 121 of which, table 91, the monthly average cash prices of wheat, and all grains are given. Taking the average monthly prices, I find there is just 4 cents difference between the No. 1 and the No.
2	grades of wheat. No. 2 Canadian wheat requires 58 pounds of good wheat; No. 1 American also requires 58 pounds. Our farmers know that No. 2 will almost invariably catch the No. 1 grade when they take it across the line, so that, it is fair to say that the Dakota farmer got 78 cents more for the same quality of wheat.
Then I compared the prices of farm implements. In order to be accurate I went to the trouble to get the prices of Massey-Harris implements for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, and of the McCormick-Deer-ing and International, the latter with branches on both sides of the line, the former-Massey-Harris-only in Canada. I am going to quote the comparative prices, and I am sure that the figures will surprise most hon. members and enable them to understand then why there is so much dissatisfaction with the two old parties. These booklets are marked "confidential", so I will ask hon members to be good sports and to keep faith with me. In the McCor-mick-Deering and International lists, it is stated that "these prices include sales tax." It is not so stated in the Massey-Harris lists, hut it holds good, just the same. That is another outstanding proof that the sales tax, so-called, is really a buyers' tax; the manufacturer and his salesmen pass it on to me. It is a consumers' tax, first, last, and all the time.
Like many other hon. members, I have received a number of letters and telegrams protesting against certain taxes. One phrase included in a communication I received-I could not help noticing it-was this: "I cannot take care of it; competition in other lines will kill my business." What does that mean? It means: "I cannot evade the tax." That is putting it in plain English-cannot take care of it, cannot pass it on to the other fellow. People seem to think it is quite honourable to evade their taxes and pass them on to somebody else. A man who would be very careful about paying any other debt thinks it is quite the manly thing to do to evade, if possible, his debt to the country. I think something should be done to see that every man carries his share of the taxation. If I escape my share, some other person has to carry it; there is no dodging it. We have had a real good time; We have borrowed money; pay-day is upon us-and everybody thinks the other fellow should bear a little more of the load. I can sympathize in a measure, at least, with the Finance Minister in that respect; each person thinks he himself is the goat.
Until the first of March, 1921, the price of an 8-foot binder in Saskatchewan was $286; then it v,as raised to $337. There is a difference * f one dollar between the price of the Massey-Harris binder and that of the McCormick or Deering binder. The price of a drill jumped from $261 to $303; that of a 5-foot- mower from $103 to $125; hay-rake, $67 to $71; manure spreader,
The Budget-Mr. Morrison


Mr. MANION:: How about unemployment in Great Britain under free trade?


John Morrison: I am not an Imperial statesman, and I am not prepared to answer every question that may be thrown at me from all sides of the House. I am not solving the British problems or suggesting a remedy for conditions over there.
The figures I have quoted show that \the customs tariff is inadequate to raise revenue. Our patriotic manufacturers simply frustrate the apparent intent of the Customs Act by taking unto themselves through its operation a great deal of the revenue. I think that an excise duty should be put on those goods when they have demonstrated that they can compete in the world's open market. If they would only charge the market value for their goods in Canada they would have the jump on the outside fellow to the extent of fifteen per cent, and a lot more goods would be bought from them. As a result would there not be more land brought under cultivation? I think so. If that was done, if they would sell to us at the real market value, then their outside competitors would have to pay the duties imposed by this country. But to-day, the American manufacturer gets as much for his goods f.o.b. from the Canadian farmer as he gets from the Dakota farmer. Then, who pays the customs duties? The American manufacturer? Not much; he passes it right on to me. At the same time that is not the worst of it. We have to pay more than the actual value of these goods to the home manufacturer. I submit that is one of the chief reasons why Canada is not flourishing. I would like to see some of my hon. friends that are high protectionists farming out in the West beside me. I think, like Saul, most of them would see a great light; they would not only be converted, but they would become regenerated and sanctified Progressives.
We have about 40,000 miles of railway in Canada, with 200 people to the mile. The expense of running this government is increasing year by year, and it is puzzling our best men to know how to raise the revenue. It is pretty hard to get the perspective of this whole situation. We know we cannot lower our tariff to let in other nations' goods, but one of the big fundamental difficulties we are labouring under is that our overhead is killing us. Supposing we were directors of any company and the industry had developed to
The Budget-Mr. Morrison

the extent of about twenty or twenty-five per cent, that our overhead was such that we could not meet expenses, but still we ran along for forty years, what would the shareholders say at the annual meeting? They would say " You fellows are all right, you are getting your salary, and what more should you care?" If this country had such a policy that we could get all our natural industries under full development there would be work for everybody. The reason people are flocking to the cities is because lots of them in the poorer rural districts cannot make a living on the farm. There is a big district not very far from my constituency where the people abandoned the country on a strip of about ten miles wide. The land was not as good as elsewhere and did not hold the moisture for as many days as necessary, and therefore they abandoned it. There are other districts not so bad as that where the people engaged in farming are merely eking out an existence. Then there are small districts, under better conditions, where the farmers are making a little money but the general rank and file of them are hard up. We have been losing money there within the last few years, and before that many of the farmers never made any. Now, I submit that conditions are fundamentally wrong, and the experience of the past forty years has demonstrated the truth of that statement, My right hon. friend the leader of the official Opposition stated that we could not compete with the industries in the United States. He said that that country was developed from eleven to fifteen times beyond what Canada was commercially, and I think, perhaps, that is a proper statement; at any rate it is near enough for me to use for the purposes of illustration. My right hon. friend would not admit that the United States has from eleven to fifteen times the natural resources that Canada has. I do not know what percentage of good land Canada has, but it is one-half as much at least as the United States has. We had British goodwill behind us all the time, we had British capita], we had British immigrants coming here, and we had protection. Why should Canada not have developed a little more as compared with the United States?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: She did not start so soon.


John Morrison: She started at practically the same time as the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Not in protection.


John Morrison: She started building up about the same time virtually, and I do not think it is much of a recommendation to Canadian statesmen that we are not in a better position than we are to-day as compared to the United States. I do not like to say anything about men who are not present to-day to speak for themselves, but really Canada should have developed a little faster when she had such a wealth of natural opportunity, and such wealth of natural resources. The capitalists of Great Britain would have preferred to invest their money in Canada; and the people of Great Britain would prefer to come to this country from motives of loyalty. That we are not in a better position to-day is because there has been something fundamentally wrong with the policy we have pursued, and the position in which we find ourselves does not reflect much credit on the protective system. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) said that repudiation was a word that does not look very well. At the present time we have this situation on our hands: We find that the railways of Canada want to repudiate a covenant which they made with the people of the prairie provinces. We had the heads of these railways down here using every influence that is at their command, and that is no small amount. What for? The one big object sought is to annul the Crowsnest pass agreement permanently. If they cannot influence the special committee on railways to bring in a report to that effect, they are willing to have the agreement annulled temporarily; and then next year will take another drive at permanent annulment. I say that is an unpardonable breach of a covenant on the part of the railways. Where does honour come in, if the railways enter into an agreement with the people and then want to annul that agreement? Not only that, but they come down here and make excuses and endeavour to set the maritime provinces and British Columbia against the prairie provinces. They say, "We cannot put the Crowsnest pass agreement into operation, and at the same time give the other provinces a better rate." Well, I have here the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I find that in 1920 their net earnings amounted to 15.30 per cent, and in 1921 their net earnings were 17.72 per cent. It is true we had hard times in 1920 and 1921, but a little lower rate of interest for that company would net have been

The Budget-Mr. Morrison
out of place. We know that the railways, and every man who invests money in this country, should make a profit. That is their object in investing it; if they do not make a return on their money there will be no further investment. We Progressives are not here to knock our railways; we are all so interdependent on one another that we must all have a measure of success or the machine cannot run.
Now the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) said the other night that he could ship three cars of merchandise to Liverpool for the same price as he could ship one to Saskatoon, and that he could ship two to Liverpool for the same price as he could ship one to Winnipeg. When questioned, he admitted reluctantly that he got a cheaper rate for export shipments, than he did for local home shipments. Contrast that statement with the sworn evidence of Mr. Porter, of Perth, New Brunswick, an exporter of potatoes, who said that the export rates are 100 per cent higher than the local rate on potatoes, and that in consequence of not being able to find a market large quantities of potatoes are rotting.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does my hon. friend mean to say that in all cases the export rates are lower than the domestic through rates?


John Morrison: I am quoting sworn evidence given before the railway committee; I am not a railway expert.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would like to tell my hon. friend that in the province of Nova Scotia, as the result of order 350 of the Railway Board, we have to pay to-day about eight cents more a barrel, say upon apples, from Windsor, Nova Scotia, to Halifax, than if we shipped those apples for domestic purposes.


John Morrison: That is not refuting my statement


Lewis Herbert Martell: No.


John Morrison: I am not an expert on freight rates, but I have quoted a sworn statement, and the House can consider it and do as thay wish about it. It is quite evident the manufacturer has been getting the preference in this matter. Now, Sir, there must be a maximum reduction in freight rates in order to get things going properly. People have not been going to the farms and remaining there. We have an immigration problem on our hands, and we are wondering where we will get suitable men to put
on the land. We can get lots of men to go into the towns, but we must make conditions a little better on the farm. If we are not holding the men with experience on the farm, whac is the use of spending money to get more inexperienced men? Let us make the farms more livable for the returned men, and the settlers, that are there doing their utmost. I submit, if we make conditions for the basic industries attractive, the manufacturers will prosper. And we farmers want them to prosper; we have nothing against them. Some hon. members, while speaking, get pretty hot against the Agrarian group, because the members of that group express opinions which are contrary to their own opinions, but we like to present our case. If the truth is not good enough, there is something wrong. An hon. member state! last night that twenty-five boot and shoe firms had gone broke lately. I wonder if they were getting too much protection, or net enough. I am wearing a pair of shoes that cost me $11 or $12. During the last year the best I could get for a calf skin or a cow hide was from 50 cents to $1. The Labour people say they are not getting very much out of it. Where is the nigger? I have a suit of clothes which I bought from one of the biggest tailors in Toronto and which cost me $50. I have a couple of hundred sheep and was selling wool last year. At the price I sold that wool, I did not get $1 for the wool it took to make this suit of clothes. An hon. gentleman quoted prices of cloth the other day, and showed that it took $7 for enough cloth to make a suit of clothes. Now, labour may be getting a good big profit, but capital is not absorbing all the balance. Somebody is not working. Honest labour is not getting it. I do not know where it is going. These are matters which should be investigated. People cannot buy. We want the goods, but we cannot buy them. We cannot exchange our wheat for the commodities that the other fellow produces. Here is a gem. I read in a Conservative paper this week that the leader of the Progressives lacks the qualities of iron and rutblessness, essential to political leadership


Mr. CALDWELL:: That is surely a Tory point of view.


John Morrison: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the proper qualities for a leader is not iron and ruthlessness. We believe a leader should have a good knowledge of his country's affairs and should have the ability to apply the Golden Rule to public business.
The Budget

Mr. Bird

Iron and ruthlessness have destroyed most of the countries in the world. They have been largely responsible for the hell that is in Europe anc in the world generally; we need the application of Christian principles to public business to-day.
In conclusion I must say that I cannot support the budget, and I am not going to support the amendment, because I think it was political trickery.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to go very deeply into this discussion. I wish to remark, at the outset, that during the progress of the debate the various attitudes of the three main groups in this House have progressively cleared themselves. The Government have manifestly followed the dictates of expediency, and incidentally they have exposed themselves to the adverse judgment of that section of the public which is still old fashioned enough to believe that the same standard that applies to public conduct applies to personal Conduct. The Opposition, on the other hand, have quite ignored the claims of expediency and have levelled a charge of moral aberration against the Government. I do not wish to enter into the question of expediency. It is a matter of long dispute, but I notice that it is a matter of great importance to the politicians. They have great need of it at times, and, although I am not very well versed in political history, I believe, from information I have received, that, even our rigidly righteous friends to the right have had occasion to use it now and again. I am reminded of a quotation given in this House the other day from an American writer, to the intent that Providence made politicans hollow in order to facilitate the disposal of inconvenient principles. Our friends to the right seem to believe that the members of the Government are very hollow, indeed-so hollow that they have swallowed all their present principles and still there is room. On the other hand, I am reminded of a quotation from another American writer, whiclmruns something like this:	W
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, .
Of little statesmen, philosophists and divines.
You see the Government on the one side, and the Opposition on the other, stand in a compromising light before the public at the present time. One is exposing its integrity and the other is exposing its-well, its "consistency." I am glad I am a Progressive at the present

time. I think we have got the two old parties in a position in which we could smack them very well, if we wanted to. But it is not our duty-at least we do not conceive it to be our duty. We do not wish to reflect upon the integrity of the Government, nor upon the sincerity of the Opposition.
When I thought of these remarks, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) had not spoken-the right wing of the Labour party, I mean-I do not know whether it is the right wing or the left wing, but one of the wings of the Labour party. In his speech he took occasion to criticise the Progressive party, and I am sorry to say that, in his remarks regarding the Progressive party, he seemed to be labouring under the same mist that enveloped the first part of his speech in regard to our credit system. The former part of his speech about the credit system reminded me of the famous saying about " the blind man groping in a dark room for a black hat that was not there." I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat. I do not wish to disparage the sincerity and ability of that hon. gentleman; I have known him for many years, and I think in both regards he is the equal of most members in this House.
I want to make just one general remark in regard to the budget, and that is that, I think, this budget proves the old truth that whenever a government begins to revise a budget, the people do not stand to gain very much, if anything at all. When once a protective system is established to the degree it is in this country, it is almost impossible for any government, however sincere its intentions may be, to modify that system in the direction of the interests of the people. If, Sir, you will pardon another parable-and truth sometimes enters in by lowly doors-I am reminded of a legend about a cage of monkeys. There was once a cage of monkeys who had lived for some considerable time upon a diet of six chestnuts in the morning and four chestnuts in the evening. They got discontented under those conditions, so they resolved to present a petition to their keeper in order that that tariff might be revised. The keeper was somewhat perplexed; but by and by he made this proposition that, in future the monkeys should have, instead of six chestnuts in the morning and four in the evening, four chestnuts in the morning and six in the evening. We are told that the monkeys were well satisfied with the generosity of the offer. Some

The Budget-Mr. Bird
of the members in this House, I have often observed, are Scotch in descent, and they do not easily see the point of an illustration.


Andrew Ross McMaster: An English joke.


Thomas William Bird: I am a North of England man myself, so that I am pretty nearly a Scotchman, although I have preserved my sense of humour in spite of the atmosphere in which I have been brought up. It is difficult to imagine a cage of nine or ten million monkeys; but I believe there are often more proofs of the theory of Darwin than we imagine, especially when the question is one of economic or political matters.
I want to say a word or two regarding the speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), seeing that he has interrupted me, and the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). These two hon. gentlemen, each in his own way, possess gifts of expression which are a distinct acquisition to this House. I was sorry to see them placed in a position that was somewhat apologetic, somewhat retrospective, with regard to their political affiliation. It seems to me to be a peculiar circumstance when these two gentlemen, tracing their political descent from a common source, should have arrived eventually at such divergent points of view.. If you will pardon me, Sir, this far-fetched illustration: you may .begin with the original cell that we are told of in our school books, the primordial cell, and after ages of slow development, you get a tiger on the one hand and a sheep on the other. I suppose it should not be impossible, beginning with the primary germ of Liberalism away back in history, eventually to get the hon. member for Brome on the one hand and the hon. member for Brantford on the other. The hon. member for Brantford, it will be noticed, traced his lineage back to King John and the Barons bold. I do not know by what principle of interpretation he did that; but I thought at the time that, for his brand of Liberalism, he might as well have gone back considerably further, in fact, a few million of years further; because I should imagine that in the dim ages the Cro-Magnons and Kitchen-middeners had a protection on their stone hammers and flint knives. But the Liberalism of the Barons is rather an obscure point, I must say. John Ruskin, however, tells us that the Barons bold were protectionists. They built their castles alongside the trade routes on those days, and they levied a
toll upon the passing caravans. They were Liberals in the sense that they were liberal with other people's goods. I do not think the hon. member for Brome is anxious to trace his lineage so far back as that and, as a matter of fact, he did not do so. I noticed this phenomenon in regard to his speech, and I want to pay tribute to that speech. Some of the sentiments in it went much further back than King John; I think some of them went back 1,000 years behind King John, and some of the sentences in his speech were almost memorable. But I noticed that the latter part of 'his speech lacked the enthusiasm and verve of the first part, and I came to the conclusion that there is a difference between eulogising the past history of a great party and apologising for its present conduct. Sometimes the springs of eloquence suddenly dry up, and there is always a reason for that. The hon. member invoked the spirit of many estimable men of the past, without very .much effect, I thought. When he was invoking them, he turned to his own party; but I think there was a rustle of wings above the Progressive party at the time he was doing that. If I read history aright, if I can add my view of history in contradistinction to the views which these hon. gentlemen put forward in regard to Liberalism, I would say that the historic Liberalism, the Liberalism of John Bright, Cob-den, Gladstone, Campbell-Bannerman and Lloyd-George in his palmy days, is represented, not on that side, but upon this side of the House. Progressive-ism is Liberalism redivivus and carried to a further degree of enlightenment. That is the position which we on this side of the House hold.


Mr. JACOBS:: That is Liberalism for the farmers.


Thomas William Bird: I think my position in this House has proved that it is not Liberalism for the farmers. I was not going to make this remark; but I will make it now. If there is any analogy in history that fits the party opposite it seems to me that it is Joseph's coat. Hon. members will remember that Joseph's coat was a coat of many colours-about the only thing, I think, about Joseph that is like the present party opposite. If I remember rightly, Joseph was in favour of a wheat board.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He got corrupted by living under a tyrannous Pharaoh.


Thomas William Bird: I think he was very successful. His wheat board conserved the food of the people for seven years.
270G
The Budget-Mr. Bird


Andrew Ross McMaster: He enslaved the people.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, he saved the people.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I said "enslaved."


Thomas William Bird: Well, that was ancient slavery; you cannot compare the twentieth century with that age when they took slavery as a matter of course. Well, I will add this personal reference:	I was
brought up in a school of Conservatism, all my relatives and ancestors having been deep-dyed in the old doctrines of that political faith. When I entered my later 'teeps, however, I fell under the influence of Lloyd George, that splendid idealist in British politics. That was the beginning of my Liberalism, and I feel that I still entertain the ideas of Liberalism that I had at that period. But it is not by any means the Liberalism of my friends opposite, excepting one or two very notable instances. I should like to see a revival of the old Liberal spirit amongst our friends on the opposite side, I should like to see them come back to the true faith, especially the younger men among them; I should like to see them cast aside their superstitious adherence to party tradition and party names. Let hon. gentlemen opposite throw off those shackles and get back to the realities in politics. I do not say that they ought to come over to this side, speaking in a topographical sense; but they should come to our side in the matter of adherence to realities in national politics.
Now, I do not wish to go fully into that part of my speech in which I intended to deal with the tariff. I desire, however, to refer for a short time to the attitude which our hon. friends to the right have taken towards the Progressive party. I am sorry that our Liberal friends have not criticised us throughout this debate. With one or two exceptions they have treated us very kindly, and as a consequence we have to direct all our artillery towards the right. That leaves the impression that we are somewhat biased, which I assure the House is not the case. If hon. gentlemen opposite will give us the opportunity we shall be glad to turn some of our attention in their direction.


Samuel William Jacobs: Go on and do your work.
Mr. BIRD. I do not want to put the courage of hon. gentlemen to the test; and the opportunity is not always favourable to the display of courage.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Was the hon. member
satisfied with the attitude which the Liberal party took in 1911 with regard to reciprocity?


Thomas William Bird: Theoretically I was. But, frankly, at the time of that election I was just a fresh immigrant to this country, and since then I have not entered into the niceties of that contest. In theory, however, I was whole-heartedly on the side of the Liberals then.


Harold Putnam: That is the last time we had power.


Thomas William Bird: Well, it would be a strange thing if the Liberals were not sometimes true to their principles. Now, in regard to the attitude cf our friends to the right, they have two or three charges to make against our party, and the main one apparently is with reference to our accuracy, or rather ou" want of accuracy. Hon. gentlemen to our right have assumed a very superior position on the necessity for exactitude of statement in this House, and during three and a half months of session they have caught the Progressives twice in this respect. Ever sincej they have tried to disparage this party because of that, which I do not think is either fair or dignified. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will excuse the littleness and meanness of the reference I an: about to make. The other day-and this is in regard to a quotation I have already made-an hon. member quoted the words I had used from the Bigelow papers and attributed them to Sam Weller. Now, this is undoubtedly a small matter to bring up. But suppose we Progressives decided henceforward to despise hon. gentlemen to our right, and always to question their accuracy, simply because one of their party happened to have made a lapse in a literary reference. That would not be nice; and yet we should be perfectly justified in doing so if we were to follow the example that hon. members have set in that regard. They have caught one or two of our members on little trivial points, and some of their first debaters have devoted almost half of their speeches to an endeavour to show that the Progressive party is irresponsible when it comes to a basis of fact. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). We all admire the clearness and the logical character of his thinking, but I think he descended very low in his speech when he bent his efforts to show that we as a party were to be disparaged and despised because one or two of our members had

The Budget-Mr. Bird
made a slip. The member for Kindersley CMr. Carmichael) during this session has been corrected no fewer than three times for a slight slip in statement, and that is the kind of argument which the Progressive party has to c< pe with from our friends to the right. I admit that we Progressives are so inexperienced in parliamentary ways that we have not yet arrived at the point where we can make inaccurate statements and get away with it. No doubt the time is coming when we shall be able to do so. However, we are determined to base our main criticism always upon the facts of the case. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, charging the Progressives with inaccuracy, quoted some of our figures. He quoted the revenue figures for 1917-18 from a pamphlet I have in my hand, the only pamphlet in this connection the Progressives used in the campaign. This pamphlet deals with taxation and the hon. member, having quoted fairly accurately the figures of the revenue, went on to say:
They say-
That is, the Progressives.
-that $146,000,000 is 94 per cent of $27,000,000 plus $26,000,000.
I contend that there is no such statement nor anything approaching it in the pamphlet. Now, turn to his own figures. This is what he says:
In 1921 we raised 37i per cent by indirect taxation and in 1922, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 27J per cent. Let me give some figures of taxation receipts by way of illustration. Last year we received $105,000,000 from customs; $36,000,000 from excise; $73,000,000 from inland revenue-that would be sale tax.-$78,000,000 from income tax and $22,000,000 from business profits tax.
That makes a total of $314,000,000. Now, out of that there is approximately $100,000,000 that fairly could come under the head of direct taxation, which means that 67 per cent was from indirect taxation. And yet the apostle of rigid righteousness says that 27 i per cent was collected by way of indirect taxation. I am sorry he is not here to correct his own figures. It does not amount to very much; if I had not been making a speech in defence I would not have referred to the matter; it is not worth while. It is not the kind of argument that even a new member ought to condescend to, but it is sufficient to show that hon. members, living as they do in their glass houses, should not throw stones. It would be well if they would be more accurate in the quotation of very simple figures.
Now, I want to detain the House just a little longer with one or two brief arguments in regard to the tariff. First of all,
I want to say that so long as a protective tariff raised the greater proportion of the revenue of this country it was almost impossible to oust it from its strong position. When a system floods the treasury with money from year to year until the conscience and intelligence of the people are pretty much asleep, that is a bad thing for ar.y country and it is a bad thing for any system of taxation that does that. Conditions in Canada, however, have changed; the tariff revenue is no longer the largest proportion of our revenue; in fact, it has a very secondary place in it.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the protectionist tariff has through war conditions, lost the old prestige that it formerly enjoyed-the almost superstitious regard which the people of Canada have accorded to it for so many years. I foresee the time when it will exercise very little influence over the minds of the people of this country -that is, in a superstitious sense, because now that it has sunk to such a secondary position in our revenue the people are more inclined to look at it critically. I am glad that the war has hastened the time for Canada to see that it must supplement its revenue by direct taxation, because when you once introduce that principle it is the beginning of the end for protection. We are told that it was the budget of Peel in 1842 that sounded the death knell of British protection, because it introduced for the first time an income tax into the British fiscal system. I believe that once the people have tasted the economy and the equity and the simplicity of direct taxation they will no more go back to the protective system for getting revenue than an old cow would leave fresh grass to go back to a three-year old straw-stack. I am not one of those who criticise the sales tax unconditionally, because I recognize in it a plain family resemblance to an excise tax. But a tax may be all right or approximately right in principle and yet be very wrong in its application, and I am sorry that the Government have thought fit to add fifty per cent to the sales tax this year. It is well-nigh nefarious for a country like Canada to indulge in that kind of taxation. But sometimes good comes out of evil, and I am pleased'to think that here is another blow at the old protectionist superstition; here is another manifestation to the people

The Budget-Mr. Bird

of Canada that a free trade government could get its revenue if it wanted to. It has been an obsession of the protectionists for a great many years that a free trade government has no channel open to it whereby it can get its revenue. But I believe there was no need for a sales tax. I believe it would have been a splendid thing if the Government had inaugurated an inheritance tax at this time. We all would have been very proud to see the name of Fielding bracketed with such a name as Harcourt in the annals of British taxation as the originator in this country of a taxation which appealed equally to the reason and to our humanity; and I believe that is what the inheritance tax does. I hope to see the day pretty soon when the federal government will introduce that tax. Of course, the cry will be raised that it is a tax on capital, but can anybody in this House point to a tax that is not a tax on capital? It is only a matter of whose capital you are going to tax, whether it is that of the rich man or that of the poor man.
Now, just a word to the protective character of protection. We have been told-


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he also tax land?


Thomas William Bird: Well, yes, if that is any
satisfaction to my hon. friend.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is to say-[DOT]


Thomas William Bird: I do not wish to enter into the matter, because I want to go on with my argument; time is pressing. I want to say, in regard to the contention that protection protects the farmer, that the advocate of that view is up against a very serious difficulty in the fact that the farmers almost universally do not believe it. I know that certain protectionists believe that that attitude on the part of the farmers throughout Canada is due to some deep-seated weakness of mind. I read a protectionist speech the other day that almost went so far as to say that the farmers' attitude was due not to any understanding on his part of his own interests but to some kind of imbecility. I think I know the western farmer at any rate, and it is pretty plain that he bases his economic convictions upon very simple facts. I do not need to repeat the threadbare argument of the farmer, which is this: that protection can never, under any

circumstances, increase the price of his product but that it does under all circumstances increase his cost. These are nuts that the protectionist can never crack. The farmer is no longer in the a-b-c of economics; I think the presence of these sixty-five members in the House of Commons is proof of that. There was a time when the Scottish laity could discuss points of theology with as much ability as the college man; I believe the time has come when the farmers of Canada can pretty nearly discuss economics with any of the professed politicians of this country. And the more deeply they go into this subject, the more they question the beneficence of protection in this regard, knowing as they do that the countries to which they sell their produce can only pay for it by exporting manufactured goods. The farmers doubt whether the protective tariff can be of any use to them. How can it be? How can protection help the farmer by getting in between him and his ultimate market, by stopping the flow of trade? There is another pretty hard nut for the protectionist to crack.
We have heard a lot about the home market. Well, I think nobody knows more about the home market than the farmer. Every time he drives a load of wheat to the elevator and brings back some trifling piece of machinery or household equipment, he feels like cursing the home market. It is the market that fleeces him; it is the market where his produce sells at a minimum and where everything he buys is at a maximum. So, do not cite the home market to the farmer, please. We have heard a lot about Ontario and Quebec, and we will admit that the Ontario and Quebec farmers sell 85 per cent of their produce in the home market. But are the Ontario farmers and the Quebec farmers any better off than the western farmers? I have yet to see it. I have passed through the country a good deal, and in my opinion the conditions in these respective sections do not differ very much. My contention is this. You can multiply the population of Canada four times, and the farmer would be no better off than he is now. In fact, he would probably be worse off, and instead of being a self-respecting man owning his own farm, he would be a tenant farmer, as sixty per cent of the farmers in the United States are to-day. So it is no use to talk the home market to the average farmer, be-

The Budget-Mr. Bird
cause that is the place where he gets fleeced and skinned.
Just a word about the labouring man. I notice that the protectionists, especially when they talk anti-dumping, are always solicitous for the labouring man. They always wish to see a pile of work for the workingman. I know that a protectionist can point to this industry or that, and argue that free trade would kill it. I know that is possible, and there is a reason for it. But is not that just one of the results of competition everywhere? Is not that one of the fruits of competition, even if that competition is internal? Why, of course it is. It is just one of the ordinary every-day results of free and fair competition. Now and then the man who is incompetent goes to the wall, and that is all that argument amounts to.
Let me refer to the English farmer for a minute. The English farmer at the present time is complaining that the Canadians are dumping their wheat over there, and they are urging that this should be prevented. They want to stop Canada sending wheat to England. The British farmers, there is no doubt about it, are going to get out of the wheat business pretty soon, and thousands of their labourers are going to have to seek employment elsewhere, and thousands of acres will go back to pasture. That is a splendid opportunity for the British protectionist to say: Let us protect the British workingman by putting a tax on Canadian wheat and keeping it out of the country. I wonder how the manufacturers of this country would like it if England adopted their own logic and did that? I think they would go out of business pretty quick if our wheat was excluded from Great Britain to protect the British farmer in growing his high-priced wheat. There are a good many people who would like to go back a hundred years and have a tax imposed on Canadian wheat to protect the farmer. But in England that kind of talk seems immoral to the average person. It sounds almost like plain stealing to the average Englishman, and such a proposal has not much chance in a country where for many, many years every industry, agriculture included, has had to stand on its own bottom.
In this country what have we done? By a system of protection we have built up certain parasitic industries that could not possibly stand on their own feet, and when we begin to talk of free trade in relation to these industries, we are asked to
172i
think of the poor workingman. I want to say this: When we discuss the work of the workingman we want to take a wider view. We do not want to think of the workingman in this or that parasitic industry, but of the workingmen throughout the length and breadth of Canada. What is the position? It is just this: The protectionists propose to give the workingman work by keeping out of this country the manufactured articles that are paid for by the work of the workingmen of this country. Is that giving the workingman work? It is not. It is just transferring the workingman from one kind of work to another kind of work. Let me illustrate that. A short while ago in England the glove fabric people asked for protection against the German glove fabric people. They could not compete with them, although the German people are now producing their glove fabric at about four times the pre-war cost

and that is a strange thing considering the arguments we have heard from the Opposition about the effect of currency on the cost of production in Germany. The glove fabric people in England wanted to give their workingmen work by keeping out the German glove fabric. Do hon. gentlemen to my right' think that is all right? Do they think the British people should keep out the German glove fabric to give the British workingmen work? Is that the position they take? They do not say, because they feel there is something else coming, and it is this: These glove fabric people in England did not think about the cotton spinners in Lancashire, who provide 90 per cent of the yarn that goes into the German product. So this talk about giving the workingmen work by protecting the industry in which he is engaged amounts to this: You take a man from a job where he works to advantage and put him at a job where he works at a disadvantage. What does that mean to the workingman? Any one can figure that out. It means that he has to work longer hours, for less pay, and under conditions that are worse all round. That is the logic of that situation. So, you cannot give the workingman work by keeping out the goods for which he pays with his work; you can only transfer him from a job at which he works to advantage and put him at a job where he is at a serious disadvantage.
Just a word as to the manufacturers themselves. They have preached to us; let us now preach to them a little. What has
The Budget-Mr. Bird

protection done for the manufacturer? We cannot have the small manufacturer here and put him on the witness stand because, poor fellow, he is dead; he died years ago. I know that some speakers in this debate have said that Canada is a country of small manufacturers. I do not believe it. I have been a long way over Canada and I have yet to see the small manufacturers. If Canada was besprinkled from coast to coast with small propietors, it would be very hard to argue against protection, but it is not. The small manufacturer has gone the way of all flesh many years ago. There is a story told of Kipling who made two visits to the United States. On his first visit he met a friend, a manufacturer, who was looking very blue, and who gave as a reason, "I am fighting a losing battle against the trusts, I cannot keep it up much longer." The next time Kipling came over, the man was wreathed in smiles, and fairly exuding contentment. Kipling found out that he had sold out to the trusts. He was lucky to get out from under in that way. But what did it mean? That man had the humiliation of seeing his life's work come to nothing. That is the position we are in. We have no small industries in Canada, and any one who visits the West knows that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the hon member give his definition of a small manufacturer?


Thomas William Bird: I would if I thought the House did not perfectly understand what I mean.


William Garland McQuarrie: We had the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that there were a great many small manufacturers in this country. Now the hon. gentleman says there are none, that the small manufacturer is dead, and I am simply asking him to give uo his definition of a small manufacturer.


Thomas William Bird: I wonder if the hon. member has ever read a work by Kropotkin. I will refer him to that, and by the time he has read it he will know what I mean by a small manufacturer.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am simply asking the question.


Thomas William Bird: The other day I asked a question, but I was dealt with very rudely, and I felt it. Since then I have determined that I shall always treat questioners with absolute courtesy from now on, because it is not pleasant to be dealt with rudely, even

in the House of Commons, where rudeness is sometimes the rule. The question which my hon. friend has just asked me is quite legitimate. However, I do not desire, at the present time, to enter into a discussion on the point, because the general remark I made will be perfectly understood by the House.


William Garland McQuarrie: My hon. friend has not answered my question.


Thomas William Bird: It would take considerable time for me to define just what small industries are.


William Garland McQuarrie: As far as I can see it is a pertinent question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
member is not required to answer questions unless he so desires, and he has indicated that he does not wish to do so.


Thomas William Bird: I do not wish to repulse the hon. member in any way, but really I do desire to continue my speech. I think that in a general way the fact is as I have stated in the case of the small industries. As a general rule it is true in the United States and Canada that the small industries have given way to the big industries, and that we, at the present time, are pretty well in the grip of these big combinations. I tell you that a big industry to-day can tax the clothes and the boots I wear with more impunity than our Finance Minister can tax soft drinks or candy. I believe these big trusts can tax us in a way that would turn King Charles I. green with envy if he were looking on, and make such men as Pym and Hampden turn in their graves, and that is a long time ago in the history of British liberty. I can refer you to a book on industrial relationships, issued by the United States government, that would make you sit up and take notice of the conditions on this continent in regard to the freedom and liberties of the people. We are pretty well within the grip of these 'big industries, and what does it mean? It means this: The people of Canada, as a rule, do not read much Red literature; they are better balanced, I suppose, than to do so. But they do observe the operation of the big trusts in their daily life; and I tell you that the operation of those trusts is a better argument for socialism of the most extreme type than any Red literature that was ever spewed forth from a Bolshevist press. Now that is Where you manufacturers have gone; there are no longer any manufacturers in the usual historical sense. Now just let me conclude with a word-

The Budget-Mr. Bird


Mr. ROBB:: Before my hon. friend leaves that, are we to understand that he is opposed to all trusts including the Grain Purchasing Trust?


Thomas William Bird: I am not opposed to any Grain Purchasing Trust at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: Let my hon. friend present a case and I will give my judgment upon it; but I am not going to be led into any digression. Just the same I do believe in a Wheat Board.
Now I am going to say a word on the patriotic aspect of these questions. The protectionists are nothing if they are not flag wavers. We have had a lot of talk about Germany. We have heard something about the "Blood-stained hand of Germany" and we have heard even worse statements about that country; and when you get that spirit turned inwardly on internal affairs you get an attitude that is very hard to bear. I mean you get a superior attitude; you get an attitude that ought not to obtain between reasonable citizens in the same country as to patriotism and fidelity to one's country. What does all this talk by protectionists about the building up of our country by protection amount to? I want to say very briefly that in my humble view we have three difficulties in Canada in the way of building up a strong or united nationhood. The first of these difficulties is that we are a federation of divers political units. I think it is, Bagehot who says, "Of all forms of government, a federation demands most of its people and of its statesmen." Now in the future Canada is going to demand much from its statesmen and its people by reason of the fact that it is a far flung country with divers political units federated. The second difficulty is of a geographical nature. Nature-the greatest sectionalist in Canada, infinitely worse than the Progressives -has divided this country very effectually. Nature could not very well have reared a higher range of mountains than the Rockies; it could not very well have made a wilder wilderness than Ontario-I beg your pardon, western Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you sure you do not mean Toronto7
Mr. (BIRD: No, I do not mean Toronto although I believe some one has said that the hub of the universe visibly protrudes from that part of Canada; but nature has so destined our conditions that the influences that play from east to west, and
west to east, should be permanently obstructed; and from the time of the Greeks down to the present conditions of that kind have militated against the building up of united countries. It seems strange that nature should have so effectually obstructed the interplay of influences east and west; and having done that should have so effectually exposed us to the influences that play from the south-should have laid us wide open to the influences that come from the great political unit to the south of us.
I want to say that these three conditions are going to demand much of the statesmen of Canada in the future. To keep this country united is going to require a lot of wise planning. It is not a case of loyalty at all, it is just a case of economic necessity; and economic necessity, which is the first law of our existence, on occasion will come before that perhaps finer sentiment, patriotism itself. But let me say that protection seems to aggravate every one of these conditions-every one of them. It comes in and seems to deliberately drive a wedge in each one of these conditions. We have long believed that protection was a mischief maker internationally; but we are also beginning to see that it is a mischief maker internally, and when hon. members to my right talk about sectionalism in a strain of irony, working us up, so to speak, they ate doing something the final influence of which they cannot very well be aware of, and I would advise them to go lightly on that strain. If conditions were different in this country they might do it to their utmost; but seeing that we are so far flung, and so loosely knit together, they would far better get on to some other and more safe line of argument than that.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: It may seem rather strange to the House that the Progressive party should persist in continuing the debate in this manner. However, we have a story to tell and possibly, even if we do not take up so much time individually as some other hon. members, we may be excused for not remaining silent. I believe we have all arrived at the conclusion that one day more or less here at the present time does not matter materially, seeing that we who are engaged in agriculture are now unable to get home to take part in the very important occupation of earning a livelihood-that is to say, putting in the crops in the western country; that time has passed.
Now in my earlier remarks, and I do not propose to take up any great amount
The Budget-Mr. Gould

of time-I must associate myself-and I do so with great pleasure and earnestness -with all that has been said by way of compliment with respect to the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding). I pay that compliment to him almost in the sense of a son to a father-that is, with the respect that a son should have for a father -for I must say, Mr. Speaker, that long years before I had the honour of entering this House I had watched with much interest the endeavours-yea, the accomplishments-of the hon. minister, and, certainly, it had not occurred to me in those days that the privilege would be afforded me of coming here and being a colleague of that hon. gentlemen. Yet, I must confess that I was to a great extent, by precedent, perhaps, by the teachings of my people, taught to be a believer in the principles upon which he stood. But, as time progressed, and I arrived more at years of discretion, I began to see that I would have to reason for myself, and that he, and the party to which he belonged, after having had opportunities afforded them for many years since Confederation, were not seemingly bringing to a fruition those things for which the Liberal party professedly stood. I recollect distinctly, going back to 1893 and 1896, the first platform of his party, and I followed it all through. That is an aside at the present time. I wish, though, to state that, as I have come up to this House, I have watched the keen and sprightly walk of the Minister of Finance, and I have thought to myself that he was a man older in experience than he was in years, and I am sure we are all impressed with that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the expressions of opinion that have come from this corner of the Chamber have all been initiated, perhaps, by the consciousness of conditions which obtain in the country, particularly affecting the class of people, whom we represent; that is the agricultural class. Many theses and doctrines have been promulgated. The effort has been made

and it has come from many sources in this corner-to persuade the powers that be that we have a real grievance, but while advancing that claim we believe we have a solution for it. This question has been repeatedly before the House. The presentation of the case has been made in like manner, except, perhaps, not in as great volume, ever since 1919. The hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) led a small party of men in this House, in deference

to expressions of opinion that were coming from sections throughout the country, and those few followers put forth the contention that agriculture in this country had not been receiving its due recognition. In spite of predictions, the fact that we have 66 members in this corner of the House belonging to the Agrarian party is a concrete evidence of the fact that people throughout Canada believe that we have not been receiving a proper deal, or that we have not been receiving justice, and we have been sent here for the distinct and express purpose of again explaining to Parliament, and, by all honourable means, obtaining for our people the things we have been so long denied. That is the reason we are here. And I have wondered, as I have looked over the provisions of the budget speech, whether we should consider that speech and the provisions thereof, as representing love of us, or fear of us, or neither.
Before proceeding to deal with the budget, I wish to ask a favour, (because I desire to digress a little from the budget address, and bring up a question which, perhaps, should have been dealt with when the estimates were considered, and if I had had the information when the estimates were before the House which I have at the present time, I would have mentioned it then. This question has to do with the national expenditure on the briquetting plant in the district of Assiniboia. We all know that the Dominion government has expended certain sums of money for a number of years to erect a briquetting plant at Bienfait and endeavoured to find out the best means-at least that is the professed idea-of preparing lignite coal, Which is there in large quantities, for the people of the country. I have expressed my opinion on this matter previously. The lignite coal exists there in such large quantities that I believe there is sufficient to energize all the electricity required in the southern part of Saskatchewan, yea, perhaps, in the south western part of Manitoba, and, not being a wooded area, we would like to have that coal brought into such a state that the settlers could use it in furnaces, or others could use it commercially. About $820,000 was expended on that briquetting plant, but it seems to me, from information I have received, that we have been working upon wrong lines. It is proposed to extract the moisture from that coal and form it into briquettes by means of a binder. Something is expected from the by-products

The Budget-Mr. Gould
thereof. I find now that the estimates of the price of briquettes far exceeds the first estimate that was given when the project was first undertaken.
This is a national undertaking. Apart from the scientific aspect, it represents moneys that are taken from every district of Canada, it is of great importance in a national way, and that is one reason why I introduce it. I put questions on the Order Paper some time ago and received replies from the minister. He stated that he would have some by-products in the recovery plant, but he did not know to what extent the by-products would be useful. He states that the recovery process is for the extraction of coal tar, and yet on the other hand, we find that coal tar is to be the basis of the binder that is to be used for that lignite. But we also find that $8 per ton is the price, at the head of the Great Lakes, of tar to be used as binder, that has to be imported into the province of Saskatchewan, carried down to Bienfait, and used there to replace the tar which as a by-product is being extracted. The price of the briquettes which contain 11,500 heat units per pound is $12.25 per ton and we at once realize the commercial impossibility of manufacturing lignite into briquettes, and the commercial failure that must result, in competition with other briquette coal that is being brought in at the present time. In the city of Winnipeg briquette coal, with about 16,000 heat units per pound, is being sold at $17 a ton. If you take into consideration the number of heat units supposed to be incorporated in this lignite coal, the price of the tar, and so on, that has to be imported to bind it, you will see that for us to further pursue that as a commercial proposition would be inadvisable.
It is said then that we must have an alternative. On that point I have some information which I wish to submit to the House, and I hope the Government will pay attention to this. We desire to have the coal made commercially available as quickly as possible. We would like to have erected a plant whereby the moisture in the coal, about 30 per cent, could be extracted, before the product is shipped out to us. Experiments have resulted in demonstrating the fact, that whether it be lignite, anthracite, or even peat, it can be used in powder form much more cheaply, and without waste. In the use of lignite coal there is much waste and ash and
clogging of flues or pipes, whether it be used in stoves or furnaces or in a manufacturing way. It can be used in a powdered form, both for stoves and manufacturing purposes, and it can be powdered by the addition of a plant, requiring about one fourth the capitalization necessary for a briquetting plant, such as we have at the present time. I believe this powdered coal can be turned on and burned in that form in a pressure plant, the same as gas or oil. The tars not being used in the binder, there is very little waste, and practically no residue after the coal is burned. We get practically 95 per cent out of our coal, whereas at the present time, I believe, in the case of lignite coal, the available heating element is almost 70 per cent over and above waste.
That is a problem which I think the Dominion government should look into. I do not know whether to condemn the past government because a sufficiently thorough investigation did not take place; but it is certain that we, in the. West, as a people are disappointed because years ago we expected these briquettes to be placed upon the market and, according to information contained in answers to questions which I placed upon the Order Paper, the time seems just as far distant as ever. Nevertheless, $126,000 is being voted again this year for the purpose of this plant. It is quite unusual for a member to protest against expenditures in his own electoral district; usually, hon. members are in the habit of asking for greater expenditures; but I am talking in the interest of economy, and I state that, in my humble opinion, this money might be better employed for some other purpose. I hope, naturally, that it will not be taken away from my constituency, because I should like to see the money expended on a railway which runs right across our coal fields. This would tap four lines of railway running east and west; and if this money were spent in that way, the railway would be a real asset to the people of my constituency which is lacking in wood, so that they must rely on fuel from outside sources to keep themselves warm and comfortable during the winter. As I have said on many occasions, we have reached the point where settlers have actually attacked cars and taken the coal off rather than see their children go cold. Therefore, if the Government will pay heed to this, I hope that next year we in the West will learn that a real solution of the problem has been found. I repeat that I do not believe a
The Budget-Mr. Gould

solution will be found in following out the present plan of briquetting that lignite coal. That is all I wish to say on this matter at the present time.
I want to deal for a few minutes with some statements that have been made by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver, (Mr. Stevens) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat. He rather deprecated the fact that the agricultural portions of Canada did not pay their share of the income tax. I almost gathered the impression that he would have the people of Canada believe that this was wilful on the part of the agriculturists. I am sure hon. members will believe the statement that has been repeated so frequently from this corner of the chamber, that the agriculturists are not doing this for any other reason than that they are unable to do so. Is it not a known fact to hon. members-I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) ; he will bear me out in this statement-that in Saskatchewan there are many school districts, in which during the past three, four or five years the people have questioned themselves whether they could pay taxes to keep the schools open. Even last winter municipalities took the question up and municipal meetings were held in many parts of that province, the question being asked: Can we extend our credit any longer in order to keep our schools open? The money is often not available to keep these schools open. Fortunately, through the intervention of the provincial government and the co-ordination of the municipal authorities, the schools were kept open until the banks offered credit again whereby the schools could be carried on. Why should hon. members in this House or men throughout the country try to give the impression that the farmers are wilfully escaping or endeavouring to evade or avoid their proper share of income taxation? They are not; they would be only too pleased if an opportunity were afforded them of paying a good round sum in income tax, because that would mean, as it does to those who have to pay tax, their ability to pay.
Again the hon. member, in reply to a question which I asked him concerning watered stock, said that 7 per cent was surely not an excessive profit. No, we say it is not an excessive profit if it is on actual cash that is invested in a company; but the hon. gentleman spoke of "unduly watered stock." To what extent must a man or a corporation go before the term "unduly" is applied? Do they recognize it

as a right that incorporated institutions in this country, through, perhaps, some concession, or through, perhaps, the value of an asset paying a huge dividend, may or shall or should, as they do, go throughout the length and breadth of the country and sell stock which is largely fictitious? They take money from widows, orphans or any one else, and they say: "This is an institution capable of paying 20 per cent and we want your money, why not buy some of this stock?" It does not, however, represent any equi'y or value except the ability of that company to pay interest on watered stock. If a depression should come, or the value go down so that they pay only 2 or 3 per cent, they call that hard times. We maintain still that, in many institutions which have a large amount of watered stock, two per cent on the watered stock would represent a good profit if it were paid on the cash value of the plant. We believe we are justified in calling the attention of the House to the fact that we do not believe in watered stock, whether it is unduly watered or watered to any other extent. We want all interests in Canada to stand on their own feet, on their own base, and this "unduly watered" proposition is something that we agriculturists know nothing about.
I have been listening to conversations concerning the banks. I do not think I am betraying any secret in saying that when I have listened to remarks and discussions in some of the committees and in this House, it has seemed to me that men who talk of corporations and so on have not the proper perspective; they have not the right viewpoint. They seem to look upon the banking institutions of Canada as corporations that possess the credit of the Dominion of Canada, given to them by the Dominion of Canada, so that they can take the deposits of all the people and their own currency, inflated more or less by acts of Parliament, send the money out of the country and invest it in foreign bonds. I deprecate this. When we, having legitimate local interests, appeal to these institutions for legitimate credits to carry on our businesses, we are told that money is not available. For example, some years ago a subsidiary company owned a lighting plant in Rio de Janeiro, and we in the West were unable to get loans of money necessary to capitalize the businesses that we were endeavouring to carry on for that year. That i.i one reason why I consider that the moneyed institutions of Canada should have greater restrictions placed

The Budget-Mr. Gould
upon them. They should not be privileged to .the extent they are taking out of the country funds that rightly belong to the people of Canada, where there is so much need of money for the development of our natural resources. The farmers, who are working under such disadvantages, in the best of circumstances, and on whose activities the prosperity of this country depends, are absolutely handicapped because of the higher rate of interest that is charged them in that respect. An a layman I would urge that point as forcefully as I can upon the Government and upon members of this House, because I nave had some experience in this matter, as I know my neighbours have who are struggling in the West to develop the resources that lie dormant in this great country and are doing their best to convert those resources into national wealth.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Speaker, since the House rose, three hon. members have asked me to deal a little more fully with the briquetting plant at Bienfait, with regard to which I had made a few remarks before six o'clock. I have some figures here, which, perhaps, will be interesting to hon. members and also to many of the people of Canada, particularly the people of western Canada. We are very much interested in the question of the supply of fuel; in fact, to us in the West the matter is quite as pressing as is the question of the tariff. As the time of the House has not been occupied at any considerable length in a discussion of the fuel problem, I wish to devote a few minutes to it now.
The information that I wish to give to the House is with regard to the value of the briquettes manufactured at the town of Bienfait as compared with a like product which is being sold in Winnipeg at the present time. According to information which I have received, the briquettes manufactured at Bienfait would be worth $12.25 a ton, as at present estimated, f.o.b. Bienfait. These briquettes have approximately 11,500 heat units per pound, and exactly what they would be worth in the city of Winnipeg can easily be computed. We find that under the present freight rates, this commodity, worth $12.25 per ton, must be retailed in Winnipeg at $17.50. It is quite evident, therefore, that a product selling at $17.50 in Winnipeg, and containing approximately 11,500 heat units per pound, cannot successfully compete with a similar product containing 15,000 heat units per pound, and selling in Winnipeg at $17 per ton. I think I am justified in directing the attention of the House to the fact that even if we should find it possible to make a briquette from the low grade lignite which is found in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan, we are not warranted in continuing its manufacture, because we should have to compete with a briquette product already on the market which can undersell us on the basis of heat values, by one-fifth. Now, that is good, sound reasoning..
I have also been asked to explain further how this low grade coal can be used. It has been proved beyond doubt that anthracite, lignite coals in all their grades, and even peat can be successfully produced in powdered form and used in furnaces and ranges, both for domestic, and for commercial purposes. By the use of a very cheap power plant, operating by air pressure, the powdered product is forced into the receptacle in which it is burned and the amount used can be controlled by a tap. It is estimated that the use of such a plant would save in the household or in the manufacturing plant approximately 23 per cent of the amount now being expended for fuel, and that is a large item, especially on our western plains. If we can commercialize in this way these large deposits of lignite coal and save every farmer and every industry in western Canada 23 per cent of their present fuel costs, the effort shall have been well worth while.
Now, here is a splendid opportunity for the high protectionist to step in and to say that we should introduce protection on behalf of the production of this commodity, with its lower heat unit content and its relatively high cost. That is the argument of the protectionist in all cases; but I do maintain that the principle is fallacious. This is, in my opinion, a very clear illustration of the fallacy of high protection, and many cases analagous to the one which I have cited may be mentioned. We have an almost unlimited supply of this coal and it can be commercialized and prepared for use in an economical way-economical, because of the elimination of waste. All we would require to have at the mine would be a drying plant and a powdering plant. The
The Budget-Mr. Gould

coal would then be distributed throughout the country in the form of powder, and, as I have said, by the use of a small power plant it can be fed to the stove in a very satisfactory manner. It is much cleaner than ordinary coal and is much more satisfactory in every way. Without going into the matter any further I may say that I have in my office a long treatise on the subject and I should be only too pleased to give any further information to hon. members who are interested in it.
I wish again to draw the attention of the Government to a matter which has been mentioned on the floor of this House on two or three occasions during the present session. It has to do with the liquor question as affecting the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. A very regrettable condition exists there. In the lower part of my own electoral district, about seventeen export liquor houses have been continually carrying on the export of liquor, both to other provinces and outside the country, since the referendum was taken in that province. I do not want to say this with any egotism, but last year I endeavoured to find out who was responsible for granting permission to these institutions to operate in that province, and was unable to do so. Again this session, with the cooperation of the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Millar), I endeavoured to place the responsibility. I am not sanguine enough to hope that I have yet succeeded in finding out who is responsible for the condition which still obtains there. Not more than three days ago I received a letter stating that what are known as booze cars were running back and forth throughout the country. My people have protested in all earnestness against the existence of these houses, and if I am impotent to find out who is responsible for their existence, I think I have done my duty in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and I hope that the Government will still co-operate with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) and myself in an endeavour to place the responsibility.
I was much interested in an item I read in the paper a few days ago, and it may have some bearing on a solution of this problem, to the effect that a decision which was given in the Michigan courts some time ago sustaining the export of liquor to foreign countries and its importation from outside had been over-ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 15 the Supreme Court of the United States

handed down a decision in which they held that liquor while within the boundaries of the United States en route from one foreign port to another, could be seized under the national Prohibition Act. It may be that the United States will take advantage of this decision in connection with the international exportation and importation of liquors, and that may have some effect on those establishments in the United States. I hope it will have, simply because, as I have said repeatedly, the establishment and the retention of these institutions is much deplored by our people. These houses are a veritable nuisance in my district.
I wish now to say a few words with regard to the banking system of Canada in connection with the budget which has been presented to the House. Some ^people speak very strongly in favour of the banking system of this country, yet I think there are many reasons why we should consider whether we really have the very strongest banking system possible. Some years ago we had in the west the Northern Bank, which later merged with the Northern Crown Bank, which in turn was absorbed by the Royal Bank. A few years later we had the failure of the Farmers Bank, and there was a sorry story to be told in connection with that. Only recently we had the merger of the Merchants Bank with the Bank of Montreal. Fortunately, in that case the Bank of Montreal was strong enough to take care of the depositors of the Merchants Bank.
Bank clearings last year amounted to sixteen billions of dollars. That is a huge sum of money for the banks of Canada to handle, and it seems to me that in view of that huge turnover we have a right to make the banks pay a proportionate amount of the taxes of this country. In an address I gave in this House last year I made the statement, which can be substantiated, that the banks receive very liberal concessions, both in the way of credits by this Government and in the way of license they receive to send their own credits in and out of the country, and a further concessior. in connection with their building assessment. I pointed out particularly that in making their returns the banks give only the initial price of their buildings. I stated that I believed the great banks of Canada could hide, and were hiding their assets by being allowed only to send in the initial cost of their buildings. Let me give a homely illustration. An individual, whether he lives in a town, city or village or in the country, when he purchases a house or a

The Budget-Mr. Gould
farm soon finds that the initial price is not the price the property is allowed to toe assessed at for very long. As the district improves and settlers come in, the value of the property is increased, and the assessment accordingly. If that holds good in the case of the individual, I think it should also be applied in the case of the (banks.
I do not know what portion of this sixteen billions of dollars represents cheques, tout the total will be made up of cheques, acceptances, and general currency. If that is the case, at a very conservative estimate this sixteen billion dollars should stand an assessment of at least $5,000,000 to be paid into the Dominion treasury.
With regard to the stamp tax on cheques, and I am sorry to say that my leader was the first member of this House to regret the placing of stamps upon cheques issued by great corporations, let me say that many corporations in this country are only stock companies that are doing business on the money subscribed for their stock by the people of Canada, and they can well afford to pay this stamp tax. Let me give another homely illustration. The average individual whether he lives in a village, town or city, sometimes leaves ten or perhaps fifty dollars on deposit at the bank, if he is fortunate to have any money to bank, and when he wishes to purchase the necessaries of life, particularly in the country, he sends in his boy or some member of the family to buy five dollars' worth of groceries by cheque against his account, and in that way it will very soon cost him 50 cents in stamps to cheque out that fifty dollars. The individual has to pay that, so why should not big business men be called upon to pay the two-cent tax on every fifty dollars? I have seen it stated in the newspapers that the Finance Minister might modify his proposals in regard to the stamp tax. I trust that he will do nothing of the kind, simply because we have pleaded long and hard and earnestly that big business should pay its fair proportion of the taxation, and so far as this stamp tax is concerned, they have no right to hedge. Furthermore, if I can afford to pay $5,000 or $10,000 for a house or farm I can afford to pay two cents on every $50 cheque I issue, as the budget proposes. I would again urge the Finance Minister, if he was thinking of making a change in this tax, not to do so. I would rather see the tax graduated so that the larger the amount paid out by cheque, the greater the tax would be.
To return to the banking system of this country, and to show you to what extent the business of this country is tied up in these large banking institutions, we had in March, 1922, $1,230,000,000 of savings deposits in the banks of Canada, and of that amount $290,600,000 was on deposit with our largest institution, the Bank of Montreal. I am not singling that bank out for criticism at all, and only mention it to show the extent to which the banking institutions of this country control our credits. The savings deposits in the banks and the credits of the country are proportionately the same, and if the Bank of Montreal controls, as it does, one-quarter of the savings deposits of this country we have a right to assume, and we do, that it controls 25 per cent of the credits of the whole Dominion of Canada. That is an enormous power to be placed in the hands of any one institution, and while there are people who will say that it is all right, there are other people, and perhaps more, who will say that such a power needs looking into to see if we cannot find ways and means whereby these large institutions can be made to serve the basic industries of Canada and the interests of the people as a whole.
In any case, I hope the Finance Minister will not be persuaded to make it more difficult for the fundamental businesses of this country to find the cash, or the wherewithal, to carry on their undertakings. As has been stated, Mr. Speaker, we had a national debt of $2,427,296,798 in 1922, but in 1914 it was only $335,966,850. I have compiled a few figures which I will give you approximately. I do not do so with the idea of causing the publication of newspaper headlines to scare the people of Canada, but rather with the object of pointing out to them the absolute necessity of realizing the burden which rests upon the shoulders of each individual, so that they may better apply themselves to the task in hand of meeting that burden. My whole argument would be to arrive at some equitable means of assessing the taxation of this country. I am sure that when the people rightly understand the burden that is placed upon them they will not cry out so loudly. Convince the people that the taxation is necessary and that the method of assessing that taxation is equitable, and they will be better satisfied. On the basis of the figures that I have submitted the per capita debt of Canada would be $277.70. Now for a family of five, which is usually accepted as the basis of

1 i '!
The Budgets-Mr. Gould
computation, the debt would be $1,388.50 for the year 1922. In 1914 the per capita debt was $38.20, and in the case of a family of five would he approximately $191. It is no wonder there is concern in the public mind. Even in 1910 and 1911 there was a great hue and cry throughout Canada at the cost of government and the per capita debt; and when we view the situation to-day and find that we are burdened with approximately $8 for every $1 of debt at that time, the people are justified in paying more attention to this question of taxation. Apart from this huge national debt, we require to pay $466,983,359 this year which means a per capita charge of $53.27. Multiply that by the figure 5, representing the average family, and it comes to a total of $266.35. F urthermore, we have provincial and municipal debts, and taking these into consideration the debt per capita for carrying on business this year amounts to $466.35. Now it is positively alarming that we should have to bear such a per capita annual debt as $466.35. Even this does not make provision for the payment of one solitary cent of the bonded indebtedness of Canada which, as I have already said, is dangerously near $2,500,000,000. Bearing these facts in mind is not the question of taxation one that should be seriously considered? Is it not urgent that much greater attention should be paid by the people as a whole not only to the principles upon which that taxation is based, but also to the problem of devising ways and means whereby that taxation can be met.
Now, I want to make a few references to some of the things which have been said during this debate. The Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), for example, gave figures to show the operation of the tariff from 1876 to 1901. He endeavoured to show that the percentage of taxes now gleaned from the tariff was not as great as it was in the period referred to. In so far as percentages go, the figures given by him were absolutely correct; but the minister failed to state that since the time to which he had reference many new forms of taxation have been applied, and therefore the percentages which he gave with respect to the operation of the tariff are less deserving of weight than he seeks to make out. The minister asked whether we could get along without the manufacturers. Certainly we cannot; no one in this country ever thought of such a proposition. I am sure that notwithstanding [Mr. Gould.3
the fact that the Progressives in this House have invariably been characterized as free traders, the fact remains that never from this corner of the chamber this session has any one proclaimed himself a free trader, nor do I think that any such statement was made during the election. We have asked, in particular, that in fulfilment of the planks of the platform upon which we stand, and likewise in fulfilment of the platform upon which the Liberal party professedly stand, the implements of production should be free of duty. Let me give you an illustration of how the tariff works out in that regard at present. Take a section of land, the cultivation of which probably necessitates an expenditure of $3,000. Before the man who farms that land can commence to raise anything with which to compete in a free trade market-for he really has to face unrestricted competition when he sells his products-he has to meet an average duty of 15 per cent. This, if applied to a capital of $3,000, means that he is fined to the extent of four or five hundred dollars. The amount will vary in localities in accordance with the difference in the value of the farm land. On the average, however, the farmer finds that he has to meet a charge of $400 or $500 before he can enter into business. In addition to that he bears his share of the duty on other articles that enter into consumption the same as any one in the town, city or village. But I maintain that the duty referred to is an extra tax levied upon his industry, and he is handicapped to that extent when he goes out into the markets of the world to sell any of his products. Success in agriculture is a doubtful thing. When it flourishes in Australia it may be a failure in Russia; when there is a good crop here in Canada the crops may be poor in the Argentine. These are factors that have to be considered. I suppose that if there ever came a time when agriculture was successful in every country of the world the industrj would become depressed and be liable tc succumb by reason of its very productive ness.
I recognize that simply to stand here and indulge in pious wishes with respect to the beneficiaries of a protective system will never get us anywhere. But the people of Canada have been lectured and lectured on tariff matters ever since 1873, at least, and wherein have they benefited? What have the people of Canada received? Well, we have received nothing.

The Budget-Mr. Gould
It is amusing to realize the position taken by the, small group known as the Conservative party on the question of the tariff. They say, "We stand for a protective tariff," but I have heard them quote instances where they lauded and praised themselves, because they had succeeded in reducing the tariff. It seems to me that it is absolutely inconsistent for them, at one moment, to be raising the banner on high and proclaiming "We are a protective party," and the next moment to take the compliment which might be paid them for reducing the tariff. Yet, on the hustings and in this House we have had instances of this, and I ask hon. members to try and explain their attitude. However, it is useless to plead with, or to quote instances, and give illustrations to, the beneficiaries of the system. We have been sent here for a direct and specific purpose, and I think we should have received more consideration in the budget which has been presented to the House. If we should link cur forces with those on the other side, our platforms being very much the same, are we not right in assuming that all Canada is strongly in favour of the sentiments expressed in our platform, or in their platform, or in both? It was stated on a thousand platforms during the last campaign, that there wa< no difference between the two platforms, and that was one of the strongest pleas and arguments advanced why the Liberals should be returned to power. There was so little difference in our platforms, it was argued, that they should be returned to power.
It is extremely disappointing, now that the opportunity has been given the Liberal party to implement the pledges made since 1896, now that the people of Canada have said, "We wil try them once more," and have reposed their trust in them, to find the country presented with a budget such as that which Lss been brought down by the Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will not forget it, and if the rejection of this budget at this time should render it necessary to go back to the country, a different story will be told, because the people did expect, Sir, that there was going to be another kind of budget brought down. Listening to the speeches which have been made by hon. members opposite, the thought came to me with a rush, and came to me repeatedly: Are these deliverances typical of the speeches made at the great Liberal convention held in August, 1919? Is this the type of speech which one would expect,
following the resolutions which appear in the Liberal platform? I think not. While the excuse has been offered during this debate that conditions have changed, I want to point out the conditions at the time the platform was framed, and when the war was on. The people knew or anticipated what the conditions would be, in fact we knew, and it was advertised at that time, that there would be a period of depression and yet the Liberal party went into convention in Ottawa in August, 1919, and framed their platform. I have been informed by one gentleman who attended the convention, with whom I have talked to a considerable extent, not a member of the House of Commons, but a gentleman who was present when the platform was framed, that he was ashamed of the interpretation that was placed upon this platform by the budget speech.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Will you not give his name?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, that would not be honourable, but this clause of the platform which I will read will be an answer:-
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution, when returned to power.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the hon. member expect that everything will be done in a day?


Oliver Robert Gould: Possibly, tomorrow, you will go back to your constituency, and later you will be able to say "We were in power", and then you will have no further opportunity of implementing the promise. You will be told that you had been in power and the pledges were not implemented. The last clause in the Liberal platform distinctly and expressly states "When returned to power". The people of Canada- and well do we know it, Sir,-depended upon it and expected, particularly with reference to implements of production, that a change would be made, that that would be the point where it would start, and that implements would be made free of duty, so that we would have an opportunity of going into business of production on a much sounder and stronger basis than ever before. I referred to the similarity of the tariff plank of the Liberal party with the tariff plank of the Progressive party. And the story I tell the Canadian people and the story I tell the Liberal party to-day is that the Progressive party is the one who would implement that promise. Let the Canadian people
The Budget-Mr. Gould

know where we stand. Let the people know that this representative from Assiniboia is a Progressive, and that he is still absolutely standing upon his platform.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the hon. member believe in the Liberal tariff platform plank of 1919 that he referred to?


Oliver Robert Gould: I would reply to that more fully. I believed in it in 1896. I believed in reciprocity in 1911, and regret that it was not adopted. I believe in it at the present time. I believe more in the tariff plank of the Liberal party than I believe in the Liberal party itself.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, I think the hon.
member's question has been answered already. Let me illustrate a little bit further. I have a word to say to the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) whom I have learned to respect, yea, to revere. I have admired him on many occasions when he has stood in his place and advocated the principles which he believed his party was advocating. Well, do I remember them. I might go back in history to the time the hon. member paid me a visit in Assiniboia, when he came out there preaching the doctrine, very nearly, of free trade, telling the people most positively what the policies and principles of the Liberal party were. A lot of the people believed his statement, and had it not been for the feeling of my constituents and myself that the Liberal party would not fulfil their pledges if they had the opportunity, this being practically the doctrine I preached on every platform, I honestly believe the arguments anl persuasions of the member for Brome would have prevailed. But the people of Canada know now what interpretation means as compared with profession, and I regret-and I am very sorry to say this once again-the very, very small thing that has been handed out to the great majority of the people of Canada, who at least believed in the policies and principles enunciated in the Liberal platform which were similar to the policies in our platform.


Lewis Herbert Martell: How far would you like to see the Government go at the present time in regard to the tariff? Do you want it wiped out entirely?


Oliver Robert Gould: I would start specifically, as my honoured leader stated the other

day. It seems there has been no discussion whatever of the question why in the case of two implements made of steel, one should bear a duty of 15 per cent and the other 10 per cent in the tariff. It shows there has been no discussion in the caucus to ascertain the relationship, and it is a question that schoolboys might settle. One of the first things I would do would be to find out the relationship if protection was desired. I have never said I would sweep the slate clean, but I would spend a little time considering whether there should be this inequality when both implements are made of steel.


Mr. LOVETT:: Does, the hon. member not think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) gave this question great consideration?


Oliver Robert Gould: According to the statement made by the Minister of Finance, he does not believe in your platform. I am speaking of the planks in the platform and not of the individuals in the party, who were supposed to make the confession that they did not believe in the platform. That is the attitude which I wish to take. That is the expression of opinion which I wish to place before the House and the country to-night-that individuals who compose the so-called Liberal party have a platform and have not implemented it, and there are a number who have definitely stated in the House that they do not think they ever will; they do not approve the platform. It is on that declaration that the people of Canada will pronounce judgment.


Lewis Herbert Martell: When did the Minister of Finance say that he did not believe in the Liberal policy or platform?


Oliver Robert Gould: He did not say the policy, but the day before yesterday the Minister of Finance made that statement. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House or not.


Lewis Herbert Martell: No. He referred to the tariff plank.


Oliver Robert Gould: If you burst one wheel of a buggy, your whole machine is gone. I do not think anything is to be gained by my standing here answering questions that are being put to me by my hon. friends across the floor. As I have stated, the possibility at least exists that we shall go back to the country. When we go back to the country, we will have a right to say that the Liberal party had an opportunity of implementing their pledges, and they had not

The Budget-Mr. Steedsman
done so. Consequently, we stand upon good ground, as we stood upon good ground when we campaigned last fall and told the people that we did not believe that until a purification had taken place in the Liberal party they need ever expect to have their platform implemented by legislation. We have waited long, patiently and earnestly; we have given an opportunity to the great Liberal party of Canada ever since 1896 to implement pledges made in 1891 and 1893. We have waited and waited and waited almost in vain. Grey hairs are now over my head. When I was a boy going to school I believed in those promises; I believed in the Liberal party. My father told me that they would implement those pledges. I am as old a man to-day as my father was in those days, and those pledges are not implemented yet. I will tell my boys that the Liberal party will never implement their pledges. That is all I wish to say concerning the matter to-night. Without expressly stating how I am going to vote, I think indirectly I have stated that.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris) :: The Budget-Mr. Steedsman
turers immediately alongside of them, if it were not for the protective tariff. He told us the same thing applied to fruit. Well, if the manufacturers and fruit growers of British Columbia, or of Ontario for that matter, cannot compete with the manufacturers and fruit growers of the United States, then, as some one has said, they will have to get out of the business. That is the solution so far as I can see. How does the fruit question affect the agriculturists of the prairies? After all it is at the expense of the agriculturists of the prairies that the people of British Columbia are asking for protection for their manufacturers and their fruit growers.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Does the >hon. member believe, then, in free trade in fruit of all kinds?


James Steedsman: The Budget-Mr. Coote

doing us a little. Now, what is the trouble? Raw material was not any cheaper then than it is now. Labour may have been a little cheaper, but surely not so much as to make that difference. In those days the shoemaker applied skilled labour to every part of his manufacture. My hon. friend says, that to-day he pays $11 and $12 for his boots; why the difference? The system under which we are working entails a maximum outlay of capital in connection with goods that are manufactured. Take the quantity of boots and shoes that are in warehouses, wholesale and retail stores, and so on throughout the country; undoubtedly there is a tremendous amount of capital involved. But who has ceased to wear shoes? Not anyone in the prairie provinces, especially if he is an agriculturist. I cannot see that there is any force in the arguments of my hon. friends on the other side.
I do not wish to detain the House any further. I will just say in conclusion that had the Government gone as far as I have suggested; had they taken these inconsistencies out of the tariff and placed agricultural implements on a level with binders and mowers so far as duties are concerned, we would have felt disposed to wait with some degree of patience. If the system that I have suggested were adopted I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance would be able to come before the House next year with proposals involving a great reduction of customs duties and to justify his position to this House and to Canada.
Mr. GEORGE G. COOTE (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, it would seem almost in order to apologize for taking part in the debate at this time. When the matter was mentioned in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and there was some suggestion of closing the debate last night, I sincerely hoped that that would be arranged, and for my part I was quite willing not to inflict on the House any speech on the budget. Seeing that that was not arranged and that the debate is continued, I want to say a few words in explanation of my position in regard to the amendment which is before the House.
The other night when the Prime Minister was speaking he quoted part of a parable from the sixth chapter of Luke, where it speaks of removing the mote from thy brother's eye. I could not help thinking
[Mr. Coote. I
that he had omitted the best part of the parable, which starts off with these words:
Shall the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
When it comes to a question of political morality, Mr. Speaker, which this amendment seems to raise, I feel that that verse is very applicable. I do not feel that it is my duty to charge the Government with being guilty of immorality in a political sense. When this amendment was first introduced I felt that I should support it, but after listening to the argument of hon. members to my right I came to the conclusion that I could not consistently vote for it, because it was proved to my satisfaction that many members who are supporting the present Government stated during the campaign that they were not in favour of any tariff such as was set forth in the tariff plank of the Liberal platform. The thing to me seems to be rather inconsistent. I think that individual members of the Liberal party will have to be judged by their own constituents. I was glad to hear Mr. Speaker remark the other day in this House that he did not recognize parties; that he recognized only individual members. I think that the individual members of this House are responsible to their constituents. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I feel at the present time, unless some argument is advanced which would change my mind, that I shall not support the amendment. I shall leave the Government to be judged by their constituents. I believe that no government and no party can rise any higher in a moral sense than the people, and if the people at home will judge them, and if they care to send them back, that is perfectly democratic, and I shall be satisfied with that.
I feel there has been far too much time taken over this budget debate. I believe that if party politics had been left out of it, if the washing out of party political linen had been avoided, the debate might Jiave ended before this. Speaking for myself, I did not come here to play politics. I came here to endeavour to represent the people who live in the constituency of Macleod to the very best of my ability. In fact, I think that party politics is the greatest curse from which this country is suffering to-day, and I do not think it is possible, or at all events probable, that that idea can be given too much prominence at the present time. I think it is the duty of every member of this House seriously to consider whether we could not evolve some

The Budget-Mr. Coote
better system of government in this country. I want to say frankly that the budget is to be a great disappointment. If we could have in this House an honest vote regardless of party affiliations and political reasons as to whether we should have in this country a lower tariff or the present one, I should be very glad and I should be willing to accept that vote as final for the next few years; but we are not able to have that honest expression of opinion on the tariff, for under our present system I realize quite well that many low tariff Liberals cannot give expression to their honest feelings in regard to the tariff. Therefore 1 say that party government is at least a hinderance to the development of this country. I had expected that the budget Would contain some jkind of a compromise on the tariff, a compromise between low tariff and high tariff views, but the budget as 'brought down shows that the Finance Minister has leaned a great deal too far towards high protection. It reminds me of a story I heard in my election campaign of an Irishman who had been predeceased by two wives. When his friends asked him before he died where he would like to be buried he said, "Well, bury me between Betty and Bridget, but incline (my head a little towards Bridget." I think the Prime Minister inclined his head too far towards those in his party who are desirous of having a high tariff, and that is the reason why the budget brought down is so much at variance with the tariff plank in the Liberal party platform.
The most striking thing in the annual financial statement presented to this House, I think, is the immense national debt. I believe that two billion dollars of this debt is the result of the great war, and in my humble opinion the greater part of it, at least, should never have been incurred. Had the government which was in power while the war was on been possessed of real patriotism, they would have collected from the people of this Country in the way of taxation a sufficient amount to have paid the larger part of the expenditure necessary to carry on the war. I think Sir Thomas White is reported to have said at the time of the flotation of our second last loan that Canada was then wealthier than when she entered the war. I maintain that he is condemned by his own words. Had he had the courage, he could have collected during that time from the people's increased earnings, through taxation or
173i
conscription, or whatever you wish to call it, sufficient to have paid the greater part of the cost of carrying on the war, and this would have served a double purpose; it would have kept down the high cost of living, or what became the high cost of living, and would at the same time have saved us from the financial plight in which we find our country to-day. The exemption from taxation of the income from Victory bonds was, to my mind, nothing less than a crime. These bonds have now very largely found their way into the hands of the wealthy class in this country, and when our fighting men returned they as well as the rest of the people are compelled to pay taxes On their cigarettes, their soda water, their chocolate bars, to raise the interest on this immense amount of tax-exempt bonds. I consider the action of the government at that time in conscripting the manhood of the country and exempting wealth was nothing less than a national sin. I believe that nations, as well as individuals, are punished for their sins and as the Good Book itself says, the sins will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation, and I believe that will be true in the case of this country. We have a millstone of debt around our necks to-day which I doubt if we will ever get rid of.
I should like to see placed on the statute books of this country a law which would compel any government which might happen to be in power to conscript the wealth of this country in any future wars in which this country might engage, if we ever do, and I pray we may not. Our debt now is approximately seven times as great as it was in the year 1914, and I maintain that a policy which might have been adequate to enable us to carry our debt in 1914 is not adequate to meet the needs of the country to-day. Our interest charges have increased since 1914 by 1,300 per cent, while the value of our export of wheat, which is the greatest single item in our export trade, has increased in that time only 55 per cent. This will surely bring home to hon. members what an awful interest charge we are carrying. We are so used to talking in millions that I do not believe our people realize the full extent of our national debt and of our interest charges. I am told that our interest charges to-day are more than the people of Canada spend for bread, which is the staff of life. If this terrible amount of interest is ever to be paid, it can only
The Budget-Mr. Coote

be done by all the people of this country who are able to work being put to work, and we must also give them the very best machinery and tools available. The only way in which we can create new wealth, as a basis for taxation to meet our annual expenditure, is to put to work every man in this country who is willing to work, giving him the most modern and up to date tools and machinery which can be had and making his tools and machinery as cheap as possible. We have in this country great natural resources. Why should we place in the way of any man who is willing to work at these resources in developing them, any hindrance in the shape of a tariff duty on tools and machinery. Fcr my part I never could see the sense of making any man who was willing to work a bucksaw pay a tariff tax on that saw. If that be true in respect to a bucksaw it will also apply to any other of our tools.
I just want to give one instance of what this would mean to the development of wealth in Canada. Take in my own constituency; we are told by our geologists that we have there a large oil area. Now, there is nothing which western Canada is more in need of than a larger supply of oil, kerosene and gasoline. To-day in my constituency gasoline is retailing at from 60 to 65 cents a gallon, yet we persist in maintaining a duty of 27i per cent on oil drilling machinery of the kind made in Canada, as well as a duty on casing and practically everything required for the drilling of a well. When I was in the Black Diamond oil field in Alberta last year one of the drillers there told me that he was fully convinced that if the tariff was taken off their tools, machinery and supplies they could drill three wells for what it now costs them to put down two. Surely it would be in the interests of Canada to promote this oil industry. If we can drill more wells we can get a larger supply of oil; that would cut down our importations from the United States- practically all cur oil is coming from there at the present time-and it would help to diminish the adverse balance of trade which some hon. members to my right are so much concerned about.
The present budget proposes to put small farm tractors on the free list for the purpose, we are told, of encouraging production on our farms. Surely the Minister of Finance knows that it takes either gasoline or kerosene to run those tractors; they will not run of their own accord. And [Mr. Coote. |
yet tractors are put on the free list, and a prohibitive duty is maintained on oil well drilling machinery. To put it mildly I think that is absurd. What I said about oil well drilling machinery will apply equally to all well drilling machinery. The Minister of Agriculture has told us in very strong language that mixed farming is the salvation of that part of western Canada. Now the Minister of Agriculture, who should back me up in this, knows that there is one kind of stock which must be well watered, and that is the kind of stock which we have out there. It cannot be watered on a great many of our farms at the present time because we have not sufficient water. Drilling for water is a very expensive proposition. On my own farm, I think, the well cost me $500, and it takes every drop of water we can get to water our work horses and mi ch cows. Under these circumstances how are we going into mixed farming, and into stock raising? I have a neighbour that drilled two dry holes, each 200 feet deep which cost him $800 and then he had no water. If there is one kind of machinery which should be put on the free list it is the machinery for drilling wells. I remember a few years ago reading an article in the Grain Growers' Guide by a city man who was trying to point out to the farmers that they could live so much cheaper than men in the cities. One of his arguments was that it did not cost us anything for water, whereas the city man had to pay water rates. Sir, the interest on my investment in that particular well and pump cost me far more than the water rates that that man paid in Winnipeg. If I have to pull that pump out of a 200-foot well for repairs that operation of itself will cost almost as much as it costs that city man for his year's supply of water. The trouble in this country is that we do not know each other's problems. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that from the remarks I have heard in this House there are many men here who do not understand the problems of the farmer in western Canada. I only hope those men who feel that they do not know these problems will come out and see them. I hope they will not think they have seen them from the window of a pullman car, but that they will come out to where I live and we will be very glad to take them out and introduce them to some of those problems. One of them, by the way, is grasshoppers. I have had three letters from that district in the last

The Budget-Mr. Coote
two days and this statement, or something very similar, was in each of the letters:
It is hot and dry and the grasshoppers are hatching by millions.
The other statement is:
We are having a dry time and fighting grasshoppers as hard as we know how to.
The reason I speak of these grasshoppers is that our Department of Agriculture assures us that the only way we can combat them is to poison them. Yet paris green, which is necessary for this purpose, is subject to a tariff duty. Last year I spent three of the worst weeks in my life fighting grasshoppers, and I assure hon. gentlemen that if they have never done this they have a treat in store for them should they ever be required to do so. I have seen grasshoppers so thick where they hatched that there was not room enough on the ground for all of them to hatch-they were three deep. They would eat off the wheat and make the land as bare as the floor of this House. The only way in which you can stop them is by poison, and yet poison is subject to a tariff tax, to maintain some manufacturer in eastern Canada. The farmer when he has to fight grasshoppers must fight with his back to the wall; if he does not poison them they will surely eat his crop.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and get away from the tariff; I want to say just a few words in regard to the cattle industry. First of all I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for endeavouring to secure reciprocity with the United States. If it can be secured it will be the salvation of the cattle industry in western Canada; if it is not secured I do not know what is going to happen to the industry. Chicago is the natural market for the cattle of western Canada. When the Emergency Tariff was put into force by the United States it made it very difficult for our cattle men to ship to Chicago, or at least it left them very little profit after the cattle were shipped. At the same time that is where most of our cattle had to go last year. In the summer of 1919 and even 1920, some of the banks in western Canada were urging the ranchers to buy more cattle and even to buy grazing lands and leases. The winter of 1919 was one of the worst, from the ranchers point of view, which we have experienced in a great many years, and practically all these men were compelled to buy great quantities of feed it prices ranging from $20 to $60 per ton. Tn the summer of 1920 our hay crop was
very short again, and although this winter was not quite so hard, they were again forced to buy great quantities of feed at fairly stiff prices. In 1921 the United States put on their Emergency Tariff against our cattle, thus almost closing the Chicago market to our ranchers. This fact was pointed out to the government which was then in office, and the announcement was made through the papers that they had concluded arrangements with the banks that the banks should carry the cattle men over until this year so that they would not be forced to sell at the extremely low price prevailing last fall. In spite of all that appeared in the papers in this regard, it is an actual fact that many of these ranchers were forced last fall to sell many of their cattle which were not properly finished. In some cases they were forced to sell cattle which had cost them at least $90 per head to raise, for from $30 to $40 per head. I have a letter here from one rancher, and I know of the case personally, stating that he was forced by the bank to sell over a hundred head of cattle, three year old steers, at a little over $30 per head, although he had sufficient hay to carry them over the winter. These cattle had cost him $40 the year before, and he had fed them for a full year. If he had been allowed to carry these cattle over another season, there is absolutely no question that he would have made another $25 per head and I think the bank should have helped him. The bank which forced him to sell the cattle was the Merchants Bank of Canada, and within a couple of weeks after this forced sale was made, it was stated in the press, that this bank had lost in one bad loan approximately $4,000,000. That loan was made to a firm of stock brokers for what might be termed gambling purposes. The banks are forcing the real producer out of business, but will furnish money to stock brokers to gamble with.
I think it is a matter of regret that the Finance Minister should have considered it necessary to give his approval to the amalgamation of the Merchants Bank with the Bank of Montreal. This Parliament should have ordered a parliamentary inquiry into the Merchants Bank case. We might have secured very valuable information which would help us to make a proper revision of the Bank Act next year. This banking question is getting to be rather a burning one in western Canada. As a rule a three months' loan is no good to an agriculturalist. He would be better if he
The Budget-Mr. Coote

never got it. I think perhaps it would not be out of place if I should put before this House a few facts in connection with the banking business in this country. During the last eleven years, the number of banks in Canada decreased from twenty-nine to seventeen. Practically speaking, the directors of seventeen banks have the power to say whether any individual or group of individuals in Canada can secure any credit for carrying on their legitimate business enterprises. If the same decrease in number of banks through failures or amalgamation is continued for the next eleven years, we shall then have five banks in complete control of the credit of this country. The paid up capital stock of all Canadian banks has increased in the last ten years by only 32 per cent. Since the amalgamation of the Merchants Bank with the Bank of Montreal, this capital has decreased until it is now only 28 per cent greater than in 1911. During the ten year period from 1911 to 1921 the savings bank deposits increased by 109 per cent. This is one of the alarming features of the banking situation as the Toronto Globe recently said:
The most disquieting feature of banking in Canada is the continually decreasing ratio of capital to deposits. Twenty years ago capital constituted over 31 per cent of the funds in the chartered banks of Canada. At the close of 1921 capital represented less than 15 per cent of these funds, while six-sevenths of all the credit used in doing the country's business was based on the deposits of the general public. It is doubtful if this change is for the better. The investor in bank stock cannot withdraw his money at will. His capital provides a fairly solid foundation for the structure of bank credit. This cannot be said with assurance of deposits which may be, and usually are, withdrawn. The billion and three quarters of deposits in Canadian banks are of what is known as "time" deposits, and could be held in the vaults during any sudden gust of panic, but if the ratio between capital and deposits in 1901 was reasonable and secure, then capital to-day needs a very considerable re-enforcement. Is Canadian credit as solidly based on six-sevenths public deposits and one-seventh private capital and reserves as it should be?
Let me point out another very important aspect of this decreasing ratio of capital stock to deposits, which is that the double liability clause attached to the capital stock of our banks is supposed to give ample security to depositors. This security is seriously impaired, if the proper ratio between capital stock and deposits is not maintained. Another disquieting feature of the situation is the fact that one bank now controls approximately one-quarter of the savings bank deposits in Canada, and this bank in addition, controls one of the larg-
[Mr. Coote. |
est trust companies in this country. There are many other features which are of national concern but which I will not take time to mention now.
Surveying the whole situation, I think it shows the need of some new system of credit in this country. I would like very much to see the Government give consideration to the proposal of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) for the appointment of a committee of the House to study every phase of this credit system. We have been told repeatedly during the last two days how Germany had put her people to work, and had produced goods so cheaply, and I have been told-I cannot guarantee this fact-that the reason Germany has been able to do it is that she has issued so much currency. I think the fact that Germany has done that, and has probably made it hard for this country and other countries to compete with her, makes it imperative that we must study this question to see if we cannot secure some better system of credit.
In addition to a better system of credit, we need a new system of distribution. I only desire to mention the question of distribution in connection with wheat. The farmers of western Canada, as hon. members know, or should know, are asking for a wheat board to distribute their wheat. I have been a little bit vexed sometimes at the comments which have appeared in the press in this part of the country regarding our demand for a wheat board. I just want to give you one sample which reads:
One aspect of the case is not an impressive indication of consistency. Ottawa finds it strange that they who most vigorously preach free trade or something near it, in things they have to buy are so insistent upon protection against possible loss or reduced profits in things they have to sell.
I presume that a great many people who read that article will nod their heads in approval of this little paragraph, without, even, a thought of the causes which brought the farmers of the West to their present financial condition, and which have driven them to ask for what this writer calls protection, although I do not for one moment admit there is any protection in it. These men have been brought to their present plight largely by means of protection for somebody else and at their expense- protection for the manufacturer of the farmer's implements, the manufacturer of the clothes he must wear, and the manufacturer of much of the food that he eats, of the furniture which is in his home, of the materials used in the buildings which he

The Budget-Mr. Campbell
must have to shelter him in that cold climate, and protection for the railway company so that they may be enabled to pay their usual dividends and maintain their reserve unimpaired regardless of whether the farmer himself can buy clothes and shoes for his own family. I think it ill becomes any journalist in this part of Canada to hand out such comments as those after the way in which the great majority of them have consistently supported our manufacturing friends in their demands for protection. This Parliament cannot escape responsibility in this matter, as they are responsible for the economic policy of this country Which has been maintained by them, in spite of very strong protests from the farmers on the prairies who are now asking for this measure to help in some degree to solve their marketing problem.
Possibly, Mr. Speaker, my remarks have been a little bit disjointed, because I have tried to cut out most of what has been previously referred to in this debate. So as not to weary hon. members and, I want to mention only one more matter, namely, the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), whose candour I certainly admire. In speaking of the tariff, he said something to the effect- I do not think I can quote his exact words -that the tariff was a geographical matter; that a man's view on the tariff was determined according to the province in which he lived, that as a citizen living in Brittish Columbia he was perfectly justified in advocating a protective tariff; that if he lived in Manitoba he would be justified in asking for free trade or something approaching it. If that be correct, I think I am "safe in saying that the people of my province would be quite agreeable to British Columbia or Ontario or any other province having a protective tariff, if they so wished, provided that they would give to our province the same privilege of having a tariff that would satisfy us. If they are not prepared to grant that, the only alternative is a compromise; but it is a great stretch of the imagination to say that the compromise offered by this budget is anything like a fair one.
I am not sure whether I should say these last few words which I have on this note or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Mr. COOTE:: I have the backing of some hon. members behind me, and I will say them. I wish to say in plain language,
that western Canada has been unfairly treated by this House for many years, and that unless this Parliament recognizes that fact and makes a real effort to placate the growing feeling of resentment which this treatment has created, there may arise a situation with which Parliament will find it hard to deal.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to enter into what some hon. members have been pleased to term a political inquest; but I feel that I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not at this time draw to the attention of the House some of the definite promises and pledges made by the Liberal party prior to the last election. I have in my hand a copy of the platform drawn up at the 1919 liberal convention, and while this has already been frequently referred to, I think it is of sufficient importance for further reference. Under the heading of tariff, the second resolution reads:
Reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal 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, net twines, and fishermen's equipments ; cements, and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the cost of wearing apparel, footwear and other articles of general consumption, other than luxuries, as well as on the raw materials entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And I wish hon. gentlemen to pay particular attention to the next clause:
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution, when returned to power.
Under the heading of "Finance and Taxation" I find the following resolution:
Whereas, national disaster will overtake this country should the present method of financing the country's affairs be continued; and,
Whereas, both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation, while Canada raises not more than 20 per cent;
Be it and it is hereby resolved:
1.	That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundes consideration of all patriotic citizens, and tht exercise of the severest economy by the Government ;

The Budget-Mr. Campbell
2.	That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective im-position and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions;
3.	Taxes on luxuries.
The Prime Minister, speaking in my constituency, in the town hall at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, on November 8, 1920, is quoted by the Enterprise as speaking as follows:
The tariff is too high and must be revised downward. The cost of living must be reduced. Why put a tax on the necessities of life, on food, clothing, boots and shoes and building material? Duties should be reduced. They were nothing but a tax put on the people. The sales tax is a tariff-a visible tariff.
He advocated the doing away with these taxes.
There is no doubt where the Liberal party stands on the question of tariff. Taxes have to be raised, but it is not necessary to do it all by direct taxation. I would tax incomes, business profits and luxuries. All could be raised in this way. A tariff should exist for revenue, and only to supplement those taxes. I think there are certain classes that should be exempt

the large body of consumers and the large body of producers in regard to instruments of production. All agricultural implements should be placed absolutely on the free list. Gasoline, fuel, oils, cement and fertilizers were some of the commodities that he would also exempt.
Further on, he said:
Our platform is the same as the farmers, with one or two differences.
It seems to me that the budget before the House to-day constitutes a very serious repudiation of those promises and pledges. It is not my purpose to enter into a criticism of the action of the Prime Minister; in fact, I believe he deserves more sympathy than censure at our hands. Let me say that, in my opinion, if the Prime Minister were surrounded by men as advanced thinkers and as liberal-minded as himself, we would to-day be considering a budget of an entirely different nature. Some hon. members opposite have reminded us that the budget is a step in the right direction, and that the platform cannot be put into effect immediately. I should like to ask them how long, at the present rate, it will take to have it in effect. This reminds me of the mathematical problem of the frog that fell into the thirty-foot well and tried to climb out. The first day he made four feet, but after that he got tired and lazy and crawled up twelve inches each day and slid back eighteen inches each night. How long would it take him to get to the top? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding),

in presenting his budget, drew attention to the serious financial condition of the country and to the necessity of producing a revenue to meet those conditions. But, Sir, I submit that the budget before the House to-day is not one based on the principles of producing a revenue, but rather on the principle of protecting oui manufacturers. We are not complaining particularly of the duty in so far as it produces a revenue; hut when we are obliged to pay that duty not into the Dominion treasury, but into the pockets of Canadian manufacturers, we have a legitimate cause for complaint.
I wish to deal very briefly with some items of the tariff and like the last hon. gentleman who spoke, I find it necessary to cut out a good deal of what I intended to say on account of the lateness of the hour and the length of time that this debate has dragged out. I will deal first with the automobile industry. Automobiles and automobile parts are protected by a tariff duty of 35 per cent. In fact, with the alteration in the sales tax, the duty is a little more than that. There is a sales tax of 6 per cent on imported goods and 4i per cent on home made goods, which gives the manufacturer an additional protection of li per cent. So that the actual protection enjoyed by the automobile manufacturer is 371 per cent. Now, I do not wish to take an extreme stand in this matter, but I suggest to the minister that if his budget is really based on the principle of producing revenue he should reduce the protection on automobiles at least to the very reasonable figure of 20 per cent. Surely there is no hon.'gentleman in this House who will contend that 20 per cent is not a good and sufficient protection for the automobile industry. I would suggest further to the minister that he increase the present excise tax by 15 per cent. That system would have this virtue: it would still leave the manufacturers a very substantial protection; it would turn in a very considerable revenue to the Dominion treasury; and it would not increase the price of the product to the purchaser. I find that in the year 1920 there were manufactured in Canada automobiles and automobile parts tc the value of $137,420,531. Wages paid in the manufacture of these goods amounted to $19,368,009. Of these automobiles there were exported $20,911,262 worth. So that the amount sold at home totalled $116,509,089. On this basis the wages chargeable to the goods sold at home would he

The Budget-Mr. Campbell
$16,376,852. These automobiles, on the import basis,-that is, taking the prices that would he paid for them in the United States, apart from the duty-would amount to $101,792,852.
Had these goods been manufactured in a foreign country and been imported into Canada and the duty paid, it would have turned into the treasury that year the substantial sum of $35,627,498, or nearly enough to have retired the deficit on the Canadian National Railways for that particular year. Hon. gentlemen will say, however, that if they were imported, while there would no doubt have been a substantial increase in the revenue, the workmen would not have had employment.
Hon. gentlemen will probably ask, what about the wages and the employment of the men? Well, I will go a little further. The Dominion treasury could very well have afforded to pay all the wages of these men, allowing them to do nothing, and would still have had left the substantial balance of $19,250,648. Had the excise tax I have suggested been in effect that year, it would have brought in, to enrich the budget of that .time, the sum of $17,924,393, which otherwise went into the pockets of the Canadian automobile manufacturers. We imported in the year 1920 goods of this nature to the value of $25,548,348, on which there was collected duty amounting to $8,059,895. Taking these figures, the actual amount of duty paid by the people of Canada-because it is a duty regardless of whether it is paid to the manufacturer here or to the customs collecter-was $43,787,393; but of that amount only a little over $8,000,000, or less than 25 per cent, went into the Dominion treasury. So that on this basis it took over a dollar of taxation to turn 25 cents into the treasury. I would draw attention again to the fact that there was nearly $21,000,000 worth of these manufactured goods exported in the year in question. That shows that our Canadian manufacturers were able to ship goods out of this country and compete [DOT] in foreign markets with the manufacturers of the world, proving thereby most conclusively that they did not need protection.
When Sir John Macdonald introduced his National Policy in the House in March, 1878, he stated at the time that it was only a temporary measure, intended merely to give the manufacturers a leg-up, so to speak, and in that time, as they got on their feet, it would be abandoned. He was asked rather ironically from the Opposition benches as to just when he would regard the manufacturers as being no longer in a position that called for protection. Sir John was equal to the occasion and his answer was both sensible and logical. He replied that just so soon as these protected manufacturers began to ship goods out of the country in competition with foreign manufacturers in the world's markets, they would thereby prove beyond question that they no longer needed protection. That was the basis on which the National Policy was instituted in Canada. But let me come tc a period somewhat nearer our own time;
I will quote a more recent authority. On January 18, 1911, the right hon. the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) moved, in the House of Commons, the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this House a substantial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and is in just a.ccord with the true ends of a protective tariff.
I observe that in his speech he quotes Sir John Macdonald and quite a number of the other leaders of the Conservative party, citing these very facts to prove that the policy of that party was to retain this duty only until such time as it was clearly demonstrated to them that the manufacturers were no longer under the necessity of protection. Let me quote briefly from one section of his speech. I should like very much to place the whole of the right hon. gentleman's remarks on record in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, because they are interesting. Howe/er, I do not wish to weary the House and fo I shall quote just one part of his speech.
But the charge I have to make, and which I hope to bring home to the Government this afternoon, is not that one, though it is the most serious;
He was referring at that time to the question of broken pledges, as he is doing at the present time.
-it as this, that in their attempts to continue the National Policy which had obtained for years before, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy, they have quite forgotten its guiding principle-
I want the House to note what the right hon. gentleman here refers to as the guiding principle of the National Policy.
-namely, the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength and as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold on the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions. It is that restraining, guiding principle, which I claim this government has entirely overlooked, and as a consequence they have allowed, in the respect which I am discussing this afternoon, protection to run rampant.
.COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Campbell
Now, I am not one of those who take an extreme stand. I do not advocate that we should do away with the industries we have and import all our goods, even though that might increase the revenue. There is no one who is more anxious than I am to see industries in this country and to see them prosperous and flourish-10 p.m. ing. I submit, however, that the contention that the automobile industry requires a protection of 35 per cent in order to carry on is not only a fallacy, but an absolute absurdity. I note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has allowed farm tractors to remain on the free list, and I am not complaining in that respect, for I would not suggest that a nuty be placed on these tractors. But at the same time I would call his attention to the fact that the farm tractor is not the most essential requisite; the important things are binders, mowers, rakes, drills, ploughs and waggons; and if the minister feels that he must retain a certain amount of duty on agricultural implements, then 1 would ask him, in all fairness to the poor farmer, and particularly to the new settler whom we are trying to induce to come to Canada, and who will not have sufficient funds to purchase tractors, to place a small duty on farm tractors and reduce by a corresponding amount the duties on the essential implements.
Now, I pass on to something else, which is perhaps even more important, namely, the matter of cotton and woollen clothing. I would just like to say here that while farming implements are used by only one section of the people, cotton and woollen clothing are required by people of all vocations, regardless of their station in life. I suggest still further to the hon. Minister of Finance that if he must retain a certain amount of duty, we would prefer that he apply it to the farm tractor rather than to cotton and woollen clothing. There were manufactured in Canada in 1920 cotton and woollen clothing to the value of $186,711,174. The wages paid in the manufacture of those goods amounted to $31,267,601. Of the amount manufactured $13,809,576 worth were exported, so that the total amount sold at home was valued at $172,901,598. I find that the average duty paid on dutiable cotton and woollen clothing amounted to 30.7 per cent. I mention dutiable cotton and woollen clothing, because a large amount of woollen goods come in free-what are known in the customs tariff as worsted tops, very largely the coarsely spun yarn used by the wool factories. Goods 
of this nature to the value of $11,913,824 were allowed in free. I may say incidentally that while wool and hides are allowed in free, wool blankets and clothing are protected to the extent of 35 per cent, so that you will see just how this protective tariff protects the farmer. Reducing these figures again to import value, as I did in the case of automobiles, we get the sum of $142,854,762. On the basis of the average duty, had these goods been manufactured in a foreign country and imported in the year 1920 they would have turned into the national treasury the very substantial sum of $43,856,411. Again with this item I do not wish to take an extreme stand, but I would suggest to the minister that he at least make a reduction of 10 per cent, thus saving the working people, the poorer people of Canada, the large sum of $18,000,000.
Let me deal just briefly with the protection that is afforded to the farmer. Cheap corn comes in in competition with his oats; raw hides, wool-all these things are imported free, but when the farmer comes to buy manufactured goods he has to pay this very substantial duty. The farmer is not particularly seeking protection; the farmer considers that a protective tariff is vicious in principle and destructive in its application. The farmer has never asked for protection and he is not asking for it now. But I submit that the men who framed this customs tariff, had they themselves firmly and honestly believed in the principle of protection, would have protected all industries alike, and would have imposed duties on these articles the same as on manufactured goods. And, Sir, what is the reason for this? Is it because the farmer has not done the usual amount of lobbying? He has not done any lobbying, but I do not think that is the reason; there is a deeper and more vital reason than that. It is simply that all these years the highly protected manufacturing concerns have been contributing very liberally to the campaign funds of both the old political parties. All down the ages, from the day of Judas Iscariot, men have been ready to sell their principles, their honour-yes, their country and their countrymen-for financial gain and for political power. Judas, when he took the thirty pieces of silver for the betrayal of his Master, committed no greater crime than scores of men who, during the course of our political history, have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by the people of Canada and have sold their own countrymen into the bondage

Canada Temperance Act
of a group of manufacturers and financiers in exchange for the campaign funds with which to win their election.
I would carry you hack to a red letter day in the history of Canada, a day to which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) in his speech a few days ago, so ably and	eloquently-yes, I wild say almost
pleading and tearfully-referred, that of 1893, when those great Liberal principles were laid down as the Magna Charta of liberty and progress and as the guiding star of Liberalism in Canada. But I will pass on for four years to what Porrit calls the great betrayal of 1897, and I will pass further on for nearly a quarter of a century until we come to another red letter day in the history of Canada, to what we at that time hoped was a brighter and happier day, that of 1919, when the same old platform and the same old principles were once more laid down as the foundation rock of the grand old Liberal party of Canada. But to-day we are in another period, a period that marks another milestone, a period to which the future Canadian historian may well and rightfully refer as the greater betrayal of 1922.
On motion of Mr. McKay, the debate was adjourned.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being callfed:
Second reading of Bill No. 51, to amend the Canada Temperance Act-The Solicitor General.
Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, 'I move that this order be discharged. My purpose is to introduce another bill of somewhat the same character.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. McKENZIE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When I introduced the former bill I explained that it was called for more particularly by British Columbia, though it had general application to the whole country. In British Columbia they have to some extent control of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and under the proposed legislation any liquors imported into that province must be imported by the local government and by nobody else, with the possible exception of liquors imported by parties who are licensed to take them in for purposes of export. After the former
bill had been introduced into this House, representations came from the government of Quebec to the effect that they have control of the sale of liquor to some extent in that province and that the provisions of the bill which I had introduced might interfere with them. And some slight change, therefore, was necessary in that respect.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Has Ontario the power of exporting liquor?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The present situation is not changed at all by this bill. Then came requests from the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Ontario, and some from the province of Nova Scotia on certain other lines, which would have so overwhelmed the first bill with changes that I thought it better to withdraw it, and introduce a new one covering the requests made by the different provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: What do the the amendments propose to do briefly?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought I had made it plain. So far as British Columbia is concerned, it is to prevent the importation of liquor into the province except through the local government, which has control of the matter now.


William Findlay Maclean: Is that the same power that Quebec has?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In Quebec the business is handled by a commission appointed by the local government, and not by the local government itself. This will bring the commission under the law, as well as the government of British Columbia. As far as Ontario and Nova Scotia are concerned, it is requested that certain sections of the Doherty Act, sections 4, 5 and 6, if I remember rightly, shall be made a part of Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act. That is the act upon which New Brunswick, Ontario and Nova Scotia took a vote some time ago. There are certain sections of the Doherty Act which the temperance people of these provinces think should be made a part of Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act, and this the bill proposes to do.
There is very little -new legislation. It is only transferring legislation from one place to another, made necessary through the provinces having adopted these different acts.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How will this, affect the present control of liquor in New Brunswick?

Animal Contagions Diseases


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will not affect it at all, as I see it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 62, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, Mr. Marcil in the Chair.
On section 1-compensation:
Mr. TOLMIE:: I had some conversation with the Minister of Agriculture this morning concerning this matter, and I have looked into it a little further during the day. I find there are a number of hon. members who are interested in this question of the reduction of compensation, and I would ask the minister to be good enough to let the bill stand over until about Wednesday, when the budget debate will be over.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I will promise to leave the bill in committee, but I think we might spend the next half hour in discussing it. Would that be satisfactory to my hon. friend?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee will remember that when this bill was up before, almost everyone who spoke agreed as to the compensation allocated for pure bred cattle. The sum of $150 was thought by some hon. members to be too small, it being a reduction of $100 from the old indemnity, but as a matter of fact, in getting out this>
new schedule of indemnities we have felt that the reductions made are not as large as the reductions that have taken place in the commercial value of animals. Consequently, the indemnity is really just as high as in the former schedule. Giving high indemnities is very nice, of course, if you have lots of money, and we would like to give high indemnities for the sake of the man who has had his animals slaughtered. It is a tremendous loss to a man to have his whole herd slaughtered, as sometimes happens, but our first consideration is the public safety and to get as much value as possible for the money expended in the way of eradicating tuberculosis. In actual practice it does not help to eradicate the disease to give indemnities bordering on the value of the animal. If the indemnity is too low, the owner is not tempted to get his cattle tested at all, and if it is too high, he is apt to be careless on the

ground that the indemnity will be so high and generous, plus the salvage of the animal, that not much loss will be incurred, and there is a predisposition to carelessness on his part. So we have reduced the indemnity to correspond with the reduction in the value of the animals as compared with two years ago. I shall be very glad to hear from the committee, not from the angle of buying these cattle, because we are not buying them, but from the point of view of indemnifying the owner for the loss he has sustained, and helping him to start over again with government assistance. To that extent, also, we are protecting the public from the further spread of this disease. I firmly believe that when an indemnity is too high it actually encourages the dissemination of the disease, and that is not what any of us want.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is an indemnity paid for the destruction of cattle suffering from any other disease than tuberculosis?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If the compensation relates to swine my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) can give some information to the committee on that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He does not know
anything about swine.


Samuel William Jacobs: Since the hon. member
for Brome (Mr. McMaster) comes from an agricultural county he is an expert on swine.


William Richard Motherwell: In the interpretation clause of the act I find the following:
(e) "in fee tin uk or contagious disease" includes, in addition to other diseases generally so designated, glanders, farcy, maiadie du colt, pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa, foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, anthrax, Texas fever, hog cholera, swine plague, mange, scab, rabies, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, and variola ovina.
About twelve diseases are enumerated, but cattle are not all subject to these diseases.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What diseases are
compensated for in cattle when the animals are destroyed?


William Richard Motherwell: Foot and mouth diseases, pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis are the three principle ones.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Tuberculosis is the only disease prevalent in this country of the diseases you mentioned.


William Richard Motherwell: We happen to be free from the other diseases.

Animal Contagious Diseases


Mr. BROWN:: Is the indemnity paid in proportion to the value of the animal?


William Richard Motherwell: The indemnity
consists of two-thirds of the various sums mentioned in the bill. If the animal is a 100 per cent animal, two-thirds of the respective amounts is granted. If in the opinion of the inspector, the animal is second, third or fourth rate, the indemnity is paid accordingly.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Is $150 the maximum in the case of a pure bred animal?


William Richard Motherwell: That is the maximum.


Hugh Guthrie: And in any case the man would only get two-thirds of $150?


William Richard Motherwell: The amount would be $100?


Hugh Guthrie: Then $100 is the real maximum?


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, take the case of an animal, an eight months' old Shorthorn bull costing $33,000, which was bought in my county and which the former Minister of Agriculture had the honour of christening. In the event of the destruction of an animal of the class all the man gets is $100 regardless of its real value? Is any exception made for high class stock of that kind?


William Richard Motherwell: No. I may say, Mr. Chairman, my staff tried hard, as I did myself to work out some system that would make an exception in the case of animals such as those described by my hon. friend, but the moment you mention a fancy price for a fancy animal it sets everybody on edge. A good many people think their stock should get into that class and it creates a good deal of dissatisfaction. There are so many others in the same category that it would simply mean you would have to make one more maximum. We tried also to give recognition to the animals in the dairy class whose performances we get a record of. You take an animal that would give from 2,000 fx>
2,500 pounds of milk per annum, a young animal we will say five or six years old; it does look as if that one would be worth a higher indemnity; but the difficulties in the way of fixing an amount were such that we had to agree on a flat rate and a reduction in proportion, to the full in price although not quite as much as the animals have fallen in value on the market to-day.


Hugh Guthrie: One other point. In
the case of these very valuable animals, insurance is always carried by the owner against both accidents and disease. Now in the event of the government authority deciding that the animal should be slaughtered, does that void the insurance? Can the minister say that?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not looked up the act on that point but I would not imagine that it would affect the insurance one way or the other. I am not sure upon that point, but since we are leaving the bill in committee I will make enquiry and acquaint my hon. friend with the result. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) having administered the act must have run up against that feature of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A valuable animal
such as that mentioned, I think, would be insured, but I do not believe there is anything in the act, although I am not familiar with its terms, as to insurance.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As far as I know the act has no reference whatever to insurance. I think the insurance is a matter of the owner's own concern.


Hugh Guthrie: In the event of the
animal being slaughtered can the owner collect insurance?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the event of the
animal being very slightly affected and sold to an abattoir under inspection, I think the owner is entitled to any sum he can obtain in that way. In the matter of compensation for contagious disease we do not aim at paying the man in full for the value of the animal. The idea is simply to help him along in his misfortune and enable him to get on his feet again.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I cannot help thinking that the minister is wrong in his statement that the maximum indemnity paid for the slaughter of a pure bred animal was $100?


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In the act it says
$150?


William Richard Motherwell: It is two-thirds
of the value.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Two-thirds of the
value of the animal until the indemnity goes up to $150? In other words if the animal is worth $225 the owner gets $150? If the animal is worth $150 the owner gets $100? Am I right in that?

Animal Contagious Diseases


William Richard Motherwell: The maximum
valuation is $150. You do not see in the amending bill the two-thirds provision. If my hon. friend had read section 7 of the original act, with the amendment which he has before him, he would more readily have grasped the situation. Section 7 provides:
The compensation, if any, shall be two-thirds of the value of the slaughtered animal, determined as aforesaid, before it became affected with infectious or contagious disease, or came in contact with or in dangerous proximity to animals so affected.
So the owner will just get $100 for that animal; that will be the maximum. I think a little less complicated method of computation may be worked out.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think so too.


William Richard Motherwell: As we were
just making the one amendment we thought we would not change the method until we were sure where it was going to land us, besides which it would have involved changes in the bill in probably several other directions. So we retained the same method. It is a little complicated but not so bad when you become familiar with it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then the maximum
compensation for a pure bred horse would be $200?


William Richard Motherwell: It is set out in
the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is meant is
that compensation would be paid up to the amount stated there?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Only two-thirds of
that valuation?


William Richard Motherwell: Only two-thirds.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When the bill was
introduced and got its first reading I absolutely misunderstood its purpose. I certainly did not think the compensation was excessive. I am a pure-bred cattle breeder myself.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is why you find the
compensation too low.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is certainly. But
I should say the same with respect to purebred cattle even if that were not the case.


Samuel William Jacobs: It. depends upon whose
ox is being gored.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It depends upon the
ox of the hon. member; it will not depend on mine.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In making a valuation of the diseased animal we must not forget to ask ourselves what a glandered horse is worth, what a pure bred cow with tuberculosis is worth, and What a hog with cholera is worth.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is there any provision
in this legislation for an appeal in case the owner of the animal is not satisfied?


William Richard Motherwell: No. There is an appeal to the court from the Inspector s decision as to whether the animals were diseased or not, but no appeal as to amount, and, invariably, the appeals have not been sustained by the court. In other words, the courts have sustained the decision of the inspector. There is nothing compelling the owners to come under this act. It is not necessary to have your animals examined. If you are supplying milk to certain cities that come under this system of certified milk, then you must apply for inspection. In other respects, it is voluntary. Therefore, knowing the compensation, there is no grievance. As a matter of fact, hundreds of cattle were slaughtered before this was adopted, and the owner received no compensation, but anyone familiar with this matter knows that there is a general tendency, whether it be tuberculosis in the human family or in the bovine family, that there is a tendency to hide it, even from oneself, and simply go on with your eyes shut and try to convince yourself even against the evidence that you have not the malady. Where there is a big prospective loss, like this, the compensation encourages a man whether he is poor or in moderate circumstances. He feels there is somebody ready to help him in the event of the worst coming to the worst. The idea is not to purchase the animal, but simply to indemnify him, to a certain extent, and to safeguard his animals by inspection. What is the situation now? The fact that we have 150 odd herds waiting to be inspected shows that the public are clamouring for it faster than we can get the men and money to carry it out. If we gave more money, we would be wasting it, so far as the public treasury is concerned. And, furthermore, it would encourage the man, and give him a sense of security, because he is going to get nearly the value of the animal, and, perhaps, he would not be half as careful, in regard to the animal contracting disease. I know about it, because I had my herd examined and slaughtered. Unless a man is a loser to some extent, he will not have the same care

Animal Contagious Diseases
in regard to his herd, especially if it is a valuable herd. You must clean up your premises and get your animals inspected, and it must be done continuously, if you are to keep your herd clean.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the inspection
free?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Only in pure-bred herds.


William Richard Motherwell: No, any inspection done by the Government is free.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: In tha
case of glanders in horses, does the minister say there is no complusion on the part of the owners to have the animals inspected and slaughtered, if it comes to the ears of the authorities?


William Richard Motherwell: Unless you are near to a city or a community-


Robert Milton Johnson: Suppose it is a horse that is inflicted with glanders?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think, if there is a complaint made, these horses must be slaughtered. In our district, in a rural community, complaint was made and the horses were tested and slaughtered. What standard has the department to determine whether a pure-bred cow is a 100 per cent cow, or up to the perfect standard? What standard have you to gauge them? Do they have to make 30 pounds of butter a week, or what is the standard?


William Richard Motherwell: Just the same standard as the judge would have. I do not care whether they have a score card or not, but my hon. friend is sufficiently familiar with it, and he would size up the cow. First it is the pure-bred cow. That would be one thing that would give it a value. That is a different class altogether. Then you would certainly look at the pedigree. The inspector would call for the pedigree, and it would have to be forthcoming before he would go into that class at all, and the age of the animal would be determined, if not by the rings on the horn, then by the pedigree.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He might have no horns.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a number of things about animals the inspector could not determine on a cursory examination,-how safe she was, as a breeder, what her progeny was, and all that sort of thing. It would entail a rather minute
examination, but I think a competent inspector will get approximately near the mark.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry) :: What is the maximum compensation?


William Richard Motherwell: One hundred
dollars.


Robert Milton Johnson: In the case of glanders in horses and hog cholera in swine, I am informed that if is compulsory.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Robert Milton Johnson: In that case, is there no appeal against the valuation of the inspector?


William Richard Motherwell: No, and I hope
there never will be. Somebody's judgment has got to prevail, and quite frequently without any appeal, and, if there is dissatisfaction, a new man is put on the job, and there is a second inspection.


Robert Milton Johnson: In other words, reinspection.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and it is one of the most difficult duties, I think, I can conceive of for a conscientious inspector to examine a herd of cattle. A man will probably take 15 or 20 years to build up a pure bred herd. He is in the dairy business, and his whole living depends on it, and, just like a bolt from the blue, it is announced to him that his herd is tubercular. Well, the natural tendency for the inspector is to be sympathetic, and yet his judgment tells him that he must be just. There are two sentiments warring in him; one to be sympathetic and help out the man who has suffered a severe loss, then secondly he is dealing with the Government's money, and, as a matter of fact, it is the people's money-it is the same man's money. The inspector knows there is only a certain amount of it, and, if he is a good officer, he wants to show results and get the best out of that money. He knows his duty is to give a just valuation. If you had an appeal you would involve the whole thing with such a lot of cumbersome legal expenses and proceedings that I do not know where you would get. I know there is a sort of feeling that this should be something like an ordinary case in court, where a lower court renders a decision and you can appea' to a higher court, and so cn. I think you would drive the Government out of business altogether, if that system were in effect.
Animal Contagious Diseases


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I might be able to throw a little light on this, having had a good deal of practical experience actually in the field, in enforcing the provisions of the Animal Contagious Disease Act. In the first place, in the event of an outbreak of glanders being reported at a certain place, an insp sctor is sent immediately and makes an inspection, and if he finds suspicions of glanders he makes out form 49, placing all the animals, stables and building in quarantine, preventing the owner moving the diseased animals out. Then he proceeds to test the animals with malleim and if he finds reactors, the reactors are destroyed and the buildings are disinfected. The premises are kept in quarantine and the remaining animals kept there for a certain period, until all danger is passed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is just with regard to glanders?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, or any of those diseases scheduled in the Act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Tuberculosis in cattle?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it compulsory that the man must have his herd inspected?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The application of the law, as far as tuberculosis is concerned, is compulsory in connection with the testing of herds supplying milk to any city where the city has applied to have the milk supply herd tested.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And not otherwise.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under the accredited herd system, you have to apply to the government to have your pure-bred herd tested. It was found necessary for us to adopt the system, for the reason that one of the greatest markets for pure-bred cattle is across the line. In the United States they have adopted the accredited herd system, and quite naturally the owner of an accredited herd on the United States side would hesitate before coming over to the Canadian side and buying cattle that were not accredited here. That was why the system was adopted; and by that system we are able, through an arrangement, to ship our cattle from an accredited herd to them without any testing on the boundary line. Cattle are tested when furnishing milk to towns over 5,000 population when application is made lay the municipality.
As regards fixing the compensation in the case of a pure-bred animal, the animal,

unless it is a very scrubby one, carries its pedigree on its back, and there is no difficulty in fixing the value, because if it is worth anything at all, it is worth as much as the amount of the valuation allowed on it. The amount of compensation is established not to exceed the amounts mentioned by the minister. In the case of a calf not worth that amount, the value is fixed by the inspector. In the case of a dispute, there is not much difficulty. In rare cases of dispute, it is usual to send for the chief inspector, who is a man of wide experience, and who can handle the public pretty well, and a satisfactory arrangement is arrived at without any further difficulty.
The Health of Animals branch in Canada stands as high as the Inspection of Animals branch in any other country in the world. In fact, the Health of Animals branch in Canada stands in a class by itself. I am very glad to say that, at the present time, our herds in Canada are freer from contagious disease than the herds of any other country in the world, with the possible exception of Norway. The situation is most excellent.
During the budget debate, I gave some figures in connection with hog cholera showing what a splendid improvement had taken place. For instance, in 1915, we had no less than 34,779 head of hogs destroyed for hog cholera. In that year we adopted what are known as the garbage feeding regulations, making it necessary to sterilize or cook thoroughly all garbage fed to swine. The result has been a gradual reduction in the number of swine destroyed. In that particular year just under 3200,000 was paid for compensation. That has been gradually reduced, until in the year ended 31st March, 1922, only 429 hogs were killed on account of hog cholera, and compensation of less than $4,000 was paid. In my address on the budget-I think the Minister of Agriculture was not present at the time-I urged that he take advantage of the present occasion to clean up the herds of Canada so as to render them entirely free from this particular disease. We succeeded in doing that an British Columbia, and for two years prior to the time that I fell from grace and entered politics, we did not have a single case of hog cholera in British Columbia.


Mr. WARD:: As one who has had some experience in having cattle tested and who has also sustained a serious loss running into many thousands of dollars, I heartily agree with what the minister has said with

Animal Contagious Diseases
reference to an appeal. I think lit would be dangerous, to say the least, to introduce any appeal. My experience has been that the inspector's decision is usually a very fair one. I should like, however, to reply to the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tol-mie) in his reference to the value of a tubercular cow. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a herd in northern Manitoba. Possibly the best herd of Shorthorn cattle in northern Manitoba was tested for tuberculosis last fall, and out of 41 head, 37 cattle reacted. Many of those cattle had been over a good part of Manitoba last year at the shows and had won many prizes; yet 37 of them went down under the test. Until those animal's were tested they were just as valuable to the man who owned them as any other animals; in fact, one animal of that herd was sold for $800, subject to the test. Of course, the animal reacted, and the owner lost the sale of it.
As a breeder, I think a breeder who establishes and maintains a standard herd, is making the biggest sacrifice of any man who is in business in Canada, and he is not getting the encouragement that he should receive. I venture to say that there are not half a dozen men in western Canada who are raising pure-bred stock, who have not lost money every year for the last three years. Apart from the fact that such a man is losing money in endeavouring to build up a standard herd of cattle, there is the effect-I am not going into the details of that-that this has upon the human race. I would advocate that the compensation be left where it is, but that the matter be made more flexible. I agree with the minister when he says that owners of many herds in this country would be much better off if their herds were all slaughtered, if they got only $100 apiece; but those are not standard cattle; they are no better than grades. If a man is trying to build up a standard herd, he is not getting the compensation he should get, and if the compensation is reduced to $100 for a No. 1 animal, it simply means that the man who has a good herd will not risk having the herd tested. Some of the biggest breeders in the West have so far refused to have their herds tested because they claim that the loss might be too great. I personally would not risk having my herd tested. Those are matters that should have serious consideration.


Mr. LEADER:: As one who has had experience also in this matter of testing
cattle, it, perhaps, would be in order for me to give the House a few observations on this subject. I have some real interest in this work, and I have had some practical experience as to the operation of the accredited herd system. I do not say this in any egotistical spirit, but three weeks after the regulations came into force, my application was in Ottawa asking that I might come under this system. The system was inaugurated in September, 1919, and in October, my application was in. I do not know whether it was the first in Canada or not, but I know it was the first received from west of the Great Lakes. 1 am very proud of that. My practical experience goes through the whole system. I had my herd tested; I took my loss, and I operated under the system until finally last fall I received my certificate of accreditation. I am proud of that certificate. Not only does it give me the satisfaction of knowing that my herd is absolutely free from tuberculosis, but I have the additional satisfaction that my children and the members of my household are, so far as human science can determine, receiving pure and clean milk. I wish to congratulate the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) who, during his regime, inaugurated and carried out these regulations, until the breeders of this country took it up with a desire and enthusiasm to clean up their herds. A great deal of credit is coming to the hon. member for Victoria City for the way in which he handled this matter. The inspectors under his charge gave great satisfaction, and the system is altogether working to the satisfaction of the breeders who really are the ones most concerned.
I wish to protest against the reduction of the indemnity paid for pure-bred cattle. I have received numerous letters and telegrams and I know if I stay here long enough I shall be besieged by sheaves of letters and telegrams in regard to this matter. Breeders are just waking up to the fact that there is going to be a reduction in the indemnity. I would just read this telegram that I received from C. W. McMillan, president of the Manitoba Shorthorn Club:
Harry Leader, M.F.
Ottawa, Ont.
I understand that the Government intends reducing the valuation of pure bred cattle destroyed under the accredited herd system from $250 to $150 and grades from $80 to $40. If this is so, I want to protest on behalf of the Manitoba Shorthorn Club and the cattle



Animal Contagions Diseases
breeders in general as this would have a tendency to discourage rather than stimulate the cattle breeding industry of this province. I am writing you fully to-day.
Manitoba Shorthorn Club,
C. W. McMillan,
President.
I believe also that this will have a tendency to curtail the work. We have spent considerable money, but not sufficient. Of $1,500,000 spent last year 50 per cent was paid to the inspectors and less than $500,000 to the owners of reacting cattle. Now is the time to begin a vigorous campaign against this disease. If I might be allowed to do so, I might mention my own case. When I decided to bring my herd under the accredited system I had one reactor in seventeen. The loss was not great, and the Government did not have to pay me much by way of compensation. To-day I have over 40 head and they are all absolutely free from the disease. We should begin right away to combat the ravages of tuberculosis, but if we go after the disease in any halfhearted manner and loaf on the job we shall certainly make no headway. I would urge upon the Government that we institute an aggressive campaign in this matter. No big victory was ever won in France as a result of passive defence; it took active aggression; and we must have an aggressive campaign if we are to conquer this disease. I have a report from the Veterinary General, Dr. Torrance, which shows that in 1904-5 there was paid for glandered horses $147,851, as against some $6,070, in 1920-21. In 1904-5 there were slaughtered 2,113 horses, and in 192021, fifty-nine. Now that concise comparison proves conclusively that an aggressive campaign will accomplish whatever you set out to do. Dr. Torrance, speaking at a meeting in Toronto last summer, said:
Our control work is having a marked effect in stimulating interest in tuberculosis In general;
This is in regard to cattle.
We may expect the movement to grow until tuberculosis is as rare a disease among cattle as glanders now is in horses.
I protest against the reduction in the indemnifications for cattle. One is astounded when he considers the losses that are sustained, economically and materially, from tuberculosis. But what about the effect of the disease on human beings? The statistics show that one child, in every three under the age of ten who have tuberculosis, contracted the disease through a

bovine origin. Whether or not this is true, it is generally agreed by all doctors that tuberculosis is communicable to man from animals, and if we could save the life of one child our efforts would be fully warranted. I think we should do everything within our power to eradicate the terrible scourge of the white plague from the human race.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I agree
with what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) and I have a question to ask the minister. What steps are being taken to protect the pub-1 lie who buy milk that comes from uninspected herds? The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) said a minute ago that there were some municipal regulations, but that is no protection at all. Is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) going to wait for the municipalities to pass by-laws and see that they are observed, and so on? I think it is incumbent upon the minister to see to it that all herds that are kept for the purpose of supplying milk to the public should be thoroughly inspected, and if they are affected by disease they should be slaughtered according to law. I should like to know what steps are being taken to safeguard the public against the man who offers for sale milk that has been obtained from herds that have not been inspected.


William Richard Motherwell: Reforms of this
nature have usually to be introduced gradually and, at the beginning, voluntarily. After a certain progress has been made through voluntary action and co-operation, then probably the time will come for compulsory action. But my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) will probably be surprised to learn that even the provision with respect to cities was on the statute books for several years before advantage was taken of it, even voluntarily. The public sentiment must be aroused, and during the last three or four years this sentiment has grown to a wonderful extent compared with what it was seven or eight years ago, when the act was first passed. I do not remember the exact year the act was 11 p.m. put through, but it must have been about eight years ago. It provided that cities of 5,000 and over might take action, pass a certain bylaw, and get the health inspectors to take the necessary steps with regard to cattle that supplied milk to the particular municipality. And it took a distressingly long

Animal Contagions Diseases
time before all that procedure was taken advantage of. Now, however, we have reached the stage where neither men nor funds are sufficient to keep up with the work. I do not know when the time will come when the Government can issue its fiat to all and sundry to have all their animals examined, irrespective of whether the municipality in which the milk is sold has passed by-laws or not. Compulsory action of that kind must depend on the state of public sentiment, and whether that sen-1 timent is strong enough to warrant such action I do not know. I have no doubt the time will come, but as a matter of fact nearly all reforms are introduced first by the voluntary method. When half or two-thirds of the people have endorsed any particular policy the Government can then say to the rest of the country: "The majority of the people are desirous that this policy shall be adopted and therefore it is in the interests of the whole country that it shall be made general."


Jean-Joseph Denis: I submit
that the people do want this inspection now. They want to be protected. I have a concrete case to submit to the minister.	No longer
than a week or two ago a veterinary surgeon told me that he had been called by a man who owned a herd of cows from which he sold milk to the public. One of the cows was sick and he gave it a cursory examination. From what he could detect, he thought it had tuberculosis. He wanted to submit it to the test but the owner would not consent because he was afraid that if the veterinary surgeon discovered that it was affected with tuberculosis the whole herd might be slaughtered and the man would suffer a heavy loss. This is a serious matter and it was my intention to visit the minister at his office and ask him the question I have just put to him. Is it not time that the Government should see to it that all owners of cattle who sell milk to the public should have their herds inspected? Ther - is nothing that compels this man, to whom I have referred, to have his cows inspected. His cows may be tuberculous and yet he is allowed to continue selling milk to the public. This should not be done.


Mr. MOTHER  WELL@: I do not know whether the hen. gentleman was in the Chamber the other evening when I spoke on the budget, but I outlined what I thought should be the object of the Department of Agriculture in the way of development
during the next few years. Among the various things I mentioned I referred to the extension of the accredited herd system. I suggested the acquirement of certain blocks of territory in three or four municipalities where we might have herds kept, cleaning up those areas entirely before starting on others. I instanced two particular cases where this might be tried to advantage because of the natural boundaries of the territories. These were Prince Edward Island on the east and Vancouver island on the west. In these two places the system might be tried with splendid results. We have an application from the province of Manitoba, where a certain number of municipalities have already petitioned that we adopt this plan. But if we adopt the plan I will have to come back here and ask for an estimate of about a million and a half dollars. If you are prepared to provide that money, I am prepared to spend it, but you cannot do things like that and still keep on objecting about sales taxes and the other taxes.


Harry Leader: Does the minister not think that it would be a good plan and in the interests of this nation if we took about $1,000,000 off the military estimates and spent that amount on the eradication of tuberculosis? An hon. member on the other side wonders if this is compulsory or voluntary. Of course, it is not compulsory yet, but I think it should be. The attitude of the public toward this disease is deplorable. As an indication of the extent to which the disease prevails, I quote the following from a statement by Dr. Schaffner, president of the Anti-Tuberculosis League of Canada, made in Toronto last summer:
I repeat further a sentence from my address of last year. Devastating war took a heavy toll from our young manhood. 1914 to 1918 about 40,000 Canadian soldiers were killed in action.
I assume he did not take into account the ones who died of wounds or disease.
During the same period 43,000 died of tuberculosis in Canada.
While 40,000 soldiers were killed in France and Flanders, 43,000 died at home of tuberculosis, and the nation thought nothing of it. The death rate from this cause in Canada is about 10,000 a year. I repeat that we should take off a few million dollars from the militia estimates and spend the money in the eradication of this dread disease.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We all recognize the great importance of any work having in view the eradication of tuberculosis, but I

Animal Contagious Diseases
would point out the necessity for great caution in moving along these lines. An attempt was made to eradicate this disease in the state of New York, hut it was finally abandoned. Similar efforts were made in Massachusetts and in Illinois. It was estimated in Minnesota some years ago that in that state alone it would cost $35,000,000 to make a real start in the eradication of tuberculosis. The work that has been commenced here should be carried on. We have started properly by creating centres which are free from tuberculosis. In British Columbia this work has been carried on perhaps longer than in any other part of Canada. We found there that in districts where people opposed the testing of their herds, as soon as some of the prominent breeders had their herds cleaned up the others would fall in line, and now whole districts are as free from the disease as it has been possible to make them under present conditions. Nobody is more enthusiastic than I am about the desirability of cleaning up the herds of Canada, but I would like to point out the necessity for moving very cautiously.


Mr. WALLACE:: Would the minister
feel like venturing an opinion as to what percentage of cattle in Canada have been found to be affected by tuberculosis?


William Richard Motherwell: I think in the case of hogs it ran to about 17 per cent. I am not sure what the figure would be for. cattle; I think it is about the same.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: For the year ending
March 31, 1922, some 700,000 head of cattle passed through our inspected abattoirs; the affected animals amounted to about 5.6 per cent. In the same period, in the case of about 1,750,000 hogs, the average was about 22 per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: At that rate it is really increasing.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the case of hogs the proportion increased from 9 per cent in 1910 to 22 per cent at the present time, and in the case of cattle from about 2.3 per cent to about 5.6 per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that the last figures I had, about two years ago, indicated a percentage of about 17. With regard to the caution of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), I may say that we are not going to go into the work too extensively, for the very good reason that we have not sufficient money to be extravagant. If we could adopt the suggestion

of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) possibly things would loosen up. But the militia estimates were pretty well cut down, if I remember rightly; possibly we could take a chunk out of the Welland canal. However, as I am not familiar with the utility of that waterway, possibly I should not make that suggestion. I will read a sentence or two from my remarks on the budget:
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. X think, in the hearts of many of us, It Is primarily for taking care of the youth of Canada.
So we are not entirely oblivious to the necessity of extending this work. The question is, first, what is the proper direction in which to extend it; second, how much are the people of Canada prepared to spend on it; third, how much do the farmers want by way of indemnity? The more you give per animal the less herds you will clean up for a given amount of money. That is the whole thing in a nutshell.


Mr. THOMPSON:: When this question was discussed on a previous occasion I inquired whether the regulations with regard to inspection of milk applied to villages, and I was told that it applied only to milk sent to towns and cities. In view of the argument made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I think that this matter should be considered. In many cases the milk is supplied to villages under exactly the same conditions as it is furnished to towns and cities. I would recommend that the regulations be amended so that they will apply to villages as well.


John Millar: Is there any information available to show the extent, if any, to which bovine tuberculosis may be communicated to human beings through the medium of butter and cheese? There are many supplying butter in towns and villages who do not supply milk.


William Richard Motherwell: It is thought to be communicable more largely by the medium of milk to children under five years of age than to adults. The danger has been modified by the pasteurization of cream, resulting in the production of butter which will keep better and stand exposure better than butter made from unpasteurized cream. But butter made from pasteurized cream is not, I think, absolutely free from power to communicate the disease.

Animal Contagious Diseases
I read an article recently to the effect that they are beginning to pasteurize milk for cheesemaking also. It is some forty years since I had anything to do with cheesemaking, but perhaps the hon. member for Qu'Appelle would know about that. At all events, there is very serious danger of communicating the disease not only through the cheese but through the whey, unless you pasteurize, and that is why the Dairy Standards Act of Ontario was passed to provide, not only for the buying of milk on grade, but for the pasteurization of whey in cheese factories. So from the fact that they are pasteurizing the whey, I would judge that they are not pasteurizing the milk, although I think they are talking about doing it.


Mr. LOVIE:: Has the department taken any steps towards co-operating with the deputation that came down here from Carman, Manitoba, representing the three municipalities of Dufferin, Roland and Thompson, represented by Doctor J. H. Munn and Mr. Evans, Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba? The farmers in those three municipalities want to clean up their herds. Has anything been done in the matter?


William Richard Motherwell: A deputation did come down here about two or three weeks ago. I do not know whether I ought to divulge the extent of our negotiations, but I may say that it was partly as a result of that delegation coming down here that we have thought it wise to take up this additional work. The matter had been under consideration, but here was a deputation representing three municipalities, which came voluntarily to us and took the ground that the people there were practically a unit in desiring to have those municipalities cleaned up.


William James Lovie: There are a lot of grade herds there as well as pure-ibred, which they want cleaned up. I understand that Doctor Munn considered the compensation too high.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to butter communicating tuberculosis, I have no figures here in connection with children, but I do know of the experiments that have been carried on in the United States showing that tuberculosis is communicated to swine. There is another very striking thing. In those dairy districts where by-products are fed to swine, we find at the abattoirs that ten per cent more hogs are infected with tuberculosis than in the case of hogs
coming from grain districts where no dairy products are fed. At the same time the percentage of infected cattle coming from these districts is just about the same, showing that it is the consumption of dairy byproducts that communicates the disease.


William Richard Motherwell: I promised that we would leave the bill in committee. I notice there has been no change suggested in compensation by anybody.


Harry Leader: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, we will
sleep over it. I am prepared to consider raising the compensation for pure bred cattle to a certain extent. It may be the figure is too small, but I am a little afraid of the consequences of raising it. However, there is no harm in trying it. We will sleep over it.
Progress reported.



SALE AND INSPECTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Root Vegetables and to provide:-
1.	For' the marking and grading of potatoes when offered for sale in bags or barrels or in bulk, and to define the grades and quality to be prescribed; tout the provisions of the proposed legislation shall not apply to new potatoes when shipped between 1st June and 15th September inclusive, nor to potatoes imported into Canada, nor to seed potatoes, nor when compliance would prevent the sale or exportation of potatoes to any foreign market.
2.	That no person shall sell or offer for sale any potatoes in any package in which the faced or shown surface gives a false representation of the contents of such package, that :s when more than ten per centum of such potatoes are substantially smaller in size than, or inferior in grade to the faced or shown surface; and no person shall sell or offer for sale any potatoes so diseased or otherwise depreciated as to render them unfit for consumption.
3.	That whenever any potatoes in any package are found so packed that the face or shown surface gives a false representation of the contents of the package, any inspector may confiscate such package which may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the minister, may direct; and whenever any potatoes in any package are found to be falsely marked, the said inspector may mark the same "below grade" or efface such false marks and place the proper grade marks thereon; and the inspector shall give notice to the packer within twenty-four hours, of his action in regard thereto.
4.	That all potato barrels manufactured In Canada for sale in Canada, and all barrelB
Root Vegetables
[Stage Direction]
containing potatoes for sale in Canada, shall contain as nearly as praticable seven thousand and fifty-six cubic inches; and the Governor in Council may make regulations as to quality, form and dimensions of containers, and penalties for violation of the regulations.
5.	That no person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, potatoes packed in a barrel, for sale by the barrel, unless such barrel is well and properly filled.
6.	That inspectors may enter upon any premises to make examination of any potatoes suspected of being marked or packed in violation of these provisions, and may detain any shipment of potatoes for examination, in respect of which he has reasonable grounds, for believing there is a violation of these provisions, upon giving notice thereof to the owner.
7.	That provision be made for the marking, grading and inspection of onions, offered for sale by the bag, crate, or package ; excepting what are commonly termed "green onions," and not applying to onions imported into Canada, nor when compliance would prevent the sale or exportation of onions to any foreign market.
8.	That similar provisions as to false representation, and as to diseased or otherwise depreciated onions, and as to seizure, confiscation and examination of onions, be enacted as proposed in the case of potatoes.
9.	That all potatoes, onions, artichokes, beets,
carrots, parsnips and turnips offered for sale, shall be sold by the unit one standard pound avoirdupois' Provided that when any of the foregoing vegetables are offered for sale with the top leaves attached, commonly termed by the trade "green vegetables," this provision shall not apply.	, ,	,
10.	That penalties be enacted for violation of the proposed legislation and for the procedure to be adopted in prosecutions therefor.
Mr. FIELDING:: This whole matter will come up on the committee stage of the bill, and if there is no objection, it would facilitate the business of the House if we took the present stage to-night. Every opportunity will be afforded for discussion at the committee stage.


William Richard Motherwell: We brought down a bill for this purpose last year, as a result of the large number of petitions received from various parts of the Dominion that provision be made for the grading of potatoes, onions, and such like. It is in accordance with the general tendency of the times to grade all produce. I know there are some who think we are going too far in the matter of grading, but I do not see how you can get a basis for dealing intelligently unless you have an established grade. Up to the present time we have been selling potatoes without a grade. Suppose a man in Edmonton sends a carload of potatoes to Montreal, and the price drops and the dealer refuses to take them; what is your basis of settlement? Without a grade there is no basis.

I might just add to what the Minister of Finance has said that the law provides that any bill involving either money or the regulation of trade must be preceded by a resolution, and as this matter deals with the regulation of root vegetables we have had to proceed by way of resolution. The whole subject will be open for discussion when we reach the committee stage, and if there is no objection it will facilitate business if we could get the resolution through to-night.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are all the points that will be covered by the bill embodied in this resolution?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If that is the case, I really think we had better proceed with the discussion now. I do not wish to insist on that, but I think that a bill framed on this resolution would be totally inadequate to meet the situation.


William Richard Motherwell: Well let us have the discussion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In fact I do not see
any grades established in this resolution.


William Richard Motherwell: The grades are
mentioned in the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Section 2 provides:
That no person shall sell or offer for sale any potatoes in any package in which the faced or shown surface gives a false representation of the contents of such package, that is when more than ten per centum of such potatoes are substantially smaller in size than, or inferior in grade to the faced or shown surface; and no person shall sell or offer for sale any potatoes so diseased or otherwise depreciated as to render them unfit for consumption.
This provision applies when more than ten per cent of such potatoes are substantially smaller in size or inferior in grade to the faced or shown surface. According to this bill the size is an indication of quality; evidently the larger they are the better the quality. Because the section states that if they are 10 per cent smaller in size than the face shows they are not up to grade. Last fall in the province of New Brunswick, in certain fields, the potatoes grew so large that the market would not take the large ones although they were sound and nice looking tubers. I know of one grower of potatoes who had as high as four barrels culled out of a load of sixteen barrels all over size, and he had to take them back because the market would not accept them. Yet

Root Vegetables
according to this bill those big potatoes would be the standard for quality-potatoes that our market would not take at all. It is a good thing for the Government to act in this matter and I am pleased that it is moving in this direction. I think, however, that in a proper grading act we should set up some standard for each grade. For instance, in our province we have graders with a wire mesh by means of which we grade potatoes in three different sizes. Any potato that will not go through a mesh of 11 or 11 inches-I am not absolutely sure of the size-grades as No. 1 provided it is sound, free from blemish and so on. What goes through all inch mesh but will not go through a 11 inch mesh grades as No. 2, and what goes through a li inch mesh grades as No. 3. But in this resolution there is no definition of grade. As to size the resolution indicates that the bigger the potatoes the better the quality, which is not the fact. Another objection I see to it is this-


William Richard Motherwell: The bill itself
makes that provision?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I asked the question
if the resolution contained all the provisions that would be embodied in the bill and the minister said "yes".


William Richard Motherwell: The resolution
contains all the principles but not the details. The bill itself is quite extensive. The main principles of the bill with regard to the regulation of trade, are incorporated in the resolution, but the bill itself is more detailed, and that is inevitable.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just one other point I would like to mention in connection with this matter, and I will not detain the House very long. Can the minister tell me if it is proposed to make the grades conform to the grades in the United States7


William Richard Motherwell: I think the grade is one inch and three-quarters but I am not sure about that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I suppose I might as well cease the discussion now until I have a copy of the bill and have had a chance to look it over because it is an important matter and one in which I am interested, and I know something of the necessity for grading. I would also like to impress on the minister that I think it is absolutely necessary that any vegetable grading, especially for potatoes, should conform very closely if not absolutely to the
grades in the United States, because I think the time is not far distant when we shall market our potatoes in that country again.


William Richard Motherwell: The barrel will
be the same size as the apple barrel.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think you are absolutely unsound in prescribing the size of the barrel. In New Brunswick we haul potatoes to the local shipper in barrels. This bill would penalize a farmer for hauling his potatoes to market in barrels which were not of the regulation size. In New Brunswick we do not buy any potato barrels, but we buy our fertilizer in barrels, and those barrels are of various sizes. This bill would compel the farmer to throw away hundreds of barrels which he has at the present time, and which he uses for hauling his potatoes to the market. We sell potatoes by the barrel because barrels are convenient to handle and haul, and lift on to the cars, and so on. I do not wish to discuss this matter at any length. I hope I shall be able to attend the meetings of the committee when it sits, although I have two or three other committees to attend that are sitting at the present time.
There is another provision I wish to draw attention to, contained in Section 3. That section reads as follows:
That whenever any potatoes in any package are found so packed that the face or shown surface gives a false representation of the contents of the package, any inspector may confiscate such package which may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the minister may direct; and whenever any potatoes in any package are found to be falsely marked, the said inspector may mark the same "below grade" or efface such false marks and place the proper grade marks thereon; and the inspector shall give notice to the packer within twenty-four hours, of his action in regard thereto.
Now this resolution, and I presume the bill to be founded on it will follow it very closely, provides that if ten per cent of the potatoes in the package, below the surface, are under that surface size then the inspector may confiscate and destroy that package. It might well happen that on the surface of that package there would be these large potatoes that I have spoken of and that the market does not desire at all. The rest of the package may be of a smaller size than those on the surface and still be of better value. Yet with respect to that package of potatoes-it may even be a carload-the inspector is given absolute authority to confiscate and
Root Vegetables

destroy it. I have no objection to the confiscation and destruction of potatoes that are unfit for food; but here the result may be the destruction of potatoes of good quality and grade. I am offering these suggestions to the minister so that in framing the bill he may overcome some of the objections enumerated. I do not believe in giving authority to any inspector to confiscate and destroy another man's property unless it would be unsafe to put that man's goods on the market as food.


William Richard Motherwell: The provision does look a little severe but there has been so much humbugging in regard to the packing of potatoes and apples that some action was called for. I am sure my hon. friends from the prairies who have bought apples in barrels have often discovered the fact that the apples on the top were very much superior to those lower down. I am not familiar with the practice of selling potatoes in barrels; but in this case it is not so much a question of big potatoes as it is a question of their quality. There may be nice potatoes on the top of the barrel and smaller potatoes in the bottom. You can plug a barrel of potatoes in the same manner as you car. plug a barrel of apples. In regard to the matter of confiscation, unless you have a provision with teeth in it, it will not bite, that is all there is to it. I am a little bit familiar with provincial laws with regard to this matter. It looks a little severe, but, in the working out of it, there is no injustice. I might call attention to the act regarding fruit marks and fruit packages. One does not require a long memory to recall the day when there was no Fruit Marking Act. It was simply scandalous, and it can be improved a lot yet. However, it has been substantially improved since the following clause was inserted in the act.
All packages of fruit not branded or marked in accordance with such regulations shall he forfeited to His Majesty, and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the minister may direct.
That is pretty hard. The act was amended in 1907, 1908, 1912 and 1913; so that that provision has been there since 1913. There have been only two prosecutions under that clause, and they were such flagrant violations of the law that I asked Mr. Baxter, the fruit commissioner who recently left us, in regard to them. He told me there were two prosecutions, and that both had a very salutary effect.

Without the law, he could not have had the prosecutions. I do not think any inspector with any common sense-and if he has no common sense, he will not be in the position long-is going to worry the life out of people by prosecutions, unless he has substantial reasons. If he exercises his power indiscreetly, we will get rid of him. These prosecutions will have a salutary effect. We already have this power in regard to apples, and we are now adopting it in regard to potatoes. Can hon. gentlemen see any more danger in the provision in regard to potatoes than there would be in regard to apples? All law must be administered with a reasonable amount of common sense, sound judgment and discretion. If a man tried to make trouble, of course, he could make all kinds of trouble. With regard to the size of the barrels, anybody who has ever sold potatoes in any kind of packages, knows that they vary in weight just as wheat varies, but to say that the package shall hold so many pounds of potatoes-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is done
already.


William Richard Motherwell: Is that the American law, do you know?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, and the Canadian law.


William Richard Motherwell: I will take that up with my staff. I can imagine that, with some kinds of potatoes, you would not be able to get the required weight in the package. We are trying to sell by weight, and it is thought this barrel will hold, with any reasonable kind of potato, the required amount. With regard to section two, it will be noticed that it provides for certain exemptions. Certain kinds of early potatoes come here before our own potatoes are ready for use. They are undersized potatoes, only partly matured. These would not qualify under the act, and are allowed to come in without being graded. There are certain other grades allowed to come in without being graded, because you cannot test them with the eye. You must have a test for fungus development in those potatoes, to see that there is no fungus disease, but not a chemical test. There are a number of exemptions of that nature. But I will not take up the question of the barrel now, because I do not feel any too sure about it. I frankly admit I do not know anything about it, but if we are going to designate it either by pounds or cubic inches, I rather think cubic inches is the preferable method.

Supply-Welland Canal


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Originally a barrel of potatoes in Canada contained 185 pounds. I tbink in 1918 it was changed to 165 pounds, to make it conform to the American barrel. We were shipping to that market. I think it is unwise to change the weight because the United States has not changed the weight of the barrel. I very strongly urge the minister to leave the barrel at 165 pounds


William Richard Motherwell: I will consider that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to deal with the clause saying that it shall not apply to potatoes imported into Canada. I think it is making a regulation with teeth in it, that wili bite the potato grower in Canada, and does not propose to bite the fellow who competes with him. Very recently, some potato shippers waited on the minister to see if something could not be done to eliminate the competition of the early potatoes from the United States, that we might be able to market the very large surplus in eastern Canada at the present time, which will be dumped over the hillside, to get rid of them, because the new potatoes will take their place. I think potatoes coming in competition with our own product should be subject to the same regulation as our own potatoes and I hope, by the regulation, that you will not bite any one. I will not detain the House now, but I wish to give notice of my contention in regard to this matter.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 133, to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. McKenzie, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Saturday, June 10, 1922.